What is Non-duality?

[s1va]

15 hours ago, Limahong said:

Lord Shiva is the "destroyer of evil and the transformer" (Wikipedia). So the destruction of the bad is good?

 

Destruction is not always about good or bad.  Shiva as Mahakala destroys everything in time, both good and bad.  So, destruction is in a sense inevitable in this world.  Supposing there was no destroyer, every plant, human and animal lived from prehistoric times (let's say starting from the time of Neanderthal) and no one ever died.  What would be the population of Earth?  Would there be any space left for all of us to live?  So, destruction is good generally, of both bad and good. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by s1va
spelling

[Limahong]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

All things, after having served their purpose, get flushed down some drain. Is this the fate of this thread? Has the purpose of the OP been served?

 

What is OP? What is Tadekam na dvitiyam?

Edited November 29, 2017 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[dwai]

58 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

What is OP? What is Tadekam na dvitiyam?

OP is original post

Tadekam evadvitiyam means "That One, Ever Non-dual"

[Limahong]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

OP is original post

 

Hi dwai,

 

'Flushing' was used metaphorically within the context of the drinking posts. Nothing to do with the original post.

 

4 hours ago, dwai said:

Tadekam evadvitiyam

 

Synonymous with 'tadekam na dvitiyam'?

 

- LimA

[doc benway]

17 hours ago, Apech said:

Then it is not real understanding.

 

My point is that conceptualization, even accurate or "correct" conceptualization can be an obstacle to direct connection.

Direct experience transcends conceptual understanding.

I recognize this is not an absolute but I encounter so many people trying so hard to understand with the mind when what they really need is a little time away from understanding anything and simply resting...

 

[dwai]

5 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi dwai,

 

'Flushing' was used metaphorically within the context of the drinking posts. Nothing to do with the original post.

I was reflecting on the amusement factor, that’s  all  

 

5 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

 

Synonymous with 'tadekam na dvitiyam'?

 

- LimA

The correct statement is “tadekam evadvitiyam”, not “tadekam na dvitiyam”.

[C T]

4 hours ago, steve said:

 

My point is that conceptualization, even accurate or "correct" conceptualization can be an obstacle to direct connection.

Direct experience transcends conceptual understanding.

I recognize this is not an absolute but I encounter so many people trying so hard to understand with the mind when what they really need is a little time away from understanding anything and simply resting...

 

 

Indeed, this (bolded) is one of the hardest habits to change, but its not a bad thing though.. It can be like 'seed sowing'. Part of the process of spiritual evolution. The thing with habitual mental analysis or a constant need to appeal to logic is either the answers come via intellectual penetration, or recurring confusion becomes so dense, so flexed, that a sudden reversal or instant aha moment appears. Im sure we have all experienced something similar - trying very hard to recall something without success, and then, the very moment we give up the seemingly futile attempt, the recollection pops up!  

[Limahong]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

The correct statement is “tadekam evadvitiyam”, not “tadekam na dvitiyam”.

 

Hi dwai,

 

Perhaps you may like to correct "tadekam na dvitiyam" below 'dwai' on the left?

 

- LimA

[dwai]

4 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi dwai,

 

Perhaps you may like to correct "tadekam na dvitiyam" below 'dwai' on the left?

 

- LimA

oh hahaha

Thanks for catching that...you certainly have an eye for detail  

 

For some reason I thought I had corrected it in my profile...but apparently not 

Edited November 30, 2017 by dwai

[Limahong]

16 hours ago, steve said:

My point is that conceptualization, even accurate or "correct" conceptualization can be an obstacle to direct connection.

Direct experience transcends conceptual understanding.

 

Hi steve,

 

From dwai ('Heart Language' thread - 24 July 2017):

 

"When you think with words, you can express what you think with those words only. To think with ideas is to be able to put the same idea in many kinds of words. The words can also be of different languages, if you happen to know more than one language. This is the first, the most elementary thing about thinking with ideas.

 

When you think with experience, you go much deeper and you can express the same experience with many kinds of ideas. Then thought can take this form or that form in any language and through all of them the essential realisation will remain unchanged.

 

To be convincing when you speak, think not in ideas but in experiences." (The Mother, On Education: Teaching)

 

- LimA

[doc benway]

So interesting to see this argumentative pattern in me...

Thanks everyone for your dialogue and camaraderie.

 

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, Wells said:

It is a wrong way of those who try to understand spirituality by intellectualizing it.

 

Good morning Wells,

 

Wuwei.

