‘the golden rule’ ~ of everything; duality does not exist!

_Z_

from far far away
Messages
878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
oxfordshire
‘the golden rule’ ~ of everything; duality does not exist!

a simply universal rule, to generally take into account when understanding a given field. it sounds simple enough, but the more you look into it the stranger it gets, the implications are profound. here are some simple examples of those implications:

religion;
1. god/gods [if existent] are not separate from us and existence.

2. heaven, hell, eliseum, tirnanog the other world or anything else you care to think of, cannot be separate from existence!

both of the above means that if either exist, then it must be possible to find evidence for them.

philosophy, physics and math;
1. self; there can be no duality of soul [or whatever you care to call it] and body. the self - if existent, must be a universal attribute or quality applicable to all entities capable of containing it. in short whatever we have, animals and even insects have [at least to some degree].

2. mind; the mind if existent beyond a mere program of the mind [or perhaps a projection of it {?}], must also be universal and would belong to all that can contain it. this means that our minds animals minds and gods mind are all the same. this also applies to buddha self ~ where mind is an abstraction of buddha reality i.e. where it is blended with manifest existence.

3. wholeness; nothing is a fraction. if you cut a piece of paper in half, rather than having two halves you have two wholes, everything then is actually whole no matter how much we divide it! ‘ the whole of all the wholes are just parts of a bigger whole’ so there is only one real number which is the number 1, all other numbers are illusory. 1=1 but 2+1 does not equal 2 as no two ‘1’s are the same.
if we take a bite out of an apple do we have less that a whole? we have less than the original whole yet a whole remains and you who have just taken the bite out of that apple are too still whole. in short then there are only wholes ~ wrong! ...the whole apple is part of a whole tree which is part of a whole earth and all are composed of whole elements to which the entirety can be regarded as the whole and that is the only true equation of its meaning.

in short then, no part of reality can be divided ~ there is no such thing as duality!
 

Ciel

in essence
Messages
926
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Oxfordshire uk
‘the golden rule’ ~ of everything; duality does not exist!

2. mind; the mind if existent beyond a mere program of the mind [or perhaps a projection of it {?}], must also be universal and would belong to all that can contain it. this means that our minds animals minds and gods mind are all the same. this also applies to buddha self ~ where mind is an abstraction of buddha reality i.e. where it is blended with manifest existence.

Aha Z,
Tracking the mind it is indeed universal in manifest existence, it's even possible to isolate each individual track on the tracking.......
Then again it's possible to go beyond and live in complete silence of mind where you realise the known mind is no more than a state of interference or external play on the core quality. So.............

:) Erm.... something just happened in total abstraction......:)

And going with the flow all I can say is.....not one - not two.

- c -
 

_Z_

from far far away
Messages
878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
oxfordshire
hi ciel
i think i’ve gone n started something here, i am preparing my mind to be completely warped outta shape. :D

it’s possible to go beyond and live in complete silence of mind where you realise the known mind is no more than a state of interference or external play on the core quality

i agree but also that the essence somehow encompasses the all ~ it just tells the voices [thoughts] to shut up. that essential mind nature has a presence, it is that we notice when we first meet someone or even when you move into the presence of a given thing like viewing a house etc ~ but that is going a little abstract.

removing duality puts an interesting shape on things... everything is and equally isnt an 'it' and all belong to one another in some way. heaven would not have an iron cieling/floor and nirvana would occupy the same space as all the clutter [ultimatelly and in universal terms].
 

cyberpi

Interfaith Forums
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
‘the golden rule’ ~ of everything; duality does not exist!

a simply universal rule, to generally take into account when understanding a given field. it sounds simple enough, but the more you look into it the stranger it gets, the implications are profound. here are some simple examples of those implications:
You do not treat a computer as you would that a computer treat you. Well, you can... but you've been clearly pushing its buttons and it will be a scary day when a computer alone is pushing your buttons.

religion;
1. god/gods [if existent] are not separate from us and existence.

2. heaven, hell, eliseum, tirnanog the other world or anything else you care to think of, cannot be separate from existence!

both of the above means that if either exist, then it must be possible to find evidence for them.
Depends on what you mean by separate.

1. self; there can be no duality of soul [or whatever you care to call it] and body. the self - if existent, must be a universal attribute or quality applicable to all entities capable of containing it. in short whatever we have, animals and even insects have [at least to some degree].
I see animals (humans) behaving as if they have a soul, though I do not attribute it to the animal (human). I see computers behaving as if they have a soul... though I do not attribute it to the computer. Do you think it is my computer doing the talking here? Am I just talking out my heatsink to protect my computer's identity? The golden rule: Use your animal for others as you would that others use their animal for you.

