Why does modern West & East Eurasia hate dualism so much?

[Anonymous No.13432649]

I honestly do not get this fixation on the One, whether it is monotheism, nondualism, or monism. There are many convincing dualistic explanations of reality too from Early Buddhists, Mandeans, Manichaeists, Zoroastrians, to Cathars. Moreover, there are a lot of good West Eurasian children's book and horror writers or illustrators, which can help aesthetically base a cosmological and moral dualism. I feel as if there is an obsession with delegimitizing all vertical-styled ontology in favor of one equalizing horizontal plane (e.g., Deleuze and Derrida). Even Schopenhauer admitted there is something "more" to the dualistic worldview, which has not been fully explored by any Western philosopher, even though he himself was a nondualist. Please point to me ONE Western philosopher who takes dualist rhetoric seriously.

Sometimes I feel like this obsession with attacking all dualism has its basis in some kind of psychological complex or grudge. It's not uncommon to come across Westerners who lump all dualism as silly Star Wars of metaphysics, but it can be more nuanced than that. Let's be clear, the Abrahamic faiths, outside of nondualism, are NOT dualistic. Moral command theory does not lead to dualism but rather a kind of arbitrary obedience to the One, which is in some sense amoral. After all, the Abrahamic God created BOTH good and evil as the uncreated first cause whereas this isn't the case in dualistic systems.

My earnest effort is to make dualism acceptable in academic discourse once more. Mani, for example, was an interesting figure who argued for a cosmological dualist worldview that promoted antinatalism and veganism. It annoys me how Thomas Ligotti's completely ignored this style of pessimism in TCATHR. This obsession with the One, in fact, leads to some kind of nihilism. .

It's as if modern Westerners can see no dualism beyond politics. The dualism of left and right is way more arbitrary than the one between light & darkness, good & evil, and so forth.

It took me 2 years to convince my friend, who has a MS in philosophy, into believing the validity of dualistic rhetoric, which involved writing a 3000 word philosophical argument critiquing nondualism, monism, and monotheism. This idea we have moved from dualism to the validity of the One is nonsensical, and no one is as guilty as perpetuating this myth as Guenon and his disgusting, retarded fanboys. Older Buddhism, for example, was dualistic. Modern Mahayana Buddhism with its obsession on nondualism is adharma and a reflection of a kind of bug mentality.

Some events, actions, or whatever are definitively bad or good and this can be reflection of deeper ontological realities that do not necessarily blur or unite, that is they exist in a conflicting tension! Read more high-quality picture books and horror stories and tacitly apprehend their irrevocable contrast!

[Anonymous No.13432660]

because non-dualism includes dualism. it’s a package deal. why would i take the lesser offer? if i subscribe to nondualism i acknowledge that on a certain level reality bifurcates into opposing principles, but that this conflict is resolved in a higher reality. with dualism i have the conflict without the resolution

[Anonymous No.13432694]

>>13432649
In my opinion it's because once you reach a certain point intellectually and spiritually it eventually becomes undeniable that all dualism is subsumed into a higher unity. Not all schools of non-dualism trash dualism, some integrate it beautifully and with great care into their metaphysics, only to smoothly lead to something beyond it; Jnanadeva's works are a great example of this.

[Anonymous No.13432698]

I don't see any argument in this post, only you trying to larp as a Persian. Recommend a book that will btfo non-dualism instead of posting a wall of text interspersed with irrelevant opinions.

[Anonymous No.13432702]

>>13432660
Why do you assume before the bifurcation into opposing principles, there is a One? It could be there was technically nothing before the bifurcation, or that both principles are uncreated in themselves.
There are many potential resolutions, such as that in the end times one side beats the other, or they continue their cycling combat. You are making a causal jump by saying that just because nondualism "includes" dualism, it is more sensible. In fact, nondualism in some sense eradicates the real contrast between the two, so it does not technically include them.
The higher reality is obviously the good divorced from the evil, not a neutral reality that encompasses both! One can experience a light without darkness or a darkness without light, and this, indeed, has great implications, which you sweep under the rug.
When you have experiences of each extreme absorption, it is typically in one side or the other, and you are mistaking that for nondualism.

[Anonymous No.13432717]

>>13432649
I can only say "why the fuck" as in why would it be dualistic when it adds unneeded complexity and does not allow complete unity

[Anonymous No.13432726]

Metaphysical infinity contains within it all possibilities of manifestation. Thus, any notion of dualistic good that has a polar manifestation of dualistic evil cannot be absolute good, since it does not contain within itself metaphysical infinity.

[Anonymous No.13432731]

>>13432698
I've written a more philosophically astute text, which I will share in a second.
These are what I recommend:
1) Gathas translated by Mary Boyce and Piloo Nanavutty -- I recommend reading both translations

2) Cologne Mani Codex, Shabhuragan, and just Manichaeist fragments that were uncovered

3) Some general descriptions of Cathars I guess, though I need to study them more

I can give my text now:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zt6gj9eiywqaap9/Questioning%20the%20Modern%20Obsession%20with%20the%20One.docx?dl=0

I will make it private again after this topic closes. I actually wrote a Zurvanite scripture awhile back, but I am dropping those views after becoming more dualistic. I do not believe in a Zurvan that encompasses both Ahura Mazda and Ahriman anymore. My form of dualism was motivated by the intentions, states of mind (Mainyu), and so forth behind artistic creation (e.g., children's books versus horror stories). I will write another scripture.

[Anonymous No.13432739]

>>13432717
Reality is an interplay of conflicting kinds, such as good and evil, expressed in states of mind, actions, or processes. You don't need "unity". There is only "unity" with good or evil, but you cannot have unity with both since their contrast is irreconcilable. A picture book and horror story cannot be one.

[Anonymous No.13432748]

>>13432726
The Good is infinite onto itself. There are multiple irreconcilable infinities. The wise pick the good.

[Anonymous No.13432766]

>>13432702
>Why do you assume before the bifurcation into opposing principles, there is a One?
2 = 1 + 1. one is the only number and all other numbers are just repetitions of it. e.g. 7 = 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. Furthermore, a numerical one is divisible, and thus only an image of a true unity that it conceptually presupposes
> It could be there was technically nothing before the bifurcatio
i don’t believe in creation ex nihilo
>that both principles are uncreated in themselves
im fine with that, the simultaneity of the different levels of reality is plausible in my book. i dont require that the One created the Two at some point in time
>in the end times one side beats the other
i consider the Two to be metaphysical principles, thus they are not subject to time any more than the One is
> in some sense eradicates the real contrast between the two, so it does not technically include them.
it doesn’t because it exists on a different level. thus they cannot come into conflict. if i live on the third floor and i shoot a bullet straight out the window, and you live on the second floor, there is zero chance the bullet will hit you. we are on different levels and cannot conflict. a crude metaphor. sorry.
>not a neutral reality
in my opinion, it is neutral. definitely not good. it is beyond good and evil

[Anonymous No.13432771]

>>13432748
There can't be multiple infinities. That is self contradicting. You are thinking of the term indefinite, nor infinite. Infinity, metaphysically speaking, is completely without limit and cannot have anything outside of it or be bounded by any manifestation, for then it would be limited and not be infinite. Good and Evil are particular forms of manifestation and cannot be considered infinity for they do not contain infinite potential within them (the good cannot manifest evil thus making it not infinite)

[Anonymous No.13432775]

>>13432731
>I actually wrote a Zurvanite scripture awhile back
oh, you’re THAT guy. i remember you sharing your text on traditionalist facebook groups

[Anonymous No.13432776]

>>13432698
>>13432731
Also, I forgot Mandaeans. You can read their basic worldview on encyclopedias.

[Anonymous No.13432789]

>>13432771
The point I mean is that the expression of good or evil are inexhaustible. Good and evil do not have to be forms if we take their qualia as to be indicative of some numinous ontological properties.

