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

[Amorphos]

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

it is kinda obvious for buddhist and hindus etc, but i thought i would extrapolate this meaning for general use ~ even to examine eastern ideas.

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.

[Ruin]

Although I personally agree there is no separate mind and body. I'm afraid since there is no proof or logic displayed here at all I can hardly imaging it producing productive debate on its own.

[Amorphos]

ruin, there is planty of logic for those who understand the meaning of non-duality etc.

i dont mind if you dont contribute tho

[Ruin]

Not in that post there isn't. You simply state your beliefs without having anything to back them. The only place you come close to it is point two, and I don't even understand that, as the assumption "must also be universal" seems to be based on nothing.

The simple reason most people have with discarding duality of mind/body is the lack of any evidence for a claim that this divide exists. The closest people come to 'proving' it is claiming that the brain cannot possibly house self-consciousness, or by saying "the [insert holy book here] says so!

Point three:

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.

Here you seem to loose track of mathematics. As 2+1 would obviously never equal 2, it would equal 3. If you have two apples, and add an apple, there are then three apples, not one whole bigger apple. Your premise of fractions does not stretch further then the number 1.
As for the fractions, although the bitten apple is still the whole of a bitten apple, it is also a fraction of a full apple. Both are possible interpretations and it is merely a question of semantics.

[Amorphos]

As 2+1 would obviously never equal 2, it would equal 3

oh bollocks i did mess up there didn’t i

the post is logical if rule applies thats all, i not trying to prove anything but to give my philosophical interpretation of how i see things ~ that all we can do here really otherwise i would have put it in the science section.

edit: oh on point 2, the mind must be universal if it isn’t just a program as this would place it outside of physical existence etc

[Pontifex Maximus]

I definetly think duality exists.

[Amorphos]

I definetly think duality exists.

an example?

[Amorphos]

Duality

one of my favourite tunes, great vid too.

duality is an illusion or at best holistic tho.

btw link to vid dont work

[Pontifex Maximus]

one of my favourite tunes, great vid too.

duality is an illusion or at best holistic tho.

btw link to vid dont work

link to the video? the video is upp man. The youtube one isn't working them? because the first one is just a pic.

EDIT: got it i think, enjoy

[hellas1]

What up? Y'all,

Nonduality is a philosophical/psychological stance taken in "Eastern" spiritualities AND Western spiritualities as well.

BTW, I'll provide some proof of Duality & Non-duality in the same example!:

Duality: My personality & "me"
The personality of every person is merely a construct.
Anything that is "Constructed" can be "De-constructed."
Your consciousness was not conditioned when "you" were born.
There were karmic effects held in a karmic repository. This is called the Causal Body, one of MANY bodies or "fields/dimensions" which composed "you."
The Self manifests through the various field/dimensions, consciousness being one of those fields, but itself is still whole and UN-fragmented.

When you go beyond the "me" construct, What is there? Annihilation?
CAN we go beyond the "me" construct or are we doomed to a self imposed construct prison that "we" love, hate, conjole others into loving, use to manipulate people, etc.?

hellas1- I'm Waitin'!

[Gaidin]

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.

You are missing logic here with this point. You must define what a piece of paper is if you are to try this game. If we are to define a piece of paper as one 8.5x11 sheet, possibly with 3 holes removed for binders, we have something to work with. It is rigorous, and that is what we need for legitimate consistency. Double standards should be avoided.

Let's run some tests on it. Let's tear it in half. Suddenly we don't have a piece of paper. Neither bits are full by our predefined term, and we cannot redefine it in the middle of the test. If we do, we would lose the concept of rigor that is necessary and would create a double standard that must be avoided. Likely, if we tore it ourselves, we could take into account human error, but let's assume perfection for the sake of our sanity, as that is another discussion altogether. We have two halves. And there's not really much you can do about it.

1=1 but 2+1 does not equal 2 as no two ‘1’s are the same.

Have you taken a calculus course yet? It deals with the idea of convergence. Basically once you get acceptably close enough to that concept of '1'(whatever it happens to be), you have '1'. Period. No questions asked.

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.

Sure...if you're one of those people that insists on addressing the Universal Set whenever you do anything. And that's just a confusing mess that we can learn nothing from.

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

Emphasis added by me.

The word ruins your entire idea. If you were talking about reality, you could make a case with the conservation laws on reality being divided. But that's trivially true and not really interesting at all.

Once you consider only a part of reality, entropy takes over. Outside forces can act on the part and keep an unstable construct as it is. The part can also lose portions of itself when considering the concept of entropy if no forces are acting.

[Ruin]

edit: oh on point 2, the mind must be universal if it isn’t just a program as this would place it outside of physical existence etc

Just because it is outside of the plane of existence does not make it universal.
Look at it this way, imagine a plane, or a piece of paper (this is extremely simplified) in one direction is time, in the other space, and that's what makes the plane. For something to exist outside it it simply has to be above or below the plane, it does not need to fill all the space either side it. Thus it would not have to be universal.
That's a simplified view. Because I am puzzled by your logical step, which seems to have no intermediates.

[Amorphos]

gaidin
firstly let me say that the principle is what is in question, my interpretation may be incorrect, it was just to take us from a - b.

We have two halves. And there’s not really much you can do about it.

the paper is figurative, what we have are two objects from one object. the point is though, that on a more profound level we only have the whole with varying parts therein. no matter how much we tear it up the whole remains. if we look at it in terms of physics then there are no distinct divisions between things hence conservation of energy etc.

Once you consider only a part of reality, entropy takes over. Outside forces can act on the part and keep an unstable construct as it is. The part can also lose portions of itself when considering the concept of entropy if no forces are acting.

firstly there are no ‘outside’ forces. entropy is fragmentation but in each divide there is no actual division taking place, you may end up with two things but ultimately they still belong to the one thing. erm read on below hppefully i will start to make sense soon.

hmm this is more difficult to explain than i thought.

ok give me an example of separation in terms of physics? let me first note that when you destroy one energy [or any part of it], it is replaced by another. the very principle of conservation points to a non dualistic basis for existence.

take quantum computing for example, you don’t get exactly one or two answers [like 0,1, is the basis in ordinary computing] there are potentials but one emerges from many potentials ~ which are not completely formed.

then there is observation; we cannot observe something exactly [an exact quantum part], as i see it this is because there are no such ‘parts’!


ruin
i apologise for thinking you were simply mocking earlier, that’s a good point.

For something to exist outside it, it simply has to be above or below the plane, it does not need to fill all the space either side it. Thus it would not have to be universal.

true yes; i was coming from a grander scale perspective which is why i took it for granted, but your objections are quite correct in their context. in one sense we may ask how consciousness is bounded? e.g. when you kiss your lover your consciousness could touch hers as it would not be limited like our brains are. it would appear that consciousness is localised and that is all we can say about it from the individuals perspective. does it have edges? if the principle is true then no, hence our consciousness would diminish as it filters away from its locality [like light from a dim bulb] eventually stretching via infinite sets into the vastness of infinity proper. at this juncture all consciousnesses would meet and be one.

in terms of enlightenment, perhaps we can say that after physical death the consciousness is only localised by the way we perceive ourselves and the way we are used to thinking. ultimately with nothing to bind it to its locality it would hmm ‘invert’ [for want of a better term] into the great oneness of infinity ~ where we are approximating infinity as opposite to the local.

[Ruin]

true yes; i was coming from a grander scale perspective which is why i took it for granted, but your objections are quite correct in their context. in one sense we may ask how consciousness is bounded? e.g. when you kiss your lover your consciousness could touch hers as it would not be limited like our brains are. it would appear that consciousness is localised and that is all we can say about it from the individuals perspective. does it have edges? if the principle is true then no, hence our consciousness would diminish as it filters away from its locality [like light from a dim bulb] eventually stretching via infinite sets into the vastness of infinity proper. at this juncture all consciousnesses would meet and be one.
in terms of enlightenment, perhaps we can say that after physical death the consciousness is only localised by the way we perceive ourselves and the way we are used to thinking. ultimately with nothing to bind it to its locality it would hmm ‘invert’ [for want of a better term] into the great oneness of infinity ~ where we are approximating infinity as opposite to the local

Seeing as I am a realism monoist (opposite of dualist) I can't really answer all of your questions, as I was to the most part playing devils advocate trying to dissuade you from the assumptions which riddled your first post. Here you seem to be making yet another assumption however, that metaphysics is tied by any of the laws of the physical, so bound to either material-like or light-like properties that you described. This is not necessarily true at all. That it is immaterial necessarily suggests it does not abide to at least some material laws, if not all of them. (In fact, it may not exist at all, and still exist, we are not sure of anything it would be capable of it it were there). However, as I do not believe in anything beyond the physical, i find it a little pointless to try and come to conclusions about it.

[Amorphos]

ruin

That it is immaterial necessarily suggests it does not abide to at least some material laws, if not all of them [1].
In fact, it may not exist at all, and still exist, we are not sure of anything it would be capable of it it were there [2].

1. this is why i associated mind/consciousness with the infinite [and hence the whole], they would seam to both be unbounded.

2. we can say that it is not limited by the same limits as the physical, although as you say primarily this doesn’t mean it is unlimited.

However, as I do not believe in anything beyond the physical, i find it a little pointless to try and come to conclusions about it.

is infinity physical and are our minds? well the mind is questionable [apparently; tho it seams to be the primary observation of all ~ infact it is before observasion can be made].

ok so you do or dont agree with the principle?

[Ruin]

1. this is why i associated mind/consciousness with the infinite [and hence the whole], they would seam to both be unbounded.

That is like concluding that humans are the same as bananas, as they are both living, multicellular organisms. You cannot associate the two just because they have some features in common.

2. we can say that it is not limited by the same limits as the physical, although as you say primarily this doesn’t mean it is unlimited.

Agreed

is infinity physical

Yes, as the universe has to be

and are our minds?

No, as far as anyone is aware, they are bound to our bodies, and so are about the size of two bunched fists (the brain).

well the mind is questionable [apparently; tho it seams to be the primary observation of all ~ infact it is before observasion can be made].

ok so you do or dont agree with the principle?

I agree there is no metaphysical/physical duality yes. However, I disagree with the majority of your remaining points.

[Gaidin]

firstly there are no ‘outside’ forces. entropy is fragmentation but in each divide there is no actual division taking place, you may end up with two things but ultimately they still belong to the one thing. erm read on below hppefully i will start to make sense soon.

hmm this is more difficult to explain than i thought.

ok give me an example of separation in terms of physics? let me first note that when you destroy one energy [or any part of it], it is replaced by another. the very principle of conservation points to a non dualistic basis for existence.

The 'seperation' in terms of physics is merely the nature of a system. We define the system as that which we are observing. The most obvious example of a system would be the planet Earth and its ecosystem. Taken on its own, Earth loses energy constantly, most obviously exhibited in the form of heat. Night side of the world is much cooler than day side. The loss of heat is the example of entropy. However, the sun, as an outside source, replenishes the energy. However, this is not the kind of separation you are looking for, it is just an example of a physical separation. Duality is a lot more philosophical and does not address this.

Regarding the shifting of kinetic energy to potential energy, you are correct. However, there is a duality regarding existence, especially on a scientific basis. It refers to the dichotomy between the subject(the observer) and the object(what is observed). It is one of the bigger weaknesses of science, however it cannot be eliminated altogether. Scientists do whatever they can to make this duality as small as they can though.

This one example shows your extremely all inclusive statements about non-duality to be wrong on their face. Perhaps you should reassess them.

[hellas1]

@Gaiden,

The observer IS the observed due to one's fragmentation.

Energy which has instinct or will is called "Life."

hellas1

[Valentin the II]

Quets, I think you are refering to the law of preservation of matter and energy.
Neither matter nor energy can appier out of nothing or disappear into nothing.
(the whole thing with the paper and apple)

[chilon]

If duality does not exist, there can be no non-existence and no existence.

I believe the following observation answers the paradox presented above:

the law of preservation of matter and energy.
Neither matter nor energy can appear out of nothing or disappear into nothing.