"Non-dual" misnomer

[Daniel]

In another thread, @Apech wrote regarding the two truth's doctrine:

 

Quote

So in the non-dual philosophy of Madhyamika you can have the position that the cup is not real and yet it is real.

 

 

Why again is this considered "non-dual"?  Does the term "non-dual" make any sense at all in this context?  It's two-truths?  That's dual.  The cup is simultaneously real and not-real.  That's dual.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Daniel

[Nungali]

Because the 'non -real' and the 'real' are just extensions of the one thing  / concept in either 'direction' and not considered as 'polarities' ?

 

I believe Apech was citing a philosophy , philosophy gives a particular viewpoint ; one's viewpoint is how you look at things - perhaps dualist , or not .

 

Philosophies and viewpoints are flexible and no one of either is really 'how it is' , they are just our perceptions .

[Apech]

20 hours ago, Daniel said:

In another thread, @Apech wrote regarding the two truth's doctrine:

 

 

Why again is this considered "non-dual"?  Does the term "non-dual" make any sense at all in this context?  It's two-truths?  That's dual.  The cup is simultaneously real and not-real.  That's dual.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how serious you are being - but if you want to understand the non-dual Buddhist view I can recommend:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Center-Sunlit-Sky-Madhyamaka-Tradition-ebook/dp/B002IT4X72/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1PE0PI9UUF5MQ&keywords=the+center+of+a+sun+lit+sky&qid=1699460951&sprefix=the+center+of+a+sun+lit+sky%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-1

[Daniel]

52 minutes ago, Apech said:

I'm not sure how serious you are being

 

I'm serious.  I think it's a misnomer to call it non-dual.  To borrow a word used in another thread recently, I've observed non-dualists often get "tangled" in contradictions when rigidly and literally applying this idea of "non-duality".  It's not just contradictions in their argumentation and preachng that becomes contradictory, but, also their behavior.  Their stated dharma deviates from the dharma they actually practice.

 

Much of this is explained by realizing that "non-dual" is actually "dual", but that the "duality" is being actively denied.  This denial is what is producing the deviation between the stated dharma and the dharma which is practiced.  The denial also produces the contradictions in their argumentation and preaching.  But, denial is not all bad.  Just like everything, it has its proper time / place / context where it is healthy and useful.  When it is out of context, deviations and contradictions are produced.

 

In a meditative practice, denial is probably a useful method for attaining the desired "emptiness" or "sit-chat-ananda" ( depending on what the adherent is seeking ).  Perhaps "denial" is not the best word, but, hopefully you understand what I mean.  Taking that denial beyond the meditative practice seems to cause problems.  There's several reasons why a person would want to extend/retain the meditative feeling and experience beyond the more formal meditative practice.  I think that's a primary motive for misappropriating the "denial" of "duality" in the form of the misnomer:  "non-duality".

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Daniel

[Apech]

26 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I'm serious.  I think it's a misnomer to call it non-dual.  To borrow a word used in another thread recently, I've observed non-dualists often get "tangled" in contradictions when rigidly and literally applying this idea of "non-duality".  It's not just contradictions in their argumentation and preachng that becomes contradictory, but, also their behavior.  Their stated dharma deviates from the dharma they actually practice.

 

I don't know if it is a misnomer or not.  Actually I'm not quite sure what the 'it' is you are referring to.  There was a very long thread on here started by @Bindi which dissed the whole 'non-dual' idea or practice - but I think this was mostly because of the current trend to misuse the term as it sounds kind of cool to say you are non-dualist (mostly because almost no-one understands what that means anyway).  I am not wedded to the term myself, although I do think it has meaning in both Buddhism and Advaita (slightly different but similar). 

 

Quote

Much of this is explained by realizing that "non-dual" is actually "dual", but that the "duality" is being actively denied.  This denial is what is producing the deviation between the stated dharma and the dharma which is practiced.  The denial also produces the contradictions in their argumentation and preaching.  But, denial is not all bad.  Just like everything, it has its proper time / place / context where it is healthy and useful.  When it is out of context, deviations and contradictions are produced.

 

What differences in the stated and practiced dharma are you referring to here?

 

Quote

In a meditative practice, denial is probably a useful method for attaining the desired "emptiness" or "sit-chat-ananda" ( depending on what the adherent is seeking ).  Perhaps "denial" is not the best word, but, hopefully you understand what I mean.  Taking that denial beyond the meditative practice seems to cause problems.  There's several reasons why a person would want to extend/retain the meditative feeling and experience beyond the more formal meditative practice.  I think that's a primary motive for misappropriating the "denial" of "duality" in the form of the misnomer:  "non-duality".

 

 

No, sorry, perhaps I am being particularly thick here but I don't understand what you mean.  I think what you have said here is quite confused actually and you are imputing motive and action onto persons (I don't know who) which don't make sense to me.  

 

I don't know if it is helpful to say but emptiness is not absence.  Emptiness is arrived at through clearly seeing the nature of phenomena.  There is no need to deny anything.  Also you have introduce 'sat-chit-ananda' which is either vedanta or yoga and not Buddhist - did you mean to suggest they are the same?  I'm not sure.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Apech

[Nungali]

Be careful not to fall down the 'Daniel hole'   , Mr cat .

 

I feel like singing ....

 

" and if you go chasing rabbits

you know you are going to fall

tell them a hookah smoking caterpiller

has given you the call

Go ask Alice

When she's 10 feet tall !

...

And when the logic and proportion

are falling sloppy dead

and the white night is talking backwards

and the  Red Queen is 'Off with their heads"

Re member

what the dormouse said

 

Spoiler

 

[Mark Foote]

On 11/7/2023 at 11:47 AM, Daniel said:

In another thread, @Apech wrote regarding the two truth's doctrine:

  Quote

So in the non-dual philosophy of Madhyamika you can have the position that the cup is not real and yet it is real.

 

 

Why again is this considered "non-dual"?  Does the term "non-dual" make any sense at all in this context?  It's two-truths?  That's dual.  The cup is simultaneously real and not-real.  That's dual.

 

I think the simultaneity is something that comes out of meditative experience:
 

 

The fourth stage of concentration (the “fourth musing”) is different from the first three, in that a particular quality of mind is applied:
 

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.
 

(AN III 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III p 18-19, see also MN III 92-93; bracketed material paraphrases original)

 

“Pureness of mind” is what remains when “doing something” ceases.  When “doing something” has ceased, and there is “not one particle of the body” that cannot receive the placement of attention, then the placement of attention is free to shift as necessary in the movement of breath.
 

In another lecture, Suzuki described the experience:
 

Sometimes when you think that you are doing zazen with an imperturbable mind, you ignore the body, but it is also necessary to have the opposite understanding at the same time. Your body is practicing zazen in imperturbability while your mind is moving.
 

(“Whole-Body Zazen”, lecture by Shunryu Suzuki at Tassajara, June 28, 1970 [edited by Bill Redican], transcript from shunryusuzuki.com)

 

Suzuki was expanding on the last line of a famous poem by the 6th century Buddhist Fuxi:
 

Water does not flow, but the bridge flows.
 

(ibid; Suzuki credits Dogen)

 

The flow of “doing something” in the body, of activity initiated by habit or volition, ceases in the fourth concentration.  Instead, activity is generated purely by the placement of attention, and the location of attention can flow.
 

Nevertheless, Suzuki advised his students:
 

Let the water flow, as that is the water’s practice. Let the bridge stay and sit there, because that is the actual practice of the bridge.
 

(ibid)

 

The twelfth-century Chinese teacher Foyan similarly expressed a caution to his students:
 

In my school, there are only two kinds of sickness.  One is to go looking for a donkey riding on the donkey.  The other is to be unwilling to dismount once having mounted the donkey.
 

… Once you have recognized the donkey, to mount it and be unwilling to dismount is the sickness that is most difficult to treat.  I tell you that you need not mount the donkey; you are the donkey!
 

(“Instant Zen:  Waking Up in the Present”, tr T. Cleary, Shambala p 4)

 

Having experienced the placement of attention as the source of activity (“riding on the donkey”), the tendency is to want the activity of the body to come solely from the placement of attention all the time (“to be unwilling to dismount”).  Foyan asserted that activity from the location of attention is inherent in human nature, and the unwillingness to relinquish such activity is not healthy.

... When a presence of mind is retained as the placement of attention shifts, then the natural tendency toward the free placement of attention can draw out thought initial and sustained, and bring on the stages of concentration:
 

… there is no need to depend on teaching. But the most important thing is to practice and realize our true nature… [laughs]. This is, you know, Zen.
 

(Shunryu Suzuki, Tassajara 68-07-24 transcript from shunryusuzuki.com)
 

 

(Shunryu Suzuki on Shikantaza and the Theravadin Stages)

 

 

Action can come entirely out of the placement of attention, a placement out of necessity in the movement of breath.  The experience can be like hypnotic suggestion, where action takes place without a will to act on the part of the subject--"your hand is picking up the cup, your arm is bringing the cup to your lips"--when that happens, there are "no latent conceits that I am the doer, mine is the doer, with regard to the consciousness-informed body" (as Gautama said).  There is no conception of the cup, of the nature and role of the cup, of the significance of the action with regard to the cup--the experience is empty of those things, there is only emptiness.  When habit and volition return, there is the cup, the nature and role of the cup, and the significance of the cup.  Suzuki said "at the same time", but I believe that refers to an openness to the placement of attention of necessity and an openness to action out of placement even as habit and volition control activity.

When there's no hypnotist around, and the action takes place with no will to act, then you have what Dogen described in "Genjo Koan":

Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent.

 

 

I have an entire basket of mud, so if you'd like another scoop, just raise your hand (without willing it to do so,  of course).

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

8 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Be careful not to fall down the 'Daniel hole'   , Mr cat .

 

I feel like singing ....

 

" and if you go chasing rabbits

you know you are going to fall

tell them a hookah smoking caterpiller

has given you the call

Go ask Alice

When she's 10 feet tall !

...

And when the logic and proportion

are falling sloppy dead

and the white night is talking backwards

and the  Red Queen is 'Off with their heads"

Re member

what the dormouse said

 

 

 

[Daniel]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

I'm not quite sure what the 'it' is you are referring to. 

 

Specifically in this case "it" is the "2 truths".  In general "it" is the entire "non-dual" philosophy.

 

 

Quote

 What differences in the stated and practiced dharma are you referring to here?

 

{Paraphrasing}

 

"From the non-dual / enlightened perspective I have realized all are one, none are supreme or ideal, ... But you are ignorant and far below ... You cannot understand.   Your religion is ignorant and far below.  It doesn't understand.  Remember all are one.  That is the ideal, all others are ignorant and far below."

 

 

 

Quote

you are imputing motive and action onto persons (I don't know who) which don't make sense to me.  

 

Sure.  These are generalizations from multiple conversations with multiple people.

 

Quote

I don't know if it is helpful to say but emptiness is not absence.  Emptiness is arrived at through clearly seeing the nature of phenomena. 

 

That makes perfect sense to me.  It's inherently dual.  Each clearly seeing phenomena means seeing what it is and what it is not.

 

"What it is" + "What it is not" = dual.

 

 

Quote

There is no need to deny anything. 

 

Agreed.  And yet that's what seems to happen.  The denial is carried implicitly in the term "non-dual".  It denies "dual".  Then this denial produces the contradictions.  Example: two-truths is non-dual.

 

 

 

Quote

Also you have introduce 'sat-chit-ananda' which is either vedanta or yoga and not Buddhist - did you mean to suggest they are the same?  I'm not sure.

 

No, definitely not the same.  But I cannot comment on what individual Buddhists experience in their meditative practice.  Maybe it is a form of "sit-chat-ananda".  I don't know.

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

51 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

I think the simultaneity is something that comes out of meditative experience

 

This also makes perfect sense to me.  Simultaneity is, imo, one of the most important concepts for clear awareness of reality.

 

When I consider simultaneity, it is inherently dual.  If it is non-dual, it cannot be simultaneous.  If the term "non-dual" is intended to mean simultaneity, that resolves the philosophical contradiction. 

 

It's difficult for me to accept this ( simultaneity) as the intention of non-dual philosophy from either Hinduism nor Buddhism based on what I have seen of their scripture and what their adherents are saying.

 

The Hindu says "transactional reality" is ignorance.

 

The Buddhist denies inherent reality of attributes.

 

If non-duality is 'simultaneity' then both "transactional reality" and the "inherent reality of attributes" are included in the simultaneous (non-dual) awareness.

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

47 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

 

 

 

Is this how you perceive conversations with me?

 

If so, please be honest and say so.

[Apech]

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Specifically in this case "it" is the "2 truths".  In general "it" is the entire "non-dual" philosophy.

