Don't sell "us" short... when science catch's up to spiritually I may ask them bozos.

What chair? There is no chair

So cute, I luv it. That's right!
No chair! :hug2:

It's us that creates the paradox when we don't realise the intrinsic Isness of it, instead we put it into opposition.

I wasn't talking about duality or non-duality though, that's the difference. So yes, clay does exist whether or not pottery exists or not but without the pottery the clay is just the same as the rest of the dirt. When the potter comes along and forms it into something beautiful it's something more.

Yes the ocean exists without the waves but with the interaction of the moon and the tides - or the storm - it becomes an awe-inspiring force of nature.

When intrinsic and extrinsic come together something bigger, better and bolder happens.

Just the same as we are 'increased' by external influence, when we talk to to others and read books, etc.

The One all on its lonesome is just One, but when the One becomes both the One and the multitude what you get is a deeper understanding. So while you're talking about Duality I'm talking about Triplex Unity.

EDIT: Because something popped into my head.

The Father, the son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity. God is because we are, we are because God is. One is because the multiplicity is, multiplicity is because One is. Without us there is no God, without God there is no us. Without the One there is no multiplicity and without the multiplicity there is no One.

It is amusing sometimes, especially in the context that one of the mainstays of Spirituality is awareness. If people were a bit more aware of what they were saying then maybe we wouldn't have a non-Duality discussion - maybe we'd be talking about beyond Duality instead.

What I said was that the case for non-duality doesn't make sense and to me it's neither common sense nor logic. If you think that's judgement then be my guest, but that's your perceptions and your choice. If you actually think about the term 'non-Duality' you'll understand what I'm trying to say - what's being said there is that the duality that you acknowledge the existence of doesn't exist. How is that sensible? The case for non-existence is nonsense.

By using the word you acknowledge that it exists and most of the arguments against duality are dualistic themselves. How is that Right Thinking? I enjoy the philosophical discussion but I need it to make sense, I can't make sense of a dualistic non-duality discussion. If you can see reason and logic in that, be my guest because I'd really enjoy reading it. To me, it's bonkers and maybe what we need to do is look to the thinking instead of reinforcing the personal dogma/narratives.

Perhaps if we were more aware of what was actually being discussed? Because the discussion of Duality is not about Duality and the discussion of non-Duality is not about non-Duality.

Science isn't interested in disproving Spirituality and many scientists are either Spiritual or religious. Jung was a scholar of Advaita Vedanta and that's where he took his model of both the self and the ego from. He described the self as "The God inside" because the self was the resolution of the paradox between the conscious and the unconscious. Einstein, as with many others, believed in God and still believe in God. Scientists can live with religion/Spirituality but few Spiritual people can live with science. Max Planck used science to say that God must exist and hinted that the Universal Field of quantum theory is God - and if you look at both the science and the religion they're not so far apart after all.

I'm sure most scientists have better things to do than try to debunk Spirituality. Spirituality is built on the framework of psychology and they're two very different areas of understanding. Beliefs can be anything anyone wants them to be and are the end result of the processing of the unconscious - which is largely what you are.

Science moves forwards when concepts are debunked, when people challenge the established trains of thought. That's what Jung did but Jung didn't sit on his beliefs, he took the scientific approach to understanding. How many Spiritual people do the same? How many are willing enough to put their beliefs aside in the light of new information/thinking?

How many are going to talk about understanding beyond both Duality and not-Duality?

Spirituality is the "What?" and psychology is the "How?"

They all had a firm grasp of what we in the West call psychology. The Right Thinking of the Eightfold Path is mostly constructive cognitive behaviour, for instance. The religion/philosophy of the Indus Valley went into what we call psychology in great detail. If you want to understand the ego from a Spiritual perspective then Ahamkara is the place to go, and what you'll find there is what we call psycho9logy - especially when you delve into Chitta.

You can use the word 'dichotomy' if you like, I've seen that thrown about in similar threads. Duality and paradox are pretty much the same thing, it's 'this' vs 'that' but it's not the way it works, 'this' vs 'that' gives us something else again. So Spirituality and psychology are a duality/paradox but putting them both together makes for a very different Spirituality. Maybe that's why we are so far apart from Buddha, Jesus and so many others - maybe it's because they embraced their understanding of psychology and used it to their benefit and didn't ignore it and let it bite them on the backside.

So putting psychology and Spirituality together, Duality is the differentiated conscious of the ego while so-called non-Duality is the undifferentiated conscious of the self - the self has solved the paradox of conscious vs unconscious to 'create' consciousness. There is no inherent Duality in the discussion of Spirituality and psychology until one is created out of.... what?

"God, thou art the Love by which I Love thee."

Ultimately there is no extrinsic. It's just an appearance of and within the Intrinsic so they never come together because they are never anything different. Ahamkara "makes" the extrinsic appear real, different. That's the illusion.

Can't blame Ahamkara because it too is an appearance of and within the Intrinsic. The confusion arises from identifying with/as Ahamkara.

It's exactly like within a mundane dream identifying with the dream self and attaining lucidity within the dream is liberation from the dream self. "Knowing" it for what it is and that it is not the real Self. That the dreamer is the real Self.

The dreamer is intrinsic and the dream is extrinsic. Before the dream started, while the dream's occurring and after the dream ends the dreamer exists. The dream neither adds to nor detracts from the dreamer.

Non-Dual Awakening - How does one go from an intellectual understanding of the ‘Self’ to a living realization? https://youtu.be/DVmWlRmOnSo?t=3725

''Non-dual Awakening'' - good to place a title... so many will not click a link if
their life depended on it.
As usual you placed it on just the spot to start to listen, thank you, buddy!! :wink:

I KNOW! Right! It's HIS love!! You get it, GS. :thumbsup: