Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dualistic and Non-Dualistic perception

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dualistic and Non-Dualistic perception

    I think it makes sense to first define what is meant by “dualistic thinking”. Simply put, it means compartmentalising. It relates to a definite, absolute definition. This can be applied to an action, an object, a thought, a person, an emotion, in fact pretty much anything you would care to imagine. Where dualistic thought is absolute, non-dualistic thought is relative. I will leave you to decide whether that last statement should be considered an example of dualistic or non-dualistic thought.

    Dualistic thinking is something we in the West are very good at. When we look at something - let’s use the example of a sunset - we know and clearly define what we are seeing. The sky is up; the ground is down; the sun is setting; night is falling and the day is ending; the stars and moon are coming out; and so on. This is, as mentioned the dualistic approach.

    Now let’s try and look at the same sunset from a non-dualistic vantage point. The explanation may seem lengthy and complex on the surface. But look below the surface and it should become short and simple. Once again, this last pair of statements are left without qualification so that you can judge yourself whether they are dualistic or non-dualistic.

    The sky is up or down, neither up nor down, or both up and down:
    The sky is up – when compared to all that is below it. Someone with their feet firmly on the Earth will perceive the sky as being above them i.e. up.
    The sky is down – when compared to all that is above it. An astronaut (taking an extreme example) looking at the Earth from outer space will perceive what we call “the sky” as down. It is well “below” their own altitude.
    The sky is neither up nor down – an astronaut could also take this view. They exist for that moment as PART of “the sky”. Stars are all around them. There is no up and there is no down.
    The sky is both up and down – alternatively, the same astronaut could conceive themselves as being IN the sky. Whichever way they look there is more sky. It is above them, below them, it is all around them.

    The ground is down or up, neither up nor down, or both up and down
    Pretty much the same considerations as for “the sky” above (or is it below ) can be made here.
    The ground is down – as we normally perceive it.
    The ground is up – when considering it from a point near the centre of our planet (an extreme example).
    The ground is neither up nor down
    – considered from one viewpoint of a worm but
    The ground is both and down – considered by the same worm from a different perspective.

    By now I am guessing that you are getting the hang of this idea of non-dualistic thought.

    The sun is setting or rising, neither setting nor rising, or both setting and rising
    The sun is setting – in our part of the world.
    The sun is rising – in another part of the world (the opposite side).
    The sun is neither setting nor rising – at night or during the day.
    The sun is both setting and rising – sunrise and sunset are just individual elements of the same cycle.

    I will now let you have some fun whilst you try and find the non-dualistic reasoning behind these last groups of statements:

    Night is falling and the day is ending -
    The day is starting and night is ending -
    Day and night are neither starting nor ending –
    Both day and night are staring and ending –

    The stars and moon are coming out –
    The stars and moon are fading away –
    The stars and moon are coming out and fading away –
    The stars and moon are neither coming out nor fading away –

    So by now the basic principles of non-dualistic thought should be apparent. These basic principles – alternative and relative viewpoints – can be applied pretty much universally.

    But what real use is this concept of non-duality in real life?

    To the surprise of many, this principle of non-dualistic existence is even prevalent in the world of high-tech --- yes, computers are being “taught” to be non-dualistic.

    The original computers – and probably at least the majority of the one you are sitting in front of to read this – are dualistic. They function based on “1”s and “0”s. Simple binary code and simple logic functions are their driving forces. Switches are “off” or “on” and there is no switch which is not in one of those states. Looking at the earliest computers in detail you will find nothing more than banks and banks of switches. For a long time this was quite enough. But now, with increasing demands, this “on” / “off” system is no longer adequate. “Fuzzy Logic” has been born.

    But what is “Fuzzy Logic”? The following (simple?) definition has been borrowed from this very informative website
    Fuzzy logic is a superset of conventional (Boolean) logic that has been
    extended to handle the concept of partial truth -- truth values between
    "completely true" and "completely false". It was introduced by Dr. Lotfi
    Zadeh of UC/Berkeley in the 1960's as a means to model the uncertainty
    of natural language.

    Zadeh says that rather than regarding fuzzy theory as a single theory, we
    should regard the process of ``fuzzification'' as a methodology to
    generalize ANY specific theory from a crisp (discrete) to a continuous
    (fuzzy) form (see "extension principle" in [2]). Thus recently researchers
    have also introduced "fuzzy calculus", "fuzzy differential equations",
    and so on.
    And just to make things clearer(?), here is another interesting excerpt from the same website.
    Fuzzy sets and logic must be viewed as a formal mathematical theory for
    the representation of uncertainty. Uncertainty is crucial for the
    management of real systems: if you had to park your car PRECISELY in one
    place, it would not be possible. Instead, you work within, say, 10 cm
    tolerances. The presence of uncertainty is the price you pay for handling
    a complex system.

    Nevertheless, fuzzy logic is a mathematical formalism, and a membership
    grade is a precise number. What's crucial to realize is that fuzzy logic
    is a logic OF fuzziness, not a logic which is ITSELF fuzzy. But that's
    OK: just as the laws of probability are not random, so the laws of
    fuzziness are not vague.
    And just in case you’re now wondering where this concept of fuzzy logic is useful … well – as a simple example - just look at pretty much any modern digital camera and you’ll find this type of logic imperative to its operation.

    So when you next look at person, situation, object then maybe, just maybe, you’ll see something in it that you have never seen before. I certainly hope so.

    Andrew Barnett
    Shaolin Wahnam Switzerland
    Sifu Andrew Barnett
    Shaolin Wahnam Switzerland - www.shaolin-wahnam.ch

    Flowing Health GmbH www.flowing-health.ch (Facebook: www.facebook.com/sifuandrew)
    Healing Sessions with Sifu Andrew Barnett - in Switzerland and internationally
    Heilbehandlungen mit Sifu Andrew Barnett - in der Schweiz und International

  • #2
    Sifu Andrew Barnett in the Sikhs holy book the Guru Granth Sahib Ji...Dualism is brought up a number of times...its says that until you remove dualism from the mind you will never progress spiritually...I still am not sure on what this means...are you a Buddhist?...does this concept come up in Buddhist teachings?

    With kind regards.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Shamsher
      ...are you a Buddhist
      No. Or yes

      No....
      My "official religion" is not Buddhism. I do not profess to be Buddhist.

      Yes.....
      I practice (to the best of my ability) avoiding evil, doing good and cultivating the mind/spirit.

      Yes and No....
      My prayers and way of praying are a mixture of Buddhist and others. Although my way is not as formal as many others, it is a way from the Heart.

      Neither Yes nor No.....
      Buddhism is not a "religion" in the standard sense. And I do not formally practice my "official religion". Nor am I an atheist.

      Hope that helps

      Andrew
      Sifu Andrew Barnett
      Shaolin Wahnam Switzerland - www.shaolin-wahnam.ch

      Flowing Health GmbH www.flowing-health.ch (Facebook: www.facebook.com/sifuandrew)
      Healing Sessions with Sifu Andrew Barnett - in Switzerland and internationally
      Heilbehandlungen mit Sifu Andrew Barnett - in der Schweiz und International

      Comment


      • #4
        Greetings to all:

        One of the most ancient continuing philosophical dialogues regarding Duality vs. Non-Duality is to be found in the Spiritual Traditions of India, in which the Sacred Texts of the Upanishads assert the sole cause of the Universe to be One God (Brahman) Who Is Changeless and Eternal, and that All Things are therefore ultimately United in God (Brahman), the Eternal Source of All That Is. This School of Thought is known as Advaita Vedanta (Non-Dualism). This Non-Dualistic Spiritual Philosophy was never intended to be just another 'classification' method of objects and phenomenon...i.e the same, different, at once alike and different, neither alike or different. That is just another form of Dualistic perception. Non-Dualism (Advaita) is intended to 'Declassify' All in order to re-establish the Primordial Unity. Any other implication is to miss the point altogether.

        Sankaracarya, and many other famous commentators on these Writings through the course of many millenniums, have wrestled with the apparent contradiction of living in a world marked by an incredible variety of seemingly separate and independent manifestations of being, marked by constant change, and with little or no relationship to anything eternal. Why does a Changeless and Undifferentiated God create a Universe of such variety and changeable continuity?

        The Patanjali Yoga and Samkhya Schools held the belief that a Creator God (Isvara) produced an ultimate reality which was Dualistic, manifesting as the eternal interaction between the Changeless (Purusha) and the Ever Changing (Prakriti). Total separation and disassociation of the Changeless from the Ever Changing is thus necessary for Liberation (Moksha) in this perspective, and thus became one of the great agenda priorities of the Yoga Sadhana Practice as well.

        The ongoing attempt to harmonize Non-Dualistic (Advaita Vedanta) and Dualistic (Samkhya) Philosophy has resulted in some of the most erudite and profound spiritual thought in human history.

        Hari Om!

        Sifu Stier
        Last edited by Sifu Stier; 13 March 2006, 06:44 PM.
        http://www.shenmentao.com/forum/

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes

          Originally posted by Sifu Stier
          This Non-Dualistic Spiritual Philosophy was never intended to be just another 'classification' method of objects and phenomenon...i.e the same, different, at once alike and different, neither alike or different. That is just another form of Dualistic perception. Non-Dualism (Advaita) is intended to 'Declassify' All in order to re-establish the Primordial Unity. Any other implication is to miss the point altogether.
          Amen, brother!

          What can I add, except this: There are two kinds of people in the world: those who classify into two categories and those who don't. I don't.

          Best wishes,
          Michael
          Last edited by Michael Udel; 21 March 2006, 11:27 AM.
          Take kindness and benevolence as basis.
          Take frankness and friendliness to heart.

          Comment


          • #6
            Very lucid

            Respected Sifu Stier

            Your lucid explanation of the Dvaita and Advaita and thier import for the Yoga and Samkhya schools of philosophy was very good to read. Thanks.

            I have always a felt a kind of affinity between Nagarjuna's thought and Advaita. I would be very much interested to know what you feel about this, if it is not being too impertinent?

            Michael I liked your simple conclusion - cheered me up. Which kind are you?

            Warm regards
            Priya

            Asatoma sadgamaya
            Tamasoma jyotirgamaya
            Mrtyurma amrtamgamaya

            Lead (me) from non-being to being
            Lead (me) from lethargy to light(ness maybe? - my interpretation)
            Lead (me) from death to immortality

            Comment


            • #7
              Sorry!

              Dear Michael

              just reread your post and saw that you had said which kind you were! Thanks and sorry I was so shortsighted (literally).

              Me too - non-classifying I mean ).
              Priya

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi, Priya!

                I actually went back and edited that right after, so you saw it before I added my little joke about not classifying, however I just got done classifying the whole world That's generally what I find people do is they spend a long time explaining that (other) systems of classification are inherently flawed, put forward their own, which is just a house of cards and happens to show how wise they are, then claim they are not themselves so foolish as all the other classifiers and categorizers out there.

                LOL!
                Michael
                Take kindness and benevolence as basis.
                Take frankness and friendliness to heart.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Michael Udel
                  That's generally what I find people do is they spend a long time explaining that (other) systems of classification are inherently flawed, put forward their own, which is just a house of cards and happens to show how wise they are, then claim they are not themselves so foolish as all the other classifiers and categorizers out there.
                  Philosophy is my secondary area at uni (*groan*) and from what I've read so far I can accuse 99 if not 100 percent of the authors of doing this. I honestly liked philosophy so much more before I actually read any lol. And philosophers also spend so much time addressing their critics and arguing with each other that they sometimes actually do little else besides!

                  Anyway thats my little rant. Hopefully I will not become a disgruntled student and go ballistic in the philosophy department with a ballpoint pen in my hand.

                  Disgruntled er i mean Shaolin Mike

                  from the ♥

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X