And agree that the idea is to feel it 100% while also knowing that this is all temporary, and knowing we are in that sense outside of it too - to be in two places at the same time. Or indeed many. To be attached and detached. To identify and to deconstruct. To create and to negate that creation. To be present as oneself and to be absent of oneself. To say yes and to say no, with equal power and deliberation.
My way of making sense of transcendence is very similar, especially the idea of the existence that lacks contrast outside of the internally created polarities. The empty set. The kernel. The colour that everything is made of. The point of rest that is also the point of maximum possibility 🙏
Am I the only one who get's what he's saying? I'm not saying that in an arrogant matter, but it makes sense to me. Reality as we know it needs to create polarity in order to observe itself, otherwise there would a be an undefinable mess of everything/nothing. If you can observe everything at once, it would look like nothing. I had an experience with cannabis, wherein it took two aspects of my knowledge (really not the best word) and combined them into something that made sense. Whereas before I was very depressed and called life a "cruel cosmic joke" and where I understood that time in a scientific sense isn't what we think it is, I understood that these things are the same (bear with me). Life is not a cruel joke, but it is very funny. Because we can't see beyond our finite experience, we panic, we get angry, we get sad. Time is happening all at once, our limited physical vision splits it into bite sized chunks for us to consume. I actually laughed when I realized that everything has already happened, and will always happen, and that this is the worst hell I'll have to endure. It's nothing to be afraid of, and it is not cruel. It just is. We're fools for thinking we can change it or have control over it. We must love each other and help each other.
This is great! Really well said! Thank you! I don't understand the part when he says "if you say everything is one... you create boundaries which you could call dualism or polarity" is it the action of this labelling of the ineffable transcendent state that is requiring of a dualistic pov (this I understand) or is he saying that it not correct to describe everything as one (this I do not understand). To me this everything is akin to saying all in one. Perhaps confusion arises because then we equate the everything to nothing, I agree with Nils' eloquent explanation here, and this gives rise to the seemingly paradoxial equation 1=0. But this state is the place of dualistic paradox resolution so I do not think that is necessarily a problem. But of course perhaps my lack of understanding of the second possibility given above would mean that it is dualistic, boundary creating, to describe nothing as 0. And thus we are led back to the start of this paragraph. :). But we are discussing the ineffable, no? And all these concepts; everything, nothing, one, zero/none, are by necessity of dualistic creation as Nils points out. The point is really moot, I guess. The state exists. It is. Just is. Always.
