Acchantika wrote:
I mean only that in sems sde the central focus seems to be on a basic, unconditioned awareness that is free from duality, which, coincidentally, is the premise of Advaita and what "nondual" actually refers to, at least in the latter. That is where the perceived similarities end.
At the very least, I think it is understandable the two would be conflated by the uniformed. Like me.
One: bodhicitta in sems sde is not something that is considered real; cit is sat i.e. real in Advaita.
Two: there are two basic ways the term "non-dual" is used in Buddhism: free from subject and object perception (trivial) and free from ontic extremes (non-trivial).
Three, sometimes the word "non-dual" in translation is misleading. Here is an example from sem sde. This:
rgyu dang 'bras bu gnyis las 'das
sems can sangs rgyas gnyis med pas
sangs rgyas sems kyis sgrub ma byed
It might be translated as:
Beyond the duality of cause and result,
since sentient beings and buddhas are non-dual,
buddhahood is not accomplished with the mind.
But that translation would be a little wrong.
A better way to render it would be:
Beyond both cause and result,
since both sentient beings and buddhas to do not exist
buddhahood is not accomplished with the mind.
What is the difference you ask? Here there is a pair, a cause and a result i.e. sentient being are a cause, buddhas are a result. But since neither exist, therefore, buddhahood cannot be accomplished with mind.
These issues are often quite subtle.
N