YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Non-duality AND Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Non-duality AND Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby christopher::: » Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:01 pm

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:48 am


User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:58 am


User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:03 am


User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby christopher::: » Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:44 am

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:45 am

Christopher,

You are making my point, and when I have few more minutes, I'll elaborate on what I am getting at.

floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby floating_abu » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:01 am

The problem with any view or teaching is no matter how true it was/is in practice, when it is adopted as a new or improved position, it becomes somewhat dead in the water.

User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby christopher::: » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:10 am

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:33 am


floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby floating_abu » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:45 am


User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby christopher::: » Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:37 am

Respectfully, Abu, I'm not too worried that the views i present on Buddhist forums are going to be leading anyone astray. We are all doing this, all the time, presenting our povs on this and that. I teach about dualistic and holistic logic in my University classrooms, without mention of Buddhism. We're studying American culture and history, and this is a theme there, a BiG theme.

Last week I talked about the Salem Witch hunts, and we watched scenes from the Crucible movie. Tomorrow I'll be showing scenes from Disney's version of Huck Finn. Just picked out a good scene where when talking about slavery, Jim says to Huck, "Just because everyone believes something is right, doesn't mean that it's right."

I won't be talking about Buddhism, or the dharma, but still believe that this topic is in sync with what the Buddha taught. For me, that's what Right Livelihood is all about.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby floating_abu » Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:57 am


User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby christopher::: » Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:49 pm

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Non-duality

Postby Individual » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:03 pm

The best things in life aren't things.


Dharmajim
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby Dharmajim » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:09 pm

Good Friends:

Mother Teresa has come up twice on this thread as an examplar of non-dualism. The view is that she saw God in all beings and because of this Mother Teresa is an example of a Christian non-dualist. I disagree with this conclusion and in the interest of possibly furthering the discussion I'm going to take a few moments to offer a different understanding.

Simply seeing that there is a commonality among all people, or among all things, is not sufficient to qualify someone as a non-dualist. For example, I can say that all humans are made of atoms and molecules, but I don't think from that assertion it follows that I'm a non-dualist. In some forms of Buddhist contemplation we learn to see all people as impermanent and suffering and causally arisen; that is to say we begin to perceive what all people have in common. However, I don't think that it follows from this that those engaged in such contemplations are non-dualists.

Seeing the light of God in all beings is widespread in Christian literature. George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, was famous for this; it is the entire basis for his tradition. There are many other examples. Yet I don't think it follows that Mother Teresa, or George Fox, are non-dualists because of this.

Central to a Christian view are certain pivotal differences between humans and God. First among these is that God is uncreated while human beings are created. This difference is unbridgeable and essential. The light of God in the individual is comprehended by Teresa and Fox as the grace of God guiding the individual towards the uncreated. The light within is not, in this sense, an essence or a true self, because the true self of humans is created, limited, impermanent, while the true self of God is uncreated, unlimited, and eternal.

The tradition of advaita comprehends the limited nature of human beings as illusory (variously defined) while the true self is the same as the eternal and unchanging Brahman. Therefore, "Thou Art That"; meaning human beings are not really limited and mortal. They are really unlimited and immortal, just like Brahman.

Christianity, and monotheism in general, rejects such an equivelency on two grounds. First, it diminishes the grandeur of God (see Saint Anselm) and second, it mistakenly exalts the ego of humans. An Orthodox Priest, a good friend of mine, put it succintly: "This is the start of wisdom; There is a God and I am not he." I'm waiting for some traditional Christian to author a book with the title "I am Not That" (a little joke there).

I think it is a mistake to conclude from the idea that everyone has some aspects of their existence in common, that anyone who holds that view is, therefore, a non-dualist. The crucial, and I believe distinguishing, view of advaita is that this commonality is the only genuine reality. It is possible to argue for the commonalities of people without concluding that these commonalities are the only genuine reality and if one does not draw that conclusion I would say that one is not a non-dualist.

Sincerely,

Jim

User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby Ngawang Drolma. » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:18 pm

Imho, the thing that makes Buddhism radically different from other religions is that even when thinking of dharma kaya, for example, shunyata is always lingering in the background of teachings as a context. The subtle difference between "not two" and "one" reminds me of saying "not-self" rather than "no-self." For me at least, it was easier to wrap my mind around not-self when getting familiar with Buddhism.

Best,
ND


floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby floating_abu » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:48 pm


floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby floating_abu » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:19 am


User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Non-duality

Postby pink_trike » Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:13 am

Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.

floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Postby floating_abu » Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:54 am



Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine