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

reply to post by Visitor2012


The only example of non-duality is the universe or rather everything, which includes the universe. Anything else is a sub-set of that ultimate set. Duality arises through a lack of perception toward an object. It is either part of this sub-set or it isn't. Yet both answers fail to account for that the object is still part of that everything set. Duality is a mind trick.

Aphorism
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

Name one single thing in the known Universe that is non-dual.

Water, a tree, a horse, a house, a cat, a mouse. Duality is merely a linguistic convenience for a species unable to articulate any other way.

Those are all forms, with defined boundaries. Furthermore, each one is the combination of somethiness and nothingness. If you were to look at each with a powerful microscope, you would find that all of them are made up of mostly nothingness. So even in their make up, they require both something-ness and nothing-ness to exist as form. Otherwise, there would be no form to perceive.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

The only example of non-duality is the universe or rather everything, which includes the universe. Anything else is a sub-set of that ultimate set. Duality arises through a lack of perception toward an object. It is either part of this sub-set or it isn't. Yet both answers fail to account for that the object is still part of that everything set. Duality is a mind trick.

So the universe, being a combination of "matter" and emptiness is an example of non-duality? You can't be serious.

The known physical Universe consists of celestial bodies surrounded by empty space. And it's only because of BOTH, that it can be perceived and known exist in the first place. That is not an example of non-duality.

Duality isn't a mind trick. Non-duality is. Because, outside of mental concepts,there is not one example of it in our existence, not in our minds, not in our physical reality, and most certainly not in our spiritual experiences. Now if you want to believe there is, then fine. But you still have not named one non-dual aspect of existence. Can't you see that the word existence implies non-existence? How can you isolate existence from non-existence? Both need to be there to be percieved.

Visitor2012
Name any form in the known Universe, that doesn't have a background or a definable border which allows you to perceive it in the first place.

edit on 16-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

I already have, the universe. And you are again confusing the term nothingness with empty space. Reread this post for a better idea of what I am talking about.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Empty space != nothingness. The difference being that matter or energy can exist in empty space, thereby making it filled space. Matter and energy cannot exist in nothingness.

We call it empty space for a reason, that's because there is nothing there to be percieved. Let me ask you a question. What is between galaxies? Is it empty space or nothingness? And does the galaxy exist within nothingness? If not, what is it suspended in?

In the quantum reality, where form comes from nothing...what do you call that nothingness? Empty space? Or nothingness? What's the difference between empty space and nothingness?

reply to post by arpgme


It's interesting, perhaps synchronicity even, that I came across this today as I spent most of Sunday listening to Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations with God on YouTube yesterday as I have had (or thought I had had) a similar experience to him. In fact it was a friend of mine who told me that what I was experiencing was similar to him and that I should check him out.

Well she was right! The reason however for my reply is that this concept is brought up in the video (really it's an audiobook) about how we are and we aren't and in a sense all at once. Forgive me if I explained it a little bit wrong there (I'm rushing through replies while on lunch at work).

It even prompted me to begin work on a blog post about what I call the Yes-No Dichotomy. I'll have to complete it before I put it on my blog and create a post here...it's not going to be a quick write up.

Thanks for your post and I'm glad to see others seeing the world, or reality in the same way as me

Visitor2012
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Empty space != nothingness. The difference being that matter or energy can exist in empty space, thereby making it filled space. Matter and energy cannot exist in nothingness.

We call it empty space for a reason, that's because there is nothing there to be percieved. Let me ask you a question. What is between galaxies? Is it empty space or nothingness? And does the galaxy exist within nothingness? If not, what is it suspended in?

Empty space is between galaxies. Galaxies aren't suspended at all. They are all traveling in multiple directions simultaneously.

In the quantum reality, where form comes from nothing...what do you call that nothingness? Empty space? Or nothingness? What's the difference between empty space and nothingness?

edit on 16-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

I literally just explained that in the post you quoted. I even used an example to illustrate my point. But here I'll do it again for you. Empty space is just a location that is devoid of matter or energy, but that is only a temporary state, since matter and energy can exist in empty space causing it to become filled space. However, matter and energy cannot exist in nothingness, because there is nothing there for it to exist in. Nothingness cannot exist inside the universe because there is not a single point in the universe where energy or matter cannot exist. Therefore, in order for nothingness to exist, it has to be outside the universe, which implies that the universe is finite. This is literally the ONLY way to show duality since something is either part of the universe or it is nothing. If the universe is infinite though, nothing cannot be so duality is wrong.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


You speak about the Universe as if was a solid object. You speak about a galaxy as if it is a solid medium, it isn't. it is %99.99999999 ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and the remaining percent, according to scientific discoveries, appears to come from NOTHING (aka the god particle). Between galaxies there is NOTHING. Within Galaxies, there is 99.99999% nothing. A galaxy is not an object, nor is a cloud which is just a group of billions of water vapor particles. A Galaxy is a massive grouping of billions of stars which gives it form, but it has no existential reality of its own. No substance of its own. Without stars there is no galaxy. You're confusing concepts with reality.

You say:

Nothingness cannot exist inside the universe

This is absolutely ludicrous. The Universe and everything in it, including matter is mostly made of NOTHING and it's surrounded by nothing. So YES nothingness is EVERYWHERE, even in a solid block of steel, when looked at beyond the molecular level, is also made of mostly NOTHING.

Therefore, in order for nothingness to exist, it has to be outside the universe

First of all, there is no such thing as OUTSIDE the Universe. You do know the universe isn't solid right? It is strewn with vast amounts of emptiness. And even matter itself, upon closer examination, is virtually 99.9999% emptiness and the remaining percentage we call matter actually comes from quantum nothingness. Further reinforcing the point that matter (a conceptual relic from old science) should remain a theoretical concept. A concept to describe perceived form, the form itself is an illusion. Matter is a concept, easily seen when looking at it from a quantum level.

You're arguing semantics and getting lost in your own concepts. Empty space IS nothingness. Or have you heard otherwise? The space between galaxies IS nothingness. You can not have ANY form without emptiness. The Universe is almost completely empty, even the celestial bodies contained within it, are mostly made up nothing.

I think I said what I wanted to say, in a number of very large and exhausting posts. So we can just simply agree to disagree about whatever it is we are arguing about, and move on.

ExquisitExamplE
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

I'm curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that the universe is surrounded by "nothingness"? That would imply that the universe is finite and has definable boundaries, or that the universe has an "edge". As far as we can perceive at this point, the universe has no edge or boundary. It has yet to be conclusively proven whether or not the universe is actually infinite (I believe it is), but what I can tell you is that scientists have never observed an edge to the universe, nor have they observed this nothingness that you posit surrounds it.

Does the Universe Have an Edge?

Does the Universe have an edge, beyond which there is nothing?

Galaxies extend as far as we can detect... with no sign of diminishing.There is no evidence that the universe has an edge. The part of the universe we can observe from Earth is filled more or less uniformly with galaxies extending in every direction as far as we can see - more than 10 billion light-years, or about 6 billion trillion miles. We know that the galaxies must extend much further than we can see, but we do not know whether the universe is infinite or not. When astronomers sometimes refer (carelessly!) to galaxies "near the edge of the universe," they are referring only to the edge of the OBSERVABLE universe - i.e., the part we can see.

hmm interesting. We share many of the same views.

All things transfer from one phase to the next, As stated. The blackness of space is not nothing.
Imagine this, If there truely was nothing in the way. As in tiny particles that would take up the vast majority which gives the appearence of *black* Then all the light from all the far reaching galaxies would make a much more bigger impact.
The night sky would be glowing blue and white, In fact it would be hard to distinguish a difference at all.

therefore there are particles, Something in the way. And if the universe is perfect in effecency of converting mass and energy into folded particles.

im no physicsist, But i imagine that compressed non reactive mass in its *black* state would begin gaining properties of compressed mass as they become more unstable and pool around the closest strongest point of gravity feeding the birth of gas clouds and stars. Likewise if the hole increases in size to much it will expand into 2 holes and then collide sending the excess energy outwards into space well creating a new galaxy.

Im just theorizing that because it sounds cool. Also i think that the *background* you mentioned would be the compressed particles from such forces taking up space. In theory all this black stuff should have varying compounds, So essencially we are all one because we all came from one source and will return to one source only to return again from the same source as a different compound of mass and energy! Meaning that in theory all mass would of had the chance given the circumsances of eternity to have at one point been living.

It is truely a gift to be alive considering if this is all thru the time it would take to be released from such mass, Existing as matter now is only a fraction of the time trapped in compressed mass.

There is no true one side over the other side or any side or fashion. Being a Rar. file floating in space without any Exe. present to interact with files and other programs. It remains sealed until it will be sealed till later when it becomes unstable.

So the universe would actually be many many times larger than it already is ( if infinity can be larger?)
There are physical laws that garentee that such things as black holes and super suns will never swallow the universe.

No star can escape its own gravity beyond its resistances and neither can a black hole. If such 2 instances could occure the multitude of galaxies would of swallowed each other already and the processes of containing mass could not exist because they are contradictory.

Unless the universe is new * All the countless galaxies that expand beyond our point of view included* Then anything could happen but i seriously doubt that everything just got here. Thanks for reading ATS



This video might have some unexpected answers. But it's a repeating principal that exists within other forms of energy and mass. Dna is also wound as well, And many things spin in clockwise or counter clockwise fasion.

The golden ratio helps displace mass further from sources as well, Also why *springs* of compressed mass exist.

reply to post by arpgme


the only duality there is is is and is not

reply to post by Visitor2012


You aren't thinking hard enough to understand my concepts. Not surprising since you refuse to use the academic definition of duality and substitute your own version for it.

Empty Space isn't the same as nothingness for the third time. I've already illustrated an example of the difference between empty space and nothingness, but you refuse to understand it. Your mind is closed to only your reality (which you made up using words in ways that is counter to their definitions) and you refuse to understand deeper ideas than the ones you hold.

Visitor2012

ExquisitExamplE

Visitor2012


Name one single thing in the known Universe that is non-dual.

The idea here is that the entirety of the universe is one single thing.

That is still a dualistic definition. I know where you're getting at and I agree that all of the universe is one but that doesn't mean that its non-dual. How would you be able to describe that Universe without also referencing the empty space between stars?
Try to describe your Universe without reference to dualistic concepts. In other words, you can't mention stars, or any seperate forms within this so called one-universe, in fact you can't mention forms or things at all. It's impossible.

edit on 16-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

First mistake made here on this thread is to oppose non-duality with duality, they are not opposing states, non-duality encompasses duality as well. And no, it is not used to describe the ultimate oneness of the universe or lack thereof. Non-duality should rather be understood as non-differentiating, passing no judgement or preference, everything is just the way it is. It sure doesn't make duality magically disappear and make all borders melt into one entity. Non-duality also means, not the ONE or any other quantity or quality for that matter. Arguing on something nobody here seems to have any idea of is kind of ridiculous...

Non duality actually is an action, a verb. Not just a philosophy. When it relates to us and living a non duality state. It requires that one masters one body suit, and meditates and raises frequency enough to be able to choose actions/reactions in the multiply choice questions each day.

Duality represents the platform of the simulated reality school and is even programmed into DNA. There is a natural/neutral state, such as dark/light, night/day, sickness/health, death/birth, sad/happy. And then there is the behavorial or mental choices one makes in relation to the world around them, their circumstances and the world and this is where soul growth can occur.

Despite the fact I don't agree with this reality and consider that the means don't justify the end.

In a state of overcoming your body reactions, raising your state to higher mind, you have actual Free Will. Which is the short cut way of saying, you are practicing non duality.

It doesnt mean GREY. Choosing to blend positive or negatives like some believe.

reply to post by Unity_99


Dueality is used to describe accurate events.

If i were to write a book, About an apple. And a man Eating it.
And i were to just throw in some lizard people and other aliens.

No one would understand what the story would be about.
Funny i didn't even mean to describe the bible lol Honestly i really didn't i just happened to pull what i thought was the
most randomest thing i could out of thin air.

Anyways, if there was no described setting in this story. we would just imagine the apple, the man and the lizards and aliens floating in what?
We will now give a name and call it emptyness or darkness because in our universe that is how we relate something.
These characters could be floating next to massive stars. So maybe they don't see the night sky and shadow only exist when light isn't being obstructed.

You see it becomes very difficult if things cannot be described i degrees, Weither we are referring to identifying Morality or external forces from enviroment.

Everyone should know what is good and evil, Likewise. Things that exist where there is focal points of blackness in space where stars are destroyed, It is referenced that using such power is destructive. (tho it is only a vital process in maintaining the integrity of the creation of galaxies and their subisquant recycling) We i dentify the light with life because many processes of our sun aid in the functions of life on this planet.
It is a varying degree when we are talking about existing things in order to have proper lore when developing a story.
You can't just have empty thoughts and random objects appearing in order to generate a full picture.
Every facet needs to be already known to the reader or described if they are unaware because otherwise understanding the difference between 20 K/m west and 80 K/m south west are varying degrees that allow the reader or listener to understand given space time, scenarios/situations objects and places.

With duality, As long as the story is honest. We get an accurate description of the creator of the story with their point of view at that time. There are always other varying degrees described in order to be more precise in how we describe something.

Therefore the book about the man eating the apple and the lizard people would have a background the world and its physics, It would tell you the varying degrees of morality these characters held. Stating something is good or bad is simply saying that from the varying degrees, We would describe something relevant to the degree/ hot mildly hot somewhat hot warm somewhat like warm luke warm and so on. It's all dependant on what the reader understands.

If the reader does not share the same point of views as what is read and alters the words around to be more pleasing. It is because either the overall message is from their perspective in a degree that is not acceptable.
There are always polar extremes and when refering to duality many times people over exadurate on polar extremes singularly giving the impression of just 2 degrees within the subject.

There is always 33 degrees. Hahahah kidding i donno it just sounded monsony . Anyways, Everything literally has been one thing that we call * nothing* that actually isint nothing at all but folded somethings that hold all of us in our place.
Describing varying degrees allows a much clearer picture.

reply to post by AnuTyr


Actually on the other side its more like, (say you have had an nde, and you are reminded of the people you love back home, and I read a case, think it was a thread, like this) being aware of a scene you can re-enter. So picture this movie reel, and jumping back in, or a DVD. Interesting that David Bohm when looking into atoms, found that thing they call entanglement. There is nothing literally to matter, but there is this ether type plasma. We are matter, matter is energy/electricity/magnetism, which creates plasma discharge, ie matter. Its all an eletrical type holographic reality, alot like being stuck in a tv, or something weird like that. Here we are, without our memories, there is NO VOID, and there is only real reality on the other side with far more awareness and sense than here. We're in a sliver of reality here, as if a particle of self, maybe an active living part of your imagination jumped in.

But...the means don't justify the end. The only thing that seems to be semi fair in any of this is that it seems people's own conscousness accepts or believes something, and so there is a division of realms or density, or channels in that tv, based on a group mind. This planet is very low, harsh duality. And if you were on a vacation as some seem to be, well, do you not notice the pain and suffering of earth and her inhabitants? Not much of a vacation

On that semi fair, that is being incredibly generous because in reality there is no reason for such a harsh hijacked school as this one, those who think they're managing it in the correct way are really going to be in for a shock when they find themselves without the freedom they thought was going to happen, for I've been given visions of the cosmic arrest teams, and then we're going to be on the panels counseling and seeing what can be done to help them recover from their psychopahthy.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

You aren't thinking hard enough to understand my concepts. Not surprising since you refuse to use the academic definition of duality and substitute your own version for it.

Empty Space isn't the same as nothingness for the third time. I've already illustrated an example of the difference between empty space and nothingness, but you refuse to understand it. Your mind is closed to only your reality (which you made up using words in ways that is counter to their definitions) and you refuse to understand deeper ideas than the ones you hold.

I can definitely see we are both talking about something entirely different. Which is not surprising because of the subject matter. Alternatively, I can see "nothingness" as that which is before the manifestation of matter (quantum superposition?) or the point prior to the wave collapse (non- time/space continuum?). Which is what I think you're referring to, TRUE nothingness right? In that frame of reference, I agree that my use of the words 'empty space' would not apply because that still deals with the time/space continuum and thus not truly nothingness. I get it. Fair enough. But I was talking from an entirely different frame of reference, mainly perception-based duality and the impossibility of perception based non-duality. Thus my position that without duality, there would be nothing to perceive which would make it impossible to even know that you exist, much less have the ability to sit here and talk about it.

Moving along, I will also agree that duality is about opposites, as such, "existence vs. non-existence" can be used as an example of duality. ''somethingness vs. nothingness' can be used. And without duality, or both polarities, their would be no grey scale, no spectrum at all! (Which is what I think you're having an issue with when I use the word 'contrast').

Anyway, I don't want to talk about scientific theories on the process and creation of matter, nor discuss which definition of the word 'nothingness' we should adhere to (be it in reference to time and space or quantum physics) because that's not the point. Duality can be applied to virtually EVERY frame of refence. Existing vs. not existing.....somethingness vs. nothingness, happy vs. sad, self vs. Ego, Ying / Yang , form vs. non-form, and light vs. dark. There are endless ways of discussing the concept of duality. As for non-duality, there is NOTHING to be spoken about for obvious reasons.

My approach to duality is in terms of perception (not as in perspective, but as in the ability to perceive). I get my viewpoints based on my own experience with consciousness, atomic mind vs. nuclear mind, out of body experiences, lucid dreaming, Astral projection, and my own observations of my sensory perceptions and awareness vs. non-awareness.

There's no need to demand that I conform and agree with the people you believe are the authority on the matter, I don't care what books you read or what theories you believe or worship. Duality can be expressed in many ways. Metaphysically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, scientifically etc. May I suggest, instead of regurgitating other people's work , why don't you offer your own perspective on the topic using your own words.

Really, there is no need for us to agree with each other on any of this, I've offered my perspective and I'm satisfied with it.

reply to post by Visitor2012


I agree with what you are saying. Communication would be near impossible without varying degrees and understanding them.

reply to post by Unity_99


I rather enjoyed your reply. i also fell asleep and woke up at 12:12.
I do not enjoy the suffering of the many, I think its cruel and in the long run. Many of the leaders are Terrified i imagine.
There are most likely central athority figures within the cabal who dictact what people should do and not. Individuals with less diplomacy are forced to keep a one track hive mind. All are striving for the same goals based on the principals of the central cabal. I'm making all this up so its hypothetical. There is some reason for all the destruction and major military actions. There have been many staged wars or wars enticed for profit gain not utter survival. But these same people who dictact those actions are also the ones controlled by the cabal. So even if people wanted to get out, they risk scrutiny of the worst kind.

in the end what ever goals they are attempting to acheive at present arn't known. But for their inability to congrigate and act just as how the average joes congrigate and protest this same thing needs to be done from within, But they are much to afraid to do so. At the end, People will be getting severe counseling. With the harsh duelistic mindsets that are out there as when it comes to social structures, It honestly is a wacky horror filled amuzement park as far as humans and human actions on this planet tho. The planet is fine i love Earth, its just all the scars. The constant misuse of weapons and companies demolishing lands with their primative tools.

Everyone talking about how Advanced we are getting and truth be told we are not really that much.
Growing up i envisioned all this coming out already, I kinda knew the world was going to turn its head around.
But i still enjoyed the mentioned *Vacation* because there are good facets to humanity in the sense of brotherhood and peace.
it does exist among peers but not as a whole as well as inovation and creation. The many sights of Earth and experiences.
But the way things are run are highjacked as you say, Someone or something is making these people all act irrationally.
If they are only doing all this to set the lowest example possible so that any new system implimented would seem like a god send.
That would make more sense for them in order to dominate humanity, but as you stated. They will not enjoy the new age nearly half as much when they won't have the freedoms they thought they did, what with the genocide and lies and all.



This album is relevant to the Thread

reply to post by Krazysh0t


From my crazy perspective, you mention about dark and light in that, you can always create more light by adding more energy.
My question is, were is the boundary on how far you can go?

It's like travelling beyond the speed of light, yes, can't be done, but why not? And if you could, what would happen?
Would you still be travelling forward.... or would you travel in the reverse direction?

The point I'm trying to make is, we see and think of everything in a linear way, what if "everything" can not be described in a straight line? (eg from cold to hot) but rather, circular.
In which case, the Universe could be so incredibly bright, to the point it has become dark.

And that would most certainly describe a non dualistic Universe because there are no beginnings and no ends, only abstracts of the whole

Crazy?
Maybe

reply to post by arpgme


Yeah I sort of get what you say with this. I once had a friend who was a rocker & he would act very strange or do very unconventional or unsavory things. One day he told me about this thing he called "duality". I never fully understood what he meant with it but I do understand that at the heart of it what he was really trying to say was that he couldn't be fully trusted to be 100% there all the time. So, eventually I stopped hangin' out with the guy. He was a character, I'll tell you that.

Duality, there are many shades of grey.

Upon realizing Truth, you must also realize there is no Truth.