"Non-dual" misnomer

[Cobie]

 

On 12/11/2023 at 8:40 PM, Daniel said:

… a denial and detachment from moral distinctions in the form of "there is no good and evil". 

This imo is pivotal. 
 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Cobie

[old3bob]

On 11/12/2023 at 6:03 AM, Apech said:

 

That @Daniel is the 64,000 dollar question.  And is probably beyond my capacity to answer in a very satisfactory way.  In fact great masters of many paths also say it is ineffable ... the Dao cannot be named and so on.  The Buddha himself said after his awakening that what he had realised was so profound etc. that he could not teach it.  (Later he was persuaded to teach but he did not start by teaching any ontological explanation of what was real but just by pointing out to people that their lives were unsatisfactory and that there was something you can do about it).

 

An old teacher of mine used to describe it as 'a field of sentient power' - a continuum.  But even that is criticisable as sounding like a monism - since there is only one field.  But he would say that yes, the field is one but not one as in the head of a series (1,2,3 ... and so on) but unified within itself, a one without a second to quote Shankara. 

 

Obviously to say something is 'literally' true means technically 'as written' and so means it can be defined clearly in terms.  But terms are by definition to do with finites, names of things or functions which can be separately identified.  A dog, a spoon and so on.  So terms cannot be applied to the absolute.  And actually if we were to say the absolute is a 'one' a monism, then you would have to say everything else is not it and end up with a world of things entirely separate from their origin.

 

Buddhists would define the non-dual reality as the mind of the Buddha (in calm equipose) - this is how it is usually expressed although the condition of calm equipose is unnecessary.  This is called the Dharmakaya which means something like true-body or true level.  The original duality is said to be subject/object (which is like the Purusha/Prakriti dualism of Samkhya) and in Buddhism these are said to co-emerge ... that is, as the phenomenon appears so too does the consciousness of it.  They emerge in mutual dependence.  The realisation of this in meditative contemplation is the realisation of non-duality.

 

So that which is literally non-dual is the basis for consciousness, buddha-nature itself and the realisation of it is the final release from the duality of cyclic (samsaric) existence and from dukkha.

 

Does that go anyway to answering your question?  Please let me know.

 

 

 

so profoundly simple that mind can not find or comprehend it

Edited November 18, 2023 by old3bob

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Well, i think i understand non-dualistisk, but ill have to agree with @Daniel, it is a weird way to put. Why not unitarian, monistic, «the one» or something like that?

[Apech]

4 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Well, i think i understand non-dualistisk, but ill have to agree with @Daniel, it is a weird way to put. Why not unitarian, monistic, «the one» or something like that?

 

Because it is specifically not monism.  

 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Because it is specifically not monism.  

 

How is it not?

[Apech]

25 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

How is it not?

I thought I had explained this already.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

I thought I had explained this already.

Possibly, ill take a look at the previous posts.

[Daniel]

On 11/13/2023 at 8:16 AM, Apech said:

Real' and thus 'reality' is a tricky word.  If you want to contrast 'non-dual awareness' with 'non-dual reality' then are you suggesting that an awareness of something does not actually mean that it is real?  

 

The distinction is the awareness is incomplete.  Reality is not ( with possibly only one exception ).

 

On 11/13/2023 at 8:16 AM, Apech said:

it is important not to allow these kinds of ideas to become abstruse speculation.

 

I agree, but, I respectfully request that this is applied to both sides fairly.

 

On 11/12/2023 at 5:03 AM, Apech said:

Buddhists would define the non-dual reality as the mind of the Buddha (in calm equipose) - this is how it is usually expressed although the condition of calm equipose is unnecessary.

 

"Non-dual reality" = the mind of buddha qualifies as obtruse speculation.  But "non-dual awareness" seems like a perfect fit.  Let me type it out:    

 

"Buddhists would define the non-dual reality awareness as the mind of the Buddha (in calm equipose)"  

 

I can't argue with that ^^.  That's saying something. 

 

Mark it on the calendar...  "Nov. 20, A statement exists which is immune from Daniel's arguing."  

 

On 11/13/2023 at 8:16 AM, Apech said:

If there is only Purusha why is there a world?  If there is only Prakriti how are we aware of anything?  They emerge together - this is called primordial wisdom 'yeshe' or 'prajna'.

 

The answers to the questions are irrelevant to what I wrote.  All that matters is that if reality consisted of one or the other then it is not the same reality where you and I and all the others co-exist.  Asking the questions in the manner which you did confirms that each one is unique and individually significant.

 

The point:  In the model of reality that is described by purusha and prakriti, there are 3 fundemental components.

 

purusha <----co-emergence----> prakriti

1. purusha
2. prakriti
3. co-emergence

There is no way consider it without some form of multiplicity.  All three are co-dependent.  Removing any one of them breaks the model.  In this way, it cannot be considered literally non-dual.

 

However.

 

There are good strong reasons to consider the co-dependence as much more important that the multiplicity, but, if the co-dependence is that highly significant, then none of the members of the partnership can be denied.  If they are ever denied, then the co-dependence is also being denied.  If any of the three can be removed without producing a significant change, then the trio was never actually co-dependent.

 

Among other reasons, this is why I strongly encourage an awareness of co-dependence, simultaneity, as the focus if, big IF, non-dual is not monism.  So far, it seems, there is nothing lost and much to gain from this because it resolves the contradictions.  The only thing that I can think of as a potential loss, is the omission of the word "literal" from "non-dual".  It cannot be considered literally non-dual without it being monist.  

 

From here, it's possible to consider the chain of causation.  This fits nicely because it is emphasizing co-dependence, but, the impermanence is the focus.  If nothing is permanent, then nothing is significant with one and only one exception, "now".  This is also a form of non-dual awareness, but, the reality is not literally non-dual for the reasons I mentioned previously.  Each link in the chain of causation is significant, therefore reality cannot be literally non-dual. 

 

Again, the only thing that is lost here from a conceptual persective is word the word "literal".  To me this is a small price to pay in order to have a method for describing "non-dual" which is logically consistent and avoids contraditctions.  The focus is on either co-dependence which is singular ( non-dual ) or impermanence which results in a singular ( non-dual ) focus of significance.  If there is buddhist scripture or teachings which assert a literal non-dual reality, so far, there is no way to avoid logical inconsistencies and contradiction.  It's simply unavoidable.

 

However, there is a secret option #3.  Instead of non-duality from an intellectual perspective, it can be discussed as a feeling of a literally non-dual reality which is ineffable.  The nice thing about this, is, it does match what so many report "I can't describe it, it has to be experienced..."  The down-side is, at this point the word "non-dual" ceases to have any meaning.  It might as well be called a mystical reality, because they are having a mysterious ineffable experience.  We're back to sitting chatting with biscuits ( sat-chit-ananda ), or some other experience, which may very well be influenced by the expectations of the participant.  Speaking of it this way reduces it to an experience in which the participant hopes is "the truth".  None the less, calling it a non-dual "experience" is a good way to avoid the contradictions as well. 

 

So those are the three choices: co-dependence, impermanence, mystical-experience

1. non-dual awareness of co-dependence
2. non-dual focus on "now"
3. non-dual mystical experience which feels non-dual, for lack of a better word

 

All three, it seems to me, can be easily folded into the context of reducing ( or elimination ) of suffering and permit discussion without falling into any logical or linguistic contradictions.

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Daniel

[Apech]

13 hours ago, Daniel said:

...

 

So those are the three choices: co-dependence, impermanence, mystical-experience

1. non-dual awareness of co-dependence
2. non-dual focus on "now"
3. non-dual mystical experience which feels non-dual, for lack of a better word

 

All three, it seems to me, can be easily folded into the context of reducing ( or elimination ) of suffering and permit discussion without falling into any logical or linguistic contradictions.

 

 

That's well argued @Daniel and I don't disagree with most of it.

 

A couple of comments though.  You distinguish between awareness and the real - but we haven't made any attempt (unless I missed it) to say what 'real' means.  Some Buddhist schools - Yogacara for instance - would say that mind/awareness is the real.  That's why it's sometimes called Citta-mattra (Mind-only).  There is only mind in their opinion.  And it is this mind which produces the subject/object duality - but that it is not a monism of mind (although it sounds a bit like it) as mind is not a thing in any sense apart from what you might call pure sentience.

 

In contrast we in the West, us moderns, tend to use 'real' to mean the concrete objective world - and that anything else including consciousness is an epi-phenomena resulting out of interactions of matter - such as electrical flow in the brain and wot not.  So then there is a tendency to abstract awareness as apparent but not real in any fundamental sense.  Of course if one considered matter to be the only thing that actually exists then that would be a materialist monism I guess.

