Problem with monism.

[DreadFish]

So, I would like to discuss, if anyone notices this thread here , what I view as an inherent flaw in the idea of monism. But maybe I am misunderstanding the idea. Thats where the discussion comes in.

SO


To assume that there is one thing in existence, as opposed to the dualistic ideas that multiple separate things exist and make up everything, requires there to be a two and three to make it a one. For there to be a one, there has to be a two, three etc. otherwise there just is. And if there just is, there has to be is not as well. Ultimately, I just find the idea of monism flawed. In my opinion, a non-dual state requires that we go beyond dualism and monism, into something free of extremes.


Any opinions? Maybe im just misunderstanding this.

 

[Onkara]

Hi DreadFish
We could start with the generalisation that most people don't see beyond the play of duality. So in order to go beyond the play of dualities we must find the single underlying foundation. Once that foundation is recognised as the source for all duality then we can conceptually add all the dualities back in and have a complete picture of what life and existence is about for us humans.

In other words the dualities do exist and are real for us humans, but they are real because of the foundation which is singular. Whilst we fail to recognise the foundation we risk being caught up in right versus wrong, cold versus hot, attraction versus repulsion.

So you are right, in order for the One to be known there has to be two (or more). Likewise in order to know how I look I need a second object e.g. a mirror.

Extremes are just version on the scale of difference e.g. Hot and Cold are dualities if taken as separate extremes but really they are -30 degrees to 50 degrees centigrade and are just the same thing i.e. temperature.

What do you think?

 

[Willamena]

To assume that there is one thing in existence, as opposed to the dualistic ideas that multiple separate things exist and make up everything, requires there to be a two and three to make it a one. For there to be a one, there has to be a two, three etc. otherwise there just is. And if there just is, there has to be is not as well. Ultimately, I just find the idea of monism flawed. In my opinion, a non-dual state requires that we go beyond dualism and monism, into something free of extremes.

Are you familiar with unity? Two become one? There is, and there is not, but there is also a step back from "there is and there is not." There is the knower or observer of "there is and there is not," and so we have another level with which to find unity.

 

[DreadFish]

Ok, I think I get what you guys are saying.

I should clarify, that I do believe that reality is non-dual, but I feel that saying reality is one is a faulty statement. Rather, reality is not two. You know? It cant be one, because that is based off of our relative understanding of one vs. two or three. So a person might say, everything is connected, we are all one. While in a relative sense that could be a decent way of saying it, ultimately reality cant be one, but rather not two.

What do you think? I know im kind of just arguing symantics here lol

 

[Onkara]

I think you make a sound point. To say it is "One" is a misnomer. Really words are pointers for leading the intellect to the goal, so it is useful to say "all this is just one" as it prompts for further investigation on something we normally take for granted.

As you probably know, Advaita means "not two", 'A' negates 'dvaita', which is closer to the point you make.

 

[DreadFish]

I think you make a sound point. To say it is "One" is a misnomer. Really words are pointers for leading the intellect to the goal, so it is useful to say "all this is just one" as it prompts for further investigation on something we normally take for granted.

As you probably know, Advaita means "not two", 'A' negates 'dvaita', which is closer to the point you make.

Yeah, you are right. Words point to the goal which is beyond words. Oh yeah, I had forgotten that's what Advaita meant.

Good to know that im not completely misunderstanding this lol

 

[SageTree]

nice discussion

'Not Two' Is a more expressive way to way non-dual, I like it.

 

[atanu]

Yes. Without a second is the actual word used in scripture. But that the Truth is one is also used.

But confusions do not arise, if duality is known as product of without a second reality. They are not at same level.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For there to be a one, there has to be a two, ...

Based on what argument?

 

[DreadFish]

Based on what argument?

It's logic.

 

[Bob Dixon]

It's logic.

No, it isn't. It's fully something you just made up.

 

[DreadFish]

No, it isn't. It's fully something you just made up.

Actually I did not make up the factors in the argument I presented.

Now, consider this? What is "one"? The concept of "one" can only be conceptualized if there is a concept of more than one. Without two, three etc. there is no "one." This is observable, I did not make it up.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Actually I did not make up the factors in the argument I presented.

Now, consider this? What is "one"? The concept of "one" can only be conceptualized if there is a concept of more than one. Without two, three etc. there is no "one." This is observable, I did not make it up.

No, you've it backwards. Two and three cannot be conceptualised without one. But one is always one. There is only one Bob Dixon [me]. I can imagine this and it is reality. I don't need two or three Bob Dixons to imagine myself.

 

[DreadFish]

No, you've it backwards. Two and three cannot be conceptualised without one. But one is always one. There is only one Bob Dixon [me]. I can imagine this and it is reality. I don't need two or three Bob Dixons to imagine myself.

You are right that two and three cannot be conceptualized without one. But it goes both ways. There is no reference point to call something "one" unless there is more than one.

Likewise, the same logic works for the perception of a self. There is no "me" unless there are things that are "not me." There is only me when there are things that are not me.

Things are defined in relation to other things, not because they have inherent abiding nature.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For there to be a one, there has to be a two, ...

Based on what argument?

It's logic.

No, it is not - at least not to the best of my knowledge. But perhaps I've overlooked something. So, again: based on what argument?

 

[SageTree]

Does interconnectedness of all life touch on how no 'thing' can be without or in relation to another, Dreadfish?

 

[Bob Dixon]

You are right that two and three cannot be conceptualized without one. But it goes both ways. There is no reference point to call something "one" unless there is more than one.

Likewise, the same logic works for the perception of a self. There is no "me" unless there are things that are "not me." There is only me when there are things that are not me.

Things are defined in relation to other things, not because they have inherent abiding nature.

1. Yes, there is.
2. No, there isn't.
3. No, they aren't.

 

[Willamena]

1. Yes, there is.

What is it?

2. No, there isn't.
3. No, they aren't.

Nay-saying isn't an argument.

 

[K.Venugopal]

To assume that there is one thing in existence, as opposed to the dualistic ideas that multiple separate things exist and make up everything, requires there to be a two and three to make it a one. For there to be a one, there has to be a two, three etc. otherwise there just is. And if there just is, there has to be is not as well. Ultimately, I just find the idea of monism flawed. In my opinion, a non-dual state requires that we go beyond dualism and monism, into something free of extremes.

A very valid query. Our common experience is the transitoryness of everything. Everything changes all the time, everything is in a flux. The discovery that the experience of change is possible only because there is a changeless aspect to the experiencer was a momentous discovery. Non-duality is simply a proclamation that we are in essence changeless and therefore are complete or total. Non-duality is not a denial of duality or change, but an understanding that leads us to stability or peace.

 

[K.Venugopal]

And if there just is, there has to be is not as well.

There is light. Non-light or darkness is the absence of light and not an entity in itself. Duality is not the existence of two but the absence of one. An absence that does not exist in reality but occurs due to our fragmented mind. When our mind is wholesome, there only is. The fragmented mind is born out of ignorance. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge and has no existence in itself.