Duality; A Requirement of Creation

[Starman]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing.

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:

[Maguru]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. Why do you view separateness as an illusion?

From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing. You omitted you who brought the two things together. Without you, what would pen and paper do?

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile.

[Miss Hepburn]

Maybe this would help in understanding illusion better...and separation?

Meher Baba:


God is love. And Love must love. And to love there must be a Beloved.
But since God is Existence infinite and eternal there is no one for Him to love but Himself.

And in order to love Himself, He must imagine Himself as the Beloved whom He
as the lover imagines He loves.

Beloved and lover implies separation.

And separation creates longing; and longing causes search.
And the wider and the more intense the search, the greater the separation and the more terrible the longing.
When longing is at it's most intense, separation is complete, and the purpose of separation, which was
that love might experience itself as lover and Beloved,
is fulfilled; and union follows.

And when union is attained, the lover knows that he himself was all along the Beloved, whom he loved and desired union with;
and that all the impossible situations that he overcame were obstacles which he himself had placed in the path to himself.

To attain union is so impossibly difficult because it is impossible to become what you already are!
Union is nothing other than knowledge of oneself as the Only One.

.
.
.
.

[Maguru]

Maybe this would help in understanding illusion better...and separation?

Meher Baba:


God is love. And Love must love. And to love there must be a Beloved.
But since God is Existence infinite and eternal there is no one for Him to love but Himself.

And in order to love Himself, He must imagine Himself as the Beloved whom He
as the lover imagines He loves.

Beloved and lover implies separation.

And separation creates longing; and longing causes search.
And the wider and the more intense the search, the greater the separation and the more terrible the longing.
When longing is at it's most intense, separation is complete, and the purpose of separation, which was
that love might experience itself as lover and Beloved,
is fulfilled; and union follows.

And when union is attained, the lover knows that he himself was all along the Beloved, whom he loved and desired union with;
and that all the impossible situations that he overcame were obstacles which he himself had placed in the path to himself.

To attain union is so impossibly difficult because it is impossible to become what you already are!
Union is nothing other than knowledge of oneself as the Only One.

.
.
.
.In the physical realm we definitely experience separation so why would it be an illusion?

[Starman]

Why do you view separateness as an illusion?

You omitted you who brought the two things together. Without you, what would pen and paper do?
Creativeness does not need me to be involved; the example of a pen an paper is a very narrow analogy; the sun evaporates water which is collected in the clouds and later creates rain, this is an example where human beings are not involved. Nature is very creative.


Separation is an illusion because no one is an island, no one stands alone; what I do to you I also do to myself. Generally people think of separation in the physical sense, as our emotional and mental states definitely effect other people and are not isolated to us alone, but a point of view can be made that we are all physically connected as well; the human race is family and if we dig deep enough we will find how closely related we are physically.

There are babies that die from sudden infant death syndrome because of a lack of human touch. I have purposely not mentioned our spiritual cohesiveness because I believe, and there is so-called objective proof, that we are also connected emotionally, mentally, and physically. Illusion in this sense does not mean not real, it just means illusive, changeable, not permanent, etc. Our connective-ness can be seen on the surface but it is much greater below the surface. Separation is an illusion because we have no idea how many people we touch everyday, and especially given online forums like this one.

[wstein]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

... Your initial statement indicates you are going to talk about duality and creation. Then in the rest of the post you talk about the 'one and the many' (separateness). Creation could just as easily have been only 'one' OR 'many' not both as you indicate. As such, creation does NOT require duality.

As suggested by another, the original post is more about the illusion of separation than duality or creation.
--------------
This whole thing about trying to frame everything into duality is merely an artifact of the way the brain processes stuff. It 'works' best with choosing and contrasting among two (2). Further, it actively tries either to pare down to two choices or create additional choices so that there are two. This is documented by science.

[Starman]

In my opinion duality is a matter of perception and nothing more; creation is also a matter of perception; as a person can choose to either see the many or they can choose to see the one in everything. You can take what I am sharing here literally or you can just get the gist of what I've shared. My guru used to say to me that the human mind will latch onto words an analyze them but just get the gist of what I've said and not get caught in the words. This is something which I try to practice when reading others posts. In my opinion separateness is creation and duality is inherent in separateness.:smile:

[Starman]

Separateness is creation because everything is created from something, and the very fact that it is created from something creates a dual nature. But duality is more about opposites than it is about numbers in the creative process. Opposites are identical in nature but different in degree.:smile:

"Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled." — The Kybalion.

[Gem]

.......

Dang computer! hahaha

[wstein]

Separateness is creation because everything is created from something So where did the first something come from?

[Starman]

So where did the first something come from?
Are you asking me where did God come from? God, or that first something, in my understanding is the alpha (first) and omega (last) with no beginning or end, everything else is an adaptation of that and extends from that. Again, in my opinion where that first something came from is not comprehensible to the human mind. But everything in creation came from something else which had already been created by that first something. Everything rests on something else and is an outgrowth of something else. That initial something else many call "God," the universe, the prime mover, energy, consciousness, spirit, etc. That first something is called by many names but is actually beyond any name or label, description, thoughts or mental construction. Of course there are also lots of scientific theories as to how the universe, creation, etc., began; with the "big bang" theory being the most popular. But humanity believes much more than it actually knows, and I am no different.:smile:

[wstein]

Are you asking me where did God come from? God, or that first something, in my understanding is the alpha (first) and omega (last) with no beginning or end, everything else is an adaptation of that and extends from that. Again, in my opinion where that first something came from is not comprehensible to the human mind. But everything in creation came from something else which had already been created by that first something. Everything rests on something else and is an outgrowth of something else. That initial something else many call "God," the universe, the prime mover, energy, consciousness, spirit, etc. T ... For me, creation includes the 'first thing'.

[Starman]

For me, creation includes the 'first thing'.
What do you call that first thing? Just curious.

[wstein]

What do you call that first thing? Just curious. The Primary Separation.

[Jyotir]

Hi Starman,

Whether it is a 'requirement' depends on the premise that an apparent condition was purposeful to the Will of the Creator/Creative Force, All-Consciousness, etc.

So as to avoid some of the arguments that have come up, I'd say that duality is an apparent fundamental, or fundamental condition of our Universe.

If one accepts both the Creator premise, and the purposeful requirement premise, both seem to be true for you and for me as well, but the OP statement seems to hinge on both premises, one or both of which many do not accept.


~ J

[Starman]

Hi Starman,

Whether it is a 'requirement' depends on the premise that an apparent condition was purposeful to the Will of the Creator/Creative Force, All-Consciousness, etc.

So as to avoid some of the arguments that have come up, I'd say that duality is an apparent fundamental, or fundamental condition of our Universe.

If one accepts both the Creator premise, and the purposeful requirement premise, both seem to be true for you and for me as well, but the OP statement seems to hinge on both premises, one or both of which many do not accept. ~ J

Oh, I definitely agree that this is all based on a particular premise and that premise may be unacceptable to others. I think your re-wording is commendable, a fundamental condition is more palatable than a requirement.

There are many who do not accept the cohesiveness of creation and therefore believe that separateness is a fundamental truth, I see separateness as an illusion which allows for duality. Opposites are connected in my opinion and opposites are the fundamental basis of duality.

So now I am happily stuck on using your wording of "fundamental," instead of requirement. Thanks!:smile:

[r6r6]

There exists no 'first thing' or initial 'primary seperation.

Our finite, occupied space Universe is externally existent, as is the macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces, and does not restrain our occupied space Universe.

At best, we can say there exist a various times, within eternity, initial set of conditions from which events follow.

The big bang can be stated as an initial set of conditions, of eternally existent, occupied space Universe.

No one knows what our eternally existent, occupied space Universe, looked like before the big bang. Many believe, that, we can never know, while some others believe there may be a way to extrapolate from current data what existed before the big bang.

1} Space: { eternally existent }.

...1a} macro-infinite, non-occupied space,

...1b} finite, occupied space.

This is simple to grasp, not complex to understand. To comprehend may take more effort for many people.

A closed mind will never understand the above much less comprehend it. imho

However, to be clear, infinite may exist beyond comprehension. Same goes for eternity.

r6

[Starman]

I embrace a point of view that infinity is the absence of space, because all space is occupied by energy, spirit, God, consciousness, the prime mover, sacred divine, or whatever one chooses to call that fundamental essence of all. So if all space is occupied, even at the subatomic-level or quantum level, then there is no such thing as “space” as we know it.

Eternity, in my opinion, is the absence of time, because if there is no space than there is no time. If the presence of God is everywhere then there is no empty space, and if there is no empty space then there is no such thing as distance and thus time does not exist. Time is dependant on motion and is based on light, or the speed of light, rotation of planets, etc. Time is a dance of shadow and light, night an day, etc.

I have already stated that I think separation is an illusion, and in my cosmological view there is really no such thing as “first.“ When there is only The One and everything is an adaptation of that one, then we may call those adaptations first, second, etc., when actually they are all still The One. Everything comes from everything else and in my opinion nothing is really separate.

[Maguru]

I embrace a point of view that infinity is the absence of space, because all space is occupied by energy, spirit, God, consciousness, the prime mover, sacred divine, or whatever one chooses to call that fundamental essence of all. So if all space is occupied, even at the subatomic-level or quantum level, then there is no such thing as “space” as we know it.

Eternity, in my opinion, is the absence of time, because if there is no space than there is no time. If the presence of God is everywhere then there is no empty space, and if there is no empty space then there is no such thing as distance and thus time does not exist. Time is dependant on motion and is based on light, or the speed of light, rotation of planets, etc. Time is a dance of shadow and light, night an day, etc.

I have already stated that I think separation is an illusion, and in my cosmological view there is really no such thing as “first.“ When there is only The One and everything is an adaptation of that one, then we may call those adaptations first, second, etc., when actually they are all still The One. Everything comes from everything else and in my opinion nothing is really separate. Most of your opinion seems to be words that mean nothing in our experience of life. There is no gist in opinion, just a few irrelevant facts and analogies. Sorry to be so blunt but I have given you my honest opinion, as have you.

[bees]

Opposites are connected in my opinion

I haven't considered these points in detail but your comments such as "separateness is an illusion" have great resonance with the deeper (i.e. Past surface level, transcendent) Buddhist teachings and scriptures.

One of Buddhism's most sacred scriptures is called the Heart Sutra. This talks to some of the more fundamental aspects of "reality" as we know it.

The Heart Sūtra is a famous sutra in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Its Sanskrit title, Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya, literally means "The Heart of the Perfection of Understanding".

[bees]

Eternity, in my opinion, is the absence of time, because if there is no space than there is no time. If the presence of God is everywhere then there is no empty space, and if there is no empty space then there is no such thing as distance and thus time does not exist. Time is dependant on motion and is based on light, or the speed of light, rotation of planets, etc. Time is a dance of shadow and light, night an day, etc.

I have already stated that I think separation is an illusion, and in my cosmological view there is really no such thing as “first.“ When there is only The One and everything is an adaptation of that one, then we may call those adaptations first, second, etc., when actually they are all still The One. Everything comes from everything else and in my opinion nothing is really separate.

Separateness is an illusion.

Very beautifully noted. In my opinion, without this personal, direct and physical cognition of this, we are not yet at the ultimate point.

Time and space is an interplay of consciousness. Again, Buddhism points to this in its teachings on dependent origination.

I have seen eternity although it only felt like a moment, but such memories are remembered. Thanks for your ruminations on this topic, Starman :smile:

[Jyotir]

Oh, I definitely agree that this is all based on a particular premise and that premise may be unacceptable to others. I think your re-wording is commendable, a fundamental condition is more palatable than a requirement.

There are many who do not accept the cohesiveness of creation and therefore believe that separateness is a fundamental truth, I see separateness as an illusion which allows for duality. Opposites are connected in my opinion and opposites are the fundamental basis of duality.

So now I am happily stuck on using your wording of "fundamental," instead of requirement. Thanks!:smile:

Hi Starman,

So how about ‘splitting hairs’ further? (haha - not really - just the opposite, in keeping with the duality theme!)

Instead of ‘separation’, why not say, ‘differentiation’ (…of the One)?
This implies (for those who do accept the premise - that One Being undifferentiated, has, in another status of ItSelf, simply differentiated its ‘essential’ Self (static One Being all-conscious), into Many ‘instrumental’ selves (dynamic becoming as multiplicity - i.e., Nature).

