I want to discuss the illusion of duality and clarify that it is, in fact, an illusion. Many times, I hear people say, “Well, if he is part of non-duality, then he must exist within it, otherwise it wouldn’t be non-duality.” There are numerous instances where people try to suggest or imply the existence of duality. However, duality does not exist; it is a fictional construct.

Challenging Perception: The Illusion of Inside and Outside

To illustrate my point, I have a loop made of paper, not very thick. If I were to ask whether there is an inside and an outside of the loop, most people would respond affirmatively. It seems evident that there is an inside and an outside, particularly considering the loop’s thickness, which implies a clear distinction between the two. However, this understanding is mistaken and based on ignorance—ignorance of what is not known, what lies within the grasp of our limited perception.

Dissolving Distinctions and Challenging Duality

The crucial aspect that remains unseen is the twist in the loop. This twist transforms the loop into a Möbius strip, a surface that is continuous and without an inside or outside. So, let’s revisit the concept of duality. Does the existence of an inside and an outside imply that duality actually exists? No. How can one claim that duality is part of non-duality when duality was merely a fictional notion stemming from the belief in an inside and an outside? The loop was never truly a loop; it was always a Möbius strip, where distinctions between inside and outside dissolve.

Similarly, consider the analogy of the snake and the rope, a classic example used in Indian philosophy. If you mistake a piece of rope lying on the ground for a snake, the dualistic perspective would assert that both the snake and the rope coexist. However, this notion is absurd because the reality is that there is only a piece of rope. It was never a snake, just as the loop of paper was never a loop with an inside and an outside. You cannot argue that duality ever existed; it was a fictitious concept, fundamentally wrong.

Uniting Perspectives in the Pando Forest

Hence, you cannot claim that something that never truly existed must exist within something else to qualify as non-duality. When people assert that duality must be a part of non-duality, they are missing the point. They might cleverly argue that when you no longer perceive a division between duality and non-duality, then you will realize non-duality. However, this still implies the reality of duality in some manner, as if duality actually exists. But duality, like Dwelle, is fictional; it never existed.

To conclude, let me refer to another analogy I often use to illustrate this concept—the Pando forest in Utah. As you gaze upon it, you see numerous trees of varying heights, some healthy and thriving, others diseased and dying, with bugs feeding on them. However, what is often overlooked, the ignorance that persists, is that science has discovered that it is a single interconnected organism—a single root system with multiple stems. It is one entity, despite the mind’s tendency to assume separateness and individuality. Dwelle never existed; it was never separate to begin with. It has always been one unified entity

Categorized in: