I often think " Human beings " as a Whole → " Hold ,by force a Great Distorted view of Reality" that is "They are more Important than Nature",....The Idea of being superior to all other aspects of Nature,Maybe Human Beings "Craziest Notions" is that of creating "Gods" to fit their needs,...when "Nature", is right before their eyes.
Imagine a state, in which you feel oneness with the Universe, enjoying bliss and peace of mind, and at the same time acting and functioning normally in your day-to-day life. A state of being active in the world, yet maintaining a state of inner detachment. In this state you are aware of your oneness with the One Spirit, and also aware that the One Spirit is acting and manifesting through everything, things, plants, trees, animals and people. This is the experience of nonduality in its highest condition
below is button for "Nonduality.com"...a vast perspective of the topic
In my thoughts,,we must remember,,,nonduality..is just a word someone thought of..yet it is a state of being.most likely the highest a human being can achieve,,,I can't say I really unstand it's true meaning,yet have had glimpses of what it might be..I do know we are part of a "Great Whole",..and only through the the Arts and deep contemplation,attention,..can I get glimpses into this "state of being"
A state where words like "nonduality",religion,etc no longer matter...as they are just words used for communication
The the following talks about a contrast to non-duality ↓
The Following is from "
"If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow, and without trees we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either...
If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, nothing can grow. In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger's father and mother are in it too...
You cannot point out one thing that is not here -- time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat. Everything co-exists with this sheet of paper... As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it" David R. Loy
A hand-done frame by frame animation illustrating Aristophanes' theory of love as mentioned in Plato's Symposium from Greek mythology. The narrative is partly inspired from a chapter in David Mazzucchelli's 'Asterios Polyp', which talks about the same theory, using it as a hypothetical foundation to explain modern days' mating and soulmate searching processes. The animation has been done the conventional way, drawing each frame on a separate sheet of paper using pen and ink, and photographing them in sequence afterwards. Sound track : Frane - Synesthesia.↓
This creation myth places humans of all three genders (androgynous, male, and female) in a primeval state of eternal bliss. However, we grew insolent in our blissful state and refused to properly honor the gods (and even tried to pursue them in their mountainous home). As punishment, we were split in two. Those with a "male" nature (the Children of the Sun) became homosexual men; those with a "female" nature (the Children of the Earth) became Lesbians; and the androgynes (Children of the Moon) became heterosexuals. Navels are the souvenirs of the operation we all went through in being divided from our beloved other half. The myth warns humanity to be careful in always honoring the gods (especially Eros) or we will be hewn in two once more, leaving us to hop around on just one leg. Part of properly honoring Eros is to search for and find our lost half, to be restored to our natural state of bliss. This myth was made into an excellent rock song, "The Origin of Love" for Hedwig and the Angry Inch, written by Stephen Trask and recorded by John Cameron Mitchell (a Radical Faerie). Click here for the lyrics.
I guess myself being highly "berdache" , in Nature this video I can related to well
With the present-at-hand one has (in contrast to "ready-to-hand") an attitude like that of a scientist or theorist, of merely looking at or observing something. In seeing an entity as present-at-hand, the beholder is concerned only with the bare facts of a thing or a concept, as they are present and in order to theorize about it. This way of seeing is disinterested in the concern it may hold for Dasein, its history or usefulness. This attitude is often described as existing in neutral space without any particular mood or subjectivity. However, for Heidegger, it is not completely disinterested or neutral. It has a mood, and is part of the metaphysics of presence that tends to level all things down. Through his writings, Heidegger sets out to accomplish the Destruktion (see above) of this metaphysics of presence.
Presence-at-hand is not the way things in the world are usually encountered, and it is only revealed as a deficient or secondary mode, e.g., when a hammer breaks it loses its usefulness and appears as merely there, present-at-hand. When a thing is revealed as present-at-hand, it stands apart from any useful set of equipment but soon loses this mode of being present-at-hand and becomes something, for example, that which must be repaired or replaced
We are inter-connected to All !
If the River is in trouble,we are all in trouble,if a people's are in trouble,we are all-useless you somehow can escape "Earth".
Then about five billion years ago a cloud of gas and dust began to form a new star. Thanks to the lives and deaths of earlier generations of stars this cloud was rich not just in hydrogen and helium, but also in carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and iron. As the star formed, some of the dust formed a disk around the star, out of which formed planets. The third planet from this star had the good fortune of being not too close to the star and not too far away. It had plenty of hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water, as well as carbon and nitrogen, all thanks to long dead stars. Eventually life appeared on this small world, and took advantage of these useful and plentiful elements.
The atoms in your body contain the history of the universe. The hydrogen in your body was born among the first elements, about 13.7 billion years ago. The carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in your muscles and mind were created within a star that died more than 5 billion years ago.
You see, these elements don't go away,for example : The water you drink today,as far as it's atoms(elements),may have be drank by a human being 10,000 years ago.The Earth is what it is,unless some thing comes from outer space,All the elements of Earth are right here,have been here from the beginning!,everybody that's dead,it still here in some form,every plant,every animal,→everything!
Dichotomy- I think one must understand this "term",in order to understand "non-duality" better
♥ In dialectical behavioral therapy, a treatment shown to have some success in treating some clients with Borderline Personality Disorder, an essential tool used is based on the idea of dichotomy. Dichotomy, in this case, is a self-defeating behavior using "all-or-nothing" or "black-and-white" thinking. The therapy teaches the patient how to change the dichotomy to a more "dialectical" (or "seeing the middle ground") way of thinking.
♥ In sociology and semiotics, dichotomies (also sometimes called 'binaries' and/or 'binarisms') are the subject of attention because they may form the basis to divisions and inequality. For example, the domestic–public dichotomy divides men's and women's roles in a society; the East-West dichotomy contrasts the Orient and the Occident. Some social scientists attempt to deconstruct dichotomies in order to address the divisions and inequalities they create: for instance Judith Butler's deconstruction of the gender-dichotomy (or gender binary) and Val Plumwood's deconstruction of the human-environment dichotomy.
Tis true without lying, certain & most true.
That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing
And as all things have been & arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.
The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse.
The father of all perfection in the whole world is here.
Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth.
Separate thou the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry.
It ascends from the earth to the heaven & again it descends to the earth & receives the force of things superior & inferior.
By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world
& thereby all obscurity shall fly from you.
Its force is above all force. For it vanquishes every subtle thing & penetrates every solid thing.
So was the world created.
From this are & do come admirable adaptations whereof the means (or process) is here in this. Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world
That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished & ended.
Studies to look into;
male-femaledualism in social categories
dichotomy vs juxtaposition ?
The unity of opposites is the central category of dialectics, said to be related to the notion of non-duality in a deep sense. It defines a situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other and presupposing each other, within a field of tension. -wikipedia
lifewithoutacentre.com- What is Non-Duality?
excerpt from; "lifewithoutacentre.com" ,
The world created by thought, the world of words, language, and concepts, is the world of opposites. ‘Up and down’, ‘this or that’, ‘inside and outside’, ‘right and wrong’, ‘black and white’, ‘true and false’, ‘positive and negative’, ‘me and you’ and so on. The world of words, language, thoughts, concepts, is a dualistic world of apparent opposites. But, in reality, do opposites exist?
What we are really pointing to when we use the word ‘non-duality’ is something that goes beyond all of these mind-made opposites. But how can we talk about something that goes beyond opposites, when even our attempt to talk about non-duality is dualistic?
So, what the word non-duality actually means is really very difficult to describe or put into words. In fact, you could say it’s impossible. For we are not talking about non-duality as opposed to something called duality, we are not talking about pro-duality as opposed to anti-duality.In fact the non-duality we speak of is not the opposite of anything. This is impossible to understand logically or rationally. To see what is being spoken of, we must go beyond our ordinary way of thinking and seeing.
‘Non-duality’ is actually a translation of the Sanskrit word ‘Advaita’, which simply means ‘not two’ and points to the essential oneness (wholeness, completeness, unity) of life, a wholeness which exists here and now,prior to any apparent separation. It’s a word that points to an intimacy, a love beyond words, right at the heart of present moment experience. It’s a word that points us back Home. And despite the compelling appearance of separation and diversity there is only one universal essence, one reality. Oneness is all there is – and we are included.
What we are really trying to do when we say ‘non-duality’ is point to life as it is right now, before the appearance of concepts and labels; before thought creates a world of things: table, chair, hand, foot, fear, me, you, past, future. What is life before thought? Can we even talk about that? Is it possible to capture non-duality into words?
When we speak of non-duality it can sometimes seem like we mean ‘anti-duality’, that we are against duality or that it’s wrong or false or even dangerous. This can then lead to dogmatic thinking and religiosity and to the proclamation of rightness: “You are dualistic and I am non-dualistic! I am more non-dual than you!” That is the religion of non-duality. We are more interested in the truth of non-duality.
The Power of Androgyny
by Doug Sawin, Ph.D.
Androgyny—the presence in self-concept, thought and attitudes, and the availability for action in word and behavior of highly valued masculine and highly valued feminine characteristics in the same person, Male or Female. These characteristics include but are not limited to: gentle and firm, humble and bold, cooperative and competitive, emotional and rational, flexible and unwavering, nurturing and playful, soft-spoken and assertive.
In patriarchal societies, men and masculinity are held in higher esteem than women and femininity. Masculinity is associated with strength and femininity with weakness. Men are afforded superior status and position and women are assigned to lower status, domestic and childcare roles. The social and political remnants of patriarchy remain in many cultures in the world today.
In such cultures, a great mythology about gender differences is used to justify and thus maintain gender inequality and discrimination. In accordance with this mythology, boys and men are shamed for exhibiting feminine qualities and girls and women are shamed for exhibiting masculine qualities. Correspondingly, in her review of the scientific literature in child development reported in her book, In A Different Voice (1993), Carol Gilligan shows us that boys are raised to be independent and competitive and girls are raised to focus on affiliation and connection. Further, boys and men are taught to exercise "power over" while girls and women are taught to exercise "power for".
By means of gender discriminating child rearing practices, the rigid mythology about the superiority of men for tasks requiring intelligence, instrumental effectiveness, stamina and the exercise of power is held in place by the shame based socialization of children that confines them to limited, clearly specified gender role characteristics, attitudes and behavior. Traditionally gender typed parents teach their daughters traditionally defined feminine roles and teach their sons to fill traditionally defined masculine roles. In this way, the myths of gender differences are perpetuated from one generation to the next.
This false dichotomy of highly and rigidly differentiated masculine vs. feminine gender roles manifests in adulthood as gender discrimination that gives men the advantages and opportunities in many arenas in which women are afforded only limited access if any at all. The culture established in these male dominated arenas supports and rewards traditionally masculine traits and diminishes and devalues traditionally feminine traits. Consequently, women who enter these arenas are treated as second-class citizens in hiring, pay and promotion.
Women are expected to act like women (often called girls) and then penalized for doing so. Consequently many women believed that the only way to make it in a male dominated enterprise was to hide their feminine qualities and demonstrate masculine traits. That is, to become one of the boys and play the game by their rules. What a tragedy.
Until later in the last century, the traditional gender dichotomy described above was believed by psychologists and sociologists to be best described by a bi-polar continuum with extreme masculinity on one end and extreme femininity on the other end. In this model masculinity and femininity were seem as opposing sets of traits and, in a given individual, to be mutually exclusive. An individual could not be both strongly masculine and strongly feminine. Each person was believed to be either more masculine or more feminine but not both.
This traditional model was challenged by Janet Spence and Bob Helmreich in their research monograph, Masculinity and Femininity published in1978. They proposed a model in which masculinity and femininity were seen as separate and mostly independent dimensions of personality. So in this model there are two continua: masculinity, from high to low and femininity, from high to low. That is, any individual can be either high or low on masculinity and at the same time be high or low on femininity. This model allows consideration of personalities that are high on both dimensions, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. In this model, women who adhere to traditional gender role specifications would be high on the feminine continuum and low on the masculine continuum. Men who adhere to traditional gender role specifications would be high on the masculine continuum and low on the feminine continuum.
Spence and Helmreich's research, and research subsequent to theirs, have demonstrated reliably that this dualistic model that recognizes high and low degrees of masculinity and femininity in the same individual more accurately represents the gender qualities in people. Interestingly, there is a physiological parallel to this duality. Biologists tell us that everybody, both male and female, have both testosterone and estrogen in our systems. The difference between men and women is in the relative amount or the ratio of each of these hormones to the other. Women have greater amounts of estrogen than testosterone and men have more testosterone than estrogen.
In the dual-dimension model of gender, the combination of gender qualities that is of greatest interest to us is the high masculine-high feminine pattern (high M, high F). Parenthetically, it should be noted that Spence and Helmreich used only highly valued and socially desirable gender characteristics in their self-report assessments of masculinity and femininity. Thus, the high M, high F respondents scored high for the presence of both highly valued masculine traits and highly valued feminine traits.
This group of exceptional people included both men and women. Because these people scored high on both masculinity and femininity, the authors used the label androgynous to describe these respondents. Said differently, these people showed a set of gender qualities, high-M, High-F, that the authors labeled Androgyny. Results of a number of studies by Spence and Helmreich and other scientists have supported the dualistic model and the concept of the androgynous person, male or female.