[Anonymous No.13432797]

>>13432789
You have to elaborate on that more. It is not clear what you are saying with the philosophical terminology
> their qualia as to be indicative of some numinous ontological properties.

[Anonymous No.13432803]

>>13432789
>inexhaustible
that’s another way of saying “indefinite”. that anon is right, infinity is beyond any qualification such as good or evil. furthermore the finite presupposes the infinite, so if you acknowledge the existence of the finite you implicitly acknowledge the infinite

[Anonymous No.13432806]

>>13432766
>im fine with that, the simultaneity of the different levels of reality is plausible in my book. i dont require that the One created the Two at some point in time
That means you're okay with dualism then.
>it doesn’t because it exists on a different level.
The levels could trickle into one another based on states of mind (Mainyu) or what have you.
>in my opinion, it is neutral. definitely not good. it is beyond good and evil
This risks antinomian tendencies. If you acknowledge a dualism, then one has to pick between good or evil. One can choose to become good or evil to the best of his or her abilities.
>one is the only number and all other numbers are just repetitions of it.
One can also be divided into 0.5. Why use mathematics as proof for ontology? Something like instrumentalism or constructivism is correct. You cannot use math to pointing to metaphysics, which is unfalsifiable in nature. There can be two Ones in conflict.

[Anonymous No.13432818]

>>13432806
>There can be two Ones in conflict.
Two ones in conflict means they can no longer be considered "ones" in the first place, insofar as one defines the one as containing all within it.

[Anonymous No.13432823]

>>13432806
>That means you're okay with dualism then
I am ok with dualism, as i said originally—on a certain level. above the dualism is the nondual
>antinomian
i think antinomianism can be legit for some people. i don’t consider myself one of them though. different people have different physical, psychological, and spiritual constitutions. different practices and religious modes will suit different people
>One can also be divided into 0.5
i addressed that in my post

[Anonymous No.13432825]

>>13432797
My essay goes into it more. What I am saying is if states of mind associated with bliss, tranquility, and peace cannot BLUR with anguish, despair, and pain. The three antidotes of generosity, loving-kindness, and wisdom are in fundamental conflict and separation from greed, hatred, and delusion. This has ontological implications leading to verticality, where goodness is closer to enlightenment, Truth, or what have you. The problem with the modern era is this verticality has been abandoned in favor of horizontality where evil is fundamentally not distinct from the good.
>>13432803
Both good and evil can be infinite unto themselves. I do not know what you guys are saying. "Infinity" is already a nebulous concept in itself. It can be expressed differently depending on the metaphysical assumptions at play.

[Anonymous No.13432846]

>>13432825
>infinite unto themselves
they can’t. the word infinite is a negative term made up of two parts in-finite in = not, finite = limited. if good was infinite it would include evil, since to not include something would be a limitation, but to be infinite means precisely to not have limitations. furthermore, you can’t have the finite without the infinite. since if something is finite (limited) it is necessarily a limitation of *something*. if that “something” is itself finite than that “something” is a limitation of something else. this chain of reason necessarily leads to a “something” which has no limitations, otherwise it has no coherence. you can’t have limitation without the presupposition of an unlimited

[Anonymous No.13432847]

>>13432818
>>13432823
Listen, you both don't understand what I am pointing to. The mind that embodies bliss, tranquility, and peace can never become blur, become one or non-distinct, with the mind that embodies anguish, despair, and pain. They are fundamentally dual, and they both have an infinite level of expression. The intentions of generosity, loving-kindness, and wisdom form a definitive, discrete border between greed, hatred, and delusion. They exist in TENSION, not cosmic harmony. This is phenomenological obvious to a man who carefully observes his or her mind even in deep samadhi. The problem with the modern era is this verticality has been abandoned in favor of horizontality where evil is fundamentally not distinct from the good. It in fact, ignores the differences of qualia and the activities that come from them.

