Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What's the big deal about non-duality?
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
I'd guess there are a number of us who have experienced altered states of consciousness, perhaps including the experience of spaciousness, peace, timelessness and being one with the world, that kind of thing.
But it seems that for some people non-duality is like the Holy Grail of spiritual practice, a sacred cow, an article of faith, something to be pursued.
But why? Is there any basis in reality for the experience of non-duality, or is it just a subjective state? Is it really just a comforting fiction, a spiritual cliche?
4
Comments
I think it is something practice can reveal but certainly not the goal.
The problem with non duality is that our intellectual minds can understand it. I mean this as far as the teachings go. Once intellect understands there appears to be a closing down. A lack of further investigation. But even this is trying too hard from my perspective.
The thing is non duality is already the case, just nobody notices it. This is because we are taught from such a young age what the world is, who we are etc. this is drilled in to us day and night. Then our thoughts break the world into separate pieces.
"This is my car, and this is me " separate things.
But if we drop all beliefs, literally. Both your car and your body are in one field of awareness. There are not separate anymore.
Any altered state of consciousness can reveal some truths about reality. Some teachers suggest that right now we are in a tightly contracted state. We only call it normal because we don't know any better
But like ourself said, altered states is not the goal.
But if we perceive things as separate we are perceiving incorrectly.
From my current experience, everything is manifesting in one awareness. It's all connected but belief cuts it up like a razor. There are times when the belief is dropped, then everything is just all happening from this awareness and perceived that way. Consciousness expanding and contracting is still perceived from this.
It literally feels like "im" dreaming. I know everything is a manifestation of the dream. That's where I feel non duality is helpful. It's a good pointer but it's an experiential thing. Not an intellectual thing, our intellect creates the different things.
For as long as so-called duality/separation/self acts as a burr under the saddle, for exactly that long will non-duality be the Holy Grail.
What you call non dual is your original condition. You popped out of the womb this way.
What you may call normal, regular or unaltered, as you are most times during the day, is the true altered state. Because it's not inherently you.
If it is truly non dual then it's not an experience because both subject and object have merged with reality (which has always been so, but it wasn't realized). There are No objects to witness and no observer to witness them.
Duality is an idea. What you call non dual is the only reality.
Being aware of two things simultaneously doesn't mean they aren't physically separate, I can look at a bowl of fruit and see both apples and oranges, that doesn't mean that apples and oranges are the same.
Perhaps you're not talking about physical separation though?
That also sounds like an idea, a belief.
@SpinyNorman
Indeed it is. Because it is being discussed. If it is put into words it automatically becomes an idea, a concept. That's why you should continue to practice and know for yourself. Then it will no longer be someone else's notion.
A man much more intelligent than me says:
I think it's one of those things that might be easy to define, as has been done in the thread, but very difficult to actually explain within experience or context.
For me, it is more a practice. That perhaps things have labels because without them we couldn't really exist in our world. We have to know to explain to someone to take the apple instead of the orange. But for me it is more so to know that while we may have to differentiate, we have the choice to add judgement to those labels. It's when we add our judgement (and everything that comes along with that, our causes, conditions, etc) that we experience duality. Not just This or That, but also because. If you try to look at the world, even momentarily, from a place without that separateness that duality subscribes to, it becomes a different place.
I am not so sure (or not) that the official teachings of non-duality are super important. I think they muck up the waters quite a bit sometimes. But looking at a world with your justifying labels does make it a different place. And that makes it easier to interact and react with the world from a place of compassion rather than fear. When we put in all those words that separate us from them, then we operate often from fear because of the differences in our labels and our tendency to protect ours while we compare them to others.
Also, I think in the Dzogchen teachings (which is where my basis of non-duality comes from) it is a bit different from just the random spouting of "non-duality!" that seems to arise with no foundation or basis. Non-duality is a major part of Dzogchen teachings, as I have experienced them so far anyhow. Like many things, it is easy to take a portion out and attempt to understand and apply it, but something is often lost when it is not used in conjunction with all the teachings that lead up to it. If that makes any sense. My sangha leader, who is a senior student of our teacher, is a Dzogchen student. His grasp of non-duality is quite good, and this is much of how he presents it. But it is never described as a holy grail, or something to achieve. It is presented as: this is what ultimate truth is, and this is a way to experience that, or at least get closer to it. It is a gradual result of practice. Not a carrot to try for.
A "bicycle" is an idea or belief.
Riding it is not.
I get it (sort of) - but in reality you can't ride an idea or belief - can you?!
My vote is it's a cliche now. And unless you can manifest that insight into a practical way of dealing with everyday stuff and people.....well...then it doesn't really matter to me much. I'm not easily impressed by one man mental stories/shows.
Non-duality - you can analyze it, dissect it, inspect it all you want. But the ice cream still states good. No big deal unless you want to make it a 600 pound gorilla.
Peace to all
"What's the big deal about non-duality?"
Perhaps it's more to do with one having/using intrinsic knowledge of the non dualistic state , which helps the knower navigate the conventional world in a Teflon kinda way.... Less hang ups so to speak
It's not a fiction or cliche. It's not something that you "practice" really. It's a realization of noble wisdom, emptiness or whatever you want to call it. It's a product of practice. The ultimate truth, suchness, thusness, or whatever you want to call it.
The Third Patriarch of Zen "Verses on the Faith Mind" talks about it. Diamond cutter sutra talks about this too. That's a good one! The basis of it is in seeing reality clearly, and if you see reality clearly, you don't suffer. You're free, you're enlightened. In other words, it does not "have a basis in reality" but rather it is reality itself. It's a description of the ultimate truth of reality.
"You" "hear" a "sound" is a belief that causes duality.
There is only hearing.
try and find the boundaries between "you" and "sound" there is none! No separation! No duality.
It's all one thing. There is no experiencer.
I could be mistaken...but I think Brother Spiny is not asking WHAT it is...but is asking...is it and if it it is, then WHY is it a big deal? My vote was...it's not a big deal to me....UNLESS the insight you got from it flowers into nice ways of doing/handling things.
And/Or for me the same.
Is it a big deal to you? Why? Don't describe to me the trip...telling me what you got out of it and how it changed you....let me sit back and watch you. Let me see what you do and how you do it...I'll make the determination then...that's what Im saying...And yes, I understand the Neutrality approach as opposed to the for the better... this is just where I'm at with it....
Can I get an amen! hahahaha
are you guys talking about the 10 different non-duality in nondualism? (不二)
I've learned that this concept is universal validity, its to make the world a better place to live because we would get along better.
My reason for the cliche vote is alot of people say it.....In every religion and in sub cultures, and in classes...etc. You had a moment...this is what Buddhism calls it...this is what any other label calls it...then what? If nothing., then Okay. Maybe not a big deal to you.
If it is a big deal to you...then why? Was it a goal? Is it part of a progression in your particular Temple/school/sect? I dunno....what is the benefit of the deal, let alone big....hahaha
no big deal
or it could be 'the great so what'... meaning that if you are saying 'so what?' then that is because you don't realize it (non-duality). If you really realized it it could be quite a shock.
If you really realized it you would say
' why couldn't i see this before, even though this is in front of my eyes all the time' ,
then you would add 'what a grate fool i had been'
and
'Thanks Buddha for your Teaching,
now i know no one in this world could expound this kind of Teaching other than a Buddha '
It is a Big Deal
My own opinion is that it is a big deal because it's the doorway to doubting and examining our assumptions about the world and our place in it. We can memorize the Sutras and expound on the suffering of the world, but until you look at the world with a new set of eyes, nothing is going to change in your life. All you're doing is dividing the world into Nirvana and Samsara and good and bad karma, and continuing to blunder down life's highway.
We are hardwired to assign meaning to things. "This is good to eat, this is bad to eat. This is dangerous, while this is safe. This causes pleasure while this over here hurts." We could not survive without duality and teaching your children the difference between good and bad is a huge responsibility. You don't try to teach a child the types of bacteria and how they cause disease, you teach them that picking up food they find on the ground and eating it is bad.
We also don't want our children to learn all this from experience, because that's dangerous. Eventually they have to trust us enough to know they're supposed to believe us because we said so. We are taught to believe authority, first out parents then teachers then politicians then the newsman on television.
But while most people never question our duality way of thinking, it also carries a price. "This is a friend, this is an enemy" might be valid on a battlefield, but it's like an infection of the mind that is passed down through generations. Are Muslims the enemies of the Western world? Of course not, but millions of people believe so because of duality. So let's just hand them this simple observation and they'll start looking at the world a different way? Not going to happen. People cling to their dualism. It's a comfort and the more you talk, the less they listen.
So to question duality, to dive in and explore the meaning and dangers and attempt to see the world as it is, not how we've been taught to see it? That is a rare and precious quality in a person. A deep bow to all of you out there who have managed this miracle. You belong to a special club.
But on the other hand, you're nothing special. The world is full of people who have discovered the secret to life, or at least think they have.
Duality, you know.
Let us suppose that it's more than a moment. Let's suppose that non dual is your normal condition. Is it still cliche? If the very nature of you is non dual, how is that cliche? You are.You are not this or that. You are. Even If it's not realized to that degree (it's not your 'normal' condition) that doesn't invalidate it. It's only fleeting to the one who hasn't realized they are it.
No need to practice being that, which you already are. You may need to practice in order to realize it, but not to be it.
No faith required. You are already that.