 

- LimA

Edited December 3, 2017 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[3bob]

On 11/29/2017 at 8:34 AM, s1va said:

 

Destruction is not always about good or bad.  Shiva as Mahakala destroys everything in time, both good and bad.  So, destruction is in a sense inevitable in this world.  Supposing there was no destroyer, every plant, human and animal lived from prehistoric times (let's say starting from the time of Neanderthal) and no one ever died.  What would be the population of Earth?  Would there be any space left for all of us to live?  So, destruction is good generally, of both bad and good. 

 

destruction in this context needs further definition imo...thus I believe that the word transformation gives a better description regarding the matter.  Btw., in Taoism a "return" is often mentioned and that return is a transformation.   An analogy one might use is electricity returning to or going into a transformer and thus being changed into an electromagnetic field, which is not destruction per-se.   

Edited December 4, 2017 by 3bob

[Gunther]

12 hours ago, Wells said:

Cultivating self-awareness is just a deluded euphemism for a subtle cultivation of ego.

It just increases dualism (self -> <- not-self).

It is a wrong way of those who try to understand spirituality by intellectualizing it.

 

There is an attempt to say that can increase duality to the degree it collapses

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, Wells said:

 

Then the most deluded beings, engaging in the most deluded actions, creating the most bad karma, suddenly and miracolously becoming Buddhas without any spiritual training would be a common occurrenceoccurrenc

 

Can't follow your logic there😀

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[dawei]

14 hours ago, Wells said:

Cultivating self-awareness is just a deluded euphemism for a subtle cultivation of ego.

It just increases dualism (self -> <- not-self).

It is a wrong way of those who try to understand spirituality by intellectualizing it.

 

 

Thank you for that.  I've said this in a different manner before but you kind of explain the point.  My comments have been to quote Baopuzi who said, practice is not natural... ergo, practicing (trying) is doing (not non-doing).

 

That cast me on a path to find non-doing... which I would equate more closely with non-duality (just to bring my point to the OP). 

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, Wells said:

 

If duality would collapse when it increases to a certain height, then the most deluded, psychopathic and egotistic people would suddenly turn into Buddhas.

No, they would have a break down not a break through.

Many examples. The Buddha himself. Many others, meditated, practiced, cultivated, untill they exhausted the mind and let go

1 hour ago, Wells said:

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Gunther

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, dawei said:

 

Thank you for that.  I've said this in a different manner before but you kind of explain the point.  My comments have been to quote Baopuzi who said, practice is not natural... ergo, practicing (trying) is doing (not non-doing).

 

That cast me on a path to find non-doing... which I would equate more closely with non-duality (just to bring my point to the OP). 

 

Practices themselves are a "doing" and as such they reinforce duality, and yet they can be a doing that is far more conducive to finding the state of "non-doing" than many other random activities we tend to engage in. While non-doing is the core path, it is quite elusive and to the extent our practices support our recognition of and practice of non-doing, they are worthwhile to me. Too many practitioners abandon practices before they are adequately prepared to go beyond and end up in a dead end. Not saying that relates to you dawei, just a general observation.

[3bob]

as long as one has any manifestation they are responsible for whether gross to very subtle (for instance subtle as deities like Quan Yin are described) Dharmas need to be fulfilled...thus much of this talk about non-duality is putting and or projecting the cart in front of the horse which is not "natural".  

Edited December 4, 2017 by 3bob

[Limahong]

3 hours ago, steve said:

While non-doing is the core path, it is quite elusive and to the extent our practices support our recognition of and practice of non-doing, they are worthwhile to me.

 

Hi steve,

 

Non-doing = wuwei?

 

- LimA

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi steve,

 

Non-doing = wuwei?

 

- LimA

 

Yes, that is my opinion.

 

[dwai]

5 hours ago, steve said:

 

Practices themselves are a "doing" and as such they reinforce duality, and yet they can be a doing that is far more conducive to finding the state of "non-doing" than many other random activities we tend to engage in. While non-doing is the core path, it is quite elusive and to the extent our practices support our recognition of and practice of non-doing, they are worthwhile to me. Too many practitioners abandon practices before they are adequately prepared to go beyond and end up in a dead end. Not saying that relates to you dawei, just a general observation.

The simplest thing is to just abide in the I AM. It is very hard initially but once we understand what the “I Am” is, it is very simple.

i found that practices help in doing “antahakaranashuddhi”. Or help develop clarity. So effort, doing and practices are needed until they are not needed.