What Is Non-Duality ?

[SeriesOfTubes]

What if non-duality is just waveform instead of particles?

 

 

I wonder about awareness in this sense. I wonder if saying "manifestations are/is awareness" is sort of applying a newtonian mechanical bias to something that has attributes of non-locality, that awareness may be governed by laws of energy which apply at subatomic scales.

 

I have to agree with Vmarco with the observation that the senses cannot give a sense of the "present". That would be an impossibility given varied processing times within the nervous system.

[Marblehead]

funny that a thread about non-duality has become so self/other

 

Hehehe. I mean a real belly laugh. Hehehe.

 

And it's being done by the Buddhist members, not by any Taoist member.

[Marblehead]

What if non-duality is just waveform instead of particles?

 

But wouldn't it be better if non-duality were the single particle because the waveform is a series of particles?

[9th]

Gangaji learned from Papaji who learned from Ramana Maharshi. Gangaji had a student named Mooji who is also continuing the lineage. I cant say that I really agree with the majority of what these neo-advaitans tend to promote, and what I can agree with are the things that all traditions agree with already.

 

Ramana Maharshi had such a powerful presence that it was impossible to be near him without undergoing spiritual transformation. All you had to do was sit there, in his presence. His darshan did the rest.

 

These following students often speak as if work is not necessary, the unconditioned is already here, everyone is already enlightened, etc. That is a disservice at best, IMHO. The spontaneous awakening experienced by Ramana in his early youth was the result of many previous lifetimes of work. He did not seek to be a teacher, but obviously disciples began to gather around him, and he gave them darshan. It is a method of silent teaching which is primarily energetic in nature. It is a kind of transmission.

 

So, the disciples did not have to work on themselves. They were worked on by the universal harmonies flowing through the guru.

 

It is possible for the power of such transmission to last for many ages, many kalpas, many yugas. It is not necessarily guaranteed, but it is possible.

 

The key mistake of neo-advaita is the lack of admission regarding this fact. What they are really promoting is bhakti yoga, not advaita - which was orginally presented by Adi Shankara as a counterpoint to yoga and buddhism. One of his key points was the focus on the reality and truth of brahman alone, instead of the emptiness (sunyata) described by buddhists.

[zanshin]

But wouldn't it be better if non-duality were the single particle because the waveform is a series of particles?

 

If it's better, how can it be nonduality?

[Vmarco]

[C T]

The Buddha's Dhamma does not point us toward an all-embracing absolute in which the tensions of daily existence dissolve in metaphysical oneness or inscrutable emptiness. Rather, it points us toward actuality as the final sphere of comprehension, toward things as they really are (yathabutha). Above all, it points us toward the Four Noble Truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation as the liberating proclamation of things as they really are. These four truths, the Buddha declares, are noble truths, and what makes them noble is precisely that they are actual, undeviating, and invariable (tatha, avitatha, anannatha). It is the failure to face the actuality of these truths that has caused beings to wander relentlessly through the long course of samsara. It is by penetrating these truths exactly as they are that one can reach the true consummation of the spiritual quest: bringing an end to suffering.

 

Spiritual seekers still exploring the different contemplative traditions commonly assume that the highest spiritual path must be one which posits a metaphysical unity as the philosophical foundation and final goal of the quest for enlightenment. Taking this assumption to be axiomatic, they may then conclude that the Pali Buddhist teachings, with its insistence on the sober assessment of dualities, is somehow deficient or provisional, (ultimately) requiring fulfillment by a non-dualistic realization. For those of such a bent, the dissolution of dualistic tendencies in a final unity will always appear more profound and complete.

 

However, it is just this assumption that i would challenge... I would assert, by reference to the Buddha's original teaching, that profundity and completeness need not be bought at the price of distinctions, that they can be achieved at the highest level while preserving intact the dualities and diversity so strikingly evident to mature reflection on the world. I would add, moreover, that the teaching which insists on recognizing real dualities as they are is finally more satisfactory. The reason it is more satisfactory, despite its denial of the mind's yearning for a comprehensive unity, is because it takes account of another factor which overrides in importance the quest for unity - this 'something else' is the need to always remain grounded in actuality.

