Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Javi
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by Javi » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:54 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Actually in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Nagarjuna does not use the term advaya, not does he talk about "nonduality." If advaya is used in terms of the Madhyamaka, it is a much later development.
Just looked this up. You're right, I posted an unwarranted assumption :toilet:

I did find that the term advaya appears in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā though.
As for the non-duality stuff, much of it that we have to contend with is likely modern Western stuff. And as far as Yogacara is concerned most of that I would ignore most of it unless it comes from Lusthaus or others such as Waldron who are not tied into the Tibetan tenet system or who are using old Western
sources.
I have the impression that there was a kind of metaphysical shift from the Indian Yogacara to some of the Chinese Buddhist schools, in that the Indian was more epistemological and phenomenological and the Chinese made it more a metaphysical idealism (at least Huayen).

I guess a similar thing happened in Tibet where some schools posit a metaphysical "ground" (gzhi).
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by tiltbillings » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:50 am

Javi wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Actually in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Nagarjuna does not use the term advaya, not does he talk about "nonduality." If advaya is used in terms of the Madhyamaka, it is a much later development.
Just looked this up. You're right, I posted an unwarranted assumption :toilet:

I did find that the term advaya appears in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā though.
It certainly does, which goes to show how long it has been since I looked at it. In all of this I will go with the distinction between advaya and an advaita that Guenther makes, otherwise we just slide right into Hinduism.
As for the non-duality stuff, much of it that we have to contend with is likely modern Western stuff. And as far as Yogacara is concerned most of that I would ignore most of it unless it comes from Lusthaus or others such as Waldron who are not tied into the Tibetan tenet system or who are using old Western
sources.
I have the impression that there was a kind of metaphysical shift from the Indian Yogacara to some of the Chinese Buddhist schools, in that the Indian was more epistemological and phenomenological and the Chinese made it more a metaphysical idealism (at least Huayen).

I guess a similar thing happened in Tibet where some schools posit a metaphysical "ground" (gzhi).
These seem to be reasonable assessments.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by SEC201482 » Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:19 pm

Javi wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Actually in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Nagarjuna does not use the term advaya, not does he talk about "nonduality." If advaya is used in terms of the Madhyamaka, it is a much later development.
Just looked this up. You're right, I posted an unwarranted assumption :toilet:

I did find that the term advaya appears in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā though.
As for the non-duality stuff, much of it that we have to contend with is likely modern Western stuff. And as far as Yogacara is concerned most of that I would ignore most of it unless it comes from Lusthaus or others such as Waldron who are not tied into the Tibetan tenet system or who are using old Western
sources.
I have the impression that there was a kind of metaphysical shift from the Indian Yogacara to some of the Chinese Buddhist schools, in that the Indian was more epistemological and phenomenological and the Chinese made it more a metaphysical idealism (at least Huayen).

I guess a similar thing happened in Tibet where some schools posit a metaphysical "ground" (gzhi).
The term "advayam" is used in the Kosala Sutta in reference to the "arupa" state of the "dimension of infinite consciousness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

As Alexander Wynne pointed out, Theravada is "non-dual" in a different way from Advaita:

Nonduality

Both the Buddha's conception of the liberated person and the goal of early Brahminic yoga can be characterized as nondual, but in different ways. The nondual goal in early Brahminism was conceived in ontological terms; the goal was that into which one merges after death. According to Wynne, liberation for the Buddha "... is nondual in another, more radical, sense. This is made clear in the dialogue with Upasiva, where the liberated sage is defined as someone who has passed beyond conceptual dualities. Concepts that might have some meaning in ordinary discourse, such as consciousness or the lack of it, existence and non-existence, etc., do not apply to the sage. For the Buddha, propositions are not applicable to the liberated person, because language and concepts (Sn 1076: vaadapathaa, dhammaa), as well as any sort of intellectual reckoning (sankhaa) do not apply to the liberated sage.[71]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:42 pm

SEC201482 wrote:
Javi wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Actually in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Nagarjuna does not use the term advaya, not does he talk about "nonduality." If advaya is used in terms of the Madhyamaka, it is a much later development.
Just looked this up. You're right, I posted an unwarranted assumption :toilet:

I did find that the term advaya appears in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā though.
As for the non-duality stuff, much of it that we have to contend with is likely modern Western stuff. And as far as Yogacara is concerned most of that I would ignore most of it unless it comes from Lusthaus or others such as Waldron who are not tied into the Tibetan tenet system or who are using old Western
sources.
I have the impression that there was a kind of metaphysical shift from the Indian Yogacara to some of the Chinese Buddhist schools, in that the Indian was more epistemological and phenomenological and the Chinese made it more a metaphysical idealism (at least Huayen).

I guess a similar thing happened in Tibet where some schools posit a metaphysical "ground" (gzhi).
The term "advayam" is used in the Kosala Sutta in reference to the "arupa" state of the "dimension of infinite consciousness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

As Alexander Wynne pointed out, Theravada is "non-dual" in a different way from Advaita:

Nonduality

Both the Buddha's conception of the liberated person and the goal of early Brahminic yoga can be characterized as nondual, but in different ways. The nondual goal in early Brahminism was conceived in ontological terms; the goal was that into which one merges after death. According to Wynne, liberation for the Buddha "... is nondual in another, more radical, sense. This is made clear in the dialogue with Upasiva, where the liberated sage is defined as someone who has passed beyond conceptual dualities. Concepts that might have some meaning in ordinary discourse, such as consciousness or the lack of it, existence and non-existence, etc., do not apply to the sage. For the Buddha, propositions are not applicable to the liberated person, because language and concepts (Sn 1076: vaadapathaa, dhammaa), as well as any sort of intellectual reckoning (sankhaa) do not apply to the liberated sage.[71]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism
It would seem that the position of "the sage" should not be called "non-dual."
The problem with the idea of non-duality is that it is by its very nature dualistic.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:34 pm

SEC201482 wrote:Nonduality

Both the Buddha's conception of the liberated person and the goal of early Brahminic yoga can be characterized as nondual, but in different ways. The nondual goal in early Brahminism was conceived in ontological terms; the goal was that into which one merges after death. According to Wynne, liberation for the Buddha "... is nondual in another, more radical, sense. This is made clear in the dialogue with Upasiva, where the liberated sage is defined as someone who has passed beyond conceptual dualities. Concepts that might have some meaning in ordinary discourse, such as consciousness or the lack of it, existence and non-existence, etc., do not apply to the sage. For the Buddha, propositions are not applicable to the liberated person, because language and concepts (Sn 1076: vaadapathaa, dhammaa), as well as any sort of intellectual reckoning (sankhaa) do not apply to the liberated sage.[71]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism
This is an amazing and succinct statement of non-duality, and is very in-line with what I have been taught from numerous sources in Mahayana Buddhism. It is good and reassuring to see it practiced in Theravada Buddhism as well. On account of its presence in both schools, I think that this is something that is very-likely preserved from a shared original non-sectarian stage of the teaching. There are many passages in the āgamas and the nikayas that attest to this specific reading of the term non-duality. Buddhist non-duality is not Hindu non-duality. Just like the Christian conception of the Holy Spirit is not the same as the Muslim conception of the Holy Spirit, despite them sharing common religious vocabulary. We have to remember that, IMO, before we go about criticizing Buddhists who use the terminology "non-dual" for allegedly incorporation Hindu teachings into the Dharma. Modern-day Hindus do not have a monopoly on the word 'non-dual'. Many words are shared between Buddhism and Hinduism that have different readings and are differently understood in the two traditions. Non-dualism is an example of one of these terms, since most Buddhisms do not advocate for the "fusing into" anything as an element of soteriological liberation.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Javi
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by Javi » Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:35 pm

I honestly think the term 'non-dual' should be done away with altogether when referring to the Buddha's teachings. It is too broad, too easy to confuse with other ideas and more importantly, the Buddha does not use this term. We can speak of samadhi, a unification of mind where there is no subject-object distinction, and we can speak of a state of non-conceptualization (Nippapañca). But 'non-dual' ? I honestly don't see how this serves any purpose but confuse people and make them think the Buddha was teaching some kind of Idealism or Transcendentalism. Sadly the whole thing seems to have a really big attraction for people, but I guess the appeal of an all embracing ontological worldview has always been strong, as we can see in the Upanishads.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:05 pm

Javi wrote: I guess the appeal of an all embracing ontological worldview has always been strong, as we can see in the Upanishads.
It is a warm fuzzy point of view: It is all One, we are all One, and all sorts of warm fuzzy platitude that can follow from that. Also: "You are a dualist, always in opposition, never seeing the truly true all Oneness of reality.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Javi
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by Javi » Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:19 pm

The funny part is, if there was really just one consciousness shared by all beings (Advaita), then it would actually be horrifying. I mean, think about how many animals are being eaten alive just this moment, how many people just now are in their final moments of death. Imagine sensing all of the suffering of the world and never being able to turn it off.
It's only warm fuzzy because of selective thinking. A true non-dual consciousness would be the most horrific thing imaginable.

Of course, the answer is that due to Maya, we are contracted consciousnesses, but if Maya is something which causes the non-dual to appear to be dualistic, then non-dualism isn't really that non-dual after all.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by SEC201482 » Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:37 pm

Javi wrote:The funny part is, if there was really just one consciousness shared by all beings (Advaita), then it would actually be horrifying. I mean, think about how many animals are being eaten alive just this moment, how many people just now are in their final moments of death. Imagine sensing all of the suffering of the world and never being able to turn it off.
It's only warm fuzzy because of selective thinking. A true non-dual consciousness would be the most horrific thing imaginable.

Of course, the answer is that due to Maya, we are contracted consciousnesses, but if Maya is something which causes the non-dual to appear to be dualistic, then non-dualism isn't really that non-dual after all.
Exactly. Advaita is also philosophically incoherent. What could it possibly mean to say "all is Self?" "Self" is inherently a relational concept; a Self/subject can only be defined in relation to an object and vice versa. The idea that the Self is all that exists is pure nonsense. If something is truly "unconditioned," then it has to completely transcend the self/not-self dichotomy altogether.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:10 am

Javi wrote:The funny part is, if there was really just one consciousness shared by all beings (Advaita), then it would actually be horrifying. I mean, think about how many animals are being eaten alive just this moment, how many people just now are in their final moments of death. Imagine sensing all of the suffering of the world and never being able to turn it off.
It's only warm fuzzy because of selective thinking. A true non-dual consciousness would be the most horrific thing imaginable.
I'm confused, probably because I don't know much about Advaita Vedanta, but don't the Hindus also believe they teach a path that leads to liberation from rebirth? Rebirth isn't supposed to be a pleasant thing in either Buddhism or Hinduism. I think its a bit more horrifying a concept in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but maybe thats just because I am more familiar with Buddhism. Rebirth is never a good thing.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Javi
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by Javi » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:18 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Javi wrote:The funny part is, if there was really just one consciousness shared by all beings (Advaita), then it would actually be horrifying. I mean, think about how many animals are being eaten alive just this moment, how many people just now are in their final moments of death. Imagine sensing all of the suffering of the world and never being able to turn it off.
It's only warm fuzzy because of selective thinking. A true non-dual consciousness would be the most horrific thing imaginable.
I'm confused, probably because I don't know much about Advaita Vedanta, but don't the Hindus also believe they teach a path that leads to liberation from rebirth? Rebirth isn't supposed to be a pleasant thing in either Buddhism or Hinduism. I think its a bit more horrifying a concept in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but maybe thats just because I am more familiar with Buddhism. Rebirth is never a good thing.
Of course, they just interpret rebirth as arising from Maya, illusion. When Maya is replaced with knowledge of Brahman, all rebirth an suffering ceases, since it is all illusion according to Shankara. Interestingly enough, Brahman is all blissful, so somehow, a non-dual blissful existence is able to give rise to multiplicity and suffering. Why bliss and unity is posited as the metaphysical ground of things is arbitrary of course, one could easily posit suffering and plurality as the metaphysical ground of things.

Edit: Actually, its not arbitrary, its appeal to authority, since Advaita ultimately must bow to the authority of the Vedas.

As for positing suffering at the ground of things, we have at least one thinker in the West who did this: Schopenhauer
Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule.
I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt...
The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other. - Studies in Pessimism
Its amusing that Schopenhauer saw his philosophy reflected in the Indian vedic texts, actually, he is their opposite. For his Wille is not the blissful, unified Self of the Upanishads which we should all seek to become one with, but a most horrifying eternal metaphysical ocean of suffering and craving.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by SEC201482 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:58 pm

Javi wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:
Javi wrote:The funny part is, if there was really just one consciousness shared by all beings (Advaita), then it would actually be horrifying. I mean, think about how many animals are being eaten alive just this moment, how many people just now are in their final moments of death. Imagine sensing all of the suffering of the world and never being able to turn it off.
It's only warm fuzzy because of selective thinking. A true non-dual consciousness would be the most horrific thing imaginable.
I'm confused, probably because I don't know much about Advaita Vedanta, but don't the Hindus also believe they teach a path that leads to liberation from rebirth? Rebirth isn't supposed to be a pleasant thing in either Buddhism or Hinduism. I think its a bit more horrifying a concept in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but maybe thats just because I am more familiar with Buddhism. Rebirth is never a good thing.
Of course, they just interpret rebirth as arising from Maya, illusion. When Maya is replaced with knowledge of Brahman, all rebirth an suffering ceases, since it is all illusion according to Shankara. Interestingly enough, Brahman is all blissful, so somehow, a non-dual blissful existence is able to give rise to multiplicity and suffering. Why bliss and unity is posited as the metaphysical ground of things is arbitrary of course, one could easily posit suffering and plurality as the metaphysical ground of things.

Edit: Actually, its not arbitrary, its appeal to authority, since Advaita ultimately must bow to the authority of the Vedas.

As for positing suffering at the ground of things, we have at least one thinker in the West who did this: Schopenhauer
Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule.
I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt...
The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other. - Studies in Pessimism
Its amusing that Schopenhauer saw his philosophy reflected in the Indian vedic texts, actually, he is their opposite. For his Wille is not the blissful, unified Self of the Upanishads which we should all seek to become one with, but a most horrifying eternal metaphysical ocean of suffering and craving.

It is interesting to note that Schopenhauer fell into the same trap as the Upanishads. He criticized Kant for using the phrase "things in themselves" to refer to the noumenal when he thought Kant's thinking inevitably led to the conclusion that it should be "thing in itself" (i.e. that beyond "representation" everything is "One"). He believed Kant proved that time, space, and other forms of differentiation are ideal and don't apply to the noumenal. However, it is obvious from Kant's own system that he proved no such thing. Kant's categories may not apply to the noumenal, but it doesn't follow that the noumenal isn't differentiated in any sense whatsoever; we're not justified in saying what lies beyond the phenomenal/representational realm (i.e. whether it is a unity, multiplicity, both, neither, etc.).

User avatar
Javi
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by Javi » Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:39 pm

This is why I think that the Buddha would agree with Kant here that we simply cannot know the 'things in themselves', why? because they lie 'beyond range' - avisaya - here meaning, epistemic range or 'beyond the sphere of experience' (Kalupahana)
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:42 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Javi wrote:The funny part is, if there was really just one consciousness shared by all beings (Advaita), then it would actually be horrifying. I mean, think about how many animals are being eaten alive just this moment, how many people just now are in their final moments of death. Imagine sensing all of the suffering of the world and never being able to turn it off.
It's only warm fuzzy because of selective thinking. A true non-dual consciousness would be the most horrific thing imaginable.
I'm confused, probably because I don't know much about Advaita Vedanta, but don't the Hindus also believe they teach a path that leads to liberation from rebirth? Rebirth isn't supposed to be a pleasant thing in either Buddhism or Hinduism. I think its a bit more horrifying a concept in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but maybe thats just because I am more familiar with Buddhism. Rebirth is never a good thing.
If your self is not its own eternal entity like in classical Samkhya with liberation being separation of the self from everything extraneous which causes suffering; if rather it is merely a piece or breakoff of one giant uber-self and liberation is to be subsumed back into the uber-self then 'you' have no control on whether the uber-self shoots 'you' back out again to do it all over. So what Advaita calls 'liberation' is actually eternal slavery to the will of the thing that sent 'you' to suffer the first time and probably will again.

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: Are there any other schools of Buddhism, besides Theravada, that are not non-dual?

Post by SEC201482 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:51 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:
Javi wrote:The funny part is, if there was really just one consciousness shared by all beings (Advaita), then it would actually be horrifying. I mean, think about how many animals are being eaten alive just this moment, how many people just now are in their final moments of death. Imagine sensing all of the suffering of the world and never being able to turn it off.
It's only warm fuzzy because of selective thinking. A true non-dual consciousness would be the most horrific thing imaginable.
I'm confused, probably because I don't know much about Advaita Vedanta, but don't the Hindus also believe they teach a path that leads to liberation from rebirth? Rebirth isn't supposed to be a pleasant thing in either Buddhism or Hinduism. I think its a bit more horrifying a concept in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but maybe thats just because I am more familiar with Buddhism. Rebirth is never a good thing.
If your self is not its own eternal entity like in classical Samkhya, if it is merely a piece or breakoff of one giant uber-self and liberation is to be subsumed back into the uber-self then 'you' have no control on whether the uber-self shoots 'you' back out again to do it all over. So what Advaita calls 'liberation' is actually eternal slavery to the will of the thing that sent 'you' to suffer the first time and probably will again.
Indeed, that is what Plotinus believed as reported in The Enneads.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests