Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Thomas, Aug 10, 2017.
non-duality describes the way things realy are,duality doesnt exist.non-duality doesnt exist either
One-ness is the state of "Consciousness".
Consciousness is one. But awareness is varies creature to creature.
One-ness and duality exist simultaneously.
Duality is a yin-yang state. Together they exist.
We are part and parcels of the whole.
The original Supreme Personality of Godhead is one person.
The creation is multifaceted.
The original Supreme Personality of Godhead is He who is infinitely full in all opulences ("Bhagavan"), specifically:
God is the original person who possesses all Beauty, Fame, Intelligence, Power, Wealth, and Renunciation, the first person, with his own eternal and transcendental name, fame, form, personality, paraphernalia, entourage and pastime, whose body is the absolute form of 'Sat-Chit-Ananda'—Eternity. Cognizance, and Bliss.
We souls are individual sparks of the whole.
Over seen by a gargantuan Whale of supra-macro consciousness ---in a 'Persona'.
A busy roadway with many passing cars . . . and a wayward stray dog apparently seeking to cross the roadway . . . so many Baubles of Conscious muse'rs wizzing-by, as a dog contemplates too.
words create duality consciousness and awareness are the same thing,"one-ness and duality exist simultaneously"thats false, there is only oneness,the seperate self(ego)creates the illusion that there is duality.
non-duality doesnt exist,there's just life happening.
Upon what authority are you speaking?
You have your opinion. I have my opinion. We are differing. We are united in reading these printed words.
A book may have been printed a million times ---they all same the same thing.
A song plays on the radio. It echos in a million ears.
It is known as:
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference.
In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable', bheda translates as 'difference', and abheda translates as 'non-difference'.
In Hindu philosophy tattva is a Sanskrit word meaning 'thatness', 'principle', 'essence', 'reality' or 'truth'. Likewise, acintya can mean 'the inconceivable', 'the unthinkable', or 'he who cannot be imagined', bheda translates as 'difference', and abheda translates as 'one-ness'.
Achintya-bhedabheda-tattva refers to the inconceivable oneness and difference of the Supreme Person, Bhagavan and His energies.
This is one of the key points of theistic philosophy
all there is,is the inconceivable oneness,everything else is a story.
can you conceive the inconceivable oneness?
I am a devotee of Bhagavan, Shree Krishna.
If you'd like I can show the face of Bhagavan the speaker of the gita.
.everything is one there isnt a you seperate from the oneness.you only think your seperate.
I think Bhaktajan is asking for you to elaborate. That is, what are you basing your assertions in #21 and #25 on? Doctrine? Something you've studied? Personal experience? Something else? Is there a specific example or perhaps an analogy you could share to help the reader better understand and to support what you are saying?
There is a shift from a self identity (duality)to a non-duality.LOOK at experience who is thinking,hearing,tasteing,touching,smelling,no one is doing anything,thought says"I AM" i am thinking,hearing ect,thoughts cant hear ,smell,.
Ok. Any thoughts on recent comments made on a similar thread? Namely #'s 3, 5 and 6 found here. https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/18526/
1. We are not the mundane vessel of the body.
2. we are a tiny spark of consciousness.
3. the spark is animates the body.
4. the body is made of 8 elements:
a. mind [manas]
b. intelligence [buddhi]
c. ego(mundane) [ahankara]
d. ether, , air, fire, water, Earth.
Reality never goes away.
We sparks acquire one mundane vessel of the body after the other [samsara] ... each time, "eating, sleeping, mating and defending". These 4 categories are acted-out because the spark never extinguishes.
Ergo, the ultimate personage must be sought out as the goal of Moksha.
What are these based in?
Good questions ... but in a wider context —
According to New Scientist (8 November issue):
Wil, are the questions for me? [pardon my conceit]
If for me, lets ask one at a time...and...pls be more specific as to which item is questioned.
I numbered them as you did
Separate names with a comma.