Duality and Ontology

From Phenomenology to Ontology via Epistemology

“Bracketing” is “an act of suspending judgment about the world to instead focus on analysis of experience.” Previous blog posts have been bracketing the claims about the nature of existence, being, becoming, and reality (ontological claims), instead focusing on other aspects:

These two aspects are in opposition:

  • Mystical states are experienced as unitary, but
  • Knowledge expressed in language is dual.

The latter point is demonstrated in the following passage:1

Then Manjusri turned to Vimalakirti and said, “… Lord, I wish now that you would explain your opinion of what it means for a bodhisattva to penetrate the doctrine of nonduality.”

Vimalakirti remained silent; he did not say a word.

Manjusri praised him, saying, “Very good, very good. There certainly are no better words. This is exactly what it means to penetrate perfectly the doctrine of nonduality.”

This raises the following questions about each faith tradition’s ontology:

  1. What dualities are present?2
  2. What moves in thought are applied to these dualities?

Photo by Tino Lehmann on Scopio

Dualities and Moves in Thought

Necessary Dualities?

Even before considering the first question in regard to each faith tradition, the previous hypotheses about awareness practices suggest at least one duality to expect: interior/exterior, subjective/objective, subject/object, etc. Mind and self are constructed via language, so any knowledge expressed in language would have this duality.

graph TD subgraph experience self((language-
constructed
self)) end style self stroke-dasharray: 5

Linguistic typological systems, in addition to having subjects and objects, have verbs.3 Every language makes a grammatical distinction that looks like a verb-noun distinction.4 Consequently in ontology one might expect dualities of becoming and being, disequilibrium and equilibrium, motion and stability,5 or transformation and the form that transforms.

When considering development and culture, I noted that for any complex system, macroscopic concepts cannot be derived from fundamental interactions.6 This is another duality: microscopic/macroscopic, singular/plural, linear/systemic, etc. Together with interior/exterior, this duality forms something like Ken Wilber’s four quadrants,7 or the linguistic concept of “person”: subjective, intersubjective, and objective.8

  Interior Exterior
Linear Individual, Mind, Self
(1st-person “I”)		 Practices
(3rd-person “it”)
Systemic Culture, Society
(2nd-person “we”)		 System
(3rd-person “its”)

Of these dualities–subject/object, being/becoming, linear/systemic–the first appears most strongly related to awareness practices and states.

Comparative Philosophy

David R. Loy’s Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy explores primarily the philosophical systems developed in South and East Asia, positing dialectic and dual interpretations of nondual experience.9 Each system addresses the subject/object duality differently, and with a different movement in thought.

Philosophy Subject Object Ontology Movement
Sāṅkhya-Yoga puruṣa10 (pure consciousness) prakṛti (phenomena) Dualism “as if one”
Theism human God God transcends the phenomenal world. Union with God is a miracle.
Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta Ātman (Self) Brahman The guṇas (qualities) are māyā (illusion). Mokṣa is realization that Ātman is Brahman: “realizing the whole universe as the Self.” Sākṣin: Object is subject.
Early (Pāli) Buddhism self reality Reality is dharmas, self is skandhas. Anātman: Subject is object.
Mahāyāna Buddhism self reality Saṁvṛti-satya (relative truth): The dharmas (phenomena) are śūnya (empty).
Paramārtha-satya (absolute truth): < silence >		 Anātman: Subject is object.
Mystical Theism human God11 “The eye that I see God with is the same eye God sees me with. My eye and God’s eye are one and the same.” Union with God is the true nature of things.

Theism

Note the dualism in theism: In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the human eternal soul is conceived as genuinely separate from the divine reality of God;12 the distinction between the soul and its creator is absolute.13 However, as the quotes from Meister Eckhart illustrate, mystical theism has traditions like unio mystica that transcend this pair of opposites, the distinction between self and God: “If I am to know God directly, I must become completely he and he I: so that this he and this I become and are one I.”14

Nevertheless the way of devotion might need to begin with a personality known and loved by the devotee, not remote, unimaginable conceptions.13 As Carmelite nun Bernadette Roberts says:15

start with the Christian experience of self’s union with God, whereby we lose the fear of ever becoming lost–since we can only get lost in God. This is done with the help of Christ, the ever-present guru or master who, unlike other mediums, is always around when you need Him, in the stillness within or in the silence of the Eucharist without.

Believing in God or gods permits remaining in dialogue with that which is perceived as being divine or greater than the self. This dialogue enables an ongoing intersubjective dialectic. For those with nontheistic worldview (e.g., existentialist, humanist, monist), the role of interlocutor may be played by a community, or by life itself.16

Notes

  1. Quoted in Woodhull, J. (2013) Reflections on the Scholarship in Mysticism. ↩

  2. Note that “nonduality,” as a word and concept (A) has an opposite (A’): “duality.” Thus it is possible to write of the “dance of duality and non-duality.” Sharma, B.; Cook-Greuter, S. Polarities and Ego Development: Polarity Thinking In Ego Development Theory And Developmental Coaching. “Nonduality” can be applied to, for example, action, perception, and thought–multiple nondualities. In other word, the concept of “nonduality” is not, itself, nondual. Attempts to express nonduality in language consequently use circumlocutions like “one without a second” or “there is only one thing… not even one.” Loy, D. (1997) Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy; Reprint edition.; Humanity Books: Amherst, NY; ISBN 978-1-57392-359-0. ↩

  3. Gell-Mann, M.; Ruhlen, M. (2011) The Origin and Evolution of Word Order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 17290–17295, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113716108. ↩

  4. David Adger (2019). Language Unlimited: The science behind our most creative power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-882809-9. ↩

  5. “Relating Value to (a) Movement in Developmental Direction, and/or (b) Stability Through Developmental Movement” is schema 18 in Basseches, M. (1984) Dialectical Thinking and Adult Development; Illustrated edition.; Ablex Publishing: Norwood, N.J; ISBN 978-0-89391-017-4. ↩

  6. See for example Gu, M.; Weedbrook, C.; Perales, A.; Nielsen, M.A. (2009) More Really Is Different. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 238, 835–839, doi: 10.1016/j.physd.2008.12.016. ↩

  7. Considering these four quadrants forms the basis of “showing up” in Wilber, K. (2017) The Religion of Tomorrow: A Vision for the Future of the Great Traditions–More Inclusive, More Comprehensive, More Complete; First Edition.; Shambhala: Boulder; ISBN 978-1-61180-300-6. ↩

  8. For first-, second-, and third-person, see Torbert: Torbert, W.R.; Taylor, S.S. (2007) Action Inquiry: Interweaving Multiple Qualities of Attention for Timely Action. In The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice; Reason, P., Bradbury, H., Eds.; SAGE: London, ISBN 978-1-4462-7114-8. Torbert, W.R. (2013) Listening into the Dark: An Essay Testing the Validity and Efficacy of Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry for Describing and Encouraging Transformations of Self, Society, and Scientific Inquiry. Integral Review 9, 36. ↩

  9. My summary in this blog post relies on Loy’s extensive work rather than my own personal investigation. Any errors are no doubt my own, due to my misunderstanding of Loy, D. (1997) Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy; Reprint edition.; Humanity Books: Amherst, NY; ISBN 978-1-57392-359-0. ↩

  10. Puruṣa is “pure nonobjectivity.” Woodhull, J. (2013) Reflections on the Scholarship in Mysticism. ↩

  11. “That refers to existence or being; What refers to essence; Who refers to individuals, particulars - numbers; God is a ‘that’ not a ‘who’.” Roberts, B. (2015) Nonduality As a Definition of Christ.; San Jose, California. ↩

  12. “[T]he Abrahamic religions are incorrigibly dualistic and faith-based.” Harris, S. (2015) Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion; Reprint edition.; Simon & Schuster: New York; ISBN 978-1-4516-3602-4. ↩

  13. Campbell, J. (2008) The Hero with a Thousand Faces; Bollingen series XVII; 3rd ed.; New World Library: Novato, Calif; ISBN 978-1-57731-593-3. ↩ ↩2

  14. Quoted in Katz, S.T. (1978) Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism. In Mysticism and philosophical analysis; Katz, S.T., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, ISBN 978-0195200119. ↩

  15. Roberts, B. (1984) The Experience of No-Self: A Contemplative Journey; 1st Shambhala ed.; Shambhala ; Distributed by Random House: Boulder : New York, N.Y. ; ISBN 978-0-87773-289-1. ↩

  16. This suggestion is from Melvin E. Miller (personal communication, 2020). See Miller, M.E. (1994) World Views, Ego Development, and Epistemological Changes from the Conventional to the Postformal: A Longitudinal Perspective. In Transcendence and Mature Thought in Adulthood; Miller, M.E., Cook-Greuter, S.R., Eds.; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, Md, ISBN 978-0-8476-7918-8. ↩

Written on October 31, 2021

Comments powered by Talkyard.