Dropping non-duality

[Benjamin]

Hey all,


I like to think that I'm not the only one who has witnessed the rising interest in non-duality these past couple of years, and I'd like to open up a discussion regarding it's influence on Buddhist practice and teaching here in the west. When I speak of non-duality, I am referencing the modern interpretations of classical Advaita Vedanta — namely, the teachings out there that posit a true self which is changeless awareness/pure beingness, etc.

The part about this teaching that has caused me the most dissonance is the claim that nothing really needs to be done to "awaken". According to these teachings, one simply needs to recognize rather than do a practice or walk a path. This has caused a lot of wasted time on my behalf, as I have tried to integrate these ideas with the practice traditionally laid out by the Buddha.

Has anyone else dealt with this before? I'm curious to hear how others have faced this issue in their practice.

[Kasina]

Hey all,


I like to think that I'm not the only one who has witnessed the rising interest in non-duality these past couple of years, and I'd like to open up a discussion regarding it's influence on Buddhist practice and teaching here in the west. When I speak of non-duality, I am referencing the modern interpretations of classical Advaita Vedanta — namely, the teachings out there that posit a true self which is changeless awareness/pure beingness, etc.

The part about this teaching that has caused me the most dissonance is the claim that nothing really needs to be done to "awaken". According to these teachings, one simply needs to recognize rather than do a practice or walk a path. This has caused a lot of wasted time on my behalf, as I have tried to integrate these ideas with the practice traditionally laid out by the Buddha.

Has anyone else dealt with this before? I'm curious to hear how others have faced this issue in their practice.

Finding Theravadin Buddhism helped me drop it, actually.

[Mkoll]

I was interested in Advaita Vedanta before getting into Theravada. I read people like Nisargadatta and Adyashanti and tried, halfheartedly, to put their teachings into practice. Suffice it to say, it wasn't working for me so I moved on.

But I never tried integrating those kinds of teachings into Buddhist practice and I don't plan on trying. I agree that it would be a waste of time.

[chownah]

For me, the meaning of this.....:

"The part about this teaching that has caused me the most dissonance is the claim that nothing really needs to be done to "awaken". According to these teachings, one simply needs to recognize rather than do a practice or walk a path. This has caused a lot of wasted time on my behalf, as I have tried to integrate these ideas with the practice traditionally laid out by the Buddha. "

......is that The Result is not attained by doing any particular thing. Anything which arises do to one's intentional striving is conditioned on that doing but The Result is unconditioned.....so it makes sense that intentional striving can not create the push to cause the arising of The Result.
chownah

[Goofaholix]

The part about this teaching that has caused me the most dissonance is the claim that nothing really needs to be done to "awaken". According to these teachings, one simply needs to recognize rather than do a practice or walk a path. This has caused a lot of wasted time on my behalf, as I have tried to integrate these ideas with the practice traditionally laid out by the Buddha.

I think this view is useful to counterbalance a striving attitude, the an attitude that if I can just accumulate enough hours on the meditation cushion, or just achieve this or that state, or just do x, y, and z I'll be awakened. That view is just as problematic as the view one doesn't have to do anything.

I think it can encourage an attitude of receptiveness and openness.

Of course it doesn't make sense to take it too black and white and believe in the idea that there is nothing that needs doing, if there were nothing that needs doing there would be no need for the eightfold path.

[Derek]

Benjamin, have you looked into Kenneth Folk's three-gear explanation?

http://kennethfolkdharma.com/2009/07/th ... nsmission/

[Benjamin]

Benjamin, have you looked into Kenneth Folk's three-gear explanation?

http://kennethfolkdharma.com/2009/07/th ... nsmission/

Yes I've heard of it, and it's a good example of someone's attempt at integrating these teachings. I can't say I'm an avid follower of Kenneth Folk, though.


To the other comments regarding "striving", I agree that this attitude is not the end goal, but I think most of us would agree that it is a necessary factor on the path to that goal. Many teachers of this neo-advaita school would say that no meditation is necessary, no path required. It is when that element tries to become integrated that I think confusion can arise.

Thanks for the replies so far!

[Kumara]

The part about this teaching that has caused me the most dissonance is the claim that nothing really needs to be done to "awaken". According to these teachings, one simply needs to recognize rather than do a practice or walk a path.

Perhaps "to recognize" is the doing.

[2pennyworth]

I believe Adyashanti practiced Zen under the guidance of a Roshi, and there is still elements of Zen in his teachings mixed-up with Advaita, specifically the practice of shikantaza choice-less awareness meditation he encourages his students to practice, of non-striving open receptiveness. From what I've learnt of Adyashanti, he felt he had difficulty in striving or pushing too hard (ie perhaps bringing excessive contraction, craving and desire into his practice/seeking? thus hindering him?), his teacher at the time suggested that he be less "contracted" and more open and "expanded" through the analogy of showing him a tightly clenched fist which she opened and relaxed, like a flower opening from a bud. This was an 'epiphany' moment for Adyashanti, I'm led to believe from his interviews, and may inform his current approach to teaching.

So he teaches in a "reverse order": realize you're "already enlightened", so relax; your identity is beyond limited dualistic concepts, not bound by ideas of self and other, etc., then cultivate and deepen this initial insight into maturity through being relaxed, open, present and aware.

But you know, different strokes for different folks.


Matt

[tiltbillings]

It might be worth defining "non-duality."

[Dan74]

Seems to me that non-duality is just an elaboration of equanimity. The trouble is when it is taken as a position. In Mahayana, two relevant teachings that spring to mind are Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra http://www.fodian.net/world/0475_09.html and HsinHsin Ming (Trust in Mind) by Seng Tsan http://terebess.hu/english/hsin.html#2, but I guess they are off-topic here.

[tiltbillings]

Seems to me that non-duality is just an elaboration of equanimity. The trouble is when it is taken as a position. In Mahayana, two relevant teachings that spring to mind are Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra and HsinHsin Ming (Trust in Mind) by Seng Tsan, but I guess they are off-topic here.

The problem, however, is that there is Buddhist (primarily Mahayana) non-duality and Hindu non-duality, and they are very different animals that just all too easily conflated, as if talking about the one is talking about the other.

[2pennyworth]

Isn't there an advaita saying? Something like, "not two, not one"?

Shinzen Young:

Buddhists formulate the “shift in perception of I-amness” as “there truly is no self”. Within a lot of Hinduism the very same experience is described as discovering the True Self in a way that implies it’s a thing – the Witness, the True Observer, Pure Consciousness, etc., etc. You might think just based on the language that the Buddhist formulation and what many of the Hindu’s talk about are unrelated or perhaps even opposite experiences.

It can get even more confusing when you read the classical texts in the original language they were written in. The Buddhists say enlightenment is to realize there is no Atma, which is interpreted as self-as-thing. Most Hindu teachers say enlightenment is to find the Atma, which is interpreted as the True Perceiver, or the Nature of consciousness that’s in some way behind all the appearances. So one says find the true Atma and the other says there truly is no Atma. You might think they’re talking about completely different experiences but as far as I can see they’re using different descriptions in talking about the same thing.

When you meet the Hindu babas and the Buddhists masters and you talk and interact with them, you get the same body language and you get the same vibe. It seems the same re-engineering of the human has taken place in both cases, but the language they use to describe this sounds antithetical.

[Dan74]

Seems to me that non-duality is just an elaboration of equanimity. The trouble is when it is taken as a position. In Mahayana, two relevant teachings that spring to mind are Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra and HsinHsin Ming (Trust in Mind) by Seng Tsan, but I guess they are off-topic here.

The problem, however, is that there is Buddhist (primarily Mahayana) non-duality and Hindu non-duality, and they are very different animals that just all too easily conflated, as if talking about the one is talking about the other.

TBH, I know far too little about Hinduism and Advaita (and have no experience with either) to even begin to see whether this is true. But Shinzen Young (quoted above) is not the only Buddhist to sit on the other side of this non-dual fence to you, Tilt.

[2pennyworth]

... And then you have teachers such as Jack Kornfield who talk about the topic in the chapter "No Self or True Self?" in his book "A Path With Heart"