Non duality

[Haldeman]

There's something about this subject that puzzles me. I mean, is nonduality really free of any duality? Even my beloved N. Maharaj insistently says all kinds of dualities cease in the absolute, but then his so many descriptions about the absolute clearly indicate a "positive" nature. You know, "bliss", "peace", "happiness", etc.. I mean, even if these are experienced impersonally, or even if the experiencer and the experienced is identical rather than separate, these imply "positivity" rather than pure "neutrality". So, I don't think that the absolute nonduality is really free of the polarity/duality of positivity-negativity. It obviously implies more positivity than negativity to me. But I can very well be mistaken about it, and, if I really am, I hope to find the explanation.

Right!? I think that's particularly to be expected simply because our attempts to describe a larger reality from our vantage point in 3rd density will always be incomplete. Which isn't to say that the conversation is fruitless by any means. It just that that we will always be able to find holes in our philosophical and ontological descriptions no matter what, at this stage. We can only keep this in mind, and allow for the inherent incompleteness of our descriptions which try to put the Reality into delimited terms (while at the same time striving for language that is precise-enough and flexible-enough to accomplish the task of describing the Ultimate Reality from our veiled "location".

In short, an Absolute Reality can only express itself in any meaningful way (aka in a way that isn't simply redundant and meaningless, offering nothing to Itself through its Creative Expression) is through the appearance of Itself to Itself through limitation, through limited representation in time and space. Pure neutrality is precisely what YCYOR proponents would say (or unconsciously propose) is the case, yet a complete neutrality upon which a consciousness of meanings pastes whatever it wishes (based on personal caprice) is rife with the dilemma of apparently two absolute realities that can in no way reconcile (share no ultimate, common denominator), and that is the basis for wishful thinking ad infinitum, to whatever degree one wishes. Kind of an eternal Solipsism where there are somehow two absolute realities (Neutrality, and a Consciousness-of-meanings), where neither 'reality' is more real than the other, and so fails the definition of an Absolute. And furthermore, no real basis would exist for Truth.

And to your observation that there is an implied positivity to the basis of reality, we could just observe that Love is the affective value of Unity-- a value which precisely allows for all things, good and bad, black and white, and everything in between to (at least potentially) exist.

One source in particular that has helped me in my understanding of this conundrum is Michael Topper, whom Laura quotes in the Wave series and on the main Cassiopaean site, here and here.

In his work Magnum Organum, he has this to say on this subject:

It is not a simple matter of some spiritual palimpsest that you can wipe clean at will, changing the meaning and significance of the characters inscribed there. The feelings and intuited emanations we receive through experience have an innate validity very much prior to any beliefs or interpretive conceptual meanings we ascribe to them.

And again, this precisely because the whole of the manifest field with its variegated properties and differential charges is "neutral" only with respect to the totality-of-consciousness; their resolving equation is then expressly a psychic value giving the necessary-innate relationship between consciousness and its creative fields, as Love. Thus anything arising as conditional representation of that informing value within the manifest field is, in itself, implicitly modeled in relation to -- and by contrastive relief against -- the totally of whole-being consciousness.

In this way basic meanings emerge from the field of experience through gauge of the whole-being standard of consciousness, and cannot escape such primary-irreducible significance. Thus "evil" and "good" are not just arbitrary labels, interchangeable on whim of will. They refer to a true relationship of behavioral correspondences and preferential modeling with respect to a constant ground, that of the Whole-being standard of Consciousness through which the creative field as a whole is eternally resolved in Love.

Neutrality does exist in the fields of experience, but only expresses a global cancellation of possible preferential patterns through those fields as a whole, with direct reference to Consciousness as a whole. Neutrality only exists in relation to Consciousness. (I know different teachers may put consciousness in one box, and place Awareness "above it"...)

Because [Consciousness is imbued with] the power of non-restriction, it "gifts" consciousness with the value of all-puissance. It endows it with the genius of limitless possibility.

What, exactly, would the nature of such all-possibility be?

We could say it was the value of an absolute potential, given its non-restriction; but that would be redudant, wouldn't it-- it would hardly "gift" itself with everything it already spontaneously was! If in its own nature it was already absolute and limitless, unqualified and free, it would seem the prototype value of the whole of its all-potential would necessarily be that of limitation, of restriction and reductive qualification. Indeed this primordial "potential" of Absolute-being, unrestricted in its void-nature and therefore all-permissive in its consequent amplitude, takes character as the spontaneous allowance of all potential and actual occasions.
...
In the unqualified infinity of its absolute-nature we cannot discriminate initially between potential and actual occasions nor even between "discrimination" and "non-discrimination"; thus the "potential of consciousness is, uniquely, the equipotential allowance of all potential and actual occasions.

