What a tree IS is different than the idea of a tree.
To talk or think about joy, or an experience, or a tree, the mind must divide/cognize/imagine abstract aspects of what is actually a seamless field/flow of being. "What is" is different than the idea of "what is." What non-duality IS is different than the idea of non-duality. I suspect that this issue lies at the heart of the dispute in this thread.
If people are told that trees are imaginary, most of them will not understand what the words are pointing to. There has to be a fundamental realization of wholeness before people can understand that the mind freeze-frames "what is" into imaginary parts. The truth is a verb whereas the mind can only deal with nouns.
To talk or think about joy, or an experience, or a tree, the mind must divide/cognize/imagine abstract aspects of what is actually a seamless field/flow of being. "What is" is different than the idea of "what is." What non-duality IS is different than the idea of non-duality. I suspect that this issue lies at the heart of the dispute in this thread.
If people are told that trees are imaginary, most of them will not understand what the words are pointing to. There has to be a fundamental realization of wholeness before people can understand that the mind freeze-frames "what is" into imaginary parts. The truth is a verb whereas the mind can only deal with nouns.
