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.
Dualism in Buddhism!!! :) ;-) ? Have your say!
This discussion will help me with better understanding between Dualism and Buddhism. It will also highlight the idea of conscious living, or even the global consciousness. thanks
0
Comments
In this Sutra some great Bodhisattvas take a shot at it and finally Manjushri says:
---
“Manjusri replied, “Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing – that is the entrance into non-duality.”
Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, “We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of non-duality!”
Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.
The crown prince Manjusri applauded the Licchavi Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the non-duality of the bodhisattvas. Here there is no use for syllables, sounds, and ideas.”
---
I certainly would not dare to have my say after that!!!:(
The question is misleading. The most common answers are:
1) Yes. It makes a sound, but it isn't heard.
2) Yes. There are animals in the forest to hear it fall.
3) No. It makes no sound.
The point of contention is that sound is defined as perception of vibrations by the eardrums. And yet, the absence of eardrums does not mean that there isn't something going on when that tree falls...
One has to "read between the lines" to come up with a more accurate representation of what is going on.
4) Neither. Vibrations are emitted but there is no mind present to perceive them as sound.
In truth, even applying the label "vibrations" is human perception. There is some process going on, that is what it is, regardless of subjective experience. We always view things from our own point of view, which is self... and so there is subject/object duality.
I hope this helps somewhat.
Namaste
General thoughts here: Is silence an outer expression of fear of getting it wrong? Is silence a outer expression of disbelief that people have been able to realise these things, an expression of cynicism? If silence is the answer then we end up with the duality of silence and non-silence, one enlightened the other deluded. Silence can be right, but the more deluded of us can use it as a form of censorship, I found this prevalent in eSangha and I think that this contributed to its karmic downfall. In the end we have to bring all into our Buddhism, we can't have pockets of Buddhism and pockets of non-Buddhism in our reality, I think that is the true meaning of non-duality or non-differentiation, or equanimity, it really just means non-exclusion.... screaming kids, silent meditators, idiots who talk too much, and much wiser silent people.
Cheers, WK
:coffee:
'Non-duality' is a more complex term. In actuality, it is something very confusing. Being such, the Buddha himself actually never used the term.
'Non-duality' is a Hindu term & a term introduced by the Mahayana into Buddhism in the Mahayana attempts to broaden the appeal of Buddhism (due to its declining popularity in India).
'Non-duality' is also a notion found pervasively in Taoism so naturally it would form part of Chaan (Zen) Buddhism in China.
To regard something as impermanent, is quite simple & straightforward. This has a straightforward effect on the mind, namely, relinquishment, dispassion, loss of infatuation.
To regard something as unsatisfactory, as imperfect, is quite simple & straightforward. This has a straightforward effect on the mind, namely, relinquishment, dispassion, loss of infatuation.
To regard something as 'not-self', as not being 'onself' or belonging to 'onself', to renounce possession or ownership of something, is quite simple & straightforward. This has a straightforward effect on the mind, namely, relinquishment, dispassion, loss of infatuation.
To regard something as mere elements, mere aggregates, just nature, is quite simple & straightforward. This has a straightforward effect on the mind, namely, relinquishment, dispassion, loss of infatuation.
The Buddha said: But non-duality is 'oneness'. It is often delight or infatuation with unified consciousness. It is 'no self, no other', a little like having sex with the whole world. 'No self, no other' has a different flavour to 'all things whatsover are impermanent, unsatisfactory, empty of self, mere natural elements'.
If there was a choice between (as there is a choice): (1) to be dispassionate & uninfatuated towards dualisitc things or (2) to be delighted & infatuated towards non-dualistic unified consciousness; naturally the Buddha himself would instruct the former rather than the later.
'Non-duality' is a conditioned state of concentration. 'Non-duality' is a clumsy attempt at unity. It is unity via the sense spheres rather than unity via wisdom & understanding. When we mature spirituality & develop empathy towards all things, our immature infatuation with the perceived unity of object & consciousness will drop away.
For example, the realisation all beings, are subject to birth, aging, illness & death will create a unity & sympathy towards all beings. Such a unity is a different kind of unity than the unity of spacing out wide eyed in 'non-duality'. One kind of unity is empathy & affirming, where as the other kind of unity is a form of nihilism & negation.
