Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[C T]

As far as Mind goes, calm and clear are just as adventitious and impermanent as befuddled and stupor-prone. These are mental states, not to be confused with Mind. Whatever teachings one swears by, these are still nothing more than imprints on Mind.... chains of iron or chains of gold, one remains no less shackled. Be bold, be independent, depend on nothing and nobody for validation. 

[old3bob]

33 minutes ago, C T said:

As far as Mind goes, calm and clear are just as adventitious and impermanent as befuddled and stupor-prone. These are mental states, not to be confused with Mind. Whatever teachings one swears by, these are still nothing more than imprints on Mind.... chains of iron or chains of gold, one remains no less shackled. Be bold, be independent, depend on nothing and nobody for validation. 

 

and it would be a stretch for a Buddhist to boldly posit Brahman, but not a stretch to boldly deny same... 

"ce la vie"

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[steve]

34 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

"the non-dual nature of mind"  is not how Hindu teachings use the term mind,  so no matter how hard a correlation junkie may try to conflate such with teachings of the Upanishads such will never jive.  Granted mind can be calm and clear but it is still not and never will be Brahman which is beyond all categories that mind can be related with, including even the connection of pure light or prana which is Brahman's "first born" so to speak,  for mind is still a "thing" or a construct,  "the first and the last construct";   btw. I'd also say mind is not pointed to as "no-thing" in Taoism.       

 

If one were to compare descriptions of Brahman from Hindu teachings with descriptions of the Nature of Mind from dzogchen and mahamudra teachings, one would find the same adjectives and descriptions - unbounded, unborn, undying, indestructible, unimputable, beyond all categorization, etc... If one has a personal experience of the non-dual nature of being, both labels will be seen to be slightly different fingers pointing to the same moon. One doesn't have to be a "correlation junkie" to see connections between the deepest teachings of the various wisdom traditions. I anticipate you will disagree and that is fine too. Disagreement is what makes things interesting!

[old3bob]

8 minutes ago, steve said:

 

If one were to compare descriptions of Brahman from Hindu teachings with descriptions of the Nature of Mind from dzogchen and mahamudra teachings, one would find the same adjectives and descriptions - unbounded, unborn, undying, indestructible, unimputable, beyond all categorization, etc... If one has a personal experience of the non-dual nature of being, both labels will be seen to be slightly different fingers pointing to the same moon. One doesn't have to be a "correlation junkie" to see connections between the deepest teachings of the various wisdom traditions. I anticipate you will disagree and that is fine too. Disagreement is what makes things interesting!

 

so its interesting (or fascinating if you will) to me that the historic Buddha going by what you say would then also have to refute Buddhism,  which most Buddhists would never do...

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[steve]

28 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

so its interesting (or fascinating if you will) to me that the historic Buddha going by what you say would then also have to refute Buddhism,  which most Buddhists would never do...

 

There is a saying from Linji Yixuan, a 9th century Buddhist monk:

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

[manitou]

It also seems to me that the room of Certainty is where Ego reigns.

[manitou]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

so its interesting (or fascinating if you will) to me that the historic Buddha going by what you say would then also have to refute Buddhism,  which most Buddhists would never do...

 

 

Most Buddhists may not have yet transcended the dogma and found the commonality.  And, the commonality is present in Islam as well.  It's present in Hindi.  It's present in Christianity.  The Whirling Dervishes experience the commonality.  Daoists have it.  Scientologists even have it.  It's the very thing we're born with that propels us upward to look for it.  We merely look in the wrong places.

 

I'm fairly sure that Jesus too would have refuted Christianity - more specifically, the strange tendency to worship his person.   He was an enlightened one, that's all - as was Muhammed, as was Gautama, as was Lao Tzu.   This wasn't where they were going at all with their teachings.  Human nature seems to have a tendency to want to quote, and memorize the great words of another.  Yet, actually internalizing these great words is the great trick;  living out our lives in the spirit of these great words in everything we do.

