Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I live in a country based on dualism. We see things right and wrong, up and down, left, and right, and stop and go.
I feel seeing the world in a duelist view can be abused; and, when it is not, what is wrong with that view? When it's not used for "power", gain, or inequality, but just a defining how two concepts or ideas are opposed to each other, what is wrong with that?
I agree with duality only because it defines the nature of one idea as opposed to another. If there is no duality, then everything will either be right or everything would either be wrong.
Believing in duality doesn't mean you have to see the world in two teams. It just means that there are two teams even though they are also on one playing field. We acknowledge that there is bad (say delusions) and good (say enlightenment) and then we say they are both on the same playing field (nature of life-rebirth) without describing one view (say dualist) to favor the other side (non-dualist).
Maybe not being a dualist is accepting both dualism and non dualism as equally valid-not only for others but for oneself as well.
Maybe that's a polorism (can't figure the term and spelling) view, I don't know.
This thread idea didn't come from abrahamic thought or Christianized thinking; though, I think many people will answer it from that perspective. If you can take the hierarchical, political, and scriptural point of view and answer from a non-dualistic influence and perspective, that would be cool. It's not wrong to answer it from a dualist perspective.
We all have duality. We all have what we believe is correct and what we believe is not correct. If that is wrong, why do we identify with one faith and not another? Just try to stray from the Christian view unless, of course, you are Christian or follow a worldview that has power (god etc) as a higher influence on society-it does not need to be Christian or abrahamic.
I feel seeing the world in a duelist view can be abused; and, when it is not, what is wrong with that view? When it's not used for "power", gain, or inequality, but just a defining how two concepts or ideas are opposed to each other, what is wrong with that?
I agree with duality only because it defines the nature of one idea as opposed to another. If there is no duality, then everything will either be right or everything would either be wrong.
If both are right and wrong, how do you explain that as equals? How do you explain the concept that both right and wrong are the same field (non-duality) but then say they are opposites from each other (duality)?
Believing in duality doesn't mean you have to see the world in two teams. It just means that there are two teams even though they are also on one playing field. We acknowledge that there is bad (say delusions) and good (say enlightenment) and then we say they are both on the same playing field (nature of life-rebirth) without describing one view (say dualist) to favor the other side (non-dualist).
Maybe not being a dualist is accepting both dualism and non dualism as equally valid-not only for others but for oneself as well.
Maybe that's a polorism (can't figure the term and spelling) view, I don't know.
This thread idea didn't come from abrahamic thought or Christianized thinking; though, I think many people will answer it from that perspective. If you can take the hierarchical, political, and scriptural point of view and answer from a non-dualistic influence and perspective, that would be cool. It's not wrong to answer it from a dualist perspective.
We all have duality. We all have what we believe is correct and what we believe is not correct. If that is wrong, why do we identify with one faith and not another? Just try to stray from the Christian view unless, of course, you are Christian or follow a worldview that has power (god etc) as a higher influence on society-it does not need to be Christian or abrahamic.