Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[Bindi]

Can belief in a Higher Self be either in a dual or a non-dual capacity? I gather yes, I can believe in a Higher Self strive to actualise this and still find that Higher Self to be non-dual. Or does the concept of a Higher Self negate the possibility of non-duality? 
 

 

[old3bob]

32 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Can belief in a Higher Self be either in a dual or a non-dual capacity? I gather yes, I can believe in a Higher Self strive to actualise this and still find that Higher Self to be non-dual. Or does the concept of a Higher Self negate the possibility of non-duality? 
 

 

not sure about all of that, but The Self of the Upanishads is not a concept or belief although those may be on the way...

[Bindi]

53 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

not sure about all of that, but The Self of the Upanishads is not a concept or belief although those may be on the way...

Yes, I Believe I can actualise my ‘Self’ and I am on the way to this, but to have any belief about what happens after that would for me be merely a belief, until I am in that situation of fully realised Self. 
 

So this is one option that is not available to non-dualists who I understand would have no interest in a Higher Self because that is not a necessary point on their way to ‘non-dual truth’. 

[Bindi]

Quote

The Buddha does not use the term advaya [“not two”] in the earliest Buddhist texts, but it does appear in some of the Mahayana sutras, such as the Vimalakīrti. While the Buddha taught unified states of mental focus (samadhi) and meditative absorption (dhyana) which were commonly taught in Upanishadic thought, he also rejected the metaphysical doctrines of the Upanishads, particularly ideas which are often associated with Hindu nonduality, such as the doctrine that “this cosmos is the self” and “everything is a Oneness” (cf. SN 12.48 and MN 22). https://slife.org/nondualism/

 

Indian Buddhism brought non-dual themes to the concept of

 

Quote

 

 

Buddha nature or tathagata-garbha (literally “Buddha womb”)… that which allows sentient beings to become Buddhas. Various Mahayana texts such as the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras focus on this idea and over time it became a very influential doctrine in Indian Buddhism, as well in East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism. The Buddha nature teachings may be regarded as a form of nondualism. According to Sally B King, all beings are said to be or possess tathagata-garbha, which is nondual Thusness or Dharmakaya. This reality, states King, transcends the “duality of self and not-self”, the “duality of form and emptiness” and the “two poles of being and non being”.

There various interpretations and views on Buddha nature and the concept became very influential in India, China and Tibet, where it also became a source of much debate. In later Indian Yogācāra, a new sub-school developed which adopted the doctrine of tathagata-garbha into the Yogācāra system. The influence of this hybrid school can be seen in texts like the Lankavatara Sutra and the Ratnagotravibhaga. This synthesis of Yogācāra tathagata-garbha became very influential in later Buddhist traditions, such as Indian Vajrayana, Chinese Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism.

Another influential concept in Indian Buddhism is the idea of Luminous mind which became associated with Buddha nature. Yet another development in late Indian Buddhism was the synthesis of Madhymaka and Yogacara philosophies into a single system, by figures such as Śāntarakṣita (8th century). Buddhist Tantra, also known as Vajrayana, Mantrayana or Esoteric Buddhism, drew upon all these previous Indian Buddhist ideas and nondual philosophies to develop innovative new traditions of Buddhist practice and new religious texts called the Buddhist tantras (from the 6th century onwards). Tantric Buddhism was influential in China and is the main form of Buddhism in the Himalayan regions, especially Tibetan Buddhism.

The concept of advaya has various meanings in Buddhist Tantra. According to Tantric commentator Lilavajra, Buddhist Tantra’s “utmost secret and aim” is Buddha nature. This is seen as a “non-dual, self-originated Wisdom (jnana), an effortless fount of good qualities.” 

 

This does make me wonder if the Buddha was a daobum member would he be agreeing with the non-dualists or the anti-nondualist? 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Bindi

[old3bob]

17 hours ago, Bindi said:

Yes, I Believe I can actualise my ‘Self’ and I am on the way to this, but to have any belief about what happens after that would for me be merely a belief, until I am in that situation of fully realised Self. 
 

So this is one option that is not available to non-dualists who I understand would have no interest in a Higher Self because that is not a necessary point on their way to ‘non-dual truth’. 

