Free Will

[joel knoll]

DQ: I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE NON-DUALITY OF NATURE CAN BE CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED. FOR NON-DUALITY IS ONLY A NEGATION OF ITS OPPOSITE, DUALITY. THE NECESSARY CORRELATIVE OF THE UNITY OF NATURE IS THE DUALITY OF NATURE. ONE CANNOT BE POSTULATED, OR EVEN CONCIEVED, WITHOUT AT LEAST THE BARE POSSIBILITY OF THE OTHER. PERHAPS NATURE HAS, AS WILLIAM JAMES PUT IT, "MANY WAYS OF BEING ONE"?

BY THE WAY, I AM NOT A NOVICE AT PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT. EVERYONE BUT YOU IS A NOVICE AT YOUR OWN PARTICULAR WAYS OF THINKING.

[David Quinn]

Again, the key point is understanding that Nature doesn't have any form. On the one hand, it is utterly everything, and yet, at the same time, it is nothing whatsoever. It is the nothing which is everything.

Or to put it another way ...

Nature's form is constantly changing from one moment to the next. Never does it settle down into one particular form. In the very moment that you try to reach out and grasp its form, it has already changed into another form. It is out of this restlessness and formlessness that everything we experience is created.

However, one must be very careful here. It is important to avoid the mistake of freezing Nature into the form of formlessness (or unity, or nonduality) as well. For that is just a continuation of the very same delusion that one has been trying to negate. When this happens, one immediately becomes trapped in duality once again, and the essential understanding of Nature's formlessness that one had reached a moment ago disappears.

-

[Kevin Solway]

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE NON-DUALITY OF NATURE CAN BE CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED. FOR NON-DUALITY IS ONLY A NEGATION OF ITS OPPOSITE, DUALITY. THE NECESSARY CORRELATIVE OF THE UNITY OF NATURE IS THE DUALITY OF NATURE. ONE CANNOT BE POSTULATED, OR EVEN CONCIEVED, WITHOUT AT LEAST THE BARE POSSIBILITY OF THE OTHER.

When the Totality is compared against its parts (duality), it seems non-dual. But when the parts are compared against their Totality (One only), they appear to have the nature of duality. In this manner Reality can be described as both "dual" and "non-dual".

Let's take a human body and its parts as an example.

A kidney is a part of the body, and the body is the totality of the body parts.

But does a kidney exist in its own right? If we dissect out the kidney from a living body, and put it on a steel tray, (. . . and then possibly incinerate it), is it still a "kidney"? It no longer functions as a kidney. It has no energy source or controlling mechanism. It may no longer look like a kidney. And it may not every have any prospect of becoming a functioning kidney again - especially if it has been incinerated.

So, things in duality are not "real" as such, in the sense that they don't have their own real existence. Their fleeting reality is "lent" them by everything else in Nature. The reality of the kidney is "lent" to it by the rest of the functioning body, and ultimately the world, etc.

So Ramakrishna says, "God alone is real. All else is illusory".

But as you say, it cannot strictly exist as "non-duality", since it would then have to have its existence lent to it by "duality". So the term "non-duality" is really only a kind of pointer rather than a container. It points at what is True, rather than what is false. The false of course is never real, and is thus always illusory, as Ramakrishna says.

[joel knoll]

For Quinn: Is change illusory, or is continuity illusory? Is the world more fundamentally One or Many? I think that Nature is not formless, or at least, that it could never be experienced by men as such. I fear that you and Mr. Solway will always answer me with words inspired by the ancient orient, which are bound to baffle a more rationally-minded person. It seems to me that you are making very dogmatic statements. For instance, you contend that Nature's form is always changing, and that everything we experience is created out of this restlessness and formlessness. I would challenge you to argue these statements out, rather than simply stating them. First of all, created by what or whom and in what manner? Second, how do you pretend to know that Nature is most fundamentally in a condition of constant flux, if everything we experience is created out of it; it seems this would bar you from any awareness of flux, except insofar as it is mingled with continuity in brute sensory experience. Obviously, then, you do not regard the latter as the only source of knowledge.

Solway: The Totality, according to your hypotheses, cannot exist. For if something cannot exist in isolation and in itself, then the Totality cannot exist. I do not see why a kidney should not exist without a body with any greater hardship than the Totality can exist without... whatever might be thought to exist without being part of the Totality, on which its own existence would depend. If God alone is real, and all else is illusory, then whence the illusion? Whence the content of the illusion, and whence human participation in the illusion?

[Matt Gregory]

How do you define "form", David?

[Kevin Solway]

Solway: The Totality, according to your hypotheses, cannot exist. For if something cannot exist in isolation and in itself, then the Totality cannot exist.

That's right. The Totality does not "exist" in the normal sense, as there is nothing else for it exist in relation to.

To say that the Totality "exists" we need to create a different sense of the word "exist".

I do not see why a kidney should not exist without a body with any greater hardship than the Totality can exist without... whatever might be thought to exist without being part of the Totality, on which its own existence would depend.

We can try to think of a kidney (or an incinerated kidney) existing independent of an energy source, or of a controlling mechanism, or of a protective casing, and independent of favorable conditions, future potential, etc - though without any success when it comes down to it. But we simply cannot think of anything existing outside of the Totality.

As I say, we can still say "The Totality (God) exists", but this sense of "exists" is different to the sense in which everything else exists.

The "existence" of the Totality (God) is not dependent on favorable conditions.

Normal existences, like people, are like shadows or reflections which disappear as soon as the light source disappears or is obscured.

Hence, "God alone is real. All else is illusory."

If God alone is real, and all else is illusory, then whence the illusion? Whence the content of the illusion, and whence human participation in the illusion?

Things happen because they are caused to happen. That is the explanation for literally everything, so it covers the question as to why illusions exist also.

Human beings have evolved in a certain manner - to a large extent they have evolved to be egotistical, greedy, selfish, devious, violent, and blind - since this has so far proven to work best when it comes to most successfully passing on their genetic material in largest quantities to the next generation. That, in a nutshell, is why illusions exist for human beings.

Enlightened people do sometimes arise by some freak of Nature. They see the same general appearances as others, since their sense organs function in the same way, but their gaze penetrates the illusoriiness of things. To date, they have not been so good at passing on their genes and memes as other competing beings. But this may change.

[David Quinn]

Joel wrote:

For Quinn: Is change illusory, or is continuity illusory? Is the world more fundamentally One or Many? I think that Nature is not formless, or at least, that it could never be experienced by men as such. I fear that you and Mr. Solway will always answer me with words inspired by the ancient orient, which are bound to baffle a more rationally-minded person.

The opposite is the case, actually. True statements about Reality are extremely rational, so much so that the average person, who usually lives in a world of complications and convoluted thought-processes, really doesn't know how to handle it.

This is one of the reasons why Zen stories are so perplexing to them. They subconsciously think that truth is too complex for the human mind to comprehend. In reality, it is almost too simple.

Is change illusory, or is continuity illusory?

Fundamentally, both are illusory. In the final analysis, nothing really exists at all, which means there is neither change nor continuity.

Is the world more fundamentally One or Many?

The same reasoning applies here as well.

I think that Nature is not formless, or at least, that it could never be experienced by men as such.

If by "Nature" we mean the totality of all there is, then it is definitely formless. It literally cannot have a form, by definition. Only things within Nature, which are distinguishable from other things within Nature, can have form.

It seems to me that you are making very dogmatic statements. For instance, you contend that Nature's form is always changing, and that everything we experience is created out of this restlessness and formlessness. I would challenge you to argue these statements out, rather than simply stating them. First of all, created by what or whom and in what manner?

Everything happens by cause and effect. This means there is no primal "who" or "what" which is creating things. There is only things being created naturally out of other things.

How do I know that Nature is constantly changing? Because I know that things do not have any objective existence of their own. Everything depends on circumstances, which themselves are vulnerable to further circumstances, and so on. Nothing can ever settle because of this.

Subjectively, within the flow of time, the universe of one moment is wholly replaced by a new universe in the next. One might observe a large, solid mountain, for example, but the mountain of that particular moment vanishes almost in the very instant of our observing it. Only a vague memory of it remains - and even this keeps disappearing in the instant which follows our recalling of it. Nothing can ever be grasped and forced to remain still.


-