Buddhism and Non-Duality…
If Buddhism acknowledges no soul, then there should be fewer ‘dark nights of the soul’, and more sunshine and happiness. But it doesn’t always work that way, of course. Because dark nights of the soul are a good metaphor for something that probably has its basis elsewhere, and very possibly in our languages themselves, though it might be hard to know what is cause and what is effect, since all Indo-European languages are constructed similarly, no surprise, and so all have a certain amount of duality built in.
Now, I’ve never called myself a ‘non-dualist’ before, but not because I thought there was nothing there to discuss, but just because I thought that there was maybe not as much as most ‘non-dualists’ were implying. Because if non-duality specifically states that there is no separation between Atman (soul) and Brahman (ultimate reality), as Hinduism clearly states, then Buddhism dealt with that issue long ago by simply denying the existence of any soul, much less the cosmic one that classic Hinduism favors.
But the dualism of language persists, in which subjects do all kinds of things to objects which modern linguists and literary editors have no apologies for. Nothing happens by accident or without an actor acting upon a subject, passive voice be damned. A book written in English language passive voice will not be published in the USA, no matter how accurate or convincing. But Hindi is much more open to that phenomenon of language, so is Spanish, and presumably others.
So, we English speakers are the victims of our own critical thinking, which causes us so many problems of guilt by association with events over which we have no control. But if we insist that nothing happens by accident, then there we hang in the chasm of uncertainty, which is largely of our own creation, in that we create and mold our language to certain styles and norms. There lies much of the dark night of the soul. That’s why meditation is so helpful in reducing the inequities of language.













Reply