-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are the two elements of the dualism in 'non-dualism'?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
There are, of course, various conceptions of dualism, and even of non-dualism.
I tend to gravitate towards those that emphasize that analysis methods that rely on sharp categorizations tend to be misleading due to excessive reducionism.
Ultimately, most practical distinctions are somewhat arbitrary. And I happen to be a firm believer in Interdependent Origination, which probably enhances my perception of non-dualism.
Therefore, depending on the context and situation, the two elements could be "us and them", "mind and emotion", "sacred and profane", "material and spiritual" or several other contrasting pairings. Many such pairings are ultimately to be understood and transcended if we are to make proper use of them.
I tend to gravitate towards those that emphasize that analysis methods that rely on sharp categorizations tend to be misleading due to excessive reducionism.
Ultimately, most practical distinctions are somewhat arbitrary. And I happen to be a firm believer in Interdependent Origination, which probably enhances my perception of non-dualism.
Therefore, depending on the context and situation, the two elements could be "us and them", "mind and emotion", "sacred and profane", "material and spiritual" or several other contrasting pairings. Many such pairings are ultimately to be understood and transcended if we are to make proper use of them.
I understand that two elements are 'me' and 'world'.
Of course, that is a traditional understanding (far as I know).
It connects to both Anatta and Advaita, IIRC.
It connects to both Anatta and Advaita, IIRC.
Tmac
Active Member
Could you expound a little on how "mind and emotion" fit in with the other examples?
Tmac
Active Member
I think of it as me and my thoughts.
Brahman and Maya
God and Creation
Creation is a thought-form of God and not a separate thing, such as our dreams are not something separate from us. Hence the confusion to the dualist when ‘God is in All’ or ‘I am God’ is claimed by nondualists.
God and Creation
Creation is a thought-form of God and not a separate thing, such as our dreams are not something separate from us. Hence the confusion to the dualist when ‘God is in All’ or ‘I am God’ is claimed by nondualists.
Self (Atman) and the Absolute (Brahman)
I’ve had hard time understanding non-dualism in the past but it seemed to click when I found how Alan Watts put it. He said monism excludes the many and that non-dualism does not exclude anything. That there is no outside or inside of space it’s transcendent. Saying it’s two elements is dualism.
That is one of the easiest examples. Emotions are manifestations of the mind, yet we are culturally conditioned to perceive them as separate, even oposite.
Realizing the artificiality of the separation enables us to perceive situations in a more accurate and more produtive manner.
Tmac
Active Member
Still not clear for me, could you give me an example of the mind manifesting emotion, I can say thinking and not thinking or feeling and not feeling, the mind for me is tool, we use it of we don't use it.
I don't understand your question. Emotions are expressions of the mind.
Tmac
Active Member
Now, I'm really lost, if emotion is but an expression of the mind how can it be thought of as part of a duality?
My question is can you give me an example of mind manifesting emotion?
Far as I can tell, because there is a persistent myth that emotions are sensitive while the mind is rational - presumably two distinct substances.
Any expression of emotion originates in the mind.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
This is very well put by LuisDantas.
Emotions emanate from a conditioned mind. Hence they are inherently artificial and false in nature.
A little muslim child have no problems in playing soccer with a jewish or christian or buddhist child and have fun in the process. But when he grows up getting conditioned by intolerant and fanatic society around him, instilling beliefs, likes and dislikes in his psyche, he would not do the same anymore.
Same goes for fanatics of other religions, sects within the same religion, castes, groups and ideologies. Conditioning instills likes and dislikes within the person, and generate corresponding emotions accordingly, which would not have been present if the conditioning mechanism is absent.
Nature is impersonal, and so are human beings who are part of it. The personal is false and a product of the psychological mind created by society's likes and dislikes , which results in a disconnect or illusory separation from existential reality.
Such a separation between the psychological reality and reality as it is, is potentially dangerous and all regressive conflicts and wars have come up due to this.
For example, in 27 October 1962, the soviet captain Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky thought erroneously and got into the impression that the third world war had started, based on the report of the Americans using depth mines against his nuclear submarine in neutral waters,and decided to launch nuclear weapons against the U.S. navy, which would have quickly escalated and wiped out both nations. He was supported by the submarine's political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov in this regard. His second-in-command Vasili Arkhipov however protested against it, giving a benefit of doubt to the Americans, and voted against the captain's proposal to launch nuclear weapons, which turned out to be the right decision, a minority against a majority wanting to launch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
It is obvious clarity of mind is needed for correct judgement, which can get imperilled if one gets swayed by one's psychological likes and dislikes, and confuses the psychological/conceptual reality for existential reality.
Last edited:
Tmac
Active Member
We have different views of the mind, I see it as the container in which we experience the duality and decide on whether we like something or not. No problem.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
The nondualist philosopher Chinmayananda stated in this regard...
'Our intellect can register a situation or a condition only with reference to the comparative estimate of its opposite. Thus, I can understand light only with reference to my knowledge of darkness. Comparison is the only way of understanding given to man. If there is no contrast for a thing, we cannot gain knowledge of that thing. '
The mind divides reality or 'what is' into polar opposites through thought. Good and bad. Spirit and matter. Right and wrong. Pleasure and pain, and so on.
And emotion always follow thought.
Thought of a certain person you disliked in the past brings anger within you, while thought of visiting a good friend brings pleasure.
Thus emotion, like thought, fosters duality.
Tmac
Active Member
Your example compares a thought that one likes to a thought that one doesn't likes, if you want to say one thought is in contrast to the other because of the emotion, ok. So thoughts can have contrast and emotion can have contrast but a thought is not in contrast to emotion.
It wasn't a thought that is in question but the mind, which in my thinking is the container in which we observe the contrast, yin, yang. And the only contrast to mind is no mind.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Yeah, no-mind is Awareness or the witnessing state. It is above all pairs of opposites of thought/emotion constituting the transitory mind, and which is subject to change.
Know yourself to be the changeless witness of the changeful mind. That is enough. - Nisargadatta Maharaj