Bindi

Differences between dualism and non-dualism

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, steve said:

 

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.

 

 

Seconded :) 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" 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"  by Steve...

 

and Indeed possible for all participant's:

 

 

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2022 at 4:48 PM, Bindi said:

“self” is empty, but identification with a new “Self” beyond “self” would surely be just one more identification to a Buddhist or non-dualist.

 

There are words to describe the realized in all traditions. Realization doesn't pertain to a title, ultimately, and this would be clear to "anyone" who is realized.

 

Quote

 

Someone once described his accomplishment of the MCO as spinning his wheels. I think he was right, because it was just empty energy without “the medicine”. All the intention in the world could not produce “the medicine”. Same with healing, all the good intention in the world will not produce actual healing apart from a placebo effect. Empty achievements deluding self and others, until like my ‘someone’ above you have the guts to look within and say I am kidding myself, and in that moment one will be a little less deluded, until the next delusion comes by that one can hold onto of course. 

 

What is MCO? Either way, a discussion on this topic is really unimportant... siddhis in general are just entertainment really - not a path to anywhere. 

 

You have some very fixed ideas. You will find that are ultimately counterproductive.

 

Quote

Because of the shallowness of non-dual realisation. 

 

:) That's another dodge. You don't have the understanding to make such a supposition, so why pick a fight about it? 

 

For someone who doesn't value "non-dual realisation" you sure spend a lot of time arguing about it - do YOU really know why? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2022 at 6:47 AM, old3bob said:

so its interesting (or fascinating if you will) to me that the historic Buddha going by what you say would then also have to refute Buddhism,  which most Buddhists would never do...

 

Depends on what you mean by "refute". The buddha himself says that the dharma (teachings) should not be clung to after realization:

 

Quote

Imagine, friends, a man in the course of a journey who arrives at a great expanse of water, whose near bank is dangerous and whose far bank offers safety. But there is no ferryboat or bridge to take him across the water. So he thinks: ‘What if I collected grass, twigs, branches and leaves and bound them together as a raft? Supported by the raft and by paddling with my hands and feet, I should then be able to reach the far bank.’ 


“He does this and succeeds in getting across.


“On arriving at the far bank, it might occur to him: ‘This raft has been very helpful indeed. What if I were to hoist it on my head or shoulders, then proceed on my journey?’ Now, what do you think? By carrying it with him, would that man be doing what should be done with a raft?’


“’No, sir,’ replied his audience.


“’So what should he do with the raft? Having arrived at the far bank, he might think: ‘Yes, this raft has been very useful, but now I should just haul it onto dry land or leave it floating in the water, and then continue on my journey.’ In this way the man would be doing what should be done with that raft.


“The dharma too is like a raft. It serves the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of grasping.
“When you understand that the dharma is like a raft, and that you should let go even of positive things (dhamma), then how much more so should you let go of negative things (adhamma).” Buddha - [MN 22]

 

Later teachers are on record saying that "awakened mind" has no relationship to the teachings. 

 

Quote

 

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


 

 

There are plenty of statements like this - I just can't remember them all. :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, old3bob said:

so is anyone going to say that they have heard of or that they themselves as an initiated Buddhist who goes by their scriptures/schools and ordained teachers that they  unequivocally embrace Hindu/Upanishad  teachings on Brahman/Atman and eternal meanings regarding same?   I doubt it...

 

I embrace the non-dual portions of the Hindu teachings. Cosmologies, hierarchies, dieties, etc. I put no stock in. I have zero doubt that "Self" and "no-self" are the same, but spoken about differently. Emptiness and no-self ARE eternal, just as "Self" would have to be. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, old3bob said:

" 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"  by Steve...

 

and Indeed possible for all participant's:

 

 

Teal’c is the best, after Sam carter ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Striling are you going to state that you unequivocally embrace the Brahman/Atman and eternal teachings as presented in the Upanishads thus not per your attempted correlations,  If not forget trying to convince me otherwise.  (even if you quote everything under the sun)  

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours 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?)

The Hindu-Buddhist “divide” historically was merely a philosophical one, especially with the dualistic traditions. In practice Hindus and Buddhists quite happily coexist in India. Near my hometown in India is a large Tibetan Buddhist settlement and monastery. The Tibetan government in exile,  and people have been welcomed into India with open arms by the Hindus. The Tibetan people including HHTDL have been grateful and gracious guests, and valuable members of civil society. HHDL has been a guest of honor in many very serious Hindu summits and events, and he has happily participated. 
 

What most Westerners who study Buddhism (in neophyte or intermediate stages) learn about the “conflict” with Hinduism is a concoction of western academia. There is no real conflict imho.

 

As far as knowledge/systems go, imho Advaita Vedanta, KS, Vajrayana Buddhism, and nondual daoism are at par and effectively point to the same fundamental reality. Only colored in different language and cultural context. 
 

 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dwai said:

The Hindu-Buddhist “divide” historically was merely a philosophical one, especially with the dualistic traditions. In practice Hindus and Buddhists quite happily coexist in India. Near my hometown in India is a large Tibetan Buddhist settlement and monastery. The Tibetan government in exile,  and people have been welcomed into India with open arms by the Hindus. The Tibetan people including HHTDL have been grateful and gracious guests, and valuable members of civil society. HHDL has been a guest of honor in many very serious Hindu summits and events, and he has happily participated. 
 

What most Westerners who study Buddhism (in neophyte or intermediate stages) learn about the “conflict” with Hinduism is a concoction of western academia. There is no real conflict imho.

 

As far as knowledge/systems go, imho Advaita Vedanta, KS, Vajrayana Buddhism, and nondual daoism are at par and effectively point to the same fundamental reality. Only colored in different language and cultural context. 
 

 

yea there is some common ground but there is also a complete break that attempted correlations do not bridge, for instance:

In Hinduism, philosophies are classified either as Astika or Nastika, that is, philosophies that either affirm or reject the authorities of the Vedas. According to this tradition, Buddhism is a Nastika school since it rejects the authority of the Vedas.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

yea there is some common ground but there is also a complete break that attempted correlations do not bridge, for instance:

In Hinduism, philosophies are classified either as Astika or Nastika, that is, philosophies that either affirm or reject the authorities of the Vedas. According to this tradition, Buddhism is a Nastika school since it rejects the authority of the Vedas.

 

Both the nāstika and āstika traditions are considered part of sanātana dharma. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old3bob said:

so Striling are you going to state that you unequivocally embrace the Brahman/Atman and eternal teachings as presented in the Upanishads thus not per your attempted correlations,  If not forget trying to convince me otherwise.  (even if you quote everything under the sun)  

 

The teachings are equally true (in that they point to the same insight) but ultimately untrue in that they are just teachings and not "it". I embrace both of their "truths". 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dwai said:

Both the nāstika and āstika traditions are considered part of sanātana dharma. 

 

yea to Hinduism everything is under Sanatana Dharma but the Buddha Dharma openly rejects that.

So in a way saying that is an affront to Buddha dharma and Buddha Dharma saying otherwise is an affront to Sanatana Dharma.  Most of the time the different ways do not get violet with each other since it is a common ground precept not to do so, which doesn't mean there is not or never an under current of spiritual like condescension with each other. 

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

The teachings are equally true (in that they point to the same insight) but ultimately untrue in that they are just teachings and not "it". I embrace both of their "truths". 

 

they are not equally true according to the founder of Buddhism as recorded and handed down by his close monks.  So here we go again with the new age like correlation mind... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, old3bob said:

yea to Hinduism everything is under Sanatana Dharma but the Buddha Dharma openly rejects that.

So in a way saying that is an affront to Buddha dharma and Buddha Dharma saying otherwise is an affront to Sanatana Dharma.  Most of the time the different ways do not get violet with each other since that it is a common ground precept not to do so, which doesn't mean there is not or never an under current of spiritual like condescension with each other. 

 

This is entirely anecdotal, but every time I have had to please to hang out with some of our Indian friends or work acquaintances (almost all of whom are Hindu) they slaps me on the back when I tell them my Buddhist background and tell me I am really a Hindu anyway. :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, old3bob said:

they are not equally true according to the founder of Buddhism as recorded and handed down by his close monks.  So here we go again with the new age like correlation mind... 

 

Does the Buddha deny a creator? Does he say he is an atheist? Does he claim to be able to prove that there are no gods? Or, is it simply a difference of emphasis?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stirling said:

 

Does the Buddha deny a creator? Does he say he is an atheist? Does he claim to be able to prove that there are no gods? Or, is it simply a difference of emphasis?

 

surely you know the Buddhist position on such questions, so why do what sounds to me like trying to extend and continue a debate with obviously irreconcilable points, thus we can go our own ways and quit poking at the elephant in the room and saying it is not there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

surely you know the Buddhist position on such questions, so why do what sounds to me like trying to extend and continue a debate with obviously irreconcilable points, thus we can go our own ways and quit poking at the elephant in the room and saying it is not there. 


We already dropped this ages ago. This is a point YOU keep making… your debate. Put your stick away and witness a happy elephant. 🙂

 

Just to add - you are heard. I hear your point of view, and don’t begrudge you having it. I am merely saying that it is obvious that the insight is the same regardless of how you arrive at it TO ME.

Edited by stirling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

surely you know the Buddhist position on such questions, so why do what sounds to me like trying to extend and continue a debate with obviously irreconcilable points, thus we can go our own ways and quit poking at the elephant in the room and saying it is not there. 

 

 

old3bob, not sure what exactly you're referring to, as an irreconcilable difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.  

I'm pretty sure that Gautama did not feel that offerings to the gods were of any benefit.  I'm certain that he admitted members of all castes to his order of monks (and later, nuns).  I think the democracy of the early sangha may have flown in the face of the autocratic rule of the Brahmin class, in the India of his day.  Beyond that, well--maybe my memory is just selective, preferring the positive for long-term retention, but I'm not sure where the elephant you refer to is to be found, in the Pali sermons or rules of the order.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

There are words to describe the realized in all traditions. Realization doesn't pertain to a title, ultimately, and this would be clear to "anyone" who is realized.
 

 

Do you really think your nondual realisation = enlightenment =  non-returner = Christian sainthood = immortality? I think different methods will actually produce different results, and each can say they were successful within their own tradition to a greater or lesser degree, but each realisation is not the same. 

 

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

 

What is MCO? Either way, a discussion on this topic is really unimportant... siddhis in general are just entertainment really - not a path to anywhere. 
 

 

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Stirling, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

You have some very fixed ideas. You will find that are ultimately counterproductive.


 

 

Funny thing is you too have some very fixed ideas. 

 

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

 

:) That's another dodge. You don't have the understanding to make such a supposition, so why pick a fight about it? 


 

 

You don’t have the understanding to make a supposition about siddhis, yet you’re very quick to dismiss them. 

 

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

For someone who doesn't value "non-dual realisation" you sure spend a lot of time arguing about it - do YOU really know why? 


Yes I’m pretty clear about it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Depends on what you mean by "refute". The buddha himself says that the dharma (teachings) should not be clung to after realization:  (parable of the raft followed)

 


Here's a wonderful thing, the Pali Text Society translations of the Pali sermons are all available online at Internet Archive, to read or download for free.  They're offered under a creative commons license by the Pali Text Society.

Here's the link for Majjhima Nikaya Vol. 1, for example.  The "Discourse on the Parable of the Water Snake", 22,  contains "The Parable of the Raft" (p 173 but PDF index 200/443):
 

https://ia601600.us.archive.org/22/items/I.B.Horner-Majjhima-Nikaya/I.B. Horner - Majjhima Nikaya vol 1_text.pdf

 

He closes the parable by saying:
 

Even so... is the Parable of the Raft dhamma taught by me for crossing over, not for retaining.  You, ... by understanding the Parable of the Raft, should get rid even of (right) mental objects, all the more of wrong ones.



 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

 

old3bob, not sure what exactly you're referring to, as an irreconcilable difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.  

I'm pretty sure that Gautama did not feel that offerings to the gods were of any benefit.  I'm certain that he admitted members of all castes to his order of monks (and later, nuns).  I think the democracy of the early sangha may have flown in the face of the autocratic rule of the Brahmin class, in the India of his day.  Beyond that, well--maybe my memory is just selective, preferring the positive for long-term retention, but I'm not sure where the elephant you refer to is to be found, in the Pali sermons or rules of the order.

 


Very broadly, didn’t Gautama stand by not-self, where Hinduism in general looks for the Self? I thought this was the irreconcilable difference. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bindi said:


Very broadly, didn’t Gautama stand by not-self, where Hinduism in general looks for the Self? I thought this was the irreconcilable difference. 

 


From the same "Parable of the Water Snake" sermon:
 

Although I... am one who speaks thus, who points out thus, there are some recluses and brahmins who misrepresent me untruly, vainly, falsely, not in accordance with fact, saying:  'The recluse Gotama is a nihilist, he lays down the cutting off, the destruction, the disappearance of the existent entity'.  But as this... is just what I am not, as this is just what I do not say, therefore these worthy recluses and brahmins misrepresent me untruly, vainly, falsely, not in accordance with fact, saying:  'The recluse Gotama is a nihilist, he lays down the cutting off, the destruction, the disappearance of the existent entity'.  Formerly I... as well as now, lay down simply anguish and the stopping of anguish.  If, in regard to this, ... others revile, abuse, annoy the Tathagata, there is in the Tathagatha no resentment, no distress, no dissatisfaction of mind concerning them.

If, in regard to this,... others revere, esteem, respect and honour the Tathagata, there is in the Tathagatha no joy, no gladness, no elation of mind concerning them.  If, in regard to this,... others revere, esteem, respect and honour the Tathagata, it occurs to the Tathagatha... concerning them:  This that was formerly thoroughly known, such kind of duties are to be done by me to it.  (... he advises his followers to feel the same)

Wherefore... what is not yours, put it away.  Putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness.  And what... is not yours?  Material shape... is not yours; put it away, putting it away will be for a long time for your welfare and happiness. (repeated for feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness)

(MN I 140, Pali Text Society MN V I p 180-1)


I still say, there's no voice like that anywhere else in the literature of the world.

Edited by Mark Foote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mark,  no problem with your path unless someone in it try's to conflate it (whether with gross or subtle misrepresentations )  with another path that is definitely different.  I'm fairly certain you and your school would feel about the same if it was done to your teachings.  Btw. I happen to like Zen being that it is closer in several ways to Taoism than are other forms of Buddhism,  but again one can only correlate so far before intruding one way or another, imo. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am just rejecting any philosophy/realisation that doesn’t value the physical body, the emotions, the mind and the subtle body.

 

 

Edited by Bindi
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites