non-duality of all things

upekka

how can we grasp the meaning of 'non-duality of all things'?

clues:


what do you mean by 'all things'?

what do you mean by 'duality'?

what do we need to have 'seeing', 'hearing', 'feeling', 'knowing'?

Roger

First clue to find answers: study language; it's about agent and patient, noun and verb, subject and predicate. Action taken on something else.

Then look at sex: male female, yin yang, out of and into, form and content.

After that? Universal mind embodied in human physical form.

There's no way out except to think and meditate (no think)!!!

Just toying with your good question. :thumbsup:

upekka

First clue to find answers: study language; it's about agent and patient, noun and verb, subject and predicate. Action taken on something else.

partly true
but have to think and contemplate further, for example, if we say 'flower' we include it in 'all things', if we hear the word 'flower' we include it in 'all things', if we see a 'flower' we include it in 'all things' etc. to grasp the real meaning of 'all things'
do you agree with me or ?

Then look at sex: male female, yin yang, out of and into, form and content.

again partly true
when i look at male i can't look at female even though we say look at male and female etc
but duality lies with 'i' and 'female' and 'i' and 'male' etc.
don't you think so?

After that? Universal mind embodied in human physical form.

i am not sure about this thing called Universal mind
but
to have 'seeing' there should be eye (internal),form (external) and eye consciousness (mind)

There's no way out except to think and meditate (no think)!!!

i agree with you whole heartedly

being

I would recommend this guy. He's wonderful at putting the unspeakable into words - &

mzaur

how can we grasp the meaning of 'non-duality of all things'?

clues:


what do you mean by 'all things'?

what do you mean by 'duality'?

what do we need to have 'seeing', 'hearing', 'feeling', 'knowing'?

Duality: separation between subject/object, object/world, and between other objects.

Nonduality: There is no separation, but a common tendency is to subsume everything into a 'one thing' such as cosmic consciousness. Buddhism is unique in that there is a focus on realizing non-inherency, not just seeing through subject/object duality.

"We" do not see, hear, feel, or know anything because no such separate agent exists. Phenomenologically (in your experience) if you examine it, is there a seer separate from the seen? A hearer separate from the heard? A thinker separate from thoughts? The thinker is a thought, the hearer is the heard, the seer is the seen. This is nonduality.

Whoknows

Look at an object in meditation, switch to the observer, switch back to the object, and keep swapping. What changes when you switch from object to subject (observer)? From this meditation some understanding of non-duality can be experienced. Of course as soon as you grasp the meaning of non-duality you've lost it .

Cheers, WK

RichardH

"Understanding Non-duality" is a bit of a mirror trick as others acknowledge here.
By focusing on Dukkha and cessation of Dukkha, the emphasis is taken away from seeking an ontological absolute, or the shadow of such an idea. In the absence of Dukkha, there is "Noble Silence". In the Zen traditions where terms that seem to refer to such an absolute are used, terms like "true nature", "original face" and so forth. These are understood as skillful means and not a metaphysical assersion. It still comes down to cessation of Dukkha and Noble silence.

I think this view is worth looking at in this discussion.

pegembara

Check this talk

http://dharmaseed.org/talks/audio_player/210/10028.html

IronRabbit

Interdependence - "dependent arising" point toward an understanding of non-duality. The magic - or wisdom - is the balance arrived at in consciousness between conventional and ultimate reality. That which we recognize as suffering never ceases - always arises - is realization of an enlightenment unquestioned. Through such knowledge a cessation can occur - a detachment - an interdependence - not to be confused with a negation of suffering. Maybe.

RichardH

Interdependence - "dependent arising" point toward an understanding of non-duality. The magic - or wisdom - is the balance arrived at in consciousness between conventional and ultimate reality. That which we recognize as suffering never ceases - always arises - is realization of an enlightenment unquestioned. Through such knowledge a cessation can occur - a detachment - an interdependence - not to be confused with a negation of suffering. Maybe.

The terms conventional and ultimate reality, or The Absolute has come up elsewhere of late. It is a factor where a teacher has committed sexual misconduct while "dwelling in the Absolute", which seems to be "non-dual" specialty.

It makes sense to me to refer of form/emptiness or absolute/relative and not Form or Emptiness, or Emptiness, or The Absolute or The Ultimate. This looks like petty word issues, but it seems to count, because otherwise we can fall into the trap of "The Absolute" being "real" and the relative being "unreal" or "mere illusion", and dissolve all relative value and measure, which is insane.
Any thoughts?

GuyC

Hi Richard,

In the absence of Dukkha, there is "Noble Silence".

When you speak of "Noble Silence" in this context are you referring to keeping one's mouth shut or to stopping the mind from talking to itself or 2nd Jhana or something else?

I have heard that in the Suttas "Noble Silence" is used as a synonym for the 2nd Jhana. Supposedly this is because in the 2nd Jhana the "movements of the mind" have stopped. Here's one translation, but I am not sure how accurate it is: http://www.leighb.com/sn21_1.htm

Metta,

Guy

RichardH

Thats sounds fair. I have heard it used in the context of the Buddha keeping noble silence when pushed to either affirm or deny an absolute by a questioner. Perhaps there are different usages. I'm using it here to address the issue of grasping notions of an ultimate reality.

GuyC

Thanks for clarifying.

Daozen

What Richard said.

IronRabbit

The terms conventional and ultimate reality, or The Absolute has come up elsewhere of late. It is a factor where a teacher has committed sexual misconduct while "dwelling in the Absolute", which seems to be "non-dual" specialty.

It makes sense to me to refer of form/emptiness or absolute/relative and not Form or Emptiness, or Emptiness, or The Absolute or The Ultimate. This looks like petty word issues, but it seems to count, because otherwise we can fall into the trap of "The Absolute" being "real" and the relative being "unreal" or "mere illusion", and dissolve all relative value and measure, which is insane.
Any thoughts?




Not sure about the meaning of the reference to "dwelling in the absolute" relative to sexual misconduct by a teacher. Perhaps this concept was used as a rationale for misconduct? Such behavior used by an adept would be a cunning display of trapping or beguiling the gullible student/mendicant so enamored with enlightenment. Conventional and ultimate reality seem self explanatory without word play or innuendo. Conventional being mundane existence - ultimate being inherent reality. Equipoise between the two allows for glimpses of utter insanity in which dissolution of relativity can seem very real. Yet, the same balance allows glimpses of the ultimate - the absolute, if you will - which lend clarity to the difference between the two. Balance, being essential, eclipses meaning since meaning arises and falls away. Conventional reality arises and falls away in many varied ways - ultimate reality does not, but its meaning does in just as many varied ways. Only through balance can insanity and inherent reality coexist in harmony. Such harmony - interdependence - is the nature of this wonderful cataclysm. Maybe.

DhammaDhatu

In the absence of Dukkha, there is "Noble Silence".

Imo, Noble Silence is not the (permanent) cessation of dukkha. The cessation of dukkha is the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion rather than the cessation of thought or speech , per se.

For example, the Tao Te Ching states:

He who is filled with Virtue is like a
newborn child.
He has not experienced the union of
man and woman, but is whole.
His manhood is strong.
He screams all day without becoming
hoarse.
This is perfect harmony.

"Noble Silence" is the state of non-being or non-becoming. However, the Buddha advised the state of liberation transcends both being & non-being.

One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within.

Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta

Similarly, the The 3rd Zen Patriarch said:

To deny the reality of things,
is to miss their reality;
to assert the emptiness of things,
is to miss their reality.

Hsin-hsin Ming

Imo, the "Zen" being referred to about "Noble Silence" is mere concentration or spacing out.

DhammaDhatu

I have heard it used in the context of the Buddha keeping noble silence when pushed to either affirm or deny an absolute by a questioner.

Personally, it is not clear to me which 'Buddha' is being referred to here.

The Buddha reported in the suttas kept silence when he considered answering a question would result is some kind or misunderstanding or harm to the questioner.

The classic example in this regard is SN 44.10 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

Apart from this, the Buddha on most occassions affirmed an absolute.

Of himself & his teaching, the Buddha said:

"Monks, this Teaching (Dhamma) so well proclaimed by me, is plain, open, explicit, free of patchwork." (MN 22)

Whoknows

I have heard it used in the context of the Buddha keeping noble silence when pushed to either affirm or deny an absolute by a questioner. Perhaps there are different usages. I'm using it here to address the issue of grasping notions of an ultimate reality.

