"Non-dual" misnomer

[Daniel]

21 hours ago, Apech said:

No ... goodness no!  the chain is a metaphor not the non-duality.  Deary me.

 

Thank you, that's a useful distinction.

[Mark Foote]

On 11/11/2023 at 1:53 AM, Bindi said:

 

Just along the lines this thread is taking, I think Jesus was a phenomenal person, my small gripe would be that he didn’t go beyond the framework of the Judaism he was brought up in, but he was a groundbreaker and he couldn’t get everything right. Also nothing against Jews, but Judaism has its limitations, just as Christianity and Buddhism do. 
 

Mixing up spiritual metaphors, I find an echo of reality in the Neidan child, which I see as the produce of yin qi and yang qi or “Shiva and Shakti”, I think a couple of people, specifically Jesus and the founder of neidan, got to this point, and gained real powers. Personally speaking I don’t think the Buddha got to any real point, I think he came to an intellectual conclusion that was still mind based… just putting it out there ya know 🙃

 

 

I would recommend the Gospel of Thomas to you, if you haven't already read it.  Only sayings of Jesus, in the Gospel of Thomas, no life story--supposedly as heard by Thomas:

 

 

Jesus said to His disciples:  Make a comparison to Me and tell Me who I am like.  Simon Peter said to him:  Thou are like a righteous angel.  Matthew said to Him, Thou are like a wise man of understanding.  Thomas said to him:  Master, my mouth will not at all be capable of saying whom Thou art like.  Jesus said:  I am not thy Master, because thou hast drunk, thou hast from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.  And He took him, and He withdrew, He spoke three words to him.

Now when Thomas came to his companions, they asked him:  What did Jesus say to thee?  Thomas said to them:  If I tell you one of the words which He said to me, you will take up stones and throw at me; and fire will come from the stones and burn you up.

 

(The Gospel According to Thomas, coptic text established and translated by A. Guillaumont, H.-CH. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah ‘Abd Al Masih, p 9 log. 13, ©1959 E. J. Brill)

 

 

Peter went on to found the church of Rome.  Thomas, according to an account told to me by Professor Noel King at UC Santa Cruz, travelled to the south of India, where he was stoned to death (ironic).  The people in the area where he was stoned to death consider themselves Thomas Christians.

 

A version of "tell me who I am like" in the Pali sermons--here, it's "tell me what I will become, after death":
 

Your worship will become a deva?

No indeed, brahmin.  I'll not become a deva.

Then your worship will become a gandarva?

No indeed, brahmin, I'll not become a gandarva.

A yakka, then?

No indeed, brahmin.  Not a yakka.

Then your worship will become a human being?

No indeed, brahmin.  I'll not become a human being.

... Who then, pray, will your worship become?
... Just as, brahmin, a lotus, blue, red, or white, though born in the water, grown up in the water, when it reaches the surface stands there unsoiled by the water,--just so, brahmin, though born in the world, grown up in the world, having overcome the world, I abide unsoiled by the world.  Take it that I am a Buddha, brahmin.

(AN Book of Fours 36, Pali Text Society AN Vol 2 p 44)

 

Based on my own experience, I have great faith that Gautama the Shakyan did indeed experience the cessation of "doing something" in feeling and perceiving.  Fortunately for those of us who don't expect to experience that anytime soon, he taught a way of living that only required the cessation of "doing something" in the consciousness-informed activity of inbreathing and outbreathing.

That's still a trick::

 

When necessity places attention, and a presence of mind is retained as the placement shifts and moves, then in Gautama’s words, “[one] lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness”:
 

Herein… the (noble) disciple, making self-surrender the object of (their) thought, lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.  (The disciple), aloof from sensuality, aloof from evil conditions, enters on the first trance, which is accompanied by thought directed and sustained, which is born of solitude, easeful and zestful, and abides therein.
 

(SN v 198, Pali Text Society vol V p 174; parenthetical material paraphrases original; “directed” also rendered as “initial” MN III p 78 and as “applied” PTS AN III p 18-19)
 

Foyan spoke of “looking for a donkey riding on the donkey”.  The degree of “self-surrender” required to allow necessity to place attention, and the presence of mind required to “lay hold” as the placement of attention shifts, make the conscious experience of “riding the donkey” elusive. Suzuki provided an analogy:
 

If you are going to fall, you know, from, for instance, from the tree to the ground, the moment you, you know, leave the branch you lose your function of the body. But if you don’t, you know, there is a pretty long time before you reach to the ground. And there may be some branch, you know. So you can catch the branch or you can do something. But because you lose function of your body, you know [laughs], before you reach to the ground, you may lose your conscious[ness].
 

(“To Actually Practice Selflessness”, August Sesshin Lecture Wednesday, August 6, 1969, San Francisco; “fell” corrected to “fall”; transcript from shunryusuzuki.com)
 

Suzuki offered the analogy in response to the travails of his students, who were experiencing pain in their legs sitting cross-legged on the floor.  In his analogy, he suggested the possibility of an escape from pain through a presence of mind with the function of the body.
 

The difficulty is that most people will lose consciousness before they cede activity to the location of attention–they lose the presence of mind with the placement of attention, because they can’t believe that action in the body is possible without “doing something”:
 

It’s impossible to teach the meaning of sitting. You won’t believe it. Not because I say something wrong, but until you experience it and confirm it by yourself, you cannot believe it.
 

(Kobun Chino Otogawa, “Embracing Mind”, edited by Cosgrove & Hall, pg 48)

 

 

(Shunryu Suzuki on Shikantaza and the Theravadin Stages)

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Bindi]

3 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

I would recommend the Gospel of Thomas to you, if you haven't already read it.  Only saying of Jesus, in the Gospel of Thomas, no life story--supposedly as heard by Thomas:

 

 

Jesus said to His disciples:  Make a comparison to Me and tell Me who I am like.  Simon Peter said to him:  Thou are like a righteous angel.  Matthew said to Him, Thou are like a wise man of understanding.  Thomas said to him:  Master, my mouth will not at all be capable of saying whom Thou art like.  Jesus said:  I am not thy Master, because thou hast drunk, thou hast from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.  And He took him, and He withdrew, He spoke three words to him.

Now when Thomas came to his companions, they asked him:  What did Jesus say to thee?  Thomas said to them:  If I tell you one of the words which He said to me, you will take up stones and throw at me; and fire will come from the stones and burn you up.

 

(The Gospel According to Thomas, coptic text established and translated by A. Guillaumont, H.-CH. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah ‘Abd Al Masih, p 9 log. 13, ©1959 E. J. Brill)

 

 

Peter went on to found the church of Rome.  Thomas, according to an account told to me by Professor Noel King at UC Santa Cruz, travelled to the south of India, where he was stoned to death (ironic).  The people in the area where he was stoned to death consider themselves Thomas Christians.

 

A version of "tell me who I am like" in the Pali sermons--here, it's "tell me what I will become, after death":
 

Your worship will become a deva?

No indeed, brahmin.  I'll not become a deva.

Then your worship will become a gandarva?

No indeed, brahmin, I'll not become a gandarva.

A yakka, then?

No indeed, brahmin.  Not a yakka.

Then your worship will become a human being?

No indeed, brahmin.  I'll not become a human being.

... Who then, pray, will your worship become?
... Just as, brahmin, a lotus, blue, red, or white, though born in the water, grown up in the water, when it reaches the surface stands there unsoiled by the water,--just so, brahmin, though born in the world, grown up in the world, having overcome the world, I abide unsoiled by the world.  Take it that I am a Buddha, brahmin.

(AN Book of Fours 36, Pali Text Society AN Vol 2 p 44)

 

Based on my own experience, I have great faith that Gautama the Shakyan did indeed experience the cessation of "doing something" in feeling and perceiving.  Fortunately for those of us who don't expect to experience that anytime soon, he taught a way of living that only required the cessation of "doing something" in the consciousness-informed activity of inbreathing and outbreathing.

 

 

Interestingly, I have believed for a few years that the two side channels equate to feeling (Ida Nadi) and mental perception (Pingala Nadi), and bringing them back to healthy activity ends my primary identification with them as consciousness moves to the central channel. From my perspective they don’t cease, but they start to function together in a way that doesn’t need my primary attention, they become semi-autonomous if you will, but their information still feeds into the overall system. Different to Gautama’s conclusion but interestingly referring to the two same systems of feeling and perception. 

 

3 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

That's still a trick::

 

When necessity places attention, and a presence of mind is retained as the placement shifts and moves, then in Gautama’s words, “[one] lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness”:
 

Herein… the (noble) disciple, making self-surrender the object of (their) thought, lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness.  (The disciple), aloof from sensuality, aloof from evil conditions, enters on the first trance, which is accompanied by thought directed and sustained, which is born of solitude, easeful and zestful, and abides therein.
 

(SN v 198, Pali Text Society vol V p 174; parenthetical material paraphrases original; “directed” also rendered as “initial” MN III p 78 and as “applied” PTS AN III p 18-19)
 

Foyan spoke of “looking for a donkey riding on the donkey”.  The degree of “self-surrender” required to allow necessity to place attention, and the presence of mind required to “lay hold” as the placement of attention shifts, make the conscious experience of “riding the donkey” elusive. Suzuki provided an analogy:
 

If you are going to fall, you know, from, for instance, from the tree to the ground, the moment you, you know, leave the branch you lose your function of the body. But if you don’t, you know, there is a pretty long time before you reach to the ground. And there may be some branch, you know. So you can catch the branch or you can do something. But because you lose function of your body, you know [laughs], before you reach to the ground, you may lose your conscious[ness].
 

(“To Actually Practice Selflessness”, August Sesshin Lecture Wednesday, August 6, 1969, San Francisco; “fell” corrected to “fall”; transcript from shunryusuzuki.com)
 

Suzuki offered the analogy in response to the travails of his students, who were experiencing pain in their legs sitting cross-legged on the floor.  In his analogy, he suggested the possibility of an escape from pain through a presence of mind with the function of the body.
 

The difficulty is that most people will lose consciousness before they cede activity to the location of attention–they lose the presence of mind with the placement of attention, because they can’t believe that action in the body is possible without “doing something”:
 

It’s impossible to teach the meaning of sitting. You won’t believe it. Not because I say something wrong, but until you experience it and confirm it by yourself, you cannot believe it.
 

(Kobun Chino Otogawa, “Embracing Mind”, edited by Cosgrove & Hall, pg 48)

 

 

(Shunryu Suzuki on Shikantaza and the Theravadin Stages)

 

 

 

 

[old3bob]

23 hours ago, Bindi said:

Just along the lines this thread is taking, I think Jesus was a phenomenal person, my small gripe would be that he didn’t go beyond the framework of the Judaism he was brought up in, but he was a groundbreaker and he couldn’t get everything right. Also nothing against Jews, but Judaism has its limitations, just as Christianity and Buddhism do. 
 

Mixing up spiritual metaphors, I find an echo of reality in the Neidan child, which I see as the produce of yin qi and yang qi or “Shiva and Shakti”, I think a couple of people, specifically Jesus and the founder of neidan, got to this point, and gained real powers. Personally speaking I don’t think the Buddha got to any real point, I think he came to an intellectual conclusion that was still mind based… just putting it out there ya know 🙃

 

"Who sees all beings in his own self, and his own self in all beings, loses all fear". Isa Upanishad, Hindu Scripture

 

This is the power of the Self which is not owned by any particular being and which is greater than any particular being...

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by old3bob

[Daniel]

On 11/10/2023 at 8:06 AM, Daniel said:

If so, this would explain the desire to extend "non-dual" into literal as opposed to metaphor by western adherents?    

 

On 11/10/2023 at 9:17 AM, Apech said:

No ... goodness no!  the chain is a metaphor not the non-duality.  Deary me.

 

I understand the chain is a metaphor.  It's not literally a chain.  That's why the non-dual conclusion would be metaphorical.

 

If the conclusion follows from the premises, a metaphorical premises produce a metaphorical conclusion.  Literal premises produce a literal conclusion.  Metaphorical presmises do not produce a literal conclusion.

 

Example:  A literal savior produces literal salvation.  A metaphorical savior produces metaphorical salvation.  A metaphorical savior does not produce literal salvation.  The literal salvation would be coming from something / someone else.

 

Even if the chain metaphor was valid, it would still not produce a conclusion of literal non-duality.

 

---

 

Question:  what is literal non-duality which is not monism?

[Daniel]

A question for everyone:

 

When the term "non-dual" is used in a buddhist context, is it:

 

Non-dual reality?

Non-dual awareness?

Non-dual action?

 

All three?

None of the above?

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

---

 

Question:  what is literal non-duality which is not monism?

 

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.

 

 

[stirling]

5 hours ago, 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).

 

Nagarjuna says of his earth-shattering and rigorous Madhyamaka that it was STILL, just like all teachings of the Buddha, a scaffolding - a conceptual structure to pin a non-conceptual understanding of reality on. It is as hard an understanding to talk about (ineffable definitely covers it) as it is a relatively simple thing to understand experientially. If it is understood experientially by a teacher it can at least be demonstrated to most students, if only as a glimpse initially. 

 

A "monism" is a conceptual designation like any other and therefore can never adequately describe what is being pointed to here. Describing "why" would just be getting further tangled in other conceptual constructs that are also inadequate. Conceptual ideas, like scientific models, cannot adequately encapsulate real-world systems because to do so would require ALL variables, not just a narrow set. Creating relatively simple and repeatable experiments is often possible, but NO model is the real thing. The effect of the experimenter on an experiment alone shades the result. This is the genius of "dependent origination", another scaffolding: Nothing arises that is not dependent on something else for its existence. Because of this, ultimately nothing exists as an independent entity. As a scientist might style it:

 

Quote

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan

 

-

 

Quote

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.

 

Nicely said. This is the natural consequence of the the subject/object relationship being a delusion - we ALSO lose the past/future and here/there. When you remember your vacation from last year, the thoughts about it, and the picture in your mind of the beach you sat on all arise HERE and NOW. The conceptual dualities that enable your story of a vacation all arise in a non-dual fashion. You can only experience the past or future, or other places as thoughts now. Ultimately all dualities are resolved and dissolved, seen as the delusions they always were, and there is liberation. 

 

Quote

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.

 

Yes. Surprisingly, that looks just like where you are right now. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by stirling
sp

[Daniel]

 

Quote

it is a relatively simple thing to understand experientially. If it is understood experientially by a teacher it can at least be demonstrated to most students, if only as a glimpse initially... 

 

The effect of the experimenter on an experiment alone shades the result.

 

Buzzzzzzz!   That's another contradiction.

 

One side of the mouth is saying, "it's easy if you experience it."  The other side of the mouth is saying, "The experiencer shades the experience."

 

But of course, the guru is assuming their own perfection while projecting imperfection and failure on all others. 

 

T-Y-P-I-C-A-L.  

 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

Conceptual ideas, like scientific models, cannot adequately encapsulate real-world systems because to do so would require ALL variables, not just a narrow set.

 

This is false.  Proper understanding does not require encapsulating.  Proper understanding filters out variables which are irrelevant.  All variables are not required.

 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

we ALSO lose the past/future and here/there

 

Correct.  It is a loss.  Losing the past, losing the future, losing here, losing there.  Denying all of it except oneself.  Placing oneself at the center of the universe and denying any other beyond the layers of flesh and blood between the ears and behind the eyes.

 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

Ultimately all dualities are resolved and dissolved, seen as the delusions they always were, and there is liberation. 

 

Buzzzzzzz.  Here's another contradiction.  Resolution ( resolved ) is in contradiction with dissolution ( dissolved ).  If the duality is a delusion, then, the duality is only, always, and forever, being dissolved in non-duality.  When duality is being resolved from non-duality, then the duality is being revealed.  If duality are resolved and dissolved simultaneously, then the duality is not a delusion.  Instead duality-and-non-duality are a partnership.  The partnership is singular composed of a duo.  Technically it is a partnering, a pairing, which is ongoing, present-progressive.

 

Dissolve grains of salt ( duality ) into water ( non-duality ).  It's an illusion that the grains of salt ( duality ) have dissappeared.  That is only how it appears from a distance.  Zoom in on the water ( non-duality ) , and the salt ( duality ) is still there.  Drink only salt-water, guess what happens?  Death.  That's because ... drumroll ... it has salt ( duality ) dissolved in it.  The salt ( duality ) is not a delusion.  Denying the salt ( duality ) is the delusion.  Leave the water ( non-duality ) to evaporate, guess what is revealed / resolved?  The grains of salt ( duality ) were there all the time.

 

Some may be asking, "what's wrong with denying the duality in favor of non-duality?  Isn't it liberating?"  Several things.  Primarily it encouages a denial and detachment from moral distinctions in the form of "there is no good and evil".  That has already been presented in this thread to a small degree. 

 

2 hours ago, stirling said:

Nothing arises that is not dependent on something else for its existence. Because of this, ultimately noting exists as an independent entity.

 

Buzzzzzzzzzzz.  This is another contradiction.  If nothing arises that is independent then neither the past nor the future are delusions. 

 

The past and the future have inherent reality BECAUSE "nothing arises that is not dependent on something else".

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Daniel

[Cobie]

 

21 hours ago, Daniel said:

A question for everyone:

 

When the term "non-dual" is used in a buddhist context, is it:

 

Non-dual reality?

Non-dual awareness?

Non-dual action?

 

All three?

None of the above?

 

A TDB search of “non-dual” gives me 130 pages. Looking randomly at some of the posts, gave me the impression there are lots of different definitions being used.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Mark Foote]

21 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Interestingly, I have believed for a few years that the two side channels equate to feeling (Ida Nadi) and mental perception (Pingala Nadi), and bringing them back to healthy activity ends my primary identification with them as consciousness moves to the central channel. From my perspective they don’t cease, but they start to function together in a way that doesn’t need my primary attention, they become semi-autonomous if you will, but their information still feeds into the overall system. Different to Gautama’s conclusion but interestingly referring to the two same systems of feeling and perception. 

 

That's very interesting, to me.  When you say, "different to Gautama's conclusion", I wonder if you are referring to his conclusions about suffering?

For me, when I sit there's effort involved, to realize "the degree of “self-surrender” required to allow necessity to place attention, and the presence of mind required to “lay hold” as the placement of attention shifts".  The ability to realize "one-pointedness" doesn't preclude the experience of the kinesthesiology around support for the structure of the spine--more like it begins meaningful experience of the kinesthesiology.  

The fourth concentration, in which "purity of mind" suffuses the body (translation:  necessity can place one-pointed attention freely, anywhere in the body), Gautama said was marked by a feeling like a cloth that wraps the entire head, and even the entire body.  I believe that's an evenness of sensation in the dermatomes, as a result of an openness in the nerve exits between vertebrae along the spine and along the sacrum.  The openness follows the engagement of a particular mechanism of support for the spine, and the four initial "trances" are stages in the coordination of the muscles and ligaments that lead to that support.

I sit with a rhythm in the relaxation of agonist/antagonist muscle groups, with a rhythm in the calm extended to the stretch of ligaments (ligaments that control the reciprocal innervation of paired muscle groups), with a rhythm in detachment with regard to thought, and with a rhythm in the cessation of activity in inhalation and exhalation through the experience of activity out of the placement of attention.

 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Buzzzzzzz!   That's another contradiction.

 

One side of the mouth is saying, "it's easy if you experience it."  The other side of the mouth is saying, "The experiencer shades the experience."

 

But of course, the guru is assuming their own perfection while projecting imperfection and failure on all others. 

 

T-Y-P-I-C-A-L.  

 

 

This is false.  Proper understanding does not require encapsulating.  Proper understanding filters out variables which are irrelevant.  All variables are not required.

 

 

Correct.  It is a loss.  Losing the past, losing the future, losing here, losing there.  Denying all of it except oneself.  Placing oneself at the center of the universe and denying any other beyond the layers of flesh and blood between the ears and behind the eyes.

 

 

Buzzzzzzz.  Here's another contradiction.  Resolution ( resolved ) is in contradiction with dissolution ( dissolved ).  If the duality is a delusion, then, the duality is only, always, and forever, being dissolved in non-duality.  When duality is being resolved from non-duality, then the duality is being revealed.  If duality are resolved and dissolved simultaneously, then the duality is not a delusion.  Instead duality-and-non-duality are a partnership.  The partnership is singular composed of a duo.  Technically it is a partnering, a pairing, which is ongoing, present-progressive.

 

Dissolve grains of salt ( duality ) into water ( non-duality ).  It's an illusion that the grains of salt ( duality ) have dissappeared.  That is only how it appears from a distance.  Zoom in on the water ( non-duality ) , and the salt ( duality ) is still there.  Drink only salt-water, guess what happens?  Death.  That's because ... drumroll ... it has salt ( duality ) dissolved in it.  The salt ( duality ) is not a delusion.  Denying the salt ( duality ) is the delusion.  Leave the water ( non-duality ) to evaporate, guess what is revealed / resolved?  The grains of salt ( duality ) were there all the time.

 

Some may be asking, "what's wrong with denying the duality in favor of non-duality?  Isn't it liberating?"  Several things.  Primarily it encouages a denial and detachment from moral distinctions in the form of "there is no good and evil".  That has already been presented in this thread to a small degree. 

 

 

Buzzzzzzzzzzz.  This is another contradiction.  If nothing arises that is independent then neither the past nor the future are delusions. 

 

The past and the future have inherent reality BECAUSE "nothing arises that is not dependent on something else".

 

 

Bold underlines, different colours, brackets, CAPITALS, rhetorical questions and ...

 

More emphasis less convincing.

 

This is a conversation not a contest.

 

 

 

[Cobie]

 

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Bold underlines, different colours, brackets, CAPITALS, rhetorical questions and ...

 

More emphasis less convincing.

 

This is a conversation not a contest.

Seems to me you have resorted to a ‘red herring’.

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

Seems to me you have resorted to a ‘red herring’.

 

 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

Question:  what is literal non-duality which is not monism?

 

11 hours ago, 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).

If it is ineffable, then, calling it literally non-dual is literally incorrect.  Even calling it simultaneously both dual-and-non-dual is incorrect.  Itt sounds as if the words "literal non-duality" have no meaning at all if they are being used in place of "ineffable".

I think possibly the most important statement that has been made in this thread, and perhaps can ever be made about this topic is what ends the quote above:

"he was persuaded to teach ... by pointing out to people that their lives were unsatisfactory and that there was something you can do about it"

"pointing out to people that their lives were unsatisfactory"  <---- projecting failure on others ...

This is very important because this explains the projection of failure on anyone who is not in the buddhist "club".  

 

11 hours ago, Apech said:

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

 

It does.  Thank you.  I did some writing outside the forum to organize my own thoughts on this.  My goal was to solve the contradiction myself using my own methods and talents while temporarily setting aside my own biases.  In other words, I set aside my opposition ( which is contrasted with denial ) in order to sincerely try to solve the problem.  In doing so, what I developed is in large part matching what you wrote.  Also, in a fun bit of irony, it matches what Stirling wrote too.  The ideal "solution" to the contradiction is using a model of dissolving "duality" into "non-duality" just like a salt-water "solution".  

 

From this, it can be stated without contradiction that there is a "non-dual" awareness which is acheiveable and superior to a "dualistic" awareness, because the non-dual is including the inherent dualism ( or more accuratley, multiplicity ).  All of the benefits that come from buddhism seem to be retained by speaking of non-duality in terms of awareness and nothing seems to be lost.  I'm curious if you agree with this.  Is there anything lost by speaking about non-duality in terms of awareness?  Maybe it's helpful to consider the two-truths doctrine, since that's what prompted this thread.  For the two-truths, could the cup's simultaneous reality and non-reality be considered a non-dual awareness?    
 

12 hours ago, Apech said:

Buddhists would define the non-dual reality as the mind of the Buddha

 

Same question as above.  Is there anything missing from the benefiits coming from buddhist practice, or are there any contradictions or conflicts in buddist teaching is the word "reality" in the above quote is replaced by awareness?

 

? "Buddhists would define the non-dual awareness as the mind of the Buddha" ?

 

Does that ^^ work?  Are there any problems with that statement from a buddhist perspective?  If Buddha is not teaching ontology ( did I understand that correctly? ) then, where is this assertion about reality coming from? 

 

"Reality is the mind of Buddha?"   <--- this is a truly bizarre assertion.  I'll skip that for now.

 

12 hours ago, Apech said:

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.

  

Agreed.  And this is precisely where I ended my own contemplation on a non-dual awareness.  I used the terms dissolution and resolution which are happening simultaneously.  You're using the word co-emergence to describe this simultaneous phenomena which is interdependent.

 

But if this is extended into a descriptorr of reality, it cannot be non-dual.  Similar to the chain metaphor, what happens if either Purusha or the Prakriti are removed?  Reality ceases to exist.  This guarantees that both Purusha and Prakriti are significant individually.  This is confirmed by considering reality where there is only Purusha or only Prakriti.  It would be a very different reality from the reality where they are both co-emerging.  Because of this, reality MUST be dual.

 

And this resolves the contradiction.  Non-dual awareness is consistent and logical, non-dual reality is not.  This naturally requires the cabability to distinguish between one's own awareness and reality which is exceeding beyond it. 

 

What do you think? 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Bold underlines, different colours, brackets, CAPITALS, rhetorical questions and ...

 

More emphasis less convincing.

 

This is a conversation not a contest.

 

That's a silly criticism.  You didn't like the formatting?  Brackets?  So what?  The content was correct.  The post I was replying to is an excellent example of the sorts of contradictions that abundant in the context of "non-duality".

 

What strikes me is the claim non-duality cannot be discussed by anyone simply because THEY are not able to discuss it intellectually.  This is a great example of projecting failure on others.     

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

Seems to me you have resorted to a ‘red herring’.

 

A red herring is a distraction from the topic being discussed.  Stirling's post was repeated contradictions.  Pointing out those contradictions is on topic, not a distraction.

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Bold underlines, different colours, brackets, CAPITALS, rhetorical questions and ...

 

More emphasis less convincing.

 

This is a conversation not a contest.

 

 

 

 

WELL  ...   [!!! ]  This is what ^happens when {you }   debate  (  with  )  Daniel   

[Nungali]

However Drew Hemple was  a master at it  ! 

 

An all red background with green text , or various colored highlight under a various colored script ... I think he even imported off site software to be able to do  that   

 

but still , he complained that I had some type of super computer than was able to find answers and reference to things way quicker than he could respond  by looking up stuff on the internet   .

 

In a way ... he was right  :

 

Spoiler

Its called a mind / brain interface  ... I still use mine to store info , instead of the internet .

 

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

A TDB search of “non-dual” gives me 130 pages.

 

 

 

...  and it should have only been one page !

[Nungali]

34 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

A red herring is a distraction from the topic being discussed.  Stirling's post was repeated contradictions.  Pointing out those contradictions is on topic, not a distraction.

 

Wow .

 

Since Daniel started 'going off' he remoined me exactly of a poster from another forum . 

 

he never got a joke either , and responded seriously, correcting the person , and toatlly missing the contextual pre conversation that lead to the joke in the first place .

 

But at least Apech , you now  know what a 'red herring ' in conversation is      

 

( and that was sarcasm ) 

[S:C]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

cannot be discussed by anyone simply because THEY are not able to discuss it [intellectually]

This reminded me of artists sayings that they have to step aside to let the artwork perform itself or explain itself. [I am not denying, it is hard to grasp with conventional two fold Aristotelian logic. However am not educated enough to express words or sentences in any other way.]
It does maybe have a connection to the metaphor of the ‚little man inside the brain‘, you and kakapo were discussing. 
The difficulty happens because what we are talking about is very close to the baseline of perception and formation of concepts - in my opinion. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by S:C

[Apech]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

That's a silly criticism.  You didn't like the formatting?  Brackets?  So what?  The content was correct.  The post I was replying to is an excellent example of the sorts of contradictions that abundant in the context of "non-duality".

 

What strikes me is the claim non-duality cannot be discussed by anyone simply because THEY are not able to discuss it intellectually.  This is a great example of projecting failure on others.     

 

Yes I was being silly.  Sorry if I caused offence but I have a silly sense of humour.

[Apech]

14 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

If it is ineffable, then, calling it literally non-dual is literally incorrect.  Even calling it simultaneously both dual-and-non-dual is incorrect.  Itt sounds as if the words "literal non-duality" have no meaning at all if they are being used in place of "ineffable".
 

 

Very often where terminology breaks down or is insufficient things are expressed in the negative - i.e. not what they are but what they are not.  Its not that unusual as for instance in Christian Theology the nature of the Godhead is 'ineffable' or indeed 'unknowable' because the limits of human intellect are acknowledged.  

 

Quote

 

 

I think possibly the most important statement that has been made in this thread, and perhaps can ever be made about this topic is what ends the quote above:

"he was persuaded to teach ... by pointing out to people that their lives were unsatisfactory and that there was something you can do about it"

"pointing out to people that their lives were unsatisfactory"  <---- projecting failure on others ...

This is very important because this explains the projection of failure on anyone who is not in the buddhist "club".  

 

At that time of course there was no Buddhist club.  In fact even now I am not aware of any compulsion to be Buddhist or accept anything being placed on anyone.  So I don't understand why you think this is a projection of failure - as you put it.

 

I think you are probably aware that the first teachings of the Buddha are the Four Noble Truths and the first of these is 'suffering exists' - this is what I was referring to.  I was making the point that he did not start with an ontological solution to life - but simply suggested that his audience notice that the reason they were even listening or asking him to teach was that they were aware that there was something unsatisfactory about their present state.

 

Quote

 

It does.  Thank you.  I did some writing outside the forum to organize my own thoughts on this.  My goal was to solve the contradiction myself using my own methods and talents while temporarily setting aside my own biases.  In other words, I set aside my opposition ( which is contrasted with denial ) in order to sincerely try to solve the problem.  In doing so, what I developed is in large part matching what you wrote.  Also, in a fun bit of irony, it matches what Stirling wrote too.  The ideal "solution" to the contradiction is using a model of dissolving "duality" into "non-duality" just like a salt-water "solution".  

 

From this, it can be stated without contradiction that there is a "non-dual" awareness which is acheiveable and superior to a "dualistic" awareness, because the non-dual is including the inherent dualism ( or more accuratley, multiplicity ).  All of the benefits that come from buddhism seem to be retained by speaking of non-duality in terms of awareness and nothing seems to be lost.  I'm curious if you agree with this.  Is there anything lost by speaking about non-duality in terms of awareness?  Maybe it's helpful to consider the two-truths doctrine, since that's what prompted this thread.  For the two-truths, could the cup's simultaneous reality and non-reality be considered a non-dual awareness?    
 

 

I think so, yes.

 

 

Quote

 

Same question as above.  Is there anything missing from the benefiits coming from buddhist practice, or are there any contradictions or conflicts in buddist teaching is the word "reality" in the above quote is replaced by awareness?

 

? "Buddhists would define the non-dual awareness as the mind of the Buddha" ?

 

Does that ^^ work?  Are there any problems with that statement from a buddhist perspective?  If Buddha is not teaching ontology ( did I understand that correctly? ) then, where is this assertion about reality coming from? 

 

"Reality is the mind of Buddha?"   <--- this is a truly bizarre assertion.  I'll skip that for now.

 

'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?  

 

Quote

  

Agreed.  And this is precisely where I ended my own contemplation on a non-dual awareness.  I used the terms dissolution and resolution which are happening simultaneously.  You're using the word co-emergence to describe this simultaneous phenomena which is interdependent.

 

But if this is extended into a descriptorr of reality, it cannot be non-dual.  Similar to the chain metaphor, what happens if either Purusha or the Prakriti are removed?  Reality ceases to exist.  This guarantees that both Purusha and Prakriti are significant individually.  This is confirmed by considering reality where there is only Purusha or only Prakriti.  It would be a very different reality from the reality where they are both co-emerging.  Because of this, reality MUST be dual.

 

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'.

 

Quote

And this resolves the contradiction.  Non-dual awareness is consistent and logical, non-dual reality is not.  This naturally requires the cabability to distinguish between one's own awareness and reality which is exceeding beyond it. 

 

What do you think? 

 

What I think is I don't agree.  I think you have just abstracted 'awareness' as if it is somehow not real or an aspect of the real.  But then we haven't really established what is meant by real anyway.  

 

I think it is important not to allow these kinds of ideas to become abstruse speculation.  Although I acknowledge that my own limitations may be a problem.  I know that I don't know at least.

Edited November 13, 2023 by Apech

[Mark Foote]

23 hours ago, Daniel said:

All of the benefits that come from buddhism seem to be retained by speaking of non-duality in terms of awareness and nothing seems to be lost.  I'm curious if you agree with this.  Is there anything lost by speaking about non-duality in terms of awareness?  Maybe it's helpful to consider the two-truths doctrine, since that's what prompted this thread. 
 

I blame the cat, who ever seeks my attention.

Writing in response to S:C on the "interpretational inconsistencies" thread (Buddhist Discussion), I put together something that I think is relevant here:

 

That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.

Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.
 

But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.
 

(SN II 65, Pali Text Society SN Vol II pg 45, emphasis added)

 

“Birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair”—in some of his lectures, Gautama summarized “this entire mass of ill” by saying “in short, the five groups of grasping”.  Grasping after a sense of self in connection with phenomena of form, feeling, mind, habitual tendency, or mental state is identically suffering, according to Gautama.

 

(Response to "Not the Wind, Not the Flag")

Not many will have the "lack of desire" necessary to attain the cessation of "doing something" in feeling and perceiving, the cessation that gave rise to Gautama's insight into the chain of causation (as above).  Somewhat more likely is the lack of desire necessary to attain the cessation of "doing something" in the body, the experience of activity by virtue of the free placement of attention in the movement of breath --"just sitting".

There's the mundane right view “that has cankers, that is on the side of merit, that ripens unto cleaving (to new birth)”.  That one is stained with intention.  Then there's the right view which is “[noble], supermundane, cankerless and a component of the way”.  That one is seeing things as they really are.

 

 

The lens of intention is dual:  the view colored by intention, or will, or deliberation, has cankers, is on the side of merit or demerit (good & evil), and ripens unto cleaving.  Seeing things as they really are is nondual.  Awareness, yes, but awareness sans "determinate thought" in feeling and perceiving.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Mark Foote