Duality is the illusion
 

Duality is the illusion that you gotta respect and hopefully find that Trinity's, Dualities and Unities are in essence all One and Point towards Oneness.

One thing I found when realizing that there is a "Higher Self" was that the lower self was the ego and an illusion but once I realized that the Higher Self is nothing but what I call the True Inner Self making it within only realizing that the self others perceive based on the mere notion that they believe what they see and so do you in a sense until you realize that you are the seer not the seen. But the mere fact that others still perceive you as a subject because of their perception of your body as opposed to their body which they consider their I and in a way we all do based on our cultural language patterns we are influenced by memes and language is full of them and not all of them are verities for lack of a better word.

For instance, when you say the personal pronoun I are you referring to your body? or is it in and of itself a code for programming your True Inner Self which is formless unlike the perception based off of building a world view that trusts in the sense of sight.

The collective consciousness is what a yogi strives to merge with because then you will be at Peace with the Noosephere (The Biosphere of Thought developed by Intelligent Homosapiens) of course what really influences your fate is both physical, mental, and etheric factors such as: your environment, your mindset, and your karma.

Understanding illuminates the intellect and expands the Consciousness.
Ultimately we cannot Love that which we do not in someway Understand.
And we cannot feel Bliss unless we live in Love.

Words have the ability to alter our consciousness by the mere fact of our understanding them.
Glosolallia was reappearing in 1901 where certain Orthodox Christians claimed to have recieved the Baptism of the Holy Spirit/Baptism of Fire. These sects did not survive because none of them stressed a compassionate Edenic/Ayruovedic diet and to this day these gluttons claim to worship the G-d of the Living yet insist on consuming dead flesh of corpses with parasites and blood because the sad churchians are still very much a part of the Roman Catholic church that kept the Day of the Sun as its primary holyday yet claims to revere the first Five Books of Moses.

the Noosephere (The Biosphere of Thought developed by Intelligent Homosapiens) I called this the ' humaniversum '. Hehe.

When you reach that point, what a yogi strives to do. To merge with the collective consciousness what exactly do you experience with all its facets.

When you merge with the Collective Consciousness your deeds will be pure mirrors. You will not ACT but simply reflect to others themselves.
The Sages merges his Mind with the People.
The People all fix their eyes and ears on Him,
and he treats them all as his children.

My perspective is that we are each a point of individualised consciousness resting in the wider circle of our Being.

Does that point of consciousness identify with Being?

Or does that point of consciousness identify with itself as Consciousness?

Or does that point of consciousness identify with a particular personality expressing itself through a separate physical body?

Our sense of "I" will vary according to what we identify with.

Ramana Maharshi advocated Self-enquiry - when we hold our attention on the sense of "I" and ask ourselves "Who am I?" then we discover that there is no "I", there is only awareness.

At the same time, it is good to be simple and practical. Even if we identify with Being, it is easiest in everyday life just to use the word "I" in the usual sense.

There may be non-dualists who pounce on any use of the word "I" as showing that we are still caught in the duality of "I" and "not-I". My opinion is that if we have realised non-duality then we can use any words we like - it really does not matter.

Peace.

I'm not sure I would agree with such non-dualist's assessment that they are, indeed, non-dualists.

As would I.

Non-duality is beyond mental construct of even being 'non-dual' and while ever the relationship exists between the Self and the Source in either differentiated or undifferentiated form, the duality still exists.

I take a whole different approach to those like Ramana Maharishi. Instead of seeking that which I am, I go about trying to discover that which I am NOT and that includes any notion of "I" - so it's not about 'self inquiry' it's more akin to the Buddhist notion of Anatta or 'no-self' inquiry (and now I know what to post in that thread in the Buddhist forum about the Soul). lol

I really do like that image, whether it is “Being” or “Non-Self” - “Anatta”.
I used to call this as “awareness sense” i.e. using (space) awareness as a sense.

https://www.thclabs.org/miscellaneou...t-of-non-self/

The thing is that Self judges, Non-Self just observes “What Is” without bias.

Here on the forum we have to use words, ideas and concepts that our mind-maps (= our mind's summary of life, universe and everything) has put together. But getting into emotional drama mode about TA vs NA and forming action groups for or against, that to me just makes a total farce of Non-Duality, because it pushes one to solely identify with the judging Self, and I feel very uncomfortable with this.

Non-Self (or what I called “the awareness sense”) cannot “otherize”:
[To make or regard (a person, social group, etc.) as alien or different.]
…. Instead Non-Self observes both self and other equally, is at an equal distance from or to self & other.

But of course on discussion forums the situation is different than “real life” situations.

EXCELLENT! EXACTLY!

It goes to show the limitations of mind, language and a forum to express such.

As I said before, even comparing TA to NA is duality within itself. There is no TA or NA...neti neti....neti neti...

Although, I wouldn't have two circles, one inside the other anymore...there would either be one circle that represents the all, or no circle whatsoever, or something like this:



With kind regards.

Who is arguing duality is the illusion?

There is the question, given, the thought of it, and the witness.

The witness TRULY should have nothing to prove, the question, however, needs to be understood but by who, the witness?.:D

Why is this so complicated for us.

It is not the witness but rather the thought that puts smoke in its eye.

Perhaps when the witness is truly seen,( That's so ironic) there is only awareness and no confusion, no debate,...