forestofclarity

Well, there is the notion that perhaps these things should not be discussed without some preliminary meditation or other work. On the one hand, the sages have often given the most direct teachings first, so that those with the requisite karma (or grace, or the proper causes and conditions, however we wish to put it) could "get it" immediately. On the other hand, nonduality is often either inscrutable or easily intellectualized, such that it ether makes no sense, or people think they have sufficiently gotten it when there is still work to do. In this case, it may be useless, or even a great disservice. Accordingly, in many traditions, such things are withheld until there is sufficient preparation. I am always a bit curious about the "evangelical nonduality" I often see online, wherein people attempt to actively convert others, even those who are disinterested or resistant to the notion.

This is actually the Swami S video to start with IME where he goes into this:

I thought this was an outstanding talk that combines the insights of Vedanta with the Christianity. We have a Christian who converted to Vedanta, and rather than losing his Christianity found it very much enhanced. It is also very practical, very loving, and spoken well from the heart. He also raises interesting questions about dual-belonging: can one be a member of two religions? His answer may surprise you (especially since it come in the second lecture ).

Well, we can also consider from the opposite direction. What is Brahman? Well, Brahman is unlimited being--- unlimited in time, space, and all objects depend on Brahman. So Brahman is omnipresent--- even here and now. In fact, Brahman is who we really are. Despite this universality of Brahman, are we really to believe the only people who know about this universal and foundational truth, not only of every human experience but also of the entire cosmos, is a handful of Advaitins? That every Christian, Buddhist, Daoist, --- and not just the ones alive today, but everyone who was ever born and died--- out of the untold millions and millions of practitioners over many millennia--- many of whom are intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and/or meditative geniuses--- well, they all got it obviously wrong? Every Single One? And that I, somehow despite my failings in every way, and my limitation to a narrow time, space, and culture--- that I am in fact more discerning then all of of them combined? Well, that truly boggles the mind.

I think by "traditional" you mean "common" or "popular." Just as the sky is more apparent at the peak rather the base of the mountain, so too is it with spiritual traditions. Check out this passage from Nicholas of Cusa from the Vision of God: "And since Your love Is always with me and is nothing other, Lord, than You Yourself, who love me, You Yourself are always with me, 0 Lord. You do not desert me, Lord; You safe-guard me on all sides because You most carefully watch over me. Your Being, 0 Lord, does not forsake my being, for I exist insofar as You are with me. And since Your seeing is Your being, I exist because You look upon me. And if You were to withdraw Your countenance from me, I would not at all continue to exist. But I know that Your gaze is that maximal goodness which cannot fail to impart itself to whatever is capable of receiving it. Therefore, You can never forsake me, as long as I am capable of receiving You. Hence, I must see to it that, as best I can, I be made more and more capable of receiving You. But I know that the capability which conduces to union is only likeness; but incapability results from unlikeness. Therefore, if by every possible means I make myself like unto Your goodness, then according to my degree of likeness thereto I will be capable of receiving truth. 0 Lord, You have given me being; and my being is such that it can make itself more and more capable of receiving Your grace and goodness." And the idea that the way to God is through Christ is really not different from saying that the way to Brahman is through wisdom. There are many traditional Christian mystics and traditions that in fact put forth that Christ is wisdom, or gnosis, which performs the same function as the Sanskrit jna-, as in jnana or prajna. Surely there is no less a tolerant form of spirituality than universalism in Christianity, based on such Biblical passages as: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18–19, ESV) “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV) “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:32, ESV)

I agree with Michael. The truth is the truth, it is reflected through different cultural lenses. No doubt some people reflect the truth more clearly, but it must be based on common ground. How can it be otherwise?

Where do you live? Tibet? Finding people even interested in nondualism seems fairly rare IME.

The idea of reverse influence, from Tibet to India and China has never really held up in my opinion. But you do see a melting pot of Shavite and Buddhist Tantra in India, sharing practices and even plagiarizing scriptures, and such influences clearly show up in Vedanta as well. India is to the East what Greece was to the West in my opinion (and may have even influenced Greece). But let's not let such academic opinions clutter up the 'Bums.

Well, there's another duality for you to be melted and unbounded--- the duality of emptiness and compassion. Realizing the underlying similarity of all sentient beings causes a natural compassion for them to arise, and this can drive action.

If so, I would find it more convincing if some one who practiced his program X or whatever could demonstrate what they learned. Presuming Mizner is legit (and I have no reason to think otherwise at this point, despite his marketing), if whatever he is showing is possible only after many years of full time practice, then it seems that engaging in seminars and online programs would be a waste of time/money. That's how it seems to me with most of these martial applications--- a form of soft body physics.

