What is Non-duality?

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Wells said:

Our hindu experts don't understand what non-duality means, what atman is, what presence means and what the correct solution to "Neti, neti!" is.

Hint: The metaphor of the blind guys trying to describe an elephant.

 

This is  "trolling" imho.

 

2 hours ago, Wells said:

The solution is not constructing a subtle sense of ego ("presence") that will later most likely be the biggest problem to overcome in the spiritual process towards non-dual awareness, surely the self-constructed downfall of many practitioners with wrong understanding.

This shows you did not read the OP and/or did not understand it. Therefore you are making the same straw-man argument that the OP was pointing at. No where in the OP is mentioned that the "Ego" is involved.

2 hours ago, Wells said:

Presence, actual non-dual awareness, going beyond the delusion of time, means nothing else than "being in the present moment with all its aspects". That all-encompassing non-dual awareness is atman, that practice in itself eliminates every aspect of duality, ego and karma.

This is the Natural State of mind.

It's Wu-Wei, non-doing.

That's what all the ancient systems are talking about, may these be hindu, buddhist, taoist, etc.

This also solves the disagreement of buddhism and hinduism concerning the question if there is a self or not...because the answer is: Yes and no. The self is nothing specific, but everything that is naturally there from your perspective.

At least dawei seems to have a good intuitive internal compass...

Okay I don't think there is any opposition to that. You are of course assuming that "mind" means the same thing to you and Vedanta. Can you share what you mean by "mind"?

2 hours ago, Wells said:

 

"Dudjom Rinpoche explains these three as follows:

This fresh immediate awareness of the present moment, that transcends all thoughts relating to the three times, is itself that primordial awareness (yeshes) which is selforiginated pure presence or awareness (rangbyung rigpa). This is the direct introduction to one's own nature."

 

"Dudjom Rinpoche says,

Whatever the sensory field, whatever the object, gaze at it like a child enrapt before an altar in a temple. Don't clutch the sensory specifics; hold to the freshness."

 

 

 

This is wonderful  

[Limahong]

On 11/30/2017 at 2:46 AM, dwai said:

Tadekam evadvitiyam means "That One, Ever Non-dual"

 

Hi dwai.

 

"That One" resides in silence?

 

- LimA

[Jetsun]

If you are still there then it isn't non-duality as there is still you and not you, ie two, and if you aren't there then what is there to experience it? If you aren't there then there is nobody there to achieve it, nobody to be proud of it, nobody to even share it with. You get absolutely nothing out of it and it is completely pointless to us. 

 

Non-duality has nothing to do with a merge with another, as what it is that is aware and non-dual is there if you are merged or not. A child is merged with the world and merged with their mother, yet they aren't usually in non-dual realisation. Merging is usually a sign of codependency and a way of avoiding the true intimacy where you are nothing and everything, with a substitute intimacy with one other. People even merge with their pets which is why people start looking like them as a way to try avoid it lol. 

 

There is an inbuilt mechanism within us which can guide us back to where there is no more separation which is called yearning, yearning to return home to wholeness, so follow that yearning home like a thread, or not, but (spoiler alert) the ending of the story is that you never make it and all all your hopes and dreams are completely dashed.. which is wonderful

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[dwai]

3 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi dwai.

 

"That One" resides in silence?

 

- LimA

That One is all there is, everywhere and also nowhere. 

[dwai]

@Wells I see the point you are making and appreciate that. Thank you  

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jetsun said:

If you are still there then it isn't non-duality as there is still you and not you, ie two, and if you aren't there then what is there to experience it? If you aren't there then there is nobody there to achieve it, nobody to be proud of it, nobody to even share it with. You get absolutely nothing out of it and it is completely pointless to us. 

 

Non-duality has nothing to do with a merge with another, as what it is that is aware and non-dual is there if you are merged or not. A child is merged with the world and merged with their mother, yet they aren't usually in non-dual realisation. Merging is usually a sign of codependency and a way of avoiding the true intimacy where you are nothing and everything, with a substitute intimacy with one other. People even merge with their pets which is why people start looking like them as a way to try avoid it lol. 

 

There is an inbuilt mechanism within us which can guide us back to where there is no more separation which is called yearning, yearning to return home to wholeness, so follow that yearning home like a thread, or not, but (spoiler alert) the ending of the story is that you never make it and all all your hopes and dreams are completely dashed.. which is wonderful

Beautifully explained — thanks  

[Bindi]

6 hours ago, Jetsun said:

If you are still there then it isn't non-duality as there is still you and not you, ie two, and if you aren't there then what is there to experience it? If you aren't there then there is nobody there to achieve it, nobody to be proud of it, nobody to even share it with. You get absolutely nothing out of it and it is completely pointless to us. 

 

Non-duality has nothing to do with a merge with another, as what it is that is aware and non-dual is there if you are merged or not. A child is merged with the world and merged with their mother, yet they aren't usually in non-dual realisation. Merging is usually a sign of codependency and a way of avoiding the true intimacy where you are nothing and everything, with a substitute intimacy with one other. People even merge with their pets which is why people start looking like them as a way to try avoid it lol. 

