The Part that Speaks to Me...

topic posted Sat, March 10, 2007 - 9:05 PM by  (The)
posted by:
(The)
  • Re: The Part that Speaks to Me...

    Tue, March 13, 2007 - 6:01 AM
    I am also hearing a term 'duality' as a bad one, regarding, seemingly confusion over dichotomies and the inner and outer environments, leading to actualizations of feelings, worries or fears and misunderstandings.
    This is something I just found...

    What is Nonduality - Nondualism - Advaita?
    Jerry Katz, editor

    "Nonduality means non-separateness."

    "Defining nonduality is more than opening a dictionary. 'You' have to be opened."

    "The concept, often described in English as "nondualism," is extremely hard for the mind to grasp or visualize, since the mind engages constantly in the making of distinctions and nondualism represents the rejection or transcendence of all distinctions."



    The best explanation of nonduality for beginners is found in Chuck Hillig's book, Enlightenment for Beginners.

    Encylopedia Britannica article

    Traditional

    Various authors and teachers

    Brief Explications

    Lengthier Explications

    From What Is Enlightenment magazine

    From 'A Brief History of Everything', by Ken Wilber

    Secondary Nondualism and Ultimate Nondualism of Da Free John

    Meeting the Great Bliss Queen: Buddhists, Feminists and the Art of the Self, by Anne Carolyn Klein

    The Rotten Root, by Drew Hempel

    Advaita Vedanta web site FAQ

    Traditional Explications

    --from The Song of Ribhu: The English Translation of the Tamil Ribhu Gita. Translation by Dr. H. Ramamoorthy and Nome. Published by SAT, Society for Abidance in Truth, 2000.

    "Advaita Vedanta, or the Teaching of Nonduality, is that which is expounded by Ribhu, Sri Dattatreya (the Avadhuta), Sri Ashtavakra, Sri Sankara, Sri Ramana Maharshi, and many other great sages. It reveals the utter absence of any differentiation between Atman (the Self) and Brahman. It is the revelation of Reality without even a trace of notional superimpositions. The entire Ribhu Gita gives an exposition -- a veritable scripture -- of Advaita Vedanta."

    "ATMAN. The Self. The Self is one and universal, different from the body, sensory organs, senses, mind, intelligence, inner senses, and such others, remaining only as a witness to the activities of these and unsullied by them. The Self is of the nature of Being-Consciousness-Bliss, self-luminous, of the nature of Knowledge, needing no other knowledge to know it. The Self is without desire or hatred, fear or sorrow, quality or activity, form, change or blemish. It is immaculate, indivisible, all-pervasive, and infinite. The Self and Brahman are one."

    "BRAHMAN. A Sanskrit word formed from the root brmh, which means growth, and the suffix man, which signifies an absence of limitation (in space or time). Thus, Brahman means that which is absolutely the greatest. Brahman, according to the Masters of Advaita, is said to be known through Vedic texts, primarily the Upanishads, which are considered a valid means of knowledge, as a direct perception.

    "Brahman is the only Reality; it is beyond definition in words, the range of sensory perceptions, and the human mind. It is conceived to be boundless Being, ever existent, limitless in space and time, immutable, immaculate, devoid of qualities, attributes, name, or form. It is not subject to birth, continuation, growth, maturity, decay and dissolution, and has nothing similar to it and nothing different from it. It is also described as pure Knowledge.

    "It is also regarded as both the efficient and material cause of the visible universe, the all-pervading spirit of the universe, the essence from which all beings are produced and into which they are absorbed. The entire phenomenal world of beings, qualities, actions, all manifestations, and so on, is said to be an illusory superimposition on the imperishable substratum, which is Brahman.

    "The Upanishad-s also identify Brahman with the Universal Self. What Brahman, the only Reality, is and, more importantly, what Brahman, the only Reality, is not is discussed in the entire text of the Song of Ribhu."

    top of page

    From Encyclopedic Theosophical Library:

    Advaita (Sanskrit) [from a not + dvaita dual from dvi two] Nondual; the Advaita or nondualistic form of Vedanta [from veda knowledge + anta end] expounded by Sankaracharya teaches the oneness of Brahman or the paramatman of the universe with the human spirit-soul or jivatman, and the identity of spirit and matter; also that the divine spirit of the universe is the all-efficient, all-productive cause of the periodic coming into being, continuance, and dissolutions of the universe; and that this divine cosmic spirit is the ultimate truth and sole reality -- hence the term advaita (without a second). All else is maya, in proportion to its distance from the divine source.

    The greatest initiates and yogis since Sankaracharya's time are reputed to have come from the ranks of the Advaita-Vedantists. "Yet the root philosophy of both Adwaita and Buddhist scholars is identical, and both have the same respect for animal life, for both believe that every creature on earth, however small and humble, 'is an immortal portion of the immortal matter' -- for matter with them has quite another significance than it has with either Christian or materialist -- and that every creature is subject to Karma" (SD 1:636; cf 2:637).

    Advaitin or Advaita-Vedantist Also Advaitee. An adherent of the Advaita philosophy.

    Advaya (Sanskrit) [from a not + dvi two] Not two, without a second; unique. As a masculine noun, name of a buddha. As a neuter noun, nonduality, unity, identity -- especially as applied to Brahman -- with the universe, or of spirit and matter; hence ultimate truth.

    top of page

    from Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential:

    Nondualism: Literally the following of a philosophy of non-duality, practitioners follow the Upanishad tradition through the pathof wisdom, jnana yoga, as founded by Badarayana and expounded by Sankara. They allow no duality between creator and created - all are reflections or manifestations of the one, which is not and cannot be an object of sense ("not this, not this") but which is the underlying reality or consciousness, the subject of which all else is the object ("thou art that"). It is through identification with the body and the bodily senses that the gross universe is seen as reality. In a state of ignorance, an idea (the world of manifest objects) is superimposed on true reality (Brahman). By the removal of ignorance - avidya - the Self, the vital principle, the Atman, comes to be seen as identical with the first principle, the all-pervading power, the Brahman.

    Non-duality is not meant to imply simply one-ness; the distinction between what is and what is not is to be found in the permanence or changeableness of what is being considered. That which observes does not change with what is observed, the ultimate being perception or consciousness itself which is unchanging. Rationally it is clear that there can be no being beyond consciousness and that consciousness and real existence are inseparable. Consciousness and "is-ness" are Brahman. It is the deluded sense of separation from Brahman, of separate individuality, which is the cause of pleasure and pain; identification with Brahman is bliss.

