Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[old3bob]

45 minutes ago, steve said:

 

In my opinion, the wonderful and sophisticated authors of these traditions are not trying to tell us what or how reality is, eg it is this or it is not that, they were too smart and insightful for that. They are offering suggestions and descriptions that may support us to discover how and what reality is for ourselves. Using an adjective like eternal or empty does not define reality but they may help someone discover something new in themselves. At least that’s how I approach wisdom teachings.

 

that sounds kind of like a diplomatic, and round about no to my earlier question, for in this world many teachings are not being seen with equal validity to others. 

[doc benway]

11 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

that sounds kind of like a diplomatic, and round about no to my earlier question, for in this world many teachings are not being seen with equal validity to others. 

 

FWIW, probably not much….

So Hindus might say “it’s eternal, we don’t like the word empty” and Buddhists might say “it’s unborn, undying, and indestructible but we don’t like the word eternal.” What is the difference? Each are choosing words carefully (and not these words btw, these are English approximations of variable accuracy) to help guide the student to discover something very special inside themselves. And they do so in order to help their students avoid specific pitfalls in understanding and practice. 

 

I’ll say it again, the masters were far too realized to try and define what it is. In fact, both traditions repeatedly say it cannot be defined or categorized or pinned down in any way. So why get so stuck on two words, empty and eternal? Kind of meaningless if you ask me, unless someone is attached to an idea or an identity rather than actively looking to discover something real and practical.  

[Mark Foote]

6 hours ago, manitou said:

 

It also seems to me that the room of Certainty is where Ego reigns.

 

 

My father used to say, "I have a mind like concrete--all mixed up and permanently set."

[old3bob]

26 minutes ago, steve said:

 

FWIW, probably not much….

So Hindus might say “it’s eternal, we don’t like the word empty” and Buddhists might say “it’s unborn, undying, and indestructible but we don’t like the word eternal.” What is the difference? Each are choosing words carefully (and not these words btw, these are English approximations of variable accuracy) to help guide the student to discover something very special inside themselves. And they do so in order to help their students avoid specific pitfalls in understanding and practice. 

 

I’ll say it again, the masters were far too realized to try and define what it is. In fact, both traditions repeatedly say it cannot be defined or categorized or pinned down in any way. So why get so stuck on two words, empty and eternal? Kind of meaningless if you ask me, unless someone is attached to an idea or an identity rather than actively looking to discover something real and practical.  

 

if that is the case then all Hindus and Buddhists should not also get stuck with less important things - thus equally share all land and properties, all monies, all vested interests, all monasteries or temples,  and every other type of possible resource, etc... but that will never and should never happen right? 

(what does the fwiw mean?)

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, Bindi said:

The mind has its own mind nature, but the emotions have their own nature as well, and qi has its own nature, and we’re a mixture of all of them, why prioritise mind above all other fundamental natures that exist within us? 

 

 

Because of confusion and unclarity 

 

'Mind'  is third in the elemental hierarchy .... only 'one before'  'body' .   I have written this a few times ;

 

In a four-fold material manifestation of the elements  (meaning one flows into another resulting in a material / physical manifestation , not the  three-fold  plan of  ideal  manifestation )  fire manifests first and in the psyche represents 'spirit' , individuality, originality  and inspiration.  Water comes next and relates to emotions and how we feel about any idea or inspiration  ( and here 'feel' is a lot more complex and related to a lot more facilities than just a general idea about 'feeling' ). Third comes mind ; analysis of the idea, working a logical plan to manifest it , accessing the idea's feasibility , etc .  Lastly comes 'body' the material manifestation and output of the original 'fiery spark' of the impetus .

 

 Most of us have little understanding of 'spirit'  (usually its conflated with a misunderstanding about 'soul'  and both are seen as some type of  'astral ghost' )  and have unbalanced emotions , potentially volatile and often confused and in conflict internally . Basically that is level 1 and 2 'knocked out' so 'mind' feels it needs to fill the void and be in control of the psyche . Instead of being in the centre of this schemata , we find ourselves out there , hanging on an airy limb  *  .

 

Hence, all this 'mind stuff' and the mess we are in .

 

Of course, then, even  when mind is 'in concert' with the other four faculties , it must be trained and developed to work a certain way . Otherwise it reverts back to its associated element ; air ;  is 'all over the place ' , unfocused ,  etc  .....   'airhead' .
 

But on the level of 'mind alone' (and moreso when all four levels are operating  'in concert' ) I find this advice relevant :

 

 

" To obtain Magical Power, learn to control thought; admit only those ideas that are in harmony with the end desired, and not every stray and contradictory Idea that presents itself.

 

Fixed thought is a means to an end. Therefore pay attention to the power of silent thought and meditation. The material act is but the outward expression of thy thought, and therefore hath it been said that "the thought of foolishness is sin." Thought is the commencement of action, and if a chance thought can produce much effect, what cannot fixed thought do?

 

Therefore, as hath already been said, Establish thyself firmly in the equilibrium of forces, in the centre of the Cross of the Elements, "

 

 

*

                                Fire

          Water Air

                              Earth

 

We can see here that the  horizontal 'polarity'  is water/air  ;  emotions / mind .

 

Perhaps the  'focus' on mind here  ... or'  ' why prioritise mind above all other fundamental natures that exist within us ?' is due to the unbalanced nature of the forum  ?   

 

ie. in plainspeak  .... too many guys .

[old3bob]

9 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Because of confusion and unclarity 

 

'Mind'  is third in the elemental hierarchy .... only 'one before'  'body' .   I have written this a few times ;

 

In a four-fold material manifestation of the elements  (meaning one flows into another resulting in a material / physical manifestation , not the  three-fold  plan of  ideal  manifestation )  fire manifests first and in the psyche represents 'spirit' , individuality, originality  and inspiration.  Water comes next and relates to emotions and how we feel about any idea or inspiration  ( and here 'feel' is a lot more complex and related to a lot more facilities than just a general idea about 'feeling' ). Third comes mind ; analysis of the idea, working a logical plan to manifest it , accessing the idea's feasibility , etc .  Lastly comes 'body' the material manifestation and output of the original 'fiery spark' of the impetus .

 

 Most of us have little understanding of 'spirit'  (usually its conflated with a misunderstanding about 'soul'  and both are seen as some type of  'astral ghost' )  and have unbalanced emotions , potentially volatile and often confused and in conflict internally . Basically that is level 1 and 2 'knocked out' so 'mind' feels it needs to fill the void and be in control of the psyche . Instead of being in the centre of this schemata , we find ourselves out there , hanging on an airy limb  *  .

 

Hence, all this 'mind stuff' and the mess we are in .

 

Of course, then, even  when mind is 'in concert' with the other four faculties , it must be trained and developed to work a certain way . Otherwise it reverts back to its associated element ; air ;  is 'all over the place ' , unfocused ,  etc  .....   'airhead' .
 

But on the level of 'mind alone' (and moreso when all four levels are operating  'in concert' ) I find this advice relevant :

 

 

" To obtain Magical Power, learn to control thought; admit only those ideas that are in harmony with the end desired, and not every stray and contradictory Idea that presents itself.

 

Fixed thought is a means to an end. Therefore pay attention to the power of silent thought and meditation. The material act is but the outward expression of thy thought, and therefore hath it been said that "the thought of foolishness is sin." Thought is the commencement of action, and if a chance thought can produce much effect, what cannot fixed thought do?

 

Therefore, as hath already been said, Establish thyself firmly in the equilibrium of forces, in the centre of the Cross of the Elements, "

 

 

*

                                Fire

          Water Air

                              Earth

 

We can see here that the  horizontal 'polarity'  is water/air  ;  emotions / mind .

 

Perhaps the  'focus' on mind here  ... or'  ' why prioritise mind above all other fundamental natures that exist within us ?' is due to the unbalanced nature of the forum  ?   

 

ie. in plainspeak  .... too many guys .

 

[manitou]

6 hours ago, Bindi said:

Which bit is embarrassing?

 

 

The dual bit.

 

[Nungali]

28 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

 

 

I find the input of 'girls' relevant regardless of if they are 'pretty' of not .

[old3bob]

9 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I find the input of 'girls' relevant regardless of if they are 'pretty' of not .

 

if we see all as pretty in their own way could there be a not?

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[Nungali]

1 minute ago, old3bob said:

 

if see we all as pretty in their own way could there be a not?

 

Agreed, but why add 'pretty' in the first place then   ?  

[Mark Foote]

17 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Fixed thought is a means to an end. Therefore pay attention to the power of silent thought and meditation. The material act is but the outward expression of thy thought, and therefore hath it been said that "the thought of foolishness is sin." Thought is the commencement of action, and if a chance thought can produce much effect, what cannot fixed thought do?

 

 

Gautama taught:

 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.

 

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III pg 294)
 

He also taught the ceasing of action:

 

And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.”

 

(SN IV 145, Pali Text Society IV pg 85)

 

 

Action ceases, he said, in states of concentration--speech in the first state, deed in the fourth, and "perceiving and sensing" (action of the mind) in the final state. 

 

Fixed thought commences action as much as foolish thought.  Gautama prescribed sitting down cross-legged, perhaps on the roots of trees, and pursuing the peculiar happiness that occurs "aloof from pleasures of the senses, aloof from unskilled states of mind" (MN 1 246-247, Vol I pg 301).  He saw the first concentration as coincident with thought directed and sustained, but already in the second concentration thought applied and sustained has ceased.

He taught these things as fundamental in recognizing the existence of suffering, in understanding its origin and its cessation, and in walking a path that results in the cessation of suffering.  

The cessation of suffering may be a side-effect of the union with the divine in Hinduism, in Sufism, in Christianity, and in other faiths, but it's front and center in the teachings of Gautama the Buddha, and the things he considered unnecessary to the cessation of suffering or even counter-productive, he left out or refuted.  That's my take.

 

 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

55 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

if that is the case then all Hindus and Buddhists should not also get stuck with less important things - thus equally share all land and properties, all monies, all vested interests, all monasteries or temples,  and every other type of possible resource, etc... but that will never and should never happen right? 

(what does the fwiw mean?)

 

For what it's worth, old3bob... at one time Buddhists did share all land and properties, they refused to receive money, they were itinerant beggars (which the Brahmin class looked down on in the day, as much as it's looked down on today) who were forbidden to till the soil. 

Somewhere in China around 5th century c.e., the recipient of Gautama's robe and bowl decided to establish a monastery and put the monks to work to make it self-supporting.  Something to do with the work ethic in China, so I've read.

[Nungali]

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

if see we all as pretty in their own way could there be a not?

 

I just find it such a weird word ;

 

Pretty ; " of a person, especially a woman or child) attractive in a delicate way without being truly beautiful. "

 

(   - just a bit beautiful ... but not truly beautiful )

 

" an attractive thing, especially a trinket. "     (   'arm candy '  ) 

 

Let's just call them   'nice girls'    ..... Oh !   hang on a minute  ;

 

nice (adj.)

late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know" (see science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid, faint-hearted" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c. 1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830). "

 

< my emphasis >

Edited June 15, 2022 by Nungali

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

if that is the case then all Hindus and Buddhists should not also get stuck with less important things - thus equally share all land and properties, all monies, all vested interests, all monasteries or temples,  and every other type of possible resource, etc... but that will never and should never happen right? 

 

You win

 

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

(what does the fwiw mean?)

For what it’s worth

[Mark Foote]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

The mind has its own mind nature, but the emotions have their own nature as well, and qi has its own nature, and we’re a mixture of all of them, why prioritise mind above all other fundamental natures that exist within us? 

 

 

I think the Chinese talk about the "heart-mind", so that many of the references in the translations of Chinese texts that refer to "mind" might better refer to "heart-mind".  

Seems like that's to distinguish "heart-mind" from "thought-mind", as it were.  Certainly Gautama referred to the mind as one of the six senses, and the "disturbance" of the six senses continued in the final concentration (associated with his enlightenment).  Volition in "perceiving and sensing", in the actions of the mind, ceased, but not the contact of sense that was thought, apparently.  

I'm not really qualified to speak about ji, chi, and shen.  I do experience a circulation of stretch associated with the experience of heart-mind, of the mind whose nature is nondual.  

"Provided it is clear that by mind I don't mean just the thinking head but rather the field of awareness in which we live and have our being.

 

... the 'empty' = shunyata is actually the quality of the spirit/mind itself.  Being empty in this sense means being free of conditioning ... so to say spirit is empty means spirit is free and unbound essentially and in itself."

 

(Apech, emphasis added)

 

 

And from my The Early Record:

 

Gautama described the fourth concentration as follows:

 

Again, a (person), putting away ease… enters and abides in the fourth musing; seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind. … just as a (person) might sit with (their) head swathed in a clean cloth; even so (one) sits suffusing (their) body with purity…

 

(AN III 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 18-19)

... I would say that the “purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind” of the fourth concentration is the freedom of mind when the location of the base of consciousness becomes the source of the action of posture and carriage, apart from any “determinate thought”.

(emphasis added)

 

"The base of consciousness"--I got that description from koun Franz:

 

I wouldn’t recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.

(“No Struggle [Zazen Yojinki, Part 6]”, by Koun Franz, from the “Nyoho Zen” site
https://nyoho.com/2018/09/15/no-struggle-zazen-yojinki-part-6/)

 

 

 

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

In terms of the subtle body I agree with this.  The side channels in my way of seeing it become two ways of looking, one is object related and the other 'imaginative'.  We can negotiate the subtle body by switching from one to the other.  This before we learn to rest in the central channel.  You could say it's a mix of practical skills and dreaming - which ultimately lead to realisation.  It's all about negotiating the subtle space (which the Egyptians called the Duat) and the abilities learned accelerate our assimilation (of emotional energy for example) and increase our ability to respond.  The image for this is exploring a strange landscape - this is the shamanistic side of working.

 

 

yes but in a very special sense the unconditioned conditions itself for the purpose of learning - it has agency - it being Self - your own Self is your guru which is leading you on through the process.  I think this is a very important point especially for rhinos (!).  But then half the time I am just a monkey.

 

 

True, what I’m now happy to call Mind/spirit is leading me through the process but only to an extent, I have found IME personal guidance falls short unless you’re that one or two in a hundred billion, and it’s understandably rare to be one of those. 

 

Quote

 

 

Duality is posited for working.  The world is dual - double - which is why it is full of doubt and uncertainty.  But it is the ground for spiritual work.  This is how I see it.

 

Wonderful!

 

Quote

 

qi is a deep subject.  In some ways I suppose you could say qi is spirit in action - or something like that.  In some senses everything is a form of qi anyway so it includes all that we are talking about.

 

 

Qi is a deep subject indeed, and it is qi and the subtle body that need special skills to navigate IMO. It is in this field that one can start a fraction off course and end up miles from the goal, I think this is ultimately the hardest nut to crack, and TBH I can’t blame people for not even trying because it’s almost impossible to get right without 100% correct guidance. 

 

Quote

 

Thank you for answering.

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Bindi

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, manitou said:

 

 

The dual bit.

 

I said I’m never going to try the nondual view. I’m never going to choose nonduality, all I will ever choose is to work with the restrictions on nonduality. To choose the nondual view or try to have that perspective is deeply inauthentic IMO, and leaves this sort of nondualist full of dual foibles which is not a good look. 

[Mark Foote]

Thanks, Bindi, for your even-tempered response to all the contributors, even the ones (especially the ones) who put spin on the ball in their return. 

[old3bob]

 

can we all agree that one hand clapping is non-dual, it sure sounds like it ;-)

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

I just find it such a weird word ;

 

Pretty ; " of a person, especially a woman or child) attractive in a delicate way without being truly beautiful. "

 

(   - just a bit beautiful ... but not truly beautiful )

 

" an attractive thing, especially a trinket. "     (   'arm candy '  ) 

 

Let's just call them   'nice girls'    ..... Oh !   hang on a minute  ;

 

nice (adj.)

late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know" (see science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid, faint-hearted" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c. 1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830). "

 

< my emphasis >

 

well if a husband sincerely says to his  wife that she is pretty all the rest of those definitions should not matter.

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

all I will ever choose is to work with the restrictions

 

That’s all we can ever do, I think.

In my view this is a very important point, especially for dzogchenpas.

I recognize others may disagree and respect that. 

 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

can we all agree that one hand clapping is non-dual, it sure sounds like it ;-)

That depends on whose hand it is!

[Mark Foote]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

can we all agree that one hand clapping is non-dual, it sure sounds like it ;-)

 

 

But I don't think it's liable to happen
Like the sound of one hand clappin'.
 

 

[Lairg]

This is the 1623rd reply.  What progress has been made?

[doc benway]

43 minutes ago, Lairg said:

This is the 1623rd reply.  What progress has been made?

 

I’ve had a chance to look a little deeper at my own practice and perspective and have some additional clarity. I’m grateful to everyone participating.