|
Duality
By Roger
Sheldon. Revised 19 May 2003 and again in March 2006 |
| |
| |
|
Introduction |
| |
|
This may be one of the
most important things you will read concerning our art... |
| |
|
I am not the best
qualified person to be writing upon a subject that has defied lucid
explanation by far more intellectual and wise people than myself.
However, in the absence of any comparatively short writings that I could
understand, or writings that have touched upon where I am at, I have been
obliged to set to and attempt this present article. |
| |
|
An obscure topic called
dualism and non-dualism may seem far removed from our Shinseido
life-skill, yet it permeates everything in existence so completely that I
cannot possibly divorce it from our art. Indeed, I am obliged to touch
upon dualism and non-dualism every time I am in the dojo (way place - training
hall). |
| |
|
All of my students without
exception have heard me say that there is no difference between one thing and
another... that there is no fixed point of reference... that a
seemingly different viewpoint is really the same as my own... When
asked if a technique should be performed like this or like that I have often
said simply, "Yes". There are so many instances that I have to be
careful lest I frighten the new student away. Those who have not been
confronted with this mindset need a fictitious framework of reference, which
I try to take away gradually over a period of time. |
| |
|
I see the concepts of
duality, non-duality and the continuum principle as reflections of a level
of understanding of a single philosophy
which reached its highest development in China with the Yin Yang
principle, however, every culture in the world has recognised and used this
symbolic system for it underpins all our religions, philosophies, myths and
legends. We all recognise the yin yang
symbol of two interlocking black and white commas, which is said by many to
be one of duality, yet the more we understand what it represents, the more
we realise that it is not about antagonistic forces, but complimentary
forces, about finding the middle path, centring and balance.
Ultimately some of us discover the ultimate state of non-duality. I
often think that maybe the truth is far more mind blowing than even
non-duality and maybe we human beings are not destined to discover absolute
reality...
|
| |
| |
|
Background to a
philosophical viewpoint |
| |
|
Galileo proclaimed that science and religion were not enemies but allies –
two different languages telling the same story, a story of symmetry and
balance… heaven and hell, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Both
science and religion rejoiced in God’s symmetry… the endless interplay of
light and dark. |
|
|
|
In the nineteenth century
scientists believed the universe was made from two fundamentally different
elements, namely matter (which was said to be made from indivisible
particles) and energy (said to be made from waves). Matter and
energy interacted to form the material universe, but they did not mix
(one could not be converted into the other). This understanding is
rooted in the so called philosophy of Dualism. |
| |
|
Dualism is defined thus in the dictionary:
"noun (philosophy) that view
which seeks to explain the world by the assumption of two radically
independent and absolute elements:
- The condition of
being double; duality.
- Philosophy.
The view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental
entities, such as mind and matter.
- Psychology.
The view that the mind and body function separately, without interchange.
- Theology.
- The concept that
the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil.
- The concept that
humans have two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual and that
these are separated in their entirety."
|
| |
|
Then in 1905, to the shock
and incredulity of many scientists, a humble patent clerk named Albert
Einstein dropped his E=mc2 bomb on the world. He proved that the
belief that matter and energy could never the twain meet was completely
wrong. His formula states that matter can be converted into energy and
vice versa. Quite simply Einstein proved that all matter is made from
energy. Endless experiments since have proven this formula time and
again. Einstein's realisation is rooted in the philosophy of
Non-Dualism |
| |
|
One hundred years later,
my own reality that everything that exists in the entire universe is
inextricably fused with everything else is rooted in what Einstein proposed,
what was subsequently proved and upon what quantum physics and string theory
hinges. Yet Buddhist sages had talked of these things centuries
before. |
| |
|
To reduce and define
non-dualism, everything comprises energy,
therefore everything
represents aspects, concretions and variations of energy. Everything
is a part of everything else, there is no separation between one thing and
another -
there is no separation in time or distance, and no separation in physical
actuality. |
| |
|
If you are already
perplexed, you can be forgiven. Because we are so deeply entrenched in
seeing 'things' as being separate one from another, making the leap to
recognising that is an illusion, can be daunting to say the least. |
| |
|
Non-dualism is the most
difficult of subjects to discuss because it's understanding goes far beyond
mere words. Not wishing to appear arrogant or patronizing (for I have
been down a very long road towards gaining a glimpse of my reality) -
non-dualism is so difficult to grasp intellectually that we have to resort
to dualism as a tool that can lead to an understanding of non dualism.
And certainly we are obliged to employ the concept of dualism in order to
talk about non-dualism. |
| |
|
In order that one human
being can communicate with another upon the mundane matters of our everyday
existence we have evolved the skill of communicating with words. Words
are dualistic in nature. As soon as we use a word to describe an
aspect of existence we are fixing a point and thus denying reality, but we
have no choice but to do that in order to express ideas. In order to
express an idea or describe a thing we have to have the concept of
difference - between one thing and another. Thus if we talk of evil we
can do so simply because we have a concept of good - yet in reality evil and good do not
exist, they are part of the whole and are therefore indivisible. In
order to understand our universe we have to describe things - but to
understand things in a dualistic separatist way would be to deny reality.
An alternative, and the one I employ most frequently with students is to view all things as being on a continuum of extremes betwixt
one point and another. These points of extreme cannot be fixed or
specific. |
| |
|
According to the continuum
principle,
everything in creation exists
upon a continuum of extremes that has no fixed point. There is black
and white and all shades in between. There is sane and insane and all
gradations in between. There is truth and falsehood and all degrees in
between. Opposites exist in a state of perpetual balance one with the
other. Nothing is fixed - everything changes and is inter-related.
|
| |
|
The
'opposites' that make duality, reflect ends of a continuum.
The most important thing to recognise about a continuum is that the
components upon that continuum are linked not incrementally and stepwise,
but on a gradually sliding scale from one point to the next. By its
very nature, a continuum comprises things that are interrelated by blending
one into the other, with no clear cut dividing line between the two.
Indeed, the term continuum means, 'that which is continuous; that which must
be regarded as continuous and the same and which can be described only
relatively therefore harmoniously, in a complimentary and balanced manner.'
Therefore, the things upon a continuum are never unrelated or separate,
rather they belong one to the other and reflect different aspects or
perspectives of the very same thing. |
| |
|
Yin (black) containing
Yang
|
 |
Yang (white) containing
Yin |
| |
|
The Ta Ki,
ancient symbol for the continuum principle. |
| |
|
Yin
Yang is a Chinese term which is expressed in Japanese as In Yo.
Yin is the black comma sign and yang the white. Within each
is a small spot of the opposite colour indicating that without the
respective comma sign's head there would be nothing to support the existence
of the contrasting spot. While one comma sign is black and the other white, the one trails off in
diminishing size into the farthest extreme of white, and similarly, the
white into the black.
Within the one there is always an
element of the other,
the
black and the white are mutually dependent on one another.
There are no straight lines, rather, three circles ranging from large,
through medium to small. The largest encompassing circle is the symbol
of totality, within which a perfect arc gives way to its equally sized
contrasting counterpart that adopts an oppositely curved attitude,
representing two interlocked thunderbolts. |
| |
|
In a single drop of water are contained all
the mysteries of all the oceans of the world. Within the symbolism
surrounding the Ta Ki are contained all the answers to all the
mysteries of life and existence. If that sounds extreme and fanciful,
remember that the only requirement is that we start with open eyes, an open
heart and an open mind. |
|
|
 |
|
Yin
can also be represented by a broken line and Yang by an unbroken line. |
| |
|
 |
|
Here
is another way to represent the continuum principle. |
| |
|
 |
|
Here is yet another way of
expressing the continuum principle. Of all ways of representing the
continuum principle, this clearly shows the true gradation of one
reality into the next. |
| |
|
Another way of representing the continuum principle is the Project 5 logo
(the professional division of Shinseido), which is just another way of representing the Ta Ki. It
is no accident that the two profiles facing each other (that are joined by
the energy wave), clearly reflect this fundamental symbolism. |
| |
| |
|
Dangers of
misunderstanding the continuum principle |
| |
|
The danger of taking the continuum principle
as two contrasting opposites with nothing in between cannot be overstated.
It is vital that we do not fall into that trap or view the continuum
principle as representing that approach.
Knowledge has little value unless it is sensed as well as thought.
Theory is no good unless it
ultimately has some practical application. In so many areas of our
lives this deep awareness of of the continuum principle exists. Even
the duality of our brain
plays its part in that the
left aspect of our brain reflects upon the verbal, conceptual, rational
aspects of experience, and the right aspect upon the non-verbal, artistic
and intuitive dimension. |
| |
|
We know that people are drawn
inexorably towards 'binary thinking' (as in the dictionary separatist
definition of dualism), particularly when the person holds a deep conviction
upon some issue. Indeed, most conflict situations are rooted in the
white is white on the one side and black is black on the other side - with
nothing between the two pattern. One only has to witness a typical
argument to see how people cling to opposite poles with a tenacity second to
none, and invariably find it impossible to meet halfway as if there were a
deep chasm betwixt the two with no way of taking up the middle ground.
Listen to the theist and atheist argue, to the religionist v scientist,
listen to politicians arguing their respective 'sides'. Some people
cling with such passion to one end of the perceptual stick that they become
angry and frustrated that the other person cannot see the point, yet things
are rarely that far removed one from the other. |
| |
|
Moses set us up for this
antagonistic dualism by telling us that
God put two
special trees in the middle of the garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, and the tree of life. He commanded Adam and Eve not to
eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
Apples and pears are not evil, neither are
any other fruits. Knowledge itself is not evil, neither is life, for
evil to be evil, surely it must embody intent. |
| |
|
Good v Evil, the most fundamental of all
binary thinking, black v white; sane v insane; yes you do v no you don't;
beautiful v ugly; ad infinitum, ad nauseam... It is tempting to
believe that binary thinking is the root cause of man's endless attempts to
destroy his own environment -
Gaia - expulsion
from Eden. As it is just as tempting to believe that binary thinking
is the root cause of all disagreements between individuals, conflicts within
communities and societies and wars between nations - sin. |
| |
|
Think of the endless stream of human beings
who have died in order to hold a belief, to be who they are - as a result of
religious persecutions, ethnic cleansing and the like. This starts in
the school classroom with bullying, moving into the same process at work -
unjust laws not rooted in natural justice as created by bigoted societies... |
| |
|
What of science's quest for its 'theory of
everything' holy grail? I marvel at how readily people cling to a new
hypothesis as if it were a life raft - the hypothesis eventually becoming
'fact'. Any subsequent scientific hypothesis is then regarded as
sacrilegious to the point not a few scientists have lost their careers in
standing true to a belief. Another continuum rears its head - open
mindedness v closed mindedness. |
| |
|
Research, development, review, revision are
all a part of any learning process, there is no such thing as a single
person arriving at the whole truth, for even if it appears that he or she
did so, that understanding comes from generations of previous thinkers,
standing upon the shoulders of those who went before. It is dangerous
to take a rigid, "I'm right, you are wrong" standpoint in anything, for
everything we believe is rooted in our own personal perceptions derived as a
result of a lifetime of social influence and conditioning and constrained by
the capacity and nature of our own mental processes. If only people
understood that truth and reality are not fixed, and that every person's
truth and reality can be different. Maybe nothing in all existence is
fixed. |
| |
|
I work in an environment in which I hear all
too often the terms 'them' and 'us', yet what are being referred to are
human beings belonging to the very
same species,
same family, same
race. This thinking embraces both staff teams and the so called
'service users' and also staff and management. This simply broadens
the 'you' and 'I' sense - the microcosm and the macrocosm - binary thinking
in combination with conductive logic... 'us' gets to equate with
'good' and 'them' gets to equate with 'evil', 'bad' or just plain 'wrong'...
Those in managerial positions may well feel threatened by the
plebs below just as the plebs feel threatened by management. Perceived
difference causes feelings of threat/fear. |
| |
|
I always feel a pang of disappointment when a
long term internal student leaves the group, perhaps more so when it is
because he or she cannot come to terms with existing in an environment where
all frameworks of reference are flexible and endlessly changing. Of
course, I am happy to provide a rigid framework of reference for beginners,
however, I am also just as ready to take it apart before their eyes and
reconstruct it in a different way or form as soon as I feel they are ready
to endure such a process. Eventually I lead the student towards
dispensing with all supportive frameworks. It feels deeply
uncomfortable to many, to work without a framework of reference. Yet
it is this boundless environment that allows a person to move freely in any
direction, anyhow, anyway... what could be simpler than that - but for many
the absence of their supporting framework represents a serious threat to
their comfort and security.
Someone, I can't remember
who, said that, "...it
is far easier to jump into a black or white foxhole (rut) on one side of the
field or the other, and huddle there with others of the same chosen colour
while taking refuge from the integrity challenging bullets fired by the
'other guys'..." |
| |
|
King Arthur was certainly pushing his luck
when he came up with the round table idea, yet what better? Why do so
many people feel more comfortable and at home sitting at a square or
rectangular table? Maybe because the circle is endless, has no
reference point, no framework of reference and is therefore too difficult to
understand and to be at ease with. At least the square table is
simpler and has clearly defined boundaries, especially the oblong table
which automatically creates a leader from among those sitting around it. |
| |
| |
|
Yin-yang or the continuum
principle |
| |
|
The yin, is the
feminine principle and the yang, is the masculine; together they
symbolise all complementary opposites in the dualistic universe, in powers,
qualities, human, animal and plant life. The yin must always come
before the yang since it symbolizes primordial darkness before the
yang light of creation. The yin is also the primeval
waters, the passive, feminine instinctive and intuitional nature, the soul,
depth, contraction, the negative, the soft and pliable; it is symbolised by
all that is dark and belonging to the humid principle, such as the colour
black, the earth, the valleys, trees, nocturnal animals and creatures that
live in the waters or damp places and by most flowers. The yang
is the active principle, the spirit, rationalism, height, expansion, the
positive, the hard and unyielding, it is the masculine and is depicted by
all that is light, dry and high, such as the mountain, the heavens, all
solar animals and birds. |
| |
|
The fabulous animals, the
dragon, phoenix and kylin are all capable of embodying both yin and
yang qualities and signify the perfect interplay between the two
powers or 'essences’ in unity; this also applies to the lotus among flowers.
The yin-yang symbol, the Ta ki, depicts the perfect balance of
the two great forces in the universe; each has within it the embryo of the
other power, implying that there is no exclusively masculine or feminine
nature, but that each contains the germ of the other and there is perpetual
alternation. The two powers are contained within the circle of cyclic
revolution and dynamism, of the totality. The whole forms the Cosmic
Egg, the primordial Androgyne, the perfection of balance and harmony, the
pure essence, which is neither yet both. The two forces are held
together in harmony as mutually interdependent partners, not in antagonism;
one in essence but two in manifestation. We can refer to yin yang
as the continuum principle because it is a way of recognising that there is
never a sharp division between one quality or condition and another.
|
| |
| |
|
Inter-relatedness and
fusion of the whole |
| |
|
For me,
in symbolic terms, the lines of relational connectedness between every
aspect of creation with every other aspect of creation creates a solid, in
which no space can exist – this is the universal energy field. In
other words, if one were to draw a line between every thing, and every part
of everything in existence - between every atom and every component of every
atom with every other atom and component of that atom - then the lines of
connectedness would be so many, that they would merge into a solid whole –
this is the ocean of universal energy... In the diagram on the
right, I have joined a mere 16 points in two dimensions so that each is
connected to all the others. Now imagine the complexity of that model
being extended to three dimensions, to a cube containing 64 points of
connectedness, then imagine extending that thinking to every particle of
every atom in all creation...
|
 |
| |
|
The
symbolic message is clear, everything in existence is a part of everything
else in existence - we are part of one another. As soon as we embrace
this symbolism, many, many things suddenly become easy to understand and to
live with in accord. |
| |
|
In the following table
are just a few continuums that relate to Shinseido
thought and practice. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that all
things listed under Yang (or Yin) are necessarily related in
an orthodox way, as in opposites in the accepted sense. This is simply
a list of common Shinseido continuums - things having a relationship
and sharing a continuum of understanding and representation. Sometimes
the median point seems to have no adequate descriptive word, yet there is
always a median point. Can you think of balancing words to fill in the
gaps? If you can, send them to
me. |
Conformation Denial
Hope
Frustration
Justice
Oppression
Pleasure
Displeasure
Gratefulness Ungratefulness
Optimism
Pessimism
Complete
Reliance Lust greed
Kind
heartedness Hard heartedness
Mercifulness Indignation
Knowledge
Ignorance
Wisdom
Stupidity
Chastity
Shamelessness
Friendliness and Sociability Reserve and Hostility
Fear Audacity
Humility
Arrogance
Carefulness
Hastiness
Forbearance Insolence
Silence
Loquacious
Resignation
Defiance
Acceptance
Scepticism
Patience Impatience
/ Restlessness
Forgiveness
Vengeance
Contentment
Discontent
Remembrance
Forgetfulness / Indifference
Awareness
Oblivion
Sympathy Estrangement
/ Alienation;
Contentment Greed
Consolation Forbiddance;
Amity Enmity
Fidelity
Treachery
Obedience
Defiance / Disobedience
Submission
Domination
Safety / Security Calamity
/ Peril
Love Hatred
/ detestation
Truthfulness Falsehood
Right Wrong
Discharge
of Trust Defalcation
Sincerity
(purity of motives) Hypocrisy (mixed motives)
Courage
Cowardice
Understanding Stupidity
Knowledge
Denial
Affability and Toleration
(which leads to the keeping of secrets of others) Exposure and
Betrayal
Soundness and, good faith for
others behind their back Cunning and Double-talk
Self-concealment and
Self-restraint (in respect of one’s capabilities) as against self-adornment and
self-aggrandizement;
Doing justice as against
partiality;
Organization in human society
(i.e. cordiality of social relations) as against iniquity and injustice;
Purity and refinement as
against impurity and coarseness; Modesty as against immodesty;
Moderation as against
extravagance;
Cheerfulness and freshness of
heart as against fatigue and depression;
Facility as against adversity;
Blessing and enrichment as
against wretchedness and eradication;
Safety and Good Health as
against calamity and affliction;
Steadfastness as against
garrulity;
Wisdom as against worldly
possessions;
Prestige and reverence as
against lowness and lightness;
Happiness and felicity as
against unhappiness and miser;
Repentance
Deception / guile
Preservation (of one’s
capabilities possessions) as against negligence and carelessness;
Liveliness with briskness as
against dullness wit sloth;
Delightfulness as against
sadness;
|
The continuum in inter-personal relationships |
| |
|
A relationship is the
inter-personal dynamic that occurs between one person and another (or
others). If the relationship involves just two people, it must be
accepted that these two people will at times express differences of opinion,
sometimes to the point of opposing the view point of the other. I am
referring to all differences of opinion from the everyday mundane expression
of one's like or dislike of a breakfast cereal or TV personality to major
inter-personal conflicts in which no resolution seems possible. This
is a dynamic that exists within any friendship or marriage. We could
view these differences of opinion as yin and yang or points
upon a continuum. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
If the relationship involves
three people, we must then accept that three differing viewpoints may be
taken upon a matter. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The more individuals become
part of a social structure, whether that be family, clan, club, society,
association, nation, the more varied will the viewpoints of the members will
be, and therefore the greater difficulty in pleasing everyone all at the
same time |
| |
|
I believe that it is not for
a social group to impose constraints upon individual standpoints.
Rather it must, in order to acknowledge the wholistic nature of things,
embrace all differences. Hence, within our organizational structure
known as Shinseido,
all viewpoints must be accommodated if the group is to stand for its
principles. |
| |
|
There is only one constraint
upon the expression of a viewpoint or action. That is, no person may
express a viewpoint or carry out an action that will contravene a natural
and fundamental human right. Where an opinion or action has some level
of adverse effect upon the other members, then a balance between opinions
should be sought through open, friendly and empathic discussion. This
of course should be an ideal within any social structure. |
| |
| |
|
Being linked with evil |
| |
|
In respect of being a part of a continuum between one
quality or state and another, one person expressed to me that the concept of
being linked by a continuum or in any other way, with a child molester, a
rapist or the dictator who kills millions (for example), did not sit well
with her. One’s inclination is to divorce oneself from such
distressing and uncomfortable things. However, we divorce ourselves
from evil by assuming a different position upon the continuum.
Sometimes the ideal or socially appropriate balancing point on a continuum
is not at its centre. |
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
In respect of ‘evil’, Clarence Darrow asked (Loeb Leopold
case), “Is a person to be blamed because out of the infinite forces that
conspired to form him, the infinite forces that were at work producing him
ages before he was born, that because out of these infinite combinations he
was born with out it? If he is, then there should be a new definition
for justice. Is he to blame for what he did not have and never had?
Is he to blame that his machine is imperfect? Who is to blame? I
do not know. I have never in my life been interested so much in fixing
blame as I have in relieving people from blame. I am not wise enough
to fix it. I know that somewhere in the past (maybe something enters
into one) - something missed. It may be defective nerves. It may
be a defective heart or liver. It may be defective endocrine glands.
I know it is something. I know that nothing happens in this world
without a cause.”
|
| |
|
Another way of looking at things is to recognize that
without evil, good cannot exist, without hatred, love cannot exist. It
is only through the existence of one polarity that its balancing counterpart
can exist – even if in name alone. |
| |
|
There are a number of
examples in which we deliberately choose to opt for positioning the fulcrum
of balance rather nearer to one quality that the other: |