Good Point!

Cheers, WK

DhammaDhatu

The terms conventional and ultimate reality, or The Absolute has come up elsewhere of late. It is a factor where a teacher has committed sexual misconduct while "dwelling in the Absolute", which seems to be "non-dual" specialty.

It is impossible for a person to commit sexual misconduct while "dwelling in the Absolute".

The mind of a person that commits sexual misconduct is under the power of craving, attachment, becoming & self-view. The mind of a person that commits sexual misconduct is definitely perceiving the dualities of 'self & other', 'man & woman' and 'penis & vagina'.

To assert a teacher has committed sexual misconduct while "dwelling in the Absolute" is the same as saying a teacher has committed murder while "dwelling in the Absolute".

The Buddha regarded the Absolute as free from sensual desire, free from becoming & free from ignorance.

For a person to commit sexual misconduct while "dwelling in the Absolute" is impossible.

He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality, empty of the effluent of becoming & empty of the effluent of ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.'

Ananda, whatever contemplatives and priests who in the past entered & remained in an emptiness that was pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all entered & remained in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed.

Whatever contemplatives and priests who in the future will enter & remain in an emptiness that will be pure, superior & unsurpassed, they all will enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed.

Whatever contemplatives and priests who at present enter & remain in an emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed, they all enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed.

Therefore, Ananda, you should train yourselves: 'We will enter & remain in the emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed.'".

Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness

DhammaDhatu

I'm using it here to address the issue of grasping notions of an ultimate reality.

Ultimate reality is just the way it is, what the Buddha called suchness or thusness (tathata). It is the ordinariness of nature (dhammatithata). It is the orderliness, law or norm of nature (dhammaniyamata). Whether Buddhas arise in the world or not, ultimate reality remains. One cannot grasp notions of ultimate reality. How illogical! For example, how can one grasp at impermanence? The realisation of impermanence can only lead to letting go (rather than grasping).

Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

Dhamma-niyama Sutta: The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma

Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

DhammaDhatu

It makes sense to me to refer of form/emptiness or absolute/relative and not Form or Emptiness, or Emptiness, or The Absolute or The Ultimate. This looks like petty word issues, but it seems to count, because otherwise we can fall into the trap of "The Absolute" being "real" and the relative being "unreal" or "mere illusion", and dissolve all relative value and measure, which is insane.

Any thoughts?

Sure.

The Dhamma does to use the compound form/emptiness. The Dhamma simply advises form is emptiness & emptiness is form.

If form is seen as it actually is, namely, as simply form, it will be seen to be without 'self'. Thus emptiness is also seen.

It makes no difference if the mind sees 'just form' or if the mind sees 'just emptiness' because both these experiences of seeing are void of 'self' & 'suffering'.

The Buddha was unconcerned whether a computer is seen as 'illusion' or as a 'computer'. The Buddha's primary concern was the computer is regarded as: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self".

The Buddha himself did not have the problems you appear to be having about ultimate reality. The reason for this is the Buddha understood liberation occurs due to dispassion or the cessation of craving (rather than 'non-thinking', per se).

His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nibbana — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth, for this — Nibbana, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth.

Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta

Thank goodness we have the Buddha as a refuge rather than 'teachers' who cannot control or understand their sexual impulses, vanities & obsessions.

Dazzle

Well said, DD !

Epicurus

I would recommend this guy. He's wonderful at putting the unspeakable into words - &

I wonder what advice Jeff would give someone who wants to live as he does. Reading and hearing his words in this and other videos and articles it's as if he is agreeing with Jiddu Krsihnamurti in saying "Truth is a pathless land", but if that is the case, than what am I to do to fully realize and "live" nonduality??

What actions must I take? I never once hear him mention meditation. Even Krishnamurti didn't constantly stress out the importance of meditation (at least not in the classical sense).

RichardH

The terms conventional and ultimate reality, or The Absolute has come up elsewhere of late. It is a factor where a teacher has committed sexual misconduct while "dwelling in the Absolute", which seems to be "non-dual" specialty.

It makes sense to me to refer of form/emptiness or absolute/relative and not Form or Emptiness, or Emptiness, or The Absolute or The Ultimate. This looks like petty word issues, but it seems to count, because otherwise we can fall into the trap of "The Absolute" being "real" and the relative being "unreal" or "mere illusion", and dissolve all relative value and measure, which is insane.
Any thoughts?

Not sure about the meaning of the reference to "dwelling in the absolute" relative to sexual misconduct by a teacher. Perhaps this concept was used as a rationale for misconduct? Such behavior used by an adept would be a cunning display of trapping or beguiling the gullible student/mendicant so enamored with enlightenment. Conventional and ultimate reality seem self explanatory without word play or innuendo. Conventional being mundane existence - ultimate being inherent reality. Equipoise between the two allows for glimpses of utter insanity in which dissolution of relativity can seem very real. Yet, the same balance allows glimpses of the ultimate - the absolute, if you will - which lend clarity to the difference between the two. Balance, being essential, eclipses meaning since meaning arises and falls away. Conventional reality arises and falls away in many varied ways - ultimate reality does not, but its meaning does in just as many varied ways. Only through balance can insanity and inherent reality coexist in harmony. Such harmony - interdependence - is the nature of this wonderful cataclysm. Maybe.




This view... "Conventional reality arises and falls away in many varied ways - ultimate reality does not"

....is where we part.

It was fun to pop in to NB again. ....Like the new format.

DhammaDhatu

...insanity...

Generally, for ordinary unenlightened people, ultimate reality is insane

But for enlightened people, the dissolution of relativity is not insane because arising & falling away is ultimate reality

For enlightened beings, dissolution is ordinary & normal, mere suchness

As for self-belief, for enlightened beings, this is insane, however they themselves can be at ease with mere 'words' about 'self'

As for 'noble silence' or 'non-conceptuality', this is not ultimate reality

The Buddha advised 'non-conceptuality' is a conditioned state



[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
...
Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?

[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.

DairyLama

how can we grasp the meaning of 'non-duality of all things'?

It might be more productive to put aside these ideas and just observe what's happening.

P

DhammaDhatu

how can we grasp the meaning of 'non-duality of all things'?

for me, i am not convinced of the ultimate non-duality of the sense spheres

however, for me, to investigate the word 'non-duality', in terms of ultimate reality, i suppose it simply is interconnectedness

but this interconnectedness does not apply to all things, for example, Nibbana

the Buddha taught Nibbana is the unconditioned element (asankhata dhatu)

RichardH

As for 'noble silence' or 'non-conceptuality', this is not ultimate reality

The Buddha advised 'non-conceptuality' is a conditioned state

I don't equate "Noble silence with "non-conceptuality" or non-conceptuality with "ulitmate reality".

Noble silence just means not entertaining metaphysical absolutes like "Ultimate reality", and dealing with the matter at hand, which is Dukkha.

But that is just one opinion. It is good to see you back on the board here DD. Take care.

Mystification

Nirvana is similar to God. It is, as DD says, the unconditioned. It exists beyond time and space. However, it is intertwined within time and space. So there is nothing that you can point to and say "this is nirvana" or "this is not nirvana," for to do so is to assume a "self" called nirvana, or not-nirvana. But there is no lasting self.

DhammaDhatu

Noble silence just means not entertaining metaphysical absolutes like "Ultimate reality", and dealing with the matter at hand, which is Dukkha.

Richard

Personally, I have never associated metaphysics with ultimate reality nor disassociated ultimate reality from dukkha & its cessation.

In Mahayana, it is generally held dukkha & its cessation are conventional reality. This is not the case in Theravada. The Four Nobles are ultimate reality (lokuttara dhamma) rather than mundane reality (lokiya dhamma).

The Four Noble Truths are absolute truth. Why? Because when attachment exists, dukkha (suffering) exists, everytime, without fail. When attachment ceases to exist, dukkha ceases to exist, everytime, without fail. This law is absolute (unlike the laws of karma, which are not absolute, but mere general propositions).

Kind regards

upekka

porpoise


It might be more productive to put aside these ideas and just observe what's happening.

