Yin Qi vs Yang Qi

[Todd]

Todd wrote, "Real understanding works on multiple levels, not just the absolute."

 

My way of hearing or using quotes is always about the quote,...I don't attack messengers, because I don't agree with a quote, nor do I toss away quotes out-of-hand just because I disagree with the messenger.

 

In regards to "Real understanding works on multiple levels"....Osho said, certainly it has given consulation, but consolation is not the right thing,...consulation is opium; it keeps you unaware of reality"

 

But the absolute! That's something which point to unchanging truth,...no distractions trying to understanding the uncondition through conditions,...as if that could ever occur anyway.

 

Goethe said, "Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it."

 

I'm always looking out for those few,...those with a passion for truth, no matter what. Not personal truth, relative truth, empirical or object-ive truth,...but the unchangeable, absolute truth.

 

 

 

If it doesn't work on multiple levels, it is partial, it is divided light. It is the thing that you were denouncing in another thread, when you said that we cannot take one half of the duality, such as good and try to emphasize that as if the bad does not exist. That denies Wholeness.

 

Undivided Light is not separate from divided light. Divided light exists within Undividied Light, and Undivided Light exists within divided light. There is no separation. This is not a merging or a unification, or even a One, though that word is just as good as Undivided Light, which is just as good as the Dark.

 

Are you familiar with those Mandlebrot set pictures? What you are calling Undivided Light, the way that you are focusing on it, is like the black area in the center of the picture. That area represents all of the solutions that are equal to infinity (if I remember correctly). There is another area around the outside, which is relatively simple, just layers of colors representing different values. At the border of the two, the colors representing knowable values, and the black, representing infinity, is where all of the interesting stuff happens. One might say this is where the experience of life happens. In that area, one can zoom in and zoom in and zoom in, and as long as one continues to zoom in toward new edges that keep on appearing, then one can continue zooming into ever evolving complexity indefinitely. This is another kind of inifinity. Now this experience cannot exist without the relatively simple outside or the black inside, and also all of the values in the whole picture are included in the black infinity, but if you focus solely on the infinity, then you miss the potential that is inherent within it. The infinity is necessary, but so is the finite. The infinity is meaningless without the context of the finite, since it is actually the sum of all imaginable finite things.

 

Now that is just an analogy, and it has its problems, but it is also instructive.

 

I understand the drive to know the Undivided Light and the desire to point others in this direction. You have decided that since when you were solely focused on the divided light you did not know the Undivided Light, then that means that the divided light hides the Undivided Light, or is somehow a mistake, or at least not preferable (am I wrong in this?). But in the experience that you recounted of your introduction to Undivided Light, it did not have to be separate. You returned to the experience of divided light, without losing consciousness of Undivided Light. You experienced both movements in the space of a few hours-- going and coming. BOTH are essential. Trying to just go, even to Undivided Light, is silly, and freezes you in unhelpful ways.

 

The key is to find the Undivided Light within the divided light. This is not accomplished by choosing one side of the duality. Any compulsive cutting off/ignoring of aspects of existence is trying to choose one side of the duality. The falsehood that we need to see is that anything needs to be cut off, even falsehood. In seeing this, there is the space for realization. Duality resolves to Undivided Light and Undivided Light resolves into duality.

 

Do you think that dividing light was just a mistake?

[Kali Yuga]

He who makes a show is not

enlightened.

He who is self-righteous is not

respected.

 

Great intelligence seems stupid.

 

Great eloquence seems awkward.

 

-TTC

[Informer]

If it doesn't work on multiple levels, it is partial, it is divided light. It is the thing that you were denouncing in another thread, when you said that we cannot take one half of the duality, such as good and try to emphasize that as if the bad does not exist. That denies Wholeness.

 

Undivided Light is not separate from divided light. Divided light exists within Undividied Light, and Undivided Light exists within divided light. There is no separation. This is not a merging or a unification, or even a One, though that word is just as good as Undivided Light, which is just as good as the Dark.

 

Are you familiar with those Mandlebrot set pictures? What you are calling Undivided Light, the way that you are focusing on it, is like the black area in the center of the picture. That area represents all of the solutions that are equal to infinity (if I remember correctly). There is another area around the outside, which is relatively simple, just layers of colors representing different values. At the border of the two, the colors representing knowable values, and the black, representing infinity, is where all of the interesting stuff happens. One might say this is where the experience of life happens. In that area, one can zoom in and zoom in and zoom in, and as long as one continues to zoom in toward new edges that keep on appearing, then one can continue zooming into ever evolving complexity indefinitely. This is another kind of inifinity. Now this experience cannot exist without the relatively simple outside or the black inside, and also all of the values in the whole picture are included in the black infinity, but if you focus solely on the infinity, then you miss the potential that is inherent within it. The infinity is necessary, but so is the finite. The infinity is meaningless without the context of the finite, since it is actually the sum of all imaginable finite things.

 

Now that is just an analogy, and it has its problems, but it is also instructive.

 

I understand the drive to know the Undivided Light and the desire to point others in this direction. You have decided that since when you were solely focused on the divided light you did not know the Undivided Light, then that means that the divided light hides the Undivided Light, or is somehow a mistake, or at least not preferable (am I wrong in this?). But in the experience that you recounted of your introduction to Undivided Light, it did not have to be separate. You returned to the experience of divided light, without losing consciousness of Undivided Light. You experienced both movements in the space of a few hours-- going and coming. BOTH are essential. Trying to just go, even to Undivided Light, is silly, and freezes you in unhelpful ways.

 

The key is to find the Undivided Light within the divided light. This is not accomplished by choosing one side of the duality. Any compulsive cutting off/ignoring of aspects of existence is trying to choose one side of the duality. The falsehood that we need to see is that anything needs to be cut off, even falsehood. In seeing this, there is the space for realization. Duality resolves to Undivided Light and Undivided Light resolves into duality.

 

Do you think that dividing light was just a mistake?

 

Cool, Fractals Are found everywhere in nature and are backed up by science. There is much objective research currently going on in this regards..

 

The Golden Spiral and the golden ratio are what makes the Mandlebrot possible. Like the curve of a conch shell to the pattern in which a sunflower grows seeds, from the way that a tree's branches form to even these very bodies. Even entire ecosystems exhibit this very nature of nature.

 

The Fibonacci Sequence.

 

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/parveen/fib_nature.htm

[Stigweard]

Just an inquiry to Vmarco

 

Why is it that these hexagrams are said to portray true harmony??

 

 

 

And why would some Daoist say that it is better if the woman is on top during sexual intercourse??

 

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

The Golden Spiral and the golden ratio....Like the curve of a conch shell to the pattern in which a sunflower grows seeds, from the way that a tree's branches form to even these very bodies. Even entire ecosystems exhibit this very nature of nature.

 

 

Yeap,...learned that when I was 6.

[Todd]

1.Denying Yin and accepting Yang, or visaversa, does not deny Wholeness,...Whole is beyond the sum of opposites,

 

You may pop into realization of wholeness by denying Yin and accepting Yang, or vice versa, but this is only because within both Yin and Yang is the Whole. You do not succeed in escaping either Yin or Yang, but eventually truly fail, and cannot escape admitting the inescapability of Wholeness. You might then call this Wholeness "True Yang" or "True Yin", but this would only be an arbitrary word choice and not reflect an actual state.

 

2. From Undivided Light's point of view, divided light does not even exist,...thus in that sense alone it is "not separate." Similar to how the lever of a playground see-saw is meaningless to its fulcrum. The fulcrum (Undivided Light) can be said to exist within duality, because duality effects its motion upon it,....but duality does not exist within the fulcrum. Conditions do not exist with the Unconditional.

 

There is a point of view in which nothing ever happened, but this is only one side of a duality, the other side being that there is only things happening. The point of view in which nothing ever happened can be thought of as a fulcrum, but inherent within this fulcrum is the happening. So for your analogy to be correct, the fulcrum would need to be within the see-saw and the see-saw would need to be within the fulcrum. The Unconditional depends on conditions for context, or else we could not know it as Unconditional. Conditions are implied by the Unconditional and the Unconditional is implied by conditions. They cannot be separated, and determinations of within and without don't actually apply, since there is no separation by means of which one could say that one is within the other. To say they are within each other is to speak of their interpenetration-- inseparability.

 

3. Mandlebrot sets show divided light, both light (yang) and dark (yin). The fulcrum is not seen, but only pointed to, as in when the "set" is seen to repeat.

 

4. Yes, infinity is meaningless without a context.

 

Infinity is another voguish belief topic among the object-ive minded. Theories of infinite space, time, and quantity are just more object-ive math. Definitions of infinity are related or relative to the concept of immeasurability in space, time, or quantity. However, if there is no space, time, or quantity, as implied by quantum cosmology, then there is no infinity. In contrast, the word eternity points to that which is without beginning or end, timelessness beyond the perception of space, time, and quantity. Recognizing the difference between infinity and eternity is inevitable for those shifting towards an earnest spiritual viewpoint and subsequently a clearer understanding of consciousness. Time and eternity are contradictions. A belief in time perpetuates the dream as a dream. Eternity points to a timeless present in which the dream is just a dream and does not actually exist.

 

Turns out I was wrong about what the colors represent in the Mandlebrot set. The black represents starting values, or locations, that remain bounded, or finite, as they are continually fed back into the equation that is used to determine the colors of the set. The colors represent different speeds at which given starting values escape to infinity as they are continually fed back into the equation. I actually like that arrangement a little bit more, with different grades of approaching infinity on the outside, but it still really boils down to the same thing, an interaction between the infinite and the finite, or the bound and the unbound, or Yin and Yang, if you will.

 

(For anyone who isn't familiar with the Mandlebrot set. The title of the video is not meant to be a dig, Vmarco, just happens to be the best short clip I could find )

 

The infinite is an implication of zero (a/0=infinity, where a=any non-zero number. To be simple, 1/0=infinity.) I believe elsewhere you have equated zero with Undivided Light, which you call the fulcrum. You say that this fulcrum cannot be found anywhere in the set, but is only suggested, such as when the set "repeats" itself. The set only "repeats" itself at the borders of the finite and the infinite, where they meet and mingle.

 

Time can be thought of as an experience of the finite, and eternity can be thought of as an experience or "gnowing" of that which gives rise to the infinite (i.e. zero). Zero implies the infinite, and the infinite implies the finite, so there can be no experience, or "gnowing" without all of the above. By analogy to the Mandlebrot set, one cannot find the fulcrum without either the infinite or the finite, since the infinite gives context to the finite and vice versa, and it is only through their interaction that we might recognize the deeper fulcrum.

 

This gets back to the question that I asked you before, and you did not respond to:

If it were not for human-centric appearance, how could you have recognized something non-human-centric?

 

Or, if it were not for time, how could you have recognized eternity?

 

5. I happened upon an inquiry into Undivided Light effortlessly and unwittingly during a period of surrender. Divided light, the moving light of duality, does obscure Undivided Light, because all oroducts of divided light, ie., skandhas, are incapable of detecting stillness,...they only detect motion.

 

Don't you find it interesting that you happened upon it in a moment of surrender, and not a moment of denying divided light? Apparently the divided light did not obscure it then, since it arose right in the middle of the divided experience. Is that not so?

 

6. No....my experiences with Undivided Light were not separate. Movement was not an issue. At other times I navigated movement through space by way of color indicating the speed and direction. At the level of Clear Light, which is beyond the Green Ray, there is no motion,...I found that motion is a consequence of the delusion of separation, which has an innate desire to return or unite with source, which it can never do, because it never existed. Wholeness is beyond the sum of opposites.

 

Yes, it is beyond, but it also includes. If it did not include, how could "gnowledge" of the Whole arise during an experience of any of its parts? If it "gnows" on its own, independent of the parts, then how is it that parts appear? If the parts are an appearance within it, then how is it separate from the appearance?

 

To say that they don't exist is only a point of view and makes no sense, since there is something that we are talking about, even if it is only an appearance. The appearance or the concept or the illusion exists, or else we could not talk about it.

 

7. What is existence? Is the dream of life existence? Any balance within duality, dissolves that aspect of dualty. Yes, I understand that people have a fetish for balance, but in the dual context of divided light, any balance between opposites is their dissolution. Undivided Light is not found or discovered, but uncovered.

 

"In pursuit of knowledge, every day something is acquired. In pursuit of wisdom, every day something is dropped." - Lao Tzu

 

Existence is the Dao, which cannot be named. But more concretely, with that caveat, existence is the capacity to experience. The dream of life is an aspect of existence.

 

Balance does not dissolve. It unfolds. See the Mandlebrot set example above. It is the extremes that dissolve into fixed meaninglessness, non-life, though not really.

 

Can Undivided Light really be covered? By what? How did it get separate?

 

If you will, please check out this chapter from the Daodejing, for more from Laozi, pertinent to our conversation and efforts: Chapter 77. The eleventh word should be "down", not "sown".