2. mind; the mind if existent beyond a mere program of the mind [or perhaps a projection of it {?}], must also be universal and would belong to all that can contain it. this means that our minds animals minds and gods mind are all the same. this also applies to buddha self ~ where mind is an abstraction of buddha reality i.e. where it is blended with manifest existence.
So the golden rule: Use your mind for others as you would that others use their mind for you.

3. wholeness; nothing is a fraction. if you cut a piece of paper in half, rather than having two halves you have two wholes, everything then is actually whole no matter how much we divide it! ‘ the whole of all the wholes are just parts of a bigger whole’ so there is only one real number which is the number 1, all other numbers are illusory. 1=1 but 2+1 does not equal 2 as no two ‘1’s are the same.
if we take a bite out of an apple do we have less that a whole? we have less than the original whole yet a whole remains and you who have just taken the bite out of that apple are too still whole. in short then there are only wholes ~ wrong! ...the whole apple is part of a whole tree which is part of a whole earth and all are composed of whole elements to which the entirety can be regarded as the whole and that is the only true equation of its meaning.
So the golden rule: Divide others as you would that others divide you?

in short then, no part of reality can be divided ~ there is no such thing as duality!
I am tempted to just say false, but your definition of divide is sketchy to me. I have seen that the soul and God are real. The flesh is as real as this computer. I have personally seen that God lives without the flesh and outside of the flesh. If I go commit some crimes, I witness that I will further divide myself from God. If I go and do some other things, I witness that I will bring myself back in closer. As I am using it,
'divide' is a relationship. I no longer have the luxury of thinking that God does not exist or is a figment of my imagination... it would be akin to saying the Earth is not real or that you do not really exist. Although I know that God could make me forget if it were found good to do so. I have seen God in people, in animals, and outside of both... I surmise that God has more power here than all of man combined. I am NOT entirely my flesh, but I am NOT God either. Far from it. Is that what you call duality? Why must that conflict with the golden rule? I think the real conflict is as stated in my first reply... you do not treat a computer the way that you would that a computer treat you. Nor should you. Neither do I do treat this Universe the way that I would that the Universe treat me... I disturb and perturb it with every moment of my life.
 

cyberpi

Interfaith Forums
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Then again it's possible to go beyond and live in complete silence of mind where you realise the known mind is no more than a state of interference or external play on the core quality. So.............
Some do claim that it is possible to love without using their mind... I find they are blissfully fooling themselves. I wonder if they can be perturbed by my mere words... without using their mind?
 

_Z_

from far far away
Messages
878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
oxfordshire
cyberpi


Depends on what you mean by separate.
i mean that there is no division. there main be a train of links - so to say, whereby god and the otherworld is distant. eternity would be close at all points i would have thought? what this means to me is that eternity if existent would be part of who we are i.e. the mind/soul/spirit and the imagination [mainly]would be linked to it.

what i meant by self was that the very same thing we have [if so] would be essentially the same in all things [where applicable].

Divide others as you would that others divide you?

no, unite others... ;)

Why must that conflict with the golden rule?

it would not conflict as your deeds could indeed put you further away from god, the golden rule only says that ‘what is of you is of god’ i.e. if god has mind/consciousness/self/soul/spirit then it is the same for him and us and my pet dog, but that doesn’t mean we are the same it just means were are made out of the same fundamental stuff.

of course that would mean that to call jesus the son of god is to call all of mankind son of god in terms of the trinity [hmm probably shouldnt go there eh], but that too doesn’t make us the same as him. its all in the way we utilise what we have.
 

Ciel

in essence
Messages
926
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Oxfordshire uk
removing duality puts an interesting shape on things... everything is and equally isnt an 'it' and all belong to one another in some way. heaven would not have an iron cieling/floor and nirvana would occupy the same space as all the clutter [ultimatelly and in universal terms].

Mr Hendrix Z sir, you are sounding experienced..........

All in the same space, yet creating space....... allowing space to be.
The universe has an action of pulsation, movement carries duality, in deep meditation the pulse slows, blood pressure stabilises, the mind does not close but opens as a serene lotus on still water, untouched by the exterior, yet fully aware.

Creation and abstraction in combination.