>> If there was a choice between (as there is a choice): (1) to be dispassionate & uninfatuated towards dualisitc things or (2) to be delighted & infatuated towards non-dualistic unified consciousness; naturally the Buddha himself would instruct the former rather than the later.
Recently, I have become interested in the teachings of Jac O'Keeffe. She talks a lot of 'going into the I-story', which means engaging the mind when thoughts about self arise. Choice (1) reminds me of this, we investigate our passions and attachments to find out what they are, and when we understand them, we might let them go. Choice (2) reminds me of the alternative approach, 'stay out of the I-story': do not engage with thoughts about self. By not engaging, the energy runs out of these thoughts, and the self-centered thoughts disappear. Of course, choice (2) has the danger of suppressing thought, which happens when 'spacing out'. However, choice (1) has pitfalls too, because one's attempts to solve one's passions may be exactly what is keeping the self alive (by reinforcing the concept of being a separate entity). I would say that I have tried choice (1) for about 20 years, and my recent experiments with choice (2) suggest that for me, at this moment, it is more effective in dissolving passion (actually, passion is still there, but in a more impersonal form, so it bothers me less). Probably, being attached to either choice as 'the right way' will reinforce self too :-)
Dualism, or duality, is an important concept in Zen practice that must become an insight on the path to understanding what you are, or how your mind works. It's necessary to penetrate the illusion of thinking. Many koans are designed to help the student penetrate dualism. The koan about the tree falling from the poster above can be one example, if the teacher ends the question with, "If you say no I will hit you. If you say yes I will hit you. What do you do, now?"
This allows no dualistic thinking, and the student's mind balances on the edge, unable to follow the old familiar pattern of dividing his or her understanding of the world into categories. If the mind finally realizes the distinction is illusion, then the answer becomes clear.
But dualism is not wrong, something to be eliminated. Our minds make sense of the world around us by comparing and contrasting things and experiences with other things. It's our mind sticking postanotes on the world, saying this is like something else or unlike something else we are already familiar with.
This tendency of our minds to divide the world and our experience of being alive into handy reference categories can be comprended. Once comprehended we see past it, to the nature of reality.
To the suchness of the world. The world is just like this.
Nicely put.
What should be an answer to the Q above?
Take away duality and what is left? The suchness of the world. What Zen calls "just like this".
It's important because then when you look at a person, you see a person, not a category label. Not dangerous stranger or friend, not enemy or ally, not conservative or liberal, not an Enlightened Master or stupid idiot, just a person. Apply that way of looking to yourself. Then use the nondualism to ask, what am I? Every Zen teaching points back to that central question.
Not focusing on categories doesn't mean being stupid about dealing with life. There are dangers and dangerous people, and don't ignore what the world is telling you. But if you deal with the situation you're facing with a clear mind, not some preconceived catagories you've forced reality into, it's liberating. Isn't that what we all want out of Buddhism, liberation?
But Buddha talks about countless reincarnations, so everyone is your relative.
However, the laws which govern human’s behavior don’t follow Buddha teaching very often. It take guts to maintain this ‘’freedom’’ and as a consequence stay exposed like this.
Look: at the development of ‘’ moral principles’’ since human race climbed down from the trees.
Very little progress. So little that we call most of people with superior ethics – saints and remember them for centuries.
teach them such simple truth.
But, yes, intellectually and conceptually this is difficult to understand. Does that make it more harmful than useful? I think it depends on the individual whether this is skilful or not.
Finally, Buddhism is about the way things are, technically its not even about what the Buddha taught. He taught what was already there. So as times change and perceptions about reality changes, it is reasonable that skilful means may also change to adapt to the minds of the practitioners, in many ways our minds have changed dramatically since the time of the Buddha, in other ways our minds haven't changed at all. Yet if Buddhism doesn't change in some way then is it not denying one of its most fundamental tenets, that of impermanence?
How can you see, hear, taste etc etc objectless?
the sound isn't an object. it only becomes an object once we conceptualize it or rather overlay an idea on top of it.
there is no distinction between those noises and you. until you start thinking about it. oh yeah that was a car and that was a bird and that was me moving.
before thinking is pure awareness/consciousness where you and everything is already one. start thinking and you create duality/division.
1) Cittamatra, mind only.... what is out there is a projection of the mind....or subject only
2) Emptiness, mind is self referring so is not an absolute,
3) Object only, there is no observer only the observed.
4) None of the above, too much noise stirs the waves in the pool.
Something like that anyway.