Twoness and duality are not the same (was: A realization

[Guest guest]

there has been talk about twoness today.

Maybe non-duality is the oneness of twoness, if that

makes sense.

In that sense, there are no more problems, no more

friction between manifestation and unmanifested, only

a dance.

I was watching couples dancing tango the other night,

...........ooohhh their oneness!!!

 

-Patricia

~~~

 

Twoness and duality are not the same.

 

Twoness is a sense of " psychological separation "

(When I introduced term " twoness " into discussion

that is what I meant.)

 

So when I say, " A sense of falling entails twoness, "

I mean a sense of psychological separation.

 

By a sense of psychological separation I mean a sense

of, " I am here, that is over there. " It is a sense of

space as being " cut up " into parts.

 

Duality is any experience involving a being in a world,

such as, " I am hungry, " or " I like that story. "

Duality may or may not entail a sense of psychological

separation.

 

Duality *can be* held within unicity or nonduality as

Patricia suggests above, so long as there is not

psychological separation.

 

But if there *is* a sense of psychological separation

then there is not experience of unity/nonduality...

and that is by definition.

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> there has been talk about twoness today.

> Maybe non-duality is the oneness of twoness, if that

> makes sense.

> In that sense, there are no more problems, no more

> friction between manifestation and unmanifested, only

> a dance.

> I was watching couples dancing tango the other night,

> ..........ooohhh their oneness!!!

>

> -Patricia

> ~~~

>

> Twoness and duality are not the same.

>

> Twoness is a sense of " psychological separation "

> (When I introduced term " twoness " into discussion

> that is what I meant.)

>

> So when I say, " A sense of falling entails twoness, "

> I mean a sense of psychological separation.

>

> By a sense of psychological separation I mean a sense

> of, " I am here, that is over there. " It is a sense of

> space as being " cut up " into parts.

>

> Duality is any experience involving a being in a world,

> such as, " I am hungry, " or " I like that story. "

> Duality may or may not entail a sense of psychological

> separation.

>

> Duality *can be* held within unicity or nonduality as

> Patricia suggests above, so long as there is not

> psychological separation.

>

> But if there *is* a sense of psychological separation

> then there is not experience of unity/nonduality...

> and that is by definition.

>

> Bill

 

Interesting... so " contrast " or " comparison " is not always a

duality...? I am not sure if that is true or not.

To me a contrast implies both separation and opposition.

 

Stu

 

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> wrote:

> >

> > there has been talk about twoness today.

> > Maybe non-duality is the oneness of twoness, if that

> > makes sense.

> > In that sense, there are no more problems, no more

> > friction between manifestation and unmanifested, only

> > a dance.

> > I was watching couples dancing tango the other night,

> > ..........ooohhh their oneness!!!

> >

> > -Patricia

> > ~~~

> >

> > Twoness and duality are not the same.

> >

> > Twoness is a sense of " psychological separation "

> > (When I introduced term " twoness " into discussion

> > that is what I meant.)

> >

> > So when I say, " A sense of falling entails twoness, "

> > I mean a sense of psychological separation.

> >

> > By a sense of psychological separation I mean a sense

> > of, " I am here, that is over there. " It is a sense of

> > space as being " cut up " into parts.

> >

> > Duality is any experience involving a being in a world,

> > such as, " I am hungry, " or " I like that story. "

> > Duality may or may not entail a sense of psychological

> > separation.

> >

> > Duality *can be* held within unicity or nonduality as

> > Patricia suggests above, so long as there is not

> > psychological separation.

> >

> > But if there *is* a sense of psychological separation

> > then there is not experience of unity/nonduality...

> > and that is by definition.

> >

> > Bill

>

> Interesting... so " contrast " or " comparison " is not always a

> duality...? I am not sure if that is true or not.

> To me a contrast implies both separation and opposition.

>

> Stu

>

 

I wonder if you understand what I mean by psychological

separation...

 

If you experience yourself as 'here' in the context

of 'that' *over there*... that is psychological separation.

If you experience yourself as being " in a space " ....

that is psychological separation.

 

But you can eat a sandwich without any of those being

part of it. The eating of the sandwich can happen all

by itself. Per Nisargadatta one who is not " in duality "

(a jnani) still is active in the so-called world. But

all activity arises spontaneously and naturally. It is

what is meant by no-effort (wu wei) or non-doing.

Krishnamurti speaks of it as the absence of a 'doer'.

 

It comes down to the nature of the experience. If

experience has a personal, subjective quality, if there

is " ownership " of the experience, then there is psychological

separation. If experience unfolds of its own with no actor,

no doer, then that is essentially non-dual.

 

I was trying to say that if there is no sense of

psychological separation then experience that is apparently

" in duality " (such as painting a room) is still non-dual

in nature. But if there *is* psychological separation

then by definition experience is not non-dual and

should not be referred to as the " dance of the nondual

with the dual " .

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Now I get what you are saying Bill,

thanks:-)

Stu

 

" pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > there has been talk about twoness today.

> > > Maybe non-duality is the oneness of twoness, if that

> > > makes sense.

> > > In that sense, there are no more problems, no more

> > > friction between manifestation and unmanifested, only

> > > a dance.

> > > I was watching couples dancing tango the other night,

> > > ..........ooohhh their oneness!!!

> > >

> > > -Patricia

> > > ~~~

> > >

> > > Twoness and duality are not the same.

> > >

> > > Twoness is a sense of " psychological separation "

> > > (When I introduced term " twoness " into discussion

> > > that is what I meant.)

> > >

> > > So when I say, " A sense of falling entails twoness, "

> > > I mean a sense of psychological separation.

> > >

> > > By a sense of psychological separation I mean a sense

> > > of, " I am here, that is over there. " It is a sense of

> > > space as being " cut up " into parts.

> > >

> > > Duality is any experience involving a being in a world,

> > > such as, " I am hungry, " or " I like that story. "

> > > Duality may or may not entail a sense of psychological

> > > separation.

> > >

> > > Duality *can be* held within unicity or nonduality as

> > > Patricia suggests above, so long as there is not

> > > psychological separation.

> > >

> > > But if there *is* a sense of psychological separation

> > > then there is not experience of unity/nonduality...

> > > and that is by definition.

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > Interesting... so " contrast " or " comparison " is not always a

> > duality...? I am not sure if that is true or not.

> > To me a contrast implies both separation and opposition.

> >

> > Stu

> >

>

> I wonder if you understand what I mean by psychological

> separation...

>

> If you experience yourself as 'here' in the context

> of 'that' *over there*... that is psychological separation.

> If you experience yourself as being " in a space " ....

> that is psychological separation.

>

> But you can eat a sandwich without any of those being

> part of it. The eating of the sandwich can happen all

> by itself. Per Nisargadatta one who is not " in duality "

> (a jnani) still is active in the so-called world. But

> all activity arises spontaneously and naturally. It is

> what is meant by no-effort (wu wei) or non-doing.

> Krishnamurti speaks of it as the absence of a 'doer'.

>

> It comes down to the nature of the experience. If

> experience has a personal, subjective quality, if there

> is " ownership " of the experience, then there is psychological

> separation. If experience unfolds of its own with no actor,

> no doer, then that is essentially non-dual.

>

> I was trying to say that if there is no sense of

> psychological separation then experience that is apparently

> " in duality " (such as painting a room) is still non-dual

> in nature. But if there *is* psychological separation

> then by definition experience is not non-dual and

> should not be referred to as the " dance of the nondual

> with the dual " .

>

>

> Bill

>