Wes, I agree that neutrality is a concept relative to our experience of “this” existence.
God says, “I don’t divide people up into sides”… and yet here we are, experiencing this collective dualistic state of reality. The realization of duality as a necessary construct is mostly fostered by human conditioning/ programming/ societal norms etc. precipitated by language and conceptualized thought. In the grand scheme of things, evolution of consciousness must be “played out” by the original consciousness, if for no other reason than “God is ALL THERE IS – EVERYTHING IS GOD” precept.
Incidentally, “against being against”/ not for or against/ not not for – not against, or any other variation thereof is still contextualized duality.
Here’s an entertaining except from OSHO:
But existence is one. You may divide it arbitrarily for certain purposes, but never for a moment forget that your division is arbitrary. Existence is one solid whole. Matter is nothing but spirit condensed; spirit is matter which has come to blossom – the difference between the seed and the flower.
It is not a difference, because the seed contains the flower and the flower contains many seeds.
So it is a circle, it is not a division. All divisionary ideas are dangerous. The East also has grown its own logic, but it is not Aristotelian. Buddha’s logic is a fourfold logic. If you ask him, “Is there God?” he may say, “Perhaps.” Perhaps is not an answer. If you ask, “Is there any doubt?” he will say, “Perhaps”; “Are you not certain?” he will say, “Perhaps.”
Mahavira extended the idea of “perhaps” to the very extreme. His logic is sevenfold. It is one of the most complicated ideas, but very representative of reality, because he says, “Whatever you say contains only one aspect of reality. What about other aspects? You have to make other statements.”
According to him, unless you make seven statements you will not be able to cover the whole reality.
But those seven statements are going to be contradictory to each other.
Ask him, “What about God?” and he says, “God is.” And immediately he says, “God is not.” And following that, “God is both: is, is not.” And he continues, “God is both not: neither is nor is not.” And he finalizes, “God is indefinable.”
Mahavira could not gather many followers for the simple reason that only very crazy people will accept such a thing. People want definite answers. But existence is a flux, it is not definite; it is changing, it is moving. It has all aspects possible. In some way you can say, “Yes, it is true.” And in some way you can say, “It is not true.”
If u’r interested, the entire discourse:
Enjoy the ride! ♥
Written by Will, the Galactic Free Press, http://soundofheart.org/galacticfreepress/content/why-i-am-not-neutral
To get straight to the point, there’s an illusion hidden within the concept of neutrality. When people say they are neutral they’re almost always defining themselves based upon conflict. Neutrality requires the perception of different “sides”, neutrality depends upon dividing people up. It’s a dualistic concept pretending to not be dualistic.
Where I live we have two main political parties, and I’m supposed to choose one of them. I don’t like either very much. I’m not neutral though, I am simply being myself. You could say I’m against both parties, though I’m not against the people that make them up, I view them as brothers and sisters. What I am against is the ideologies that divide people against each other. I’m against being against, if that makes any sense.
View original post 206 more words