Daniel

It's the implications, Luke. Of course they're not kicking cats. None the less they are preaching a religion who's stated goal is to eliminate that cat from ever existing in the first place. It is insidious.

Is it or is it not trading in suffering in exchange for physical incarnation? Not true. That's a common misconception. Attachment likes all, including non-attachment. Attachment is inclusive. Non-attachement is exclusive.

Let's be clear, open, and honest, please. What you have written confirms that the goal of buddhism is the elimination of every"thing". Every tree, every bird, every river. Every dog, every cat, every cow. Every child, every parent, every song, every work of art. Goodbye. Buddhism values none of those things. The ideal in buddhism is the elimination of all of those "things". Why? Because they have the potential to cause suffering, and this potential is considered so much worse than the potential for joy that they produce. If incarnation is natural, then buddhism is absolutely unatural.

Don't confuse immaterial existence as lacking all suffering.

That pushes extinction to all of existence. Well done! <---- sarcasm The enemy is not human existence it is all incarnation. Nihilism at it's finest. <--- more sarcasm No more trees, no more birds, no more rivers, no more rocks. All of that goes away. The important thing is to realize the implications of what happens if the teachings of buddhism actually acheive their intended goal, and if everyone practices it. It's total annihilation. No more incarnations. I suppose if that's what some people want, that's fine. They can dissappear into oblivion and never suffer again.

OK. If that's true then birth is the enemy. No one should procreate, and the human race goes extinct. If birth is the enemy, then the goal of buddhism is extinction of the human race. I'm glad we cleared that up...

*sigh* nevermind

Let's start with the infant? Do you think the infant is mindful by default? It's an interesting idea, isn't it?

Ah! There it is! Yes, I just commented in another thread about the disttinction between pain and suffering. I look forward to reading your reply. Oh! There's the notification.

This is confusing to me. Another individual in a previous conversation elsewhere has convinced has me that pain is not suffering such that a woman in childbirth if she is mindful will not suffer while she is in pain. They told me that the clinging to the pain in that moment causes suffering, the clinging to the projected/expected continued pain causes the suffering, the clinging to the projected/expected life of the child and the fear of losing it causes suffering, etc... but the pain of childbirth is not necessarily suffering. If so I consider the infant as it is being born, and I am not sure if it suffering. I wonder if their brain has developed to the point of projection, expectation, and clinging beyond the immediate moment. Question: do you think infants are naturally mindful by default? If so, maybe they are not suffering?

My objections in this context are to misquoting, cherry picking, ignoring details in the original language of any text. Yes, but I would write it this way: If God is the creator and if God is absolutley-literally-infinite then God is present with everything (the universe/nature) and more. When discussing the "nature" of God there are 2 concepts which need to be considered simultaneously. 1) What is God? 2) What is God doing? Jewish monotheism describes God as absolutely-literally-infinite and as creator, the original "source". This describes what God is, and what God is doing at the most fundemental, foundational, perspective. The implications of these two, simultaneously, absolutely-literally-infinite and creator, produces the concept which is commonly referred to as "the God of Abraham". God is always and forever with Abraham, but, God is not Abraham and Abraham is not God. God is with Abraham, God is not in Abraham. Distinguishing between God and Abraham, seems obvious. Obviously God is not Abraham, and Abraham is not God. It is tempting to blur those distinctions for various reasons, and many consider enlightenment to be the realization there is no distinction. They consider the distinction to be an illusion, but this is easily proven false. Once it is proven false, if the premises hold, then God is simultaneously with its creation and beyond it, but God is neither IN the creation nor is God the creation itself. Sunlight is not the sun. The sun is not in sunlight. Sunlight is in the sun, in potential, and sunlight is emerging from it. The Sun is emanating sunlight. Therefore God is WITH everything if God is absolutely literally infinite, but, God is not IN everything, if God is creating.

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.

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.

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". 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? 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. 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?

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".

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?

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?

Thank you, that's a useful distinction.

Yes. At first it is uncomfortable, but it gets better. As @Taoist Texts wrote "things are just like a mirror". Keywords: "just like", meaning, identical in function to a mirror. Awareness of the mirror reveals an illusion. Understanding how the mirror works, is satisfying and useful. Technically, from my point of view, there are many cascading mirrors. Revealing one of them, the most proximal, tends to reveal them all in a domino effect which is "disillusionment". The diifficult thing, it seems, for many is confusing the mirror(s) itself as reality when it is a medium/media which is producing awareness of reality.

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

As soteriology, it explains a lot, doesn't it? Especially the appeal in the west for those who are coming from a Christian background. I wonder how many buddhists would object to this label?

Me too. Thank you @Apech.

It is a preference? Primacy is given, but there is no philosophical reason? You probably know how my brain works well enough to know that I would strongly object to this as non-dual. Yes, I'm familiar with this argument, but, from my point of view is is completely lacking merit. The links in the chain have inherent existence. If they did not, then extracting them would have no effect. The fact that the whole chain falls apart when any link is removed proves the inherent existence **and significance** of each and every link in the chain. If the links did not have significance they couuld be extracted and have no effect on the chain. All phenomena are links in a chain of causal connection. Therefore all phenomena is significant and has inherent reality. I really appreciate it. It sounds like there is a preference, a choice made, to erase the Prakriti / Purusha distinction, but there does not seem to be any good reason to do this unless I speculate on the underlying mechanism of the meditative practice which you seemed to rightfully discourage. I am not a meditator. I contemplate. I can only guess at what is happening there based on what I am reading of others experiences.

Sounds like denial to me...

So not simultaneity, more like auto-pilot? A robotic, thoughtless, autonomous reaction like blinking?