Quote:
|
Originally Posted by God-Like
As said before about the personal aspects of what you are, you cannot separate what you are that is impersonal from what you are that isn't . There is only what you are .
When we speak about the impermanence and the permanence the same applies .
You cannot separate what you are that is impermanent as an expressional experience as rain from what you are that isn’t .
To say the rain is unreal is to separate the rain from what is real that isn’t rain .
The understanding of oneness should rectify and shed light upon the dividing nature that is presented .
There can only be real or unreal you can’t have both as a foundation, this is why the dream analogy never works as said before, you can’t have a real fish in an unreal pond and here we have a similar scenario .
x daz x
|
Yes, that's all well and good but as a method of teaching and understanding it's as worthless as the diametrically opposite approach of Neo-Advaita. Both are absolute positions (nothing is real and everything is real) and are of no use whatsoever in helping a seeker to grasp what non-duality actually means. In other words it's not a gradual explanatory method, instead just a dogma. Believe this! Why? Because it's truth.
That's why there's a tradition developed over 3,000 years using the techniques of traditional Advaita that gradually brings a seeker to realization.
Both absolutist approaches are more likely than not to be appropriated by ego which is the exact opposite of what's desired.