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.
Dualistic thinking
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
(Brian/Fede: If you think this is the wrong forum, please move this)
In another thread:
We certainly haven't opened this can of worms recently, I think, although it rattles around in most threads.
The Tao Te Ching says that "The Tao gave birth to one. One gave birth to two. Two gave birth to three. And three gave birth to the ten thousand things." (42) The Book of Genesis describes Yhwh separating Light from Darkness, Water from Earth, Woman from Man: all creation described as a movement from singularity to dualism. Plato, in the Symposion, composes a creation myth in which the perfect humans are cut in half by the jealous gods. The two halves are then separated and yearn eternally for each other: "The desire and pursuit of the Whole is called Love," says Plato.
In all well-developed polytheistic systems, such as, for example, the Egyptian or Sumerian and, of course, Hinduism, the many gods are, themselves, creations or emanations or avatars of a god-beyond-gods, a primordial unity which tends to be a-personal.
In much the same way, Buddhism can be seen as part of this tradition of thought. The notion of sunyatta from which both samsara and nirvana (apologies for mixing Pali and Sanskrit) arise is very close to the Sumerian Abzu and the Jewish Abyss.
But, as you say Spike, there appears to be an inborn tendency in human beings to categorise in dualistic terms. Something is A or not-A. This is good or bad. I like/dislike, love/hate, etc. etc. It is, however, worth noting that this sort of thinking is among the most easily challenged. This suggests to me that, 'underneath' the dualism is a native sense of unity into which we can tap.
Of course, just to complicate matters, if we re-read the words of the Tao Te Ching, the Tao precedes even the One!
In another thread:
Spike wrote:With our current understanding of 11 dimensions and string theory or M (membrane) theory isnt it interesting that we ( puny humans ) view things as either/or, heads/tails , good/evil.
Is this duality an inherant concept intrinsically linked with the theory of a this universe/parralell universe.
We certainly haven't opened this can of worms recently, I think, although it rattles around in most threads.
The Tao Te Ching says that "The Tao gave birth to one. One gave birth to two. Two gave birth to three. And three gave birth to the ten thousand things." (42) The Book of Genesis describes Yhwh separating Light from Darkness, Water from Earth, Woman from Man: all creation described as a movement from singularity to dualism. Plato, in the Symposion, composes a creation myth in which the perfect humans are cut in half by the jealous gods. The two halves are then separated and yearn eternally for each other: "The desire and pursuit of the Whole is called Love," says Plato.
In all well-developed polytheistic systems, such as, for example, the Egyptian or Sumerian and, of course, Hinduism, the many gods are, themselves, creations or emanations or avatars of a god-beyond-gods, a primordial unity which tends to be a-personal.
In much the same way, Buddhism can be seen as part of this tradition of thought. The notion of sunyatta from which both samsara and nirvana (apologies for mixing Pali and Sanskrit) arise is very close to the Sumerian Abzu and the Jewish Abyss.
But, as you say Spike, there appears to be an inborn tendency in human beings to categorise in dualistic terms. Something is A or not-A. This is good or bad. I like/dislike, love/hate, etc. etc. It is, however, worth noting that this sort of thinking is among the most easily challenged. This suggests to me that, 'underneath' the dualism is a native sense of unity into which we can tap.
Of course, just to complicate matters, if we re-read the words of the Tao Te Ching, the Tao precedes even the One!
0
Comments
The recent interest in the quantum 'field' seems like scientific justification for the same concept except with a few more eloquent equations. Although this particular branch of 'physics' has been somewhat infested with crystal hugging wind chimers - a term i have now just introduced to the field- .
I do wonder if, as has been found, whether the actual composition or structure of our (puny human ) brains dictate our religious leanings. Many devout worshippers, particlularly those who suffer from stigmata have been , upon examination, to have 'problems' with the frontal lobe area of the brain. It has led many neuro surgeons to speculate that religion is in actuality a brain deformity and either you have it or you dont. You are either of a religious type or not. Irony intended. This same area of the brain is also very active when tested on buddhists in deep meditative state.
It is also interesting and also somewhat ironic that whilst working with london taxi drivers and their fantastic ability to 'do the knowledge' or learn all the london streets so as to become fully licsened, it was found that they have all expanded their hypothalamus area of their brains which can be concluded that endevour in certain areas of education can increase the potential and ability of the brain.
so can you learn to be religious ? is our binary brain willing to accept easily the middle ground or way or is it just a way of giving up as no positive affirmations are readily available to us.
If we are limited by our senses are we limited by the actual shape of our brains too?
Having studied Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology, I came to learn, although it may not be either widely accepted or expounded, that exercise will always strengthen, reinforce and enlarge the relevant organ exercised... thus it would logically follow that any exercise undertaken by the brain will in every sense, 'broaden the Mind'!
In answer to your question, I think one can learn to be Religious, but I think Reverence is different....I knew many Nuns in my youth, and though they were all pious, religious and devoted women, the degrees of reverence were markedly different, to say the least!
I am prepared to accept the Middle Way due to the very fact that I HAVE a binary brain - the two extremes have been adequately shown to me, to be exactly that. Extreme, and therefore, unsatisfactory - or 'Dukka'....!They have been tried and tested, and found (by me,) to be wanting.... so by a process of elimination, I have decided, in balanced Yin/Yang style, that the best and most logical option, is the 'neutral' or Middle one.
I don't know whether we're limited by size, shape or anything else. But mine's beginning to hurt now..... !
Is there any dualism for unity to be 'underneath'?
emptiness is form and form is emptiness
BUT
form is also form and emptiness is also emptiness
Dualism does not exist.
Non-Dualism also does not exist.
(From what I've gathered your love of irony will make this seemingly contradictory answer appeal to you.)
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Seems easy. Or........maybe he does exist. We think, therefore he is. Perhaps he exists as an idea. But then, do ideas exist? Or does "existence" require something beyond a thought?
What is more, it is not a simple , overarching dualism but an apparent conditioning of the human mind. Very early in the development of the infant, a distinction arises between "me" and "not-me", just as the Purusha, in the Gita, saying "I" is the prime cause of "Thou".
Back to the Ten Oxherding Pictures for me.
How can you describe the sound of the sun?
That was a bit like farting loudly! Brings the conversation to a bit of a pause.
I do think that it takes a shock to the system to jolt us out of dualistic mode and I know that there is no "magic word" or "perfect koan" which can make it happen. For most of us, there is a period of time (apparent, perhaps but 'dukkhaful') of waiting. Or, at least, that is how it is for me.
It goes a bit like this: as a result of various experiences (and/or karma), I came to a profound dissatisfaction with the classic Christian dualism. I investigated the roots of the notion and learned about Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism. I read Saint Augustine. I was attracted and repelled by this extraordinary man. I empathised with his struggles and weaknesses - and his prayer for chastity deferred! But I couldn't follow him far into his world-view of angels and devils and Fallen humanity. {There is a whole lot of personal history there too but that's another story.}
The training that I received in dialectics and philosophy gave me a profoundly sceptical mind and a bloody-mindedness that tends to say "Sez who?" when I'm told something, particularly when it is some sort of doctrinal certainty. I can still remember my sense of wonder when our maths teacher demonstrated the absolute truth of Pythagoras' theorem. Here was incontrovertible certainty! This is what is meant by proof.
The problem that I have is that I find very little that is proven or provable in my chosen field of action which, for want of a better term, I tend to call "spirituality".
What I experience is a pale shadow of the process by which, for example, (and please forgive my presumption) I have heard Eisnstein's "Wonder Year" described. He spoke about a dream of riding on a beam of light. Not very 'scientific' but it was one of the hints that led, ultimately, to the Special Theory of Relativity. The final equation is so well-known, so embedded in our awareness, that it is sometimes easy to overlook the lengthy process and the complex mathematics that lead to it. On the way, Einstein ran up against obstacle after obstacle, uncertainty, doubt and all that blocks our breaking out of the usual boundaries.
On my own journey, I have come to an intellectual awareness that there is a unifying principle 'behind' the multiplicity, just as there is a unifying equation for energy, mass and velocity. I detect an extensive and very ancient history of expression of this unifying principle, naming it in all sorts of ways.
The Dalai Lama told us that every religious path has a prajna (Wisdom) path and a upaya (Method) path. Prajna is concerned with Absolute Truth (Paramarthasatya) and, in my model, what I call the unifying principle. The Method is the 'proof' in the mathematical sense, which is to say a set of 'equations' which lead each time to the same result.
My problem is that I cannot identify the upaya that is infallible. There are, I seem to remember, moments in each day now (used to be less often), when 'I' and 'That' are no longer separate. But I have no certainty.