Zen - "Not One", "Not Two"

I'm more familiar with this as "not two, not one", that however is of no impact right now.

So, not two, essentially boils down to the brain/ mind has a setting of opposition within, which gives a choice of good or bad, love or hate, like or dislike. This cannot really be applied to things that we are describing such as food or scents or tastes as they are things, they are what they are, no ability to change, therefore there is no two.

With not one, there is also opposition involved however it is direct one to one opposition of an item such as a cup or a beverage. Since the item is based upon your own perception, it is not, nor can it ever be a reality.
Not one cannot be explained through words as it is a matter of having to live an experience, it cannot be explained as a concept, because there is no concept to base it upon.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Thank you, that was very succinct and helpful

2 Replies

@Qaf,

Quite welcome.

0 Replies

@Qaf,

Quote:

succinct and helpful

Yea Qaf, sure was. One of the things that bothers the apodictical existential pantheist is the dualism of She and the Universe, clearly a unit

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Could you elaborate, I didn't understand what you meant.

1 Reply

@Qaf,

Well Qaf it's very fundmental: Conventional religion is dualistic in specifying Her on one side and The Universe on t'other wheres the pantheist can imagine the two as a single unit

3 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Well Qaf it's very fundmental: Conventional religion is dualistic in specifying Her on one side and The Universe on t'other wheres the pantheist can imagine the two as a single unit

No it has to do with everything being empty of characteristics.

We label phenomena as if it has a distinct existence. This isnt accurate. However; all phenomena are not one thing because if it were one thing (ie. a god) then that would be a characteristic of all phenomena.

All characteristics are empty of substantial existence.

There is no god.
There is no mind.
There is no Buddha.
There is no being.

The fundamental reality is emptiness. Only the deluded mind sees characteristics as having seperate existence.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krump in general I'd incidentally agree that characteristics are generated in the mind depending of course on your def

However to maintain that She and the Universe are the same thing doesn't conflict

Quote:

There is no god.

"God" has diff meanings to diff folk. The pantheist might maintain it's okay to call It All by that term if you like

Quote:

There is no mind.

I hear ya Krump: It's more a concept. However one philo after another might remind you that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

Quote:

There is no Buddha.

Wasn't there one

Quote:

There is no being

Alas, see two paras above

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Krump in general I'd incidentally agree that characteristics are generated in the mind depending of course on your def

However to maintain that She and the Universe are the same thing doesn't conflict

Quote:
There is no god.

"God" has diff meanings to diff folk. The pantheist might maintain it's okay to call It All by that term if you like

Quote:
There is no mind.

I hear ya Krump: It's more a concept. However one philo after another might remind you that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

Quote:
There is no Buddha.

Wasn't there one

Quote:
There is no being
Alas, see two paras above

Within the fundamental reality you cant even state there is a god and there is a universe. Its impossible.

Empiness is not "nothing", it means there is no substantial substance or existence. We are taught as children to give names to objects, then later to ideas, and after that to abstract concepts. None of which is true.

If a god were or seperate from the universe. Meaning the universe was one thing and a god another then it would have to have a substantial existence. None can be found.

If a god and the unuverse were one thing together inseperable, why even make a distinction. You would be attempting to play favorites. This piece here is the universe but not god. This piece over there is god and not the universe. Then they cant be one.

For example, if god and the universe were one, then what characteristic does god have? If you claim god has always existed unborn then the universe must also be the same. If you say no, the universe has not always existed but god has, then you cant say they are one.

There is no one.

Emptiness is not a thing. Which is why it can give rise to phenomina. If emptiness were a thing it could not give rise to phenomina.

All things are emptiness. Emptiness are all things. Interchanagable because it is emptiness. This is the fundamental reality.

When you have a piece of wood and burn it, you get ash. But the ash doesnt become a piece of wood. The wood is not the ash. The ash is not the wood. The mind is the same.

When you die you dont become birth. You are not reborn. You dont continue existing eternally. If you did then the fundamental reality would reflect this permenance. No where can it be found. A god would also have to reflect this, otherwise it would be revealed in the reality as such. It cant be found.

Emptiness is permenance. If it wasnt, it could not be all encompassing. You would find something permenant within emptiness. Yet you cant find such.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Within the fundamental reality you cant even state there is a god and there is a universe. Its impossible

.I suppose again Krump it's matter of defs, esp "fundamental reality." The pantheist might allow you don't hafta call it "god" but I'd suppose they might insist there's a Universe

Quote:

...no substantial substance or existence... names to objects, then ...ideas, and ...abstract concepts. None of which is true.

The prop that "Nothing is entirely anything, while....." casts a pall of doubt on many such abstractions

Quote:

If a god were or seperate from the universe... then it would have ...substantial existence. None can be found.

Again depends on defs, If God and the Universe were the same then the former might be said even to have substance

Quote:

If ...inseperable, why even make a distinction.

You don't have to. Or I don't

Quote:

,,,here is the universe but not god...While...over there is god and not the universe... can't be one.

That's the usu way of looking at it

Quote:

if ... one, then what characteristic does god have?

S'pose depends upon to whom you're asking. Obviously She has material aspects, while She might not even correctly be called supernatural

Quote:

If you claim god has always existed unborn

I didn't

Quote:

If you say no, the universe has not always existed...

But I think it probably has. Creation and the like entail too much contradiction and paradox

Quote:

There is no one.

Too deep for me Krump

Quote:

Emptiness ... can give rise to phenomena

....Still 'way too deep for me

Quote:

All things are emptiness. Emptiness are all things.... Interchanagable because it is emptiness.....

Whole thing sounds paradoxical

.....

Quote:

When you die you dont become birth. You are not reborn. You dont continue existing eternally.

Quote:

...fundamental reality... No where can it be found. A god would also have to reflect this, otherwise it would be revealed in the reality...

Sorry Krump, few if any of us have the vocabulary to express God in non-anthropormorphisms.

Eventually Science/Philo might come to some sort of agreement

Quote:

Emptiness is permanence... something permenant within ...Yet you cant...

Owing to limited vocab and difficulty following such contorted reasoning (no offense Krump), I still can't see why

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Within the fundamental reality you cant even state there is a god and there is a universe. Its impossible
.I suppose again Krump it's matter of defs, esp "fundamental reality." The pantheist might allow you don't hafta call it "god" but I'd suppose they might insist there's a Universe

Quote:
...no substantial substance or existence... names to objects, then ...ideas, and ...abstract concepts. None of which is true.

The prop that "Nothing is entirely anything, while....." casts a pall of doubt on many such abstractions

Quote:
If a god were or seperate from the universe... then it would have ...substantial existence. None can be found.

Again depends on defs, If God and the Universe were the same then the former might be said even to have substance

Quote:
If ...inseperable, why even make a distinction.

You don't have to. Or I don't

Quote:
,,,here is the universe but not god...While...over there is god and not the universe... can't be one.

That's the usu way of looking at it

Quote:
if ... one, then what characteristic does god have?

S'pose depends upon to whom you're asking. Obviously She has material aspects, while She might not even correctly be called supernatural

Quote:
If you claim god has always existed unborn

I didn't

Quote:
If you say no, the universe has not always existed...

But I think it probably has. Creation and the like entail too much contradiction and paradox

Quote:
There is no one.

Too deep for me Krump

Quote:
Emptiness ... can give rise to phenomena
....Still 'way too deep for me

Quote:
All things are emptiness. Emptiness are all things.... Interchanagable because it is emptiness.....

Whole thing sounds paradoxical

.....

Quote:
When you die you dont become birth. You are not reborn. You dont continue existing eternally.

Quote:
...fundamental reality... No where can it be found. A god would also have to reflect this, otherwise it would be revealed in the reality...

Sorry Krump, few if any of us have the vocabulary to express God in non-anthropormorphisms.

Eventually Science/Philo might come to some sort of agreement

Quote:
Emptiness is permanence... something permenant within ...Yet you cant...
Owing to limited vocab and difficulty following such contorted reasoning (no offense Krump), I still can't see why

Let me simplify it. Not to insult your intelligence but to give you another way to understand this truth.

A blank piece of paper has nothing written, painted, or marked on it. However it has the nature to have anything marked, painted or written on it. The piece of blank paper contains all the possible things marked on it already! Even if you cant see these marks, they are there. If these marks, paintings or writings didnt already exist within the nature of the blank piece of paper, then they couldnt ever arise.

This is emptiness giving rise to all phenomina. All things arise and disappear because of emptiness. If this was not the fundamental nature, you couldnt have anything and nothing would change. A tree could never be anything other than a tree. It couldnt grow or die. It couldnt even move.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Who's "her", the divine female, just the feminine? Cannot does Yin and Yang bridge this apparent divide. I'm sorry if this seems terribly ignorant but the notion of She is new to me.

2 Replies

@Qaf,

I'm watching this exchange with a Smile

!
As has already been said...no 'one' means no 'thinghood'....observer and observed are existentially inseparable.
And 'She' is simply a politically correct rejoinder to the assumption of thinking of 'God' as male.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Ah rejoice! thank you Fresco Smile

0 Replies

@fresco,

Fresco, does this question make any sense in light of what you've said about observer and observed being part of one continuum of experience?

If I propose God has created everything but is distinct in every way from it. Is there duality ? That we are a sealed globe, and God is outside of it, and within this sealed globe there is non duality.

I see God as a cosmological constant, for the sake of arguement. I begin everything by presupposing that there is a creator, this is the creation, that we experience creation based on our mental baggage, our ability to recognize suffering in others is a measure of our compassion and our own suffering caused by attachment to the material plane. There are many ways to develop a benign relationship with living, one of them is to meditate on reality and come to your own conclusions the other is to follow any sacred text and accept it as literal truth. I find those who reject sacred texts as inferior in some way, are ignorant for these texts handed down from antiquity are to be not just judged by their content but also by their dialectic, which is often, even in varied texts as the Qur'an or Advaita, non dualistic. Speaking for myself only, I find no contradtiction in being alive and ascribing that life to a creator, who is the architect of my reality, which I can fathom only partialy never in totality.

1 Reply

@Qaf,

Three?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Not One Not Two Not She is the current trend

1 Reply

@Qaf,

Not sure?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I'm an non-apologetic practicing monotheist, but I uphold the creator as someone who made me and left me to my own designs. I find myself wandering this earth and this forum trying to develop a thought process which is non dualist (and this is a work in progress) because I believe it brings me nearer to my God.

Insight is immediate, does it come from an external source or an internal dialectic? thats where i'm at...at sea,
Being a theist I say it will come t me if I worship, being an egoist(and i'm talking about myself) I say I must reach an understanding of how best to interpret my world and live in it.

2 Replies

Zen - "Not One", "Not Two"

Quick Links

My Account

able2know