Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

What is Buddhist nonduality?

This is a rather difficult notion to grasp, because we Westerners, heirs of a Judeo-Christian culture, tend to interpret non-duality as the end of Manichaeism, that is to say interpret it in terms of good and evil.
I suggest you interpret the notion of non-duality as not opposing what is to what should be, or more precisely what we would like to be.

The biased Judeo-Christian interpretation of non-duality

In the Judeo-Christian system, humans are often seen as torn between two forces: good and evil. Hence the term duality (1). Good is associated with the search for God, evil with the uncontrolled gratification of passions. The predominance of this representation in Judeo-Christian culture is probably due to the great influence of Saint Augustine and his Manichaean culture. Let us simply remember here that there is a quasi semantic equivalence between: 1. Opposition of good and evil. 2. Manichaeism. 3. Duality.

This dual representation of the world leads rather virtuous individuals to live with a predominance of guilt linked to their frequent failures to contain their impulses. This is what was at the source of the craze for oriental Buddhist wisdom, widely disseminated by the books and films of Arnaud Desjardin, which seemed capable of freeing the individual from this guilt. For individuals coming from a Judeo-Christian culture, who discover Eastern culture, non-duality is therefore initially perceived as the end of confinement in guilt linked to duality seen as the opposition of good and righteousness. wrong. The awakening of oriental spirituality is the promise of accessible happiness in this world.

What is duality?

However, his Indian master, who was not caught up in a Judeo-Christian culture centered on the opposition of good and evil, did not tell Desjardin “Don't be manicheist” or “Don't bother if it's good or bad”. He told him, according to the words of Desjardin himself: “Be one with” which I translate very freely as “Don't dissociate yourself from the facts” to make the sentence clearer for those who do not have a Buddhist culture.

We arrive at the interpretation that I propose to you of non-duality, which is: not interposing between oneself and the facts, a representation of what should be.
Here is an illustration of such a mental interposition: “people should be less materialistic” is dual because it involves mentally creating a second world in which people are less materialistic.

Let's start by explaining why the individual is tempted to do this. To do this, let's return to the basis of philosophy, namely the doctrine of Epictetus: when faced with a problem, separate what depends on you from what does not depend on you. Fight with all your strength, your determination, and your intelligence on the part that depends on you, and do not worry about the part that does not depend on you.
As soon as we move to a dual interpretation of the world, that is to say that we mentally create what should be, we automatically place the gap between what is and what should be in what is not. doesn't depend on us, so we let go of responsibility.

The problem with this trick is that it neglects the pernicious aspect of resolving cognitive dissonance. Indeed, when we interpose between ourselves and factual reality what should be, instead of actively opposing us, cognitive dissonance often ends up turning on us in the long run and making us more or less agree with what we rejected. internally, and rightly so, at the starting point. This is exemplified by Stockholm syndrome.

Finally, let's note that most of the time, the dilemma of disagreeing presents itself in the form: in a meeting, someone presents a fact that you know is incorrect. Are you going to challenge it publicly or not?

The Buddhist vision and its limits

In the Buddhist tradition, non-duality is explained as being one with all. In particular, the creator and the created are one. However, such a definition opens up a major difficulty in terms of the individual's capacity to oppose tyranny. Such problems arise whenever we favor a unary explanation of the world (non-duality), binary (Manicheanism or Yin and Yang), or ternary (the father, the son and the holy spirit of Catholicism). This results in infinite debates, as throughout the Middle Ages, between the divine oneness or trinity.
This is why we have adopted a definition of non-duality that is slightly different from the Buddhist tradition.

Buddhism also contains a major contradiction:
1. The path to wisdom is to free oneself from beliefs.
2. Buddhists believe in reincarnation, in complete contradiction to 1.
Once we have adopted our definition of non-duality, we are led to conclude that Buddhism is dual, because it interposes between the world of facts and itself an imaginary world where reincarnation would be an objective reality.

Buddhism as a doctrine is dual, with the same motivation as the individual: disempowerment. Indeed, the notion of reincarnation makes it possible to exempt the masses from fighting injustices, and therefore among other things the privileges of a theocracy, on the grounds that the privileged will be condemned to reincarnate until they resolve the problem on their own.
Here we find the parallel with Catholicism, which by creating the notion of life after death, paradise and hell, invites the masses not to fight social injustices in this world.
This is why Krisnamurti rejects all religions, Buddhism included.

Go deeper

See question 'Don't judge'

See the chapter “Effects of forced submission: theory” in the book A theory of cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger. Basically, the weaker the constraint but sufficient to obtain the compliance of the subject against his inner conviction, the more the inner conviction will be called into question under the effect of cognitive dissonance.

Read Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt:
““The internal emigrant” saves his conscience by disagreeing deep within, but without changing his action... so as not to be unmasked! »

For a more detailed description of (Buddhist) non-duality resulting from a unary representation of the world, see the book's introduction The meaning of things: talks on non-duality by Francis Lucille.

Concerning the limits of Buddhism, refer to the documentary Buddhism, the law of silence by Elodie Emery and Windrille Lanos, broadcast by Arte, and probably available on YouTube. It shows the inability of high Buddhist dignitaries to take their responsibilities in the face of a problem of abuse.

(1) Watch the show Rencontres on CBC/Radio-Canada in 1972, with Arnaud Desjardin, at 3:00 p.m. (available on YouTube under the title 'Interview with Arnaud Desjardin in 1972')

 

2023-05-15 12:32:46 Vincent P The contradiction of Buddhism and religions

Le problème de toute tradition c'est qu'il s'agit d'un système pour faire parvenir à un humain (avec un ego) de bien vivre par rapport à la réalité (Dieu) dans la mesure de ce qu'il peut expérimenter.

Les croyances dans les religions interviennent pour ce qui ne peut être expérimenter par l'égo.

Quand à la croyance de la réincaranation :
Il s'agit bien d'une croyance pour l'égo mais une personne réalisée (tel que fut Jesus Christ ou Gautama) le vivra comme une réalité.

Ultimement il ne faut pas s'en tenir aux croyances et faire le travail nécessaire pour que notre perception soit au plus proche de la réalité. Et il n'est ici pas question d'analyse.

2023-05-16 10:12:18 Hubert Re: The contradiction of Buddhism and religions

Vous tombez dans le panneau du marketing sprirituel : « Il s'agit bien d'une croyance pour l'égo mais une personne réalisée (tel que fut Jesus Christ ou Gautama) le vivra comme une réalité. ». Toutes les croyances sont vécues comme des réalités par les personnes qui les ont. Le fait de se sentir 'réalisé' ne change rien à l'affaire.

Et juste après, votre bon sens revient en force : « Ultimement il ne faut pas s'en tenir aux croyances et faire le travail nécessaire pour que notre perception soit au plus proche de la réalité ». Absolument !

New comment

From:

Message title:

Message :