What do you all mean by "duality," then? The term literally means "two," as in two somethings. If this is denied, then the denier is nuts, imo.

Christianity is, in this sense, dualistic, and unapologetically so. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1). There is God, and what God created. Two. Connected by God's creative act, for sure, but still two.

Praise the Lord for two! It makes true relationship possible. I am very glad to be a creature and not God. Waaay too much responsibility!

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
What do you all mean by "duality," then? The term literally means "two," as in two somethings. If this is denied, then the denier is nuts, imo.

Christianity is, in this sense, dualistic, and unapologetically so. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1). There is God, and what God created. Two. Connected by God's creative act, for sure, but still two.

Praise the Lord for two! It makes true relationship possible. I am very glad to be a creature and not God. Waaay too much responsibility!

I understand it as a perception of separateness. So there are places where I think God acts or is, and places where I think he doesn't act or isn't. Depending on my level of spiritual development, that may be a perception that some things are infused with divine presence (the sacrament, a church, a pretty sunset, a lucky moment) and others are not (dog shit, illness, an argument, my boring job, my own person). The deeper ones development, the less is excluded.

One may at a point experientially recognize that God is present in all things, acting everywhere, even within me, so that one feels Christ within, as some might describe it. There is a sense of connection to others, to the world, all of Creation recognized as equally sacred and eternally manifesting from God's infinite presence. Then the sense of separateness weakens quite a bit, feels shattered, even if at times one feels as if one falls in and out of that experience.

And can happen that one finds even that deepening, so that every action, thought, word, deed seems to arise only from God; everything offered to Him is already His; everything done for Him is already done by Him; ones sense of having any will or independence whatsoever being burned away further and further, until there is simply no distinction. There is simply whatever is arising, with no sense of being someone who experiences it, with no sense of it coming from somewhere or someone else, with no sense of relationship, because to relate to means there are separate things, one relating to the other. There is nothing to want, because that implies there is something absent, something other, that is not included.

I don't experience it at all as "being God". And I simply go about my normal practices and prayers (though for a time they were quite difficult, as they no longer made any intellectual sense), but there is no relationship to anything. It doesn't seem to have any effect on having a completely ordinary life and in fact being ever more engaged with charitable work, caring for others, writing and working my regular jobs, etc. It's as if one can finally be truly, utterly, present, so to speak. There's just whatever is happening, however it happens to be. It doesn't happen to or for or by anyone, neither "me" nor "God." There just "is".

Quite hard to explain, and I haven't found a lot of Christian material with which to articulate it (although Madame Guyon and Meister Eckhart have been somewhat helpful), so I just ignore the weirdness and carry on. It feels like it doesn't really matter (whether it can be explained, whether it makes sense, whether it fits with being Catholic or not. It just seems sort of irrelevant.)

I know several other people who have similar perspectives, some Christian, some not. What further changes may take place I have no idea. I wasn't planning on this one and it's not my business.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Ona:
The unity/duality descriptions, Phil, make no sense to me. Unless one is describing the types of experiences one can have, where sometimes one feels a profound sense of union or oneness for a short time (in meditation, or during a period of mystical experience), and then it passes and one isn't having that experience and it feels inaccessible or lost, even if it continues to be intellectually known. But that's a phase of practice, not Reality.

Derek replied:

Exactly. There's absolutely no need to turn phenomenological experiences into metaphysical philosophies. Certain practices produce unitive experiences; others produce impermanence/emptiness experiences. Neither allows us to conclude anything about "ultimate reality."

Surely the phenomenological experience is of a metaphysical reality though, whether dual or non dual. What is it, otherwise, an experience of? Things may be just as they are, but what are they? Seems a legitimate enquiry to me. In one hand emptiness, in another fullness; in one hand this, in another that. So this is that, but also this. Both, either, neither.

quote:

Originally posted by samson:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Ona:
The unity/duality descriptions, Phil, make no sense to me. Unless one is describing the types of experiences one can have, where sometimes one feels a profound sense of union or oneness for a short time (in meditation, or during a period of mystical experience), and then it passes and one isn't having that experience and it feels inaccessible or lost, even if it continues to be intellectually known. But that's a phase of practice, not Reality.

Derek replied:

Exactly. There's absolutely no need to turn phenomenological experiences into metaphysical philosophies. Certain practices produce unitive experiences; others produce impermanence/emptiness experiences. Neither allows us to conclude anything about "ultimate reality."

Surely the phenomenological experience is of a metaphysical reality though, whether dual or non dual. What is it, otherwise, an experience of? Things may be just as they are, but what are they? Seems a legitimate enquiry to me. In one hand emptiness, in another fullness; in one hand this, in another that. So this is that, but also this. Both, either, neither.

I'm less and less certain that philosophies and explanations are of much use. In that if one has questions, then those point to what needs to be investigated in practice, not via reading or intellectual study. And when practice resolves the questions, it (in my experience, and this applies from the beginning stages of practice to more experienced stages of practice) does so by making them irrelevant. For instance, a common beginner question is "how do I know that this method of meditation works?" - the answer comes not from explanations, but from meditating. After a while it is experienced that it is leading to insight. Then the question is no longer relevant. See what I mean?

quote:

Originally posted by samson:
Surely the phenomenological experience is of a metaphysical reality though, whether dual or non dual. What is it, otherwise, an experience of?

That depends on your ontology. Do the objects that appear to our senses have any existence outside of the mind? If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it make a sound? Are illusions really there, or are they just illusions? All this stuff is good exercise for the brain (*), if nothing else!

(*) Assuming the brain exists, of course.

Yes, fun and games .

It's possible that some questions demand a metaphysical framework to answer them, however. Like, why do we suffer?

I find "why?" a legitimate question. I want to alleviate my suffering. I also want to understand it. By allowing it to arise without resistance or anxiety about where it's going or where it's come from, I'm better able to suffer it, and then diminish it. That's fine. But if I want to understand suffering in the context of a life, which might somehow be a fruit of compassion, I don't think merely suffering it gives any insight. Something more conceptual needs to be applied. Of course, if letting it arise leads me to think that suffering is an illusion in the first place, then maybe I won't suffer. But then what has just arisen?

Other questions spring to mind, like "where do we come from", "what happens when we die?" These questions are perhaps best answered philosophically, which in turn affects how we live our lives, the choices we make - even improves our lives every bit as much as just experiencing what is.

quote:

That depends on your ontology. Do the objects that appear to our senses have any existence outside of the mind? If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it make a sound? Are illusions really there, or are they just illusions? Wink All this stuff is good exercise for the brain (*), if nothing else!

The brain's all we've got, here, but it co-evolved with the reality we strive to comprehend, so it's operations are basically trustworthy (unless distorted by drugs and, I would add, certain meditative techniques).

So here now: all these mammoth and sabre tooth tiger skeletons in the La Brea Tar Pits. Did they really have an existence independently of our perceptions?

Of course! "Objective reality" exists and we can come to know it. Very un-post-modern of me, I know, but nevertheless . . .

quote:

Other questions spring to mind, like "where do we come from", "what happens when we die?" These questions are perhaps best answered philosophically, which in turn affects how we live our lives, the choices we make - even improves our lives every bit as much as just experiencing what is.

Don't forget your religious tradition, here, Stephen, which has more to offer in response to these questions than any philosophy does.

Amen to your point about decisions. A decision is far more of an investment of who we are than awareness/experience.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

quote:

'm less and less certain that philosophies and explanations are of much use. In that if one has questions, then those point to what needs to be investigated in practice, not via reading or intellectual study.

Ona, there are many questions that practice cannot resolve. "Why is the sky blue?" for example. Or even: "what does Scripture teach about salvation?"

Maybe you're referring to questions that pertain to personal issues? Practice could surely help with those. But even there, philosophy and theology represent something of a wider wisdom perspective that it's good to bump into, at least.

quote:

What do you all mean by "duality," then? The term literally means "two," as in two somethings. If this is denied, then the denier is nuts, imo.

I am just reading the biography of Ramakrishna, one of the greatest Hindu saints. In that book it is explained that non-duality within the Hindu framework means the identity of brahman (God) and atman (our divine Self).

Duality means to deny this identity.

The part of your mind that observes and tells the story is part of whatever nature you are experiencing: selfish nature or divine nature.

Within your divine nature you completely understand the interconnectedness of all beings. You do not deny their separateness but you also understand their unitive aspect.

Also, Phil, you asked what is the point of enlightenment and my answer is that it enables you to help others more. What do you make of that?

quote:

Don't forget your religious tradition, here, Stephen, which has more to offer in response to these questions than any philosophy does.

Yes, and whether we're relying on philosophy, theology, or revelation, personal or traditional, experience always emerges from a metaphysical background, points to a metaphysical container. You can't disconnect the two if life is to have meaning. The nature of reality and the experience of reality are two sides of the same coin. Just like distinctiveness and oneness.

Amen, Stephen. And also to your point above about the formative power of decisions, which call for more investment of who we are than experience.

Tara, anything that helps us to help others more is good, but this is not the only good to be considered. E.g., if I were rich, I could help others more with my money, and that would be good for me, too, depending on how involved I was with the "business" of getting and staying rich. But I wouldn't have to be enlightened to be rich, nor even to pledge my life to humanitarian service.

Other very important considerations re. spirituality and spiritual experience:
- does it support authentic individuation, including psychological and bodily wellness?
- does it promote social justice?
- does it foster healthy relationships?
- is it open to affirming truth and goodness in other disciplines?

Some of the enlightenment spiritualities I've come across do encourage all these, though most are weak when it comes to encouraging individuation.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
What do you all mean by "duality," then? The term literally means "two," as in two somethings. If this is denied, then the denier is nuts, imo.

Christianity is, in this sense, dualistic, and unapologetically so. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1). There is God, and what God created. Two. Connected by God's creative act, for sure, but still two.

Praise the Lord for two! It makes true relationship possible. I am very glad to be a creature and not God. Waaay too much responsibility!

Interestingly enough, the LXX begins with 1
Still, if you look at that way, that God goes out on a creative adventure and creates two, then it makes sense to also see that those who are living in two have to go to one if they want to go back to God.

This concept can also be discovered in Anthropos. It's not male, not female, it's both united (not yet or again, depending on your point of view).

Bliss, of course the experience of heaven is more satisfying and fulfilling than writing or reading theology. Until one is so satiated in love and wisdom, however, consulting with a theological tradition is a really good idea.
- see http://www.catholic.com/quickq...ction-of-what-he-wro

aion . . . then it makes sense to also see that those who are living in two have to go to one if they want to go back to God. A creation has to "go to one" to go back to God? Whatever that means. . .

Perhaps the following may help to understand the Tibetan Buddhist perspective of reality and duality:

Whatever appears to the mind - memories, thoughts, and so on - be they positive or negative, are not grounded or rooted in any reality. From the ultimate vantage point, the perspective of a buddha's primordial wisdom, they are not seen as having any substance, any reality - not even one atom of reality.
Coming back to the theme that your own mind is the root of samsara and nirvana, ask yourself: Are you good? Of course, you are. Are you bad? Yes. In both cases, you are still the same person. When you recognize the nature of your own mind and become a buddha, is that still you? Yes. Are you the person who is wandering around in samsara? The answer, again, is yes. It is you. It is this one phenomenon, your own mind, that is the root of the whole of samsara and nirvana, but your experience of it differs according to whether or not you've realized your own nature.

From: Naked Awareness, p. 126
Karma Chagme, Gyatrul Rinpoche


A very introductory book is The Seven-Point Mind Training (Alan Wallace)

aion, but of course it is "you" that is the person who experiences both good and bad.

That's it? A child knows this.

Whatever appears to the mind - memories, thoughts, and so on - be they positive or negative, are not grounded or rooted in any reality. From the ultimate vantage point, the perspective of a buddha's primordial wisdom, they are not seen as having any substance, any reality - not even one atom of reality.

There I differ. Memories, for one, are grounded in reality -- experiential reality, that is. Thoughts can also ultimately be traced to an experience of some kind. These are contents of consciousness, some of which are more connected with fact than others. It would certainly be a mistake to identify one-self with any contents of consciousness, for self cannot, in the end, be inferior to consciousness itself. Still, the contents of consciousness are real -- the "stuff" the mind has to work with. It's mental and psychological information.