[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

Namaste.

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"

Hi Necromancer,

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.

Non-dual (Transcendent) precedes Creation of dual. Dual is a conditional aspect of Existence. The Transcendent is not dependent on the conditional, but the reverse is true. ("I pervade the entire Creation with a fragment of Myself, and yet I remain", etc.)

However, since All is One, any formal conditional differentiation of Self may realize Self because it essentially is That Self. This is why the physical is so significant - but especially a self-conscious human life is even more so.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.

“I” is the differentiated individual. “That” is the undifferentiated/Transcendent”. See previous

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?

Yes, but those doing the praying are usually those who have not realized who they are. Therefore they are praying to a
‘form’-al representation of the 'ideal' (realized) status e.g., the fully conscious Self, as represented by ______________which they have not as yet realized as instruments, even though they are ‘That’ ideal in essence. Therefore praying to oneself, who has yet not realized Self, could be a bit confusing since ignorance justmight be present in the unrealized being as a means of cognition thereby creating the confusion of what constitutes 'self'. This is why there is yogic efficacy in so-called ideal forms/chosen ideal/nishtha, etc.

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?

Brahman sez, because Brahman is. Since All is One how could it NOT be the case? Therefore form not only represents the formless, it IS essentially the formless. This is the basis of Realization.

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.

Then you didn’t stop it.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.

Maybe you are not yet realized.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"

In the plant kingdom, a flower/blossom represents realization. In the human kingdom we have far less flowers, a notable rarity of blooms, but an increasing number of buds.

I suggest reading Sri Aurobindo's “Synthesis of Yoga”, and in particular, Part 2, “The Yoga of Integral Knowledge” which deals specifically with Jnana and non-dual issues; also many chapters in “The Life Divine” which is also recommended.


~ J