When We Talk About Source, We Immediately Represent Some Kind Of Primary Event, At First. But What Does

When we talk about source, we immediately represent some kind of primary event, at first. But what does "the beginning" mean? For us, the beginning is related to time, suggesting that time exists and that this is the beginning of time.

But if we find ourselves outside the limits of time, what then does the "beginning" mean? Does not make any sense. The "beginning" is just the moment when we enter into duality. But when we are beyond that, the beginning does not exist. So we're never going to be able to illustrate all this in some scheme.

When we say, "initial," Samantabhadra and so on, many have the same idea that Christians have about God: God created the world, first was Samantabadhra, and then we were.

But by the word "initial" I don't mean this. "Initial" is a true condition. And our true state is timeless. However, those who want to connect everything with time and establish when everything began, must understand that the source, the beginning is when we have entered duality. The source, the beginning of a reflection, is the moment when an object appears in front of a mirror. But the beginning of a reflection is not the beginning of a mirror or the beginning of an object. This is what duality is.

~ Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche