Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[old3bob]

so who in the heck is going to explain real unreality to us?  (in six pages or less ;-)

 

 

[dawn90]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

Forgetting the self is simply allowing the illusion of being a self to drop out. What takes practice is simply learning how to stop stoking the fire of iterative thoughts that feed the delusion of being a being with separateness.

 

This you want to get unlimited compassion for others I presume.

Edited June 3, 2022 by dawn90

[Lairg]

I am not sure unlimited compassion is wise.  Perhaps there are other qualities of divinity that are needed to balance compassion

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

Just curious, you say forgetting the self, do you have any perspective regarding the ‘higher Self’?

 

"Self" (as opposed to "self") is the same as "no self".

 

Absolute reality is a unity. That unity is the entirety of "Self", and so naturally empty of "self". It is even empty of the conceptual idea of emptiness. All apparent objects (including people) lack any existence of their own (intrinsic existence).

 

All appearances in consciousness ARE the "Self". Do not mistake the "Self" for any kind of thinking, planning, deciding entity. It is merely present, unmanifest, timeless and space-less and what "we" really always have been. "We" have never been something separate from it. The illusion of ourselves as separate beings surrounded by separate objects manifesting our will in the world is a mistaken interpretation of how things are. 

[dawn90]

Something non-dualists consistently say is that it doesn't matter what's right and wrong but what matters is if something is "best."

In other words is if what's best is not what's right then wrong is the preferable option out of the two not that that would be defined that way; I'm not in favor of that at all - even if it were possible.

What's good should be the gold standard and one should do anything to align what's best with what's right. Just in my opinion.

[Lairg]

2 minutes ago, stirling said:

The illusion of ourselves as separate beings surrounded by separate objects manifesting our will in the world is a mistaken interpretation of how things are. 

 

So if we are not functional, are we decorative?

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Lairg said:

The point of my question is that the spiritual scientist is necessarily dualistic in order to test whether a construct/action/entity is closer to the Real or to the Unreal

 

So does the practice of spiritual science prevent awareness merging into the Oneness of All?

 

The spiritual scientist, tests, constructs, actions, entities all only exist in your imagination. This is the absolute reality. 

 

https://www.lionsroar.com/what-are-the-two-truths/

 

Quote

So does the practice of spiritual science prevent awareness merging into the Oneness of All?

 

Reality is obscured by the belief in a separate self that has agency. Every time we believe our thoughts and conceptual frameworks are real we are deluding ourselves. Oneness is always what everything is. Noticing your misperception is all that is needed. Resting the mind in open awareness meditation is the SAME as enlightenment, but lacking the realization.

[steve]

3 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Whenever I suggest nondual perspective is a choice you react. Manitou can say she has to remember to dive down through the conditioning, which implies making a choice, but you are very defensive when I suggest you are making the same choice. 

 

It’s interesting you say that, I really don’t feel or recall being reactive towards discussion of choice. Feel free to point out an example. I make choices all the time. I also get wrapped up in duality all the time.  At any given moment I might be in a story or more directly connected to NOW, choicelss awareness for Krishnamurti. For sure there is one often present that may choose to practice or choose to indulge in a duel. And I find myself dueling unintentionally all the time.

 

And there is always the knowing that I am not that…. It is like a beacon and a doorway to NOW.

 

Quote

In the words of a nondualsplainer:

 

Pointers are useful, but they become a hindrance when we fixate on them and turn them into fundamentalist dogmas.  It’s easy to see this tendency when it shows up “out there” in fundamentalist Christianity or fundamentalist Islam, but it’s harder to see it in ourselves.  We think we’re beyond all that.  But I see this dogmatic fixation and fundamentalism happening all the time in the nondual subculture.  We fixate, for example, on the notion that there is no choice, that everything is a choiceless happening, that there is no individual chooser.  This is a very liberating discovery, a profound insight. But it’s only a partial truth—reality itself can’t be boxed up that way.  And if we fixate on that as the whole truth, then if anyone dares to speak of “choosing” in any way whatsoever, we instantly pounce.  Wrong!  We tell them. We don’t listen anymore to what the person is actually saying.  Our mind has already been made up.  We’ve landed. We’re stuck on one side of an imaginary divide, identified with a particular formulation, ready to defend it to the death.  I’ve certainly seen this tendency in myself at times—it’s quite human.  It’s how the mind habitually works. ~ Joan Tollifson