 

There is an inbuilt mechanism within us which can guide us back to where there is no more separation which is called yearning, yearning to return home to wholeness, so follow that yearning home like a thread, or not, but

 

Sure, but...

 

Quote

 

(spoiler alert) the ending of the story is that you never make it and all all your hopes and dreams are completely dashed.. which is wonderful

 

this is the ending in your philosophy, though it's not ipso facto the truth, and it seems to me that the only bit that might appear to be wonderful is the dubious pleasure that comes from fully accepting defeat, ending any striving, and believing that this is the destination.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bindi

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[dwai]

29 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

I am sorry that my input came across as trolling.

 

Glad we cleared that bit...

[Boy]

2 hours ago, Wells said:

Reality is like a dream and you are the complete dream. That's the bottom-line wisdom realized by all the greatest spiritual adepts in all spiritual traditions (incl. hindu). To realize fully and completely that you are the dream that is your reality, not a theorized dreamer, not just the protagonist inside your dream, that's the resulting non-dualistic view that is the great perfection.

 

2 hours ago, Wells said:

Finally in spiritual practice, I assume that you don't "realize that you are" the whole dream (as that would probably mean to just add external appearances to your sense of ego-identification), you somehow just "are" the whole dream.

 

I will disregard your initial wild swings if you don’t mind, Wells . When it comes to those two interesting posts above I’d like to comment:

 

In traditional vedanta I’ve heard it said (paraphrased) that “You are the dream but the dream is not you”. It took me some time to digest, but presently I think it’s a very good description. So I guess words are not all bad? And to make it clear: I don’t think anybody is “theorizing the dreamer”.

 

And a question…

 

“Finally”/“spiritual practice”/“I assume”/“probably”/“somehow” etc.? Am I to understand that you don’t know? In that case it would behoove you to show some restraint. If you won’t that is of course fine as well!

 

I said I wouldn't speak anymore of my experiences/realisations in this thread but I'll break that promise to tell you that all this "I am one with everything"-phase is something I've gone through as well. There is more to come. With apologies to 3bob, the Heart sutra says It well enough!

 

I will watch the video you linked tomorrow, I’m sure it’s great. And I hope I made myself clear! With utter disregard for all tradition I've had a couple of beers! Be well!

[3bob]

Self-realization/the eternal/Atman/Brahman/and or Sanatana Dharma are not taught by Buddhist doctrine per the historic Buddha nor by Buddhist teachers that teach the same in this day and age, PERIOD; so Buddhist folks or those that lean that way please do not assume or propagate that Atman is whatever your personal take or speculation on it may be.

(for instance the Buddha tells his followers to use "Right speech" which is obviously not telling people of other ways that they don't understand their own way from their own experience!) 

  

Edited December 15, 2017 by 3bob

[dwai]

15 hours ago, Wells said:

 

 

I was not simply addressing the OP, I was adressing the mental exercise that you were suggesting as your conclusion to the OP, which is in fact creating the presence of a subtle sense of mental ego. I was already pointing you to the fact that such an exercise just increases duality. This subtle sense of ego is created by your mind and has to be fed with a continous inflow of awareness like a parasite to keep it in existence. That in itself already proves that there is something going wrong there as in fact the true self (which is in fact your mind-stream as it naturally is, your personal reality in all its natural aspects) is uncreated, eternal and always changing its content / appearances. It is already there, perfect as it is, obvious in your sight all the time and does not have to be created. One just has to be able to see the forest and not just the trees.

You mean the "Abiding in the I"? The "I" being referred to here is the basis of manifestation itself. It is not the same as the "Ego" (which is the personality). Think of this as the only thing you know for a fact as a sentient human being about yourself. Everything else is conceptual...layers acquired over time. When we abide in this "I" for sufficient length of time (no one can say how much is enough..it varies from personality to personality), it, the "I" disappears. This is something one has to practice. It cannot be understood intellectually. 

 

 

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, Wells said:

 

Thank you for explaining your view to me. Patanjali's yoga sutras and especially the topic of "the seer" and "the seen" have been a theoretical and a practical topic for me for over 20 years. Every addressing of a "seer" results into a percepted dualism, imo a delusion, the view of the yoga sutras (and of the Samkhyakarika) itself is extremely dualistic. I rather assume that there is no "seer" to be distinguished from the "the seen" and purusha better should be translated as "seeing". In other words: Reality is a whole and percepts itself. There is no gold to be extracted from the ore, there is only gold. Brahman can not be distinguished into "seer" and "seen". In hindu philosophy there are seemingly very different positions and opinions concerning the topic if there exists an existential dualism or if that's just a delusion; I rather tend towards the second opinion and that trying to identify a basis of the manifestation rather increases that delusion. The everchanging manifestation is its own basis, there is only Brahman. I had a lot of discussions concerning that topic with ralis in the past, with exchanged positions as in our discussion here, and he convinced me that the position of yoga and samkhya is surely not the one of dzogchen but is instead transcended by it right from the beginning, therefore the difference in practical achievement. Dzogchen achieves what yoga wants to achieve but fails.

Unfortunately you are conflating Yoga (in the Patanjali/Samkhya tradition - on which I find your analysis incorrect) with Jnana Yoga, which is what "Abiding in the I" is pat of. Like I said, you can intellectualize this all you want but you won't get anywhere with it. The only way to know is to dive in.

 

However, since you said Dzogchen works for you, please stick to it. I think it is a bit premature for you to claim that "Abiding in the I" doesn't work when you've not tried it. I see it in action with several people, and the effect it has on cutting through layers of ignorance. The most important thing in their case was that they were willing practice this. 

 

That said, not everyone is ready for this type of inquiry easily. When I started down this path first around 20 years ago, I didn't have the single-pointedness of attention, or the clarity to understand what was needed. So I had to approach this in a different way. One was with the meditation on a mantra I was given in a dream by an unknown benefactor. With constant practice on that Mantra, unbeknownst to me, a clarity started to develop. Also, along with that my Taijiquan and Daogong practices helped with developing single-pointed attention of the mind. I had what is called a "shakti-pat" from my Master, who cleared away stuff that was blocking my clarity even further.  After that, is when I was able to do this type of inquiry. 

 

However, my personal experiences are TL;DR and will probably bore everyone. So, to make a long story short let me share what I feel gets lost in the intellectual analyses we indulge in so gleefully.

 

• In order to pursue the Jnana-yoga style Self-Inquiry (such as abiding in the I and so on), clarity is required. 
• In order for clarity to develop, a single-pointedness of the mind is required.
• In order to develop single-pointedness of the mind, some people require other preparatory processes (such as Raja yoga, Pranayama, Mantra meditation, Taijiquan, other mindfulness practices etc etc). 

Jnana yoga is called the "Direct Path", but not everyone is ready for it easily. It takes what is called "antahakaranashuddhi" (or purification of the "consciousness-ego-mind-intellect" complex) before it can be undertaken. It is amazing how deep and how subtle the layers ignorance are. And they keep building back up even after clearing away if we don't stay vigilant (till the conditions are right). 

 

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Wells said:

 

I agree that every form of intellectualization just leads to more delusion.

That being said, every form of Self-inquiry to identify an I to abide in by its very definition is a form of intellectualization.

You are entitled to your opinions of course. But imho, you think that way because because you are looking at it intellectually. There is nothing intellectual about abiding the the "I". It is a very non-intellectual process in fact. It is as easy as holding on to the feeling that you get when you try to describe yourself in a fraction of a second. Try it.  

[3bob]

doubt devours itself, but it doesn't have a chance against the "eater of the death".

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[C T]

@dwai In the process of inquiry into the Self, is it crucial to stick to this premise of 'abiding in the I'? Are there any other similar descriptive phrases that can be used? Im trying to understand how a non-intellectual process can be effected by attuning itself to a task known as 'inquiry' which is seemingly implied as a 'non-inquiry' when reflected against the suggestion you made to try and describe oneself in a fraction of a second. I think its a good suggestion - in so doing, similar to being hit with a Zen cudgel, there is an instant collapse of all forms of subtle clinging (notions of separateness), one would imagine, so my question is: Why then would this be called an inquiry, which in my mind implies some form or other of mental/analytical exercise. Apologies for the interruption. 

 

thank you! 

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, C T said:

@dwai In the process of inquiry into the Self, is it crucial to stick to this premise of 'abiding in the I'? Are there any other similar descriptive phrases that can be used? Im trying to understand how a non-intellectual process can be effected by attuning itself to a task known as 'inquiry' which is seemingly implied as a 'non-inquiry' when reflected against the suggestion you made to try and describe oneself in a fraction of a second. I think its a good suggestion - in so doing, similar to being hit with a Zen cudgel, there is an instant collapse of all forms of subtle clinging (notions of separateness), one would imagine, so my question is: Why then would this be called an inquiry, which in my mind implies some form or other of mental/analytical exercise. Apologies for the interruption. 

 

thank you! 

That is a great question. The "Inquiry" process is meant to lead the seeker back to the "I" via this type of intellectual process.

 

Something caused me to become angry/upset/sad...etc.

Inquire - "Who is it that is feeling Angry/Upset/Sad...?"

Answer comes "I am".

Inquire - "Who am I?" 

Leads back to the "Who am I in a fraction of a second". 

The seeker will have found that there is "no thing" there to describe...only the feeling of "being". 

So the intellectual inquiry always leads to not finding an "object" for the mind to rest in. Abiding is built up slowly, like this process. It is very boring for the mind..but there has to be genuine desire to follow through with this process. 

[Wells]

.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Wells

[Gunther]

On 14/12/2017 at 7:02 PM, 3bob said:

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...?  

Since when is non duality Hindu? Or Buddhist? Or whatever? 

Seems all those terms allow a wide variety of definitions