What is Non-duality?

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi dwai,

 

Why are you thanking me? I do not understand.

 

I am posting this again as your tongue (😜) hits me hard - be it humor or otherwise. 

 

- LimA

I thanked you for bringing to my attention the fact that my "tongue" hits you hard. Would like to share how exactly it affected you? That will help me understand how to wield it more carefully next time...

[Limahong]

7 minutes ago, dwai said:

I thanked you for bringing to my attention the fact that my "tongue" hits you hard... wield it more carefully next time...

 

I rest my case.

 

- LimA

[Jonesboy]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 2:44 PM, Apech said:

 

 

I think perhaps it is important to differentiate between formulations which come from the whole approach of the path and fundamentally real distinctions.  The Buddha had his own teachings based on dependent origination and non-self (in contrast to for instance Jains and Ajivikas who stressed the fundamental reality of the Atman) - this developed into 'emptiness' - teachers of Buddhist non-duality will continue this tradition.

 

Thank you Apech,

 

I am well aware of those differences.

 

To me Jeff's question was more about Ultimate Emptiness rather than the more intellectual dependent origination.

 

KS does talk about emptiness, how could it not with the realization of the light and Universal Mind?

 

The question to me was in KS there is nothing more than that light, than Universal Consciousness. Buddhism would say that beyond that is emptiness, that emptiness of Universal Consciousness is what makes a Buddha.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Thank you Apech,

 

I am well aware of those differences.

 

To me Jeff's question was more about Ultimate Emptiness rather than the more intellectual dependent origination.

 

KS does talk about emptiness, how could it not with the realization of the light and Universal Mind?

 

The question to me was in KS there is nothing more than that light, than Universal Consciousness. Buddhism would say that beyond that is emptiness, that emptiness of Universal Consciousness is what makes a Buddha.

 

 

I don't completely agree with your words but essentially what I was saying that the formulations on the different paths vary while the essence of ultimate reality may not - which is what I think you are saying.

 

 

[CedarTree]

Stumbled upon this Pali Canon treasure today:

 

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140

[Jonesboy]

26 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I don't completely agree with your words but essentially what I was saying that the formulations on the different paths vary while the essence of ultimate reality may not - which is what I think you are saying.

 

 

 

Thanks Apech,

 

Paths may be different as well as the end result.

 

I am just saying that Buddhism goes further up the mountain. A Buddha is different than being One like Siva.

[Apech]

9 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Thanks Apech,

 

Paths may be different as well as the end result.

 

I am just saying that Buddhism goes further up the mountain. A Buddha is different than being One like Siva.

 

Ok.  I could explain more about dependent origination but I might be accused of hijacking this into a Buddhist thread  I don't know anything about KS so I can't comment on your assertion.

 

 

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

To me Jeff's question was more about Ultimate Emptiness rather than the more intellectual dependent origination.

 

Dependent origination can be very much a powerful and direct experience or reality.

The intellectual understanding is just an attempt to put that into words...

No different than emptiness or oneness...

 

 

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

KS does talk about emptiness, how could it not with the realization of the light and Universal Mind?

 

The question to me was in KS there is nothing more than that light, than Universal Consciousness. Buddhism would say that beyond that is emptiness, that emptiness of Universal Consciousness is what makes a Buddha.

 

My own way of interpreting Buddhism is not that there is emptiness 'beyond' Universal Consciousness but rather that Universal Consciousness is equally empty of inherent, independent existence from it's own side, just as all compounded phenomenon. 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

Dependent origination can be very much a powerful and direct experience or reality.

The intellectual understanding is just an attempt to put that into words...

No different than emptiness or oneness...

When I first experienced it, it was a mind-stopping event! As I clearly experienced the dependent origination of mind and object, as well as indra's net as an interconnected web of appearances. However, that experience led to a clear and direct realization that dependent origination too is a phenomenon that rises and ceases in empty awareness. That Empty Awareness is nothing but the Self. And that Alaya Vijnana is just an intellectual position vis-a-vis the "Self vs Non-Self" paradigm. 

Quote

 

 

 

My own way of interpreting Buddhism is not that there is emptiness 'beyond' Universal Consciousness but rather that Universal Consciousness is equally empty of inherent, independent existence from it's own side, just as all compounded phenomenon. 

This!

 

Albeit I'd say that there is nothing to show that there isn't an inherent, independent existence either. It is a matter of position, which immediately puts one in duality. It is both futile as well as useful to describe it in both ways  

Edited December 11, 2017 by dwai
Adding a bit more context to my "this!"

