Tipping the scales of Duality

a reply to: Astyanax

About your symbol and its meaning, I am not sure what you mean by it being rotationally symmetrical, do you mean that duality achieve its harmony by operating in a cyclical nature ? I am not exactly sure what this would imply, if this is the case.

As for the view that all is essentially One, I imagine that if this is true on some level, it would only become apparent seen from the perspective of a more elevated plane (or level) of existance, where spritual principles are much more prevalent. Loving wisdom and common understanding could possibly come to reveal this theory as reality. I imagine there would be much less conflict as well, as a natural result.

Nevertheless, wether or not some people believe the concept of duality to be somehow nonexistant... we still have to deal with the reality we find ourselves in and it seem self evident that there is significant conflict to be found while on Earth, inevitably pressuring us to take a stance in a variety of situation.

I will also read the pdf you proposed me and see what I can get from it.

a reply to: quintessentone

right now I choose the mind over intuition and it may be just as you imply, an escape from that which I cannot control. However for me it's not a path of numbing my emotions but rather governing them.

I am curious as to how you manage to achieve that though, the way I went about it was by suppressing conflicting emotions and thoughts, which obviously proved to be destructive in the longer run. I suppose that by ''governing'' your emotions, you mean learning to accept them as they are and let them be there, however intense or unpleasant, yet strive to act by way of your reason instead ?

I guess you would still consider what your emotions try to tell you, like when you have a gut feeling, but essentially leave it to your reason and logic for the decision making phase ? This is what I imagine people who govern their emotions achieve to do, neither suppressing or ignoring them, but mostly taking notice of them and letting their wisdom and intellect resolve the rest.

This is something I am training to do as well, but emotions tend to be more ellusive than before anyway, so governing them is a different process as a result. I still have them, but they appear to be more subtle and rarer than before.

Anyway, like you said with the way our body and psyche is constituted, it does seem like we have to resolve our personnal duality first and foremost. I tend to see it as a spiritual self of higher origin trying to govern the instincts and needs of a fleshy body.

I once did some horse riding and it reminded me of this struggle somehow, only much more frustrating in my case.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I look forward to more of your thoughts 42.

So do I, this was a very pleasant conversation for me.

a reply to: pthena

Reading those moral dilemmas you outlined reminded me of this movie I saw once.

I looked it up quickly, the premise of the movie does seem to reflect the conflict that I was alluding to. I tend to avoid most movies these days because of my dislike of the industry behind them and my desire to avoid letting the many subtle subliminal influences of their work get to work against my psyche, but maybe I will make an exception and watch this one.

For the other thread you linked, this is a controversial topic and you did not really ask for my opinion, but here is my take anyway :

I personally would not travel to Ukraine to take arm and fight against this (unprovoken) Russian invasion, because I can't see myself killing a fellow human being. Still I admit that I prefer the idea of a Ukraine that is somehow defended against this obvious attack on the freedom and rights of its people.

They already suffered a lot in the last century under soviet persecution and I think this kind of aggression from its neighbour has to be discouraged somehow before it get even worse. I would prefer diplomacy in every cases, but I suppose the ''last argument'' sadly still have much prevalence in our present time and age.

Quite a shame really, since war (from my own understanding anyway) produce mostly a net loss to all those involved... ...except for those few who make a business profiting from it all.

a reply to: Seeker42

I was raised to be pacifist on religious grounds, "die as a martyr for truth". Stand and take it as your community is butchered; your family killed in front of your eyes.

But in college I drove a trash truck, emptying the litter cans, changing the plastic linings, picking up the leaves and clippings left by the grounds crews. One morning as I was picking up a large pile of leaves from the dorm parking lot some kids came running to their Porches and BMWs with skis on top, "Quick to the mountains! Fresh powder just fell."

Picking up leaves was a very important ingredient for the freedom of the Porches and BMWs to get out onto the open road. For freedom did I drive the trash truck. Well, one thing and another, and my academic scholarship, and trash truck driving just wasn't quite enough to pay all the tuition and housing and books, and so I thought.

National Defense is a lot like driving a trash truck, both are necessary to provide the freedom of Porches and BMWs to race off to the new fallen powder. National leaders decide bad things like invading others. Pacificism does not keep the kids free to ski.

a reply to: Astyanax

So I just finished reading the Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. This was really a sad read for me and I can see why some walk away from Omelas, as I would not want to live there either. I could go on about why I find the choice of the citizens who remains to be morally unacceptable and even absurd to consider, but it really is self evident when you read it.

It certainly put the idea of ''the greatest good for the greatest number'' in a very different light.

a reply to: Seeker42

For moment I thought I was reading one of my journals of old so I share your insights.
I arrived where you are of course, a bit like the dark night of the soul,a period of doubt and questions without answers.
During this period I was blessed with a gift from the Divine, a numeric code of all things, which did not prove terribly difficult to solve but took many years to actually put together and create an object.
Today this object is my connection with the Divine and is, I say this truthfully, the most potent meditation medium of all. Anyone who meditates this is for you.
I am offering this gift, this immense blessing to everyone free. Never again will mankind doubt the existence of the higher realm because here is actual proof.

a reply to: pthena

I was raised to be pacifist on religious grounds, "die as a martyr for truth". Stand and take it as your community is butchered; your family killed in front of your eyes.

I dont think trying to be a pacifist on a personal level will put my community or family at risk. Even my own life should be safe, as far as I know.

Extreme pacifism of a whole population can indeed prove more than problematic though, when your country end up getting invaded. I understand that giving up arms when the enemy doesnt seem to be asking for trouble. The thing is, pacifism can never really become a world wide phenomenum until most, if not all people are ready to implement it and want it strongly enough.

Yet seeing how things work in the world at present (or at pretty much anytime since the begining of recorded history) and the fact that on very crucial issues like morality people tend to differ on what should be considered right and wrong, this goal does seem rather utopian. Some would say impossible.

This is where the idea of a Kingdom of God to come takes a lot of it's meaning and importance. Otherwise I dont see how such a remarkable feat as world wide peace and total human harmony may happen at all. The more I think about it, the more it become obvious to me that this is the only way it will ever happen.

a reply to: Anadandan

If what you say is true, if you really think that you have discovered the ultimate proof for Divine Revelation and the most potent tool of all for meditation, then I feel like ATS would be one of the last places where you could expect to be believed. You would need extraordinary proof for such an extraordinary claim. It may be better to try and show this object you crafted to a monk or a priest, someone who will be in position to spiritually discern this matter with you.

Still, thank you for your proposition and for coming on my thread.

a reply to: Seeker42

Thank you for making this seem worth my while.

I think you've got yourself a bit hung up on identifying the light and dark elements of the taijitu as representations of good and evil. This is a common but profound error. Allow me to widen the focus a little.

The taijitu, AKA the yin-yang symbol, is closely associated with (though possibly not original to) Taoism. As faith, there isn’t much to Taoism: it’s hard to distinguish at times from Chinese animism or ancestor-worship. But in its philosophical aspect it offers an effective, if arguably amoral, way of understanding the world and finding contentment.

Taoists hold that all things arise from the constant, endless interaction of two great opposed but complementary principles: yin and yang. They most emphatically do not just stand for Good and Evil, but represent all conceivable opposites − up and down, left and right, empty and full, clockwise and anticlockwise, falling and rising, motion and stasis, etc, etc, etc. They have no intrinsic morality. If they have a fundamental nature it is sexual: female yin and male yang. And they are especially like maleness and femaleness in one particular way: they are opposites, yet neither can survive or propagate without the other.

Their interaction plays out through time and space. Wherever the strength of one increases, that of the other dwindles, and vice versa.

That relationship is what the rotational symmetry of the taijitu symbolises. Imagine printing the figure out on a disc of cardboard. Now slip that disc into a square envelope of about the same size, which has a narrow slot in it running from its centre to the middle of one of its sides (if you think of those ancient 5 1/4" floppy discs, you'll get the picture). Then stick a pin through the middle of both the envelope and the card inside. Now, through the open flap of the unsealed envelope, you'll be able to rotate the card inside with your finger while holding the envelope still. And as you do so, you'll notice that the proportions of light and dark visible through the slot keep on changing as you keep turning the card.

This is the action of Tao. The more light, the less dark, and vice versa. And just as the slot is almost completely filled with either light or dark, that central spot appears, breaking the totalitarian uniformity of dark or light and foreshadowing the revival of the opposite principle.

The fundamental tenet of Taoist belief is that we, the world and all beings are in a state of constant, perpetual change. This change is brought about by the dynamic interaction of opposing forces with matter (and with spirit if you believe in spirit). In this world of eternal flux there can never be any absolutes: nothing eternal, nothing perfect, nothing that is entirely one thing without the other. And the great principle of Tao is that as one tendency advances and grows fuller, it creates the conditions for its own retreat and the eventual resurgence of the other.

* * *

I sometimes call myself a Taoist. I call myself a lot of other things too, but through all the changes of outlook and philosophy I have suffered through my long sojourn on Earth, this has grown to become second nature. It seems to me the most accurate, useful and comforting perspective from which to view the world: it has, to me, the ring of truth. But it isn’t a religious or faith-based thing at all: I do not conceptualize or personify yin and yang as entities of any kind. I am not in the least mystical and am quite happy living in the material world. But I think of the Tao, the interaction of all things, as a great natural law that applies to just about everything.

That law is easily stated: all things tend to increase, and as they do so, they prepare the conditions for their own decrease. And vice versa. All things contain within themselves the idea or seed of their opposites. And this idea of the interaction of opposites, ebbing and flowing over time, convincingly models, I believe, the workings of world we inhabit.

You asked about equilibrium. This is equilibrium: not eternal stasis (how deadly dull Heaven must be), nor the whole world poised desperately on a knife-edge from which any deviation brings a loss of balance and the danger of a fall (this is the impossible condition idealized by moralists). Rather, the dynamic interplay of forces and influences, in which balance is simply a rough evening-out of averages over time, occurring naturally without the need of any divine or human intervention − which may alter or upset the balance in the short term but can have no effect on it in the long term.

Your questions about good and evil are all dealt with in the foregoing, but I have a feeling that you are may not be ready to accept them yet. To judge by your replies to me, you seem still to yearn for resolution: for the final union of opposites, the triumph of good over evil, the raising of the Kingdom of God (or World Peace, or the Workers’ Paradise, or the Thousand-Year Reich, or the Rules-Based International Order, or whatever your own particular Utopia may be) on Earth.

I never said Taoism was a moral philosophy, but it does offer some prescriptions for living a reasonably contented life. I have followed them for over forty years now, and they have served me well.

originally posted by: Seeker42
a reply to: quintessentone

right now I choose the mind over intuition and it may be just as you imply, an escape from that which I cannot control. However for me it's not a path of numbing my emotions but rather governing them.

I am curious as to how you manage to achieve that though, the way I went about it was by suppressing conflicting emotions and thoughts, which obviously proved to be destructive in the longer run. I suppose that by ''governing'' your emotions, you mean learning to accept them as they are and let them be there, however intense or unpleasant, yet strive to act by way of your reason instead ?

I guess you would still consider what your emotions try to tell you, like when you have a gut feeling, but essentially leave it to your reason and logic for the decision making phase ? This is what I imagine people who govern their emotions achieve to do, neither suppressing or ignoring them, but mostly taking notice of them and letting their wisdom and intellect resolve the rest.

This is something I am training to do as well, but emotions tend to be more ellusive than before anyway, so governing them is a different process as a result. I still have them, but they appear to be more subtle and rarer than before.

Anyway, like you said with the way our body and psyche is constituted, it does seem like we have to resolve our personnal duality first and foremost. I tend to see it as a spiritual self of higher origin trying to govern the instincts and needs of a fleshy body.

I once did some horse riding and it reminded me of this struggle somehow, only much more frustrating in my case.

Let me play a little, I used to bareback horse ride and let's compare governing one's emotions to trying to stay on that horse by not only pressing snugly into the horse but becoming one with the horse (we are the horse). So, governing one's emotions to me is something like that, holding on to it (acknowledging) and becoming one with oneself (self-reflection) then understanding, all of this is governing it.

To me emotions and gut feeling are two separate things, where emotions has to be felt, yes, but then understood and then the choice be made whether to let it go (water off a duck's back) or to 'let it go' (it feels right to release it).

The gut feeling or intuition is another path which I think I need to follow more often and let the body and mind just follow because it just feels right when I do, but I've been around for a long time so have had more opportunity to learn when to walk away, or identify which battles to fight.

a reply to: Astyanax

This certainly does help me get a further understanding of Taoism and I think I can see where you could find value in holding it as your personal philosophy. In this world I think you have to believe in some higher principles and hold on to them, lest you inevitably end up slipping into progressively deeper despair and madness. For me, I came to realise it to be the teachings of Jesus Christ. Since they strikes me as true and proved so time and time again, I am now feeling confident enough in my belief to make the leap of faith and begin to live it as best I can. Not because I believe this will prove profitable merely for my own soul, but because it is the truest path to follow for me and attempt to ''be the change I want to see in the world''.

I always felt deep down like this world needed more love and understanding, not more suffering and division. Some will say that overcoming hardships and pain make us and life what it is and while it is true to some respect, I think suffering can prove very detrimental when continually experienced while in a state of despair. When it comes to erroding our will and depriving us of hope, effectively enslaving us to sink further into misery; I think something should be attempted when possible in a spirit of charity, wether by inspiring hope so one may strive to overcome again, or offer some compassionate support.

Wether this is the product of my idealism or mere short sightedness from my part remains to be seen. Seen from my angle, it come naturally from then on that this world and its conflicts are best understood and perceived through mostly spiritual lenses, prompting one to seek discerning good and evil then act according to his principles and ideals. I believe in doing what is good, deep down I think I always did, although its possible that it can make me look simple minded when stated like that. Also, free will can only prove to truly be free when we understand what our choices really mean, I think. I hope to achieve a better grasp of this ability as I grow in experience, but I believe it is real.

I personally dont see life as really needing to be (on an human level at least) a cycle of alternating between two opposites modes of being, (I am thinking at present of the popular conflict of the ego versus our soul) and more like finding and knowing our true self, coming to term with it and then finding what we shall accomplish in life while living this truth. The quest for purpose would be much more natural this way I feel. Maybe the ego's sole purpose is essentially ensuring we come to better accept our true self and adopt it, in the end.

I remain open to the very real possibility that I simply misunderstood your concept of a cyclical nature (the light part giving rise to the dark part, because it somehow inevitably carried with it the seeds of its own undoing and replacement). I am open to the truth, however unpalatable it may appear at first. It tends to just ''clicks'' into place though, when you see it from the right angle and are ready to deal with it, anyway

Are those two alternating parts meant to just switch places on the ''stage and backstage'' of our life, with one part always behind the curtain waiting for the other on stage to get tired, then when it goes to make for an exit break for the duration of the next act, its alter make his appearance then rince and repeat ?

If so, how long could we stay sane like that ? When does it end ? It is said there is nothing new under the sun, so imagine how boring this would end up proving if it did really go on forever. I personally prefer hoping for Heaven, even if many say they would be bored by it, than to remain here trying to remember so I can forget, so I can remember, to forget again... forever. This occur to me now, but this idea feel familiar somehow. If this proved somewhat true, this may in part explain my life and my eerie and persistent feeling since very young that ''something'' was wrong somehow and that I ''forgot'' what it was.

As far as beliefs systems go, I think whatever you (broadly speaking) come to accept as your guiding principles for life has to be true to your soul, otherwise cognitive dissonance kick in down the road and may be heavy, breeding many progressively worse problems along the way. Theres a saying which goes like this: ''In the theater of life, play your own self, because everyone else is taken.''

This rings pretty true to me and it inspires me to create a different thread, on a subject I feel will draw more interest from people here on ATS than duality (or morality for that matter).

a reply to: quintessentone

So, governing one's emotions to me is something like that, holding on to it (acknowledging) and becoming one with oneself (self-reflection) then understanding, all of this is governing it.

I think I see what you mean, so it may serve as a mean to better get to know ourselves and developping our wisdom ? Empathy may probably come about from the learning experiences associated with certain emotions as well. Intuition would also play a role I think.

To me emotions and gut feeling are two separate things, where emotions has to be felt, yes, but then understood and then the choice be made whether to let it go (water off a duck's back) or to 'let it go' (it feels right to release it).

I agree with that actually, gut feeling is intuition and does not need ''feelings'' to be present. I wish you well in this prospect, I know how hard it can be sometime to do it our way even if it feels right. There is often some degree of imposed resistance to dissuade us it seem.

a reply to: Seeker42

I did mention, earlier, that you may not be ready to accept these ideas just yet. As you indicated in your opening post, 'duality' is a key element in your worldview. Moreover, it is plain to me from our conversation that you interpret duality in terms of opposition, division, conflict. You believe in the struggle of good vs evil and you feel impelled to choose the good.

Also, you seem to have concluded that in my philosophy − as I have explained it here − there is no difference between good and evil, and expediency is the only reasonable guide to action. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real trouble is that it is never possible to choose between good and evil: nothing is absolutely one or the other. Our only real choice is between courses of action that each have both good and evil consequences. Unfortunately we cannot see all the consequences in advance, so we must choose what seems best to us − knowing that, in doing so, we cannot help but also choose evil.

I always felt deep down like this world needed more love and understanding, not more suffering and division.

Then why in heaven’s name take up religion? Religion is by nature exclusive (believers in, unbelievers out) and intrinsically divisive (good vs evil, right vs wrong, etc). It is the source of endless conflict and suffering. It has equally vast benefits, of course − otherwise why would it be so popular? − but these are sops and soothers for the masses. People intelligent and courageous enough to seek understanding for themselves have no need of them.

Religion is like a gun − it brings the very evil it purportes to protect against, more or less guaranteeing that it will occur. As a very wise man once put it, the more God, the more Devil.

I am thinking at present of the popular conflict of the ego versus our soul

Conflict over a meaningless distinction between entities that exist only as metaphors. This is exactly the kind of absurdity that blocks your light.

I remain open to the very real possibility that I simply misunderstood your concept of a cyclical nature (the light part giving rise to the dark part)

I think it’s fair to say that. You don’t appear to be able to contemplate pairs of opposites without judging between them. You seem nervous of accepting that opposites have to be closely related to one another. If you had understood me, you would not be so anxious.

It is there is nothing new under the sun, so imagine how boring this would end up proving if it did really go on forever. I personally prefer hoping for Heaven, even if many say they would be bored by it, than to remain here trying to remember so I can forget, so I can remember, to forget again... forever. This occur to me now, but this idea feel familiar somehow.

Who told you there is nothing new under the sun? The book of Ecclesiastes was written well over two thousand years ago, when people lived just as they had done since prehistoric times, so from the writer’s limited perspective it really looked as if nothing ever changes. But surely no-one could still believe that today? Seriously, are you telling me nothing new has happened since Ecclesiastes? Never mind science and technology and history; you say you’re a Christian − don’t you believe that Jesus’s life and ministry on Earth were unprecedented?

New things happen all the time. Human nature stays the same. Don’t get the two confused.

my eerie and persistent feeling since very young that ''something'' was wrong somehow and that I ''forgot'' what it was.

It’s a common feeling. It goes back to the time when we were babies or toddlers − when we were the centre of the world we knew, with enormous, powerful slaves rushing about at our beck and call and bending over backwards to please us. Some people suggest that it goes back even farther, to vague memories of our blissful sojourn in the maternal womb. Everything was good and right and true back then, but we fell from grace and lost the password that would return us to felicity. The feeling is so common that we make myths of it − the Fall of Adam and the expulsion from Eden, the loss of innocence which forced Gautama to take up the quest that ended when he became Buddha, the Wandering Jew, Rousseau’s idea of the noble savage, Marx’s concept of primitive Socialism... on and on goes the list.

* * *

The conversation ends here as far as I am concerned. You are, by all means, welcome to the last word; I shall read it with interest but I will not reply. Perhaps in years to come you will remember this exchange and profit from it. Perhaps not. The world will go on turning, yang succeeding yin succeeding yang in their endless but ever-changing pas de deux, but for you and I, it is time to change partners.

a reply to: Seeker42

Say you were to join an orthodox method and you had views on it all your own... That would be duality. No different than making up your own rules to games that are already pre-existing and established games. Not doing that then one is said to be self-less yet there is a self the founder of the orthodox or method... Or the origin for which the concept depends.

Oneness say you are breathing and only focus on breathing for an instant you become one with breath... how would you know? You lost all concept of breathing as you became it... In other words a self that didn't have self yet there was awareness but not as a self being breath... meaning simply a self does not exist.

But the experience of being breath does as an awareness. Later one could say I was breath in retrospect and just how funny do you think that would sound? As that is typically how all breath is used... To state what they or another thing or someone is and yet as breath had no idea that is what being that truly is and cant for the life of them say it or even explain it as the awareness was of sensation of being breath but not knowing breath and on hearing another's breath like a bubble it bursts.

But that's all I know of duality and oneness oneness with practice can occur with anything but you'll know what it is that you are unlike breath which typically states so many things it is and is not at the same time as it has entered and has left awareness and not all of that is in that moment in such a case it is just like the reflection in a mirror...

The absolute truth is scary for many and it is this... absolutely nothing exists whatsoever

a reply to: Astyanax

Since I started this thread I had many opportunities to grow in perspective, actually. It may have been only a short time, but I dont think my worldview is set in stone, as you seem to imply. I am learning everyday and remain open to experience since I found my corner stone (Jesus Christ). I never pretended I knew it all, I never was rude to you and I never disrespected your beliefs. I respect your decision to leave the discussion now, but I admit being disapointed with the way it comes to a somewhat abrupt end. This is a place meant for conversation and learning, I am not here to ''debate'' people or impose a viewpoint. Merely sharing my own insight and engaging in respectful discourse.

Anyway, as for your bit about me failing somewhat to grasp the importance of Christ's Ministry, because I quoted from the Old Testament... This is kinda ironic and not just because I pledged my life to following Him while you did not : His Ministry ended up with him being rejected by the very people he tried to instruct and lead to salvation, then to His crucifixion and death. He was handed over to the romans, the enemies of the very people He was trying to save. The Lord of Truth was misinterpreted, called demon possessed or rejected by most in His time, even though they saw His many Miracles. The pharisee where so sure they knew better than Him, they had to be rid of the uncomfortable Truth and carry on in their own preffered way.

As for Ecclesiates, I think in light of this I can now see why it may prove problematic to quote small portions out of the Bible. We can miss a bit of its wider context and even if it may prove relevant to provide understanding in a given situation, it needs to be discerned spiritually. I think King Solomon was unto something with his talk of ''all is vanities and nothing is new''; the world does seem to be going in circles, especially in the way we organize our societies and how it end up inevitably broken. So I would not be too quick to dismiss the views of a man to whom God imparted His Divine Wisdom to lead as a King. At least it deserve to be read within its context, in the Bible.

With that being said; thank you for participating in my thread and investing your time and insight in it, I do in fact appreciate it. I will carry on with the Lord and you will do as you will, I wish you well on the many possible paths life may bring before you. You are welcome to reconsider and share again with me on ATS in the future.

a reply to: Seeker42

Anyway, as for your bit about me failing somewhat to grasp the importance of Christ's Ministry, because I quoted from the Old Testament...

The further back you go with scripture (the Bible) the closer you get to Christ's Ministry.

a reply to: Seeker42

Anyway, as for your bit about me failing somewhat to grasp the importance of Christ's Ministry, because I quoted from the Old Testament...

I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but I have to respond to this, just to ask whether you aren't getting me confused with someone else. I certainly never said anything like that. It sounds like a very stupid thing for anyone to say.

Your last reply to me also conveys a sense of offence taken (which I'm sure I did nothing to provoke), further suggesting that you've got somebody else's posts mixed up with mine.

a reply to: Astyanax

you say you’re a Christian − don’t you believe that Jesus’s life and ministry on Earth were unprecedented?

This is the only part that really prompted me to reply, else I would have let your previous reply be the last of our discussion. It was about my quoting of Ecclesiate, you were talking about how ''there is nothing new under the sun'' is no longer relevant to our current time and was proven wrong by history. I also explained in my last reply (if you read it entirely you would know) what I meant by that quoting.

It is not about taking offense, dont worry about that, but trying to be better understood on my own thread in a public forum. Especially if it is going to be about Jesus Christ, a subject very close to my heart. I may have dragged it a bit in my last reply, but I stand by what I said. So just in case there was no sarcasm or ill intent in your last reply, yes I am in fact talking to you Astyanax.