Not sure it is even an argument--- the terms still have not been properly defined or agreed upon.

That sounds like a very Tantric, as opposed to Vedantic, take on in my mind. From an Advaita Vedanta POV, creation is usually characterized as the power of Maya wielded by saguna Brahman. Brahman would remain unaffected by the seeming change just as a rope remains unaffected by the imposition of a snake upon it. However, the Tantric point of view as I've come across it is much different, and the expressive nature is quite important. Interestingly, in both cases, there is a connection between ignorance and creation. Ignorance, which often in the dharmic religions plays the role of original sin--- the cause of all our problems. But in another sense, it is the expressive creative power responsible for all the glory of creation. This is one reason I like the Tantric Buddhist paradigm. The goal is not to escape samsara, but to take part in its expressive creativity as a Buddha.

For us Gen Xers, InnerSpace!

Typically due to the controversial and misunderstood nature of emptiness from a Buddhist POV and nirguna from a Vedanta POV. A true introduction should take place "from one warm hand to another" via a teacher in an established tradition. However, for public dissection, I did find you a few definitions: One source: "...the state must be non-dual, in that the experience is not structured by the duality of object and subject. It is, instead, ‘non-dual wisdom... For practitioners to experience a non-dual state, however, there must be some form of knowing or experiencing that is not structured by subject– object duality. This form of knowing is ‘reflexive awareness’." Dunne From some academics, but more problematic: Nondual awareness (NDA) can be defined as a state of consciousness that rests in the background of all conscious experiencing – a background field of awareness that is unified, immutable, and empty of mental content, yet retains a quality of cognizant bliss (Josipovic, 2014). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6265073/

Duality should not be confused with polarity. Polarity can often be a big part of nondual traditions. In fact, there is polarity because there is a shared continuum. Not so. Emotions are divine expressions of the enlightened mind. They are used to great effect in Tantra. I think this is a bit of a straw man. Just because everything is perfect as it is doesn't mean you don't do anything. If you need therapy, you get therapy. If people need help, you help them. It just doesn't alter your essential nature. The varieties of actions are expressions of innate compassion. Nonduality is dynamic.

I do think that what the historical Buddha allegedly taught in the Suttas and Abhidhamma and what is taught in Mahayana non-dual teachings do not appear to be the same.

So do Zen masters go into thukdam or manifest rainbow bodies? Theravada arhats? Jains? Christians?

To play a bit of devil's advocate, do all traditions hold to the same death states of thukdam and rainbow body? If not, why not?

An inside joke in my family: during a movie or TV show, whenever some one says "I need to find out who I am!" or "Now I know what I am!" or words to that effect I usually whisper "formless awareness?" Now I can whisper "luminous blob?"

This is hilarious but not entirely false in my opinion. It is a weird thing once one begins to stop identifying so strictly with objects, like the body and mind. And it can't really be forced, but there does seem to me to be a natural reorienting. "Luminous blob" is a good a name as any, I suppose. The luminous blob that is me acknowledges the luminous blob that is you.

My favorite is Peaceful Death, Joyful Rebirth by Tulku Thondop. In addition to teachings and traditional sources, he also draws on the experience of delogs and NDEs.

Just riffing off of this--- there are some theists who would say if you want to know God's will, just take a look around. Everything that occurs is an expression of the divine will. In fact, some go so far as to say an infinitely creative God will allow for the expression of limitation and imperfection. So you really can't f*** it up! What you can "do" (but not really) is align yourself with the truth of the way things are, or not. Aligning would be to stop taking yourself to be a body and mind, for example. Not trying to grab onto impermanent, empty things, etc.

Agency I think is apparent but illusory. We don't construct our thoughts, feelings, impulses. We don't individually construct our desires and impulses from a set of desires and impulses, they just arise. The decision making process is not apparent--- why we appear to choose one set of impulses over another is a mystery. We didn't choose whether to be born in a time and place where balls arise, nor to be interested in them. That we even have a body capable of throwing a ball depends on the right set of circumstances. I think as we look closely (as in prolonged meditation), the appearance of agency, control, or choice begins to vanish.

I would agree with this and it is the version one of my teacher uses. However, studying it without the accompanying practices will certainly limit its usefulness.

This reminds me of using a VR headset. In that case, the image is literally on the bridge of one's nose. What is amazing is how, despite the fact that only two senses are being used (and not even seamlessly) the mind sort of fills in the gaps and creates an interactive environment. If there is an in-game avatar, the mind will begin to map to it. It is interesting to watch the mind's confusion when you step out of it.