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.
Hi Richard, thanks for your reply.
"I" and "Other" are conditions. When they arise conditions arise, when they cease, conditions cease...
Best wishes
"Conditions", things as such, are not dependent on the subject-object duality. Non-duality is not annihilation but the realization of self-luminous "suchness". "It" does not fall into either the category of existence or non-existence. "It" isn't reducible to either form or emptiness. Coventional reality is not negated either.
....and franky although this is true enough, it wanders off the farm. Because achieving non-duality is an aside to the point, which is Suffering and the ending of Suffering. Take care of Dukkha and the rest comes.
"Conditions", things as such, are not dependent on the subject-object duality. Non-duality is not annihilation, but a self-luminous ""suchness".
Not quite sure what you mean...
To me a 'thing' is a thing because it has been conceptually selected to be such-and-such in contradistinction to all other things. What asserts it to be a 'thing' is conceptuality. Where there are concepts there are things (the conditioned). Where there are no concepts there are no 'things' (the un-conditioned).
'Things' don't have an individualized existence outside of their naming (namah). I agree with you that non-duality is not annihilation because there never was any-'thing' to annihilate in the first place outside of concepts.
To me a 'thing' is a thing because it has been conceptually selected to be such-and-such in contradistinction to all other things. What asserts it to be a 'thing' is conceptuality. Where there are concepts there are things (the conditioned). Where there are no concepts there are no 'things' (the un-conditioned).
'Things' don't have an individualized existence outside of their naming (namah). I agree with you that non-duality is not annihilation because there never was any-'thing' to annihilate in the first place outside of concepts.
ah, didn't see your response.
There are no concepts of things without concepts. But the remainder is not nothingness.
I think we are on the same page.
There are no concepts of things without concepts. But the remainder is not nothingness.
I think we are on the same page.
What 'remainder'? 'Nothingness' is just another concept and in times of practice shouldn't be entertained.
The problem Richard is that no-one yet has been able to invent the non-conceptual concept (though many have tried). Hence we inherit as teachings explanations of the non-conceptual (the un-conditioned) by use of concepts (the conditioned). This is where all the confusion in the teachings have occurred. Anyone who has read the Diamond Sutra will see the lengths Buddha goes to to explain to Subhuti that "things (dharmas) are not things but are called *things*" and the theme continues throughout the teaching.
"Nothing" is of course a concept and entertaining the notion in practice is dis-allowed (as all notions are) but its Dharmic usage (as incorrect as it may be) is to dissuade the reader from thinking that a 'something' remains when conceptuality falls silent. Even my signature carries the negatives "nothing" and "no-one". The words should really be seen as tounge-in-cheek, you-know-what-I-mean terminology.
To return to the thread's theme, this is why all conceptuality / conditionality should cease in meditation practice.
What 'remainder'? 'Nothingness' is just another concept and in times of practice shouldn't be entertained....
"Remainder" is indeed a concept, as are the words "The cessation of all conditions", but here we are typing to each other. "Remainder" is not some notion entertained in meditation, it is referring to an experiential reality that is not reducible. The absence of concept is the absence of concept, however in practice conceptualization is not rejected, it is just seen and not attached to. Thoughts may pause during deep concentration, but otherwise thoughts flow according to their own nature. There is no attachment.
"Nothing" is of course a concept and entertaining the notion in practice is dis-allowed (as all notions are) but its Dharmic usage (as incorrect as it may be) is to dissuade the reader from thinking that a 'something' remains when conceptuality falls silent. Even my signature carries the negatives "nothing" and "no-one". The words should really be seen as tounge-in-cheek, you-know-what-I-mean terminology....
Implying nothingness is no more skillfull than implying somethingness in my experience. And besides, conceptuality, conventional reality, is not cancelled out, the difference is there is no attachment to it.
conditionality should cease in meditation practice.....
If by that you mean stepping out of ideation , and seeing thoughts arise without getting drawn into conceptual abstractions yes. However meditation practice is not about forcing that, it is not about becoming attached to non-conceptuality.
Now I am happy to just disagree, and say we have been taught different practices by different teachers. The OP is basically the practice I have been taught by both the Theravadin and Zen teachers.
The basic point of the OP is this... Buddhist practice is about Suffering and the ending of Suffering, period. It is not about non-conceptuality or non-duality, though this comes along with practice.
The basic point of the OP is this... Buddhist practice is about Suffering and the ending of Suffering, period. It is not about non-conceptuality or non-duality, though this comes along with practice.
