What is Non-duality?

[dwai]

Just now, s1va said:

 

While we live and function in the world, all things happen in duality or multiple mode only.  Even after non-dual or any realization for that matter, one functions in the world outside in duality.  This, I call the 'practical'.  But, the real answer to your question is in the Abhivanagupta's quote above.  I think those words of Abhinvagupta comes from such wisdom that transcends realization.

 

If everyone is realized, already in non-dual state, there is also no need for compassion as I stated before.  If we hold the manifest world or maya to be equal to a dream, then this would be valid.  I personally feel some people like Abhinavagupta and Buddha went far beyond this state of realization in their wisdom, to be able to reintegrate the world and help others with compassion.

 that’s your opinion and it’s fine that you hold it.

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Abhinavagupta (Kashmir Shiavism master) definitely agrees with you...

 

"True, but even though it shines there, it has not truly become a conscious apprehension. Without conscious apprehension, even if a thing exists, it is as if it did not exist..."

 

So what is this conscious apprehension? It is a dropping of the ignorance of the true nature.  It is not an acquisition of some dualistic knowing in a subject-object paradigm. 

[Jeff]

38 minutes ago, dwai said:

It is actually that you realize that the cage doesn’t exist at all. It is not a breaking out, so much as recognizing that the cage is the desire to be separate and unique. 

 

I think you are misunderstanding my statement and the concept of the “cage”. I am not talking about the sense of being an individual person that is somehow separate and unique.

[s1va]

39 minutes ago, dwai said:

This is also the way of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta is not some cold intellectual philosophical system, it contains within its framework very similar practices to let the cage disappear (instead of fighting with it).

 

Most of the arguments against Advaita Vedanta I’ve read are non sequitur, made from a position of incomplete understanding of what it entails or teaches. 

 

I don't think any one of us are arguing against Advaita Vedanta.  At least, I am not   The  only points I  discussed were, what exactly Non-dual means per Advaita, 'ONE without a second' or something else like the Nothing/Emptiness state.   Some of my personal experiences were different.  However, I wouldn't argue that one is right and the other is not, for everyone while there is still ways to go for myself.

 

But, on your first two sentences, I think the Non-dual state that you mention is some state that we arrive at as a result.  Not sure if any practice or means can be called as Advaita, including jnana-yoga. 

[dwai]

26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I don't think any one of us are arguing against Advaita Vedanta.  At least, I am not   The  only points I  discussed were, what exactly Non-dual means per Advaita, 'ONE without a second' or something else like the Nothing/Emptiness state.   Some of my personal experiences were different.  However, I wouldn't argue that one is right and the other is not, for everyone while there is still ways to go for myself.

 

But, on your first two sentences, I think the Non-dual state that you mention is some state that we arrive at as a result.  Not sure if any practice or means can be called as Advaita, including jnana-yoga. 

 No one said jnana Yoga or any system is Advaita. They can be leveraged to drop dvaita identifications. Each yoga is a valid path unto itself depending on the individual. What happens when they do follow said system is called antahakaranashuddhi. 

 

With antahakaranashuddhi, a clarity is attained which allows one to clearly discern between the Self and the appearances. 

 

Jnana Yoga is called the direct path because it leads to direct apperception. However one must have had sufficient antahakaranashuddhi to be able to follow this path. For others, they might need other methods first to attain that.

 

Antahkaranashuddhi by itself is not Advaita either. It is needed so that individual jiva starts to see through the veils of maya. 

 

I think the challenge is that we try to understand what Advaita means from subject-object framework and jump to conclusions. That is the cause of picking intellectual nits, so to speak... 

 

Adding more context — what does  “one without a second” mean? What is one without the concept of “not one” or “more than one”? Does it make sense even without something against which, the said number can be juxtaposed?

 

So “one without a second” can mean “not two, not one” as well, when put into context. 

 

Emptiness is interesting. Emptiness doesn’t mean “void like a vacuum”. It means “not a thing”. That “one without a second” is not a thing either. So there is no difference between the two.