Absolutely true

Observe what’s happening with our six sense bases

•
• Dhamma Dhatu
for me, i am not convinced of the ultimate non-duality of the sense spheres

if one observes enough of ‘ what’s happening with the one's six sense bases’, at a fraction of second (moment) one could see (wisdom arises) what is this thing called ultimate reality, non-duality experience, emptiness

one never knows when this will happen, but it surely happens if one practices ardently

Dhamma Dhatu


The Four Noble Truths are absolute truth. Why? Because when attachment exists, dukkha (suffering) exists, everytime, without fail. When attachment ceases to exist, dukkha ceases to exist, everytime, without fail. This law is absolute (unlike the laws of karma, which are not absolute, but mere general propositions).

We can test this with the experiences we get through our six sense bases

Consider someone we know comes into our mind and we remind the mind that this is just a thought and then see what will happen

Consider we hear a song or voice of one we know and remind the mind that this is just a sound and then see what will happen

Consider we see a beautiful or ugly thing and remind the mind that this is just a seeing and see what will happen

This is one way to practice and see Buddha’s Teaching

DhammaDhatu

if one observes enough of ‘ what’s happening with the one's six sense bases’, at a fraction of second (moment) one could see (wisdom arises) what is this thing called ultimate reality, non-duality experience, emptiness

upekka

when the mind looks at a sense object, the impression (assumption) strongly occurs the sense consciousness, the sense organ & the sense object are 'one', 'inseparable' or 'non-dual'

this is just an impression

some ardent testing may offer different impressions

what you have asserted, imo, is unrelated to ultimate reality

as for wisdom, this is ends suffering

non-dual consciousness is a clumsy way to end suffering

like if a person comes to us with a problem, looking at them with non-dual consciousness will not help them very much (apart from them possibly thinking we are a good listener. "Oh! he was so patient. She listened to all my problems")

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.

There is not anything stated in the quote that asserts sense objects & sense consciousness are "non-dual" nor does the meeting of sense objects & sense consciousness imply the ultimate reality of "emptiness". The quote simply asserts sense organs, sense objects & sense consciousness depend on eachother.

DhammaDhatu

one never knows when this will happen, but it surely happens if one practices ardently

this level of practise is basic

there is no need to make it sound so mysterious

:wow:

taiyaki

Truth moves in paradoxes when you're looking for a place to stand. When you stand nowhere then you become truth in your being. Just be present here and now. Look with your eyes. Listen with your ears. Smell with your nose. Being the silent awareness before thinking, feeling, and all mental projections is what non-duality is pointing to.

DhammaDhatu

Bees smell flowers. Are bees enlightened?

Dogs smell other dogs. Are dogs enlightened?

Was the Buddha's enlightenment the state of silent awareness?

Is silent awareness just a form of concentration or is silent awareness wisdom?

upekka

upekka

my view is you have not practised ardently enough

your view is correct Dhamma Dhatu
i need to practice more

when i look at a sense object, the impression (assumption) strongly occurs the sense consciousness & the object are 'one', 'inseparable' or 'non-dual'

this is because each time there is five skandha arises

'look' at a 'sense object' = rupa (cause)
impression (assumption) = vedana, sanna,(effect) sancetana(cause for future effect)

this is just an impression

some ardent testing may prove otherwise

for the moment give the benefit of doubt
we continue the testing (vipassana)

what you have asserted, imo, is unrelated to ultimate reality

ok, but there is a possibility that will change

as for wisdom, this is ends suffering

non-dual consciousness is a clumsy way to end suffering


i wouldn't say 'non-dual consciousness' but seeing (wisdom to see) the non-duality nature of all things is the way to end of suffering

again, just seeing is not enough
as you say, we have to ardently practice to 'become' 'what we have seen'

like if a person comes to us with a problem, looking at them with non-dual consciousness will not help them very much (apart from them possibly thinking we are a good listener. "Oh! he was so patient. She listened to all my problems"

seeing the reality doesn't say you have to be inactive
instead, you can be mindfully and efficently active with the problem at hand

taiyaki

Everything is already enlightened. Even a dog. A dog understands it's true nature. Does a dog have buddha nature?
Dog goes bark, bark. Stop and be. Forget all these ideas, they are far removed from truth. Just stop and be. There it is.

IronRabbit

Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise.
Surangama Sutra