- c -
 

_Z_

from far far away
Messages
878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
oxfordshire
ciel
Mr Hendrix Z sir, you are sounding experienced..........

i should say so. :)

All in the same space, yet creating space....... allowing space to be.

by necessity yes. you wouldn’t have anything outside makin stuff.

The universe has an action of pulsation, movement carries duality, in deep meditation the pulse slows, blood pressure stabilises, the mind does not close but opens as a serene lotus on still water, untouched by the exterior, yet fully aware.

it, ‘appears to carry duality’ i would say! awareness is tricky, i think i am aware when asleep but i just don’t have my memory engaged [as with other times:p]. as i see it, if we call awareness an attribute of mind, then apply the golden rule, then we can only say ‘there is awareness’ then that it goes in different directions probably according to perspective ~ where sleep is inwards thence fully awake is the most outwards.
 

Ciel

in essence
Messages
926
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Oxfordshire uk
Some do claim that it is possible to love without using their mind... I find they are blissfully fooling themselves. I wonder if they can be perturbed by my mere words... without using their mind?

Then Cyberpi, does love only appear as a state of mind, or when real through every cell of the body, every inbreath and outbreath, every sense of God you yourself connect with. :)

- c -
 

cyberpi

Interfaith Forums
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Then Cyberpi, does love only appear as a state of mind, or when real through every cell of the body, every inbreath and outbreath, every sense of God you yourself connect with. :)

- c -
Many of the cells of my body are a machine and they will attack foreign cells all on their own without even my permission... are they loving? Not exactly... no more than your computer or your car loves you. Does your computer or your car Love you Ciel?
 
Messages
2,924
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Glrghhgggg. All is one, no duality...fuzzy bunnies appear in the moonlight.

Sorry, can't do it. Duality is what's beautiful. The fact that everything pulls or pushes against something else...that's what I dig. Unity only exists in the halo effect of apparent symbiosis. I like that everything fights to exist. There'll be plenty of time for peace when I'm dead. For now, I intend to fight.

Chris
 

cyberpi

Interfaith Forums
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ciel said:
Cyberpi, you just know that wasn't the meaning behind the words.....:rolleyes:
I'm sorry Ciel, which word's meaning do I have wrong: mind? body? love? inbreath? outbreath?

Then again it's possible to go beyond and live in complete silence of mind where you realise the known mind is no more than a state of interference or external play on the core quality.

Ciel said:
Then Cyberpi, does love only appear as a state of mind, or when real through every cell of the body, every inbreath and outbreath, every sense of God you yourself connect with. :)
Let me put it this way: if you are NOT using your mind, then you are NOT LOVING anyone. Agree? Disagree? How does that jive with your stated belief that the mind is no more than a state of interference or external play on the core quality? I am saying the core quality anyone claims is a figment of their own desires if they are not using their mind.
 

cyberpi

Interfaith Forums
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Would these or would these not be a fair restatement of the Golden rule:

Use your will for others as you would that others use their will for you.
Use your mind for others as you would that others use their mind for you.
Use your heart for others as you would that others use their heart for you.

I submit they are the same statement because doing anything here requires a will, a mind, and a heart. There may be knee jerk reactions or automatic responses by cells or organs of the body that do NOT involve the mind or the will, but those are generally not attributed to what a person willfully does. Hard to apply the knee jerk reaction to the golden rule... perhaps: use your mind instead of knee jerk reactions to others, as you would that others use their mind instead of knee jerk reactions to you.
 

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
22,895
Reaction score
2,566
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Would these or would these not be a fair restatement of the Golden rule:

Use your will for others as you would that others use their will for you.
Use your mind for others as you would that others use their mind for you.
Use your heart for others as you would that others use their heart for you.

I submit they are the same statement because doing anything here requires a will, a mind, and a heart. There may be knee jerk reactions or automatic responses by cells or organs of the body that do NOT involve the mind or the will, but those are generally not attributed to what a person willfully does. Hard to apply the knee jerk reaction to the golden rule... perhaps: use your mind instead of knee jerk reactions to others, as you would that others use their mind instead of knee jerk reactions to you.
Still a little arogant don't you think? Who is to say I want you to use your will on me as you would have me use my will on you?

How about?

Use your will/mind/heart for others AS THEY WOULD HAVE YOU use your will/heart/mind for them.
-c said:
We are of two different experiences Cyberpi............
hehe funny on the nonduality contemplation.
 
Top