Not-Two: The Next Best Expression

Not-Two’: Àdvaitham, Àdvayadharmam, terms that long predate ‘The-Not‘.

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’ [Ekam Sat: ‘One Truth’].

And ‘Not-Two’ is the only term in the lexicon that was popular both with the early Vedanthins and the first Buddhist scholar-monks. A powerful pointer, yet not as complete and clearing as ‘The-Not’.

‘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.

‘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’.

%d bloggers like this: