What Is Non-Duality ?

[doc benway]

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..

Nicely put.

 

Intellect wants to capture 'what is' in a neat little package it can "understand."

Where there is understanding, there is the illusion of control and security.

 

But security does not exist. The greatest security is in the acceptance that there is no security.

Then we can simply be open to what is real, rather than what thought constructs to represent it.

When this occurs, who this occurs to, Buddhist dogma, descriptions of light, ,... words and constructs of intellect.

When these arise there is already separation, duality.

 

Where there is no separation, there is love.

It's not an idea or concept to be analyzed or verbalized.

It is contact with reality.

Then there is effortless compassion.

 

And where there is compassion there is never unnecessary cruelty.

Compassion can be harsh but never cruel, painful but never abusive.

 

Non-duality is the absence of separation, the absence of definition, boundaries.

To define it implies separation, limits, restriction, exclusion.

We can't say what it is, only what it is not.

All of the mystics "understand" this -

Thomas Equinas - the highest knowledge of God is to know that we do not know

Lao Zi - The eternal Dao cannot be spoken (or conceptualized)

Buddha - the thunderous silence

Jewish - God's name cannot be spoken

Advaita Vedanta - Neti Neti

... and so on...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

[Marblehead]

Where there is no separation, there is love.

It's not an idea or concept to be analyzed or verbalized.

It is contact with reality.

Then there is effortless compassion.

 

And where there is compassion there is never unnecessary cruelty.

Compassion can be harsh but never cruel, painful but never abusive.

 

I rather like that! Thanks!

[Marblehead]

Troublesome, you know?

 

Define Tao. Silence.

 

Define Emptiness. Silence.

 

Define Non-Duality. Silence.

 

Define Compassion. Silence.

 

None of these can be properly defined. But they can be fully experienced by living them.

[Seth Ananda]

Troublesome, you know?

 

Define Tao. Silence.

 

Define Emptiness. Silence.

 

Define Non-Duality. Silence.

 

Define Compassion. Silence.

 

None of these can be properly defined. But they can be fully experienced by living them.

Cool

[Aaron]

Please,...get out of your head for a moment,...no one is jumping into anyone's throat. Stop taking my responses as personal,...they are NEVER personal. I certainly see the point regarding the 6 senses not able to observe non-duality, although they can (and do) pivot upon it. Without non-duality, one's illusion of duality would not be perceived. Without Undivided Light there would be no illusion of Divided Light. The 6 Senses can only perceive the motion of duality,...the 6 Senses cannot directly observe Wu Chi,...for most, they only perceive Yang, and Yang moving towards Yin.

 

"You can't solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created it" Albert E...which could be seen as, you can't understand non-duality with a level of consciousness that is not non-duality.

 

Physical reality is fundamentally an illusory perception not much different than the dream you had least night. Physical reality is a projection. Physical reality is made up of Five Aggregates. These Five Aggregates cannot directly observe what is of the Five Aggregates.

 

The whole purpose of meditation practice (which is often misplaced in favor of the intoxications from meditation), is to quiet the 6 Senses, so Dependent Origination can be realized, through which non-duality or Undivided Light is recognized.

 

Non-duality can be proven, and has been proven, but like Conservatives and the need for more studies on Global Warming from man-made CO2's, the debates go needlessly on.

 

In my opinion, the most important question one can ask,...is not "Who Am I",...because basically, that question is impossible to resolve without understanding "When Am I". Thus, the most imortant question is "What is Light."

 

That question was already posed in the thread "What is Light." Everything else, as Hakim Bey said, "is just shrouded furniture, quotidian anaesthesia, shit-for-brains, sub-reptilian ennui of totalitarian regimes, banal censorship & useless pain."

 

As for an apology,...forgive yourself first.

 

V

 

Umm... Jumping down my throat was meant to be a euphemism for aggressive debate, it wasn't meant to indicate you were personally attacking me, second you're just saying what I said, minus the light part and the when do we exist part. You might mix up the words a bit, but it's the same. Also, "when I am" is as impossible to resolve as "who am I". You're stuck on the light thing too, I'd give that a rest. I've experienced the light and I'm here to say, it doesn't answer all your questions. I'm still not omnipotent or all-knowing (dagnabit!) In regards to when it is, that doesn't matter in the least, whether we believe we live in the past or present isn't important, but rather understanding the nature of suffering. Until we can do that, all the rest of this crap is useless (and I'd say mostly useless afterwards too). Anyways, Good luck with your journey.

 

Also, I forgive myself, now are you going to apologize?

 

Aaron

 

edit- I'm actually leaving my apartment for good today around noon and I'm not sure what my internet situation will be where I'll be staying, so please forgive me if I can't reply.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Twinner

[Vmarco]

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.

 

 

If we would see an elderly woman slip and fall, many, out of relative compassion, would extend some kindness for her situation. Absolute compassion is aware of the roots of suffering, and thus the extension of kindness is quite different. An example of Absolute Compassion could be seen in the 12 ordeals of Naropa. Was Tilopa a cruel master? How is an enlightened being a cruel master? Or did Tilopa simply supply a mirror so that Naropa could see his own reflections? As Trungpa Rinpoche said, real compassion does not avoid shining light upon a pile of shit. Real compassion is Righteously Intolerant of anything that steps between a sentient being and their direct experience,...in as a respectful way as possible,...but to a sentient being clinging to their beliefs for their identity, it would be seen as an attack.

 

As for conservatives,...their fears, clingingness of traditions, and inability to have abstact thought, is a hinderance to the self-actualization and self-transcendance necessary to understand emptiness, and thus absolute compassion.

 

Let me repeat,..."Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible." Robert Thurman

 

My personal or impersonal experiences on compassion are irrelevant,...however, if you wish to realize Emptiness, the post pointed to sufficient information to get you there. If you are a conservative, there was information to help one of that persuasion to surrender those characteristics.

 

Surrender is a large part of recognizing Emptiness. Those who have experienced self-actualization, and are inclined towards self-transcendance, already let go of many of the barriers built against the recognition of Emptiness.

 

For myself, although already initiated into Kagyu practice, recognition came by way of light,...to be specific,...Undivided Light. Undivided Light is not a merger of Divided Light or Duality,...Duality can NEVER enter Undivided Light.

 

As mention in a post above,....Wholeness is beyond the sum of opposites. And yet, as with Dharmakaya, we can and we do, express that Wholeness within time (5 Aggregates). Wholeness is as the fulcrum upon which a playground seesaw (duality) effects its motion. The question is, where is your awareness upon that lever? The manifest Buddha stands on the lever over the fulcrum. Most of us, although on some in-motion position on the lever (but only aware of the positive or Form side) and are nevertheless still connected to the fulcrum,...without the fulcrum, duality would not exist,...however, the fulcrum does not need duality,...nor does the lever ever merge with the fulcum. If the lever ceased moving, the lever would instantaneously dissolve.

 

"Relate with what will never leave you, and from which you can never leave" People are not their beliefs,...although they believe they are.

 

V

Edited December 17, 2011 by Vmarco

[xabir2005]

Read the linked article and his bio...IMHO, seems a lil "pop-ish." On his site it says he was influenced by Advaita, Sufism, and Zen; but he doesn't really make a distinction, when discussing non-dual awareness.

 

I don't mean any disrespect towards any one tradition since they're all appropriate for one time or another, but I feel he doesn't delve into certain aspects...Like for example, he describes the non-duality of internal/external phenomena, but it seems that he has inadvertently attached to a "here and now." In my experience this is no different from a grasping to "self" notions. This is still the "seed's of inherent view" manifesting itself in each moment; there is still a subject/object duality of a doer being established in each moment.

 

He also uses the analogy of the ocean and the waves for the the experiences of consciousness (which is a common analogy in Buddhism,) but following the example above: Even then, he fails to make a distinction of non-dual presence from the perspective of substantial non-dualism.

 

From my experience: Inherent view's operate on a subtle level, where you can fail to recognize it at first. It takes refinement in order to understand how you were continually getting caught up in solidifying an "I" and an "I Am," when experiencing thoughts, touch, sound, feelings, etc. So there's a move toward experiencing everything as unsupported, ungraspable, disjoint and spontaneous.

 

There's a shift from seeing "awareness" as some unchanging essence or the background for manifestations; to "seeing" that the manifestations are (or is) awareness. There is bliss, when experiencing everything without a "support," without a "center," without "basis" or as unsupported. There's a sense of freedom when experiencing the essenceless and coreless free-flowing "wave" of phenomena in all it's vividness...As not established in the past, future (and especially,)present or as "here" or "there" (awareness itself isn't even established.)[/i] Everything is experienced as a "self-releasing" display; arising and ceasing according to the interdependence of causes and conditions.

 

Hui-neng's poem deals with what I described above :

 

Fundamentally Perfect Wisdom has no tree.

Nor has the bright mirror any stand.

Buddha-nature is forever clear and pure.

Where is there any dust?

 

The above is describing the two-fold selflessness, but is not complete (Since he composed this before the robe and bowl was transmitted to him by the 5th patriarch.) Though experientially understanding the above is crucial for moving towards the natural, spontaneous and effortless Way that Taoism is known for.

Very nicely described.

 

Though I don't think that poem is talking about emptiness, more about the formlessness of I AM. This is not Hui Neng's great awakening yet.

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[doc benway]

Troublesome, you know?

 

Define Tao. Silence.

 

Define Emptiness. Silence.

 

Define Non-Duality. Silence.

 

Define Compassion. Silence.

 

None of these can be properly defined. But they can be fully experienced by living them.

Thunder rumbles in the distance...

 

_/\_

[dwai]

I'm just awestruck after reading this. Unbelievable !

Words of comment wouldn't do it justice.

My link

Words can only lead to more words. Nonduality is simply the absence of objects in consciousness...only it is, nothing else. And then a thought and with that the infinite objects appear again. This cycle continues and the only constant being consciousness...that is nonduality, imho.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Thunder rumbles in the distance...

 

_/\_

LOL.. no, that's just the blustery cacophony of voices hoping to be believed about that which cannot be believed.. almost as if it is a challenge, "the Tao which can be spoken is not the true Tao": "Oh yeah, well wait till you hear ME"..

 

Be well..

[Aetherous]

Nonduality = experiencing the Tao in the ten thousand things.

 

Another opinion.

[Vmarco]

Edited December 17, 2011 by Vmarco

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

And yet the Tao Te Ching spoke of the Tao. It reminds me of Muslims,...who unquestioningly accept the Shahada, that is, that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger. That is to say, simply ask a Muslim why he believes in the Qur’an, and he will respond “Because the Qur’an is the infallible words of Allah written by his prophet Muhammad.” If you continue the inquiry and request that he divulge how he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, the Muslim will, without the slightest pondering, respond that he knows that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet because it says so right in the Qur’an. This is a faith-driven circular reasoning common to all three Abrahamic religions and their hundreds of denominations. They believe that their Holy Book is the correct Holy Book, and only their Holy Book correctly describes god.

 

Interestingly, a person today can assimulate more information from a Sunday newspaper than someone in Lao Tzu' time assimulated in a lifetime. I'm not judging that as good or bad,...but these are different times.

 

The Tao should be able to be spoken of, by anyone experiencing the real Tao. All concepts of "ineffable" were devised by those who never had the experience, and thus they feel compelled to deny that others can experience it.

 

The Tao, as discussed in the "What is Light" thread, is synonymous with Undivided Light,...and Undivided Light can be spoke,...although few understand.

 

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."

 

V

When you can let all that noise go, perhaps you can hear the silence.. you speak to hear yourself sound wise.

 

I don't know what Tao means, or what it is.. but the journey is very cool.. Some say yes, some say no.. i am very happy to just keep looking, i am patient.

 

Be well..

Edited December 17, 2011 by TzuJanLi

[Vmarco]

Greetings..

 

 

When you can let all that noise go, perhaps you can hear the silence.. you speak to hear yourself sound wise.

 

I don't know what Tao means, or what it is.. but the journey is very cool.. Some say yes, some say no.. i am very happy to just keep looking, i am patient.

 

Be well..

 

If you are focused on "hearing silence" then wisdom is all you'll hear,...and therein lies your attachment to coolness. We're talking apples and orange rocks. Wisdom is knowledge accumulated through philosophic or scientific learning. In other words, wisdom points to the highest and most lofty ideas of ego consciousness.

 

Wisdom is to make the best use of knowledge,...yet to realize non-duality, means to let go of all knowledge. Knowledge is acquired through thinking/the Head-mind,...the truth arises from gnowledge/the Heart-Mind

Wisdom is not Prajna.

 

Shantideva corretly said:

"Relative and absolute,

These the two truths are declared to be.

The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,

For the intellect is grounded in the relative."

 

 

You patience is a tell that you have little interests in others. For those genuinely interested others,the looking has ceased. The real truth looker does not look for truth, but as Eckhart Tolle said, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

 

The idea that all that you need is just to be silent and listen to existence,...is a practice, like meditation, for the slow and patient who do not genuinely care about others. It's a cool thing to do. Esther Hicks nailed it, when she said, "We teach meditation, or quieting the mind, because it is really easier to teach you to have no thoughts, than to teach you to have pure, positive thought. We would rather you be in a state of appreciation, than in a state of meditation, because in appreciation you are a vibrational match to your source."

 

How does one go about uncovering the Tao, or source that we are? Listening to silence? Whatever floats your boat. But how long do you have this boat?

