Why/how do people accept duality?

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by iamthat

It may be more common to see this definition spelt as Brahmin, although obviously Brahman and Brahmin have the same linguistic source.

Two words for one thing is not uncommon or multiple meanings or uses for one word. Like Orange the color and Orange the fruit.

Then also in Hinduism Brahma is the god of creation. Vishnu is the god of preservation. Shiva is the god of destruction etc. Brahma, the creator God, is close to the word Brahman.

The Vedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle. In the Upanishads, it it's described as Sat-cit-ānanda (truth-consciousness-bliss) and as the unchanging, permanent, highest reality.

I would just call it our source. The source of conscious awareness or "being." I read that's what "God" is called in the astral realms (the source) as the word "God" is too loaded a word, with religious beliefs that vary from religion to religion.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by iamthat

With the realization of the Self comes the direct perception that we are the apple on the table. We are also the table...And also the wall beyond the table and everything else in the room.

I would not consider myself God or the source of all. When my body stops working, I leave this physical world. In the room where my body stops working, the physical room I leave, the room other people may be standing in, if there is an apple there and a table, it will still be there when I leave. Other people will see the table and apple. I was not these things in anyway.

I think expressions such as those may be a misunderstanding of what some mystics have said. Or it could relate to the fact my ideas about things effects how I experience or perceive them. So I am creating some aspects of what I experience. And of course if I stop naming things, conceptualizing them as words and such, what are they? What am I and what is an apple or a table if I stop ALL naming and conceptualizing? If I have no thought, no idea, no belief at all? Not only would there only be awareness, that awareness in no way would be "thinking" or conceptualizing I am that. There would be no I and that as words would not be present nor thought. It is beyond expression or description as both are conceptual or symbolic of the other or prior. It's only the always changing now perceived by that which does not change. But then how is the perceiver and the perception different eh! But my view is one is always aware of being an individual point of perception even when perceiving the source.

Some of this relates to basic science. We don't perceive anything "out there." In reality what is "out there" and "in here" are particles and waves. That's it. Your arm and the air around it are the same things, atoms.

Your eye is made up of atoms and so is the apple and table. The perception of those particles and waves, within and without, (let's stick to believing in me and that for a second) so without lol..... perceiving an apple and a table and even perceiving the space between them is ALL done in the brain! We only perceive stuff made internally in the brain. Whatever is "out there" we will never know. Science believes it is particles and waves. Light waves and particles that the brain presents to us in a certain way.

Some scientists are now saying the evidence points to the fact our world is a 3D projection, a hologram, of a 2D reality. What's a video game world you are running though? It's a 3D illusion on a 2D screen. My body is atoms, the sidewalk it is "standing" on is atoms, the air it breathes is atoms. Atoms we did not create, following rules we did not create. Resulting in perceptions we did not create.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Maisy

I would not consider myself God or the source of all. ..Resulting in perceptions we did not create.

It is not a case of considering oneself as God. It is all about realising the nature of the Self.

Which is not about intellectual concepts about how we perceive or interpreting everything in terms of atoms or believing that we create a 3D projection.

It is simply gazing at our surroundings, whether it be an apple on a table or mountain scenery or Piccadilly Circus in London, and knowing that there is just one Being everywhere from direct perception that this is so.

If all that we know about non-duality is just an intellectual understanding then how much value does this have? It is just another aspect of duality.

Peace

[kris]

Originally Posted by Maisy

Me and not me is just an observable reality or fact.

I think you are right. And I don't think you are an apple either. As you say, me and not me are an observable fact. But the question is: Is there more to be known than what we observe? Is there something more that is not easily observed and therefore we don't observe it? My model of the world / universe is that it is like a coin. Like a coin, it has two sides. We reside on one side of this coin, by design. But I think the other side exists.

I think the way to truly understand the nature of creation is to dig through the side we are on till we reach the other side of the coin. This is of course a metaphor for going within ourselves. If we are able to get to the other side, or deep within ourselves, the duality will be no more. However, it will still remain on the side we normally live on.

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by kris

For starters, duality is perceiving the world as made up of two components - 'me' and 'not me'.

I'm not sure we could function in the 'real world' if it were otherwise. We need a sense of relationships - 'me' and 'not me', 'here' and 'there' to get across the street without ending up under a bus. That's if you subscribe to Duality but for me, there are three 'things'.

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by Maisy

The seeker is ego. One has to drop all self interest or concern as that is only adding conflict to the now, an experience of duality in the now. In non-duality, reaching a goal is not the solution. Not having a goal is. The ego imagines the problem and the way to solve it. Thus creating identification with itself.

Pretty much, yes. I will add that the ego can 'imprint' on the self, which is what happens when people identify with the self/Self. They don't identify with the self they identify with an ego-created projection of the self.

Ego/Ahankara is the 'creator' of Duality, it's also known as the 'separate self'. It perceives a 'distance' between itself and the objects of consciousness - in this case the goal. When it wants to achieve a goal - Enlightenment, Spiritual status, etc. then it does so in response to a lack it perceives within itself. The projection of the goal is duality and it's the ego that wants to achieve it. At least on that level of reality anyway. And being free of ego is the biggest boost to ego in Spirituality, and the largest illusion/Maya.

What they don't tell you in the threads about ego in Spiritual forums is that there is no ego, and in some traditions there is no self. Any form of 'I' is an 'object' of consciousness/thing. They don't also tell you that the word 'ego' isn't even a Spiritual word and I've only seen a couple of examples of the 'Spiritual ego/Ahankara'. Ever. This makes sense of what you're trying to put across here -
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5235/ahamkara

Non-Duality is the 'collapsing' of the distance between consciousness and its objects. The seeker is that which is sought and the perceived and the perceiver are one and the same. "There are not two things, there is only you and you are not a thing." 'I' is a 'thing' and back to the separate self/ego.

The conscious of the ego is Duality and the unconscious is neither, I suppose, because it's very seldom mentioned in Spirituality as far as I'm aware. The consciousness of the self 'contains' both the conscious and the unconscious and is non-Dual. The self - 'true self' - is the Atman. Spend time with the Ahankara and Atman because that's what makes sense of it all from a Spiritual perspective.

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by kris

If we are able to get to the other side, or deep within ourselves, the duality will be no more.

We are not Duality, we are both non-Duality and the creators of Duality. That's something you won't hear very often. The problem with people going into 'themselves' is that they don't go into their definition of their self, they go into an ego-projected definition - what they want to think of themselves as being. What is also not understood is that non-Duality is Duality, the term itself makes a nonsense of itself.

If you want to make sense of Duality, it begins here - https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5235/ahamkara

That 'dovetails' nicely into all kinds of Spiritual concepts. Do yourself a favour and get a fresh start.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by iamthat

It is simply gazing at our surroundings, whether it be an apple on a table or mountain scenery or Piccadilly Circus in London, and knowing that there is just one Being everywhere from direct perception that this is so.

The theosophical "problem" with that belief which has frustrated philosophers and the creators of religions through the ages is that there are other things we could be "gazing at" or witnessing such as war activities and other horrible stuff I won't mention. To imagine a good or loving God would be involved in such things is unimageable. So these religions and philosophies add a belief in an evil being or force as well as such things need a cause besides a good and loving God. As many philosophers and religions have stated, any "God" involved in such things would not be a good or loving God. So that's why they would not say God is in everything or whatever one calls this force in all they believe in. Hinduism has a God Kali which is close to an evil type being I think. A destructive force. Of course Christianity has Satan. I myself don't believe in such a being or beings but I also don't believe a good and loving God is involved in our lives down here other than being the source of consciousness itself. I think if a God was aware of the really bad things on earth this God would stop it. Just my opinions.

Originally Posted by iamthat

If all that we know about non-duality is just an intellectual understanding then how much value does this have?

It's not hard to experience. Just let go of all your beliefs and all seeking and look and experience without words or concepts or beliefs. It's hard to sustain it for any length of time, for me anyway, but with practice and interest in such things one can sustain it longer and longer. Of course if one drops all seeking and self interest, all concepts including words and belief, both words, duality and non-duality have no meaning. The meaning is put away for the higher, truth and experience. Non-duality could be said to be things as they always are and always have been, before we got distracted by the interpretative conceptual mind. My experience is duality is a human created reality. It has no objective truth outside a human mind in my opinion. So if one is not identified with the human mind, there is no duality. (or non-duality) The what is exists without an idea or concept about it.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by kris

Is there more to be known than what we observe? Is there something more that is not easily observed and therefore we don't observe it?

I would say yes but the "how" to experience this other world or experience is not a matter of making an effort in a positive type seeking way. The teachers and philosophers and religions I follow point out this other experience is always present and always has been. We don't do something to find it, we are in fact doing things that prevent it, or block it, we are (unconsciously probably) preventing an experience of it.

The "false self" or ego or whatever name we give it in fact blocks the other. I remember one guru said he met his teacher and said, "How do I find God?" and his teacher pointed to his chest and said, "You can't! There is too much of you in there. Make room and God will come. Get rid of yourself."

The more of yourself you can give up, the more of the divine you experience. I mean that's it in words but to figure out for oneself what that means is not easy. Like take the phrase, stop seeking. How does one actually do that? Trying to do that is seeking. Any movement of the mind is seeking. "I will try" or "I will not try" and so on. A lot of confusion.

It's because of like what you said about a coin. But the coin here is a metaphor for thought. The one seeking and the idea of what is sought are both sides of the same coin. But we imagine one is me and one is not me. Any idea of "working on" our thoughts, like I will meditate and stop thinking....oh ok I stopped for a minute...this is working.... The one observing is thought as well but we think no that is me and I am observing thought. Both sides of the coin have to be let go of. The attention has to move off of mind and experience and perceive the now as it is without this mental noise going on adding a running commentary about the now and ourselves.

It's like imagine someone said to their teacher, "I want to find God. What do I do? And the teacher answered, "Will you do anything?" And the person says, "Yes, yes anything! I want God above all." And the teacher said, "Ok have no self interest. Don't try to be anything, get anything, achieve anything. Just be as you are before a thought comes. If a thought comes, ignore it. Just pay attention in the now to the what is, but not to any opinions or beliefs about it." The person answers, "Ok I will try hard to do that" meaning they did not understand a single thing.

If someone asks us a question, we usually take some time to think of an answer. That means we knew the answer before we put it into words. Understanding exists before we put it into words. There is understanding when we are silent within.

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by Maisy

My experience is duality is a human created reality. It has no objective truth outside a human mind in my opinion. So if one is not identified with the human mind, there is no duality. (or non-duality) The what is exists without an idea or concept about it.

Fanfare, ticker-tape parade, marching bands. Namma-rupa.

"And God said, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, and it was good."