Non duality.

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Non duality.

Postby ground » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:08 am

Dexing wrote:Duality usually refers to the imagined apprehended and apprehender, which is a delusion that leads to suffering and the causes of suffering.

:namaste:


Well here exactly is the dissent because the buddha taught that it is attachment (clinging, craving, grasping) which is the problem and I prefer to agree with him because my experience does agree. No need to take an "illusionist" point of view. "Illusionism" may be grounded on subtle aversion. Neither "real" nor "illusion" may be the middle way.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby muni » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:55 am

Some info according the discussion, if usefull: http://www.hhthesakyatrizin.org/teach_fourattach4.html

In mind's projections is there Nirvana-Samsara, non of them are to find. Imagine standing on the moon, looking down, there are minds seeing rights and wrongs. Shouldn't one not burst in laughter? I mean even samsara-nirvana is dual in boundless nature. This and that. Attachment from what detachment from what projections. But we need the path to see that. So lets walk together.

but then look down to (us) who strive with hope and fear to attain.
muni
 
Posts: 2938
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby muni » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:50 am

Namdrol wrote:
muni wrote:By Namdrol: "...nondual, but it is not a nonduality" :idea:

clarity! Here is the key of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding. and shows poor limits of language once more. ism, ity..."a"
Thank you.

With respect without language limits, to teachings and what is meant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CauF1rAHJfU


DKR's talk can be summarized as follows:

He for whom emptiness is possible,
for him everything is possible.
He for whom emptiness is not possible,
for him nothing is possible.
-- Nagarjuna


Thank you.
muni
 
Posts: 2938
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby Malcolm » Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:06 pm

TMingyur wrote:Well then you continue fostering attachment. It's up to you.

kind regards



You utterly missed the point. Non-attachment is remedial. It contains the seeds of its own defeat.

If you have attachment, then you need non-attachment. It is better to cut these things at the root, rather than the leaf.

The root is wrong views of existence and non-existence. That is dualism as defined by the Buddha. The absence of duality is when one's has no wrong views concerning "it is" and "it is not".

Every other dualistic pair stems from these two.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12144
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby ground » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:56 pm

Philosophical tenets. Irrelevant.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby conebeckham » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:02 pm

I must confess I've not seen the "dual/nondual" dichotomy focus on Existence and Nonexistence. It's interesting.

In my experience, the term "nonduality" usually refers to a mind or consciousness (or wisdom?) that has transcended subject/object duality.

Namdrol, perhaps those who are "upset" with your "trivialization" of nonduality are referring to the term from this POV...what do you think?

I just happened to be reading Rigpa's Tibetan pocket calendar this morning..the Sakya lineage is featured this year, and Sogyal Rinpoche (or whoever wrote the content) claims the Sakya Philosophical View of "Khorday Yermay" is "the non-duality of Samsara and Nirvana," which "posits a non-dual luminosity-emptiness ("Saltong Yermay) beyond all extremes."

Care to comment?
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Non duality.

Postby Malcolm » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:05 pm

conebeckham wrote:I must confess I've not seen the "dual/nondual" dichotomy focus on Existence and Nonexistence. It's interesting.

In my experience, the term "nonduality" usually refers to a mind or consciousness (or wisdom?) that has transcended subject/object duality.

Namdrol, perhaps those who are "upset" with your "trivialization" of nonduality are referring to the term from this POV...what do you think?

I just happened to be reading Rigpa's Tibetan pocket calendar this morning..the Sakya lineage is featured this year, and Sogyal Rinpoche (or whoever wrote the content) claims the Sakya Philosophical View of "Khorday Yermay" is "the non-duality of Samsara and Nirvana," which "posits a non-dual luminosity-emptiness ("Saltong Yermay) beyond all extremes."

Care to comment?



dbyer med means inseparable, not non-dual.

non-dual in yogacara, referring to absence of subject and object comes about because appearances which are mind-only lack both existence and non-existence in and of themselves.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12144
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby conebeckham » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:17 pm

I agree that "non-dual" is a bad translation of "Yer May," I thought the same thing when I read it.

Aside from appearances, what about the mind itself which "experiences" these appearances? Does it differ from those appearances?
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Non duality.

Postby Malcolm » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:48 pm

conebeckham wrote:I agree that "non-dual" is a bad translation of "Yer May," I thought the same thing when I read it.

Aside from appearances, what about the mind itself which "experiences" these appearances? Does it differ from those appearances?



This is the great controversy about Yogacara. Asanga maintains that in order for there to be an appearance of deluded perception, even though the appearances do not exist, there must be an existent basis for those false appearances -- for example, even though there is no real existent image on the screen, there is nevertheless a projector through which a film is running. When the film is done, so are the images. Likewise, when the traces are finished, so is the false projections.

The real controversy is how far to extend that "existence" i.e. is the projector more real or less real than the projected images.

According to the way Yogacara is presented in orthodox tenet systems (Which all are based on Bhavaviveka II's Tarkajvala), this basis is the ālayavijñāna. When the seeds are removed, the ālaya is held to transform into wisdom. I.e. this existent wisdom which is ultimate, has to be predicated on an existing consciousness in order to account for the transformation of consciousness to wisdom.

In other words, conventional truth, in this way of presenting Yogacara, is the imputed projections. They all function, work quite well, until the basis of their reality is questioned. The ālaya projecting this is also understood to be relative. But when the traces are removed, the ālaya transforms into wisdom, and thus becomes ultimate.

Then there is the gzhan stong way of understanding this. According to the their presentation, both alāya and the projected images are conventional. Wisdom is ultimate and merely covered over by the conventional.

Then again, among gzhan stong pas, there are different ways of understanding the ultimate -- some seem to hold that it really exists. Others seem to hold it too is merely a yogic convention which when in equipoise is not needed and so on.

Etc.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12144
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby conebeckham » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:01 pm

Thanks for that summation, Namdrol. Very clear explanation....
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Non duality.

Postby Dexing » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:37 pm

TMingyur wrote:
Dexing wrote:Duality usually refers to the imagined apprehended and apprehender, which is a delusion that leads to suffering and the causes of suffering.

:namaste:


Well here exactly is the dissent because the buddha taught that it is attachment (clinging, craving, grasping) which is the problem and I prefer to agree with him because my experience does agree. No need to take an "illusionist" point of view. "Illusionism" may be grounded on subtle aversion. Neither "real" nor "illusion" may be the middle way.

Kind regards


If not on the account of ignorance taking to be real what is not real, and taking what is not real for real, would one be attached to (cling, crave, grasp) anything? Attachment is due to taking personal selfhood and phenomenal selfhood to be real. If one did not have this delusion, the basis for attachment would not be present.

Neither real (existence) nor illusion (non-existence) is indeed the middle way. It is divorced from existence due to objects being mere imagination (ultimate), and divorced from non-existence due to the appearance of imagined objects (conventional).

This conforms to the middle way of non-duality in accord with scripture and reason.

:namaste:
nopalabhyate...
User avatar
Dexing
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby ground » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:04 am

Dexing wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Dexing wrote:Duality usually refers to the imagined apprehended and apprehender, which is a delusion that leads to suffering and the causes of suffering.

:namaste:


Well here exactly is the dissent because the buddha taught that it is attachment (clinging, craving, grasping) which is the problem and I prefer to agree with him because my experience does agree. No need to take an "illusionist" point of view. "Illusionism" may be grounded on subtle aversion. Neither "real" nor "illusion" may be the middle way.

Kind regards


If not on the account of ignorance taking to be real what is not real, and taking what is not real for real, would one be attached to (cling, crave, grasp) anything? Attachment is due to taking personal selfhood and phenomenal selfhood to be real. If one did not have this delusion, the basis for attachment would not be present.

Neither real (existence) nor illusion (non-existence) is indeed the middle way. It is divorced from existence due to objects being mere imagination (ultimate), and divorced from non-existence due to the appearance of imagined objects (conventional).

This conforms to the middle way of non-duality in accord with scripture and reason.

:namaste:


Now you have clearly stated your preferred thoughts. The thoughts you like to think. And maybe the thoughts you feel your path is depending on, i.e. without the validity of which you may not be able to make "sense" of the path. And although I do not agree with the meaning of the words you used and that is accessible to me there is no "taking away" of anything from your path through this not agreeing. And there would be no adding or confirming of anything if I would agree.
So what is the point of all this? Why are people reciting their preferred thoughts to each other?