 

To claim emptiness as opposed to fullness (of things) is dualistic. The Buddhist concept of shunya came from the idea “svabhava shunya”. It means “devoid of self nature”. That was the primary argument against Advaita Vedanta which they (Buddhists) assume  claims that there is a jiva-atma that has independent self nature. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by dwai
More context

[dwai]

36 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I think you are misunderstanding my statement and the concept of the “cage”. I am not talking about the sense of being an individual person that is somehow separate and unique.

Perhaps some clarification is needed then?

[s1va]

55 minutes ago, dwai said:

In the same Gita, there are four sections. Each extolling the virtue of one of the four yogas. It is not because Lord Krishna was lying, but because each is suitable for people with different temperaments and gunas.

 

i would recommend reading the Gita again in its entirety. It’s easy to cherry-pick a verse or two.

 

 

Once again, I am not arguing for or against something, like Advaita.  I just quoted the verse because if felt relevant to the post I was replying.  I am sorry, if you felt it was cherry-picked to argue for or against a certain point. 

 

Thanks for the recommendation to read Gita in entirety, which is something I always enjoy doing  Recently, I have come across the Abhinavagupta's commentary of Gita on a site, which I find enjoyable to reread. 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, s1va said:

 

Once again, I am not arguing for or against something, like Advaita.  I just quoted the verse because if felt relevant to the post I was replying.  I am sorry, if you felt it was cherry-picked to argue for or against a certain point. 

 

Thanks for the recommendation to read Gita in entirety, which is something I always enjoy doing  Recently, I have come across the Abhinavagupta's commentary of Gita on a site, which I find enjoyable to reread. 

Please share the abhinavagupta commentary. I’d love to read it too

 

Understood about the intent, but do you see how it can be viewed as “cherry picking”? 

 

[s1va]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

Please share the abhinavagupta commentary. I’d love to read it too

 

This is the site where I was reading: https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad.  It seems to be down for some reason right now.  It is also available as paperback.

 

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

Understood about the intent, but do you see how it can be viewed as “cherry picking”? 

 

 

Not a clue really  (unless what I wrote was misunderstood in a large part to be arguments against advaita in general).  Luckily, unlike some other things, when it comes to advaita, I I feel no attachments to argue for or against it as a system.  I just loved to be part of the discussion.

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, s1va said:

This is the site where I was reading: https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad.  It seems to be down for some reason right now.  It is also available as paperback.

 

 

Not a clue really  (unless what I wrote was misunderstood in a large part to be arguments against advaita in general).  Luckily, unlike some other things, when it comes to advaita, I I feel no attachments to argue for or against it as a system.  I just loved to be part of the discussion.

Thanks for the link. 

 

I was commenting on the point about Bhakti being said to be the only/best way. Each section of the Gita claims each of the yogas is the best way. So taking one without the others ends up supporting one way over others. 

 

 

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

So what is this conscious apprehension? It is a dropping of the ignorance of the true nature.  It is not an acquisition of some dualistic knowing in a subject-object paradigm. 

 

In the context of Kashmir Shaivism, conscious apprehension is the direct conscious realization of Siva. Siva in this case would similar to your parabrahman. 

[s1va]

18 minutes ago, dwai said:

Thanks for the link. 

 

I was commenting on the point about Bhakti being said to be the only/best way. Each section of the Gita claims each of the yogas is the best way. So taking one without the others ends up supporting one way over others. 

 

 

 

I was not talking about devotion/bhakti in this instance.  But, yes I have to admit that I feel that mere intellectual analysis, without a sense of surrender (which to me is synonymous to 'letting go' or the state of acceptance or, not acting out of the sense of ego)  to divine, can not lead one very far.  This is also my opinion based on my personal experience.  However, I am not stating that Advaita is mere intellectual analysis.  There can be such letting go or surrender with any practice, then such method of inquiry would become meaningful for me.  There are several yogas in Gita, I see such 'letting go' or acceptance as the base for all of them.

[dwai]

28 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I was not talking about devotion/bhakti in this instance.  But, yes I have to admit that I feel that mere intellectual analysis, without a sense of surrender (which to me is synonymous to 'letting go' or the state of acceptance or, not acting out of the sense of ego)  to divine, can not lead one very far.  This is also my opinion based on my personal experience.  However, I am not stating that Advaita is mere intellectual analysis.  There can be such letting go or surrender with any practice, then such method of inquiry would become meaningful for me.  There are several yogas in Gita, I see such 'letting go' or acceptance as the base for all of them.

Yes yes of course in atma vichara one has to let go and surrender after a point. It is only the grace of the Self that can “liberate”. 

[3bob]

Atman has no separation from pure shakti or spiritual power, not even for part of a nano of a nano second,  thus Atman can also be alluded to as being eternal and quintessential power for without that Atman would not be Atman!

[allinone]

you don't talk about feeling and sensation of I. Then that means you are in conceptual ground.

 

Awareness can be linked to feeling. When you cultivate sensations like touch, smell, you are cultivating sense of self/ awareness/whatever name to put it it, location is in head. Cultivating sense of self by observing sensations, will result in you can attain sense of self what is head based field what can be used willingly and apply force to it and its capacity to apply power or force grows over time.

 

In practice there is possible to talk about tangible sensations what show the location or stage what is spoken off.

 

On ‎22‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 11:31 PM, dwai said:

What does Non-duality really mean? Some statements towards that end --

 

• The Non-dual cannot be described in words
• The mind cannot reach Non-duality
• Non-dual means no duality - in other words, no subject-object distinction

 

it proves my point, it is used to break the conceptual mind.

-

sense of self can be brought out any time you please or remember. So by reason, it does not exist independently.

 

On ‎22‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 11:31 PM, dwai said:

Things appear and disappear. What is the only constant in this dualistic model? The "I".  What are the characteristics of "I"? Presence, now! There is no past, there is no future. Only naked awareness, right here, right now. How can one then say, that the "I" in me, is separate and distinct from the "I" in you? Where is the possibility of "me and you" in "right here, right now"? All there is, is presence. 

 

You sensing the presence and bias the description of the reality on that,

but the now or presence is your mind field what is cultivated by body sensations.

 

On ‎22‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 11:31 PM, dwai said:

What happens when we stay abiding with "I"? Even the "I" disappears. When "I" and "things" both are gone, then there is non-duality. 

 

when the sense of self disappears, its just empty space/being/presence(it doesn't even matter what name), but again it is possible to move there without arising sense of self when you have cultivated life/urges to move, like desire to buy a ice cream.

[Limahong]

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

I thought I'd write a bit about Non-duality, based on statements like -- Non-duality claims there is only One and not two, and that it is possible to know there is underlying non-separateness without being a single "thing". That there are still individuals but they are not separate.

 

Hi dwai,

 

I have just arrived at the Non-duality block as an absolute new kid. Why? I had not thought of non-duality before in my life. I had a quick scan of the responses and I am very impressed by the quality of thoughts.

 

But I choose not to be influenced by these learned/experiential thoughts as I want to know myself unaffectedly in relation to One. So I will not read the responses yet and engage here only your introductory post. I define One as "an underlying non-separateness" and not "a single thing" (as borrowed from you).

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

Somehow the notion that Non-duality implies "a One Thing", has taken hold.

What does Non-duality really mean? Some statements towards that end --

- The Non-dual cannot be described in words

- The mind cannot reach Non-duality

- Non-dual means no duality - in other words, no subject-object distinction

 

Upfront Non-duality is qualified as not a "a single thing" for me and my premises re the bullet pointers are these correspondingly:

- Non-duality can be described in words, otherwise how do we communicate? But words have limitations, mixed significance...

- The mind can reach Non-duality but not necessary with words but through experiences, emotions, music... Each mind may reach Non-duality differently as each life is a road less traveled.

- Non-duality means - (a) yes ~ to subject-object distinction but (b) no ~ to subject-object separation. 

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

Subject-object duality is our primary day to day experience. Everything we experience is predicated on the subject-object duality. I, the subject, experience objects that are separate from me. In experiencing these objects, I come to know them. Our reality is what we know, and we know objects. 

