Understanding "not two"

Ren_in_black

In Kerome's thread on the supernatural, there's an article linked that includes this quote:

"...phenomena are both one and many. We can’t say there is only one; we can’t say there is more than one. So, we say, ‘not two.'"

Not sure I am grasping this or if it's possible to grasp in everyday mind.

Would this be another way of saying "all is one but all is not one" and if so, wouldn't "not two" be a given? Why a separate phrase?

Or does it mean that since everything has an opposite, dualism appears to exist but actually there is no dualism, so really there's "not two?"

I know this question goes deeper than a forum post might allow but just curious about others' perspectives.

federica

Hang on, I'm thinking....

Jeffrey

This poem touches on the subject but in concise rather than exacting form

It's an important work in Soto Zen tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandokai

Identity of Relative and Absolute
The mind of the Great Sage of India was intimately
conveyed from west to east.

Among human beings are wise ones and fools,

But in the Way there is no northern or southern Patriarch.

The subtle source is clear and bright; the tributary

streams flow through the darkness.

To be attached to things is illusion;

To encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment.

Each and all, the subjective and objective spheres are related,

and at the same time, independent.

Related, yet working differently, though each keeps its own place.

Form makes the character and appearance different;

Sounds distinguish comfort and discomfort.

The dark makes all words one; the brightness distinguishes good and bad phrases.

The four elements return to their nature as a child to its mother.

Fire is hot, wind moves, water is wet, earth hard.

Eyes see, ears hear, nose smells, tongue tastes the salt and sour.

Each is independent of the other; cause and effect must return to the great reality

Like leaves that come from the same root.

The words high and low are used relatively.

Within light there is darkness, but do not try to understand that darkness;

Within darkness there is light, but do not look for that light.

Light and darkness are a pair, like the foot before

and the foot behind, in walking. Each thing has its own intrinsic value

and is related to everything else in function and position.

Ordinary life fits the absolute as a box and its lid.

The absolute works together with the relative like two arrows meeting in mid-air.

Reading words you should grasp the great reality. Do not judge by any standards.

If you do not see the Way, you do not see it even as you walk on it.

When you walk the Way, it is not near, it is not far.

If you are deluded, you are mountains and rivers away from it.

I respectfully say to those who wish to be enlightened:

Do not waste your time by night or day.

Fosdick

What you refer to is experienced in meditation, and eventually, perhaps, in practice and in life. Language is by its nature dualistic, designed expressly to distinguish one thing from another, and thus can indicate suchness only by negation. When all the possibilities of language are exhausted, what remains? Not one, not two. Not this, not that. It's like a koan. That's how it appears to me.

lobster

https://biblehub.com/psalms/46-10.htm
Be still, and know that I am Not-Cod: I will be ex-altered among the faces-bookers, I will be x-Altar-ed in the earth.

My two sents worth ...

Shoshin

Zen maintains a stance of “not one” and “not two,” that is “a positionless position,” where “not two” means negating the dualistic stance that divides the whole into two parts, while “not one” means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation. The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot, however, be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”.

lobster

@Shoshin

Que?

how

So many words,
to leave our grasping inclinations,
empty handed.

Bunks

@lobster said:
@Shoshin

Que?

I must admit this is how I respond to most of your posts mate

Shoshin

@lobster said:
@Shoshin

Que?

Hmm..

lobster

Here is the rasayana Buddhist formula ...

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Buddhist_Philosophy/Esoteric_Buddhism

Lionduck

When you realize there is no separation; When you see the stars as your life and the ocean as your tears; When you see yourself in the stranger; The you will have only begin to see duality as the illusion it is.

Peace to all

Ren_in_black

@lobster said:
Here is the rasayana Buddhist formula ...

"It was my understanding that there would be no math in the debates."

-Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford

Ren_in_black

@Jeffrey said:
This poem touches on the subject but in concise rather than exacting form

Ordinary life fits the absolute as a box and its lid.

Nice.

Ren_in_black

I was meditating on this, not on an intellectual level but an emotional one after a rocky weekend.

Not saying I grasp it any better now, but I did get this funny sensation and thought. I wanted to hug the world.

lobster

@Ren_in_black said:
I wanted to hug the world.

Whitch One?

Bunks

Ladies and Gentleman, I present the late, great George Harrison

Gui

There is only everything. I don't think everything consists of parts of everything. That is my perspective.

David

@Ren_in_black said:
In Kerome's thread on the supernatural, there's an article linked that includes this quote:

"...phenomena are both one and many. We can’t say there is only one; we can’t say there is more than one. So, we say, ‘not two.'"

Not sure I am grasping this or if it's possible to grasp in everyday mind.

Would this be another way of saying "all is one but all is not one" and if so, wouldn't "not two" be a given? Why a separate phrase?

I like these riddles. "Not two" is used instead of "one" because "one" automatically implies a finished and bordered "thing" or "set". With any border, it in turn implies there is an outside to this "one" and so something set apart from the "one".

Since borders are convention and change is inevitable, this poses a problem. If there are no borders in the absolute sense, we cannot say all is a defined "one" to explain the absolute oneness and if we could, we wouldn't be accounting for change. So what to say?

Or does it mean that since everything has an opposite, dualism appears to exist but actually there is no dualism, so really there's "not two?"

Opposition seems to imply a kind of battle between sides but usually the opposites cannot exist without one another. If one thing cannot exist without the other then they are really parts of the same thing/process and are better served being perceived as complimentary rather than oppositional.

The opposite of woman is not man because they are both different aspects of human and what is the opposite of human? Only no-human. Just as the only opposite to man is no man. Woman and man work together and are complimentary.

Our true nature without any bias is cooperation. Everything just works together.

Us and "them" is like growing pains along our eternal path of awareness.

In my opinion, obviously.