other then 2...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

When I look from my eyes I do not see two (dvaita¹); I see the many forms of a multi-various universe. Why then call it dvaita ? It seems apropos to call it aneka¹ or the many?

What then can be the logic of calling it the two ?

iti śivaṁ

words

• dvaita - duality , duplicity , dualism ;
  • dvaita = dvi + tā = two + tā = tad = thus
  • some look at this as dvi + vāda or 'two + speaking about'
  • others say vāda is discussion , controversy , dispute , contest , quarrel , so then dvi + vāda becomes 'the discussion and dispute about two'
  • vāda is rooted (√) in 'vad' - speaking of or about
• aneka - not one; many, much, separated

[satay]

Namaste,
The two: atma and Param-atma; the controlled and the controller.

[Sudas Paijavana]

When I look from my eyes I do not see two

I see the many forms of a multi-various universe.

What then can be the logic of calling it the two ?

(emphasis mine)

Namaste,

Then, what's the logic of calling it one? For all we know, it takes two to tango.

[Avyaydya]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

When I look from my eyes I do not see two (dvaita�); I see the many forms of a multi-various universe. Why then call it dvaita ? It seems apropos to call it aneka� or the many?

What then can be the logic of calling it the two ?

Namaste Yajvan

I do not, i am a polytheist. I am very aware of the diversity in Nature. Also there are many more planes in consciousness than matter and spirit. In my opinion dual thinking is the result of the degeneration mankind has been undergoing for a long time. Today thinking has become binary, everything is being digitized. Why? That the the simplest way of thinking. It is so simple we can teach it to machines which have almost no intelligence at all.

In my view a developed mind does not think binary. it does not think in true or false, in good or bad, in win or lose, in accept or reject. That is not how nature presents itself to us. That is the product of an oversimplifying mind. That is why I think religion degraded with the mind into monotheism in which people are given the choice to be for or against a God. No more flavours/Gods, no more home cooking. No more Gods manifesting and interacting in numerous ways. No, we get nice structured organizational structures with the big boss at the top.

Even "the One" is described in duality. With qualities and without qualities, with form and without form. All nice and binary. That is why we are discussing, because modern man can only accept one idea at the time. If there are two different views he feels he has to choose between them. Which one is true? His mind can not cope with diversity and even less with contradictions. What people see as great thinking is poverty of the mind. These nice structured ideas with their schematic ordered world view are a denial of Nature. Nature is to complicated for modern man. His brains can no longer cope with nature. He wants order, certainty. No bending paths but straight roads. And he wants to know what to believe. He needs people to tell him what to believe.

In my opinion this is the way it is for most in Kali Yuga. We are not getting smarter because we drive a car and use technology products like cellphones or computers. We can do that mindlessly, It only dumbs us down. That is why "advanced" countries like the US have to get brains from other countries. Two is the utter simplicity, the lowest number you can use and still preserve some diversity. Yes or No. On or Off. We can describe reality with binaries, digits. But what we get is a reality that is devoid of subtle nuances. What we get is quarrel. I say red, you say blue, he says yellow, she says green. No quarrel, but taste, preference, diversity, colour. But when I say yes, you see no? That is conflict.

Some say, everything is One, no choice. Than thinking stops altogether. That is the ultimate degeneration of the mind. That is the ultimate simplicity. People saying things like: we are one. Or we are all the same. Than the senses and the brain are shut down entirely. That simply is the end of the world. Life haters, renunciates love that thought. Lets all merge into one. Let overcome all differences. They love the thought of oneness. They think it is the most perfect of all ideas. Lets make it mono. Monotheism: One God, nothing else.

Not for me. I am a polytheist. I love this world in all its wonder. I love Mother Nature. I love Ma Devi. I love it for its diversity, its richness, it continuously providing new experiences. If you do not like it, go kill yourself somewhere quietly. You want moksha, eternal life in heaven or whatever, just do it, I do not care. Nobody is forced to live here. What a silly idea that this world is holding you prison, because you long for it. Get real, this world is not to blame you want it. Do not blame it, then you behave like raper who says, this woman made me rape her. Then you are a thief that says, this money made me a thief. Then you are murderer that says, this victim made me murder him. Your mind is in denial of its own desires. It is silly to deny ones desires or blame them on something else.

I am here because I love it. I embrace it. It the full splendour of Brahman. There is no end to Brahmans creation, it is forever changing and it is beautiful. If you can not see that, your thinking is ugly. Your greed has made you into an addict and now you blame the thing you embraced. Now you want to kill yourself to become one.

Yes, you want to be Brahman...

but Brahman wants to be us
I am with Brahman

[Mana]

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

A fascinating question and one that I dearly love to ponder.

Here are a few of my thought on this matter:

I like to use a mathematical model as a tool to contemplate these notions, it seems to me to represent most eloquently the 3; The joining of soul and body and infinite mind. To my mind, there is a coexistence of duality and non duality; this is found to be necessary when we consider any infinities containing geometry . One infinity must split in order for it to allow its own existence; thus the need for a second infinity to give the first any form or credibility, perhaps it is better said self conciousness of the first.
The instance of one singe infinity existing between two different infinite states can be beautifully demonstrated by the Mandelbrot set, in which we find an infinitely variable self repeating entity, existing between linear Cartesian coordinates of the real and complex plain.
In this space; all numbers either tend towards infinity, or they remain bound within the geometry of the initial set. The familiar black shape at the centre of the Mandelbrot set, a shape which self repeats infinitely, are numbers contained within the set (which form self repeating patterns or loops); the coloured exterior is made from numbers that tend towards infinity and have escaped the set; the colour gradient indicates the rate at which the number is tending towards infinity.
The shape and set are one infinity, yet contained within it are two differing states, both of which are themselves infinities. This infinite shape could not be without its own duality. Else it would be; literally nothing.

The black shape at the centre of the set is roughly 1/8th of its enclosing circle (the circle is created by lower definition iterations) ...

This is obviously a mathematical model and as such is contained within its own axioms, but I feel that it demonstrates most eloquently how one infinity with self similar repeating forms, needs a duality in order to exist. If the complex plain seems to be a mystery, it can also be demonstrated as a very real tool, in its use in electronic engineering; as an example; the mapping of acoustic audio into a recorded re-playable electronic signal. This reflection between the sound wave and the electron wave, is mapped mathematically by the use of the number i. Indicating the imaginary number or complex plain.

Sorry to get quite so technical, but I feel it necessary in order to express this subject in any tangible way ...

Kind regards.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

If there is two (dvaita), why then not 3 (tripuṭā) ? Even ādi śaṅkara-ji calls out 3 in his dṛgdṛśyaviveka (dṛg-dṛśya-viveka) some call vākya-sudhā; and he was a beacon of advaita ( non-dual) darśana¹.

iti śivaṁ

words

• darśana - school, view; discernment , understanding

• Ādi śaṅkara we know as śaṅkara bhagavatpāda.
  • ādi = first, beginning
  • Śaṅkara = śaṃkara = causing prosperity , auspicious , beneficent. This is another name for śiva or rudra.
  • bhagavatpāda = bhagavat+pāda bhagavat is glorious , illustrious , divine + pāda or pādāḥ is added to proper names or titles in token of respect.
    With this case pāda it is then a ray or beam of light (considered as the foot of a heavenly body).
  • Yet what is this 1st or beginning? He was the first Śaṅkarācārya, as he set up the maţha-s (some write as mutt's, math's) across India.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

When I look from my eyes I do not see two (dvaita¹); I see the many forms of a multi-various universe. Why then call it dvaita ? It seems apropos to call it aneka¹ or the many?

Here is one view...

On this earth we see the two's, the three's and for the evolved and the blessed, one.

The two's
If we are human (and many that read this will fit this category ) our experience is made of good, bad; of fast, slow; of more and less, etc. These are the two's that come to our experience. Yet with spiritual unfoldment it becomes Self and non-Self.
One gets anchored in the silence of the Self and everything that is not that perfect silence is non-Self. One's reference point, one's anchor is one's own Self-abidance.

The three's
The 3 (tripuṭā) we know as the guṇa-s. It is their play and display that make up this universe. Yet there is another set of 3 some call tapa-traya¹. It is the world of actions and results that occur from one's own selections (karta) , or natural events or those that come about from the intercourse of the universe with ourselves or with the collection of people & our surroundings of which we are a part.

Yet the other set of 3 that I suggested i.e. ādi śaṅkara-ji's 3 called out in his dṛgdṛśyaviveka (dṛg-dṛśya-viveka) which, as I see it, is a bit more profound. It is the notion of the seer (dṛg¹) and the seen (dṛśya). Yet too it includes the method of seeing. Some would say the ~organ~ of seeing, which we know as the eyes. Yet this ~seeing~ is also a generality for taking all things in. It means ~seeing~ with not only the eyes, but taking in with the organs of touch, taste, smell, and hearing. So now we have the seer , the method of seeing, and the seen ( or the object of experience).
The question to ponder is who is the ultimate seer, who is all the senses presenting the world to ? ... one says, well , to me !
In this case the person of ignorance gets mixed-up and thinks 'I am the individual , the final experiencer, of all this' . This is not the orientation of ādi śaṅkara-ji. The final seer is the Self.
Pending one's level of unfoldment the 3's are the interaction of the guṇa-s, within the world of the tapa-traya-s. Or for the evolved it is the universe being presented to the Self.

The one
We will address this in the next post.

iti śivaṁ

words

• tapatraya =
  • tapa = consumed by heat, fire ; 'causing pain or trouble , distressing '
  • traya = triple , threefold
• dṛg = dṛś = to see , but also means to 'see by divine intuition'

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

The one
We will address this in the next post.

The ~one~ is quite interesting. We can agree that it is the absence of all 'two' , the absence of all diversity. Yet there are a few ways to look at this. Just like a diamond and a piece of coal both are made from the same material (carbon). Yet we can see by holding both in our hands that they are not the same but share the same molecular heritage. Like that, this one can take on different appearances.

Think of deep sleep - there is no two, there is no differences, yet we exist. If we did not we could not wake up once again and continue as the person we were before falling asleep.
Now think of samādhi. For some this samādhi may be foreign to them. And for those that are knowledgeable they will know that the wise classify this samādhi in different ways ( we can review this if there is interest). Overall though , samādhi can be objectless, seedless as it is sometimes called, with no differences, perfectly homogenous and pure. It therefore fits the bill of 'one' as there is no 'two' any where to be found.
Yet note the following - in deep sleep and in this experience of samādhi the eyes are closed, we are within. As long as the conditions support both deep sleep and samādhi, this one-ness remains. But upon the eyes opening, diversity springs forth and the 'two' and the 'threes' emerge/engage once more.

So, if we read our śāstra-s we are told that there is a condition that one does not lose this one-ness even when the eyes are open and engaged in activity. We are told by those that have this experience that it is the silence that is found within themselves also extends outside of themselves - there is no place it is not. There is no 'two' experienced. Just as the space in a pot is the same space that is all around when the pot is broken i.e. it is not contained, it is the same. Like that , one knows the one-ness because nothing is other then one's Self. This is their direct personal experience.
The dullness of sleep is that of the coal ; the clarity and brilliance of the diamond is experience when one experiences nothing other then themselves everywhere; there is no 'two'. Both (sleep and total awareness) share a common core origin - that of Being. This Being is so profound, so ubiquitous , that it is the core of the deepest of sleep or of the clarity of living one's pure Self.

iti śivaṁ

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

This Being is so profound, so ubiquitous , that it is the core of the deepest of sleep or of the clarity of living one's pure Self.

Where can we find this knowledge ? For those looking , you will be well-served by the māṇḍūkya¹ upaniṣad :

sarvaṁ hy etad brahma
ayam ātmā brahma
so'yam ātmā catuṣpāt|| 1.2

This says,
All this (sarvaṁ) is brahman (brahma)
this here (ayam¹) Self (ātmā) is brahman
this Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt¹)


We are told that within just 12 verses ( the total for this upaniṣad ) it contains the essence of all the upaniṣad-s.


So, here's the pickle. I just finished saying that with 'one' there is no sense of two or many, yet this most noble upaniṣad informs us that this Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt). Obviously there is a deeper meaning offered for our understanding. How to reconcile and make sense to this?


iti śivaṁ

words

• māṇḍūkya - this name māṇḍūkya is of great interest. We note that māṇḍa = of a man ; Hence there is a connection to the sage (ṛṣi) that is responsible for this upaniṣad. Yet too the word maṇḍūka = frog. Now why call this upaniṣad the ~frog~ upaniṣad ?
• ayam = idam = this , this ere , referring to something near the speaker
• catuṣpāt =catur+ pāda = 4 + quarters, feet, measure, rays

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

So, here's the pickle. I just finished saying that with 'one' there is no sense of two or many, yet this most noble upaniṣad informs us that this Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt). Obviously there is a deeper meaning offered for our understanding. How to reconcile and make sense to this?

One can begin to look at it this way... consider a tree. It has this beautiful trunk and from it springs 4 main limbs.
Yet this total tree's essence (sārāḥ¹) is the sap. It is the colorless sap that finds expression in the tree, the limbs,
the bark, the leaves and the flowers. Like that Self (ātmā) or brahman is the ~sap~ of all.

In the māṇḍūkya upaniṣad sloka that was offered Self (ātmā) has 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~. What are they? I encourge the reader to pursue this upaniṣad as I find it quite rewarding.

The other question I proposed to the reader:

This name māṇḍūkya is of great interest. We note that māṇḍa = of a man ; Hence there is a connection to the sage (ṛṣi)
that is responsible for this upaniṣad. Yet too the word maṇḍūka = frog. Now why call this upaniṣad the ~frog~ upaniṣad ?

What is the reasoning or insight this upaniṣad may be called the ~frog~ upaniṣad ? Upon inspection the frog has 4 feet catuṣpāt,
and the most the notable characteristic of a frog is its ability to jump. It is here that one gets a clue - the ability to go a further distance
in one jump then perhaps walking the distance. Are we any closer to the answer ? I think so , if one knew that the
māṇḍūkya upaniṣad addresses some key ideas :

• praṇava ( or om̐) which is the symbol for the ultimate reality, brahman
• jāgarita or waking condition - the 1st quarter or foot in the 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~.
• svarupa or dream condition - the 2nd quarter of foot in 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~.
• suṣupti or deep sleep conditon the 3nd quarter or foot in 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~.
• turīya ~officially~ the 4th by name¹, but many call the 'transcendental' - the 4th quarter or foot in 4 quarters (catuṣpāt) or ~4 limbs~.

There are many that think ( as I too am of this opinion) the notion of maṇḍūka = frog is the insight of how one hops from the wake condition (jāgarita) to that of turīya or the transcendental ( code for pure awareness or brahman). So begins the march (the hop) from the waking to the 4th , or pure awareness.
iti śivaṁ

words

• sārāḥ - the substance or essence or marrow or cream or heart or essential part of anything ; note that saraḥ (without the long ā) is defined as fluid/liquid also milk.
• the 4th by name - we call turīya from the word caturtha which is defined as 'constituting the 4th part'. Now who says this caturtha could be known as turīya ? The bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad in the gāyatrī brāhmaṇa section. It too discusses quarters or pāda that are found in gāyatrī