 

(Bhikkhu Bodhi)

[Marblehead]

If it's better, how can it be nonduality?

 

Hehehe. I got caught again!

 

But then, if we take everything down to its lowest denominator we have nothing and I doubt that would be a very interesting way of life.

 

Maybe I should stay out of Buddhist leaning discussions. But then ...

[Aaron]

How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"?

What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"?

Must I fear what others fear?

What abysmal nonsense this is!

 

Honestly, I think the idea that we're arguing about non-duality is quite hilarious for anyone that actually understands what's being talked about. I will try to explain this in a way that I think anyone can understand...

 

The non-duality that can only be achieved by forgoing the six senses, isn't a real non-duality, since reality is dependent on the six senses. Non-duality as perceived through the senses is quite easy to understand, except it requires one to look through a microscope and understand that what we perceive as a void, really isn't a void at all, but rather it is filled with tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, (can you see where I'm going with this) particles that connect everything to everything else. The only reason we see ourselves as separate from those other particles is because we have developed a sense of identity that views ourselves as separate. In reality I am connected to the furthest star on the other side of the universe.

 

It's sort of like viewing our bodies as vehicles for our minds, when in fact we are every bit as much a part of our bodies, in other words we are our hair, fingernails, scabs, bruises, eyes and ears. We are the entirety of our being (and in fact every being). The truth is that unless one can begin to see this on an intellectual level, one will never realize this on a deeper experiential level. When one understands non-duality experientially, they believe that senses are forgone, but in fact the mind is a sense itself, the seventh sense you might say, so experiencing this phenomena does not preclude the notion of existence at all, but rather allows one to understand that the six sense can be deceiving, simple as that. The knowledge of non-duality is hinged inexplicably on the knowledge of duality, in fact one could not exist without the other. Non-duality requires existence every bit as much as duality. It is by understanding duality that one can begin to see past duality and see that there is something that duality springs from, which must have no opposites, and thus be non-dual.

 

Anyways, the whole notion of arguing about this stuff, saying, "you are wrong! I am right! Short Path is the best path for non-duality! How can you believe this or that!" Well it's silly, it's like saying that you understand non-duality when you're entrenched in duality. The person that understands non-duality understands that nothing can be said about it to anyone that will actually allow them to experience it. You can preach against preaching, hate those you think prevent people from achieving a knowledge of it, and numerous other things, but it doesn't change what is right now.

 

Understanding non-duality is like becoming the drop of water that hangs in the air, simple as that.

 

Aaron

Edited December 16, 2011 by Twinner

[Vmarco]

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The term, non-duality, is irrefutable evidence that it is not a valid understanding.. it is part of a process for communicating between different perspectives, between real and actual people.. it is the bane of any sincere interest in understanding existence, using enticing wordplay that distracts from being present for what is poorly described as 'non-duality'..

 

 

 

Be well..

[Vmarco]

it is the bane of any sincere interest in understanding existence, using enticing wordplay that distracts from being present for what is poorly described as 'non-duality'..

 

Be well..

 

There is no Present in Time,...thus, engaging in the perceived present is surely the bane of any sincere interest in the inquiry of non-duality.

 

V

[Informer]

I wonder about awareness in this sense. I wonder if saying "manifestations are/is awareness" is sort of applying a newtonian mechanical bias to something that has attributes of non-locality, that awareness may be governed by laws of energy which apply at subatomic scales.

 

 

It seems to make sense intuitively. Any biased collapses the waveform just by observing it.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Informer

[Aaron]

How do you contrive that reality is duality,...dependent on the 6 senses?

 

Let's forgo for a moment that there is a non-duality. What is duality? It can be shown to not exist (stand alone),...just look at it under an electron-microscope,...it can be mathematically added together, which equals its complete dissolution (not a unity of positives and negatives),...it's pretty much as Buddhists say, a perception of the Five Aggregates. Duality is a relative reality, ONLY. Buddha suggested (and numerous examples are listed in the Mountain Doctrine) that Wholeness is beyond the sum of opposites,...not a Unity,...for how can conditions ever enter the Unconditional?

 

Nevertheless,...Undivided Consciousness (noumenon) can be pivoted upon while consciousness is expressed through the Five Aggregates (phenomena), from which arises divided consciousness. It can be expressed, but needs vocabulary to express it.

 

Sustaining any understanding, whether absolute or relative, demands a proper vocabulary. Nothing is ineffable. As a stand alone word, ineffable suppresses, denies, disempowers, and disconnects; it says, follow this because you'll never comprehend that. What Buddhists call Dharma, specifically the state of nature as it is, is not ineffable; it simply requires welcome. We need a vocabulary to for welcoming Dharma. As Charles F. Haanel said, "The mind cannot comprehend an entirely new idea until a corresponding vibratory brain cell has been prepared to receive it."

 

Non-duality cannot be understood through the 6 senses,...our human-ness. The 6 Senses, produced by the 6 sense organs (Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Skin, and brain) can only sense duality,...the motion of separation seeking unity, which it can never, and will never find.

 

Everything is light. "All matter is frozen or slowed down light" David Bohm. Undivided Light (non-duality) has no mass, and exists in no time... mc² < c. Divided Light (duality)has mass, and is dependant on time....E=mc².

 

In reality, light never divided, the perception that it did is part of the illusion,...and the 6 sense organs, especially the sense organ of thought, is convinced that duality is real. Duality is merely a projection,...and the light is "Still" in the projector.

 

In 1974 I had a NDE, and that is what I observed. My inquiry since then, and upon subsequent beyond 6 Senses experiences, has been to investigate any validity regarding mc² < c. It is not ineffable.

 

Most may agree something is impossible, until one without that knowledge arrives and proves otherwise. And yet not one, but numerous people have shown otherwise. For Buddha it was understanding the nature of suffeing,...for Avalokitesvhara it was hearing,...for many in this era it is Light. In my opinion, the understanding of light will precipitate the next great Age of Awakening.

 

V

 

Before you start jumping down my throat, perhaps you should think of what I mean by "real". I'm not saying that something doesn't exist, but rather that it exists in a realm that can't be proven through physical interaction. Just because we can think of something doesn't mean that it can proven to exist through the physical senses. In that sense, non-duality cannot be proven either, since it is without physical form. Now take that into consideration and I'm sure I can expect an apology soon.

 

Aaron

Edited December 16, 2011 by Twinner

[Vmarco]

[Marblehead]

I forgive you Vmarco for using that obscene term "D. O.".

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Vmarco, you said that compassion is impossible without understanding Emptiness and D.O., but would you care to explain your reasoning behind this? There is plenty of suffering in the world to make people compassionate without contemplating E. & D.O. You're backup was rather inconsistent as it consisted only of "authoritative" quotes making the statement you already made.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Vmarco]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I heard HH Dalai Lama say, ...

 

Well, still, all I see there is other people saying it is so, which as we both know, does not cut the mustard for a Buddhist.. so, maybe highlight for me again why this is the case as I did not see a why, again, other than "because they said it is the case" unless that is your reasoning, which is fine with me, but you seem to say you have another reason, so I would like to know what this reasoning is since you're other messages seem to show that you would not merely accept doctrine without first having personal understanding of why it is true.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[3bob]

My take:

The liberations (8 depending on how various schools count?) spoken of in Buddhist doctrine are all connected,

including the "beyond the beyond"... thus through and with these connections compassion is working at or with the various liberations if one can only see it working. (the same as it works through and with the Noble Eight fold path) For if compassion were only limited to and only worked at the "beyond the beyond" with the rest of the liberations being cut-off from it then such would be reduced to meaningless beatings around the bush - which is not the way I take the teachings about same.

 

Om

[Vmarco]

Well, still, all I see there is other people saying it is so, which as we both know, does not cut the mustard for a Buddhist.. so, maybe highlight for me again why this is the case as I did not see a why, again, other than "because they said it is the case" unless that is your reasoning, which is fine with me, but you seem to say you have another reason, so I would like to know what this reasoning is since you're other messages seem to show that you would not merely accept doctrine without first having personal understanding of why it is true.

 

 

That's correct,...Buddhists authorities or the sutras, are merely pointers. For Avalokiteshvara, her inquiry through hearing showed the validity of the Shakyamuni's instructions. Today, in my opinion, the utilization of light/relativity/quantum cosmology as part of the ground, accelerates the inquiry,...although from my observations, this would be most difficult for a conservative type person, such as:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/Conservatives_Deconstruct.html

 

It appears rather unlikely that a conservative, as described in the link, could access Maslow's level of Self Actualization, to surrender and transcend to the level of awareness where Empty can be realized. Maslow's Self-Transcendance has been discounted by most modern psychologists,...just as that link on conservatives is discounted by most conservatives. All part of the "Conspiracy of Mediocrity"

 

There are many "Transformational Triggers", which I've mentioned in other posts in detail, like the Just Because Club activities, which can help with the shift from skandha consciousness. Except for numerous rebuttals, most all my posts on this forum are pointing to transformational triggers. I have 37 years experience on the subject,...from Yogaville in Buckingham, to McKenna's ethnobotany seminars in Palenque,...I am fully dedicated to the liberation of sentient beings (from all their delusions).

 

For those honest enough, I'm an admirable friend,...for those who are not, I'm perceived as an enemy of their hopes and dreams.

 

As a Canadian said:

 

"Waking up is not necessarily pleasant; you get to see why all this time, you chose to sleep.

When you wake up the first thing you will see is Reality does not exist for you, you exist for it. Shocking as it is when you let it in, there is rest.

You do not have to labor anymore to hold together a reality that does not exist; forcing something to be real that is not real.

You and this life you have been living are not real ...

In letting it in, even through the shock... pain... shattering, there is rest.

Reality is when all you want to know is what is true ...just so that you can let it in and be true.

Reality is not a safe place for you - the you that you have created.

It is the only place where you would die; where there is no room for your hopes, your dreams.

Once you have let it in, once you begin to re-awaken; to let Reality wake you up, nothing can get it out. That is the beginning of your end.

Waking up can be much more painful than the agony of your dream, but waking up is real."

 

 

V

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=quick_search&search_sort_by=date&search_sort_order=desc&search_term=nonduality&search_filter_app[forums]=1&st=0

 

Nonduality gets 8 pages on the search engine.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=quick_search&search_sort_by=date&search_sort_order=desc&search_term=nondualism&search_filter_app[forums]=1&st=50

 

Nondualism gets 71 results

 

Non-duality -- another 8 pages but then it says the search is limited to 200 results so must be more:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=quick_search&search_sort_by=date&search_sort_order=desc&search_term=non-duality&search_filter_app[forums]=1&st=175

 

Plenty of old material to go through. haha.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

If you're talking about non-duality, you really don't have the whole understanding.. once understood, no words are accurate or adequate, there is only the example lived.. and, stories about lives lived well.. the intellectual babble is distracting and counter-productive to anyone seeking.. tell one story that illustrates real clarity in Life, 'that' can help someone understand how many can be One, and how One can be many, all for the joy of simply existing.. more valuable than all of the 'you hafta do this or you hafta to that' babble.. be the example of how it works in real-Life, rather than in the imaginary mind-scape of competing concepts..

 

Be well..

[9th]

The next thing I say to you will be true

 

The last thing I said was false

 

[Harmonious Emptiness]

V,

 

I think maybe you vaguely stated with that Canadian poem why knowing Emptiness allows for compassion, but not really why everyone else could not. Maybe you're saying that everyone who doesn't understand Emptiness is a conservative, but that obviously doesn't fly.. So, rather than not reply in "wtf was that" fashion, just going to say the above as I wouldn't want to imply that you successfully provided any personal explanation of why you believe one must understand Emptiness to be capable of compassion.

 

The troublesome part is that you have made so many accusations against anyone with a personal understanding of theism, saying they accept these "beliefs" without question, yet I'm failing to see the same staunchly consistent determination to reject all belief based merely on the authority of the source that you would like them to follow. Perhaps you make certain exceptions for this favourite rule?

Edited December 17, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness