|
Non-Dualism The Ultimate Semantic
Air Freshener By the druid Finn Ah, Non-Dualism. That exquisitely vague
commodity, the artisanal metaphysical incense so many have been burning for
centuries to mask the acrid smell of doctrinal contradiction. Let us
take a moment to admire the ingenuity of Adi Shankara—the Brahmin priest par
excellence—who perfected this little trick. See, when
your entire job description requires you to solemnly declare that the Vedas
contain literally all knowledge ever worth having (don’t bother looking
elsewhere, peasant), you face a sticky problem: ·
Your primary source material can’t agree
with itself for more than half a page. ·
One verse proclaims Oneness—pure,
undivided being. ·
The next insists on Duality—eternal
distinction between self and absolute. What to
do? Admit the Upanishads were stitched together by competing factions with
incompatible views? Of course not! Instead,
you invent the metaphysical equivalent of a blank cheque: Non-dualism! A term so
luminously empty it can be all things to all people while committing you to precisely nothing. The Prestige of Saying Nothing (But Saying It Solemnly) Let’s be
clear: non-dual is a purely negative definition. It’s literally just: ·
“Not two.” That’s
it. That’s the whole revelation. Does it
tell you what it is? Instead,
it functions as a kind of semantic decoy, floating serenely above the
fray: ·
When challenged, it shrugs: “Oh, you poor
dualist fool. Reality is beyond such petty categories.” ·
When pressed for specifics: “Neti, neti—not
this, not that.” ·
When asked for any positive description: “Well,
it’s non-dual.” It is the
philosophical equivalent of replying to every question with an enigmatic
smirk and a whiff of sandalwood. Shankara’s Career in Semantic Alchemy Remember,
Shankara was not merely a speculative hobbyist. He was a Brahmin priest with
an institutional interest in never admitting that scriptural contradiction
was a real problem. To do
that, he needed: 1. A
rhetorical mechanism to dissolve any binary without choosing sides. 2. A concept
so elastically vacuous that it could envelop every passage in the Upanishads. 3. A term
that sounded both profound and unassailable. Et voilŕ:
Non-dualism—the
ultimate hermeneutic solvent. This
allowed him to maintain the fiction that he was merely “interpreting” rather
than innovating. Because, as everyone knows, innovation is bad—especially
if you’re paid to be the living mouthpiece of texts that are allegedly
perfect. The Genius of the Scheinposition Some
philosophers labour for decades to resolve contradictions. Shankara realized
you don’t need to resolve them at all. You just need to wrap them in a term
whose entire semantic content is a negation of specificity. Non-dualism
is the Scheinposition par excellence: ·
Schein (German): appearance,
semblance. ·
Position: something pretending to be
an actual thesis. What does
it really do? ·
It suspends adjudication of whether
reality is one, many, neither, or both. ·
It deflects critique by never stating
anything positively verifiable. ·
It preserves Brahminical hegemony by
guaranteeing that any challenge can be waved away as “ignorance.” Ingenious.
In the same way that saying, “This statement is not false,” doesn’t
tell you if it’s true, non-dualism doesn’t tell you anything about
reality—only about the speaker’s determination to look transcendently
superior. “Isn’t Ain’t”—A Reality Check Under the
principle of “isn’t ain’t”—that negation is
never evidence of existence—non-dualism is exposed for what it is: A
metaphysical screensaver. It does
not reveal reality. Conclusion: A Shimmering Mirage So the next time you hear
someone intone, “All is non-dual,” take a moment to admire the
centuries of intellectual stagecraft that made this possible: ·
A word that says nothing. ·
A doctrine that commits to nothing. ·
A priesthood that pretends this is everything. Non-dualism: because
why choose between monism and dualism when you can invent a
word that erases both, while implying you alone understand the secret? Bravo,
Shankara. You turned “not two” into a career. And like all good semantic
decoys, it will keep fluttering in the wind long after the rest of us have
grown tired of pretending it means something. |