 

OK

 

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

{Paraphrasing}

 

"From the non-dual / enlightened perspective I have realized all are one, none are supreme or ideal, ... But you are ignorant and far below ... You cannot understand.   Your religion is ignorant and far below.  It doesn't understand.  Remember all are one.  That is the ideal, all others are ignorant and far below."

 

 

Daniel - if anyone called you ignorant and down below I am shocked.  To the core.

 

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Sure.  These are generalizations from multiple conversations with multiple people.

 

Oh so a kind of montage of convos.

 

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

That makes perfect sense to me.  It's inherently dual.  Each clearly seeing phenomena means seeing what it is and what it is not.

 

"What it is" + "What it is not" = dual.

 

 

No.  That's not it.  (normally I would explain but a quantity of red wine has been drunk - sorry  ).

 

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Agreed.  And yet that's what seems to happen.  The denial is carried implicitly in the term "non-dual".  It denies "dual".  Then this denial produces the contradictions.  Example: two-truths is non-dual.

 

 

You have realised that denial is an anagram of daniel haven't you?

 

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

No, definitely not the same.  But I cannot comment on what individual Buddhists experience in their meditative practice.  Maybe it is a form of "sit-chat-ananda".  I don't know.

 

It's sat-chit-ananda not sit-chat-ananda.  The first is the being/consciousness/bliss of the self (atman) and the spirit (brahman) being not different to each other ... i.e. non-dual, while the second is the bliss of sitting and having a conversation (and probably a cup of tea and a biscuit).

[liminal_luke]

24 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

"From the non-dual / enlightened perspective I have realized all are one, none are supreme or ideal, ... But you are ignorant and far below ... You cannot understand.   Your religion is ignorant and far below.  It doesn't understand.  Remember all are one.  That is the ideal, all others are ignorant and far below."

 

 

Perhaps you've been unlucky and met the world's some of the world's most condescending non-dualists and Buddhists.  Although I've attended a few retreats and workshops, I'm not a Buddhist myself.  I haven't experienced non-dual reality unless I've done so unconsciously and without awareness (if such a thing is even possible).  I make no secret of my "unawakened" status.  And yet I've never experienced any of this air of superiority you write about.  The non-dualists of my acquintance have been consistently personable.

[Bindi]

From my perspective, the subtle energy realities are dual, literally paired systems, being the right and left subtle channels (yin and yang/Ida and pingala/lalanā and rasanā). They are not cleared by wishful thinking or not thinking, and to get anywhere they do have to be cleared. It’s a spiritual scam is to say there is nothing to do there. 

The central channel (sushumna/avadhūtī) is also a dual system, referred to as shiva and shakti or Yang Qi and Yin Qi. These energies have to be brought together. This is also not achieved by wishful thinking, or denying their existence. 
 

Beyond these tasks there may be nonduality, the mindless mind, emptiness, but to truly attain this a whole lot of healing of the subtle channels needs to take place. I agree with you Daniel, nondualists claim superiority of understanding and achievement, but all their blabbering is just a fools game that is currently in vogue. 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Daniel - if anyone called you ignorant and down below I am shocked.  To the core.

 

It happens.  Both being called ignorant and below, and also I can actually be ignorant and below.

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

No.  That's not it.  (normally I would explain but a quantity of red wine has been drunk - sorry  ).

 

No problem.  I don't drink and I still botched sat-chit-ananda.

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

You have realised that denial is an anagram of daniel haven't you?

 

I hadn't.  But, denial is not an enemy it's a tool.  Hopefully I included some version of that in my posts here... ~scrolling up to see~  Whew, yes, I included it.  "Denial is not all bad".

 

3 hours ago, Apech said:

It's sat-chit-ananda not sit-chat-ananda.  The first is the being/consciousness/bliss of the self (atman) and the spirit (brahman) being not different to each other ... i.e. non-dual, while the second is the bliss of sitting and having a conversation (and probably a cup of tea and a biscuit).

 

Hee.  Thanks.  That's a tiny bit embarrassing.  But I should be able to remember it better now.  Maybe tomorrow or the next day, you'll come back and elaborate further on what I wrote "clarity = what it is + what it isn't = dual".

[Daniel]

36 minutes ago, Bindi said:

From my perspective, the subtle energy realities are dual, literally paired systems, being the right and left subtle channels (yin and yang/Ida and pingala/lalanā and rasanā). They are not cleared by wishful thinking or not thinking, and to get anywhere they do have to be cleared. It’s a spiritual scam is to say there is nothing to do there. 

