what actually is DUALITY??????

[radarmark]

Duality--the yin/yang, the da'atsi (Navajo for yes, no, and maybe). Without darkness there is no light, without love no dispair. The dance with the Divine that is life and creation and revelation and redemption ceases without the duality of I and thou.

Not to say that it is not possible for there to be some frame-of-reference (G!d's) where all of these combine. Chungzi swings from one side of the issue to the other depending on the Wing one is reading. Perhaps the oneness is inclusive of the diversity... nay, the oneness must be inclusive of the duality.

That uncertainty is why I like the notion of agnosticism. I do not know there is no G!d (not like Rand, Dawlins and Hitchens). But I am not really willing to sit on top of my thatched rooftop to await the Giant Eagles to come and sweep me away to the Holy Land (as some Frankists did). That much being said I do not believe in a personal, transendent G!d (too many proofs of this leading astray) nor do I believe in material monism (rare for a scientist, I know)--there just is no way to reconcile the qualia of consciousness or the arrow of time in a coherent manner (I reject both mind-as-an-illusion and time-as-Einsteinian). So it just leaves me, happy? Reasonably.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Jails are there for reflection and forced aloneness.

Crimes are there to deliver one to jail.

All is scripted, all has a purpose for the particular journey.

What the funk are you talking about?

You said, "many mystics . . .have been killed for stating the truth"

I responded with the question, "Is that how Prisons get full?"

The answer is:
NO Prisons are filled with arguing mystics.
It is false to say the faithfull patrons of history are killed for their opinions.

Truth doesn't kill; Depots kill.

 

[wil]

So it just leaves me, happy? Reasonably.

Damn it, we'll have none of that around here!

You bow to our dogma or karma will getcha.

 

[Lunitik]

By saying you are becoming, it says something about growth. More correctly, Buddha talks about simply being, becoming is a duality.

Buddha also talks about finally realizing you are not at all, this is the last fetter: ignorance (of separation or distinction) - and in fact, in absolute truth, there is no verbs either. This begins to become quite depressing though, you begin to understand why things are - it is why he has been called Nihilistic and also why he says he comes to teach so-called God's as well, because they still desire things, they do not realize they are nothingness too.

 

[radarmark]

When have I accused you of not being tutored? I go on saying this is a barrier, but never that it isn't there. The titles though are irrelevant, of course, but Jesus was probably an Essene - a people that certainly knew the truths which these groups convey today.

"Are you aware of how many mystics through history have been killed for stating the truth?" only the untutored would not know that. Jesus was likely (IMHO) not an Essene, but just what is presented to us the most basic, most primitive of the NT. A Galilean. Probably at the time this was (to the Judeans) even worse than being a Samaritan. It just depends on who you read. (P.S. Essenes have no traceable linkage to either Kabbalah or Hasidism.)

I miss nothing, I simply go on saying "what is the point of understanding it logically?" You have not directly encountered that of which you speak, thus all that you say is for naught. All of your knowledge simply makes it more difficult to convey things to you, you want to correct, you want to prove your knowledge is superior.

Au contraire, you miss much (see comment on Essenes above). Gee whiz, this is precisely my criticism of you. I do not apply logic, I apply experience.

I know nothing, I simply respond to your statement from my experience.

IU believe our experiences are at odds. Whoopee! So my experiences are pretty different from Thomas' or Hui-Neng's also.

This is actually where we clash: I reject nonsense and try to focus the conversation towards truth, you seem to find this uncomfortable.

No, you focus it to your definition, your understanding, your experience of truth. I do not find that the least bit uncomfortable. It is just that what you consider true I do not. I am rather less exclusionist and absolutist. I do not say you are wrong, merely that I believe you are mistaken.

There is no knowing, and no becoming, you are it already, you just have to realize it.

Becoming is the basis. We can start a thread on the Pali canon if you like. Your fixation on being is just not scriptural (as I read the Tathagatha).

I am not sure what this means... "onymoron"

Fat old finger mistake "oxymoron"--a self-contradictory statement.

I have simply knocked off the concepts from my earlier statement "I am God", do you not see this has to be the initial statement of awareness? That sense your awareness is so? How would you say this if not "I am", but the "I" is a linguistic device to refer to this instance of awareness, where names refer to other things which we become aware of. When it is free from this, there is just the sense of am-ness. This is what is being conveyed.

What is being conveyed is being, materiality, and substance. I reject that. I believe in becoming, spirit, and essence. Do you not see the difference? We will not convince each other, that is not the (my) point at least. But try to open your mind a little bit.... if G!d is a verb (a process, a becoming) then this instance of awareness or occasion of actuality is not a thing (being) but a flow. The difference between us is like Sudden School and Lesser Vehicle. I say any can reach at anytime, triggered by anything. You (at least to me) seem to have some practice you found that you believe is more important than the goal. Nothing is more important than nothingness.

The verb for what is happening in this would be witnessing.

No, the verb is simply "G!d".

As we have done before, this not-give-and-not-take should end. However, please note that if you jump on my postings (as you did on #32) I shall reply with the same old adage: "take the plank out of your own eye before you point out the mote in mine".

 

[Lunitik]

Duality--the yin/yang, the da'atsi (Navajo for yes, no, and maybe). Without darkness there is no light, without love no dispair. The dance with the Divine that is life and creation and revelation and redemption ceases without the duality of I and thou.

Ying Yang represents the dualities AND the wholeness - we are discussing the wholeness. You are right though, all ceases.

Not to say that it is not possible for there to be some frame-of-reference (G!d's) where all of these combine. Chungzi swings from one side of the issue to the other depending on the Wing one is reading. Perhaps the oneness is inclusive of the diversity... nay, the oneness must be inclusive of the duality.

Duality and plurality has arisen out of that oneness, and eventually returns without exception.

That uncertainty is why I like the notion of agnosticism. I do not know there is no G!d (not like Rand, Dawlins and Hitchens). But I am not really willing to sit on top of my thatched rooftop to await the Giant Eagles to come and sweep me away to the Holy Land (as some Frankists did). That much being said I do not believe in a personal, transendent G!d (too many proofs of this leading astray) nor do I believe in material monism (rare for a scientist, I know)--there just is no way to reconcile the qualia of consciousness or the arrow of time in a coherent manner (I reject both mind-as-an-illusion and time-as-Einsteinian). So it just leaves me, happy? Reasonably.

I am trying to cause you to drop the uncertainty, but not through answers, through encountering. You have to go deeply into ying and yang, understand they merely balance something else and find out what that is. The most potent will be subject/object or god/man (depending on whether you accept all consists of God, God is an object for most, and man is the subject because his ego won't accept that it includes him). Go as deeply as you can into this, do not merely accept that you know it.

 

[Lunitik]

What the funk are you talking about?

You said, "many mystics . . .have been killed for stating the truth"

I responded with the question, "Is that how Prisons get full?"

The answer is:
NO Prisons are filled with arguing mystics.
It is false to say the faithfull patrons of history are killed for their opinions.

Truth doesn't kill; Depots kill.

Fanatics kill, because faced with the real thing their imaginings are destroyed.

 

[Lunitik]

Jesus was likely (IMHO) not an Essene, but just what is presented to us the most basic, most primitive of the NT. A Galilean. Probably at the time this was (to the Judeans) even worse than being a Samaritan. It just depends on who you read. (P.S. Essenes have no traceable linkage to either Kabbalah or Hasidism.)

He was an Essene, Kaballah and Hasidism come far later, so it is not surprising you know of no trace. Mystics are generally secretive, why would such things be recorded? Know that if Rome tries to deny something too stringently, there is a reason they are hiding.

Au contraire, you miss much (see comment on Essenes above). Gee whiz, this is precisely my criticism of you. I do not apply logic, I apply experience.

Nothing you say speaks of experience, it is learning. Always opinion comes in, always you argue for things which are fundamentally flawed in attainment, I do not know for sure you have not experienced but you are doing very well at pretending you haven't if I'm wrong.

IU believe our experiences are at odds. Whoopee! So my experiences are pretty different from Thomas' or Hui-Neng's also.

I question whether you have experienced anything, because based on your expression you have not - or at least if you have it was by accident and you have not pursued any understanding of why. If you cannot go into it whenever, for me you haven't understood it rightly. Certainly it is not your normal state, which you must leave to engage in dialog, thus there is more to do.

No, you focus it to your definition, your understanding, your experience of truth. I do not find that the least bit uncomfortable. It is just that what you consider true I do not. I am rather less exclusionist and absolutist. I do not say you are wrong, merely that I believe you are mistaken.

Can you enter the state at will?

Becoming is the basis. We can start a thread on the Pali canon if you like. Your fixation on being is just not scriptural (as I read the Tathagatha).

I have not read the Tathagata, there is no scripture I have read all the way through, the entire process for me has been guided - only that which is important has been shown to me. You can call it divine intervention, I cannot describe it any other way.

