The appearance of the manifestation.

[Iamit]

Why or how does the appearance of duality manifests when from a non dual perspective nothing is happening at all?

Bruce Chatwin in his excellant book "The Song Lines" describes an occasion when he was driving with some Aborigini's who were singing about what was round the next bend. When he asked them why they were singing about that they said that if they didn't sing about it, nothing would be there:) So maybe its focussed awareness imagination by the universal mind that manifets something from nothing based on all the senses which is why I cant put my hand through the kitchen table as least last time I tried:)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Why or how does the appearance of duality manifests when from a non dual perspective nothing is happening at all?

Bruce Chatwin in his excellant book "The Song Lines" describes an occasion when he was driving with some Aborigini's who were singing about what was round the next bend. When he asked them why they were singing about that they said that if they didn't sing about it, nothing would be there:) So maybe its focussed awareness imagination by the universal mind that manifets something from nothing based on all the senses which is why I cant put my hand through the kitchen table as least last time I tried:)

It all has to do with this thing called Purusha and Prakriti.

Purusha is the 'source' or the 'substratum' or the 'latent energy' or the 'cosmic principle' or the 'universal silence' or ' that which existed before the Big Bang' or 'Divine Will' or 'impetus without momentum' or we could say 'nonduality' or 'Brahman' or 'Oneness' or 'Shiva' or 'God'...many names to describe what Purusha is.

Prakriti is that which emanates from Purusha, but returns TO Purusha at the end of a cycle...the cycle of existence, awareness...whatever it is. Prakriti is the 'Force of the Source'...Prakriti is 'everything overlaid upon the substratum', Prakriti is 'potent energy' or the 'dynamic principle' or 'what came out of the Big Bang' it is 'matter and energy' or 'Divine will turned to action (kriya)' and is called a few things...'duality' (in reference to Purusha and also within itself), 'Shakti', 'the Goddess', 'Maya' (the illusory world).

Purusha created Prakriti and the realisation of Prakriti leads back to Purusha, they are one and the same and are about as 'dual' as Shiva and Shakti are in Ardhanarishwara form, but it is one reality made from dual concepts nonetheless, until the nonduality has been experientially realised as being either/neither duality NOR non-duality, even though they both exist as 'duality' in this world where we can only see everything as the vimarsha (reflection) of Purusha (Prakasha), which is, itself, Prakriti or Maya (illusion)...and that's about the best it gets from me before the brain starts hurting because I cannot break into pure Sanskrit like I want to.

Arharnarishwara/ShivaShakti/Purusha + Prakriti:

[Shivani Devi]

By the way, what happened when the Aboriginies would sing that there was going to be a kangaroo around the next bend and yet kangaroo wasn't there? did they have an explanation for that?

I prefer the old one "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" and having said that, I shall post some nice Quantum Physics about the nature of our 5 senses and Consciousness:

https://blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum/

The comments are interesting to read on this one.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

It all has to do with this thing called Purusha and Prakriti.

Purusha is the 'source' or the 'substratum' or the 'latent energy' or the 'cosmic principle' or the 'universal silence' or ' that which existed before the Big Bang' or 'Divine Will' or 'impetus without momentum' or we could say 'nonduality' or 'Brahman' or 'Oneness' or 'God'...many names to describe what Purusha is.

Prakriti is that which emanates from Purusha, but returns TO Purusha at the end of a cycle...the cycle of existence, awareness...whatever it is. Prakriti is the 'Force of the Source'...Prakriti is 'everything overlaid upon the substratum', Prakriti is 'potent energy' or the 'dynamic principle' or 'what came out of the Big Bang' it is 'matter and energy' or 'Divine will turned to action (kriya)' and is called a few things...'duality' (in reference to Purusha and also within itself), 'Shakti', 'the Goddess', 'Maya' (the illusory world).

What I have deduced is that 'Purusha' references the same THANG as Jesus referenced as 'the Father', and 'Prakriti' references the same THANG as Jesus referenced as 'the Son' and, since he psychospiritually completely identified with 'It', and spoke of 'It' as 'I' and 'me'.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Purusha created Prakriti and the realisation of Prakriti leads back to Purusha, ...

If you 'see' the one-to-one correspondence between the respective concepts (word labels) mentioned above, what Jesus he actually meant when he said: "No man cometh unto 'the Father', but by 'me'." (John 14) will make complete sense.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

By the way, what happened when the Aboriginies would sing that there was going to be a kangaroo around the next bend and yet kangaroo wasn't there? did they have an explanation for that?

They may or may not have, but I do.

Speaking about people's capacity to 'believe' and the reason they continue to 'believe' things they wish for will 'manifest' is contained in the following piece excerpted from the bit of writing I am currently doing which, among others things, declares and explains why just believing in 'Jesus' won't necessarily result in one's ending up hanging out with God and him (as he sits on a 'throne' in a place called 'heaven' ) personally:

"Notwithstanding the number of the absolutely-believing promoters and guarantors of the fore-referenced [literal interpretation of what's in the New Testament] belief‑and‑expectation scheme, and though I too acknowledge and frequently extol the miraculous-seeming power of mentally focused thoughts (beliefs, etc.) and emotionally embraced attitudes (expectations, etc.), I submit for logical consideration the proposition that the probability that anyone may thereby ensure such kind of ‘heavenly’ forever-after can really be no greater than the probability that believing and expecting, even without any doubt whatsoever, that any personally subscribed to belief-and-expectation-system related talisman, mantra, prayer, ritual behavior or combination thereof can and will ensure that any of one’s desires will be fulfilled as desired or that one will be ‘saved’ from experiencing anything one wishes not to as wished.

Why? Because, though it is indeed amazingly ‘elastic’ (in the sense of being able to parallelly☺ accommodate a wide range of alternative probabilities), which fact allows for it to be locally pattern-shifted for periods of time, the matrixial ‘fabric’ of the stream of Life – which one’s (that is, everyone’s!) experience and expression is part of – is flow-woven together by much more than the power of any one person’s or subgroup’s effect-generating belief‑and‑expectation ‘weavings’."

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

What I have deduced is that 'Purusha' references the same THANG as Jesus referenced as 'the Father', and 'Prakriti' references the same THANG as Jesus referenced as 'the Son' and, since he psychospiritually completely identified with 'It', and spoke of 'It' as 'I' and 'me'.


If you 'see' the one-to-one correspondence between the respective concepts (word labels) mentioned above, what Jesus he actually meant when he said: "No man cometh unto 'the Father', but by 'me'." (John 14) will make complete sense.

Very astute observation there, David.

The nebulous concept of a formless consciousness is way too expansive to be grasped by a limited facility like the human mind, so it must be perceived in other ways.

In this way, Purusha is also akin to the Nirguna form of pure awareness and Nirguna means 'without association'.

There is nothing you can associate with non-duality because everything basically IS it (at a sub-atomic level, or the smallest level you can go and also co-existing at the very biggest level you can go).

Prakriti is also akin to the Saguna form of awareness and Saguna is the opposite of Nirguna...basically meaning 'with association' and it is how the formless can be directly realised and perceived via form (like when I meditate on a statue/picture of Lord Shiva for long enough until absolutely nothing is there...no statue/picture, no room, no house, no street, no world, no universe and no 'me' within any of that).

That being said, that which we associate with 'Divinity' or the 'Ultimate Reality' or 'Brahman' within this physical world is called the Saguna aspect of Brahman, which is basically Purusha AND Prakriti, existing in tandem and not in opposition or not as non-duality...just like that picture of Ardhanarishwara there, but there's still a much greater 'reality' beyond that one though, as the awareness, itself makes the transition from Saguna awareness of Brahman (also called Savikalpa Samadhi) to the Nirguna awareness of Brahman (also called Nirvikalpa Samadhi) and 'vikalpa' means 'attributed' and so... Savikalpa means "attributed through association" and Nirvikalpa means "attributed through non-association" and of course, Samadhi means "enlightened understanding"...makes sense now, right?

By the way, I guess I don't identify AS that, because my stupid humble ego stops me from identifying with something 'much greater than myself'.

[Miss Hepburn]

By the way, I guess I don't identify AS that, because my stupid humble ego
stops me from identifying with something 'much greater than myself'.---Shivani Devi

I am happy for you to have a humble ego.
The one I experience wants to, "be everything, in control of everything'', but most of all,
''wants to eat everything!''

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

That being said, that which we associate with 'Divinity' or the 'Ultimate Reality' or 'Brahman' within this physical world is called the Saguna aspect of Brahman, which is basically Purusha AND Prakriti, existing in tandem and not in opposition or not as non-duality...just like that picture of Ardhanarishwara there, but there's still a much greater 'reality' beyond that ...

'Greater' implies quantity-ative presence and power. 'Better' implies a more desirable quality-ative experience and expression.

I know that Shivani and Miss H have already got this - so I only say this for other readers 'out there' - please do consider and contemplate, at least as a possibility, that ...

... the WHOLE purpose of the Father-Son, or Purusha-Prakriti, or Shiva-Shakti, creation-dance is for 'conscious-spirit' to be able to grow to the point of appreciating and enjoying truly/genuinely/exquisitely love-dance-ing with other aspects of itself, which 'it; couldn't if it simply 'self'-mastubatorily enjoyed it's 'own' fancies/fantasies by itself.

Seeking to consciously 'unite' with and so ecstatically (orgasmically?) 'experience' the 'divinity' of one's 'greater' own self is one thing. Being able to 'unite' (in the sense of consciously 'identify') with and so whole-self-heartedly 'loving' the selfish being of another and, eventually, by way of extension, of All That Is is a qualitative-ly different WHOLE other kind of, Life's purpose full-filling 'trip'!

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

By the way, I guess I don't identify AS that, because my stupid humble ego stops me from identifying with something 'much greater than myself'.

This 'stupidity' (which I think is honest 'smarts', really) is what 'saved' you (actually you really 'delivered' your 'self' in this regard!) from 'settling' for the lesser (i.e 'poorer') kind of 'heaven'ly experience so many here selfishly seek to 'have', my truly (fully?) loving and so loved One! In my not quite to humble, yet humble compared to those who operate with 'certainty' here, opinion, that is.

Miss H - I hope you 'receive' and 'revel' in my 'orgasmic' enjoyment of the constellation of your being (as much as I do Shivani's of course!). It is truly delightfully heartwarming to know that you are a related and relating part of my Life/Universe!

Woohoo!

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I prefer the old one "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Or how about "If a man speaks in a forest and there isn't a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?".

Peace

[swampgrl]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Or how about "If a man speaks in a forest and there isn't a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?".

Peace

She doesn't need to be anywhere around, all she needs is to be in his HEAD!