 

Finding the long and giving it to the world is a good analogy for the going and the return, don't you think?

 

8. No,...from one point of view, how can something that does not exist be a mistake?

 

V

 

Its non-existence is an extreme view, as discussed above.

 

---

 

After all the points have been made, let me paint a simpler picture. It often happens that we spend the bulk of our lives fixated upon the divided light, and when we relax this fixation (when we surrender, as you said, or when we let go of effort and remain interested in what is) then the Whole rushes into consciousness. The way this often happens is there is a strong shift to the opposite polarity (the Undivided Light) and that dominates experience for a time, and then something more balanced arises, something more in keeping in with the Whole, from and in which it can express itself quite freely. A very common mistake is to assume that the opposite polarity is where truth is, and what we had seen before was untruth. We then try to shift our experience to this opposite polarity. This can be useful, if we are not too forceful, but only shift our attention to that which we had been ignoring. It helps us to include more of the Whole. But what usually happens (which isn't really wrong) is that we end up ignoring the Whole just as much as before when we try to fixate on the opposite pole of a duality. And then where did our surrender go? And where did the whole go? And where did this struggle come from?

[Informer]

I think Todd and Vmarco both make good points.

 

What is it that keep nothing from annhilating everything and vice versa?

 

If we say for example "everything is nothing", and vice versa, everything is annhilated.

 

When anti-matter meets up with matter they are not annhilated necessarily but lose thier previously determined characteristics and become energy.

 

So what is this mediator that prevent the universe from exploding in a flash of light?

[Vmarco]

[Todd]

The conditions of yin and yang cannot enter the unconditionality of Wholeness.

 

They need not enter, since they are an aspect of it. If your account is true and the only real is the Unmanifest, then by what means is there an appearance? If you say delusion of divided light, then where does that come from? If you say it doesn't exist, then how are we talking about it?

 

2. Does anything really happen in a dream? Does anything really happen in a motion picture?

 

Yes. Appearances happen.

 

The fulcrum is not part of the see-saw, the lever, or see-saw, or yin-yang, simply effects its motion upon the fulcrum. That motion is always out of balance. The moment of balance of any opposites is their dissolution.

 

Your confusion is that you see balance of opposites as dissolution. Balance of opposites in life is the condition for endless manifestation, as in the edges between infinite and finite portions of the mandlebrot set.

 

Dissolution is the result of separation, as in the separation of Yin and Yang. This is the result of imbalance. The Yang becomes too powerful and it abandons Yin and flies up, or else the Yin becomes too powerful and it kicks out Yang and sinks down. You can also just see it as the separation of elements. All of this is relative.

 

The idea that conditions and the Unconditional are inseparable is thought (ego) seeking a permanent state,...but conditions are always impermanent.

 

The idea of the Unconditional is thought (ego) seeking a permanent state.

 

3. My first exposure to fractals was in 1959. after viewing (min.7:40 of

 

my grandfather discussed the Julia Sets. In the 80's I hung out with a group who did Fractal Riding experiencially with quite abit of success,...but that's another post.

 

I watched it the first time you linked to it in another thread. I enjoyed seeing it. Learned some new stuff.

 

I do not see what your history with fractals has to do with what we are discussing. My history is rather shallow and not particularly long (except that I was first exposed over twenty years ago, but that isn't worth much, since i didn't have much involvement with them during that time). If you feel that the way that I am using them as analogies is flawed, please share how.

 

 

3a Niels Bohr said that the idea of an obersver and an observed implied a human connection, which falsely gave the impression that human consciousness causes things into reality. The truth is, there is no need of human involvement in quantum physics

 

This is one viewpoint. Is there quantum physics without humans? Or without a sentient being?

 

 

The 6 senses can only observe motion,...the motion of divided light,...to observe Stillness or that which is related to Undivided Light, one must uncover their Unborn or unconditioned Awareness. There are many ways to do this. I mentioned some inpost #11 below

http://www.thetaobum..._1entry276730

 

Stillness, the Unborn and unconditioned Awareness cannot be observed. Senses, or experience, is necessary to give the context by which it may be gnown. Or else please give an example of an instance in which this gnowing has occurred without experience. There is always experience, before, during and after any conscious arising of gnowing. There is gnowing before it consciously arises, but it is inseprable from experience, even though it is itself not an experience.

 

Time is not needed for the Present, Now, or Instant.

 

Time is needed for you to type what you just did. It is also needed for a recognition of "the Present, Now, or Instant".

 

4. No,... My moment of surrender was a letting go of all characteristics of divided light and the skandhas which crystallize from it.

 

Which arose from the context of divided light and the skandhas which crystalize from it, which did not prevent the spontaneous surrender or that which it revealed.

 

Do you believe that there is no manifestation if we see through the self delusion within the five skandhas? If there is manifestation, then how does it hinder a recognition of Wholeness?

 

Bodhisattvas do not "hide their skills" or debate on "heaven"....but instead put off their own enlightenment for the sake of liberating sentient beings from suffering. "who can find the long and give it to the world only those who find the Way"...thus sages have obviously not found the way, for they "hide their skills."

 

Hiding skills is a separate issue that I do not want to get into. The point that was being made was that he was suggesting one not try to make one side of duality supreme (by taking from the short to give to the long), as most everyone seems to want to do, but that there should be a coming together. When one finds the long, one brings it to the world (the short in this case). Thus he does not advocate abandoning the world, by dismissing it as illusion, though I think that he definitely had the perception that causes people to say that the world is an illusion.

 

It doesn't really matter what duality you choose to favor one side of. All such favoring is more of the same and very common, even if it takes on "spiritual" hues. The version that you seem to have chosen is Undivided Light vs divided light. Absolute vs relative. You are saying, the only thing worthwhile is the absolute; the only thing that exists is the absolute. I am saying the absolute is worthwhile, but it is not really all that absolute, and trying to ignore the relative in favor of only the absolute is just more crazy making in different clothing.

 

 

7. Undivided Light is not an opposite polarity,...divided light manifests the opposite polarites, both yin and yang.

 

If you define Undivided Light as separate from appearances, then you have set up a duality.

 

 

 

Undivided Light is as crossing the human-centric delusion of the speed of light,....where time ceases and space dissolves to nothing.

 

 

What do you mean by "is as crossing"? Does this mean "can be roughly cognized in the

human-centric notion of the speed of light?"

 

I get the time ceasing and space dissolving into nothing thing. Time and space are both thoughts, or the result of thoughts. What is revealed in their absence is in no way separate from the thoughts that give rise to the perception of time and space. What is essential about what is revealed in their absence can be just as clear when they are present as when they are absent.