The central channel (sushumna/avadhūtī) is also a dual system, referred to as shiva and shakti or Yang Qi and Yin Qi. These energies have to be brought together. This is also not achieved by wishful thinking, or denying their existence. 
 

Beyond these tasks there may be nonduality, the mindless mind, emptiness, but to truly attain this a whole lot of healing of the subtle channels needs to take place. I agree with you Daniel, nondualists claim superiority of understanding and achievement, but all their blabbering is just a fools game that is currently in vogue. 

 

Thank you Bindi.

[S:C]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

I've observed non-dualists often get "tangled" in contradictions when rigidly and literally applying this idea of "non-duality".  It's not just contradictions in their argumentation and preachng that becomes contradictory, but, also their behavior.  Their stated dharma deviates from the dharma they actually practice.

 

Much of this is explained by realizing that "non-dual" is actually "dual", but that the "duality" is being actively denied.  This denial is what is producing the deviation between the stated dharma and the dharma which is practiced.  The denial also produces the contradictions in their argumentation and preaching.  But, denial is not all bad.  Just like everything, it has its proper time / place / context where it is healthy and useful.  When it is out of context, deviations and contradictions are produced.

This is an important point to me, I hope to come back to later at a different point in time, so consider it just as a personal bookmark - and please carry on. Thanks @Daniel! That was very clearly written.

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

....

 

Hee.  Thanks.  That's a tiny bit embarrassing.  But I should be able to remember it better now.  Maybe tomorrow or the next day, you'll come back and elaborate further on what I wrote "clarity = what it is + what it isn't = dual".

 

Clarity is also one of those words which non-dualist Dzogchenis like to use - as if it means something in itself without reference to what is clear to what.  Scientologists also like to say 'going clear' but I'm not sure what they mean - we shall have to wait until Tom Cruise joins the forum.

 

I haven't got any dispute with what @Bindi said above - all the work in the subtle body involves dualities, also we see and experience the world in terms of dualities, hot, cold, positive negative and so on - so I think the first thing to say is that the philosophical position or 'view' of non-duality is not a denial of those dualities - although I admit it can sound like that on first hearing.  The denial of dualities would actually be monism.  The term 'non-dual' is chosen deliberately to show that it is not a monism.

 

To start at the beginning of dharmic thought, you really have to start with the granddaddy of all Indian systems and that is Samkhya.  This is very ancient and pre-dates all the various Indian traditions that we know of.  The Buddha learned this before embarking on his own path.  Samkhya is a dualist view.  A kind of quick rough version of this way of thinking - going back to the cup - is to ask 'is the cup fundamentally real' and in deciding if it is real or not you ask does it's existence depend on anything else which might be said to be more fundamental - usually this is 'what is it made of' or what is its effective cause?  In the case of the cup it might be made of clay.  So if we smashed up the cup we would no longer have a cup but some pieces of clay (or china or whatever) and the clay then could be said to be more real than the cup because the existence of the cup depends on there being clay.  Then you could look at the clay and say it is made of minerals - silicates for instance and in the same way the collection of minerals is more real than the clay.  And then you could say the minerals are made of molecules and so on and so on.  Then according to Samkhya thought if you followed this process of enquiry to the end you would be left with the finest of fine substances which is called Prakriti - which is the basis of everything that can be said to exist - like a universal subtle substance.  But then when you are left with observing the Prakriti having deconstructed all other levels of being you have something else which is there - you the observer.  The observing self is called Purusha and is not like everything else in that it is not made of Prakriti.  So you end up with a duality of two fundamentally real absolutes - Purusha and Prakriti.  This is a great analysis (or so most people think) but leaves a bog problem because if you have two absolutes how do they possibly interact since there is nothing of one in the other - they have no relation.

 

So then begins the question - how do I resolve this?  How can I get from a dual 'solution' to a non-dual one?  Or can I subsume all Prakriti in Purusha or visa versa?  Or to put it in more western terms how do I resolve the subject object duality?  Because this kind of debate was happening in the west also - Descartes for instances singularly failed to solve it,

 

 

[S:C]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

if you followed this process of enquiry to the end you would be left with the finest of fine substances which is called Prakriti - which is the basis of everything that can be said to exist - like a universal subtle substance.  But then when you are left with observing the Prakriti having deconstructed all other levels of being you have something else which is there - you the observer.  The observing self is called Purusha and is not like everything else in that it is not made of Prakriti.  So you end up with a duality of two fundamentally real absolutes - Purusha and Prakriti.  This is a great analysis (or so most people think) but leaves a bog problem because if you have two absolutes how do they possibly interact since there is nothing of one in the other - they have no relation.

 

So then begins the question - how do I resolve this?  How can I get from a dual 'solution' to a non-dual one?  Or can I subsume all Prakriti in Purusha or visa versa?  Or to put it in more western terms how do I resolve the subject object duality? 

Merci @Apech.

It really is a misnomer to say anything is clear, I’ll try to remember that and try to say: understandable from my current perspective at the current time and place.

Edited November 9, 2023 by S:C

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Clarity is also one of those words which non-dualist Dzogchenis like to use - as if it means something in itself without reference to what is clear to what.  Scientologists also like to say 'going clear' but I'm not sure what they mean - we shall have to wait until Tom Cruise joins the forum.

 

If clairty for anything comes from understanding "what it is" + "what it is not", then, "clarity" of "clarity" itself is produced in the same manner.  For this specific case "clarity" is easiest to define via "what it is not" which are distortions.  Neti-neti will eventually produce a clarity of clarity.

 

From the scientology perspective, if I understand, clarity means "non-reactive" emotionally.

 

1 hour ago, Apech said:

The denial of dualities would actually be monism.  The term 'non-dual' is chosen deliberately to show that it is not a monism.

 

Ahhhhhh.  Thank you very kindly.

 

1 hour ago, Apech said:

To start at the beginning of dharmic thought, you really have to start with the granddaddy of all Indian systems and that is Samkhya.... if you followed this process of enquiry you end up with a duality of two fundamentally real absolutes - Purusha and Prakriti.

 

Got it.

 

1 hour ago, Apech said:

So then begins the question - how do I resolve this?  How can I get from a dual 'solution' to a non-dual one?  Or can I subsume all Prakriti in Purusha or visa versa? 

 

Sure.  I understand the dilemma.  Does "non-dual" philosophy take a position on this?  Is "non-dual" philosophy a general category for discussions about this specific dilemma without taking a position on it?

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Daniel

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

If clairty for anything comes from understanding "what it is" + "what it is not", then, "clarity" of "clarity" itself is produced in the same manner.  For this specific case "clarity" is easiest to define via "what it is not" which are distortions.  Neti-neti will eventually produce a clarity of clarity.

 

From the scientology perspective, if I understand, clarity means "non-reactive" emotionally.

 

There's a Leonard Cohen song which refers to 'going clear' which is I suppose what this means.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Ahhhhhh.  Thank you very kindly.

 

 

Got it.

 

 

Sure.  I understand the dilemma.  Does "non-dual" philosophy take a position on this?  Is "non-dual" philosophy a general category for discussions about this specific dilemma without taking a position on it?

 

 

In Mahayana Buddhism there are two main streams of teaching which could probably call themselves non-dual.  That is the Yogacara and the Madhyamika ... very broadly speaking the Yogacara spread into China and Japan as Ch'an and Zen, while the Madhyamika (of which there are two kinds!) held sway in Tibet.  Yogacara which means literally something like 'yoga path' is sometimes also called citta-mattra, which means 'mind only' or 'mere mind'.  In this school it would be fair to say that primacy is given to the realisations of practitioners that everything is mind.  They use mostly the term citta for mind - which is an interesting reference back to Samkhya and the universal substance Prakriti.  In Samkhya thought this universal substance applied not only to the material universe but also to what we would call mental phenomena such as thoughts, perceptions, feelings and emotions.  The form of Prakriti which was the subtle substance basis for thoughts and perceptions was called 'citta'.  So mind was a kind of field of citta.  Which is why Patanjali says yoga is 'citta vritti nirodha' - the exhaustion of disturbance in the mind (translations vary).  When a Yogacara Buddhist says everything is citta they mean that what is experienced as subject and what is experienced as object is actually immediate events in citta.  Which is why in Japanese art for instance it is all about the intensity of immediate experience (though technically the term experience does not apply) - the fall of blossom or leaves in autumn ... and so on.  Zen stresses the ever present 'now' moment where the subject/object duality collapses into something that can never quite be expressed completely - natural, spontaneous, immediate - you get the idea.  This really arises because of the stress on dhyana (jhana) - which is absorption in the now (samadhi or sartori)- Zen being the Japanese version of this word.

