Is nonduality just another replication?
 

So this idea came to me tonight and will run it by the people that swim in these waters to get some thoughts on it. For instance, is the idea even worth refining or is it too much of a mess to trifle with?


Thanks for any input,

Sierra

Namaste, Sierra.

I'll try and explain this without using any big 'Sanskrit words' but some will have to be incorporated, unfortunately.

I shall ride on the back of Jonesboy's recent posts and also Kashmir Shaivism, incorporating the differences between Abhinavagupta's and Adi Shankaracharya's respective philosophies to try and explain it, to reach a point.

People like to think that nonduality is 'something' as opposed to duality which is also 'something' but any opposition, or any replication is still a duality that only 'poses itself' as non-duality for the benefit of the rational mind which seeks to 'know everything'. The mind cannot know itself as the mind.

This replication or reflection of non-duality or the ultimate reality taken as illusion because illusion is also the 'ultimate reality' dressed up as the illusion is called Vimarsha and Vimarsha is still a part of the duality:

http://www.nevernotpresent.com/satsa...-and-vimarsha/

I have likened it to a torch. People look for the torch and see the light of the torch, thinking they have found the torch.

They don't realise that if they follow the light to the source, the torch will be located, but for them, finding the light is the same as finding the torch, yet they cannot use the light to shine a beam elsewhere unless they have a mirror...or find the torch.

So, people will say "I am that" or "I am Oneness" or "I am Brahman" and I still go "what is the "I" that says it is 'Oneness' or 'That' or 'Brahman?". Yeah, they still haven't let go of self-identification yet, so any notion of nonduality, or an un-individuised consciousness, of an absolute truth/reality/Brahman is still firmly within the stages of being a mental concept only or a placation made to the ego by the higher-mind without any direct experience becoming involved in it because there is 'no need' as the mind is totally satisfied with its symbiotic relationship with ego at that point.

To go beyond the replication, the reflection, the Brahman + Saguna Maya (truth + illusory attributes of truth) means that there's no differentiation between the experience and the one who experiences it, the 'Oneness' and the 'Perception of Oneness', the 'embodied Consciousness' and the 'Eternal Consciousness' and between all notions of self (be it with a small or capital "S") and something else existing as being what it is, or is not...non-duality is totally beyond words or language, so any attempt to even describe it in any language will only be a replication.

I have often said, there's just not enough letters on every keyboard in every language of the world to do so.

I'll post more on this a bit later on, but thank you for being patient with me.

What you speak of resonates with me though I still feel some dots that need to connect. Things to discover/ learn and things to share.....

So would it be accurate to say while keeping within the structure of language that nonduality is not a replication however, what is, is?

Two added thoughts to gage my understanding:

1) Can nonduality be compared to anything and, if not...... why duality?

2) If nonduality could speak would its first words be, "what the hell is this?"

That last one was my feeble attempt at irony.

A little background may help which direction I am coming from. In short, have been a long time traveler wading through many pools of thought. Seeing a connection between pools that others don't typically express.

My thoughts can seem to ramble but part of that is I try to write what flows out as it flows out. Hoping the connection finds itself incidentally happens a lot in experience.

Thank you.

Yes, what is, IS...but without any mental attempts to try and quantify it as being 'something' even the "Is-ness" or Śūnyatā (not-self) that it 'is'.

It's an experiential phenomenon, in which any relationship between 'self' and 'other than self' vanishes...so I can thus elaborate on your added points.

1) Duality exists within the whole comparison itself and not to anything being 'compared' and

2) If nonduality could speak, it's first word is/would be A-U-M. Aum is the only sound/language that exists as being self-replicating, yet without any repetition, per se.

Thus, the irony is appreciated.

I'm exactly the same as you in this regard and most of what I type is a mixture of Hinduism, Buddhism, Tantra, Non-duality, stuff taken from various schools of thought, mixed with personal experience. So, that's a little bit about my whole background. I'm also a scholar of the Vedas, Sanskrit, and Hindu philosophy.

Below you will find an example of my ramblings.

Poetic comedy under the guise of nonduality:

Nonduality, I know it by heart.
My head is (another) story.

To me, nonduality has the feel of, to borrow an analogy, a glitch in the matrix for how else could it present itself to the ego which has a seeming monopoly on consciousness?

How could anything else get through that edge wise?

Conditioning, my dear. Cognitive bias.

For example, people will be interested in finding out/experiencing 'nonduality' or 'Brahman' or 'the Truth' (Sat) and so, instead of meditating, focusing on their breath and whatnot, they'll go "that seems like really hard work...let's just read what Ramana Maharishi or Ramakrishna Paramhamsa or "some other Advaita saint" has to say about it".

Then from all the collected works of such noble personages, they will cherry pick a sentence or paragraph here or there...marry it to something else they have read that their mind likes the sound of, study contemporary thoughts on these issues and come up with their own solution; "hey, I don't need to do anything because I'm already that" and when I say "who told you so?" they are like "Ramana said it" or "Vivekananda said it" etc, and then I go "so, Ramana's 40-50 years of silent meditation and introspection to reach that conclusion was all a waste of time then was it?" and "why did Ramana go to Arunachala when he could have stayed where he was?" and I proceed to shoot holes in it (I pretty much shoot holes in everything). lol

So, any concepts of nonduality, of Brahman are gleaned from other sources...I mean, I gleaned mine straight from Adi Shankaracharya (the 'father' of nonduality), but even when he said "Shivoham" (I am Shiva) I really cringed, because Shiva was an actual 'deity' I prayed to...in full-on duality, but realising that it was duality.

Adi Shankaracharya and the Hindu Scriptures tell us to 'shoot holes in everything'...it is called "Neti Neti" meaning "not this" as in, there's something else that isn't 'this' or 'That isn't known by the mind'. Any notion of nonduality or Brahman that can be thought about, spoken of, philosophised about, isn't it! it isn't nonduality...and yet, it's only when I said "neti neti" to "neti neti" itself...said "neti neti" to Shankaracharya, to the Hindu scriptures, to even Shiva him/her/itself that I understood that which the mind cannot understand and I reached the heart-level.

Would it not rather be that non dualiy is the opposite of duality, in the sense that duality being the idea of separation, and the idea of non duality being that, despite the appearance of separation, All is One.