Non-duality AND Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

[christopher:::]

Respectfully, Abu, I'm not too worried that the views i present on Buddhist forums are going to be leading anyone astray. We are all doing this, all the time, presenting our povs on this and that. I teach about dualistic and holistic logic in my University classrooms, without mention of Buddhism. We're studying American culture and history, and this is a theme there, a BiG theme.

Last week I talked about the Salem Witch hunts, and we watched scenes from the Crucible movie. Tomorrow I'll be showing scenes from Disney's version of Huck Finn. Just picked out a good scene where when talking about slavery, Jim says to Huck, "Just because everyone believes something is right, doesn't mean that it's right."

I won't be talking about Buddhism, or the dharma, but still believe that this topic is in sync with what the Buddha taught. For me, that's what Right Livelihood is all about.

[floating_abu]

Respectfully, Abu, I'm not too worried that the views i present on Buddhist forums are going to be leading anyone astray.

I can see you are not worried However, there was a Buddha, and there are established/recognised Masters for good reason as we can see. i.e. many of us have got it wrong.

Just picked out a good scene where when talking about slavery, Jim says to Huck, "Just because everyone believes something is right, doesn't mean that it's right."

A good quote. Does that include yourself?

Best wishes,

Abu

[christopher:::]

Just picked out a good scene where when talking about slavery, Jim says to Huck, "Just because everyone believes something is right, doesn't mean that it's right."

A good quote. Does that include yourself?

Of course, I think (though I could be wrong).
Isn't that to be expected?

A related article...

Enlightenment Therapy: NY Times article

[Individual]

Christopher: Do Buddhist teachers hold the same nondual notions as Hindus?

What exactly are the "non-dual" notions held by Buddhist teachers? Do you understand Guenther's point?

...With regard to Mind & Body, Self & Other, Life & Death, Craving & Aversion, Suffering & Joy, and Reality & Appearance.

There was a recent sutta somebody here quoted that seems relevant. Here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A layperson argues with a monk about whether the Buddha taught two feelings (pain & pleasure) or three (pain, pleasure, & neither). When the Buddha hears of it, he says that he taught both.

Now, Tiltbillings, you want to say that the Buddha didn't teach non-dualism or have any non-dualist ideas. Recognizing notself and dependent-origination, it is entirely arbitrary to say, "X is absolutely nothing like Y". In some ways, we are both comparable to apples and oranges.

But as the Buddha says in the sutta above, people will argue if they hear views they don't want to accept.

[Dharmajim]

Good Friends:

Mother Teresa has come up twice on this thread as an examplar of non-dualism. The view is that she saw God in all beings and because of this Mother Teresa is an example of a Christian non-dualist. I disagree with this conclusion and in the interest of possibly furthering the discussion I'm going to take a few moments to offer a different understanding.

Simply seeing that there is a commonality among all people, or among all things, is not sufficient to qualify someone as a non-dualist. For example, I can say that all humans are made of atoms and molecules, but I don't think from that assertion it follows that I'm a non-dualist. In some forms of Buddhist contemplation we learn to see all people as impermanent and suffering and causally arisen; that is to say we begin to perceive what all people have in common. However, I don't think that it follows from this that those engaged in such contemplations are non-dualists.

Seeing the light of God in all beings is widespread in Christian literature. George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, was famous for this; it is the entire basis for his tradition. There are many other examples. Yet I don't think it follows that Mother Teresa, or George Fox, are non-dualists because of this.

Central to a Christian view are certain pivotal differences between humans and God. First among these is that God is uncreated while human beings are created. This difference is unbridgeable and essential. The light of God in the individual is comprehended by Teresa and Fox as the grace of God guiding the individual towards the uncreated. The light within is not, in this sense, an essence or a true self, because the true self of humans is created, limited, impermanent, while the true self of God is uncreated, unlimited, and eternal.

The tradition of advaita comprehends the limited nature of human beings as illusory (variously defined) while the true self is the same as the eternal and unchanging Brahman. Therefore, "Thou Art That"; meaning human beings are not really limited and mortal. They are really unlimited and immortal, just like Brahman.

Christianity, and monotheism in general, rejects such an equivelency on two grounds. First, it diminishes the grandeur of God (see Saint Anselm) and second, it mistakenly exalts the ego of humans. An Orthodox Priest, a good friend of mine, put it succintly: "This is the start of wisdom; There is a God and I am not he." I'm waiting for some traditional Christian to author a book with the title "I am Not That" (a little joke there).

I think it is a mistake to conclude from the idea that everyone has some aspects of their existence in common, that anyone who holds that view is, therefore, a non-dualist. The crucial, and I believe distinguishing, view of advaita is that this commonality is the only genuine reality. It is possible to argue for the commonalities of people without concluding that these commonalities are the only genuine reality and if one does not draw that conclusion I would say that one is not a non-dualist.

Sincerely,

Jim

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Imho, the thing that makes Buddhism radically different from other religions is that even when thinking of dharma kaya, for example, shunyata is always lingering in the background of teachings as a context. The subtle difference between "not two" and "one" reminds me of saying "not-self" rather than "no-self." For me at least, it was easier to wrap my mind around not-self when getting familiar with Buddhism.

Best,
ND

[floating_abu]

Just picked out a good scene where when talking about slavery, Jim says to Huck, "Just because everyone believes something is right, doesn't mean that it's right."

A good quote. Does that include yourself?

Of course

Doubtful

[floating_abu]

Good Friends:

Mother Teresa has come up twice on this thread as an examplar of non-dualism. The view is that she saw God in all beings and because of this Mother Teresa is an example of a Christian non-dualist. I disagree with this conclusion and in the interest of possibly furthering the discussion I'm going to take a few moments to offer a different understanding.

Simply seeing that there is a commonality among all people, or among all things, is not sufficient to qualify someone as a non-dualist. For example, I can say that all humans are made of atoms and molecules, but I don't think from that assertion it follows that I'm a non-dualist. In some forms of Buddhist contemplation we learn to see all people as impermanent and suffering and causally arisen; that is to say we begin to perceive what all people have in common. However, I don't think that it follows from this that those engaged in such contemplations are non-dualists.

Seeing the light of God in all beings is widespread in Christian literature. George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, was famous for this; it is the entire basis for his tradition. There are many other examples. Yet I don't think it follows that Mother Teresa, or George Fox, are non-dualists because of this.

Central to a Christian view are certain pivotal differences between humans and God. First among these is that God is uncreated while human beings are created. This difference is unbridgeable and essential. The light of God in the individual is comprehended by Teresa and Fox as the grace of God guiding the individual towards the uncreated. The light within is not, in this sense, an essence or a true self, because the true self of humans is created, limited, impermanent, while the true self of God is uncreated, unlimited, and eternal.

The tradition of advaita comprehends the limited nature of human beings as illusory (variously defined) while the true self is the same as the eternal and unchanging Brahman. Therefore, "Thou Art That"; meaning human beings are not really limited and mortal. They are really unlimited and immortal, just like Brahman.

Christianity, and monotheism in general, rejects such an equivelency on two grounds. First, it diminishes the grandeur of God (see Saint Anselm) and second, it mistakenly exalts the ego of humans. An Orthodox Priest, a good friend of mine, put it succintly: "This is the start of wisdom; There is a God and I am not he." I'm waiting for some traditional Christian to author a book with the title "I am Not That" (a little joke there).

I think it is a mistake to conclude from the idea that everyone has some aspects of their existence in common, that anyone who holds that view is, therefore, a non-dualist. The crucial, and I believe distinguishing, view of advaita is that this commonality is the only genuine reality. It is possible to argue for the commonalities of people without concluding that these commonalities are the only genuine reality and if one does not draw that conclusion I would say that one is not a non-dualist.

Sincerely,

Jim

Dharmajim

I think your reasoning is congruent and strong and thank you for adding your voice to this community.

Two points:

1. If there is such a thing as non-duality then my own understanding of it is: it's just things as they are. To bring it out perhaps one might say -- "Not two, not one"

It also reminds me of T'seng Tsan: "To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality."

Assertion and denial might be a bit too much.

But this is a discussion board and so we discuss --

To be honest I am neither a fan nor a critic of the so-called non dual approach teachings. If it helps the student, it is a good teaching. But when I say help my own bias is it is a pointer of practice - which is not just a position, rather it is ongoing practice which can facilitate an embodiment of insights and realisation that are most oft wordless, but are genuinely transformative. That transformation is similar to the pointers offered by Lord Buddha and in my own view the standard is liberation - liberation.

Even lacking this, I have no issue with non-duality on its own as a pointer - and certainly encouragements to reflect on the connectedness of human/earth/living beings is widespread amidst Dharma teachers.

Personally, my bias is to go beyond it as an attitude only - the pointers I would be most familiar with are those which encourage practice (meditation/reflection/attention/kindness) and to that end teachers only hint and speak of what is possible in the language that is available- so that the student forges ahead to know for themself. ie they are encouragements for us and also verify the truth of Lord Buddha's teachings so many years ago.

I think Buddhism does not "not have" (if we have to call it this for the purposes of this discussion) non-dual aspects, but when mixing with this and that tradition, this and that point, sometimes things do get a bit watery. And in that case I empathise with reservations about these so-called non-dual teachings. And certainly I agree it's not enough to just believe oneself into liberation, as some quotes in the beginning posts seemed to indicate. It is undoubtedly possible to point however.

2. Language by nature is dual, and to a degree limited - and so are our insights. I prefer keeping an open mind on most things and let practice take care of the rest. I concur with your points that seeing commonality does not equate to non-dual however, and again thank you for some salient points all round in this thread.

Abu

[pink_trike]

When put into practice "wisdom" can be helpful and effective. Any worldview that sees all life on our planet as part of a unified whole- all people as sisters and brothers, animals and plants as part of one family- is wise, imo.

I'd also go so far as to say that such common "wisdom" is in sync with the Buddha's dhamma.

I think those views, now further believed to be wisdom, are nesting mirages.
Although granted they are probably far better than the alternative

Nevertheless we probably need to recognise that the description you provided could be said of a happy go-lucky, peace loving attitude and the "hippie" stance of the 60s was another manifestation of this. To equate this as the "wisdom" and intellectual position of the Buddha, is probably to simplify and dilute the Buddha's teachings a bit too much I think.

It is easy to do this when one picks up attitudes and phrases here and there and tries to merge it into the world view that one finds most affinity with - in this case, unity.

Personally I say to each his/her own - nothing wrong with using what is useful for one's life and however it needs to be - but to represent it as the truth of the Buddha's teaching without penetration into those for oneself, is maybe a bit too much as we then have the potential to mislead others that this is all the Buddha's teaching is about.

Best wishes,

Abu

Imo, Christopher is right on the money - what he said is supported by the Dharma, modern science, and many premodern integral views of the phenomenal world. . To disassociate these things from the Dharma view perhaps reflects a narrow understanding of the teachings - and a lack of understanding that these things, although not explicitly stated in the Buddhist teachings, are definitely implicit.

I'm curious if you were actually there during the "happy go lucky" sixties? If so, you must have missed the great awakening of wisdom that took place.

[floating_abu]

Imo, Christopher is right on the money - what he said is supported by the Dharma, modern science, and many premodern integral views of the phenomenal world. . To disassociate these things from the Dharma view perhaps reflects a narrow understanding of the teachings - and a lack of understanding that these things, although not explicitly stated in the Buddhist teachings, are definitely implicit.

I'm curious if you were actually there during the "happy go lucky" sixties? If so, you must have missed the great awakening of wisdom that took place.

Dear pink

Thanks for your comments.

The only difference that I point out is one which is adopted as a mental construct (attitudes/thoughts/learnings from society) and one which sees the veracity of "all this" through the insights of practice. The latter would be what Ajahn Chah was talking about for example when he was quoted above. i.e. The way I see it he was not pointing for students to adopt a particular attitude/outlook/to point out what he had learnt, but rather to encourage students to see the truth of what he was saying through a meditative practice (of attention).

As I said to Dharmajim (or was it just to myself ) the output is congruent perhaps but the process is slightly different. With the latter ie. that sustained through a devoted and determined practice a much more sturdy and genuine change occurs. This is not to undermine the good efforts and attitude of anyone - and good/healthy attitudes are very very welcome as far as I'm concerned [no-one being apart from Buddhism regardless] -- but just to suggest a slight recognition that it is still in the realm of construct (conditioning) and it is thus still amenable to change, to deterioration, to influence. Again, nothing wrong with the output, but the process is important - for a practitioner. For a practitioner. An example is gold - there is one which is forged genuinely through the heat, and it is of solid melt, and whilst it is the same in design as a gold plated version, and all shine just as brilliantly and beautifully and are as welcome in the jewel of the universe's shine, I could not say there is no difference - from where I sit as someone who is interested in gold making.

And as I did say to Dharmajim: "Even lacking this, I have no issue with non-duality on its own as a pointer - and certainly encouragements to reflect on the connectedness of human/earth/living beings is widespread amidst Dharma teachers...I think Buddhism does not "not have" (if we have to call it this for the purposes of this discussion) non-dual aspects, but when mixing with this and that tradition, this and that point, sometimes things do get a bit watery."

So my points are mainly about process/output, and also that some presentations of those elements of Buddhist teaching in a certain way can lead students to think it is just a change of attitude. A change of attitude is a lovely thing, and certainly part of it, but I guess it's just not all of it - as far as I can see for reasons partially outlined above.

As a student of Dhamma, for us there is still the matter of consciousness, nama-rupa, vedana etc. ie. Buddhism whilst highly congruent with world peace, interrelatedness, compassion and wisdom as outputs, in terms of process points to that which is not merely within the realm of thought/construct and thereby conditioning. ie. there is a bit more to it but again not incongruent with the above attitudes. And the wisdom of the Buddha is in knowing the world - including the construct of the world, so again its expanse is a bit larger as I see it.

And this is why the points you raise to me are fair and valid and I can only point out I don't disagree that it is implicit - as I said in my point to Dharmajim.

Each age is capable of great wisdom, and I hope we are yet to embark on a new one.

Bows.

Best wishes,

Abu

[floating_abu]

I'm curious if you were actually there during the "happy go lucky" sixties? If so, you must have missed the great awakening of wisdom that took place.

pink: Apologies, I meant no offence to the age of the sixties. Best wishes.

[pink_trike]

Hi floating_abu,

We're pretty much in agreement. But at the same time....I know that some folks likely adopt a construct first re: the things that Christopher mentioned, and then perhaps grow into it with practice (not very different from adopting a "view" and then growing into it with practice in Buddhism). Some likely worked very hard to clearly recognize the things that Christopher points at - using different awareness methods and life experiences, rather than the view/techniques found in Buddhism. I don't know if you are, but to value one way of entering the path more than the other strikes me as religious chauvinism. It can be argued that their view is incomplete or perhaps clumsy from a Buddhist perspective - but both paths are leading in the same direction, imo and pre-Buddhist experience - I don't underestimate the potential of these paths, not being attached to the construct that Buddhism is the _only_ true and effective method for waking up. There are many Dharma paths - many of which fall outside of "Buddhism".

metta

[pink_trike]

I'm curious if you were actually there during the "happy go lucky" sixties? If so, you must have missed the great awakening of wisdom that took place.

pink: Apologies, I meant no offence to the age of the sixties. Best wishes.

No offense taken, I was just curious if you were there. Lots of people have an idea what the 60s were like these days without having been anywhere near them.

[christopher:::]

Thanks for the "supportive" comments, pink trike, and thank you also floating abu for your eloquent "challenges." You make many excellent points, abu, which we need to be mindful of, as dharma practitioners. But how do you bring aspects of the dhamma into your livelihood, into your workplace?

It's not the easiest thing to do, for many of us.

I cannot speak of the Buddha's teachings in a Japanese Christian University classroom where I am asked to teach about American literature, language and culture. Hopefully I am providing some small service by helping my students reflect on the role of logic and thought patterns in literature, movies, history and politics. This is something the Buddha did talk about. It's not everything, but it was something he emphasized, something that many people are not conscious of...

Helping a few dozen students become more conscious of this each year adds meaning to the work I do, and will hopefully be helpful to them. But these are just seeds, small seeds..

Choices

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.

We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.

"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.

"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.

In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible."

~Buddha, Dhammapada
Byron translation

[floating_abu]

I don't know if you are, but to value one way of entering the path more than the other strikes me as religious chauvinism. It can be argued that their view is incomplete or perhaps clumsy from a Buddhist perspective - but both paths are leading in the same direction, imo and pre-Buddhist experience - I don't underestimate the potential of these paths, not being attached to the construct that Buddhism is the _only_ true and effective method for waking up. There are many Dharma paths - many of which fall outside of "Buddhism".

metta

No I wasn't but I was suggesting not to get stuck anywhere, something which a seasoned teacher can help students with perhaps in real life.

Thanks for your points above pink_trike, I don't know what is in store for each person, but I know that Buddhism is all encompassing. I appreciate your company - thankyou.