Hi again TineTineDoes wrote:Remote1,
Thanks also for your very clear explanations. I may still not understand to the full what you are saying about duality, but that is because I have little framework of reference on Buddism.
If you've read a book on Buddhism, albeit in the 70s, you know more about it than me.
My ignorance is an abyss. I am merely absorbing like a sponge what other people are saying (mainly Holydove, who has studied Buddhism for eleven years, if I remember correctly), and turning it into something that I can comprehend. I know a little about contemporary philosophy (out of necessity, which is why I am not an expert in that either). So whatever I talk about is more from the standpoint of post-structuralist thought, which is actually helping me here.
Now, I shall try and explain what I understand regarding duality more clearly. I hope it helps but do let me know if it doesn't!
Imagine a situation where you decide to divide the world into categories, such as the living/the dead, the man/the woman, the human/the animal, the civilised/the uncivilised, the weak/the strong, the ill/the well etc. You are using words to create one vision of the world which is ordered in one particular way. This is text, isn’t it? Of course, there are human beings who are biologically distinct, but the rigid categorization into “man” and “woman”, with all the weight of implication that various cultures place upon it, does not have to be regarded as an essential property of being human, does it? But imagine now a situation in which you decide to use words to create a different vision of the world. Then you could, for instance, begin to break the divisions and see death in the living and life in the dead, and man in the woman and woman in the man, and the human in the animal and the animal the human. You would gradually start wondering whether these absolute dual categories, structures, hierarchies, are the most enriching, the most open-hearted/minded ways of considering the world. And with words, like Leonard Cohen does it, you could challenge these absolutes: “The open-hearted many/ The broken-hearted few” become “The broken-hearted many/ The open-hearted few”. What does it mean? It means that the division between the open-hearted and the broken-hearted is a very tentative, conceptual one. There is not, in humanity, an absolute and essential division where you are either open-hearted or broken-hearted. In the same way, if you think that life is about waiting for something good to happen, you are living your life within a position, a feeling, of lack. You are understanding your life as defined by what is missing, as defined by “not having” versus “having”. The other side of “not having” is not “having” (you would still be within the paradigm of binary oppositions). The other side of “not having” is “not not having”. This is where your conceptual (or spiritual) freedom lies. So in the same way, if you step back from the “waiting” and “not waiting” opposition, you are “free from waiting and free from not waiting” as Leonard explains. In other words, you are not waiting and you are not not waiting.
Sorry, this was quite long-winded! As I said, this is my humble interpretation of what has been said before, combined with a bit of post-structuralist stuff. You are all welcome to let me know if I've got anything wrong. I won't take it personally!
Phew! Half past midnight! Good night!