Polarization with respect to Nondualism

[Melchior]

Just as a note: lots of the polarization topics are here and those on dualism/nondualism are in the Spirituality, Consciousness, & Awareness forum. (also, if there are older threads about this that you know of (and I'm sure there are, then point them out to me too, I can't seem to get the search function to search for all of a set of multiple keywords )

So, I've been looking at all these polarization threads lately as well as, not too long ago, developed some of my thoughts concerning nondualism... and I've discovered, perhaps only superficial, clashes between the two. Pretty much, while polarization calls for directing 'love' one way or the other, either inwards to you or outwards to the rest of the world, nondualism has that quite fundamental idea that this inward and outward is only another one of those dualities that aren't exactly a part of what actually is. This means that to pursue polarization is to pursue a duality that is a supposedly illusory in nature. I've also read stuff about the LoA being a part of this polarization in that, in the 'end' when you get to a 'high enough level' of energy and such, that because what you do inside affects outside and vice versa, that the two, for all practical purposes, converge, and the result is simply that higher 'vibration', so to speak, going around. I suppose the actions are different, though, but I also wonder if either method is the 'most' effective way to go about a situation, neglecting what the 'ego' thought about things. And I take it that the 'ego' is a vital part of polarization, btw, as it is the rather strong duality that allows for the separation between the inward flow and outward flow of energy.

At the end of all this, I wonder, if by raising your vibration 'neutrally' not specifically inward, nor outward, even though its been said many times that this 'cannot' be done or won't get you anywhere because there's 'nothing' to focus on, or things cancel out (or at least skimming through the polarization threads that I've come across), you actually can get to the same 'level' of energy that both a darkworker (absorb) and lightworker (emit) can get to, not causing a serious 'divergence' in the flow of energy, but rather just increasing the amount of energy available (as if conservation of energy didn't have enough problems already ), controlling the flow 'optimally' rather than one way or the other i.e. focus, but not necessarily inward or outward. The thing I'm getting at is that, without such a duality, polarization technically can't happen, and if it's all part of the same whole, then perhaps what polarization does is just transform the energy a certain way (inward or outward) based off of the dualities that are made. So, then what about transforming the energy with respect to all of it (is this the same as a lightworker though?), or does that just not get you anywhere, as I've read so many times.

So, then, why? Especially if there's technically more higher vibrations to go around in either of the polarization cases anyway, it wasn't zero-sum was it (like how the polarized thoughts add up, which is confusing me as well)? Is there something I've overlooked? Is there a clash between polarization and nondualism? Thoughts, inputs, objections, agreements, etc.? (most anything is welcome, but please provide support/reasoning so that I can figure out where you're coming from, thanks )

EDIT: it might just be that it's an apparent technicality after reading what Asmoday had in his blog. The source and drain are connected though, so I'm still wondering if it really works that way. Reminds me of that old saying "life is like a river", and escher, lol...

[bapl88]

based on my scant knowledge of polarization, I guess if you built up energy but didn't polarize it, you'd just be inefficiently directing energy in and out in a way that could be, as you say, more optimized. but I think, if you apply the approach of nondualism to its logical extreme, then there is really no difference between the self and the rest of the universe, so polarizing would be like drawing a line between two points in a zero-dimensional geometry, and everyone who believes they are polarizing are perhaps experiencing this build up you described, under the illusion of using energy more efficiently.

then again, I don't really believe in either theory.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by bapl88

based on my scant knowledge of polarization, I guess if you built up energy but didn't polarize it, you'd just be inefficiently directing energy in and out in a way that could be, as you say, more optimized.

In other words, polarizing is the optimal choice... I suppose that may just be the case, the more polarized, the more efficiently energy flows (and not necessarily an increase in the amount energy, but rather the current)

but I think, if you apply the approach of nondualism to its logical extreme, then there is really no difference between the self and the rest of the universe, so polarizing would be like drawing a line between two points in a zero-dimensional geometry, and everyone who believes they are polarizing are perhaps experiencing this build up you described, under the illusion of using energy more efficiently.

Lol, I had just edited my last post with the comment on Escher's waterfall... Not too long ago, I came across a comment that at the core, all life is, is motion, illusory or not, and this seems to fit well with the dualism/nondualism (non)duality, and I suppose, to some extent that above as well about polarization, essentially increasing the motion. Sigh... entropy, messing everything up...

then again, I don't really believe in either theory.

hrmm..... >.>

[Michael Chui]

Here's an older thread on the topic:

___Workers, on the Terms

*innocently* Why yes, I did start it.

But really: I find the idea of polarization a little silly. It seems to be more about accepting yourself completely than it is about "light" or "dark" or whatnot. It's one of those labels meant for making it so it's okay for you to be who you are.

[Cado]

Labels serve a purpose, as do dualities. Have you completely transcended duality? Great, there's nothing to be gained by polarizing. Do you still think in terms of duality? Then the quickest way to shed your illusions is to streamline your thought process-move to one end of the spectrum and stick with it until the paradigm shatters.

Note, I don't know the end result. The above is based partly on observation and partly on experience. Putting myself at the forefront defines my priorities and directs my thoughts. Neutrality isn't nearly as effective because I constantly contradict myself in that frame of mind. I get things done, sure, but at a snail's pace.

Forget what you "should" do. So what if you "should" pursue non-dualism? If that doesn't align with where you are it's like trying to climb Mount Everest when you wheeze going up a slight incline. Oh sure, the ego loves duality, but you're mistaken if you think you're getting anywhere without it. In fact, every part of you needs to be integrated sooner or later. That requires honesty, and it just so happens that if you're honest with yourself you'll probably polarize whether you mean to or not. Polarization is a conscious choice-it will always result from conscious actions-but you don't have to use that term to qualify for the label.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Here's an older thread on the topic:

___Workers, on the Terms

*innocently* Why yes, I did start it.

Heh, those points (well, the first four, the fifth isn't as relevant) pretty much agree with what I posited about the convergence of lightworkers and darkworkers. So, I'm thinking what I mean by 'optimal' polarization is not to focus specifically on the source or the drain, but both in unison, acting as the pump, acting as both the source and the drain, not specifically taking in energy or putting out energy, but acting as the 'battery' in the energy circuit to cause a current to exist. I was particularly interested in the point (3) that after reaching enlightenment, darkworkers and lightworkers are indistinguishable, and rather, polarization (not to either side, but just pure polarization) is all that is left. Again, the duality of inward flow and outward flow is caused by the ego, but without an ego, all that happens is the 'focused' transformation of energy.

But really: I find the idea of polarization a little silly. It seems to be more about accepting yourself completely than it is about "light" or "dark" or whatnot. It's one of those labels meant for making it so it's okay for you to be who you are.

Because the yin and yang cannot exist without the other. I would think that it's not just about accepting 'yourself' completely necessarily (even though that is part of the process), but it's about accepting reality for what it is completely and polarization would be acting with maximum effectiveness (guided by love for the whole, of course).

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

Labels serve a purpose, as do dualities. Have you completely transcended duality? Great, there's nothing to be gained by polarizing. Do you still think in terms of duality? Then the quickest way to shed your illusions is to streamline your thought process-move to one end of the spectrum and stick with it until the paradigm shatters.

I've probably not completely transcended duality just yet, even though I've come to the conclusion that the world is nondual in nature, the dualities are very persistent illusions. On the whole, I've figured it's like moving in a circle (which represents nonduality), but whether you're traveling clockwise or anti-clockwise presents the duality of light or dark, even though in coming full circle when you're enlightened, both 'directions' accomplish the same thing, which is movement around the circle. Both directions are simply then a swapping of the labels of source and drain. (i.e. even though the directions are different, the magnitude is the same, and perhaps it's the magnitude that is important, perhaps the magnitude refers to the levels of consciousness)

Note, I don't know the end result. The above is based partly on observation and partly on experience. Putting myself at the forefront defines my priorities and directs my thoughts. Neutrality isn't nearly as effective because I constantly contradict myself in that frame of mind. I get things done, sure, but at a snail's pace.

I think neutrality in this case would simply to be still on the 'circle of energy' rather than moving, which either way as I just described has the same effect. I suppose that is also where the cancellation comes in, if you move one way i.e. clockwise, and then move the other way, i.e. anti-clockwise, the total movement is reduced. But perhaps there's another way to think about it too, with respect to what's considered 'optimal', another degree of motion. Imagine that if you focus on both, then the tension between the two directions causes some form of oscillatory behavior in the circle of energy, and the circle begins to exhibit a shaking motion, vibrating in a sense, or the direction going neither left or right but rather 'up' and perhaps the circle becomes a sphere, maybe spinning on it's center point. (I wonder if this is related to the idea of getting to higher dimensions/density that I've been reading about recently on the forums?). it's movement, just like the clockwise, and anti-clockwise direction, but because it's not exactly those directions, the movement is forced to expand into a different degree of freedom.

Forget what you "should" do. So what if you "should" pursue non-dualism? If that doesn't align with where you are it's like trying to climb Mount Everest when you wheeze going up a slight incline. Oh sure, the ego loves duality, but you're mistaken if you think you're getting anywhere without it. In fact, every part of you needs to be integrated sooner or later. That requires honesty, and it just so happens that if you're honest with yourself you'll probably polarize whether you mean to or not. Polarization is a conscious choice-it will always result from conscious actions-but you don't have to use that term to qualify for the label.

While I agree that alignment to your true nature is what brings about the most significant results, I'm guessing that's simply because the path of least resistance is the quickest to travel. And to change the path of least resistance would mean to change your true nature, something that is ever evolving anyway. Even with chaos, it's the patterns that emerge and replicate that take the lead, perhaps by changing these patterns to suit the context is what is really needed to continue growth. and yes, I think honesty is definitely important, after all, following something fake will only get you something fake in return. I like how you've mentioned that polarization comes naturally when you are honest with yourself, but with nondualism you'd have to be honest with the rest of the world as well, and like I mentioned above, perhaps that leads to a different type of polarization.

[Cado]

But being honest with yourself does not exclude being honest with the world as a whole regardless of which direction you travel.

People are neutral by default. Neutrality doesn't lend itself to understanding or to transcendence. It's too comfortable. That's why it's difficult to make progress sitting square in the middle. You never have to take a hard stance on anything. Your priorities can change on a whim. While it's unhealthy to put too much stock in labels and become too fixated on what you think you are, it's just as paralyzing to define yourself as nothing at all.

When you polarize, you face numerous challenges you'd never have to deal with as a neutral person. If your primary commitment is to yourself, you have to construct your code of ethics from scratch. Nobody else can tell you how to treat other people and it is up to you to pay attention to cause and effect. Furthermore, you have an obligation to seek your highest good; you cannot rest for a moment. If you choose to serve others, you must figure out how to set boundaries and take care of your own needs. The key here is rapid change induced by staying outside your comfort zone.

Perhaps it is possible to achieve the same effect with a neutral mindset. I doubt it, but strange things happen and I am not yet an expert. Regardless, you have to figure that out for yourself. The truth is that for all these theories that are talked about on these forums it's all just mental masturbation until you've given it a shot. What might be possible pales in comparison to what is possible, and what is possible can only be discovered through action. Why not try polarizing for a little while and take note of the results? That would likely answer any questions that linger in your mind.

[rei]

Originally Posted by Melchior

On the whole, I've figured it's like moving in a circle (which represents nonduality), but whether you're traveling clockwise or anti-clockwise presents the duality of light or dark, even though in coming full circle when you're enlightened, both 'directions' accomplish the same thing, which is movement around the circle. Both directions are simply then a swapping of the labels of source and drain. (i.e. even though the directions are different, the magnitude is the same, and perhaps it's the magnitude that is important, perhaps the magnitude refers to the levels of consciousness)

i think you just described the merkaba. and i agree, the true nature of reality is one of nondualism, and duality is a persistent illusion. according to the hermetic principle, we can't help but express something internally and externally. focusing on self to draw/mobilize power will necessarily create the same thing in our external experience. focusing on others to draw/mobilize power will necessarily create the same thing in our internal experience. the universe adjusts and adapts to maintain a status quo. because the idea of polarizing (as it is talked about here) involves a lopsided way of relating to one's experience of life, i think is impossible (though it may appear otherwise).

/pesky lightworker comment

[vartann]

polarize on Oneness

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

But being honest with yourself does not exclude being honest with the world as a whole regardless of which direction you travel.