What do we know about these androgynous people? Spence and Helmreich found that androgynous respondents had higher self-esteem and social competence, greater empathy, high levels of achievement motivation, high educational aspirations, low aggression and dominance, and more egalitarian, gender role attitudes. Further, the sub-groups that had the largest percentages of androgynous members were female varsity athletes, accomplished female and male scientists and lesbians.
Based on their research findings, Spence and Helmreich tell us that one of the implications of these data is the following: The fundamental task of all human beings is to balance their masculine and feminine qualities and that extremes on either without the presence of the other is destructive to the individual and thereby the society. For the traditionally socialized man, his challenge is to temper dominance and control that serves his self-interest and to expand concern for the welfare of others. For the traditionally socialized women, her challenge is to claim her natural power and become an effective, self-actualized person rather than finding her value only in supporting the welfare of others.
The findings of Spence and Helmreich are also being supported by more recent considerations of the qualities that make the best leaders, especially looking at women in leadership roles. In his forward to a recently published, edited volume of success stories written by women leaders, titled Enlightened Power (2005), David Gergen says the following: "The old style (of leadership) was top down, command and control, and directional. Today that kind of command-and-control leadership has given way to a new approach, often called an influence model of leadership. Instead of picturing a leader at the top of a pyramid, we envision her in the middle of a circle with spokes extending outward. . . . the new leader persuades, empowers, collaborates, and partners". The best leader, we are finding, is one who identifies top talent and nurtures and supports them to become leaders in their own right—a leader of leaders. Androgynous women and men are ideally suited to this new leadership style and, perhaps, created it.
Gergen goes on to point out that traditional leadership was typically aggressive, autocratic, strong and closed. Women leaders, and some men leaders, more often lead in ways that could be described as consensual, relational, caring, inclusive, open, and transparent. These different styles of leadership parallel the differences between traditional masculinity and the more balanced androgyny.
A case in point is the findings of a large scale study of CEO leadership styles in relation to corporate performance reported by Jim Collins in Good to Great (2001). Collins found that the leaders of the most successful corporations in his study were best characterized by two qualities: Humility and Will (fierce resolve). These qualities parallel the defining dimensions of androgyny. That is, the most powerful and successful corporate leaders appear to be androgynous, that is, high in a valued feminine quality and high in a highly valued masculine quality.
I think the power of androgyny is derived from three factors. First, when we manifest the best traits of femininity and the best traits of masculinity, we are capable of manifesting a full range of the most valued human behavior.
Second, by integrating valued feminine and valued masculine qualities in ourselves, we are a more complete and whole person. We are more integrated and thus in greater integrity.
And third, by exhibiting the best traits of both femininity and masculinity, that is, when we are androgynous, we are much more adaptive to a range of contexts, situations, issues and tasks. We can be as effective in the board room as we are in the nursery. Further, we are able to relate effectively to a broader range of people about a broader range of ideas, ways of thinking and ways of being. Putting these considerations together and said more simply, when we are androgynous we are all that we can be and the best person we can be.
So, what are the implications of all of this? I think there are several, some for us personally and some for us professionally.
For many of us, part of our job is to facilitate growth and development in our children as well as the people that work for us. That allows them to live more effective, productive and satisfying lives. I believe we ourselves will be more powerful and effective in this task if we come from a place of androgynous gender qualities. I recall from my thorough review of the parent child rearing literature some years ago, that, said briefly, the most effective parenting was firm and loving. Similarly, as androgynous men and women, we can support growth best if find that line that is the balance between clear, respectful confrontation and caring support.
There is value for us and the people around us of demonstrating both feminine and masculine qualities adaptively in our personal lives and in our careers. If we are willing to take on an androgynous way of being and doing, we will experience more functional and satisfying interpersonal relationships and significantly more powerful and effective management, leadership and job performance.
Collins, J. (2001) Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. New York: HarperCollins.
Coughlin, L., et al, Eds. (2005) Enlightened power: How women are transforming the practice of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilligan, C. (1993) In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miller, J. B. (1986) Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.
Spence, J.T. & Helmreich, R.L. (1978) Masculinity & Femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, & antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
For myself, the difficult aspect of being Androgyny has been, becoming "just One", as there has always been that internal battle,of wanting to be Feminine ,and at same time suppose to be Masculine. And the struggle to be in internal "Harmony". Thus be in that Non-Dual state of being.