The Layers Of Not-Two

Not-Two’: Àdvaitham, Àdvayadharmam, terms that predates Śūnyam.

Yājñavalkya defined it as simply: Neither before nor after; Neither inside, nor outsideneither silence nor speech. Its earliest scriptural definition was as: ‘One without a second’ [a reckless simplification of Ekam Sat: ‘One Truth’].


I once sat in on a Sangha meeting where the learned monk was whipping up a lather: ‘Not-Two; Not-Three; Not-Four’, he pounded.

This is not what ‘Not-Two’ means. It is not a swipe at all notions of plurality. ‘Two’ marks the foundational pillars [‘Is’ and ‘Is Not’] of Model, of a Modeled- Reality.

Once you miss the significance of ‘Two’, you can go all the way to quadrillion. And it wouldn’t make any difference. 


‘Not-Two’ is a statement of Truth, not an appellation, not a name for an ‘Object’ [concept, process, state, sentiment, anything you can objectify]. And its confounding as a conventional reference, a name, is pervasive in the historical literature.

It actively locks in the Inquirer in a verbal hog-tie. You may not not say a word [or write a Post] about it. Except to call it ‘Not-Two’.


‘Not-Two’ has lots of layers to it and you won’t really notice them until you slip on one. But the most relevant can be readily listed.

First, the ‘Subject-Object’ Divide. More generally, the Self-Loop.

Second, the open-ended: ‘Not’. [See the Posts for this and the above.]

And finally, our ready tendency to abstract and reside in referential structures [‘Doubles that Refer’] and hence make our World amenable to Logic and Language.

In particular, expressions formulated as ‘Sign’, and further extended in ‘Thought’. And then cheerfully contracted or expanded until we get seriously lost. [See the later Posts on Language.]

‘Not-Two’: You can carry it around in your shirt-pocket. Bounce it, baby it, bully it. It will spring back to shape.


‘Two-ness’

%d bloggers like this: