"Nondual" In Buddhadharma

[Simple_Jack]

It would be nice to hear what Simple Jack himself practices, on a daily basis. He is well rehearsed in intellectual Buddhism, there's no denying that, but often i do wonder whether he actually has a formal practice in place. Im sure i am wrong to hold such a presumptuous thought, but still, it'd be great to read about his own stuff, and not other people's stuff all the time. I dont think i have ever come across any of his personal practice notes before.

 

You wouldn't be presumptuous in assuming this, because I don't actually have a set formal practice in place, I'm just a regular person with no attainments, realizations, etc., which means I don't have practice notes as a result of this. Which is why I post articles, forum posts, etc. from people who have a lot more experience than me. If I come off as an adamantly dogmatic sectarian: then that's only because eternalist doctrines don't appeal to me; I'm actually puzzled as to how people could logically accept such a premise for individual experiences. Therefore, I present an alternative to eternalist doctrines which assume an Atman/Brahman, universal consciousness, etc.; which according to Buddhism, are conceptual elaborations, that are a result of mistakenly apprehending certain meditative experiences. Although, there must be something to this, because every time I post stuff from the POV of what Buddhism teaches: the eternalists and perennialists of TTB's react negatively to what I post on this forum. Just look at the example of posts from gatito, ralis, etc. in recent threads.

[RongzomFan]

Adi Shankara himself attacked all the other indian systems

 

Lmao at Advaita being nonsectarian. Utter lies.

[gatito]

You wouldn't be presumptuous in assuming this, because I don't actually have a set formal practice in place, I'm just a regular person with no attainments, realizations, etc., which means I don't have practice notes as a result of this. Which is why I post articles, forum posts, etc. from people who have a lot more experience than me. If I come off as an adamantly dogmatic sectarian: then that's only because eternalist doctrines don't appeal to me; I'm actually puzzled as to how people could logically accept such a premise for individual experiences. Therefore, I present an alternative to eternalist doctrines which assume an Atman/Brahman, universal consciousness, etc.; which according to Buddhism, are conceptual elaborations, that are a result of mistakenly apprehending certain meditative experiences. Although, there must be something to this, because every time I post stuff from the POV of what Buddhism teaches: the eternalists and perennialists of TTB's react negatively to what I post on this forum. Just look at the example of posts from gatito, ralis, etc. in recent threads.

 

So you've zero first-hand experience but you spend your time on the internet posting quotes, the meaning of which you don't understand because you've realised nothing yourself.

 

And when I point out your blatantly obvious ignorance of the Truth, which you've now admitted - you get upset about it.

 

Time to start asking questions rather than attempting to answer them perhaps?

[C T]

You wouldn't be presumptuous in assuming this, because I don't actually have a set formal practice in place, I'm just a regular person with no attainments, realizations, etc., which means I don't have practice notes as a result of this. Which is why I post articles, forum posts, etc. from people who have a lot more experience than me. If I come off as an adamantly dogmatic sectarian: then that's only because eternalist doctrines don't appeal to me; I'm actually puzzled as to how people could logically accept such a premise for individual experiences. Therefore, I present an alternative to eternalist doctrines which assume an Atman/Brahman, universal consciousness, etc.; which according to Buddhism, are conceptual elaborations, that are a result of mistakenly apprehending certain meditative experiences. Although, there must be something to this, because every time I post stuff from the POV of what Buddhism teaches: the eternalists and perennialists of TTB's react negatively to what I post on this forum. Just look at the example of posts from gatito, ralis, etc. in recent threads.

Thank you, Simple Jack. Such honesty is to be respected. Surely there are certain realizations behind it.

 

So, if you don't mind me asking, do you have some sort of practice in place, even informally? For example, some of the stuff you post contains profound practice advice for contemplative and meditative exercises so that one could derive certain conclusions for oneself, for example, whether such advice can actually help the contemplator remove afflictions, a question i know is very dear to your heart, yes?

 

If any Path can help a practitioner to completely and permanently remove afflictive delusions, that one is a true path. In my limited understanding, most spiritual systems available now in this age will only take a devotee some ways on, and so, due to obvious reasons, there is much confusion arising as a result. Whether or not Advaita Vedanta can help resolve afflictive emotions in its totality, i dont know. I dont know enough of that tradition to have a basis for arguing the subtleties. What i know is that this is the vital point, the resolution of afflictive poisons resulting in permanent eradication, so that all doubts will be erased and residual karma cannot have a place to take further root.

 

I also know that the instructions i have received from my teachers, simple practice guides (simple because my teachers knew i am a lazy practitioner with small scope of intelligence) which i have been keeping to for quite a number of years have brought me closer to where i wish to be, spiritually speaking, so these have been validated by way of personal investigation and insights gained thereof.

 

I hope the Advaita adherents here can help further my understandings by sharing their spiritual exercises and gains, and whether or not their practice have gone on to bring a dissolution of afflictions. If the desired results have been achieved, it would be very helpful to know what are the precise practices contained within that tradition which could be practically applied in order to reach those results.

Edited December 24, 2013 by C T

[Mal]

"Direct Path" bullshit Advaitins and other Advaitins.

~~~~~~~~ moderator warning ~~~~~~~~~~

Do not call other systems bullshit

[yabyum24]

 

"...They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis."

I've never made such a claim, as I'm in no position to do so. I have no problem with contrasting and comparing traditions either - it's a useful way of enriching our understanding.

[RongzomFan]

~~~~~~~~ moderator warning ~~~~~~~~~~

Do not call other systems bullshit

It hasnt been established that Direct Path Advaita is even a system.

 

Has anyone heard of it before gatito?

 

Ive heard the phrase Direct Path used by Robert Adams, BUT THAT IS NOT GATITOS DIRECT PATH

Edited December 25, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

And when I point out your blatantly obvious ignorance of the Truth, which you've now admitted - you get upset about it.

 

What, "truth"? I'm not interested in some transcendental experience behind/beneath/outside/apart from each individually occurring sensory experience; that does not appeal to me and for me that does not satisfactorily provide a solution to recognizing and overcoming afflictive experience. Going by your standards, you should have no problem with accepting what's presented here:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html

 

20. "Lord, can there be anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?"

 

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."

 

21. "But, Lord, can there be absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?"

 

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone does not have this view: 'The universe is the Self... eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishing of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then does not think: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he does not grieve, is not depressed, does not lament; he does not beat his breast nor does he weep, and no dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal.[25]

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html

 

Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?"

 

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

 

[Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?"

 

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

 

[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?"

 

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

 

[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?"

 

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend...."

 

 

So, if you don't mind me asking, do you have some sort of practice in place, even informally?

 

I informally practice Mahamudra.

[gatito]

Laisser pisser le mouton

[Simple_Jack]

Laisser pisser le mouton

 

The above post is where our where our aspirations diverge. I'm not seeking 'Oneness', 'Awareness/Consciousness', 'nonduality', unity consciousness, etc. Buddhism makes it clear, that any form of grasping to an "unconditioned" presence, agent, subject, perceiver, seer, witness, knower, etc., is due to a misapprehension of appearances which continues the process of becoming.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe.

[Simple_Jack]

Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe.

 

Those ontological views of sensate experience, according to Buddhism, are due to craving for existence; which in turn conditions and is conditioned by clinging to identity-views. The remedy to extreme views predicated on "is" and "is not", as taught by the Buddha, is dependent origination:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.020.than.html

 

"And what are dependently co-arisen phenomena? Aging & death are dependently co-arisen phenomena: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation.

"Birth is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Becoming is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Clinging/sustenance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Craving is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Feeling is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Contact is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"The six sense media are dependently co-arisen phenomena...

"Name-&-form is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Consciousness is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Fabrications are dependently co-arisen phenomena...

"Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. These are called dependently co-arisen phenomena.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

 

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.....

...."Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.....

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.149.than.html

 

The Blessed One said: "Not knowing, not seeing the eye as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.

"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.

"Not knowing, not seeing the ear... Not knowing, not seeing the nose... Not knowing, not seeing the tongue... Not knowing, not seeing the body...

"Not knowing, not seeing the intellect as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing ideas... consciousness at the intellect... contact at the intellect as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through intellect-contact — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the intellect... ideas... consciousness at the intellect... contact at the intellect... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the intellect and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/foodforawakening.html

 

The Buddha never used the word for "bare attention" in his meditation instructions. That's because he realized that attention never occurs in a bare, pure, or unconditioned form. It's always colored by views and perceptions — the labels you tend to give to events — and by intentions: your choice of what to attend to and your purpose in being attentive. If you don't understand the conditioned nature of even simple acts of attention, you might assume that a moment of nonreactive attention is a moment of Awakening. And in that way you miss one of the most crucial insights in Buddhist meditation: how even the simplest events in the mind can form a condition for clinging and suffering. If you assume a conditioned event to be unconditioned, you close the door to the unconditioned. So it's important to understand the conditioned nature of attention and the Buddha's recommendations for how to train it — as appropriate attention — to be a factor in the path leading beyond attention to total Awakening....

....In the teaching on dependent co-arising — the Buddha's explanation of how events interact to create the conditions for suffering — attention appears early in the sequence, in the factor for mental events called "name," where it comes even prior to the sense media and sensory contact. But it's not the first item in the list. It follows on ignorance, fabrication, and consciousness.

"Ignorance" here doesn't mean a general lack of knowledge. It means not viewing experience in terms of the four noble truths: stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Any other framework for viewing experience, no matter how sophisticated, would qualify as ignorance. Typical examples given in the Canon include seeing things through the framework of self and other, or of existence and non-existence: What am I? What am I not? Do I exist? Do I not exist? Do things outside me exist? Do they not?

These ignorant ways of seeing then condition the way we intentionally fabricate or manipulate bodily, verbal, and mental states. The breath is the primary means for fabricating bodily states, and practical experience shows that — in giving rise to feelings of comfort or discomfort — it has an impact on mental states as well. When colored by ignorance, even your breathing can act as a cause of suffering. As for verbal states, directed thought and evaluation are the means for fabricating words and sentences; whereas mental states are fabricated by feelings — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — and perceptions — the labels we apply to things.

Sensory consciousness is colored by these fabrications. And then — based on the conditions of ignorance, fabrication, and sensory consciousness — the act of attention arises as one of a cluster of mental and physical events called name and form.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/untangling.html

 

...In contrast, the Buddha then depicts appropriate attention as the ability to identify that "This is suffering (the Pali word dukkha here covers stress and pain as well)," "This is the origination of suffering," "This is the cessation of suffering," and "This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering." These are the four categories that the Buddha, in his first discourse, called the four noble truths. The ability to frame the issue of suffering in line with these categories is what enables you ultimately to put an end to the problem of suffering once and for all. This is why they're appropriate...

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html

 

...."'All phenomena come into play through attention.

"'All phenomena have contact as their origination.

"'All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place...

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html

 

...When this had been said, one of the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."

Another wanderer said to Anathapindika, "The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."

Another wanderer said, "The cosmos is finite..."..."The cosmos is infinite..."..."The soul & the body are the same..."..."The soul is one thing and the body another..."..."After death a Tathagata exists..."..."After death a Tathagata does not exist..."..."After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist..."..."After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."

When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have," his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress." [similarly with the other positions.]

When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have."

"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have."...

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

 

2. Conditioned by Contact (Phassapaccayavāra)

 

...118 (131). "Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal — that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.[11]

119 (132). "When those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.007.nypo.html

 

..."And how, O monks, is a monk clearly comprehending? He applies clear comprehension in going forward and going back; in looking straight on and in looking elsewhere; in bending and in stretching (his limbs); in wearing the robes and carrying the alms bowl; in eating, drinking, chewing and savoring; in obeying the calls of nature; in walking, standing sitting, falling asleep, waking, speaking and being silent — in all that he applies clear comprehension. So, monks, is a monk clearly comprehending.

"If a monk is thus mindful and clearly comprehending, ardent, earnest and resolute, and a pleasant feeling arises in him, he knows: 'Now a pleasant feeling has arisen in me. It is conditioned, not unconditioned. Conditioned by what? Even by this body it is conditioned.[1]And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen. But if this pleasant feeling that has arisen, is conditioned by the body which is impermanent, compounded and dependently arisen; how could such a pleasant feeling be permanent?'

"In regard to both body and the pleasant feeling he dwells contemplating impermanence, dwells contemplating evanescence, dwells contemplating detachment, dwells contemplating cessation, dwells contemplating relinquishment. And in him who thus dwells, the underlying tendency to lust in regard to body and pleasant feeling vanishes....

 

 

Of course, as a remedy to the crypto-realism [buddhist definition] of Hinayana, there are the Prajnaparamita Sutras which fully expound the meaning of emptiness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gatito]

Thank you, Simple Jack. Such honesty is to be respected. Surely there are certain realizations behind it.

 

So, if you don't mind me asking, do you have some sort of practice in place, even informally? For example, some of the stuff you post contains profound practice advice for contemplative and meditative exercises so that one could derive certain conclusions for oneself, for example, whether such advice can actually help the contemplator remove afflictions, a question i know is very dear to your heart, yes?

