There are always THREE sides to a story.

The Hegelian Dialectic, with its basic, critical and defining three stages, is the closest approximation of one of the lost Protocols of the Great Mother that exists either in Western thought or in the modern Chinese mainstream. Three is the number of the Mother in Her role as the Consort of God. Her Protocols, which I am destined to decode from the Tai Xuan Jing, are fundamental to the sacred Dharma of this Lineage.

The above title is not what we hear, at least in the Western mainstream. What we hear is the eternal dominance of duality which decrees the wisdom that there are always (exactly and specifically) TWO sides to a story. I have agreed with that going in (which was forced on me by the structure of my mother tongue in this life), but on further examination, why stop at two? What is the supreme value of two, that we must necessarily stop there? If we examine this deeply enough, I believe that we must necessarily arrive, at some stage, at the PERCEPTION (as discriminated from doctrine, thought, or conviction) that two not only has no special virtue as a place to stop, but that there are exceedingly valid arguments that two is, in fact, is THE WORST POSSIBLE PLACE to stop, because the inevitable outcome of stopping there, at least in the emotional context of this planet right now, is conflict leading to violence, that is dualistic polarization kills civilized behavior quite predictably and automatically.

So where do we come up with a third party to a dualistic standoff that is breaking bad (and let’s face it they’re ALL breaking bad right now)? The natural third is the POV of the observer, that is, in this online context, the media. Huh? You mean that they’re CAUSING all this acrimony? I thought their job was to REPORT real information. Well, I’m sorry, but every member of the press who thought that is now either retired or dead. The new press thinks that their job is to cause trouble by taking a side, because that’s what they get paid to do.

So let’s leave their profoundly dysfunctional buns right there where we found them, and look at exactly where they dropped the ball that their elders and betters tried to hand them. It’s all about their RESPONSIBILITY to have their own independent POV, and by doing that, to be the third party which can’t help damping a rush to dualistic stupidity, simply by being present.

One of the prime movers in this duality-fixiation of the West, after an Indo-European language (English), is Hollywood, with its perfectly grotesque addiction to the obligatory (ahem) DRAMATIC CONFLICT, without which no script can possibly be taken seriously. Next movie industry please. I’ve seen what Hollywood can do, and I am signally unamused. Let us no longer delude ourselves that the inextinguishable violence in American schools has nothing to do with the Hollywood productions that American school children constantly view.

Maitreya Meher Namo Namo,
Vishveshwar Bdhstv

This entry was posted in American Buddhism, Buddhism, Chinese History, Diplomacy, Maitreyayana, the Web and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to There are always THREE sides to a story.

  1. Pingback: Next Three-sided Story, Please! | Maitreyayana

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s