From "Living Nonduality: Enlightenment Teachings of
Self-Realization" by Robert Wolfe, 2009
Suchness
Duality, which has been referred to by many sages, basically
defines a condition wherein exists "more than one" - generally, two
(which, in Latin, is duo). In Buddhism it is usually
synonymous with "manyness", multiplicity.
The two (or more) things which comprise duality can be any two
(or more) things. The proposition that there is "good" at one
extreme, and "bad" at another extreme, is an example of duality. If
I say that there is "this" over here and "that" over there, two
different or "separate" things, that would be a dualistic
expression. If I say that "I" )"me") like spaghetti ("not-mine"),
this is dualism. To hold the view that there is something
identifiable as "me" and something identifiable (or unidentifiable)
as "god" is dualistic.
However, even if I say that "I" am "god", I haven't yet
exceeded the boundaries of duality. In the same way, if I say, "I
feel fear", that is duality; if I say, "I am the
fear that I feel", that is still duality.
The nature of normal human thought is divisive. A mother opens
the door and steps into the room: all of the stillness and all of
the motion in the room are summarized into one immediate, pertinent
sentence in Mom's mind; observing little Andy holding a ruler, and
hearing wee Carol crying, and Mother's initial thought is, "Andy
hit Carol."
Typically, human thought finds its expression in sentences, and
these sentences are composed of words. Each word "means" a
"different" "thing": Andy is one thing, Carol is
another thing, and hit is yet another thing.
Andy is the subject of the thought, Carol is the object, and hit
is the action that connects the two, subject-versus-object,
things.
Even in the shortest sentence (in the Bible) - "Jesus wept." -
Jesus is one thing, his weeping is another thing... although
"related".
Primary to all relational, or relative, thought is the
self-conclusive thought, the "I" thought, which predicates the
existence of the subject of the thought. The formulation of the
thought "I am angry" presumes not only that such a specific entity
as anger exists, but that there is a particular entity - I - that
recognizes anger and has cause to consciously note its
presence.
The unquestioned (and in some minds unquestionable) assumption,
or conclusion, that there is in reality a separate "self" which
exists, is the very foundation of all our common, relational
thinking.
To whatever extent that one cannot (at least experimentally)
suspend the "certainty" of the sense of self, one cannot appreciate
the perspective which the sages have described as non-dual. This is
referred to, in contemporary terms, as oneness or wholeness, and in
Buddhism as suchness, in Taoism as tao (the way it
is).
To minds limited to the mechanics of duality (self versus other,
this as opposed to that), even to say that "all things are one"
will not transcend the perspective of duality - because they
envision that "one" (entity A) containing "all things"
(entity B). Not-two implies that there is not ever, under any
circumstances, more than (if any) one thing or entity: "all
things", and the "one" thing that they are, are the same
thing.
The yogi Patanjali is credited with saying, "It is the
observer-observed phenomenon which is the cause of human
suffering." Krishnamurti was known to have stated this more
succinctly, in the equation form: "The observer is the
observed."
This statement sometimes engenders confusion in a mind which
cannot (even temporarily) suspend its attachment to the dualistic
propensity of thought. Its first reaction may be, "If I - the
observer - look at a tree - the observed - am I the tree?"
To suggest, in response, the true implication that there is,
quintessentially, no I (other than as an isolated, thought-created
entity) and no tree (ditto) will likely be resisted.
I cannot truly be the tree and have my I-ness remain.
And if I, the observer, am the observed tree, the tree is likewise
the very same thing that the observer is - which is to say that it
no longer retains exclusive tree-ness. My separate identity has
vanished into the tree (the observer is the observed), in this
manner of speaking; and the separate identity of the tree - both of
which identities were only distinctive creations of thought - has
vanished into me (the observed is likewise the observer). Two,
separate, dualistic identities have evaporated. If we now feel
compelled (as thought will) to find a name for what is no longer
the observer/observed contradiction, we can call it suchness,
oneness, "not-two, not-one", etc.
The mind which is enmeshed in duality is the psyche which is
reluctant to surrender its sovereignty; that is, to re-examine the
certainty that "I" - me, myself - exist as an entity which is
independent and in a subject-object relationship to every other
supposed entity.
To realize that the observer does not categorically exist (nor,
by definition, that which he alleges to observe) is thoroughly to
reorient one's entire mode of thinking. When the observer is
actually the observed, there can be no "self" nor "other". Any such
distinctions, however subtle, are the dualistic assertions of
divisive thought.
"No self?! No right and wrong? No
past and future!?." one exclaims. Is it any
wonder that duality is a pattern of thought which man finds it
exceedingly difficult to relinquish?
At death... or possibly before... that which
thinks it is an independent, isolated entity (and that
which it thinks it separately and "objectively" observes or
identifies) - "self" and all "other" - will disappear: there is not
any thing which stands apart from suchness, not one thing.
nice articles, thank you :)
my very first experience of recognizing dualistic views (its not
<b> though, just a recognition that all the while i was in
<a>) was when i was reading a translated version of the Tao
Te Jing few years back.
remember i was driving, and thinking about a verse i read. and
in my mind i was going long/short, right/ wrong, black/white. i was
going on and on and on.
then suddenly, like i kena hit, there's a realization of
something. the thought came to me ' there's no longness without
shortness, there's no right without wrong, in fact one cannot exist
without the other.'
heh i know the way i describe is abit like talking 废话, but just
wanna share :)