Now, I am stuck in a strange paradox. The Truth is thus that we should empty our cup when we believe to have found the ultimate answer. But the knowledge that the world is shapeless is itself a Truth which we must not take for granted! Now I am forced to listen to theories where good and evil are separate, opposing forces...
I am being turned into a nomad voyaging from one ideology to another in a quest for Truth that I know will never end. An endless refilling and emptying of cups.
> The Hamiltonian of the universe cannot be written down.
Xiao-Gang Wen's textbook Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems offers this custom interpretation: "The physical theory that can be formulated cannot be the final ultimate theory. The classification that can be implemented cannot classify everything. The unformulatable ultimate theory does exist and governs the creation of the universe. The formulated theories describe the matter we see everyday."
I came in prepared to hate this post. Ok, another skeptic who's going to tell us why Taoism is new age bunk. Turns out I was wrong. A really good summary, by which I mean your way of seeing things matches up well with mine. I'll pass this along to others and put a bookmark on your webpage.
It's a good project trying to get people to see spirituality is not (entirely) nonsense. But you're going to write on enlightenment? Don't you have to be enlightened for that one?
There are limits to non-duality. Of what use was non-duality to an abolitionist? To the Allies? The most I can think of is that it would have a calming effect, but these two factions clearly were in posession of capital-T Truth.
Non-duality does not mean the Pandavas entirely forsake their claim.
> But you're going to write on enlightenment? Don't you have to be enlightened for that one?
Hah! Part of what I'm going to argue is that there's no binary here--there's no class of people that is separate and above the rest of us.
> There are limits to non-duality. Of what use was non-duality to an abolitionist? To the Allies? The most I can think of is that it would have a calming effect, but these two factions clearly were in posession of capital-T Truth.
This is a common rejoinder to proponents of non-duality or relativism. Maintaining a non-dual perspective doesn't mean arguing equally for both sides or never taking a stance. It means understanding the limitations of your own point of view, even as you defend it.
So an abolitionist doesn't have to think "maybe slavery is OK sometimes." But they do need to understand that nearly every human institution involves hierarchy; that society appears to work best when some people have power over others.
Abolitionism can be recast as a rejection of an extremist point of view: that some people should have *absolute* power over others. But you can be an abolitionist without being an anarchist.
The abolitionists were not anarchists, they were not confused on that point, and yet, within their society, they were the extremists: it took a lot of work to turn that around. Work that might not have happened if they were thinking about limitations to their view. It takes enlightenment to be a doubting fanatic: not many can do that. I don't reject the non-dual view, I just don't think it applies universally.
Contemporary politics would probably benefit from non-dual insight. But some situations do call for zealotry and the vanquishing of doubt, which both seem alien to the non-dual posture being advocated for here, though perhaps not to non-duality writ large: it is still non-dual insight to take 'as things alike to thee' peace and strife.
You definitely have to tread carefully before deciding you are playing for keeps, though. The Pandavas were the good guys because they were always questioning whether their cause was righteous.
> there's no class of people that is separate and above the rest of us.
Yeah, technically some strains of Buddhism argue that everyone is enlightened from beginninglessness. Still, having attained enlightenment (I say this because lots of esoteric stuff I previously read on enlightenment that originally mystified me now makes sense to me) there is a difference, which I can describe as: pre-enlightenment you're constantly getting knocked off the surfboard, post-enlightenment you are always riding the wave, even if it sometimes seems you're about to lose your balance. Or maybe you do fall off, but you inexplicably find yourself on the surfboard afterwards anyway. Kinda like Dr. Manhattan saying the first trick he learned was how to reconstitute himself: losing enlightenment then getting it back is the first trick of enlightenment. But initiation never ends.
Does this make me better than other people? I don't know or care. I know I'm better than I was before, and I do think I have something to teach. The next thing I'm writing is something I hope will enlighten at least some people, similar to how the Buddha once enlightened a guy by saying:
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.
Paradoxically, it may be necessary to make some kind of effort to get to enlightenment to actually get it, even if enlightenment is actually effortless. Practices, meditations, and readings are just piling up wood in your own funeral pyre: without enough wood, you can't properly self-immolate.
Yeah this is the issue with trying to treat "Taoism" as a single thing.
When I say "Taoist morality...doesn’t really outlaw or promote specific behaviors" I'm speaking specifically about the foundational texts, mainly the Tao Te Ching.
Taoism (like most major religions) has grown and spread and evolved to a point that you can defend pretty much any assertion about it.
Mar 12, 2023·edited Mar 12, 2023Liked by Max Goodbird
This seems a bit flip to me. We don't just want 'the goodies'. Westerners just wanted to try to understand the religions, and in doing so, looked to their foundational texts. It turns out that just looking at the core texts without the centuries interpretation and cultural weight gives you a singular view of that religion.
Imagine a Japanese person came to you and asked to learn about Judaism. Would you teach them about reform, conservative and orthodox denominations, and further sects and their various interpretative differences, or would you start by handing them the Torah? Handing them the Torah would be both more and less informative, as it would teach about Judaism in a sense, but wouldn't actually tell them much meaningful about Judaism in practice or experience.
I think it's an interesting circumstance and outsider interpretations of core religious texts could, and arguably should inform mainline practice of that religious by examining the way these practices tend to accumulate meaning over time, sometimes to their detriment.
That final line sent shivers through my spine!
Now, I am stuck in a strange paradox. The Truth is thus that we should empty our cup when we believe to have found the ultimate answer. But the knowledge that the world is shapeless is itself a Truth which we must not take for granted! Now I am forced to listen to theories where good and evil are separate, opposing forces...
I am being turned into a nomad voyaging from one ideology to another in a quest for Truth that I know will never end. An endless refilling and emptying of cups.
Maybe being shapeless can be enjoyable?
I thoroughly enjoyed this, with plenty to ponder. Thanks!
> The Hamiltonian of the universe cannot be written down.
Xiao-Gang Wen's textbook Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems offers this custom interpretation: "The physical theory that can be formulated cannot be the final ultimate theory. The classification that can be implemented cannot classify everything. The unformulatable ultimate theory does exist and governs the creation of the universe. The formulated theories describe the matter we see everyday."
But yours is more succinct.
This book looks fascinating, and *maybe* within reach for me mathematically. Will have to check it out. Thanks for the tip!
I came in prepared to hate this post. Ok, another skeptic who's going to tell us why Taoism is new age bunk. Turns out I was wrong. A really good summary, by which I mean your way of seeing things matches up well with mine. I'll pass this along to others and put a bookmark on your webpage.
It's a good project trying to get people to see spirituality is not (entirely) nonsense. But you're going to write on enlightenment? Don't you have to be enlightened for that one?
There are limits to non-duality. Of what use was non-duality to an abolitionist? To the Allies? The most I can think of is that it would have a calming effect, but these two factions clearly were in posession of capital-T Truth.
Non-duality does not mean the Pandavas entirely forsake their claim.
> But you're going to write on enlightenment? Don't you have to be enlightened for that one?
Hah! Part of what I'm going to argue is that there's no binary here--there's no class of people that is separate and above the rest of us.
> There are limits to non-duality. Of what use was non-duality to an abolitionist? To the Allies? The most I can think of is that it would have a calming effect, but these two factions clearly were in posession of capital-T Truth.
This is a common rejoinder to proponents of non-duality or relativism. Maintaining a non-dual perspective doesn't mean arguing equally for both sides or never taking a stance. It means understanding the limitations of your own point of view, even as you defend it.
So an abolitionist doesn't have to think "maybe slavery is OK sometimes." But they do need to understand that nearly every human institution involves hierarchy; that society appears to work best when some people have power over others.
Abolitionism can be recast as a rejection of an extremist point of view: that some people should have *absolute* power over others. But you can be an abolitionist without being an anarchist.
The abolitionists were not anarchists, they were not confused on that point, and yet, within their society, they were the extremists: it took a lot of work to turn that around. Work that might not have happened if they were thinking about limitations to their view. It takes enlightenment to be a doubting fanatic: not many can do that. I don't reject the non-dual view, I just don't think it applies universally.
Contemporary politics would probably benefit from non-dual insight. But some situations do call for zealotry and the vanquishing of doubt, which both seem alien to the non-dual posture being advocated for here, though perhaps not to non-duality writ large: it is still non-dual insight to take 'as things alike to thee' peace and strife.
You definitely have to tread carefully before deciding you are playing for keeps, though. The Pandavas were the good guys because they were always questioning whether their cause was righteous.
Yeah I agree, sometimes the warrior mindset (to use Galef's term) is super useful. But more often than not it gets you into trouble.
If you're interested, I actually covered the infinite regress of balancing the non-dual mindset with the fanatical mindset here: https://superbowl.substack.com/p/beware-the-variable-maximizers#%C2%A7everything-in-moderation-including-moderation
> there's no class of people that is separate and above the rest of us.
Yeah, technically some strains of Buddhism argue that everyone is enlightened from beginninglessness. Still, having attained enlightenment (I say this because lots of esoteric stuff I previously read on enlightenment that originally mystified me now makes sense to me) there is a difference, which I can describe as: pre-enlightenment you're constantly getting knocked off the surfboard, post-enlightenment you are always riding the wave, even if it sometimes seems you're about to lose your balance. Or maybe you do fall off, but you inexplicably find yourself on the surfboard afterwards anyway. Kinda like Dr. Manhattan saying the first trick he learned was how to reconstitute himself: losing enlightenment then getting it back is the first trick of enlightenment. But initiation never ends.
Does this make me better than other people? I don't know or care. I know I'm better than I was before, and I do think I have something to teach. The next thing I'm writing is something I hope will enlighten at least some people, similar to how the Buddha once enlightened a guy by saying:
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.
Paradoxically, it may be necessary to make some kind of effort to get to enlightenment to actually get it, even if enlightenment is actually effortless. Practices, meditations, and readings are just piling up wood in your own funeral pyre: without enough wood, you can't properly self-immolate.
Yeah this is the issue with trying to treat "Taoism" as a single thing.
When I say "Taoist morality...doesn’t really outlaw or promote specific behaviors" I'm speaking specifically about the foundational texts, mainly the Tao Te Ching.
Taoism (like most major religions) has grown and spread and evolved to a point that you can defend pretty much any assertion about it.
This seems a bit flip to me. We don't just want 'the goodies'. Westerners just wanted to try to understand the religions, and in doing so, looked to their foundational texts. It turns out that just looking at the core texts without the centuries interpretation and cultural weight gives you a singular view of that religion.
Imagine a Japanese person came to you and asked to learn about Judaism. Would you teach them about reform, conservative and orthodox denominations, and further sects and their various interpretative differences, or would you start by handing them the Torah? Handing them the Torah would be both more and less informative, as it would teach about Judaism in a sense, but wouldn't actually tell them much meaningful about Judaism in practice or experience.
I think it's an interesting circumstance and outsider interpretations of core religious texts could, and arguably should inform mainline practice of that religious by examining the way these practices tend to accumulate meaning over time, sometimes to their detriment.