The blog I link here has taken one of my past stories and used it for itself. This discovery, a year after the fact, brings me to revisit the time of when I posted my original story (at the beginning of 2010 for a review of 2009), the experience that led to the story (a day spent with dear friend and co-conspirator Ryan Hochstatter), and my feelings regarding Nondualism in general, which follow.
According to Jerry Katz, writer of Nonduality Blog, "Nonduality means 'not two' or 'nonseparation.'" This idea says that while everything is individually its own, everything is simultaneously linked, connected.
I believe this can be described several ways. For example, the Bhaghavad-gita quotes Krishna to say "All paths of worship lead to God." Therefore, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, so forth, it matters not to whom one worships, but that one worships, and by this, we are connected like spokes on a wheel leading to the central point. We are all connected by the theme of what I call "that which is beyond us" (what others call God, Allah, Yahweh...), which we celebrate.
Another view of this idea of Nonduality is a universal energy that connects everyone. While we each have our own energy of emotions, we are connected in that others share these emotions and, whereas each has his own reason and circumstances for feeling, we have all felt sadness, joy, anger, fear, and are therefore one great body. This is a basic explanation, I realize, as nondualism connects us to all things, not only people. Perhaps it is better to say that while we are individuals, we are not remote. We are, when aware, part of the whole, humanity, animals, plants, water, sky, deeper and beyond.
Nonduality: a never-ending existence that depends on each of it's innumerable parts. Everything in existence is a linchpin.
For a long while I have believed that things are not segregated as religions and leaders might have us believe. This is what saddens me when I hear of conflict in political, religious, social, environmental, domestic, and other facets of life. This conflict comes from overlooking the connection we share with one another and all.
I am reminded of something I heard on the Colbert Report: "If we lose all our bananas, in office break rooms, what will we reach past to get to the Doritos?"
Nondualism is the bananas so many pass the opportunity to savor, thereby submitting to conflict.
Then again, according to nondualism, conflict exists with, or because of, stillness or peace. That without one the other cannot exist. Long cannot exist without short, light cannot exist without shadow. Like colors on a color wheel, when colors are opposites, they are complimentary. In fact, this is the exact reason I am in love with colors. They illustrate the idea of coexistence by conflict, which is harmony.
Where does this bring me? To the extent that I believe in nonduality, we all exist so that we may not exist. We are connected universally with the atoms of each others bodies and the atoms in and beyond the far reaches of our known universe. Existence is a fractal, never ending, which therefore never begins. And within this are we.
How do we reconcile the differences between us? Acknowledge they exist and acknowledge they are few. We are each other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You acknowledge that God is one, while claiming that a fractured view of God is equally acceptable, as in the gods and godesses of pagan religions. How can it be accurate to say that all religions or world views lead to the same truth? When so many different religions clearly have an array of attirbutes assigned to "God." In older pagan religions, human sacrifice was required by these gods - gods made of rock and iron. Some religions have featured the worship of corrupt politicians. Even today, some gods advocate the extermination of infidels. If a religion does not advocate for the greater good of the person or people invovled in that religion, or those around them, how can that religion be based upon the same truth as religion that advocates goodness and love? Not everything one sees or hears in the universe is based on love or truth, therefore saying that ALL paths lead to the same God cannot be true. There are many paths which are senseless and vain, and lead nowhere good, and in fact have caused massive human suffering. Perhaps I am a dualistic thinker by your standards. But with all respect, to say that ALL paths of worship invariably lead to the same truth is a denial of thousands of years of human history.
ReplyDeleteWell-stated, Keenan. I have not taken into account all the methods of worship by those in the past and those present. This is something I must consider further.
ReplyDeletePeople can worship God in the wrong ways. I do believe this is possible. Or have incorrect assumptions of God regarding what is asked of them and so forth, but I believe the spirit of good and truth is derived from the same, singular source. But this is not the same. For me, the act of reverence for something people acknowledge is beyond them is what makes us similar. I do, however, understand your point that harmful ways of worship go counter to something Good and True. On the other hand, these people worshiping in this way, sacrifices and pagan rituals, et cetera, see their ways as true and spoken by God. In this, I find we all focus toward the same thing, the same goal, which is spirituality, celebration, reverence, and worship.
Then again, how would a singular God teach simultaneously Goodness and Suffering? Is this what you are asking? In this way, I revert to something that is without a single entity and is, instead, a collection of energy, beings, and a balance of everything. This allows, without the need of a pure God and its evil counterpart, for what individuals view as good versus senseless worship. There must be both. But I don't believe I have answered your question, just harangued without direction. I want to consider this further.
When I say "senseless worship", I mean that not every means of worship necessarily has positive ends in reality, even if the worshipper feels positive results within themselves. So we are all one in our desire to worship, but does that imply that any chosen path for any of us will render the same end? Well, the answer is quite clear to me. This is why I don't agree with Krishna. Whether the worship is directed toward a god or man or cosmic energy balance etc., it does matter which courses of action it will incite you into. All this is just my opinion of course. I'm not trying to sow the seeds of dualism here, but I think this is an interesting topic, so I wanted to say something.
ReplyDeleteKeenan, I always appreciate your opinions. I know they are well-considered. I see what you're saying and agree to a degree. On the same token, I agree with Krishna in that our worship does lead us to God, but maybe these are not the same gods. Maybe all paths of worship lead us to the god we decided for it to lead us. Which I suppose is not my original point, but you've made a legitimate argument for me to consider.
ReplyDeleteHi Brian,
ReplyDeleteThe question is, "What is nonduality? What's it about?" It looks like you're focusing on the crux of the aspect of nonduality that is both knowable and teachable: we're all one and we're all unique. Every atom is unique and at the same time not other, not separate. A person can know that paradoxical reality in various ways, intellectually accept it, believe in it, have faith in it. One's life can be bettered by aligning with the teachings of nonduality.
I'd ask the question again: What really is nonduality all about? If it is known and then forgotten, is that nonduality? If I have to be reminded that there's this nondual way of looking at the world, then what is the value of my description of nonduality? If my understanding and awareness of nonduality comes and goes, do I really know nonduality? Can this awareness of nonduality come and go, be learned and forgotten, harbor doubts, be taught, be refined and changed and still be talked about with authority?
I think that, yes, there is a lot of talk about nonduality and that one's life can be rounded out by a meeting with nonduality. But what is nonduality really about? I think that question has to be probed. I'm sure the resolution to the question rests in being itself, whatever that is.
Jerry