    Refs
    Wisdom of the Vedas (Chatterji, J C, 1980);
    Advaita Vedanta: a philosophical reconstruction (Deutsch, Eliot, 1969);
    The Secret Teachings of the Vedas: the eastern answers to the mysteries of life (Knapp, Stephen, 1991);
    The Integral Advaitism of Sri Aurobindo (Misra, Ram Shankas, 1957);
    The Ten Principal Upanishads (Purohit, Swami Shree and Yeats, W B);
    Methods of Knowledge According to Advaita Vedanta (Satprakashananda, Swami, 1975).

    top of page

    from www.poonja.com/Advaita_Vedanta.htm

    In the Sankrit language Advaita means "not two" and Vedanta means "the end of knowledge". So one could say that Advaita Vedanta is the non-dual experience at the end of knowledge, or beyond knowledge. However, in the non-dual state there can be no experiencer and experience
    and so the term arises, "The Mystery beyond the mind," simply because that That that is beyond the mind cannot be conceptualized much less described by the mind. This mystery refers to the cessation of the experience of duality, the removal of separation between any two objects, the lifting of the veil of illusoryness, the drowning of individualness in the eternal ocean of Love.

    This Mystery is the Majesty of Saints like Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi of Tiruvannamalai, his disciple Sri H.W.L. Poonja of Lucknow, Ananda Mayi Ma of Haridwar, and Sri Nisargadatta of Bombay. By their words, their touch, their look, and mostly just by their presence these Saints enlighten their disciples.

    Enlighten is a word that is a gossomer vessel overflowing with sticky concepts. For lack of a better word it is used but realize that any word, any concept, and any Saint is a finger pointing to Advaita Vedanta, the Mystery Beyond the Mind.

    The Rig Veda, the oldest book on the planet, tries to describe the mystery by singing hundreds of thousands of hymns and yet it comes to the famous conclusion: Neti, Neti, meaning 'not this, not this'. Freedom, Enlightenment, Love, though the topic of Advaita Vedanta remains untouched by the wondering mind, and yet is the light by which the mind sees. Only when the mind stops does Consciousness behold Itself. Then 'Consciousness knows the Truth and the Truth sets itself Free'. You are this Truth, the Isness joyously radiating as the Light of this Moment.

    top of page

    from The Lotus Sutra translated by Burton Watson and The Threefold Lotus Sutra translated by Bunno Kato, et. al.

    "The concept, often described in English as "nondualism," is extremely hard for the mind to grasp or visualize, since the mind engages constantly in the making of distinctions and nondualism represents the rejection or transcendence of all distinctions. The world perceived through the senses, the phenomenal world as we know it, was described in early Buddhism as "empty" because it was taught that all such phenomena arise from causes and conditions, are in a constant state of flux, and are destined to change and pass away in time. They are also held to be "empty" in the sense that they have no inherent or permanent characteristics by which they can be described, changing as they do from instant to instant. But in Mahayana thought it became customary to emphasize not the negative but rather the positive aspects or import of the doctrine of Emptiness. If all phenomena are characterized by the quality of Emptiness, then Emptiness must constitute the unchanging and abiding nature of existence, and therefore the absolute or unchanging world must be synonymous with the phenomenal one. Hence all mental and physical distinctions that we perceive or conceive of with our minds must be part of a single underlying unity. It is this concept of Emptiness or nonduality that leads the Mahayana texts to assert that samsara, the ordinary world of suffering and cyclical birth and death, is in the end identical with the world of nirvana, and that earthly desires are enlightenment." (p xv)

    top of page

    "Namu Amida Butsu"

    "Namu Amida Butsu" sums up nonduality. "Namu" is the ego-self. "Amida" is the boundless light of Wisdom and life of Compassion that embraces without exclusion. "Butsu" is the Buddha, in whom we take refuge.

    Together this is the Name-that-calls. Nonduality is realized when we discover how essential self-power derived from knowledge of the self and intellect is to Other power, yet that Other power is greater than the ego-self and its misuse of self-power.

    Beyond good and evil, there is the greater Good. Beyond the limits of our passions, there is only the Name-that-calls.

    This is the essence of non-dualism in Shin Buddhism. Thus the name of Jodo Shinshu is translated as "The True Essence of the Pure Land Way", the fulfillment of non-duality. Stephen H. Kawamoto

    top of page

    Seng T'san, the third Zen Patriarch: The Mind of Absolute Trust

    The great way isn't difficult for those who are unattached to their preferences.

    Let go of longing and aversion, and everything will be perfectly clear.

    When you cling to a hairbreadth of distinction, heaven and earth are set apart.

    If you want to realize the truth, don't be for or against.

    The struggle between good and evil is the primal disease of the mind.

    Not grasping the deeper meaning, you just trouble your minds serenity.

    As vast as infinite space, it is perfect and lacks nothing.

    But because you select and reject, you can't perceive its true nature.

    Don't get entangled in the world; don't lose yourself in emptiness.

    Be at peace in the oneness of things, and all errors will disappear by themselves.

    If you don't live the Tao, you fall into assertion or denial.

    Asserting that the world is real, you are blind to its deeper reality;

    denying that the world is real, you are blind to the selflessness of all things.

    The more you think about these matters, the farther you are from the truth.

    Step aside from all thinking, and there is nowhere you can't go.

    Returning to the root, you find the meaning;

    chasing appearances, you lose there source.

    At the moment of profound insight, you transcend both appearance and emptiness.

    Don't keep searching for the truth; just let go of your opinions.

    For the mind in harmony with the Tao, all selfishness disappears.

    With not even a trace of self-doubt, you can trust the universe completely.

    All at once you are free, with nothing left to hold on to.

    All is empty, brilliant, perfect in its own being.

    In the world of things as they are, there is no self, no non self.

    If you want to describe its essence, the best you can say is "Not-two."

    In this "Not-two" nothing is separate, and nothing in the world is excluded.

    The enlightened of all times and places have entered into this truth.

    In it there is no gain or loss; one instant is ten thousand years.

    There is no here, no there; infinity is right before your eyes.

    The tiny is as large as the vast when objective boundaries have vanished;

    the vast is as small as the tiny when you don't have external limits.

    Being is an aspect of non-being; non-being is no different from being.

    Until you understand this truth, you won't see anything clearly.

    One is all; all are one. When you realize this, what reason for holiness or wisdom?

    The mind of absolute trust is beyond all thought, all striving,

    is perfectly at peace, for in it there is no yesterday, no today, no tomorrow.

    top of page

    from The Lankavatara Sutra

    What is meant by nonduality, Mahatmi?

    It means that light and shade, long and short, black and white, can only be experienced in relation to each other; light is not independent of shade, nor black of white. There are no opposites, only relationships. In the same way, nirvana and the ordinary world of suffering are not two things but related to each other. There is no nirvana except where the world of suffering is; there is no world of suffering apart from nirvana. For existence is not mutually exclusive.

    Nonduality From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonduality

    Nonduality is the nature of reality according to
    teachings (generally originating in Asia) such as
    Advaita, Buddhism and Dzogchen, and probably
    Taoism as well. Western philosophy includes an
    (unrelated) intellectual tradition of nondualism,
    known more commonly as monism.

    While attitudes towards the experience of duality
    and self may vary, nondual traditions converge on
    the view that experience does not imply an "I".

    In Buddhism

    In the Buddhist canon, the Diamond Sutra presents
    an accessible nondual view of "self" and
    "beings", while the Heart Sutra asserts shunyata
    — the "emptiness" of all "things". The fullest
    philosophical exposition is the Madhyamaka; by
    contrast many laconic pronouncements are
    delivered as koans. Advanced views and practices
    are found in the Mahamudra and Maha Ati, which
    emphasize the vividness and spaciousness of
    nondual awareness.

    "Not Two and Not One"

    Mahayana Buddhism, in particular, tempers the
    view of nonduality (wisdom) with respect for the
    experience of duality (compassion) — ordinary
    dualistic experience, populated with selves and
    others (sentient beings), is tended with care,
    always "now". This approach is itself regarded as
    a means to disperse the confusions of duality
    (i.e. as a path). In the Hinayana, that respect
    is expressed cautiously as non-harming, while in
    the Vajrayana, it is expressed boldly as
    enjoyment (especially in tantra).

    In Dzogchen

    Dzogchen is a relatively esoteric (to date)
    tradition concerned with the "natural state", and
    emphasizing direct experience. It is independent,
    yet closely allied with the Buddhism of Tibet,
    particularly the Nyingma lineage and the Maha Ati
    teachings. In Dzogchen, the primordial state, the
    state of nondual awareness, is called rigpa.

    In Advaita

    Advaita (Sanskrit a, not; dvaita, two) is a
    nondual tradition with Advaita Vedanta as its
    philosophical arm. Probably the best known
    advaitist of modern times is Ramana Maharshi,
    according to whom the jnani (one who has realised
    the Self) sees no individual ego, and does not
    regard himself (or anyone else) as a "doer" of
    actions. The state of nondual awareness is called
    jnana.

    In Taoism

    The Taoist's wu wei (Chinese wu, not; wei, doing)
    is a term with various translations (e.g.
    inaction, non-action, nothing doing, without ado)
    and interpretations designed to distinguish it
    from passivity. From a nondual perspective, it
    refers to activity that does not imply an "I".

    Nonduality in Carlos Castaneda

    Carlos Castaneda's writings describing the
    shamanism of Toltec naguals are a rich but
    troubled source of nondual themes. Their
    authenticity as ethnography is a matter of much
    controversy. As well, Carlos' self-portrait as a
    confused apprentice is not merely a literary
    device. Nevertheless, the narratives contain
    numerous assaults on the idea of an individual
    self, and propose a worldview of emanations
    powered by an abstract Intent. Yet Carlos never
    seems to acknowledge the nondual implications in
    his stories: "Naturally, he heard the inner
    voice, but he believed it to be his own feelings
    he was feeling and his own thoughts he was
    thinking." (Castaneda, 1987, chap. 1).

    top of page

    Explications from Various Authors and Teachers

    Nisargadatta Maharaj (from I Am That):
    When you go beyond awareness, there is a state of non-duality, in which there is no cognition, only pure being. In the state of non-duality, all separation ceases.

    Ken Wilber:
    "Nonduality" means, as the Upanishads put it, "to be freed of the pairs." That is, the great liberation consists in being freed of the pairs of opposites, freed of duality-and finding instead the nondual One Taste that gives rise to both. This is liberation because we cease the impossible, painful dream of spending our entire lives trying to find an up without a down, an inside without an outside, a good without an evil, a pleasure without its inevitable pain.

    Adyashanti:
    To awaken to the absolute view is profound and transformative, but to awaken from all fixed points of view is the birth of true nonduality.
    ...
    Enlightenment means the end of all division. It is not simply having an occasional experience of unity beyond all division, it is actually being undivided. This is what nonduality truly means. It means there is just One Self, without a difference or gap between the profound revelation of Oneness and the way it is perceived and lived every moment of life. Nonduality means that the inner revelation and the outer expression of the personality are one and the same. So few seem to be interested in the greater implication contained within profound spiritual experiences, because it is the contemplation of these implications which quickly brings to awareness the inner divisions existing within most seekers.

    Richard Miller:
    Advaita means, "not-two" and reveals the truth that all objects are expressions of unqualified Consciousness and always point back to Awareness, our true nature, the unfathomable Vast-ness-that-we-are. Consciousness and its objects are One, not two. This can never be conceptualized, only intuitively realized. Yana is the pathless "path" we traverse as our misperceptions of separation are healed. This path is not developmental. Separateness is not a case of something that exists becoming non-existent. Our 'self' never exists in the first place except conceptually. The path reveals the non-existence of the 'self' that always was nonexistent. Yoga is the means we utilize in realizing our non-separateness. We investigate all that we take ourself to be (body, senses and mind), and understand That, which we always are Be-ing-unqualified Presence. The body/mind is an expression of Consciousness, and we are That unqualified Consciousness. There is only Consciousness. Our yearning to understand comes from Consciousness. The path we traverse unfolds in Consciousness. The means that we utilize are the tools provided by Consciousness. And That, which we realize is Consciousness. Therefore, the emphasis of Advaitayana Yoga from the beginning, in the middle, and at the end is not on transformation but upon seeing, listening, understanding and welcoming all that is. From the non-dual perspective nothing needs to be changed in order for freedom to be ex-perienced. It takes effort to live our separateness. It takes no effort to be free. This is the final understanding of Advaitayana Yoga.

    Bede Griffiths (1997):
    "Advaita (nonduality) does not mean "one" in the sense of eliminating all differences. The differences are present in the one in a mysterious way. They are not separated anymore, and yet they are there."

    from Andrew Harvey, in "Dialogues With a Modern Mystic"
    Andrew Harvey and Mark Matousek:
    Advaita is not monism. Advaita means "not-two." We and the universe are not "one": then all distinctions would be destroyed. We are "not-two," intricately interrelated with everything, both separate, unique *and* united. The astonishment of this dance of "not-two" grows slowly as the mind and heart open in divine love and wisdom. Imagine that there was a heap of gold and a skillful smith. The smith made fir trees, geraniums, tables, human beings, lamps. Every object had a different shape, a different purpose and identity but was made of the same thing. Look at the sea. All waves are rising and falling differently, in different rhythms, with different volumes. Some catch the light some do not. You can see the separations between the waves but what you also see quite clearly is that all the waves are water. That is what the knowledge of "not-two" is like. Things retain the separateness which the senses give them, which we use to negotiate this reality, but the illumined mind knows that all things are Brahman, waves of one infinite sea of light. You know, in other words, that you and everything and the light that is at all times manifesting everything are "not-two," and "you" come to exist normally on all levels of the divine creation, and meet "yourself" in all states, events, conditions, beings. This is sahaja, spontaneous negotiation of and union with all dimensions at all moments. Nisargadatta Maharaj explains most lucidly the marvelous transitions to this state: "When the I am myself goes, the I am all comes. When the I am all goes, the I am comes. When even I am goes, Reality alone is and in it every am is preserved and glorified."

    It is wonderful that this the most ultimate and holy of all possible experiences in this world, that of unity, of advaita, has to be enjoyed by everyone in their own profound solitude, at that diamond point of solitude at which everyone secretly joins and meets God and each other and all things. This final experience kept for this most sacred and secret moment and is too vast an precious to be ever completely communicated. This is the moment when the created one returns to the source of creation the moment at which all laws, dogmas and techniques that helped the mystic arrive at that diamond point vanish in the silence of return to origin.

    Lex Hixon:
    "Basically, non-duality is a continual correction of dualistic conceptions as they arise. It's a spontaneous process which, without judgment, playfully erases lines of division as they arise. You can't have a map without lines of division, certainly. Celebrating non-duality is pre-mapping or post-mapping. It doesn't negate mapping, because when you have a good map, there's the paper right behind it, giving it vividness and making it readable. How to get to this conscious state of being the paper? We have to be extremely careful about the language we use here. There are no energetics, no dynamics, no structures in non-duality. These come later. If our structural social forms are consciously rooted in the celebration of non-duality, they can be more energetic, more dynamic, more kind, more insightful."

    top of page

    Charlene Spretnak:

    Karen Osborne Pope discusses 'Ecofeminist alternatives to interpreting the World'...

    In a dualistic world view, you might have femininity/ nature/body/emotion/connectedness/receptivity/the-private-sphere -vs.- masculinity/culture/ mind(spirit)/reason/autonomy /aggressiveness/the-public-sphere.

    Ecofeminist philosophers consider various alternative conceptualizations of a relational, interdependent understanding of reality.

    Charlene Spretnak defines her philosophical radical nonduality as "the existence of unitive dimensions of being, a gestalt of a subtle, unitary field of form, motion, space, and time."

    Rationalism denies organicism: if you think you can't feel The self as separate rejects the unitive notion of being "one with the universe" According to Spretnak, nonduality "mean(s) a dynamic system of relations wherein any particular manifestation functions simultaneously as a distinct part AND the unbroken whole. The parts are not derivative of the whole, nor vice versa. Each aspect constitutes the other. " Metaphors of a web or a net are often used by nondualists, but they seem to me not quite dynamic enough to convey subtle processes of wholeness and diversity, of nonduality and particularity.

    Justin Stone:
    T'ai Chi Chih and Non-Duality

    "Advaita" in Sanskrit means "Non-Duality." This is a difficult concept for most people as we look about us and see multiple objects. But what we see are only transformations not permanent forms, whether we are speaking of a chair, a tree, or a human being. Each exists provisionally, but is certainly not lasting. One day the tree may become the chair and the human body will be eaten by worms. The "I" that observes all this may disappear and become another "I". To bank on permanence is to promote suffering. When we perform T'ai Chi Chih properly we feel the results. Since we are, essentially, a conflux of moving energies, stimulating and balancing the Intrinsic Energy (CHI) affects our whole being. The effects seem to be personal, but, in truth, they are widespread. Just as our Enlightenment is "Saving All Beings", so does the balancing of the Universal Energy affect both the outer and the inner. So many students have written me about how their lives have changed with the practice of T'ai Chi Chih! Those who truly practice note that their attitudes change--and others notice it, too. We do not heal symptoms; we become "whole". So, to practice regularly and sincerely is to promote the positive in this world; we reap the benefits. This is "Advaita" in action.

    David R. Hawkins:
    see <www.uni-verse.net/Website/P...force.htm> for background information.

    Non-duality: Historically, all observers who have reached a consciousness level over 600 have described the reality now suggested by advanced scientific theory. When the limitation of a fixed locus of perception is transcended, there is no longer an illusion of separation nor of space and time as we know them. All things exist simultaneously in the unmanifest, enfolded, implicit universe, expressing itself as the manifest, unfolded, explicit perception of form. These forms in reality have no intrinsic independent existence but are the product of perception (i.e., man is merely experiencing the content of his own mind.) On the level of non-duality there is observing but no observer, as subject and object are one. You-and-I becomes the One Self experiencing all as divine. At level 700 it can only be said that "All is;" the state is one of Being-ness; all is consciousness, which is life, which is infinite, which is God and which has no parts nor beginning or end. The physical body is a manifestation of the One Self which, in experiencing this dimension, had temporarily forgotten its reality, thus permitting the illusion of a three-dimensional world. The body is merely a means of communication; to identify one's self with the body as "I' is the fate of the unenlightened, who then erroneously deduce that they are mortal and subject to death. Death itself is an illusion based on the false identification with the body as "I." In non-duality, consciousness experiences itself as both manifest and unmanifest, yet there is no experiencer. In this Reality the only thing that has a beginning and an ending is the act of perception itself. In the illusory world, we are like the fool who believes that things come into existence when he opens his eyes and cease to exist when he closes them.

    For a deeper look into Hawkins' work and its connection to martial arts, see the following articles by Gene Poole. Of course, the reader might want to purchase Hawkins's book, which can be done via the link at the beginning of this paragraph.

