doc benway

I once again will have to disagree. Whether we put currency in the relative reality or not, it is as it is and it is our experience for most of our lives. Non-dual experience does not involve "going beyond" duality any more than the ocean goes beyond waves. I don't mean that we should indulge ourselves in ignorance by embracing duality, neither should we indulge ourselves in ignorance by denying its presence and influence in our lives prematurely. Like you said, the truth of nonduality is always already there - our fundamental nature. We do not reach it by going anywhere or beyond anything. We get there by letting go - surrender - into our essence. And yet that does not negate the dual aspect of our life experience. If we are blessed with non-dual insight we have the opportunity to integrate the two truths. Perhaps with enough devotion and commitment we will someday be able to rest in that essence fully and permanently in every waking, dreaming, and sleeping moment until this body dies. That's my practice. Until that moment, I don't see value in denying that much of our life experience is that of subject-object experience. Far better to accept that aspect ourselves as equally real, true, and valuable and make the most of the opportunity it affords us. In the Bön tradition it is our opportunity to work for the benefit of others. This has two important effects - through the lens of non-duality we see that helping others is helping ourselves and through focusing on the needs of others we de-emphasize the primacy of the relative self, weaken it, and come closer to that non-dual essence.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point. Awareness is a relatively ambiguous word. All awareness is not non-dual in my definition, that is a very specific and special case. I like the ocean analogy, the nature of water is the same throughout and yet ever wave is unique and individual. The tradition I practice does a wonderful job of exploring and describing the differences between mind and its essence. Both have the characteristics of awareness but both cannot be said to be in a state of non-duality. If awareness was never not non-dual all humans would exhibit perfect compassion. That's not our experience. There is a beautiful scripture called the 21 Nails which describes the distinction between mind and its essence form 21 different perspectives. It's an amazing teaching and where I learned to apply the method of understanding through considering the converse statement. From the perspective of non-duality one sees that they have never been separate by so much as an atom. From the perspective of duality, one spends a lifetime deluded by the self-differentiation. Both are legitimate perspectives and to deny either is inaccurate in my opinion. The fact of non-duality does not negate the fact of duality and vice versa. Both coexist as the two truths.

Another factor at play in the arising of duality is having the capacity for language. It seems to me that humans distinguish the "self" from "other" as a function of language, at least in part. All living creatures need to be able to distinguish threat from asset but I wonder to what degree the distinction between self and other arises in living creatures other than humans. Do lions eat water buffalo because there is the sense that "I" must survive? Or is it simply a natural consequence of experiencing hunger and having the appropriate physical characteristics to hunt and eat along with learning from their parents and pride... Perhaps our primary distinction between self and other resides in our capacity for abstract thought. Abstract thought is predicated upon the capacity for language. For me, a practical and effective way to define duality is the conceptual discrimination between self and other. Non-duality is simply non-discrimination between self and other. This is not conceptual, however, it is experiential. Understanding what non-duality is has nothing to do with resting in non-dual experience. In fact, I suspect it may be an obstacle for many people. All speculation on my part. I'm not as interested in understanding as I once was although that curiosity and tendency to think and analyze is still there. I've found that, for me, my "understanding" of non-duality has little to do with questions and answers and far more to do with having adopted what seems to be an effective practice that encourages, cultivates, and reinforces a deeper level of non-dual experience. Over time there is more familiarity with that absence of self - other distinction. It gradually comes off the cushion and into action and interaction. I feel that it can be cultivated into a very high level of application and consistency. I also agree with those who emphasize the importance of things like devotion, surrender, trust, gratitude, and so forth. Those are the fuel and the context within which blessings tend to manifest. I've never seen this play out more clearly than in my practices of dream and sleep yoga. It's quite astonishing at times.

Even the most secretive of Buddhist and Bön teachings, dzogchen, are very clear and direct expositions of base, path, and fruition as they see it. The Daoist writings are far more symbolic and elusive - filled with metaphor and euphemisms. I suspect the Daoists wrote in that way in order to hide the meanings from the uninitiated whereas the Buddhists and Bönpos relied on the fact that the teachings were only made available to select individuals. In my own tradition, the dzogchen teachings were only passed down from one master to one student in the early days and then only to monks and lay people who demonstrated a particular aptitude and profound dedication after that. That was often determined by signs and dreams and so forth. With the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet, these highly secretive methods are being spread as wide and far as possible to prevent their loss. In retrospect it's almost like the transmission over time was a way to maintain these teachings, in a time when they were not as critically necessary, to bring them forward to the present day when they're desperately needed on a wider scale to avert large scale human catastrophe (my biased perspective, of course). Edited to add: In the dzogchen tradition the teachings are also considered to be self-secret, meaning that if a person is not adequately prepared or does not have a proclivity for them, there will be no understanding even if they have access to the most direct instruction possible. I've seen the truth in this. It's fascinating.

