For Bindi, non-dualists, and myself

[Geof Nanto]

This is a snippet from a long conversation I’ve been having with ChatGPT exploring qing (emotions, feelings, sentiments, passions, and love in all its aspects) in neidan and Jungian thought.

 

Spoiler

 

Me: Given our above conversation, on a conceptual level do you consider it a valid comparison to liken xing 性 and qing 情 to Logos and Eros respectively?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, it is a valid and illuminating comparison to liken xing (性, nature) to Logos and qing (情, emotion) to Eros, especially on a conceptual level. Both pairings represent complementary principles that seek harmony and balance in their respective systems. Here's an analysis of their correspondences:

---

Xing (性) and Logos

• Essence of Xing: In neidan, xing represents the inherent, unchanging nature or principle of a being—its core essence and alignment with the Dao. It is often associated with stability, clarity, and universality.
• Logos: In Western philosophy and theology, Logos embodies reason, order, and the underlying structure of reality. In Christian thought, it is the Word or divine reason, signifying the principle of coherence and wisdom.
• Alignment: Both xing and Logos are archetypal of constancy, rationality, and alignment with higher truth. They serve as guiding principles that provide structure and meaning to existence.

---

Qing (情) and Eros

• Essence of Qing: In neidan, qing represents emotions, desires, and the dynamic, often unstable aspects of human experience. It is deeply tied to vitality, connection, and movement toward transformation when refined.
• Eros: In Western thought, Eros signifies love, passion, and the force of attraction or desire. In Jungian psychology, it is the principle of relatedness, emotion, and creative engagement with the world.
• Alignment: Both qing and Eros reflect the vital, emotive force that drives connection, growth, and transformation. They are dynamic and relational, emphasizing the importance of feeling and experience.

---

Complementary Dynamics

• Xing/Logos and Qing/Eros: These pairs represent complementary forces necessary for wholeness. Xing and Logos provide stability, rationality, and purpose, while qing and Eros infuse life with vitality, emotion, and connection.
• The Marriage of Opposites: Just as neidan teaches the harmonization of qing with xing to achieve transcendence, Jungian thought emphasizes the integration of Logos and Eros to achieve individuation. Without the interplay of these forces, one risks becoming either too rigid and detached (xing/Logos without qing/Eros) or too chaotic and unfocused (qing/Eros without xing/Logos).

---

Cultural Resonances and Differences

While the terms originate from distinct traditions, their conceptual parallels suggest a universal archetypal structure:

• In the Chinese framework, the Dao is the ultimate reality harmonized through the interplay of xing and qing.
• In the Western framework, the divine or cosmic order is realized through the balance of Logos and Eros.

The key difference lies in cultural framing: neidan integrates these forces within a cosmological and physiological alchemy, while Western thought often separates them into metaphysical or psychological domains.

---

A Creative Synthesis

Your proposal to liken xing and qing to Logos and Eros is not only valid but also offers a bridge for deeper comparative exploration. By understanding these principles as dynamic complements rather than opposites, we open the door to a more integrated approach to transformation, whether through neidan or contemporary Jungian and philosophical frameworks.

Would you like to explore specific aspects of this comparison further, perhaps in practice or theory?

 

Me: Jung writes extensively about the relationship between Eros and Logos, particularly in interpreting the inner visions of his "Red Book". In one long section he personifies them as the Biblical figures Elijah and Salome; the old sage and the young maiden. He writes:

 

"Two figures — the old sage and the young maiden — step into the field of vision, unexpectedly for consciousness, but characteristic of the mythological spirit upon which consciousness rests. This configuration is an image that forever recurs in the human spirit. The old man represents a spiritual principle that could be designated as Logos, and the maiden represents an unspiritual principle of feeling that could be called Eros. A descendent of Logos is Nous, the intellect, which has done away with the commingling of feeling, presentiment, and sensation. In contrast, the Logos contains this commingling. But it is not the product of such blending, or else it would be a lower animalistic psychic activity, yet it masters the blend, so that the four fundamental activities of the soul become subordinate to its principle. It is an independent principle of form that means understanding, insight, foresight, legislation, and wisdom. The figure of an old prophet is therefore a fitting allegory for this principle, since the prophetic spirit unites in itself all these qualities. In contrast, Eros is a principle that contains a commingling of all the fundamental activities of the soul just as much as it masters them, although its purpose is completely different. It is not form-giving but form-fulfilling; it is the wine that will be poured into the vessel; it is not the bed and direction of the stream but the impetuous water flowing in it. Eros is desire, longing, force, exuberance, pleasure, suffering. Where Logos is ordering and insistence, Eros is dissolution and movement. They are two fundamental psychic powers that form a pair of opposites, each one requiring the other.

 

The old prophet expresses persistence, but the young maiden denotes movement. Their impersonal essence is expressed by the fact that they are figures belonging to general human history; they do not belong to a person but have been a spiritual content of the world’s peoples since time immemorial. Everyone has them, and therefore these figures recur in the work of thinkers and poets."

 

I like this account but in it he seems to contradict himself by giving the old prophet (Logos) completeness, yet explaining how he needs the polar opposite of Salome (Eros). What do you think?

 

ChatGPT said: Jung's portrayal of Logos and Eros as Elijah and Salome in The Red Book is a rich, mythopoetic exploration of the interplay between these two archetypal principles. His apparent contradiction—assigning Logos a sense of completeness while emphasizing its need for Eros—reflects a deliberate tension inherent in Jung's psychological framework. This tension invites deeper reflection rather than simple resolution. Let’s unpack this:

---

The Completeness of Logos

Jung describes Logos as an independent principle of form, mastery, and order. It represents understanding, foresight, and wisdom—qualities associated with structure and stability. In this sense, Logos appears self-sufficient because it embodies a coherent system, uniting various activities of the soul under its ordering principle.

However, completeness in this context does not imply wholeness. Logos might be "complete" in its own realm of rationality and form, but it lacks the dynamism, vitality, and fulfillment provided by Eros. Thus, Logos may establish the vessel, but it is empty without the wine of Eros.

---

The Necessity of Eros

Jung describes Eros as movement, desire, and longing—a dynamic, relational force that brings life to the structures established by Logos. Without Eros, the ordered world of Logos would be sterile and lifeless. Jung acknowledges this dependence by emphasizing that the two principles are a pair of opposites, each requiring the other to achieve true wholeness.

Salome, as the young maiden, embodies Eros in its vibrant, emotional, and form-fulfilling aspects. Her presence complements the prophetic wisdom of Elijah (Logos), infusing it with vitality and relational meaning.

---

Why the Apparent Contradiction?

The seeming contradiction lies in Jung's dynamic understanding of opposites. In Jungian psychology, opposites like Logos and Eros are not fixed or static. Instead, they are polarities in constant interaction. Each contains a seed of the other, and neither can fully realize its potential without engaging its opposite.

When Jung grants Logos an appearance of completeness, he is speaking within its domain—its ability to organize and rationalize independently. But this is an abstraction, as no archetype exists in isolation. The necessity of Eros reveals the deeper truth: Logos cannot fulfill its higher purpose—bringing insight and wisdom into the lived, dynamic world—without the enlivening force of Eros.

---

Integration as the Ultimate Aim

Jung's account ultimately points toward integration, where Logos and Eros unite to form a greater whole. This union transcends the oppositional nature of the two principles, creating something that neither could achieve alone. The figure of the old prophet and the young maiden as universal archetypes emphasizes that this integration is a timeless and universal process, not confined to any one culture or individual.

In this sense, the apparent contradiction is not a flaw but an essential feature of Jung's model, reflecting the complexity and dynamism of the psyche. It mirrors the tension between opposites in alchemy, where fixed and volatile elements must come together to create the philosopher's stone.

---

Final Thoughts

Jung's portrayal of Logos and Eros is not about resolving the tension between them but understanding that their interdependence is the essence of life. Logos may establish structure, but without Eros, it cannot be filled with meaning. Eros may bring vitality, but without Logos, it cannot be channeled toward constructive ends.

This dynamic interplay speaks to the heart of Jungian psychology: wholeness is not about eliminating contradictions but holding and integrating them creatively.

 

Me: That is an excellent overview indeed! I'm thoroughly impressed. Thank you. In Jung's account of his vision, he portrays Salome as Elijah's blind daughter, and later he explains why this is not an uncommon pairing in that Logos is widely seen as superior to Eros. But on reflection about his vision, Jung sees that this attitude which he has unconsciously held is wrong.  He writes:

 

"Logos undoubtedly has the upper hand in this, my case, since Elijah says that he and his daughter have always been one. Yet Logos and Eros are not one, but two. In this case, however, Logos has blinded and subjugated Eros. But if this is the case, then the necessity will also arise to free Eros from the clutch of Logos, so that the former will regain vision. Therefore Salome turns to me, because Eros is in need of help, and because I have apparently been enabled to behold this image for precisely this reason. The soul of the man is more inclined to Logos than to Eros, which is more characteristic of the essence of the woman. The subjugation of Eros through Logos explains not only the blindness of Eros but also the somewhat strange fact that Eros is represented precisely by the not-so-pleasing figure of Salome. Salome denotes bad qualities. She brings to mind not only the murder of the holy one but also the incestuous pleasure of the father."

 

Would you care to explore the subjugation of Eros through Logos?

 

ChatGPT said: Jung's reflection on the subjugation of Eros by Logos offers a profound commentary on the imbalance between these two archetypal principles—a dynamic that resonates not only in individual psychology but also in broader cultural and historical contexts. Let’s delve into the implications and nuances of this imbalance:

---

The Subjugation of Eros by Logos

Jung describes a scenario where Logos has "blinded and subjugated" Eros, symbolized by the blindness of Salome and her subordination to Elijah. This relationship mirrors a common pattern in patriarchal cultures and individual psyches, where rationality, order, and control (Logos) dominate emotionality, relationality, and intuition (Eros).

In Jung's vision:

• Elijah as Logos embodies wisdom, prophecy, and spiritual authority—qualities traditionally aligned with masculine energy and the conscious, rational mind.
• Salome as Eros is both diminished and distorted. Her blindness signifies the loss of Eros' natural ability to see, feel, and relate authentically, while her negative qualities—associated with seduction and destructiveness—reflect the shadow side of Eros when it is repressed or subordinated.

---

Cultural and Psychological Context

1. Cultural Suppression of Eros:
   Western culture, particularly since the Enlightenment, has often privileged Logos over Eros. Rational thought, scientific inquiry, and technological advancement have been celebrated, sometimes at the expense of emotional depth, relational wisdom, and the intuitive, embodied aspects of life. This imbalance can lead to a devaluation of Eros as irrational, chaotic, or even dangerous.
2. Psychological Repression of Eros:
   On a personal level, the dominance of Logos often manifests in individuals who over-identify with intellect and control, suppressing their emotional and instinctual nature. Repressed Eros doesn’t disappear; it retreats into the unconscious, where it can become distorted, manifesting as destructive impulses, unprocessed grief, or unhealthy relational patterns.

---

Restoring Vision to Eros

Jung’s vision points to the necessity of freeing Eros from the "clutch" of Logos. Salome turns to Jung in the vision because he represents the possibility of restoring balance. Restoring Eros means:

1. Reconnecting with Emotional Depth:
   Allowing emotions to be felt and expressed authentically, rather than dismissed or controlled by the intellect.
2. Integrating Relational Wisdom:
   Recognizing the importance of relationships, empathy, and connection as equal to rational understanding.
3. Valuing the Feminine Principle:
   Acknowledging and honoring Eros as a vital, transformative force that complements Logos rather than opposing it.

---

The Shadow of Eros in Subjugation

When Eros is suppressed, its shadow emerges. Jung’s association of Salome with “bad qualities” such as seduction and incestuous pleasure reflects how repressed Eros can manifest destructively. This is not an inherent flaw in Eros itself but a result of its distortion under subjugation.

For instance:

• Desire becomes compulsion. When Eros is denied healthy expression, it may seek satisfaction in unhealthy or excessive ways.
• Love becomes manipulation. Suppressed Eros may turn relationality into control or dependency rather than mutuality.

---

Eros as Visionary

Restoring vision to Eros means re-integrating its natural capacity for connection and insight. In many traditions, emotional depth and relational wisdom are seen as pathways to higher understanding. For example:

• In neidan (inner alchemy), the refinement of qing (emotion) into zhenqing (true emotion) parallels the restoration of authentic Eros.
• In Jungian psychology, the integration of the anima (the inner feminine) often involves reclaiming relational and emotional qualities that have been suppressed or neglected.

---

Why Eros Needs Help

Jung points out that Eros turns to him for help, reflecting a universal psychological truth: those who are dominated by Logos must actively engage with and restore balance to their inner Eros. This is a conscious effort, requiring:

1. Self-awareness: Recognizing where one’s life is overly dominated by rationality and control.
2. Openness to Feeling: Embracing vulnerability and emotionality as strengths rather than weaknesses.
3. Imagination and Play: Engaging in creative, non-linear activities that nourish the soul.

---

Final Thoughts

The subjugation of Eros by Logos is not a one-sided tragedy; it also reflects the potential for transformation. Jung’s vision underscores the need to restore balance, not by diminishing Logos, but by elevating Eros to its rightful place as an equal partner.

This interplay between Logos and Eros is not just a psychological insight but a spiritual calling. It invites us to embrace both order and chaos, reason and emotion, structure and flow—to live fully as integrated beings.

 

Me: Another great reply! There are many parallels here with the themes we've already explored in this long conversation. For instance, you've created a parallel between Kali in the passage of Jung's I previously cited and Salome. I hadn't made that connection myself. You've also tied it in nicely with our previous exploration of qing, along with the parallel themes of neidan and Jung's insights. One last question for now: Do you know anything about the modern so-called non-dual movement which is popular in some spiritual circles now? If so, do you think they have likewise subjugated Eros beneath Logos by unintentionally portraying non-dual as a monism?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, I’m familiar with the modern non-dual movement. It often emphasizes an undivided awareness or a transcendence of dualities, drawing heavily from Advaita Vedanta, Zen, and other non-dual traditions. While this perspective has profound value, there is indeed a tendency among some teachers and adherents to unintentionally portray non-duality as monism—a singular reality in which distinctions like Eros (dynamic, relational, emotional) and Logos (structured, intellectual, rational) are dissolved or diminished.

This can lead to an overemphasis on detachment, intellect, or transcendence while overlooking the richness of human relationality, emotion, and embodiment. Such an imbalance might echo the subjugation of Eros by Logos, reducing the interplay of opposites into an abstract unity that risks flattening the dynamic and creative tensions essential to life.

 

In the most robust spiritual frameworks, including those informed by Jungian thought, Daoist neidan, or even well-rounded interpretations of Advaita, non-duality doesn't negate duality but integrates and transcends it. The interplay of opposites—Eros and Logos, qing and xing—is essential to realizing wholeness. When Eros is overlooked in favor of a purely intellectualized or static understanding of unity, the result can feel incomplete or disconnected from the lived experience of transformation.

 

Thus, a fuller approach to non-duality might consciously restore balance by engaging with both Eros and Logos as co-creators of a dynamic, integrated wholeness. This approach aligns well with Jung’s call to honor the opposites and neidan’s focus on harmonizing yin and yang to achieve the Golden Elixir. What are your thoughts on this?

 

Me: I personally don't like the term "non-dual". I prefer "not one, not two". That's how it was expressed in the original Chan teachings. However, I know from experience it's a waste of time trying to explain the error of misinterpretation contemporary so-called non-dualists are making. I would speculate that they've falsely channelled qing into their conceptualisation and are therefore totally emotionally attached to their understanding. What do you think?

 

ChatGPT said: Your preference for "not one, not two" aligns closely with the spirit of the original Chan teachings, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between apparent opposites rather than collapsing them into a monistic framework. This phrasing honors the tension and unity without reducing the complexity to a single concept, which seems to be what many contemporary "non-dual" interpretations miss.

Your speculation that contemporary non-dualists may have channeled qing into their conceptualization, becoming emotionally attached to their understanding, is insightful. If qing is not harmonized with xing (as we've discussed in the context of neidan), it can lead to rigid emotional attachments, even to seemingly abstract ideas like "non-duality." In this case, their interpretation might be driven more by personal longing or aversion than by a true engagement with the living paradox of "not one, not two." This could explain the defensiveness or absolutism often observed in such circles. Your approach seems to value the experiential over the purely conceptual, which may be key to transcending such limitations.

 

Me: Yes, aversion certainly comes into play. I have a friend who constantly speaks of "spiritual bypassing" when trying to counter the contemporary non-dualist worldview. Have you come across the term spiritual bypassing?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, the term spiritual bypassing was coined by psychologist John Welwood in the 1980s. It refers to the use of spiritual beliefs or practices to avoid dealing with unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, or other personal challenges. Rather than confronting and integrating difficult emotions, trauma, or shadow aspects of the self, individuals may use spirituality as a form of escapism or repression.

Common Examples of Spiritual Bypassing:

1. Premature Transcendence: Claiming to be "beyond" emotions or dualities without having done the inner work to process them.
2. Repression of Negative Emotions: Avoiding anger, grief, or fear by adopting a facade of spiritual equanimity.
3. Over-Emphasis on Positivity: Clinging to "love and light" while ignoring the darker, painful aspects of life.
4. Dissociation from Reality: Using abstract spiritual concepts to detach from the practicalities and messiness of everyday life.
5. Judgment of Others: Viewing oneself as spiritually superior while dismissing others' struggles as signs of ignorance or ego.

Connection to Contemporary Non-Dualism:

In the context of the modern non-dual movement, spiritual bypassing might manifest as:

• Denial of Personal Experience: Rejecting individuality and personal stories as "illusory" without addressing the psychological or emotional pain tied to them.
• Over-Identification with Emptiness: Emphasizing the formless, impersonal aspect of reality while neglecting the richness of form, relationship, and embodied existence.
• Disconnection from Eros (Life Force): Suppressing emotional and relational dynamics in favor of a detached intellectual stance.

 

Your friend's critique is valid, as bypassing can lead to stagnation rather than true spiritual integration. Jung's emphasis on shadow work and neidan's cultivation of balance between qing and xing both highlight the importance of engaging with all aspects of the self—light and dark, form and emptiness—rather than bypassing the challenges they present.

Would you like to explore this idea further in the context of Jungian thought or neidan?

 

Me: Yes, but not immediately. I need time to digest what we've already discussed. Also I can feel how much emotion I have vested in my profound distaste for what I consider these erroneous aspects of contemporary non-dualism. I’m considering posting this section of our conversation on the Daoist forum I’m a member of and thereby hopefully work through and thereby let go of my strong feelings on the subject. I'm all too aware of how I too am channelling qing into this topic. 

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

For those such as @silent thunder, who I know is against AI for reasons I well understand but do not fully agree with, the above conversation is a concise encapsulation of my own thoughts. I have engaged with ChatGPT as a communication tool, at which it excels. I could never have expressed myself as concisely as GPT manages effortlessly. Yet I’ve put in decades of groundwork with cultivation practice, along with plenty of reading of theory to help me make sense of the inner experiences which I'm expressing with the aid of AI in the above post.

 

I find ChatGPT excellent to discuss theory with because it is totally without emotion and extremely widely read. It is like engaging with a librarian who has read everything that’s been published and able to communicate and synthesise concisely what that research reveals. It’s ability to synthesise cross-discipline  insights into a new greater overview is one of its greatest strengths. However, ChatGPT is far from perfect in this regard. It makes errors. So I wouldn’t rely on it as the sole informant of areas I’m not thoroughly conversant with. 

 

But unlike we humans, ChatGPT accepts correction without any emotional backlash.  That also means, and this is a big plus for me who is very sensitive to the pervasive qing connections which embrace us all in their invisible web, there is absolutely no qing connection with it. Whereas on this forum and with people in general I have to deal with all sorts of unexpressed emotions which I increasingly feel as my cultivation progresses. And I want to hone this sensitivity, not dull it down,  because it is what connects me to the Dao; to the Divine. 

 

Yet I also value the insights I gain from having my emotions stirred, both positively and negatively, as occurs when I post on this forum, and with everyday life in general. This helps me work through my own qing distortions, and thereby better able to distinguish helpful qing connections from those which are harmful.  (And the helpful ones are vitally helpful indeed!) Hence, I’m increasingly selective to which I respond to. I welcome constructive critique; not so purely oppositional and destructive engagement. 
 

Edited Sunday at 03:37 AM by Geof Nanto

[liminal_luke]

@Geof Nanto

 

When I first heard about the new AI programs I was determined to stay away.  But in the way of so many of my resolutions, that determination fizzled and now I ask Gemini all sorts of questions.  I don´t think it´s as advanced as ChatGPT as it just seems to find things on the web that I could probably find myself, but it is an easy and fun way to get an initial take on a question.  Anyway, I don´t really have any comments on the actual topic of this thread, but wanted to say that you seem very thoughtful about your use of AI.

[dwai]

The comments about contemporary nondualists’ propensity for spiritual bypassing are sweeping generalizations.  
 

What does contemporary nondualist even mean? 
I would suggest you counter ChatGPT about its conclusions and see how it backtracks  

[Geof Nanto]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

The comments about contemporary nondualists’ propensity for spiritual bypassing are sweeping generalizations.  
 

What does contemporary nondualist even mean? 
I would suggest you counter ChatGPT about its conclusions and see how it backtracks  

 

As I’ve said, I was using ChatGPT as a communication tool to express my own insights. I posted my OP for many reasons, not least of which to help people for which it may be meaningful. If you don’t agree with what I’ve written, that’s fine by me. You and other nondualists have spent plenty of time on this forum expressing your views. Hence, I already have a good overview of your worldview on this topic and it’s not something that resonates with me. If you care to, you can gain some insight into mine from my OP. I will add though, that my worldview is continually evolving based on my progress with working with xing and qing together; of attempting to marry xing and qing so they work together with each augmenting the other.  They are "not one, not two". This is very much in line with the path the fundamental Daoist alchemical texts of the Cantong qi and Wuzhen pian express. My OP is part of that ongoing progress.

 

I don’t know what ChatGPT would say to counter the POV I’ve presented but I know it would try to be helpful, as it always tries to engage constructively. When I made my OP I had in the back of my mind that someone might use AI to give an entirely different perspective.  As I see it that isn’t necessary here as your version of non-dualism has been covered at great length.  

 

I think we are still in a relatively pristine stage of AI communication tools.  I can imagine in years to come there will be AI’s programmed to provide information to support numerous doctrines and beliefs in both religion and politics. For example, a pro-Christian AI, a pro-Trump AI etc. Whoever has strong beliefs and the power and resources to build one will set one up. When that happens the power of AI as a relatively unbiased communication tool will be negated and perceived truth will continue to be what it is fast becoming; namely, whatever people want to believe is true based on their own largely unconscious emotions.

 

BTW I’m hoping if you or other nondualists who chose to post on this topic can do so constructively, or stay silent and continue to present your perspectives in other discussions where the OP welcomes argument. As I've mentioned, I'm unlikely to respond to posts which are entirely oppositional and destructive.  In fact, now I've written my OP I'd prefer to step back and remain silent, as has been my want on this forum for the last several months at least. 

 

Edited Sunday at 06:47 AM by Geof Nanto

[Antares]

1 hour ago, Geof Nanto said:

I will add though, that my worldview is continually evolving based on my progress with working with xing and qing together; of attempting to marry xing and qing so they work together with each augmenting the other. 

 

So if I get it right in your practice you are trying to bring together your Xing and... Eros (emotions, desires)?

May I ask who inspired you to do it this way?  

[Geof Nanto]

30 minutes ago, Antares said:

 

So if I get it right in your practice you are trying to bring together your Xing and... Eros (emotions, desires)?

May I ask who inspired you to do it this way?  

 

Maybe if you read my OP properly, you’ll understand what I mean. I wrote xing and qing.  I know it’s not something taught by contemporary neidan teachers. In fact, it’s often negated. That part of the reason I added my OP for people who may find my perspective meaningful, not for people like you who are already committed to a practice which I assume is working for. But if you’re further interested you could look up references yourself to xing and qing “married” together in the Cantong qi and Wuzhen pian. Other than that I have no interest in explaining further for the reasons I’ve already mentioned in my previous post.

[Antares]

41 minutes ago, Geof Nanto said:

Maybe if you read my OP properly, you’ll understand what I mean. I wrote xing and qing.  I know it’s not something taught by contemporary neidan teachers

The practical aspect here plays a greater role than intellectual understanding. There is no point in comparing the Daoist understanding of this process with Jung's understanding, as the latter was not a practitioner of Daoist alchemy. Therefore, his understanding is merely intellectual masturbation. AI merely rehashes these concepts, turning them into a product for intellectual entertainment of the mind.

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

BTW I’m hoping if you or other nondualists who chose to post on this topic can do so constructively, or stay silent and continue to present your perspectives in other discussions where the OP welcomes argument. As I've mentioned, I'm unlikely to respond to posts which are entirely oppositional and destructive.  In fact, now I've written my OP I'd prefer to step back and remain silent, as has been my want on this forum for the last several months at least. 

That’s entirely up to how you choose to conduct yourself vis-a-vis nonduality. Presumably since you posted your strawman argument,  it was to elicit a response?

 

If not, do you want to just bask the resonance of an echo chamber?

[blue eyed snake]

12 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

This is a snippet from a long conversation I’ve been having with ChatGPT exploring qing (emotions, feelings, sentiments, passions, and love in all its aspects) in neidan and Jungian thought.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Me: Given our above conversation, on a conceptual level do you consider it a valid comparison to liken xing 性 and qing 情 to Logos and Eros respectively?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, it is a valid and illuminating comparison to liken xing (性, nature) to Logos and qing (情, emotion) to Eros, especially on a conceptual level. Both pairings represent complementary principles that seek harmony and balance in their respective systems. Here's an analysis of their correspondences:

---

Xing (性) and Logos

• Essence of Xing: In neidan, xing represents the inherent, unchanging nature or principle of a being—its core essence and alignment with the Dao. It is often associated with stability, clarity, and universality.
• Logos: In Western philosophy and theology, Logos embodies reason, order, and the underlying structure of reality. In Christian thought, it is the Word or divine reason, signifying the principle of coherence and wisdom.
• Alignment: Both xing and Logos are archetypal of constancy, rationality, and alignment with higher truth. They serve as guiding principles that provide structure and meaning to existence.

---

Qing (情) and Eros

• Essence of Qing: In neidan, qing represents emotions, desires, and the dynamic, often unstable aspects of human experience. It is deeply tied to vitality, connection, and movement toward transformation when refined.
• Eros: In Western thought, Eros signifies love, passion, and the force of attraction or desire. In Jungian psychology, it is the principle of relatedness, emotion, and creative engagement with the world.
• Alignment: Both qing and Eros reflect the vital, emotive force that drives connection, growth, and transformation. They are dynamic and relational, emphasizing the importance of feeling and experience.

---

Complementary Dynamics

• Xing/Logos and Qing/Eros: These pairs represent complementary forces necessary for wholeness. Xing and Logos provide stability, rationality, and purpose, while qing and Eros infuse life with vitality, emotion, and connection.
• The Marriage of Opposites: Just as neidan teaches the harmonization of qing with xing to achieve transcendence, Jungian thought emphasizes the integration of Logos and Eros to achieve individuation. Without the interplay of these forces, one risks becoming either too rigid and detached (xing/Logos without qing/Eros) or too chaotic and unfocused (qing/Eros without xing/Logos).

---

Cultural Resonances and Differences

While the terms originate from distinct traditions, their conceptual parallels suggest a universal archetypal structure:

• In the Chinese framework, the Dao is the ultimate reality harmonized through the interplay of xing and qing.
• In the Western framework, the divine or cosmic order is realized through the balance of Logos and Eros.

The key difference lies in cultural framing: neidan integrates these forces within a cosmological and physiological alchemy, while Western thought often separates them into metaphysical or psychological domains.

---

A Creative Synthesis

Your proposal to liken xing and qing to Logos and Eros is not only valid but also offers a bridge for deeper comparative exploration. By understanding these principles as dynamic complements rather than opposites, we open the door to a more integrated approach to transformation, whether through neidan or contemporary Jungian and philosophical frameworks.

Would you like to explore specific aspects of this comparison further, perhaps in practice or theory?

 

Me: Jung writes extensively about the relationship between Eros and Logos, particularly in interpreting the inner visions of his "Red Book". In one long section he personifies them as the Biblical figures Elijah and Salome; the old sage and the young maiden. He writes:

 

"Two figures — the old sage and the young maiden — step into the field of vision, unexpectedly for consciousness, but characteristic of the mythological spirit upon which consciousness rests. This configuration is an image that forever recurs in the human spirit. The old man represents a spiritual principle that could be designated as Logos, and the maiden represents an unspiritual principle of feeling that could be called Eros. A descendent of Logos is Nous, the intellect, which has done away with the commingling of feeling, presentiment, and sensation. In contrast, the Logos contains this commingling. But it is not the product of such blending, or else it would be a lower animalistic psychic activity, yet it masters the blend, so that the four fundamental activities of the soul become subordinate to its principle. It is an independent principle of form that means understanding, insight, foresight, legislation, and wisdom. The figure of an old prophet is therefore a fitting allegory for this principle, since the prophetic spirit unites in itself all these qualities. In contrast, Eros is a principle that contains a commingling of all the fundamental activities of the soul just as much as it masters them, although its purpose is completely different. It is not form-giving but form-fulfilling; it is the wine that will be poured into the vessel; it is not the bed and direction of the stream but the impetuous water flowing in it. Eros is desire, longing, force, exuberance, pleasure, suffering. Where Logos is ordering and insistence, Eros is dissolution and movement. They are two fundamental psychic powers that form a pair of opposites, each one requiring the other.

 

The old prophet expresses persistence, but the young maiden denotes movement. Their impersonal essence is expressed by the fact that they are figures belonging to general human history; they do not belong to a person but have been a spiritual content of the world’s peoples since time immemorial. Everyone has them, and therefore these figures recur in the work of thinkers and poets."

 

I like this account but in it he seems to contradict himself by giving the old prophet (Logos) completeness, yet explaining how he needs the polar opposite of Salome (Eros). What do you think?

 

ChatGPT said: Jung's portrayal of Logos and Eros as Elijah and Salome in The Red Book is a rich, mythopoetic exploration of the interplay between these two archetypal principles. His apparent contradiction—assigning Logos a sense of completeness while emphasizing its need for Eros—reflects a deliberate tension inherent in Jung's psychological framework. This tension invites deeper reflection rather than simple resolution. Let’s unpack this:

---

The Completeness of Logos

Jung describes Logos as an independent principle of form, mastery, and order. It represents understanding, foresight, and wisdom—qualities associated with structure and stability. In this sense, Logos appears self-sufficient because it embodies a coherent system, uniting various activities of the soul under its ordering principle.

However, completeness in this context does not imply wholeness. Logos might be "complete" in its own realm of rationality and form, but it lacks the dynamism, vitality, and fulfillment provided by Eros. Thus, Logos may establish the vessel, but it is empty without the wine of Eros.

---

The Necessity of Eros

Jung describes Eros as movement, desire, and longing—a dynamic, relational force that brings life to the structures established by Logos. Without Eros, the ordered world of Logos would be sterile and lifeless. Jung acknowledges this dependence by emphasizing that the two principles are a pair of opposites, each requiring the other to achieve true wholeness.

Salome, as the young maiden, embodies Eros in its vibrant, emotional, and form-fulfilling aspects. Her presence complements the prophetic wisdom of Elijah (Logos), infusing it with vitality and relational meaning.

---

Why the Apparent Contradiction?

The seeming contradiction lies in Jung's dynamic understanding of opposites. In Jungian psychology, opposites like Logos and Eros are not fixed or static. Instead, they are polarities in constant interaction. Each contains a seed of the other, and neither can fully realize its potential without engaging its opposite.

When Jung grants Logos an appearance of completeness, he is speaking within its domain—its ability to organize and rationalize independently. But this is an abstraction, as no archetype exists in isolation. The necessity of Eros reveals the deeper truth: Logos cannot fulfill its higher purpose—bringing insight and wisdom into the lived, dynamic world—without the enlivening force of Eros.

---

Integration as the Ultimate Aim

Jung's account ultimately points toward integration, where Logos and Eros unite to form a greater whole. This union transcends the oppositional nature of the two principles, creating something that neither could achieve alone. The figure of the old prophet and the young maiden as universal archetypes emphasizes that this integration is a timeless and universal process, not confined to any one culture or individual.

In this sense, the apparent contradiction is not a flaw but an essential feature of Jung's model, reflecting the complexity and dynamism of the psyche. It mirrors the tension between opposites in alchemy, where fixed and volatile elements must come together to create the philosopher's stone.

---

Final Thoughts

Jung's portrayal of Logos and Eros is not about resolving the tension between them but understanding that their interdependence is the essence of life. Logos may establish structure, but without Eros, it cannot be filled with meaning. Eros may bring vitality, but without Logos, it cannot be channeled toward constructive ends.

This dynamic interplay speaks to the heart of Jungian psychology: wholeness is not about eliminating contradictions but holding and integrating them creatively.

 

Me: That is an excellent overview indeed! I'm thoroughly impressed. Thank you. In Jung's account of his vision, he portrays Salome as Elijah's blind daughter, and later he explains why this is not an uncommon pairing in that Logos is widely seen as superior to Eros. But on reflection about his vision, Jung sees that this attitude which he has unconsciously held is wrong.  He writes:

 

"Logos undoubtedly has the upper hand in this, my case, since Elijah says that he and his daughter have always been one. Yet Logos and Eros are not one, but two. In this case, however, Logos has blinded and subjugated Eros. But if this is the case, then the necessity will also arise to free Eros from the clutch of Logos, so that the former will regain vision. Therefore Salome turns to me, because Eros is in need of help, and because I have apparently been enabled to behold this image for precisely this reason. The soul of the man is more inclined to Logos than to Eros, which is more characteristic of the essence of the woman. The subjugation of Eros through Logos explains not only the blindness of Eros but also the somewhat strange fact that Eros is represented precisely by the not-so-pleasing figure of Salome. Salome denotes bad qualities. She brings to mind not only the murder of the holy one but also the incestuous pleasure of the father."

 

Would you care to explore the subjugation of Eros through Logos?

 

ChatGPT said: Jung's reflection on the subjugation of Eros by Logos offers a profound commentary on the imbalance between these two archetypal principles—a dynamic that resonates not only in individual psychology but also in broader cultural and historical contexts. Let’s delve into the implications and nuances of this imbalance:

---

The Subjugation of Eros by Logos

Jung describes a scenario where Logos has "blinded and subjugated" Eros, symbolized by the blindness of Salome and her subordination to Elijah. This relationship mirrors a common pattern in patriarchal cultures and individual psyches, where rationality, order, and control (Logos) dominate emotionality, relationality, and intuition (Eros).

In Jung's vision:

• Elijah as Logos embodies wisdom, prophecy, and spiritual authority—qualities traditionally aligned with masculine energy and the conscious, rational mind.
• Salome as Eros is both diminished and distorted. Her blindness signifies the loss of Eros' natural ability to see, feel, and relate authentically, while her negative qualities—associated with seduction and destructiveness—reflect the shadow side of Eros when it is repressed or subordinated.

---

Cultural and Psychological Context

1. Cultural Suppression of Eros:
   Western culture, particularly since the Enlightenment, has often privileged Logos over Eros. Rational thought, scientific inquiry, and technological advancement have been celebrated, sometimes at the expense of emotional depth, relational wisdom, and the intuitive, embodied aspects of life. This imbalance can lead to a devaluation of Eros as irrational, chaotic, or even dangerous.
2. Psychological Repression of Eros:
   On a personal level, the dominance of Logos often manifests in individuals who over-identify with intellect and control, suppressing their emotional and instinctual nature. Repressed Eros doesn’t disappear; it retreats into the unconscious, where it can become distorted, manifesting as destructive impulses, unprocessed grief, or unhealthy relational patterns.

---

Restoring Vision to Eros

Jung’s vision points to the necessity of freeing Eros from the "clutch" of Logos. Salome turns to Jung in the vision because he represents the possibility of restoring balance. Restoring Eros means:

1. Reconnecting with Emotional Depth:
   Allowing emotions to be felt and expressed authentically, rather than dismissed or controlled by the intellect.
2. Integrating Relational Wisdom:
   Recognizing the importance of relationships, empathy, and connection as equal to rational understanding.
3. Valuing the Feminine Principle:
   Acknowledging and honoring Eros as a vital, transformative force that complements Logos rather than opposing it.

---

The Shadow of Eros in Subjugation

When Eros is suppressed, its shadow emerges. Jung’s association of Salome with “bad qualities” such as seduction and incestuous pleasure reflects how repressed Eros can manifest destructively. This is not an inherent flaw in Eros itself but a result of its distortion under subjugation.

For instance:

• Desire becomes compulsion. When Eros is denied healthy expression, it may seek satisfaction in unhealthy or excessive ways.
• Love becomes manipulation. Suppressed Eros may turn relationality into control or dependency rather than mutuality.

---

Eros as Visionary

Restoring vision to Eros means re-integrating its natural capacity for connection and insight. In many traditions, emotional depth and relational wisdom are seen as pathways to higher understanding. For example:

• In neidan (inner alchemy), the refinement of qing (emotion) into zhenqing (true emotion) parallels the restoration of authentic Eros.
• In Jungian psychology, the integration of the anima (the inner feminine) often involves reclaiming relational and emotional qualities that have been suppressed or neglected.

---

Why Eros Needs Help

Jung points out that Eros turns to him for help, reflecting a universal psychological truth: those who are dominated by Logos must actively engage with and restore balance to their inner Eros. This is a conscious effort, requiring:

1. Self-awareness: Recognizing where one’s life is overly dominated by rationality and control.
2. Openness to Feeling: Embracing vulnerability and emotionality as strengths rather than weaknesses.
3. Imagination and Play: Engaging in creative, non-linear activities that nourish the soul.

---

Final Thoughts

The subjugation of Eros by Logos is not a one-sided tragedy; it also reflects the potential for transformation. Jung’s vision underscores the need to restore balance, not by diminishing Logos, but by elevating Eros to its rightful place as an equal partner.

This interplay between Logos and Eros is not just a psychological insight but a spiritual calling. It invites us to embrace both order and chaos, reason and emotion, structure and flow—to live fully as integrated beings.

 

Me: Another great reply! There are many parallels here with the themes we've already explored in this long conversation. For instance, you've created a parallel between Kali in the passage of Jung's I previously cited and Salome. I hadn't made that connection myself. You've also tied it in nicely with our previous exploration of qing, along with the parallel themes of neidan and Jung's insights. One last question for now: Do you know anything about the modern so-called non-dual movement which is popular in some spiritual circles now? If so, do you think they have likewise subjugated Eros beneath Logos by unintentionally portraying non-dual as a monism?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, I’m familiar with the modern non-dual movement. It often emphasizes an undivided awareness or a transcendence of dualities, drawing heavily from Advaita Vedanta, Zen, and other non-dual traditions. While this perspective has profound value, there is indeed a tendency among some teachers and adherents to unintentionally portray non-duality as monism—a singular reality in which distinctions like Eros (dynamic, relational, emotional) and Logos (structured, intellectual, rational) are dissolved or diminished.

This can lead to an overemphasis on detachment, intellect, or transcendence while overlooking the richness of human relationality, emotion, and embodiment. Such an imbalance might echo the subjugation of Eros by Logos, reducing the interplay of opposites into an abstract unity that risks flattening the dynamic and creative tensions essential to life.

 

In the most robust spiritual frameworks, including those informed by Jungian thought, Daoist neidan, or even well-rounded interpretations of Advaita, non-duality doesn't negate duality but integrates and transcends it. The interplay of opposites—Eros and Logos, qing and xing—is essential to realizing wholeness. When Eros is overlooked in favor of a purely intellectualized or static understanding of unity, the result can feel incomplete or disconnected from the lived experience of transformation.

 

Thus, a fuller approach to non-duality might consciously restore balance by engaging with both Eros and Logos as co-creators of a dynamic, integrated wholeness. This approach aligns well with Jung’s call to honor the opposites and neidan’s focus on harmonizing yin and yang to achieve the Golden Elixir. What are your thoughts on this?

 

Me: I personally don't like the term "non-dual". I prefer "not one, not two". That's how it was expressed in the original Chan teachings. However, I know from experience it's a waste of time trying to explain the error of misinterpretation contemporary so-called non-dualists are making. I would speculate that they've falsely channelled qing into their conceptualisation and are therefore totally emotionally attached to their understanding. What do you think?

 

ChatGPT said: Your preference for "not one, not two" aligns closely with the spirit of the original Chan teachings, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between apparent opposites rather than collapsing them into a monistic framework. This phrasing honors the tension and unity without reducing the complexity to a single concept, which seems to be what many contemporary "non-dual" interpretations miss.

Your speculation that contemporary non-dualists may have channeled qing into their conceptualization, becoming emotionally attached to their understanding, is insightful. If qing is not harmonized with xing (as we've discussed in the context of neidan), it can lead to rigid emotional attachments, even to seemingly abstract ideas like "non-duality." In this case, their interpretation might be driven more by personal longing or aversion than by a true engagement with the living paradox of "not one, not two." This could explain the defensiveness or absolutism often observed in such circles. Your approach seems to value the experiential over the purely conceptual, which may be key to transcending such limitations.

 

Me: Yes, aversion certainly comes into play. I have a friend who constantly speaks of "spiritual bypassing" when trying to counter the contemporary non-dualist worldview. Have you come across the term spiritual bypassing?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, the term spiritual bypassing was coined by psychologist John Welwood in the 1980s. It refers to the use of spiritual beliefs or practices to avoid dealing with unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, or other personal challenges. Rather than confronting and integrating difficult emotions, trauma, or shadow aspects of the self, individuals may use spirituality as a form of escapism or repression.

Common Examples of Spiritual Bypassing:

1. Premature Transcendence: Claiming to be "beyond" emotions or dualities without having done the inner work to process them.
2. Repression of Negative Emotions: Avoiding anger, grief, or fear by adopting a facade of spiritual equanimity.
3. Over-Emphasis on Positivity: Clinging to "love and light" while ignoring the darker, painful aspects of life.
4. Dissociation from Reality: Using abstract spiritual concepts to detach from the practicalities and messiness of everyday life.
5. Judgment of Others: Viewing oneself as spiritually superior while dismissing others' struggles as signs of ignorance or ego.

Connection to Contemporary Non-Dualism:

In the context of the modern non-dual movement, spiritual bypassing might manifest as:

• Denial of Personal Experience: Rejecting individuality and personal stories as "illusory" without addressing the psychological or emotional pain tied to them.
• Over-Identification with Emptiness: Emphasizing the formless, impersonal aspect of reality while neglecting the richness of form, relationship, and embodied existence.
• Disconnection from Eros (Life Force): Suppressing emotional and relational dynamics in favor of a detached intellectual stance.

 

Your friend's critique is valid, as bypassing can lead to stagnation rather than true spiritual integration. Jung's emphasis on shadow work and neidan's cultivation of balance between qing and xing both highlight the importance of engaging with all aspects of the self—light and dark, form and emptiness—rather than bypassing the challenges they present.

Would you like to explore this idea further in the context of Jungian thought or neidan?

 

Me: Yes, but not immediately. I need time to digest what we've already discussed. Also I can feel how much emotion I have vested in my profound distaste for what I consider these erroneous aspects of contemporary non-dualism. I’m considering posting this section of our conversation on the Daoist forum I’m a member of and thereby hopefully work through and thereby let go of my strong feelings on the subject. I'm all too aware of how I too am channelling qing into this topic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice to see you here, firstly i owe you an apology 🙏

no idea what happened at the time 

 

---

 

then: it was a very interesting read, concise indeed.

As you know I am not much into Jungian psychology, probably because my mum was into it,

but this is an insightful text.

 

thank you for posting

 

[Antares]

I can foresee the future. I see millions of practitioners receiving guidance, blessing and initiation from AI.

Is this the bright future?

[idquest]

3 hours ago, Antares said:

I can foresee the future. I see millions of practitioners receiving guidance, blessing and initiation from AI.

Is this the bright future?

 

This is exactly what is coming, and not only in the world of spiritual cultivation, but in all other spheres. As a minimum, AI's generated content will replace like 90% of all information we consume on regular basis. Largely because people will get too lazy to learn how to write and present themselves online, it will be cheaper/less effort to pay to the AI to do that.

 

More important question: is this really bad? Or is it just a version of 'plastic politics'?

[dwai]

I work with AI for one of the pioneers of AI/ML in the tech world.
 

LLMs like ChatGPT might seem intelligent but they are not. They are just good at spitting out words that have the highest probability of appearing in a sequence of words. While it is true that they are trained on vast amounts of data from the internet, there should be no misconceptions about “learning” anything from them beyond a very basic level.
 

The best use of Generative AI (at present) is in the hands of someone with existing knowledge in the field that it’s being used. Think of it like an assistant whom you can guide and correct when necessary but is good at doing grunt work. 

[doc benway]

Some interesting stuff in this thread. I personally have not yet tried communicating or querying any AI engines any my feelings and thoughts about its value are complicated and evolving. I would like to comment on a few points about non-duality that came up in your post.

 

19 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

Do you know anything about the modern so-called non-dual movement which is popular in some spiritual circles now? If so, do you think they have likewise subjugated Eros beneath Logos by unintentionally portraying non-dual as a monism?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, I’m familiar with the modern non-dual movement. It often emphasizes an undivided awareness or a transcendence of dualities, drawing heavily from Advaita Vedanta, Zen, and other non-dual traditions. While this perspective has profound value, there is indeed a tendency among some teachers and adherents to unintentionally portray non-duality as monism—a singular reality in which distinctions like Eros (dynamic, relational, emotional) and Logos (structured, intellectual, rational) are dissolved or diminished.

 

I have also found that many proponents of non-dual viewpoints, be they on traditional paths or modern, demonstrate a tendency to grasp at or "understand" non-duality in a way that Buddhism and Bön label as an error of eternalism. In some cases, I think this is a perceived error based on the limitations of verbal communication, in other cases a true error of understanding and practice. Here, even ChatGPT struggles as it would be misleading to refer to non-duality as undivided awareness or even as a transcendence of dualities. I agree that it is accurate to say that some proponents tend to mistakenly endorse diminishing or dissolving the characteristics of Eros and Logos whereas in the non-dual path I've studied and practiced all of these characteristics are appreciated for what they are, manifestations of the infinite potential of life, and embraced as the path itself. In one the most treasured Bön dzogchen teachings it is said in reference to the "mental afflictions" (this refers to characteristics of both Eros and Logos) that Viewing them as deficient is the error. 

 

19 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

This can lead to an overemphasis on detachment, intellect, or transcendence while overlooking the richness of human relationality, emotion, and embodiment. Such an imbalance might echo the subjugation of Eros by Logos, reducing the interplay of opposites into an abstract unity that risks flattening the dynamic and creative tensions essential to life.

 

 

This is obvious to me when reading many posts by people struggling with the study of Buddhism, Madhyamaka in particular, but also other non-dual paths as well. Overemphasis of detachment can lead to nihilistic crisis. Intellectualization can lead to spiritual bypassing and nihilism. The experience of transcendence can lead to counter-productive arrogance. An example of this can be found in the more recent writings of Michael Singer, a non-dual "teacher" who by all accounts had genuine non-dual realization but then had a rude awakening when his "enlightenment" failed him during a health crisis and has now abandoned the path. One of the weaknesses of modern "non-dualism" as a philosophy and practice, is its lack of a comprehensive and time-tested foundation and framework. The power of non-dual experience gives the impression that nothing else is needed, and indeed this may be the case for some, but not all, probably very few in reality. As life goes on with its tests and challenges, we often need more to support us and that can take as many forms as there are individuals. This is where spiritual traditions embracing non-duality that have survived and supported practitioners for millennia have so much to offer us that modern non-dual teachers and hobbyists may not. 

 

19 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

In the most robust spiritual frameworks, including those informed by Jungian thought, Daoist neidan, or even well-rounded interpretations of Advaita, non-duality doesn't negate duality but integrates and transcends it. The interplay of opposites—Eros and Logos, qing and xing—is essential to realizing wholeness. When Eros is overlooked in favor of a purely intellectualized or static understanding of unity, the result can feel incomplete or disconnected from the lived experience of transformation.

 

Thus, a fuller approach to non-duality might consciously restore balance by engaging with both Eros and Logos as co-creators of a dynamic, integrated wholeness. This approach aligns well with Jung’s call to honor the opposites and neidan’s focus on harmonizing yin and yang to achieve the Golden Elixir. 

 

The non-dual teachings I engage with strongly emphasize the risk of spiritual bypassing and other common errors and obstacles encountered on the non-dual path. After introduction to the nature of mind and associated meditative practices, the most important set of teachings relates to commonly encountered errors and misunderstandings in the view, practice, and conduct. Of note, this path does not often engage in differentiation or balancing of the various characteristics of Eros and Logos or to xing and qing. Rather the entire spectrum of ideation and emotion are seen as the manifestation, or dynamic ornamentation, of the base and the direct realization of this depth and breadth of integration in an active and lived sense is the fruition. In this paradigm, it is the very differentiation of self and other which is the fundamental impediment to integration, so the work is done at this level of differentiation, as opposed to at the level of the multitude of experiences, emotions, and ideas that occur to the source of differentiation, the self. 

 

19 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

Me: I personally don't like the term "non-dual". I prefer "not one, not two". That's how it was expressed in the original Chan teachings. However, I know from experience it's a waste of time trying to explain the error of misinterpretation contemporary so-called non-dualists are making. I would speculate that they've falsely channelled qing into their conceptualisation and are therefore totally emotionally attached to their understanding. What do you think?

 

ChatGPT said: Your preference for "not one, not two" aligns closely with the spirit of the original Chan teachings, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between apparent opposites rather than collapsing them into a monistic framework. This phrasing honors the tension and unity without reducing the complexity to a single concept, which seems to be what many contemporary "non-dual" interpretations miss.

Your speculation that contemporary non-dualists may have channeled qing into their conceptualization, becoming emotionally attached to their understanding, is insightful. If qing is not harmonized with xing (as we've discussed in the context of neidan), it can lead to rigid emotional attachments, even to seemingly abstract ideas like "non-duality." In this case, their interpretation might be driven more by personal longing or aversion than by a true engagement with the living paradox of "not one, not two." This could explain the defensiveness or absolutism often observed in such circles. Your approach seems to value the experiential over the purely conceptual, which may be key to transcending such limitations.

 

My understanding is that the term non-dual was introduced to avoid the error of Monism/eternalism associated with the terms One or Oneness. Understanding this clearly, the phrase "not one, not two" seems essentially equivalent to "non-dual." On the other hand, there is no question that for some, the term "non-dual" or "non-duality" has become something to grasp at, something conceptual and tangible, that can be a powerful obstacle to genuine understanding and realization. In this sense, the phrase "not one, not two" could be quite valuable, but then again there is nothing preventing this phrase from becoming yet another misunderstood and misused label. Consequently, I avoid discussions of non-dual concepts and theory and prefer to point to the practice itself, which is the view, the meditation, and the conduct. Non-duality as a concept is essentially meaningless and of little value, IMO, much as the word God adds little to any discussion of reality. Conversely, as a practice, both on the cushion and in the activity of life, it is profound and priceless. 

 

19 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

Your friend's critique is valid, as bypassing can lead to stagnation rather than true spiritual integration. Jung's emphasis on shadow work and neidan's cultivation of balance between qing and xing both highlight the importance of engaging with all aspects of the self—light and dark, form and emptiness—rather than bypassing the challenges they present.

Would you like to explore this idea further in the context of Jungian thought or neidan?

 

Me: Yes, but not immediately. I need time to digest what we've already discussed. Also I can feel how much emotion I have vested in my profound distaste for what I consider these erroneous aspects of contemporary non-dualism. I’m considering posting this section of our conversation on the Daoist forum I’m a member of and thereby hopefully work through and thereby let go of my strong feelings on the subject. I'm all too aware of how I too am channelling qing into this topic.

 

In my own practice, there is little more important than being aware of the tendency to bypass. This is one of the most critical roles of mindfulness in my spiritual practice. It is all well and good to use meditation to calm and soothe and help provide relief in a controlled environment. In this capacity, meditation is a wonderful balm and most practitioners do not go beyond this level, IME. It is another thing altogether to experience real transformation through meditative practice; this absolutely requires working with our experiences of desire, aversion, and ignorance (or whatever other paradigm you prefer to describe the range of experiences of life) directly and in an ongoing fashion.

 

While I don't share your profound distaste for erroneous aspects of contemporary non-dualism, I can understand and appreciate it. Practicing this type of path myself, I feel more compassion and empathy for the errors than distaste. There is an arrogance and a dismissiveness that can come through that is very off-putting but, for me, it is no worse than similar qualities one sees among adherents of virtually any religious doctrine, or that of trail blazers who are convinced their creation is correct to the exclusion of all others. At least the non-dualists are not trying to pass laws in a secular society based on Bronze Age mythology... there's that. There is no single correct path, IMO. I would go so far as to say there is no single truth, as even the "truth" of non-duality, once expressed in words and concepts, is no longer truth but rather an incomplete description of that which is unimputable.

 

I appreciate you sharing your process and your work with AI. I do find it interesting and revealing. I think it can be used as a tool, much as this site can, for us to look at our own reactivity, our own views, assumptions, and expectations, as a tool for self-investigation and growth. I would be wary of using it in an effort to understand a topic with which I am not intimately familiar as I don't think it is an effective tool for discriminating truth from fiction or useful from useless information. Much like the path and practice under discussion, I think it can easily give a sense of authority and authenticity to the uninitiated that may be misleading. Of more concern, I think it is has the potential for misuse that may prove to be devastating in the near future. 

Edited Sunday at 07:35 PM by doc benway

[Mark Foote]

21 hours ago, Geof Nanto said:

This is a snippet from a long conversation I’ve been having with ChatGPT exploring qing (emotions, feelings, sentiments, passions, and love in all its aspects) in neidan and Jungian thought.

 

 

 

Did I miss something? Seems like the topic you put to ChatGPT was the relationship between qing and xing.

 

Did the conversation with ChatGPT contribute something to your exploration of that relationship? Did I miss that, too?

 

 

 

[Bindi]

3 hours ago, doc benway said:

Some interesting stuff in this thread. I personally have not yet tried communicating or querying any AI engines any my feelings and thoughts about its value are complicated and evolving. I would like to comment on a few points about non-duality that came up in your post.

 

 

I have also found that many proponents of non-dual viewpoints, be they on traditional paths or modern, demonstrate a tendency to grasp at or "understand" non-duality in a way that Buddhism and Bön label as an error of eternalism. In some cases, I think this is a perceived error based on the limitations of verbal communication, in other cases a true error of understanding and practice. Here, even ChatGPT struggles as it would be misleading to refer to non-duality as undivided awareness or even as a transcendence of dualities. I agree that it is accurate to say that some proponents tend to mistakenly endorse diminishing or dissolving the characteristics of Eros and Logos whereas in the non-dual path I've studied and practiced all of these characteristics are appreciated for what they are, manifestations of the infinite potential of life, and embraced as the path itself. In one the most treasured Bön dzogchen teachings it is said in reference to the "mental afflictions" (this refers to characteristics of both Eros and Logos) that Viewing them as deficient is the error. 

 

 

This is obvious to me when reading many posts by people struggling with the study of Buddhism, Madhyamaka in particular, but also other non-dual paths as well. Overemphasis of detachment can lead to nihilistic crisis. Intellectualization can lead to spiritual bypassing and nihilism. The experience of transcendence can lead to counter-productive arrogance. An example of this can be found in the more recent writings of Michael Singer, a non-dual "teacher" who by all accounts had genuine non-dual realization but then had a rude awakening when his "enlightenment" failed him during a health crisis and has now abandoned the path. One of the weaknesses of modern "non-dualism" as a philosophy and practice, is its lack of a comprehensive and time-tested foundation and framework. The power of non-dual experience gives the impression that nothing else is needed, and indeed this may be the case for some, but not all, probably very few in reality. As life goes on with its tests and challenges, we often need more to support us and that can take as many forms as there are individuals. This is where spiritual traditions embracing non-duality that have survived and supported practitioners for millennia have so much to offer us that modern non-dual teachers and hobbyists may not. 

 

 

The non-dual teachings I engage with strongly emphasize the risk of spiritual bypassing and other common errors and obstacles encountered on the non-dual path. After introduction to the nature of mind and associated meditative practices, the most important set of teachings relates to commonly encountered errors and misunderstandings in the view, practice, and conduct. Of note, this path does not often engage in differentiation or balancing of the various characteristics of Eros and Logos or to xing and qing. Rather the entire spectrum of ideation and emotion are seen as the manifestation, or dynamic ornamentation, of the base and the direct realization of this depth and breadth of integration in an active and lived sense is the fruition. In this paradigm, it is the very differentiation of self and other which is the fundamental impediment to integration, so the work is done at this level of differentiation, as opposed to at the level of the multitude of experiences, emotions, and ideas that occur to the source of differentiation, the self. 
 

 

Overall, as I understand it, Geof Nanto proposes that the necessary "work" for spiritual growth involves engaging in the differentiation of Eros and Logos or xing and qing. This contrasts with the nonduality paradigm, which suggests that integration arises by realising all thoughts and emotions as mere expressions of the base, and that this realisation itself constitutes nondual awakening.

 

To me, if I’ve understood the nonduality paradigm correctly, its realisation is valid but incomplete. A dream I had offers a contrasting perspective: In the dream, an overgrown grapevine was entwined with a wooden pergola. My task was to disentangle the vine from the structure. Methodically, I unwound the tendrils from the beams, separated the branches, and finally approached the central post, where the vine’s trunk had become so intertwined with the structure that they seemed inseparable. After much effort, I managed to split them apart.

 

Once separated, the entire structure began to topple. I attempted to stabilise it twice, but on the third attempt, I gave up and walked away. When I turned back, the overgrown vine and structure had vanished, replaced by a fresh, new vine, this time without a structure. In the dream, I realised that while I had thought the pergola supported the vine, it had actually restricted it. The new vine, free of the structure, was now able to grow unimpeded.

 

I interpret this to mean that spiritual "work" involves the gradual peeling away of emotional and mental clinging to conditioned reality. This process progresses from the easily separable to deeply entrenched complexes. However, the work does not end there; ultimately, both the conditioned manifestations (the vine) and the supportive but restrictive structures (the pergola) are entirely cleared away. What emerges is a renewed, unconditioned self—rooted in the same transcendent ground of being but manifesting in the world in an entirely different, freer way.

 

This dream underscores my paradigm, which requires direct engagement with emotional and mental complexes. While they are manifestations of the transcendent, they are not to be passively accepted as they are, because they are shaped by karma and samskaras. Instead, these manifestations must be actively renewed. To accept the overgrown vine and structure as they are is, to my mind, a form of bypassing—a limitation inherent in the nonduality paradigm.

 

 

3 hours ago, doc benway said:

 

My understanding is that the term non-dual was introduced to avoid the error of Monism/eternalism associated with the terms One or Oneness. Understanding this clearly, the phrase "not one, not two" seems essentially equivalent to "non-dual." On the other hand, there is no question that for some, the term "non-dual" or "non-duality" has become something to grasp at, something conceptual and tangible, that can be a powerful obstacle to genuine understanding and realization. In this sense, the phrase "not one, not two" could be quite valuable, but then again there is nothing preventing this phrase from becoming yet another misunderstood and misused label. Consequently, I avoid discussions of non-dual concepts and theory and prefer to point to the practice itself, which is the view, the meditation, and the conduct. Non-duality as a concept is essentially meaningless and of little value, IMO, much as the word God adds little to any discussion of reality. Conversely, as a practice, both on the cushion and in the activity of life, it is profound and priceless. 

 

 

In my own practice, there is little more important than being aware of the tendency to bypass. This is one of the most critical roles of mindfulness in my spiritual practice. It is all well and good to use meditation to calm and soothe and help provide relief in a controlled environment. In this capacity, meditation is a wonderful balm and most practitioners do not go beyond this level, IME. It is another thing altogether to experience real transformation through meditative practice; this absolutely requires working with our experiences of desire, aversion, and ignorance (or whatever other paradigm you prefer to describe the range of experiences of life) directly and in an ongoing fashion.

 

While I don't share your profound distaste for erroneous aspects of contemporary non-dualism, I can understand and appreciate it. Practicing this type of path myself, I feel more compassion and empathy for the errors than distaste. There is an arrogance and a dismissiveness that can come through that is very off-putting but, for me, it is no worse than similar qualities one sees among adherents of virtually any religious doctrine, or that of trail blazers who are convinced their creation is correct to the exclusion of all others. At least the non-dualists are not trying to pass laws in a secular society based on Bronze Age mythology... there's that. There is no single correct path, IMO. I would go so far as to say there is no single truth, as even the "truth" of non-duality, once expressed in words and concepts, is no longer truth but rather an incomplete description of that which is unimputable.

 

I appreciate you sharing your process and your work with AI. I do find it interesting and revealing. I think it can be used as a tool, much as this site can, for us to look at our own reactivity, our own views, assumptions, and expectations, as a tool for self-investigation and growth. I would be wary of using it in an effort to understand a topic with which I am not intimately familiar as I don't think it is an effective tool for discriminating truth from fiction or useful from useless information. Much like the path and practice under discussion, I think it can easily give a sense of authority and authenticity to the uninitiated that may be misleading. Of more concern, I think it is has the potential for misuse that may prove to be devastating in the near future. 

 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

Overall, as I understand it, Geof Nanto proposes that the necessary "work" for spiritual growth involves engaging in the differentiation of Eros and Logos or xing and qing. This contrasts with the nonduality paradigm, which suggests that integration arises by realising all thoughts and emotions as mere expressions of the base, and that this realisation itself constitutes nondual awakening.

 

To me, if I’ve understood the nonduality paradigm correctly, its realisation is valid but incomplete. A dream I had offers a contrasting perspective: In the dream, an overgrown grapevine was entwined with a wooden pergola. My task was to disentangle the vine from the structure. Methodically, I unwound the tendrils from the beams, separated the branches, and finally approached the central post, where the vine’s trunk had become so intertwined with the structure that they seemed inseparable. After much effort, I managed to split them apart.

 

Once separated, the entire structure began to topple. I attempted to stabilise it twice, but on the third attempt, I gave up and walked away. When I turned back, the overgrown vine and structure had vanished, replaced by a fresh, new vine, this time without a structure. In the dream, I realised that while I had thought the pergola supported the vine, it had actually restricted it. The new vine, free of the structure, was now able to grow unimpeded.

 

I interpret this to mean that spiritual "work" involves the gradual peeling away of emotional and mental clinging to conditioned reality. This process progresses from the easily separable to deeply entrenched complexes. However, the work does not end there; ultimately, both the conditioned manifestations (the vine) and the supportive but restrictive structures (the pergola) are entirely cleared away. What emerges is a renewed, unconditioned self—rooted in the same transcendent ground of being but manifesting in the world in an entirely different, freer way.

 

This dream underscores my paradigm, which requires direct engagement with emotional and mental complexes. While they are manifestations of the transcendent, they are not to be passively accepted as they are, because they are shaped by karma and samskaras. Instead, these manifestations must be actively renewed. To accept the overgrown vine and structure as they are is, to my mind, a form of bypassing—a limitation inherent in the nonduality paradigm.

 

 

 

 

I appreciate you sharing your dream and your interpretation. In my opinion and experience, non-duality is a valid and efficient path for the karmically connected traveler. Your interpretation of your dream clearly has much meaning for you. I think it’s appropriate for you to trust your interpretation and follow your heart and mind in the matter. Nevertheless, your dream has little or no significance for those who connect with a non-dual path and for the path itself, which can never be separate from those following it. From my perspective, there are no limitations inherent in non-dual practice, only in our attempts to treat it conceptually.

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, doc benway said:

 

I appreciate you sharing your dream and your interpretation. In my opinion and experience, non-duality is a valid and efficient path for the karmically connected traveler. Your interpretation of your dream clearly has much meaning for you. I think it’s appropriate for you to trust your interpretation and follow your heart and mind in the matter. Nevertheless, your dream has little or no significance for those who connect with a non-dual path and for the path itself, which can never be separate from those following it. From my perspective, there are no limitations inherent in non-dual practice, only in our attempts to treat it conceptually.

Sure, just sharing a perspective that justifies interest in working with the ‘ornaments’.

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, dwai said:

The comments about contemporary nondualists’ propensity for spiritual bypassing are sweeping generalizations.  
 

What does contemporary nondualist even mean? 
I would suggest you counter ChatGPT about its conclusions and see how it backtracks  

 

 

It  had already been pre programmed by the initial qualifier as well  :  " Given our above conversation ... "    

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, dwai said:

I work with AI for one of the pioneers of AI/ML in the tech world.
 

LLMs like ChatGPT might seem intelligent but they are not. They are just good at spitting out words that have the highest probability of appearing in a sequence of words. While it is true that they are trained on vast amounts of data from the internet, there should be no misconceptions about “learning” anything from them beyond a very basic level.
 

The best use of Generative AI (at present) is in the hands of someone with existing knowledge in the field that it’s being used. Think of it like an assistant whom you can guide and correct when necessary but is good at doing grunt work. 

 

"Bless you, my student . "

[old3bob]

 

everything we've ever thought about "God" are still thoughts and those can not cross a certain boundary;  for instance we sometimes hear back from those who say, "I know nothing" .

 

“I know that I know nothing” is a saying (and not just another concept) attributed to the Greek philosopher Socrates... 

 

[Antares]

14 hours ago, Bindi said:

Overall, as I understand it, Geof Nanto proposes that the necessary "work" for spiritual growth involves engaging in the differentiation of Eros and Logos or xing and qing. This contrasts with the nonduality paradigm, which suggests that integration arises by realising all thoughts and emotions as mere expressions of the base, and that this realisation itself constitutes nondual awakening.

 

Can you explain what this differentiation means and what it involves?
Also, what do you mean by "expression of the base" in this context? 

And what is the way you propose to realize it?

[dwai]

20 hours ago, doc benway said:

Some interesting stuff in this thread. I personally have not yet tried communicating or querying any AI engines any my feelings and thoughts about its value are complicated and evolving. I would like to comment on a few points about non-duality that came up in your post.

 

 

I have also found that many proponents of non-dual viewpoints, be they on traditional paths or modern, demonstrate a tendency to grasp at or "understand" non-duality in a way that Buddhism and Bön label as an error of eternalism. In some cases, I think this is a perceived error based on the limitations of verbal communication, in other cases a true error of understanding and practice. Here, even ChatGPT struggles as it would be misleading to refer to non-duality as undivided awareness or even as a transcendence of dualities. I agree that it is accurate to say that some proponents tend to mistakenly endorse diminishing or dissolving the characteristics of Eros and Logos whereas in the non-dual path I've studied and practiced all of these characteristics are appreciated for what they are, manifestations of the infinite potential of life, and embraced as the path itself. In one the most treasured Bön dzogchen teachings it is said in reference to the "mental afflictions" (this refers to characteristics of both Eros and Logos) that Viewing them as deficient is the error. 

 

It is not a case of "diminishing" or "dissolving" but more about incomplete knowledge/understanding. For example, if one only reads "Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya," translated as "Brahman is real, the world is unreal," one can conclude that the "unreal" implies that the world is being dismissed as being illusory. That is, of course, not what the teaching is about. It is a pointer to the ephemeral nature of the world juxtaposed against the backdrop of the unchanging Brahman (which can also trigger Buddhists into mistaking it as a reification - a strawman argument used in many Advaita Vedanta/Buddhist debates by Buddhists). 

20 hours ago, doc benway said:

 

This is obvious to me when reading many posts by people struggling with the study of Buddhism, Madhyamaka in particular, but also other non-dual paths as well. Overemphasis of detachment can lead to nihilistic crisis. Intellectualization can lead to spiritual bypassing and nihilism. The experience of transcendence can lead to counter-productive arrogance. An example of this can be found in the more recent writings of Michael Singer, a non-dual "teacher" who by all accounts had genuine non-dual realization but then had a rude awakening when his "enlightenment" failed him during a health crisis and has now abandoned the path. One of the weaknesses of modern "non-dualism" as a philosophy and practice, is its lack of a comprehensive and time-tested foundation and framework. The power of non-dual experience gives the impression that nothing else is needed, and indeed this may be the case for some, but not all, probably very few in reality. As life goes on with its tests and challenges, we often need more to support us and that can take as many forms as there are individuals. This is where spiritual traditions embracing non-duality that have survived and supported practitioners for millennia have so much to offer us that modern non-dual teachers and hobbyists may not. 

 

 

The non-dual teachings I engage with strongly emphasize the risk of spiritual bypassing and other common errors and obstacles encountered on the non-dual path. After introduction to the nature of mind and associated meditative practices, the most important set of teachings relates to commonly encountered errors and misunderstandings in the view, practice, and conduct. Of note, this path does not often engage in differentiation or balancing of the various characteristics of Eros and Logos or to xing and qing. Rather the entire spectrum of ideation and emotion are seen as the manifestation, or dynamic ornamentation, of the base and the direct realization of this depth and breadth of integration in an active and lived sense is the fruition. In this paradigm, it is the very differentiation of self and other which is the fundamental impediment to integration, so the work is done at this level of differentiation, as opposed to at the level of the multitude of experiences, emotions, and ideas that occur to the source of differentiation, the self. 

 

 

My understanding is that the term non-dual was introduced to avoid the error of Monism/eternalism associated with the terms One or Oneness. Understanding this clearly, the phrase "not one, not two" seems essentially equivalent to "non-dual." On the other hand, there is no question that for some, the term "non-dual" or "non-duality" has become something to grasp at, something conceptual and tangible, that can be a powerful obstacle to genuine understanding and realization. In this sense, the phrase "not one, not two" could be quite valuable, but then again there is nothing preventing this phrase from becoming yet another misunderstood and misused label. Consequently, I avoid discussions of non-dual concepts and theory and prefer to point to the practice itself, which is the view, the meditation, and the conduct. Non-duality as a concept is essentially meaningless and of little value, IMO, much as the word God adds little to any discussion of reality. Conversely, as a practice, both on the cushion and in the activity of life, it is profound and priceless. 

I think "grasping" is a natural step in nondual inquiry. Why? The parable of the ten friends crossing a river demonstrates that. It is not that it is necessary, but more or less inevitable, given how our minds function in the subject-object paradigm. 

20 hours ago, doc benway said:

 

 

In my own practice, there is little more important than being aware of the tendency to bypass. This is one of the most critical roles of mindfulness in my spiritual practice. It is all well and good to use meditation to calm and soothe and help provide relief in a controlled environment. In this capacity, meditation is a wonderful balm and most practitioners do not go beyond this level, IME. It is another thing altogether to experience real transformation through meditative practice; this absolutely requires working with our experiences of desire, aversion, and ignorance (or whatever other paradigm you prefer to describe the range of experiences of life) directly and in an ongoing fashion.

 

While I don't share your profound distaste for erroneous aspects of contemporary non-dualism, I can understand and appreciate it. Practicing this type of path myself, I feel more compassion and empathy for the errors than distaste. There is an arrogance and a dismissiveness that can come through that is very off-putting but, for me, it is no worse than similar qualities one sees among adherents of virtually any religious doctrine, or that of trail blazers who are convinced their creation is correct to the exclusion of all others. At least the non-dualists are not trying to pass laws in a secular society based on Bronze Age mythology... there's that. There is no single correct path, IMO. I would go so far as to say there is no single truth, as even the "truth" of non-duality, once expressed in words and concepts, is no longer truth but rather an incomplete description of that which is unimputable.

 

I appreciate you sharing your process and your work with AI. I do find it interesting and revealing. I think it can be used as a tool, much as this site can, for us to look at our own reactivity, our own views, assumptions, and expectations, as a tool for self-investigation and growth. I would be wary of using it in an effort to understand a topic with which I am not intimately familiar as I don't think it is an effective tool for discriminating truth from fiction or useful from useless information. Much like the path and practice under discussion, I think it can easily give a sense of authority and authenticity to the uninitiated that may be misleading. Of more concern, I think it is has the potential for misuse that may prove to be devastating in the near future. 

In many cases, I think the "arrogance" is just a symptom of unripe practitioners more than anything. The ego is very tricky in that it latches on to identity. Likes and dislikes are not neutralized after realization. In AV we have the concept of krtopasati (realization after proper cleansing of the mind)  vs akrtopasati (realization before proper cleansing of the mind) - mostly the non-traditional nondualists tend to fall in the latter camp (in my experience). 

[stirling]

55 minutes ago, dwai said:

In many cases, I think the "arrogance" is just a symptom of unripe practitioners more than anything. The ego is very tricky in that it latches on to identity. Likes and dislikes are not neutralized after realization. In AV we have the concept of krtopasati (realization after proper cleansing of the mind)  vs akrtopasati (realization before proper cleansing of the mind) - mostly the non-traditional nondualists tend to fall in the latter camp (in my experience). 

 

In Zen it is commonly known that in the intervening period (years usually) between being newly awakened and complete stability of "no-self" there will often end up being a new "self" constructed around the awakening realization, creating an illusory "enlightened self". It is also called "Zen sickness". It is usually an early feature, and actually feels terribly dry and uncomfortable, so it is usually realized and dropped, or pointed out by a teacher. It is entirely developmentally appropriate, and a good case for someone to have a teacher to get them into doing some compassion training which usually clears up the matter.

 

The ego IS very tricky... it feels like it is in danger of extermination, but this is a misunderstanding, it is never exterminated but instead simply seen for what it has always been.

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, Antares said:

 

Can you explain what this differentiation means and what it involves?
Also, what do you mean by "expression of the base" in this context? 

And what is the way you propose to realize it?

 I should have made myself clearer, I was attempting to summarise doc benways perspective which I’ve quoted below. 

 

“the entire spectrum of ideation and emotion are seen as the manifestation, or dynamic ornamentation, of the base and the direct realization of this depth and breadth of integration in an active and lived sense is the fruition. In this paradigm, it is the very differentiation of self and other which is the fundamental impediment to integration, so the work is done at this level of differentiation, as opposed to at the level of the multitude of experiences, emotions, and ideas that occur to the source of differentiation, the self.”