    September 11: Reacting to 911: Power Vs. Force
    Continuation of Discussion on Power Vs. Force

    A Saddhu's Reminiscenses of Ramana Maharshi
    By Saddhu Arunachala (A.W. Chadwick)

    Now Advaita is not the same as is usually meant by Monism ,nor is it some catch-word to avoid difficulties.The word means , of course , Not-Two,but this is not the equivalent for One , though to the casual thinker it is not easy to see where the differences lies. But if we call it Monism then premising one we infer a whole series , one,two,three etc. Not such series actually exists , there is just Not-Two.

    When we see things we see duality ; in one sense this duality is not unreal , it is only unreal in the sense that there is Not-Two. It is there in appearance but yet is imparmanent and fleeting.

    This fleeting manifestation is called Maya , which is often taken to mean illusion, but actually means "that which is not," or which sets a limit to the limitless. In fact everything we sense (everything being in the mind , and the senses only the instrument of the mind. )

    For as a matter of fact there is no illusion, only impermanence.

    The Lama Yeshe Experience: Buddhist Ways of Thought
    Question/Answer Lectures by Lama Thubten Yeshe
    Compiled from various sources by Champa Legshe (Hans Taeger)
    www.iol.ie/~taeger/yesh...yesheque.html

    Non-Dual Awareness/Nirvana

    Lama Yeshe: When you contemplate your own consciousness with intense awareness, leaving aside all thoughts of good and bad, you are automatically led to the experience of non-duality. How is this possible? Think of it like this: the clean clear blue sky is like consciousness, while the smoke and pollution pumped into the sky are like the unnatural, artificial concepts manufactured by ego-grasping ignorance. Now, even though we say the pollutants are contaminating the atmosphere, the sky itself never really becomes contaminated by the pollution. The sky and the pollution each retain their own characteristic nature. In other words, on a fundamental level the sky remains unaffected no matter how much toxic energy enters it. The proof of this is that when conditions change, the sky can become clear once again. In the same way, no matter how many problems maybe created by artificial ego concepts, they never affect the clean clear nature of our consciousness itself. From the relative point of view, our consciousness remains pure because its clear nature never becomes mixed with the nature of confusion.

    From an ultimate point of view as well, our consciousness always remains clear and pure. The non-dual characteristic of the mind is never damaged by the dualistic concepts that arise in it. In this respect consciousness is pure, always was pure and will always remain pure. We can compare positive states of mind to water at rest and deluded states of mind to turbulent, boiling water. If we investigate the nature of the boiling water we will discover that, despite the turbulence, each individual droplet is still clear. The same is true of the mind: wether it is calm or boiled into turbulence by the overwhelming complexity of dualistic views, its basic nature reamains clear and conscious.

    The conclusion, the, is that we all have the capacity to move from the confused, polluted state of ego-conflict to the natural clean clear state of pure consciousness itself. We should never think that our mind has somehow become irreversibly contaminated. This is impossible. If we can train ourselves to identify and enter into the natural, unaffected state of our consciousness, we will eventually experience the freedom of non-dual awareness.

    Aziz:

    The essence of the Non-dual perception is the desire of a particular Me to identify itself with the Source and the Totality of Creation. In awakening to the Oneness, which is Enlightenment, Me may wish to negate its very own existence. Me wants deeply to dissolve its identity within the ocean of Existence. The personal wants to become the Impersonal, the Universal.

    So the question arises: can Me really negate its own existence? Can it simply disappear in the experience of Wholeness? At this point one can see that Truth and Reality are subject to the interpretation of the individual Me with its unique psychology and desire to position itself in a way that suits its intelligence best. But one thing is clearly certain: for any proclamation of I am That to take place, the individual Me has got to be there to proclaim it. How could the Universal be expressed, without the existence of the particular? Me is the experiencer of all states and cannot cease to be present. When Me dissolves, one returns to the Original State, prior to consciousness.

    Me is that which allows us to experience the I AM. The I AM which one experiences is not Me it is that which created Me. One can never become the Creator. It is true that Self-realization is a state of complete Oneness with the universal I AM, but Me which experiences this Oneness is not this I AM. Me can disidentify with the whole universe, but is not able to identify with its Creator. The Self-realized Me rests upon the Ultimate Subjectivity and experiences it through itself. Me cannot become the Ultimate, no matter how deeply it is awakened to the dimension of Pure Rest and Wholeness. Why? For the very simple reason that Me always, regardless of the State it is in, feels itself.

    The philosophy of Non-duality traditionally was designed to negate the essential presence of Me in all states and levels of experience. The nature of Me, is from a certain perspective, much more subtle than all the inner states, for it is the Nearest. Me cannot simply disappear in any state, for without Me the experience of that very state vanishes. What I am is not eternal though it evolves eternally within the universal I AM. It is born and it dies. It dies, and is reborn into a new Me. Me expands infinitely into the vastness of the Universal Intelligence. It is the journey of the Spirit into the ultimate experience of love, beauty and happiness.

    It is possible to call the Creation an illusion, the Creator -- emptiness, and the Soul - - non-existent. This would be the shortest way to the impersonal. Seemingly, the impersonal is reached by the impersonal and dissolves into the impersonal. This is the ideal of Non-duality. But in truth, to meet the impersonal face to face, the personal must be there to face it. Here, the ultimate duality serves its supreme purpose, and Me rests in full acceptance of its supreme dual existence and truth.

    Non-duality, without the awakening to Me, represents the Wholeness of Perception in which Me refuses to see itself as a dynamic and alive center of identity behind the Perceived. When Me is awakened to itself for the first time, the new and true Non- dual vision of reality is apperceived. In this apperception, the Wholeness embraces its very experiencer, the unique Soul, the intimate heart of Me, as itself. This Me is an indivisible part of the Ultimate Seeing. The Non-dual Perception is not the end of Seeing. The evolution into the Seeing of Reality does not have an end. And this evolution can take place only through the Me, the mysterious perceiver of the Universal I AM. This Perceiver is not separated from the Wholeness. It is this part of the Totality through which the Now becomes the Seen.

    Harold Stewart

    www.horai.asn.au/index.htm (link no longer works)

    The Buddha, from his Centre of All-Knowledge, or sarvatha-jnana, can contemplate all things simultaneously in the Eternal Present. The Metaphysical is only apparently opposed to the physical, for in reality it subsumes its contrary. To the outlook of an Enlightened One, Nirvana is Samsara and Samsara is Nirvana; but to the unenlightened, the nonduality of these opposites has not yet been realized and so such schematic devices and distinctive categories still have their uses as upaya, or skilful means for leading to that Realization. Just as Earth acts outwardly, whereas the influence of Heaven is from within, so in the natural world beauty is external, whilst it is the inmost quality of the Divine. Thus the lowest level of sensory beauty should be regarded as an aspect of Supernal Beauty. The spiritual is not in opposition to the sensory: it is the despiritualized secular world alone that is illusory and false.

