Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What do 'buddhists' think of the YIN YANG defining Duality!!?!
zenmyste
Veteran
The yin and yang defines duality...
Buddhism teaches we need to step 'beyond' duality... (For everything is one)
I see truth in yin and yang duality, but also see truth that we need to step beyond duality...
Am i missing 'something' somewhere?
Buddhism teaches we need to step 'beyond' duality... (For everything is one)
I see truth in yin and yang duality, but also see truth that we need to step beyond duality...
Am i missing 'something' somewhere?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think you will find @zenmyste that the good folks over at Dhamma Wheel will tell you that the Theravada has no such aim..Non -Duality does not feature on their agenda...check it out.
At most you can say that some forms of Mahayana Buddhism teach Non-Duality.
However even they do not teach that 'all is one '..that is a Vedantic concept.
The statement that 'there is not two ' does not equate to ' all is one.'
It is what it is...not two. To say any more is to say too much.
I'll go check the Theravada doctrine about this, not being well up on the differences between the schools, since I would be very shocked if it turned out to be dualism as suggested.
Someone posted a link where yin was the resting phase and yang the active. Kind of opposite of Tibetan lore (iirc).
This is why becoming an extreme, is bringing us closer to its opposite . . .
Did anyone mention the a middle way lately?
:clap:
Nothing in the world is softer and more supple than water, Yet when attacking the hard and the strong, nothing can surpass it. The supple overcomes the hard. The soft overcomes the strong. —Lao Tzu
http://www.chuckrowtaichi.com/AboutYinYang.html
I'm not sure it would be correct to state the the great Tao is the interplay of Yin and Yang since Lao Tsu does not say this. He says that it cannot be spoken except inadequately and by reference to the coincidence of opposites. Hence 'true words seem paradoxical'. This suggests the lack of inherent existence of Yin and Yang. But we'll all have our interpretations.
Yin may be the opposite of yang but there is no opposite of yin yang except no yin yang.
Just as there is no opposite of apple except no apple.
It illustrates the middle way nicely in my view.
There would be nothing to flow 'into' !
And then you say;
But again, if there isnt two then how can one go into the 'other'
'Other' indicates that there is infact Two
and TWO = duality
Then you say; But i thought youve just said Yin and Yang are one, not two... Now you say yin 'may' the opposite of yang...?
When you say; Now your stating the obvious, because of course there is no opposite of Something that is stating 'opposites'
As you then stated;
Its kinda stating the obvious here and i dont understand what you are getting at! Its probably me abit confused but what im thinking is that everybody contradicts themselves, even when they are talking 'truth' i still think 'truth' is sometimes a contradiction!
Tao would not be a numerical one since then it would be one as opposed to two or many, while Tao would have no opposite. In the same way, the Holy Grail of Christian and pre-Christian legend is said to have the power to resolve all opposites. Hence mysticism is often called the 'doctrine of the mean', which would be a general phrase equivalent philosophically to Buddhism's 'Middle Way'. The term advaita conveys the same meaning. It does not say One, it says not-two while expressly avoiding saying One. This seems to be a paradox, but it is only so in appearance.
Lao Tsu tells us that true words seem paradoxical and Nagarjuna explains the reason. The result would be the seeming contradictoriness of @zenmyste's post. Yin and Yang are two but they are dependently arisen and by reduction are not-two. They are not one either, since by reduction they would be conceptual imputations, empty, not even there. Tao would be not-one, not-two and not-many, not something and not nothing.
The consequence of all this is that the language of Buddhism and Taoism must rely heaviliy on the use of contradiction and paradox. In metaphysics it is beyond the power of the subject-predicate structure of language to express what needs to be expressed. And even if it was, then it is beyond the power of the intellect to travel beyond the categories of thought and really get the point.
The truth is never a contradiction, but a seeming contradiction is usually required to express it.
Well said.
The Tao that can be spoken (expressed in words)
Is not the constant (eternal) Tao
The Name that can be named
Is not the eternal Name
There is paradox but no opposition, no contradiction, in speaking of the ineffable. What is the way (Tao)?
Since awareness has no objective relationship of any kind,
no specific direction or focus,
the individual might as well love everyone.
Since vision and commitment to vision
have nothing to do with complacency or fear,
the individual might as well be joyous.
Since action and goals have nothing to do with success or failure,
hope and anxiety,
and it doesn't matter whether they are won or lost ,
the individual might as well feel content.
Since everything is an illusion --
with some more perfect than others --
with no relationship to good or bad ,
being or not-being ,
one might as well
laugh from beginning to end.
— Longchenpa, 1308-1363, Tibetan scholar, master of the Nyingma tradition
One ramification of Nagarjuna's proof of the absurdity of all extreme positions is that there could be no true contradictions. Thus Buddhist doctrine and its equivalents is the the only one whose reasonableness or logical soundness can be demonstrated. This makes it invincible in philosophy.
Thanks. Because they are complimentary aspects of the same thing... Kind of like how we are in relation to each other in light of the middle way. Relatively, we are all living our separate lives but absolutely, there is no separate self. We are all in this thing together. It is like stating the obvious but sometimes the most obvious is the least obvious. I'm not really trying to contradict myself but saying that opposites are just conceptual. Up and down may be opposites but they need a point of reference to even be separated.
I also don't want to claim that all is one because as soon as we say all is anything, we limit it all. However, even more limiting is claiming all is nothing.
I wonder if the real trick lies in moving beyond duality at all so much as knowing it's there and using it as a tool instead of the other way around.
Ying-yang theory was born to explain the natural process of nature, and later on applied to medicine, in particular herb therapy and acupuncture, and consolidated as the foundation for phylosophical view on reality too. However, it was born to explain natural phenomena, and it is a wonderful theory that many more people should know. I know I do at some extent, me being a doc with traditional chinese medicine training (but it is at baking cheese cake that I excell on)
The duality exposed in ying yang theory is that between complementary forces that interact, coexist, and inhabit each other.
The duality named in Dharma...is another story. As far as I have been kindly taught, this duality is the one that is risen between subject and object, that is, between the object of perception and the mind perceiving it. The difference between them would be then illusory, artificial, and a mistaken view since it makes believe that objects exist by themselves, separated from the mind, with inherent existance. This perceived duality is to be abandoned, so the true existance of phenomena, their lack of inherent existance, can be realized directly. First by the conscious mind, then by the subtle mind, and finally, by the very subtle mind, whose only object of perception would be emptiness, and the subject, the mind, great bliss. The union of both, the lack of a gap between great bliss and emptiness, equals enlightenment, according to my beloved Teachers. (I am still trying to achieve even the first steps of it all).
Anyway, that is my take on things, and I hope that my words help in anything.
May you bring inspiration to all sentient beings.
I think it is absolutly a part of the Dharma. It is not a part of Buddhism.
That would make for a very boring forum, though. A bunch of people posting blank posts?
For the OT, I don't think many Buddhists have a problem with the concept of yin and yang but might go on to say it's pointing to the illusion of reality we are fooled by instead of a universal principle.
Thanks.