It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People misunderstand Non-Duality, let's clear up any confusion here...

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
This whole exercise of talking or writing about non-duality is in vain.
it is only when you silence your mind that it is clear.




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


This seems like a no brainer to me. Of course, empirical reality is one of wholistic unity. There is no such thing as empirical right and wrong in the universe. If an asteroid slams into an object, this is neither a good nor a bad event, it just is. Good and evil are subjective, based on perspective.

So, my question is, How can a self proclaimed "non-dualistic" philosophy/religion believe in "Original Sin" and that Satan is the father of all evil. How can a non-dualistic religion justify the need for salvation, and that the only way to salvation is the "one way" through Jesus Christ? How can Christianity be a non-dualistic religion if all are made to choose, and those who don't "choose" correctly, and don't believe in Jesus are all sent to Hell?

How can Christianity claim to be a non-dualistic religion when it claims that things of the world of flesh are innately sinful, and should be abandoned for the spiritual to gain the righteousness of the spirit?

If there is no dualism in Christianity, why is there war in Heaven? Why does the Bible story end with Jesus destroying (this evil) "Heaven and the Earth", and creating a (good and glorious) "new Heaven and new Earth?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Non duality is not a religion.




edit on 16-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Is Christianity a non-dualistic Religion?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Itisnowagain
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


The thread is about non dualism (non duality).
Non dual means not two. ONE without a second/third/fourth/fifth...............
edit on 16-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


No crap. Why don't you go reread my exchange between the poster I was talking to so you can understand why I would post definitions for duality? Jumping into the middle of a conversation to post something like your post just makes you look foolish. FYI, I was defining duality because the poster I was responding to was misusing the word.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The reality of duality and non-dual must be applied in a spiritual sense to have merit and use for the human being, it is not a philosophical postulate it is an aspect of a spiritual philosophy.

In that philosophy it is imperative at one point for the inner eye to perceive the oneness of reality and for that to imbed in perception permanently. Then the student can carry on to the next spiritual reality if needed.

This is particularly emphasized within the Vedanta tradition but ALL genuine spiritual paths have the permanent perception of the nondual of reality within its metaphysical framework.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Maybe you could say something about non duality.
FYI, I don't mind if you think I am a fool.

edit on 16-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Is Christianity a non-dualistic Religion?


Jesus tried to teach the blind to see and the deaf to hear.
Seeing is non dual and so is hearing.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


It seems to me, that what Jesus tried to teach and what Christianity teaches are two different things.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


It seems to me, that what Jesus tried to teach and what Christianity teaches are two different things.


Is Jesus 'Christianity'?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Really there is no Jesus.
There is only ever this - what is actually happening.
That which is happening is it.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Who cares? Christianity is real religion.

Is Christianity a non-dualistic religion? If so, how can it justify its position given the questions that I asked here: www.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on 16-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Itisnowagain
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Maybe you could say something about non duality.
FYI, I don't mind if you think I am a fool.

edit on 16-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


First don't misinterpret my words. I said you look foolish for not reading my previous posts and responding to the one not that you are actually a fool. There is a difference.

Also this is my first post in the thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course I already asked you to go reread all my posts, and if you had done that you'd have known that I had already addressed your request before you even knew about this thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
What's the fuzz about this non-duality anyway?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
First don't misinterpret my words. I said you look foolish for not reading my previous posts and responding to the one not that you are actually a fool. There is a difference.

I was watching it all appear last night - waiting for non duality to be discussed.
Then today - more talk about duality - yawn. Which is when and why I posted a reminder that this thread is about non duality.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Itisnowagain

Krazysh0t
First don't misinterpret my words. I said you look foolish for not reading my previous posts and responding to the one not that you are actually a fool. There is a difference.

I was watching it all appear last night - waiting for non duality to be discussed.
Then today - more talk about duality - yawn.


Look buddy, this thread is not just about non-duality. If it was, it would just be an echo chamber of people who agree that non-duality is true. In order to have a discussion, there has to be an opposition to the initial premises of the OP, which is duality. Therefore in order to have a proper debate about non-duality, duality most also be discussed. Not to mention that last night I was trying to show the poster that his idea of duality was incorrect (he was actually advocating non-duality, but had labeled it duality). Just because the word "non-duality" hasn't shown up in the thread since the first page doesn't mean the discussion is offtopic. Care to elaborate, refute, or discuss any of the points in my initial post or are we just going to quibble about meaningless crap all day?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
Care to elaborate, refute, or discuss any of the points in my initial post or are we just going to quibble about meaningless crap all day?

All talk is meaningless crap anyway buddy.

Wonderfully glorious meaningless crap.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I see... So you aren't planning on legitimately participating in the thread (though feel the need to call out others when you view them as offtopic). Good to know. Now I can stop responding to you and I'll continue to wait for a real debater to debate this topic with then.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   


One tree, many leaves



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not you subscribe to the idea of infinity being a reality; If you believe that all things have a beginning and an end, and that the universe is limited, then duality makes sense because manyness is a finite concept. However, if you believe that infinity exists in any form, then you necessarily become part of that infinity, or, more precisely, are infinite. Moreover, if you are infinite then you cannot, by definition, be a dual being, because duality requires manyness, and manyness is a finite concept. In order to have infinity, there must be unity, and unity negates duality necessarily.

Here's an article that does a nice job of explaining things-

Advaita


"Look - here's an apple," he said, picking one out of the bowl on the table and casually tossing it from one hand to the other before holding it up for her to examine. "It's round or to be more accurate, spherical; its reddish in colour and it has", he sniffed it, "a fruity smell. No doubt if I were to bite into it, I would find it juicy and sweet.

"Now all of these - round, red, fruity, juicy, sweet - are adjectives describing the noun ‘apple.' Or, to use more Advaitic terms, let me say that the ‘apple' is the ‘substantive' - the apparently real, separately existing thing - and all of the other words are ‘attributes' of the apple - merely incidental qualities of the thing itself. Are you with me so far?"

She nodded hesitantly but, after a little reflection, more positively.
"But suppose I had carried out this analysis with the rose that we looked at a moment ago. I could have said that it was red, delicate, fragrant, thorny and so on. And we would have noted that all of those were simply attributes and that the actual existent thing, the substantive, was the rose. But then we went on to see that the rose wasn't real at all. It was just an assemblage of petals and sepals and so on - I'm afraid I am not a botanist! In the same way, we could say that the apple consists of seeds and flesh and skin. We may not be able to put these things together into any form different from an apple but Nature can.

"If you ask a scientist what makes an apple an apple, he will probably tell you that is the particular configuration of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA of the cells. There are many different species of apple and each one will have a slight variation in the chromosomes and it is that which differentiates the species. If you want to explain to someone what the difference is between a Bramley and a Granny Smith, you will probably say something like ‘the Bramley is large and green, used mainly for cooking and is quite sharp tasting, while the Granny Smith is still green but normally much smaller and sweeter'. But these are all adjectives or attributes. What is actually different is the physical makeup of the cell nuclei.

"But, if we look at a chromosome or a strand of DNA, are we actually looking at a self-existent, separate thing? If you look very closely through an electron microscope, you find that DNA is made up of four basic units arranged in pairs in a long, spiral chain. And any one of these units is itself made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, again arranged in a very specific way. So even those are not separate ‘things-in-themselves'; they are names given to particular forms of other, more fundamental things.

"And so we arrive at atoms - even the ancient Greeks used to think that everything was made up of atoms. Are these the final ‘substantives' with all of the apparent things in the world being merely attributes? Well, unfortunately not. Science has known for a long time that atoms mainly consist of empty space with electrons spinning around a central nucleus of protons and neutrons. And science has known for somewhat less time that these particles, which were once thought to be fundamental, are themselves not solid, self-existent things but are either made up of still smaller particles or are in the form of waves, merely having probabilities of existence at many different points in space.

"Still more recently, science claimed that all of the different particles are themselves made out of different combinations of just a few particles called quarks and that those are the ultimately existing things. But they have not yet progressed far enough. The simple fact of the matter is that every ‘thing' is ultimately only an attribute, a name and form superimposed upon a more fundamental substantive. We make the mistake of thinking that there really is a table, when actually there is only wood. We make the mistake of thinking that there is really wood, when actually there is only cellulose and sugars and proteins. We make the mistake of thinking there is protein when this is only a particular combination of atoms. "Ultimately, everything in the universe is seen to be only name and form of a single substantive.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join