Latest post:

Dualism
December 5th, 2016 (December 6th, 2016)
illustration

illustration (attribution, if any possible, is at the end of the article)

Dualism

Anyone interested in Buddhism will sooner or later (usually sooner) come across warnings against dualism… or against beliefs in duality, in inherent separateness, in biased perceptions and blind spots.

And almost anyone will continue their lives unchanged, maybe by rushing back to the "two truths" doctrine (oh irony!) to justify that the conventional world exists and cannot be ignored… thereby not learning anything!

It might seem to most people that there's no practical application of oneness / non-dualism / rejecting black&white caricatures and living mindfully in the midst of levels of greys and myriads of colours… because the world appears such a caricature at times.

And yet there is a direct application… Moreover, if the world is / remains a caricature, it's precisely because most people perpetuate it this way, by being negligent or complacent, and by not providing the necessary effort to go 'beyond'.


From Europe, the 'proof' of the inadequacy of dualism appears clearly in how Americans deal with climate change.

By phrasing the question in dualistic term (yes or no, no nuance), it appears 'fair' to offer 50%-50% representation… although this is absurd when 97% of scientists consider climate change a measurable, undeniable fact and only 3% consider it's at best unclear and at worst misleading, or when among 1,868 climate scientists (with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate), 90% agree that human production of greenhouse gases is the main cause of global warming.

Dualism is the stupidity which transforms a "very probable but not certain" into the ultra-naïve "50%–50%".

Many Europeans imagine themselves as smarter than Americans on climate change, thanks to not falling into the stupidity of transforming a 97%–3% consensus into a 50%–50% lottery (letting greed for cheap petrol overcome reason — forgetting that no one will count money for long if no one can breathe anymore!)… And yet…

British people recently fell for an equivalently flawed reasoning… on Brexit! While the ultra vast majority of experts considered Brexit to be a sure negative or at least a danger not worth taking, the media and the general population felt it was supposedly 'fair' to give equivalent coverage to both sides, just because the question was a dualistic "yes/no"! After the stupidest vote in a few generations, the British people are now left wondering what they voted for, wondering what Brexit actually means? The shallowness of a dualistic 'no', with no nuance, no program, no plan has been exposed, but it's too late…

And then, of course, Americans apparently didn't want to lose the lead in dualistic errors… so they considered that 'fair' representation of the presidential campaign required equal coverage in spite of unequal programs… thus repeating the fallacies of "false balance," "false equivalence" and "false dilemma" already seen about climate change, or about gun ownership (as it happens 3% of the population owning 50% of guns, and 78% of the population owning no gun at all).

In a blind defence of the American version of "free speech", untruths and plain lies were considered equally legitimate to truths and facts!

And no one would ever review the past to consider potential errors, e.g. to admit that, although Romney was rudely mocked for considering Russia the main geopolitical risk during the 2012 campaign (e.g. by the NYT who, in 2016, also buried Sanders under an avalanche of ridiculous bias), it turns out that Russia proves indeed to be a key risk in Ukraine, in Syria, and even in the USA (after e.g. a hack of the DNC and interference with election, and all the more so now that Trump is ready to sell the country as long as there's a personal profit for him in doing so)!

Europeans are of course competing still… e.g. setting themselves up for many black&white elections in the near future.

No doubt e.g. the two candidates on the second round of presidential election in France will be offered misleadingly 'fair' coverage of the 50%–50% type (with an administrative authority in place to check and ensure that!) even though rigorous assessment of the programs would probably mean a 80%–20% representation would be 'fairer'.

For the Buddha, it is patently erroneous to believe that one 'person' is that person's thoughts!


The stupidity of dualism is found in e.g. considering two persons, two candidates, two sides, as having "equal human dignity"… then, by transitivity, considering that their ideas or programs also have "equal legitimacy" or "equal dignity" too. But, no, Human rights protect humans from abuse: they do not —and should not— protect flawed and unwholesome ideas from criticism, assessment or valid reasoning… nor should they offer undue representation to unwholesome ideas, by clinging to some prejudiced concept of 50%–50% when it doesn't apply!


Hopefully, it should become clear that there are a practical and direct application of warnings against dualism, a direct application of practices to go beyond, and practical consequences of opening one's mind to wider perpectives, of seeing beyond one's own self-centred opinions, of including others into one's considerations and ethical choices.

As Socrates in ancient Greece had already figured out, emotions are not good to vote upon: « a system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true. » Democracies are only valid forms of government if people make the effort to be informed, to discern truths from lies and half-truths from plain manipulation, and to manifest solidarity (not selfishness) with others: "the good of the many" is hard to discern when populist politicians manipulate emotions (to short-circuit reason) and when both blind consumerism and survival instincts advocate selfishness as a virtue… It's hard and yet, what does it mean to be human or to be wise? To merely be enslaved by unexamined impulses (desires and aversions) arising from our ignorant subconscious? I don't think so.

For the Buddha, it is patently erroneous to believe that one 'person' is that person's emotions!


If you think Buddhism is not relevant to politics, the Maha-parinibbana sutta (DN 16), « the last days of the Buddha » when he cared about his legacy as he saw his death approaching, should fix that: it includes a whole section on the welfare of nations:
«
the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?" [no abstention in election then…]

"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline. What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?" [no legitimisation of discriminations then…]

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline. What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?" [neither gerrymandering nor voter suppression then…]

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline. What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to listen to them?" [debate then, and experience and expertise and lessons from the past considered… not competitions of "ad hominem" fallacies…]

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline. What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?" [not treating women as cattle or objects then…]

"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline. What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due offerings as given and made to them formerly?" [no new war of religions then…]

"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that they do not deprive them of their offerings."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline. What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline."

And the Blessed One addressed the brahman Vassakara in these words: "Once, brahman, I dwelt at Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine, and there it was that I taught the Vajjis these seven conditions leading to (a nation's) welfare. So long, brahman, as these endure among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline."

Thereupon the brahman Vassakara spoke thus to the Blessed One: "If the Vajjis, Venerable Gotama, were endowed with only one or another of these conditions leading to welfare, their growth would have to be expected, not their decline. What then of all the seven? No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord."
»
[and for those fond of History, it seems that the Vajjis unfortunately did let serious "discord" arise (maybe by not tackling illegitimate, treacherous views decisively enough?), and they then lost a war against the Magadha kingdom some time later.]

#EngagedBuddhism