Unfortunately, there is much "Daoist thought" that is not Daoist at all... I think much of that arises from a lack of deeper understanding. Most Daoist writings are not very clear or direct and not very easy to penetrate. The very nature of the Chinese language is quite ambiguous and it is easy to misunderstand the original sources, let alone the translations into Western language which is far more concrete. In addition, most people studying and practicing Daoism in the West are doing so through books and similar resources without the benefit of a credible master to help them decode and interpret the writings. Finally, the Daoist method is not one of studying and reading and understanding. It is one of being, eg meditative practice. If one doesn't spend the majority of their time in skillful practice, all the information in the world is of little value. That last criticism (and all the rest) are equally valid for Bön and Buddhism, lest someone feel like I'm being sectarian.

Yes, nice thread. Thanks to all who have contributed. A corollary to the original question, "what is non-duality?" is its converse. What is NOT non-duality? or What is duality? or more specifically, If everyone and everything are already non-dual, what does it mean to talk about duality and in what way does it exist? I thought it might be food for additional consideration, particularly given the direction of some of the earlier discussion and debate about the pervasiveness of non-duality or its lack therof. I find considering the converse statement or question can be very helpful when exploring challenging concepts in the spiritual arena. It's helped me a great deal in some of the esoteric dzogchen teachings I've encountered.

Method and wisdom are not separate except for in our minds. A person seeking only Emptiness is at risk to fall into nihilism. A direct realization of the Wisdom of Emptiness, however, is also a direct realization of Bodhicitta. Not quite, a realization of emptiness means that there is no one there to unify anything. You dissolve the one trying to unify and the duality is already gone. That is the meaning and (non)method of the Great Perfection. Precisely - I mentioned that briefly on the thread about what is incorrect about Buddhism.

There have been other carpenters with great insight...

I think it's worthwhile to point out that the correct view is not an abstract concept for those who are practicing with proper guidance. The correct view is, in fact, the absence of concepts and abstraction. Cultivation of the view is resting in the view, there's nothing more than that. It is certainly possible to conceptualize the view, in fact that is probably the number one obstacle and we all do it to some degree, but that is not the view.

The metaphor of the immortal fetus is very sophisticated and beautiful but subtle and elusive as is so much of Daoist symbolism. Just as we are not created by any external agency, the immortal fetus is not created, it is born. Internal alchemy opens pathways and fields in the body, removing obstacles to allow that birth. It is the birth of awareness of the truth and source, and the connection to and embodiment of immortality. It is a fetus because it starts in a fragile and tentative way and over time matures and blossoms into the Perfect Person, the Sage. Similarly, in higher Buddhist practices like tantra and Dzogchen, nothing is being created but rather obstacles are being cleared to allow the opening of the heart of compassion, a connection to that very truth and source. With proper care and feeding it can grow into a Bodhisatva or even a Buddha. Sure there are differences in terminology and application but once there is some degree of direct experience, the common ground becomes very clear. This is why earlier I urged focus on similarities rather than differences. Seeing the similarities helps us grow and develop a more balanced and comprehensive perspective. Emphasizing the differences is very limiting and creates obstacles rather than loosening them. PS - I'm also a bumbling amateur so take everything I say with a healthy sprinkling of salt PSS - in the highest teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, dissolution into Nirvana is not the ultimate goal. These teachings help us to see that Nirvana and Samsara are not separate, they are different sides of the same coin, different manifestations of the same source recognized as such due to our delusion of duality, much like Yin and Yang are not separate but rather mutually interdependent. Samsara is the human experience of unsatisfactoriness and suffering and Nirvana is the human experience of its resolution into perfect contentment and ease. In Dzogchen practice and at the time of death, both Samsara and Nirvana are transcended. The "goal" is to recognize one's true face at the time of death, which is none other than that very source and nature of immortality that is touched by the birth of the immortal fetus.

Here - this looks like an excellent resource for you: http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-5307-9780824834111.aspx

Sure didn't appease you, did I? I'm not trying to appease anyone, simply sharing my feelings and experience. PS You are wrong and you're naked.... You're wrong again By practicing and focusing on what works for me. You're most welcome.

Thanks Lex, very good info!

How does desire help you to be frugal and humble? Frugality and humility are the antithesis to desire, at least it seems that way to me. Desire is there, it is and will always be a part of the human experience. Buddhism and Daoism both guide us away from indulging desire. My response has nothing to do with politics. Sorry about the length, I do tend to be verbose. You are welcome to disagree with Buddhism and the Buddha (I'm not Buddhist, BTW). Spending time criticizing a religion is simply not a very productive use of the very limited time I have on this Earth. Furthermore all the arguments, debates, and disagreement among followers of different traditions is very tiresome. It never ends and rarely benefits anyone, in my experience. Just takes up many pages on forums like this one. That is why it seems a mistake for me personally. It seems to turn a lot of people on and I'll admit I have my moments. Trying to get away from that. It's probably related to my age... I prefer to see what positive things I can derive. If you are interested in the criticism angle, go for it! I'll respectfully bow out.