 

The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says:

 

Man is to be known in three ways:

As inferior, mediocre and excellent.

 

He who by any means whatsoever

Provides for the pleasures of Saṃsāra

For himself alone,

Is called an inferior man.

 

He who turns his back to the pleasures of the world

And abstains from evil deeds,

But provides only for his own peace,

Is called a mediocre man.

 

He who seriously wants to dispel

All the misery of others,

Because in the stream of his own being he has understood the nature of misery,

Is an excellent man.

 

Standing in the boat of the human body,

You should cross the great flood of misery.

Since later this boat is difficult to get,

Do not sleep now, you fool."

 

For me, the coolest days are when the "sounds of wise" like the relative aphorism "the Tao which can be spoken is not the true Tao", are as ended. For as Avalokitesvhara said, Once the hearing is ended, there is nothing to rely on,...and tranquility is revealed. With no sound, there is said to be no hearing. But this does not mean that the hearing-nature is gone. In the absence of sound, the nature is not ended; nor does it arise in the presence of sound. Hearing and sound are of the illusion of duality, an illusion that was never really there. But beyond hearing, sound or silence, untouched by such fixations, an awareness effortlessly unfolds.

 

Anyway,...you obviously have no interests in my posts, and the non-soundbite style. However, wish you the best with you cool practice.

 

V

Edited December 17, 2011 by Vmarco

[Marblehead]

And yet the Tao Te Ching spoke of the Tao.

 

It is true what you say here. But what was spoken of are some of the attributes of Tao. Chuang Tzu even said that although we cannot define Tao we can speak of some of its attributes.

 

It would be like if you were to talk about me. You could not possibly define me. But you can speak of some of my attributes that you have observed here on this forum.

[Birch]

It is true what you say here. But what was spoken of are some of the attributes of Tao. Chuang Tzu even said that although we cannot define Tao we can speak of some of its attributes.

 

It would be like if you were to talk about me. You could not possibly define me. But you can speak of some of my attributes that you have observed here on this forum.

 

Calls himself "Marblehead" to belie a soft heart. Atones for his past by kind support of the present and future. Don't take no bullshit, maybe a little bluegrass.

 

There we go:-)

[dwai]

It is true what you say here. But what was spoken of are some of the attributes of Tao. Chuang Tzu even said that although we cannot define Tao we can speak of some of its attributes.

 

It would be like if you were to talk about me. You could not possibly define me. But you can speak of some of my attributes that you have observed here on this forum.

Oh thr paradox of human condition. Senss...cant live with them...cant live without them ;P

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

 

Anyway,...you obviously have no interests in my posts, and the non-soundbite style. However, wish you the best with you cool practice.

 

V

I have little or no interest in the regurgitated concepts of others, or even of how you feel about them.. i am deeply interested in authenticity, and while how you 'feel' about the concepts of others may be an authentic feeling, it doesn't relate to an authentic experience of 'your' relationship with Life.. it is a response influenced by your affinity for other people's experiences, i.e.: "as Eckhart Tolle said", and "Shantideva corretly said:", and "For as Avalokitesvhara said", and "Esther Hicks nailed it".. Parrots weary me.. i have an extensive library of religious, and philosophical texts, if i want to be entertained by their experiences again, i will go to the texts..

 

You patience is a tell that you have little interests in others. For those genuinely interested others,the looking has ceased. The real truth looker does not look for truth, but as Eckhart Tolle said,

Your belief that my patience "is a tell that you have little interests in others", contradicts any validity you might claim toward understanding the meaning of "those genuinely interested" or a "real truth looker".. So no, it is when you give up looking at what is happening and rely on others to define what you believe is 'true', that you to abandon your authenticity and your validity..

 

I do not know what 'truth' is, and i do not look for it.. i simply 'look' at what is happening with unconditional sincerity and uninhibited gusto.. there is only Life living itself through me, through we and us.. your post indicates you are still searching, unable to liberate yourself from the safety of using the beliefs others as your own..

 

Be well..

[9th]

The Venerable Kwai Chang Caine once said "Patience is the Master's final lesson"

[Vmarco]

It is true what you say here. But what was spoken of are some of the attributes of Tao. Chuang Tzu even said that although we cannot define Tao we can speak of some of its attributes.

 

It would be like if you were to talk about me. You could not possibly define me. But you can speak of some of my attributes that you have observed here on this forum.

 

Interesting,...but I don't consider you to be your aggregated attributes. Thus to speak about you (not the you that you thik you are) would be speaking of noumenon. Do see the point however,...and find it helpful.