 

I would refer to the way the Upanishads use the term Self,  and in doing so there is only one Self... but if you mean soul well then there are zillions of those  but all have the same eternal indestructible  (thus not a construct)  Self in the "cave of the heart".   (including highly evolved souls such as angels and gods)  

Edited May 2, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

11 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Indian Buddhism brought non-dual themes to the concept of

Buddhism IS Indian, btw. There is no "Indian Buddhism" per se. All schools of Buddhism came from India itself. 

11 hours ago, Bindi said:

This does make me wonder if the Buddha was a daobum member would he be agreeing with the non-dualists or the anti-nondualist? 

I think he would be silent on this subject, as he was about whether there was a Self or not. The Buddha was concerned with eliminating suffering, not with ontology or epistemology for the sake of it.

 

All the churning that happens wrt Duality and Non-duality, is because there is not sufficient preparation in the individual mind. Nondual realization or even genuine interest in it can only happen in a sufficiently ripened mind. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's analogy of "a ladder and its rungs" is most apropos, though it might rankle many a modern seeker. 

 

[dwai]

20 hours ago, Bindi said:

Yes, I Believe I can actualise my ‘Self’ and I am on the way to this, but to have any belief about what happens after that would for me be merely a belief, until I am in that situation of fully realised Self. 
 

So this is one option that is not available to non-dualists who I understand would have no interest in a Higher Self because that is not a necessary point on their way to ‘non-dual truth’. 

There is no “high” or “low” when it comes to Self. Can you even pinpoint what your “lower self” is?
 

What is it?

 

 

Is it your body? The body replaces itself every seven years 

 

Is it your mind? The mind is a field of thoughts…they rise and fall. Momentary. Ever-changing. 

Is it your memories? What is so real about memories? They are of past phenomena that aren’t there anymore. 

 

Your emotions?  They vacillate with the thoughts  
 

Feelings? They change with your emotions and sensory perception. 

Personality? how many personalities have you had since you were an infant ? 
 

 

There IS no lower self at all. It is all a conglomeration of layers acquired by habit (acquired and inherited). If you really investigate you’ll find it is empty and ephemeral, 

 

If you can say who you are, in a fraction of a second, without a single thought, then there is something to talk about. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by dwai

[stirling]

On 4/29/2022 at 5:14 PM, Bindi said:

Perhaps there is a state that you have experienced/do experience that you have named ‘non-dual realization’, but this realization  doesn’t contain the evolved subtle energy body that I have seen glimpses of and am cultivating.

 

Not speaking for steve who is certainly able to speak for himself, but I wanted to clarify something: "non-dual realization" is not a "state".

 

States and meditative experiences come and go. They are experienced by a person who believes they have contrived their perception to be in a particular state. Non-dual realization is permanent. It isn't contrived, or achieved by ADDING something to experience, it is actually seeing reality with something LESS than the way we traditionally see reality. There is an "emptiness" of self/space/and time that has always been present right underneath our contrived self/space/time perspective and narrative.

 

It is possible to see the old way, but always visible is the non-dual nature of all things. The only thing that can really be taken seriously (IMHO) is the suffering of appearances that still do not understand what they are looking at - which is itself illusory. The sincere wish to be of service to this suffering is what prajna/wisdom/compassion is, and how it manifests. 

 

Quote

 Everyone contains the subtle energy body potential, but if that potential is left unfulfilled because of engagement with non-dual philosophy or the non-dual state then to me it is like the non-dualist holds a seed in their hand and thinks they have arrived, all the time never planting the seed and never seeing it’s true potential form revealed. 

 

Not knowing or caring that they hold the seed, and not valuing its potential or realised form, I feel the non-dualist dismisses the pursuit of subtle body development as the lesser path. 

 

Non-dual understanding makes it obvious that the attempted manipulation of the universe and illusory self was always impossible. There is only being in alignment with things as they are. 

 

Quote

Yes, thoughts, ideas and feelings of the View are hollow when not backed up by the state, I gather you have to make some effort to attain that state again and again and not just spout the philosophy. 

 

See above.

 

Quote

 

TBH I even question the value of resting in Unbounded Bliss. I have some inkling of the practical healing and knowing power of the evolved energy body, and I wouldn’t trade the evolution of it for a lifetime’s Unbounded Bliss. 

 

 

"Unbounded bliss" wouldn't accurately describe the non-dual understanding. I would question that too.

[stirling]

On 4/29/2022 at 5:41 PM, Bindi said:

For me, wuwei comes after youwei, but I hadn’t thought of wuwei as non-dual.

 

Wu wei is absolutely non-dual. Not enough people ask themselves if there is a "self" present when wu wei is realized. Alignment with what is happening in this moment without resistance IS an emptiness of "self" and "other" - IS absolutely enlightened action, IS absolutely non-dual.

[stirling]

20 hours ago, Bindi said:

Can belief in a Higher Self be either in a dual or a non-dual capacity? I gather yes, I can believe in a Higher Self strive to actualise this and still find that Higher Self to be non-dual. Or does the concept of a Higher Self negate the possibility of non-duality?

 

A belief is what we construct when we don't know. Gnosis is experiential understanding that is non-conceptual. Non-dual understanding is gnosis, and it marginalizes all beliefs, systems, practices, and cosmologies. 

 

Quote

The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom. - Hui Hai

 

[Mark Foote]

Like to thank all you Bums, for rare conversation IMHO.  Like walking on a muddy road, with occasional stones--I'll take it.

Thanks, Awaken, for including translations.

A quote that I think reveals important details of Gautama's teaching about self:

"Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body."

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68.)

 

Doesn't much matter "what is the self", here--it's what is not the self. 

The "perfect wisdom" that Gautama refers to, in his case was the consequence of the cessation of volition in perceiving and feeling, in the actions of the mind.   Having remained for some interval in a state where actions of perceiving and feeling took place without intention, without will, and without deliberation, Gautama knew beyond a doubt that material shape, feeling, perception, the habitual tendencies, and consciousness were not his, they were not his self.  

Interestingly, the consequence of his application of that "perfect wisdom" in the above quote is not the cessation of (volition in) action of the mind (in perceiving and feeling), but rather the cessation of (volition in) action of the body (in inhalation and exhalation).  He's quite explicit, that for some one knowing and seeing by means of perfect wisdom, "there are no latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' with regard to this consciousness-informed body."

Now I can ask myself, when I'm picking up a cup of coffee or tea, who is bringing the cup to my lips.  It's not really a matter of self, it's a matter of volition versus the place of consciousness in the movement of breath, as the source of the action. 

And it's not really necessary to attain "the cessation of perceiving and feeling" to have an experience that completely destroys "latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer'" with regard to the body.  That is why not all the gurus and teachers teach that there is no self to be found, in form, in feeling, in mind, in habit or volition, or in mental state.

 

 

[stirling]

21 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

A quote that I think reveals important details of Gautama's teaching about self:

"Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body."

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68.)

 

"Perfect wisdom" is no less than prajna, IMHO. 

 

Quote

Prajñā (Sanskrit: प्रज्ञा) or paññā (Pāli: पञ्ञा), is a Buddhist term often translated as "wisdom", "intelligence", or "understanding". It is described in Buddhist commentaries as the understanding of the true nature of phenomena.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism)

 

Yes, you can get a glimpse (kensho) of how things are, but it isn't prajna. Prajna doesn't come and go, and is the nature of ALL phenomena and happening. Once seen is eventually always present. 

 

Quote

 

And it's not really necessary to attain "the cessation of perceiving and feeling" to have an experience that completely destroys "latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer'" with regard to the body.  That is why not all the gurus and teachers teach that there is no self to be found, in form, in feeling, in mind, in habit or volition, or in mental state.

 

 

"Cessation of perceiving and feeling" it is imprecise as translated, IMHO, so it isn't language I would normally use. I always feel it implies a blacking out, or something along those lines. I would be inclined to say something like "dropping away of self" or "cessation of experiencing as a self", though seeing through self/other is only one way in. If there is some interest in penetrating and completely understanding the nature of reality, I would say that gnosis IS necessary, and seeing through the dualities of self-other/past-present-future/here-there is what is required. There is no logical or conceptual way to arrive at true understanding of how things are. 

[Bindi]

7 hours ago, dwai said:

Buddhism IS Indian, btw. There is no "Indian Buddhism" per se. All schools of Buddhism came from India itself. 
 

 

Yes true, but his perspective was different to the Indian perspectives of his day. So it’s more like original Buddhist teachings and doctrine was later subjected to Indian thought which developed into the ‘non-dual Buddhist’ traditions of East Asia and Tibet. 

 

Quote

I think he would be silent on this subject, as he was about whether there was a Self or not.
 

 

“he also rejected the metaphysical doctrines of the Upanishads, particularly ideas which are often associated with Hindu nonduality, such as the doctrine that “this cosmos is the self” and “everything is a Oneness” isn’t silent on the subject. If I really cared what the Buddha did or didn’t think I would explore this quote, but since I’m not Buddhist I’m not interested enough. 

 

Quote

The Buddha was concerned with eliminating suffering, not with ontology or epistemology for the sake of it.
 

 

He seems to have had very strong opinions about many things, and not just for the sake of it. See above. 

 

Quote

 

All the churning that happens wrt Duality and Non-duality, is because there is not sufficient preparation in the individual mind. Nondual realization or even genuine interest in it can only happen in a sufficiently ripened mind. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's analogy of "a ladder and its rungs" is most apropos, though it might rankle many a modern seeker. 

 

Logically, wouldn’t this mean that the Buddha’s mind wasn’t sufficiently prepared or ripened for non-dual realisation since he personally rejected the notion? 
 

Conversely a Neo-Advaitan can achieve non-dual realisation with no preparation whatsoever. 
 

In reality I think this is because it’s a mental perspective that one can choose to embrace or not, depending on one’s level of resistance to accepting a belief system. 

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

There is no “high” or “low” when it comes to Self. Can you even pinpoint what your “lower self” is?
 

What is it?

 

 

Yes I can. My lower self is consciousness running through Ida and Pingala with no access to the central channel. My higher Self is consciousness present in the central channel, consciousness which is no longer exclusively identified with Ida and Pingala, though it has not lost touch with them. 
 

Achieving this cannot be immediate. 

 

5 hours ago, dwai said:

 

 

Is it your body? The body replaces itself every seven years 

 

Is it your mind? The mind is a field of thoughts…they rise and fall. Momentary. Ever-changing. 

Is it your memories? What is so real about memories? They are of past phenomena that aren’t there anymore. 

 

Your emotions?  They vacillate with the thoughts  
 

Feelings? They change with your emotions and sensory perception. 

Personality? how many personalities have you had since you were an infant ? 
 

 

There IS no lower self at all. It is all a conglomeration of layers acquired by habit (acquired and inherited). If you really investigate you’ll find it is empty and ephemeral, 

 

If you can say who you are, in a fraction of a second, without a single thought, then there is something to talk about. 

 

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Not speaking for steve who is certainly able to speak for himself, but I wanted to clarify something: "non-dual realization" is not a "state".

 

States and meditative experiences come and go. They are experienced by a person who believes they have contrived their perception to be in a particular state. Non-dual realization is permanent. It isn't contrived, or achieved by ADDING something to experience, it is actually seeing reality with something LESS than the way we traditionally see reality. There is an "emptiness" of self/space/and time that has always been present right underneath our contrived self/space/time perspective and narrative.

 

I questioned Steve on this because he posted publicly that he occasionally has to go on a retreat to maintain his non-dual perspective. Ramana spent many years in meditation to finally reach a stable non-dualness in his normal waking life, which he referred to as Sahaja samadhi. Non-dual teachers whose personalities are out of control will occasionally admit that they haven’t actually arrived. I know the narrative, but I believe that for most it is a state, which I agree is not the aim. 
 

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

It is possible to see the old way, but always visible is the non-dual nature of all things. The only thing that can really be taken seriously (IMHO) is the suffering of appearances that still do not understand what they are looking at - which is itself illusory. The sincere wish to be of service to this suffering is what prajna/wisdom/compassion is, and how it manifests. 

 

 

Non-dual understanding makes it obvious that the attempted manipulation of the universe and illusory self was always impossible. There is only being in alignment with things as they are. 

 

 

See above.

 

 

"Unbounded bliss" wouldn't accurately describe the non-dual understanding. I would question that too.

 

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

Like to thank all you Bums, for rare conversation IMHO.  Like walking on a muddy road, with occasional stones--I'll take it.

Thanks, Awaken, for including translations.

A quote that I think reveals important details of Gautama's teaching about self:

"Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body."

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68.)

 

Doesn't much matter "what is the self", here--it's what is not the self. 

 

 

Yes, I read that the other day. I don’t think I agree that consciousness is not the self, I believe the self is bound up with consciousness, and where consciousness exists is the point. 
 