 

If any Path can help a practitioner to completely and permanently remove afflictive delusions, that one is a true path. In my limited understanding, most spiritual systems available now in this age will only take a devotee some ways on, and so, due to obvious reasons, there is much confusion arising as a result. Whether or not Advaita Vedanta can help resolve afflictive emotions in its totality, i dont know. I dont know enough of that tradition to have a basis for arguing the subtleties. What i know is that this is the vital point, the resolution of afflictive poisons resulting in permanent eradication, so that all doubts will be erased and residual karma cannot have a place to take further root.

 

I also know that the instructions i have received from my teachers, simple practice guides (simple because my teachers knew i am a lazy practitioner with small scope of intelligence) which i have been keeping to for quite a number of years have brought me closer to where i wish to be, spiritually speaking, so these have been validated by way of personal investigation and insights gained thereof.

 

I hope the Advaita adherents here can help further my understandings by sharing their spiritual exercises and gains, and whether or not their practice have gone on to bring a dissolution of afflictions. If the desired results have been achieved, it would be very helpful to know what are the precise practices contained within that tradition which could be practically applied in order to reach those results.

 

Thanks for the invite CT but I'm not interested in posting in this sub-forum again.

 

I also feel that you and I (and all the de facto Buddhists ) share a mutual understanding that needs no further discussion invoving me in this sub-forum..

 

I hope that some of the other Advaitins may feel differently.

[C T]

Thanks for the invite CT but I'm not interested in posting in this sub-forum again.

 

Quite understandable, Gatitoji.

[gatito]

Thanks CT

 

I'm sure that we'll continue to meet-up in more moderate climes

[Simple_Jack]

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=186276&hilit=+epistemic#p186276

 

It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=60

 

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip.

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

[Simple_Jack]

Dvayaṃnissito kho'yaṃ kaccaana loko yebhuyyena atthita–ceva natthita–ca

Kaaccana, this world abides in duality, normally abiding in ‘is’ and ‘is not’. ~ Buddha

 

Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

 

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not"....

 

"Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation.

 

Nāgārjuna states:

 

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,

‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.

Because of that, is and is not

are not made into a basis by the wise.

 

- Loppon Namdrol

 

This thread contains a series of posts by Loppon Namdrol differentiating the meaning of advaya and its use in buddhadharma. Loppon mamdrol aka. Malcolm is knowledgeable in the translation of Sanskrit and Tibetan terminology.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=80

 

There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma.

 

Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination.

 

Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on.

 

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=60

 

Emptiness is one of three doors of liberation; non-duality is not. The other two being lack of aspiration and the signless.

 

There is no philosophy of non-dualism in Buddhism. This is wholly the invention of western scholars. For example, Madhyamaka rarely uses the term "non-dual".

 

When it is used in Yogacara, it is meant to describe lack of a real subject and object in perception (vijñaptimatra), and hence the absence of existence and non-existence in those imagined phenomena as well.

 

It does not get used at all in the Nikaya schools.

 

I think westerners are over-invested in this word.

 

But a word that is frequently brought up, over and over again, is anutpāda, non-origination, non-arising. This word is much more important for we Buddhists.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4461&start=40

 

Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought.

 

When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics. Thus, the Bodhittavivarana states:

 

 

Abiding in the mind without objects

has the characteristic of space;

that meditation of space is

held to be the meditation of emptiness.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4898

 

"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

 

Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state....

 

"Non-dual" i.e. gnyis med/advaya means the absence of the duality of being and non-being.

 

In Yogacara, it can mean absence of subject and object, but the reason for this is that ultimately there is an absence of being and non-being.

 

Even when we talk about the inseparability of original purity and natural formation, kadag and lhundrup, this inseparability is actually predicated on the non-duality that I mentioned above. When we talk about freedom from the four extremes, the eight extremes and so on, it is all, in the end predicated on the absence of being and non-being. That absence of being and non-being is the essence of what the term "non-dual" means in Buddhist texts.

 

It is not a translation or terminology issue, it is just a basic fact of Buddhist view....

 

Whatever is asti is satya (true), whatever is nasti as mithya (false), so at base, it really is about freedom from asti (being) and nasti (non-being).

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4898&start=20

 

In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based.

 

And often enough translators decide to translate dbyer med as non-dual, even though dbyer med is asaṁbhedaḥ, inseparable.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=13757&start=120

 

"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370

 

There is a difference between an absence of duality (Madhyamaka, and so on) and so called "non-duality"....

 

The first refers to an absence of extremes. The second is advocating a philosophical position.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=60

 

One can argue from the point of view of emptiness. One cannot argue from the point of view of non-duality and remain a Buddhist.

 

Advaya-patita means "not broken into two parts", better to say, "...all phenomena are not divided into two, though they are not divided into two, they are not, however single".

 

Better translation of the title would be the dharma discourse on entering the absence of dualism.

 

But the absence of dualism here is the dualism of "exists" and "does not exist".

 

Also the absence of the tā particle in Buddhist renderings of the term advaya is significant, even though usually over looked. "Tā" bears the meaning it "ity" in English, for example, reality. Non-duality means literally, "a state of being in which there is no dualism".

 

Emptiness is nondual, but it is not a nonduality.

 

The amount of trouble this simple word causes is incalculable -- the mistranslation of advaya as non-duality is responsible for huge misunderstandings....

 

The nice thing about śūnyatā is that you can stated that it is ultimate reality without committing oneself to an ontological position. Hence the tā suffix.

 

Three gates of liberation are a little different: śūnya, alakṣana, apranidhana, empty, without characteristics, without aspiration.

 

They are not states, they are entries. Emptiness is the bhutatā, the actual nature of the things. Also emptiness has no nature, since it is free from extremes.

 

This is the beauty of Madhyamaka. You can assert emptiness as a nature, and no one can fault you. If you assert non-duality as a nature you have already committed an epistemological blunder.

 

As Nagarjuna really said:

 

If I had a position, I would be at fault.

Since I alone have no position, I alone am free from fault.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=80

 

Phenomena are free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience -- see Kaccaayanagotto Sutta i.e. "Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle".

 

The middle way view is by necessity a non-dual view, avoiding these extremes of dualism. That is also emptiness; emptiness cures the views of existence and non-existence -- that can be correlated in one's personal experience....

 

It is the same, now attached, now detached; now full, now empty; now exists, now does not exist; these are all dualities.

 

When the basis for attachment has ceased, also the basis for detachment has ceased: detachment is also trapped in dualism....

 

...Non-attachment is remedial. It contains the seeds of its own defeat.

 

If you have attachment, then you need non-attachment. It is better to cut these things at the root, rather than the leaf.

 

The root is wrong views of existence and non-existence. That is dualism as defined by the Buddha. The absence of duality is when one's has no wrong views concerning "it is" and "it is not".

 

Every other dualistic pair stems from these two.

 

Finally, from the Ch'an/Zen side of things, by Ven. Huifeng of Fo Guang University:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=60

 

Since the position of Zen has been brought into the discussion (albeit in a rather clumsy manner), it is worth pointing out how the phrase "advaya" appears in Chinese. It appears almost always as 不二, which is again just "not two", a very clear translation of "advaya". If one wished to express "advaita" (or similar abstracted sense), then one would probably use 非二性 (Xuanzang style translation). However, while 不二 appears thousands of times throughout the Chinese canon, including the Chan (--> Zen) works, the latter term or variants, only appear once or twice from what can be found scanning the entire canon digitally.

 

So, the Chinese - and I'd warrant the Japanese too - most likely had a clear notion of "advaya" as "not two". Whether or not this is held out in English translations of the Chinese or Japanese works, however, is another matter. But considering that of Chan or Zen practitioners, only a tiny minority use English, one would want to avoid gross over generalizations.

 

Bump.

[Simple_Jack]

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=186276&hilit=+epistemic#p186276

 

It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

 

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=60

 

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip.

 

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

 

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

 

T.R.V. Murti's Central Philosophy of Buddhism:

 

Advaya is knowledge free from the duality of the extremes (antas or dristis) of ‘is’ and ‘is not’, ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ etc. It is knowledge freed of conceptual distinctions. Advaita is knowledge of a differenceless entity: Brahman (Pure Being) or Vijñana (Pure consciousness).

...

 

Advaya is purely an epistemological approach; the advaita is ontological. The sole concern of the Madhyamaka advaya-vada is the purification of the faculty of knowing. The primordial error consists in the intellect being infected by the inveterate tendency to view Reality as identity or difference, permanent or momentary, one or many etc. These views falsify Reality, and the dialectic administers a cathartic corrective. With the purification of the intellect, Intuition (prajña) emerges; the Real is known as it is, as Tathata or bhutakoti. The emphasis is on the correct attitude of our knowing and not on the known..