One Begets Two

Dec 12, 2015 | | Say something

The basis of numerology is that numbers have specific characteristics that can be examined both objectively (by their mathematical qualities) and subjectively (by their impressions on the psyche). They are archetypes of sorts. The number 1 indicates an all-encompassing completeness… like we can say the universe is ‘one’, as there is nothing beyond it. Similarly we could say that truth is ‘one’, since truth is all that is… it is all that exists. We could even say that gravity is ‘one’ since it is everywhere.

These are redundant statements however and expose a flaw of human rationality. For example if I say, ‘the blue sky’, it is redundant because the sky is always blue. Furthermore it divides my perception of reality into blue sky and not-blue sky. While the sky is always blue (1), I have now created the idea of a not-blue sky (2), and we have a duality.

So the 1 begets the 2… and duality is created WITHIN the 2: the one and the not-one. However there is also a duality BETWEEN the 1 and the 2. That is why duality is confusing… the source or observer (1) is on one hand separate to the duality (between the 1 and the 2) and on the other hand is an intrinsic component of it (within the 2).

A clear distinction must be made between Truth and the IDEA of truth. The two are diametrically opposed. The idea of truth continually reinforces its individuation… and the antithesis, which is falsehood, sticks to it like a shadow, forever contradicting it. The idea is a positive assertion that creates duality. And truth forever remains beyond the idea; the word is not the thing.

 

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

~ Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1

 

As the 1 continues to assert its sense of individuated oneness, the 2 continues to be created. The 1 is the self, forever asserting itself… and yet never separated from the 2, never separated from anything. The self is an idea. So long as the 1 is present, the 2 will also exist; the 1 is an ILLUSION OF SELF, with its inherent duality. And the truth is that there is no separation… the separation is the illusion.

An idea is fictional, and can only ‘exist’ if there is belief in it. And in order to survive, an idea needs to be true for all time… yesterday, today and tomorrow. Like a law of physics must stand the test of time to be considered truth. The consciousness of the individuated self therefore is always outside of present moment awareness, as attention is dissipated into past and future.

There is a desire to bring an end to the inevitable duality (2), which is conflict. So can the self or the observer (1) stop asserting its individuated oneness? And the motive for this enquiry is Now, who is the questioner that is asking this question… is he separate from the question, as a subject is separated from an object? If so then the answer must be, ‘No’ – because in asking the question he still continues to assert his individuated oneness.

We have seen that duality is itself dual in nature… with the observer on one hand part of the duality and on the other hand separate to the duality. It is really an impossible situation to resolve rationally.

So the observer is in a position to see clearly how the process of individuation works, and how it breeds conflict through duality. And from this clarity he can also see that he, the observer, is the observed… and that without an individuated observer (1) there is no duality (2); only seeing. Hereby the 2 begets the 3, the number of synthesis.

Seeing is not the same as understanding intellectually… as the latter requires a separate subject and object. In seeing, there is no resistance to what is being seen… since there is no first person, no “I”, to resist. But without clarity one will see the process only in relation to the self, the wheel of duality will continue to spin round.

 

A mind that has understood the whole movement of thought becomes extraordinarily quiet, absolutely silent. That silence is the beginning of the new. 

~ J Krishnamurti

 

Posted in: Esoteric, Favorite, Philosophy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Share