From what I've seen of people practicing, dukkha is the driving force behind attaching to conceptual reality. I wonder if it is two ways of depicting the same transition. The "ending dukkha" and the "detachment from conventional reality" could very well be describing the same experience from different angles.
Of course, attaching to non-conceptual space isn't really anything other than a different kind of projection of conceptual reality, so stilling that projection would be stilling both conventional and non-conventional labels. Right?
From what I've seen of people practicing, dukkha is the driving force behind attaching to conceptual reality. I wonder if it is two ways of depicting the same transition. The "ending dukkha" and the "detachment from conventional reality" could very well be describing the same experience from different angles.
That is a good debate. The skillfulnes of focussing on Suffering and the ending of suffering is that it takes practice out of matters that are not the essential point. Suffering is the essential point, address that and all follows...
The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
...not one quote suttas usually but this seemed to pretty much say it.
Of course, attaching to non-conceptual space isn't really anything other than a different kind of projection of conceptual reality, so stilling that projection would be stilling both conventional and non-conventional labels. Right?
That definitely rings true.
...got to go get my kid, so if you respond I'll repond to your response later.
The thread of ignorance that binds one to Samsara and causes suffering to occur. Of course that is just an analogy. The only thread that is actually being worn down is the one on my pants because I had a big breakfast.
That is a good debate. The skillfulnes of focussing on Suffering and the ending of suffering is that it takes practice out of matters that are not the essential point. Suffering is the essential point, address that and all follows...
I certainly agree that the main focus of a skillful mind is the stilling of suffering. Lets say we were to equate the process to painting a still life. Isn't it more effective to understand the objects from all angles, even if the view you are developing is singular? Not because you're driven by a curiosity to see all of the angles, (or in the case of the sutta, all of the leaves) but because when you're attempting to resolve the view it helps to understand the nature of the objects from all sides.
Of course, if it pulls the mind into places that are not helpful in remaining steady in our view, it is unhelpful. However, to me it seems to be helpful in maintaining a practiced focus when off the cushion. If you were to see someone who was hurting themselves on a projection, you could certainly say to them "meditate and follow the precepts and you will not do that any more". You could also say "look at how you attach to that projection, then poke yourself in the eye with it." Both instances are looking at the same leaf, but at different angles. I would consider both views and both suggestions to be helpful to the releasing of projections and the stilling of the resultant suffering.
Would you say that it is the same reason that moral teachings are part of the dharma?
I certainly agree that the main focus of a skillful mind is the stilling of suffering. Lets say we were to equate the process to painting a still life. Isn't it more effective to understand the objects from all angles, even if the view you are developing is singular? Not because you're driven by a curiosity to see all of the angles, (or in the case of the sutta, all of the leaves) but because when you're attempting to resolve the view it helps to understand the nature of the objects from all sides.
Of course, if it pulls the mind into places that are not helpful in remaining steady in our view, it is unhelpful. However, to me it seems to be helpful in maintaining a practiced focus when off the cushion. If you were to see someone who was hurting themselves on a projection, you could certainly say to them "meditate and follow the precepts and you will not do that any more". You could also say "look at how you attach to that projection, then poke yourself in the eye with it." Both instances are looking at the same leaf, but at different angles. I would consider both views and both suggestions to be helpful to the releasing of projections and the stilling of the resultant suffering.
The problem is when the goal of practice becomes non-duality, realizing not-self, or understanding “true nature”, as a replacement for resolving suffering, so that non-suffering is not front and centre or even seen as incidental. Dukkha is the keystone for realizing all of that. When we resolve suffering there is non-duality, not-self, and “True Nature”, it is the core knot or point of tension that warps everything. This is the only thing I have found to be really true, and have drifted away and back a few times. Suffering is the dead straight laser pointer. It may be different for others.
Would you say that it is the same reason that moral teachings are part of the dharma?
Moral behaviour diminishes suffering in everybody, immoral behaviour increases it. If I am out of sorts with my conscience, practice is so much harder. How can I “let be” my behaviour when it is causing harm and I should not let it be? When we are free of dukkha and live from spontaneous non-duality, we automatically behave morally ...without the notion of being moral. I think by practising moral behaviour now, we are practising the form of Enlightened, modelling it.
Sila (Morality) is the most effective antidote to the hindrance of Restlessness and Remorse. Without Sila there can be no Samadhi (Stillness). Without Samadhi there can be no Panna (Wisdom). No Panna = no freedom from suffering.
When we resolve suffering there is non-duality, not-self, and “True Nature”, it is the core knot or point of tension that warps everything. This is the only thing I have found to be really true, and have drifted away and back a few times. Suffering is the dead straight laser pointer. It may be different for others.
I wonder if resolving suffering is amplified by proper understanding of non-duality, not-self and "True Nature". When we have cultivated the mindfulness to choose, knowing how to proceed is certainly helpful.
When we can tell what is collapsing the view, we then have a direct awareness of where to focus our intention of relinquishing clinging. I can understand the concern that one might become a studier of reality... as there have certainly been Buddhist philosophers whose understanding is "so shallow it blows [one's] mind."? That is certainly to be avoided, on all levels.
My only real point is to say that if we can examine our suffering, from multiple angles, the root delusion, hatred and greed that is codependently present becomes illumined and simple to release. A sitting barrel might settle naturally over time, clearing the water... but so does a mindful filter.
The basic point of the OP is this... Buddhist practice is about Suffering and the ending of Suffering, period. It is not about non-conceptuality or non-duality, though this comes along with practice.
I think I need to clarify my view, just to recap...
* Suffering is the 'self'
* The end of suffering is the end of 'self'
* The 'self' is no more than the idea of such (conceptually originated)
Conceptuality and attachment to concepts are the bricks and mortar of delusion. Self and other are nothing more than the ideas of such - No self, no suffering.
From the conceivers point of view s/he exists, s/he suffers, s/he seeks a path to end suffering, s/he dissolves the self in nirvana - suffering ceases.
The non-conceiver (so called) does not entertain any of the above notions...
I think I need to clarify my view, just to recap...
* Suffering is the 'self'
* The end of suffering is the end of 'self'
* The 'self' is no more than the idea of such (conceptually originated)
Conceptuality and attachment to concepts are the bricks and mortar of delusion. Self and other are nothing more than the ideas of such - No self, no suffering.
From the conceivers point of view s/he exists, s/he suffers, s/he seeks a path to end suffering, s/he dissolves the self in nirvana - suffering ceases.
The non-conceiver (so called) does not entertain any of the above notions...
I wonder if resolving suffering is amplified by proper understanding of non-duality, not-self and "True Nature". When we have cultivated the mindfulness to choose, knowing how to proceed is certainly helpful.
When we can tell what is collapsing the view, we then have a direct awareness of where to focus our intention of relinquishing clinging. I can understand the concern that one might become a studier of reality... as there have certainly been Buddhist philosophers whose understanding is "so shallow it blows [one's] mind."? That is certainly to be avoided, on all levels.
My only real point is to say that if we can examine our suffering, from multiple angles, the root delusion, hatred and greed that is codependently present becomes illumined and simple to release. A sitting barrel might settle naturally over time, clearing the water... but so does a mindful filter.
What you say makes perfect sense. What I and maybe all of us find essential, comes from our own struggles and path. Maybe it is easy for me to say "focusing on non-duality misses the point", when I have spent so much time fancying myself a connaisseur of such matters, and as result have wandered off the mark many times? There also seems to be alot of people who come online having known non-duality for the first time and thinking they have arrived. I did that before being kicked around alot.
So there is no denial here of what you are saying. Only that the only true measure in Buddha Dharma is suffering and the ending of suffering. I don't think there is any disagreement on that, and it was just an appreciation of that that produced the OP.
There also seems to be alot of people who come online having known non-duality for the first time and thinking they have arrived.
Hi Richard,
I think I know what you mean (and I hope I'm not nit-picking) but if a person imagines they 'know' non-duality* and then imagine that 'they' have arrived then I would suggest they haven't got the foggiest idea of the implications and ramifications of what non-duality is. Our deluded friends would seem to imply a self without a self. Such 'practitioners' are fooling nobody but themselves (pun intended).
* I'm curious as to the use of the words 'non-duality' (advaita). Buddhists usually balk at the usage of the word as it's seen to be of Hindu origin. Buddhists seem to prefer the term 'the unconditioned'.
Hi Richard,
I think I know what you mean (and I hope I'm not nit-picking) but if a person imagines they 'know' non-duality* and then imagine that 'they' have arrived then I would suggest they haven't got the foggiest idea of the implications and ramifications of what non-duality is. Our deluded friends would seem to imply a self without a self. Such 'practitioners' are fooling nobody but themselves (pun intended)..