In truth, none of those ‘aspects’ is really ‘separate’, but as individualized differentiations, they are simply unaware, or have very limited, partial cognition through a conditional fundamental ignorance, of their unconditional fundamental unity, or Oneness, with ALL. (although at a certain crucial stage, one begins to intuit this - notably artists, scientists, intellectuals - people who have, by dint of some specific practice, awakened or begun to engage the intuitive faculty which comes from a more subjective awareness, as distinct from a purely material/sensory/objective awareness - no matter how incomplete as yet).

The term, ‘illusion’ then, refers not to a negation of reality, but that in the conditionally ignorant status, differentiated beings have limited, distorted and false awareness of the more comprehensive truth of themselves, of others, of the universe, and of their own Transcendent Self which is emergent within an evolution of consciousness that is Life.

~ J

[Starman]

Hi Starman,

So how about ‘splitting hairs’ further? (haha - not really - just the opposite, in keeping with the duality theme!)

Instead of ‘separation’, why not say, ‘differentiation’ (…of the One)?
This implies (for those who do accept the premise - that One Being undifferentiated, has, in another status of ItSelf, simply differentiated its ‘essential’ Self (static One Being all-conscious), into Many ‘instrumental’ selves (dynamic becoming as multiplicity - i.e., Nature).

In truth, none of those ‘aspects’ is really ‘separate’, but as individualized differentiations, they are simply unaware, or have very limited, partial cognition through a conditional fundamental ignorance, of their unconditional fundamental unity, or Oneness, with ALL. (although at a certain crucial stage, one begins to intuit this - notably artists, scientists, intellectuals - people who have, by dint of some specific practice, awakened or begun to engage the intuitive faculty which comes from a more subjective awareness, as distinct from a purely material/sensory/objective awareness - no matter how incomplete as yet).

The term, ‘illusion’ then, refers not to a negation of reality, but that in the conditionally ignorant status, differentiated beings have limited, distorted and false awareness of the more comprehensive truth of themselves, of others, of the universe, and of their own Transcendent Self which is emergent within an evolution of consciousness that is Life.

~ J

I agree, differentiation is a better word to use. Thanks for the clarity.:smile:

[Gem]

I agree, differentiation is a better word to use. Thanks for the clarity.:smile:

I prefer the term 'distinction'. :smile:

[Starman]

I prefer the term 'distinction'. :smile:
Okay now folks. :icon_eek:

This is an example of how, and why, there are so many different writings and perspectives on that same one thing,
and disagreements in this world about how it is viewed. Approaching 70-years of living here on Earth and I have often
felt it is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.:hug3:

[TruthIntuitions]

Wow, this is beautifully stated. Thank you.

[Gem]

Okay now folks. :icon_eek:

This is an example of how, and why, there are so many different writings and perspectives on that same one thing,
and disagreements in this world about how it is viewed. Approaching 70-years of living here on Earth and I have often
felt it is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.:hug3:
It might be a strange thing, but I have been thinking about the depths of geometry for some years now, and developed something I call 'dot theory', which is really an inquiry into form ('creation') as a relationship (which 'duality' implies).

The theory is based in distinction because our experience of form is subjective, but I assume 'the mind' has universal operation, and suggest distinction is the way in which we can discern one thing from another.

In physics, for example, the math describes a distribution without any formal quality until a 'observer' becomes present, and this occurs when there is a 'collapse of the wave function' and a discrete particle manifests (though a particle can also be 'an observer'). It isn't a causal system, so if we reframe the observer language, we could describe creation as 'a perception'.

This is the crux of dot theory, as I use a small collection of dots to represent 'things' in relation to each other, and the thought experiment, which entertains me so, is to 'become a dot' and observe other dots. Well that's how I worked out the theory, but I went on to describe it as a geometry.

First I have to define a 'dot'. I think Euclid's definition, "That which has no parts", is a good one. You have to understand that a dot isn't really a dot. It is just used to represent 'that which has no parts'. It actually isn't situated anywhere, nor occupies any space, and its like a 'non formal object' so we just say 'it is' and have no definition for it, but represent it as a dot for the sake of simplicity.

Then we can represent duality as two dots, and in so saying, declare a relationship exists. This is when each dot takes on some sort of property which is determined by the quality of the relationship. In short, one dot is defined in relation to the other. What occurs here conceptually is you envisage 2 dots in space, and indeed that is precisely how I represent it, but this means the space is a third element against which the dots are contrasted, which is actually a 'triology'. Importantly, a dot, it itself, does not occupy space, so two dots don't require space (remembering a 'dot' is merely representation of 'the partless').

This is where it becomes a deeper philosophical inquiry into duality, for all we can say is, the property (singular) of one is determined by the other, but we cannot ascertain with 'two parts' alone what said properties are. Only that the system has 2 (indeterminable) inter-defining properties.

We simply know that they are not 'the same', and because they are two, the difference, or the quantity, of the system is infinite - infinite in that it cannot be defined. This is where the theory expands as a philosophy to draw a direct association between uncertainty and infinity. We usually conceive of infinity as really really big, but actually, it is merely the immeasurable 'difference' entailed in duality.

Conclusion: The duality of opposites is fundamentally incorrect. Duality is a far more nuanced relationship that we can represent visually (and only by using the simplest of symbols), but can not possibly visualise or conceive of in the mind in any way.

So, the Tao of duality isn't something answerable, it's the most subtle form of koan possible, literally.

[Starman]

Conclusion: The duality of opposites is fundamentally incorrect. Duality is a far more nuanced relationship that we can represent visually (and only by using the simplest of symbols), but can not possibly visualise or conceive of in the mind in any way.

So, the Tao of duality isn't something answerable, it's the most subtle form of koan possible, literally.
Hermetic philosophy states "Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same;
opposites are identical in nature,but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."--The Kybalion.

This is one of the Seven Hermetic Principles which has been established in the esoteric sciences, and I get my reference to duality from it; in that opposites are identical in nature but different in degree. Absolutely everything in this manifested creation has an opposite. Even colors and musical notes have their opposites. So opposites, in my opinion, are but extremes of the same thing, and those extremes may be distinct from each other yet they are continuum's of the same thing.

Mathematics is said to be a universal language and there is something called the “sacred geometry” but I feel there are very few things, if anything, which is objective; as you have stated “one dot is defined in relation to the other,” or one part is defined in relation to one part; e.g. we all stand very much alone together. You have developed a very astute theory, even though admittedly it will take a few readings for me to totally grasp it.

In spirituality duality is often attributed to the mental processes, or thinking mind, as the fundamental process of thinking is to compare and contrast, indeed, we draw distinctions by comparing and contrasting. We also store things in our memory by comparing and contrasting them. The human mind is very big on analysis, or taking things a part and examining each part, while many spiritual perspectives do not follow that process, as they are more into synthesis, or bringing things together.

Ideally analysis would lead to synthesis, but given an objective point of view synthesis or reintegration is rarely sought. Most are happy with all of the parts UN-assembled into a whole, bearing in mind that the whole is much more than the sum of its' parts; not saying any of the parts are separate although they may have various distinctions which might be viewed separately or differently. Still the transcendental state suggests we see the oneness in everyone and all things. The illusive nature of things lye in our unrefined perception of them; in my opinion if we could view life at the quantum level we would hold a very different perspective.

[Gem]

Hermetic philosophy states "Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same;
opposites are identical in nature,but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."--The Kybalion.

This is one of the Seven Hermetic Principles which has been established in the esoteric sciences, and I get my reference to duality from it; in that opposites are identical in nature but different in degree. Absolutely everything in this manifested creation has an opposite. Even colors and musical notes have their opposites. So opposites, in my opinion, are but extremes of the same thing, and those extremes may be distinct from each other yet they are continuum's of the same thing.

Mathematics is said to be a universal language and there is something called the “sacred geometry” but I feel there are very few things, if anything, which is objective; as you have stated “one dot is defined in relation to the other,” or one part is defined in relation to one part; e.g. we all stand very much alone together. You have developed a very astute theory, even though admittedly it will take a few readings for me to totally grasp it.

Hahaha, that's a watered down version.

In spirituality duality is often attributed to the mental processes, or thinking mind, as the fundamental process of thinking is to compare and contrast, indeed, we draw distinctions by comparing and contrasting. We also store things in our memory by comparing and contrasting them. The human mind is very big on analysis, or taking things a part and examining each part, while many spiritual perspectives do not follow that process, as they are more into synthesis, or bringing things together.

Ideally analysis would lead to synthesis, but given an objective point of view synthesis or reintegration is rarely sought. Most are happy with all of the parts UN-assembled into a whole, bearing in mind that the whole is much more than the sum of its' parts; not saying any of the parts are separate although they may have various distinctions which might be viewed separately or differently. Still the transcendental state suggests we see the oneness in everyone and all things. The illusive nature of things lye in our unrefined perception of them; in my opinion if we could view life at the quantum level we would hold a very different perspective.
I don't think we can perceive things in a pure one state, and what they call 'separation' is more like a realisation by self reflection. In this context the duality is 'two the same', rather than 'two different'.

In the geometry, the dual dot relation is said, "a is to b as b is to a". The expression is one of relation rather than one that defines by differentiation. The way I term the two parts, though, is, "they differ to the exact degree that they are the same". Teehee.

[AlexDF]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing.

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:

its interesting you write all this down and end by telling what it is in your opinion

what does it mean having all these words in you ? does it give you a feeling you know some thing ?

not actually having experienced all you talk about at all ????

like talking about a far away land and knowing what it s like to be there

when you have never left your house ?

[no1wakesup]

Duality is a forming concept after birth. What was initially a transparant stimulus moving through the infant, eventually becomes a someone there now having experiences in separation. Attachment to this process is enivitable as it is a physical necessity in this reality. With the conditioning which follows, fundamental ignorance is firmly set in place. From this, one may begin to become more awake but usually the play of "hide and seek" (between mind and no mind) perpetuates and the former identity takes on another label, this time spiritual. And now this spiritual seeker is "on the path", for the most part, governed by the same conditioning which keeps it unconscious. Perhaps, a final shift happens, totally spontaneous.. and liberation is there. This source, pure consciousness ...or whatever you want to label it, is asleep, awakening and liberated...all at once. And all you truly are is in this moment.

Non duality is usually something only percieved and understood by its counter-part, duality. Thats not it. It has nothing to do with what you can think, believe or reason it to be. You cant find it in books or in steps or stages to enligtenment because Its knowing is not a concept. So conceptualizing it is mute. Thinking about what is beyond these extremes is mute. You, or the identity you believe yourself to be becomes a futile process once liberated.

[no1wakesup]

................

[Starman]

Duality is a forming concept after birth. What was initially a transparant stimulus moving through the infant, eventually becomes a someone there now having experiences in separation. Attachment to this process is enivitable as it is a physical necessity in this reality. With the conditioning which follows, fundamental ignorance is firmly set in place. From this, one may begin to become more awake but usually the play of "hide and seek" (between mind and no mind) perpetuates and the former identity takes on another label, this time spiritual. And now this spiritual seeker is "on the path", for the most part, governed by the same conditioning which keeps it unconscious. Perhaps, a final shift happens, totally spontaneous.. and liberation is there. This source, pure consciousness ...or whatever you want to label it, is asleep, awakening and liberated...all at once. And all you truly are is in this moment.

Non duality is usually something only percieved and understood by its counter-part, duality. Thats not it. It has nothing to do with what you can think, believe or reason it to be. You cant find it in books or in steps or stages to enligtenment because Its knowing is not a concept. So conceptualizing it is mute. Thinking about what is beyond these extremes is mute. You, or the identity you believe yourself to be becomes a futile process once liberated.
I like very much what you have shared here, and it seems you may be speaking from experience or at least insight. In my out-of-body experiences this human life is perceived as a faint dream; like it never really happened. I agree that duality is a "forming concept which happens after birth," as you have stated.

When we are in our natural translucent state things pass through us and we do not necessarily hang on to and grasp labels and distinctions of what is around us. I have definite experience of seeing radiant light within all things; experiences like this I've found after doing a lot of quiet meditation. When the mind and all of its chatter is not present we can view things as one and there is no this and that. When we silently dwell in the eternal moment all there is, is this everlasting moment in quiet stillness with a kaleidoscopic motion seemingly taking place therein.

For me it is not one thing or the other as I view it as one with various facets. We are born with our eyes wide open and from there the potential/urge is strong to get caught up in the drama. But as you have stated, would we even know non-duality if not for duality, and this also begs the question, how differently would we know the one if we had never experienced the seemingly many? Thank you for sharing.:smile:

[no1wakesup]

I like very much what you have shared here, and it seems you may be speaking from experience or at least insight. In my out-of-body experiences this human life is perceived as a faint dream; like it never really happened. I agree that duality is a "forming concept which happens after birth," as you have stated.

When we are in our natural translucent state things pass through us and we do not necessarily hang on to and grasp labels and distinctions of what is around us. I have definite experience of seeing radiant light within all things; experiences like this I've found after doing a lot of quiet meditation. When the mind and all of its chatter is not present we can view things as one and there is no this and that. When we silently dwell in the eternal moment all there is, is this everlasting moment in quiet stillness with a kaleidoscopic motion seemingly taking place therein.

For me it is not one thing or the other as I view it as one with various facets. We are born with our eyes wide open and from there the potential/urge is strong to get caught up in the drama. But as you have stated, would we even know non-duality if not for duality, and this also begs the question, how differently would we know the one if we had never experienced the seemingly many? Thank you for sharing.:smile:

Well said and thanks.

That which experiences the many from an identification in form cannot know
Its true transparant nature from the same mechanism that can only manufacture experience. We attempt to find the infinite from finite means and look for the nothingness from the comfortable safe haven of somethingness. There is no such thing as detatchment from that state, only replacement.

And so, the opposite of the many is not the one. In the mind its just another opposing idea or concept about it. So there is no opposite. The one is not even the "first" thing. It never began yet can appear to begin in separation as the material world unfolds. The mind, usually, cant see that because it is saturated with beginning and end. Its fundamental process revolves around targeting, grasping and coveting. Whether an infant does that with space, a child with time or in a fully mature egoic mind looking for its next "search for meaning" fix

What is percieved as linear time and relational form is an investment too great, be it conceptual, to simply set aside. So we are not here to negate separation but instead to see it* as play. The challenge, instead, is to reconcile an illusionary identification with a separate form. And by reconciling I mean to re identify. Not a recognition that could only further interpret and intellectualize ...but an awareness which can further endure and expand until it itself is realized as primary (aka..authentic natural state)

[acorn]

no1wakesup... well said!!! good read,,,starman is definitely a good dude :)

I have this image in my head when I think about creation ...the sense of I Am-ness

creation is a recipe that changes....the first recipe has one ingredient in it...singular consciousness
with the advent of a body....the recipe changes...singular consciousness & body consciousness or maya....which creates duality...or the illusion of separate-ness
The universal I...and the personal I..( the personal I is a doupleganger )

love
acorn




that probably doesn't help ...but thats how works

[acorn]

thats how it works for me I meant to say

[r6r6]

I prefer the term 'distinction'. :smile:


All polyhedra --ergo 3D--- have a dual. The tetra{4}hedron is the only polyhedron that is its own dual.


The dual of the cube is the octahedron.


The dual of the icosa{20]hedron is the penta{5}gonal do{2}deca{10{hedron.


Finite, occupied Space Uni-V-erse has dual of the Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied Space.


These latter two above, have the complementary dual of Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

And with that, were now were back to the Cosmic Trinity Outline/List Ive laid out cleary for some years now.

"G" od or "U" niverse is the Cosmic Trinity Outline/List.

God or Universe or Uni-V-erse is the finite occupied Space.

1} Metaphysical-1

---conceptual line-of-demarcation--------


2} Metaphysical-2

3} Occupied Space


The Cosmic Trinity is eternally existent. Any other ideas are irrational, illogical and lack common sense that attempt to deter from the Cosmic Trinity, as Ive clearly laid out, are futile.

[Heightend-Awareness]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing.

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:I understand that duality is neccassary in the physical realms such as our own. But it has no place in our true spiritual form because in our true form we just are, different rules apply in the spiritual realms.

[Questions]

Sorry star man but this thread is just filled with word salad and speculation, there is a possibility/method to shift to a permanent non dual state of being so I don't know what it is that you are trying to say here.

[Sanctus]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing.

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:

I think, when we discuss any aspect of consciousness we are greatly hindered by limitations of language, that said, I think you've summed up some things quite succinctly here :smile:

The Yin/Yang symbol shows us the duality of Oneness.

[Miss Hepburn]

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabbalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:I never knew that exactly about the Kabbalah.
Thank you.

[r6r6]

For me, creation includes the 'first thing'.

There exists no first thing aka occupied space. Believing something { occupied space } can come from where before there was truly non-occupied space, is irrational at best.

Occupied space eternally exists and is not 'manufactured'.

What we do have in eternally existent, occupied space Universe, is point in e time of eternal exitsence ---not infinite occupied space--- we can label an initial set of circumstances..

Whatever the big bang WOW! was, it was an initial set of circumstances fomr which we have observed occupied space events going back near to that initial set of circumstances.

Occupied space existed before ---and eternally-- that initial set of circumstances for our observed set of events. Here as follows in LINK to one famous mathmatican Roger Penrose (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBfuAVBdcW0) who has his personal scenarios of how this eternal Universe operates.

[MikeS80]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing.

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:Great post Starman! The illusion of (conditioned) separateness is an illusion because the (conditioned) separateness creates one to experience/think the (conditioned) separateness (being or not being), instead of oneness/wholeness.

All religions and spirituality point to and have the right here and right now (present moment) as their foundation (they just call it by a different name i.e god, source etc etc, and have different beliefs based on said name), minus/underneath all the dogma, fear mongering, hate etc etc. I am sure Kabbalahism has it as its foundation too.

[Scout Phoenix]

I like your explanation of duality and how the universe work's. I believe that every single living thing has it's own meaning and life too live and we work together threw meaning each other and talking thing's threw or just even viewing nature. I have the worst time thinking about seperatness and also trying too meditate while being a budda. That, is something I could never ever do and I love seeing nature touching the object's around myself. And, also exploring small new thing's all the time. I also know that seeking too be come something larger than myself drive's myself too insanity and beyond. I can't really explain it. Aboutm the sound of music and self mastery.

[AaronStar]

In order to express my thoughts on the subject, I want to share my poem:

The Absolute and the Relative in the Face of God's Love
Mystical disciples of All Lands
have been focusing on theory
some are deeply feeling in the sands
of time where is All the Glory.

What is it like to forget what it was?
Before the Breath began its pulse
even if breathless, the Form already has
circulating energy to fill its veins and burst

in the centre of the Heart
where every Single One can be
either a centred unity or start
to swing back and forth, for you shall see

that the Absolute and Relative
boggling minds should come to peace
Isn't Love Enough, the negative
is not opposed to duality where bliss

can fill each end of the equation
then all the Unease shall Understand so Wise
"Am I Not Enough" What a frustration
if all the Glory Pure of the One cannot suffice

in the Heart so Yours, where there's a Single Truce
IT IS LOVE and that is all you need to get
when walking in a enthustiast explorer's shoes
the Craving for Even more of Knowledge Itself bets

all that it has in its hands,
ready to Die for the Quest of God,
if trapped in unachieving of itself, but Wands
of a Magician is not For Insatiable Curiosity thought.

It is rather to find peace and to unify
yourself in an egregor that can expand
and then you innerly amplify
the Blessed Emotions that need no Concept; it Began!

[utopiandreamchild]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing.

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:

I tend to lean towards non duality. Love and hate are the most important of all duality. The wise would obviously choose love, hate being unhealthy and needless. Amen

[utopiandreamchild]

I view duality as a necessary requirement of creation; and there are many religions which embrace non-duality, Hinduism, Taoism, etc, but my view is more of a metaphysical point of view.

Any time we talk about the one and the many we are talking about duality; duality is the illusion of separateness. From an esoteric Kabalistic point of view duality is nothing more than reflection; light refracted giving the appearance of opposites.

The human mind is a slave to duality; as the essence of memory (past) and imagination (future) is to compare and contrast. Comparing and contrasting is a function of duality. It basically points out how “this” is similar, or different, from “that,” when in non-duality there is no this or that.

The “Trinity” is looked at in many religions as the Godhead or makeup of God; three in one concept. In Tarot, Numerology, etc. the number “3” is the number of creation, or creative imagination, as is depicted in the Empress Tarot Key, but the number-3 is also embraced by many religions as a symbol of creation.

Creation happens when two dissimilar things are bought together producing a third thing. Childbirth, man, woman, sperm, egg, etc. To paint a picture, or write a note, you bring together paint and canvas, or paper and pencil, which creates the picture or the note. You need at least two things that will produce a third thing.

In my opinion this is the essence of duality; manufacturing opposites that will give birth to creation. Kabbalah states that in the beginning was the word; that word was cosmic “sound,” which became light, and light refracted created duality, which according to Kabalistic thought, gave birth to this creation.:smile:

The core duality is the duality of love and hate, they are the most important of all. It takes a non dualistic approach to master life. That is to choose love over hate 24/7. Amen