Clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone

[voidisyinyang]

MudLotus -- first of all it took Ramana Maharshi NINE YEARS of solitude practice to "achieve realization of non-duality" -- if you read his books he states this very clearly.

 

Now I know there's a lot of "nondualists" now in the West but most just read magazines or read the Western followers of Ramana Maharshi -- many of them claiming to be in sahaja samadhi and more nonsense. In fact Poonjaji states that this happened in nondualism -- it became corrupted in the West.

 

So just to "achieve realization of nonduality" is very very rare. Ramana Maharshi and Poonjaji (and David Godman, one westerner who has realized the difference) notes there are only 6 people in the nondual state -- sahaja samadhi -- on earth at any one time.

 

As for if there is still a doer -- it's like sleep walking only the awareness remains conscious with every breath and thought -- meaning a person in sahaja samadhi makes no new karma and therefore produces no new "action" in the sense of it imprinting on the spirit world. So it looks like there's a person acting but the jnana is completely liberated since any actions he does leave no karmic trace. Does he act in free will? Well Ramana Maharshi states to discover if free will exists asks who has the free will -- and the true free will is realized beyond death.

 

Again the practice is strict and was achieved under the conditions of Brahmin priests which means if a Brahmin priest even had eye contact with a female he had to do 3 days of ritual purification. Ramana Maharshi ate only a little thimble full of drink/food a day and the rest of the time was in meditation.

 

So these nondual teachings have been watered down a lot into seminars, retreats, etc. which is all good but nothing close to the real tradition. That's true for all the spiritual practices today -- Taoism, Buddhism, shamanism.

 

 

Can not a person achieve realization of non-duality and still continue to be Acting consciously to do things such as fulfilling Vows?

 

Just curious, because sometime I read comments such as yours and wonder if the implication is once one realizes there is no real self that that somehow means there is no doer.

Edited October 21, 2009 by drewhempel

[thuscomeone]

That is closer... but not quite it. Because awareness is not even 'part of the flow', it is all of the flow, there is not even a 'thing' called awareness other than the bird chirping, the scenery, the thoughts arising and passing, the sensations... there is just that, there is no other thing called 'awareness'. Rather, all phenomena is self-aware, and this is what non-duality truly means (however not everyone will understand the term in the same way, there's a lot of subtleties there too...)

 

Awareness is truly not an separate entity, it has no existence apart from everything, but even the 'everything' is empty, as I told lucky and isn't 'inherent existence' (but mirage-like, dependently originated appearances). However this is not the denial of the vivid non-dual luminosity/awareness. The clear vivid awareness which is non-dual must be realised and experienced. Just that it's empty nature must be understood.

 

The phenomena are diverse, yet never has awareness ever been separated from all phenomena/the flow, as it is. Never has an observer been separated from an observed. This fact will always be so.

 

I sense that something is about to burst in my understanding here...but I...just...can't...break...through...

 

It's like it is right on the tip of my tongue.

 

Ok wait, there cannot be sound without hearing. And there cannot be hearing without sound. Wherever there is form, there must be seeing, etc. But I think I've realized the problem here. It is not an "I" that sees. It is not my consciousness that hears. For if hearing and sound were inseperable, then when I plug my ears, there are no more sounds in the universe. It starts to seem like all is in my mind - solipsism. Rather awareness being inseparable from phenomena is a natural condition for there to be anything at all in the universe to begin with. Thus there is not even "awareness" and "phenomena" as two rather there is just impermanent and dependently originated manifestation/happening which is awareness/phenomena inseperablitiy. I just need to get out of this solipsistic position, the my position, which is proving to be difficult at the moment...

[MudLotus]

MudLotus -- first of all it took Ramana Maharshi NINE YEARS of solitude practice to "achieve realization of non-duality" -- if you read his books he states this very clearly.

 

Now I know there's a lot of "nondualists" now in the West but most just read magazines or read the Western followers of Ramana Maharshi -- many of them claiming to be in sahaja samadhi and more nonsense. In fact Poonjaji states that this happened in nondualism -- it became corrupted in the West.

 

So just to "achieve realization of nonduality" is very very rare. Ramana Maharshi and Poonjaji (and David Godman, one westerner who has realized the difference) notes there are only 6 people in the nondual state -- sahaja samadhi -- on earth at any one time.

 

As for if there is still a doer -- it's like sleep walking only the awareness remains conscious with every breath and thought -- meaning a person in sahaja samadhi makes no new karma and therefore produces no new "action" in the sense of it imprinting on the spirit world. So it looks like there's a person acting but the jnana is completely liberated since any actions he does leave no karmic trace. Does he act in free will? Well Ramana Maharshi states to discover if free will exists asks who has the free will -- and the true free will is realized beyond death.