It seems like plenty of people have a genuine moment of unconditioned experiencing, (if that is a skillful way of putting it), but then look back and objectify the "experience" or "my experience". It is a big deal if all you've known is being a bound, reactive entity.
* I'm curious as to the use of the words 'non-duality' (advaita). Buddhists usually balk at the usage of the word as it's seen to be of Hindu origin. Buddhists seem to prefer the term 'the unconditioned'.
I seldom hear the term in Theravadin settings. It is more a Zen term, and even then more in casual conversation and not so much in the Zendo, but "not-two" is used.
Maybe it is easy for me to say "focusing on non-duality misses the point", when I have spent so much time fancying myself a connaisseur of such matters, and as result have wandered off the mark many times?
I agree with all of your post, and I think this is especially poignant. I bet it could even be noticed that focusing on non-duality pulls the view away from non-duality, back into the conventional view. Perhaps it is in wandering off the mark and finding the mark again, and noticing the difference, that has helped given rise to the ample mindfulness you've cultivated.
I've found this to be true in my reality... where studying the impact crater of the moment of suffering (on the otherwise open view) has revealed so much of the clinging that its almost laughable, and becomes very simple to become mindful of that pattern, so as to let go of the conditions that caused its arising. "Oh look, the I's done it again!"
I found your OP to be brilliant, and feel it could certainly be very helpful to those who might get stuck attaching to the view, rather than using the view to work more skillfully. I can see why you give talks, as your radiance is unquestionable.
That is very kind of you Matt, but as always with this kind of thing "the bigger the sinner the bigger the saint". The reason I want to get this right is because I started out with some heavy karmic bullshit, and am still working through it. If it wasn't for the good luck of meeting some wonderful people, and having the Sangha, I would probably be a dissolute character.
BTW... I dont give talks, just facilitate, which is something like being a forum tugboat in the bricks and mortar Sangha. There are others who do it too. It involves initiating dicussion and keeping it on point, conducting ritual and so forth.
That is very kind of you Matt, but as always with this kind of thing "the bigger the sinner the bigger the saint". The reason I want to get this right is because I started out with some heavy karmic bullshit, and am still working through it. If it wasn't for the good luck of meeting some wonderful people, and having the Sangha, I would probably be a dissolute character.
Certainly... but also, describing the red floor as red is appropriate no matter how it came to be that way, yes? I'm reminded a little of an interaction I had with one of my teachers, who noticed I was afraid that my ego would attach to kind observations. And so, ironically, my ego came forward and tried to redirect them away from "me" so as not to build my sense of self.
After we laughed about my silliness, it occurred to me that in the absence of ego (fear/need), those kinds of compliments simply reflect the resonance we're having in the moment, and accepting that helps to build authentic confidence of our skillfulness... which in turn nourishes our view. Much like accepting concepts are both true and false, so are our good qualities both present and absent. Do you see what I'm pointing at? Anyway, this might be off topic.
I have no clue what all this non-duality business is. It sounds pretty good I want some!
I don't think one can find the Buddha teaching "non-duality" in the Pali Canon. However later add-ons which are alleged to be the Buddha's teachings which were hidden in 'dragon realms' and so on might mention it of course.
If anyone can give me a specific reference from the Nikayas which names and teaches 'non-duality' I'd be pleased to see it, thanks.
I don't think one can find the Buddha teaching "non-duality" in the Pali Canon. However later add-ons which are alleged to be the Buddha's teachings from 'dragon realms' and so on might mention it.
If any one can give me a 'non-duality' reference from the Nikayas I'd be pleased to see it, thanks..
I believe Buddhists know it as 'the unconditioned'. Advaita (non-duality) is a Hindu expression...
I believe Buddhists know it as 'the unconditioned'. Advaita (non-duality) is a Hindu expression...
As the Buddha says at one point in describing his Awakening, "Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, and resolute." In other words, he gained liberating knowledge through qualities that we can all develop: heedfulness, ardency, resolution. If we are willing to face the implications of this fact, we realize that the Buddha's Awakening is a challenge to our entire set of values.
The fact that the Unconditioned can be attained forces us to re-evaluate any other goals we may set for ourselves, whatever worlds we want to create, in our lives. On an obvious level, it points out the spiritual poverty of a life devoted to wealth, status, or sensual pursuits; but it also forces us to take a hard look at other more "worthwhile" goals that our culture and its sub-cultures tend to exalt, such as social acceptance, meaningful relationships, stewardship of the planet, etc. These, too, will inevitably lead to suffering. The interdependence of all things cannot be, for any truly sensitive mind, a source of security or comfort.
If the Unconditioned is available, and it is the only trustworthy happiness around, it only makes sense that we invest our efforts and whatever mental and spiritual resources we have in its direction.
......excerpt from "The Meaning of the Buddha's awakening "
I believe Buddhists know it as 'the unconditioned'. Advaita (non-duality) is a Hindu expression...
This generalization is evidently not true since we are not Hindus. It was recentlly heard used by a Thai Forest teacher on retreat. It is used by Zen teachers, along with terms like "one taste" etc..
Whether it appears in the Pali canon or not is another matter.
"[6] And furthermore, just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Doctrine and Discipline has a single taste: that of release... This is the sixth amazing and astounding fact about this Doctrine and Discipline that, as they see it again and again, has the monks greatly pleased with the Doctrine and Discipline.
This generalization is evidently not true since we are not Hindus. It was recentlly heard used by a Thai Forest teacher on retreat. It is used by Zen teachers, along with terms like "one taste" etc..
Whether it appears in the Pali canon or not is another matter.
One does not 'become' a Hindu just because one adopts a Hindu term. Irrespective of who uses the term it was and still is a Hindu tenet. Buddhism adopts a wide range of Hindu concepts and interprets them to suit specific Buddhist requirements - if 'non-duality' is one of those concepts, then so be it...
One does not 'become' a Hindu just because one adopts a Hindu term. Irrespective of who uses the term it was and still is a Hindu tenet. Buddhism adopts a wide range of Hindu concepts and interprets them to suit specific Buddhist requirements - if 'non-duality' is one of those concepts, then so be it...
If it is used by Buddhists, by Buddhist teachers, in Buddhist practice, then by definition it is a Buddhist term is it not? My teachers have used it as a native term, I have used it as a native term. If by it not appearing in the Pali canon it is not actually Buddhist by your measure, then maybe all of the Mahayana is not Buddhist either? Since (in another thread) the moderator was generous enough to allow that the "Heart Sutra" is indeed Buddhist, perhaps we can be generous with all these terms in Buddhist usage and practice.
This is an old problem in the beloved Theravada, and then only with the lay followers usually....
I seldom hear the term in Theravadin settings. It is more a Zen term, and even then more in casual conversation and not so much in the Zendo, but "not-two" is used.
Seldom used terms rarely make it to the Buddhist lexicon.
My teachers have used it as a native term, I have used it as a native term. If by it not appearing in the Pali canon it is not actually Buddhist by your measure, then maybe all of the Mahayana is not Buddhist either?
This point was not raised by me but by "Dazzle", who said...
Since (in another thread) the moderator was generous enough to allow that the "Heart Sutra" is indeed Buddhist, perhaps we can be generous with all these terms in Buddhist usage and practice.
This is an old problem in the beloved Theravada, and then only with the lay followers usually....
You should feel free to use any terms you want. However you may raise a few scholarly or purist eyebrows in the process. My experience is that Buddhists seem to go to great lengths to define themselves as distinct from from their Hindu counterparts, they are very careful with their terminology and its usage.
The Hindus however are always willing to share their concepts and terminology with whoever is willing to adopt them, just as Hinduism has adopted Buddha himself as the eighth incarnation of Vishnu. Maybe the blurring of 'boundaries' between Hindu and Buddhist concepts is something that will develop with time and with no detriment to either...
My experience is that Buddhists seem to go to great lengths to define themselves as distinct from from their Hindu counterparts, they are very careful with their terminology and its usage....
First of all when you speak of "Buddhists" you seem to be speaking of Theravadin Buddhists in particular. "Non-duality" is not controversial outside of Theravada. Also, you are speaking of Buddhists as other than you and I, which is odd. There are differences that count between Buddhism and Vedanta. My initial experience before coming to Buddhism was in Vedanta, and the term non-duality wasn't used, it was "one-without-a-second" which was a philosophical sticking point and the reason I left. The non-duality spoken of in Buddhism does not affirm any such entity as one-without-a-second, although people who make superficial readings of terms like "one Mind" think it does. So I agree there are clear distinction to be made, and do not know practising Buddhists who affirm the Hindu concept of an eternal absolute, if that is your point.
