Enlightened Duality?

[raphaelbaumann]

Why are most spiritual scriptures based on duality? For example, in the Bhagavad Gita there is also a clear distinction between the field and the witness of the field.
Or in tantra, they definitely differentiate between the substances of Shiva and Shakti. Or in the Samkhya philosophy or in the Yoga Sutras they clearly differentiate consciousness (Purusha) from primal matter (Prakriti) (as if there was primal matter ). Many of these philosophies really claim that there are 2 different substances in reality.

Why do so many differentiate consciousness from energy?
After my realization that all form consists of the formless and that the knower is known, these dualities do not sound truthful. Consciousness never mets anything else than itself.

However, many enlightened people like Sadghuru made a distinction between these 2 and that the universe came into being when these 2 substances met.

What do you all think? I'm interested to hear your view!

[VeganAwake]

Just stories attempting to describe the indescribable.

You could call it a misunderstanding of true non-duality but that again is another story haha.

But that's just what happens... yes Separation and Duality is an illusion because there aren't any separate individuals. It's the dream or Maya illusion of the self. ❤

[mandyjw]

The only way you can talk about nonduality is by making distinctions. There's an analogy of using a thorn to remove the thorn that's stuck under the skin, then throwing thorns both away. 

[Nak Khid]

2 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

The only way you can talk about nonduality is by making distinctions. 

nonduality doesn't exist anymore than a non-apple 

[mandyjw]

1 minute ago, Nak Khid said:

nonduality doesn't exist anymore than a non-apple 

Oh my GOD. I just ate an apple and am still holding the apple core in my hand. No kidding.  

[mandyjw]

Kidding, Khiding. I crack myself up. 

[Nak Khid]

5 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Oh my GOD. I just ate an apple and am still holding the apple core in my hand. No kidding.  

you should eat the core minus the seeds it has beneficial probiotic enzymes 

[LastThursday]

It's non-duality pretending that dualities exist and arguing that it's really non-duality using dualistic language.

Edited June 22, 2020 by LastThursday

[Nahm]

@raphaelbaumann

What if the price of admission to Disneyland was forgetting who you are, and while on one of the rides, some dude tells you you’re dreaming Disneyland. You’d be like, yeah right. Ok buddy. 

[Nak Khid]

 

_______Dialectical monism

"Really, the fundamental, ultimate mystery - the only thing you need to know to understand the deepest metaphysical secrets - is this: that for every outside there is an inside and for every inside there is an outside, and although they are different, they go together."
— Alan Watts

Dialectical monism, also known as dualistic monism, is an ontological position that holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms.For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities, which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense.

Principles

To establish its premises, dialectical monism may posit a Universal Dialectic, which is seen as the fundamental principle of existence. The concept is similar to that of the Taiji or "Supreme Ultimate" in Taoism, the "Purusha-Prakriti" in Samkhya, and duality-in-unity of Shiva-Shakti in Tantra. Advocates assert that Taoism as well as some forms of Buddhism are based on an approach consistent with or identical to dialectical monism.

Ideas relating to "teleological evolution" are important in some progressive interpretations of dialectical monism. However, this element has not always been present historically, and is generally not present in contemporary dialectical monisms such as Taoism. It is important to note that teleological tendencies in dialectical monism can significantly differ from other variants of teleology if dialectical progression is linked to materialism, because such an interpretation is a naturalistic progression rather than a result of design or consciousness. However, non-materialistic philosophies exist that also are dialectical monisms, such as Actual Idealism.

Some variants of dialectical monism adhere to the view that all conditions exist at all times in unity, and our consciousness separates them into dualistic forms. Other views maintain that the nature of dialectical synthesis dictates that the flow of change will tend toward a "spiral-shaped progression" rather than a perpetual non-progressive (repetitive) circling of history. For these dialectical monists, this explains the fact of physical self-organization in Nature, as well as the observed tendency for human societies to achieve gradual "progress" over time. These teleological variants may be referred to as "progressive dialectical monism."

As a monism, dialectical monism is opposed to traditional dualism despite its emphasis on "twoness." In dialectical monism, the appearance of duality is seen as arising from the mind's need to impose divisions and boundaries upon an essentially unified whole. Thus, for the dialectical monist, reality is ultimately one but can only be experienced in terms of division.

Furthermore, dialectical monism might also be termed "plural monism," for it recognizes the dependently originated existence of a multiplicity of entities, which Taoism calls "the ten thousand things." Dialectical monism does not deny that the plurality of things in existence are "real," but points out that physical reality itself is mind-dependent. (see Taoism and Zen).

History

Dialectical monism has been mentioned in Western literature, although infrequently. Jean-Paul Sartre used the term on at least one occasion. Sartre may have used the term "dialectical monism" to when inferring what he saw as absurd in the dogma of a Marxist–Leninist non-dualistic interpretation of the dialectic, in which any oppositional view point was claimed to be non-dialectical rather than part of the dialectic itself.

Although the term has never been used outside the West, advocates maintain[2] that dialectical monism has a much greater presence in Eastern traditions. A wide number of Taoist sources are cited, especially those that relate to the Taiji or yin and yang concepts. In addition, several Buddhist works are seen as containing strong elements of dialectical monism.

Buddhist influences

The Heart Sutra provides a notable expression of dialectical monism:

"Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness."

However, it is sometimes held that the Buddhist elements of dialectical monism are more accurately characterized as non-dualistic since they deny any fundamental sort of creative principle or "one thing," such as that posited by dialectical monism. See the Buddhist philosophy of emptiness.

In response, dialectical monists might reply that theirs is a "positive expression of nondualism," as opposed to the "negative" expression implied by the qualifier non in nondualism.

Nagarjuna, principal developer of the emptiness doctrine in Buddhism, had a perspective consistent with a broad dialectical monism that was based on the following statement attributed to the Buddha:

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." - Saṃyutta Nikāya 12:15

Parallels in Aztec philosophy

In its article on Aztec philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Aztec (Nahua) metaphysics as a form of dialectical monism:

Although essentially processive and devoid of any permanent order, the ceaseless becoming of the cosmos is nevertheless characterized by an overarching balance, rhythm, and regularity: one provided by and constituted by teotl... Dialectical polar monism holds that:

(1) the cosmos and its contents are substantively and formally identical with teotl; and

(2) teotl presents itself primarily as the ceaseless, cyclical oscillation of polar yet complementary opposites.

Teotl's process presents itself in multiple aspects, preeminent among which is duality. This duality takes the form of the endless opposition of contrary yet mutually interdependent and mutually complementary polarities that divide, alternately dominate, and explain the diversity, movement, and momentary arrangement of the universe. These include: being and not-being, order and disorder, life and death, light and darkness, masculine and feminine, dry and wet, hot and cold, and active and passive. Life and death, for example, are mutually arising, interdependent, and complementary aspects of one and the same process.

Tao De Jing 

Chapter 42 of the Tao De Jing outlines a number-based cosmology that may be consistent with dialectical monism:

"The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity (out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised by the Breath of Vacancy."

"What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little virtue, to be as carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being increased."[4]

Several other chapters (including Chapter 1) make reference to concepts consistent with dialectical monism.

 

 

 

[VeganAwake]

31 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

The only way you can talk about nonduality is by making distinctions. There's an analogy of using a thorn to remove the thorn that's stuck under the skin, then throwing thorns both away. 

There are apparent distinctions apparent separation apparent duality all occurring Within Oneness or non-duality.

The belief or misunderstanding in distinction or separation does not actually make separation or Duality real.

Non-duality isn't a concept to be tossed away.

It's pointing to what apparently remains after all concepts are dropped.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by VeganAwake

[LastThursday]

Dielectical Monism! I knew there was a catchy phrase for it.

More here (although it's a pithy episode):

 

 

[mandyjw]

1 hour ago, VeganAwake said:

There are apparent distinctions apparent separation apparent duality all occurring Within Oneness or non-duality.

The belief or misunderstanding in distinction or separation does not actually make separation or Duality real.

Yes, or you could say it's the only thing that is in one sense "real". You could say your "real" life is a dream, or you could say Santa Claus and your imaginary childhood friend is real. 

1 hour ago, VeganAwake said:

Non-duality isn't a concept to be tossed away.

It's pointing to what apparently remains after all concepts are dropped.

Yes, I was referring more to throwing away the pointer of nonduality itself, the pointer is the second thorn. You apparently have conditioning, you believe certain things about having been born and having a brain, etc, so by bringing in new beliefs and new conditioning ("you were never born, you don't have a brain", "you are God" etc) you can remove and destroy the old ones. In the end none should remain. There was a point in time over a year ago that I really believed nonduality was this thing separate from duality. I wasn't conscious of it. All my new conditioning I'd spend hours learning from Eckhart Tolle with great progress in my life suddenly stopped working, and the new conditioning got thrown away as new insights flooded in. I'm still working through the same pattern by considering and testing new beliefs against old ones, and throwing them away. 

[VeganAwake]

54 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Yes, or you could say it's the only thing that is in one sense "real". You could say your "real" life is a dream, or you could say Santa Claus and your imaginary childhood friend is real. 

Yes, I was referring more to throwing away the pointer of nonduality itself, the pointer is the second thorn. You apparently have conditioning, you believe certain things about having been born and having a brain, etc, so by bringing in new beliefs and new conditioning ("you were never born, you don't have a brain", "you are God" etc) you can remove and destroy the old ones. In the end none should remain. There was a point in time over a year ago that I really believed nonduality was this thing separate from duality. I wasn't conscious of it. All my new conditioning I'd spend hours learning from Eckhart Tolle with great progress in my life suddenly stopped working, and the new conditioning got thrown away as new insights flooded in. I'm still working through the same pattern by considering and testing new beliefs against old ones, and throwing them away. 

❤ why would 'You' say Santa Claus and your imaginary childhood friend are real? 

They are completely unreal just like the separate sense of self located in the body.

Non-duality is easier understood after its recognized the separate sense of self is an illusion or Maya.(even after awakening it can take a little while to clear up and understand the implications of non-duality) at least that's what apparently seemed to happen here.

It's not that there aren't apparent separate bodies with apparent space between them and such, rather its that there is no separate individual inside of the bodies in which duality could even be real. 

There is a conditioned body there that comes onto the Forum, makes videos, eats dinner, goes into the woods, prefers coffee over tea, and turns its head when its name is called.... it even knows to jump out of the way of a moving train and how to drive a vehicle....BUT that sense of 'I' that claims all these actions, decisions, preferences and creates stories about it all is completely illusory. 

It's completely irrational nonsensical and ridiculous to the sense of self because it doesn't want this... it wants to survive...

[mandyjw]

21 minutes ago, VeganAwake said:

❤ why would 'You' say Santa Claus and your imaginary childhood friend are real? 

Because the belief that they are unreal makes Donald Trump real in contrast. Thank GOD that's not the case. 

21 minutes ago, VeganAwake said:

It's completely irrational nonsensical and ridiculous to the sense of self because it doesn't want this... it wants to survive...

Or it wants to off itself.  Either literally or through spiritual/psychological suicide with the belief that there's no me. I've been there. There's no you and no me but that's still a belief, a pointer, a thorn until it's not. Like you said that there's a separate sense of self that seems to be located in the body, in my experience apparent suffering is the only real indicator that there's something pretending to be there. Feeling is the only real indicator, thoughts don't matter whether my imaginary friend is real or unreal, it's all about how I feel about it. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by mandyjw

[VeganAwake]

26 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Or it wants to off itself.  Either literally or through spiritual/psychological suicide with the belief that there's no me. I've been there. There's no you and no me but that's still a belief, a pointer, a thorn until it's not. Like you said that there's a separate sense of self that seems to be located in the body, in my experience suffering through feeling is the only real indicator that there's something pretending to be there.

Yes, it's been called 'to die before you die' but those words are pointers also.

Something that never was cannot commit suicide... that would imply it was once real. 

The no self may be experienced as a belief over there... not arguing that at all ❤

The end of suffering is the deep recognition that the sufferer never existed.

It's recognized as simply a misidentification with contracted energy, thoughts, emotions, perceptions, belief's as the separate 'ME' character located somewhere in the body.

[mandyjw]

@VeganAwake