 

She offers good advice. I’ve worked and continue to work through any number of attachments to mundane things, to meditative experiences, to practice itself, to the practitioner and his various hopes and fears, to gurus, to so many me’s with so many needs… 

 

I will say this, if (un)done precisely nondual practice is as attachment free as a practice can be as it is an active process of recognizing grasping and opening and releasing into NOW. In doing so we are actively releasing the one who grasps, turning back the light, cutting the root. Eventually we can release even the effort of releasing. Of course there is always the possibility of deviation and error in our practice and that’s the refining and deepening process. But if done properly one is not grasping at nonduality/union. That’s a fundamental flaw in understanding and practice. It’s the opposite of that. That’s an important point. If you disregard that point we are not discussing the same thing. 

 

If I am reacting to something I think it’s more to the assertion that practicing a nondual path is simply grasping at something different than the dualistic paths. It can be like that but then it is duality, a projection of mind, error in the view, meditation, and conduct. 

 

Nonduality/union is not that… it is a different view to be found through practice or grace. And you know the view is correct when all stages are there spontaneously - view, meditation, fruition, and conduct, no separation, all is spontaneously perfected! (in dzogchen language) But you can only know it through practice and personal discovery, never through thought and concept.

 

[stirling]

14 minutes ago, dawn90 said:

This you want to get unlimited compassion for others I presume.

 

What others? The act of writing it IS compassion. 

 

[stirling]

11 minutes ago, Lairg said:

I am not sure unlimited compassion is wise.  Perhaps there are other qualities of divinity that are needed to balance compassion

 

What is your definition of compassion? 

[stirling]

17 minutes ago, Lairg said:

So if we are not functional, are we decorative?

 

Niether. As relative beings we are always where we should be doing what we should be doing, once we can see our absolute nature. As the absolute, we "are" this happening now. 

 

So many posts. I'm going to step back for a bit. Sorry - this is my favorite topic.

Edited June 3, 2022 by stirling

[dwai]

12 minutes ago, Lairg said:

 

So if we are not functional, are we decorative?

Neither. We are awareness itself. These body-minds are names and forms appearing and disappearing in Is-ness. 

[Lairg]

45 minutes ago, stirling said:

What is your definition of compassion? 

 

Definition seems to me to be an excessively limiting mental process.  For example, what is the nature of love in the mineral kingdom?  Does it conform to human-centric concepts of love.

 

The essence of compassion as reflected in humans may be in a softness and openness of the heart energies

 

Of course if Existence is real and has purpose, then perhaps the human may also contribute to the outworking of that Intent.  

 

As it seems this is the second manifestation of our Solar Logos, the current solar system is being used to extend the experience of that Logos in the development of right relationship.   In which case, compassion would need to be accompanied by learning and boundary processes

[Mark Foote]

Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

Billy Preston

 

I've got a mind that wants to make sense, like crazy.  Aren't we having fun (thanks, stirling for the appreciation).

 

If I'm suffering, then I think Gautama the Shakyan was right, my suffering is a consequence of what I will, what I intend to do, or of my deliberation.  The will or intention leads to a sticking of consciousness, to a stationing of consciousness, and to a grasping after agency with respect to body, feelings, mind, habitual tendencies, or consciousness.

The cessation of will, of intention, of deliberation is the cessation of grasping, of the suffering associated with grasping after agency.

 

The path can be "... to learn who uses the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body and moves the hands and feet."  Maybe include who uses the mind.  Might be clearer just to speak in terms of consciousness arising from contact between sense organ and sense object, impact based on contact, and feeling, as Gautama does in one of his explanations of the eight-fold path, but I have a hard time arriving at that.

I tend to focus on unstationed consciousness as placed by the senses (and what lies beyond the senses) in the movement of breath.  
 

If you do any seated or even standing meditation in the morning, you may see why I’m referring to the practice as “waking up and falling asleep”. In waking up, I am looking to relinquish my activity, and allow the place of mind to generate activity out of the stretch I find myself in. I have a description of the translations of motion in the lotus, yet in the end I am convinced that everything I need to know I learn by being where I am, as I am. I just have to be open to it.

(my response to humbleone here on Dao Bums, a long time ago)
 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Mark Foote

[Bindi]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

"Self" (as opposed to "self") is the same as "no self".

 

Absolute reality is a unity. That unity is the entirety of "Self", and so naturally empty of "self". It is even empty of the conceptual idea of emptiness. All apparent objects (including people) lack any existence of their own (intrinsic existence).

 

All appearances in consciousness ARE the "Self". Do not mistake the "Self" for any kind of thinking, planning, deciding entity. It is merely present, unmanifest, timeless and space-less and what "we" really always have been. "We" have never been something separate from it. The illusion of ourselves as separate beings surrounded by separate objects manifesting our will in the world is a mistaken interpretation of how things are. 

 

Quote

 

A fundamental difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is that Hinduism believes in an eternal soul whereas Buddhism does not believe in it. Buddhism regards the Self in the being as transient and identifies it as the not-Self or Anatma (Anatta). The Buddhist Anatma is an aggregate of parts, not an indivisible whole. It becomes dissolved into an indefinable state upon Nirvana.

 

Jainism believes that souls (atmas) are distinguishable by their form as well as size and possess materiality. Some souls are extremely minute and may live in clusters while some, which reside in large animals such as elephants are much larger. The bound souls are subject to transmigration but the liberated souls are all knowing and reside in the highest realm of the universe.

In Hinduism, atma means that which breathes. In the early Vedic literature, Atma was identified with breath (prana). Since breath is vital to the continuation of life in the body and the functioning of other organs, it is considered the lord of the body. In the subsequent literature, the Self is identified as the lord (Isvara) and breath as a deity (Vayu).

 

According to Hinduism and its various schools such as Samkhya and Yoga each being possesses a Self (Atma) and a not-Self (Anatma). The Self remains hidden in the body (the not-Self), which is made up of the finite realities (tattvas) of Nature such as the senses, the mind, the ego, etc., and may contain both gross and subtle bodies or only subtle bodies.

 

The Upanishads describe the Self as lord who lives inside the city of nine or eleven gates or openings. The Yogasutras (2.5) declares that in the state of ignorance (avidya) one perceives the transient, impure and painful not-self as the eternal, pure, joyful Self. Attachment to not-self and identification with it lead to bondage and suffering.

 

The body exists for the enjoyment of the Self. The individual Self is a replica of the Cosmic Self or Purusha. Hence it also goes by the name Purusha (the Universal Male). 

 

According to Saivism in the phenomenal world called Samsara, the individual Self is subject to the impurities of egoism (anava), delusion (moha) and attachments (pasas).

 

The Upanishads abound in the descriptions of Self. A closer study reveals that the concept of Self in the Upanishads emerged overtime through different phases of understanding from that of a breathing self to an eternal Self.

 

The Hindu concept of Self is different from the Judea Christian concept of soul. The Christian soul is subtle, but it has qualities and even a name and form. They are identifiable by their individual personalities at least until the Judgment Day. 

In Hinduism, the Self in its boundless state is pure, eternal and without qualities, beingness or individuality. In the pure state as the liberated soul, it is indistinguishable from other Selves. However, in the embodied state or in the bound state it has both gross and subtle bodies, and like the Christian soul is identifiable.

 

According to Advaita, the individual soul is an illusion. It is the same Self which appears in the body as an embodied Self, but upon liberation it disappears into the universal Self just as the waves subside into the ocean.

 

 

So many different beliefs about the Self, is yours one of the prescribed beliefs above? Or did you come to your belief independently? 

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, steve said:

 

It’s interesting you say that, I really don’t feel or recall being reactive towards discussion of choice. Feel free to point out an example. I make choices all the time. I also get wrapped up in duality all the time.  At any given moment I might be in a story or more directly connected to NOW, choicelss awareness for Krishnamurti. For sure there is one often present that may choose to practice or choose to indulge in a duel. And I find myself dueling unintentionally all the time.

 

And there is always the knowing that I am not that…. It is like a beacon and a doorway to NOW.

 

 

She offers good advice. I’ve worked and continue to work through any number of attachments to mundane things, to meditative experiences, to practice itself, to the practitioner and his various hopes and fears, to gurus, to so many me’s with so many needs… 

 

I will say this, if (un)done precisely nondual practice is as attachment free as a practice can be as it is an active process of recognizing grasping and opening and releasing into NOW. In doing so we are actively releasing the one who grasps, turning back the light, cutting the root. Eventually we can release even the effort of releasing. Of course there is always the possibility of deviation and error in our practice and that’s the refining and deepening process. But if done properly one is not grasping at nonduality/union.
 

 

I do understand what you’re saying to an extent, my approach is also to untangle from as opposed to build up, but in my process this inevitably clears subtle channels which inevitably leads to an increasingly functioning subtle energy body. I suspect my sense of I will transfer completely to my subtle energy body at some point, I don’t expect it to disappear, though I don’t know this of course, I am merely making an educated guess. I do wonder if nondualists are attempting to destroy ego without having an alternative vessel prepared for ego. Nondual theory will shoot down that idea of course, but it might be true. 
 

edit to add: I am agreeing that we need to disidentify from the body and mind etc, but it is likely going too far to 

disidentify from the subtle energy body as well, especially when that subtle body is not fully functioning first. That would be like disidentifying from the emotional or mental aspects before they are healthy, ie. spiritual bypassing, probably one of the greatest potential errors of nondual practices. 
 

Quote

That’s a fundamental flaw in understanding and practice. It’s the opposite of that. That’s an important point. If you disregard that point we are not discussing the same thing. 

 

If I am reacting to something I think it’s more to the assertion that practicing a nondual path is simply grasping at something different than the dualistic paths. 

 

Yes I probably am asserting that, I have said you have a preference for nonduality, and that one can choose nondual methods and ways of perceiving, this is what you react to. 

 

Quote

 

It can be like that but then it is duality, a projection of mind, error in the view, meditation, and conduct. 

 

Nonduality/union is not that… it is a different view to be found through practice or grace. And you know the view is correct when all stages are there spontaneously - view, meditation, fruition, and conduct, no separation, all is spontaneously perfected! (in dzogchen language) But you can only know it through practice and personal discovery, never through thought and concept.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Bindi

[old3bob]

 

 

[steve]

6 hours ago, Bindi said:

I have said you have a preference for nonduality, and that one can choose nondual methods and ways of perceiving, this is what you react to.

 

 

 

[dwai]

13 hours ago, Bindi said:

The "me" wanting to practice non-duality is the very illusion that non-dual philosophy is geared toward dismantling. ~ Some random nondualist. 
 

 

Non-duality cannot be practiced. It has to be realized. Practices are always dualistic. Even those that seem non-dualistic. 

 

[dawn90]

 

Are you still failing your first jump?

 

If so. I think you might have to call yourself a dualist. 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by dawn90

[mrpasserby]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

I do understand what you’re saying to an extent, my approach is also to untangle from as opposed to build up, but in my process this inevitably clears subtle channels which inevitably leads to an increasingly functioning subtle energy body. I suspect my sense of I will transfer completely to my subtle energy body at some point, I don’t expect it to disappear, though I don’t know this of course, I am merely making an educated guess. I do wonder if nondualists are attempting to destroy ego without having an alternative vessel prepared for ego. Nondual theory will shoot down that idea of course, but it might be true.

This is what I have wanted to say for a very long time. Many Thanks.

Edited June 3, 2022 by mrpasserby

[stirling]

 

9 hours ago, Bindi said:

A fundamental difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is that Hinduism believes in an eternal soul whereas Buddhism does not believe in it. Buddhism regards the Self in the being as transient and identifies it as the not-Self or Anatma (Anatta). The Buddhist Anatma is an aggregate of parts, not an indivisible whole. It becomes dissolved into an indefinable state upon Nirvana.

 

"self" in Buddhism is a delusion caused by the misapprehension and misappelation of phenomena.

 

No-self is "Anatta" in Buddhism. The source of all arising phenomena is the dharmakaya; it is where all phenomena manifest, and is functionally the same as Atman.  It IS a wholeness (or emptiness of separate things), though it is often described as having 3 different facets (all of which are still ultimately STILL dharmakaya). This is much like SatChitAnanda or the Father Son and Holy Spirit. These facets are all ultimately a unity, but are described in these ways in order to make them more apprehensible.

 

Quote

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non-dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized. - Mandukya Upanishad

 

In the Upanishads the soul is ultimately just Atman, and therefore non-dual. Wherever you see "Self" or "not-self" in most of these scriptures you are looking at the non-dual. If there is non-duality, there is also the cessation of all self/other, here/there, and past/future... for a start. There aren't two sticks to rub together, or anyone to argue with about the paucity of sticks. Non-duality has MASSIVE implications that are far larger than a cursory glance might suggest. 

 

For the most part these traditions are all obviously non-dual to me. You'd need to read each of these individually yourself and know what you are looking for to understand what you are looking at. 

 

9 hours ago, Bindi said:

So many different beliefs about the Self, is yours one of the prescribed beliefs above? Or did you come to your belief independently? 

 

My understanding is not a belief, it is experiential. 

 

I am Soto Zen teacher, with many years of Dzogchen/Nyingma training as well, but also an enthusiast of Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, the Bhagavad Gita, and many other schools of thought and sources. I can talk about non-duality framed in any of those structures, but generally try to talk about it in what I believe is the simplest, plainest, non-denominational language.

 

All practices, cosmologies and systems have their strengths or weaknesses, but should ultimately only be viewed as the conceptual structures they are, NOT any kind of description of ultimately reality. What we are talking about here has no structure, and cannot be described adequately by language, or people would just read this material and suddenly "get" it. Attachments to traditions and practices is a common place to get stuck. 

 

Enlightenment itself doesn't belong to any tradition. 

[stirling]

13 hours ago, Lairg said:

Definition seems to me to be an excessively limiting mental process.  For example, what is the nature of love in the mineral kingdom?  Does it conform to human-centric concepts of love.

 

The essence of compassion as reflected in humans may be in a softness and openness of the heart energies

 

But too much compassion might be unwise? I don't think softness or openness to others can be a bad thing, but it might depend on how that manifests.

 

I'll give you my definition - a version of "Ultimate Bodhicitta" in my own words: 

 

Being present with and for the suffering of the world, and being in alignment with Wisdom, the understanding of the emptiness of all phenomena. This is essentially the same as Wu Wei - not being in resistance to things as they are, but allowing what happens in the moment to flow through "you". This is essentially the definition of the action of a Bodhisattva.

 

This would include a sort of softness or openness, but leaves out the idea that is our job to fix the world, or other people. There may be action that involves changing things in a way that seems to be of benefit, despite that.

 

Using this definition, I don't believe that there can be enough compassion. 

[dawn90]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

Non-duality cannot be practiced. It has to be realized. Practices are always dualistic. Even those that seem non-dualistic. 

 

That's just playing with words.

I'd love to see you attain non-dual realization in your non-dojo doing nothing. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by dawn90

[dawn90]

If you look at Christ's compassion.

His open arms don't result in a widening of morals. He puts you in. But in a way that results in a stronger allegiance to the one true god his father in no way does he have blind compassion. The compassion is in the sense, I take everybody.

The arms are wide but the road stays narrow: you open your arms but you care enough for people to make it and not be eternally sinful.

That's true love.