[doc benway]

7 minutes ago, dwai said:

When I first experienced it, it was a mind-stopping event! As I clearly experienced the dependent origination of mind and object, as well as indra's net as an interconnected web of appearances. However, that experience led to a clear and direct realization that dependent origination too is a phenomenon that rises and ceases in empty awareness. That Empty Awareness is nothing but the Self. And that Alaya Vijnana is just an intellectual position vis-a-vis the "Self vs Non-Self" paradigm. 

 

"...when it hits you feel no pain!"

Marley

[Jonesboy]

17 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Dependent origination can be very much a powerful and direct experience or reality.

The intellectual understanding is just an attempt to put that into words...

No different than emptiness or oneness...

 

 

 

My own way of interpreting Buddhism is not that there is emptiness 'beyond' Universal Consciousness but rather that Universal Consciousness is equally empty of inherent, independent existence from it's own side, just as all compounded phenomenon. 

 

I agree the direct experience is much more. Once experienced does one need to understand a fire needs wood and oxygen? Becomes kind of silly at that point.

 

With your definition then nothing is different from the ultimate realization of a Buddha and the realization of being One like Siva.

 

Yet the traditions like for instance the TTC talks about that which came before the light or as Jesus would say where the light came into being. The Dao to me is that which is beyond the light of consciousness. Not just that the light is empty.

 

Which is why the Buddha said he is beyond Vishnu, beyond Brahma. Such concepts of the light is a limitation, emptiness is beyond all such things.

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I agree the direct experience is much more. Once experienced does one need to understand a fire needs wood and oxygen? Becomes kind of silly at that point.

 

With your definition then nothing is different from the ultimate realization of a Buddha and the realization of being One like Siva.

 

Yet the traditions like for instance the TTC talks about that which came before the light or as Jesus would say where the light came into being. The Dao to me is that which is beyond the light of consciousness. Not just that the light is empty.

 

Which is why the Buddha said he is beyond Vishnu, beyond Brahma. Such concepts of the light is a limitation, emptiness is beyond all such things.

 

Beyond, perhaps, and yet intimately inherent and ultimately "tangible" in all such things - not other.

I don't see beyond as separate from but rather underlying or encompassing...

When teachings talk about what came before, I don't look at it in a temporal sense but rather a foundational sense.

In Daoist ontology, I don't think of a temporal transition of wuji --> taiji --> 10,000 things. 

Rather all is existing simultaneously and the only separation is artificial and related to human perceptual limitations.

Just my perspective.

 

[Boy]

6 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

Which is why the Buddha said he is beyond Vishnu, beyond Brahma. Such concepts of the light is a limitation, emptiness is beyond all such things.

 

Yes, that is what the buddha says, and that is also what the Upanishads teaches.

 

I’m sad to say that I haven’t read through this whole thread but I presume dwai is correct.

 

For me, at my enlightenment (self realisation) the concept of non duality became clear as day immediately. Subject and object collapsed in an instant. Now, afterwards, some people (elsewhere) speak of self actualization, and I guess that’s where “I” am at. But when I hear these lofty discussions of another (?) non duality, but I just don’t buy it. It’s a red herring. When you see it you know. Didn’t venerable Gautama disregard the wrong questions? Anyway, it’s good to see a long and active thread on the dying hindu subforum! Much love to all of you!!

[3bob]

wtf boy? please take that to the Buddhist forum...and also kill the Buddha on the road while you are at it.

[Boy]

1 minute ago, 3bob said:

wtf boy? please take that to the Buddhist forum...and also kill the Buddha on the road while you are at it.

 

haha! relax. I'm just trying to communicate with the stragglers.

[Jonesboy]

14 hours ago, steve said:

 

Beyond, perhaps, and yet intimately inherent and ultimately "tangible" in all such things - not other.

I don't see beyond as separate from but rather underlying or encompassing...

When teachings talk about what came before, I don't look at it in a temporal sense but rather a foundational sense.

In Daoist ontology, I don't think of a temporal transition of wuji --> taiji --> 10,000 things. 

Rather all is existing simultaneously and the only separation is artificial and related to human perceptual limitations.

Just my perspective.

 

 

I would agree that is a nice description of the One.

 

Remember emptiness is not a thing. If you can feel or experience a thing it is not emptiness.

 

It goes back to Jeff's question.

 

 

Quote

 

Interesting... 

 

51. BUT WHEN HE IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN

ONE PLACE THAT IS THEN GENERATED AND

WITHDRAWN (BY HIM AT WILL) , HIS STATE

BECOMES THAT OF THE (UNIVERSAL) SUBJECT.

THUS HE BECOMES THE LORD OF THE WHEEL.

 

If one is the universal subject and firmly established in that place, I see how you are now "One, with no second", but then how can one also be empty?

 

 

Again, I see emptiness as beyond all such things, even the One.

 

Just my take.

 

All the best.

[Jonesboy]

9 hours ago, Boy said:

 

Yes, that is what the buddha says, and that is also what the Upanishads teaches.

 

I’m sad to say that I haven’t read through this whole thread but I presume dwai is correct.

 

For me, at my enlightenment (self realisation) the concept of non duality became clear as day immediately. Subject and object collapsed in an instant. Now, afterwards, some people (elsewhere) speak of self actualization, and I guess that’s where “I” am at. But when I hear these lofty discussions of another (?) non duality, but I just don’t buy it. It’s a red herring. When you see it you know. Didn’t venerable Gautama disregard the wrong questions? Anyway, it’s good to see a long and active thread on the dying hindu subforum! Much love to all of you!!

 

Do you mind sharing then what Non dual or self actualization is like for you?

[Boy]

12 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Do you mind sharing then what Non dual or self actualization is like for you?

 

I don’t mind at all but it might not be pertinent to this thread so I’ll keep it brief. With “Non dual” I simply mean what I just said. There is no subject or object. “You” realise that what you formerly thought of as subject and object doesn’t exist/isn’t correct. This is self realisation (in a sense - there are other realisations, but they all all come in the same instant) in the vedantic tradition.

 

Self actualisation is a quite lengthy process (5+ years?) of making the self realisation (signified by the akhandakara vritti ) stick and take over. The mind has tendencies that need to be eradicated/understood. The I-thought, which in some christian traditions is thought of as the devil, is very persistent but with patience it leaves/is subjugated.

 

For me personally, it’s quite nice. Since I know, I don’t fret over anything. All existential anxiety is gone forever. Actually there are no problems of any kind anymore. The very few kinks that are left will resolve in time.

 

I hope that satisfies you. I won’t say anymore of it in this thread. Much love!

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[Gunther]

19 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

Video of Dudjom Rinpoche giving direct introduction into the Natural State of mind.

Surely the most precious gem on youtube and also proof for my intuitive conclusion that shamatha, vipassana, trekcho and togal are actually just states of depth in one ongoing process, one naturally leading to the next. At least for the superior practitioner.

 

 

🌕  “Ordinary Mind is the Way (Chan/Zen)” ！
―→ The very moment of the ordinary mind is just the genuine Way (Chan/Zen)！

☀ The genuine Way (Chan/Zen) is of no action, no seeking, no attainment, no effort, or further of no knowing and no no-knowing. 

☀ The ordinary mind is just no mind, and that is the mind in the least without the self-centered discrimination and attachment, but is solely the mind of great wisdom of no-self and great compassion of impartiality.

☀ It is just then able to realize "the realm of Chan/Zen (the Way)" just-suited to that mentioned in the verse of Chan Master Wumen Huikai.

🙏❤🙏💛🙏💜🙏

_____________________________________________

[dwai]

 

@Moderator team i suspect a trolling effort is starting off and I'd like to inform you to keep an eye on this thread. Intention of OP wasn't to compare Buddhism and Hinduism etc but a discussion on Non-duality. I'd very much prefer to keep it that way. Anyone who wants to delve deeper (outside of some of the constructive feedback we saw on this thread from Steve, CT, et al)  into that rabbit hole (Buddhism vs Hindu understanding of Non-duality) can do so outside the Hindu sub-forum. 

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[dwai]

43 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

My posts are perfectly on the topic of this thread: Non-duality, which I approach and explain from different perspectives, including hindu. Non-Duality is of course universal and not specifically hindu and is the base of all spiritual traditions.

Disagreeing with and disproving your assumptions is not trolling.

Therefore, your perception of trolling rather stems just from a hurt ego because I was able to put together the puzzle ("neti, neti" atman, non-duality) correctly into a coherent and wholistic big picture, thereby disproving your assumptions.

Gunther seems to find my posts enlightening and helpful and surely others will as well.

I guess the shoe fit?  

[3bob]

hey Wells your statements here are sounding trollish,  btw. per his recorded doctrine the historic Buddha disagrees with your summations...thus one can not have a quasi-"Buddhist" cake and eat it to with the teachings of the historic Buddha - which btw. you are doing in an unseemly way in a Hindu sub-forum...?  

Edited December 14, 2017 by 3bob