[JohnC]

[Kali Yuga]

Perrenial one upsmanship. Mental masturbation at its finest.

 

*fap fap fap fap*

[Vmarco]

[Golden Path]

I'm finding Qigong exercises based on

 

1. breath. creates more of a yang qi.

2. standing/alignment. creates more of a yin qi.

 

anyone else?

No it's not correct

[JohnC]

Yes John,...I was once upsidedown like you. It is quite difficult to be open to the possibility that everything you "thought" was meaningful, may actually be meaningless. But the proofs are right in front of us, 24/7. And as a primer, I previous made reference to a book (secret of light) found free on the internet, to help those afraid of being rightsideup to see duality's reality more clearly.

 

Perhaps it's because most are born upsidedown, that they continue to seek being upsidedown,...like an attachment to a brand of cereal.

 

But,...as Goethe said, "Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.” And Nietzsche, commenting on people who cling tightly to personal, individual truth, said, “What they really mean is ‘I don’t want to know the truth.’

V

 

OMG!

 

You used to be rightside upsidedown? But now are wrongside downsideup?

 

So whichside whatnow?

 

And isn't picking a position, nondual... and if this free book knows so well, then wouldn't it not know, since the tao you can point to isn't the tao?

 

And meaning is what you make it mean right? Or is it what I make it mean?

 

I mean.. I like cereal....

 

Man.. I just don't know... but I think I'm ok with that.

 

John

[Vmarco]

1 If your account is true and the only real is the Unmanifest, then by what means is there an appearance? If you say delusion of divided light, then where does that come from? If you say it doesn't exist, then how are we talking about it?

 

3Your confusion is that you see balance of opposites as dissolution. Balance of opposites in life is the condition for endless manifestation, as in the edges between infinite and finite portions of the mandlebrot set.

 

4The idea of the Unconditional is thought (ego) seeking a permanent state.

 

6This is one viewpoint. Is there quantum physics without humans? Or without a sentient being?

 

7Stillness, the Unborn and unconditioned Awareness cannot be observed. Senses, or experience, is necessary to give the context by which it may be gnown.

Time is needed for you to type what you just did. It is also needed for a recognition of "the Present, Now, or Instant".

 

8Do you believe that there is no manifestation if we see through the self delusion within the five skandhas? If there is manifestation, then how does it hinder a recognition of Wholeness?

 

9 When one finds the long, one brings it to the world (the short in this case). Thus he does not advocate abandoning the world, by dismissing it as illusion, though I think that he definitely had the perception that causes people to say that the world is an illusion.

 

10If you define Undivided Light as separate from appearances, then you have set up a duality.

 

What do you mean by "is as crossing"? Does this mean "can be roughly cognized in the

human-centric notion of the speed of light?"

 

 

1. Why does it matter? Do you think the first brush stroke of a painting would somehow disclose the essence of the painter?

 

3.No,...the confusion appears to be that you do not understand opposites. The sum of opposites is always zero,...just as all negatives added to all positives is 0. In the reality of duality, the inbalance of opposites is the condition for endless manifestation. What would occur if a see-saws lever was in balance,...motion would cease. All phenonena is in motion. Stop the motion, and all phenomena ends.

 

4 Yes, the idea or concept of the Unconditional is thought (ego), but that does not deny the reality of the Unconditional. Quantum cosmologists, Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle said that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time. Enlightened Bodhisattva's been saying that for a few thousand years through understanding the Unconditional.

 

6. Why are humans so arrogant to believe that the universe would not be without them. Were there humans before dinosaurs? Will there be an earth if Christian Fascists (Tea Party patriots) take over the planet and annilate everyone for Jesus. Is non-sentient consciousness depended on humanity.

 

7. Yes, Unborn Awareness can be observed, just not through the skandhas. The 6 senses can only observe motion,...so obviously, the observer of the Unborn Awareness, that is, awareness beyond belief, is not of the 6 senses. Nothing can be GNOWN through the skandhas,...but only KNOWN. Gnowledge does not arise from the brain,...only knowledge arises from the brain.

 

And no,...time is not needed to recognize the Present,...although through time, the absence of the Present can be recognized.

 

8 First,...I'm not into beliefs. Beliefs deny, suppress, disconnect, and disempower.

Through awakened consciousness, the dream of the skandhas is still there, just as the stars continue to be above us during the day,...awakened consciousness is like standing on the lever of a see-saw over the fulcrum, versus anywhere else on the lever. Those that can stand on the lever above the fulcrum 24/7 or called Buddha.

 

9 I view the Short Path from a different perspective,...somewhat like this:

http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/23/5#section1

 

10. Undivided Light is not separate from appearances,...appearances are separated from Undivided Light, which precipitates their motion to unite with Undivided Light, although it NEVER can, because the unreal can never enter the real. Energy is simply the unbalanced, dissymphonic continuum of the desire to return to source, which it never really left.

 

What occurs, conceptually speaking, when one crosses the threshold of the so-called speed of light? It's helpful for perspective,...because from Light's point of view (which travels no distance, in no time, and thus has no need for speed) we are relatively 186k mps slower than the Stillness of Undivided Light. In other words, everything in duality's reality is in the past. The perceived present, as in your looking at these words, is the past. No object can be seen in the Present, because no objects exist in the Present.

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

V

[Todd]

1. Why does it matter? Do you think the first brush stroke of a painting would somehow disclose the essence of the painter?

 

What it matters is that there is an aspect of reality that you are ignoring, and this has its outcomes. There is a time at which this might be very useful, but there is a time at which it is harmful.

 

It also matters because you claim that appearance and Undivided Light are separate. If this is so, and Undivided Light is the only thing that is real, then how is it that appearance arises? Your account does not take into account an aspect of everyone's experience, including your own, and so it is very partial, which is kinda opposite of your claim to Wholeness.

 

 

 

3.No,...the confusion appears to be that you do not understand opposites. The sum of opposites is always zero,...just as all negatives added to all positives is 0. In the reality of duality, the inbalance of opposites is the condition for endless manifestation. What would occur if a see-saws lever was in balance,...motion would cease. All phenonena is in motion. Stop the motion, and all phenomena ends.

 

 

Opposites in life are not like abstract opposites. They are not like mathematical sums, in which there are only two types of values. Zero in life is all that we see, all that we have seen, all that we might see, and beyond. It is many dimensions, many dualities, many ways that balance can be explored. It is appearance. Now in appearance there are local variations, local imbalances, and this causes motion in many levels of existence, if any motion can be said to happen, which it can. The motion is not ultimate, but it is apparent. Overall balance in no way denies local imbalance, and in no way denies appearance. It is the balance that allows the appearance.

 

Lets take another example. Humans have many different desires. I would say we have many different desires, but I can't speak for you. There are desires for food, sex, acceptance, survival, control, peace, love, friendship, to express compassion, to know, to gnow, for truth, for energy, for death, for happiness, for the ending of desire, to desire more... it goes on and on. Not all of these desires oppose one another, but at times they appear to be opposed, such as a desire for sex and a desire for social acceptance, if that sex is not socially acceptable. Indulging in the sex can lead to loss of social acceptance, which then could reduce the sex. In other situations, indulging in the sex can increase social acceptance, and lead to an increase in sex. Some desires are pretty much directly opposed, such as the desire for survival and the desire for death. As long as these desires are all operating and keep themselves relatively in check, then a human can live a "normal" life. They don't die early, and they can have a variety of experiences.

 

If one desire becomes out of balance and dominates the others, such as a desire for alcohol to the exclusion of all else, it usually has a very negative effect, and the person can die early, and then that particular manifestation, that particular appearance, is ended early. Imbalance ends the appearance. The greater the imbalance, the quicker the appearance ends. Balance maintains it. In this sense every desire can be said to serve the others, because they give the context within which the others can be experienced. Some people like to try and boil all desires down to one of the desires, and for most of them you could have a compelling argument that all of the other desires are really just forms of that one desire. This is not because they really are just forms of one given desire, but because they interpenetrate and make one another possible.

 

So, in life, balance is essential for appearances. It is imbalance that ends appearances.

 

Conceptually, and experientially, it seems that all of this revolves around nothing, but I haven't known all aspects of all things individually, or done the sum of them all, so this is just another seeming as far as I'm concerned. Even if everything seems to to disappear, or it just directly is "gnown" to be nothing. More seeming, more "gnowing".

 

4 Yes, the idea or concept of the Unconditional is thought (ego), but that does not deny the reality of the Unconditional.

 

Nor does the idea of the non-separation of the conditional and the Unconditional being thought (ego) deny the reality of the non-separation of the conditional and the Unconditional.

 

Quantum cosmologists, Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle said that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time. Enlightened Bodhisattva's been saying that for a few thousand years through understanding the Unconditional.

 

 

And this in no way denies the appearance of time. Or else how could Quantum cosmologists talk about any of this at all?

 

6. Why are humans so arrogant to believe that the universe would not be without them. Were there humans before dinosaurs? Will there be an earth if Christian Fascists (Tea Party patriots) take over the planet and annilate everyone for Jesus. Is non-sentient consciousness depended on humanity.

 

 

I never mentioned the universe. I asked if Quantum Physics could be without a sentient being. Quantum Physics is not the universe. It is a model for how particular aspects of the universe work. It is a particularly successful model in some domains, but not in all domains, not even all of the scientific domains, let alone the non-scientific domains. For example, can Quantum Physics make meaningful predictions about compassion or love? Even if it could make accurate predictions in all known domains, it should in no way be construed to be the universe.

 

There is a viewpoint, however, that the universe as a whole has a wave function and that this could never have collapsed into an observable universe without an observer. This observer, or consciousness can be viewed as an inherent aspect of any wave function, which explains the universe's ability to collapse itself into the big bang (assuming I have any idea what I'm talking about. I got this from a youtube clip with physicists talking. ) It is one view. It wouldn't be dependent on humanity, though perhaps you could say more about the apparent division between sentient and non-sentient consciousness, and explain if sentient consciousness can actually be separated from non-sentient consciousness.

 

7. Yes, Unborn Awareness can be observed, just not through the skandhas. The 6 senses can only observe motion,...so obviously, the observer of the Unborn Awareness, that is, awareness beyond belief, is not of the 6 senses. Nothing can be GNOWN through the skandhas,...but only KNOWN. Gnowledge does not arise from the brain,...only knowledge arises from the brain.

 

And no,...time is not needed to recognize the Present,...although through time, the absence of the Present can be recognized.

 

So it cannot be observed in any of the ways that we normally use the word observe; it cannot be known, but it can be gnown. I'll go along with that as long as we both recognize that no formulation of that "gnown" can be owned, grasped, or in any other way held onto, except in a weird twisted way that appears to reduce the "gnowing".

With regard to Present, how do you know that time is not necessary? How can something be recognized if there was not a time at which it was not recognized? Re-cognize. Sure there is gnowing before time, but to re-cognize, there must be a moment in which it is not cognized... hence the necessity of time.

 

8 First,...I'm not into beliefs. Beliefs deny, suppress, disconnect, and disempower.

 

Generally speaking, I'm with you there. Fixation of beliefs eventually does not serve, if it ever serves. One can live passionately without fixation.

 

Through awakened consciousness, the dream of the skandhas is still there, just as the stars continue to be above us during the day,...awakened consciousness is like standing on the lever of a see-saw over the fulcrum, versus anywhere else on the lever. Those that can stand on the lever above the fulcrum 24/7 or called Buddha.

 

We're getting close. That fulcrum can be seen to be the entire lever, without leaving the fulcrum. Or so my experiences are suggesting. I am not at the point where this is my conscious experience 24/7. This is the source of unlimited depth of potential realization, despite the fact that everything is inherently realized, just as it is.

 

9 I view the Short Path from a different perspective,...somewhat like this:

http://wisdomsgolden...s/23/5#section1

 

 

That is a long article that you linked to. Could you summarize your position?

 

I am familiar with the Short or Direct Path. It has been my primary approach, especially in the last several years, and also before I knew anything much of Spirituality.

 

A fairly decent summation of the Short or Direct Path as I experience it can be found in this verse:

 

Chapter 22 (Red Pine's translation of the Taoteching):

 

Partial means whole

crooked means straight

hollow means full

worn-out means new

less means content

more means confused

thus the sage holds onto the one

to use in guiding the world

not watching himself he appears

not displaying himself he flourishes

not flattering himself he succeeds

not parading himself he leads

because he doesn't compete

no one can compete against him

the ancients who said partial means whole

came close indeed

becoming whole depends on this

 

The last line is essential, but so is the first, and all the ones inbetween. The only words that I don't like so much are "holds onto", but I guess they can have their use in my experience too.

 

10. Undivided Light is not separate from appearances,...appearances are separated from Undivided Light,

which precipitates their motion to unite with Undivided Light, although it NEVER can, because the unreal can never enter the real. Energy is simply the unbalanced, dissymphonic continuum of the desire to return to source, which it never really left.

 

I would agree with the first part if you phrased it as "appearances can appear to be separated from Undivided Light". You judge energy and desire harshly, but, yes it never really left.

 

What occurs, conceptually speaking, when one crosses the threshold of the so-called speed of light? It's helpful for perspective,...because from Light's point of view (which travels no distance, in no time, and thus has no need for speed) we are relatively 186k mps slower than the Stillness of Undivided Light. In other words, everything in duality's reality is in the past. The perceived present, as in your looking at these words, is the past. No object can be seen in the Present, because no objects exist in the Present.

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

Its not bad news. As per what you said above, the past never left the Present.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Todd

[Vmarco]

[Todd]

Thanks for the dialogue. Although there is much confusion describing some fundamental principles regarding the nature of duality's reality, the continued welcoming of the subject is a very noble characteristic. Truth waits only on welcome.

 

 

Yes, and thank you for your continued welcoming of dialogue. It is a noble quality.

 

 

1What aspect of reality am I ignoring?

 

 

Appearances, relativity.

 

2I can understand sone initial confusion regarding the term separation and its relationship with Undivided and Divided Light. I prefer discussing things within a non-dualistic framnework.

 

ACIM suggests:

"The best response is within a non-dualistic framework, and thus will hardly satisfy an intellectually inquisitive mind that demands an answer on its own terms. However, within the dualistic framework that we experience as our reality, the question is really a statement masquerading in question form, "asked" by an ego mind in order to establish its own reality and unique identity. Therefore, the questioner is really saying: "I believe I am here, and now I want you to explain to me how I got here."

 

Consciousness, being the first split introduced into the mind of the dreamer, is an ego state where a perceiver and a perceived seem to exist as separate "realities." Consciousness results in a concept of a limited false self that is separate and uncertain. This false self believes it is "here" and "asks" the question about its own seeming origin, thereby seeking to verify it. In truth, however, imperfection cannot emanate from perfection, and an imperfect thought of separation and division cannot arise from a perfect Mind, in which opposites cannot exist. Only in a world of dreams can these absurdities, and the beliefs that foster such uncertainty lead to musings like this.

 

The question therefore can only be asked by those who believe and experience that they are indeed separate and distinct, and it can only be answered by someone who agrees with this premise that the impossible has in fact happened, and therefore requires and even demands an explanation. Thus, only a dreaming ego would ask such a question, for the Mind (not to be confused with intelect/brain) could not even conceive of the separation which is the basis for asking the question in the first place. And obviously, if in reality the separation never happened once, how could it possibly happen a second time? Therefore, once again, it is a trick question, much like the comedian's question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" which, if answered, can only incriminate the person responding."

 

 

The question can also arise when someone, such as yourself, makes a claim of separation between two things, and another person, such as myself, wants to clarify where this statement is coming from. I do not postulate separation. I only inquire how you manage to at once claim that separation exists and also that it does not exist, and then fault me for asking about the origin of the separation that you claim exists by saying that my question presupposes separation where none exists. Can you recognize this? Do you even know what I am asking?

 

The term fulcrum is a good one when speaking within a non-dual framework. Does a fulcrum "know" when a lever is upon it or not? The lever surely relizes it is separate from the fulcrum as long as it continues to move, in an attempt to rejoin with the fulcrum, which it can never do, because it was never separated from the fulcrum, even though the motion makes it seem that way,...because the moving lever (the skandhas) cannot recognize stillness.

 

 

We're kinda close here, except for the bolded parts. The lever is never separate, moving or not. All separation is seeming, and a deeper gnowing can pervade even in the presence of motion. The lever and the motion appear to be an inherent aspect of the fulcrum. It may be that the fulcrum, as an aspect of this motion at times manifests realizations of stillness without the appearance of motion, but this not actually an escape from motion since it arises from the context of motion and eventually returns to motion, as even your narrated experience shows. Is this not your experience?

 

There is an aspect of existence which never moves, despite all apparent motion, but this motion is never actually separate from the stillness.

 

3Unon the moving lever, everything are opposites,...the opposited of hope is fear. If one wishes to dissolve all fear, then all hope must simultaneously be dissolved.

 

Hope and fear are not opposites. They are the same thing. They are different phenomenal manifestations of the same underlying insecurity, and one always exists in potential and actuality within the other.

 

It is inbalance that allows appearances. Any two opposites in balance cancels out the opposites.

 

Life abounds with apparent opposites that do not cancel one another out. They actually support one another in the manifestation of experience. I have given examples. Take even your example of hope and fear, which are apparent opposites to some: together they allow the experience of hope and fear (fear is always present in hope and vice versa). Could you please provide an example of opposites canceling out, other than mathematical sums, or waves (which as far as I know only appear to cancel out locally but not absolutely)?

 

Even in mathematics, opposite sums can exist on on opposite sides of an equation, as long as they balance, such as: 19 + (-19) = 19 + (-19). There are infinite equations such as this one that could be written and still be true, despite perfectly balanced opposite values, according to the rules of mathematics. The tendency to abstractly reduce them all to the solution of zero, is just a tendency and it does not negate the fact that this infinity of expressions can be conceived of and expressed.

 

4 Buddha's Noble Truth said, Suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other tham they are.

 

So yes,...suffering arises from imbalance,...but no object, no skandha, can be in balance.

 

How can anything be out of balance? I am curious how you conceive of this.

 

Perhaps the term harmony could be used to describe various social acceptances. The point being, what if we flowed through life based upon the most honest views of life that can be uncovered. That is to say,...can our perceived lives accept the irrefutable non-dualist framework,...such as, There is no Present in Time.

 

 

I was with you until the last statement. "There is no Present in Time" is a dualistic statement. The surface understandings of non-duality are intensely dual, when one tries to separate out the non-dual from the dual. True non-duality abandons nothing and includes all.

 

5 Surely appearances are perceived,...that's the nature of the skandhas, to perceive motion. Yet from Undivided Light's point of view, nothing has moved, even a millimeter, in all etenerty. Although what I'm about to say is far beyond this post,....what we perceive as movement is reorganizing itself 186k mps, like a pile of still pictures flashed quickly gives an appearnce of motion. The image of the world that appears in the brain is very different from the actual physical world.

 

 

What value do you see in giving a number to the "speed" at which the universe reorganizes itself? To me it just adds a barrier to understanding, since it does not appear to be relevant to my life or to what we are talking about. Can it be understood without reference to such numbers? If it can't how does the number help?

 

Also to say 186k mps doesn't have much meaning to me when talking about the rate at which still pictures flash. A more appropriate term would include the number of flashes per second, instead of the number of meters per second. How do you equate a rate of flashing with a measure of speed across distance?

 

6. I refer back to 2,...

"For the rest of my life I want to reflect on what light is" Albert Einstein

 

Many of these questions are answered in that book Secret of Light. Not only did Russell know Einstein,...Walter Russell is said to have had an influence on all the Manhattan Project participants. Supposedly, Nikola Tesla advised Dr. Russell to lock all his knowledge in the Smithsonian for one thousand years or so, or until man is ready for it.

 

And that is partially where were are at,...we are discussing things beyond current ego's comprehension. There are ways however, to bridge the ignorances and clinging to the skandhas for ones identity,...but a proper language is needed.

 

For example,...gnowledge does not arise from the head,...knowledge arises from the head. Thus to gnow, is much different than to know. Gnowledge occurs from beyond the skandhas,...whereas knowledge is predominately an accumulation of object-ive memories.

 

 

Such as the memory of encountering gnowledge? Or of developing theories that satisfy ego based upon gnowledge?

 

How? As I had mentioned,...Transformational triggers that uncover gnowing can flow from connected breathing, hypnotherapy, sound (Shurangama Sutra) and color meditations (S. G. J. Ouseley), Ki practices, etc. One of my favorite triggers is called the supermarket task, an activity of the "Just Because Club" developed by what Claude Needham calls, "a contemporary inner-work group."

http://www.thetaobum..._1entry276730

 

It is interesting that all of the means to uncover gnowing that your have shared occur within time.

 

The past never left the present? That a tricky statement. The Present, to ego's chagrin, has no need for the past,...nor any need for ego. It would be correct that the past never left the present,...but the past can NEVER enter the Present,...just as a condition can never enter the unconditional,...or duality ever reaching the so-called speed of light.

 

That is a somewhat extreme statement. I do not know how you can possibly say this, since there has never been a instance of gnowing the Present that has occurred except within the context of the past. And if it did, then how could we know of it? If you know of one, then I can only ask if you have ever had an experience of the past.

 

The Present manifests... no, I would say includes the past. The past need not enter the Present, since it is already Present.

 

I agree that efforts to do so are ultimately futile. I say that as a betting man, and not as an absolute statement of truth.

 

Yes,...the truth is a HUGE blow for ego.

 

That really depends on the ego.

 

There are many forms of ego. There is ego in ego. There is ego in the absence of ego. It is a shapeshifter.

 

How do you define ego?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Todd

[Vmarco]

1Appearances, relativity.

 

2The question can also arise when someone, such as yourself, makes a claim of separation between two things, and another person, such as myself, wants to clarify where this statement is coming from. I do not postulate separation. I only inquire how you manage to at once claim that separation exists and also that it does not exist, and then fault me for asking about the origin of the separation that you claim exists by saying that my question presupposes separation where none exists. Can you recognize this? Do you even know what I am asking?

 

3We're kinda close here, except for the bolded parts. The lever is never separate, moving or not. All separation is seeming, and a deeper gnowing can pervade even in the presence of motion. The lever and the motion appear to be an inherent aspect of the fulcrum.

4Life abounds with apparent opposites that do not cancel one another out. They actually support one another in the manifestation of experience. I have given examples. Take even your example of hope and fear, which are apparent opposites to some: together they allow the experience of hope and fear (fear is always present in hope and vice versa). Could you please provide an example of opposites canceling out, other than mathematical sums, or waves.

5. So yes,...suffering arises from imbalance,...but no object, no skandha, can be in balance.

 

How can anything be out of balance? I am curious how you conceive of this.

Perhaps the term harmony could be used to describe various social acceptances.

6 I was with you until the last statement. "There is no Present in Time" is a dualistic statement. The surface understandings of non-duality are intensely dual, when one tries to separate out the non-dual from the dual. True non-duality abandons nothing and includes all.

 

7there has never been a instance of gnowing the Present that has occurred except within the context of the past. And if it did, then how could we know of it? If you know of one, then I can only ask if you have ever had an experience of the past.

 

8 How do you define ego?

 

 

 

1How am I ignoring appearances, relativity,...I must use the words duality, skandhas, divided light, etc., in every paragraph. Appearences, relativity, etc., should be high on the list of any discussion about Who we are,... to get anywhere close to recognizing what's real, we must be able to discern what's false,...Easterners call it neti-neti,...seeing the false as the false eventually uncovers something true.'

 

2. That is why I used ACIM,...the difference between Undivided and divided Light can be a quite difficult thing to grasp, let alone understand,...because although duality's motion is manifested from the perception of separation, there really is no separation,...which includes, that because there is no separation, and that duality really doesn't exist, duality is not part of Undivided Light, even though it effects its motion upon the fulcrum of Undivided Light.

 

3. Why would a lever be an inherent aspect of a fulcrum? It's just a fulcrum. Impersonal, causeless, dimensionless, changeless, Unconditional, Presence, etc. For some reason, everyone that I heard of, who became aware of this fulcrum,...the Clear, Undivided Light,...agree on having accessed it through metasensory awareness beyond the skandhas. So, an inquiry into the nature of these skandhas seem prudent.

 

4 An example? Allow two bar magnets to come together,...what seems to the sensory apparatrus as two opposites merging, is actually magnet ends cancelling each other out at the point of union, and the pole ends are still opposite.

 

Fundamentally, duality consists of an equal interchange of positive and negatives. Most all positives in nature are visible or detectable,...whereas most negatives are not so detectable.

 

The analogy of Hope and Fear is an ancient one,...for example, in the 12th century, Tilopa said, "the highest goal is being devoid of hope and fear.' However, it's proably best to stick with object-ive, empirical reality for clarity about the subject of Divided Light.

 

Although 19 + (-19) = 19 + (-19) can be expressed that way,...in nature, 19 positive elements added to their 19 negative anti-mass = 0.

 

5 In Cosmolgical Architecture, everything is expressed through its imbalance. Balance is stillness, and no object, no phenomena, is still,...it's all in motion. No element is truly at rest, because no "object" can be at rest. The Buddha is a Tathagata because he can view the reverse flow of foward moving things,..that is, come back into himself, simultaneously as he goes our,...an awareness where no object/phenomena exists (that is, perceived to exist by the senses).

 

Great art is considered to have a creative tension,....Perfectly balanced art would be something the senses could not see.

 

Yes, the word harmony would be much better. In the Secret of Light book I mentioned,...he used the term "harmonic balanced interchage." Which to me says, a balanced harmony,..not a balanced polarity.

 

6 There is no Present in Time. I realized that in the 80's while in a Philosophy class (I majored in Religious Studies), ...there was a question on Nowness, and I argued that no one can think in the now or present. Thought is always in the past and arises from the past. Of course I'm talking about micro-seconds, and synapse speeds...but the past nevertheless. By the end of that semester I realized that we do not perceive the world around us, but the world that surrounded us.

 

The statement, There is no Present in Time, is what it is,...in time there cannot be a Present, Instant, or Now. It's sort of related with the Uncertainty Principal,...you cannot observe a particle and wave at the same time. Here, you cannot obseve the Present and Time at the same time, ...and as time is in motion, and the senses can only sense motion, the senses cannot observe the Present.

 

7There is no past in the Present,...never. I've had many experiences in the Present,...and then re-entered the past, and talked about it. I may have had several Tathagata moments of actually interacting with people while in the Present,...but I always end up with a thought (a bad habit), and thus back in time,...however, I'd say I do not see things quite the same as the "Twenty of Twenty."

 

8. I mentioned that in post #109

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19523-a-question-to-the-buddhist-schollars/page__st__96__p__276120__hl__trapper__fromsearch__1entry276120

 

V

[Todd]

I suspect a large part of our issues are a matter of vocabulary. I read the post on ego that you linked to and I must say that a lot of what you said there is much more reasonable than what you have been saying here. You even referred to cold moist Yin compressing to give rise to heated Yang, which expands to give rise to Yin! I'm not saying your other views have no place, but at least there you were speaking an understandable language. If you want to offer alternative viewpoints, you would be well served to first demonstrate an understanding of the common viewpoint and then present a case for the alternative viewpoint, instead of just declaring the alternative as some kind've absolute truth, without building any kind've bridge over which to approach it. If people don't see it as relevant to their lives, then they will dismiss it. One of the best ways to build bridges is to refer to common experiences. Truth is actually the most common thing, so this should not be too difficult.

 

I saw you as ignoring relative truths when you dismissed them as irrelevant and called for only seeking the absolute. They are only to be given attention so that they might be seen through, and the absolute thereby revealed. They have no value in themselves. They can only distract us from what truly is. The human is merely a temporary aberration, which must be transcended and left behind for truth to reign supreme. You almost seemed to suggest that the human played no role whatsoever in the recognition of truth.

 

That is what I heard you saying, and I still hear notes of this.

 

It may be true that every recognition of Wholeness goes beyond the skandhas, but you ignore that every recognition of truth also arose out the context of the skandhas.

 

I am not familiar with the exact definition of skandha, especially as you are using it, but my understanding is that it is an aggregate, a kind've experience field of various things that arise within consciousness, including the experience of consciousness itself, all of which we tend to identify with. My understanding is that seeing through the skandhas is seeing through this identification, such that one no longer clings to the any of the skandhas and thus Wholeness might be revealed. The experience fields do no disappear, except perhaps temporarily, and the loss of this clinging allows them to function more clearly.

 

You mentioned this, I believe, when you spoke of the Tathagata going and coming at the same time, such that there is appearance without becoming lost in it, without leaving the fulcrum. You even say that you have experienced this. You say that it was thinking that pulled you out. I would disagree with you there, and I can point to a moment of clarity in your "ego Trapper" post where you acknowledged this: "There is still thinking, but the thinking, as the ego, becomes an ally of the undivided self. " You may not have been referring to the same moment, but I will assert that it was not thought that pulled you out, but clinging or identification with thought that pulled you out. Thought has no power on its own. It can go right along, and as long as you do not invest it with belief, then it cannot pull you off of the fulcrum.

The lever is an inherent aspect of the fulcrum because it cannot be separated from it. There is no fulcrum without a lever.

The people who realize truth tend to emphasize that it is always so and never truly obscured. Given that there is the appearance of time, motion, desire, humanness, confusion, thinking, etc, then these appearances must have no power to obscure truth. Looking past them may be vital, absolutely vital to realizing truth, but we are compelled to return to the appearances, in part to find out, as you said, what is not true, but also to recognize that no appearance actually can obscure what we are. In fact, every appearance is a gift of what we are to ourselves, and without any appearance, we would not be complete. This does not mean that we might not do our best to manage appearances, such that conventionally unpleasant stuff doesn't needlessly continue, but there is none/very little of that ego-self clinging/illusion driving it.

 

Thats the essential point that I want to make.

 

 

I want to mention your understanding of opposites, balance and imbalance, even though it is not as essential.

 

4 An example? Allow two bar magnets to come together,...what seems to the sensory apparatrus as two opposites merging, is actually magnet ends cancelling each other out at the point of union, and the pole ends are still opposite.

...

Although 19 + (-19) = 19 + (-19) can be expressed that way,...in nature, 19 positive elements added to their 19 negative anti-mass = 0.

 

This is an addition, not a cancelling out. The magnets do not cease to be, and though I am not a physicist, I would be greatly surprised if the two poles did not become stronger when the magnets joined, and the strength of the total magnetic field did not remain the same.

 

Matter and Anti-matter joining do not equal zero (I think Informer mentioned this earlier in the thread). They equal a large amount of energy, which is not separate from matter, but actually equal, according to the equation E=mc^2. Please correct me if I am wrong in this. Also, they don't tend to join very often, despite theories that they are balanced.

 

I can give you hundreds of examples of a balance between seeming opposites not only persisting, but perpetuating itself in a way that no imbalance can. Can you give me even one example of balanced opposites in life instantly dissolving? How about hundreds?

 

Fundamentally, duality consists of an equal interchange of positive and negatives. Most all positives in nature are visible or detectable,...whereas most negatives are not so detectable.

 

 

Presumably this duality of positives and negatives sums to zero, and as such, they are in balance, but they continue to appear, so saying that the negative are not visible does nothing for your argument that balance equals dissolution or destruction.

Great art is considered to have a creative tension,....Perfectly balanced art would be something the senses could not see.

 

 

How are you defining balance?

 

Yes, the word harmony would be much better. In the Secret of Light book I mentioned,...he used the term "harmonic balanced interchage." Which to me says, a balanced harmony,..not a balanced polarity.

I have not read that book yet (and it will be awhile before I do, since I have an interlibrary loan book to read and other calls on my time, some of which I have been putting off while reading and writing these posts!). I see why you might prefer the word harmony, since it does not require equal sums. But you still have not shown that balance causes dissolution, or even stillness. All of the sums can add up in the bigger picture, and it can still be a very complex, constantly moving/changing panorama.

 

"Interchange" suggests polarity to me, especially if one recognizes no separation.