 

Subject-object distinction/non-separation (as One) underlines my life experiences. Everything I experience is predicated on the Taoist subject-object duality. As One, I am experiencing objects subjectively because I am me. Others may experience the same objects differently because they are different from me. Each of our reality is One-based individually, to each his/her own. I respect the One's of others.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

Even my body is an object to me, the "I". My mind, is an object to me, the "I". Mind I define as a stream of objects rising and falling in consciousness.

 

My body-mind is my One - they are distinct but not separated. They rise and fall in tandem as One.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

That begs the question -- who is this "I"?

 

"I" = my individual One.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

An exercise that I found very useful, (I borrowed from Papaji, the Advaita master from India (Ramana Maharshi's student)) is to have someone inquire thus --  "In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are".

 

My answer - I am the moment linking the last moment with the next as One.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

The usual response is "I am XYZ". Then response becomes "that took more than a fraction of a second..it took maybe 1 or 2 seconds even to respond to". In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are. Depending on the individual, the eventually are stumped as they don't get an answer. They cannot articulate anything about their identity. So, then the follow-on question is - "What do you know about who you are in a fraction of a second?"

 

I am the present One at any moment.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

After some more attempts, it becomes clear "I know I am". In essence, this is who "I" is. Existence and awareness. We can't even say whether "I am aware because I exist...or I exist because I'm aware".  They are one and the same.

 

Which comes first - existence or awareness? But in a fraction of a second, my answer will be this - "they are One and the same" (knowing that they are distinct but not separable - in that moment).

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

So then, this begs the question - what about all these objects that we know? Do they exist separately from "I" (or the I AM)? 

 

"I" is object-subject ~ the One.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

Isn't our experience predicated on our being and being aware? So how can the objects exist independent of the "I"? Counter-arguments ensue..."but they existed before...your parents saw you...your children will see after you". But what are your parents and your children? Are they too not objects to your "I"?

 

I am my parents' reproductive cells; biologically my parent exist in me (being) and it is a biological fact (being aware). My children have my sperms. So biologically... I am the bridge between my parents and children as One continuum. I had good parents and have good children - I have One good blessed life. I am part of my parents and my children are part of me - we are a blessed One. My wife is One of us. We are all - One and all to each other. "I" is just an alphabet.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

We make assumptions about our model of reality on the basis of the experiences we have. Most are oblivious to the "being and being aware" or the "I AM". The reality is a construct of objects. We identify with these objects.

 

What is an objective reality without its subjective elements and vice versa? They are One?

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

Non-duality, says there is no subject-object separation at all. There is no One, there is No Two. There are No "Things". "One" and "Two" are in the domain of things.  When we operate from the perspective of "I" and "things", it is duality. Whether we see separateness or non-separateness. Whether we see unity or diversity. If there is an "I" and an "Other", it is duality.

 

My One is non-dualistic. It is more than one. "I" is the ninth alphabet - the simplest of the twenty-six.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

Things appear and disappear. What is the only constant in this dualistic model? The "I".  What are the characteristics of "I"? Presence, now! There is no past, there is no future. Only naked awareness, right here, right now. How can one then say, that the "I" in me, is separate and distinct from the "I" in you? Where is the possibility of "me and you" in "right here, right now"? All there is, is presence. 

 

I embrace both Taoism and Buddhism a philosophies. I accept Buddhist impermanence. Past, present and future are not permanent - nothing is 'constant' for me.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 5:31 AM, dwai said:

What happens when we stay abiding with "I"? Even the "I" disappears. When "I" and "things" both are gone, then there is non-duality. 

 

One is always there - before I was borne and after I am gone. Non-duality prevails in The Void - my model.

 

dwai - Thank you for starting this thread. Your introduction has provided me with a mental framework for me to gather and air my thoughts. I will read the rest of this thread with my above thoughts in tow - to touch base respectfully with other thoughts in terms of One with others.

 

- LimA

Edited November 27, 2017 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[s1va]

On 11/26/2017 at 7:23 AM, 3bob said:

Atman has no separation from pure shakti or spiritual power, not even for part of a nano of a nano second,  thus Atman can also be alluded to as being eternal and quintessential power for without that Atman would not be Atman!