I know, but based off of what I've read, there is certainly a 'preference' to which one is higher priority, which is what I was getting at there.

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

People are neutral by default. Neutrality doesn't lend itself to understanding or to transcendence. It's too comfortable. That's why it's difficult to make progress sitting square in the middle. You never have to take a hard stance on anything. Your priorities can change on a whim. While it's unhealthy to put too much stock in labels and become too fixated on what you think you are, it's just as paralyzing to define yourself as nothing at all.

When you polarize, you face numerous challenges you'd never have to deal with as a neutral person. If your primary commitment is to yourself, you have to construct your code of ethics from scratch. Nobody else can tell you how to treat other people and it is up to you to pay attention to cause and effect. Furthermore, you have an obligation to seek your highest good; you cannot rest for a moment. If you choose to serve others, you must figure out how to set boundaries and take care of your own needs. The key here is rapid change induced by staying outside your comfort zone.

Perhaps it is possible to achieve the same effect with a neutral mindset. I doubt it, but strange things happen and I am not yet an expert. Regardless, you have to figure that out for yourself. The truth is that for all these theories that are talked about on these forums it's all just mental masturbation until you've given it a shot. What might be possible pales in comparison to what is possible, and what is possible can only be discovered through action. Why not try polarizing for a little while and take note of the results? That would likely answer any questions that linger in your mind.

Originally Posted by vartann

polarize on Oneness

Thanks, it sounds like a plan, let's see what happens then.
(this actually reminds me of a Zen idea I came across some time ago of collaborating with nature, as you are a part of it, as is everyone and everything else).

Originally Posted by rei

i think you just described the merkaba. and i agree, the true nature of reality is one of nondualism, and duality is a persistent illusion. according to the hermetic principle, we can't help but express something internally and externally. focusing on self to draw/mobilize power will necessarily create the same thing in our external experience. focusing on others to draw/mobilize power will necessarily create the same thing in our internal experience. the universe adjusts and adapts to maintain a status quo. because the idea of polarizing (as it is talked about here) involves a lopsided way of relating to one's experience of life, i think is impossible (though it may appear otherwise).

/pesky lightworker comment

Hmmm, that merkaba thing is kinda neat, unfortunately I have no idea what I'm talking about. I've thought a bit more about the circle thing and the idea of helices came up, but seeing as all this is just speculation rather than explanation at this point, I think it's about time I actually do something, as Illustro Cado pointed out. It may just as well turn out that the actual behavior is entirely different to any of this (although, it certainly does help to have a working definition that may be tested and reworked). btw, current status: somewhat troubled and a little relaxed, I wonder if that should be expected.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Melchior

I know, but based off of what I've read, there is certainly a 'preference' to which one is higher priority, which is what I was getting at there.

In that case I'll agree.

Hmmm, that merkaba thing is kinda neat, unfortunately I have no idea what I'm talking about. I've thought a bit more about the circle thing and the idea of helices came up, but seeing as all this is just speculation rather than explanation at this point, I think it's about time I actually do something, as Illustro Cado pointed out.It may just as well turn out that the actual behavior is entirely different to any of this (although, it certainly does help to have a working definition that may be tested and reworked).

I applaud your effort to construct a working model before you begin. I consider this essential to any undertaking. There's nothing wrong with doing mental preparation before you take the first step into the unknown; it makes it easier to keep your bearings. Just don't get stuck there. For anyone who might be reading this: if you can get no further by thinking it is time to act.

btw, current status: somewhat troubled and a little relaxed, I wonder if that should be expected.

That sounds about right. Best of luck to you.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

I applaud your effort to construct a working model before you begin. I consider this essential to any undertaking. There's nothing wrong with doing mental preparation before you take the first step into the unknown; it makes it easier to keep your bearings. Just don't get stuck there. For anyone who might be reading this: if you can get no further by thinking it is time to act.

Yes, I'll keep that in mind.

That sounds about right. Best of luck to you.

Thanks.

[Melchior]

Just thought I'd throw this out there as I was thinking about it a couple days ago, and I came up with an answer to this whole polarity question, although I get the feeling it's been floating around here for a while now, anyway....

Polarization with respect to nondualism to me is the polarization toward harmony, the end result of love. ^_^