I believe Gautama came up with a very clever solution to suffering, but I don’t think he managed to bring consciousness to the central channel. 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

The "perfect wisdom" that Gautama refers to, in his case was the consequence of the cessation of volition in perceiving and feeling, in the actions of the mind.   Having remained for some interval in a state where actions of perceiving and feeling took place without intention, without will, and without deliberation, Gautama knew beyond a doubt that material shape, feeling, perception, the habitual tendencies, and consciousness were not his, they were not his self.  

Interestingly, the consequence of his application of that "perfect wisdom" in the above quote is not the cessation of (volition in) action of the mind (in perceiving and feeling), but rather the cessation of (volition in) action of the body (in inhalation and exhalation).  He's quite explicit, that for some one knowing and seeing by means of perfect wisdom, "there are no latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' with regard to this consciousness-informed body."

 

 

I think there is a definite need to come to this realisation “I am not the doer” when it comes to thoughts and feelings, but there is a point where “I” identifies with something beyond thoughts and feelings, and this identification isn’t something that needs to be separated from. To actualise this ‘something beyond’ is the first step, and it takes time, it’s like making sure that there is a vehicle to shift into before leaving the old identifications of ‘I am my thoughts’ and ‘I am my emotions’. If the next vehicle hasn’t been developed then leaving the thought and emotion identification prematurely will leave one without any vehicle whatsoever. I think this is seen as success in non-dual philosophy. 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

Now I can ask myself, when I'm picking up a cup of coffee or tea, who is bringing the cup to my lips.  It's not really a matter of self, it's a matter of volition versus the place of consciousness in the movement of breath, as the source of the action. 

And it's not really necessary to attain "the cessation of perceiving and feeling" to have an experience that completely destroys "latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer'" with regard to the body.  That is why not all the gurus and teachers teach that there is no self to be found, in form, in feeling, in mind, in habit or volition, or in mental state.

 

 

 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I questioned Steve on this because he posted publicly that he occasionally has to go on a retreat to maintain his non-dual perspective. 

 

Not something I have ever said to my recollection. 

Non-dual realization doesn't work in the way you imagine. 

Your assumptions and conclusions on the subject throughout the thread are erroneous.

You are welcome to your ideas on non-duality but please don't put words in my mouth.

Thanks

 

[dwai]

52 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

Yes I can. My lower self is consciousness running through Ida and Pingala with no access to the central channel. My higher Self is consciousness present in the central channel, consciousness which is no longer exclusively identified with Ida and Pingala, though it has not lost touch with them. 

And you know this how?  

52 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Achieving this cannot be immediate. 

 

 

Of course it can. The result will not be what is typically expected though. Try it…go on. 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

Yes true, but his perspective was different to the Indian perspectives of his day. So it’s more like original Buddhist teachings and doctrine was later subjected to Indian thought which developed into the ‘non-dual Buddhist’ traditions of East Asia and Tibet. 

wrong!  

‘nondual Buddhist’ traditions come from the Buddha via mAdhyamaka of Nagarjuna. 

Quote

 

 

“he also rejected the metaphysical doctrines of the Upanishads, particularly ideas which are often associated with Hindu nonduality, such as the doctrine that “this cosmos is the self” and “everything is a Oneness” isn’t silent on the subject. If I really cared what the Buddha did or didn’t think I would explore this quote, but since I’m not Buddhist I’m not interested enough. 

Buddha’s objections were not the with the Upanishads, but rather the Purva mimamsa and samhkya traditions. 

Quote

 

He seems to have had very strong opinions about many things, and not just for the sake of it. See above. 

That is incorrect. Anyone can quote just about anything without context and then use that to reinforce circular arguments. 

Quote

Logically, wouldn’t this mean that the Buddha’s mind wasn’t sufficiently prepared or ripened for non-dual realisation since he personally rejected the notion?

You mean the Buddha didn’t know about the nondual nature of reality?

I think all Buddhists would reject that claim. 

Quote

Conversely a Neo-Advaitan can achieve non-dual realisation with no preparation whatsoever.

May be. I don’t know any, so can’t confirm or deny that. 

Quote

In reality I think this is because it’s a mental perspective that one can choose to embrace or not, depending on one’s level of resistance to accepting a belief system. 

That is a misunderstanding of many beginners. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by dwai

[Bindi]

19 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Not something I have ever said to my recollection. 

Non-dual realization doesn't work in the way you imagine. 

Your assumptions and conclusions on the subject throughout the thread are erroneous.

You are welcome to your ideas on non-duality but please don't put words in my mouth.

Thanks

 

I think this is the post which made me come to my conclusions 

 

 

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

wrong!  

‘nondual Buddhist’ traditions come from the Buddha via mAdhyamaka of Nagarjuna. 

 

The first time the term non-dual was used in Buddhism was by Nagarjuna. Gautama could have used this term but didn't, and he didn't teach non-dualism as a metaphysical principle, instead he taught dependent origination, Non-clinging and Emptiness which aren't the same as non-duality.

 

Quote

Buddha’s objections were not the with the Upanishads, but rather the Purva mimamsa and samhkya traditions. 

That is incorrect. Anyone can quote just about anything without context and then use that to reinforce circular arguments. 

You mean the Buddha didn’t know about the nondual nature of reality?

 

Yes I mean he never taught it and didn't experience it himself. my earlier reference (which I see is a wikipedia reference originally)  claims that he outright denied doctrines such as “this cosmos is the self” and “everything is a Oneness", ie., he specifically rejected the idea we are all parts of one whole or totality. This is what I read, where he specifically says this might be supplied by a Buddhist scholar ( on this thread if I was lucky).

 

Quote

I think all Buddhists would reject that claim. 

May be. I don’t know any, so can’t confirm or deny that. 

That is a misunderstanding of many beginners. 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Bindi

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I think this is the post which made me come to my conclusions 

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing that. Sorry that you misunderstood my words.

 

What I described there were meditative experiences with obstacles to an unobstructed connection to the present moment.

 

You characterizing those comments as “… he occasionally has to go on a retreat to maintain his non-dual perspective” is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

[Lairg]

At which stage of initiation/enlightenment does there exist a choice between dual and non-dual?

 

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

And you know this how?  
 

 

Some people are able to perceive subtle forms and the subtle energy channels, I have been lucky enough to come in contact with two of them - in both cases they didn’t have a clue as to what they were seeing, they weren’t teachers, merely seers, but I have been able to build up an understanding over time about the meaning of what they see, and to work with my subtle body via what they’ve seen to follow its natural evolution. 

This information broadly accords with Indian Yoga knowledge of the nadi’s and chakras as well as Daoist dantians, and my personal dream information, so I am satisfied that this is the fundamental reality that we need to understand and align with. 
 

Non-dualism has no interest in developing these subtle channels as far as I know, I don’t think early Buddhism did either, but Yogis of course did and still do. 
 

Here’s a question, why did Tibetan Buddhists who as I understand it have a nondual outlook get involved in working with subtle body channels, was there something lacking in their nondual view that needed subtle energy body work? Or was it subtle energy body work that lead to their nondual view? 
 

 

Quote

 

Of course it can. The result will not be what is typically expected though. Try it…go on. 

 

Perception can change in a single moment, but the blocks in the subtle energy channels take time to clear. I have no wish to change my perception because I equate achievement of nondual perception with the stopping of subtle body development, and I value subtle body development a lot higher than the rewards of nondual perception that I have heard about. 
 

“The various yogas all have their own story to tell about liberation, and can be pursued on their own. But as nondualism sees it, the yogas tend to serve as ramp-ups to non-dual inquiry itself.” ~ Greg Goode (Ph.D)

 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Bindi

[Bindi]

2 hours ago, steve said:

 

Thanks for sharing that. Sorry that you misunderstood my words.

 

What I described there were meditative experiences with obstacles to an unobstructed connection to the present moment.

 

You characterizing those comments as “… he occasionally has to go on a retreat to maintain his non-dual perspective” is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

I’m sorry I misrepresented what you wrote, I can see you didn’t say that you have to go on retreat to maintain your nondual perspective. Re-reading your comment today would it be more appropriate to say that you noticed during a retreat that you fell short of actualising the nondual perspective in many areas of your life? In this thread you seem to acknowledge that you can appear to be smug when you think you are operating in a more nondual manner than you actually are, mistaking thoughts, ideas and feelings of the view rather than resting in nonduality. This does suggest to me that sometimes you are resting in nonduality, and sometimes you are aware that you are not, but that you have a definite preference to always rest in nonduality and that you are working towards this in your way.