 

Yes, this is consistent with my understanding of Atman.  Further such Atman is also explained as one and the same as Brahman (not separate from Brahman).  This is explained in many places including the Mahavakya, 'Ayam atma brahma' (Atman and Brahman are the same) from Mandukya Upanishad among others.  

[s1va]

1 hour ago, allinone said:

sense of self can be brought out any time you please or remember. So by reason, it does not exist independently.

 

1 hour ago, allinone said:

when the sense of self disappears, its just empty space/being/presence(it doesn't even matter what name), but again it is possible to move there without arising sense of self when you have cultivated life/urges to move, like desire to buy a ice cream.

 

I think the above 2 points explain the difference between self and emptiness in a simple and effective way.  Thanks, it was helpful to me.

[Apech]

Very good thread - I've enjoyed reading it - especially from my limited a superficial understanding of Advaita Vedanta.  I think by the way, for what it is worth, that the disputes with Buddhism are largely fruitless except to bring awareness to the fact that there are always several ways of both posing a view and elaborating it.  They are different traditions and have their own views and indeed there own potential pitfalls - which is inevitable while they are views and not realisations of the ultimate truth.

 

I did want to pose a question for the Vedantistas which is by way of comparison with non-dual Buddhist teachings - and that is - is there an equivalent to the basis, path and fruit which occurs in the Tibetan traditions.  In these traditions non-duality is brought out by saying that the 'basis' or perhaps whatever it is that makes you a practitioner, the path itself to 'enlightenment' (for want of the better expression), and the fruit which is the realisation of the non-dual truth itself are all Buddha-nature.  So rather than going from A to B in a dualist sense (eg. fleeing samsara to nirvana) you would say that your starting point is Buddha-nature (albeit unrecognised), your path is exploration of the same, and the result is just that - Buddha-nature (recognised?).

 

Is there anything similar in Advaita techings?

 

 

[s1va]

24 minutes ago, Apech said:

Very good thread - I've enjoyed reading it - especially from my limited a superficial understanding of Advaita Vedanta.  I think by the way, for what it is worth, that the disputes with Buddhism are largely fruitless except to bring awareness to the fact that there are always several ways of both posing a view and elaborating it.  They are different traditions and have their own views and indeed there own potential pitfalls - which is inevitable while they are views and not realisations of the ultimate truth.

 

I did want to pose a question for the Vedantistas which is by way of comparison with non-dual Buddhist teachings - and that is - is there an equivalent to the basis, path and fruit which occurs in the Tibetan traditions.  In these traditions non-duality is brought out by saying that the 'basis' or perhaps whatever it is that makes you a practitioner, the path itself to 'enlightenment' (for want of the better expression), and the fruit which is the realisation of the non-dual truth itself are all Buddha-nature.  So rather than going from A to B in a dualist sense (eg. fleeing samsara to nirvana) you would say that your starting point is Buddha-nature (albeit unrecognised), your path is exploration of the same, and the result is just that - Buddha-nature (recognised?).

 

Is there anything similar in Advaita techings?

 

 

 

In my view, yes, there are many.  The fundamental premise, I would agree is the same.  It is agreed that everyone is essentially in that nature or 'absolute reality' state already.  The only point under discussion was, whether it is apparent and clear to everyone.

 

For instance, here is a great saying from Chandogya Upanishad - "Tat tvam asi" That is what you are (already!) (That absolute reality is the essence of what you really are) .

 

Here is another one that is popular and well known (from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) - "Aham Brahmasmi" I am Brahman 
(Who I really am, is that absolute reality.) 

 

So, if we were to compare Buddha nature to what is mentioned as absolute reality or essential nature in Advaita Vedanta (just on this post for the purposes to see if the starting place is where we arrive), then, answer is 'yes'.  It has been described that we are in that state already.  It is not just the starting point, this was always our state.  The conscious awareness of such truth by everyone is a different thing.  The result is essentially the same also after arrival, there is nothing new.  

