The nature of non-duality, terms for it

[Exciplex]

Just for enrichment, here are some terms used for non-duality. I didn't realize there were so many. Each term has its own unique perspective.

0) Zero
1) Not-Two
2) One and None
3) Neither this nor that
4) Yin and Yang
5) Absence of absence
6) Not nothing
7) Non-being
8) God
9) Silence

There are nine or ten above.

Next topic:

It so happens that nine crops up elsewhere with non-duality....

1 -1 = 0 refers that the two mirror aspects of being unite into non-duality.
0 + 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0, and 0*0 = 0 show three different self-similarities of non-duality. It is thus fractal.
1^1 = 1, 1*1 = 1, and 1/1 = 1 shows unity's self-similarities.

When all different forms of those equations are reinserted into 1 - 1 = 0 one gets nine combinations.

Thus, nine-fold is the fractal nature of non-duality!

[brokenhead]

But if you include "non-duality" there are actually 10. And since you started counting from zero, that would make it 11. But, who's counting?

[Exciplex]

Thanks for the comment. I revised the post somewhat. Originally I was referring to the number of combinations of the equation 1 - 1 = 0. There are nine and thus there are nine mathematical aspects to non-duality. That both the list and the equations show about nine perspectives is very striking. They might be analogical.

[Sapius]

Hummm.... I don't know, Exciplex. It seems Non-duality, in my opinion, seems to be a calculated projection of our capabilities of abstraction, but not what we experience as thing's are. For example, yawing, as I am right now, since I feel relaxed, so don’t take that as me being bored at your abstractions.

No ‘I’, no ‘yawing’, no nothing. So how do you propose a non-duality could be any real, or different than duality? If there is a difference, then duality however IS, because differentiation however remains.

BTW, welcome.

[Exciplex]

I did some analogizing and came to the conclusion:

Non-duality is what allows two different states to swap with each other.

See-saws are non-dual. No joke. Fulcrums manifest the "not" principle of "not two" and the different sides of the see-saws manifest the "two" principle.

Ultimately, non-duality is what allows all of the different states of the universe to swap - it is what allows change itself!

Puzzle solved.

P.S. Thanks for the welcome!

[Jehu]

When the enlightened ones say that the nature of reality is ‘non-dualistic’, they mean that although there are two fundamental principles underlying reality, unlike their dualistic counterparts, these principles do not exist independently, but only in unison. Evil, for example, can only exist if there is good, and together, the two complete one another in that universe of discourse which we call the sphere of human activities. It is by our designating one thing to be beautiful, that ugliness is brought into existence. Likewise, it is wealth that gives rise to poverty. This is the non-dualistic nature of reality.

[Exciplex]

Excellent explanation, Jehu. "Not independent" is itself a non-dualistic expression. Although tautological, your explanation is consistent with itself.

Here is another example of non-duality.

Flip a light-switch and the light comes on - one action, one result. Flip the switch again - same action, different result.

Hence, sameness is resolved with difference.

[bert]

the law of Tao is its own arbiter, beyond necessitation, who can grasp the nameless Tao? obvious but unintelligible, without form, its design most excellent. its wish is its overabundance, who can assert its mysterious purpose? by our knowledge it becomes more obscure, more remote, and our faith - opaqueness. without attribute, I know not its name. how free it is, it has no need for royalness! (kingdoms are their own despoilers.) without lineage, who dare claim relationship? without virtue, how pleasing in its moral Self-love! how mighty it is in its assertion "need not be"! it serves its own invincible purpose of ecstasy. supreme bliss simulating opposition is its balance. it suffers no hurt, neither does it labour. Isn't it self-attracting and independent? assuredly we can not call it balance.

[Sapius]

When the enlightened ones say that the nature of reality is ‘non-dualistic’, they mean that although there are two fundamental principles underlying reality, unlike their dualistic counterparts, these principles do not exist independently, but only in unison. Evil, for example, can only exist if there is good, and together, the two complete one another in that universe of discourse which we call the sphere of human activities. It is by our designating one thing to be beautiful, that ugliness is brought into existence. Likewise, it is wealth that gives rise to poverty. This is the non-dualistic nature of reality.

Fair enough; with all due respects to the enlightened; would I be correct in saying that ‘reality’ is non-dualistic as well as dualistic in nature.

And, is it not possible that it is by our designating one thing to be non-duality, that duality is brought into existence, and of course; don’t forget; necessarily vice versa?

Exciplex; Puzzle solved.

Well, as you can see, not for me; not as yet at least.

[bert]

we empower ourselves with the power we conceive of it, and it acts as headmaster - , never the cause of emancipation.
by grades of incarnation, our eventual "self" is derived from the attributes with which we endow our God, the abstarct Ego or conceptive principle. all conception is a denial of the Tao, hence we are its opposition, our own evil. the offspring of ourselves, we are the conflict of what we deny and assert of the Tao. it would seem as though we cannot be too careful in our choice for it determines the body we inhabit.


the law of Tao is its ever original purpose, undetermined, without change the emanations, through our conception they materialize and are of that duality, man takes his law from this refraction, his ideas - reality.with what does he balance his ecstacy? measure for measure by intense pain, sorrow and miseries. with what his rebellion? of necessity slavery! duality is the law, realization by suffering, relates and opposes by units of time.

[Sapius]

Bert; I only wish my English was as good as yours; I yearn to understand. Alas… I’m no Shakespeare :(

Keep it up however :)

[sagerage]

You are all against me and I'd like to understand why that is so????

[brokenhead]

Flip a light-switch and the light comes on - one action, one result. Flip the switch again - same action, different result.

It's usually not the same action. You are flipping the switch in another direction.

[brokenhead]

Bert; I only wish my English was as good as yours; I yearn to understand. Alas… I’m no Shakespeare :(

Keep it up however :)

What are you talking about, Sapius? Your Egnlish is fine. At least you know when to use the SHIFT key.

[Exciplex]

brokenhead: Flipping is flipping. It is absolute. It's kinda like a woman dyeing her hair.. purple today, yellow yesterday, blue tomorrow, etc, but she's still kinda weird for doing it every time.

sagerage: You may tell me what I can do or not do to not be against you. I'm somewhat willing, dunno if I'm able.

[Sapius]

Flip a light-switch and the light comes on - one action, one result. Flip the switch again - same action, different result.

It's usually not the same action. You are flipping the switch in another direction.

I didn’t want to get into this really. When one cannot logically explain something, then throwing in of analogies, parable, and ambiguously profound statements becomes necessary.

Exciplex said:"brokenhead: Flipping is flipping. It is absolute. It's kinda like a woman dyeing her hair.. purple today, yellow yesterday, blue tomorrow, etc, but she's still kinda weird for doing it every time".

YEAH! I flip a coin, I flip my shoe, I flip the switch, I flip a.... err... whatever; the ACTION remains flipin SAME, but the results are DIFFERENT! Same flipin action, different results! Eureka! Non-duality established!

I think that's what logical reasoning is all about! (no offence Exciplex) :D

[Sapius]

Bert; I only wish my English was as good as yours; I yearn to understand. Alas… I’m no Shakespeare :(

Keep it up however :)

What are you talking about, Sapius? Your Egnlish is fine. At least you know when to use the SHIFT key.

Well, that's as far as my English goes :D When Bert is around :D

[Exciplex]

No offense taken, Sapius. =)

I guess the reason it's not manifest to you is that it requires circular thinking (reasoning). That is, finding a thing, reverse engineering it, and next forward engineering to result same original thing.

Circular thinking manifests usually when one encounters the limits of one's own understanding, but...

What if all things are circular?

[brokenhead]

What if all things are circular?

They are.

[Sapius]

No offense taken, Sapius. =)

I guess the reason it's not manifest to you is that it requires circular thinking (reasoning). That is, finding a thing, reverse engineering it, and next forward engineering to result same original thing.

Circular thinking manifests usually when one encounters the limits of one's own understanding, but...

What if all things are circular?

Well, if you think that is the case, and only that is how "IT" will manifest, then lucky you. What else can I say... :)

BTW, for some strange reason, I generally don't go by 'what if's'. I try to dig right through it.

(got to go, mate, 5 AM for me... yaaaawn.)

[Jehu]

Fair enough; with all due respects to the enlightened; would I be correct in saying that ‘reality’ is non-dualistic as well as dualistic in nature.

And, is it not possible that it is by our designating one thing to be non-duality, that duality is brought into existence, and of course; don’t forget; necessarily vice versa?

I see where you are going here, but I’m afraid that the nature of reality is not both dualistic and non-dualistic, for this would violate the law of contradiction.

When I say ‘the nature of reality’, I mean those fundamental principles that underlie the appearance of all things, and the relationship which binds them together. Now, as there is but one reality, it follows that the principles that underlie it are either independent of one another or they are not, but they cannot reasonably be said to be both.

[xerox]

...

[divine focus]

Trouble is that consciousness tries to understand it, or more particularly give it conceptualised form, that consciousness seeks in order to resolve satisfactorily.

Maybe its like musical dissonance in that this creates dissatisfaction. A consonant progression and resolution in music creates feelings of satisfaction. It could be a function of conditioning. Listening to dissonant music for a while, creates a different reaction after a while. You stop looking for structure and form and just go where it takes you.

Maybe form is an illusion, created by consciousness, in order to resolve concepts with satisfaction. In order to avoid the frustration that arises from not knowing or uderstanding... without meaning.

Very perceptive! I'd modify that a bit. I think it has to do with seeing beauty in value. Thoughts determine beauty, but what determines value? While listening to dissonant music, you may just accept it for what it is. You never begin to think it beautiful, though. You sit with it, but it doesn't feel like it's going anywhere, or helping you get anywhere. There is little value.

I wonder how that ties into physical form and motion, beauty and grace.

[Sapius]

I see where you are going here, but I’m afraid that the nature of reality is not both dualistic and non-dualistic, for this would violate the law of contradiction.

I respect you as a good thinker, Jehu, but I hope you don’t think my intention is to lead you to some corner or a trap. It does not eventually matter to me what your conclusions may be, I’m simply trying to understand them, that’s all.

For example, I fully know that all that there is, is cognisance, but also the one that cognises. Without there being a dynamic interactivity between any two things, cognition cannot be. I purely know just that, and “duality” or “non-duality” is not really that big an issue for me.

When I say ‘the nature of reality’, I mean those fundamental principles that underlie the appearance of all things, and the relationship which binds them together. Now, as there is but one reality, it follows that the principles that underlie it are either independent of one another or they are not, but they cannot reasonably be said to be both.

Could you please mention those fundamental principals?

I know that absolutely nothing is independent of one another, but there has to necessarily be one and the other, for interdependency to be. So it seems that interdependency AND things itself is all that is here eternally. I’m told that reality is the only thing that is not dependant, by logically deducing “it” as not a thing to begin with, and I’m saying that as soon as you designate any attributes, as in ‘not dependant’, then one is necessarily, mentally visualizing or proposing a “thing”. One cannot talk or even think about a no-thing, but one can simply claim that I visualize “it” as a no-thing. Or even as not a thing but at the same time not a nothing whatsoever kind of a “thing”.

Now when you say ‘there is but one reality’, then that automatically designates “non (or, un) - reality”, so what exactly is that? Well, would that be the illusory aspect of things, or reality? Reality is but one, correct? If things are illusory, then what makes reasoning non-illusory, which is dependant on those very same illusory things? So reality seems to necessarily be dependant on illusory things at least.

I find that the word ‘reality’ in such contexts is misleading to begin with, for then that automatically suggests that there is something that is ‘non-reality’, so we are back to square one, that duality, (reality/non-reality), however is. In my opinion, we have been chasing that “word” ‘reality’ on its own rather than looking at what is already here, in and of the NOW, an eternal interactivity of thing’s itself, with one of the results being intellectual cognition, which necessarily requires thing’s. Now if one calls that ‘interactivity’ reality, or say the understanding of it, then both are necessarily dependent on the things that are necessarily not the understandings itself, or the reality so to speak. So that makes reality necessarily dependent on non-reality.

I think you are a master in systematic academic logic, so please tell me where am I making a mistake?

[Sapius]

xerox;

It is what it is.

Okay.

Trouble is that consciousness tries to understand it, or more particularly give it conceptualised form, that consciousness seeks in order to resolve satisfactorily.

Does it bother you? And isn’t “your” consciousness and “you” one and the same thing? Isn’t ‘understanding’ itself ‘is what it is’ too? Couldn’t one of the inherent natures of consciousness be to seek satisfaction? Couldn’t that itself be one of its driving force?

Maybe its like musical dissonance in that this creates dissatisfaction. A consonant progression and resolution in music creates feelings of satisfaction. It could be a function of conditioning. Listening to dissonant music for a while, creates a different reaction after a while. You stop looking for structure and form and just go where it takes you.

Wherever whatever that takes you, will have something to do with a feeling of self-satisfaction at least. Think over it, think over such expereinces when you feel them, then tell me it is not so.

Maybe form is an illusion, created by consciousness, in order to resolve concepts with satisfaction. In order to avoid the frustration that arises from not knowing or uderstanding... without meaning.

If consciousness creates illusions, then why doesn’t it have full control over it? The illusion (or rather delusion) is that “I” and “consciousness” are unconsciously being considered not to be the same thing, and hence effectively one is saying that it is “me” that creates the illusions? How logical is that?

Mybe its possible to simply BE, without the perceptual complexities.

What makes you think you are not already? Irrelevant of what you may perceive as perceptual “complexities”. Aren't you exactly what you are? I can see the perceptual complexities and yet can BE, for I am no other thing than that in any given moment. May be it is your desire to simply BE and hide away from what you imagine to be “sufferings”, whereas “sufferings” may necessarily be a part of existence, and all that needs be done is recognize those facts, which should automatically reduce the emotional attachments to any particular thing, for one knows they are all but part of existence, and what knows what existing means.

Sometimes l wounder if the whole phylosophical pursuit of conceptualising intellectualised FORMS of perception arent part of the same generalised dissatisfaction inherent in egocentric delusion and pursuit of illusion. One pursues an understanding in order to satisfactorily resolve the suffering of an ego grappling to give meaning (forms), which paradoxically, creates a sense of perceptual self at odds with the 'one-ness' of it all. Perceptual self being an ego identity built on the devices of perception, namely... logic, reason, emotion, sensory.

Now that I would say is a good reflection on things as they are, but none of those things can be considered illusory in whatever sense, for their interdependency itself gives them their reality. How one personally looks at existence is essentially not that important, but how that helps utilizing that understanding effectually, is what counts.

It could be inherently dualistic to use intellect, logic, reason, our senses, whatever, to create a conceptualised framework (form) of what it all means, rather than embrace the inherent simplicity of existence and simply be at one with it all.

We are too proud (false-ego) in our capability of meaning-making, forgetting that there are infinite number of causes supporting that too, so how come all of a sudden it is frigin “I” or “consciousness” that creates meaning, or forms, or frigin anything at all?! :D It is but a matter of playing a game of convenience to justify ones profound emotional egocentricity hidden in the claim that I don’t have one. Sounds most illogical to me.

Ego-less-ness surly requires a big Zen bamboo crashed on it, so it realizes the inherent egocentricity in that claim :D

For example, life and death are what they are, even by definition, and are necessarily inevitable, this alone shatters the emotional attachment one may have to them both, but I really don't mind if one understands those facts through calling them "illusory", but either way, one cannot escape them, and that remains a fact, irrelevant of there being no beginning or end to any thing, in a philosophically profound sense.