Chapter 12 (Are There One or Two?)

Monism and dualism

Is the world made of many things or only one thing that can be fashioned into different shapes or appearances? This can be called the problem of one or two (or many).

Monism views everything as one even if things appear different. Philosophers define different types of monism. Here we will be mostly concerned with substance monism which asserts that everything is made of one basic substance or priority monism which states that everything is derived from a single source. We won’t be concerned with the epistemological theory that the thing being known and the knowledge of it are the same or monism as a theory in international law.

Dualism can be defined as any instance when we divide things into two fundamental types. This can be as simple as these things are mine while those things are yours or good vs. bad. Dualistic thinking refers to our tendency to see the world as divided into two opposites. Philosophers consider there to be different types of dualism that somewhat parallel the types of monism. Substance dualism concerns what the world is made of and can that stuff be divided into two types. Theological dualism holds that there are two opposing forces in the world, good and evil. What is sometimes called property dualism argues that there is only one substance but it can have different appearances such as mind and matter (which could be seen as a form of hidden monism). Within the spiritual realm, the core ontological question is can the world be divided into spirit and matter or are they both made of the same stuff?

Monism and dualism in the East

The earliest evidence of monistic thinking seems to be in the oldest Hindu literature. The tenth book of the Rig Veda (1200–900 BCE), the Hymn of Non-Being (The Nasadiya Sukta) contains speculation of a single underlying reality. The Upanishads (800–500 BCE) continue discussion of there being one underlying unchanging reality from which everything else originates. The Upanishads explore different ideas about this entity called Brahman and its relationship to the individual (the Atman) but never reach a definitive conclusion.

Shankara

The speculations in the Upanishads come to a conclusion later in the thinking of the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Working in the Vedanta tradition, Shankara was a strict monist. He believed all is Brahman. The soul in us (the Atman) is the same as Brahman. Shankara talks of the world as being an illusion. In The Crest Jewell of Discrimination, he provides two different meanings for what is the illusion. Early he states that anything which is impermanent is not real. Thus, he effectively defines the problem away by saying since everything in this world is impermanent, the world is an illusion. However later in this same work he talks of the essence of a clay jar as being clay. The essence of anything else made of clay is still clay although it may be fashioned into a clay mug, plate or something else. This is seeing the world as an illusion in a different way. All the world is made of Brahman but Brahman can be fashioned into the wide array of physical objects and even spirit. If one thinks of Brahman as God, then you are God but so is everything else. Almost universally when the story of the Upanishads is summarized in the West its core conclusion “tat tvam asi” is interpreted “you are that” which is attributable to the influence of Shankara.

Successors to Shankara in the Vedanta tradition would postulate different visions. Ramanuja (1077-1157 CE) would adopt a view of qualified monism. Brahman and Atman are made of the same substance but in form are not exactly the same. A later philosopher Madva (13th-14th century CE) would adopt a dualistic view that Brahman and Atman are not the same. In other words, you aren’t that.

Samkhya

While the interpretations of Shankara would come to dominate the Vedanta tradition, Samkhya would adopt a clear dualistic view. Samkhya would describe a dualism between spirit and matter having two entities: 1) prakriti or matter and 2) purusha or consciousness. Prakriti is the primordial source of the physical and mental universes. Purusha is pure consciousness. Here, mental activity or the mind is considered part of the physical world. It is thus unlike mind/brain dualism in the West where brain is the physical substance and mind is mental activity. Here the mind is considered a sense organ, lying on the physical side of the universe.

Prakriti can’t see or know anything and purusha can’t do anything. Samkhya philosophers illustrate this in the analogy of the blind man and the lame man. The blind man (prakriti) can’t see anything but can walk. The lame man (purusha) can see but can’t do anything since he can’t walk. However, if the blind man carries the lame man on his shoulders, the lame man can direct the blind man. Thus, when the two are together in the human body they generate a functional unit, however uneasy the alliance may be.

When it is separated from prakriti, purusha is a pure unbiased observer who can see the world as it really is. However, purusha’s vision becomes clouded and tainted when it becomes too involved with prakriti. When purusha becomes dragged into worldly concerns over money, the mental activities and desires of living, it loses its objectivity. Liberation comes about by understanding this distinction and releasing purusha from its bondage to prakriti. This is accomplished through the practices of Yoga as described in the Yoga Sutras (chapter 7).

