theravada equivalent of koan study?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by alan... »

thelotuseffect wrote:There is no duality. All duality arises due to avijja.

Koan study is to leave your mind suspended in the not knowing, not seeking, empty mind. This is the natural state, the result of vipassana.
could you elaborate on the similarities between vipassana and koan? i'm very interested in this particular idea.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

alan... wrote:interesting. i can't see a difference. if all things lack a self, then there's no difference.
I disagree. Emptiness does not imply a lack of ultimate, non-conceptual realities. Pain is different from pleasure, even if pain and pleasure are both non-self.

i suppose if you look and label there is, but imagine if there was no one to look and label. like no sentience at all in all of reality, how could there be duality? at least that's how i understand non duality. it's not literally NO difference between anything, it's that we invent the differences and they all depend on our discernment.
Borges has a story about a map that is a perfect 1:1 scale representation of its antecedent, that is, it is a map exactly as large as the territory it maps. It may be true that the map is conceptual and not ultimately real; however, it still refers to a base ultimate reality. In the same way, our conceptual understanding of the world is not ultimately real but still in reference to an ultimate reality.

It is wrong to say that something is inherently a chair and another thing is inherently a cushion. It is not wrong, however, to observe the nature of each collection of sense data (hardness, softness, weight, etc) and see that they are, in real reality, different. In your rock example, it may be true that there are no "rocks" without one to conceptualize them as rocks. That doesn't mean that the terms "rock 1" and "rock 2," each designating a collection of matter with unique properties occupying a unique point in space, refer to the same thing.
so the way i see it, "duality" is seeing a difference, "non duality" is seeing that everything is the same in that there are no "selves" to differentiate between any more than i differentiate between two grains of sand on a beach when looking from afar.
So do you believe that there is no difference between a lump of coal and a small child? If not, what do you think differentiates the two? Is it more than our conceptions or mental proliferation?
although perhaps i'm understanding non duality from a purely theravada perspective, reinterpreting it to make sense for me inside the teachings of the pali canon. if this is the case and your thoughts are from a mahayana perspective (or better understanding thereof at any rate) then i may be a little off.
I don't think there really is a Theravada understanding of non-duality. It is essentially Mahayana at its core.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by alan... »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
alan... wrote:interesting. i can't see a difference. if all things lack a self, then there's no difference.
I disagree. Emptiness does not imply a lack of ultimate, non-conceptual realities. Pain is different from pleasure, even if pain and pleasure are both non-self.

i suppose if you look and label there is, but imagine if there was no one to look and label. like no sentience at all in all of reality, how could there be duality? at least that's how i understand non duality. it's not literally NO difference between anything, it's that we invent the differences and they all depend on our discernment.
Borges has a story about a map that is a perfect 1:1 scale representation of its antecedent, that is, it is a map exactly as large as the territory it maps. It may be true that the map is conceptual and not ultimately real; however, it still refers to a base ultimate reality. In the same way, our conceptual understanding of the world is not ultimately real but still in reference to an ultimate reality.

It is wrong to say that something is inherently a chair and another thing is inherently a cushion. It is not wrong, however, to observe the nature of each collection of sense data (hardness, softness, weight, etc) and see that they are, in real reality, different. In your rock example, it may be true that there are no "rocks" without one to conceptualize them as rocks. That doesn't mean that the terms "rock 1" and "rock 2," each designating a collection of matter with unique properties occupying a unique point in space, refer to the same thing.
so the way i see it, "duality" is seeing a difference, "non duality" is seeing that everything is the same in that there are no "selves" to differentiate between any more than i differentiate between two grains of sand on a beach when looking from afar.
So do you believe that there is no difference between a lump of coal and a small child? If not, what do you think differentiates the two? Is it more than our conceptions or mental proliferation?
although perhaps i'm understanding non duality from a purely theravada perspective, reinterpreting it to make sense for me inside the teachings of the pali canon. if this is the case and your thoughts are from a mahayana perspective (or better understanding thereof at any rate) then i may be a little off.
I don't think there really is a Theravada understanding of non-duality. It is essentially Mahayana at its core.

interesting. i posted a thread about non duality in theravada but it was largely inconclusive.

so the way you view non duality it's more literal than my version of it. i think what i meant to say was that i learned about non duality in fragments and now am trying to fit the ideas into a theravada frame work. not that it is a theravada view, but that i'm looking from inside theravada and trying to make sense out of non duality. in which case my version is likely plain wrong in the sense of it according with the mahayana view of the term.

further there are points that can be made that make duality more complicated. for example left cannot exist without right, up without down, light without dark, sight without eyes, and so on. one exists only because of another, this can go on and on until it includes the whole universe and we are back to all being one thing. a non dual reality. for one to exist, all must exist, for all to exist, one must exist.

one could also notice that we only think dualistically because we think in terms of past and future even though in reality all that exists is right now. if there is only this single moment then whatever is happening is the one and only thing that exists. all together. this is in accord with the bahiya sutta as i read it. so there is a kernel of the idea of non duality in that sense in theravada scripture. but this is again probably not the mahayana understanding of the doctrine.

could you elaborate on what non duality means to you?
Last edited by alan... on Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by m0rl0ck »

LonesomeYogurt wrote: I just did about six months of light Koan practice at a local Zen group, so I'm not an expert,
I got that impression. There are an entire series of koans that are followed in an order. They cant all be about non-duality can they? I dont think you know what you are talking about on this subject and that you are misleading people.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by m0rl0ck »

alan... wrote:is there one?

or even something similar?
I think you are asking this question in the wrong place. You should ask it a place where more people who actually know something about koan study can answer.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

m0rl0ck wrote:I got that impression. There are an entire series of koans that are followed in an order. They cant all be about non-duality can they? I dont think you know what you are talking about on this subject and that you are misleading people.
Then please, by all means, correct my statements. It is not helpful to simply say that I am wrong.
alan... wrote:interesting. i posted a thread about non duality in theravada but it was largely inconclusive.

so the way you view non duality it's more literal than my version of it.
I don't have a view on non-duality any more than I have a view on transubstantiation - neither religious/philosophical concept is relevant to my practice.
i think what i meant to say was that i learned about non duality in fragments and now am trying to fit the ideas into a theravada frame work. not that it is a theravada view, but that i'm looking from inside theravada and trying to make sense out of non duality. in which case my version is likely plain wrong in the sense of it according with the mahayana view of the term.
My point is that non-duality is a concept which can't be made sense of through Theravada because Theravada is a religious system that affirms duality, or at the very least does not care about the concept of non-duality in any real way.
further there are points that can be made that make duality more complicated. for example left cannot exist without right, up without down, light without dark, sight without eyes, and so on. one exists only because of another, this can go on and on until it includes the whole universe and we are back to all being one thing. a non dual reality. for one to exist, all must exist, for all to exist, one must exist.
Yes, but there is a very big difference between concepts like direction, location, etc. and the actual realities of which the Buddha spoke.
one could also notice that we only think dualistically because we think in terms of past and future even though in reality all that exists is right now. if there is only this single moment then whatever is happening is the one and only thing that exists. all together. this is in accord with the bahiya sutta as i read it. so there is a kernel of the idea of non duality in that sense in theravada scripture. but this is again probably not the mahayana understanding of the doctrine.
This is not non-duality; it is a non-conceptual awareness of ultimate reality, a reality in which the Buddha affirmed there are boundaries and divisions and separations between things. Even if I feel the felt only as the felt, upon feeling a rock, I will feel something of a different quality than a pillow because that pillow's quality is ultimately different. It is true that the pillow and the rock do not ultimately exist, but it is not true that they are the same or that the divisions which separate them are somehow unreal ultimately.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by alan... »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
m0rl0ck wrote:I got that impression. There are an entire series of koans that are followed in an order. They cant all be about non-duality can they? I dont think you know what you are talking about on this subject and that you are misleading people.
Then please, by all means, correct my statements. It is not helpful to simply say that I am wrong.
alan... wrote:interesting. i posted a thread about non duality in theravada but it was largely inconclusive.

so the way you view non duality it's more literal than my version of it.
I don't have a view on non-duality any more than I have a view on transubstantiation - neither religious/philosophical concept is relevant to my practice.
i think what i meant to say was that i learned about non duality in fragments and now am trying to fit the ideas into a theravada frame work. not that it is a theravada view, but that i'm looking from inside theravada and trying to make sense out of non duality. in which case my version is likely plain wrong in the sense of it according with the mahayana view of the term.
My point is that non-duality is a concept which can't be made sense of through Theravada because Theravada is a religious system that affirms duality, or at the very least does not care about the concept of non-duality in any real way.
further there are points that can be made that make duality more complicated. for example left cannot exist without right, up without down, light without dark, sight without eyes, and so on. one exists only because of another, this can go on and on until it includes the whole universe and we are back to all being one thing. a non dual reality. for one to exist, all must exist, for all to exist, one must exist.
Yes, but there is a very big difference between concepts like direction, location, etc. and the actual realities of which the Buddha spoke.
one could also notice that we only think dualistically because we think in terms of past and future even though in reality all that exists is right now. if there is only this single moment then whatever is happening is the one and only thing that exists. all together. this is in accord with the bahiya sutta as i read it. so there is a kernel of the idea of non duality in that sense in theravada scripture. but this is again probably not the mahayana understanding of the doctrine.
This is not non-duality; it is a non-conceptual awareness of ultimate reality, a reality in which the Buddha affirmed there are boundaries and divisions and separations between things. Even if I feel the felt only as the felt, upon feeling a rock, I will feel something of a different quality than a pillow because that pillow's quality is ultimately different. It is true that the pillow and the rock do not ultimately exist, but it is not true that they are the same or that the divisions which separate them are somehow unreal ultimately.
well how can you be so sure in shooting down all of my ideas of non duality if you don't even have a view of what it means for you personally? the bahiya sutta is a non dual thinking. if you are thinking only in terms of what is immediately happening then you are thinking in terms of the singular and therefore there is no duality. the moment you compare your rock to a pillow, there is duality. if there is ONLY the feeling of the pillow, there is just a singular event. then later there would be ONLY the rock, again, no duality, singular event. i keep saying "but this is likely not the mahayana view on it", assuming that you are speaking from this standpoint, if you're not, and you have no view on it, then why in the world are you so adamant about expressing your non view of the idea? if you truly have no view then my ideas are not wrong, they are irrelevant.

where did the buddha affirm there are boundaries and divisions and separations between things in ultimate reality? if nibbana is what you mean by "ultimate reality", being that nibbana was never clearly defined, it could be defined as non duality. so it's not firmly ruled out in theravada by any means. it's not found in the practice, but it could exist as the goal.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

alan... wrote:well how can you be so sure in shooting down all of my ideas of non duality if you don't even have a view of what it means for you personally?
I hope I'm not coming off as shooting your ideas down at all; I'm just trying to explain the tradition Theravadin view of reality, which I believe is very much a "duel" system, or one that differentiates between things.

the bahiya sutta is a non dual thinking. if you are thinking only in terms of what is immediately happening then you are thinking in terms of the singular and therefore there is no duality. the moment you compare your rock to a pillow, there is duality. if there is ONLY the feeling of the pillow, there is just a singular event. then later there would be ONLY the rock, again, no duality, singular event.
If this is what you mean by non-duality, then absolutely it is found in Theravada. I just think, perhaps, that the term is a misleading one.

i keep saying "but this is likely not the mahayana view on it", assuming that you are speaking from this standpoint, if you're not, and you have no view on it, then why in the world are you so adamant about expressing your non view of the idea? if you truly have no view then my ideas are not wrong, they are irrelevant.
I think this is the point of contention; I am only familiar with a more "classic" Mahayana perspective and perhaps I'm just not good at redefining it in a Theravada perspective. If non-duality is the best way you can think of to express the "seen as the seen" mentality, then I don't mind it; just be clear that, from the concept of non-duality, many ideas and concepts have arisen that are not in line with the Buddha's teachings.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

