[NondualitySalon] Satan, duality, hell

[Guest guest]

Xan Maranya <XanM

 

Everything here is relationship. That's what duality means.

"Relationship" has come to connotate the intimate-man-woman-thing. If

you decided to reject and refuse relationships then you would stop

eating food, enjoying the view or even breathing air.

 

Harsha: Well stated. But there is no need to limit the notion of

"relationships" only to external perceptions such as men, women, food,

things, views, etc. Relationships exist also in states where the perceptions

are "internal" (such as sleep or even Savikalpa Samadhis). The foundation of

all relationships is built on perceptions whether they are external (men,

women, animals, things, etc.) or internal (dreaming about men, women,

animal, things, etc,. or having various kinds of visions in the

superconscious states of angels, heavenly objects, celestial regions, etc.).

It makes no difference whether the perceptions are external or internal, the

perceiver is in relationship with the perceptions. Duality ends when the

Perceiver and Perceived (Seer and the Seen) merge. Mystics like Kabir and

Jnaneshwar have written beautiful poetry to describe this "Unity."

 

Xan: Would you consider that the phenomenon of relationship is not hell but

opposition is? When there is consciousness in wholeness what is there

to oppose? If I am opposing anything I short-out my experience of

wholeness.

 

Harsha: Why can't one oppose a relationship and maintain Wholeness.

Sometimes, it is wise to walk away from a relationship with a situation or a

person. Let us say someone who knows Karate is feeling angry with Ted. It

would be wise for Ted to make a run for it while maintaining perfect

wholeness and integrity.

[Guest guest]

During the life of Buddha, many were practicing his teachings and

consequently many householders attained nirvana with substratum remaining.

Obviously, leading a spiritual life and having relations aren't mutually

exclusive. The Buddha described the nirvana with substratum as being endowed

with perfect knowledge, having done what has to be done, having halted the

wheel. From then on, he mentioned two possibilities:

 

1. one can rejoice one's feelings, as they have been purified from the

stains of all impressions and new impressions cannot be made anymore.

2. one doesn't rejoice one's feelings and they will be burnt also. This

leads to a situation (nirvana without substratum) that cannot be described

as anyone can imagine it to be entirely different from the previous; the

Buddha called it a microcosm where the laws of nature loose validity.

>From this perspective, one cannot possibly predict whether or not one will

rejoice one's feelings, as in the present era even nirvana with substratum

has become a rarity. However, the life of the Buddha enables one to lift the

veil even "before one is there". For the Buddha, suffering became the main

issue. If one recognizes a period in life, where one had to take such a

beating that one would have preferred to continue life without feelings, the

impression has been created that will cause one to opt for 2.. Which leaves

the rest of us to evolve through genuine relationships.

 

Jan