The Many are One

"And now let me tell you about unity:
gnosis alone the experiential ground,
'appearing as multiplicity yet unmoving from unity',
self-sprung awareness is the unitary source.

In the one cat's eye gem, under different conditions,
distinct images of fire or water appear;
just so, in the one source, intrinsic gnosis,
illusions of both samsara and nirvana appear,
one of recognition, the other of ignorance,
both based in the single nondual pure mind.

(Comment by Longchempa) :

Just as a single cat's eye gem appears in sunlight as fire and in moonlight as water, so the very same gnosis appears, through ignorance as samsara, and, with recognition, as nirvana. Although these visions are quite distinct, as display or emanantion of the same gnosiis, they are undifferentiated in essence, not stirring from it."

from Longchempa's "Treasury of Natural Perfection" trans. Keith Dowman, p. 189


"...Thus,
remaining without desire,
subtleness is perceived.
Holding to desire,
form is perceived.

Both are the same emerging,
while differing in distinction.
Their sameness speaks of the mystery,
a mystery leading to yet greater mysteries,
the gateway of a myriad wonders."

Dao De Jing, Lao Tzu, Chapter 1.

Originally posted by Taoman
"And now let me tell you about unity:
gnosis alone the experiential ground,
'appearing as multiplicity yet unmoving from unity',
self-sprung awareness is the unitary source.

In the one cat's eye gem, under different conditions,
distinct images of fire or water appear;
just so, in the one source, intrinsic gnosis,
illusions of both samsara and nirvana ...[text shortened]... ter mysteries,
the gateway of a myriad wonders."

Dao De Jing, Lao Tzu, Chapter 1.

Just beuatiful - and not one mention of Jesus 😉

This is more than mere poetry, aye, it contains the essence of the potential for the human form [and brain].

This is why I say the christian good/bad god is just kids stuff and in the end misleading.

Even in the christian mythology the devil was origonally an angel of god. It's all god. [So none of it is].

Still the gnostics prove, to my mind anyway, that there are plenty of good ,(holistic), ways to represent christian ideals.

Originally posted by Taoman
"And now let me tell you about unity:
gnosis alone the experiential ground,
'appearing as multiplicity yet unmoving from unity',
self-sprung awareness is the unitary source.

In the one cat's eye gem, under different conditions,
distinct images of fire or water appear;
just so, in the one source, intrinsic gnosis,
illusions of both samsara and nirvana ...[text shortened]... ter mysteries,
the gateway of a myriad wonders."

Dao De Jing, Lao Tzu, Chapter 1.

East meets West. How are we to take this stuff in?

This may be off topic but I am reminded that somehow, I learned that a sign that I understand something said to me, is that I can restate it using other words, that the speaker agrees convey essentially the same meaning. If the speaker confirms this, I am satisfied that I understand it.

In reading something without the speaker present, I still tend to play out this little routine.

So it turns out that the cat's eye gem is in the same category as alexandrite. Technically, alexandrite is a better reference. Alexandrite from the Ural Mountains in Russia is green by daylight and red by incandescent light. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysoberyl#Alexandrite). Being an analytical chemist by training, I see that it is not a good idea to delve much further here. Interestingly, "analysis" is from the Greek, one English rendering being, "loosening up." The value of the reference will fall apart under such analysis.

So, I will just soak in the text as written, look at what it tempts me to see, and return for another soak, until something else captures my attention. Is that about right? I hope so, because I am not going to join a monastery.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Just beuatiful - and not one mention of Jesus 😉

This is more than mere poetry, aye, it contains the essence of the potential for the human form [and brain].

This is why I say the christian good/bad god is just kids stuff and in the end misleading.

Even in the christian mythology the devil was origonally an angel of god. It's all god. [So none ...[text shortened]... my mind anyway, that there are plenty of good ,(holistic), ways to represent christian ideals.

Its well to remember that Jesus and those who named him "Christ" are also part of that great multiplicity through which the nondual shines.
The tendency of man to categorise everything, break them apart into opposites or non-related parts is perhaps a natural first step in encountering the world. But the sages of the past of many backgrounds were able to see the underlying unity, of ying and yang, of dark and light, and how one cannot be without the other. The drama, the play of the manifested world is "real" but in a secondary sense, in a functional sense.
For the Taoist and the Buddhist no thing is entirely real all by itself, "inherently existing". Every phenomenon and ourselves are interdependent (Buddhists call it dependent origination) and we or things can never be totally and utterly separated from other things, forces, environments, etc, existing as a totally independent entity. This is what is call substancelessness or emptiness, 'shunyata'. Any idea of illusion is to do with thinking things are totally separate. Everything is connected and dependent on everything else. Quantum science has confirmed this at the deepest levels also.

To get into "for" and "against" very strongly, constantly leads us away from seeing this greater dependent unity. We can all fall into traps of judgmentalism and intolerance, of condemning and ostracizing the "sinner", or even worse, the heretic.
Equally we can get excited and approving of our heroes and our sages and our saints. At the 'secondary' level of "reality" this is par for the course and how humanity functions as individuals and societies.

But if we seek to get a greater sense or vision of the underlying unity, the first step is to remove ourselves from both being "for" or "against". This allows the separating emotions to subside and a middle, dispassionate way to emerge.
When that happens, we begin to see things like polarities being part of a continuum and each pole needing the other to be manifested. We see the good that arises, of itself, out of things, events and persons that present initially as 'bad' and vice versa. We see community care and cohesion and courage arise out of terrorist acts. We see people experiencing healing growth as they realise their mistakes. and so it goes on, creating the great drama of life. We get wiser and less likely to encounter feelings of "dukkha", ie, suffering or unsatisfactoriness.
We then tend to see beyond. That does not mean we want the destructive or follow the destructive, but that all is inevitably a part of the whole, and that whole resolves itself in a ultimately perfectly functioning unity, balanced and complete.

Thanks Karoly.

Originally posted by JS357
East meets West. How are we to take this stuff in?

This may be off topic but I am reminded that somehow, I learned that a sign that I understand something said to me, is that I can restate it using other words, that the speaker agrees convey essentially the same meaning. If the speaker confirms this, I am satisfied that I understand it.

In reading someth ...[text shortened]... s my attention. Is that about right? I hope so, because I am not going to join a monastery.

Perhaps my answer to Karoly may help. But on the "cat's eye gem", the allusion is to the one gem reflecting quite differently in different circumstances yet remains the one gem. It does not change in itself.
I am not in a monastery and will shortly enjoy a beer. Cheers.

Originally posted by Taoman
Perhaps my answer to Karoly may help. But on the "cat's eye gem", the allusion is to the one gem reflecting quite differently in different circumstances yet remains the one gem. It does not change in itself.
I am not in a monastery and will shortly enjoy a beer. Cheers.

Yes, I have been down the road of extremes. I have meditated for days, or shut myself off from the world. I have walked for many miles and pushed myself to some other extremes.

And then I learned, albeit the hard way, that the hard way is not the middle way.
Sometimes we should trust the words of the sages that have come before. They tell us their experiences so that we may learn without having to perform these austerities ourselves.

We learn that we can learn from people who are younger than us in physical age. We find that what we had first thought to be positively true may not be as true as we first thought.

We should be origonal for copying is death, however, we still need that initial imitation of others to pick up the thread of "Now Life".


Did you enjoy writing your op? I enjoyed reading it and responding.

But to try to stay a bit more on track of the thread title, I would like to thank the many for making me who I am. And I am just one , I am always reminded of the great many that have come before to to bounce off, to rub shoulders with, to respect the Great Balance that our internal natures keep leading us back to.

When we realize that the One is actually tha Many, the All, we come to an understanding within ourselves that the One is actually zero.

Well, something like that.

Cheers

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, I have been down the road of extremes. I have meditated for days, or shut myself off from the world. I have walked for many miles and pushed myself to some other extremes.

And then I learned, albeit the hard way, that the hard way is not the middle way.
Sometimes we should trust the words of the sages that have come before. They tell us their ...[text shortened]... anding within ourselves that the One is actually zero.

Well, something like that.

Cheers

"Did you enjoy writing your op? I enjoyed reading it and responding.?"

Its really a selection of other people's quotes that I find express something well from what I have learnt or gained from them.. I have always enjoyed connecting stuff from different paths, as it is a sort of confirmation of the underlying themes.

The Buddhist path has a more "studied" or logical way of expressing and its helpful sometimes to see it clearly laid out and argued. They do have "poets" too.

The Taoist path and expression is more related to nature and man's part in that whole. Often it is more "homely"and a lot less verbose. That's possibly because their language is historically pictographic. I think both have their part to play.

Originally posted by Taoman
"And now let me tell you about unity:
gnosis alone the experiential ground,
'appearing as multiplicity yet unmoving from unity',
self-sprung awareness is the unitary source.

In the one cat's eye gem, under different conditions,
distinct images of fire or water appear;
just so, in the one source, intrinsic gnosis,
illusions of both samsara and nirvana ...[text shortened]... ter mysteries,
the gateway of a myriad wonders."

Dao De Jing, Lao Tzu, Chapter 1.

Would you care to explain you OP a little more. I've read it several times and whilst it is quite poetic, I don't understand what you are trying to say. The many what, are one?

Originally posted by divegeester
The many what, are one?

Exactly.

Originally posted by divegeester
Would you care to explain you OP a little more. I've read it several times and whilst it is quite poetic, I don't understand what you are trying to say. The many what, are one?

Because language is inherently dualistic, that is, relies upon differentiation to convey meaning, the experience and transmission of the underlying non-duality, that is, where no thing can be disunited from anything else, is impossible to be conveyed in language. It is simply experienced and when experienced, can only be pointed to, for someone else to experience it, or realize it. This is one reason it is described as "a mysterious gate".

That this world of multiplicity is many seeming separate "things" appears obvious.
But are they truly separate, existing of themselves if they depend on each other to exist? And that applies to us also as personal "things or objective "persons".

This what underlies all the Non-dual traditions and paths, including Advaita, Taoism, Buddhism, Dzogchen (a specific Tibetan tradition within Busddhism), Bon, early Western Neo-platonist views of Plotinus, of many shamanic traditions also, including as I have just discovered, indigenous Australians.

If you wish to explore more modern expressions of what the writings are seeking to convey or point to, seek under "Nonduality". One I have just also come across and expressed in a manner that appeals to me is:
http://beingisknowing.blogspot.com/

There are other links here also.

It is also found in the mystical traditions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Originally posted by Taoman
Because language is inherently dualistic, that is, relies upon differentiation to convey meaning, the experience and transmission of the underlying non-duality, that is, where no thing can be disunited from anything else, is impossible to be conveyed in language. It is simply experienced and when experienced, can only be pointed to, for someone else to exper ...[text shortened]... eals to me is:
http://beingisknowing.blogspot.com/

There are other links here also.

Thanks for taking the time to reply; I'm afraid I still don't get your point "many are one", sorry. These are initial the quotes from the page you referenced for me:

"It's very simple. Don't think about what you have heard here. Just don't think about what you think you've understood. And then that understanding will have a chance to flower. But the more you think about what you have understood, the more it's wasted."~ Sri Ramesh Balsekar

"When you think about this Awakening, which is an impersonal event which happens through a body-mind mechanism, you have to assume, because of your own lifetime of experience, that there is someone there for whom this experience happens. You can't imagine an impersonal happening of that kind, or what an impersonal experiential state would be, because there is no such thing as an impersonal experiential state. It is incomprehensible, literally incomprehensible. Yet that is what it is..." ~Wayne Liquorman

I've read them three times and maybe it's just me and my simple brain, but I find these statements lacking in any comprehensible sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by divegeester
Thanks for taking the time to reply; I'm afraid I still don't get your point "many are one", sorry. These are initial the quotes from the page you referenced for me:

[i]"It's very simple. Don't think about what you have heard here. Just don't think about what you think you've understood. And then that understanding will have a chance to flower. But t ...[text shortened]... ain, but I find these statements lacking in any comprehensible sense whatsoever.

It's all mumbo jumbo so don't bother thinking about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It's all mumbo jumbo so don't bother thinking about it.

What is mumbo jumbo for one is the sweet words of truth for another, our calling from Home.
Indeed the words of Taoman suggest that we must make an initial breakthrough to be able to go back to the insights of the enlightened masters and make sense of their words.

Without investing a bit of time into meditation Taomans words may well seem like mumbo jumbo but, if you go to an experienced practioner , with an honest mind, I'm sure just about anyone can get something good out of insights such as "the many are one"

The point I seek to convey is that seeking to "make sense of it" with our dualistic mind (we think in an inner "language" and separating mode of descriptive thinking) is bound to make it appear non-sensical, because at that level of description it is non-sensical.

We are dealing with an unresolvable non-dual paradox and the mode of living with it, is living in the indescribable middle of that paradox. The more you try to describe it, the further away from it you go. This is the core of the challenge of seeking to pass through this "mysterious way". STOP trying to make sense of it.

Ah, but that is scary, for then we let go of all that which we cling to to make sense of the mystery of life.

Some more from the net:

"However, and this is the paradox, wholeness, being everything, can also appear as anything.

Wholeness can appear as the story of self on a meaningful journey.
Wholeness can appear as a separate person with free will and choice.
Wholeness can appear as a person who seems to be enlightened and helps other people to become enlightened.
Wholeness can appear as a communication which divides and calls itself non-dual.

So, in the play of appearance, wholeness can pretend to be something apart which is rushing around all over the place looking for that which already is. It is an amazing and unfulfilling dream-like story which is uniquely human and is also sublimely without purpose. For the apparent seeker, however, the pain and longing of separation seems very real.

So, should the seeker climb the spiritual mountain or simply let go and surrender to life? . . . is that the question? Or is it possible that there is no question and no answer.
Maybe what is sought is all there is. Perhaps the beloved that is longed for is already constantly happening . . . it never went away . . . the seeker did, to look for it."

- http://www.theopensecret.com/