As far as Theravadin Buddhism is concerned, this was mentioned in another thread but it is worth mentioning again. On a recent visit to this area Ajahn Sumedho gave several talks. At one point when he was speaking about practice to both the Ordained Sangha and the Laity he referred to "basic awareness" as "Buddha nature" ...then laughed and said "That could start a philosophical controversy for some". He clearly didn't care. He also use the term "non-duality" or close to if I recall correctly during a retreat. The other monks in his tradition we know here locally are also open minded with language and getting effective teaching across, yet could not be said to be drifting from the Dhamma. Now this is just a few monks in one tradition, But they are people I respect very much. They are impeccable in speech and conduct, and they know their Sutta's backwards, but they do not worry themselves with purity of language.
Buddhist language has evolved over time, Padmasambhava went here, Bodhidharma went there (so the story goes). There are scholars in these traditions who are purists in their own right. I'm not a scholar or a purist, but I do get stuck in my views.
Sorry Richard I did not mean to extricate you from Buddhism. I was simply objectifying the subject in order to study it more clearly. I myself am not specifically a Buddhist. I am interested in all expressions of Dharma.
“One without a second” may not be accurate, but (debatably) it is useful for novices to grasp a theoretical understanding of their 'goal'. I believe it refers to Nirguna Brahman, which may not mean a great deal to a Buddhist but translated it means 'formless' (nirguna) brahman ('brih'-'manas' - expansion of mind). It does not relate to a specific personality or 'God'.
I have spoken with several monks in my local area but have never met Ajahn Sumedho, I do have one of his books “The Mind and the Way”. It was quite insightful. I also have Ajahn Chah's “A Still Forest Pool”, an excellent book, one of his pages is titled “Yes I speak Zen” - very nice.
As for getting stuck in views – It's an occupational hazard...
Yes, I Speak Zen
A visiting Zen student asked Achaan Chah, "How old are you? Do you live here all year round?"
"I live nowhere," he replied. "There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."
Perhaps the Zen student glimpsed that the heart of vipassana is no different from the heart of Zen.
Comments
"Conditions", things as such, are not dependent on the subject-object duality. Non-duality is not annihilation but the realization of self-luminous "suchness". "It" does not fall into either the category of existence or non-existence. "It" isn't reducible to either form or emptiness. Coventional reality is not negated either.
....and franky although this is true enough, it wanders off the farm. Because achieving non-duality is an aside to the point, which is Suffering and the ending of Suffering. Take care of Dukkha and the rest comes.
To me a 'thing' is a thing because it has been conceptually selected to be such-and-such in contradistinction to all other things. What asserts it to be a 'thing' is conceptuality. Where there are concepts there are things (the conditioned). Where there are no concepts there are no 'things' (the un-conditioned).
'Things' don't have an individualized existence outside of their naming (namah). I agree with you that non-duality is not annihilation because there never was any-'thing' to annihilate in the first place outside of concepts.
There are no concepts of things without concepts. But the remainder is not nothingness.
I think we are on the same page.
The problem Richard is that no-one yet has been able to invent the non-conceptual concept (though many have tried). Hence we inherit as teachings explanations of the non-conceptual (the un-conditioned) by use of concepts (the conditioned). This is where all the confusion in the teachings have occurred. Anyone who has read the Diamond Sutra will see the lengths Buddha goes to to explain to Subhuti that "things (dharmas) are not things but are called *things*" and the theme continues throughout the teaching.
"Nothing" is of course a concept and entertaining the notion in practice is dis-allowed (as all notions are) but its Dharmic usage (as incorrect as it may be) is to dissuade the reader from thinking that a 'something' remains when conceptuality falls silent. Even my signature carries the negatives "nothing" and "no-one". The words should really be seen as tounge-in-cheek, you-know-what-I-mean terminology.
To return to the thread's theme, this is why all conceptuality / conditionality should cease in meditation practice.
Best wishes...
Indeed. This has been gone over in many threads. I'll ferret them out and PM you the links.
Implying nothingness is no more skillfull than implying somethingness in my experience. And besides, conceptuality, conventional reality, is not cancelled out, the difference is there is no attachment to it.
If by that you mean stepping out of ideation , and seeing thoughts arise without getting drawn into conceptual abstractions yes. However meditation practice is not about forcing that, it is not about becoming attached to non-conceptuality.
Now I am happy to just disagree, and say we have been taught different practices by different teachers. The OP is basically the practice I have been taught by both the Theravadin and Zen teachers.
The basic point of the OP is this... Buddhist practice is about Suffering and the ending of Suffering, period. It is not about non-conceptuality or non-duality, though this comes along with practice.
From what I've seen of people practicing, dukkha is the driving force behind attaching to conceptual reality. I wonder if it is two ways of depicting the same transition. The "ending dukkha" and the "detachment from conventional reality" could very well be describing the same experience from different angles.
Of course, attaching to non-conceptual space isn't really anything other than a different kind of projection of conceptual reality, so stilling that projection would be stilling both conventional and non-conventional labels. Right?
<CENTER><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="60%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
...not one quote suttas usually but this seemed to pretty much say it.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
<SCRIPT src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> _uacct = "UA-98400-2";urchinTracker();</SCRIPT> That definitely rings true.
...got to go get my kid, so if you respond I'll repond to your response later.
I almost shit a brick!
The thread of ignorance that binds one to Samsara and causes suffering to occur. Of course that is just an analogy. The only thread that is actually being worn down is the one on my pants because I had a big breakfast.
I certainly agree that the main focus of a skillful mind is the stilling of suffering. Lets say we were to equate the process to painting a still life. Isn't it more effective to understand the objects from all angles, even if the view you are developing is singular? Not because you're driven by a curiosity to see all of the angles, (or in the case of the sutta, all of the leaves) but because when you're attempting to resolve the view it helps to understand the nature of the objects from all sides.
Of course, if it pulls the mind into places that are not helpful in remaining steady in our view, it is unhelpful. However, to me it seems to be helpful in maintaining a practiced focus when off the cushion. If you were to see someone who was hurting themselves on a projection, you could certainly say to them "meditate and follow the precepts and you will not do that any more". You could also say "look at how you attach to that projection, then poke yourself in the eye with it." Both instances are looking at the same leaf, but at different angles. I would consider both views and both suggestions to be helpful to the releasing of projections and the stilling of the resultant suffering.
Would you say that it is the same reason that moral teachings are part of the dharma?
With warmth,
Matt
I wonder if resolving suffering is amplified by proper understanding of non-duality, not-self and "True Nature". When we have cultivated the mindfulness to choose, knowing how to proceed is certainly helpful.
When we can tell what is collapsing the view, we then have a direct awareness of where to focus our intention of relinquishing clinging. I can understand the concern that one might become a studier of reality... as there have certainly been Buddhist philosophers whose understanding is "so shallow it blows [one's] mind."? That is certainly to be avoided, on all levels.
My only real point is to say that if we can examine our suffering, from multiple angles, the root delusion, hatred and greed that is codependently present becomes illumined and simple to release. A sitting barrel might settle naturally over time, clearing the water... but so does a mindful filter.
* Suffering is the 'self'
* The end of suffering is the end of 'self'
* The 'self' is no more than the idea of such (conceptually originated)
Conceptuality and attachment to concepts are the bricks and mortar of delusion. Self and other are nothing more than the ideas of such - No self, no suffering.
From the conceivers point of view s/he exists, s/he suffers, s/he seeks a path to end suffering, s/he dissolves the self in nirvana - suffering ceases.
The non-conceiver (so called) does not entertain any of the above notions...
Best wishes for your practice.
Regards
So there is no denial here of what you are saying. Only that the only true measure in Buddha Dharma is suffering and the ending of suffering. I don't think there is any disagreement on that, and it was just an appreciation of that that produced the OP.
I think I know what you mean (and I hope I'm not nit-picking) but if a person imagines they 'know' non-duality* and then imagine that 'they' have arrived then I would suggest they haven't got the foggiest idea of the implications and ramifications of what non-duality is. Our deluded friends would seem to imply a self without a self. Such 'practitioners' are fooling nobody but themselves (pun intended).
* I'm curious as to the use of the words 'non-duality' (advaita). Buddhists usually balk at the usage of the word as it's seen to be of Hindu origin. Buddhists seem to prefer the term 'the unconditioned'.
I seldom hear the term in Theravadin settings. It is more a Zen term, and even then more in casual conversation and not so much in the Zendo, but "not-two" is used.
I agree with all of your post, and I think this is especially poignant. I bet it could even be noticed that focusing on non-duality pulls the view away from non-duality, back into the conventional view. Perhaps it is in wandering off the mark and finding the mark again, and noticing the difference, that has helped given rise to the ample mindfulness you've cultivated.
I've found this to be true in my reality... where studying the impact crater of the moment of suffering (on the otherwise open view) has revealed so much of the clinging that its almost laughable, and becomes very simple to become mindful of that pattern, so as to let go of the conditions that caused its arising. "Oh look, the I's done it again!"
