What is the nature of good and evil, being and reality?
An open letter to two fine gentlemen, on my favourite philosophy podcast: Seekers Of Unity
I must say, with great respect, this is an excellent and extremely rare caliber of discussion, which is extraordinarily helpful to our world at this critical, pivotal time of global crisis; but it is a discussion between two individuals who self-evidently have never tasted, or glimpsed, reality.
I speak, by the way, not from theory, nor speculation, but from direct experience, frankly, because it must be said. The world is in too much peril for mincing of words or excessive delicacy.
Humility or non-humility has no bearing on it, once it is directly realized there truly is no self, and no duality of subject and object, self and other, whatsoever. Moreover, false modesty merely sows confusion, when what we need is clarity, above all. If you know how to walk, you do not say, No, I do not know how to walk. If you have seen, then you have seen. It is simply a matter of straight forward fact.
I do not have time to elaborate here, but as to the four critiques of the perennial wisdom, points 1, 3 and 4 are demonstrably false, and easily refuted. Point two is invalid, being a statement which can stem only from ignorance, from a dweller in the cave of shadows, from one who has never opened his eyes, and has not seen.
The central issue, however, is this: theory will never suffice. You can debate to the end of time, and remain forever in ignorance. The point is to deeply examine things for yourself, via a true radical empiricism, yes, and to actually see.
When the direct experience of the non-dual/interdependent nature of being and reality arises, there are no more questions, and no more theories – you know. Only the subtleties of interpretation and refinement of vision remain to be addressed, if even that. Reality becomes self-evident, and undeniable, for the first time. Until then, debate, discuss, and theorize all you like. But keep a true modesty about it, because you are still blind men in a dark cave.
As to the question of evil: universal, unconditional, subjectless, objectless compassion is the natural state of the awakened mind that directly perceives the non-dual nature of being and reality; moreover, it is compassion which itself opens the gates of wisdom, because it is the primary antidote to the ego-grasping which both stems from and also perpetuates the delusion of duality. That is to say, the door to enlightenment is opened solely through the key that is compassion. Compassion is therefore integral to the path, as well as the result. This is the union of the outer and inner, the exoteric and esoteric, the sutrayana path and the vajrayana path, the causal and result vehicles, in other words, or the relative and the absolute.
Furthermore, compassion is enlightened self-interest and basic intelligence, for all things are interconnected and truly one. Like ripples in a pond, whatever we send out, sooner or later echoes back, reverberates and returns to us. This is the nature of interdependence, which is the manifest dance of the non-dual ground of being itself.
The question of evil is therefore answered best, and answered adequately, solely by the perennial wisdom of the non-dual view, and by no other.
Whence evil? Evil is greed and hate, stemming from the delusion of duality, which Socrates and the ancient Greeks called, somewhat euphemistically, ignorance. Cut the root of ignorance, or more precisely, delusion, and evil ceases to arise. Until then, it is temporary, bandaid solutions only that are possible.
Or if we simply wish for freedom, liberation, happiness or peace, either for ourselves, others, or both, then it is likewise either piecemeal, temporary bandaid measures, or it is enlightenment. You take your pick.
Again: Brilliant, important work you are doing, yes; but be aware that there is indeed more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy.
– With much love, J. Todd Ring,
Villa Samadhi,
Uruguay
November 27, 2023
Here is the original podcast, referred to above – which is, as I say, excellent, though by necessity limited, as was already explained:
We have confused wisdom with power, and quality of life with quantity of money and material goods. Until we correct that deep confusion, modern industrial society will be, and will remain, doomed to destroy itself. Cutting through illusion, therefore, is not a luxury for philosophers, scientists, monks and mystics alone. It is an urgent necessity for us all.
As Plato said, everyone has opinions, but few have knowledge. It is important that we keep that in the back of our minds, if not the fore.
Two levels, there are, in everything: there is the question of how to live, and how to construct a society that is just, good, or intelligent, which is the worldly aspect, pertaining to moral, social and political philosophy; then there is the ultimate question of the true nature of being and reality. Extremely few people do a good job in addressing either one, only a handful have done a good job in addressing both. This is an important thing to realize and to bear in mind.
In terms of moral, social and political philosophy:
No man is an island, as Martin Luther King Jr. said. That means, we are all interconnected and interdependent. That means that kindness, compassion and mutual aid are not only virtuous, but also a matter of basic intelligence, or enlightened self-interest.
From that flows an ethos of compassion, community, solidarity, cooperation or mutual aid. And from that flows an ethos, a value of, and a profound respect for, liberty or freedom, since it is certainly experienced to be a violence, an act of aggression, and a cruelty and great suffering to be made someone else’s slave, or to have our freedom unduly constrained, and to be dominated by any man, woman, or system.
Taking compassion and freedom as our core founding values, or community and freedom, or liberty, equality, solidarity, the founding values of the Enlightenment, however you may prefer to say it, will produce a just, equitable, and eminently sane society, and in the relative sense of the term, an enlightened democracy. That is all we need to know and to remember in order to build a better world, and to resolve the great social, economic, political and environmental crises which we face now. But we will have to be bold about it, and swift. Remember that Jesus did not drive the money changers from the temple with a limp piece of leaf lettuce, but with a whip. Remove the money changers from power. Only then can we seriously begin to address the urgent problems confronting us.
*
As to enlightenment, in the absolute or ultimate sense, or the nature of knowledge vs opinion, and the true nature of being and reality, we can say this.
In short, and to put the matter as succinctly as possible, we are born, as Kant rightly said, with innate frameworks of thought, an innate latticework or architecture of inborn thought constructs, through which we view and experience the world. As Descartes and Locke rightly said, we know that we are thinking, and we believe we are accurately percieving things as they truly are, but the accuracy of our perceptions is radically in question.
Thought relates to thought, and while we believe we are directly relating to things in the world, when we examine our minds closely, we see that we are relating directly, only to our own ideas about things, and not directly to phenomena or things themselves. That is, everything we percieve, think or experience, is filtered through an unconscious and habitual set of mental constructs, a set of filters and lenses, as well as social conditioning and indoctrination. We do not, therefore, relate to anything directly, but only to our own unconscious mental architecture of preconceived thought constructs, lenses and filters.
To put it in Buddhist terms, all phenomena (beings, things and events) are viewed by our minds with an unrecognized mental imputation. We think we see separate, concrete, divided beings and things; but while being exists, and Descartes was right on that, the “I” is imputed, and has no valid basis in reality. We impute or project a separation, permanence and division to phenomena, beings and things, where none exists in reality. As Einstein said, “The field is everything.”
Remember what Alan Watts said. “Most metaphysics are unconscious metaphysics. And unconscious metaphysics are bad metaphysics.” Question everything.
Descartes famously began modern philosophy, 400 years ago, by trying to go back to first principles, trying to make zero assumptions or unsupported premises (philosophy and science both are riddled with unconscious and unsupported assumptions) to see what we can know for certain, and then to build a coherent philosophy on that firm ground or foundation. He did not assume that any given authority is 100% certain in its reliability, nor was he willing to assume that any idea, theory, philosophy, ideology or theology is necessarily 100% reliable. That left only radical empiricism (and let us not fetishize an obsession with numbers and measurement, solely, any longer). In short, we must examine things for ourselves: that is, as the Buddha also urged, to not resort to simply taking someone’s word on things, as being the infallible truth.
Descartes said, What if I am dreaming? When I dream, things in the dream seem real, but when I awake, I realize I was only dreaming. How do I know I am not dreaming now? How do I know my perceptions of reality are accurate? Maybe they are 100% accurate, or 90%, or 1%, or completely illusory and delusional? How do I verify what is actially real or true?
Without seriously addressing this question of perception vs reality, and the problem of imputing realities to reality – as Hume asked, in his landmark work which radically transformed the entire landscape of Western philosophy, in 1776, and which no one yet has satisfactorily answered, in the West at least – there can be no sound foundation for either science or philosophy, and we will be wildly speculating, and completely unscientific and anti-empirical, without even knowing it.
And we are!
(Most scientists have never seriously addressed Hume, or this question, the problem of inference or imputation, which is foundational to any true, genuine, or valid empiricism, or any truly scientific or philosophical approach; and hence, do not really merit being called scientists. The same goes for great majority of philosophers, religious leaders, politicians, pundits, scholars, and social or political commentators: their words and views rest on thin air. They have all the reliability of quacking ducks, and so, their statements should be taken with a train load of salt.)
Descartes then realized, I am thinking, therefore I know, at least, that I exist. Cogito ergo sum. But he was mistaken, and radically so. And to my knowledge, no one has yet realized or pointed out his error – until now.
If there is thinking, and we do directly experience thinking, so we can confirm that much, then there must be consciousness, and existence or being, of some kind. The “I” in Descartes’ famous, “I think therefore I am”, however, is simply a habitual, unexamined, and utterly unsupported assumption – an unconscious mental imputation or projection, with no valid basis in reality, and no sound evidence to support it.
We then have:
A. Thinking is present
B. Therefore:
i, consciousness of some kind is present;
and
ii, being or existence of some kind is present.
We know therefore that there exists consciousness and its contents, being or existence of some kind, and space. There is no basis for presuming or imputing duality, permanence or division of any kind, however. And we should remember, distinction is not the same as division. The crests and troughs of waves on the ocean are distinct, but there is no real division between crest and trough, or between waves. The waves are a formation or movement of the ocean, but the ocean while ever changing, remains essentially unchanged, and one. Reflect deeply on this, and the nature of all phenomena will become clear.
The assumption or imputation of a separate self, an “I”, a self that is a separate island in a vast cosmos, is wholly unsupported, and pure, anti-empirical and unscientific conjecture, speculation, or mere superstition – no matter how firmly or habitually we may believe it, and no matter how many others may believe it. The imputation or assumption of a duality between self and other, or any kind of duality of being, is similarly unsubstantiated mental flotsam, without any sound basis or empirical support whatsoever. The burden of proof rests on those who assert a positive claim of some entity, attribute or thing, by the way, and not on those who deny it, for lack of evidence. (See Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy.)
Remember, it was only yesterday, in the long view of human history, that everyone “knew”, and was absolutely certain, that the Earth was the centre of the universe. It just so happened that everyone was wrong.
Not long ago, slavery was thought to be natural, normal, ethical, and just. Virtually everyone, from Aristotle and emperors, to popes, priests, “learned men”, scholars, scientists and the common people, knew that slavery was natural, normal and just. But everyone was wrong.
In both cases, what was assumed by everyone to be unquestionably true, turned out to be flatly and completely mistaken and wrong. It is the same with the nearly universal belief in duality. We are, as Plato said, dwellers in a cave of shadows. But enlightenment, or waking up to reality, is entirely within our reach.
Enlightenment, it should be added, does not mean floating off into space, on some mystical cloud. It means, quite simply, waking up. It means seeing reality clearly, for the first time, and abiding in that awareness of the non-dual nature of emptiness and form, being and reality, with universal compassion, indestructible peace, and natural, spontaneous, intelligent responsiveness, as the naturally arising result, of simply being fully and truly awake.
*
Does this mean nothing exists? No, that is nihilism, and it is a delusion, as the Buddhists have also made clear – and a dangerous delusion. Does that mean everything exists in the mind, and that only the mind exists? No, that is philosophical idealism, or in Buddhist terminology, the Mind Only school; and that, while closer to the truth than nihilism, is also a misperception with regards to the true nature of reality.
Does that mean that the dualism of Descartes, and his materialist bias, along with Newton’s mechanistic view of the universe, should be rejected? Yes.
Newtonian mechanics still work, as crude approximations which have their uses in technology, for example, but the non-dualist view of Spinoza turns out to be far more accurate as a theory, paradigm or world view, and will lead us to better experiments, new discoveries, and most importantly, better judgement and better actions and policies, leading to a better society, and a better world.
Does it then mean we should adopt an interactionist view of mind and body, consciousness and matter? No. That would be vastly superior to the dualistic, mechanistic, materialist-reductionist world view which we now accept as “knowledge”, as “scientific”, “empirical”, as “educated” opinion, or as common sense. But that would be an ecological view, a holistic or organic view, which is vastly superior, more accurate and more sane, but still subtly imprecise.
No, it means that a non-dualistic view is the only view supported by either a radical empiricism, a thorough-going empiricism, a genuine empiricism, an authentically scientific approach; or by the philosophers and sages who wrote, spoke and elaborated the view of non-duality, in what has been called the Perennial Philosophy.
*
Note that quantum physics – if we are not unscientific about it, and anti-intellectual, or irrationally averse to drawning conclusions, based on clear and unequivocal evidence (a few “scientists” fit that description, and a very few “philosophers”) – demonstrated over a century ago, that the atomistic, mechanistic, dualistic, materialist-reductionism which we fell into, as in a bog, along with Netwon and Descartes, a mere four centuries ago, is a radically mistaken paradigm, theory, ideology, philosophy, or view of reality. What modern physics shows us, is not that elaborate conjectures of multiple universes or dimensions (all speculative conjecture) are necessarily the reality, but more pointedly, and of profoundly more importance, that the imagined duality, separation or division between subject and object, self and other, mind and body, and consciousness and “matter”, is entirely fictional, and does not exist.
As Enstein said, “The perception of a division between self and other is a kind of optical delusion.” “We must stop talking about the particle and field. The field is everything.”
Or as Schrodinger, the godfather of quantum mathematics, said, perhaps even more strikingly, “The number of minds in the universe is one.”
Note that Einstein said he believed in Spinoza’s view of God. That is, there is only one substance in existence, and you can call it God, or you call it nature, but it is One.
As the last of the ancient philosophers, Plotinus said: the many are One; the One manifests as many.
Or as the Tao Te Ching says, “Naming is the mother of the ten thousand things.”
Or as the Heart Sutra, the Heart of the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom, says:
“Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.
Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form.”
This is explicitly stated to be a refutation and a denial of both nihilism and eternalism. The true nature of reality lies in the middle way between those two extremes, both of which are delusional.
How do we come, to first conceptually, and then experientially, and deeply, understand and then directly see and realize the non-duality of being and reality? Begin with reflecting deeply and often on the interdependence of all beings, things and phenomena. That will lead to higher awareness, liberation and enlightenment, and will avoid the terrible rotting bog, which is the mental prison, of nihilism.
Then examine the labelling process of the mind. That will finish the job of removing all remaining traces of doubt and dualistic delusion.
*
Spinoza and Plotinus, in the West, along with Meister Eckhart, Thomas Merton, Mathew Fox, Ken Wilber, Joseph Campbell, Joanna Macy, Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, Allan Wallace, Einstein, Shrodinger, Wheeler, Bohm, and myself; and Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Shankara and the Buddha in the East, to make a very incomplete list, have all expressed the perennial philosophy of non-duality. We would be wise to at least look into it, and to keep an open mind.
But above all, think for yourself. Question everything. And as the Buddha said, examine things for yourself, see for yourself.
As Shakespeare said, “There is more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy.” “Life is rounded by a little sleep.”
And as Thoreau said,
“There is more day yet to dawn. The sun is but a morning star.”
We are not smaller or lesser than we had imagined, but infinitely more. Being and reality is basically good. The world is in a dark and terrible state because it is ruled by illusions. Illusion is the root of our problems. Uproot that, and we can live in peace, and in lives, and a world, more beautiful than we dare to imagine.
Compassion, and the unceasing search for truth: these are our best guides, and our sole concerns, if we are aware enough to live in ways that are truly sensible and intelligent. With compassion and the pursuit of truth (not the dogmatic presumption of truth) as our beacons, the future is brighter than our dreams. Without them, we are lost.
The choice, as always, is ours to make.
J. Todd Ring,
March 28, 2021
Post-Script:
It has become the fashionable norm in Western philosophy, in the past few centuries, for philosophers to write great tomes of books, often hundreds of pages long, and in the most arcane and obscure language possible. There is a good reason for this. It is to hide the fact that most philosophers have little or nothing to say. (The fetish is also for maximum footnotes, since ideas are not judged on their own merits, as all good science or philosophy does, but are judged by how well they can be entangled upon the architecture of presumed authority. We are thoroughly scholastic as a result, pre-Enlightenment, and more medieval than the medievalists.) In fact, aside from Socrates, Spinoza, Plotinus and Hume, and a handful of others, most of Western philosophy is the finger-painting of preschoolers. It is not worth the paper it is written on. That certainly includes all of post-modernism, which has virtually lobotomized intellectuals for the past fifty years. (Replace all the post-modernists, existentialists and phenomenologists with a study of Emerson, Blake and Thoreau, and we would be getting somewhere – beyond our present state, which is parked in a cul de sac.) In a few short words, we have said here what thousands of books on philosophy and politics have not, and could not, because they lacked the clarity, and the depth, to be able to do so. The importance of a work is not measured by its volume of words. The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the UN Charter of Human Rights, the Magna Carta, and Henry David Thoreau’s On Civil Disobedience, are short, pithy works, of unsurpassed importance. Thoreau’s essay On Civil Disobedience is just fifteen pages, and the Heart Sutra is just two pages; but they are the most important political and philosophical tracts, respectively, ever written. Do not be fooled by wordiness and verbosity, or by esoteric and arcane language. Most of it is nothing but hot air – a tale full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
See also:
The Hero With A Thousand Faces – Joseph Campbell
World As Lover, World As Self – Joanna Macy
Choosing Reality – Allan Wallace
The Holographic Universe – Michael Talbot
Mysticism and The New Physics – Michael Talbot
Dialogues With Scientists and Sages – Rene Weber
Dreamtime and Inner Space – Holgar Kalweit
The Way of Zen – Alan Watts
Tao: The Watercourse Way – Alan Watts
The Mother Of The Buddhas – Lex Hixon
The Perennial Philosophy – Aldous Huxley
No Boundary – Ken Wilber
Stolen Continents – Ronald Wright
A Short History of Progress – Ronald Wright
Year 501: The Conquest Continues – Noam Chomsky
Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies – Noam Chomsky
The Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein
A Game As Old As Empire – John Perkins
Class Warfare – Noam Chomsky
The Power Elite – C. Wright Mills
Giants: The Global Power Elite – Peter Phillips
The New Rulers Of The World – John Pilger
Ancient Futures – Helena Norberg-Hodge
From The Ground Up – Helena Norberg-Hodge
The Chalice and The Blade – Rianne Eisler
The Ecology of Freedom – Murray Bookchin
Mutual Aid – Peter Kropotkin
The Empathic Civilization – Jeremy Rifkin
Elders’ Wisdom – David Suzuki
The Wayfinders – Wade Davis
The Great Turning – David C. Korten
Oneness vs The 1% – Vandana Shiva
Enlightened Democracy – J. Todd Ring
*
Here is a good introduction to epistemology, ontology and metaphysics, or the question of what is the true nature of appearances versus reality, in the short video below. It is only an introduction, however. Russell does not answer the question here, but merely sets the stage for the investigation, which is itself important, though incomplete. See Plato’s Parable of the Cave, Descartes, Spinoza, and finally, the Buddha and Nagarjuna.
Note that BR is among the best in terms of political philosophy, and among the worst for metaphysics. But he at least introduces the question of perception vs reality well.
Or start with my book, Enlightened Democracy, which synthesizes the best of East and West, North and South, ancient and modern, science and spirituality, the philosophical and the political, long term vision and immediate action. Then read Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Allan Wallace, Joanna Macy, Ken Wilber, Murray Bookchin, and the other major figures listed above.
(This ought to raise the hackles of the fundamentalists – both secular and religious. But I don’t write for the narrow of mind anyway, so I am not concerned about that.)
Now here is someone who knows what he is talking about: Rabbi David C. Cooper explains what non-dualism is, from the perspective of Kabbalah, which is the Jewish mystical tradition.
(Radio recording of talk is linked below.)
“The idea that we have of God as some being, as some thing, in essence, as a noun that we relate to – it’s me and God, or the creation and the creator – is really not the way mystical Kabbalah looks at the divine. It relates to God in what they term Ein Sof, which can be translated as boundlessness, which has no characteristic and no description, and is constantly present everywhere at all times, and is not some *thing*. So, the closest that we can come to, is describing it as a process, and this is the reason for the idea of God as a verb.”
(Note the similarity and congruence with Whitehead’s concept of the cosmos and all that is within it, and reality itself, as being a *process*, and not an assortment of things. We should look again at Whitehead, and Einstein, and Schrödinger, and Wheeler, and Bohm, because they are each saying something very similar to what the mystics have said for millennia – and are still saying, if any have ears to hear!)
“In the end, the East and West come together in the deepest meditative practices” – Rabbi David Cooper
And what Rabbi David Cooper says, is perfectly in accord with what Meister Eckhart said – and Meister Eckhart is the archetypal Christian mystic:
“There is nothing that I can point to that is not God. God is within me, and God is all around me.” – Meister Eckhart, 13th century Christian Dominican theologian, philosopher, and Germany’s greatest mystic (along with Hildegard of Bingen, who in turn, inspired St. Francis, and Da Vinci, and the Renaissance).
The New Testament Bible also sheds light on the subject, when the story is told of the disciples asking Jesus when the kingdom of heaven would come. (Everyone was expecting it any day.) And Jesus answered:
“It will not come by waiting for it.”
(There is a shocker that should make people stop and think.)
And Jesus continued:
“If the kingdom of heaven was above you the birds would have preceded you. If the kingdom of heaven was beneath you the fish would have preceded you. Rather, the kingdom of heaven is within you.”
Remember, we are created in the image of God. And moreover, how can all-pervasive mean anything other than all-pervasive? All-pervasive means, unless we are deeply neurotic or deeply indoctrinated into mumbo-jumbo double-think, quite simply, non-duality. All-pervasive is all-pervasive. That means there is nothing that is outside of God. God is the very fabric of reality, as the Jewish mystics have said: “God is the only reality.” And that is not a philosophical idealism which is being presented, but a non-dualist view.
How do evil and suffering arise? Evil arises from dualistic illusion – namely, the clinging to the illusion of a separate self, or ego, and all the greed, conflict, anger, lust, possessiveness, hubris and hate that arise out of self-cherishing and egocentricity. Suffering likewise arises out of not knowing who we are or even what is real. Suffering arises from the illusion of duality, the illusion of separateness and lack. This is precisely why the ancient Greeks held the highest maxim to be “Know thyself”, and why the founder of Western philosophy, Socrates, had that maxim written on his tombstone. Know thyself. Become awake. Seek enlightenment. They are saying the same thing. Wake up! Seek and ye shall find. “Let those who have eyes see.”
And in the Old Testament, God spoke, saying, “I AM that I am.” The clear indication was and is that God is beyond all names and forms, and all of our ideas or concepts, utterly transcendent – and the mystics, and Jesus, both avowed, imminent as well as transcendent. And when the sacred is both imminent and transcendent, and is not limited by any specific form, that is non-dualism, by definition.
Which is why Meister Eckhart could describe God as “the ground of being”. This is based in Biblical teachings, as well as his own direct experience as a mystic. Again, the maxim of Socrates and the ancient Greeks now makes perfect sense: know thyself, and all shall be revealed – because the true nature of your own being, is the true nature of Being itself, the Being of beings, as Heidegger tried to get at. Or as Bob Marley said, “Open your eyes, and look within.”
And that non-dualistic view echoes all the great sages, as I have said. In the Upanishads, the sacred texts of India, it is said, echoing Jesus, when it is said in the Bible, “The kingdom of heaven is within you”, and echoing the Old Testament passage, where God says, “I AM”, the Upanishads puts it directly: I am that I am – “And thou art that.”
The central teaching of the yogis is, Tat Tvam Asi, which translates as, Thou art that. Meaning, there is no duality between God and the cosmos, or between you and God.
The dualistic illusion is represented mythologically and allegorically, in the PARABLE, not to be taken literally, of the exile from Eden. We exiled ourselves, by falling into the (false) “knowledge” of duality. We fell into dualistic illusion, and hence, suffer for our illusions, and because of our illusions. We have lost our sense of home, and of paradise, because we have become blind, by way of falling into the spell of illusion – the illusion of duality. But the Book of Genesis has been taken far too literally for 3,000 years – and that is precisely why we are lost.
The Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist mystics all have understood this. It is high time we did too.
(See: Joseph Campbell, The Hero With A Thousand Faces; Allan Wallace, Choosing Reality; Joanna Macy, World As Lover, World As Self; Karen Armstrong, A History of God; Rabbit David Cooper, God Is A Verb; and Mathew Fox, Original Blessing, for important, further reading.)
We can be free, and awake, if we choose it. Grace is present. And duality, is an illusion.
As the Dalai Lama said, the universal religion is love. So on the outer level, the level of social and ethical teachings, there is a basic accord between the major religions: love thy neighbour. And when you get to the spiritual depths, to the mystic heart essence of the major religions, there too, you find accord: being and phenomena, reality and the cosmos, are non-dual.
Only the blind quarrel over what stands before them. One blind man says it is like a rope – feeling the elephant’s trunk. One says, no, it is like a pillar, feeling the leg. One says, no, it is like a broom, feeling the tail. One says, no, it is wrinkly – like a crumpled rug! And so they argue, and argue, and argue, and argue…..
As the Quran also says, everywhere you look is the face of Allah. Again, non-dualism is at the heart of the spiritual traditions of the world, as all the greatest religious scholars, such as Joseph Campbell, have also realized. And again, only the novices quibble.
(Meanwhile, the atheist materialists miss the banquet altogether, and stuff themselves on their own hollow dogmas, which never truly satisfy – which is why they tend to be so thorny and full of venom!)
The majority have a pre-school version of religion, and that is perfectly fine, but that is not all there is to spirituality – it goes much deeper than that.
Faith is not belief. There is a critical thing to understand. Faith, if it is sensible, is confident trust. When you put your food in the refrigerator, you have faith it won’t rot. You have confident belief, or confident trust. That is reasonable, sensible faith. Faith is not dogmatism, however. That is idiot faith. That is egotism, false pride, hubris, arrogance, narrowness, parochialism, prejudice, presumption, or smallness of mind.
Faith is confident trust, or confident belief. But when you SEE, you no longer need to rely on mere belief. Belief is the crutch of the blind – use it only until you learn how to see for yourself, and regain your lost sight. Then, belief becomes teaching – not a crutch, but a gift, freely given, to those who still remain sightless and blind, so they too can find their way. But “one who has seen”, does not cling to belief as though belief is salvation. No, belief does not save. Faith saves, and faith is not belief.
Realize who you are, and you will see. Then belief no longer enters into it. Belief is a raft. When you get to the other shore, you don’t carry the raft on your back. You put it down, and leave it for the next person to cross to the other shore.
The Renaissance caught a glimpse of our true nature, which is a spark of the divine – and it was that glimpse that brought Europe out of the Dark Ages. And that glimpse, and the resulting Renaissance, is exactly what we need again today.
“We are stardust, we are golden,We are caught in a devil’s bargain,And we’ve got to get ourselvesBack to the garden.” – Joni Mitchell, Woodstock
Alan Watts – who was an Anglican priest, but then decided it was too narrow of a space for him to be in, and who did his Masters of Divinity, and studied extensively and in great depth the philosophies and spiritual approaches of both East and West, and is probably the single greatest interpreter of Eastern philosophy for the Western world, and of Western religious philosophy for the Western world, which generally understands its own traditions and their richness not in the slightest – has many brilliant writings and many brilliant witticisms to convey. (He gets a bit gooey at the end, and resorts to what seems to me to be a much too laissez-faire approach, which for most people, simply induces torpor, sloth, self-indulgence, and a dreamy perpetual distraction – and a perpetual waste of time and of life, as a result. But his books which I have referenced here are extremely good, and extremely worthwhile to read. Only a rare few can match them.) In any case, he once said that there are “prickles and goos”. The prickles like to be very precise, or at least like to think of themselves as being very precise. They imagine they are being very scholarly and very scientific, but really, they are in general completely unable to see the forest for the trees. They never get beyond the mere surface of things. This, they bombastically pronounce to be “knowledge” – usually with a capital K. And wisdom, they believe, doesn’t exist. They are pretentious, blind fools, and Jesus and the Buddha would tell them the same.
The goos, on the other hand, like to reduce everything to a rosy vagueness – think, New Age pop psychology – and by doing so, they really do very little other than hang out, trying to look cool.
Precision is needed, in sum, but open-mindedness is needed too. Book learning is useful, but inadequate in itself. Experience trumps theory. Remember that.
Only novices squabble over doctrine. The mystics may engage in debate, may clarify important points, but they don’t attach such a great importance to words and belief, to doctrine and dogma and the written word, as has impaled the Western mind since the Book of Genesis.
We suffer from an idolatry of ideology in the West, and have for three millennia. (I am borrowing that phrase, from my favourite poet-musician, because it fits.) Our neurosis in the West is to think that our pet theories, dogmas and ideologies are THE truth. We are lost, precisely because we cling so tightly to our ideas.
Remember what Thomas Aquinas said after finishing the dictation of his Summa Theologica, his master work, which became the guiding text, along with the Bible (and unfortunately, along with the heresy of Augustine’s dark and jaundiced world-view, which came to overshadow the words and teachings of Christ, tragically). When he was finished, he put his head in his hands and wept, and said, “All that I have written is chaff compared to what I have seen.”
Remember what the very first line of the Tao Te Ching says:
“The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.”
Words and ideas and texts are very useful, but they can never contain the full, complete or ultimate truth. Language and concepts simply fail to capture, much less convey, that which is without bounds.
Shankara, the mystic and philosopher of Advaita Vedanta, from the yogic tradition of India, spelled this out quite clearly, when he says that language and human thought are dualistic by nature: they compare this to that – and inherently dualistic language and thought, therefore, cannot possibly ever capture or convey that which by nature is non-dualistic.
Plato’s Seventh Letter echoes the same essential point: language, concepts and words can never capture or convey the ultimate truth. The same message is related in the Lankavatara Sutra, from the Buddhist teachings, and it is again echoed in the Taoist teachings, which say:
“When the rabbits are caught, the snares are forgotten.When the fish are caught, the nets are forgotten. When the truth is caught, the ideas are forgotten.”
The Tao Te Ching gets straight to heart of things, with one crucial line:
“Naming is the mother of the ten thousand things.”
Peel away the names, the labels, which our mind projects onto reality, imagining or imputing a division which does not exist, and in that open space of perceiving or seeing without dualistic thought projections, the unified field of being becomes self-evident. That realization of the non-dual, inseparable nature of being and reality, is what is called enlightenment. But no theory can deliver it. You must see for yourself. Words cannot convey it, nor can concepts, theory or ideas capture it.
As the Lankavatara Sutra says:
“All of the scriptures are like a finger pointing at the moon. If you mistake the finger for the moon, you will understand nothing.”
This is the problem with fundamentalism. Not only are fundamentalists forever fighting with one another, quarrelling, bickering, engaging in hubris and false pride perennially ad nauseum, sowing war and division and strife. There are deeper problems even than that. Fundamentalists are like people trying to climb a ladder, but they are so in love with the ladder, that they cling to the rungs, and are frozen – not realizing they are not rising at all, but are simply stuck to the ladder, like imbeciles.
The ladder is a tool, a part of the journey – it is not the destination. As Alan Watts said, if you want to go to Paris, you don’t climb the sign post that says, “Paris”. Or as he also put it, in his humourous sort of way, rascally Zen master as he was: “Intellectuals commonly make the mistake of eating the menu instead of the meal.”
Don’t be anti-intellectual. That is not helpful. That is foolish. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that theory is the same thing as experience. And it is experience that matters above all.
A scholar is not necessarily a sage, and usually is not. A pandit is not the same as a rishi, in Indian terms. One has knowledge; one has wisdom – and the two are categorically different.
Second hand information is only useful up to a certain degree. You have to walk the path for yourself. Only you can walk through the door – no one can walk through it for you. Grace is real. Help is available. But you still have to undertake the journey for yourself. No one can walk it for you. You put one foot in front of the other, and you start, naturally, where you are, wherever you happen to be.
“Knock, and the door shall be opened.” But you have to choose to walk through the door once it is opened! Having a fervent belief, or “faith” as it is erroneously called, that this door is a very good door, and maybe the only door, is not enough. No matter how fervently you believe, believing in the holiness of the door is not the same thing as walking through the door!
Study, reflect, actively seek out wisdom teachings, meditate and pray, and discuss (humbly! and with an open mind) – but remember, that which you seek cannot be contained within any limited, finite space – whether that be concepts and ideas, philosophical doctrines, theories, dogmas, ideologies or words. Truth is far bigger than that.
Empty your cup, so that it can be filled. Empty yourself of your self, so that you can be filled. Compassion empties you – and there is the secret. Empty yourself by giving, and by compassion, and the imaginary separate “self” the ego, dissolves into the space of pure Being, whereby, you become naturally filled, without even seeking anything. Compassionate action matters, but it is the emptying process that comes with true compassion which is most liberating. By that emptying of the self of the self, grace enters.
“He who saves himself will lose himself. He who loses himself will find himself.”
Confidence and dignity are virtues, and are useful, even necessary, but so too, is humility, and an open mind and open heart. Meditate on the true nature of being and phenomena, which are impermanent, and meditate on death – not to be morbid, but to really realize that all things are fleeting, and so, become truly open to life. These two meditations, combined with universal compassion, will open the door to the heart, and to wisdom.
Remember that all phenomena are impermanent, and fleeting – and this life is fleeting. Death is a certainty, and the hour of death is totally uncertain. Therefore, there is not a second to waste. This life IS a precious opportunity – to discover the sacred, here and now, in this life, in the midst of the world, or apart from it, for a time, in the heart of your own being.
Do not sprint to win the race, as the Tibetans say, and, “Don’t be sporadic.” Be patient, be persevering, but seek the truth with energy and vigour!
Remember what the Upanishads advise – and urge: “You should seek the truth like a man whose hair is on fire jumps into a lake.”
Enjoy the journey, and try not to be side-tracked or too distracted. Solomon was right: everything in this world is fleeting; therefore, chasing after things of this world is like chasing the wind. Do not do that. That is foolish, and a waste of your precious time. As Solomon advised, love God, and live a simple life. But do seek the truth, and seek it with a passion!
Again, it must be re-affirmed, and it can’t be emphasized enough:
Practice compassion, live with compassion to every extent of your power, and:
Open letter to Russell Brand, regarding a video (linked below) titled,
Dualism vs Monism EXPLAINED!
Russell, who the hell are you interviewing?! The guy is clearly talking out of his ass. (Sorry for my directness and occasional bluntness. I was heavily influenced by Chomsky, Trungpa and Thoreau, and can’t seem to help it.) He says, “I’m a firm dualist….That’s a very Buddhist view.” No, sorry, flatly 180 degrees wrong.
In Buddhist philosophy or spirituality, the aspect of our own true nature, which is also the true nature of being, which is Wisdom Mind, or Universal Mind, or infinite wisdom, is depicted in visual form as Manjushri. Manjushri is shown seated on a lotus flower, holding a flaming sword in his right hand – which never harms any living being, but is used only to cut through illusions – and holds in his left hand a sacred text. That text is the Prajnaparamita Sutra, also known as the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom. That tells us everything we need to know about the heart of Buddhist teachings. And the teaching is expressly, non-dualist.
Buddhism is expressly and explicitly non-dualist, as is expressed in the Prajnaparamita Sutra, the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom, and as is expressed in the Hriydaya Sutra, the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, commonly known as the Heart Sutra – which is recited daily in Zen monasteries across the world – which states, “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form.”
Then, after radically misrepresenting Buddhist philosophy, your guest goes on to misrepresent Plato as a dualist as well. Plotinus certainly understood Plato better than most modern commentators, because he was the last of the ancient philosophers (leaving out Augustine, since he was not a serious philosopher); and because he was a student of Plato’s philosophy, who said that he had nothing to add to Plato, but was simply clarifying Plato’s message – the core of which is: the many are One; the One manifests as the many. Again, your guest is flatly and radically wrong, and is misrepresenting yet another philosophical school of thought.
Then he completely contradicts himself. First he said that Buddhism is a dualistic philosophy. Then he says, “The Eastern religions, they go one step further by arguing that there is no matter at all, that mind is the only thing that exists.” Wrong again. First he says Buddhism is dualistic, then he says it is monist. Do you realize that these two philosophical views are utter opposites of each other?
So, which is it, buddy? Is Buddhism a dualistic philosophy, as you say first, or is it a monist philosophy, as you say later? Clearly he doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about. A first year philosophy professor would have to give him a D-, at best, for both grossly misunderstanding two major schools of philosophy, and worse, for flatly contradicting himself. (YouTube sets extraordinarily low standards.)
Then he goes on to enlighten us on the philosophy of science, with similar results. He says, again with the certitude of Moses coming down from the mountain, with the word of God written on stone, “You can go with science, which is materialistic, which says that everything is physical.” And again, he is 100% wrong. There was this recent event in science, dude, maybe you heard about it, a new discovery, a radically new approach and understanding of science, called, “quantum physics”. It’s a brand new scientific paradigm, just discovered about a century past, which radically undermined and in fact shattered the old paradigm (see Thomas Kuhn’s, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) of Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic, atomistic, materialist-reductionism. But then again, you can’t be expected to keep up with everything. After all, quantum physics only arrived on the scene 100-some years ago.
Then he goes back to misinterpreting and misrepresenting Buddhism – which he says, states that, “everything is mind. There’s no such thing as a physical reality.” Wrong again. Again, he is contradicting himself: first saying Buddhism is dualist, then saying it is monist. And secondly, he is flatly wrong in saying Buddhism is a mind-only (idealist) philosophy (eg: Berkeley). In actual fact, the Buddhist teachings explicitly say that the Mind-Only School is a close approximation to the truth, but is subtly mistaken. The Dalai Lama, or any other qualified Lama or Zen master, can correct him on that. Nagarjuna, the preeminent philosopher of Buddhist philosophy, makes it explicitly clear that dualistic views are mistaken, and so too are nihilistic and philosophical idealist views also mistaken – the true nature of being and reality being non-duality. If he wants to argue with the Dalai Lama or Nagarjuna, I say, good luck. He is clearly out of his depth, and is in way over his head.
As the Mahayana texts state clearly, “Nirvana and samsara are one.” How much more explicitly non-dualist can it be? Buddhism therefore, is not about exiting, leaving, or escaping the world – it is about waking up, and being fully aware of the true and profoundly rich nature of being.
The way the guest here presents dualism, as interactionism or interdependence between mind and body, or consciousness and matter, is actually one of the few accurate things he has to say. Interactionism is a more intelligent view than materialist monism, or materialist reductionism, as it is more commonly called, but it is still not the Perennial Philosophy of non-dualism, which has been expressed by all the great mystics, East and West, throughout the ages, nor is it the view of Eastern philosophy, and nor is it, to be specific, the view of Buddhism, Taoism, or the Advaita Vedanta teachings of the yogis. Again, other than accurately depicting what interactionism is, he is pretty much 100% wrong on everything he has talked about here.
Ken Wilber – someone who is an actual scholar, and who does not talk out of his ass, put it well, when he said that Western philosophy for 5,000 years has been a battle between what he called “the ascenders and the descenders”. (Ken Wilber is out of his depth and deeply mistaken in terms of political philosophy, but otherwise is a simply stellar polymath and truly brilliant philosopher and scholar – one of the dozen or so greatest scholars of the past 100 years, along with Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Alan Watts, Joseph Campbell, Joanna Macy, Rianne Eisler, Murry Bookchin, Erich Fromm, Mathew Fox, Thomas Merton, Einstein and Noam Chomsky.)
The ascenders view the world, nature, the body, and life on Earth, as unreal, illusory, or less real and less important, than the transcendent realm of pure spirit of consciousness. (The Earth is a waiting room, and everything in this world is inferior and also depraved at its core, and heaven is what we are waiting for., while we suffer through this dismal, sordid, pathetic material plane. World-hating dualists, is what they are.) They are dualists, in essence, who devalue, or occasionally deny the existence, of one pole: devaluing the imminent, the Earthly and the material, while valuing the spiritual and the transcendent. The descenders are the materialists, who want to devalue, or more commonly deny, the existence of the spiritual, the transcendent, or of consciousness or spirit. (They are materialist-reductionists, and epiphenomenalists, clinging to a worldview that is a century out of date, and thus are anti-empirical and unscientific, at least since the discovery of quantum physics.)
The real truth, the true nature of phenomena, being and reality, as Ken Wilber rightly points out, is what the great mystics have all said, and which quantum physics is now corroborating: which is non-duality. But this guest of Russell’s is no scholar – either of religion, of philosophy, or of science.
I mean, he seems an intelligent lad, but he is a novice, clearly, speaking as if he has the pontificate, and is delivering the Sermon on the Mount, the Answer of all answers, when he says definitively and with an air of utter authority, what Buddhism, Plato, Eastern religions, and science are all about. And he got it wrong on all four counts.
Russell Brand, by contrast, your approach is refreshingly humble, yet filled with a very legitimate and indeed important spirit of dignity and confidence – and with humility and confidence in balance, as they should be, and need to be, if we have any good sense, as you clearly do. Your guest, by contrast, is filled with presumption, and what the ancient Greeks would call, hubris. Or flatulence and hot air, to be more direct.
People should bear in mind that it was only recently, in the long view of history, that we humans knew, with full and absolute, unquestionable certainty, that the world is flat, and the Earth is the centre of the universe. Everyone knew these things to be true, and unquestionably true. And everyone was wrong. In fact, when people dared to question the holy dogma of the Earth being the centre of the universe, they were met with the Inquisition, and the serious threat of being burned at the stake for heresy.
How similar to the world we live in today.
Another thing to bear in mind is that, in truth, you are more likely to be struck by lightning seven times in a single life, than to find truly reliable information on youtube, the internet in general, or the media, or for that matter, from academia – to say nothing of pop culture icons, such as your very presumptuous guest.
In fact, unless what you are hearing, reading or watching comes directly – and I mean directly – from a Buddhist, Taoist or yogic master, the odds are that the information being presented is partially or wholly mistaken; and more than likely, not a little mistaken, but more commonly, radically mistaken, if not flatly either propaganda or delusion. People need to learn to have far more discernment, and to separate the wheat from the chaff – and the drivel, pap, dross and dung, from the gems.
I listen to what Russell Brand has to say, quite often, because he is generally very lucid, as well as good-hearted and highly intelligent, and highly articulate, not to mention often witty, and always has something interesting to say. His guests, however, are very hit and miss, at best; and sometimes, I’m sorry to say, simply full of shit.
Russell, when you said, “I feel that we are experiencing the limitations of our current models”, you were bang on. Yes, we have been in the midst of a scientific revolution, a shift in paradigms, or world-view, which began over a century ago. (These things take time – and a century, in human history, is but a blink.) Moreover, we have been in the midst of a cultural awakening of humanity since the late 1950s (the Beat poets, for example, along with the Civil Rights movement), which blossomed in the 1960s, and which did not die out, but has quietly grown and accelerated over the past 50-60 years, and continues to accelerate and to grow world-wide.
I would offer what Leibniz called The Perennial Philosophy – which Aldous Huxley wrote about very well – as a major clue as to where we should look for a better understanding of what reality really actually is. And the Perennial Philosophy echoes the recent findings in quantum physics, which show that the supposed material building blocks of all matter, do not exist – at least, not in the way we had imagined. (“Where is the matter? No matter. Where is the mind? Nevermind.”)
Quantum physics shows us that subatomic particles are not particles – which was a misnomer we put on them, a label we put on them, while we were still steeped in the deluded world-view of Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic materialist-reductionism. Nor are they local. And non-local means non-dual. Subatomic particles are condensations or areas of concentration within energy fields – and as Einstein said, “We should stop talking about particles and fields. The field is everything.” Or as Einstein also said, getting right to the heart of the matter: “The perception of a division between subject and object is a kind of optical delusion.” Or as Shrodinger put it – and he was of course the god-father of quantum mathematics: “The number of minds in the universe is one.” (See Einstein’s star pupil and protégé, David Bohm, for further elaboration.)
Again, non-dualism is the heart of the perennial philosophy, the heart of the mystics’ teachings, East and West (see Meister Eckhart, for example), the heart of Buddhist, Taoist and yogic teachings, and the heart of what quantum physics and modern science is now confirming.
“Science” – and it must be placed in quotation marks, since there are few who are truly empirical, and hence, few who are truly scientific – is the slow man in the race; but is beginning to catch up, despite the foot-dragging of the pseudo-empirical, quasi-scientific majority of “scientists”, who, like Dark Age priests, cling to the old Newtonian-Cartesian materialist paradigm like it was the Holy Grail itself.
Western philosophy, as is widely acknowledged, is at an impasse. I would say a cul de sac is a better description. Academic Western philosophy, and most of what passes for “intellectual culture” alternates between the nihilist morass of polysyllabic post-modernist psychobabble, and the equally nihilistic myopia of stridently dogmatic materialist flatlander anti-science. We need to go back to fundamentals, retrace our steps, and re-think and re-examine our first principles and basic assumptions. We got off on the wrong track with Descartes’ dualism, 400 years ago, and with Newton’s mechanistic materialism, and with a largely unconscious assumption of certitude, which Stephen Toulmin unearths in his important work, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, and which, to a frightening and very real, and very large degree, threw us back into the dogmatic quasi-religious, pseudo-science of the Dark Ages. Uncover and examine these three grossly delusional assumptions which underpin the modern world, and we will be getting somewhere. Then only, will the fog begin to clear.
Until then, we have three main options in the West: post-modernist nihilism; materialist nihilism; and pop culture pap – all of which have the merit and the intellectual rigour of a dung ball. It is time to think more critically, and to take a fresh look at things. Then we will experience a new Renaissance – which is, by the way, emerging now, despite and maybe because of the darkness of the times – and not before.
Overcoming the absurd and grotesque hubris and supreme arrogance of the modern Western world, and rediscovering a little true humility and open-mindedness, would do wonders as well, and is absolutely imperative and essential. As Bertrand Russell said, we will have to allow the East into our thoughts, and on an equal footing. And we must allow the global South, as well, into our thoughts, and also on an equal footing. And further, we must overcome this grandiose smugness, which silently or sometimes aloud proclaims, foolishly, that we have nothing to learn from the ancients, from the “primitive” indigenous peoples of the world, from the medieval world, or from the first Renaissance. What assumptions we make – and what darkness we live in, as a result. When we broaden and deepen our perspective in these ways, then sparks will fly, and the new Renaissance will be secure, and will truly and rapidly blossom, to the great and profound benefit of all.
J. Todd Ring, March 13, 2021
For a scholarly perspective on Buddhism and non-dualism, Eastern philosophy, and the philosophy of science – and not a gross misrepresentation of them, as was presented here – see:
Choosing Reality – Allan Wallace
World As Lover, World As Self – Joanna Macy
The Hero With A Thousand Faces – Joseph Campbell
The Perennial Philosophy – Aldous Huxley
The Way of Zen – Alan Watts
Tao: The Watercourse Way – Alan Watts
Psychotherapy East and West – Alan Watts
The Holographic Universe – Michael Talbot
Mysticism and The New Physics – Michael Talbot
Dreamtime and Inner Space – Holgar Kalweit
The Tao Te Ching – Jane English translation only
The Gospel of Thomas – Marvin Meyers translation only
The Heart Sutra – with commentary by Thich Nat Hahn
The Prajnaparamita Sutra – see Lex Hixon’s, The Mother of the Buddhas
The Diamond Sutra and the Sutra of Hui-neng – Shambhala Classics edition
The Uttaratantra – see Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra
And anything and everything by the Dalai Lama, Chogyam Trungpa,
or my own teachers, Lama Zopa, Lama Tharchin and Kirti Tsenchab Rinpoche
And to this short list of seminal, core texts, I would humbly, and frankly, offer my own work, as an overview of philosophy, within a broad historical and global perspective, and within the context of sociology, political-economy, culture and ecology, and as a vision for the way ahead: Enlightened Democracy, and, The People vs The Elite. Both are available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble now.
My sincere apologies to your guest, Russell, but a person cannot grossly misrepresent Buddhism and Eastern philosophy without being called and corrected on it. He needs to study far more before speaking with such an air of authority. It is inappropriate, grossly misleading, and frankly juvenile.
Some reading on the subject of philosophy, ontology, epistemology, metaphysics and the nature of reality that I’d recommend: Choosing Reality, by Allan Wallace, Dreamtime and Inner Space, by Holgar Kalweit, The Holographic Universe, and Mysticism and the New Physics, by Michael Talbot, and an excellent first major book, as an overview of world religions, mythology, philosophy and ontology (the nature of being): The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell.
But to summarize the nature of being and reality, we can say this.
Nagarjuna, the pre-eminent philosopher of Buddhism, describes the true nature of reality as non-dual, interdependent, mutual-arising. The Middle Way which he explains is between the two extremes of nihilism and eternalism. The ordinary perception of concrete, separate, divided beings and things, is an illusion. But it is their separateness, their duality, which is the illusion, and not their existence. They are not, non-existent; they are empty of inherent existence, empty of separate existence. This can be conceptually grasped, with difficulty, but can only be fully comprehended when it is viscerally realized, and directly seen. That, is enlightenment. And by comparison, yes, we live in Plato’s cave of shadows, and see nothing but illusions. But that does not mean that reality does not exist – it simply means that we are not awake to it. But we can be.
There are some who will read my writing and think – he’s a dangerous right-winger! But if they read more, they will realize that is obviously untrue. Others will decide I am a dangerous leftist extremist; but if they read on, they will understand that I advocate non-violence, freedom, democracy and constitutional rights – and if that makes me a dangerous extremist in the minds of some, then I would say they are dangerously delusional.
Others will read my writing and declare that, while they may agree with some of it, or maybe most of it, they lose me when I venture into the realm of spirituality or religion. To them I would say, keep an open mind. “There is more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy.”
And then there are the religious fundamentalists, the sectarians, and the religious ultra-conservatives, who will feel that I am dangerously open to foreign, exotic influences. To them I say, I don’t think God has a fetish of names, and He, or She, cares little for our cherished ideologies, dogmas or sects. She is far beyond such narrow confines of little minds.
As the Tao Te Ching says, “Naming is the mother of the ten thousand things.” “The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.”
Keep your cherished ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, theories or beliefs, clubs and sects, if you wish, but hold them lightly, or you will see nothing at all.
Here are a few thoughts on writing and verbal communication, and all forms of communication. As an author, writer, reader, lover of books, and philosopher, I believe I have some potentially helpful thoughts to share on the subject, though my own communications are not without faults themselves. I am no great orator, such as Martin Luther King Jr., nor am I Shakespeare, Dickens, or Dostoevsky. But I think there are some valuable points here, for any who may be interested. And since communication is something that we all do, and something which is essential to being human, then I would say that it is something that we should all be interested in – and something we should be interested in life-long pursuit of improving. Why stop our learning at See Spot Run – or the level of the newspapers and major media, which is scarcely higher?
Learning is for life. Communicating clearly, and effectively, and well, is important – in all areas of life; and it is something which we should all aim to continuously improve. Why not? It can only benefit us, never harm us.
Why sound like an idiot? Put another way, why should our reading, writing, communicating or thinking, our lives or our minds, be on a low level?
Moreover, if the purpose of communication is to communicate – and not to obfuscate, sow illusion, deceive, evade, create separation or division, or to increase or maintain or consolidate one’s power or ego status, which, sadly, it frequently is – then we should learn how to communicate: a) clearly; and b) effectively (which is something beyond mere clarity). This requires learning and skill development, which requires both time and also practice. We should not be afraid to admit that we are not yet omniscient, nor infallible. Hubris is not helpful; but a balance of confidence and humility are always to our advantage.
1. Rule number one of good communication is: There are no rules of good communication. Use whatever works. Sometimes holding up a flower is the best way to communicate. Sometimes a finger pointing, for example at the moon, is the best way to communicate. A genuine smile of genuine friendliness, compassion, respect, cheerfulness, reassurance, or warmth, may be the most effective form of communication possible – and generally is. Keep it simple, and do not be hide bound by rules or an excessive complexity.
Remember what my great Swiss aunt was fond of saying, “Complicated works too.”
2. Rule two: All communication based in language, concepts or words are symbolic, and hence dualistic in nature, comparing this to that; therefore, no words, language, concepts or texts are capable of conveying the nature of reality, which is non-dual. (See Shankara) The best physicists have begun to realize the sages were right: reality is non-dual – and 400 years of Cartesian dualism have been based upon nothing more than a shared delusion; a delusion now crumbling in light of recent science. We are thus confined by the very nature of language and conceptual, discursive thought, to the realm of images and appearances, not reality in itself. We are discussing shadows on the cave wall.
See Plato’s parable of the cave. Or read the first line of the Tao Te Ching: “The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.” Read the Lankavatara Sutra: “All of the scriptures are like a finger pointing at the moon. If you mistake the finger for the moon, you will understand nothing.”
Language, words, texts, spoken and written communication, are not definitely not meaningless; nor do they capture or convey reality. They are tools of communication, and they are also tools of perception, knowledge and understanding. They are very valuable tools – but they are also profoundly limited tools. If you expect them to tell you what reality is, you are mistaken – they cannot. That, you will have to see for yourself.
And in order to see, you must first cut through all illusion. Therefore, the via negativa, as the Western mystic tradition calls it, is the only possible avenue – if, that is, we are at all interested in reality (most people are not).
We must proceed by stripping away all illusions, until the naked truth stands self-evident. Language, words, concepts, texts, spoken and written words, can all be immeasurably helpful. But they cannot take us to the final destination.
They can bring us close enough to jump into the ocean. But we must decide to dive in. Standing on the shore is like reading the menu outside the restaurant door, and being content with that, thinking you have sated yourself fully, when in fact you have not tasted a single thing.
Use language, concepts and texts; but understand that they can never convey the fullness of experience, or even, the nature of reality itself.
3. As every good musician knows, you must first learn the rules before you can bend or break them. Rule three, therefore, is to disregard rule one (which, you will remember, said there are no rules).
We must learn to think in paradoxes. As Sun Tzu said, you should be able to use conventional means or unconventional means, and to shift between, and blend the two, as needed, as the situation calls for.
No, there are no rules. But do learn the rules; for while there are no strict or universal rules for good communication, there are certainly useful guidelines available. (You’re not going to play guitar like Jimi Hendrix or Andres Segovia if you don’t first learn a few chords, at least.)
There are times for either/or thinking, and there are times for both/and thinking. For example, “free” universal education, including unlimited higher education, along with universal public health care, and a universal basic income (as even Milton Friedman recommended, and is advocated by both the left and the right), along with a Green New Deal, which is to say, a bold infrastructure building project to transition our society to one that is not driving us over a cliff of self-destruction, and which, in the process, would create millions of jobs, and launch the economy out of the recession which it has been in since the economic crisis of began in 2007, are all affordable and achievable, separately or together, so long as we do the other things which must be done in any case, and urgently so, for reasons of social justice and the preservation of liberty and democracy, and the defeat of the neo-feudal corporatism, aka fascism, which we have now. If we tax the richest 1% and the biggest corporations, in terms of income and profits (at 90% and 40% top bracket rate, respectively, for example); and further, tax the wealth of the richest 1% and the fortune 500 corporations (at even 5% or 10%, much less what is both needed and justified, which is 90%); put a tax on currency speculation; and de-fund the military industrial complex and the global surveillance and police state apparatus; then there would be – excuse me…will be – more than enough money and real world resources available for these things, which every just society, or sane society, should consider basic necessitiesto its integrity as well as to its wisdom.
But while these things are both attainable and also urgently needed, for reasons of justice, democracy, freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and sheer survival, this is the case, and there are also bolder actions yet which are also urgently needed, and for the same urgent reasons: such as, serious anti-trust action to break up the big banks, along with the Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Oil, media and military industrial corporate empires. It is not an either/or scenario. We need the bold yet moderate actions described above – universal education and health care, UBI and a Green New Deal; and we need more radical action – such as breaking up the big banks, and making all central banks publicly owned and democratically controlled. Either/or thinking only harms us, and puts us into what Blake described so vividly and so well: “the mind-forged manacles”.
This is an injection of political philosophy into the philosophy of language and communication, yes. It is also a fact: yes, there are no hard and fast rules to good communication; and yes, there are rules, in the sense of general guidelines, which are quite helpful.
It is both/and, not either/or. Secular and religious fundamentalists, and others who prefer mental straight-jackets and prisons, to living, and thinking, in the real world, are overly fond of either/or thinking. It is either this or it is that. But that thinking, while sometimes useful, is seldom appropriate, and often confusing, misleading, or simply, delusional.
So, the short answer is, yes, there are rules, or guidelines, for good communication, be it verbal, written, or otherwise (art, music, dance, theatre, film or architecture, for example). We should learn them and use them. Then be certain not to be bound and gagged by them.
4. Don’t be a name-dropper or otherwise pretentious. Communication, if it is good, is both clear and also effective (moving, emotive, or persuasive, for example). Parading one’s ego is not only childish, is also taints the communication, making it less effective. Showing one’s social connections by dropping names, or showing one’s erudition or good training or education, by dropping names, that is, by being showy about the use of names, only shows immaturity and insecurity, lack of confidence and lack of self-dignity, a readiness to debase oneself and lick boots for ego gratification, praise, fame, career advancement, power, wealth, status, or some other personal gain. By showing a lack of integrity, maturity, confidence and also wisdom, or discernment, the effectiveness of the communication is thereby, always, damaged and undermined. As the I Ching says, “He who shows himself does not shine.”
5. The corollary is this. Don’t be afraid to use big words, uncommon words, quotations, allusions, references, personal stories or histories, when using them will enhance either the clarity or the effectiveness of the communication. To argue passionately for liberty and democracy while quoting Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King Jr. is not only acceptable, it is a matter of simple intelligence. You use whatever powers you have in order to communicate clearly and effectively. You don’t fend off barbarians at the gate by using your letter opener alone, thinking it modest and therefore best. You draw your sword, naturally, and use the best tools you can find at hand. If that means calling forth Daniel or Dumas, Dickens or Dostoevsky, then you do it, and without hesitation, of course.
6. Be concise, but do not be hide bound by concision.
Martin Heidegger spent 700 pages to tell us that the question of the nature of being is one that is worth asking. All he accomplished by that tome of utterly long-winded but hollow verbiage was to get his name listed in the pantheon of Western philosophers – by proving that he could be as much of an addle-minded windbag as the best of them, and that he had absolutely nothing of value to say.
Western philosophy has perfected the art of needlessly obscure, needlessly long-winded, needlessly difficult and cryptic writing. That is, in general, an unconscious habit arising due to: a) the need to conform to arbitrary and foolish norms which accomplish nothing, but do a disservice to the entire field; b) the need to conform to an academic fashion which likewise does more harm to the field than it does any good; c) the need to be perceived as writing something profound, and profoundly important, simply because the writer cannot write clearly or concisely, but, again, can only utter needlessly obscure and long-winded verbiage, as if the lower the quality and greater the length of the writing is proof of the importance of the thought – which of course, is absurd; and d) to hide the fact that the writer really has little or nothing of value to say. (And yes, there is that value word. Post-modernism is a revival of long-dead ancient Sophism, and should be treated as the rotting corpse that it is – and buried.)
Someone once said of physics, and it is generally true in most fields, though admittedly more difficult in some than others, that if you cannot express your ideas in ways that an intelligent lay person can understand, then you probably don’t understand your subject.
Keep it simple. Keep it short and concise – when and where appropriate, of course! Don’t be unnecessarily obscure. Don’t make a virtue out of being arcane or esoteric. Don’t fetishize jingo. (My good Lord how I hate that pervasive trait.) And don’t be long-winded. Use enough words – not too many, nor too few. And who decides that? You do, of course. Not convention. Not literary fashion. Not social custom. You.