All such occasions, potential and actual, share a common term as springing from the all-permissive value of Absolute; the prototype of that all-permissiveness is the apparent self-negation or paradoxical internal denial centering around the (contrary) value of limitation-- thus all such potential and actual occasions give life to the principle of (apparent) limitation.

The apparency of this "limitation" is paramount; it cannot constitute a real degradation of "absolute" into relative terms, of limitlessness into bottomless restriction since any such collapse would undermine the very Term essential to limit's support [aka, all-permisiveness].

The term of "limit" is therefore a derivative expression, and depends for its continued support on the inherent value of Absolute (which eternally implies the maintenance-management of its own internal "contradiction"-- no less than the haunting refrain of "the relative"). At the same time, then "limit" may claim the right of its own inherent validity (like the child who insists the parents finance perpetual uncritical support of his capricious escapades, by virtue of the fact that they gave him such independent birth. While this argument may not work in most familial contexts, it certainly works where the Metaphysical family is concerned).

By noting this "financed independence" --or, dependent independence -- we necessarily note the generation of a kind of hierarchic model almost from the very beginning, In this way we've dodged the first ontological bullet, the idea of an innate dualism in which the principles of Absolute and of finitude engage in a perpetual warfare through the tension of incompatibles. In view of [this] description, it's possible to see that regardless all appearance anarchy never reigns in the cosmos (chaos and anarchy aren't the same, as we'll see) since there's no real dualism of terms but an umbilical connection and hierarchic relations between the One and the "other". The term of Limit depends on the Largesse of Absolute; but this is a "non-Abelian symmetry": the value of Absolute does not similarly depend on the term of "limit", though the latter is eternally implied through the former. They're not on an equal footing, since to allow "limit" a real parity of potential with limitlessness would break the parity immediately and infinitely degrade the unitive value of Absolute to a relativized dust.

 

[bozadi]

Thank you, Hadleman. I'm trying to understand your point(s).

Micheal Topper's verbiage is very heavy for me, especially because English is not my native language. And let alone the quotes you made from him, some of your own expressions also seem to parallel him. In fact, I notice some very similar wordings from M.T. as put in the Matrix IV material.

we could just observe that Love is the affective value of Unity

Love—the affective value of Unity.

Also,

Neutrality does exist in the fields of experience, but only expresses a global cancellation of possible preferential patterns through those fields as a whole, with direct reference to Consciousness as a whole.

As we've seen, the "neutrality" of those fields does not inhere in the fields themselves, but expresses the global cancellation of preferential pattern or psychic charge through the fields as-a-whole with direct reference to consciousness-as-a-whole.

Topper's language is difficult enough. I'd expect you to simplify it for me and possibly for others to make the discussion easier. But you seem to have preferred othewise, for some reason.

 

[truepositive]

Anselm's ontology covers all bases. Pun intended if so perceived. It just requires replacing the concept of a christian god, with consciousness as the source of everything.

Practically, we are not in the stage of the game where non-duality is functionally sustainable. Consciousness wants this drama and interaction we are witnessing, because we are it, and things need to stay in motion. As douglas adams said; 'what if, when the true purpose of the universe was figured out, it would instantly replace itself with something slightly weirder and more complicated?' -
The true answer instead of 42, a breath of brahma cyclical type thing coupled with purpose barely on a level we can even see through?

The 7th density is not some kind of stale 'trained souls at rest in heaven' ordeal - its probably not even the end of the spectrum of existence, neither the beginning.

Non-duality is temporary yet eternal, because reality is built on paradoxes, like limitless expressions of consciousness.

You wonder about the nature of evil? Nature requires both fuel and a catalyst to 'bloom'. What if there is a method to all development. Or god forbid, there actually is none? These could be the rules of our universe. Lower case god has no say in the long run though, it is a construct, not primordial consciousness.
So many ways to spin our neverending story, i digress.

 

[bozadi]

Anselm's ontology covers all bases. Pun intended if so perceived. It just requires replacing the concept of a christian god, with consciousness as the source of everything.

Practically, we are not in the stage of the game where non-duality is functionally sustainable. Consciousness wants this drama and interaction we are witnessing, because we are it, and things need to stay in motion. As douglas adams said; 'what if, when the true purpose of the universe was figured out, it would instantly replace itself with something slightly weirder and more complicated?' -
The true answer instead of 42, a breath of brahma cyclical type thing coupled with purpose barely on a level we can even see through?

The 7th density is not some kind of stale 'trained souls at rest in heaven' ordeal - its probably not even the end of the spectrum of existence, neither the beginning.

Non-duality is temporary yet eternal, because reality is built on paradoxes, like limitless expressions of consciousness.

You wonder about the nature of evil? Nature requires both fuel and a catalyst to 'bloom'. What if there is a method to all development. Or god forbid, there actually is none? These could be the rules of our universe. Lower case god has no say in the long run though, it is a construct, not primordial consciousness.
So many ways to spin our neverending story, i digress.

One of the best parts of the nondualist approach for me is that it essentially feels very practical, very concrete rather than theoretical and chaotic. It all boils down to "self-knowledge". What matters most is how we treat ourselves here and now. The most important work is to determine and eliminate our mistreatments or manipulations of ourselves. You know, the issue of "ego". The false self that causes self-harm due to wrong ideas or prejudices. Most, if not all, of the problems we perceive or suspect about the nature and functioning of the Universe/Life/God are essentially based on our perceived or suspected individual functional problems. So, unless we can't solve our egoic problems, the problems relating to the Universe will probably never be solved for us.

 

[Ricardo]

One of the best parts of the nondualist approach for me is that it essentially feels very practical, very concrete rather than theoretical and chaotic. It all boils down to "self-knowledge". What matters most is how we treat ourselves here and now. The most important work is to determine and eliminate our mistreatments or manipulations of ourselves. You know, the issue of "ego". The false self that causes self-harm due to wrong ideas or prejudices. Most, if not all, of the problems we perceive or suspect about the nature and functioning of the Universe/Life/God are essentially based on our perceived or suspected individual functional problems. So, unless we can't solve our egoic problems, the problems relating to the Universe will probably never be solved for us.

Fwiiw , "will probably never be solved for us " this would be a violation of free will.

 

[bozadi]

Fwiiw , "will probably never be solved for us " this would be a violation of free will.

I think you misunderstood it, Ricardo. What I meant to say was something like this: "The problems that we believe exist about the existence or functioning of the Universe/God/Life will remain unsolved 'in our mind', unless we solve the corresponding problems that we suffer due to our ego, or due to the problems/weaknesses in our self-awareness." So, when I said "solved for us", that was not in the sense of "solved by others for us", it was just in the sense of "according to us" or "from our perspective".

 

[bozadi]

This also means that the better our self-awareness functions, the better Life/God/Universe functions, for us.

i.e., "He who knows himself, knows God"

 

[Haldeman]

Topper's language is difficult enough. I'd expect you to simplify it for me and possibly for others to make the discussion easier. But you seem to have preferred othewise, for some reason.

I'll attempt to do so. The quotes are there because, FWIW, I think they're valuable for the sake of seeing the train-of-thought, the why's behind the major points he makes in regard to an Absolute reality (a reality that is "beyond" duality, but completely informs it). Neo-Advaita (popular non-duality) tends not to have much in the way of a philosophy in itself, since it borrows from the viewpoints of Advaita Vedanta. It focuses mainly on giving the reader or listener a glimpse of a non-dual experience through confounding their presumptions about their thoughts and feeling (and how they are identified with), their experiences in the world, their experience of "self" and "other", etc.

Anyways, here's my attempt at summary:

Absolute reality isn't exactly a giant blank slate, a "neutral" canvas that self-aware beings can paint whatever meanings they want upon it. It seems to have qualities, or values (like you noted earlier, @bozadi about N. Maharaj's statements about there being an Absolute, but also "so many descriptions about the absolute clearly indicate a "positive" nature. You know, "bliss", "peace", "happiness", etc.."

One of those values seems to be Love. In this non-dual, absolute sense, Love is all-permissivess, the quality of Absolute that allows for anything and everything to occur or come into being, even evil. This being the case, it's no wonder people report non-dual experiences as being filled with love, bliss, etc., since Love is there at the very root of us.

But the Absolute having qualities or values, such as Love, doesn't mean it is still wrapped-up in dualities. It's just one of the values of Absolute that allows for all dualities.

 

[Haldeman]

Anselm's ontology covers all bases. Pun intended if so perceived. It just requires replacing the concept of a christian god, with consciousness as the source of everything.

Practically, we are not in the stage of the game where non-duality is functionally sustainable. Consciousness wants this drama and interaction we are witnessing, because we are it, and things need to stay in motion. As douglas adams said; 'what if, when the true purpose of the universe was figured out, it would instantly replace itself with something slightly weirder and more complicated?' -
The true answer instead of 42, a breath of brahma cyclical type thing coupled with purpose barely on a level we can even see through?