I found your OP to be brilliant, and feel it could certainly be very helpful to those who might get stuck attaching to the view, rather than using the view to work more skillfully. I can see why you give talks, as your radiance is unquestionable.
With warmth,
Matt
BTW... I dont give talks, just facilitate, which is something like being a forum tugboat in the bricks and mortar Sangha. There are others who do it too. It involves initiating dicussion and keeping it on point, conducting ritual and so forth.
Certainly... but also, describing the red floor as red is appropriate no matter how it came to be that way, yes? I'm reminded a little of an interaction I had with one of my teachers, who noticed I was afraid that my ego would attach to kind observations. And so, ironically, my ego came forward and tried to redirect them away from "me" so as not to build my sense of self.
After we laughed about my silliness, it occurred to me that in the absence of ego (fear/need), those kinds of compliments simply reflect the resonance we're having in the moment, and accepting that helps to build authentic confidence of our skillfulness... which in turn nourishes our view. Much like accepting concepts are both true and false, so are our good qualities both present and absent. Do you see what I'm pointing at? Anyway, this might be off topic.
With warmth,
Matt
Oh, and your BTW is also noted, I misunderstood.
:eek:
I don't think one can find the Buddha teaching "non-duality" in the Pali Canon. However later add-ons which are alleged to be the Buddha's teachings which were hidden in 'dragon realms' and so on might mention it of course.
If anyone can give me a specific reference from the Nikayas which names and teaches 'non-duality' I'd be pleased to see it, thanks.
_/\_
......excerpt from "The Meaning of the Buddha's awakening "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/awakening.html
As far as I know, 'the Unconditioned' is another expression for 'the Deathless'.
_/\_
Whether it appears in the Pali canon or not is another matter.
Oh...one taste....salty?
"Uposatha Sutta: The Observance"(Ud 5.5), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, July 8, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.05.than.html.
This is an old problem in the beloved Theravada, and then only with the lay followers usually....
The Hindus however are always willing to share their concepts and terminology with whoever is willing to adopt them, just as Hinduism has adopted Buddha himself as the eighth incarnation of Vishnu. Maybe the blurring of 'boundaries' between Hindu and Buddhist concepts is something that will develop with time and with no detriment to either...
First of all when you speak of "Buddhists" you seem to be speaking of Theravadin Buddhists in particular. "Non-duality" is not controversial outside of Theravada. Also, you are speaking of Buddhists as other than you and I, which is odd. There are differences that count between Buddhism and Vedanta. My initial experience before coming to Buddhism was in Vedanta, and the term non-duality wasn't used, it was "one-without-a-second" which was a philosophical sticking point and the reason I left. The non-duality spoken of in Buddhism does not affirm any such entity as one-without-a-second, although people who make superficial readings of terms like "one Mind" think it does. So I agree there are clear distinction to be made, and do not know practising Buddhists who affirm the Hindu concept of an eternal absolute, if that is your point.
As far as Theravadin Buddhism is concerned, this was mentioned in another thread but it is worth mentioning again. On a recent visit to this area Ajahn Sumedho gave several talks. At one point when he was speaking about practice to both the Ordained Sangha and the Laity he referred to "basic awareness" as "Buddha nature" ...then laughed and said "That could start a philosophical controversy for some". He clearly didn't care. He also use the term "non-duality" or close to if I recall correctly during a retreat. The other monks in his tradition we know here locally are also open minded with language and getting effective teaching across, yet could not be said to be drifting from the Dhamma. Now this is just a few monks in one tradition, But they are people I respect very much. They are impeccable in speech and conduct, and they know their Sutta's backwards, but they do not worry themselves with purity of language.
Buddhist language has evolved over time, Padmasambhava went here, Bodhidharma went there (so the story goes). There are scholars in these traditions who are purists in their own right. I'm not a scholar or a purist, but I do get stuck in my views.
“One without a second” may not be accurate, but (debatably) it is useful for novices to grasp a theoretical understanding of their 'goal'. I believe it refers to Nirguna Brahman, which may not mean a great deal to a Buddhist but translated it means 'formless' (nirguna) brahman ('brih'-'manas' - expansion of mind). It does not relate to a specific personality or 'God'.
I have spoken with several monks in my local area but have never met Ajahn Sumedho, I do have one of his books “The Mind and the Way”. It was quite insightful. I also have Ajahn Chah's “A Still Forest Pool”, an excellent book, one of his pages is titled “Yes I speak Zen” - very nice.
As for getting stuck in views – It's an occupational hazard...
A Still Forest Pool