Is non-duality actually a fundamental truth, or just another philosophy?

[Stosh]

On 8/19/2018 at 8:39 PM, steve said:

 

Not in Buddhism but in a misunderstanding of Buddhism.

The self is an illusion but that does not mean it does not exist.

Illusions exist (in a relative sense) or we would not be discussing them.

Buddhism does not posit whether or not things exist, the point is that they do not appear in the manner in which we assume.

Sure, a Buddhist might deny the existence of the river but that would be a misunderstanding of Buddhism.

That's the point I want to make.

 

 

Then a lot of Buddhists do not understand Buddhism. Because there is certainly a lot of denial of things existing going on. 

AND a presumption that my assumptions are wrong , about what does in fact exist.

It is just that, a presumption on the part of the Buddhist.  

 

Illusion is the term used for a situation , in which one has a mental model , which differs significantly from the facts as they are , independent of the mindset.

 

If the Buddhists are right, that there is but one mind, one reality , which is contingent for physical reality to exist.. then there can be no such thing as illusion , since the mind model and reality are , one and the same , mutually arising.

Conversely , if you say illusions such as self exist , and the existence of this self can be different from the mental model , then the mental model is not the producer of existence. 

Mind is then apart from the rest of existence. 

[lifeforce]

The illusion of non-illusion.

[Stosh]

The illusion of saying something equivocal, equating to, making a statement.. is an illusion

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

The illusion of saying something equivocal, equating to, making a statement.. is an illusion

When I go shopping I leave my illusions at home but take my credit card.

 

[Stosh]

16 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

When I go shopping I leave my illusions at home but take my credit card.

 

Ok, that would be an example of an accord , existing in the form of a mental model. But , they may or may not accept the card , and if they do not, its jack squat. 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

Then a lot of Buddhists do not understand Buddhism. Because there is certainly a lot of denial of things existing going on. 

AND a presumption that my assumptions are wrong , about what does in fact exist.

It is just that, a presumption on the part of the Buddhist.  

 

Illusion is the term used for a situation , in which one has a mental model , which differs significantly from the facts as they are , independent of the mindset.

 

If the Buddhists are right, that there is but one mind, one reality , which is contingent for physical reality to exist.. then there can be no such thing as illusion , since the mind model and reality are , one and the same , mutually arising.

Conversely , if you say illusions such as self exist , and the existence of this self can be different from the mental model , then the mental model is not the producer of existence. 

Mind is then apart from the rest of existence. 

 

It's true that a lot of Buddhist texts suggest that you should view reality as 'like a dream' and so on.  Which suggest illusion.  But if you think about it - when you are dreaming it is completely real.  So the advice can be a bit misleading.  Illusion is a bad word to use as it suggests faulty perception.  It would be better to say it is not as it seems.  But also that in an ordinary everyday sense it is as it seems - it is conventionally true provided your perception is not faulty.  

 

In terms of things, what is being said is that they do not exist in and of themselves and the existence they don't have is an eternal and indestructible selfhood.  They are more like effects arising in a flow - a bit like the river which is never the same one moment to the next - but no-one would say there is no river - it is more a debate about what the river actually is.  If you said that the phenomena you observe has an eternal indestructible self - and you allow the same selfhood for yourself - then you have duality.

[Stosh]

43 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

It's true that a lot of Buddhist texts suggest that you should view reality as 'like a dream' and so on.  Which suggest illusion.  But if you think about it - when you are dreaming it is completely real.  So the advice can be a bit misleading.  Illusion is a bad word to use as it suggests faulty perception.  It would be better to say it is not as it seems.  But also that in an ordinary everyday sense it is as it seems - it is conventionally true provided your perception is not faulty.  

 

In terms of things, what is being said is that they do not exist in and of themselves and the existence they don't have is an eternal and indestructible selfhood.  They are more like effects arising in a flow - a bit like the river which is never the same one moment to the next - but no-one would say there is no river - it is more a debate about what the river actually is.  If you said that the phenomena you observe has an eternal indestructible self - and you allow the same selfhood for yourself - then you have duality.

What is more indestructible than saying that there is a remnant of you ( soul)  that continues to exist when you die, retains attachments like you did, needs to remember lessons from the book of the dead, gets reborn as another persona (but may even retain birthmarks and habits!)  , ... indefinitely ?  

We all know Mh's credit card has an expiration date, but it exists as long as the plastic does, Everyone accepts that , and that mountains erode , Who is it that has the misunderstanding?

Edited August 21, 2018 by Stosh

[ilumairen]

6 minutes ago, Stosh said:

What is more indestructible than saying that there is a remnant of you ( soul)  that continues to exist when you die, retains attachments like you did, needs to remember lessons from the book of the dead, gets reborn as another persona (but may even retain birthmarks and habits!)  , ... indefinitely ?  

 

Eternalism and nihilism are both said to be pitfalls.

[3bob]

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

Eternalism and nihilism are both said to be pitfalls.

 

I suggest study of the Isa upanishad,  "14. He who understands both the manifest and the unmanifested together, crosses death through the unmanifested and attains immortality through the manifest."

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

What is more indestructible than saying that there is a remnant of you ( soul)  that continues to exist when you die, retains attachments like you did, needs to remember lessons from the book of the dead, gets reborn as another persona (but may even retain birthmarks and habits!)  , ... indefinitely ?  

We all know Mh's credit card has an expiration date, but it exists as long as the plastic does, Everyone accepts that , and that mountains erode , Who is it that has the misunderstanding?

 

Not sure what you are getting at here - but there is no soul (or other agent in samara) in Buddhism.

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

I suggest study of the Isa upanishad,  "14. He who understands both the manifest and the unmanifested together, crosses death through the unmanifested and attains immortality through the manifest."

 

That's vedanta.

[Stosh]

Whoa ! dude , that just like , wow , makes it all so like consicuous 

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Not sure what you are getting at here - but there is no soul (or other agent in samara) in Buddhism.

Sure there is , they just like to pretend they arent describing it. 

Y'know , like if you described an elephant , and called it a bunny rabbit, we should be able to discern what it was anyway. 

Attatchment

Merits

Book of the dead 

Reincarnation 

'Nuff said IMO 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Stosh

[ilumairen]

Unrelated to the topic:

 

Stosh, I've been wondering for a very long time.. why do you sometimes use a space before your commas? Is this meant to indicate an extra pause, or a certain way of reading your words?

 

(The last post seemed very 'surfer dude' - intentionally?)

[ilumairen]

16 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

I suggest study of the Isa upanishad,  "14. He who understands both the manifest and the unmanifested together, crosses death through the unmanifested and attains immortality through the manifest."

 

Thank you for the suggestion 3bob; I'm just not in a place to focus on religious texts right now. 

[Stosh]

4 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Unrelated to the topic:

 

Stosh, I've been wondering for a very long time.. why do you sometimes use a space before your commas? Is this meant to indicate an extra pause, or a certain way of reading your words?

 

(The last post seemed very 'surfer dude' - intentionally?)

I got interrupted by Apech's post.  But I use punctuation in my own fashion too, commas do not seem to present a long enough pause used individually. So,, yes

Edited August 21, 2018 by Stosh

[ilumairen]

2 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I got interrupted by Apech's post.  But I use punctuation in my own fashion too, commas do not seem to present a long enough pause used individually. 

 

Thank you for explaining and clarifying. I really like the space between words - both generally and as you intend with your posts.

[Apech]

19 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Whoa ! dude , that just like , wow , makes it all so like consicuous 

Sure there is , they just like to pretend they arent describing it. 

Y'know , like if you described an elephant , and called it a bunny rabbit, we should be able to discern what it was anyway. 

Attatchment

Merits

Book of the dead 

Reincarnation 

'Nuff said IMO 

 

 

 

 

Well, that's your opinion

[Stosh]

5 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Well, that's your opinion

And its fact as well .  

[ilumairen]

When I asked about eternalism, this is what was presented:

 

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

 

From the very short article: "Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false."

[Stosh]

4 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

When I asked about eternalism, this is what was presented:

 

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

 

From the very short article: "Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false."

If he was looking for an unchanging thing , he could have chosen emptiness , or atoms , or the principles of the universe, but its just not news to anyone that physical things wear out and run down. Its a ,, a,, correction that no-one needs. 

What his followers didn't do , was apply this idea to their selfs in its entirety, they came up with a hybrid opinion which wasn't as scary.

That one both exists and doesn't, same as Christians deal with the death of the body,, they just claim that there is something which goes on afterward, something that is still 'them' personally. 

[3bob]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

That's vedanta.

 

and so?  btw, this is not a Buddhist string in the Buddhist sub-forum

[3bob]

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

When I asked about eternalism, this is what was presented:

 

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

 

From the very short article: "Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false."

 

the Self (capitol S) is not a thing thus that whole argument is off if one is also open to  deeper meanings, meanings btw. which the historic Buddha often stressed.  Also if one sticks to that summation then there is no end to rounds of suffering.   Which brings up a saying from the historic Buddha himself:

 

"There is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, and therefore there is an escape from the born, created, formed, originated. If it were not for the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there would be no escape from the born, created, formed, originated, but because there is the unborn, uncreated, unformed, unoriginated, there is an escape, there is liberation from the born, created, formed, originated (Udana VIII.3)."

 

and if that "unborn" etc. is changing and is not an eternal fact and or factor if you will, due to also being of aggregates then all is the, "vanity of vanities"...(with eternal seeming to be a four letter word to many Buddhist even though the historic Buddha could have used it in the context of this saying,  btw I would not equate this Buddhist saying with Vedic summations although there are some undeniable overlaps in terms and meanings) 

Edited August 21, 2018 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

the Self (capitol S) is not a thing thus that whole argument is off

It's nice 3bob gives me the opportunity to agree with him now and then.

 

[3bob]

28 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

It's nice 3bob gives me the opportunity to agree with him now and then.

 

 

ok man  .

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

It's nice 3bob gives me the opportunity to agree with him now and then.

 

 

isn't it against the Daobums rules to agree with each other?????