 

The Madhyamika interpretation is slightly different.  The term means 'middle way' but not the usual Buddhism way of the mean, but the middle way between nihilism and eternalism.  It's analysis of all phenomena is that they are empty.  Some care needs to be taken with the word empty which is the translation of shunya.  One way of thinking about it is that in a world of plusses and negatives i.e. polarity and plurality there is also a zero.  That despite the appearances of things as having this of that qualities, hardness, softness, heat and cold or whatever - truly their nature is zero - they are ephemeral and lack any enduring 'self' or existence in and of themselves but are just appearances in a chain of causal connection - like links in a chain which have no use on their own (if you try to extract them the whole chain falls apart).  So a Madhyamika would say to a Yogacaran - your mind (citta) is empty also.  Don't cling to even that!  You can see the tremendous risk of nihilism in this path.  But they would claim not to be nihilist but to be steering a course between nihilism and positing any eternally real cause of any kind as both are traps.

 

Most Madhyamika practitioners are also tantrikas.  In the tantras there is posited the reality of the mind of a Buddha (which might be used as a yidam or meditation object) and thought of as real.  For most Madhyamika this contradiction is just parked, this is called Rangtong Madhyamika ... but there is another school of Madhyamika who reinterpret this to say that the Buddha-nature (which we all have) is empty but empty of other, that is empty of anything other than itself, this is called Zhentong Madhyamika or sometimes the Great Madhyamika.  Some suggest that this school is really a kind of advanced Yogacara school where citta has been reinterpreted as the continuum of buddha-nature.  This is a controversial view which was actually persecuted but has been preserved by the Kagyu sect.

 

By the way I am just writing this off the top of my head - so feel free to correct any inevitable mistakes I may make.

 

 

[S:C]

Thank you for the structure, @Apech! Much appreciated!

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Specifically in this case "it" is the "2 truths".  In general "it" is the entire "non-dual" philosophy.

 

 

 

{Paraphrasing}

 

"From the non-dual / enlightened perspective I have realized all are one, none are supreme or ideal, ... But you are ignorant and far below ... You cannot understand.   Your religion is ignorant and far below.  It doesn't understand.  Remember all are one.  That is the ideal, all others are ignorant and far below."

 

Wow !  You  got all that out of  ;

 

"So in the non-dual philosophy of Madhyamika you can have the position that the cup is not real and yet it is real."

 

Seems like someones religion ... or view of reality , feels threatened .

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Nungali

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, Apech said:

OK

 

 

Daniel - if anyone called you ignorant and down below I am shocked.  To the core.

 

No one did that .... he just feels they did as it is not the particular philosophy he prefers for himself

 

Oh so a kind of montage of convos.

 

No.  That's not it.  (normally I would explain but a quantity of red wine has been drunk - sorry  ).

 

 

You have realised that denial is an anagram of daniel haven't you?

 

I  suggested that as a nickname earlier  ....  I might even have used it as a 'spelling pistake' .

 

 

 

Spoiler

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/piss-take

 

 

It's sat-chit-ananda not sit-chat-ananda.  The first is the being/consciousness/bliss of the self (atman) and the spirit (brahman) being not different to each other ... i.e. non-dual, while the second is the bliss of sitting and having a conversation (and probably a cup of tea and a biscuit).

 

 

 

 

I think I  do prefer your philosophy explanations with that dash of red wine  .

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Clarity is also one of those words which non-dualist Dzogchenis like to use - as if it means something in itself without reference to what is clear to what.  Scientologists also like to say 'going clear' but I'm not sure what they mean - we shall have to wait until Tom Cruise joins the forum.

 

I...

 

 

Damn !  I have been exposed   ( skip over my excited crazy ranting and gesturing and wild eyed 'excitement' mixed with giggling , to) ....

 

You are 'clear' when you have told your auditor all your criminal and deviate secrets and he has listed them and recorded them in the 'blackmail book' and by recounting them to him, your have not got tense and squeezed the little cans on the machine , to make surface contact with your skin and the metal can greater, thus increasing or decreasing the electrical resistance  ( or just use a digital multi-meter on a low setting   *  ) . Thing is now they have a record of your shame , you are gonna be tenser and squeeze those little cans harder  ... requiring more 'auditing ' and money  .... or course, if you opt out, well    < taps the record book >  .