 

The Beginner's mind, the Zen mind, is open to all possibilities.  Answers are not learned, nobody gives the answers.  The answers unfold.  It's as though there is someone behind you shining light on the path with each step you take.  You can look down and see the applied  answer any time you need it, in all of its manifestations and in all circumstances.  The actions become clear and immediate.

Edited June 15, 2022 by manitou

[manitou]

15 hours ago, Bindi said:

Do I have to practice Islam to know I don’t like it? I read the Koran, that was enough. Do I have to get sucked in to conspiracy theory, or get involved in a suicidal cult to know that they’re not for me? I think not. In the same way nor do I have to try the nondual view. 

 

 

Some day you may be a little embarrassed by this...

[Bindi]

3 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

Some day you may be a little embarrassed by this...

Which bit is embarrassing?

[Apech]

3 hours ago, Bindi said:

The mind has its own mind nature, but the emotions have their own nature as well, and qi has its own nature, and we’re a mixture of all of them, why prioritise mind above all other fundamental natures that exist within us? 

 

 

To say something is fundamental literally means it is at the bottom, i.e. the basis for everything else.  Or another way of looking at it is that everything other than the fundamental nature can be reduced to the fundamental nature.  So for instance, I would say, if asked, 'what is an emotion, fundamentally?' - that it is a motion of mind, a flow of mind.  So if you watch trees bending and swaying in a storm, yes the trees are moving but you might say it's the wind that moves.  The wind being like the mind.  It doesn't discount the waving trees but is a kind of deeper explanation than say 'the trees are swaying'.

 

I could say, for comparison, that if I feel fear ... it is actually mind that is 'fearing' where 'fearing' is a state of flow or change or disturbance.  Or that being happy is another kind of flow of and in mind.  Provided it is clear that by mind I don't mean just the thinking head but rather the field of awareness in which we live and have our being.  In fact I could call it spirit instead to make this clear I suppose.

 

I believe that this spirit is fundamental because I don't think there is anything beneath or behind it.  It is the absolute basis for everything and is not caused by anything thing else.  The mistake made by many people, including a lot of people on this thread, is to separate out this spirit (or Mind) as being something other than say, your emotions and so on.  The main way this is done is to denegrate ideas, feelings, emotions and physical states by calling them 'empty' and using this 'empty' as a special category.  e.g. fear is empty, love is empty, pain is empty.  While in truth the 'empty' = shunyata is actually the quality of the spirit/mind itself.  Being empty in this sense means being free of conditioning ... so to say spirit is empty means spirit is free and unbound essentially and in itself.  The consequence of this is that all phenomena which result from the presence of spirit, like the waving tree branches, are empty also - but not nothing, but spirit in presence.  This of course means that fundamentally not only is spirit free and unbound but so are you because (and this is the non-dual part) you and spirit are 'not-two' i.e. non-dual.  While your self might be a jumbled collection of thoughts, feeling, memories and so on, your Self is spirit itself.  It is this Self/spirit which is the basis for your life and the purpose of your life is to work through the various subtle levels of being towards a unified state which is both self-realised and , like spirit itself imperishable, an immortal body as predicted by Neidan, Jesus and perhaps in a more hidden way others also.

 

If this be error and upon me proved I never wrote nor no man ever loved.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Apech

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

There is a saying from Linji Yixuan, a 9th century Buddhist monk:

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

 

yea, I've heard that one which is tricky since He was not thrown off the Blue Cliff. 

[old3bob]

58 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

Most Buddhists may not have yet transcended the dogma and found the commonality.  And, the commonality is present in Islam as well.  It's present in Hindi.  It's present in Christianity.  The Whirling Dervishes experience the commonality.  Daoists have it.  Scientologists even have it.  It's the very thing we're born with that propels us upward to look for it.  We merely look in the wrong places.

 

I'm fairly sure that Jesus too would have refuted Christianity - more specifically, the strange tendency to worship his person.   He was an enlightened one, that's all - as was Muhammed, as was Gautama, as was Lao Tzu.   This wasn't where they were going at all with their teachings.  Human nature seems to have a tendency to want to quote, and memorize the great words of another.  Yet, actually internalizing these great words is the great trick;  living out our lives in the spirit of these great words in everything we do.

 

The Beginner's mind, the Zen mind, is open to all possibilities.  Answers are not learned, nobody gives the answers.  The answers unfold.  It's as though there is someone behind you shining light on the path with each step you take.  You can look down and see the applied  answer any time you need it, in all of its manifestations and in all circumstances.  The actions become clear and immediate.

 

the paths you mention and very liberally correlate and melt together in one big pot via what to me are new age like and idealistic presumptions all have human founders (as authorities) except for Hinduism...and perhaps Taoism in some ways?

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

To say something is fundamental literally means it is at the bottom, i.e. the basis for everything else.  Or another way of looking at it is that everything other than the fundamental nature can be reduced to the fundamental nature.  So for instance, I would say, if asked, 'what is an emotion, fundamentally?' - that it is a motion of mind, a flow of mind. 
 

 

If I can insert ‘spirit’ for mind, to extend the concept of mind, emotions inform mind/spirit, just as mentation informs mind/spirit, but I agree they are not the fundamental thing, mind/spirit is, and mind/spirit has the potential to exist beyond emotions and mentation. In saying this I am also implying that the two subtle side channels inform the central channel, that is their role, but the central channel is the fundamental channel. 

 

Quote

So if you watch trees bending and swaying in a storm, yes the trees are moving but you might say it's the wind that moves.  The wind being like the mind.  It doesn't discount the waving trees but is a kind of deeper explanation than say 'the trees are swaying'.

 

I could say, for comparison, that if I feel fear ... it is actually mind that is 'fearing' where 'fearing' is a state of flow or change or disturbance.  Or that being happy is another kind of flow of and in mind.  Provided it is clear that by mind I don't mean just the thinking head but rather the field of awareness in which we live and have our being.  In fact I could call it spirit instead to make this clear I suppose.

 

I believe that this spirit is fundamental because I don't think there is anything beneath or behind it.  It is the absolute basis for everything and is not caused by anything thing else.  The mistake made by many people, including a lot of people on this thread, is to separate out this spirit (or Mind) as being something other than say, your emotions and so on.  The main way this is done is to denegrate ideas, feelings, emotions and physical states by calling them 'empty' and using this 'empty' as a special category.  e.g. fear is empty, love is empty, pain is empty.  While in truth the 'empty' = shunyata is actually the quality of the spirit/mind itself.  Being empty in this sense means being free of conditioning ... so to say spirit is empty means spirit is free and unbound essentially and in itself.

 

The thinking mind and the emotional stream are conditioned, and can perhaps be unconditioned, their conditioning perhaps occludes our posited mind/spirit, and looking at it in this way what was occluded was never conditioned except for the thoughts and emotions that had become monstrous hiding it. 
 

I wouldn’t be inclined to believe in the occluded mind/spirit, I would only be prepared to remove the conditioning to see what is then revealed, and this still leaves me working within duality in an effort to resolve conditioning to reveal mind/spirit. 

 

Quote

  The consequence of this is that all phenomena which result from the presence of spirit, like the waving tree branches, are empty also - but not nothing, but spirit in presence.  This of course means that fundamentally not only is spirit free and unbound but so are you because (and this is the non-dual part) you and spirit are 'not-two' i.e. non-dual.  While your self might be a jumbled collection of thoughts, feeling, memories and so on, your Self is spirit itself.  It is this Self/spirit which is the basis for your life and the purpose of your life is to work through the various subtle levels of being towards a unified state which is both self-realised and , like spirit itself imperishable, an immortal body as predicted by Neidan, Jesus and perhaps in a more hidden way others also.

 

If this be error and upon me proved I never wrote nor no man ever loved.

 

What about qi, it’s neither conditioned emotion and mentation nor is it unconditioned spirit/mind, yet it wants to flow in certain ‘extraordinary’ channels to accomplish certain extraordinary tasks, perhaps as someone posted earlier this is the toolbox for mind/spirit, and thus equally worthy of being developed. 
 

Thanks for your post. 
 

edit to add: conditioned emotions and mentation occlude mind/spirit, undeveloped qi leaves mind/spirit ineffective in the world.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Bindi

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, steve said:

 

If one were to compare descriptions of Brahman from Hindu teachings with descriptions of the Nature of Mind from dzogchen and mahamudra teachings, one would find the same adjectives and descriptions - unbounded, unborn, undying, indestructible, unimputable, beyond all categorization, etc... If one has a personal experience of the non-dual nature of being, both labels will be seen to be slightly different fingers pointing to the same moon. One doesn't have to be a "correlation junkie" to see connections between the deepest teachings of the various wisdom traditions. I anticipate you will disagree and that is fine too. Disagreement is what makes things interesting!

 

has anyone ever heard an initiated Buddhist per Buddhist teachings or their Lama's or ordained teachers (like the Dalai Lama) ever say that they embrace Hindu teachings on Brahman/Atman and such eternal non-changing meanings,  all evidence and recorded statements from same say the answer is NO.

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[Bindi]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

so its interesting (or fascinating if you will) to me that the historic Buddha going by what you say would then also have to refute Buddhism,  which most Buddhists would never do...

I agree but not Buddhism in general, just mahamudra and Dzogchen I think. 

[steve]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

yea, I've heard that one which is tricky since He was not thrown off the Blue Cliff. 

 

It means that your ideas and internal stories about what Buddhism is or isn't, what Buddha may have believed, what Buddhists believe or do not believe, are not it. They are distractions and will mislead you. The approach is to practice and discover for yourself and then compare that to what is described by the teachings and teachers. 

[old3bob]

Just now, steve said:

 

It means that your ideas and internal stories about what Buddhism is or isn't, what Buddha may have believed, what Buddhists believe or do not believe, are not it. They are distractions and will mislead you. The approach is to practice and discover for yourself and then compare that to what is described by the teachings and teachers. 

 

and to not assume that another does not know what it means, right?

[old3bob]

so is anyone going to say that they have heard of or that they themselves as an initiated Buddhist who goes by their scriptures/schools and ordained teachers that they  unequivocally embrace Hindu/Upanishad  teachings on Brahman/Atman and eternal meanings regarding same?   I doubt it...

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[steve]

46 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

and to not assume that another does not know what it means, right?

 

I offered my interpretation when you said it was tricky. Did not mean to insult you.

🙏🏼

[C T]

34 minutes ago, old3bob said:

so is anyone going to say that they have heard of or that they themselves as an initiated Buddhist who goes by their scriptures/schools and ordained teachers that they  unequivocally embrace Hindu/Upanishad  teachings on Brahman/Atman and eternal meanings regarding same?   I doubt it...

 

I too doubt it. Very much so. Its very un-Buddhist to embrace teachings/teachers to the point of obsession. And a sure sign of obsession is often demonstrated by an incessant need to interject with contrasts and comparisons between one path and another, or one tradition with another. Its not even necessary, and could well be a burden. Carrying on one's back a load of Upanishad or a load of Abidharma will slow one down in much the same way. Thats why right-thinking Buddhists, even though they take refuge in the Dharma, the Dharma is acknowledged and understood as nothing but expedient support. Right-thinking Buddhists do not cling to holy books and dharmic rituals once their usefulness and essence has been embodied. 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

If I can insert ‘spirit’ for mind, to extend the concept of mind, emotions inform mind/spirit, just as mentation informs mind/spirit, but I agree they are not the fundamental thing, mind/spirit is, and mind/spirit has the potential to exist beyond emotions and mentation. In saying this I am also implying that the two subtle side channels inform the central channel, that is their role, but the central channel is the fundamental channel. 

 

In terms of the subtle body I agree with this.  The side channels in my way of seeing it become two ways of looking, one is object related and the other 'imaginative'.  We can negotiate the subtle body by switching from one to the other.  This before we learn to rest in the central channel.  You could say it's a mix of practical skills and dreaming - which ultimately lead to realisation.  It's all about negotiating the subtle space (which the Egyptians called the Duat) and the abilities learned accelerate our assimilation (of emotional energy for example) and increase our ability to respond.  The image for this is exploring a strange landscape - this is the shamanistic side of working.

 

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

The thinking mind and the emotional stream are conditioned, and can perhaps be unconditioned, their conditioning perhaps occludes our posited mind/spirit, and looking at it in this way what was occluded was never conditioned except for the thoughts and emotions that had become monstrous hiding it. 
 

 

yes but in a very special sense the unconditioned conditions itself for the purpose of learning - it has agency - it being Self - your own Self is your guru which is leading you on through the process.  I think this is a very important point especially for rhinos (!).  But then half the time I am just a monkey.

 

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I wouldn’t be inclined to believe in the occluded mind/spirit, I would only be prepared to remove the conditioning to see what is then revealed, and this still leaves me working within duality in an effort to resolve conditioning to reveal mind/spirit. 

 

Duality is posited for working.  The world is dual - double - which is why it is full of doubt and uncertainty.  But it is the ground for spiritual work.  This is how I see it.

 

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

What about qi, it’s neither conditioned emotion and mentation nor is it unconditioned spirit/mind, yet it wants to flow in certain ‘extraordinary’ channels to accomplish certain extraordinary tasks, perhaps as someone posted earlier this is the toolbox for mind/spirit, and thus equally worthy of being developed. 
 

 

qi is a deep subject.  In some ways I suppose you could say qi is spirit in action - or something like that.  In some senses everything is a form of qi anyway so it includes all that we are talking about.

 

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

Thanks for your post. 
 

edit to add: conditioned emotions and mentation occlude mind/spirit, undeveloped qi leaves mind/spirit ineffective in the world.

 

Thank you for answering.

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, C T said:

 

I too doubt it. Very much so. Its very un-Buddhist to embrace teachings/teachers to the point of obsession. And a sure sign of obsession is often demonstrated by an incessant need to interject with contrasts and comparisons between one path and another, or one tradition with another. Its not even necessary, and could well be a burden. Carrying on one's back a load of Upanishad or a load of Abidharma will slow one down in much the same way. Thats why right-thinking Buddhists, even though they take refuge in the Dharma, the Dharma is acknowledged and understood as nothing but expedient support. Right-thinking Buddhists do not cling to holy books and dharmic rituals once their usefulness and essence has been embodied. 

 

you wouldn't be implying or putting words in my mouth along the the lines of obsession would you?  Btw. the historic Buddha was sometimes what could be called "obsessive" about denial and rejection of Brahman/Atman/eternal teachings post his enlightenment - does that match up or count per your definition? 

 

btw. you don't sound like the same guy or is that just my imagination?

Edited June 15, 2022 by old3bob

[C T]

7 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

you wouldn't be implying or putting words in my mouth along the the lines of obsession would you?  Btw. the historic Buddha was sometimes what could be called "obsessive" about denial and rejection of Brahman/Atman/eternal teachings post his enlightenment - does that match up or count per your definition? 

 

btw. you don't sound like the same guy or is that just my imagination?

 

Erm... btw, what were you saying about the differences between dualism and non-dualism again? 

[steve]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

so is anyone going to say that they have heard of or that they themselves as an initiated Buddhist who goes by their scriptures/schools and ordained teachers that they  unequivocally embrace Hindu/Upanishad  teachings on Brahman/Atman and eternal meanings regarding same?   I doubt it...

 

In my opinion, the wonderful and sophisticated authors of these traditions are not trying to tell us what or how reality is, eg it is this or it is not that, they were too smart and insightful for that. They are offering suggestions and descriptions that may support us to discover how and what reality is for ourselves. Using an adjective like eternal or empty does not define reality but they may help someone discover something new in themselves. At least that’s how I approach wisdom teachings.

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, C T said:

 

Erm... btw, what were you saying about the differences between dualism and non-dualism again? 

 

which "you" would that be, him, they, her, you, we, me, us or them?