Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moonglow
Hello,
Adding my thoughts.
I think non-duel gets misunderstood or some may be too strict in aplplying the meaning/concept. Just my opinion.
Non-duel, to me, is non-opposing. The day does not oppose the night, the various colors do not oppose each other. Opposing in the sense that one is trying to overtake the other.
All these variants and differences are only what is being observed, experienced, and perceived. According to what one is able to observe, experience, and perceive. Also, to what and/or how it (whatever it may be) is understood, known, and aware of.
So, how this existance is experienced includes the individual/self. The self is inclusive with in thie experience/life here. The self creates his/her own understandings, knowings, thoughts, beliefs, way of living. This is unique unto the self, but adds and blends with in the self and that which the self interacts with.
Much like all the other elements, organisms, particles, ect, interact and influence each.
With in this dance/interaction one can notice the connections and with in these connections one can notice a wholeness. The wholeness creating a sense of oneness.
Oneness does not negate the wonderful diversities of, but embraces it. Diversities do not negate the influences it may have upon each, but is of the whole.
|
Perhaps not opposing in the sense of trying to overtake each other, but opposing in the sense that they are opposites of each other in terms of the quality in question, and dual in that way. Yet, non-dual in the sense that they depend on each other for their existence as one implies the other, and cannot have meaning without the other, so they always occur together and are one thing, though with two opposite faces...so to speak. Perhaps not so much color though, I don't see that working that way....well black and white perhaps if we call those colors. But I don'k know that there are other colors that tend to cancel each other....could be, IDK.
The other interesting thing that I am not sure if you were getting at is the implications of the double slit experiment. Here we see particles that are only occurring as a distinct something when a conscious observer could potentially figure out where that something would be, even if in the past. But if the conscious observer could not become aware of where it was, then it behaves as a wave of probabilities of where it could be, or could have been, until such time when again that conscious observer could know where it is. So it would seem perhaps that the universe of the forms does not exist as such, but only the potentiality of what it might become, until such time as the conscious observer wants to observe it and/or could observe it. Or even more startling, a particle will be observed, even if there is anyway for that observer to know where it was at some point in the future. In other words it knows you are going to peek at some point so it will appear as a particle now. A universe that perhaps really does lack object permanence, playing peekaboo with the observer by only appearing as an object when they look through there fingers to see it. Or in other words it would seem perhaps that the observation and what is observed, the knowing and what is known arise together simultaneously, depending on one another to create experience. The source of what is observed, it would seem is perhaps the observer, and so the apparent duality of the knower and the known, the subject and the object, are also a non-dual and one(ness?).