The 7th density is not some kind of stale 'trained souls at rest in heaven' ordeal - its probably not even the end of the spectrum of existence, neither the beginning.

Non-duality is temporary yet eternal, because reality is built on paradoxes, like limitless expressions of consciousness.

You wonder about the nature of evil? Nature requires both fuel and a catalyst to 'bloom'. What if there is a method to all development. Or god forbid, there actually is none? These could be the rules of our universe. Lower case god has no say in the long run though, it is a construct, not primordial consciousness.
So many ways to spin our neverending story, i digress.

So many ways to spin it, indeed...

I think Consciousness is the best word we have for something that fits the bill of an Absolute, since it gets us away from having to explain our consciousness as some sort of epi-phenomenon, and makes of the whole "limitless expression" of our reality something that is inherently knowable, experienceable, and (potentially) valuable to the source of everything (and to us) at all levels of expression.

 

[Haldeman]

Micheal Topper's verbiage is very heavy for me, especially because English is not my native language. And let alone the quotes you made from him, some of your own expressions also seem to parallel him. In fact, I notice some very similar wordings from M.T.

His verbiage is often heavy for me too, and takes a while to digest. I’ve always found it worth the work though, but that’s coming from a native English speaker, so I’m sorry if what I offered was essentially not useful. And those couple of expressions you quoted were indeed close paraphrases since I had recently encountered them and had them in a journal of mine, but couldn’t find them in the original text right away. The fuzzy copy of it that I have makes using the search function on my computer unreliable sometimes, so apologies again for the lazy paraphrasing.

 

[Wandering Star]

I'll attempt to do so. The quotes are there because, FWIW, I think they're valuable for the sake of seeing the train-of-thought, the why's behind the major points he makes in regard to an Absolute reality (a reality that is "beyond" duality, but completely informs it). Neo-Advaita (popular non-duality) tends not to have much in the way of a philosophy in itself, since it borrows from the viewpoints of Advaita Vedanta. It focuses mainly on giving the reader or listener a glimpse of a non-dual experience through confounding their presumptions about their thoughts and feeling (and how they are identified with), their experiences in the world, their experience of "self" and "other", etc.

Anyways, here's my attempt at summary:

Absolute reality isn't exactly a giant blank slate, a "neutral" canvas that self-aware beings can paint whatever meanings they want upon it. It seems to have qualities, or values (like you noted earlier, @bozadi about N. Maharaj's statements about there being an Absolute, but also "so many descriptions about the absolute clearly indicate a "positive" nature. You know, "bliss", "peace", "happiness", etc.."

One of those values seems to be Love. In this non-dual, absolute sense, Love is all-permissivess, the quality of Absolute that allows for anything and everything to occur or come into being, even evil. This being the case, it's no wonder people report non-dual experiences as being filled with love, bliss, etc., since Love is there at the very root of us.

But the Absolute having qualities or values, such as Love, doesn't mean it is still wrapped-up in dualities. It's just one of the values of Absolute that allows for all dualities.

Q: (L) Well, I am just trying to get a grip on some ideas here...

A: Then change the thought pattern. Gravity is the "stuff" of all existence, therefore it has an unchanging property of quantity.

Q: (L) So, gravity is not being "used," per se?

A: Close.

Q: (L) You said that light was an energy expression of gravity. Then you said...

A: You can utilize gravity, but you cannot "use" it. You cannot increase or decrease that which is in perfectly balanced static state.

 

[bozadi]

Thank you for that, Hadleman. There are many aspects of nonduality which can really be difficult to discuss further due to the need for a high level of abstraction. But as I said in my answer to truepositive’s post, there are also those aspects which feel much more palpable, attemptable, observable, utilizable, etc. To me, this is mostly about the observation and solution of egoic self-harm. It’s not difficult to observe that deep and persistent negative thoughts & emotions are destructive (by “negative”, I especially mean the “way” we deal with thoughts rather than the nature of their content [i.e., dealing with them in a negative or self-harming way]). We can be consciously or unconsciously justifying and ignoring this self-damage.

I think that one of the main benefits of meditative ‘self-checking’ practices is that they potentially offer a good opportunity for observing and eliminating such destructive “justifications”.

You previously mentioned that your attempts at consciously increasing your positivity consistently resulted in a decisive influx of negativities. Does this effectively discourage you from further attempts at that? Or do you believe that you should find indirect ways of increasing your positivity? Are you still in a situation of indecision about this issue? What is your strongest motivation in terms of work on self or spirituality in general? What do you believe you should do? Or do you think you don't know what to do?

 

[Haldeman]

Thanks for the Wave reference, @Wandering Star. Given that quote from the C's about Gravity, I guess I could imagine gravity being the "primal material" of existence since it is seemingly all-pervasive, and affects all things (from what I know as a definite layman). But I wonder where Consciousness comes into the picture? Is gravity itself conscious, and so gravity as the basic "stuff" of existence gifts that consciousness to all things? Or does Consciousness somehow precede it, and so gravity like everything else is imbued with it? What do you think?

 

[Haldeman]

Thank you for that, Hadleman. There are many aspects of nonduality which can really be difficult to discuss further due to the need for a high level of abstraction. But as I said in my answer to truepositive’s post, there are also those aspects which feel much more palpable, attemptable, observable, utilizable, etc. To me, this is mostly about the observation and solution of egoic self-harm. It’s not difficult to observe that deep and persistent negative thoughts & emotions are destructive (by “negative”, I especially mean the “way” we deal with thoughts rather than the nature of their content [i.e., dealing with them in a negative or self-harming way]). We can be consciously or unconsciously justifying and ignoring this self-damage.

I think that one of the main benefits of meditative ‘self-checking’ practices is that they potentially offer a good opportunity for observing and eliminating such destructive “justifications”.

Yeah, I would agree with your statement about meditative 'self-checking'. Non-duality teachings all have a self-inquiry component as far as I can tell, although not all of them offer self-inquiry as a way to do work upon our individual selves. In those cases it seems much more like a practice of ignoring ourselves for the sake of having a spiritual experience. The personal self is made to seem like a nuisance that isn't that important, that it should just be ignored and "gotten beyond". But I think we agree that taking that road will only lead to increased self-harm.

You previously mentioned that your attempts at consciously increasing your positivity consistently resulted in a decisive influx of negativities. Does this effectively discourage you from further attempts at that? Or do you believe that you should find indirect ways of increasing your positivity? Are you still in a situation of indecision about this issue? What is your strongest motivation in terms of work on self or spirituality in general? What do you believe you should do? Or do you think you don't know what to do?

Yeah, the rebounding negativity has puzzled me for a time (and was very uncomfortable). It didn't discourage me from further attempts of increasing positivity altogether, but it has found me asking new questions (like in this thread) before moving forward in the practice of 'self-checking' further, since I have been kind of caught-up in a cycle of familiar, repeating negative thoughts or feelings despite consistent work towards the positive. Swimming in circles...

I found myself in the habit of thinking (wrongly it seems) that just relaxing into my positivity, basking in it for a time via inquiry so to speak, would slowly do some kind of dissolving of the negative side on its own (my own misunderstanding and 'wishful thinking'...) I think the 'basking' has helped loosen things up or dissolve them to some extent, but given my "swimming in circles" experience I knew I was missing something. So to your question "what do you believe you should do?", I believe I should continue work towards the positive, but now with more focus on doing work with the negative things that pop up, instead expecting them to disappear eventually on their own through just repeated relaxing-into my more essential, positive self.

What is your strongest motivation in terms of work on self or spirituality in general?

If I'm understanding your question, my strongest motivation is to continue to do less and less harm to myself and others, and to come to better understanding of "god" and "the way god made things". Learning about life, reality, creation and its makeup is fun and has something that feels like deeply-meaningful adventure to me (at least when I'm not suffering from my own wishful-thinking lol)

 

[Wandering Star]

Thanks for the Wave reference, @Wandering Star. Given that quote from the C's about Gravity, I guess I could imagine gravity being the "primal material" of existence since it is seemingly all-pervasive, and affects all things (from what I know as a definite layman). But I wonder where Consciousness comes into the picture? Is gravity itself conscious, and so gravity as the basic "stuff" of existence gifts that consciousness to all things? Or does Consciousness somehow precede it, and so gravity like everything else is imbued with it? What do you think?

It's better if the C's explain it :

May 27, 1995

A: What is the missing link between matter and consciousness?

Q: (RS) Ah! (L) If we knew these things we wouldn't be here! [Laughter] (RS) It is supposed to be a field. (J) Is it EM? (RS) No, a bioenergetic field. (L) What if consciousness creates gravity? (RS) Gravity is created by matter. (L) But isn't matter created by consciousness? Don't we collapse the wave by observing it? (RS) Yes, the mind can create matter...

A: There are no "gravitons."

Q: (RS) Not to my knowledge. They do not exist. They are in Einstein's theory, but I will never believe it... Does our consciousness create gravity?

A: Getting "warmer." Not "our."

Q: (L) Somebody else's consciousness creates gravity? (RS) Fourth level.

A: Level Seven.