Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 Jan wrote [[The way some listers attack all dualistic pointers is as if they have no duality in themselves! Non-duality and duality are two sides of the same coin.]] ** Good post .. right on the mark. Personaly, I dont like to use the word 'non-dual'. Why describe something - especially 'nothing' - by what it is not. It All Is. Om Santi ... Yogini Sakti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 Hiya Jan, - Jan Sultan sworkalpha Sunday, October 21, 2001 01:37 PM Duality & Non-duality Most non-dualists want to throw out duality completely. This they soon find is impossible. San: LOL. Non-duality is as much a concept as duality and to be engaged in throwing out for another is hilarity. Quite appropriate if it is happening, but hilarious. Say you have a piece of gold and a piece of copper. On the surface they are very different, have different values to human beings, etc. A scientist who has seen both on the sub-atomic level will tell you that both are the same underneath. However, there is no way he will exchange the gold for the copper.In the same way, the Reality is non-dual. San: That Reality is non-dual, this statement can only be made in duality. However this non-dual reality has arranged itself in different patterns to form many dual items. [Atoms arranged differently form different elements with entirely different properties]. If a human has experienced non-duality and knows for certain the non-dual nature of everything San: Ahaaa. Non-duality cannot be experienced. Cannot be known, either, With certainity, Or with uncertainity. surely you do not expect him to act different from the scientist above? Even Ramana still had ties with his mother and Nisargadatta with his family. The way some listers attack all dualistic pointers is as if they have no duality in themselves! Non-duality and duality are two sides of the same coin. San: Non-duality is not, not-Duality. Non-duality is the absence of duality AND the absence of not-duality. There is no way you can get rid of one. San: Attempting to get rid, whatever be the particular target, is duality. In other words I can see the non-dual Reality underneath yet talk in dualistic ways. San: In seeing the non-dual Reality, you are in duality I can say "God is all" and "I love God" at the same time. San: Indeed. One can say anything at the same time. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 - hamsayogini Nisargadatta Sunday, October 21, 2001 06:09 PM Re: Duality & Non-duality <SNIP> Personaly, I dont like to use the word 'non-dual'. Why describe something - especially 'nothing' - by what it is not. San: Because any "what it is" can only be conceptual, as your next statement. It All Is. San: To observe this fact, there has to be an observer outside this "allness" and thus negates the statement. Have a look what the dude Jnaneshwar prattles on this very subject....... These three attributes, Sat, Chit, and Ananda(Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss),Do not actually define Brahman.A poison is poison to others,But not to itself.Camphor is white;Not only that, it is soft.And not only that, it is fragrant as well.Just as these three qualities signifyOne object -- camphor, and not three objects;So the three qualities,Sat, Chit, and Ananda,Are contained in one reality.It is true that the words,Sat, Chit, and Ananda,Are different,But the three are united in one Bliss.When water is falling in drops,We can count them.But when the water is gatheredIn a puddle on the ground,It is impossible to count the number of drops.In the same way,The scriptures describe RealityAs Sat, or Existence,In order to negate Its non-existence.They call It Chit, or Consciousness,In order to negate its unconsciousness.The Vedas,Which are the very breath of the Lord,Declare It to be Ananda, or Bliss,Only in order to negate the possibilityOf pain existing in It.Thus the word, Satchidananda,Used to refer to the Self,Does not really describe Its nature,But merely signifiesThat It is not the opposite of this.The fact is, if we try to know That,The knowledge itself is That.How, then, could the knowledgeAnd the object of knowledge remain separate?So the words Sat, Chit, and AnandaDo not denote That;They are merely inventions of our thought.These well-known words, Chit, Sat, and Ananda,Are popularly used, it is true;But when the knower becomes One with That to which they refer,Then they vanishLike the clouds that pour down as rain,Or like rivers which flow into the sea,Or like a journey when one's destination is reached.Of course, what exists cannot be said not to exist;But can such existence be called "Existence?"In blissfulnessThere is no feeling of unhappiness;But can it, for that reason, be called "Bliss?"Existence vanishes along with non-existence,Consciousness along with unconsciousness,And bliss along with misery;In the end, nothing remains.Discarding the veil of dualityAnd all the pairs of opposites,That alone remainsIn Its own blessed state.If a face does not look into a mirror,There is neither a face before itNor behind it.Likewise, He is neither happiness nor misery,But pure Bliss itself.Even before the sugar cane is planted,The juice is within it;But its sweetness is unknown --Except to itself.Pure Consciousness is beyondBoth generalizations and particular statements;It remains ever-content in Itself.After such a discourse,That speech is wiseWhich drinks deeply of silence.Truly, there is neither bondage nor freedom;There is nothing to be accomplished.There is only the pleasure of expounding. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 Hiya Jan, <SNIP> Most non-dualists want to throw out duality completely. This they soon find is impossible. San: LOL. Non-duality is as much a concept as duality and to be engaged in throwing out for another is hilarity. Quite appropriate if it is happening, but hilarious. Say you have a piece of gold and a piece of copper. On the surface they are very different, have different values to human beings, etc. A scientist who has seen both on the sub-atomic level will tell you that both are the same underneath. However, there is no way he will exchange the gold for the copper.In the same way, the Reality is non-dual. San: That Reality is non-dual, this statement can only be made in duality. However this non-dual reality has arranged itself in different patterns to form many dual items. [Atoms arranged differently form different elements with entirely different properties]. If a human has experienced non-duality and knows for certain the non-dual nature of everything San: Ahaaa. Non-duality cannot be experienced. Cannot be known, either, With certainity, Or with uncertainity. surely you do not expect him to act different from the scientist above? Even Ramana still had ties with his mother and Nisargadatta with his family. The way some listers attack all dualistic pointers is as if they have no duality in themselves! Non-duality and duality are two sides of the same coin. San: Non-duality is not, not-Duality. Non-duality is the absence of duality AND the absence of not-duality. There is no way you can get rid of one. San: Attempting to get rid, whatever be the particular target, is duality. In other words I can see the non-dual Reality underneath yet talk in dualistic ways. San: In seeing the non-dual Reality, you are in duality I can say "God is all" and "I love God" at the same time. San: Indeed. One can say anything at the same time. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 Hi Jan, What would it mean to live nondualistically? I suppose we would refrain from eating because the food is already part of our bodies even before we eat it. Ramana not only lived dualistically, if you want to put it that way, but he said it's necessary to live that way. Here's a verse from his poem Ulladu Narpadu (actually the verse was written by Sankara, and Ramana liked it so much he plagiarized it): " Keep the truth of non-duality ever at heart; never should you translate non-duality into action. O son, although non-duality with all the three worlds may be all right, it is not proper with the preceptor. Thus should you know. " (Supplement, 39.) T.M.P. Mahadevan, a 20th century academic expert on Advaita (head of the philosophy department at the University of Madras) who was also a devotee of Ramana Maharshi, wrote in his commentary about this verse: " There can be no action without duality. Behavior is possible only when there is the cognition of duality. " > > In other words I can see the non-dual Reality underneath yet talk in > dualistic ways. I can say " God is all " and " I love God " at the same time. If you talk, you have to talk in dualistic ways. How else can you talk? Or think? Or act? These things happen in maya, in phenomenality. Rob - " Jan Sultan " <swork <sworkalpha Sunday, October 21, 2001 4:07 AM Duality & Non-duality > Most non-dualists want to throw out duality completely. This they soon find > is impossible. > > Say you have a piece of gold and a piece of copper. On the surface they are > very different, have different values to human beings, etc. A scientist who > has seen both on the sub-atomic level will tell you that both are the same > underneath. However, there is no way he will exchange the gold for the copper. > > In the same way, the Reality is non-dual. However this non-dual reality has > arranged itself in different patterns to form many dual items. [Atoms > arranged differently form different elements with entirely different > properties]. If a human has experienced non-duality and knows for certain > the non-dual nature of everything surely you do not expect him to act > different from the scientist above? > > Even Ramana still had ties with his mother and Nisargadatta with his > family. The way some listers attack all dualistic pointers is as if they > have no duality in themselves! Non-duality and duality are two sides of the > same coin. There is no way you can get rid of one. > In other words I can see the non-dual Reality underneath yet talk in > dualistic ways. I can say " God is all " and " I love God " at the same time. > > ______________________ > With Love, > Cyber Dervish > ```````````````````````````````````````` > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 San wrote [[because any " what it is " can only be conceptual, as your next statement.]] and [[To observe this fact, there has to be an observer outside this " allness " and thus negates the statement.]] ** Which is exactly what I got from Jan's post .. dont look at it as a 'statement', look at it for the idea it conveys. Too many get caught up on too little. Om Santi ... Yogini Sakti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 Beautiful Rob. Many thanks. Can I forward it other groups? At 10/22/2001-01:23 PM Rob Sacks wrote: >Ramana not only lived dualistically, if you want to >put it that way, but he said it's necessary to live >that way. Here's a verse from his poem Ulladu >Narpadu (actually the verse was written by Sankara, >and Ramana liked it so much he plagiarized it): > > " Keep the truth of non-duality ever at heart; >never should you translate non-duality into action. >O son, although non-duality with all the three >worlds may be all right, it is not proper with the >preceptor. Thus should you know. " (Supplement, 39.) > >T.M.P. Mahadevan, a 20th century academic expert >on Advaita (head of the philosophy department at the >University of Madras) who was also a devotee of >Ramana Maharshi, wrote in his commentary about this >verse: > > " There can be no action without duality. Behavior is >possible only when there is the cognition of duality. " ______________________ With Love, Cyber Dervish ```````````````````````````````````````` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 Hi Jan, Sure, go ahead. But would you do me a favor and change " plagiarized " to " copied it into his own poem " ? Thanks. (I get mail from people criticizing me for treating Indian gurus disrespectfully.) Rob - " Jan Sultan " <swork <Realization > Monday, October 22, 2001 12:09 PM Re: Duality & Non-duality > Beautiful Rob. Many thanks. Can I forward it other groups? > > At 10/22/2001-01:23 PM Rob Sacks wrote: > >Ramana not only lived dualistically, if you want to > >put it that way, but he said it's necessary to live > >that way. Here's a verse from his poem Ulladu > >Narpadu (actually the verse was written by Sankara, > >and Ramana liked it so much he plagiarized it): ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2001 Report Share Posted October 23, 2001 - hamsayogini Nisargadatta Monday, October 22, 2001 07:57 PM Re: Duality & Non-duality San wrote [[because any "what it is" can only be conceptual, as your next statement.]]and [[To observe this fact, there has to be an observer outside this "allness" and thus negates the statement.]] ** Which is exactly what I got from Jan's post .. dont look at it as a 'statement', look at it for the idea it conveys. San: Ideation, no matter what, is conceptualization. The "unknowable" cannot be ideated, including the idea that it is unknowable. And thus, ideation is really, round and round the mulberry bush. No doubt, appropriate, if it happens. ---- Too many get caught up on too little. The little being no different from all that there is. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 Sandeep wrote [[ideation, no matter what, is conceptualization.]] ** And so is 'talking' about it. So .. what is the point? Where can expression be found? Om Santi .. Yogini Sakti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2001 Report Share Posted October 30, 2001 Realization, " Sandeep Chatterjee " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Non-duality is as much a concept as duality and to be engaged in throwing out for another is hilarity. ....you scoundrel! Still up to your old tricks? :-)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.