 

If again as a Westerner you accept both the existence of an objective world and the reality of Spirit - you have a duality - and Western religious thought does appear very dualist to Easterners - light/dark, good/bad, God/Satan(evil) and so on.  In fact, certainly in Christianity life is seen as a struggle between good and evil, a battle in which we have to choose a side.  For a monotheist (a form of monism) this creates the problem of the existence of evil - as if God is good and is (and made) everything how and why did He make evil?

 

 

[old3bob]

so can light be seen as matter,  for me yes. (just a much finer form)

[Daniel]

matter is energy, light is energy, energy is dual

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

That's well argued @Daniel and I don't disagree with most of it.

 

A couple of comments though.  You distinguish between awareness and the real - but we haven't made any attempt (unless I missed it) to say what 'real' means.  Some Buddhist schools - Yogacara for instance - would say that mind/awareness is the real.  That's why it's sometimes called Citta-mattra (Mind-only).  There is only mind in their opinion.  And it is this mind which produces the subject/object duality - but that it is not a monism of mind (although it sounds a bit like it) as mind is not a thing in any sense apart from what you might call pure sentience.

 

In contrast we in the West, us moderns, tend to use 'real' to mean the concrete objective world - and that anything else including consciousness is an epi-phenomena resulting out of interactions of matter - such as electrical flow in the brain and wot not.  So then there is a tendency to abstract awareness as apparent but not real in any fundamental sense.  Of course if one considered matter to be the only thing that actually exists then that would be a materialist monism I guess.

 

Even in defining the  modern 'real '  there is a 'split' between  the 'real and the ideal' .  The ideal is a type of 'acknowledged to exist but non-material ' ,  like ;  concepts , emotions, principles , things we think are 'real'  but not 'materially existent ' .

 

What constitutes 'reality' for me is the human view , but the long term view , across time locations and different cultures . This modern   materialistic / scientific  view is a very recent 'flash in the pan'  and has not been around long enough to qualify as the 'human opinion on what reality is ' . It can be seen as a very recent, 'youthful' , self assured ,  declaration .  And it seems 'under attack' by itself  (  small and large scale physics  -  sub-atomic physics and astro physics ) , ie. the more we discover and try to explain 'rationally' the more 'crazy' terms and ideas pop up  that seem to have correlations to some very ancient philosophical / religious concepts .

 

If again as a Westerner you accept both the existence of an objective world and the reality of Spirit - you have a duality - and Western religious thought does appear very dualist to Easterners - light/dark, good/bad, God/Satan(evil) and so on.  In fact, certainly in Christianity life is seen as a struggle between good and evil, a battle in which we have to choose a side.  For a monotheist (a form of monism) this creates the problem of the existence of evil - as if God is good and is (and made) everything how and why did He make evil?

 

He has a bad sense of humor ?

 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

On 11/20/2023 at 4:41 PM, Daniel said:

 

"Buddhists would define the non-dual reality awareness as the mind of the Buddha (in calm equipose)"  

 

I can't argue with that ^^.  That's saying something. 
 

Gautama abided in concentration except when he was speaking,  The defining trait of concentration is "one-pointedness of mind", in his teaching.  That is consciousness that includes equalibrioception, graviception, proprioception, and oculoception---in fact all the senses, but those four in particular yield "one-pointedness of mind", awareness coupled with a sense of a singular location.

Mostly people identify strongly with the eyes, and the eyes are tightly connected to the sense of awareness--they can reorient the sense of location.  Consequently most people  think of their head as the location of their awareness, and identify themselves with their thoughts, especially because they can move their bodies through "determinate thought".

The Eastern teachings and seeming miracles depend on the recognition that awareness can move as a point, and action can arise purely from the location of that point.  The awareness that shifts and moves as a point is the interface between conscious and unconscious minds, between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, but in order to attain "one-pointedness", it's necessary to "make self-surrender the object of thought"', as Gautama put it.  Not the most popular activity, amongst the general populace, East or West!

 

The first four states of concentration are marked by "equanimity with respect to multiplicity (of the senses)", the further states are marked by "equanimity with respect to uniformity (of the senses)", and that equanimity is transcended "through lack of desire, by means of lack of desire".  Meaning, it's in our nature to arrive at a state where "determinate thought" is absent even in feeling and perceiving, although "the disturbance of the six sense fields" persists.  Who or what are we then?--nondual awareness I would say is accurate!


 

Quote

 

... From here, it's possible to consider the chain of causation.  This fits nicely because it is emphasizing co-dependence, but, the impermanence is the focus.  If nothing is permanent, then nothing is significant with one and only one exception, "now".  This is also a form of non-dual awareness, but, the reality is not literally non-dual for the reasons I mentioned previously.  Each link in the chain of causation is significant, therefore reality cannot be literally non-dual. 

 

 

 

Got carried away there. 

Most of Gautama's renditions of the chain of causation begin with ignorance, and continue with "the activities", which are volitive actions of speech, body, and mind. He doesn't really specify what is being ignored, but I would guess it's "things as they really is", to paraphrase Shunryu Suzuki.  Ignore where you are at this moment, and how that shifts and moves, and you have a persistence of consciousness, then a stationing of consciousness, and end up grasping after a sense of self with regard to the body, the feelings, the mind, or the mental state.  And that is suffering.

The end of ignorance is the end of activities occasioned by "determinate thought", the end of consciousness occasioned by the activities, the end of concepts ("name and form") occasioned by a stationing of consciousness, the end of feeling set in motion by concepts, the end of craving after feeling, the end of suffering. 

As for the path leading to the end of suffering:

 

(Anyone)…knowing and seeing eye as it really is, knowing and seeing material shapes… visual consciousness… impact on the eye as it really is, and knowing, seeing as it really is the experience, whether pleasant, painful, or neither painful nor pleasant, that arises conditioned by impact on the eye, is not attached to the eye nor to material shapes nor to visual consciousness nor to impact on the eye; and that experience, whether pleasant, painful, or neither painful nor pleasant, that arises conditioned by impact on the eye—neither to that is (such a one) attached. …(Such a one’s) physical anxieties decrease, and mental anxieties decrease, and bodily torments… and mental torments… and bodily fevers decrease, and mental fevers decrease. (Such a one) experiences happiness of body and happiness of mind. (repeated for ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind).
 

Whatever is the view of what really is, that for (such a one) is right view; whatever is aspiration for what really is, that for (such a one) is right aspiration; whatever is endeavour for what really is, that is for (such a one) right endeavour; whatever is mindfulness of what really is, that is for (such a one) right mindfulness; whatever is concentration on what really is, that is for (such a one) right concentration. And (such a one’s) past acts of body, acts of speech, and mode of livelihood have been well purified.
 

(MN III 287 "Discourse Pertaining to the Great Sixfold (Sense-)Field", Pali Text Society III p 337-338)

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Mark Foote

[S:C]

On 7.11.2023 at 8:47 PM, Daniel said:

the cup is not real and yet it is real.

Why is there a connection to the ‘white rabbit’ song? 

Edited February 1 by S:C

[Mark Foote]

On 2/1/2024 at 6:32 AM, S:C said:

Why is there a connection to the ‘white rabbit’ song? 
 

 

 

“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.” “How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn’t have come here.”
 

(Alice and The Cheshire Cat, from Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll)

 

[S:C]

On 3.2.2024 at 1:03 AM, Mark Foote said:

 

 

“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.” “How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn’t have come here.”
 

(Alice and The Cheshire Cat, from Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll)

 

Why is the white knight talking backwards? Is it a koan? 

Is he even white? A knight? Does he even exist?

 

What is behind words?

 

 

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, S:C said:

Why is the white knight talking backwards? Is it a koan? 

Is he even white? A knight? Does he even exist?

 

What is behind words?

 

 

 

Great questions!

[snowymountains]

Personally speaking the non-dual is a point of view to consider, not "the point of view".

Above I read remarks when it comes to ethics, which is the thorny point of the non-dual point of view.

 

No easy answers with respect to that but on some stuff everyone can agree they are bad, i.e. a murder, imo it is productive to judge the action but not the person. E.g. If I had been really in their shoes, with born with identical brain chemistry, had the same upbringing, the same difficulties growing up etc, would I had acted differently? It is easy to say yes, but the honest answer is I don't know. 

 

So the non-dual point of view, for me at least, allows to stretch empathy to more groups of people. It also allows to be empathetic to our own shadow.

 

However, examining things from a point of view is no excuse to shed personal responsibility and personally engage in unethical behavior.

 

Ultimately there's no panacea and a point of view has its pluses and minuses, the non-dual pov too has its pluses and minuses.

[stirling]

16 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Personally speaking the non-dual is a point of view to consider, not "the point of view".

Above I read remarks when it comes to ethics, which is the thorny point of the non-dual point of view.

 

Non-duality is actually the LACK of a point of view. There is no subject or object to own a view. It doesn't have pluses or minuses, and isn't a choice. No-one exists to choose or not choose, it is simply the reality as it is. Anyone who used a "non-dual" excuse to justify their actions cannot possibly truly understand it. 

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

It doesn't have pluses or minuses, and isn't a choice. 

Of course it's a choice, which is why not everyone adopts it, and as with any point of view, it shines light on some aspects and hides others

[stirling]

2 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Of course it's a choice, which is why not everyone adopts it, and as with any point of view, it shines light on some aspects and hides others

 

You can't just "adopt" it.  It happens because of a permanent experiential insight.

 

Remember when you realized that Santa/Father Christmas wasn't real? Imagine that there was a moment when you realized that separateness or dualities weren't real. It can't be unseen, because it has always been the underlying reality, and you can't MAKE it happen because it is clear that what happens in the world has never been up to "you"... there isn't one.

[Daniel]

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

It's two-truths?  That's dual.  The cup is simultaneously real and not-real.  That's dual.

 

This is what I have settled on as my own understanding of the English term non-dual:

 

All of reality is a collection of:

1. objects
2. events
3. ideas
4. symbols

Each of these is defined by everything else which it is not.  The contrast is a relationship which unites each and everything with the nearly infinite collection of all that it is not.  Because of this, reality is non-dual.  All of reality is a triad, not a duality.  A singular, non-dual, triad:

1. subject
2. nearly infinite collection of contra-distinctions
3. relationship

Or more simply:

1. this
2. that
3. contrast

These 3 attributes cannot be split, else the entire construct collapses into oblivion, thus, it is non-dual.  All of reality is defined in this way.  Non-dual does not *actually* entail a complete negligence and disregard for differences and distinctions in spite of how popular that is among western wanna-be sages.  That is the opposite of reality.  The implications of non-duality are that every"thing" is connected and reliant on all the others.  When an individual mis-appropriates non-dual in a way which produces oblivion, "everything's the same", it's clear they are neglecting one of the 3, this, that, or the contrast, which causes a collapse into delusion.

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

You can't just "adopt" it.  It happens because of a permanent experiential insight.

 

Remember when you realized that Santa/Father Christmas wasn't real? Imagine that there was a moment when you realized that separateness or dualities weren't real. It can't be unseen, because it has always been the underlying reality, and you can't MAKE it happen because it is clear that what happens in the world has never been up to "you"... there isn't one.

 

Maybe though Santa is seeing non-duality as something objectively true.

It's fine to like/endorse a non dual philosophy, this doesn't make it any truer than others

[Daniel]

On 8/18/2024 at 12:25 PM, stirling said:

Non-duality is actually the LACK of a point of view

 

Your lack of a point of view...  

 

On 8/18/2024 at 12:25 PM, stirling said:

There is no subject or object to own a view

 

Of course there is.  You just made an assertion.  "Non-duality is actually ..."  <--- that's a point of view.

 

Object = Non-duality

Subject = Lack of point of view

 

And.

 

Object = ownership of a view

Subject = subject-or-object

 

On 8/18/2024 at 12:25 PM, stirling said:

isn't a choice

 

^^ inflexible rubbish ^^

 

 

On 8/18/2024 at 12:25 PM, stirling said:

it is simply the reality as it is

 

If one buries their head in the sand.  

 

 

"Hey!  It's non-dual down here!"

 

On 8/18/2024 at 12:25 PM, stirling said:

Anyone who used a "non-dual" excuse to justify their actions cannot possibly truly understand it. 

 

~hands you a mirror~

 

You assert you have no choice.  Non-dual is the excuse you used.

 

~shakes-my-head~

 

@snowymountains, have fun friend. 

 

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

^^ inflexible rubbish ^^

 

Are you a slave?

 

Do slaves have choices  ?

 

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

@snowymountains, have fun friend.  You're talking to a preacher.

 

He may not change his pov, that's his ...choice, it's not my concern anyhow