What is non duality?

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

OK, let's start with something very simple, for instance a common saying is "I am not a human on a Spiritual Journey, I am a Spiritual Being on a human Journey." Straight away that implies the 'Spiritual' is different from the 'human', with 'Spiritual' on one side and 'human' on the other. 'This and 'that', the cornerstone of Duality itself.

What are the reasons we can't be both human and Spirit on a Journey? If we don't understand the 'source' of Duality and its nature, is the discussion of non-Duality going to make any real sense? Because the discussion of Duality and non-Duality IS Dualistic.

Although it could be argued that our human experience is just a temporary stage of our spiritual journey, so 'spiritual' is different from 'human'. Yes, we are currently spiritual beings expressing through the human form, but we existed before embarking on the whole human experience and we will continue to be after we have left the human experience behind.

And yes, any discussion of duality and non-duality can only take place within duality.

Peace

[Native spirit]

I would agree with that


Namaste

Originally Posted by iamthat

Although it could be argued that our human experience is just a temporary stage of our spiritual journey, so 'spiritual' is different from 'human'. Yes, we are currently spiritual beings expressing through the human form, but we existed before embarking on the whole human experience and we will continue to be after we have left the human experience behind.

And yes, any discussion of duality and non-duality can only take place within duality.

Peace

Being Spiritual is more human than people realise, and we never really leave the human experience behind.

Originally Posted by Native spirit

I would agree with that


Namaste

Since you're a medium, have you ever had Spirit talking about things they missed that they can no longer do in Spirit? I had one who missed his garden, for instance, and that shows that the 'human' still remains.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The person is the Dreamer before the dream begins, during the dream and after the dream ends.

From a psychological perspective the dream IS the dreamer, dreams are a form of 'communication' from the unconscious to the conscious.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Of course all this discussion transpires in duality just like a conversation in a dream transpires in dream reality and even after one attains lucidity. One "wakes up" within the dream but is still within the dream.

There is no duality in dreams until the ego creates it, the dream and the dreamer are one and the same.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Neti Neti is just a technique of meditative inquiry meant to attain something similar in waking reality, and its ultimate realization is even that thought of "I Am" is not It. It is the Witness or "space" within which it all plays out, including body, mind and even Ahamkara.

Similarly the Witnessed is the Witnesser.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You'll probably bring up Triplex Unity and let me explain why that's not quite It. Going back to the lucid dream analogy that implies without both Dreamer and dream the Dreamer doesn't exist. It requires Dreamer, dream and the intersection or unity of both. The Dreamer would beg to differ and so would It should physical reality drop out as in before the Big Bang and after the Big Chill. It or Source still exists regardless whether or not Its manifestations do.

You know me so well and yes, I would go back to Triplex Unity in most cases but not this one, because the dream is the dreamer. The Triplex Unity here occurs in the intersection between the conscious and the unconscious mind - and that's the understanding. Dreams are consciousness but a consciousness that the conscious finds it difficult to grasp - the consciousness of symbols, and that's why they are given less importance and the dreamer given more importance. That's what the ego/mind/differentiated consciousness does.

The Triplex Unity occurs in the intersection not between the dream and the dreamer but the unconscious and the unconscious, the paradox/duality of which has been resolved by the self. "Know thy self and thou shalt know God."

So going back to the dream analogy, the dream is the unconscious communicating with the conscious using symbols s a language, because the mind thinks in pictures. In the same way words are symbols of consciousness. Your conscious is not your self, your self is both your conscious and your unconscious - keeping it simple for now. Lucid dreams are the conscious becoming conscious of the unconscious and when dreams are not dismissed but placed on as much of an equal footing as the conscious, lucid dreaming will take on a whole new level.
“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate”.
Carl Jung

The self - the resolved paradox of the unconscious and conscious - is Atman and therefore Brahman.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The manifest or extrinsic is dependent upon the unmanifest or intrinsic but not the other way around.

They are in a symbiotic relationship. For all the Spirituality Spirituality I find the Zulus said it best - "Simunye." It means "We are One."

Originally Posted by Ciona

If so then the discussion will potentially be code cracked instead of just crackers

I'm betting on just crackers, non-Duality vs Duality is never going to be solved by differentiating, it's only going to be solved by encompassing.

[Volman]

Originally Posted by Ciona

Which brings me to your second statement about the universal mind. Why do you think they don't exist? Are we back to it all being a dream? And who is to say if a 'dream' is or isn't also then, paradoxilly, real? Just playing devils advocate a bit here, I'm not personally advocating a premise of only dream/illusion as reality, or making any statement about my own views on that.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this, or how you define 'construct'.

I feel that this thing we call reality is part of the mind, I feel it comes out of the mind, construct would point to part of the mind or popping up in the mind, created from somewhere in the mind. When I say it probably doesn't exist it's because I cannot be sure of anything I say, I just have feelings about stuff. My explanation probably does not help to explain whatsoever!

[Ciona]

Originally Posted by Volman

I feel that this thing we call reality is part of the mind, I feel it comes out of the mind, construct would point to part of the mind or popping up in the mind, created from somewhere in the mind. When I say it probably doesn't exist it's because I cannot be sure of anything I say, I just have feelings about stuff. My explanation probably does not help to explain whatsoever!

Actually it does.

How you think is of great interest...to me...I'd welcome hearing more of your thoughts in my inbox, if you would ever like to expand on them. I understand you cannot be sure of anything you say.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Being Spiritual is more human than people realise, and we never really leave the human experience behind.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

... have you ever had Spirit talking about things they missed that they can no longer do in Spirit? I had one who missed his garden, for instance, and that shows that the 'human' still remains.

Perhaps we have different ideas about when the human experience ends. For me, someone who has died physically and is pottering around on the astral is still partaking in the human experience. So yes, they may well miss their garden on the physical plane.

Although the after-death literature does suggest that those people with a keen interest in gardening can find even more pleasure in creating beautiful gardens on the astral, without having to deal with pesky slugs and weeds. Obviously I have no idea if this is true.

Peace

[Volman]

Originally Posted by Ciona

Actually it does.

How you think is of great interest...to me...I'd welcome hearing more of your thoughts in my inbox, if you would ever like to expand on them. I understand you cannot be sure of anything you say.

:) I'll be in touch