Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'duality'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Courtyard
    • Welcome
    • Daoist Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • The Rabbit Hole
    • Forum and Tech Support
  • The Tent

Found 7 results

  1. Agamas "This is the Direct Awareness of the Self, Graciously expounded to Guha by Ishvara Himself [Shiva], The foremost and first Lord, Seated as the Self in my heart." ~Ramana Maharshi --------------------------------- Witnessing of the Atman "Atma Sakshatkara means, "witnessing of the Atman", or Self-realization, and is the name of the chapter within the jnana pada(knowledge section) of the Sarvajnanottara Agama, an obscure Upagama(subsidiary Agama) text. The sublime non-dual teaching of this text is in the form of a dialogue between Shiva and Guha(Kartikeya Murugan) where Lord Shiva is the Supreme Guru and Guha is the Disciple. The text was discovered by Sri Ramana Maharshi, who translated the chapter titled Atma Sakshatkara into Tamil sometime in the early 20th century, and also composed the introductory benediction verse. The English translation of that chapter is translated by Dr. H. Ramamurthy."
  2. I've been reading arguments about what comprises a "sage" in the non-dualism perspective. The two options (perhaps there are a few more) are as follows - A sage is one who is free from the bondage of samsara, because they have realized their innate nature, and know without any iota of doubt that this innate nature is non-dual. All concepts and perceptions are merely projections of itself (Objectless Consciousness) on itself, and are ultimately devoid of "realness". Knowing this, the sage doesn't attach to any position (conceptions) and remains an atemporal and non-spatial presence, free from suffering (attachment to pleasures or rejection of pains). A sage is one who is free from the bondage of Samsara, but "vows" to turn their back from the above realization, and work towards the liberation of all other beings, using their now realized freedom to harness infinite power in this universe, and effect changes as needed - become a "ruler" sage. My contention is as follows - Once the Sage realizes that they are absolutely and unequivocally Non-Dual, there is no scope for the will of an independent infinite being that does actions to affect the limited beings (who are not yet realized). Any action that they do as an individual being (however unlimited their power might be) is going to be in the domain of dualism and therefore limited (because the domain of dualism is limited). Such an individual might be what is called "Ishvara" (God) or an Avatar etc etc, but they too are limited in nature (as its the limitation of the upadhi - limiting adjunct - the body, etc). They might be able to bend the "normal" rules (of space and time), but ultimately if they choose to remain bound in space and time (by opting to "bend" the rules), they remain dualistic. On the other hand, if a body-mind complex (Jiva) who is liberated (Jivanamukta) does not act of a limited volition, but all action becomes just happenings in the dualistic world (happenstance), then that qualifies as non-action (wu wei, nishkama karma) and therefore outside the bounds of karma and the mechanism of duality (maya). Happy to read more thoughts on this topic...I hope I wasn't clear as mud
  3. Absolutes

    I'm curious what examples of absolutes others harbor as I find the concept to be inapplicable to all but a few very abstract concepts related to experiences which are really beyond words. It's usually a red flag and thus unsettling for me whenever a conversation enters into notions about complete, absolute, unchanging, never ending, undiminishing, etc, anything. Specifically I find the seemingly inherent notion within the common definition of absolute of any thing completely independent of all other things to be impossible. As to unchanging, or undiminishing... perhaps a few conditions I have experienced seem to fit the notion as I list below, but only from my current perceptual model, which is far from absolute and thus, for me, is not really considered definitive... it all seems very subjective and relative. Anyway, here's what the all mighty dictionary says Absolute: as an adjective: 1: not qualified or diminished in any way; total. "absolute secrecy" 2: viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative. "absolute moral standards" as a noun: 1: a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things. "good and evil are presented as absolutes" The notions of second definition of the adjective version and the noun definition of absolute moral standards and good and evil being absolute are ridiculous in the extreme for me. Utterly human mind notions that are fluid in nature based on cultural, familial and individual filters and as malleable as the context in which they are used to serve the needs of the one speaking in the current moment. Without any hardcore certainty, I consider my experiences of the concepts of Void... Emptiness... Clarity... and Awareness as potential examples for absolutes. These seemed to embody for me, as I recall them, to be experientially beyond the potential for diminishing and thus seemed to be unchanging which would satisfy one of the inherent conditions of the definitions above for an absolute. This however is based on my recall and memory of the experience and so pulls in all of my perceptual filters based on my reality tunnel and thus adds a rather high degree of malleability. I really can't fathom how they are in any provable way, independent from each other, or the rest of experiential perception based 'reality', nor can I conceive of a manner in which anyone could establish that they are, in fact, independent. So what is an absolute?
  4. Yin and Yang separate 'things'

    Do you experience that Yin and Yang are separate 'things'? Any more, I see them not as separate, or opposing things, but as the expression of Tao, interpreted as varying degrees of polar extremes and appearing separate based on a perspective, which is shaped by human senses and cognitive filters of family, culture, etc. For some time now, I have not been able to reconcile any 'things' that are separate. The ten thousand things... are they separate? For me, where I am now, it seems not. They are more like facets to the gem of the expression of tao source and each facet may have the strong illusion to my senses of being separate, based on how I may perceive it in a given moment, yet remain unerringly part of source, never separated from it, nor independent of it. And for the record, I have no intentions of deleting or modifying anyone's statements in conversations I initiate, ever. If something breaks the rules of the forum, I'll let the mods handle that. Speak your mind freely in any thread where I am the OP, please... how else do we get to the solid potential truths if we don't wade through some muck?
  5. As tongue in cheek as this may appear... I honestly think this is a great layout of a valid modern perspective of the straw dog aspect of the Tao.
  6. duality lol

    Stanhope's reaction to how an atheist responded to Wolf Blitzer in an interview about her destroyed home is awesome, as is his take on why responded the way he did.... funny how hate can make you do some really nice things... lmao
  7. The Game...

    The game of being has a 'time-out' box where beings enter not to be... the dreamless dream. Not-being involves accepting 'what is not' as being and holding "what is" as not being. 'Dualistic' notions of not-being reflect being within the dream. At all time Beings being none-beings remain within the not-being being unaware of being until the moment that what is impossible becomes possible and the impassable passage be passed. At any time a being can choose to wake up from the dreamless dream though thats impossible for a none-being to accomplish, for those who think they can't do it will not do it even if they could do it. For those who know, I have little to add for those who do NOT know I will say: - the man who refuses to see, and wishes not to see, sees without seeing where as the blind man, sees without seeing Some see 'seeing without seeing' as the key to see and to not see some know the elephant as the elephant! - "A ray of light suffices to enlighten and disintegrate darkness". Lies just disintegrate in the presence of the truth... and those who know and recognize the truth can experience all the possibilities and realities with a single thought (feeling understanding act) though they do not have to experience it all to know it all. I would like each and everyone to know the truth and be enlighten... and keep on watering the plants and chopping wood... What would you like be? Can a finite temporary experience include it all while also transcending the finite temporary experience? The enlightened know from experience the singular valid answer... believers know the stories told until they experience a singular transcendental enlightenment instant ... of course there are all sort of storytellers with all sort of captivating lines and all sort of motives... which do you seek to cultivate and contemplate.