What is Non-duality?

[s1va]

11 minutes ago, dwai said:

Actually the Brahmanistha masters don’t say anything against any tradition. But if you want to believe something because that is the more popular point to view, that’s your prerogative. Doesn’t make it correct though

 

 

 

 

In my view, pointing out the different views in their teachings and explaining what a teacher thinks as true or false view, does not amount to going against any tradition.  I would agree that Realized masters won't engage in activities simply to discredit any tradition.  But, at the same time, I rarely ever seen one of them, that shies away from openly criticizing or pointing out the views that they think are wrong, or against the welfare of others in general.  Be it Krishna, or Buddha or Sankra to the modern teachers.

 

Yes, the popular opinion could be wrong (or right!).  However, if the entire world understands a certain word to mean something, it helps if I follow the same meaning and norms.  Just to be in harmony with others

[Jetsun]

In my experience those people who talk about non-duality no matter the tradition always ultimately fail to describe what it is, it is impossible for the mind to grasp it because the mind only works in duality, so it is a completely different realm of experience than anything conceptual. When you get established in that realm you can put the raft of spiritual teachings down whether Buddhist or Vedanta

 

Yet I don't think the "I am" is the same as non-duality, think of it like different levels of a tangible sense of identity turning around on itself towards its source

 

1- I am => a father, brother, fireman, male, a European, a loser, a democrat, a victim  - etc defining yourself as something

2 - I - Sense of I existing before labels

3 - Am - Sense of existence itself

4 - =>       <=    Space, mystery, non-duality

 

As per Nisargardatta's teaching staying in the sense of "I am" is the gateway to what I label as level 4, to non-duality rather than being non-duality itself. Adyashanti describes it as if you stay in the sense (a tangible energetic sense) of "I am" it is like standing on a cliff edge, you haven't yet gone over the edge, or been pushed or blown over, but if you spend enough time there it is more likely to happen. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Jetsun

[dwai]

13 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

In my experience those people who talk about non-duality no matter the tradition always ultimately fail to describe what it is, it is impossible for the mind to grasp it because the mind only works in duality, so it is a completely different realm of experience than anything conceptual. When you get established in that realm you can put the raft of spiritual teachings down whether Buddhist or Vedanta

 

Yet I don't think the "I am" is the same as non-duality, think of it like different levels of a tangible sense of identity turning around on itself towards its source

 

1- I am => a father, brother, fireman, male, a European, a loser, a democrat, a victim  - etc defining yourself as something

2 - I - Sense of I existing before labels

3 - Am - Sense of existence itself

4 - =>       <=    Space, mystery, non-duality

 

As per Nisargardatta's teaching staying in the sense of "I am" is the gateway to what I label as level 4, to non-duality rather than being non-duality itself. Adyashanti describes it as if you stay in the sense (a tangible energetic sense) of "I am" it is like standing on a cliff edge, you haven't yet gone over the edge, or been pushed or blown over, but if you spend enough time there it is more likely to happen. 

Yes I agree with this. I am is the root of all experience. Or in other words it is the point from which the mind rises and into which the mind falls back.

 

the problem is most people go about their lives without knowing how the mind operates. I find that if we don’t know how to abide in the “I am”, it will lead to mistaken identification with phenomena.

 

I’d only add that “I” and “am” are inseparable to me. Ie Being and awareness. The “I am-ness”.

 

So even though the antahkarana has chitta, manas, ahamkara and buddhi; I am is not ahamkara. It is before the body identification happens. I am body and mind is ahamkara.

 

I AM comes first. Then antahkarana appears. So while I am is not nonduality, the only thing that we can get as it’s attributes are “awarenss in the moment”.

 

So it is the “one” from which/to which the phenomena appear.

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by dwai

[dwai]

20 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

In my view, pointing out the different views in their teachings and explaining what a teacher thinks as true or false view, does not amount to going against any tradition.  I would agree that Realized masters won't engage in activities simply to discredit any tradition.  But, at the same time, I rarely ever seen one of them, that shies away from openly criticizing or pointing out the views that they think are wrong, or against the welfare of others in general.  Be it Krishna, or Buddha or Sankra to the modern teachers.

 

Yes, the popular opinion could be wrong (or right!).  However, if the entire world understands a certain word to mean something, it helps if I follow the same meaning and norms.  Just to be in harmony with others

 you are a beautiful person dear brother.

🤗

 

Thanks for humoring my thanksgiving debate fever. 

[Jetsun]

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yes I agree with this. I am is the root of all experience. Or in other words it is the point from which the mind rises and into which the mind falls back.

 

the problem is most people go about their lives without knowing how the mind operates. I find that if we don’t know how to abide in the “I am”, it will lead to mistaken identification with phenomena.

 

Sorry dwai I'm not saying quite that, I'm saying the I am is the stage before the root, or after that depending on what way you look at it. You could call it the first stage of delusion, there is still a need to go beyond that to find truth 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Jetsun

[s1va]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

 you are a beautiful person dear brother.

🤗

 

Thanks for humoring my thanksgiving debate fever. 

 

 Thank you 🤗.  

I am happy that I could participate in this meaningful and beautiful discussion

[CedarTree]

Commonly in Vedanta it comes down to "One" which is "Awareness".  In Buddhism "Awareness" is empty of self.

 

So the old koan what does the one return to?  In some schools of Hinduism maybe it is self referential "It returns to the one".  In Buddhism there is no one. Lol

 

But I talk from a deluded mind so take this all with lots and lots and lots of salt.

 

Language and concepts are skillfull means I think not awakening.

[dwai]

8 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

 

Sorry dwai I'm not saying quite that, I'm saying the I am is the stage before the root, or after that depending on what way you look at it. You could call it the first stage of delusion, there is still a need to go beyond that to find truth 

Added a section to my initial response —

 

I’d only add that “I” and “am” are inseparable to me. Ie Being and awareness. The “I am-ness”.

 

So even though the antahkarana has chitta, manas, ahamkara and buddhi; I am is not ahamkara. It is before the body identification happens. I am body and mind is ahamkara.

 

I AM comes first. Then antahkarana appears. So while I am is not nonduality, the only thing that we can get as it’s attributes are “awarenss in the moment”.

 

So it is the “one” from which/to which the phenomena appear.

[Jeff]

“I am” is the vestige of the conscious aspects (local) of mind. Beyond that is the subconscious aspect that feels “non-dual” (as described) as one has not yet expanded to make it conscious. It is the same as with Nirvikalpa samadhi. The limit “moves” relative to clarity/energy. With your definition, one person’s non-duality, is another person’s personal bathtub.

[3bob]

off topic but I find it strange that the historic Buddha as a spiritual teacher preached against other "X" spiritual teachings yet also turned around and more or less said that "rafts" are useful.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

“I am” is the vestige of the conscious aspects (local) of mind. Beyond that is the subconscious aspect that feels “non-dual” (as described) as one has not yet expanded to make it conscious. It is the same as with Nirvikalpa samadhi. The limit “moves” relative to clarity/energy. With your definition, one person’s non-duality, is another person’s personal bathtub.

Per my definition the water in my bathtub is the water in another’s ocean. 

[s1va]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

“I am” is the vestige of the conscious aspects (local) of mind. Beyond that is the subconscious aspect that feels “non-dual” (as described) as one has not yet expanded to make it conscious. It is the same as with Nirvikalpa samadhi. The limit “moves” relative to clarity/energy. With your definition, one person’s non-duality, is another person’s personal bathtub.

 

It is interesting that you brought up the samadhi into this discussion -- Nirvikalpa samadhi.  I wonder how exactly the "I am" or Non-dual state that we discuss, relates to the state of Samadhi in general.  If one is in Sahaja Samadhi, performing actions (I am talking about the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi while being conscious, not sure if this is called as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or the highest Samadhi) , would that be considered as equal to the Non-dual state?  If this the case, is Sahaja Samadhi the goal?  I would think there is more to it, in general.

[s1va]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

off topic but I find it strange that the historic Buddha as a spiritual teacher preached against other "X" spiritual teachings yet also turned around and more or less said that "rafts" are useful.

