Considerations

To transcend duality
is a main staple of Buddhism, which is perhaps to say, don't take sides. Personally I have always taken sides. But I don't think I can be faulted because, I have taken both sides, to learn what the difference is.

Two sides from the perspective of a third. What I learned was I could be adamant for either side and fully relate and safely say, I would if I was, be as adamant as, that either side is.

So if one would be right on the left side, and left on the right side, and both sides are right, then where is the wrong ? What's right then it could be said, is derived most often from, where one is born.

Is the Buddhist Third Eye more than extra perceptional, as the means to transcend duality ? If I am of both sides, what is the unifying commonality ? Of what do we agree ? If I would be they if there, and they would be me if here, we are the same but of different locals and conditioning, says the third am.

Good and evil. Up and down. Forward and back. In and out. Finite and infinite. You will be back. Duality is the nature of physical existence, day and night.

Duality could be described as Antithetical and Complimentary Opposition. It might first be surmised that all natural opposition is complimentary duality, which is change that leaves transformation in states which recreate themselves in a same or similar condition, as the forest regenerates after a fire.

Antithetical Opposition is change in which states are left incapacitated to return as what existed before. Deforesting to desert is Antithetical Opposition as in man-made global warming. And thus it could be said that most Antithetical Opposition other than comet impact, derives from the state of the human mind, as the ability to create change antithetically opposed to natural Complimentary Opposition, such as nuclear winter.

Natural duality as not too hot and not too cold is complimentary, and such a realization might prove transcendent.

If the Ego realizes all bodies are fundamentally the same, the Ego does not take sides, but the Identities may. To produce objectives as what is wanted and needed requires oppositional antagonism to given states as they are comprised and composed, as to force adversity upon inherent states, like the Robin pulls the Night Crawler from the ground.

Thus it could be said that the objectives required by living things to survive, are by nature antagonistic oppositional, and thus Identities are also antagonistic to states otherwise of status quo.

(64 of 96) Next Page