 

V

[Vmarco]

Edited December 18, 2011 by Vmarco

[9th]

fascinating

[Informer]

Yes,...it was assumed that you're a "feeling" person,...however, you shouldn't mix that with authenticity. How ego feels (Conspiracy of Mediocity = "if I can really emote and express my self-contriction with sincerity, I'm somehow spiritual") is no different than how ego thinks, or egoic self-esteem. I have little interests in clinging to the Skandhas for my identity.

 

What you missed (for the benefit of others reading this) is that I don't regurgitate concepts. Concepts hold little interests for me. I use quotations to more quickly venture into the liminal zone between duality’s sciential sentience and the sapiential consciousness of nonduality, that is, bridge building between useless humanist feelings, and useful ontosophical experience.

 

For those who cling to the "Conspiracy of Mediocity" check out this enjoyable drumming, and count how many time the fellow mentions "human-ness".

 

Critique: Although TzuJanLi does not know a single truth, he claims to look for unconditional sincerity,...yet seeks to connect with deceitful, humanistic feelings. What does that have to do with the subject of non-duality?

 

His negative response to a few quotes meant to broaden the dialogue are beat down, instead of impersonally viewed in the context of a post,...because in his predisposed negativity, it is invalid and without authentic feeling. False people have that habit of placing conditions upon how one describes an experiences, whereas authentic people do not belittle a message out-of-hand as such.

 

Amusingly, TzuJanLi, in his own sound-bite posts, has used quotes to express a larger view,...but his quotes must be seen as authentic in his "feelings", whereas others uses quotes, to express something large, is denied as regurgitated concepts.

 

I would encourage all, to read "Conspiracy of Mediocity", and think about those like TzuJanLi when reading it,...those who insist on stepping between you and your direct experience. We already know that TzuJanLi won't read it,...it's someone elses experience. Must assume he never heard of Isaac Newton, who famously wrote: "If I have seen further... it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

 

Conspiracy of Mediocity

 

"To dare to even speak about radical transformation, let alone call other people to a higher level, is against the unstated rules. And of course, one's definitely going to be put in one's place for doing something like that. But unless the possibility of genuine transformation is actually declared, unless one is willing to demonstrate it publicallyand to call other people to the same, no one is even going to know that it's possible. And than unknowingly, everybody's going to be participating in the conspiracy of mediocrity.

 

The conspiracy of mediocrity is basically the conspiracy to express your own ego instead of transcending it or letting go of it. The idea has become "if I can really emote and express my self-contriction with sincerity, I'm somehow spiritual". Actually, people who are involved in this boomeritis even deny the importance of Enlightenment or Awakening, because that's saying some states are higher than others - and we shouldn't be so judgemental. But guess what? Some states are higher. And so the entire raison d'etre gets tossed out because it offends the pluralistist ego.

 

The spiritual experience, which ideally should be a stepping stone to less ego and greater transparency, has become a victim of our therapeutic culture, where we don't make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and so all we do is embrace, console, and celebrate the personal self. Spiritual practice has become nothing more than a form of therapy where self-acceptance rather than ego-transcendence is the goal. And the problem is that therapists are basically pimps for samsara. They want to hold onto the egoic self-contraction and make it feel good about itself.

 

This conspiracy of mediocrity is very unfortunate. The great promise of the human potential movement was very straightforward - there are higher human potentials. Now, from the therapeutic culture, people say, "wait a minute. you're saying there are higher potentials, so does that mean I'm lower? because that can't be right". All of a sudden it implied a judgement, and nobody's allowed to be higher because that means someone else is going to be lower. And you're not allowed to call anybody lower; therefore nobody's allowed to be higher.

 

So the Human Potential movement got derailed and was replaced by this therapeutic self-expression, self-acceptence movement, which catastrophically prevents higher transformation and mystical breakthroughs. What is missing in the New Age Community is real intellectual vigor. Under the therapeutic culture, if you feel good, you're enlightened. That is mediocrity, and a conspiracy toward mediocrity.".

 

Which is to say,...in our current therapeutic society, which seeks "authentic feelings" people don't want to see that what they thought was meaningful may actually be meaningless.

 

Well, it seems that higher or lower is being transposed to better or worse. Is a higher note better than a lower one? Is a circle better than a square?

 

I think to say higher or lower is fine, but I do not necessarily think it is equivalent to better or worse.

 

An ego may see better or worse transposed from higher or lower, but it is a great tool to determine perspective and how to proceed without being overly offensive, yet explaining.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Informer

[TzuJanLi]