1. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    27 Feb '11 18:10
    Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

    "Nondualism ultimately suggests that the referent of "I" is in fact an artificial construct (merely the border separating "inner" from "outer," in a sense), the transcendence of which constitutes enlightenment."

    Could someone enlighten me further on this thought?
  2. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    27 Feb '11 19:311 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

    "Nondualism ultimately suggests that the referent of "I" is in fact an artificial construct (merely the border separating "inner" from "outer," in a sense), the transcendence of which constitutes enlightenment."

    Could someone enlighten me further on this thought?
    Monism basically says God and the living entity is one. ....this is non dualism.

    Dualism says that the living entity and God are clearly separate....but the same.

    How can something be separate and the same?....well the sunbeam is separate from the sun, but is the sun also......... and a drop of water from the ocean is the same as the ocean but it is not the ocean.
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    27 Feb '11 20:35
    Originally posted by JS357
    Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

    "Nondualism ultimately suggests that the referent of "I" is in fact an artificial construct (merely the border separating "inner" from "outer," in a sense), the transcendence of which constitutes enlightenment."

    Could someone enlighten me further on this thought?
    The Greek thinking went like this: we are confronted all the time by change, yet change implies a subject which changes: some essence that is first encountered in its initial state and, after change, encountered as different. So what changes and what persists? Diverse answers were suggested.

    The Buddhist notion of "no self" is partly a statement about our essence if you like, in similar terms, and partly a proposed way to achieve a significant change. "I" experience my "self" in many different contexts, as part of that context, and it is an illusion to believe that this "I" is really anything more than an aspect of the context or situation in which it is encountered. When the context changes, then this imagined "I" is different also. "I" experience myself as a child, as a parent, or as knowledgeable or as foolish, as strong or weak, all in relation to a context which is no more than a passing moment in the interminable wastes of time. "I" may be a lowly minion at work, an autocrat at home, a hale-fellow-well-met socially, without ever being authentic. When I search for the "real me," I am very likely to discover that this, again, is a construct that I am free to invent and to re-invent. It is not unusual that people complain about lacking any confidence about that "real" self, feeling that they have failed to find it or that they have lost it.

    [One suspicion I have is that what people are truly complaining about is not the self they experience internally, but an identity - how other people see them. They are searching for a mask that works for them, and they would do well to take their lead from Oscar Wilde or WB Yeats and choose any mask they like.]

    One proposal might be that it is delusional to keep up that search. When we accept that there is, finally, no self, this releases us from a miserable and always failed project. More importantly, we are free then to encounter our lives and our environment without restraints.

    In psychotherapy, a common goal is to lead a client away from fantasy and towards the ability to live "here and now." Fantasy refers to countless ways in which we respond not to the situation as it objectively is, but instead respond to signals that remind us of our life history, so that we are responding to memories and imagined similarities which may bear no reasonable similarity to what is happening.

    In the psychology of perception, it is found in many ways that we do not passively "perceive" what is out there; instead we actively match what is there against what we expect to find, based on past experience, and frequently what we think we perceive is actually a false belief. We see what we expect to see and fail to see the unexpected. We also know that memory is highly fabricated, to the extent that witness evidence is notoriously unreliable and suggestible.

    Whether "enlightenment" constitutes a so called higher state of the human mind, or it is primarily the ability to see what is really there to be seen, is open to debate. I personally feel impatient with the notion of "transcending" reality when reality is itself so obviously and urgently what has value. We never ever experience anything "rationally" and without feeling, so there is no question that the experience of seeing things as they are will have feelings attached which would be positive ones. There is a sense of delight in moments when we really appreciate something, accompanied by surprise when it is new and unexpected. The ability to live in the moment is widely praised and sought after. If you take this thinking away from subjects such as a setting sun or beautiful landscape, and apply it instead to the ability to see other people as they are, without forming judgements or evaluating them against standards, but just to appreciate and marvel at their uniqueness, to have an open minded curiosity about the life path which shaped them and brought them into contact with you, then maybe the radical nature of this approach will be more evident.
  4. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    27 Feb '11 21:02
    When you take on the premise of nondualism, and that which it implies, you start your inner work.
    Not making new mind constructions about this "nonduality", but "going inside", meditating, not placing too much importance on the wrong things, and instead trying to focus on the right thing.


    I have experienced non-duality several times.
    To comment about it seems dualist, but I will say it is full of light, and there is not a speck that is separate from the rest of creation. There is no "I", just one mind.
  5. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    27 Feb '11 21:07
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    When you take on the premise of nondualism, and that which it implies, you start your inner work.
    Not making new mind constructions about this "nonduality", but "going inside", meditating, not placing too much importance on the wrong things, and instead trying to focus on the right thing.


    I have experienced non-duality several times.
    To comment a ...[text shortened]... is not a speck that is separate from the rest of creation. There is no "I", just one mind.
    You are correct ...there is not a speck that is separate, but the living entity and and God have distinct identity and they are one in nature and quality
  6. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    27 Feb '11 21:28
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Monism basically says God and the living entity is one. ....this is non dualism.

    Dualism says that the living entity and God are clearly separate....but the same.

    How can something be separate and the same?....well the sunbeam is separate from the sun, but is the sun also......... and a drop of water from the ocean is the same as the ocean but it is not the ocean.
    Thanks to you and others who may reply.
  7. Lowlands paradise
    Joined
    25 Feb '09
    Moves
    14018
    27 Feb '11 22:031 edit
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    When you take on the premise of nondualism, and that which it implies, you start your inner work.
    Not making new mind constructions about this "nonduality", but "going inside", meditating, not placing too much importance on the wrong things, and instead trying to focus on the right thing.


    I have experienced non-duality several times.
    To comment a ...[text shortened]... is not a speck that is separate from the rest of creation. There is no "I", just one mind.
    "I have experienced non-duality several times."
    Beautiful. It is tempting to believe that non-dualism is more real than dualism.
    But how many times have you experienced dualism?
    Non-dualism and dualism are two sides of the same coin.
  8. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    27 Feb '11 22:18
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    When you take on the premise of nondualism, and that which it implies, you start your inner work.
    Not making new mind constructions about this "nonduality", but "going inside", meditating, not placing too much importance on the wrong things, and instead trying to focus on the right thing.


    I have experienced non-duality several times.
    To comment a ...[text shortened]... is not a speck that is separate from the rest of creation. There is no "I", just one mind.
    Problems here:

    Can one START inner work from this premise (non-dualism)? Is it a premise or a conclusion?
    Can one "try" to focus on "the right thing" without failing at the outset?
    Can one avoid "the wrong thing?"
    Can one place importance on anything (right or wrong)?
  9. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    28 Feb '11 06:33
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The Greek thinking went like this: we are confronted all the time by change, yet change implies a subject which changes: some essence that is first encountered in its initial state and, after change, encountered as different. So what changes and what persists? Diverse answers were suggested.

    The Buddhist notion of "no self" is partly a statement about o ...[text shortened]... then maybe the radical nature of this approach will be more evident.
    Edit: "Whether "enlightenment" constitutes a so called higher state of the human mind, or it is primarily the ability to see what is really there to be seen, is open to debate. I personally feel impatient with the notion of "transcending" reality when reality is itself so obviously and urgently what has value."

    "...what has value", to You!
    "Enlightenment" in the Buddhist context is merely the shifting of one's point of attention to another specific point, and the constant evaluation of the mind on this new basis. This new approach itself is the supposed "higher state", but this is merely an empty notion, because in fact there is nothing "lesser" and nothing "higher" -there is just a specific modification of the mind (that occurs when one "sits quietly doing nothing", ie when the mind is immovable and free from dualism, aflictions, thoughts, sentiments etc). Therefore, whatever "is really there to be seen" does not stand in separation from the mind of the one who observes it (negation of dualism). This means that reality is empty. Of course, the understanding of this very nature of the reality, is understood (Madhyamaka, Zen, Yogacara etc) as both transcending and non-transcending reality at the same time. For, the various "values" of the perceived reality are always different, always in analogy to the ability of the perception of the sentient being that observes them. There are as many realities as the sentient beings;



    Edit: "We never ever experience anything "rationally" and without feeling, so there is no question that the experience of seeing things as they are will have feelings attached which would be positive ones."

    Since these feelings are projected stricktly from the mind of the observer, they do not have own being because they do not exist in separation from the mind of the observer -and thus are empty;



    Edit: "There is a sense of delight in moments when we really appreciate something, accompanied by surprise when it is new and unexpected. The ability to live in the moment is widely praised and sought after."

    The "ability to live in the moment" is empty -and this ability is not praised the way you appear to perceive it. "Living in the moment" in this context (Zen etc) is merely the understanding that "all phenomena are in constant flux", and not the opposite (there is neither such a thing as "constant flux in permanent phenomena", nor "permanence" -oh well Heraclitus sounds like a pure Madhyamika)
    ๐Ÿ˜ต
  10. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    28 Feb '11 08:56
    Originally posted by souverein
    [b]"I have experienced non-duality several times."
    Beautiful. It is tempting to believe that non-dualism is more real than dualism.
    But how many times have you experienced dualism?
    Non-dualism and dualism are two sides of the same coin.[/b]
    I guess I experience dualism (in the way I think you mean) all the time. Thats when there is a buffer between in here and out there. Sometimes this "Buffer is the physical body, other times it can be my "bubble"

    Any I belive its called a First Bardo experience when there is absolutely no "buffer", and there is no "you". I,v experineced that about 6 or 7 times.
  11. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    28 Feb '11 09:04
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Problems here:

    Can one START inner work from this premise (non-dualism)? Is it a premise or a conclusion?
    Can one "try" to focus on "the right thing" without failing at the outset?
    Can one avoid "the wrong thing?"
    Can one place importance on anything (right or wrong)?
    Yes, my post was a generalization for a subject that is to be fine-tuned to the individual-which only the indivual , or an enlightened master, can fix.

    1. It is a premise AND a conclusion. I have taught this ,(in elborated form) , to a few people and it seemed to work for them .(For a time anyway, I haven't caught up with them lately.)
    Noteably they were all "down and out" when I taught them. They had been left by girlfriends or experienced some other heartache.
    Anyway they were ready to listen to something to guide them and you could see the power working on them instanly as they gradually came out of their desperate,down-hearted moods.
    2. I say right thing instead of right things because I believe there is one answer to all of the biggest questions in life one will face.
    3. Avoiding the wrong is a process of elimination , started as a young infant.
    4.Ultimately, the advanced adept will place no importance on good or bad karma.

    Hope that clears up my opinions ๐Ÿ™‚
  12. Lowlands paradise
    Joined
    25 Feb '09
    Moves
    14018
    28 Feb '11 09:18
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    I guess I experience dualism (in the way I think you mean) all the time. Thats when there is a buffer between in here and out there. Sometimes this "Buffer is the physical body, other times it can be my "bubble"

    Any I belive its called a First Bardo experience when there is absolutely no "buffer", and there is no "you". I,v experineced that about 6 or 7 times.
    Yes, but I question if such (first Bardo) experiences are more important than our 'normal' dualistic perceptions of reality. Isn't it the bodhisattva warning to avoid clinging to enlightenment? In other words: climb the mountains, absorb the spaciousness but return to the valleys where our lives develop?

    Non-dualistic experiences are marvellous and helpful as long as they don't lead to spiritual escapism.
  13. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    28 Feb '11 19:18
    Originally posted by black beetle
    I personally feel impatient with the notion of "transcending" reality when reality is itself so obviously and urgently what has value."

    "...what has value", to You!


    Yes. Hence "I personally feel..."

    "Enlightenment" in the Buddhist context is merely the shifting of one's point of attention to another specific point, and the constant evaluation of the mind on this new basis.

    Yes, though I worry about words like "merely," given your next phrase:

    This new approach itself is the supposed "higher state",

    By "merely" shifting one's point of view, remarkable consequences follow.

    but this is merely an empty notion, because in fact there is nothing "lesser" and nothing "higher" -there is just a specific modification of the mind ...

    Yes OK.

    Therefore, whatever "is really there to be seen" does not stand in separation from the mind of the one who observes it (negation of dualism). This means that reality is empty. ... For, the various "values" of the perceived reality are always different, always in analogy to the ability of the perception of the sentient being that observes them. There are as many realities as the sentient beings.

    This is valid as an account of subjective experience, which can be studied through introspection. However, before getting too far into the notion that "reality is empty," I contemplate whether Buddha was talking to himself alone or believed that he had an audience and could both describe and comment on their experiences, including the belief that his and their experience would be similar. Did he have compassion for other people out there, really existing in separate lives, or did he have compassion for a delusional idea that there might be others? What is the significance of a master striking with his stick? Does the student learn to love the stick or learn to avoid it?


    Edit: "We never ever experience anything "rationally" and without feeling, so there is no question that the experience of seeing things as they are will have feelings attached which would be positive ones."

    Since these feelings are projected stricktly from the mind of the observer, they do not have own being because they do not exist in separation from the mind of the observer -and thus are empty;


    Since Buddha empathised with the suffering of others and wished to show how others might bring this to an end, it seems unreasonable to argue that he thought the feelings of others were not significant or real. The delusion, I suggest, is not that we feel, but that we project our feelings onto external (and internal) objects.

    Feeling is part of being. Mindfulness, for example, would draw my attention to the food I am eating (as a material object with its ingredients and its current state such as warm or cold), to the sensations of eating and to my feelings about eating, including perhaps gratitude, perhaps pleasure, perhaps distaste for one or more ingredients. It might also draw into my awareness aspects of my eating that are unhealthy, such as over eating, or ingratitude.

    I cannot not see any human experience taking place in the absence of feeling.


    Edit: "There is a sense of delight in moments when we really appreciate something, accompanied by surprise when it is new and unexpected. The ability to live in the moment is widely praised and sought after."

    The "ability to live in the moment" is empty -and this ability is not praised the way you appear to perceive it. "Living in the moment" in this context (Zen etc) is merely the understanding that "all phenomena are in constant flux", and not the opposite (there is neither such a thing as "constant flux in permanent phenomena", nor "permanence" -oh well Heraclitus sounds like a pure Madhyamika)
    ๐Ÿ˜ต


    You can seem rather sharp tongued regarding stuff that is empty. I don't agree with your account though I imagine "ability to live in the moment" has diverse meanings, some or many of which are poorly considered. However, my point was to suggest that what is achieved in "enlightenment" may not be to discover an amazing, different reality but that reality, properly considered, is amazing. Possibly also that if we learned to see other people unclouded by our own fears and misgivings and false beliefs, then we would learn compassion.
  14. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    28 Feb '11 21:41
    Originally posted by souverein
    Yes, but I question if such (first Bardo) experiences are more important than our 'normal' dualistic perceptions of reality. Isn't it the bodhisattva warning to avoid clinging to enlightenment? In other words: climb the mountains, absorb the spaciousness but return to the valleys where our lives develop?

    Non-dualistic experiences are marvellous and helpful as long as they don't lead to spiritual escapism.
    I take your point and you are absolutely right.

    I think we first have a satori occurance to give us a little taste and then its up to us to realize that that is our real nature and not just some trip.
    So if it is our real nature, then there is no need for striving, just a diluting of the passions and a centered approach to all things.
    There is no seeking for the true seeker.

    And people ask why I say the universe is a paradox๐Ÿ™„
  15. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    01 Mar '11 14:17
    Originally posted by finnegan
    [b] I personally feel impatient with the notion of "transcending" reality when reality is itself so obviously and urgently what has value."

    "...what has value", to You!


    Yes. Hence "I personally feel..."

    "Enlightenment" in the Buddhist context is merely the shifting of one's point of attention to another specific point, and the constant ev ...[text shortened]... d false beliefs, then we would learn compassion.
    Edit: “This is valid… …others?”

    Nobody can go far regarding the notion “reality is empty” due to the fact that it isn’t just another authoritative “absolute truth” but merely a corrective view regarding the essence of the (empty!) core factor of the interaction between the physical world that surrounds us, our inner world and the world of our collective subjectivity. Methinks each sentient being projects its own reality, that is.
    Buddha’s compassion to all sentient beings is revealed by the implementation of specific means aiming to destroy ignorance, greed and delusion: on the Way we are learning how to catch the fish on our own and we do not dwell on the mountains carrying our boat on our back. Therefore, the “significance” has nothing to do with the stick;



    Edit: “Since Buddha... ...objects.”

    The feelings/ thoughts etc create karma. The world is the same to you and to me, to the ignorant and to the wise, to Buddha and to the delusional although our experiences differ -but the advanced ones do not taste karma. At this level the (real but empty) feelings are not significant;



    Edit: “Feeling is… …absence of feeling.”

    Yes, feelings is part of being, however the human experiences are not understood separated from the evaluation of the mind. Feelings is merely an uncontrolled instant reaction. The evaluation of the (immovable) mind is zen itself because at a given time it leads to fully controlled instant and accurate reactions that come out as naturally as breathing;



    Edit: “You can seem rather sharp tongued regarding stuff that is empty.”

    Sunyata is the mind-only ground of potentiality from which the primordial activity of cognition emerges into dualism; since every event is grounded on sunyata, the Floating World lacks of inherent being. Therefore, the imaginary nature has no characteristics; the dependent nature has no arising; and the Perfected Nature ultimately has no nature. These are the three non-natures. If you understand non-existent emptiness, and if you understand existent emptiness, and if you understand ultimate emptiness, you understand sunyata. Sunyata succumbs neither to the superimposition nor to the denial;



    Edit: “I don't agree… …is amazing.”

    Yes;



    Edit: “Possibly also that if we learned to see other people unclouded by our own fears and misgivings and false beliefs, then we would learn compassion.”

    I bow
    ๐Ÿ˜ต
Back to Top