The original face

[Daemon]

My own experience (and that of many others I've met) is that discursive thinking gets in the way both before and after experiences of mystical union and interestingly (perhaps?) that (all this discursive thinking that's being reflected in the extensive discourse here) is what's the major impediment to experiencing lasting Peace (which be can be obtained with or without experiences of mystical union that, for most, are probably the biggest impediment because they're either chasing them or desperately trying to intellectually understand them or use then as ego boosters).

 

☮️

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Daemon

[Michael Sternbach]

On 1.6.2018 at 3:03 PM, Bindi said:

 

Of the little I know about the soul, I do think we have one, and I think it is placed safely away from our unconscious selves where we can do it no harm. I don't think it is perfect as it is, more likely it resembles the hun and po souls, and to advance spiritually a conscious decision must be made to side with the heavenly side. But I might be wrong about this, it's not something I know enough about yet. It's really diving into the deep end. 

 

Sure, but addressing this question philosophically is crucial if we hope to reach any useful conclusion in this discussion, IMO.

 

I like to think of the soul as our spiritual self, much like we also have a mental self (or mental level of self), as well as an emotional one and a physical one... I learned this concept essentially from Western mystics such as Edward Bach (the famous founder of Bach Flower therapy) and Jane Roberts (the psychic who channelled the entity called Seth).

 

At that time, I was living in Japan and studying Zen too. And when the priest in the Sosenji temple was lecturing about the fundamental emptiness of the self, I was hard-pressed trying to reconcile that teaching with the idea of having, nay, being an individual soul.

 

It was not until later that  it occurred to me that my view of the soul had just been too limited. I eventually saw what Seth meant when he insisted that the soul is not a closed system. For it merges with the totality of existence, eventually. Or it has never been apart from this in the first place.

 

What do the Hindus say? Atman is Brahman, Brahman is Atman.

 

So to me, the non-dualistic view is now about affirming and manifesting what is already there on the most fundamental level. Rather than having to build from scratch...

 

However, there are obstacles to perception that, as a rule, must be removed gradually, until, potentially, another breakthrough occurs. And while treading that path, better watch your step.

 

But the two approaches are no longer mutually exclusive, in my book.

[Nungali]

....

Edited June 3, 2018 by Nungali

[Michael Sternbach]

On 31.5.2018 at 2:34 AM, Bindi said:

Thus, the spirit is the possibility, the potentiality given to each human being to build their own heart/mind, and through it their own awareness and consciousness, discernment and reason, in such a way that they behave according to the order and patterns of the cosmic life. It is the spiritual intelligence (shen ming 神明) operating through the human heart/mind. In Daoism, it leads up to the union with the Dao.  

 

Therefore what is called spirit allows the responsibility of a human for his own life and behavior. To embody the spirit is to open the heart to nature, to natural order, to Heaven, to enlighten the intelligence, knowledge and understanding, in order to fulfill one’s destiny and also, at the same time, to nourish one’s life and that of the others.

 

More than attracting external spirits into his body, it is the process of internalization, the building of an inner life which is real; it creates the link with the source of all lifes, the foundation of all reality.

 

The spirit no one knows its limits; with a natural clarity it knows all that exists. Safeguard it within and don’t let it slip; don’t let the (external) beings disturb the sense organs, don’t let the sense organs disturb the heart/mind (xin 心 ) : this is called to grasp the core. (Guan zi, ch. Neiye)

 

http://www.elisabeth-rochat.com/docs/31_shen.pdf

 

The highlighted part is just another way of expressing what I said about the soul in my last post. Actually, this whole quote is in accordance with the latter.

[Bindi]

10 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Sure, but addressing this question philosophically is crucial if we hope to reach any useful conclusion in this discussion, IMO.

 

I like to think of the soul as our spiritual self, much like we also have a mental self (or mental level of self), as well as an emotional one and a physical one... I learned this concept essentially from Western mystics such as Edward Bach (the famous founder of Bach Flower therapy) and Jane Roberts (the psychic who channelled the entity called Seth).

 

At that time, I was living in Japan and studying Zen too. And when the priest in the Sosenji temple was lecturing about the fundamental emptiness of the self, I was hard-pressed trying to reconcile that teaching with the idea of having, nay, being an individual soul.

 

It was not until later that  it occurred to me that my view of the soul had just been too limited. I eventually saw what Seth meant when he insisted that the soul is not a closed system. For it merges with the totality of existence, eventually. Or it has never been apart from this in the first place.

 

What do the Hindus say? Atman is Brahman, Brahman is Atman.

 

What do Daoists say?

 

In the Taijitu diagram, wuji is represented as a blank circle and taiji as a circle with a center point (world embryo) or with broken and unbroken lines (yin and yang). The non-polar Supreme Ultimate is therefore wuji. 

Always in Wu-Ji the two earths intermingle and turn into the jade tablet.
Wu stands for the thoughts; Ji represents perceptions, the spirit feeling and the sixth sense
It draws up an image of Post-Heaven and Pre-Heaven thoughts unifying, the sixth sense merging with the Post-Heaven thoughts, the Pre-Heaven Spirit and Post-Heaven thinking combine into One, congealing into a sphere or circle. https://neigong.net/tag/neidan/

 

Is this non-duality as understood by the non-dualists?  

 

 

Quote

So to me, the non-dualistic view is now about affirming and manifesting what is already there on the most fundamental level. Rather than having to build from scratch...

 

However, there are obstacles to perception that, as a rule, must be removed gradually, until, potentially, another breakthrough occurs. And while treading that path, better watch your step.

 

But the two approaches are no longer mutually exclusive, in my book.

 

Say the non-dualistic view is correct for the moment, and I'd like to know if wuji=non-duality exactly or if it differs in any way, but the big issue remains for me how to attain this non-duality (as per the OP). 

 

As far as I know Daoist alchemists examine the polarities male-female and yin-yang and then the non-polar supreme ultimate is understood, at which point heaven mind and earth mind are merged in the human being. As opposed to the immediate realisation with no prior work or effort needed of popular non-duality. 

 

Somewhat similar to the OP Rao Shuangfeng said: Heaven and Earth, through yin-yang and the Five Phases, close and open without limit, and this principle governs closing and opening. It is like the hinge (shu-niu) of a door. Male and female creatures produce and reproduce without end, and this principle is the basis of production and reproduction, like the root of a tree. In reference to human beings, it is that by which the myriad good qualities are produced and the myriad affairs are settled. There is nothing that lacks this principle as its root and its hinge. If students understand its meaning and apply it daily, and with dignified stillness nourish themselves when [their feelings are] not yet aroused, and examine themselves after [their feelings are] aroused, then some of them might be able to silently understand the mystery of this principle.

 

 

 

[Bindi]

I thought this was interesting and relevant to the topic:

 

Salvation Masters [Du shi 度師; i.e., Buddhists] say: “If you wish to know your original true face, in the place of the unborn body there was a wheel of light.”

 

(From the Commentary: The “bright wheel” of which the Buddhists speak is the karma wheel of death and rebirth.)

 

https://deutsche-daoistische-vereinigung.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Xing_Ming_Gui_Zhi-BurtonRose.pdf

[doc benway]

For anyone interested, here is a detailed talk on the Bönpo view of soul.

I find it fascinating.

Dmitry Ermakov, the author, is a Bön scholar, translator, and practitioner:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Bindi]

On 01/06/2018 at 8:15 PM, steve said:

 

Just because you are not aware or familiar of comparisons and debates of these different paths, does not mean they are not compared. In fact, they've been compared for centuries. In the Bön and Buddhist world, this would be comparing the Dzogchen and Tantric paths. Nothing new there. The Tantric path is very similar to the Neidan path, not identical, but very similar.

 

What if the assumptions and conclusions regarding energy cultivation are wrong? Similarly, you believe you've found truth and try to adapt to that paradigm. It's what we all do, is there another way? The one thing that is somewhat unique about Dzogchen is the definition of the view. it is not a statement, a philosophy, an explanation, or a conclusion of any sort. There is no truth to be accepted, not even any explanation of fundamental reality. The view is openness. All beliefs, preconceptions, concepts, paradigms, and expectations are completely abandoned. The view is resting in open, naked awareness. I guess it is possible that is "wrong" and it probably is wrong for the practitioner that does not find that supportive or conducive to growth. In maintaining that openness, I am continuously looking for truth; not in concepts or explanations, but in open, clear, uncontrived awareness. 

 

It's important for each of us to find the path that works for us, supports us in our spiritual goals and practices, and that is the correct path for us. No path is right or wrong, better or worse in an absolute sense, it is all relative to the practitioner at this particular moment in their lives. 

 

 

 

 

 

I read this Dhamma and Non-duality, I thought it was a fairly clear examination of the 'immediate realisation' school of non-dualism in and of itself, as well as an interesting look at a Buddhist critique of it. Not surprisingly I fall squarely in the authors camp. 

 

Spoiler

 

...The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses. At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.

 

When we investigate our experience exactly as it presents itself, we find that it is permeated by a number of critically important dualities with profound implications for the spiritual quest. The Buddha's teaching, as recorded in the Pali Suttas, fixes our attention unflinchingly upon these dualities and treats their acknowledgment as the indispensable basis for any honest search for liberating wisdom. It is precisely these antitheses — of good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance — that make the quest for enlightenment and deliverance such a vitally crucial concern...

 

 

[doc benway]

12 hours ago, Bindi said:

I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.

 

I find the above to be an insightful and accurate statement that is equally applicable to the Mahayana path that I'm familiar with.

 

 

"The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

 

I find some faults with his criticism of the Mahayana perspective. He is conflating the doctrine of emptiness with a doctrine of nihilism. The inability or refusal to reconcile a common basis for nirvana and samsara is a consequence of this misunderstanding, and would lead to a similar disagreement with Daoism. Yes, emptiness implies a lack of intrinsic "selfness" which is different than saying it implies a lack of intrinsic reality. The idea that "all dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature" refers to that lack of intrinsic "selfness" not to a lack of intrinsic reality or existence. In my view at least, the Daoist approach to ultimate reality (Taiji born of Wuji) is much closer to the Mahayana view. The sage would be equally at home in samsara or nirvana, recognizing each as defining each other in a never ending play of Yin and Yang. Furthermore, the validity of conventional dualities is not denied in Mahayana, hence the doctrine of the Two Truths. It's ironic that what I agree with in the snippet from your quote, "the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative" is precisely the antidote to what I find at fault in his argument agains the Mahayana approach.

 

At the end of the day, there has been this sort of debate in Buddhism since its inception. I'm not, and have no interest in being, a Buddhist scholar. Bikkhu could no doubt argue (and meditate) me under the table. I prefer to follow his implied advice of following the pragmatic path. I suspect I could find myself equally at home and make my way in either tradition, Mahayana or Theravada. I know the Daoist path is also a very supportive and effective one, although finding expert support and a connection to a lineage is much more rare. I have enormous respect for all of the above and karma has brought me to where I am today. I feel very fortunate to have the opportunities I do. Rather than debate the various views, far better for me to dig in deeply to the path unfolding in front of my feet and  see where it leads.  

Edited June 6, 2018 by steve

[Never Mind]

This is a great thread! Reminds me of this Zen saying:

 

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters." ¹³

¹³ Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)

Edited June 6, 2018 by Never Mind