Thread: Can one escape duality and talking/thinking in circles?

^^ Yes, I suppose they are boring... on their surface. But the doors that achieving a sense of non-duality opens is well worth a bit of dry research, I think.

Sometimes (hell, most of the time) the best things in life start out with really dull information gathering. But dues must be paid to get what we want, don't they?

Originally Posted by Sageous

don't they?

I'm not sure... I actually don't think so xD But... Perhaps this little exchange will someday bubble up and I will think "hmm, let's look up this non-duality thing", and I will thank you for it. I do have some sympathy for it. I also feel like I am starting to get a better and better grasp of the selfless nature of consciousness, that there really is no experiencer, there is only the experience which is taking place in this consciousness. Now that I think about it, I remember Sam Harris describing that as non-duality. Now you have my attention So is that the same as non-duality? When I look at an apple there is not really an "I" sitting in my head looking at the apple, but there is a consciousness, and in that consciousness is appearing (or happening/taking place) the experience of seeing an apple. It's devoid of "I", and since Sam described that I've been casually thinking about it every now and then, and while meditating I've been considering this concept of selflesness or non-duality. And this idea that there is no self having an experience, there is only experience, is making more and more sense.

Did I lump two things, selfless and non-dual, together while they are not the same? It may be the case that they are similar, but on closer inspection they may turn out to be slightly different. I haven't thought about it enough to really have an opinion about it, but sort of vaguely in my head, I have always considered them as synomys. So perhaps you can forget my earlier accusations and educate me a bit


edit: You can see a change of heart in this post. At the beginning I was basically saying why I didn't want to dive further into it but that I may remember this and look it up later. And then a few sentences after that I have jumped off a cliff or plank and am swimming in the subject xD

Originally Posted by Ginsan

Did I lump two things, selfless and non-dual, together while they are not the same? It may be the case that they are similar, but on closer inspection they may turn out to be slightly different. I haven't thought about it enough to really have an opinion about it, but sort of vaguely in my head, I have always considered them as synomys. So perhaps you can forget my earlier accusations and educate me a bit

From what you described, I think it would be safe to lump the two together.

I'm a little leery of using the term "selfless," though, because to me it seems to imply an abandonment of identity, of the fact that there is still a "You" present, even though it isn't a separate consciousness sitting inside inside your head during the experience. It also might be confused with the ethical use of the term selflessness, depending on who you are talking to. Otherwise, the two words do seem synonymous.

... Not sure if any of this has something to do with the OP, though...

Originally Posted by Sageous

... Not sure if any of this has something to do with the OP, though...

Been watching this thread and appreciated the thoughts on duality. But thinking of the OP's concern, I think it's more about competing ideas/values in one's thoughts. I think the most precise term for this would be cognitive dissonance. I suffer this very often as well. I'm trying to form something constructive to comment on it, but the words don't arrive at the moment.

Hey Sageous, I definitely understand where you're coming from with your definitions of duality. I think that we've mostly been talking about binarism in this thread (and the cognitive dissonance that can bring on, as sisyphus said), and agree that even with the "mutually antagonistic principles" definition, duality isn't a word that fits very well.

I do find this definition of duality interesting, though, because it seriously depends on the religion:

Originally Posted by Sageous

Simply put, duality is nothing more than the perception that the world is composed of two basic entities: mind and matter. In other words, a dualistic perspective sees the world (matter) as something separate from themselves (mind). A non-dual perspective is one that understands that mind and matter are ultimately the same thing, and interact not as separate entities but units of a greater whole.

This fits pretty close with—and is simultaneously the complete opposite of—the view of duality that comes up in the religion that I practice (Wicca, and the relationship between it and I can best be described as "it's complicated.") In this philosophy, humanity's view of the universe can be summarized as a series of dualities: black and white (and every shade in between), night and day (and all the hours thereof), god and goddess (both of which we embody aspects of.) By emphasizing both elements of the duality, we can have a better view of the whole, because if we emphasize only the whole, we have a tendency to slip into emphasizing only one half of any given duality (such as our culture's tendency to consider masculine the default.)

So, non-dual philosophy downside: potential to slip towards one side by accident. Dual philosophy downside: potential to strengthen the binary by emphasizing both sides. Solution: adopt a simultaneously dual and non-dual philosophy?

Originally Posted by Samael

Hey Sageous, I definitely understand where you're coming from with your definitions of duality. I think that we've mostly been talking about binarism in this thread (and the cognitive dissonance that can bring on, as sisyphus said), and agree that even with the "mutually antagonistic principles" definition, duality isn't a word that fits very well.

Yeah; I've been leaning toward cognitive dissonance as the actual theme of this thread... we may never know for sure, though, because Figurefly seems to have stepped away from this thread,


Here's an interesting thing:

This fits pretty close with—and is simultaneously the complete opposite of—the view of duality that comes up in the religion that I practice (Wicca, and the relationship between it and I can best be described as "it's complicated.") In this philosophy, humanity's view of the universe can be summarized as a series of dualities: black and white (and every shade in between), night and day (and all the hours thereof), god and goddess (both of which we embody aspects of.) By emphasizing both elements of the duality, we can have a better view of the whole, because if we emphasize only the whole, we have a tendency to slip into emphasizing only one half of any given duality (such as our culture's tendency to consider masculine the default.)

So, non-dual philosophy downside: potential to slip towards one side by accident. Dual philosophy downside: potential to strengthen the binary by emphasizing both sides. Solution: adopt a simultaneously dual and non-dual philosophy?

That's actually not such a funny thing to say, because you are correct. And how do you adopt this balance? By seeing the world in a truly non-dual way:

Traditionally, a non-dual perspective really has nothing to do with binaries at all. Duality, philosophically speaking, is not about black and white, etc.; it is about separating your self from reality and your place in it, where you believe that your mind is a thing existing inside your head that is completely removed from the general workings of the universe. In other words, a dual perspective assumes that the universe is something different and removed from their consciousness, that there is an "I" observing the world from a separate place -- a different, unique existence. A non-dual perspective understands that that "I" is actually an integral element to the world/reality, and is in a state of constant interaction with it.

So, an actual non-dual perspective would be ideal for including both the binary and non-binary philosophies in its worldview, because it can understand more clearly that everything in the universe is interconnected, so things like binary or non-binary are elements of an overall picture, and, being just elements that are supplementary to the non-dual whole, a slip toward either would be most unlikely.

All that said: The Wiccan tenets may have changed the meaning of duality from the traditional one I am using, so in their context everything you say may be correct -- just so you know I am not arguing against your beliefs.

Originally Posted by Sageous

we may never know for sure, though, because Figurefly seems to have stepped away from this thread,

Well... I don't know if that's fair to say. She often seems to make decent efforts trying to express herself/convey her ideas, so maybe she is still processing things? Or she is just busy. Or we completely missed her point and went off in a totally different direction and she doesn't know how to respond xD

This post is a little bit disjointed; I usually strive for clarity, but it's late and I wanted to respond to this topic before I forgot. Let me know if anything doesn't come across well.

Originally Posted by Sageous

That's actually not such a funny thing to say, because you are correct. And how do you adopt this balance? By seeing the world in a truly non-dual way:

I think that the way it subverts some mainstream expectations was funny to me. That sense of push-and-pull is essential to my worldview, but I don't think I'd managed to frame the contradiction in exactly that way before.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Traditionally, a non-dual perspective really has nothing to do with binaries at all. Duality, philosophically speaking, is not about black and white, etc.; it is about separating your self from reality and your place in it, where you believe that your mind is a thing existing inside your head that is completely removed from the general workings of the universe. In other words, a dual perspective assumes that the universe is something different and removed from their consciousness, that there is an "I" observing the world from a separate place -- a different, unique existence. A non-dual perspective understands that that "I" is actually an integral element to the world/reality, and is in a state of constant interaction with it.

So, an actual non-dual perspective would be ideal for including both the binary and non-binary philosophies in its worldview, because it can understand more clearly that everything in the universe is interconnected, so things like binary or non-binary are elements of an overall picture, and, being just elements that are supplementary to the non-dual whole, a slip toward either would be most unlikely.

I've always found the idea of trying to touch the real, underlying universe (however briefly) by abandoning our preconceived notions and ideas a compelling one. I've actually been playing with this in terms of empiricism versus constructionism. We've constructed all these schema that are essential to the way we view reality, but we want to measure what we can to get closer to the actual reality, but what's to say that the underlying reality is more real than the one we experience? I think that embracing contradiction might be vital to puzzling that one out.

Originally Posted by sisyphus

But straying too far from reality can create problems. Which is what bridges to the other topic of conflict.

So, the dualistic mode creates illusions. And what's more, this process operates according to each individual's experience. So each person accumulates their own illusions, different from everyone else. This leads to conflicting ideas between persons. And also conflicting ideas within each person. Conflict leads to negative emotions (like cognitive dissonance among others). Negative emotions are suffering. And so, we've circled back to the first noble truth of Buddhism: life is suffering.

Ah, there's the issue with simply accepting the constructionist idea of our personal illusion as reality. I knew it would pop up.

I wonder how much of the problem comes from the fact that we're tempted to portray our personal illusion as Truth? I mean, if the three of us are in our own little bubbles, we're each trying to communicate what the inside of the bubbles look like through the insufficient medium of words. But as long as I acknowledge that the inside of my bubble is probably genuinely different than the inside of your bubble, and the inside of all of these bubbles is different again from the world outside of the bubbles, we're not likely to take any of it personally, and don't see much of a need for conflict.

Originally Posted by sisyphus

Now, how to escape it? Well, there's a Buddhist view on that too, but that's a topic others can pursue on their own, and that's enough from me for now.

Ending of suffering? Definitely a big topic!

Originally Posted by Sageous

All that said: The Wiccan tenets may have changed the meaning of duality from the traditional one I am using, so in their context everything you say may be correct -- just so you know I am not arguing against your beliefs.

If the Wiccan traditions are anything, it's "eclectic," so I expect that if you grabbed a bunch of different Wiccans from different groups, they'd all give you a different definition of what those tenets are. Either way, it's always fun to define our terms and figure out where each of us is coming from, so it's all good. You've given me a bunch to ponder about the way that us earth-worshippers use the idea of duality compared to other philosophies.