The Non-Dual Is Best Understood Through Extreme Expression Of Polarity

Here's an interesting citation germane to this twisted idea.

It was not, however, because of his [Hitler’s] insane ramblings that his intentions escaped comprehension, but because, as befits the mythological image of the demon, he was able to switch identities. He was never like himself yet always remained the same. He slipped from the internal to the external mode of existence as circumstances required, from the role of acolyte in a secret religion to that of a perpetrator of unspeakable crimes. In talking of Hitler, one is also talking of his counterpart; for every statement made about him there is a contrary statement. He will go down in history not as a man riddled with contradictions but as the incarnation of an ideology which nurtures within itself the irreconcilable extremes of the sublime and the terrible. – Joachim Kohler, Wagner’s Hitler, pg. 136, Polity Press

Hitler - non duality (or Aryan philosolphy?) at it's finest.

reply to post by Dasher


So... somehow I write...

But hardly from some divine source, or the 'word' of God. And this is EXACTLY WHY, I prefer that using scripture is to be removed from providing sustenance towards any arguement, for the strength in which it's given is permitted via a false perception in regards to the origin of this doctrine.

Yet, somehow you find a way to respond through means of neglecting/rejecting any notion of my request.

It's not that I dislike the 'bible' and all of the fantastic stories and supposed history that it may contain. It's the removal of its context from my discussions that I prefer for they eliminate dogmas, and a authoritative aspect when reiterated. For their uses in such a fashion(religious doctrines and philosophies) have been a sheild to mascarade behind, eventually leading towards the collapse of societies, civilizations, and homes alike. It's not necessarily the lack of 'Practice what you preach', but rather a distractionary tactic in which a supposed 'truth' is projected untill made so, then taken to such extremes in expression of Polarity, that the very Dogmas abandon even those who believe them. Then once established, and indoctrinated, wealth and a false sense of prosparity is engrained, then a harvest is made by a select few in which enforced the very kingdom that in the future shall lay in ruins. shhhh John!

Plant a seed, watch it grow, keep adding what you think is the best sustenance that is conducive towards producing a desired fruit, through trial and error, divide(weigh and measure) and conquer(producing desired fruit), then to harvest.

Do this enough and you a comfronted by a soil in which is not conducive towards producing this desired fruit, and any farmer will tell you, you just have to rotate the crops, but the result of the harvest remains the same.
How do you rotate the crops? One of two ways...
Either by changing the religion, collapse of population/intelligence(dark ages), social structure, and/or introduction of 'radically' different or opposing belief structure in which can later be used in terms of contrast for arguements in re-establishing the previous crop...
Then you always have my particular favorite, to re-introduce a seed as if it were new, only to realize that Monsanto modified the seed, making it seem 'new' and more 'efficent', but in the end of the day... those who harvested achieve the same return value for a slightly different fruit. And those who consumed it are no better off, actually, most likely less healthy than they were previously. Are we becoming better people from all this sustenance, and seeds? Or are we just as addicted to war, discrimination, and bias as we have always been. Well, the addiction hasn't changed, call it bondage, but the straps seem to be getting tighter.

I am not by any means against these beliefs(texts and oral tradition) that are presented in a 'religious' fashion... I just don't see the need for them to be referenced when speaking among a diverse audiances.

Lets get it all out of the way...

Jesus, Christ, Yahwey, Krishna, Jehova, Trinity, Triune, Blasphemy, Heretics, Assurance, Kingdom of Heaven, Holy Spirit, Justified Disciple, grape vineyard and wine parables(cough cough, Dionysus), etc., etc, and yes... etc.



Now that's done, we can get back to the topic of Non-Dual being best understood through extreme expression of polarity.

btw, spellcheck is disabled, apologize for any and all errors.

For the forseeable future, cognition and expression will ultimately always be a construct of dualism, for it is a construct of the observable universe. Many have attempted to bring about, and indoctrinate philosophies that according to their authors are conducive to dissolving these dualities, swaying the sense of social equilibrium in brings about a society that exhibits only one side of a moral and philosophical duality that we are in 'bondage' to.
In doing so, only strengthens(and/or shifts) the idea of bondage, and those who are responsible for the enforcement of these philosophies become 'paradigm' and 'doctrine' self-appointed defendors. Ultimately, allowing for their own dogmas, to abandon them and become the very defining construct in which is justifiably used against them. This may and may not be attributed to failing to 'practice what they preach' type of reasoning, but is often attributed to false doctrines in which are expressed, then observed for their falsehoods when accompanied with action.

Although I'm not big into comics and graphic novels, this is seemingly a reoccuring theme in many of the story lines.

This is the classic Dark Knight saying... in which I don't recall the exact quote, but went something like this...

'To die before the Hero becomes the Villian'

Now here's why I think it can not be escaped, and to attempt to, through applied doctrines in relationship towards duality only strengthens amplitude, but does not change the length of the 'wave' of percieved time and what it entails.(not to get all 2012 conspiracy'ish, but it is a part of the 'paradigm shift' IMHO)

"The concensus view has traditionally
been that brains evolved to process
information of ecological relevance.
This view, however, ignores an
important consideration: Brains are
exceedingly expensive both to evolve
and to maintain. The adult human
brain weighs about 2% of body weight
but consumes about 20% of total energy
intake.2 In the light of this, it is
difficult to justify the claim that primates,
and especially humans, need
larger brains than other species merely
to do the same ecological job. Claims
that primate ecological strategies involve
more complex problem-solving3,4
are plausible when applied to
the behaviors of particular species,
such as termite-extraction by chimpanzees
and nut-cracking by Cebus monkeys,
but fail to explain why all
primates, including those that are conventional
folivores, require larger brains
than those of all other mammals.
An alternative hypothesis offered
during the late 1980s was that primates’
large brains reflect the computational
demands of the complex social
systems that characterize the
order.5,6
Prima facie, this suggestion
seems plausible: There is ample evidence
that primate social systems are
more complex than those of other
species. These systems can be shown
to involve processes such as tactical
deception5 and coalition-formation,7,8
which are rare or occur only in simpler
forms in other taxonomic groups.
Because of this, the suggestion was
rapidly dubbed the Machiavellian intelligence
hypothesis, although there is a
growing preference to call it the social
brain hypothesis.9,10"

The Social Brain Hypothesis
Robin I.M. Dunbar
To truly do any justice in regards to the work of Robin Dunbar, I suggest google searching the article and reading it in its entirety.

This is part of an article in regards to evolutionary anthropology, and is in regards to evolution and cognition, and correlations with the size of one's brain. But it has many implications regarding the developed philosophies, and how they in fact evolved along side with the brain itself.

For the very cognitive strategies and developed cognitive bias' can be traced back, in a evolutionary 'reverse engineering'. Pointing towards a conclusion that adopted cognitive bias' are inherently subject to 'illusion' and 'delusional' observation and understandings(some of which can not seemingly be 'undone'), as well as observations that encompass both dualities(good, evil, right, wrong, FALSEHOODS AND TRUTHS) which then give way to evolved mental behaviours.

So what does this mean?

Well, not to be hypocritical(currently kicking myself), the story of Adam and Eve, and the eating of the forbidden fruit. Once this act is committed, then observed by another(Adam), it becomes a construct of the observors cognition. The distinction in which the observation falls under, in a dualistic nature, is dependent on previous dispositions per individual, such as explained above. But is always to be a fascite This is where emotion becomes an even more influential contributing factor, for it guides any interputation of observations as well as contributes to expressions made from said observation(Expression being the most influenced), hence the necessity of temperance.

Here is a list of cognitive bias' in which might help explain what I'm referencing...
en.wikipedia.org...

These tools AKA self-imposed 'Jedi Mind Tricks' often are a result of conscious exclusion of observational truths(often a reoccuring strategy that has been created via justifications based on what is percieved to be conducive towards an ends, through adopting means).


So, why can't we ESCAPE, or be free!?!
For the same reason people deny the man in the mirror(not the greatest analogy, I know), and define themselves through the observation of others. As long as there are other individuals in which we observe, we are always witnessing the supposed actions of Eve. Which has strong correlations with the dualism that is man and women, but I wont get into the role of Procreation and Self-Preservation(of self and 'species' and/or 'bloodline'((both an extension of self)) which goes back to procreation).

This is why IMO the gravest of errors in the governance of man, is to apply any indoctrinated philosophy based on religion, for present day(previous 4500-5000 years) governments have tried to replicate a 'kingdom' of a 'heavenly' or 'divine' creation which is an attempt to escape the very idea of 'dualism' that is our reality and enforce homage towards a distinguished side of polarit (which, thanks to Eve((figuratively)) is now inherently false upon creation and interputation of man).

This does not imply that actions derived from wisdom and teachings of philosophers through out history are all inherently false. But are a construct of self truths, faliablity, and 'tactical deception'... as well as observations of the self-evident, truths derived through extensive reasoning(wisdom), and 'tactical enlightenment(truth shall set you free, and to see that all may be privey to these truths). All of which are cognitive mind games, often presented to help mold complex social systems that are conducive towards order, and desired civility.

So in short... LOL.

To attempt to view and act in accordinace with that of a non-dualistic philosophy, even metaphysically thinking, is not appropiate, nor conducive towards a realistic means of guiding observation into action. It is inherently false to express non-dualism in a dualisticly constructed universe. Find harmony in the spheres, and do your best to be the best you can be. Some would make a conspiracy that adopting this is some kind of Luciferian doctrine(or whatever people claim Freemasons are in to), some say this is the classic, God is both Good and Evil. Either way you slice it with your dogmas, it's our pie, please save me a slice.

BTW if you disagree, or find that I presented anything falsely... please let me know. I'd love to hear it, so I can further develope a better understanding.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


sorry i didnt read all it is too much words for me, so i cant really reply but i mean to react to the op as it sounds right

two points,

the non dual is bc of truth being beyond absolute superiority

extreme polarity is the only else fact which reveal the concept of else being absolute else, which confirm truth being right freedom
so extreme polarity as a fact is due exclusively to objective logics of else absolute existence justification when that intelligence fact is only a result of truth and not from, as truth is beyond absolute superiority so always absolute intelligence rights is a result

extreme polarity as else objective fact is now only one, when this would b clearly recognized else will be the only way to exist

for now, else is exclusively absolute objective to absolute freedom
bc when truth is beyond absolute superiority, then what exist can be absolute objective or absolute beyond, while in all logics realm what is objective is the opposite to what is free
so at a point objective freedom meet freedom rights in truth through else concept of same thing logic

back to the first point, truth being beyond absolute superiority is the reason of non dual

this is very crucial point that reveal lies and evil life being of knowledge wills

truth is the concept of plus that justify whole existence in principle being the reality of plus so positive fact real

but then anything in principle should be absolute right by itself fact when everything is plus reality, as the sum of alright facts energized by the fact that existence is true so through a sense of life as representing the fact of plus reality

the issue is beyond concept abuse

bc beyond in absolute terms is totally out of smthg, evil abuse that fact by erasing the fact of beyond being absolutely always the direct superior that include smthg whole while more and before being totally out

that what explain the absurd confusion of people realities when they are inherently opposites in terms of right and wrong

u for instance im guessing, know that u cant mean smthg from u unless u respect first objective logics existing before proving ur point superiority to urself and before getting to ur own means out

while another, act in insolence such naturally and godishly which is the real issue that power support he might get from nologics, for his means like imposing its positive fact regardless to what exist objectively and to the need of justifying its value

how can anyone and everyone act in such way when truth is what i say

bc of evil force life that reached to be existing way from truth knowledge abuse in believing isolating it out of existence which is suppose to be its realisation rights
like stay out superior as u want with no relation to positive realisation u do
which also explain the general concept of superior abuse as the right way to exist in positive constancy

of course there is no hope to expect coming from that, what can b such vulgar move constant and inherently such insolent constant creator of means that really make him live positively is not the issue,
the issue is exclusively truth reasons that are revealing it such clearly even to words pointing evil clarity in obvious absolute terms proving truth knowledge of it to extreme extent so it is truth realisation too

what is beyond superiority use superiority for its own means while superior realisations mean a lot to what can mean more then it, thinking that smthg love to mean beyond as weirdo stuff to justify being weirdo in never meaning any really is the creation of extremes that do not exist

it is horrible to b right from what it means that wrong is more powerful and the result of that in everyday existence, what is right is then free, since noone can be objective unless he is
this is the sense of individual existence and not to impose right by accepting wrong too

truth will come while it is never one but miserable we are the rights that are forced to exist and die away from

reply to post by Dasher


Observation and rememberance is not judgment. You obviously do not understand what judgment means.
Seeing and hearing is not judgment, it is seeing and hearing. Seeing and hearing is non dual. The definition of judgment is: 'The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.' It is the consideration or deliberation after the seeing and hearing has occured that an 'opinion' is formed. Awareness in the moment requires no consideration or deliberation, what is seen is seen 'as is' without 'your opinion' or expectation added.
The word 'deliberation' actually says DE-liberation. To be 'liberated' one must not de-liberate.
You seem to 'think' you know everything and that i and Alan Watts are just sheep in 'your opinion'. This is the 'opinion' that 'you' have 'formed'.
The glory of god is right here and right now but the human mind can't see it because it 'forms' it's own conclusions/opinions, which is the judgment.
Non dual awareness is seeing what is seen as it is without an opinion, without a judgment.

Believing the thoughts, ideas and opinions that are 'formed' is not 'seeing' the real world - it is seeing the inside of the mind. The mind cannot see what is real, that is why it is never satisfied, it is always confused. The mind says 'Why?' and 'This should not be'. It is the mind that tortures humans. Living in the confines of the mind and believing the stories it tells is 'dreaming' a different world to the one that is really here, awake from the dream and see and hear what is present, look and see (observe) this moment (remember - be present with 'what is' instead of 'what could be or should be'). 'Could be, should be' is the judgment. As it is, 'isness', 'suchness', 'this', 'now' are words that point to the non dual, prior to conceptulization. Concepts are 'formed' in the mind..
Existance is fine as it is but the mind says it is not, that is judgment.
Judgment is cause of human suffering:
youtu.be...

I would be very interested to hear your definition of 'non-duality'.
Here is a beautiful song which reflects on non duality:
youtu.be...

reply to post by Itisnowagain


u r preconizing being an animal which is impossible bc u r a human mind, u cant b of senses directions since u belong to self condition of ur mind

a baby is supported by oness condition as long as his mind do not exist yet, but even then he is not an animal that jump or run in the world through his sense of, that is how it is later that a child mean to experience the world around him and explore the true reality of things

that is why what u see and observe is simply always nothing as long as u dont mean anything, there is no reality nor objective existence if u r not the absolute reference of its relative fact

now what u mean is to keep conditions for god possessions as for animals while it is not possible at all n only through urself will slavery in god u can mean ur mind in subjective terms being god will, which has nothing to do with reality nor with existence facts

love ur god as much as u want but assume it then as being ur choice havin nothing to do with truth nor to any existing right at all, being for god powers upon urself is like anyone will to b for obedience to conditions set by governments meaning their powers life from ruling ur life, it is ur choice
stating that god is better then any governemnt is subjective opinion that dont concern anyone but urself being

reply to post by absolutely


while loving god is clearly for hating truth, from where ur actual mean is to love to exist beyond what exist, knowing that only what exist is true

loving to exist is an absurd premise, as u put urself before ur essence, u exist bc existence is true, so mean loving smthg else clearly in ur mind to justify ur wills and stay relative there out of right existence with what support it

oust stop abusing truth for ur too simple wills means, u cant use intelligence for stupid thing it makes it worse for u

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
reply to post by Dasher

 

So... somehow I write...

But hardly from some divine source, or the 'word' of God. And this is EXACTLY WHY, I prefer that using scripture is to be removed from providing sustenance towards any arguement, for the strength in which it's given is permitted via a false perception in regards to the origin of this doctrine.

Yet, somehow you find a way to respond through means of neglecting/rejecting any notion of my request.

I told you plainly that I had no interest in complying. I offered to continue conversing if it would remain "open" and that Truth would be the only solvent. That seemed to be the case, but obviously it is not. So based upon making a better judgment, I will continue again (somehow) with investing my time into other things.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Observation is the gathering of data, and remembrance orbits the nucleus of association and association's core is judgment. One might say that a song reminds them of one emotion and another person is inspired to feel another emotion. Once other bits of data come into play, like the singer of the song is a rapist, all of a sudden the associations change. This is not condemnation. It is not observation alone. It is judgment. And it occurs all of the time with all high order animals. However, humans cross into the conduct of spiritual judgment.

Saying that this is not the case does not make it so. Again, if someone throws a ball at you, a series of events take place including observation and reaction. In the case that you truly do no judge, you would lie in bed and never move until you die. This farcical notion should be enough to encourage you to accept what is (that we are judges), but I suppose there is always an excuse.

Now, as with MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS, I must move away from this conversation. It is not in good judgment for me to continue something that is so unstable. To emphasize this point, please consider that you are overtaken by words games and truth is not your primary point of reference. This is seen in that you equate de-liberation with the loss of liberation. This is a very western-minded and ignorant thought as "de" can come from the notion of "taking away" and it also can come from the notion of "with" or "of" or "concerning." De facto, you misunderstand, as does MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS, the tools by which man is to work. Instead, you have hidden your tools and revel in man's natural return to void. Enjoy your journey back to where we came from, but I do encourage you to grow instead.

Lastly, the second portion of your post handles the idea of casting away one's limited, but best judgment, for a more thorough best judgment. It is curious that you will advocate, in principle, what I am communicating to you, but since you do not use a few key words, you are not offended to say it. If I were to take the notion of "not judging" seriously, I would never sow a seed and simply watch myself die as everything else around me does so as well (or maybe you really don't contribute to anything around you [and your posts are imaginary as well]). But in judgment, we continue in Life and the same is in the next realm except without the limitations we are bound by in our world. If Truth is in you, you will observe and remember. If Truth is not in you, you will observe and forget or neglect.

reply to post by Dasher


Life is living you. You do not have to worry about life dying, it won't. On the other hand, the false identity, the one that makes life hard, the ego with it's problems would indeed die. The suffering would cease and life would flow freely without interuption, without the drama, without the story of me. Peace, silence, stillnes, home.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I understand your perspective.
However, my home is "singing," "joyful," "communion," "justified, but abundant, charity," "compassionate, but righteous, order... My home is Life, not the illusion, not the void from which we came.
And I am not concerned about Life itself dying (Life has already commuted that bondage of ours by entering into it and raising back up). I am trying to encourage others to become more alive.
Thanks for your thoughts, though. Let us continue in grace and reason and we can certainly agree to disagree.

reply to post by Dasher


I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on 'non-duality'.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I appreciate the simple and sincere question. I hope that I can answer clearly. Unfortunately, this matter is easily confused.

There are actually two technical "non-dualities."
Void, and Life. However, between these two non-dualities, we exist, and experience dualities, even dualities within dualities ad nauseam (which is what we are!).

Void is obviously "non-dual" because it is non-existence, and for the eastern mind, this void is nirvana. Beware of this trap.
Life Eternal is "non-dual" because the nature of Life Eternal is communion/balance/etc., and for the western mind, Life is normally replaced with an idol. Chiefly, Mankind seeks to obtain "heaven" whether that be an earthly kingdom or immaterial kingdom. Either way, obtainment is also a trap.

We experience duality in two forms. Positive and negative might be a common way to grasp this. On the "living" side of things, we understand Order/Peace/Justice/Righteousness and Charity/Compassion/Love/Giving. On the "dead" side of things, we understand Pride/Arrogance/Theft and Chaos/Ignorance/Deceit. These four principles wrap together in our perceptions this way: Pride is the opposite of Charity and the inverse of Order. Chaos is the opposite of Order and the inverse of Charity. It may be helpful to draw a diagram of this. If you are unable, let me know and I can throw something together.

Escape?:
Certainly where Pride is found, Chaos is near in the wake and vice versa. However, if you continue in that "direction" or "way" of death, you will find that void will become your home.
Certainly, where true Order is found, Charity is joined to it perfectly and vice versa. And if you continue in that "direction" or "way" of life, you will find that Life will become your home.

Be warned; Void is our "default" or our "right" (right as in "that which is ours").
Consider these things when thinking upon Life:
Focal point, reflection, manifestation, freedom and bonds, source and copies, communion and disconnection.


Meditate on these things for a while, honestly, and I am certain that you will see them, repeatedly, surrounding you/us. There is much more to say, but this is a lot to chew on for now. That is not to say you must digest my word fully, but at least taste it, and if you judge it to be worth spitting out, than that is your freedom.

Overall, I hope that you will enjoy the process!