Non duality.

[muni]

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

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

[Malcolm]

"Non duality" ... "emptiness" ... mere thoughts, ideas ...

I'd suggest "non-attachment" ...


Kind regards

Also a thought.

[Malcolm]

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

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

[White Lotus]

I know that my words mean nothing here, but nonetheless i will say what i will...
for me samata/shamata was the gateway that lead on to seeing emptiness of self and all objects. it was the gateway? that enabled me to see buddha nature and the completeness of dharmakaya.

shamata is not a view it is a seeing. to all who view shamata as merely a speculative view. they still are blind to shamata.

i agree with the learned doctor, that it is nothing special, however no form of seeing is anything particulary remarkable.

in my own experience i would possibly never have seen buddha nature were it not for shamata acting as a gateway. it marks the time when one begins to understand awareness.

AN Excersise:

observe the computer screen, feel it with your mind. the sensation, the basic sensation it creates and then after a minute or so focus on the mouse... is there any difference. in the Pali, Samata means Sameness. the word non duality is not used. do you feel the sameness of computer screen and mouse? when you do you can apply this awareness excersise to any objects and experience the sameness of awareness. nothing remarkable.

[ground]

"Non duality" ... "emptiness" ... mere thoughts, ideas ...

I'd suggest "non-attachment" ...


Kind regards

Also a thought.

Which however has a correlate in direct experience. And I assert that there is no such correlate as to "emptiness" or "non duality".


Kind regards

[Malcolm]

Which however has a correlate in direct experience. And I assert that there is no such correlate as to "emptiness" or "non duality".

So you have never experienced an empty bank account? An empty larder? Because certainly in this instant there is a correlate with direct experience. The old "village is empty of a city, city is empty of a village" trope from the suttas i.e. the Cullasunnata sutta, major and minor.

Phenomena are by necessary of free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience -- see Kaccaayanagotto Sutta i.e. "Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle".

The middle way view is by necessity a non-dual view, avoiding these extremes of dualism. That is also emptiness; emptiness cures the views of existence and non-existence -- that can be correlated in one's personal experience.

Apatheia, on the other hand, vairāga, non-attachment, is not a particularly unique Buddhist principle.

[ground]

Which however has a correlate in direct experience. And I assert that there is no such correlate as to "emptiness" or "non duality".

So you have never experienced an empty bank account? An empty larder? Because certainly in this instant there is a correlate with direct experience.

Well now you are referring to "emptiness of ..." The bank account empty of positive figures >= 0 can be experienced on the account statement. In the same vein the larder's emptiness of packaged food.

But the emptiness that is the topic here ... what is empty of what in this context?

Kind regards

[ground]

Phenomena are by necessary of free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience

No because you cannot directly experience duality in the first place.

Kind regards

[ground]

Phenomena are by necessary of free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience

No because you cannot directly experience duality in the first place.

Kind regards

Well perhaps you can. For me it is mere thought, mere fabrication. And what is mere thought cannot have a correlate in direct experience.

Kind regards

[ground]

In contrast to this what is called "attachment" does have a correlate in direct experience. Consequently its absence has a correlate too. Therefore "non-attachment" applies, whereas "nonduality" or "emptiness (of what??)" do not apply but are mere fabrications.

Kind regards

[Malcolm]

Phenomena are by necessary of free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience

No because you cannot directly experience duality in the first place.

Kind regards

Of course you can -- now it is exists, now it does not. That is the experience of duality being discussed.

[Malcolm]

In contrast to this what is called "attachment" does have a correlate in direct experience. Consequently its absence has a correlate too. Therefore "non-attachment" applies, whereas "nonduality" or "emptiness (of what??)" do not apply but are mere fabrications.

Kind regards

It is the same, now attached, now detached; now full, now empty; now exists, now does not exist; these are all dualities.

When the basis for attachment has ceased, also the basis for detachment has ceased: detachment is also trapped in dualism.

[ground]

When the basis for attachment has ceased, also the basis for detachment has ceased: detachment is also trapped in dualism.

It may appear so due to the terms being thought. However non-attachment does not "feel" "trapped" but attachment does.

Kind regards


Edit: "detachment" replaced by "non-attachment" since the intended meaning was a mere exclusion which is better expressed through its negative.

[Malcolm]

When the basis for attachment has ceased, also the basis for detachment has ceased: detachment is also trapped in dualism.

It may appear so due to the terms being thought. However non-attachment does not "feel" "trapped" but attachment does.

Nevertheless, non-attachment is a more subtle trap.

[ground]

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

kind regards

[Dexing]

Attachment is the cyclic existence- Saṃsāra.

Non-attachment is the cessation- Nirvāna.

In the Mahāyāna, neither are taken up or abandoned by the Bodhisattva.

[ground]

In the Mahāyāna, neither are taken up or abandoned by the Bodhisattva.

In the Mahayana the bodhisattva strives for nirvana too. However it is called "non-abiding nirvana" since he is willing to be reborn through aspiration and prayer (but not through karma).


Kind regards

[Dexing]

In the Mahāyāna, neither are taken up or abandoned by the Bodhisattva.

In the Mahayana the bodhisattva strives for nirvana too. However it is called "non-abiding nirvana" since he is willing to be reborn through aspiration and prayer (but not through karma).


Kind regards

Of course, and this being removed from the duality of these:

Attachment is the cyclic existence- Saṃsāra.

Non-attachment is the cessation- Nirvāna (with/without remainder).

Is itself proper non-duality of even duality and non-duality.

[ground]

I have no issue with duality. There is right and wrong and to know right and wrong is of great benefit.

Kind regards

[Dexing]

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