Why I am not neutral

will's picture

To get straight to the point, there's an illusion hidden within the concept of neutrality. When people say they are neutral they're almost always defining themselves based upon conflict. Neutrality requires the perception of different "sides", neutrality depends upon dividing people up. It's a dualistic concept pretending to not be dualistic.

Where I live we have two main political parties, and I'm supposed to choose one of them. I don't like either very much. I'm not neutral though, I am simply being myself. You could say I'm against both parties, though I'm not against the people that make them up, I view them as brothers and sisters. What I am against is the ideologies that divide people against each other. I'm against being against, if that makes any sense.

Buddha's Middle Path, that's not neutrality. For the sake of brevity I'm going to over-simply this, but here's the gist. Buddha saw two different conflicting paths people were walking, over-indulgence of the physical senses (hedonism) and rejection of the physical senses (asceticism). He didn't choose to be neutral, which would just be avoidance of the conflict, he chose to transcend the conflict altogether. Buddha chose himself, he chose to walk his own path, he chose to stop seeing things in such dualistic ways.

Neutrality says, "I'm not going to pick sides". God says, "I don't divide people up into sides". We used to ask people to choose between fear and Love. Some people didn't want to make a choice, they wanted to stay "neutral". Knowing that fear creates avoidance, I couldn't help but feel they'd really chosen fear, they just didn't want to believe that. Choosing Love isn't really choosing a "side" at all, Love is unconditional acceptance of everything. Love even assists those who try to reject Love. Love is not "neutral".

If there's any such thing as sides, those sides are the unique facets on the diamond that is God, and God chooses all of them.


The Galactic Free Press
No copyright, share/edit freely




NaGeeTah IsRaeL arit NZinga's picture


Love NaGeeTah

Duality vs. Polarity

Rebecca's picture

Just today I read a blog explaining the difference between duality and polarity. In duality, differing things are measured as good/ bad, better/worse. In polarity, they are simply differing things with no judgments attached and working together. The blogger used the example of low and high notes, and various notes in between coming together to create beautiful music. There is nothing wrong with noting differences, playing neutral is actually kind of pointless in these cases.

However, there is right and wrong. To be "neutral" in cases of right and wrong is to favor the wrong side. For example, bigotry.

It is always wrong, and it is perfectly honorable to take a stand against anti-gay conduct, racism, etc. If you don't take a stand at all, you help the oppressor, so you are actually taking a passive stance for hate. Silence =Acceptance.

I believe that in most cases, there is an exception to every rule. They can be few, rare even, but they are there.

Perspectives of Mind...

Maddie Walsh's picture

I agree that neutrality is a concept relative to our experience of "this" existence.
God says, “I don’t divide people up into sides”... and yet here we are, experiencing this collective dualistic state of reality. The realization of duality as a necessary construct is mostly fostered by human conditioning/ programming/ societal norms etc. precipitated by language and conceptualized thought. In the grand scheme of things, evolution of consciousness must be "played out" by the original consciousness, if for no other reason than "God is ALL THERE IS - EVERYTHING IS GOD" precept.
Incidentally, "against being against"/ not for or against/ not not for - not against, or any other variation thereof is still contextualized duality.

Here's an entertaining except from OSHO:

But existence is one. You may divide it arbitrarily for certain purposes, but never for a moment forget that your division is arbitrary. Existence is one solid whole. Matter is nothing but spirit condensed; spirit is matter which has come to blossom - the difference between the seed and the flower.

It is not a difference, because the seed contains the flower and the flower contains many seeds.

So it is a circle, it is not a division. All divisionary ideas are dangerous. The East also has grown its own logic, but it is not Aristotelian. Buddha's logic is a fourfold logic. If you ask him, "Is there God?" he may say, "Perhaps." Perhaps is not an answer. If you ask, "Is there any doubt?" he will say, "Perhaps"; "Are you not certain?" he will say, "Perhaps."

Mahavira extended the idea of "perhaps" to the very extreme. His logic is sevenfold. It is one of the most complicated ideas, but very representative of reality, because he says, "Whatever you say contains only one aspect of reality. What about other aspects? You have to make other statements."

According to him, unless you make seven statements you will not be able to cover the whole reality.

But those seven statements are going to be contradictory to each other.

Ask him, "What about God?" and he says, "God is." And immediately he says, "God is not." And following that, "God is both: is, is not." And he continues, "God is both not: neither is nor is not." And he finalizes, "God is indefinable."

Mahavira could not gather many followers for the simple reason that only very crazy people will accept such a thing. People want definite answers. But existence is a flux, it is not definite; it is changing, it is moving. It has all aspects possible. In some way you can say, "Yes, it is true." And in some way you can say, "It is not true."

If u'r interested, the entire discourse:

Enjoy the ride! ♥

More about neutrality

Rebecca's picture

I disagree that Love is the acceptance of everything. There must be allowances for the exceptions to every rule, otherwise, we stand for nothing. Least of all, love. 


I don't think there is anything wrong with calling out negative behavior, I think it is right to do so if you are aligned in Love. When we judge another person as good or bad is when we get into trouble. 


For example, right now in America, as the founder of Westboro Baptist Church (the hate group that pickets veteran funerals and claims that "God Hates Fags") lies on his deathbed in his final moments, the masses are celebrating. Those that denounced him for his intolerance are now mirroring him by calling for picketing of his funeral or worse (much worse, I won't go into descriptions here as the vitriol is quite shocking).


The decision to denounce WBC and their deplorable behavior is grounded in the idea of tolerance, togetherness and love. But, somewhere along the way the message is lost. It isn't quite complete, like an arrow that falls before hitting its target. 


I always, always try my very, very best to refrain from judging another person's character. If their beliefs, conduct or actions reflect that which is wrong, it is worth calling them out. In fact, I believe we each have a responsibility to call them out. 


If we all sat silent as WBC spread their negative energies all over the world, we would be complicit in their subsequent success. Thankfully, that didn't happen. Instead, people took a stand and said, "No. This is unacceptable, and it is not who we are as a people. This is not the world we are going to be living in." Granted, the counteraction we should have been engaged in, loving refusal of their hate, didn't quite happen exactly the way it should have, but people did step up and act in a non-violent manner, which is the most important part. 


I realize that the founder of WBC, their followers and supporters are simply blinded and  bumbling around lost in the dark, just like most of the world. They are not villains, they are victims. I realize that their hate is actually fear and hurt, that compassion is ultimately the salve and solution. But while they resist healing, shining a spotlight on the wrongness of their behavior while refraining from judgment of their character is the right thing to do. If nothing else, it heals, protects, and provides hope to the victims of their hate. 


There is no duality, I agree, but there is right and wrong.


When something hurts another, it is simply wrong. When one oppresses another, it is wrong. To be neutral in these instances is impossible, and attempts at doing do is irresponsible. Neutrality, in these cases, is essentially agreement. One may not intend it that way, but the result is exactly that. Intention vs. Impact is topic worth exploration. 


Having said all this, I should mention that neutrality is a sensitive word. As a person of color, it makes my ears perk up and pulse quicken a bit because it is often used as a way out of taking a difficult stand. It is often a way for soft bigotry, subtle racism that is just as real as the louder kind, to thrive all these years. 











When I said that, I meant

will's picture

When I said that, I meant acceptance of everything that's real. I certainly don't mean that love tolerates illusions like hatred, and just sits back and allows them. I'm talking about acceptance of the reality of the situation, which is rarely a reason for complacency.

something to consider

taragrace's picture

there is also the point that

was made in  the movie the secret

which is about what you resist persists

so , its something to consider..

when protesting someone like for example

the wesboro guy..

its something to consider..

Tara Grace

the active side of peace)

taragrace's picture


there is a key in acceptance

of how things are..

and yes..(it does not

necessarily mean) you will

be passive (thats a misunderstanding of the active side of peace)

Tara Grace


Yes, to me acceptance is

will's picture

Yes, to me acceptance is really Consciousness = God = Love. To not accept what is is to deny, to reject, to fear, it is the core of negativity.