 

[dwai]

38 minutes ago, Apech said:

Very good thread - I've enjoyed reading it - especially from my limited a superficial understanding of Advaita Vedanta.  I think by the way, for what it is worth, that the disputes with Buddhism are largely fruitless except to bring awareness to the fact that there are always several ways of both posing a view and elaborating it.  They are different traditions and have their own views and indeed there own potential pitfalls - which is inevitable while they are views and not realisations of the ultimate truth.

 

I did want to pose a question for the Vedantistas which is by way of comparison with non-dual Buddhist teachings - and that is - is there an equivalent to the basis, path and fruit which occurs in the Tibetan traditions.  In these traditions non-duality is brought out by saying that the 'basis' or perhaps whatever it is that makes you a practitioner, the path itself to 'enlightenment' (for want of the better expression), and the fruit which is the realisation of the non-dual truth itself are all Buddha-nature.  So rather than going from A to B in a dualist sense (eg. fleeing samsara to nirvana) you would say that your starting point is Buddha-nature (albeit unrecognised), your path is exploration of the same, and the result is just that - Buddha-nature (recognised?).

 

Is there anything similar in Advaita techings?

 

 

Yes of course it is the same! You are already that...the non-dual parabrahman. All the exploration is to drop the veil of illusion that  obscures your true nature .

 

The thing is, after the veil drops, it becomes very apparent that the veil didn't exist at all in the first place. 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, allinone said:

you don't talk about feeling and sensation of I. Then that means you are in conceptual ground.

 

Awareness can be linked to feeling. When you cultivate sensations like touch, smell, you are cultivating sense of self/ awareness/whatever name to put it it, location is in head. Cultivating sense of self by observing sensations, will result in you can attain sense of self what is head based field what can be used willingly and apply force to it and its capacity to apply power or force grows over time.

 

In practice there is possible to talk about tangible sensations what show the location or stage what is spoken off.

 

 

it proves my point, it is used to break the conceptual mind.

-

sense of self can be brought out any time you please or remember. So by reason, it does not exist independently.

 

 

You sensing the presence and bias the description of the reality on that,

but the now or presence is your mind field what is cultivated by body sensations.

 

 

when the sense of self disappears, its just empty space/being/presence(it doesn't even matter what name), but again it is possible to move there without arising sense of self when you have cultivated life/urges to move, like desire to buy a ice cream.

It is very important to discern what the "sense of self" is and whether it is indeed non-dual. IMHO (and in that  of many other Advaita Vedantins), if you have a sense or even feeling, there is an experiencer and an experience. Then there is a Subject-object duality. That is not it. 

 

Most of these discussions are based on different conceptualizations of "self". You say "self" is the identification with body-sensations and mind. I say, it is not. That is the non-self. The Self IS emptiness. space and presence. 

[allinone]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It is very important to discern what the "sense of self" is and whether it is indeed non-dual. IMHO (and in that  of many other Advaita Vedantins), if you have a sense or even feeling, there is an experiencer and an experience. Then there is a Subject-object duality. That is not it. 

 

Most of these discussions are based on different conceptualizations of "self". You say "self" is the identification with body-sensations and mind. I say, it is not. That is the non-self. The Self IS emptiness. space and presence. 

 

Matter is tangible, while antimatter is opposite to matter. Like proton and anti proton.

When antimatter and matter get together they get destroied and what liberates is photons, gamma radiance. 

-------

I read article about Japan scientist proved that in lightning strike, antimatter is created and gamma radiance. That postulate was up already by Russian scientist. But now it is proved.

---

i think mind is antimatter and body is matter. So knowing that the nondual is antimatter and dual is matter.

edit:

hmm then for me mind is non-dual.

Edited November 27, 2017 by allinone

[Jonesboy]

It is all energy, one and the same.

 

It is only the local mind, our obstructions that create such separation.

[allinone]

16 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

It is all energy, one and the same.

 

It is only the local mind, our obstructions that create such separation.

 

for geeks they have desire to know things how they work and do create things too.

 

you remind me of a blond girl opinion.