Buddhism

Buddhism is not clearly monistic or dualistic. The Buddha never affirmed the idea of a self or soul. The question itself seems like one of those that the Buddha discouraged speculation about arguing that this knowledge was unnecessary and speculating about it was only a hinderance to making progress on the spiritual path. Mahayana Buddhist schools would emphasize the notion of emptiness (Śūnyatā). If all things are empty this could be seen as a statement that all things are the same and thus an endorsement of monism. However, the aim here seems to be a type of realization rather than a metaphysical theory postulating one substance as the underlying stuff found in all reality. Buddhist often speak of non-duality which again could be interpreted as a nod towards monism but Buddhists thinking never posits any single substance as the underlying basis of all reality. Instead of monism or dualism, Buddhism argues that all things are "not two," being empty of inherent self-existence while at the same time existing and being interdependent. The mind and body are neither identical nor different. As in many other areas Buddhism is an outlier on this subject.

Chinese monism in Confucius and Daoism

The general philosophy of Confucius is probably best described as monistic. Confucius emphasized a unified view of the universe with the individual's quest being to achieve a union with Tian (heaven) through a process of self-cultivation. Daoism while very different in its approach to the world from Confucius, is also monistic in its view. Unlike the concrete problem-oriented approach of Confucianism, Daoism took a decidedly non-conformist approach. Central to Daoist metaphysics is existence of an entity called the Dao. The Dao is usually translated as “the way” or “the way of nature”. The Dao is the source of the universe, although it is not a creator god. It is not any particular thing but it generated all things and is in all things. It has elements of being a transcendent pure being. Yet, it is immanent in that it is present here and now. The Dao has an impersonal quality and the Dao De Jing says that the Dao is “no special lover of humanity.” The Dao owes humans no favors. Yet, humans thrive when they attune themselves to the way of the Dao. This view of the Dao is clearly monistic.

Chinese dualism in yin and yang

Yet despite the monistic tendencies in Confucianism and Daoism, there is a strong sense of dualism in both in the concept of yin and yang which suggests that all phenomena are composed of opposing yet complementary forces. The concept originated in ancient China. Examples of opposites include passive and active, dark and light, female and male. These opposites are not necessarily static but can be constantly changing. Some transform between one another. Day (yang) turns into night (yin), and the day follows again. When yin and yang are in balance there is well-being and harmony. When they are out of balance discord and disharmony results. The goal is not to eliminate one for the other, but to find balance between them. Too much of one force leads to imbalance. Yin and yang are a foundational concept in Daoism. The Dao gives rise to yin and yang and their interrelationship is at the basis of Daoism’s understanding of change, balance and the flow of reality. Yin and yang would also influence Confucian thinking about social harmony and ethics. Traditional Chinese medicine uses its concepts.

Monism and dualism in the West

Philosophy in the West begins with the Milesian philosophers, Thales (615-546 BCE), Anaximander (611-546 BCE) and Anaximenes (585 BCE to 525 BCE). They broke with the past in seeking to combine observation with reasoning to reach conclusions about the natural world with the gods playing no role in their explanations. Prior to this, explanations relied on the actions of the gods. Thales is generally considered the first philosopher in the West.

The Milesian philosophers were materialistic monists and would come to accept that four elements exist (earth, water, fire and air). However, they thought that underlying these four elements there is one universal substance or first principle (arche) that the world is made of, but disagreed about what that fundamental substance is. Thales argued it was water. Anaximander argued that the arche should not be one of the elements we now see and thought that there must be a primordial amorphous, boundless or unlimited arche that gave rise to the rest. Anaximenes considered air the primordial element and suggested that through a process of upward rarefaction or downward condensation the other elements could be formed from air. While being materialistic monists, the Milesian philosophers would recognize elements of dualism in the world in characteristics such as light/dark, light/heavy, dry/hot, or moist/dry.

Other pre-Socratic Greek philosophers would argue about whether the world is unchanging or is in a state of constant change. Parmenides (515 to 450 BCE) thought the world consisted of a single, unchanging, indivisible reality (monism) and thought no true change ever happens while Heraclitus (544–483 BCE) saw change as the only constant. Heraclitus’ famously commented “you can’t step into the same river twice.” Pythagoras (581 to 497 BCE) saw math and numbers as the underlying logic of the universe. Later pre-Socratics would attempt to resolve these contradictions. On balance, pre-Socratic Greek philosophy would come to few definitive conclusions. However, their work was known to and would influence the thinking of many later philosophers including Plato.

Socrates

Socrates (470 to 399 BCE) is the founder of the Western philosophical tradition that we know today. He is famous for his Socratic method of teaching in questions and answers. Plato was his student. Socrates however taught in an oral style and wrote nothing down. His thinking is known to us from his students principally Plato. Plato wrote extensively, writing in dialogs that always feature a character named Socrates. Many of Plato’s ideas likely mirror those of Socrates but since they are Plato’s words it is hard to know what is Socrates and what is Plato.

Plato

Plato (427-348 BCE) was a dualist. He invented soul/body dualism in the West. Plato clearly made distinctions between body and soul and that an immortal soul can exist embodied (in a body) or disembodied (without a body). The allegory of the cave is a story of a dualism of forms (Chapter 7). There is the world we are in now in the cave and the world outside the cave which he calls the world of forms. The world of forms is the world of the deathless. Only the material objects in the cave change. The world of forms is the true world and we see the world of forms with the mind’s eye not the body’s eye. What then moves between the cave and the world of forms?. A physical impermanent body can’t. Plato would propose that what does so is a soul which is ultimately connected to the forms. This soul is immortal. It does not decay, unlike the physical body which decays and upon death becomes a corpse.

Aristotle

Aristotle seems to have been a critic of Plato’s world of forms from very early on. He wanted to understand the world that we are in now, how things grow and change. He will be a dualist but in a different way. Aristotle will adopt a view that the forms don’t exist separate from this changing world. Rather the forms are embedded in objects in this world. Aristotle would argue that a thing in this world is a composite of matter and form. A house is made of wood and other physical elements but it also has a form. The matter of a house is the wood and materials used to construct it but the wood and materials alone do not make it a house. The form of a house is its structure plus the purpose of a house which is something to live in. It is this structure and purpose that makes it a form. Applying this logic to the soul, Aristotle would argue that we are made of flesh and bone but that is not our essence, our form. The concept of soul would come into Aristotle’s thinking in that he would say that the form of a living being is its soul. A dead corpse has flesh and bone but those are not its essence, its soul. Aristotle was his own kind of dualist.

Western religious thinking

The early fathers of the Christian church such as St. Augustine would espouse a form of substance dualism seeing soul as existing independently of the body. Mainstream Christianity would mostly maintain that belief in a soul/spirit vs. body dualism. It would also see contrasts in good vs. evil (God vs Satan) and spirit vs. the flesh. At the same time Christianity would assert that one God created the world and that humans have the opportunity to return to God arguing against a strict dualistic separation.

Judaism is often spoken of as being fundamentally anti-dualistic maintaining a core belief in one indivisible God who is not separated from his creation. However, Judaism incorporates internal dualities such as soul vs. body or good vs. evil. Mystical traditions like Kabbalah seek a return of the individual to the one God.

Islam is also fundamentally non-dualistic. Tawhid is the term used to describe the essential oneness of God in everything and the indivisibility of his creation while at the same time making a distinction between the Creator and his creation. The Quran also recognizes dualities in our everyday existence in the form of male/female, good/evil, or heaven/hell. The mystical tradition of Sufism sees the apparent duality of the world as a veil over the fundamental oneness of Allah’s creation with the goal of the spiritual journey to return to the singularity of Allah.

Rene Descartes

The development of dualistic thinking in the West would historically be very tied to Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and his dictum “I think therefore I am”. Descartes sought to reconceptualize the entire nature of our existence (Chapter 7). He would argue that the skeptics weren’t skeptical enough and apply a form of hyperbolic doubt beyond skepticism. After doubting everything that he could, Descartes decides that there is one thing that he can’t doubt. He can’t doubt that he has thoughts. Even if those thoughts are wrong, they are thoughts nevertheless. He thinks about having or not having a body (as Descartes considers it, he wonders whether his body might be an illusion). However, whichever it is, I have a body or I don’t, those are both thoughts. Even posing the question is a thought. This leads to his dictum “cogito ergo sum”, “I think therefore I am”. Descartes will decide that thoughts need a place to reside. For Descartes that repository will be the soul which is independent of the body. The physical world which includes the body has been set in motion by God according to the laws of nature (physics). Once set in motion the world of matter is independent and governed by the laws of physical science. The soul is not made of matter and does not occupy space. The soul for Descartes is where thoughts reside, and thinking is required for there to be a soul. 

This distinction between mind/body or soul/body will be the basis of Cartesian dualism which influences Western thinking to this day. It had profound effects in Descartes’ own time. Cartesian dualism however created the problem of how do body and mind interact, since they are made of fundamentally different substances. Descartes’ mind/body dualism would be a source of anxiety to later Western philosophers who would propose both materialistic (only matter exists) and idealistic (only mind exists) solutions to resolve it.

Baruch Spinoza

The Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was familiar with Descartes’ philosophy. In his major work Ethics, he would adopt an almost geometric approach using definitions, axioms, and propositions to build a philosophical system, that he hoped to be systematic and rigorous. He would accept Descartes’ notions of a mechanistic, deterministic universe that follows the laws of mathematics. However, he would reject Descartes’ conclusions concerning substance dualism, concluding using a complex logic that it was logically impossible for two substances to exist and that the universe is made of one substance. He would resolve the problem of why things seem different by proposing that all is really one but just looks like more than one. Everything around us whether it appears as inanimate matter, living creatures or even ideas are modes of expression of this single substance. Mind and matter are not separate entities but two expressions of this same substance. In this monistic determinism since humans are a part of nature, human actions are determined by the scientific mechanistic nature of the universe and free will was a logical impossibility. Although he would call his one infinite substance God or Nature (Deus sive Natura), Spinoza would reject Western Judeo-Christian religion as superstition.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist and philosopher. He proposed an evolutionary spiritual vision of the cosmos in which the universe was evolving in complexity and consciousness towards a spiritual unity (a monism), which he called the "Omega Point". He believed that matter and spirit are interconnected and that evolution is a process where the universe becomes more complex and conscious. He argued that even the most primitive matter has an inner embryo of consciousness, which became self-aware in the evolution of human beings. As matter evolved toward greater structural complexity, this in turn resulted in consciousness. He thought the next stage of evolution would be toward what he called the "noosphere," a sphere of pure human thought comprising collective human consciousness. The Omega Point was the irresistible attractor and final outcome of this evolutionary process seen as an ultimate center of personality and consciousness where while preserving individual personalities, all individual human consciousness and the entire cosmos would converge in a mystical union into one. In religious terms he saw this as a divine process with the Omega Point, identified with Christ, believing that Christ is the driving force and organizing principle within the universe, actively driving the universe toward a spiritual union with God.

Are there one or two?

Returning to the initial question is the world made of two things or only one thing that can be fashioned into many shapes or appearances? Within the spiritual realm, the core question is whether spirit and matter are made of different substances or are they both made of the same thing? This seems a fairly intuitive distinction to many. The body is physical, made of matter and it dies. The body appears very different from spirit which is not made of any physical substance that we can detect. Spirit is assumed to be immortal and lives on after the body has died. Yet despite substance dualism’s intuitive appeal many who have explored this question have seen otherwise.

Chapter 3 in this series took the view that four things exist:

(1)   The physical body including the brain

(2)   The spiritual consciousness

(3)   The mind

(4)   The Source

Here the mind is conceptualized as being a combination of #1 and #2. So that gets rid of one thing and leaves only three. Separating the physical body and spiritual consciousness is clearly an expression of dualism. But then how does one think about the Source? If the Source is seen as being a literal “source” of the physical world and spiritual consciousness, then we are back to one thing and monism. However, if we consider the Source as only being a source of the spiritual consciousness, we have two things.

Occam's Razor is often stated as the simplest explanation is the best which would favor monism. However, a more accurate statement of Occam’s razor is that the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions which explains the data is the best. In our need to feel we understand are we are trying to group things into categories that don’t belong together? In Western science we don’t group all types of matter as the same. There is the periodic table of elements and the fundamental particles of physics. We have ordinary matter but then there is dark matter (Chapter 5). Yet many spiritual seekers and philosophers when they have looked deep seem to have seen only one. Perhaps this is another example of the notion of two truths (Chapter 10). There is a relative truth that there seem to be two (or many) things but the ultimate truth is there is really only one. Both monism and dualism are right; there is only one but it looks like there are two conventionally. Clay is the essence of everything made of clay even if the objects are shaped differently.

But then maybe two things are not enough? Perhaps monism vs. dualism is a bad question, an oversimplification. What do we do with things like forces? Gravity for example, is a force that emerges by having matter but is it matter itself or is it different? Gravity seems different from matter. For the spiritual consciousness to remain in the body, are there forces that hold consciousness and matter together? And what about Teilhard de Chardin’s idea that the universe is evolving, becoming more complex and conscious as a whole in the process. It seems that there remains a need for at least a more nuanced discussion of the relationship between physical matter and the spiritual consciousness which will continue in Chapter 13. In particular where did matter and spirit come from and is consciousness an emergent property?

References

Shankara’s Crest-Jewel of Discrimination, translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, Vedanta Press, Hollywood, CA, 1946.

Bertrand Russel, The History of Western Philosophy. Simon and Schuster Inc. New York, 1945.

Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, Translated by R.M.H. Elwes, originally published in 1862, ISBN 9798458119832.

Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, Writing Selected with an Introduction by Ursula King. Modern Spiritual Masters Series, Orbis Books, Maryknoll New York, 1999.