Maybe dualistic isn't necessarily the right word, maybe words of multiplicity could be used for better understanding however I see multiplicity as an extension of duplicity so there is that.

The trunk of the tree is not separate from the branches. If words are not necessarily dualistic, doesn't that make them dualistic by default?

Ok.

Well.

This comes to mind to your original question.

If non duality had a humour...what mask?

What mask?

Non dual humour wouldnt create splits at the seams if you laughed to hard..
Non dual humour to a Gemini would actually seal the rift between the twins that tore them apart and separated them (probably at the seams from laughing to hard at someones non dual humour mask)

I like it! I like it!

Even the tragedy mask hints of this at times with things like "why so serious?"

Except, at the time, it can be serious when it happens directly. After the fact the words "why so serious?" are understood from a wider context.

The mask has been known to have an amnesic effect in so as the story goes.

Word.

I like your approval ratings..:wink:


Uhuh. Made me think of a song. Funny lately to actually remind me to not fall back into tragedy masks I have songs playing in my head that actually show me how to turn it around. It's quite the tool kit to have..haha


This is true. Through process we get to experience more and an expanded view, which supports wellbeing and change of heart..


Which mask?

I'm expressive what can I say? :hug3:

I think I want a copy of your toolkit while adding my personal touch to the copy. Actually I've probably been building mine all along but never thought of it in that way. How often do you have trouble finding the right tool in your toolkit?

Which mask?

I'm glad you asked. My mask I suspect. At times, it all but falls off and it is those times when there is awakening while I am awake.

Don't know exactly what that will look like when it wears completely off but in the mean time, here I am!

It basically depends on the kind structure a discourse takes, because words apart from having definitions in themselves as basic symbols of meaning, also have nuances which shift in context when in actual use, so the use of words is the way we communicate meaning, and definitions of words depend on such contexts, and then we have the nuance of tone of voice, inflection, creating sarcasm, irony and subtler 'between the lines' meanings which aren't even said, or even mean the exact opposite of what is said, but are no less understood in communication.

When the dialectic is knowledge based the premise is dualistic, right/wrong, agree/disagree, true/false, and there is always a power dynamic involved in this, where 'authority' means both the expert (as the site of knowledge) on the matter and a person in powerful position, but language is usually used just to convey meanings, and not knowledge.

So, we can forget the knowledge based discourse because obviously its very premise is dualistic, and there's really no question in that regard. In the other case where only meaning is concerned, well, imagine we read a poem or a novel - then agree/disagree, right/wrong doesn't make sense, and is therefore meaningless. Hence the straight cut black vs. white between duals becomes blurred and we enter a very grey area... which is no less understandable.

Words are symbols/labels represented within a duality based perception. The whole show is based on observer and observed and every facet, level and expression between those points gives way to what we know as experience. The experience is not possible without an experiencer in place and so experience itself is anchored by separation. Of course the words are dual as they quite fittingly confirm the foundation it comes from...your identity.

I have a good one for all you wonderful people.

Word, word, does it starve off oblivion or sustain it?

Isn't that from an assumption that the world is dualistic? What if it is actually singular, would that not make all words singular?

I have been in satsangs where there were spontaneous prolonged moments (think the better part of a half hour) of silence where everyone was experiencing some non-dualistic moment of bliss.
But like every experience it passes, mind begin to stir and questions arise. Some of these get asked which are then attempted to be answered even though everyone was sitting in blissful unified silence just minutes before..

Does that diminish any one of both experiences?
No.. It just shows that some states are perceived as more pleasurable than others.
Based on your temperament I guess to some the silence was more pleasurable to others the Q and A that followed..

Where in that satsang was there ever a duality other than in the way it was perceived?

With Love