A Nondualistic Duality?
 

As per the teaching of Vedanta, there is a witness (the self, pure awareness, the void, nothingness) and the witnessed (thoughts, senses, form, somethingness).

That is seen as a duality which must be resolved, right? As in, the witness and the witnessed are not two but one. Like the screen and the light hitting it are not two things but one.

That's fine, I love that resolution of nonduality.

But what if I resolved it a different way. What if I said that the witness cannot even count as another one because it is literally nothingness? So the witness and the witnessed is not a duality. It's not one and another one. It's one and nothing else. Therefore not two. It's a nondualistic duality... Only if you count "nothingness" to be a "something" can it be referred to as a duality.

We may rest in the nothingness so that the somethingness is our one and only reality. (Which of course is already true)

The discussion of non-duality while being immersed in duality is prejudiced at best. Its’ like a fish talking about dry land, and while it may have caught a glimpse of dry land it really knows less than little about it.

Duality suggests opposite poles that exist in space but there is no such thing as “space” in non-duality. The laws of physics do not apply to non-duality. There is no up or down in infinity and non-duality is the one pervasive wholeness of infinity.

There are no gaps in infinity; we live every moment and have our being in the midst of infinity. In my opinion, infinity is the absence of space as all space is occupied by omnipresent divinity, and eternity is the absence of time; because where there is no space there can be no such thing as “time.”

The concept of duality requires both time and space. The nature of opposite poles infers space and where there is space, or distance, there is time. When we are still inside and cease all movement within ourselves we can experience eternity and infinity; we can experience non-duality.

Eternity and infinity are always present in the here and now; they overlap and permeate duality but are not opposite to it. Duality is an illusion created by non-duality; all things are created by non-duality. Duality can disappear and no longer exist but non-duality is permanent and will always exist. Without non-duality duality would not exist.

There is no such thing as “nothing” because while the word “nothing” actually means “no-thing,” and things can be framed or they have boundaries and borders, divine presence has no boundaries or boarders and is omnipresent, that is to say everywhere. Further, non-duality is not a “thing” but duality is definitely a thing. Is the river the opposite of the ocean? Oceans create rivers and rivers flow back to the ocean.:smile:

Otherwise known as a glimpse of it's own hypocrisy.

That all makes sense Starman, thank you for that response!

I was perhaps thinking a bit one-dimensionally. :P

I realize now that the witness and the witnessed is still a duality within nonduality.

:notworthy: This is really good. Some argue the world is multidimensional because they can perceive it as such, while others might suggest it is actually non-dimensional because they can see it as such. The same may go for duality and non-duality. The latest I read on Quantum was that all states exist until one is perceived, so maybe life is dual, non-dual, dual & non-dual, not-dual-not-non-dual... and whether either is in any certain point in what some call time & space is really truly up to how they perceive. I like the idea about resting in nothingness, and let oneness emerge from there... at least I no longer believe I have any free will... it seems that I have a True Nature, and it unfolds whether or not I participate... when I struggle I find myself at odds with duality... when I participate I slip into non-duality... :smile:

It depends what is meant by the term "Oneness". The problem disappears if it is not used to indicates some sort of entity/anything/something but rather that despite the very convincing appearance of difference, All is One.

Does hypocrisy see itself? I doubt it. Hence - spiritual practice???

:smile:
BT

Hi slash112

Love your inquiries, dear friend!

In my opinion, both you and starman are right.

I reckon it is like this - for one who is true and realized the inner secrets for themselves, then of course it is true. For one who has not, it is not true because they haven't genuinely penetrated those truths (yet)

:smile:

BT

In manifest that's true.

Does practice makes perfect? I submit for consideration that practice makes practice.

Perfect practice :) ≠ Perfect

That's very nice, swampgrl, and timely, how good is your intuition, dear one? :hug2:

Nice to meet you (again)

Love

BT