the meaning of "not-two" to me

[Guest guest]

I am addressing the meaning, for me, of

"realization," of "not-two".

 

Is this a cognitive understanding of a particular scripture? Is it a

cognitive

shift alone?

 

Is it a particular concept, collection of concepts,

particular words in a particular language, particular letters?

 

Is it a particular guru, rabbi, roshi, teacher, or other personage?

 

For me, regarding the preceding four questions, the answer is "none of the

above".

Clearly, understanding of any particular scripture, words, collection of

concepts, or relationship with a particular personage involves "twoness" or

"dvaita". When a meaning is more "here" and "not there" there is two-ness,

so such meaning can't be "ultimate" or "not-two" meaning. Indeed, ultimate

meaning cannot be divided from "no-meaning" or "meaninglessness". When

reality, ultimate truth or meaning, is "in" something or someone and "not

in" something or someone else, there is two-ness.

 

I have found wonderful, direct "pointings" to nonduality in Qabala, or

so-called "Jewish Mysticism", in Buddhism, and in Advaita Vedanta. I

suspect there may be equally valid pointings, in religions of the Hopi

Indians, in the Huna religion of Hawaii, and possibly in some "nagualism"

in South America.

 

The pointings, whether from Vedanta or not, as I relate

to them, are toward That which couldn't possibly be more "in" one apparent

thing, one apparent moment, one apparent being than another. One might say

"It" is not "in" anything, not even "in" Being Itself, not even "in Itself".

 

The "Thatness" of "That", to me, is "advaita", essentially inexpressible.

When

we attempt to express it, we are caught by the differentiation between

"expression"

and "That" which we are expressing. So, any expression involves a

"twoness". This

is unavoidable. Otherwise, our expression would have to Itself, be

Entirety and Completion. To treat any expression as such not only involves

faith, but a degree of

reification, of making into a "thing" something that is "not a thing".

 

So, for me, it is important to be aware that, while I value

expressions of "That", to take any particular expression of "That" as, in

some way an

"embodiment" of "That Itself" is to place limits on the Unlimited. I know

this is a very tricky subject, and I know that valid practices of worship

revolve around taking a scripture, idea, or personage as such an

"embodiment". And I respect anyone's

right to attempt to relate to "That" in terms of a being, scripture, or

concept, as this may be a "step on the path" for that person - a path that

I believe

will inevitably turn into "no path", meaning "not two".

 

-- Peace -- Dan