Clarifying Polarity, Individuation, Difference vs Separateness or Homogenized Milk
There are some common confusions among spiritually-developing people that cause them needless suffering. One is the confusion of judgment with preference and discernment; that I addressed in a previous blogpost.
Another is the common view that polarities and differences/distinctions are the same as separateness.
Separateness is said to be “an illusion.” That’s another confusion that causes needless suffering.
In a nutshell, here are the distinctions I want to point to. There is no significance to the rows, just to the columns.
|
Separate |
Individuated |
Quantumly entangled |
Homogenized Milk |
|
Disjoined |
Distinguishable |
Embedded |
Sameness |
|
Units relating as billiard balls |
Contiguous |
Continuous |
Emptiness |
|
Pieces, parts, sections |
Inter-related |
Inter-being |
|
|
Self-contained |
Individualized |
Non-dual |
|
|
Free-standing, detached |
Polarity |
Spectrum |
|
|
Not integrated |
Opposite |
Organisms |
|
|
Not united |
Portions |
Ecologies |
|
|
Disjoined |
Systems |
Indra's Web/Net |
|
|
Divided |
Synergies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I say is that all the columns can be experienced as truth, but all are partial truths, from a truly non-dual perspective.
Let’s consider the universe, where the stars, planets, galaxies, plasma, photons, cosmic dust clouds, moons, asteroids, comets, and other items are. Most of us can see that while there are more or less dense “clumps” of matter it’s often blurry as to where the exact boundary of a clump is. The less dense the clump, the harder the boundary is to establish.
It becomes a bit arbitrary, what’s inside the boundary as “that sun” and what’s outside the boundary. We know so much about the distribution of “matter” related to a clump, we can tell that the clump simply gets less and less dense, the further from its center we get.
We can also see that all the matter in the universe is all the same atoms, elementary particles, and other “stuff,” just smeared across space into the more or less dense clumps, like a fingerpainting.
So are the stars and planets and moons distinguishable? Given our senses and our tools for extending our senses, like telescopes and microscopes, yes they are certainly distinguishable. Are they separate? Well, if the boundaries are so blurry, and we kinda arbitrarily draw the line about what is and is not “that clump,” then no, they are not separate.
Is it practically useful to study them and treat them as different? Certainly. If we want to land on the moon, we know exactly where we want to be: not half a mile inside nor half a mile beyond, the “surface” of the moon.
So for many practical purposes, we want to emphasize the differentiation, the individuation, of particular clumps of matter—all the while recognizing that they are entangled and embedded within something larger, not separate from it.
Another example we might look at is a circle drawn on a piece of paper. Is the circle separate from the paper? Obviously not. Is it distinguishable? Obviously so. Would it be practically useful to act on its differentiation from the whole paper? In many cases, yes, such as wanting to put some color or text inside it that would “stand out” to an observer.
Yet another example of individuated without being separate nor homogenized is waves in the ocean. If a big wave comes and knocks you down, it was “that wave,” not “the ocean.” Yet it’s easy to see the wave was merely individuated, not separate from all the rest of the ocean.
So what is “the truth” with regard to a clump of matter in the universe, or a circle on a piece of paper or a wave in the ocean? Can we recognize both its individualness and its not-two-ness? Does that require us to regard it as “separate” from other individuated “things?”
Clearly, it does not require the view of separateness. Two circles on the paper, two clumps of matter in the cosmos, two waves in the ocean, are distinguishable, but that doesn’t mean we need to abandon our awareness, our perception, of all the ways they are entangled, embedded, “not-two.” They are “universal stuff” or “paper” or “ocean water,” without being homogeneously that. The distinctions can be important to us, without the necessity of regarding them as “separate” from their larger “selves.”
Just so, can we not regard other humans, and other creatures, as distinct, individuated yet not have to regard them as separate? Can we see ourselves as clumps or portions of consciousness and also see that’s not the same as seeing ourselves as “separate?”
And what about polarities, opposites? It is often said that this is a universe of opposites and therefore seeing any opposites or polarities means we are regarding them as “separateness” from “The One.”
Looking closely at polarities or opposites, can we see them as ends of a single spectrum? Can we see that neither pole nor opposite makes any sense without the other? So how can they be “separate?”
Yet, without being separate, clearly we experience them as different from each other. We certainly know when we are too hot and don’t mistake that for being too cold! So again for study and for practical purposes, the differences, the individuation, are important to us. We can experience those without regarding them as “separate” from each other.
I can see the heartfelt reasons for wanting to turn the universe into homogenized milk. Within the perspective of “separateness” is generated a lot of hatred, violence, harm, and many kinds of suffering. For people who live within that perspective as their reality, those are the experiences. So it’s real as far as their experience could tell, even if it’s not “real” from a more zoomed-out perspective. The haunted house at Disneyland can evoke real fear.
So I’m suggesting that spiritual seekers of the Oneness of All, of Non-duality, not be confused, not fall into the trap of creating a new version of separateness by separating “separateness” from ‘individuated” from “entangled” and from “The One.”
Can we live in the apparent paradox of “Many” and “One” that the non-dual perspective requires and resolves?
No comments:
Post a Comment