What is non duality?

[AshaKantaSharma]

It simply means we are all connected and all is one just having distinct separate physical/non physical existance which seems to function independently.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by AshaKantaSharma

It simply means we are all connected and all is one just having distinct separate physical/non physical existance which seems to function independently.

Yes I agree, it is that simple, but sadly many make it complicated, they make a life time struggle trying to be where they have always been, they lose themselves to try and find themselves lol.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

It is true that situation can be like what you described if one's ego is suppressed artificially and person becomes dormant. But TRUE spirituality is about being active and sublimate one's ego and not killing / suppressing it .It may also be true that some supposedly spiritual person may have such status. But with that the problem is in person's ignorance and not the spirituality per se.

With the true Spiritual Masters in their temples their egos weren't so much supressed as non-existent, it takes many years of practice, apparently. They weren't 'supposedly Spiritual', they were the epitome of what many strive for. It also happens when people go through emotional trauma and the ego 'collapses' into the self, it's a safety mechanism. In context it was said as a not of caution to JASG because practices such as those that he's undertaking can lead to that same genuinely ego-less state, the further from the ego the less functionality in the 'real world'.

Since this is a thread about non-Duality - which frankly is a contradiction in terms but few seem to have thought of that - Duality is caused by the differentiated conscious of the ego. So many seem to be using the word 'self' and that can be the ego seeking status and not the self at all. The self is undifferentiated conscious that has resolved the paradoxes of unconscious vs conscious.

So, to put all of that into context. Spirituality vs psychology is Duality, ignore psychology and it's one-dimensional binary thinking. It's also the differentiated consciousness regardless of how people think they have left their egos behind. Self is the undifferentiated conscious of both the conscious/ego/Ahamkara and the unconscious that 'encompasses' - that's the key word - them both in a healthy balance. In the trinity of conscious and unconscious of the encompassing, non-Dual self is five-dimensional consciousness.

Being 'Spiritual' IS the ego but nobody will tell you that, and thinking you have 'sublimated' the ego IS egotistical. If ego is the 'bad guy'. that's intentional ignorance.

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

It is so easy to misinterpret this to think that you basically believe that the infinite ever expanding I AM is an ego. When what you are saying, I assume, is that limitting that to a definition or label, is what is of the ego.

As Jung put it, the ego is "A sense of I am." So if I asked to you to describe yourself everything after the 'I am' is not your ego but the 'contents' of your ego. It's what your "Sense of I am" consists of. The ego doesn't 'create' the 'contents', the 'contents' 'create' the ego. Guess what, considering yourself as 'Spiritual' is one of the 'contents' of your ego.

When you understand the ego from that perspective you understand one of the greatest 'non-Dualities' in Spirituality, that of "We are One".

The thing is, if we're going to discuss non-Duality then shouldn't we come from a place of understanding? I Googled Duality and found a few different answers, as expected, but at least they were all in the same ball-park. The one that caught my attention was the dual aspects of the one, the example given was the dual aspects of good and evil, light and dark that we all have inside if we are honest enough.

You are a Duality, you are 'this' vs 'that'. You have 'this' which is your Spiritual aspect, you have 'that' which is your human aspect. You have a 'this' which is your conscious aspect and a 'that' which is your unconscious aspect. Aspects, not 'things'. That is the differentiated consciousness of the ego - 'this' vs 'that'. The ego - and more accurately the mind but the mind is a part of your ego - can't resolve the paradoxes/dichotomies. The ego creates differentiates between 'this' and 'that' in order to understand and 'generate' consciousness - so because you are 'this' and you see 'that', you become conscious and aware. So from the perspective of 'I am... this' and what you read in this forum (your Spiritual aspect coming into play) is 'that' you can have a relationship with it and whatever is in your head because of it.

Duality ls 'this' and 'that' and to many there is a perceptual/intentional difference - 'human you' is different to 'Spiritual you' so they're in a state of Duality. Guess what, that's not the whole story. Because 'human you' goes to the supermarket and works to pay the bills, 'Spiritual you' doesn't fall over because of hunger and can pay for internet access.

'Spiritual you' and 'human you' are not in a Duality, Duality is an aspect of the Trinity and YOU are a Trinity. 'Spiritual you' and 'human you' creates YOU. There is no 'many', the 'many' are aspects of the One. Duality is the differentiated consciousness of the ego while the self - 'this' conscious and 'that' unconscious - is a true self in a trinity.

"Know thyself and thou shalt know God." The conscious and the unconscious are aspects of a Trinity that creates the self.

Originally Posted by AshaKantaSharma

It simply means we are all connected and all is one just having distinct separate physical/non physical existance which seems to function independently.

The key word is "perceptual," and what helps immensely is the resolution of the paradoxes created by the mind. We are not independent we are perceptually independent and through that independence we can perceive the One. One and independent are relative to each other.

When independent is 'here' we can perceive the One 'there' and have a relationship with it because it's perceptually separate, when One is 'here' it's not so easy.

One vs many is Duality while One, many and 'both' is not just non-Duality but Triplex Unity. That's where it gets interesting.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

In context it was said as a not of caution to JASG because practices such as those that he's undertaking can lead to that same genuinely ego-less state, the further from the ego the less functionality in the 'real world'.

My impression is that potential outcome is more likely in the Yogic tradition with a greater emphasis on long duration deep Samadhi, but even this is probably very rare. Advaita views meditation as a supporting practice meant to bring about clarity of mind in order to facilitate assimilation of its knowledge path (Jnana Yoga) which is its main emphasis.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

As Jung put it, the ego is "A sense of I am." So if I asked to you to describe yourself everything after the 'I am' is not your ego but the 'contents' of your ego. It's what your "Sense of I am" consists of. The ego doesn't 'create' the 'contents', the 'contents' 'create' the ego. Guess what, considering yourself as 'Spiritual' is one of the 'contents' of your ego.

When you understand the ego from that perspective you understand one of the greatest 'non-Dualities' in Spirituality, that of "We are One".

The thing is, if we're going to discuss non-Duality then shouldn't we come from a place of understanding? I Googled Duality and found a few different answers, as expected, but at least they were all in the same ball-park. The one that caught my attention was the dual aspects of the one, the example given was the dual aspects of good and evil, light and dark that we all have inside if we are honest enough.

You are a Duality, you are 'this' vs 'that'. You have 'this' which is your Spiritual aspect, you have 'that' which is your human aspect. You have a 'this' which is your conscious aspect and a 'that' which is your unconscious aspect. Aspects, not 'things'. That is the differentiated consciousness of the ego - 'this' vs 'that'. The ego - and more accurately the mind but the mind is a part of your ego - can't resolve the paradoxes/dichotomies. The ego creates differentiates between 'this' and 'that' in order to understand and 'generate' consciousness - so because you are 'this' and you see 'that', you become conscious and aware. So from the perspective of 'I am... this' and what you read in this forum (your Spiritual aspect coming into play) is 'that' you can have a relationship with it and whatever is in your head because of it.

Duality ls 'this' and 'that' and to many there is a perceptual/intentional difference - 'human you' is different to 'Spiritual you' so they're in a state of Duality. Guess what, that's not the whole story. Because 'human you' goes to the supermarket and works to pay the bills, 'Spiritual you' doesn't fall over because of hunger and can pay for internet access.

'Spiritual you' and 'human you' are not in a Duality, Duality is an aspect of the Trinity and YOU are a Trinity. 'Spiritual you' and 'human you' creates YOU. There is no 'many', the 'many' are aspects of the One. Duality is the differentiated consciousness of the ego while the self - 'this' conscious and 'that' unconscious - is a true self in a trinity.

"Know thyself and thou shalt know God." The conscious and the unconscious are aspects of a Trinity that creates the self.

We humans have a choice to separate, differentiate etc this and that or anything else to create duality, we humans also have a choice not to separate, differentiate etc this and that or anything else to create duality. This is the reason why I say duality is separation.

When I say duality is separation, I do not mean just a person whom separates him/her self from oneness/wholeness, I also mean when a person separates any aspect of oneness/wholeness/brahman from another aspect of oneness/wholeness/brahman. Oneness/wholeness/brahman is the many, so separating any of the many aspects of oneness/wholeness/brahman from another many aspects of oneness/wholeness/brahman is contradictory and pointless for us to evolve mentally, physically and spiritually (again, the mental, physical and spiritual is brahman, thus are one and the same) this includes making the mind, body, ego, thoughts, thinking and the physical universe the bad/fall guy is a red herring, because all these many things are brahman.

We learned Duality and our unconscious was conditioned/programmed with duality from our teachers, parents etc growing up. Our (true) nature is bahman. what we learned, we are able to unlearn and erase from our unconscious. It is far easier for people to subjectively fantasize in their mind that they are consciousness to cover up their duality and conditioning and thier effects in their unconscious than it is for them to take care of what causes them at the root, and they use teachers, gurus, sages, traditions and etc as an excuse not to.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

My impression is that potential outcome is more likely in the Yogic tradition with a greater emphasis on long duration deep Samadhi, but even this is probably very rare.

As far as I'm ware it is very rare, it was something that came up in a BBC documentary and they're not in the habit of using 'mundane' content. One of the 'roles' the ego has is acting as a kind of 'anchor' or reference point as an interface of sorts with our external reality, but if we go too far - like the Spiritual Masters did - then we lose that point of reference and we're adrift in the space of our own heads. As for what Samadhi is, since I'm not well-versed in the Spiritual dictionary -
"In absolute samadhi, in complete falling away of body and mind, there is no reflection and no recollection. In a sense, there is no 'experience' because there is a complete merging of subject and object, or a perfect recognition of already existing non-separation. There is no way of describing what is or was going on."
Daido Roshi
https://www.learnreligions.com/samadhi-449923

A few years back I had what Matt Khan described as "Ascension symptoms" and had some pretty strange experiences, what's being described here is something that happens to me once in a while. This is what I mean when I talk about when I say that the dreamer is the dreamer, the perceiver is the perceived, the Witness being what is witnessed comes from. There seems to be a 'sliding scale' of sorts with the 'gone-gaga' Spiritual Masters at one end and being 'mundane' at the other.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

We humans have a choice to separate, differentiate etc this and that or anything else to create duality, we humans also have a choice not to separate, differentiate etc this and that or anything else to create duality. This is the reason why I say duality is separation.

But do we have the choice, really? It was a Spanish psychologist that said that there are some 16 'aspects' of us that form a 'committee', and it's that 'committee' that makes the choices. We're only conscious of it later, and if we're not consciously happy with it, then is goes back to the coimmitte.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

When I say duality is separation, I do not mean just a person whom separates him/her self from oneness/wholeness, I also mean when a person separates any aspect of oneness/wholeness/brahman from another aspect of oneness/wholeness/brahman.

That I'd agree on.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Oneness/wholeness/brahman is the many, so separating any of the many aspects of oneness/wholeness/brahman from another many aspects of oneness/wholeness/brahman is contradictory and pointless for us to evolve mentally, physically and spiritually (again, the mental, physical and spiritual is brahman, thus are one and the same) this includes making the mind, body, ego, thoughts, thinking and the physical universe the bad/fall guy is a red herring, because all these many things are brahman.

Separation is how we learn and understand, Brahman understands itself better from the perspective of not-Brahman than it does from the perspective of Brahman.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

We learned Duality and our unconscious was conditioned/programmed with duality from our teachers, parents etc growing up. Our (true) nature is bahman. what we learned, we are able to unlearn and erase from our unconscious. It is far easier for people to subjectively fantasize in their mind that they are consciousness to cover up their duality and conditioning and thier effects in their unconscious than it is for them to take care of what causes them at the root, and they use teachers, gurus, sages, traditions and etc as an excuse not to.

We didn't need to learn duality, it came as part of the package and it's one of the many roles the ego has - the ego is differentiated consciousness and its that which 'creates' Duality. Until around puberty our personalities are an extension of our mother's, after puberty we go through what Jung called Individuation - which is the process of autonomy and hopefully psychological completeness of the realisation of the self. That being the union/balance/oneness between the conscious and the unconscious.

People embody Duality in that their reality has both conscious and conscious aspects but polarise their consciousness in favour of the conscious, while denying/ignoring their unconscious. They use the word 'self' to describe themselves and separate themselves from themselves but what they mean is their ego, they have the differentiated consciousness of the ego instead of resolving the paradox between the two as the self has.

When someone decides they are a Spiritual Being then Duality and separation exists, because all they're doing is separating aspects of themselves. They don't need an excuse when they're on an ego trip.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

One of the 'roles' the ego has is acting as a kind of 'anchor' or reference point as an interface of sorts with our external reality, but if we go too far - like the Spiritual Masters did - then we lose that point of reference and we're adrift in the space of our own heads.

It is said Sri Rama Krishna would go into the depths of Samadhi with eyes wide open and one could touch his eyeball with finger and he would be oblivious. However he would come out of it. Eventually.

Swami Vivekananda was also reputed to have that level of meditative prowess and there's one account of him meditating in a garden on a hot summer day and his face being covered with mosquitoes and apparently beyond his notice. Vivekananda was also of the opinion isolating one's self in a cave in the Himalayas or hut on the Ganges spending most of one's time in Samadhi was a waste of a life. He was all for engaging with life.

As far as I'm concerned it's not about obliterating ego but attaining enough clarity of mind and knowledge to come to the point of Realization where ego still exists but has little to no power as in not being the center and driver of our embodied existence. It's just another character in the play we're watching unfold and we also have power over its script (probably more aptly described as true free will).