[Anonymous No.13432853]

>>13432846
I am literally arguing for two intersecting worlds that are infinite. We do not live in just one world. Even early Buddhism would say where we stand in the vertical cosmology involves aspects of the upper or lower realms trickling here.

There are two worlds and we are in the midst of their battleground.

[Anonymous No.13432859]

>>13432847
you aren’t listening to the point i’m making about levels. the good and the evil exclude one another on their particular level. a higher level of reality is another question. a higher level of reality cannot conflict with a lower one. in a certain sense good and evil don’t even exist on the nondual level. we say they are “united” or resolved to one another only in a somewhat figurative sense

[Anonymous No.13432868]

>>13432853
if one of those worlds is infinite than it includes the other one, otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite. it would be limited by that second world. i don’t think you understand the concept of infinity

[Anonymous No.13432872]

>>13432859
I am saying there are two worlds while this one, we inhabit, is in the midst of their battleground. Moments defined by bliss, tranquility, and peace are closer to the heavens whereas moments defined by anguish, despair, and pain are closer to the hells. This is why we can use the proxy of spenta art vs. angra art to understand the nature of the upper vs. the lower.

[Anonymous No.13432879]

>>13432868
Real infinity does not necessarily dictate an infinite world into containing its opposite.

[Anonymous No.13432881]

>>13432872
i have no problem with that. as long as their is a higher metaphysical nondual level above this three tiered world cosmology.

[Anonymous No.13432886]

>>13432879
if something does not contain something else than it is finite. it’s a pretty simple concept

[Anonymous No.13432890]

>>13432881
There is a reality that cancels both, but there is not a reality that ever blurs or encompasses both of them.

[Anonymous No.13432894]

>>13432890
the non dual does not blur the dual. they are on different levels, so i agree with you

[Anonymous No.13432904]

>>13432894
The way early Buddhism describes Nirvana is that it is a canceling of both up and down, not a blurring. Both the higher and lower realms are tainted by Dukkha, but enlightenment is possible only through climbing the ladder, not descending. Wisdom only exists in the good, not the bad.

[Anonymous No.13432919]

>>13432904
that sounds like a “right hand” non dualism to me. you can only attain nirvana (“the canceling of up and down”) by conforming to the good, but once you attain nirvana the good and the evil no longer exist for you. that’s a right hand path to non dualism

[Anonymous No.13432933]

>>13432919
I can agree with that. However, I would argue only the right hand path is valid and the left hand path is misguided and wrong, hence why the modern era is deteriorating.

[Anonymous No.13432944]

>>13432933
i tend to disagree, in that i consider the left hand path to be effective in very exceptional cases, but i do not consider myself such a case or recommend such a path to anyone.

[Anonymous No.13432957]

>>13432944
I have to go, so we have to agree to disagree in the mean time. I think in many cases of the left-hand paths, people mistaken themselves to be enlightenmed due to selfishness.

[Anonymous No.13432987]

>>13432957
ok, lastly ill just say that i think you have a mistaken notion of what the left hand path actually is. left hand path is not evil in an unqualified sense. it involves precisely calculated methods that have an evil appearance, or are evil in an exterior way only, e.g. sex rituals and illicit substances. but its paramount in every legitimate left hand path that the practitioner does mot succumb internally to these evil influences but keeps himself inwardly detached from them. he is merely using these practices as a springboard to inward illumination. the reason a left hand path is dangerous is because most people do succumb to the influences, but the whole point is to expose yourself to these powers without succumbing to them internally

[Anonymous No.13433490]

because dualism is for gay retards
duh

[Anonymous No.13433512]

>>13432987
You cannot separate intentions and actions. When they do those evil things, they are evil in that moment.
>>13433490
Nope, you are, and you will most likely go to hell.

[Anonymous No.13433533]

>>13433512
great comeback bruh

[Anonymous No.13433700]

dualism itself implies nondualism, monism, the One, or whatever you want to call it.

[Anonymous No.13433771]

>>13432649
Descartes mind-body dualism
Plato world of forms- shadows
*dabs*