If Western philosophy is renown for being needlessly obscure, arcane and long-winded, then the rest of Western culture (sic) is obsessed with speaking at an eigth-grade level, to match the general “dumbing-down” of the culture and the people, and obsessed with concision: to the point of reducing all thought and communication, with few exceptions, to the status of sound bites.
The modern journalistic style of writing and speaking has been useful, but it is far too bound by rules of concision (among other systemic problems which are even more dire in implications, such as nearly universal deceit) – and worse, the rule of concision for journalism has bled into the general culture, such that everyone feels they have to be hyper-concise at all times.
Few people read books anymore, and when they do, it is generally pop psychology or cookbooks, not philosophy or political-economy, for example. (There is nothing wrong with popular psychology books, in principle, nor with cookbooks. We should simply not limit our reading to that.) Attention spans had been shrunken to seven seconds, by the 1980’s. With the invention of cell phones, “smart phones”, texting, instant messages, emails, and “social media”, attention spans are now commonly at two seconds. A single long sentence loses most audiences now. But if people cannot concentrate for longer than two seconds, then nothing of significance can be communicated, or discussed, or even thought; and hence, we are doomed.
We must recover the ability to concentrate. That means that we cannot be afraid of long, in-depth conversations – that actually focus on something, or even several things, but not a thousand things, in an endless stream of hyperactive, scattered, unfocused sound-bites, which is now the norm. We (the people generally, that is) must learn again to read an entire book, and not just consume a never-ending stream of disjointed and largely superficial sound bites.
7. While we should not be pretentious or showy, we should also not “dumb it down”. If everyone speaks, writes or otherwise communicates at the lowest common denominator, we will find that no one is left who can speak, write, communicate, or think, beyond an eight grade level. If that happens, then, again, we are doomed.
We must refuse the impulse, or the implicit order, to dumb it down at all costs and at all times. We must refuse to write solely in short sentences, and short paragraphs, using small, commonly used words.
We must be willing to use long sentences, long paragraphs, and a vocabulary that goes beyond what is contained in See Spot Run. At least, some of us must continue to speak and write for adults.
Not all of us can follow the downward arc of a “civilization” in moral, spiritual, cultural and intellectual decline and decay, writing only for the infantile and the childish, as the mass narcissistic regression continues, and continues to accelerate.
Some few, at least, must stand strong, and remind us all that higher aspirations are still possible, and are never wasted, and not ever futile.
What goes down must also, sooner or later, go up again. Every collapse is followed by a rebirth – and a renaissance; assuming of course, we don’t annihilate ourselves, by, for example, refusing to rise above a childish and infantile, narcissistic culture of common and mutual degradation.
Choose your audience. Is it academia? Is it intellectual culture more broadly? Is it an intelligent, wide audience? Or is it more narrow than that? There is room for popularization, and that is not a style of writing or communication which should be disparaged. But not everyone must write for the collective of 8-12 year olds which our techno-entranced, hyper-disconnected, reality-avoidant, functionally illiterate, largely lobotomized, modern 21st century “culture” represents.
8. Use a dictionary – and a thesaurus; at least until the need diminishes to minimal use. Keep a hard copy next to you, or keep a browser tab open, of/with the Oxford dictionary, or the Oxford Canadian dictionary, or Miriam-Webster, if you prefer – and use it constantly, for decades, until you rarely need it, and can refer to it only occasionally.
Better yet, spend an hour here and there just reading the dictionary. Start with a word you have heard or read but may know only roughly. Then carry on. The more language you have, the more words you have, the more tools you have for both communication and also for understanding. Use them, expand the collection; then use the ever-enlarging collection, so they are retained and incorporated.
Don’t make the speaker or writer feel he or she has to dumb it down for you. Instead, rise up to his or her level. We are all equal in worth; but different in skill sets and knowledge. There is nothing wrong with that. And yet, there is no excuse for being lazy, either. We can learn for life, and we should.
9. If writing is important to you, or is something that you want to do, then you have to do it. If you say it’s important but you make no time for it, then clearly it’s not important at all. How you spend your time is your decision. Stop making excuses. If writing or communicating in one form or another is important to you – be it non-fiction books, essays or articles, novels, short stories, poems, or art, music, dance, theatre, film, or some other medium of communication – then you have to make it a priority. Don’t let your death bed be a place of sad regret. If something is important to you, do it now. Life is fleeting, and the hour of death is definitely uncertain. Do it now. Never hesitate, never rush. Make your priorities your priorities – not simply a set of routines that you do because you’ve drifted into them, or out of habit. Choose your life consciously and deliberately, and live it!
10. Immerse yourself in communication – especially good communication. That means, read voraciously. It also means, read the best books first. It means, read widely. It means, reflect on what you read. It means, see art, films, theatre, architecture, live music, dance. The more you immerse yourself in reading and literature, and in other forms of communication, the more you absorb of the means and methods of communication, as well as culture and understanding. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain!
Let’s get some things out of the way, right from the start. Our society is insane. Fromm was right, and there is no doubt about it. Illusions, delusion, lies and half-truths, distortions of the truth, avoidance of reality, denial, psychological numbness, narcissism and disociation are all epidemic. That is in addition to the many serious mental and physical health problems that are created by, and pervasive in, our truly insane, delusional, wildly out of balance society.
How is our society insane or delusional? By thinking that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet, for example. By perpetuating fossil fuel addiction while knowing it is planet-destroying and suicidal, for example. By, for example, fervently believing that the production and consumption of ever greater quantities of material goods and entertainment can solve all of life’s problems, and is itself the source of human happiness – when in fact, this ideology, world-view, psychology, paradigm, or philosophy, is rapidly destroying all life on Earth, as well as being both the cause and the symptom of a pervasive epidemic of spiritual, intellectual, emotional, psychological, political and social decay. That’s just three out of countless examples.
Treating differently-abled people with callousness or disrespect is not a good thing, of course. It should be overcome. It can be overcome, just as other forms of cultural ignorance, bigotry, prejudice, oppression or discrimination can be overcome, by raising awareness. But oppression, injustice, unkindness, prejudice and discrimination cannot be overcome through censorship, or the closing down of freedom of speech.
In fact, the closing down of free speech is about the worst and most dangerous thing that anyone can do. It gives vast powers to those who are power-hungry, and who care nothing about injustice or oppression, but are quite eager to chain and exploit all people for the sake of their own power-lust, egomania and greed. It is imperative that the social justice movements clearly understand that.
Moreover, we must be able to speak about our reality, or the insanity of our society will not be overcome, but will only get worse. And in this case, what we need to directly identify, name, and speak about, is precisely the insanity of the society in which we live: its chronic lies and self-deceptions, its rationalizations, its self-delusions.
The lies, illusions and delusions which grip the majority must be recognized, spoken, and identified for what they are, or we are quite simply doomed, and will wake up in a very Orwellian world where everbody “knows” that 2+2=5, war is peace, and slavery is freedom.
Relativism and nihilism must also be identified and named. There is reality, whether we understand it or not. Therefore there is truth – truth is that which is in accord with reality: truth is reality; reality is truth. Truth is therefore not a social construct, as the addle-minded post-modernists, or neo-Sophists, contend.
Post-modernism is neo-Sophism. It falls apart upon the slightest rigorous examination. It is founded on the dogmatically asserted, anti-doctrinaire doctrine, the fervently, rabidly dogmatic ideology, which claims to be anti-dogmatic and anti-ideological, that all truth is a social construct. That means that people who believe the world is round, and people who think the world is flat, are both right. Clearly, post-modernism is an incoherent and thoroughly self-contradictory plathering of polysyllabic psychobabble, not worth the paper it is written on.
The world is round, not flat. If every media outlet and every “journalist”, pundit and “expert”, and every government “authority”, stated unanimously that the world is flat, and disagreeing with that official narrative is a thought crime, it would still not make the world flat.
It is not a matter of opinion whether the holocaust happened – it did, and was a horrific crime against humanity. It does not “depend on who you talk to” whether or not gravity works – gravity works, period, regardless of what you believe. You can believe anything you like, but if you throw yourself off a cliff, you’re going to fall, and probably die.
We may be clear, partially clear, or unclear, as to the facts. We may be extremely well informed and clear on a subject, or we may be extremely misinformed, deceived or deluded – or we may be anywhere on the spectrum between these two poles, of basic clarity versus basic delusion. But the facts remain the facts. It is not a matter of opinion.
Gravity works, the world is not flat, and facts are facts, regardless of what the frequently deceived and deluded, manipulated masses may be persuaded to believe.
Are we clear on that? I should hope so. A great deal depends on it, including the future of our world, and whether we will be slaves, or free.
The Western world is still trapped in a paradox and a self-contradiction of our own making: we are schizoid with regards to the body, the material world and to our physicality. On the one hand, we have, as people of the modern world, embraced our physicality, and even gone headlong into a love-affair with it, and are absorbed and engrossed in physicality, materialism, consumerism and the sensuous – fascinated and engrossed by the mere surface of things. On the other hand, we still retain the legacy of more than two thousand years of Judeo-Christian distrust, contempt, fear and loathing of the physical, and seek to avoid, escape transcend or be rid of the physical and all its perceive evil and limitations. Again, we are entangled in a paradox and a self-contradiction of our own making. To resolve the paradox and end the war that rages within us, and that we inflict outwardly upon the world in our confusion and pain, we must go to the roots, and reflect deeply.
Because we are not fully at home with either the spiritual or the physical, there is a pervasive alienation and gnawing discontent across the modern world – we are in a perpetual state of exile, always unconsciously nostalgic for paradise lost, longing or home, and always searching, restless, uneasy and hungry within. This alienation and inner hunger in turn drives the consumerism, voyeurism, escapism and quiet despair which plagues the modern world, and which in turn creates and underlies the ecological imbalance and devastation, injustice and war that is tearing the world to pieces, and threatens to extinguish all hopes for a bright future for humanity – or any future at all. To resolve this deep-seated paradox that lies at the heart of Western and Westernized civilization, and also within ourselves, is not only to heal our own fractured souls, but to begin to heal the world. But if we are to resolve the paradox, the internal contradiction, the war within, we must first understand it.
The root problem is a perceived duality or division between spirit and the flesh, or mind and matter, consciousness and the material world. Such a duality does not exist – other than in the fantasy world of our own imaginings. To redress the imbalance that we live under and within, we cannot simply go to one side, and reject one half of the infinite knot of interdependence which is the ground of being and the nature and fabric of existence. We have tried that for over two millennia, and that method has failed, and failed miserably and utterly. We cannot reject one half of our existence and ever hope for peace, for wisdom, for joy, for happiness, or even for basic sanity. Body and mind are one. Spirit and the flesh are not separate. Consciousness and the material are not two, but inseparable. When we begin to realize this, we will begin to be free, and we will begin to live in peace, and in the fullness of our being. Jesus and the Buddha, Shankara and the Kabbalah, and all of our greatest sages, prophets, mystics and visionaries have seen this, and have tried to rouse us from our disturbed and discordant slumber, but we have not yet listened, have not yet had ears to hear.
“We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense… There is no place in this new kind of physics for both the field and matter, for
the field is the only reality.” – Einstein
“The perception of a division between self and other is a kind of optical delusion.” – Einstein
“Form is emptiness, emptiness is form;
form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form.”
– The Heart of the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom
“When the two become one, then you shall see.” – Jesus
How do we proceed to rectify the situation, to restore wholeness, peace, basic sanity and clear vision? There are many ways we can approach the question, the essential paradox of not only our civilization, but of being itself, but ultimately, we must realize this: if we wish to transcend the physical, we can only succeed by embracing it; and if we wish to fully embrace the physical, it will not be possible until we have realized its transcendent nature. When the two become one, then you shall see.
If we wish to embrace the physical and live with a richness of sensory experience – which, it would seem, a majority of people in the modern world, both East and West, North and South, now wish to do, and passionately so – then we shall have to realize the true nature of the physical: which is the true nature of being. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. If you believe that things are concrete and inherently existing “out there,” separate from yourself, then you are living in an illusion, and only pain can come from illusion. We are still dwellers of the cave of shadows, to use Plato’s analogy. It is time we ventured out into the light of day.
Unity and diversity are inseparable – they are two sides of the same coin: this is the union of opposites which is the heart of being, and the very fabric of existence. “Things” and beings are not two but one. When it is realized that the two are one, then the physical can be embraced without risk of getting lost in grasping, confusion, and the pain and suffering that inevitably arises from attachment and clinging, which in turn arises only from the illusion of duality, the illusion of separation. Until the unity of being is discovered, any attempt to embrace the physical or the sensory, material world, will be fraught with suffering, anxiety and fear. “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these things shall be added unto you.” Find the real within the heart of being, and the world is transformed from a mixture of pleasure and pain, fear and delight, into a paradise of open-hearted, unqualified joy – the peace that surpasseth all.
Until the non-duality of being is seen and realized, it is wise to live with as little clinging and grasping attachment as possible, and instead, cultivate a simple appreciation for what is, along with an open heart and a presence of mind. These qualities or states of mind will not only allow for much more happiness and peace, but will open the door to wisdom, and to seeing. Life can be enjoyed. And it will be enjoyed much more when delight replaces craving, and appreciation replaces attachment. Until the wisdom of directly perceiving the non-dual nature of being dawns in our minds, this is the course of the wise, or simply the sane path of life: the path of peace.
Alternately, if we wish to transcend the material and the physical, and find solace or salvation, illumination, peace or joy in the transcendent realm of the spirit, then we will have to sooner or later come to terms with the body and the material, for the two are one, and to reject the one is to miss the other. Peace is not found or attained through war, and the war within is what prevents us from seeing, and therefore from experiencing and knowing and being peace.
To emphasize the spiritual over the material, or consciousness over the purely physical, is the safer and also the more direct and more intelligent path to the resolution of the paradox and the solution to life’s riddle, generally speaking, although there are always exceptions, depending on the particular psyche of the individual and what works best for him or her. But to embrace and pursue or dive deep into the life of the mind and the spiritual is not necessarily to reject, banish or despise the physical and the material. To have contempt and disdain for the material and the physical is to miss the truth entirely, and to be forever at one end of a yo-yo, trying to maintain that precarious position through sheer will, when that position is artificial and impossible to sustain, since it is based in delusion: the delusion of duality. It is like trying to find your nose by cutting off the rest of your head. It doesn’t work. (The analogy is poor, for that which we are seeking, which we do not yet understand, is that which is All in all, and not merely a part among other parts – but the violence we do to ourselves by denying one half of the inseparable unity of being is accurately, if in an understated way, represented here.)
If we want to transcend the physical and material limits of time and space, our bodies or the world, then we shall have to embrace these, and not flee them. This is the fact. You can hypothesize and theologize `till you’re blue in the face, lacerate yourself with infinite cuts from the lash and your own self-flaggellation, lay on beds of nails and eat nothing but a grain of rice for eons, but you will not find the truth, nor will you find true transcendence or the depth or heights of the spiritual with such a deluded, dualistic and one-sided view. Contrary to the maxim of Orwell’s nightmarish depiction of our possible future, war is not peace, and neither does war lead to peace. War neither leads to wisdom, and war is what we have been practicing for some millennia now.
If we wish to transcend the physical, we shall have to embrace it – not by chasing after it, nor by clinging desperately and fearfully to it, but by simply allowing it to be, with openness, compassion and a calm abiding that can begin to see through the illusion of duality, division, alienation and separation. (The exile from paradise exists only in our minds. It is our forgetfulness of what is real that is our banishment, and we did that ourselves – so long ago, that we have forgotten the act which we even then misunderstood. Genesis is what we may call, a parable. It is not to be taken literally!)
Only that which we embrace can we transcend. Yes, we may be afraid of getting lost in that which we embrace, and that is a risk, but to shun or hate that which we wish to transcend will only lead us into a defensive and paranoid mode of being, in which neither the truth nor the depth or height or breadth or reality of spirit or being can be seen or found.
That which is rejected is secretly clung to, for to push away is to grasp and attempt to throw, but the grasping remains the central and underlying fact, as all zealots and Puritans and fundamentalists should some day come to realize. To reject is to be reactionary, and when we are reactionary, we are not free or transcendent of that which we are rejecting, but tied to it through our reaction to it, like Pavlov’s dog, who is ever bound to the spell of the bell. It is a conundrum that cannot be solved by the same kind of thinking that created it, to paraphrase Einstein. This koan, like all koans or paradoxes, must be resolved by discovering a deeper, broader, higher or more subtle way of seeing, so that the paradox is no longer an entanglement, but naturally resolves itself. When the bubble of our illusions burst, we may cry, or we may feel afraid, but if they burst at a deep enough level, and we see they were merely illusions, then laughter and joy will arise, and there will be a great and indescribable relief. At the very least, bursting the bubble of our illusions, however we may respond to it, removes more layers of fog from our minds, and opens the doors of our minds to a deeper and richer experience of reality and of life. The piercing of the clouds of illusion is the entirety of the path. Let us not be addicted to our illusions, but be glad to be rid of them.
To transcend the physical we must embrace the physical: and we do so, not by clinging to things, but by a simple openness of heart and an appreciation and compassion for what is. In that open space – which we do not create, but merely acknowledge, and allow to be – there is the ground of being, and there is the ground of our awakening. There, and there alone, will we find the path to peace, to transcendent joy, and to the ultimate truth. There is no path, in actuality, but only an opening to what is. In that opening, the truth is seen. And when it is seen, it is realized that it has ever been, that it has always been present, and that we could not have been separate from it for a moment, but only forgetful of it.
The truth is here. Open the heart and find it. Set yourself free. The truth is the key. And you hold that key, for you hold the key to your heart, and none other.
*
If we wish for happiness, to be of benefit or help to others, or to know the truth – that is, if we wish for richness of life, quality of life, fullness of life, a meaningful life, joy or peace; or if we want to be truly effective in helping others, and bringing them peace and happiness and freedom from suffering; or if we simply wish to know and understand the true nature of life, the world or our own being – then we must come to understand that these four elements are the keys: compassion, feeling, reflection and openness. With these four, all doors open, sooner or later – that is, all doors that are worthwhile to open – and not only are joy and peace found, but also the empowerment to be of greater help to others, and the wisdom of knowing the true nature of things. In this short meditation I have emphasized openness, but all four elements are needed to bring us to the capacity to realize and achieve these goals.
End the war now. Open the heart to what is and to all beings, and realize who you are.
Emptiness is the ultimate key. Emptiness is the doorway to fullness. It is only by being empty that we can become truly filled. Voidness is truth: and voidness is the infinite; and the infinite is the very ground of being itself – the nature of who you are, and the nature of all things. Form and emptiness are one. Neither can be reduced to the other, as the materialists and the world-rejecting spiritualists have presumed. Clinging to worldly things, or rejecting and hating worldly things, clinging to the transcendent or clinging to the material and the physical: these are two sides of the same coin, and they both represent the illusion of duality, and reaffirm the illusion of duality. Simply be, open the heart, and see what is. Let compassion and joy move you, and be not afraid. There is nothing real that can be threatened, and there is nothing unreal that exists. Open the heart, embrace life, and see.
The truth is not only close at hand, not only within you and all around you: it is all that exists.
We have been sleep-walking for some time. It is time to awake.
Writings of J. Todd Ring 
Knowledge vs Opinion, Enlightenment vs Delusion
Posted in Uncategorized with tags activism, analysis, cosmology, democracy, empiricism, enlightened democracy, enlightenment, epistemology, ethics, freedom, liberty, metaphysics, moral philosophy, ontology, philosophy, philosophy of education, philosophy of history, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, political economy, political philosophy, political science, politics, science, scientism, social analysis, social commentary, social philosophy, social psychology, social theory, sociology, vision on March 28, 2021 by jtoddringWe have confused wisdom with power, and quality of life with quantity of money and material goods. Until we correct that deep confusion, modern industrial society will be, and will remain, doomed to destroy itself. Cutting through illusion, therefore, is not a luxury for philosophers, scientists, monks and mystics alone. It is an urgent necessity for us all.
As Plato said, everyone has opinions, but few have knowledge. It is important that we keep that in the back of our minds, if not the fore.
Two levels, there are, in everything: there is the question of how to live, and how to construct a society that is just, good, or intelligent, which is the worldly aspect, pertaining to moral, social and political philosophy; then there is the ultimate question of the true nature of being and reality. Extremely few people do a good job in addressing either one, only a handful have done a good job in addressing both. This is an important thing to realize and to bear in mind.
In terms of moral, social and political philosophy:
No man is an island, as Martin Luther King Jr. said. That means, we are all interconnected and interdependent. That means that kindness, compassion and mutual aid are not only virtuous, but also a matter of basic intelligence, or enlightened self-interest.
From that flows an ethos of compassion, community, solidarity, cooperation or mutual aid. And from that flows an ethos, a value of, and a profound respect for, liberty or freedom, since it is certainly experienced to be a violence, an act of aggression, and a cruelty and great suffering to be made someone else’s slave, or to have our freedom unduly constrained, and to be dominated by any man, woman, or system.
Taking compassion and freedom as our core founding values, or community and freedom, or liberty, equality, solidarity, the founding values of the Enlightenment, however you may prefer to say it, will produce a just, equitable, and eminently sane society, and in the relative sense of the term, an enlightened democracy. That is all we need to know and to remember in order to build a better world, and to resolve the great social, economic, political and environmental crises which we face now. But we will have to be bold about it, and swift. Remember that Jesus did not drive the money changers from the temple with a limp piece of leaf lettuce, but with a whip. Remove the money changers from power. Only then can we seriously begin to address the urgent problems confronting us.
*
As to enlightenment, in the absolute or ultimate sense, or the nature of knowledge vs opinion, and the true nature of being and reality, we can say this.
In short, and to put the matter as succinctly as possible, we are born, as Kant rightly said, with innate frameworks of thought, an innate latticework or architecture of inborn thought constructs, through which we view and experience the world. As Descartes and Locke rightly said, we know that we are thinking, and we believe we are accurately percieving things as they truly are, but the accuracy of our perceptions is radically in question.
Thought relates to thought, and while we believe we are directly relating to things in the world, when we examine our minds closely, we see that we are relating directly, only to our own ideas about things, and not directly to phenomena or things themselves. That is, everything we percieve, think or experience, is filtered through an unconscious and habitual set of mental constructs, a set of filters and lenses, as well as social conditioning and indoctrination. We do not, therefore, relate to anything directly, but only to our own unconscious mental architecture of preconceived thought constructs, lenses and filters.
To put it in Buddhist terms, all phenomena (beings, things and events) are viewed by our minds with an unrecognized mental imputation. We think we see separate, concrete, divided beings and things; but while being exists, and Descartes was right on that, the “I” is imputed, and has no valid basis in reality. We impute or project a separation, permanence and division to phenomena, beings and things, where none exists in reality. As Einstein said, “The field is everything.”
Remember what Alan Watts said. “Most metaphysics are unconscious metaphysics. And unconscious metaphysics are bad metaphysics.” Question everything.
Descartes famously began modern philosophy, 400 years ago, by trying to go back to first principles, trying to make zero assumptions or unsupported premises (philosophy and science both are riddled with unconscious and unsupported assumptions) to see what we can know for certain, and then to build a coherent philosophy on that firm ground or foundation. He did not assume that any given authority is 100% certain in its reliability, nor was he willing to assume that any idea, theory, philosophy, ideology or theology is necessarily 100% reliable. That left only radical empiricism (and let us not fetishize an obsession with numbers and measurement, solely, any longer). In short, we must examine things for ourselves: that is, as the Buddha also urged, to not resort to simply taking someone’s word on things, as being the infallible truth.
Descartes said, What if I am dreaming? When I dream, things in the dream seem real, but when I awake, I realize I was only dreaming. How do I know I am not dreaming now? How do I know my perceptions of reality are accurate? Maybe they are 100% accurate, or 90%, or 1%, or completely illusory and delusional? How do I verify what is actially real or true?
Without seriously addressing this question of perception vs reality, and the problem of imputing realities to reality – as Hume asked, in his landmark work which radically transformed the entire landscape of Western philosophy, in 1776, and which no one yet has satisfactorily answered, in the West at least – there can be no sound foundation for either science or philosophy, and we will be wildly speculating, and completely unscientific and anti-empirical, without even knowing it.
And we are!
(Most scientists have never seriously addressed Hume, or this question, the problem of inference or imputation, which is foundational to any true, genuine, or valid empiricism, or any truly scientific or philosophical approach; and hence, do not really merit being called scientists. The same goes for great majority of philosophers, religious leaders, politicians, pundits, scholars, and social or political commentators: their words and views rest on thin air. They have all the reliability of quacking ducks, and so, their statements should be taken with a train load of salt.)
Descartes then realized, I am thinking, therefore I know, at least, that I exist. Cogito ergo sum. But he was mistaken, and radically so. And to my knowledge, no one has yet realized or pointed out his error – until now.
If there is thinking, and we do directly experience thinking, so we can confirm that much, then there must be consciousness, and existence or being, of some kind. The “I” in Descartes’ famous, “I think therefore I am”, however, is simply a habitual, unexamined, and utterly unsupported assumption – an unconscious mental imputation or projection, with no valid basis in reality, and no sound evidence to support it.
We then have:
A. Thinking is present
B. Therefore:
i, consciousness of some kind is present;
and
ii, being or existence of some kind is present.
We know therefore that there exists consciousness and its contents, being or existence of some kind, and space. There is no basis for presuming or imputing duality, permanence or division of any kind, however. And we should remember, distinction is not the same as division. The crests and troughs of waves on the ocean are distinct, but there is no real division between crest and trough, or between waves. The waves are a formation or movement of the ocean, but the ocean while ever changing, remains essentially unchanged, and one. Reflect deeply on this, and the nature of all phenomena will become clear.
The assumption or imputation of a separate self, an “I”, a self that is a separate island in a vast cosmos, is wholly unsupported, and pure, anti-empirical and unscientific conjecture, speculation, or mere superstition – no matter how firmly or habitually we may believe it, and no matter how many others may believe it. The imputation or assumption of a duality between self and other, or any kind of duality of being, is similarly unsubstantiated mental flotsam, without any sound basis or empirical support whatsoever. The burden of proof rests on those who assert a positive claim of some entity, attribute or thing, by the way, and not on those who deny it, for lack of evidence. (See Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy.)
Remember, it was only yesterday, in the long view of human history, that everyone “knew”, and was absolutely certain, that the Earth was the centre of the universe. It just so happened that everyone was wrong.
Not long ago, slavery was thought to be natural, normal, ethical, and just. Virtually everyone, from Aristotle and emperors, to popes, priests, “learned men”, scholars, scientists and the common people, knew that slavery was natural, normal and just. But everyone was wrong.
In both cases, what was assumed by everyone to be unquestionably true, turned out to be flatly and completely mistaken and wrong. It is the same with the nearly universal belief in duality. We are, as Plato said, dwellers in a cave of shadows. But enlightenment, or waking up to reality, is entirely within our reach.
Enlightenment, it should be added, does not mean floating off into space, on some mystical cloud. It means, quite simply, waking up. It means seeing reality clearly, for the first time, and abiding in that awareness of the non-dual nature of emptiness and form, being and reality, with universal compassion, indestructible peace, and natural, spontaneous, intelligent responsiveness, as the naturally arising result, of simply being fully and truly awake.
*
Does this mean nothing exists? No, that is nihilism, and it is a delusion, as the Buddhists have also made clear – and a dangerous delusion. Does that mean everything exists in the mind, and that only the mind exists? No, that is philosophical idealism, or in Buddhist terminology, the Mind Only school; and that, while closer to the truth than nihilism, is also a misperception with regards to the true nature of reality.
Does that mean that the dualism of Descartes, and his materialist bias, along with Newton’s mechanistic view of the universe, should be rejected? Yes.
Newtonian mechanics still work, as crude approximations which have their uses in technology, for example, but the non-dualist view of Spinoza turns out to be far more accurate as a theory, paradigm or world view, and will lead us to better experiments, new discoveries, and most importantly, better judgement and better actions and policies, leading to a better society, and a better world.
Does it then mean we should adopt an interactionist view of mind and body, consciousness and matter? No. That would be vastly superior to the dualistic, mechanistic, materialist-reductionist world view which we now accept as “knowledge”, as “scientific”, “empirical”, as “educated” opinion, or as common sense. But that would be an ecological view, a holistic or organic view, which is vastly superior, more accurate and more sane, but still subtly imprecise.
No, it means that a non-dualistic view is the only view supported by either a radical empiricism, a thorough-going empiricism, a genuine empiricism, an authentically scientific approach; or by the philosophers and sages who wrote, spoke and elaborated the view of non-duality, in what has been called the Perennial Philosophy.
*
Note that quantum physics – if we are not unscientific about it, and anti-intellectual, or irrationally averse to drawning conclusions, based on clear and unequivocal evidence (a few “scientists” fit that description, and a very few “philosophers”) – demonstrated over a century ago, that the atomistic, mechanistic, dualistic, materialist-reductionism which we fell into, as in a bog, along with Netwon and Descartes, a mere four centuries ago, is a radically mistaken paradigm, theory, ideology, philosophy, or view of reality. What modern physics shows us, is not that elaborate conjectures of multiple universes or dimensions (all speculative conjecture) are necessarily the reality, but more pointedly, and of profoundly more importance, that the imagined duality, separation or division between subject and object, self and other, mind and body, and consciousness and “matter”, is entirely fictional, and does not exist.
As Enstein said, “The perception of a division between self and other is a kind of optical delusion.” “We must stop talking about the particle and field. The field is everything.”
Or as Schrodinger, the godfather of quantum mathematics, said, perhaps even more strikingly, “The number of minds in the universe is one.”
Note that Einstein said he believed in Spinoza’s view of God. That is, there is only one substance in existence, and you can call it God, or you call it nature, but it is One.
As the last of the ancient philosophers, Plotinus said: the many are One; the One manifests as many.
Or as the Tao Te Ching says, “Naming is the mother of the ten thousand things.”
Or as the Heart Sutra, the Heart of the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom, says:
“Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.
Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form.”
This is explicitly stated to be a refutation and a denial of both nihilism and eternalism. The true nature of reality lies in the middle way between those two extremes, both of which are delusional.
How do we come, to first conceptually, and then experientially, and deeply, understand and then directly see and realize the non-duality of being and reality? Begin with reflecting deeply and often on the interdependence of all beings, things and phenomena. That will lead to higher awareness, liberation and enlightenment, and will avoid the terrible rotting bog, which is the mental prison, of nihilism.
Then examine the labelling process of the mind. That will finish the job of removing all remaining traces of doubt and dualistic delusion.
*
Spinoza and Plotinus, in the West, along with Meister Eckhart, Thomas Merton, Mathew Fox, Ken Wilber, Joseph Campbell, Joanna Macy, Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, Allan Wallace, Einstein, Shrodinger, Wheeler, Bohm, and myself; and Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Shankara and the Buddha in the East, to make a very incomplete list, have all expressed the perennial philosophy of non-duality. We would be wise to at least look into it, and to keep an open mind.
But above all, think for yourself. Question everything. And as the Buddha said, examine things for yourself, see for yourself.
As Shakespeare said, “There is more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy.” “Life is rounded by a little sleep.”
And as Thoreau said,
“There is more day yet to dawn. The sun is but a morning star.”
We are not smaller or lesser than we had imagined, but infinitely more. Being and reality is basically good. The world is in a dark and terrible state because it is ruled by illusions. Illusion is the root of our problems. Uproot that, and we can live in peace, and in lives, and a world, more beautiful than we dare to imagine.
Compassion, and the unceasing search for truth: these are our best guides, and our sole concerns, if we are aware enough to live in ways that are truly sensible and intelligent. With compassion and the pursuit of truth (not the dogmatic presumption of truth) as our beacons, the future is brighter than our dreams. Without them, we are lost.
The choice, as always, is ours to make.
J. Todd Ring,
March 28, 2021
Post-Script:
It has become the fashionable norm in Western philosophy, in the past few centuries, for philosophers to write great tomes of books, often hundreds of pages long, and in the most arcane and obscure language possible. There is a good reason for this. It is to hide the fact that most philosophers have little or nothing to say. (The fetish is also for maximum footnotes, since ideas are not judged on their own merits, as all good science or philosophy does, but are judged by how well they can be entangled upon the architecture of presumed authority. We are thoroughly scholastic as a result, pre-Enlightenment, and more medieval than the medievalists.) In fact, aside from Socrates, Spinoza, Plotinus and Hume, and a handful of others, most of Western philosophy is the finger-painting of preschoolers. It is not worth the paper it is written on. That certainly includes all of post-modernism, which has virtually lobotomized intellectuals for the past fifty years. (Replace all the post-modernists, existentialists and phenomenologists with a study of Emerson, Blake and Thoreau, and we would be getting somewhere – beyond our present state, which is parked in a cul de sac.) In a few short words, we have said here what thousands of books on philosophy and politics have not, and could not, because they lacked the clarity, and the depth, to be able to do so. The importance of a work is not measured by its volume of words. The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the UN Charter of Human Rights, the Magna Carta, and Henry David Thoreau’s On Civil Disobedience, are short, pithy works, of unsurpassed importance. Thoreau’s essay On Civil Disobedience is just fifteen pages, and the Heart Sutra is just two pages; but they are the most important political and philosophical tracts, respectively, ever written. Do not be fooled by wordiness and verbosity, or by esoteric and arcane language. Most of it is nothing but hot air – a tale full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
See also:
The Hero With A Thousand Faces – Joseph Campbell
World As Lover, World As Self – Joanna Macy
Choosing Reality – Allan Wallace
The Holographic Universe – Michael Talbot
Mysticism and The New Physics – Michael Talbot
Dialogues With Scientists and Sages – Rene Weber
Dreamtime and Inner Space – Holgar Kalweit
The Way of Zen – Alan Watts
Tao: The Watercourse Way – Alan Watts
The Mother Of The Buddhas – Lex Hixon
The Perennial Philosophy – Aldous Huxley
No Boundary – Ken Wilber
Stolen Continents – Ronald Wright
A Short History of Progress – Ronald Wright
Year 501: The Conquest Continues – Noam Chomsky
Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies – Noam Chomsky
The Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein
A Game As Old As Empire – John Perkins
Class Warfare – Noam Chomsky
The Power Elite – C. Wright Mills
Giants: The Global Power Elite – Peter Phillips
The New Rulers Of The World – John Pilger
Ancient Futures – Helena Norberg-Hodge
From The Ground Up – Helena Norberg-Hodge
The Chalice and The Blade – Rianne Eisler
The Ecology of Freedom – Murray Bookchin
Mutual Aid – Peter Kropotkin
The Empathic Civilization – Jeremy Rifkin
Elders’ Wisdom – David Suzuki
The Wayfinders – Wade Davis
The Great Turning – David C. Korten
Oneness vs The 1% – Vandana Shiva
Enlightened Democracy – J. Todd Ring
*
Here is a good introduction to epistemology, ontology and metaphysics, or the question of what is the true nature of appearances versus reality, in the short video below. It is only an introduction, however. Russell does not answer the question here, but merely sets the stage for the investigation, which is itself important, though incomplete. See Plato’s Parable of the Cave, Descartes, Spinoza, and finally, the Buddha and Nagarjuna.
Note that BR is among the best in terms of political philosophy, and among the worst for metaphysics. But he at least introduces the question of perception vs reality well.
Also interesting and relevant:
.https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/1vvtxtagRzdTwG2AxvrW2z?si=8j7eQhQWRkS7YbKvxGVHmA
Or start with my book, Enlightened Democracy, which synthesizes the best of East and West, North and South, ancient and modern, science and spirituality, the philosophical and the political, long term vision and immediate action. Then read Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Allan Wallace, Joanna Macy, Ken Wilber, Murray Bookchin, and the other major figures listed above.
Share this:
10 Comments »