'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:40 am

adinatha wrote:It is true that something false can harm me. For example, someone might see me as Osama bin Laden's cousin and shoot me. So a falsity is in the realm of being.


No, what harmed you was the bullet.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby username » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:28 am

Namdrol wrote:
username wrote:In translations of texts and by teachers who speak English, non-dual is often used in numerous instances of various methods and view explanations within Dzogchen alone, so it depends on the context and the stage and that particuar teaching. Ultimately view-wise in English texts and teachings it is often used for non-dualness of Kadak-Lhundrob within Dzogchen though each translator or lama has his/her personal choice of words for various occasions.



"Non-dual" i.e. gnyis med/advaya means the absence of the duality of being and non-being.

In Yogacara, it can mean absence of subject and object, but the reason for this is that ultimately there is an absence of being and non-being.

Even when we talk about the inseparability of original purity and natural formation, kadag and lhundrup, this inseparability is actually predicated on the non-duality that I mentioned above. When we talk about freedom from the four extremes, the eight extremes and so on, it is all, in the end predicated on the absence of being and non-being. That absence of being and non-being is the essence of what the term "non-dual" means in Buddhist texts.

It is not a translation or terminology issue, it is just a basic fact of Buddhist view.

N

N


One could say that Madhyamka is a part of Dzogchen POV in general and here Kadak in particular. Also as ultimately all is subject to the tetralemma on being, any subject can thus be deferred to that final POV. This is a bit of logical reductionism. To be or not to be! However the view of Dzogchen is believed to be the highest by it's texts and major historic figures above lower yanas as symbolized by the vulture's feathers and they are considered subsets (not arguing if it is so here, just saying what is stated by them inner-textually as so). Finally in my post you see I mention that non-dual is used by tanslators and lamas for various terms. You choose to limit it to gnyis med and it's definition to:
means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.


While I am an admirer of your translation as well as Valby's more than anyone else's, both crisp precise and simple yet extremely difficult to achieve, I can't believe any other translator limits the use of non-dual only to gnyis med and it's legitimate definition to those few words. Many translators use non-dual for a variety of subjects within view and methods: emptiness & clarity, emptiness & bliss, emptiness & non-thought, emptiness & awareness, meditator & yoga/path/view, meditator & guru/deity, meditator & trikayas, meditator & dbang/rolpa/rtsal, Kadak & Lhundrub, etc. etc. Some of the latter couples just mentioned were what I meant earlier largely in this thread. So I respect your opinion but all others too and it is not just translators but esteemed lamas too who use the term elsewhere often in speech and writing. Problem is, so few words in English and if we limit the few ones we have as you do, soon we have run out of words for the numerous Tibetan combo words and phrases. Then we have to use Heidegger's system of making-new-words-like-this as we go along, which is actually nearer Tibetan system somewhat. Like I said not a precise field, translation, and a major confusion for all and pretty subjective. And that's just English we're talking about!
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:38 am

username wrote:
While I am an admirer of your translation as well as Valby's more than anyone else's, both crisp precise and simple yet extremely difficult to achieve, I can't believe any other translator limits the use of non-dual only to gnyis med and it's legitimate definition to those few words. Many translators use non-dual for a variety of subjects within view and methods: emptiness & clarity, emptiness & bliss, emptiness & non-thought, emptiness & awareness, meditator & yoga/path/view, meditator & guru/deity, meditator & trikayas, Kadak & Lhundrub, etc. etc.


In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based.

And often enough translators decide to translate dbyer med as non-dual, even though dbyer med is asaṁbhedaḥ, inseparable.

I am just a bigger pain in the ass than most translators and more insisitent that translations reflect and are completely consistent with buddhist view so that crypto-hindu notions stay out of our school.

Even Norbu Rinpoche asserts that in his rdzog chen skor dris len that Dzogchen view does not go beyond Madhyamaka in terms of formal statements of the view, citing Sakya Pandita to the effect that if there would something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme, and so on.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:48 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:It is true that something false can harm me. For example, someone might see me as Osama bin Laden's cousin and shoot me. So a falsity is in the realm of being.


No, what harmed you was the bullet.

N


I can't file charges against a bullet.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby username » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:49 am

Namdrol wrote:
username wrote:
While I am an admirer of your translation as well as Valby's more than anyone else's, both crisp precise and simple yet extremely difficult to achieve, I can't believe any other translator limits the use of non-dual only to gnyis med and it's legitimate definition to those few words. Many translators use non-dual for a variety of subjects within view and methods: emptiness & clarity, emptiness & bliss, emptiness & non-thought, emptiness & awareness, meditator & yoga/path/view, meditator & guru/deity, meditator & trikayas, Kadak & Lhundrub, etc. etc.


In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based.

And often enough translators decide to translate dbyer med as non-dual, even though dbyer med is asaṁbhedaḥ, inseparable.

I am just a bigger pain in the ass than most translators and more insisitent that translations reflect and are completely consistent with buddhist view so that crypto-hindu notions stay out of our school.

Even Norbu Rinpoche asserts that in his rdzog chen skor dris len that Dzogchen view does not go beyond Madhyamaka in terms of formal statements of the view, citing Sakya Pandita to the effect that if there would something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme, and so on.

N


I'd say staying a PITA is a necessary sign of perfectionism which I personally abide by. On the other point formally yes specially as all, and we mean all, can thus be reduced to the question on being. Bit of a prime axiom. Also even that itslef is subject to not existing inherently, if you see what I mean. So from a path POV, other details then come into play.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby Malcolm » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:07 am

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:It is true that something false can harm me. For example, someone might see me as Osama bin Laden's cousin and shoot me. So a falsity is in the realm of being.


No, what harmed you was the bullet.

N


I can't file charges against a bullet.



You can't file charges again a delusion, either.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby adinatha » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:30 am

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:No, what harmed you was the bullet.

N


I can't file charges against a bullet.



You can't file charges again a delusion, either.


Depends if I got a good look at him.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby muni » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:04 am

Many had to learn to see the meaning of expressions in dharma, not going to digg in 'the ground of grammar'. Translators of texts have too. _/\_

*Master/Terton/Dharmakaya - Student*, even possible in silence, without any words/without 'touching bodies'. Grammar, vocabulary makes no holes in nature, no colours.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby mindyourmind » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:24 am

muni wrote:Many had to learn to see the meaning of expressions in dharma, not going to digg in 'the ground of grammar'. Translators of texts have too. _/\_

*Master/Terton/Dharmakaya - Student*, even possible in silence, without any words/without 'touching bodies'. Grammar, vocabulary makes no holes in nature, no colours.


Oh, a sort of "Who is it that is evading the question" sort of answer then :smile:
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Location: South Africa

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby muni » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:52 am

mindyourmind wrote:
muni wrote:Many had to learn to see the meaning of expressions in dharma, not going to digg in 'the ground of grammar'. Translators of texts have too. _/\_

*Master/Terton/Dharmakaya - Student*, even possible in silence, without any words/without 'touching bodies'. Grammar, vocabulary makes no holes in nature, no colours.


Oh, a sort of "Who is it that is evading the question" sort of answer then :smile:


Unfabricated Dharma. not in the field of intellect. Undescridable. No grasping available, where to hang/nail down categories of words? Good, i wrote that because i completely fail in grammar.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby muni » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:34 pm

mindyourmind wrote:Would you agree that 'non-duality' is not 'neutrality'?

Neutral-good-bad....
When i don't take A and neither B and remain between, A and B remain as well in no preferences, choices, opinions... Or like a father asked a son what icecream do you want; chocolat or vanilla? The son shaked his shoulder and said wathever. So I see neutral.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby booker » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:10 pm

So if your body needs food you also stay in between of "need food" and "not need food"? :) Or is it like, there's no difference if what you will eat is bread or nails, for instance? :)
"Be Buddhist or be Buddha"
User avatar
booker
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby muni » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:22 pm

booker wrote:So if your body needs food you also stay in between of "need food" and "not need food"? :) Or is it like, there's no difference if what you will eat is bread or nails, for instance? :)


Neutrality is sem, nondual is 'beyond'. :smile: You are making mixed expression soup.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby booker » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:24 pm

So when 'beyond' it's ok to eat nails and stones instead of bread and water when body needs food, right? :) Or when 'neutral' ?
"Be Buddhist or be Buddha"
User avatar
booker
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby muni » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:38 pm

booker wrote:So when 'beyond' it's ok to eat nails and stones instead of bread and water when body needs food, right? :)


Maybe little robots in playstation.

"It is not mind but not other than..."
Longchenpa.

Sky is not the rainbow or not the clouds but no other than...
Moon in water, need pointing out.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby dzinpa » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:03 am

it is easy to be neutral about two points of view, nonduality might eat you
dzinpa
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:30 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby muni » Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:55 am

Warmth doesn't grasp fire. Wetness isn't grasping water.

Mirror grasping reflections: "come on, out of my way, i prefer another face, comb your hair in another way / or you, you stay, stay as i like you."

A very subtle independence, like a clever cloud hopping apart from sky and telling other clouds; I understand sky (skylike nature)... Masters warn simple and compassionate for that...Guru Rinpoche: such is ordinary thought.

Solidified subtle anchor in fabricated world while wisdom/nature is embracing all. A wise without any problem, bows down for 'simple fools', cleverness judges even wisdom. (Sakya Pandita gave examples like this)
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby muni » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:23 am

dzinpa wrote:it is easy to be neutral about two points of view, nonduality might eat you


The concepts about are senseless and objects to grasp.

Metaphors.
There are those black birds, even for the sake of their life, they cannot stop to be distracted by merely glittering moving concepts. They restless fly out and out.

My cat in her exhausted job after hopping behind her moving shadows, finally found ease. She is right now in
the shoe box i placed for her (to collect her caught results),
on the table, calm abiding in the sun.
Last edited by muni on Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby White Lotus » Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:38 pm

you will have to excuse me, but in my experience non duality is a non conceptual seeing of reality, that has very little to do with dualistic opposites that we use in logic. it is a seeing. the non dual ocean as it has been called here is 'beyond' usual dualisms such as being and non being. it is not anything, everything (being) or nothing (non being), but beyond any categories... at least in its pure statelessness, and yet it is the movie show appearance of all maya at the same time.

it is beyond existence or non existence, but saying that it exists is fine, in the same way saying that there is not a thing that exists is fine, but when you truly see. you realize that not a thing is actually seen. this is emptiness. being is emptiness, non being is emptiness. one taste. there is no emptiness.

best wishes, Tom.
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.
White Lotus
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: 'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

Postby Malcolm » Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:52 pm

White Lotus wrote:you will have to excuse me, but in my experience non duality is a non conceptual seeing of reality, that has very little to do with dualistic opposites that we use in logic.


The dualistic opposites form the basis for conventional delusions, all conceptual thinking is linguistic thinking.







it is beyond existence or non existence, but saying that it exists is fine...


If you are a Hindu, sure. But not if you are a Buddhist.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norwegian and 14 guests

>