And whatever scripture and reason you are referring to "at the end of the day" it is not "scripture and reason" that "makes the difference".

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby Dexing » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:22 am

TMingyur wrote:...there is no "taking away" of anything from your path through this not agreeing. And there would be no adding or confirming of anything if I would agree.
So what is the point of all this? Why are people reciting their preferred thoughts to each other?


It is not about merely getting people to agree or not (maybe for some). Dharma discussion is for the purpose of mutually promoting each other's understanding of the path and practice thereof. I believe that was the main purpose of creating this Dharmawheel discussion board.

Why are you here and participating in such discussion, if it is such a waste of your time?

And whatever scripture and reason you are referring to "at the end of the day" it is not "scripture and reason" that "makes the difference".


It is the truth alluded to by scripture and in accord with reason.

What "makes the difference" isn't going to be something the Buddha did not say, or something that does not stand to reason. Is it?

:namaste:
nopalabhyate...
User avatar
Dexing
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby ground » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:30 am

Dexing wrote:Why are you here and participating in such discussion, if it is such a waste of your time?

Don't know how/why you infer "waste of your time". Discussions in these media are in a sense futile and in some sense not.
Mental training, suggestions and inspirations. To experience dependent arising.


Dexing wrote:
And whatever scripture and reason you are referring to "at the end of the day" it is not "scripture and reason" that "makes the difference".


It is the truth alluded to by scripture and in accord with reason.

What "makes the difference" isn't going to be something the Buddha did not say, or something that does not stand to reason. Is it?

The Kalama sutta comes to my mind. Actually it came to my mind already above but I refrained to refer to it.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby Dexing » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:42 am

TMingyur wrote:Don't know how/why you infer "waste of your time".


Because whenever anyone answers you or attempts to engage in dialogue, you reduce the discussion to saying; "thoughts!", "views!", "irrelevant!", "what's the point?", etc..

It sounds like a waste of your time.

Discussions in these media are in a sense futile and in some sense not.
Mental training, suggestions and inspirations. To experience dependent arising.


Then you have answered your question on "what's the point?".

TMingyur wrote:The Kalama sutta comes to my mind.


Does the Kālāma Sutta suggest that ultimate benefit (Nirvāna or Bodhi) is derived from something that does not fit to reason, or from doctrines of other religions?

If I remember correctly it asks you to investigate. If you do so, you will see that the principles of non-duality and the middle way as previously explained here accord with both reason and scripture. Which is not to say that just because something is written in scripture that it should be accepted, but rather that because it stands to reason and is supported by scripture, both reason and scripture are doubly validated and are a basis for acceptance.

:namaste:
nopalabhyate...
User avatar
Dexing
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby ground » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:22 am

Dexing wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Don't know how/why you infer "waste of your time".


Because whenever anyone answers you or attempts to engage in dialogue, you reduce the discussion to saying; "thoughts!", "views!", "irrelevant!", "what's the point?", etc..

It sounds like a waste of your time.


We have to differentiate. Of course everything that is written here is symbols which are meaningless as symbols but which are the expression of "thoughts" by a writer and do cause thoughts "in" a reader. But within the sphere of thoughts there are two types of thoughts:
1. thoughts that refer to a correlate in direct perception (or "direct experience" which I use as a synononym). A "correlate" because a thought can never capture the appearance as appearance.
2. thoughts that do not have such a correlate but are self-referential in that they are the effect of further thoughts which are the effect of still further thoughts and so forth.

The latter is what I call "mere thoughts" that are mere "fantasy", mere "ideas", mere fabrication, depending only on conceptual definition in order to be understood.

Dexing wrote:
Discussions in these media are in a sense futile and in some sense not.
Mental training, suggestions and inspirations. To experience dependent arising.


Then you have answered your question on "what's the point?".

Of course. Questions I ask may be rhetorical or may be asked to get to know what I still do not know or may be asked to learn about the point of view of others.

Dexing wrote:
The Kalama sutta comes to my mind.


Does the Kālāma Sutta suggest that ultimate benefit (Nirvāna or Bodhi) is derived from something that does not fit to reason, or from doctrines of other religions?

No but it suggests that the decisive phenomenon is one's own experience.

Dexing wrote:If I remember correctly it asks you to investigate. If you do so, you will see that the principles of non-duality and the middle way as previously explained here accord with both reason and scripture. Which is not to say that just because something is written in scripture that it should be accepted, but rather that because it stands to reason and is supported by scripture, both reason and scripture are doubly validated and are a basis for acceptance.

Well if I were inclined to deviate into thought due to expecting to find something new that can be found based on this thinking then I would investigate into "principles" and "reasons". But since nameless experience is all I can find and still remains all I can find after having finished conceptual investigation into "principles" and "reasons" I do not feel inclined to follow your advice.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby Dexing » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:42 am

TMingyur wrote:Well if I were inclined to deviate into thought due to expecting to find something new that can be found based on this thinking then I would investigate into "principles" and "reasons". But since nameless experience is all I can find and still remains all I can find after having finished conceptual investigation into "principles" and "reasons" I do not feel inclined to follow your advice.


What was my advice?

Reason (not reasons) means rationality, by the way.

If you are rational then your views and actions accord with reason. If those are also spoken by the Buddha, then it accords with scripture. If something agrees with both reason and scripture, what is the problem with accepting it?

:namaste:
nopalabhyate...
User avatar
Dexing
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby ground » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:49 am

Dexing wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Well if I were inclined to deviate into thought due to expecting to find something new that can be found based on this thinking then I would investigate into "principles" and "reasons". But since nameless experience is all I can find and still remains all I can find after having finished conceptual investigation into "principles" and "reasons" I do not feel inclined to follow your advice.


What was my advice?


I have chosen to call this "advice":
If I remember correctly it asks you to investigate. If you do so, you will see

But we may call it otherwise, no problem.


Dexing wrote:If you are rational then your views and actions accord with reason. If those are also spoken by the Buddha, then it accords with scripture. If something agrees with both reason and scripture, what is the problem with accepting it?

I would say I am primarily "experiential" and secondarily rational which means that reason should follow or be grounded on experience.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby Dexing » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:19 am

Do you realize investigation is an act of being experiential? You have essentially already followed my advice.

Do you realize being rational is accepting that which accords with reason, based on the experience of your investigation?

When you find these are also spoken by the Buddha, then it also agrees with scripture.

If you are rational as you say, then you accept what is supported by both reason and scripture.

So essentially you are just playing with language to say the same thing without agreeing.

Do you always adopt a stance in opposition just for the sake of it?

:namaste:
nopalabhyate...
User avatar
Dexing
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:41 am

Re: Non duality.

Postby ground » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:35 am

Dexing wrote:Do you realize investigation is an act of being experiential? You have essentially already followed my advice.

Not so. It depends on the context of the goal and which comes first without being synthesized through volition (i.e. which is the basis of which).

Dexing wrote:Do you realize being rational is accepting that which accords with reason, based on the experience of your investigation?

No. First there is experience without intention or meaning. And when volition sets in (thinking) that has to be in line with that which is without intention and meaning in the first place, i.e. not add what is not there and not negate what is there.

Dexing wrote:When you find these are also spoken by the Buddha, then it also agrees with scripture.

The Buddha said that all there is are the sense bases and their objects. There is no "nonduality" or "emptiness" but if the goal is set "right" then the seen is just the seen and so forth.

Dexing wrote:If you are rational as you say, then you accept what is supported by both reason and scripture.

Since my rationality is "right", i.e. is in the context of the "right" goal, I follow the teachings of the Buddha (the one of the suttapitaka to mention it explicitly).

Dexing wrote:So essentially you are just playing with language to say the same thing without agreeing.

Do you always adopt a stance in opposition just for the sake of it?

No I just remove the fabricated when the fabricated is put forth. But for this I have to apply language which from a certain perspective may be conceived of as "the fabricated" ... so there is no escape generally but there is escape through setting one's own context "right".

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Boris, lucian, monktastic, Tanaduk and 20 guests

>