Inquirer: “What is accepted is that there is no one to accept or reject. But it is experienced as acceptance by the one who perceives it. It is a nondual experience of giving and receiving in complete harmony for all eternity.
Non-acceptance, on the other hand, is driven by ego and the sense that reality should be different. This ego-driven rejection accommodates the desire of the one who doesn’t realize he has rejected himself and God. Acceptance is always just one step away.”
James: This post totally confused me. Would you mind writing it in straightforward English? Who accepts what?
Inquirer: I ran my comment through AI to come up with this. I hope it’s more digestible. I’m sorry if my language is difficult. I try to be precise.
James: Thank you. It is digestible now. I run all my posts through Vedanta. Let’s say it is my ChatGPT for Existence Shining as Consciousness, since the worldly ChatGPT doesn’t have a non-dual algorithm because it is clueless about non-duality. Worldly ChatGPT is fine for things known by the senses and inferred by the mind, but it doesn’t have a clue about non-duality apart from the words in the collective mind it scans and analyzes, which is the experience of individuals that think duality is real. It’s good for organizing and clarifying language, however. Here is a question from my ChatGPT based on your sentences, “But it is experienced as acceptance by the one who perceives it. It is a nondual experience of giving and receiving in complete harmony for all eternity.”
Assume that I am an ordinary guy, the proverbial man on the street. I know nothing for certain except that I exist, I am conscious and I am immortal. I know how to think. I know that I am not in control of what I experience and I know that what I experience is value neutral from the point of view of “the one who perceives it.” That one is an intelligent impersonal Self.
Here’s the question: is “it”… the non-dual experiencer…the same or different from the giver and receiver of “non-dual” experience? This question comes because your word usage suggests that the one that gives and the one that receives are different entities. If they are the same, then there is no non-dual experience as we normally use the word. That experiencer can’t be both a giver and receiver unless they are the same. But if they are the same, is there any giving and receiving happening?
Giving and receiving can take place in duality but not in a non-dual reality. My experience is that reality is non-dual.
If there is any experience in non-duality, it would be the fullness-bliss of the ever-present unborn “I AM, ” not a discrete experience that comes and goes. To use words that negate discrete experiences and discrete givers and receivers as real, it would be an “experienceless experience,” one that has no impact on the “one who perceives it.” Normal perceivers experience themselves to be altered for better or worse by what they perceive, i.e. experience.
Finally, if experiences modify the I AM or the I AM modifies the perceiver/experiencer, freedom is impossible. But freedom is the nature of the I AM. It is freedom from change, which (apparently) takes place in duality. What say you?