Given that two of the three treasures of Laozi are frugality and humility, your comfort with desire may be more a personal bias than a value rooted in Daoism. I'm not saying you are wrong or that desire is necessarily a problem but, in general, the sage is not driven by desire, quite the contrary. Desire in Buddhism is only considered a problem when we over-identify with it. We see most of the preoccupation with getting rid of desire in the sutric practices. This is because people coming to Buddhism usually start there and the primary objective is to get them to see how deeply and thoroughly they identify with emotions and drives like desire, anger, jealousy, etc... So much of our lives are spent being buffeted about by these drives. Buddhism does not aim to eliminate desire, just put it in its proper context. In tantric practice, desire itself is taken as the path of practice and used for personal transformation - in this way it is seen as a blessing. In Dzogchen practice, desire is there, it is allowed to arise, abide, and self-liberate - nothing more than an ornament of our existence. The first chapter of Zhuangzi states, "Therefore, I say, the Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame" (Watson). My first and most powerful experience of the illusory nature of the self came about through Daoist meditation practice. In Daoism this concept is not discussed with very direct language as it is in Buddhism but Daoism is often like that about important concepts. Rather than try to spell them out, it invites us to simply be, to experience, to practice, to deepen our connection with ourselves and nature. The meditative and experiential practices (sitting, standing, qigong, taiji,...) guide us to this type of realization. We are not separate from nature, we are an integral part of it. We are not separate from the Dao, we are a manifestation of it, therefore how can we be separate from each other? The concept of Wu Wei is also deeply connected to the illusory nature of self as I've posted about elsewhere. Much of Daoism points in this direction. It's all a matter of how we study and practice, how we interpret, and who guides us. I'm not saying Buddhism and Daoism have identical concepts about the nature of self, but they are not that far off and, in my personal experience, both lead us to very comparable places. Daoism is not meant to be taken as a rule book, IMO, nor is Buddhism once you get past the preliminaries. I don't have anything to offer in terms of what Daoists see wrong or incorrect in Buddhism. I'm quite certain others here will, although you're likely to find more interest if you post in the Daoist forum. I studied and practiced Daoism for a long time and currently focus on Bön Buddhism. For me they are far more similar than different. Both point to the same truths, the same reality, simply approaching it in different ways. Neither is right or wrong in an absolute sense and yet they certainly can be right or wrong for the tastes and proclivities of a given individual. Based on the two threads I've seen you start recently, it seems as if you are interested in emphasizing discrepancies between Buddhism and Daoism. As I mentioned in your other thread, inter-religious criticism and conflict is generally based on lack of sufficient depth of experience or understanding. I would invite you to look more at how both traditions can be used to deepen your understanding, not how you can use your understanding to undermine one and put the other on a pedestal. Neither are correct, neither are perfect, neither are wrong. Both are valuable tools in the right hands. Ultimately both are trying to help you to experience your life in the most direct and authentic way possible. Peace Edited to add a link to an interesting article - http://www.iaccp.org/sites/default/files/ho_1995_0.pdf

Would you mind sharing that person's name with me, either here or through private message? Thanks!

It's an interesting phenomenon but it is often the case that when you freely give, you do not feel drained. It's more the resistance that is draining, not the sincere generosity that Lex describes. If we are doing something that we enjoy or feel good about, we can put in endless hours and yet feel energized and ready to keep going. To the contrary, when we are doing something we don't feel good about, we can feel physically and mentally exhausted before we even start!

If thinking comes into it, so does selfishness. I mentioned Demello earlier, he speaks beautifully about this topic. I believe everyone has that innate nature of compassion at their core. Only for most of us, most of the time, it's hidden. There is a perspective from which love and compassion are very closely related, perhaps identical. I'm not referring to romantic love, sensual love, sexual attraction, infatuation, obligation, or any of the more standard definitions of love that are conditional. I'm referring more to the experience that all life and sentience is interconnected and interdependent. The feeling that if any other living creature is hurting, I literally feel that pain as my own. This unconditional love, Bodhicitta, is spontaneous innate compassion. It is like empathy but far more powerful and completely authentic. It is not based on fear or selfishness, although you could say it is a type of selfishness from an absolute perspective.

This is simply a misunderstanding of Chan meditation, as well as that of other Buddhist and Hindu traditions. One does not still "the mind and breath until total stillness." For the beginner yes, this is the instruction - it is a foundational exercise, not the ultimate objective. As the personal, discursive mind stills, one discovers a much deeper, much richer sense of self. As the discursive mind becomes less predominant and controlling, as we are able to allow it to rest and manifest the larger sense of self, then it is possible to allow the discursive thoughts and stories to arise and they are no longer a distraction, instead they become an ornament. Finally, we can bring this larger sense of self into our daily lives and live without distraction, without interfering with the natural flow of the larger "being." This is Wu Wei. This is resting in the nature of mind. So much criticism between this religion and that method is nothing more than lack of understanding.

I personally find little practical value in relating current challenges to past and future lives. If you believe in reincarnation then certainly everything, bad and good, in life has a relationship to past and future lives. The question is how that can be useful here and now? I have a close friend who is constantly in conflict with nearly everyone around him. He can't hold onto friends, he can't keep a job, he is in conflict with his family. He sees it all as a problem with the world. Most everyone else sees it as a problem in him. He is extremely opinionated and inflexible. He sees that to some degree but feels it is worth the pain. He sees himself as highly insightful and intuitive and yet takes himself so seriously everything becomes a struggle. I love him and admire his dedication to his values but a little flexibility, taking things a little less seriously, interjecting a little humor, allowing things to be as they are even when they are not exactly the way he would want - these things would make his life so much easier. Earl Grey's advice that "it's not about you" is very valuable. We often project our insecurities onto others so when we feel they are being negative or difficult we assume it is about us. Often they will even try to make it about us. Most of the time it is more about what is going on inside of them. Here is another perspective that can seem opposing but is related: In the tradition I practice, we are taught that there are 3 types of practitioners. Inferior practitioner - problems are seen as the fault of someone or something else, no responsibility is taken Mediocre practitioner - problems are seen as partially my fault, shared responsibility Superior practitioner - problems are seen as 100% my fault, total responsibility is taken It means that the problems aren't related to previous lives or other people, it's all in you. It can be a very useful and liberating approach but only if you are ready for it. If it does not sit well with you, leave it... Another tool that I find valuable is to look at others as a mirror for me. This is related to the 3 categories above. When I come into conflict, I can look at what that says about ME and be less concerned with what it says about them. This is the path to becoming a superior practitioner. This approach is painful until we learn to identify less with the "me" and all its various masques. It takes a lot of honest introspection and is an assault on the ego. Finally, a way to try and lessen the conflict if it is a problem: Learn to create and hold space. To once again use the mirror metaphor, in this approach I am the mirror. The situation is playing itself out and rather than being the reflection and getting wrapped up in the story, I can be like the mirror and simply host whatever is happening, including my own thoughts and feelings, without being enmeshed in it. The mirror is unchanged by whatever is reflected in it, I can be like that. In Buddhism, this is known as mirror-like wisdom. We have a tendency to respond and react, to fill space. Often this is done based on conditioning rather than openness and insight. We are used to focusing on forms in space, whether visual, auditory, tangible; not at all used to focusing on the space itself. The space is extremely powerful - it has some very unique properties that we can use. It is indestructible, unbounded, unchangeable, it can host and give rise to anything that is needed. When a situation arises, we can find a way to disengage for a moment, a minute, an hour, a week - whatever is appropriate given the circumstances. That disengagement gives us space to breath, to observe our reaction, to give ourselves the time we need to respond in the way best suited to our values and objectives rather than through blind conditioning and emotional reactivity. It can give us a chance to have a deeper appreciation for what any given situation needs from us. Often there is nothing needed but we have a habit of filling rather than embracing that space. (says the guy typing far more than you probably need or want , clearly I have a long way to go myself!) Sorry for the verbosity... I have a tendency to get carried away with myself. Cheers!

I've come to see "God" as an ambiguous word, a label upon which we project all sorts of concepts. Most of those projections relate to mysteries that make us feel uncomfortable or vulnerable. By attaching a label and set of beliefs we pretend that we understand which gives us a false sense of security. That's the purpose of labels in general, it seems.

Well said, the degree to which a person can see the truth in varied religions is a good measure of the degree to which they comprehend the essence rather than simply the window dressing.

I'm with you. Even in cases where conventional medicine can cure physical manifestations of illness or injury, the word healing for me brings up addressing illness and injury from a far more comprehensive perspective. Many people suffer from emotional and psychological aspects of illness and injury long after the physical effects are either gone or at least stabilized.

Very true. In general, people tend to adopt ideas which reinforce their views rather than open themselves to ideas which modify their views. The latter is a characteristic of someone genuinely interested in growth and seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Wu wei is probably one of the most misunderstood concepts in Daoism. In a similar vein, Dzogchen is a very misunderstood concept in Buddhism. Both point to an experiential understanding of non-duality. Absent that, they are easy to misinterpret and exploit.