Writers seem to concur in urging us to transcend duality. Such concurrence is rare and impressive. But do not opposites rather cancel one another - leaving the thing itself, i.e. its suchness?
Transcendence implies the surpassing of two things, and the consequent attainment of a third thing. But there are no 'things' in reality, of any kind whatever: there is only the thing-in-itself, its suchness, which is Reality, revealed when the illusory dualism of inexistent qualities is dissolved.
Have we understood this? Neither Love nor Hate can exist as such, since each is a function of the other. When it is perceived that they cancel one another out they disappear, and that which is left is pure affectivity, which is not another 'thing' but the suchness of both, and a name for that which to us appears as one aspect of reality.
* * *
Perhaps the importance of this observation lies in the fact that transcendence implies an effort, where no effort is called for or could effect anything, whereas the neutralisation of opposites and complementaries is automatic when perceived, and merely renders account of a state of affairs that eternally is. And that is the real understanding that matters.