If this topic interests you, Alan, try reading up on papañca, which seems to be the Pali term that describes what you're talking about the best. Thanissaro talks about it in the introduction to his translation of the Madhupindika Sutta, which is one of my favorite suttas ever.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by Aloka »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Non-duality is not a particularly relevant doctrine to Theravada...
This is from a section called "Non-Dualism" from "The Way it Is" by Ajahn Sumedho:

NON-DUALISM

The significant offering of the Buddhist teaching lies in what we call non-dualism. Its the 'neither-nor' approach to philosophical questions. Monistic religion tends to talk about the One, the One God, or the Whole or the Buddha Nature, or the One Mind, and that's very inspiring. We turn to monistic doctrines for inspiration. But inspiration is only one level of religious experience, and you have to outgrow it. You have to let go of the desire for inspiration, or the belief in God or in the Oneness or in the One Mind or the all embracing benevolence or in the universal fairness.

I am not asking you to not disbelieve in those things either. But the non-dualistic practice is a way of letting go of all that, of seeing attachment to the views and opinions and perceptions, because the perception of one's mind is a perception, isn't it? The perception of a universal benevolence is perception which we can attach to. The Buddha-Nature is a perception. Buddha is a perception. The one God and everything as being one universal system, global village, all is one and one is all and everything is fair and everything is kind, God loves us: these are perceptions which might be very nice, but still they are perceptions which arise and cease. Perceptions of monistic doctrines arise and cease.

Now what does that do, as a practical experience, when you let things go and they cease? What's left, what's the remainder? This is what the Buddha is pointing to in teaching about the arising and cessation of conditions.

CONTINUED :

http://www.amaravati.org/documents/the_ ... 18nod.html

.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by beeblebrox »

Hi LonesomeYogurt,

It seems like there is some misunderstanding, and you've been letting it run.

Do you actually think that when someone works with a koan, that he would end up seeing things in the way that you said?

:anjali:
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

beeblebrox wrote:Hi LonesomeYogurt,

It seems like there is some misunderstanding, and you've been letting it run.

Do you actually think that when someone works with a koan, that he would end up seeing things in the way that you said?

:anjali:
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "the way that I said." Please clarify, and I apologize if I've misunderstood something.

Also refer to this essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_27.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses. At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by beeblebrox »

LonesomeYogurt wrote: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "the way that I said." Please clarify, and I apologize if I've misunderstood something.

Also refer to this essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_27.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses. At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.
Just that.

I think the koans were supposed to stop these kind of conceptualizing (which you even said so yourself), including the so-called non-duality. This isn't something that I'm guessing.

I liked the talk by Ven. Ajahn Sumedho.

:anjali:
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by Viscid »

beelbebrox wrote:I think the koans were supposed to stop these kind of conceptualizing (which you even said so yourself), including the so-called non-duality. This isn't something that I'm guessing.
I'm inclined to agree, even Chah intended it this way, note:
Chah wrote:There is no birth, no old age, no sickness or death. Our conventional understanding of flag and wind is only a concept. In reality there is nothing. That's all! There is nothing more than empty labels.

If we practice in this way, we will come to see completeness and all of our problems will come to an end.
Though he did seem to affirm the positive ontological status of voidness/emptiness, he encouraged his students, much more importantly, to contemplate that status as an exercise toward liberation. He is both saying 'there is nothing' as a statement of fact, and as a pragmatic belief to end pointless conceptualization.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
Gena1480
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: theravada equivalent of koan study?

Post by Gena1480 »

i have read some stuff of what you guys wrote
and i have no idea what duality and non-duality mean
can someone explain
where in the suttas they talk about such things
is this argument of whats real and whats not real?
Post Reply