 

Yes, I have thought about this before.  I could only think of 2 reasons.  (1) Perhaps, the history was not recorded properly, there was no written record at the time of historical Buddha.   But, I think the 2) might more be the case.  (2) Perhaps even the greatest masters evolve and move into even greater levels of expansion and their opinion on certain topics change over time.  Like everything is ever evolving and expanding there is not one 'end' line anywhere.

Edited November 24, 2017 by s1va

[Jeff]

36 minutes ago, dwai said:

Per my definition the water in my bathtub is the water in another’s ocean. 

 

Yes, exactly. Fits perfectly with the Parabrahman definition. Just not with many other tradtitions.

[Jeff]

15 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

It is interesting that you brought up the samadhi into this discussion -- Nirvikalpa samadhi.  I wonder how exactly the "I am" or Non-dual state that we discuss, relates to the state of Samadhi in general.  If one is in Sahaja Samadhi, performing actions (I am talking about the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi while being conscious, not sure if this is called as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or the highest Samadhi) , would that be considered as equal to the Non-dual state?  If this the case, is Sahaja Samadhi the goal?  I would think there is more to it, in general.

 

I think that depends on how one is defining the non-dual state. But yes, I would agree that it is much more that a quiet mind where one does not identify with subject or object.

[s1va]

Perhaps @dwai can provide some insight on how higher samadhi states relate to the Non-dual.  If one can achieve a state wherein, a person can be in Sahaja Samadhi for most of the time or 24x7, would that be considered as being in the Non-dual state?  (With the same assumption that this is the higher Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi)

[dwai]

40 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, exactly. Fits perfectly with the Parabrahman definition. Just not with many other tradtitions.

It is beyond all definitions.

and is also something that no amount of mental jugglery can reduce to a “one thing”. 

[dwai]

15 minutes ago, s1va said:

Perhaps @dwai can provide some insight on how higher samadhi states relate to the Non-dual.  If one can achieve a state wherein, a person can be in Sahaja Samadhi for most of the time or 24x7, would that be considered as being in the Non-dual state?  (With the same assumption that this is the higher Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi)

If there is no sense of doership, and actions happen on their own, only witnessing happens with no desire to control them (goes with no sense of doership), then it is nondual. Otherwise it is not, imho. 

 

[dwai]

45 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I think that depends on how one is defining the non-dual state. But yes, I would agree that it is much more that a quiet mind where one does not identify with subject or object.

So per your definition in the non-dual,  is there a subject and object? 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

It is interesting that you brought up the samadhi into this discussion -- Nirvikalpa samadhi.  I wonder how exactly the "I am" or Non-dual state that we discuss, relates to the state of Samadhi in general.  If one is in Sahaja Samadhi, performing actions (I am talking about the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi while being conscious, not sure if this is called as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or the highest Samadhi) , would that be considered as equal to the Non-dual state?  If this the case, is Sahaja Samadhi the goal?  I would think there is more to it, in general.

“ I am”is not nondual. In Kevala nirvikalpa  samadhi, there is nothing at all. No subject, no object. 

 

What is called Sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi happens on its own. It cannot be induced. As long as there is a doer, it is not sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi.  

 

I am is the first principle that leads to all other experiences.

 

“I AM” rises from the nondual but as long as it is “I AM” it is also is the condition that gives rise to all appearances. All we can do is abide in the “I AM” till it too disappears. Then there is nondual. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by dwai

[C T]

In Vajrayana, non-duality is an experience of the nature of mind in which thought (form) and the *cessation of thought no longer appears mutually exclusive (meaning thought and the absence of thought have become inseparably merged ~ *Skt. Yug* = yoga = union). From the realisation of this union comes the subsequent experiences of equipoise, one taste, and ultimately, reaching a stable state of Equanimity, usually signified by one's pure vision of seeing the absolute in the relative, and the relative in the absolute. As a Vajrayana practitioner, this realisation, as per tradition, needs to be verified by one's guru or lineage master.  

