Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Non Duality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 28-09-2016, 05:10 AM
bees bees is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 239
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman

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
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 28-09-2016, 02:35 PM
Jyotir Jyotir is offline
Master
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,903
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
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!
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


Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-10-2016, 01:23 AM
Starman Starman is offline
Master
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,835
  Starman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jyotir
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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-10-2016, 03:08 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 20,400
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
I agree, differentiation is a better word to use. Thanks for the clarity.

I prefer the term 'distinction'.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-10-2016, 04:12 AM
Starman Starman is offline
Master
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,835
  Starman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
I prefer the term 'distinction'.
Okay now folks.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-10-2016, 05:56 AM
TruthIntuitions TruthIntuitions is offline
Newbie ;)
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1
 
Wow, this is beautifully stated. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-10-2016, 06:30 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 20,400
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Okay now folks.

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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-10-2016, 08:08 AM
Starman Starman is offline
Master
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,835
  Starman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-10-2016, 08:41 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 20,400
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-10-2016, 11:49 AM
AlexDF AlexDF is offline
Newbie ;)
Knower
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 179
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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 ?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums