The following article discusses the nature of unity and duality and then outlines some principles that can help to identify dualistic concepts that all to easily creep into discussions about unity (and vice versa).
We live, love, play and work in a dualistic world. Everything that we do involves the ‘do-er’ and the ‘done-to’. To communicate there must be the communicator and the one receiving the communication. To listen we must be separate from the speaker. To touch our fingers we must be separate until the moment we make contact. In fact everything that occurs in the realms of time and space is dualistic in nature. Duality occurs when there is not a state of unity. So when we can separate, divide, compare or contrast any one quality or thing from any other quality or thing we do not have unity: - we have duality. So in space we can always separate here from there; right from left. In time we can always separate past from present, one moment from another moment.
A fundamental duality is that of existence (or consciousness or awareness). To say ‘I am’ requires an identity separate from what ‘I am not’. Identification with the body is only possible because we can separate it from our surroundings thanks to the boundary formed by our skin. We form similar identifications with patterns in the mind and emotions. There are subtle states of being that can be experienced that do not depend on the mind, emotions or body for a sense of self or identity but that still have a sense of ‘I am’. In these states there is still separation. The nature of an ‘experience’ is that it has a beginning and end and so happens in the flow of time. Experience and experiences are products of duality based consciousness.
For there to be any sense of ‘I am’, whether subtle or gross, identification is required with particular gross or subtle forms that are separate from other gross or subtle forms. If there is any kind of perception there is separation between the perceived and the perceiver. In subtle states of being there can be so little identification with the relatively tiny individualities offered by the mind, body or emotions that it feel as if there is no ‘I am’ left, that your existence has come to an end. But in fact it has been transformed and you have established the beginnings of a new identity in a subtler level of consciousness - it can just take time and repeated ‘visits’ before the very different qualities of dualistic identity and consciousness become obvious. This is not to devalue the great importance of such states. The point is to clarify the nature of such states and to determine whether they are within duality or are a state of unity.
Dualistic existence continues while we identify with duality. It is also possible to become at one with unity. When this occurs, duality disappears. In this state there is no perception, consciousness or awareness of anything because there is no separation from anything. Communication cannot occur in unity - how can one thing that is everywhere talk to itself? There is no sense of ‘I am’ in unity as there is no separation between what ‘I am’ and what ‘I am not’. There is no existence as to exist something must begin and end in time. And in unity there is no time - it is one eternal ‘moment’ without beginning or end - and there is no space - it is everywhere: no gaps, no boundaries - infinite. What is eternal is always present and is therefore absolutely permanent and absolutely indestructible. What is eternal cannot be experienced temporarily. Absolute unity cannot be gradually realised - it is known completely or it is not known at all. It is therefore impossible to experience unity and return to normal consciousness leaving unity ‘behind’.
It can appear that there is a ‘duality’ between unity and duality as they are described above. However, these states are not in relationship to each other. Each is complete in itself, according to its own nature.
Unity cannot be ‘aware’ of duality - there is no separation in unity and so the apparent separations of duality collapse / resolve into unity.
Duality cannot be aware of unity. The limited nature of duality cannot contain or grasp the true nature of unity. Although states of relative unity exist in duality, absolute unity is forever closed to duality based consciousness. Unity is only ‘known’ through becoming it, thereby releasing identification with duality.
Thus, in unity there is no duality and in duality there is no unity. The mystery is the ‘connection’ between these two independent states. This connection is a principle that is given a variety of names in a number of traditions. This principle functions to act as the bridge between duality and unity; form and formlessness. It is this principle that enables us to realise absolute unity (Enlightenment) and then continue to maintain individualities in duality despite the independence of these states.
The article 'From Be-ing to Be-ness' pursues this element of the discussion further.
In the discussion above there is the insurmountable problem that any discussion of unity is inherently flawed. You can’t capture unity in words. Words are dualistic: they begin and end, they are each limited to expressing one particular concept that will be interpreted slightly differently by every reader, and they only function in time and space. You can’t contain infinity in any word or symbol - although many people try and build whole systems of belief on the attempt. Unity is ‘known’ through becoming it. It can never be communicated through word, symbol or action nor can it be known by the intellect or by feelings.
Despite these limitations, playing around with the concept of unity with our dualistic minds can be very helpful and rewarding. It can help make the mind more flexible by challenging many of its assumptions. It is also inspiring to contemplate what a state of unity might be like. Although all our ideas about unity will be shown to be flawed when unity is finally realised on Enlightenment, the very fact that we have exercised the mind helps make the mind a more useful tool on the path to Enlightenment and we can derive considerable inspiration from such ideas that can help us on the way. The mind makes a poor master but can be made into a useful servant.
There is a huge amount of material available nowadays that directly or indirectly relates to the concepts of unity and duality. Much of this material is contradictory and some is confusing or even misleading. But some of the most contradictory or misleading material can still be very inspiring and so, in the points that follow, please remember that it is not the intention to promote a heartless intellectualism that cannot respond to the poetry and uplifting quality in an inspirational passage or quotation.
When first approaching material of a philosophical, religious, spiritual or scientific nature, it can help to bear certain points in mind. With familiarity these points become second nature but initially it can be helpful to see them as a series of steps and one such series of steps is described below. These steps can help guide you through the process of critical reading and the development of philosophical discrimination. Please note that there is no ‘right’ way to do this - it is only one approach of many possible ones that is outlined below.
It is very easy to assume you know what the author means when they use particular words. Words that are used to mean a whole range of things are: ‘spirit’, ‘god’, ‘soul’, ‘mind’, ‘ego’, ‘self’, ‘astral’, ‘truth’, ‘reality’, ‘love’, ‘enlightenment’, ‘meditation’, ‘reincarnation’ amongst many others. Does the author use the word in the same way you do? Is it made clear what meaning is given to a word or must you make assumptions or deductions with respect to a word’s meaning. If you have to make assumptions it is prudent to be cautious about the degree of confidence you can have regarding your understanding of the author’s ideas.
How does the subject under discussion by the material relate to unity and/or duality? Is reference being made in the material to duality or to unity? Or is there some sort of comparison of the two? If unity is being discussed then the fundamental problem of the indescribable nature of unity needs to be borne in mind and the validity of the metaphors, symbols or concepts used in the attempt to describe unity need to be considered.
If duality is being discussed then the issues under consideration lie in the realm of relative truth - it is only in unity that there is absolute truth. There is always another valid point of view in duality, however convincing one particular argument may be. Every coin has two sides. An indication of the degree of identification we make with an given idea is degree to which we emotionally react when that idea is challenged. While there are certain human values most people would pragmatically seek to defend, there are some issues that have little impact on immediate life and death concerns and yet can generate a huge amount of heat when their basis is questioned. An excellent example of this is seen when people with a rather dogmatic ‘scientific’ nature explode when some obscure physical law is challenged or some alternative classification of a microscopic mould is suggested. We each have certain values that at times will need defending. Problems tend to arise when we are unaware of our identification with certain values and attack or invalidate another person’s value system that may be just as valid.
Duality is where we live our lives, and because of this it is often useful to distinguish between material that is giving practical advice/attitudes for daily living and material that may aim to promote liberation from the limitations of duality. A plumbing manual can help fix a pipe but in the longer term we may wish to learn how to transcend any dependence on pipe-work!
Are there contradictions between the focus of the material (e.g. duality vs. unity) and the terms that are used in the material? Commonly, relative or dualistic terms are applied to unity - i.e. ‘conversation with god’. If this occurs it is worth considering whether this contradiction is present because the language does not have suitable terms to express a particular idea or because a metaphor is being used in an attempt to describe the indescribable. For example, there is an inherent difficulty in English when speaking of unity/Enlightenment in that the state has no personal identity and so the use of ‘I’, ‘me’ or ‘you’ has no relevance to the state or its realisation. ‘I’ cannot realise Enlightenment because the ‘I’ is limited and Enlightenment is infinite. But without being very clumsy it is hard to avoid using such personal pronouns.
Analogies are often used but are inevitably limited. For instance, it can be said that if Enlightenment is likened to an ocean our separate dualistic selves can be likened to drops of water in that ocean - the appearance of separation is illusory. Obviously, Enlightenment or unity is not actually an ocean. But similar uses of analogy to represent qualities of unity are often taken as being actual attributes. The image or concept of the biblical God being male and bearded is so pervasive that to suggest that God/unity is genderless and formless may verge on the heretical for some people. Some metaphors and analogies can be so potent that it is hard to remember that they are not the reality.
Note whether the material being considered in any way implies that processes of change, separation, time, learning, life, death, experience, planning, growth or development are taking place. These are all qualities of ever-changing duality. If these processes are being referred to then it is duality that is being considered and not unity. Learning, in particular, is a commonly misapplied term. Learning must involve change and therefore cannot apply to unity. Unity must be unchanging otherwise you would have different ‘unities’ before and after a change. Unity is eternally unchanging. Anything that is eternal cannot change. If ‘spirit’ is defined as being eternal it cannot change and therefore cannot learn. Eternal spirit is synonymous with unity. Similar issues emerge if ‘soul’ is defined as being eternal and, if defined thus, there can only be one eternal soul.
Often the sheer poetry or inspirational quality of some writing makes it picky to be overly philosophically critical in this regard. However, there are statements that aim or claim to reflect philosophical truth that contain dualistic terms applied to unity that can actively undermine someone’s spiritual progress. This is frequently done by couching idealistic statements in poorly defined terminology.
Another useful test is to consider how relevant or realistic a statement would be to someone in the direst of human circumstance and misery if it purports to contain a general truth about human life and spiritual development. To be starkly emotive, millions of babies die each year in terrible circumstances and some of the more idealistic notions encountered in certain material can seem utterly facile when applied to their appallingly short lives. Much of this discussion would have little relevance to people desperate to simply survive. The point here is whether the disturbing and unpleasant features of human existence are being faced or whether they are not even being considered.
Many concepts used to describe duality can be taken to their absolute in unity. They then become equivalent to each other, leading to many possibilities for word games for authors. Love, Truth, Permanence, Freedom, Liberation and Reality for example can all be used to refer to Unity but, in so doing, lose distinction from each other and therefore lose their individual meanings. Once again this hints at the indescribable nature of the Absolute.
The synonyms and chains of equivalencies below can never be taken as being definitive. Different people will use these terms in different ways. Whether you agree or disagree with the equivalencies below is not the purpose of the lists. Rather, the purpose is to provide a focus for you to clarify your own ideas about these related concepts.
Synonyms for Unity Include:
Enlightenment, God; Tao; Brahman; Infinity/The Infinite; The Eternal; Formlessness; The Causeless Cause; Spirit or Soul (when these are defined as being eternal); The Unmanifest; Changelessness; The Absolute.
Absolute: Individuality, Reality, Love, Freedom, Truth, Perfection.
Equivalency Chains for Unity Include:
Eternity = No Change = No Time = No Birth or Death = No Creation = No Form or Shape = No Edges = Infinite = No Separation = No Communication = No Perception
No Separation = No Consciousness = No Self
Infinite = No Gaps = No Differentiation = Unity
No Form or Shape = No Dependence
No Change = Permanence = Immortality = Reality
Synonyms for Duality Include:
Creation; Matter; The Relative; The Transient; Change; The Finite; Limits; Form; Separation; Space & Time; Yin & Yang; Cause & Effect; Good & Evil; The Manifest; The Relative.
Relative: Individuality, Reality, Love, Freedom, Truth.
Equivalency Chains for Duality Include:
Form = Created = Cause & Effect = Birth & Death = Consciousness = ‘I Am’ & Self = Time & Change = Separation = Communication = Perception
Separation = Edges = Finite = Limits = Dependence
Certain aphorisms make use of the notion that on becoming everything there can be no longer any distinctions between all the separate ‘things’ that make up ‘everything’. Therefore, on becoming everything all the things disappear into nothing. Similarly, on becoming everywhere there can be no differentiation of one place from another so there is ‘nowhere’. These are yet more equivalencies for unity/infinity. In addition, the words can be split up into their component parts allowing even greater fun to be had.
Spot the play on words found with phrases using:
Nothing = No Thing
Nowhere = No Where (even Now Here)
Everywhere = Every Where
Everything = Every Thing
And, of course, these are all equivalent to each other and to unity/infinity.
An excellent example of this word play is seen in the following aphorism:
In the everywhereis the everything
- caused by nothing.
- But nothing has a cause
- which is itself.
- So as everywhere
- it cannot be found
- and as everything
- it cannot be defined.
- So be the cause of nothing
- to be the cause of everything.
John
Think about how the author obtained their information. Are they open about their sources. If they are reporting on or using another’s work how can you be sure they understand what their source originally meant? Can you go back to the source material? If it is a translation can you rely on the translator’s ability and can you compare their translation to another?
If the material is based on their own realisations, how can you be sure that they have accurately interpreted their realisations? Having an experience does not equate to gaining automatic insight into what has been experienced just as getting influenza does not mean you will automatically know everything about the influenza virus. For some material it is worth considering whether it is, in fact, a product of fevered imagination or someone’s fantasy. There are authors who seek to actively mislead their readers or to confuse issues.
It is wise to be just as cautious when information has come through ‘trance channelling’ as you would with information from any other source. This will be discussed in some depth due to the increasing amount of channelled information now available. Whatever you personally consider to be the underlying process in trance channelling, much channelled information has great value. But like any more mundane information source, trance channelled information can also be misguided or false or a mixture of gems and dross. Some channellers have good days and bad days and the quality of the information that results can vary accordingly.
Consideration should be given to the fact that whatever the source of the information, the information is coming through the channeller’s mind. This will inevitably colour the material with the channeller’s own interpretations of the words that are used. It is also worth remembering that there are no certainties in duality and that you cannot speak the Truth when Truth is taken as being synonymous with the Absolute. Anything other than the Absolute Truth is relative truth and is therefore in the realm of opinion, uncertainty and the diversity of individual perspectives. All communication occurs in duality and so all channelled information involves one limited part of duality communicating with another limited part of duality.
This does not deny the relevance of some channelled information nor the role such information may have played in a person’s spiritual development. It just puts the nature of channelled information in its proper context. The source may provide highly insightful or deeply philosophical material which can indicate that the source has a viewpoint much more universal than the average human’s perspective and this can occasionally result in such material to be taken to be the ‘Word of God’ or something similarly dramatic. Whatever the source it cannot be God if the term ‘God’ is used to mean the state of Absolute Unity.
These confusions arise because of the inherent difficulty in a trance channeller being able to know what is the nature of the source when, by definition, the trance channelling is the result of interaction with a source that is separate from the channeller. If it was not perceived as being separate the information would be coming from within rather than without. For the channeller to truly know the nature of their source they would have to become at one with it and would then know they contain the source within themselves. So the nature of the source, while separate, can only be known through the information given by the source.
A particular term that is often associated with trance channelling is one that refers to an esoteric archive of information: the akashic records. These records are considered to be the repository of all that ever has happened or will happen, often represented as being something like a cosmic filing cabinet. These records are impressions made in a universal mindstuff that has no physical basis. There are many debates about the nature or existence of these records but whatever the case, the normal limitations discussed above regarding any information source apply. If the records do exist, any individual viewing them will do so from their own unique experience and will interpret them accordingly. These records would have to be part of duality. In unity there is only one truth that is so simple it applies universally to everything. This Absolute Truth can only be known through becoming it, not through communicating it. As the records are dualistic they can only contain a partial truth and not the whole or absolute truth.
Bearing this in mind, it is a little alarming that there are individuals who claim to be able to access these records and will use this information to attempt to powerfully influence someone else’s life. There are cases in which such akashic record readers have said that they have ‘pulled the file’ on an individual and have told them, with absolute certainty, that they ‘are not due to be enlightened this life but will become enlightened next lifetime’ or that if they don’t undertake a particular treatment they will ‘die of cancer’. These could be offered as opinions to be acted on or not by the individual concerned. But when they are presented as certainties they are dangerously misleading. Nothing is certain in duality, everything is open to change. Only unity offers certainty. Again, it is important to note that some people who access these records will use the information in such a way as to empower and inspire those to whom they present their information.
As stated above, the ‘steps’ discussed above are only one of many possible approaches that may be taken. It gains us little to become overly analytical in our reading thereby losing the inspirational quality of literature in dry intellectualism. However, we can also be thoroughly misguided by seductive ideas that have no basis in reality and that can, in addition, take us on long detours from our goal. Remember the Sufi proverb: ‘Trust in Allah, but first tether your camel.’ Detours are part and parcel of everyone’s spiritual journey but a certain degree of discrimination is necessary if unity is to be realised in this lifetime. The statement ‘We all will realise Enlightenment/Unity on our deathbed’ can be made and, for someone who decides to live by it, the lack of substance or truth in this statement will only be known when it is too late!
As ever, a balanced attitude is most effective. Cultivating a degree of clarity of thought and discrimination while being open to new and diverse experiences takes us between the extremes of the misery of rigid intellectualisation on the one hand and the hopeless dream-chasing of idealistic gullibility on the other.
Some Sufi proverbs that relate to discrimination will end this article with their delightfully sharp flavour:-
If a gem falls into mud it is still valuable. If dust ascends to heaven, it remains valueless.
To an ass, a thistle is a delicious fruit. The ass eats the thistle. It remains an ass.
O you who fear the difficulties of the road to annihilation - do not fear. It is so easy, this road, that it may be travelled sleeping. |
Ibn-Nasir was ill and, although apples were out of season, he craved one. Hallaj suddenly produced one. Someone said: ‘This apple has a maggot in it. How could a fruit of celestial origin be so infested?’ Hallaj explained: ‘It is just because of its celestial origin that this fruit has become affected. It was originally not so, but when it entered this abode of imperfection it naturally partook of the disease which is characteristic here.’ |