 

In a Vajrayana context, Non-duality has the same connotation as the experience of Equipoise, which is like a kind of inner confidence that one can feel, without even the slightest trace of doubt, that indeed the mind is essentially a continual flux of emptiness suffused with cognisance, both arising/dissolving not as two split events, one after the other, which is like what 'ordinary' (deluded) minds tend to see most of the time. 

 

*cessation of thought is where thought is absented by will, or it could also be that one simply rests in the observation of the gradual lengthening of the silent gaps between 2 thoughts without losing alertness and sharp awareness, which is differentiated from stupor and also contrasted against drugged states, or states of blank consciousness. 

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

So per your definition in the non-dual,  is there a subject and object? 

 

My definition would be more in line with and could extrapolate to what CT has described above. It is not really the cessation or absence, but more when one has moved beyond and the two are known to be the same, and also being and non-being are known to be the same. Or you could say that what you have described is necessary, but not complete, for all the reasons that I have articulated earlier. 

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

If there is no sense of doership, and actions happen on their own, only witnessing happens with no desire to control them (goes with no sense of doership), then it is nondual. Otherwise it is not, imho. 

 

 

Your definition above is an example of “quiet mind”, and not necessarily a sign of non-dual realization. As an example, one could believe that no one is “smoking” or has a desire to smoke, while all the while really just subconsciously addicted to smoking, but won’t consciously admit it to them-self. 

[dwai]

8 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

My definition would be more in line with and could extrapolate to what CT has described above. It is not really the cessation or absence, but more when one has moved beyond and the two are known to be the same, and also being and non-being are known to be the same. Or you could say that what you have described is necessary, but not complete, for all the reasons that I have articulated earlier. 

 

 

Your definition above is an example of “quiet mind”, and not necessarily a sign of non-dual realization. As an example, one could believe that no one is “smoking” or has a desire to smoke, while all the while really just subconsciously addicted to smoking, but won’t consciously admit it to them-self. 

 

yes “I am” is necessary and not compete. Completion will not happen from our volition. any action taken with doership is a step away from “it”. 

 

Quiet mind doesn’t mean “no doership” to me. Quiet mind is just with less and less frequent thoughts. Mind it a field of thoughts...so a quiet mind is just a sparse field. Nonduality doesn’t mean the mind goes away. It means the mind is not identified with anymore, anymore than the body is, or the separation of 10,000 things for that matter. 

 

Minor things like smoking or not-smoking have no bearing on whether one has non-dual realization or not, imho. If smoking has to happen, then it will. If non-smoking has to happen then it will.

 

The “going beyond” absence or presence of mind is a result of dropping of the identification, imho.

[s1va]

17 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

The “going beyond” absence or presence of mind is a result of dropping of the identification, imho.

 

If the identification is dropped (not by effort, naturally), and then later it comes back, does this mean it is "going beyond" or the non-dual state?  This is a crucial question for me based on my own past experiences.  The Realization once arrived should be a constant and permanent experience -- continuous bliss at some levels.

 

If it goes away even momentarily, would it still be considered non-dual?  

 

Edit:  The calm mind that is discussed or even the Samadhi states seem to come and go.

Edited November 24, 2017 by s1va

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

yes “I am” is necessary and not compete. Completion will not happen from our volition. any action taken with doership is a step away from “it”. 

 

Quiet mind doesn’t mean “no doership” to me. Quiet mind is just with less and less frequent thoughts. Mind it a field of thoughts...so a quiet mind is just a sparse field. Nonduality doesn’t mean the mind goes away. It means the mind is not identified with anymore, anymore than the body is, or the separation of 10,000 things for that matter. 

 

Minor things like smoking or not-smoking have no bearing on whether one has non-dual realization or not, imho. If smoking has to happen, then it will. If non-smoking has to happen then it will.

 

The “going beyond” absence or presence of mind is a result of dropping of the identification, imho.

 

I was not talking about “I am”, but specifically quoted your definition of non-dual with your non-doership. 

 

Your definition of minor things like addction to smoking (or porn, drugs, etc...) are to me a sign of subconscious attachments (I need a cigarette... badly  ), and effectively proof that the person is not in a non-dual state. Additionally, it shows that person is not even aware of their own subconscious mental processes in the first place.