 

Again the practice is strict and was achieved under the conditions of Brahmin priests which means if a Brahmin priest even had eye contact with a female he had to do 3 days of ritual purification. Ramana Maharshi ate only a little thimble full of drink/food a day and the rest of the time was in meditation.

 

So these nondual teachings have been watered down a lot into seminars, retreats, etc. which is all good but nothing close to the real tradition. That's true for all the spiritual practices today -- Taoism, Buddhism, shamanism.

 

Drew, Everything you just wrote is accurate IMO. Much of the Neo-Advaitic stuff out there feels like jiffy pop to me. I'm sure there is value in many contemporary teachings, but maybe my bias is that it is really hard work to let go! So like you say, Ramana put in his dues. He didn't just imagine himself a corpse at 16, woke up and he was somehow magically done with the work of cultivation. He kept going and deepened his realization and knowledge further.

 

I actually bring up the notion of the "doer" not because I cling to its persistence even in a non-dual state, but because it seems to me that a stabilized attainment of the non-dual is a rare state so few achieve. Perhaps then the doer then is no longer an operative concept, but I'm sort of agitating a little to question whether people really want to get too attached to the idea of not doing while they work their way to a perfectly realized non-doingness.

 

I'm simultaneously trying to take responsibility for my sadhana while also divesting of the layers of self-identification that make me feel I have to "own" that responsibility. That is why I threw in the notion of en-joy-ment, because it is possible to get so caught up in dense inquiry that you miss the view during your journey. But the study and inquiry is great. Totally encourage it, not enough people do it and try to feel their way through everything. Balance is good, hence push, glide.

 

Regards,

ML

[xabir2005]

So like you say, Ramana put in his dues. He didn't just imagine himself a corpse at 16, woke up and he was somehow magically done with the work of cultivation. He kept going and deepened his realization and knowledge further.

I agree.

 

A related article: http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/5213285.htm (The "Lost Years" of Ramana Maharshi)

 

 

 

I actually bring up the notion of the "doer" not because I cling to its persistence even in a non-dual state, but because it seems to me that a stabilized attainment of the non-dual is a rare state so few achieve. Perhaps then the doer then is no longer an operative concept, but I'm sort of agitating a little to question whether people really want to get too attached to the idea of not doing while they work their way to a perfectly realized non-doingness.

 

I'm simultaneously trying to take responsibility for my sadhana while also divesting of the layers of self-identification that make me feel I have to "own" that responsibility. That is why I threw in the notion of en-joy-ment, because it is possible to get so caught up in dense inquiry that you miss the view during your journey. But the study and inquiry is great. Totally encourage it, not enough people do it and try to feel their way through everything. Balance is good, hence push, glide.

 

Regards,

ML

Something just came up in my mind.

 

It's not that the 'doer' disappears after enlightenment, it's that it's realised that deeds have always been done without a doer. There is only spontaneous happenings that dependently originate, a doer never was, cannot be found.

 

It should be emphasized that this is an insight into what already is... it is not a stage where the 'ego' dissolves or anything like that... this is a fact that applies even to non-enlightened beings... 'mere suffering is without a sufferer'.

 

Anyway here's from a classic Buddhist text (Visuddhimagga) that talks about this issue somewhere in it:

 

 

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found

The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:

Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,

The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."

 

....

 

Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple

sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the

concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the

volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no

recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is

well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language,

when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or

with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the

result.

 

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This only is the correct view.

 

And while the deeds and their results

Roll on and on, conditioned all,

There is no first beginning found,

Just as it is with seed and tree. ...

 

No god, no Brahma, can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.

[MudLotus]

I agree.

 

A related article: http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/5213285.htm (The "Lost Years" of Ramana Maharshi)

 

Thanks for the Ramana link. Don't know the man who wrote it. I will make time to read it soon. So many people out there now, so many thoughts on the dharma.

 

Good quotes. Nothing to add, just enjoying the words.

 

ML

[xabir2005]

Edited October 22, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I have a very hard time understanding karma and rebirth (karma moreso) and the specifics of how they work. For instance, does an enlightened being have karma? Why/how is karma just intentional action? Why doesn't non intentional action leave seeds as well? Well I would appreciate if perhaps the Buddhists on this forum could help me get a clear, concise and correct understanding of rebirth and karma, the specifics of each and how they work together and are interrelated...

 

An Enlightened being while alive on Earth will still have what is called prarabdha karma which is the karma destined to happen on a physical level in this life. Though the responses to these circumstances, as in the sanchita (mind) karma has been completely liberated so the person has no more habitual clinging patterns of reaction to circumstances outside of the persons control. From this level, it is possible to even change these seemingly pre-destinies a little bit while alive. One can even prolong one's life even though one was previously destined to die at a certain point.

 

As an enlightened being one still displays actions and words through the flip around of beginningless Sakam Karmas of bondage into endless Nishkam Karmas of virtue and offering as in you don't just disappear after death if you have actualized Buddhahood. There are still conditions for display, for karma just means action or causation. But one is liberated in these actions and not bound by these conditions internally, one acts as if there is nothing going on, there is a lightness and lack of concrete judgement. Unintentional actions do have seeds as they are still actions with reactions, but the sanchita karma will arise according to the intention of the person who has acted, like for instance accidents do happen and someone who purposely pushed the person off the cliff will suffer a different fate from the person who accidentally bumped into the person who fell off the cliff. There is never a point when a person has no intentions. It's just that once liberated ones intentions go from selfish to selfless, from how can I get to how can I serve. One still enjoys oneself but the causes of this enjoyment are not the same. The enjoyment arises from the condition of seeing emptiness directly in every thing and all circumstance thus everything is experienced as liberated and luminous, one is always in a sense of positive flow with everything so being beneficial and being appropriate is a constant state of being for an enlightened one. Though, these are not contrived ideas and what is deemed beneficial and appropriate from the perspective of the bound is not always reflected in an enlightened beings actions who takes in a much wider array of information as inspiration for acting in any particular way or moment.

 

Re-birth is not linear. As the Buddha said, when you are human, you should cultivate the path of Dharma because being human in this life is no guarantee for the next, as conditions for rebirth into a lower capacity body or political situation where you don't have the freedom of religion may still be stuck in the unconscious, waiting to come out after death. But if you deal with this unconscious possibility for a future life as a cow or something, while alive, then you've dealt with this kriyamana karma which is the karma of a possible future based upon your sanchita karma of the now.

[thuscomeone]

I've got it! The universe/phenomena/reality/"what is" cannot logically "be" without awareness. It is impossible!

One way I used to gain certainty in this awareness is to look at it this way: there had to be a universe before I was born, otherwise how would I have been born? And there had to be a universe before human beings came into existence. And form/shape is inseparable from seeing, sound is inseparable from hearing, smells are inseparable from smelling. Thus before I or human beings ever were, there had to be this awareness which IS phenomena, without which there cannot be a universe. It's so logical! I've never understood why some people say that Buddhist realization is mystical, outside logic or transcends logic. It's the most logical thing there is!

Edited October 23, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Encephalon]

I've never understood why some people say that Buddhist realization is mystical, outside logic or transcends logic. It's the most logical thing there is!

 

Who are the people who say this about Buddhism?

[thuscomeone]

I've never understood why some people say that Buddhist realization is mystical, outside logic or transcends logic. It's the most logical thing there is!

Who are the people who say this about Buddhism?

Well mainly zen folks but I've heard others too...

[xabir2005]

Edited October 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Consciousness and matter are mutually dependent yet not identical, both are totally empty and insubstantial, but we do not say that consciousness is the side effect of matter as the materialists think.

Yes "ordinary" consciousness and matter are both mutually dependent. But the root of what I'm getting at here is that without "awareness" which is different than both of them yet seems to underlie them, neither of them could be...?

Edited October 23, 2009 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Yes "ordinary" consciousness and matter are both mutually dependent. But the root of what I'm getting at here is that without "awareness" which is different than both of them yet seems to underlie them, neither of them could be...?

Awareness is not a substratum underlying both of them and transcending them. This is the view of Advaita Vedanta. It seems to think there is an unconditioned, self-existing transcendental consciousness that exists prior to all phenomena and yet pervades all of them.

 

However this is still a subtle reification of 'appearance' and 'awareness'. This is because though they have experienced non-duality, they are still using a subtly dualistic framework to interprete them. Awareness becomes the permanent Subject that is nevertheless one with all impermanent objects.

 

In reality, the endless flow of dependent originated sensate reality is itself 'Awareness'.... it is actually just all these sensations which are aware where they are. This is not the union of subject and object... there is no Subject to begin, no other Awareness other than the sensations that dependently originate.

Edited October 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

my view is not that there is a transcendent consciousness apart from phenomena. I'm simply saying what you have been saying. Wherever there is phenomena, there must be awareness. They are inseparable. So it is not transcendent. It is phenomena themselves. This is why I said that this awareness had to be present before me or you or human beings came to be. It has to be present for there to be phenomena to begin with. That's what I'm saying. That is the logical outcome of saying that "phenomena are awareness."

Edited October 23, 2009 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

A careful study of especially the difference between Stage 4 and 5 will help clarify my previous post:

 

Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

 

my view is not that there is a transcendent consciousness apart from phenomena. I'm simply saying what you have been saying. Wherever there is phenomena, there must be awareness. They are inseparable. So it is not transcendent. It is phenomena themselves. This is why I said that this awareness had to be present before me or you or human beings came to be. It has to be present for there to be phenomena to begin with. That's what I'm saying. That is the logical outcome of saying that "phenomena are awareness."

Yes then your view is the same as mine.

 

However I wouldn't say its 'before phenomena', it's perhaps better to say that it's intrinsic to phenomena but even that is not absolutely correct.

[thuscomeone]

Yes the difference between subject object non duality stage 4 and 5 is that 5 is no subject as in the absence of doer? Just happening, manifesting. And this awareness we are speaking of is empty/non inherently existent because it is dependently originated and impermanent phenomena.

 

And this factor of it's emptiness seems to be the main difference between Buddhism and other traditions that teach about awareness

Edited October 23, 2009 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Yes the difference between subject object non duality stage 4 and 5 is that 5 is no subject as in the absence of doer? Just happening, manifesting. And this awareness we are speaking of is empty/non inherently existent because it is dependently originated and impermanent phenomena.

 

And this factor of it's emptiness seems to be the main difference between Buddhism and other traditions that teach about awareness

The insight of no doer can arise even at the lower I AM stages. It can arise at Stage 1, 2, 3, 4, it is an important condition for true nondual and anatta insight but by itself it is not yet the realisation of Anatta. There is an article by Galen Sharp called An Exploration of NON-VOLITIONAL LIVING which is pretty explicit on the no-doership aspect but still holds tightly onto the sense of an Eternal Witness or the I AMness. It then becomes like thoughts and actions happen on its own without a doer, you are simply the watcher of these phenomena.

 

What is key and crucial is the absence of a Subject or a metaphysical Self in Stage 5. That is, there is not even any trace of a permanent Brahman that is "one with all objects".... apart from those non-substantial self-aware sensations which manifests vividly and yet subsides simultaneously leaving no traces, like drawing images on water doesn't leave traces, there is no metaphysical essence there, only vivid impermanent sensations. Realising this is the first aspect of emptiness and is the experiential insight of anatta, or Stage 5. Then there is Stage 6 which is about further emptying the object and realising dependent origination.

Edited October 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

The insight of no doer can arise even at the lower I AM stages. It can arise at Stage 1, 2, 3, 4, it is an important condition for true nondual and anatta insight but by itself it is not yet the realisation of Anatta. There is an article by Galen Sharp called An Exploration of NON-VOLITIONAL LIVING which is pretty explicit on the no-doership aspect but still holds tightly onto the sense of an Eternal Witness or the I AMness. It then becomes like thoughts and actions happen on its own without a doer, you are simply the watcher of these phenomena.

 

What is key and crucial is the absence of a Subject or a metaphysical Self in Stage 5. That is, there is not even any trace of a permanent Brahman that is "one with all objects".... apart from those non-substantial self-aware sensations which manifests vividly and yet subsides simultaneously leaving no traces, like drawing images on water doesn't leave traces, there is no metaphysical essence there, only vivid impermanent sensations. Realising this is the first aspect of emptiness and is the experiential insight of anatta, or Stage 5. Then there is Stage 6 which is about further emptying the object and realising dependent origination.

Well yes, if all is empty (as it is) there cannot possibly be brahman. For brahman is eternal and is self, truly existent. If all is empty then reifying anything eternal such as brahman (or, of course, reifying nihilism) is an error. So this awareness is empty, ungraspable, not existent, non existent, both or neither.

[xabir2005]

Well yes, if all is empty (as it is) there cannot possibly be brahman. For brahman is eternal and is self, truly existent. If all is empty then reifying anything eternal such as brahman (or, of course, reifying nihilism) is an error. So this awareness is empty, ungraspable, not existent, non existent, both or neither.

Yes that's right

 

We must be careful not to extrapolate the vast field of non-dual consciousness into a permanent essence that remains while things emerge and subside back into it. It is not a permanent source which we come from and return to while it remains unmoved. Consciousness is non-dual but insubstantial.

 

As Vajrahridaya explains well... how Awareness is not seen as the self-existing 'Source of Everything/All Beings' but is empty also empty of any permanent or independent identity, and is totally interdependent, in Buddhism:

 

We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.

 

Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.

 

This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.

 

Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.

 

Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!

Edited October 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[voidisyinyang]

 

Well yes, if all is empty (as it is) there cannot possibly be brahman. For brahman is eternal and is self, truly existent. If all is empty then reifying anything eternal such as brahman (or, of course, reifying nihilism) is an error. So this awareness is empty, ungraspable, not existent, non existent, both or neither.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ah, so much for clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone .

[thuscomeone]

Ah, so much for clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone .

"clearing up" was clearing up what I have learned myself so far and then sharing it with others

[Lucky7Strikes]

"clearing up" was clearing up what I have learned myself so far and then sharing it with others

 

Your original post was indeed very fresh compared to the repeated prose here! .

[xabir2005]

Just to add on a little to my previous post...

 

By saying Awareness is the source of one's experience, is to allow the practitioner to have direct experience of this non-dual awareness, then one must start eliminating the idea of Awareness being the 'source', because that will bring the practitioner to the focus of a center. What Thuscomeone logically deduced must also be supported with direct experience of Awareness itself... this will lead to a direct experience of non-dual luminosity.

 

So what thuscomeone said is important but there are 2 more important points:

 

1. Whenever and wherever there is (phenomena), there is Awareness. Therefore there will come a time 'Awareness' is deemed irrelevant.. it becomes implied.

 

2. Change the view so that Awareness is not made something more special so that practitioner can give rise to the insight that sees D.O. and self-liberation. If there is endless non-dual moments without beginning and end (for there is no moment nor is there such a point in time that there is a separation), then how can awareness be The Source? The idea of an 'ultimate source' is not necessary by supporting this non-dual realization with the right view.

 

Eventually when the subject is gone, there is just arising and passing phenomena which is implictly non-dual as there is no subject to divide. And that is perfect okay because the right view of Buddhism perfectly supports this non-dual experience.

 

In short... a 'source' is just a convenient reference for a practitioner to get to certain insights, but nothing to attach to, nothing ultimate. Right after non-dual realization (Thusness Stage 4), this insight must follow, so that we will not reify this non-dual experience due to deeply rooted dualisic and inherent view.

Edited October 25, 2009 by xabir2005

[C T]

Just to add on a little to my previous post...

 

By saying Awareness is the source of one's experience, is to allow the practitioner to have direct experience of this non-dual awareness, then one must start eliminating the idea of Awareness being the 'source', because that will bring the practitioner to the focus of a center. What Thuscomeone logically deduced must also be supported with direct experience of Awareness itself... this will lead to a direct experience of non-dual luminosity.

 

So what thuscomeone said is important but there are 2 more important points:

 

1. Whenever and wherever there is (phenomena), there is Awareness. Therefore there will come a time 'Awareness' is deemed irrelevant.. it becomes implied.

 

2. Change the view so that Awareness is not made something more special so that practitioner can give rise to the insight that sees D.O. and self-liberation. If there is endless non-dual moments without beginning and end (for there is no moment nor is there such a point in time that there is a separation), then how can awareness be The Source? The idea of an 'ultimate source' is not necessary by supporting this non-dual realization with the right view.

 

Eventually when the subject is gone, there is just arising and passing phenomena which is implictly non-dual as there is no subject to divide. And that is perfect okay because the right view of Buddhism perfectly supports this non-dual experience.

 

In short... a 'source' is just a convenient reference for a practitioner to get to certain insights, but nothing to attach to, nothing ultimate. Right after non-dual realization (Thusness Stage 4), this insight must follow, so that we will not reify this non-dual experience due to deeply rooted dualisic and inherent view.

 

Hello Xabir,

 

I cant get my head around a couple of points you made here. It would be helpful if you could expand on:

 

1. "Awareness is deemed irrelevant - it becomes implied." (Can you give some examples of when awareness

becomes irrelevant?)

 

2. "Eventually when the subject is gone, there is just arising and passing phenomena which is implicitly non-dual

as there is no subject to divide". (Is the subject not a part of [within] this arising and passing of

phenomena? If so, does the subject not arise and pass as phenomena arises and passes?)

 

3. (If duality is not within one's consciousness, what supports one's non-dual experiences?)

 

I would be most grateful if you could offer some views regarding these 3 thoughts. I am new here, so if this sort of questions are inappropriate, i am sorry.

 

Regards,

 

CT