What is being conveyed is being, materiality, and substance. I reject that. I believe in becoming, spirit, and essence. Do you not see the difference? We will not convince each other, that is not the (my) point at least. But try to open your mind a little bit.... if G!d is a verb (a process, a becoming) then this instance of awareness or occasion of actuality is not a thing (being) but a flow. The difference between us is like Sudden School and Lesser Vehicle. I say any can reach at anytime, triggered by anything. You (at least to me) seem to have some practice you found that you believe is more important than the goal. Nothing is more important than nothingness.

What I attempt to convey is absolute non-duality, how you understand my particular statements will vary if you do not understand this fundamental point. For me, everything is false, and yet it is exciting and fun to play with. Truth is absent of everything, all relating is going away from truth, it is like a spiral: you start with a wide circle, gradually falling to the single point where there is only silence, absence. I try to take people to this, it is a faith site, for me this is bad - faith is not the thing, encountering is the thing. The myths and dogmas are nonsense, they are at best pointers and attempts to convey. You have to convey somehow because you want to share... but how to share silence?

No, the verb is simply "G!d".

Inaccurate, God is another concept, it is a noun... something created by man to understand what has happened to him.

As we have done before, this not-give-and-not-take should end. However, please note that if you jump on my postings (as you did on #32) I shall reply with the same old adage: "take the plank out of your own eye before you point out the mote in mine".

I have no eye, this will take a while.

I will correct, and I will try to stop you from filling people with nonsense. Figure out how to return and help others return, do not go on pointing to material that talks about it. It just makes it look like you have merely borrowed it, that it is not your own experience. This, for me, is the problem with religion today, too many fill their head, too few empty it. Belief is a sure sign it is not experience, what is the point of belief when it is your experience?

 

[radarmark]

See, that is the difference, I do not seek to shout you down, merely point out there are alterntives. Tathagatha by the way is "one who has thus come" and "one who has thus gone". It is the only self-identification the Gautama Buddah ever made in any sutra. I am very shocked that your guru did not point out this to you. I have never heard of a Buddhist (other than a mistaken one) who was not familiar with the term. Kind of essential to understanding "beyond". You have my condolences and my love.

If you do not believe me (I question your experience), why should I bother with the simply obvious (like of course I can dance with the Divine at will).

Find yourself another person to harass, please. I do not make fun of your posts, so please to not make fun of mine. Just say (as I have asked before) "I believe that there is another way to put this".

 

[Lunitik]

See, that is the difference, I do not seek to shout you down, merely point out there are alterntives. Tathagatha by the way is "one who has thus come" and "one who has thus gone". It is the only self-identification the Gautama Buddah ever made in any sutra. I am very shocked that your guru did not point out this to you. I have never heard of a Buddhist (other than a mistaken one) who was not familiar with the term. Kind of essential to understanding "beyond". You have my condolences and my love.

I know what it means, you mentioned something about reading it...

It simply means Buddha accepts only that he is a paradox, existence is a paradox and he is not separate from it.

Find yourself another person to harass, please. I do not make fun of your posts, so please to not make fun of mine. Just say (as I have asked before) "I believe that there is another way to put this".

This is a request to not do further harm to your ego, do you know it?

Please understand what you actually are I already love deeply, it is only what you think you are which I seem to harass. There is no malice in my statements, they are as they stand, and they are only motivated by my love for you.

You seem to be a stringent seeker, but you have not yet come to terms with the truth that you are what is sought. You want to make God something else still, but I say you have to drop both you and God to know truth. Even Science says the physical universe when examined more and more closely seems to be made of thoughts, I say find the one who is thinking them.

You will probably feel like you are going to become insane if you even try to consider my words, know it is a trick of the mind to protect itself. Simply observe its struggle, it will be clear to you that actually you are fine with it because you knew it was the case already. Nothing much changes, only your perception, no more is there a filter so you take it all in - nothing is missed at all.

 

[radarmark]

Now that I am over my diatribe, let us return to the message. dhillon, a sikh posted "yes a good answer also.. what if i say DUALITY is taking place when there is a wrong self identity, that means when we are taking 2 to be our true self.. mind and body,, and the soul total of 2.. duality thoughts can be avoided if we are taking our true self the soul only.. mind and body just the outer garments.. the outer garments only show us the play of maya, heaven and hell is included in it.. the pure ego or spirit is the only entity that can escape from maya and get liberted from cycles of birth and death..mind is not independent, it depends on air, if there is no air it dies..so it s journeys are also limited..it cannot take is far..body is not independent, it depend on food and water.. so this also cannot take us far eventhough it is perfect and pure.. so now the only entity left in our body which is independent not dependent on food water and air is the soul.. the soul eats THE NAMES OF GOD.. this is the one that can take us to god head.. any comments? this is my oppinion. thanks"

So your teaching is that there is a soul (some permanent individual essence)? And this (little) soul "eats THE NAMES OF G!D" to reach the G!dhead. Does that mean a constant repitition? A merging with the NAMES?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The following is my 2-pence compulsion:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi-Ya Folks!
I found a note I made to myself ten years ago, “Godhead defined with Brahman mentioned” followed by singular verse number “2.7.47” ---this verse citation is from an ancient scripture of India. That Bhagavata Purana was the last text written 3,000 BC by Vyasa-deva, the literary incarnation of Godhead.

Please take note of the nectar infusion,
Bhaktajan

*******************************
Sanskrit Translation and English commentary
by Bhaktivedanta Swami (1896-1977):

Bhagavata Purana Canto 2 Chapter 7 Verse 47:
“What is realized as the Absolute Brahman is full of unlimited bliss without grief. That is certainly the ultimate phase of the supreme enjoyer, the Personality of Godhead. He is eternally void of all disturbances and fearless. He is complete consciousness as opposed to matter. Uncontaminated and without distinctions, He is the principle primeval cause of all causes and effects, in whom there is no sacrifice for fruitive activities and in whom the illusory energy does not stand.”

Commentary by Bhaktivedanta Swami:

The supreme enjoyer, the Personality of Godhead, is the Supreme Brahman or the summum bonum because of His being the supreme cause of all causes. The conception of impersonal Brahman realization is the first step, due to His distinction from the illusory conception of material existence. In other words, impersonal Brahman is a feature of the Absolute distinct from the material variegatedness, just as light is a conception distinct from its counterpart, darkness.

But the light has its variegatedness, which is seen by those who further advance in the light, and thus the ultimate realization of Brahman is the source of the Brahman light, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the summum bonum or the ultimate source of everything. Therefore, meeting the Personality of Godhead includes the realization of the impersonal Brahman as realized at first in contrast with material inebriety.

The Personality of Godhead is the third step of Brahman realization. As explained in the First Canto, one must understand all three features of the Absolute—Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.

Pratibodha-matram is just the opposite conception of material existence. In matter there are material miseries, and thus in the first realization of Brahman there is the negation of such material inebrieties, and there is a feeling of eternal existence distinct from the pangs of birth and death, disease and old age. That is the primary conception of impersonal Brahman.

The Supreme Lord is the Supreme Soul of everything, and therefore in the supreme conception affection is realized. The conception of affection is due to the relationship of soul to soul. A father is affectionate to his son because there is some relationship of nearness between the son and the father. But that sort of affection in the material world is full of inebriety.

When the Personality of Godhead is met, the fullness of affection becomes manifested because of the reality of the affectionate relationship. He is not the object of affection by material tinges of body and mind, but He is the full, naked, uncontaminated object of affection for all living entities because He is the Supersoul, or Paramatma, within everyone’s heart. In the liberated state of affairs, the full-fledged affection for the Lord is awakened.

As such, there is an unlimited flow of everlasting happiness, without the fear of its being broken as we have experienced here in the material world. The relationship with the Lord is never broken; thus there is no grief and no fear. Such happiness is inexplicable by words, and there can be no attempt to generate such happiness by fruitive activities by arrangements and sacrifices.

But we must also know that happiness, unbroken happiness exchanged with the Supreme Person, the Personality of Godhead as described in this verse, transcends the impersonal conception of the Upanishads. In the Upanishads the description is more or less negation of the material conception of things, but this is not denial of the transcendental senses of the Supreme Lord. Herein also the same is affirmed in the statements about the material elements; they are all transcendental, free from all contamination of material identification.

And also the liberated souls are not devoid of senses; otherwise there cannot be any reciprocation of unhampered spiritual happiness exchanged between them in spontaneous unbroken joy. All the senses, both of the Lord and of the devotees, are without material contamination. They are so because they are beyond the material cause and effects, as clearly mentioned herein (sad-asatah param).

The illusory, material energy cannot work there, being ashamed before the Lord and His transcendental devotees. In the material world the sense activities are not without grief, but here it is clearly said that the senses of the Lord and the devotees are without any grief. There is a distinct difference between the material and spiritual senses. And one should understand it without denying the spiritual senses because of a material conception.

The senses in the material world are surcharged with material ignorance. In every way, the authorities have recommended purification of the senses from the material conception. In the material world the senses are manipulated for individual and personal satisfaction, whereas in the spiritual world the senses are properly used for the purpose for which they were originally meant, namely the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord.

Such sensual activities are natural, and therefore sense gratification there is uninterrupted and unbroken by material contamination because the senses are spiritually purified. And such satisfaction of the senses is equally shared by the transcendental reciprocators. Since the activities are unlimited and constantly increasing, there is no scope for material attempts or artificial arrangements. Such happiness of transcendental quality is called brahma-saukhyam, which will he clearly described in the Fifth Canto.

 

[tony]

dear all members
just to know GOD is not enough.. god is suppose to be realized internally through meditation with the help of a true guru satguru. that means the soul must be able to rise above 3 stages,, and finally into the fourth stage.. stage one is our normal waking state consciousness whereby all of our experiences are still coming from our senses thru the help of the mind..it is not a soul experiences second stage is sleeping with dreams whereby all of our senses are being dislocked from the mind.. the experiences are coming from the mind not the soul.. the 3 rd stage is sleeping without dreams this is quite similar to union with god but it is temprory because the next morning you will wake up.. the 4th stage is transcendendence experiences just similar like you wake up early in the morning.. this experiences are coming from the soul.. and the doors or chakras responsible for this experiences are located above the eyes.. this is how slowly the duality is shed off.. whatever is outside macrocosm are also similar inside of us microcosm.. the names of god had created the whole cosmos and this names are also in us sustaining our daily lives.. god does not leave the creation after creating it.. he is still there sustaining it with his names.. names experience by the mind is still maya,, or we call struct melodies.. names experience by the soul after the mind is completely surrendered are called unstruct melodies here the DUALITY slowly vanishes because the mind is surrendered.. here are some verses i like to share--

if you want me to show you the game of love, come with your head on your palm

 

[tony]

dear members
all worldly actions and thoughts are not the food for the soul. it s only for mind and body.. mind and body plus it s subtle shadow part is maya.. only those who understand love will escape from maya.. through love duality ceases and liberation is obtain.. tq

 

[donnann]

dear members
all worldly actions and thoughts are not the food for the soul. it s only for mind and body.. mind and body plus it s subtle shadow part is maya.. only those who understand love will escape from maya.. through love duality ceases and liberation is obtain.. tq

It remains two but two become one that are really one to begin with . look different but are really the same.

 

[donnann]

It remains two but two become one that are really one to begin with . look different but are really the same.

Tim & Faith - Stealing Cinderella - YouTube

Remember he says I come as a thief, he didnt say he was one. Each females opposite is her JESUS. Understand.

 

[james luke]

the only way to raise above duality,,,is to surrender the mind completely..the ego must be crucified.. this art is called dying in meditation...to realize the lord we must understand what death is... this is only taking place by the grace of god...this is the grace the power that burn off our past sins.. the lord is the only force that is powerfull.. there is no other forces that are powerfull...when we raise other forces then it is DUALITY.. very dangerous thought in the mind,, that will pull you towards maya.. in maya there are other dualities available..heaven and hell to trap you further in the play..tq

 

[TruthSatnaam]

the only way to raise above duality,,,is to surrender the mind completely..the ego must be crucified.. this art is called dying in meditation...to realize the lord we must understand what death is... this is only taking place by the grace of god...this is the grace the power that burn off our past sins.. the lord is the only force that is powerfull.. there is no other forces that are powerfull...when we raise other forces then it is DUALITY.. very dangerous thought in the mind,, that will pull you towards maya.. in maya there are other dualities available..heaven and hell to trap you further in the play..tq

^^Beautifully said- God is the only doer.

Truth principles exist in many faiths(where words have not been corrupted by scholars etc. over the years).

The 10 Gurus brought the teachings of Pure Truth back into the world when God saw it fit, when corruption was rife.

The Truth is- Nothing. It is a frequency of a balanced gyan that applies across a universal spectrum that lives to discover while remaining detached from the nasha(highs and lows) of the discovery (hence the balance).

The acceptance of Nothing over everything is what pushes the Truth Seeker further down the path.

There is no religion to confine Truth to- for Truth is All pervading- it is unchanging and existed before the Satyug Age of Truth, and before. It cannot be confined. Guru Nanak taught us this as one of His greatest lessons 'No Hindu, No Muslim'.

We are All one, All is Him, All is perfect, All is karam- it's all Hukam(God's will).

The duality of maya dies when we realise this All as God's khel- as Truth/Him.

Satnaam Ji

 

[Aupmanyav]

'No Hindu, No Muslim'.

But Sikh. Satnaam ji.