Duality in relation to Trinity
 

The Source of The Universe is Triune, not Dual. Duality is a subset of Trinity.

Duality is "Not The Whole Picture", hence subject to distortion.

Dualistic Polarization is the root of many of the problems currently plaguing society. (political parties, tribalism, me vs you, etc.)

Good & Bad cannot exist without a "Third Party", a "Consciousness", a "3rd Point"in which the good and bad can be perceived.

The source of the universe is non-dual (Occam's Razor) The Trinity is a diversification that can follow from Non-duality.

Duality is often the whole picture.

Diversification, not having touched the non-dual ground of being (or non-being....:smile: ) is at the root of many of the problems that have always plagued our world.

Consciousness always "doubles back upon itself" and is thus not subject to contingency. Good and bad can only exist in relation to each other. There need be no third point.

Anyone else want to play this game?

("Nevertheless Kassapa, suffering does exist" - the Buddha)

Strictly speaking the Trinity is the Christian Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The pre-Taoist monks called it Triplex Unity and if you understand better through diagrams, you can use the Vesica Pisces as a visualisation. That gives your five dimensions of consciousness.

Non-dual is dual. Think about it.

Occhams' Razor points to Isness, which is the only inherent attribute anything has. The Universe itself has Isness, as has everything else within it.

Not a diversification, realisation.

It could be argued that the relationship between good and bad is actually the third aspect of the trinity. Wherever there is an apparent duality there is automatically a third aspect, the relationship between the two poles of duality.

We see this in the very first duality, that of Purusha (Spirit) and Prakriti (Matter) which automatically gives rise to the third aspect - Consciousness.

Peace

Oh, I've thought about it....:smile:

(Nevertheless Kassapa, suffering does exist - the Buddha)

A lot of things can be argued. The "east" favours internal relations. "Knower" and "known" in external relations implies that the relationship between them is a third object, deemed "knowledge". In internal relations knowledge represents not what connects the independently existing knower and known, but rather the overlap, the interdependence between knower and known. As has been said:- "Such a model of knowledge stresses engagement and praxis in preference to observation and analysis." ( Sourcebook of Japanese Philosophy)

(Nevertheless Kassapa, suffering does exist - the Buddha)

I would say that diversification follows realisation. Then it is "known" for what it is. Diversification, prior to realisation, creates for us a world of judgement and division.

(Nevertheless Kassapa, suffering does exist - the Buddha)

Whatever, I'm happy with the Middle Way. The Buddha did not seek to give or define a “final” answer but to be free from all theories. To know from experience, “the nature of form and how form arises and how form perishes.” He wanted “not a third position lying between two extremes but a no-position that supersedes them both.” This is the Middle Way.

The no-position should not be reified. It in itself is "empty", in expression a constant becoming into novelty. There is always something new under the sun. We are all unique.

What are the teachings of a whole life time? "An appropriate statement" (Yun-men). Appropriate in the "now" and for that moment only.

(All of course IMHO)

There's a story about 2 monks. One says the flag is moving. The other monk says the wind moves the flag. A master walks by and says your hearts are flapping.