    This nonduality of Samsara and Nirvana is brought out by a famous passage in the Heart of Transcendental Wisdom Sutra, the Prajnaparamita-hrdaya-sutra (called Hannya Shingyo in Japanese): ‘Form is Void and Void is Form; what is Void that is Form, and what is Form that is Void; Form is no other than Void and Void is no other than Form’. This Mahayana view, which was theoretically developed in the Madhyamaka dialectic of Nagarjuna, has long been acclimatized in China and has provided the Metaphysical foundation for most schools of Japanese Buddhism.

    Woven reflections of silence and stillness






    • Re: The Part that Speaks to Me...

      Tue, March 13, 2007 - 6:02 AM
      This was interesting also:

      Frida Kahlo: a search for identity in the midst of duality


      by Amie R. Colonna for Modern Mexican Painting, University of Pittsburgh 10 June 1996


      The period between 1934 and 1940 was tumultuous for Frida Kahlo. Although her husband, Diego Rivera, had been unfaithful in the past, an affair with her sister Cristina was too much for her to bear. During this period she separated from twice and then divorced Rivera at his request. In addition, her various health problems continued to plague her; she required several operations at this time, including an abortion. All of this wracked havoc on her delicate sense of self-esteem. Despite an excellent reception to her art both at home and abroad, she felt she was nothing without Diego.

      It was during this time that Frida began a series of paintings which delved into the roots of her selfdom. As she was a mestiza, she was having something of an identity crisis, along with the rest of post-revolutionary Mexico. Her personal experience was completely analogous with the restlessness and confusion of her beloved homeland. Most of the population was a mix of Spanish and the indigenous peoples to some degree. (Frida's husband even had a claim to a title in Spain which he sold to a cousin for funds to continue his painting in Europe.)

      Most of the "mixing" had occurred several generations before, but Frida had the problem of being a first generation mestiza with of the identity problems inherent in a mixed heritage. Her father was a German Jew and her mother was an indigenous Mexican/Spanish mix. After the revolution, Mexico tried to reassert its pre-Conquest sense of self for a new, nationalistic cultural identity with Pre-Columbian society as its model. All things Eurocentric were reviled. Frida as "the patriot," therefore, had the task of trying to reconcile her Mexican self with her European self in her search for wholeness.

      This tendency was first explored in My Grandparents, My Parents, and I (Family Tree) which she executed in 1936. In this painting, she illustrates busts of her Mexican maternal and German paternal grandparents connected to her parents via a blood-like red ribbon which she (as a naked child) holds at the center of the composition. Her mother and father are in their wedding garb whose formality is undercut by the anatomically-correct fetus superimposed on her mother's portrait. A sperm cell fertilizing an egg furthers this idea of fertility and reproduction. Frida stands stoically in the middle courtyard of Casa Azul, the house in which she was born (and later died). Her home lies poised between the exotic landscape of Mexico and the sea, implying her family's European ties. In this painting, Frida does not yet seem to be questioning her origins so much as showing herself as the culmination of them. Still, the delicate balance between her two worlds is inherent.

      Her next candidate for the series is My Wet Nurse and I (1937). The dichotomy between her Mexican and European selves is apparent. She had always felt that weakness stemmed from her German blood. In this painting, a wet nurse with an Aztec mask nurses an infant Frida in European garb with an adult head. The landscape is lush with vegetation and the sky is raining milk upon them. Milk drips from both breasts as well (a recurrent theme of hers); the breast she is nursing from has vegetation superimposed on it, emphasizing both fertility and nourishment.

      This image is fascinating for many reasons. The composition is in many ways traditional, evoking icons of the Madonna and Child. In this vein, even the adult head is not odd as medieval art often showed "Man-child" images of Christ with his Mother. Yet the traditional religious imagery is at odds with the blatant pagan aspect of the Earth as mother. Some believe the nurse is a metaphor for Frida herself, with the indigenous side of her personality lending strength and sustenance to her weaker, European self. Others feel it may be a reference to her Mexican mother. This ambiguity cropped up earlier when she painted My Birth around the time of her mother's last illness and death. Regardless of the various biographical readings, the schism between her selves was becoming more obvious in her work.

      The apex of the series is The Two Fridas (1939). After returning home from an exhibit of her work in Paris, she divorced Rivera. This painting illustrating a literal split between her two selves is from this period of turmoil and self-doubt. The composition is striking. On the right is the Mexican Frida in traditional tehuana dress. On the left is European Frida in a colonial white dress, possibly intended to be wedding garb (it is similar in many ways to her mother's wedding dress in "Family Tree"). The two women are seated on a green bench, holding hands. The anatomy of their hearts is superimposed on them both; the one belonging to the European self is seen through a hole in her dress at the breast. A blood line originates at a cameo of Diego as a child held by the Frida on the right. It twines between them both and is ultimately terminated by a medical implement held by the Frida on the left. Blood stains intermingle with the red flowers at the hem of the dress.

      This is the painting for which she is best known. Certainly, it is one of the largest (27" x 27") which makes it all the more notable. Also, it is one of the few self-portraits she has done in which she is seen in full. The serene clouds and placid look on the two faces is juxtaposed with the graphic medical imagery to illustrate her internal conflict. The composition is so balanced that the hem of the tehuana skirt is our only cue that she is feeling vulnerabilities which she has come to symbolize with her European incarnation. The efforts of the Mexican self to nurture the second frida have been thwarted by the weaker half.

      It is interesting to note that Diego loved and encouraged Frida to dress in the native style that was in en vogue at this time. In fact, Kahlo kept up the style long after it had gone out of fashion to make it uniquely her own. Yet Frida associated her indigenous self with Rivera. Hence, after their initial split, she abandoned her traditional garb and cut her hair as an act of rebellion.

      After their reconciliation and remarriage in 1940, Frida again took to wearing her native costumes. It would seem that her internal war, on this matter at least, had been won, if only temporarily. Continued self-portraits in native dress coupled with Mexican landscapes and still lifes strongly support this.

      It is only when her health seriously begins to decline again in 1946 that the topic of duality is broached again with Tree of Hope, Stay Strong. Kahlo reintroduces dual depictions of herself. Her European self is lying on a gurney, her bloody back towards the viewer. On the right is her indigenous self, long identified as her inner source of strength, dressed in a red tehuana dress. She is holding an ex-voto style banner with the title in one hand and a metal corset not unlike the one worn in The Broken Column (of two years earlier) in the other. The idea of duality is further heightened by the differentiation between day and night to divide the composition in half. In the background is the metaphoric barren Mexican landscape which is a hallmark of much of her more surrealistic work.

      It is not odd that the splintering of self occurs again in this period. Although her life with Rivera had become more stable in their second marriage, her health had taken a downward swing from which she never fully recovered. All of her self-portraits at this time emphasize her pain. Kahlo was having problems with chronic recurrent depression, alcohol abuse, and addiction to many of her prescription pain killers. Much of her painting was done in a specially made easel so she could paint while confined to her bed. Rivera was spending much of his time away to work on his own art, so she was alone for much of this ordeal. Hence, much of her self-doubt and insecurities were resurfacing in her art.

      Although Kahlo's work is intensely autobiographical on the surface, it can be seen as her own patriotic metaphor. Her work was able to transcend the personal to have political and national relevance. Frida held her self up, both in her art and her life, as the ideal post-Revolutionary Mexican. She was politically active right up until her death in 1954. In her home, she surrounded herself with an ever-growing collection Pre-Columbian folk art and indigenous crafts. Frida wrote her own role as the proto-typical Mexican and she played it meticulously. Kahlo meant for her art as well as her life to serve as the example that her "split-personality syndrome" homeland so desperately needed. In exploring and attempting to heal her own schism between worlds with her paintings, she helped Mexico to heal its own.

      references

      lecture notes, Modern Mexican Painting, University of Pittsburgh 1996

      Herrera, Hayden. Frida Kahlo: The Paintings
      HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. New York 1991

      Rivera, Diego. My Art, My Life: An Autobiography (with Gladys March)
      Dover Publications, Inc. New York 1991

      Schrimer's Visual Library. Frida Kahlo: Masterpieces
      W. W. Norton, Munich 1994
      • Re: The Part that Speaks to Me...

        Tue, March 13, 2007 - 6:03 AM
        THE MEANING OF ELECTRON WAVES


        When electrons pass through a double slit and strike a screen behind the slits, an interference pattern of bright and dark bands is formed on the screen. This proves that electrons act like waves, at least while they are propagating (traveling) through the slits and to the screen. When an electron hits the screen, it produces a flash of light at just one place on the screen. The bright and dark bands are the result of the flashes of light produced by many electrons hitting the screen. Note that "hitting the screen" is an interaction, and the electron therefore acts like a particle with a definite position when it hits.

        Recall that the bright bands in an interference pattern are found where a crest of the wave from one slit adds with a crest of the wave from the other slit. The dark bands are found where a crest of the wave from one slit cancels with a trough of a wave from the other slit. The amazing thing is that the electron wave interference pattern is formed even if only one electron at a time passes through the slit. This can only happen if each individual electron passes through both slits at the same time. After all, the wave from just one slit can't form an interference pattern since two waves are needed to add or cancel. (If an electron passing through both slits doesn't seem possible, it is probably because you are thinking of the electron as a particle. Remember, an electron behaves like a wave as it travels, and an electron wave can easily pass through both slits at the same time, just as a water wave could.)

        This provides an interpretation of what the electron waves are. Each individual electron "knows" about the interference pattern, since the pattern can be built up by electrons passing one at a time through the slits. Therefore the electron wave can't tell you where an electron is, or where it will hit the screen. This is because the electron wave is spread over the entire screen (the interference pattern), while the electron itself strikes the screen and produces a flash of light at just one location. The electron wave, then, does not say where the electron will be found, only where it may be found. Electron waves (and matter waves in general) are probability waves. There is a high probability of finding the electron where the wave is large, and a small probability of finding the particle where the wave is small. (Nit-picking detail: since there can't be negative probabilities, the probability of finding the electron is actually given by the square of the size of the wave.)

        The implications of this (which are described in Chapter 6 of Richard Feynman's The Character of Physical Law) are staggering. If everything in nature exhibits the wave-particle duality and is described by probability waves, then nothing in nature is absolutely certain. We can only talk about how nature will probably behave. Of course, the probability that Newton's laws will be obeyed for large objects like baseballs is very, very, very nearly a certainty. But certainty does not describe nature on a small scale, the scale of atoms, molecules, electric circuits, and neural pathways. For example, we cannot predict where a given electron will strike the screen after passing through a double slit. We can only say that there is a high probability it will strike in one of the bright bands of the interference pattern, and a low probability it will strike in one of the dark bands. Identical electrons following identical paths to the slits will hit the screen in different locations. Nature herself does not know where an electron will strike the screen before the electron actually hits.







        DESCRIBING MATTER (PROBABILITY) WAVES


        In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger invented a wave equation that could be applied to any physical system. The equation has more than one solution, and each solution to the Schrödinger equation is a probability wave that describes one of the possible behaviors of that system. (The technical name for one of these solutions is a quantum state. Quantum state = matter wave = probability wave; they all mean the same thing.) For example, each wave solution to the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom describes one of the allowed electron orbits of the hydrogen atom. The energy and radius of each electron orbit agree with those calculated by Niels Bohr in 1913, but without using Bohr's rule. (In fact, in addition to Bohr's rule being "not too obvious," it is not correct! Bohr was lucky because the way in which his rule was wrong did not affect his values of the orbital energies and radii.) The figures on p 213/296 of Seven Ideas That Shook the Universe (1st/2nd ed) show a few of the probability wave solutions (quantum states) for the electron in the hydrogen atom. The electron will actually be found in only one of the possible quantum states. For each quantum state, you can calculate where the electron is most likely to be found. In these figures, the electron is more likely to be found where the shading is darker. In a chemistry class, you may have heard these quantum states referred to as "orbitals" or "shells."

        In 1927, Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac combined the Schrödinger equation with Albert Einstein's theory of relativity to get a new equation. Like the solutions to the Schrödinger equation, the solutions to the Dirac equation are probability waves, but Dirac's waves incorporate relativity and are in better agreement with how nature behaves. For example, when applied to hydrogen and other atoms, the Dirac equation provides a more complete description and results in a complete understanding of the periodic table of the elements used by chemists.

        When he applied his equation to a free electron (an electron not attached to an atom), Dirac saw that the solutions predicted the existence of antielectrons (also called positrons). A positron has the same mass as an electron, but it has a positive electric charge instead of a negative charge. Dirac's prediction was right; positrons were observed experimentally in 1932. We now know that every type of particle has a corresponding antiparticle with the opposite electric charge. When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they completely annihilate each other. They materially cancel each other out and vanish from existence. Their mass is converted into light according to E = mc2, and we see two photons flee the scene where the two particles mutually annihilated. This is called matter-antimatter annihilation.

        You may wonder what sort of container you could keep a collection of positrons in. The container couldn't be made of matter, since the positrons would annihilate with the electrons in the atoms of the container. Physicists use magnetic fields to confine positrons, a sort of magnetic bottle that keeps the positrons from coming into contact with normal matter.







        THE WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY OF NATURE


        What does it mean to say that an object, such as an electron or a baseball, exhibits a wave-particle duality? Waves and particles seem so different. In fact, the wave and particle characteristics of any object are complementary, in the sense that the wave and the particle characteristics are never exhibited at the same time. An object may behave like a wave or like a particle, but never both simultaneously.

        Which aspect of its nature an object displays depends on the experiment that is performed. The double-slit experiment shows the wave aspect of the electron, while the photoelectric effect shows the electron's particle aspect. If an experiment is an interrogation of nature, then you get what you interrogate for. This means that there is not objective reality "out there," independent of us. The world does not unfold as a drama does on the stage, independent of the audience. Nature behaves differently depending on the questions we ask of it. We live in a participatory reality, not an objective reality from which we can separate ourselves. To observe the physical world we must interact with it, and the nature of this interaction determines how nature responds.

        Let's examine an essential difference between waves and particles:

        Waves are spread out, like the pure sine wave shown below.



        Particles are localized; they have a definite location, like the particle shown below.



        However, suppose we try adding together several pure sine waves of different wavelengths to form a resultant wave. ("Resultant" just means it is the result of adding the pure sine waves.) In some places, the crests will all add up. In other places, the crests of some of the waves will cancel the troughs of the other waves.



        Note that the resultant wave is large only within a small region of space. In other word, adding pure sine waves of different wavelengths produces a resultant wave that is localized. The more sine waves you add together, the more the resultant wave will be localized.

        Now let's ask, what is the momentum of the object that is represented by our waves? We will use de Broglie's idea that

        momentum = h / wavelength

        A pure sine wave has a precise wavelength, and so the object represented by a sine wave has a precise momentum. But a pure sine wave keeps going forever in both directions; it is not at all localized. Therefore we are perfectly uncertain about where the object is!

        Adding together several pure sine waves with different wavelengths produces a resultant wave that is somewhat localized. The more sine waves you add together, the more the resultant wave will be localized, and the less uncertainty there will be about the object's location. However, what is the momentum of the object represented by the resultant wave? The resultant wave contains a spread of wavelengths (the wavelengths of the sine waves), and it is not clear which wavelength goes into de Broglie's formula. Thus there is some uncertainty about the object's momentum. If you add more sine waves together, the resultant wave will be more localized, but there will also be more of an uncertainty in the wavelength and momentum of the object represented by the resultant wave.

        Werner Heisenberg realized that the wave-particle duality of nature implied that there was a natural tradeoff between knowing an object's position and knowing it's momentum. The greater the uncertainty in an object's particle's position, the smaller the uncertainty in its momentum. It is impossible to predict, measure, or know both the exact position of an object and its exact momentum at the same time. In fact, an object does not have an exact position and momentum at the same time! This is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it is a natural consequence of the wave-particle duality of nature. Recalling that a particle's momentum is just its (mass) x (velocity), Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that an object does not have an exact position and velocity at the same time.

        This deals a fatal blow to the Newtonian clockwork universe. The idea of a deterministic universe was that if we could know the exact position and velocity of every atom in the universe, then the entire history of the universe could be calculated, at least in principle. Heisenberg's principle demolishes that idea, because nothing in the universe has an exact position and an exact velocity. The future is not determined, not in fact and not in principle. Nature simply does not know how the future will unfold.

        Quantum physics does not explain our human free will, but it does free us from the shackles of a deterministic universe. Today's electronics uses the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in certain devices; it is not unreasonable to believe that it must also affect neural pathways in the brain. Modern physics shows that the brain is not deterministic; our future thoughts are not determined by our past thoughts or by our environment. But modern physics cannot even begin to explain how Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, or how Stoppard wrote Arcadia. Free will remains a profound mystery.


        • Re: The Part that Speaks to Me...

          Fri, April 27, 2007 - 8:19 AM
          that's a whole lot to read, Scott!.....

          the way I see it is that 'duality' is a powerful tool ~ it has taken us pretty far ~ but it does tend to get overused a bit & because of it's 'popularity' bunches of people seem to have forgotten that we have more than one tool for consciousness at our disposal.....

          here's a poem that I wrote a few years ago titled "Duality"

          I wanted to be your savior
          To inspire you to fly.
          I wanted to be your muse
          And push you toward the sky.
          I wanted to help you take a step forward
          Over to the other side.
          I wanted you on the roller-coaster
          And to enjoy the ride.

          But then you became my savior
          You taught me how to fly.
          You became my muse
          And now I've touched the sky.
          I took that step forward
          And found you waiting on the other side.
          I got on the roller-coaster
          And it's been one hell of a ride.

          I tried to make that connection.
          I tried to set you free.
          But when I opened your door
          I found I was staring at me.


          love all-ways,
          mem
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: The Part that Speaks to Me...

            Fri, April 27, 2007 - 11:33 AM
            Gangaji on nonduality:

            www.youtube.com/watch

            I've always thought that "nonduality" is an interesting term. In and of itself, it is dualistic.

            Non-Duality = Anti-Duality = Against Duality!

            This is an oxymoron; a self-contradiction. This goes to show the subtle and insidious nature of the mind for splitting things into two, even when it's dealing with the concept of wholeness! Perhaps that's why Ken Wilbur's Nondual teachings are instead called (by him) "Integral" teachings.
            • Re: The Part that Speaks to Me...

              Tue, May 1, 2007 - 10:52 AM
              That was so beautiful, MaryEllen! (sniff)
              Vinny, I probably said what I think on limited knowledge, but with limited time and unprecedented challenges, I forgot where, that I always wondered if Non Duality was the realization and understanding of duality.

Recent topics in "Spirituality=Materialism"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
The New Golden Calf (The) 4 May 5, 2008
Energy Vampires Spirit Wolf 12 February 19, 2008
Make mine Marvel! (The) 0 January 15, 2008
Why (The) 19 December 28, 2007