TMingyur wrote:
The latter is not necessarily true because there are valid concepts and invalid concepts which we all can experience in our daily lives.
Even "valid" concepts are valid in only a very limited way.
No valid concept will ever allow one to experience reality as it is.
That is why zen/chan and other "higher" practices aim at going beyond the intellect.
Concepts can be limitations but they also can show the way to what you call "openness". So to doubt all concepts is not advisable. Discerning valid and invalid concepts seems to be the right approach.
"Not wanting duality" does not eliminate the fact that duality is the prerequisite to survive. "duality" is not "bad".
Kind regards
Concepts can show us the way to that openness, but that experiece can only take place if one abandones all concepts. Of course they are helpful in surviving in this world, they are the very base of existence in samsara.
Sticking to them is sticking to samsara.
"Little doubt" is doubting the absolute validity of a certain concept, that leads to "little enlightenment": i.e. the realisation of its empty nature.
"Great doubt" is the questioning of the totality of all possible contents of mind, that leads to the "great enlightenment", the experience of the empty nature of phenomenal existence.
As long as one considers concepts as real in an absolute way, there is no possibility of the vanishing (nirvana) of the concept of "I", and the perception of "reality as it is" cannot take place.
This is the reason why for example koans are used, as a means to overcome the limitations of the conceptual mind.
Nonconceptual or nondual experience is where there is no perciever and percieved, only perception.
"Not wanting duality" does not eliminate the fact that duality is the prerequisite to survive. "duality" is not "bad".
No, duality is neither good nor bad. Good and bad are just concepts, after all.
For wanting them there needs to be a "wanter". As long as there is a "wanter", the word nirvana has no relevance.
kind regards
tp