Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[stirling]

14 hours ago, Lairg said:

If you say so.

 

I can see it right now.

[stirling]

14 hours ago, Bindi said:

Ramana spent a large part of his life in intensive meditation after his awakening at 16,  I assume this was in some sort of samadhi because he had no awareness of what was happening to his body. It makes sense to me that it might have been nirvikalpa samadhi, otherwise why make any effort to meditate? Later in life he spent less time in meditation, perhaps he was more able to remain in the primal state without effort? 

 

Based on my experience he likely awakened, but the insight wasn't stabilized. Meditation becomes very attractive at this point as it is effortless, and deepens insight and seeing. After some period of time "self" drops away, and insight is the default way of seeing and doesn't require any effort. The Tibetans call this "post-meditation". There is still sitting and deepening the seeing of emptiness, but emptiness is the default seeing at that point. I think trying to append what meditative states he might have experienced is perhaps of limited usefulness. 

 

Quote

"Holding on to the supreme state is Samadhi. When it is with effort due to mental disturbances, it is Savikalpa. When these disturbances are absent, it is Nirvikalpa. Remaining permanently in the primal state without effort is Sahaja."

 

I'm not familiar with this specific terminology, but I think this covers what I was saying above, as does:

 

Quote

Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme.

 

This is the deepening of the emptiness, which doesn't change the core insight, but is something like turning up the volume on the seeing of it. 

 

Quote

Ramana Maharshi spent years in nirvikalpa samadhi in order to be at one with the ‘Self’, in the end it became somewhat present all the time, though I suspect never quite fully.

 

When I read Maharshi it is clear to me that he has the full measure of insight, and that it was, as evidenced by his actions and obvious lack of "self", complete. Just my opinion.

[stirling]

13 hours ago, dawn90 said:

You're putting on the coat. Aren't you? The subtle body? It's in you.

 

Subtle bodies, gods, auras, steps of awakening, lessons, cosmologies - these are all stories we tell ourselves or adopt because they "resonate" with us. Even science is one such story. 

 

 

Quote

Lairg mentioned it as a blue hue or shadow and it reminded me of the blue aura is it possible that your subtle body and mine and Lairg's and probably others is of the blue quality and isn't necessarily the same in others?

 

I can see my blue aura and sometimes those of others if I direct my attention that way - its interesting, but it doesn't tell me anything about the nature of reality. I don't think it is anything to worry about or build a story around. The body is constantly changing, whether it has any subtle aura qualities, or aging related pain qualities, or is strong today, or weak tomorrow. Natural or "supernatural", they are still things that come and go and can be seen sometimes but then not others. The quality of reality that doesn't come and go is its non-duality, which, with practice, can be seen all the time. Awareness is what "we" ultimately are. It doesn't go anywhere, cannot be hurt, and does not depend on conditions for its existence. 

 

Quote

 

We haven't discussed this and I sense this isn't the time yet to get to that point as it would lead to a great realization but everybody in this forum has sensed it: there's a wordwide phenomenon bigger than all of us taking place and we're all too scared to talk about it openly; I'm not going to get into it any further, lets wait til it happens and the coat is certainly on. Then we'll talk about it.

But it certainly is happening.

 

 

I'd love to pitch in on a topic like that, and hear your ideas and fears. If something is happening, I'll be curious to see what it is.

[old3bob]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Based on my experience he likely awakened, but the insight wasn't stabilized. Meditation becomes very attractive at this point as it is effortless, and deepens insight and seeing. After some period of time "self" drops away, and insight is the default way of seeing and doesn't require any effort. The Tibetans call this "post-meditation". There is still sitting and deepening the seeing of emptiness, but emptiness is the default seeing at that point. I think trying to append what meditative states he might have experienced is perhaps of limited usefulness. 

 

I'm not familiar with this specific terminology, but I think this covers what I was saying above, as does:

 

This is the deepening of the emptiness, which doesn't change the core insight, but is something like turning up the volume on the seeing of it. 

 

When I read Maharshi it is clear to me that he has the full measure of insight, and that it was, as evidenced by his actions and obvious lack of "self", complete. Just my opinion.

 

who knows for sure about the achievement's of or why put out a speculative conclusion about another person, including and especially Masters, Sages, Saints, etc. when or if we have no personal and close relationship with them to go by?  So sure take what inspiration and wise sayings one can from them but like anyone else they do not fit in a nice neat box we may put them in or a pedestal we may put them on.  (and the same applies even if we do have some relationship with them)

 

(and I sure haven't been perfect when it comes to the above

Edited June 2, 2022 by old3bob

[stirling]

58 minutes ago, old3bob said:

who knows for sure about the achievement's of or why put out a speculative conclusion about another person, including and especially Masters, Sages, Saints, etc. when or if we have no personal and close relationship with them to go by?  So sure take what inspiration and wise sayings one can from them but like anyone else they do not fit in a nice neat box we may put them in or a pedestal we may put them on.  (and the same applies even if we do have some relationship with them)

 

...further, there are actually beings all over the place with the SAME understanding. There are likely at least one or two in a city, or meditation center near you. You can meet and work with them, then decide for yourself what their level of understanding is or isn't, OR (better still) learn and practice WITH them and see for yourself. 

[mrpasserby]

 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

We haven't discussed this and I sense this isn't the time yet to get to that point as it would lead to a great realization but everybody in this forum has sensed it: there's a wordwide phenomenon bigger than all of us taking place and we're all too scared to talk about it openly; I'm not going to get into it any further, lets wait til it happens and the coat is certainly on. Then we'll talk about it.

But it certainly is happening.

 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

I'd love to pitch in on a topic like that, and hear your ideas and fears. If something is happening, I'll be curious to see what it is.

I would be interested to read the posting on a subject of this magnitude, and I would enjoy adding my personal experiences on this subject as well. 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

Based on my experience he likely awakened, but the insight wasn't stabilized. Meditation becomes very attractive at this point as it is effortless, and deepens insight and seeing. After some period of time "self" drops away, and insight is the default way of seeing and doesn't require any effort. The Tibetans call this "post-meditation". There is still sitting and deepening the seeing of emptiness, but emptiness is the default seeing at that point. I think trying to append what meditative states he might have experienced is perhaps of limited usefulness. 

To comment on whether he was "fully awakened" or "stabilized" is pointless IMHO. Especially it is a waste of time and energy to rely on cherry-picked quotes used by people who clearly don't have the proper qualifications, respect, or inclination towards nonduality.

 

 

 

 

[Lairg]

54 minutes ago, dwai said:

To comment on whether he was "fully awakened" or "stabilized" is pointless IMHO. Especially it is a waste of time and energy to rely on cherry-picked quotes used by people who clearly don't have the proper qualifications, respect, or inclination towards nonduality.

 

 

I like to do energy tests - for example on whether a statement/belief is acceptable to Reality.

 

Does this mean that I am dual?

 

 

[dawn90]

Father son and holy spirit. Three gods in one.

The father is the mind and the son resides inside the chest, just like christians indicate, when they do the movement.

Holy spirit, then. Must be lower - perhaps corresponding to the lower dantian.

The father is definitely the one that comes first - he gives birth to his son and through the holy spirit they meet again as the holy spirit passes through the heart.

The son. Which sounds a lot like sun. Is the intersection point between the upper and lower dantian.

In the middle.

The mind then is indicated to guide the son - the heart.

 

The heart grows through the will of the father and they both meet again and become one again through the lower action of the holy spirit or the lower dantian.

And the three parts are finally one.

Edited June 2, 2022 by dawn90

[Mark Foote]

On 6/1/2022 at 7:06 PM, stirling said:

 

As Manitou says, sagely, it is really just about stopping. Being still. Looking at what is here right now, in this moment. 

 

Aye, there's the rub.  

I can sit down, and if my life is on an even keel, I can arrive at the cessation of volition in "in-breathing" and "out-breathing".  That's the cessation of "determinate thought" in action of the body, but as I've pointed out, I'm not stopping the action of the body or necessarily being still physically.  

The means is actualizing the fundamental point, by remaining as the mind that is present without abode (as the Diamond Sutra says)--being here.  The means is actualizing the fundamental point, by being "as if the body is the whole universe" (Omori Sogen), finding the way at this moment.  

The means is not always apparent, and yet may be actualized immediately, as in "to learn who... moves the hands and feet":

"Learning means to learn the origins of joy, anger, sorrow, and pleasure and to learn who uses the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body and moves the hands and feet."

 

(Hakuin, "Neboke no Mezamashi", as related by Omori Sogen in "An Introduction to Zen Training", p 62)

 

 

More on seated meditation, from "An Introduction to Zen Training" and other sources, here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

5 minutes ago, dawn90 said:

 

Holy spirit, then. Must be lower - perhaps corresponding to the lower dantian.

 

I think "spirit", like the Greek "pneuma", is generally associated with the breath.  

[dawn90]

23 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

I think "spirit", like the Greek "pneuma", is generally associated with the breath.  

 

A balls deep breathing, yes.

[liminal_luke]

19 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

another might have a nondual experience and accept that it was a taste of things to come but not an invitation to try and grasp it repeatedly.

 

 

As a kid I'd try to catch the bullfrogs that sunned themselves on the side of our family pond.  These days I don't have access to a pond or bullfrogs so I try to grasp nondual experiences instead.  Squirmy little buggers.  I haven't caught any yet but, like the stubborn dualist that I am, I won't give up.

Edited June 2, 2022 by liminal_luke

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

 

I like to do energy tests - for example on whether a statement/belief is acceptable to Reality.

 

Does this mean that I am dual?

 

 

What is an energy test? To see if a statement resonates with you energetically? A lot of times things that are good for you don’t resonate well. What’s that saying about eating bitter? 

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

I like to do energy tests - for example on whether a statement/belief is acceptable to Reality.

 

Does this mean that I am dual?

 

A belief is what we construct when we don't know. There isn't a belief system that truly describes reality, for this reason. It is always the construct of the thinking mind that divides infinity into parts and decides which ones are important for the new "system". All such systems are therefore obviously incomplete.

 

Reality is just "this" WITHOUT your story about how it has been, or how it might be in the future. This includes all traditions, systems of thought, beliefs, practices, sciences, etc. It is good to avoid identifying or building a new "self" out of your particular practice or belief system, and hold such things lightly. 

 

Reality is always perfectly fine just as it is. Reality is not a separate entity (from us or anything else) that accepts or rejects how things are. Reality is never at odds with what is happening, it is our conceptions about how things should be that are at odds with reality. The entity that accepts or rejects reality as it is in this moment is our thinking mind. 

 

When the mind is quiet and still, clinging or aversion to how things are drop away. There is just being. This is what "reality" is.

 

This might be the clearest expression of this that I have ever found:

 

Quote

The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

 

If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.

 

When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

The Way is perfect like vast space
where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.
Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject
that we do not see the true nature of things.

Live neither in the entanglements of outer things,
nor in inner feelings of emptiness.
Be serene in the oneness of things
and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves. - S'eng Tsan, Tsin Tsin Ming

 

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

As a kid I'd try to catch bullfrogs that were sunning themselves on the side of our family pond.  These days I don't have access to a pond or bullfrogs so I try to grasp nondual experiences instead.  Squirmy little buggers.  I haven't caught any yet but, like the stubborn dualist that I am, I won't give up.

Sometimes we need to do the wrong thing to get the right outcome  

[Bindi]

11 hours ago, steve said:

 

This thread has created a new term in my spiritual vocabulary - 

dualsplaining - when someone lacking experience in nondual realization and practice explains it to others who live and practice with it, refusing to consider the validity of their perspective 

 

Whenever I suggest nondual perspective is a choice you react. Manitou can say she has to remember to dive down through the conditioning, which implies making a choice, but you are very defensive when I suggest you are making the same choice. 

 

In the words of a nondualsplainer:

 

Pointers are useful, but they become a hindrance when we fixate on them and turn them into fundamentalist dogmas.  It’s easy to see this tendency when it shows up “out there” in fundamentalist Christianity or fundamentalist Islam, but it’s harder to see it in ourselves.  We think we’re beyond all that.  But I see this dogmatic fixation and fundamentalism happening all the time in the nondual subculture.  We fixate, for example, on the notion that there is no choice, that everything is a choiceless happening, that there is no individual chooser.  This is a very liberating discovery, a profound insight. But it’s only a partial truth—reality itself can’t be boxed up that way.  And if we fixate on that as the whole truth, then if anyone dares to speak of “choosing” in any way whatsoever, we instantly pounce.  Wrong!  We tell them. We don’t listen anymore to what the person is actually saying.  Our mind has already been made up.  We’ve landed. We’re stuck on one side of an imaginary divide, identified with a particular formulation, ready to defend it to the death.  I’ve certainly seen this tendency in myself at times—it’s quite human.  It’s how the mind habitually works. ~ Joan Tollifson

[Lairg]

2 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

I like to do energy tests - for example on whether a statement/belief is acceptable to Reality.

 

Does this mean that I am dual?

 

 

The point of my question is that the spiritual scientist is necessarily dualistic in order to test whether a construct/action/entity is closer to the Real or to the Unreal

 

So does the practice of spiritual science prevent awareness merging into the Oneness of All?

[Bindi]

The "me" wanting to practice non-duality is the very illusion that non-dual philosophy is geared toward dismantling. ~ Some random nondualist. 
 

 

[dwai]

14 minutes ago, Lairg said:

 

The point of my question is that the spiritual scientist is necessarily dualistic in order to test whether a construct/action/entity is closer to the Real or to the Unreal

 

So does the practice of spiritual science prevent awareness merging into the Oneness of All?

That is dualism. Whenever you say “think, feel, do, know” that’s all in the domain of duality.
 

There is no awareness merging into oneness of all. Awareness IS. That’s all there is. Oneness, manyness, noneness, all are appearances in awareness itself. 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

As a kid I'd try to catch the bullfrogs that sunned themselves on the side of our family pond.  These days I don't have access to a pond or bullfrogs so I try to grasp nondual experiences instead.  Squirmy little buggers.  I haven't caught any yet but, like the stubborn dualist that I am, I won't give up.

 

try singing with them like Jeremiah and they will joyfully jump into your hand. ;-)

(Bullfrogs and bell bottoms)

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by old3bob

[Lairg]

12 minutes ago, dwai said:

There is no awareness merging into oneness of all. Awareness IS. That’s all there is.

 

I have had some experiences that indicate that during the mahapralaya there is only Beingness and eventually Beingness decides to experience separated Existence.

 

Spirit and matter, intelligences and universes thus are manifested for a purpose and apparent dualities arise.  For example humans see spirit and matter as a duality.  

 

Does the Is-ness of humans emerge in Beingness or Existence?  

 

If in Beingness then the Is-ness of humans is always non-dual.  

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Aye, there's the rub.  

I can sit down, and if my life is on an even keel, I can arrive at the cessation of volition in "in-breathing" and "out-breathing".  That's the cessation of "determinate thought" in action of the body, but as I've pointed out, I'm not stopping the action of the body or necessarily being still physically.  

The means is actualizing the fundamental point, by remaining as the mind that is present without abode (as the Diamond Sutra says)--being here.  The means is actualizing the fundamental point, by being "as if the body is the whole universe" (Omori Sogen), finding the way at this moment.

 

I always enjoy the intellectual rigor and detail of your posts, so thank you for this one, Mark.

 

What I am pointing to is the idea that "actualizing the fundamental point" is merely dropping the "doing". The "self" is the doer - the one checking if the in or out breath is happening correctly, possibly scolding you if it isn't, monitoring the right mix of causes and conditions, giving up if life isn't on an even keel, etc. These are all artificial limits on just being. There is no process necessary to just be. Truly being present can happen when driving, doing your taxes, or shooting a gun. Meditation, when we are thinking of Zazen or Dzogchen, is the one thing we do that ISN'T an activity - it is just resting the mind in its own nature. As you say, it is the cessation of doing. The phenomenal world continues, thoughts arise, bombs explode, lovers entwine - the whole pageant continues. 

 

Quote

“To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.” 
- Dogen

 

Forgetting the self is simply allowing the illusion of being a self to drop out. What takes practice is simply learning how to stop stoking the fire of iterative thoughts that feed the delusion of being a being with separateness.

[Bindi]

12 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

I always enjoy the intellectual rigor and detail of your posts, so thank you for this one, Mark.

 

What I am pointing to is the idea that "actualizing the fundamental point" is merely dropping the "doing". The "self" is the doer - the one checking if the in or out breath is happening correctly, possibly scolding you if it isn't, monitoring the right mix of causes and conditions, giving up if life isn't on an even keel, etc. These are all artificial limits on just being. There is no process necessary to just be. Truly being present can happen when driving, doing your taxes, or shooting a gun. Meditation, when we are thinking of Zazen or Dzogchen, is the one thing we do that ISN'T an activity - it is just resting the mind in its own nature. As you say, it is the cessation of doing. The phenomenal world continues, thoughts arise, bombs explode, lovers entwine - the whole pageant continues. 

 

 

Forgetting the self is simply allowing the illusion of being a self to drop out. What takes practice is simply learning how to stop stoking the fire of iterative thoughts that feed the delusion of being a being with separateness.

Just curious, you say forgetting the self, do you have any perspective regarding the ‘higher Self’?

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, Lairg said:

 

I have had some experiences that indicate that during the mahapralaya there is only Beingness and eventually Beingness decides to experience separated Existence.

 

Spirit and matter, intelligences and universes thus are manifested for a purpose and apparent dualities arise.  For example humans see spirit and matter as a duality.  
 

There is no reason or purpose. Only appearances in awareness. 

21 minutes ago, Lairg said:

Does the Is-ness of humans emerge in Beingness or Existence?  

 

If in Beingness then the Is-ness of humans is always non-dual.  

Is-ness of, existence of, are all predicated on existence or “Beingness” itself. Existence is awareness itself. So yes, is-ness is nondual. All “things” have “is-ness”, names and forms. Most people only see names and forms, but ignore the is-ness. They see beginning and end of forms and assume that isness is transient. But it is not.