I think some people who fall for non-dualism, they think it means something different. If the true nature of things was non-duality, then how did Buddha manage to separate this into different aggregates, different phenomenas (whether they're illusory or not), different things in the dependent origination, four noble truths, etc?
In the non-duality... strictly speaking, things would have to be seamless, period. You would not find any division in between any of them, ever... either in the first place, or if you manage to achieve that state permanently. If you achieved this state temporarily, then why did things split into different things again?
The fact that there is a separateness in this world (either now, or from the so-called non-dual state) in the first place, whether it's an illusion or not, is enough proof that this world should be viewed as a duality, not non-duality.
If some people say that accepting this separateness would be a part of experiencing the non-duality (I feel like I'm throwing in a straw-man here), either as an illusion, or as something actual, then this is tautological. Why not still call these things separate, and then leave it at that, work from there for the liberation? Why put non-duality right on top of it, as a veneer of some kind, so to speak?
What purpose would that have? How would that help with the practice? I can only see this as yet another delusion. This is yet another (ironically, self-inflicted) separation from the reality as it is. It is the denial of things as they are in this world. This person is still not liberated, only more deluded.
Last edited by beeblebrox
on Wed May 26, 2010 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.