Are WORDS basically dualistic?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Imo, Jesus Christ himself was a nondualist.

His statement 'I and my Father are one' ( John 10:30) is the same as the Sufi enlightened sage Mansur All Hallaj's Ana 'l-Ḥaqq ( I am the Truth), and the ancient Upanishadic saying Aham Brahmasmi (I am He) of Hinduism.

It is through nondualism that most of Jesus Christs teachings could be understood logically in the correct context.

In the first chapter of my treatise, titled "What Jesus REALLY Meant", which I invite anyone who is interested in contemplating such matters to read in full (click here for pdf copy), I wrote:

Many would rather simply believe that by saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Jesus unequivocally asserted that the gestalts of his and his/our Father’s spirits were absolutely identical, that they were literally one and the same aspect of Life in action; case closed. Such statement may certainly be read that way and, taken by itself, used to support God-concept co-opting narratives such as the one presented in the Nicene Creed which proclaims that the personage of Jesus was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;” etc. But it may also be taken to mean that Jesus thought and felt that his and said Father-God’s spirits were dynamically integrated and functionally co-operational, and so united as ‘one’, metaphorically speaking, in terms of purpose and consequence – analogous to the way in which partners who aren’t identical may accomplish something they both desire when and as they work together in a complementary manner, which they couldn’t and so wouldn’t be able to creatively accomplish if each worked alone. (This is what holism really means, by the way: “Holism is based upon idea that: the whole is more than the sum of its constitutive parts, so reduction of the whole to its constitutive elements eliminates some factors which are present only when a being is seen as a whole. For example, synergy is generated through the interaction of parts but it does not exist if we take parts alone.”)

There is much more that is pertinent to the topic of 'non-dualism' in that chapter, of course.