What is Non-duality?

[Jetsun]

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

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. 

 

One can have a non-dual realisation and still have all sorts of subconscious programmes and karmic stuff going on, in fact that is the normal state of affairs. The idea that one has to be completely purified and fully conscious of everything going on in their system to awaken is a common fallacy.

 

Regarding smoking, Nisargadatta smoked his whole life and he had one of the clearest expressions of non-duality which has been put down on record. 

[s1va]

31 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

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. 

 

I think you are not actually talking about the act of smoking.  But, the mental obsession for smoking or that next cigarette, would this be accurate?  If that obsession is not there, the act by itself should not be an issue.

 

Edit:  I want to add smoking rarely ever seems to be non-obsessive

Edited November 24, 2017 by s1va

[dwai]

18 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

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.

 Why should dropping. of identification with the mind be beyond nonduality? Nondual is not a state. It is the reality. It is always nondual. What drops is the misconception that we are something or someone separate from it. Simultaneously also drops the misconception that others are separate from it. 

 

Is bliss a state you experience or is it your own nature?  It is the latter to me, so it doesn’t go away or rise due to anything else. What comes and go is the identification with the mind and body. 

 

What is called awakening is the realization that we are not these separate body-mind entities. We see the patterns that bind us into these seemingly separated existences. That we are born and we die. That we are matter to which consciousness happened. 

 

The samadhi  that seem to appear and disappear is not some state that seem to be induced, stay for a while and then disappear. Rather, samadhi is our nature. What comes and goes is the identification with things (including body and mind). 

 

That’s why we say the avidya rises due maya. Maya is the identification with ephemeral objects thinking they are real. 

 

 

[s1va]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

The samadhi  that seem to appear and disappear is not some state that seem to be induced, stay for a while and then disappear. Rather, samadhi is our nature. What comes and goes is the identification with things (including body and mind). 

 

 

 

If the identification with things comes and goes -- this seems to be the reason for all issues -- even if such identification comes rarely, I would think this is not non-dual realization that you describe.  Would this be accurate?

[dwai]

54 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

If the identification with things comes and goes -- this seems to be the reason for all issues -- even if such identification comes rarely, I would think this is not non-dual realization that you describe.  Would this be accurate?

It is not a realization of a dual being as being nondual. It is a dropping of dualistic identification. We are already nondual. 

[dawei]

49 minutes ago, dwai said:

It is not a realization of a dual being as being nondual. It is a dropping of dualistic identification. We are already nondual. 

 

I rarely post in this area as I have no understanding of Hindu Discussion... but this topic is of interest.

 

I would agree that the dropping of dualistic identification is where there is no longer subject vs object, no Yin vs Yang, etc., a kind of negative of Both/And, here it is Neither/Nor...  In Daoism, this is closest shown in Zhuangzi. 

 

Jeff posed a slightly different idea (not speaking for him but my read), it is where subject = object, Yin = Yang, Form = Emptiness... a complimentary pair that resolves to One [whole].    I think in Daoism, Laozi talks of this:  When beauty arises, so does ugly...  the two sides are relative but LZ deftly  shows this is but a spectrum of One.

 

I don't think the issue is, which view is correct as I see them both as correct on some level... back to a Form view = an Emptiness View.     

 

 But I would add that if we engage in such reductionist theory, then if we go to Not-Two, it is logical to go to Not-One.   So if we're going to define talk of Form (Two) and then mention non-dual (not-Two), but then bring in Emptiness...  that is then not-One to me.   

 

Is Dao, One ?  Earlier Jeff said it comes from Dao...  so Dao is not-One.

 

The topic was non-dual but maybe non-dual is just a representation for some more reductionist idea. 

[dwai]

Quote

Ignorance has a mysterious power. It is that which makes the impossible possible. (Maya Panchakam - Sri Sankara.)

Though it has no ultimate reality itself, yet it can seemingly project creation and produce multiplicity. Seemingly omnipotent
ignorance vanishes when one  inquires into the Self.

To pursue avidya / maya is only to fall deeper and deeper into its morass. The Self must be inquired into, for there is no solution
to ignorance, only dissolution! Contrary to what critics say, this facet of ignorance is not a defect, but an ornament. This mysterious
power of ignorance both obscures and projects. Not does it (innocently enough), obscure or conceal the Self, but then it (insidiously)
pretends to be what-it-is-not by projecting the world  of multiplicity.

http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=7595.0

[dwai]

38 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

I rarely post in this area as I have no understanding of Hindu Discussion... but this topic is of interest.

 

I would agree that the dropping of dualistic identification is where there is no longer subject vs object, no Yin vs Yang, etc., a kind of negative of Both/And, here it is Neither/Nor...  In Daoism, this is closest shown in Zhuangzi. 

 

Jeff posed a slightly different idea (not speaking for him but my read), it is where subject = object, Yin = Yang, Form = Emptiness... a complimentary pair that resolves to One [whole].    I think in Daoism, Laozi talks of this:  When beauty arises, so does ugly...  the two sides are relative but LZ deftly  shows this is but a spectrum of One.

 

I don't think the issue is, which view is correct as I see them both as correct on some level... back to a Form view = an Emptiness View.     

 

 But I would add that if we engage in such reductionist theory, then if we go to Not-Two, it is logical to go to Not-One.   So if we're going to define talk of Form (Two) and then mention non-dual (not-Two), but then bring in Emptiness...  that is then not-One to me.   

 

Is Dao, One ?  Earlier Jeff said it comes from Dao...  so Dao is not-One.

 

The topic was non-dual but maybe non-dual is just a representation for some more reductionist idea. 

If you read the OP you’ll see that I clearly point out that  reducing nondualism to “one thing” based on the name “Advaita” is a case of misunderstanding. It is neither dual, nor is it one. It is not-dual. Non-Duality here doesn’t mean multiplicity of numbers as opposed to a single entity. It means not dual. Both many and one are dualistic. Non-dual is neither. 

[dawei]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

It is neither dual, nor is it one. It is not-dual. Non-Duality here doesn’t mean multiplicity of numbers as opposed to a single entity. It means not dual. Both many and one are dualistic. Non-dual is neither. 

 

That is more than a mouth full

 

I agree that 'One' is still dualistic. 

[Jeff]

4 hours ago, dawei said:

 

I rarely post in this area as I have no understanding of Hindu Discussion... but this topic is of interest.

 

I would agree that the dropping of dualistic identification is where there is no longer subject vs object, no Yin vs Yang, etc., a kind of negative of Both/And, here it is Neither/Nor...  In Daoism, this is closest shown in Zhuangzi. 

 

Jeff posed a slightly different idea (not speaking for him but my read), it is where subject = object, Yin = Yang, Form = Emptiness... a complimentary pair that resolves to One [whole].    I think in Daoism, Laozi talks of this:  When beauty arises, so does ugly...  the two sides are relative but LZ deftly  shows this is but a spectrum of One.

 

I don't think the issue is, which view is correct as I see them both as correct on some level... back to a Form view = an Emptiness View.     

 

 But I would add that if we engage in such reductionist theory, then if we go to Not-Two, it is logical to go to Not-One.   So if we're going to define talk of Form (Two) and then mention non-dual (not-Two), but then bring in Emptiness...  that is then not-One to me.   

 

Is Dao, One ?  Earlier Jeff said it comes from Dao...  so Dao is not-One.

 

The topic was non-dual but maybe non-dual is just a representation for some more reductionist idea. 

 

I did not mean to imply that the Dao is not one. More meant to say that the One is like a subset (or state) of the Dao. 

[Jeff]

6 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I think you are not actually talking about the act of smoking.  But, the mental obsession for smoking or that next cigarette, would this be accurate?  If that obsession is not there, the act by itself should not be an issue.

 

Edit:  I want to add smoking rarely ever seems to be non-obsessive

 

I am more saying that there is always some intent (maybe subconscious) with the act of smoking. If there was not some intent/desire, there would be no smoking. 

[s1va]

13 hours ago, dwai said:

It is not a realization of a dual being as being nondual. It is a dropping of dualistic identification. We are already nondual. 

 

 

While it may be true that all of us are in that state already, I think such truth has little practical value, if such realization is not apparent or shining all the time.

[Jeff]

17 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

 

While it may be true that all of us are in that state already, I think such truth has little practical value, if such realization is not apparent or shining all the time.

 

Abhinavagupta (Kashmir Shiavism master) definitely agrees with you...

 

"True, but even though it shines there, it has not truly become a conscious apprehension. Without conscious apprehension, even if a thing exists, it is as if it did not exist..."

[s1va]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

Abhinavagupta (Kashmir Shiavism master) definitely agrees with you...

 

"True, but even though it shines there, it has not truly become a conscious apprehension. Without conscious apprehension, even if a thing exists, it is as if it did not exist..."

 

Abhinavagupta describes it beautifully, my statements were partly inspired by this same quote which you made in another place.  I could not find the quote or recall entirely, so I described the issue as I understand it. 

[Jetsun]

25 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

 

While it may be true that all of us are in that state already, I think such truth has little practical value, if such realization is not apparent or shining all the time.

 

But it can change the way one approaches this whole thing, it means it isn't about achieving anything or ascending to a higher plane or getting away from anything. For many people I think that is a very useful recognition, even if it's just a glimpse of the truth.

[s1va]

6 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

 

But it can change the way one approaches this whole thing, it means it isn't about achieving anything or ascending to a higher plane or getting away from anything. For many people I think that is a very useful recognition, even if it's just a glimpse of the truth.

 

IMO, understanding that we are in that state already, does not help penetrate the veil of maya.  It may have some value, that is why I said 'little practical value' instead of 'no value'.  In Gita, Krishna talks about how difficult it is to truly penetrate this veil of his divine energy which is called maya, even though we are in that state already.  Even though it may seem so close to, that practically we are it, it is still impenetrable.

 

"My divine energy Maya, consisting of the three modes of nature, is very difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto me cross over it easily." -  (daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te).

 

The same verse also advocates a solution, surrender to the divine and by divine grace, it is stated one can cross over such maya easily.  If such an understanding makes a person 'let go' and surrender to the divine, 

[Jeff]

9 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

IMO, understanding that we are in that state already, does not help penetrate the veil of maya.  It may have some value, that is why I said 'little practical value' instead of 'no value'.  In Gita, Krishna talks about how difficult it is to truly penetrate this veil of his divine energy which is called maya, even though we are in that state already.  Even though it may seem so close to, that practically we are it, it is still impenetrable.

 

"My divine energy Maya, consisting of the three modes of nature, is very difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto me cross over it easily." -  (daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te).

 

The same verse also advocates a solution, surrender to the divine and by divine grace, it is stated one can cross over such maya easily.  If such an understanding makes a person 'let go' and surrender to the divine, 

 

Very, very well said. One does not break out or mentally see through some cage. It is much more like you accept it, become friends with it and then you are not bound by it.

[dwai]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

 

While it may be true that all of us are in that state already, I think such truth has little practical value, if such realization is not apparent or shining all the time.

Practical from whose point of view? The dualistic appearance that rises from and falls back into the nondual? It does not matter. To think that it has to be of practical value is the ego thinking it is separate.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Very, very well said. One does not break out or mentally see through some cage. It is much more like you accept it, become friends with it and then you are not bound by it.

It is actually that you realize that the cage doesn’t exist at all. It is not a breaking out, so much as recognizing that the cage is the desire to be separate and unique. 

[s1va]

14 minutes ago, dwai said:

Practical from whose point of view? The dualistic appearance that rises from and falls back into the nondual? It does not matter. To think that it has to be of practical value is the ego thinking it is separate.

 

Everything that is described, talked about, discussed are all from the standpoint of ego only.  That which states it does not matter to the non-dual is also ego!  From the absolute standpoint of the non-dual that you mention, there is nothing to say.  To say mention or describe the non-dual would not be non-dual

 

Also, with such a view that everyone is already there, it takes out any room for compassion.

Edited November 25, 2017 by s1va

[C T]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Very, very well said. One does not break out or mentally see through some cage. It is much more like you accept it, become friends with it and then you are not bound by it.

 

In the practice of Dzogchen a seasoned practitioner will eventually see that the cage is self-made, and will vanish in the presence of Right View. There is no cage.

 

But yeah, at the very basic level, if a beginner wants to consider emotional burdens as some sort of trap, they may take the relative view and practice as if befriending troubled emotions that surface. After a period, it becomes unnecessary to continue with such an approach. One will, with diligent practice, learn to use the energy of the seemingly negative energies behind the emotions to cut through the illusionary obstacles/mental fabrications/dualistic views while also maintaining a state of equipoise, unperturbed and undistracted by arisings of body, speech and mind. This would be the aim anyhow. This practice is both the path of application, and simultaneously also the fruit (of result), and can be continuously applied, or refined, till the end of life. 

 

Sorry.. I know this is not really the place to talk about Dzogchen - Im merely putting this out there for contrast, in case it may be relevant on some level. 

[dwai]

12 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Everything that is described, talked about, discussed are all from the standpoint of ego only.  That which states it does not matter to the non-dual is also ego!  From the absolute standpoint of the non-dual that you mention, there is nothing to say.  To say mention or describe the non-dual would not be non-dual

Yes. Of course. So then why is the topic of “practical value” so important? Why should we care about what is of practical value for an illusory, nonexistent thing?

 

You feel that to say this is also point of view of ego. But it is better that the ego recognizes it’s own inconsequentiality, as opposed to feeling more important so as to demand a practical value of its source. Do you see the irony in that? 

 

Imho, we should abide in the first principle until it too dissolves. To let the “chitta vritti” continue is the path of bhoga instead of yoga, of preya instead of shreya. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by dwai

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, C T said:

 

In the practice of Dzogchen a seasoned practitioner will eventually see that the cage is self-made, and will vanish in the presence of Right View. There is no cage.

 

But yeah, at the very basic level, if a beginner wants to consider emotional burdens as some sort of trap, they may take the relative view and practice as if befriending troubled emotions that surface. After a period, it becomes unnecessary to continue with such an approach. One will, with diligent practice, learn to use the energy of the seemingly negative energies behind the emotions to cut through the illusionary obstacles/mental fabrications/dualistic views while also maintaining a state of equipoise, unperturbed and undistracted by arisings of body, speech and mind. This would be the aim anyhow. This practice is both the path of application, and simultaneously also the fruit (of result), and can be continuously applied, or refined, till the end of life. 

 

Sorry.. I know this is not really the place to talk about Dzogchen - Im merely putting this out there for contrast, in case it may be relevant on some level. 

This is also the way of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta is not some cold intellectual philosophical system, it contains within its framework very similar practices to let the cage disappear (instead of fighting with it).

 

Most of the arguments against Advaita Vedanta I’ve read are non sequitur, made from a position of incomplete understanding of what it entails or teaches. 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

IMO, understanding that we are in that state already, does not help penetrate the veil of maya.  It may have some value, that is why I said 'little practical value' instead of 'no value'.  In Gita, Krishna talks about how difficult it is to truly penetrate this veil of his divine energy which is called maya, even though we are in that state already.  Even though it may seem so close to, that practically we are it, it is still impenetrable.

 

"My divine energy Maya, consisting of the three modes of nature, is very difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto me cross over it easily." -  (daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te).

 

The same verse also advocates a solution, surrender to the divine and by divine grace, it is stated one can cross over such maya easily.  If such an understanding makes a person 'let go' and surrender to the divine, 

In the same Gita, there are four sections. Each extolling the virtue of one of the four yogas. It is not because Lord Krishna was lying, but because each is suitable for people with different temperaments and gunas.

 

i would recommend reading the Gita again in its entirety. It’s easy to cherry-pick a verse or two.

 

[s1va]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yes. Of course. So then why is the topic of “practical value” so important? Why should we care about what is of practical value for an illusory, nonexistent thing?

 

 

While we live and function in the world, all things happen in duality or multiple mode only.  Even after non-dual or any realization for that matter, one functions in the world outside in duality.  This, I call the 'practical'.  But, the real answer to your question is in the Abhivanagupta's quote above.  I think those words of Abhinvagupta comes from such wisdom that transcends realization.

 

If everyone is realized, already in non-dual state, there is also no need for compassion as I stated before.  If we hold the manifest world or maya to be equal to a dream, then this would be valid.  I personally feel some people like Abhinavagupta and Buddha went far beyond this state of realization in their wisdom, to be able to reintegrate the world and help others with compassion.