Nothing to pursue. You are it.
I realize by speaking of these things, we turn them into concepts. But they are concepts which point to Reality. Practice continuously and you will know without any doubts that you are already that which you seek.
Great link @Pöljä worth the effort of watching. It was an effort for me as my poly-mind was actively seeking non-duality ... elsewhere ... not non-dual at all ...
... and now back to the wholistic mind ...
This link (teacher student conversation) made me think about the question of non-duality...
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=11be6cd6a9d79d32b05c3934f&id=861be1c442
@Pöljä I watched a bit of the video, it's 30 minutes long so I might come back to it. Thanks for sharing but as I didn't watch the whole thing, why did you send it to me?
I've watched a few videos on current buddhist quantum physicists and it is interesting.
I think it's more to do with what is seen during seeing non duality rather than the experience itself.
I guess it manifests in so many different ways and experiences. Each one can be even different for the same individual.
For me it was an important insight, because you realise you may not be looking at can life correctly(free from illusions)
The may not was enough to keep me inquiring into what is really true, and what is an idea.
I think the byproducts of seeing non duality can be bliss, peace etc. but also fear and terror.
For me, I'm not chasing bliss or peace. Although they are nice. I know deep down there is something wrong with how I view the works versus what is happening.
Once you literally SEE that this is the case, things begin to unravel.
So for me, seeing the non duality is a small foot in the door of what is happening. Some people might hate it because of the implications.
As I observed elsewhere it's quite easy to establish separation if we're talking in physical terms - we have a body with ears which is physically distinct from the the source of the sound, say a dog barking.
So presumably we're actually talking about the psychological sense of separation which results from self-view? Which presumably takes us back to developing insight into anatta?
So how does non-duality relate to emptiness? If nothing has independent existence then everything is interdependent, but how does that lead to non-duality?
@SpinyNorman I don't like using psychological because it is more than just that. More a total way of perceiving. It is felt.
Ok so you are aware of your physical ears and you are aware of the sound of the dog barking?
You are separating the two but both are just experiences. Sensations of ears and sounds of dog doesn't imply separation from the subject(you)
Do you get what I'm saying? They are all just appearing in this vastness that is you. But you are not separate from them.
We say, I am aware if x,y,z but in direct experience. Is there a boundary between awareness and object? Without referring to thought.
It's not logical at all, most people try to intellectualise it. But thoughts are what are dividing the world into "things" which causes a perceived separation.
You can say it's just the experience of hearing, but I don't see how that negates the physical separation of my body and the dog's body. We developed biologically with two ears so we could establish the direction of the sound source, and of course ears work in conjunction with eyes which establish the distance of the sound source. What I'm saying is that separation does exist physically and biologically, so we must be talking about a psychological shift.
@SpinyNorman the seeing of the dog is optical nerves in the back of your brain, the sound is nerves in your brain. The touch of the dog is nerves in the skin.
You never experience the dog as it truly is. You are experiencing how your organism perceives "dog" all this is appearing in consciousness. So is your body.
We believe what we are seeing as a separate thing, out there. But all of it is happening inside our nervous system.
It really is a personal dream.
That's why there is no separation.
You can experience this as a totality.
You can see a person walking and KNOW without a doubt. You are that "other person"
Your consciousness is creating all it. At every moment.
This doesn't even have to be intellectual. You can literally see it right now.
The thing that stops us seeing it, is the belief we have. I am this person. That thing is outside of me.
Not realising it's all a dream. We are mere characters in this dream. We are not separate from it.
I'm trying my best to explain this
Sure, we are experiencing a perception of "dog". I don't see how it's just a dream though, because our perception is based at least partly on the raw data coming in through our senses - sights, sounds, maybe smells! Without that input of raw data through the senses there is nothing on which to base our perception of "dog".
So I can understand non-duality as a psychological shift in perception, perhaps seeing that we and the dog are just part of the same reality or process. But I still don't see how it negates the fact our body is physically separate from the dog's body, or physically separate from cars and trees and such like. I still don't see how we get round the biological fact that our senses are part of our body, which means we always experience things from a particular point of view.
Union or unified thinking is an important stage, perhaps more so in the more mystically orientated. In Buddhism this non-duality is eventually seen as empty. That 'empty experience' is also open to the non-dualists but many are content with union.
I would suggest that Nirvana is non-dual and empty of qualities, such as 'being' non-dual.
And now back to the big deal and its absence ...
In the suttas Nirvana is described as being "unconditioned", ie not being dependent on conditions. I'm not sure how that relates to non-duality and union though.
I'm curious, is there actually a Buddhist term specifically for "non-duality"?
Really? Isn't popping out of the womb the physical basis of duality? One becomes two?
Sure, and I think we all have to find our own way through this stuff to really understand it, it's no good just parroting what somebody else says or does. I've been working with the sense-bases for some time as an approach to mindfulness, continually returning to the actual experience of feeling, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and thinking. Sometimes I will consciously label sense objects, which is an interesting experience because labelling is usually unconscious. But of course this kind of practice does raise practical questions.
I think it works both ways there is a physical body. But it appears through consciousness. It's not one or the other. Body is the house of it, but we can only experience this body through it.
I don't know! I don't see them as different things, LOL.
Seems to me the fact that they are interdependent, itself, means they are non-dual to begin with. As "non dual" means, in one manner of speaking, not separate.
It's the mind which says that 'One becomes two'. Isn't it?
Even if you can see something happening physically, isn't it mind which adds to the seeing from its warehouse of man-made knowledge?
If mind had no man-made knowledge, What would mind say if it saw a baby popping out of the womb?
If you had no intellectual knowledge, what is one and two? Would you be able to differentiate this way without concepts driving mind?
We didn't pop out of the womb with this man-made knowledge. It isn't inherent in us. It was manufactured.
Some might think, well we have language and concepts so it doesn't matter what mind would be like without them.
What if, as a natural result of training, this knowledge didn't arise? It's still there but it now naturally remains in the background, silently. What then?
We were all born free of it. It was added gradually during our lives. So why isn't it possible to live in such a way that It doesn't interfere with our lives. Instead it becomes a tool, rather than a prison which binds us to the wall.
Even if it isn't so, at this moment for some, does that mean it's not possible for others?
I'm not sure about "manufactured", "learned" might be more accurate. But are you suggesting we unlearn everything and become like a baby again? There are some tricky distinctions here between knowledge, learning and intelligence.
Yes, interdependent implies interconnected. But is interconnected really the same as not separate? I'm not sure. You could say the components of a car are interconnected for example, but we can still identify distinct parts and sub-systems, like the engine or transmission or electrical system.
Our learned knowledge had no existence before man. Man observed his world and manufactured language, signs and systems to describe what he observed.
We weren't born with it. It's not natural to us. By natural I mean It wasn't build into this body. It wasn't encoded into our DNA. It was manufactured; made up and accepted as truth by the masses. And then passed on to following generation's. Who also accepted it as such.
When you perform any sort of task that requires tools or equipment; do you continue to carry those tools around after the job is done? Or do you abandon them until the next time they are needed?
Mind is also a tool. Learn from practicing how to abandon It until needed. When it's needed it will arise without you doing it.
How would we explain instinct?
Instinct as I understand it, is non verbal, non manufactured, not learned inherent behavior. It doesn't require active thinking. It's a mechanism built into the body. Life, Nature, Existence, without volition, designed it that way. Through natural processes.
We learn many behaviors. Those behaviors become second nature. They become habitual. I'm not certain you could call them instinctual.
You need not teach a baby how to suckle from its mother. If you bring it near the tit, it will latch on, suckle and swallow without instructions. No mental verbalizations required. That behavior / knowledge is inherent. Not manufactured by man. Not learned.
Getting dressed in the morning is learned. But it becomes habitual. You must be taught initially. You must learn how to do it. It's a manufactured behavior. It doesn't naturally exist in you. You didn't spring from your mother's vagina with socks and shoes on. Man created the idea that something needed to be placed on the feet for protection. And manufactured objects for that purpose and called them socks and shoes.
The fact that all of learned human knowledge is manufactured is not an issue in itself. Believing it to be ultimately true is. Simply realizing its true nature so that it doesn't bind us is what's important.
I tried summarize the contents of 10 of non-duality by 湛然, 묘락대사(妙樂大師) ( chinese monk ) Hope this helps.
Two but not two (二而不二)
10 non-duality 묘락대사 (妙樂大師) 湛然, 711~782
1.色心不異--form(body, matter,色 rūpa) and mind (心) are two but not two
3.修性不二 - natural born quality of spirit mind & quality that was acquired through buddhist practice are two but not two
This seems to me to be starting to get into the area of the "two truths doctrine". Non duality is an ultimate truth whereas separate components of a car, etc. are conventional truths. For example SpinyNorman and Seeker242 are obviously separate individuals. I'm sure you don't have the same hairdo as me! But ultimately speaking, not really separate things because there is no substantial thing there, that can be separate, to begin with.
@seeker242 said "ultimately speaking, not really separate things because there is no substantial thing there, that can be separate, to begin with."
So...it's looking to me like this 'substantial' business is the key -- referring to the impermanence thingy.
Although things don't have to be substantial to be different or separate - look at clouds for example. It's probably more accurate to talk about processes rather than things, but the same principle seems to apply.
Perhaps it's about developing a more expansive point of view, seeing the bigger picture, seeing the wood and not just the trees? Spacious mind, spacious view?