reply to post by filosophia
but it's not the non-duality itself that promotes altruism, rather the knowledge of non-duality.
You don't see a logical contradiction in that statement??
Non-duality cannot imply one thing over another. Your insistence that knowledge of non-duality promotes altruism is predicated in a assumption which
isn't based in anything more than your arbitrary opinion.
Again, and as I have emphasized, the concept of non-duality is central to nietzsche philosophy and an underpinning to much of his ethical brooding.
Ananda Coomaraswamy was an Indian scholar of hinduism and a proponent of 'perennialism', he as well propounded a philosophy in sympathy with
The point is this. What is the relationship between nonduality and action? Nonduality and action are mutually exclusive ideas, as one is merely a
perception of the loss of subject/object, and so even the idea of unity implies some rudiment of duality, while the latter occurs within the sphere of
Thus, in the end, a persons 'essential nature' determines his conduct in life. If he is naturally drawn to an emotional appreciation of the unity
between all parts, this will be his unique experience of 'nonduality'; however, other approaches exist, because other types of individuals exist.
Nonduality is a reality beyond the moral, as Nietzsche observed, beyond good and evil. Therefore, instead of identifying the essential unity of all
things in a loving embrace, and so emphasizing the role of love in the perception of nonduality, followers of Nietzsche, Coomaraswamy, William Blake,
Laveyan Satanism, or even in Sunni Islam, will choose to emphasize WILL, the attribute which precedes all differentiation and transcends all
One could well argue that Will, and Power, is more intrinsic to the world of nonduality than love, since love always implies some submission of the
self, and therefore freedom, to another, whereas will fully expresses the freedom inherent in the concept of nondualism.
So you see, there is no agreement. Some emphasize love, other's, will. And both are right from the viewpoint of non-duality.
In short, the idea that peace would result from a society which sees things in the terms of non duality is grossly wrong, as Hinduism shows us. In the
Hindu hierarchical society, theres a special place for each 'class' of people; and each class necessarily lives according to their essential nature.
Thus, the priestly class inclines to a full perception of nonduality, the lesser class is very philosophical, but being statesman and nobles, they
have the real world to deal with, which in turn exposes them to a different, less convivial appraisal of how nonduality works i.e. in terms of power.
Then you go lower and nonduality assumes a different form, in worship of nature gods, spirits, etc.
Nonduality is certainly good. It is thoroughly libertarian, socialistic, statist, anarchist etc. Since it necessarily conflicts with a world of forms
and difference, people must choose some direction, and not all choose the same.
edit on 11-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason