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.
@Deformed said: Looking deeply into a pebble, flower, or our own joy, peace, sorrow, or fear, we touch the ultimate dimension of our being, and that dimension will reveal to us that the ground of our being has the nature of no-birth and no-death.
It would be interesting to unpick this phrase from TNH's piece. What is meant by "the ground of our being", and why does this have the nature of "no-birth and no-death"?
We are either the ocean or water in a pot. No in between.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Wasn't TNH trying to illustrate the oneness thingy? which is no-birth and no-death / the continuity of our 'existence' with the ocean/wave analogy? Well...it's still all just a philosophy - darned good one, too. Right?
I have to admit, I have trouble putting no self and rebirth in the same seat. I get the idea that we are all just bits of the same shattered mirror: our own shape and size, yet part of the greater item.... (metaphorically speaking).... and I get the idea that rebirth is just relightling a candle from the embers of one which has been snuffed out... you're not really different but you're not really the same....... yeah? but sometimes all the metaphors moosh together and i get all confuddled....
okay... so we're one with the universe.... yep. got it..... but if we are not "I" in the sense of "I am a human" or "I am an individual," then how does someone who is not someone get reborn as another not-person.....?
@RuddyDuck9 said:
I have to admit, I have trouble putting no self and rebirth in the same seat. I get the idea that we are all just bits of the same shattered mirror: our own shape and size, yet part of the greater item.... (metaphorically speaking).... and I get the idea that rebirth is just relightling a candle from the embers of one which has been snuffed out... you're not really different but you're not really the same....... yeah? but sometimes all the metaphors moosh together and i get all confuddled....
okay... so we're one with the universe.... yep. got it..... but if we are not "I" in the sense of "I am a human" or "I am an individual," then how does someone who is not someone get reborn as another not-person.....?
I'm dizzy now. No coffee today.
Not to confuse anyone any further, but just wanted to share my take on it. We have to accept first that mind is a separate entity from body. By looking at the mind and the body, we can see that changes occur because of causes and conditions. A change in one causes a change in the other. When we look at our hand we can see that by doing something to or with our hand it makes us think or feel a certain way. If we lose our hand, that thought or feeling doesn't end. It either continues or changes. Mind is another element just like the body. It too may recycle based on causes and conditions.
so you're recycled.... and there is not a "you" left once that process has been done, because a body is just a body. Without what makes us "us" in there, it's nothing but carbon, hydrogen, oxygen... etc. ..... BUT our karma still follows "us"..... i mean.... it's not attatched to our "self" so how does it know which non-person mind to follow? Mind-pheromones? (that's a joke, but I am sort of being serious... is this just another one of those things we will never "know" for sure?) I think I need this explained like I was a toddler, in order to really "get" it. Or am I just embarrassing myself?
@silver said:> Wasn't TNH trying to illustrate the oneness thingy? which is no-birth and no-death / the continuity of our 'existence' with the ocean/wave analogy? Well...it's still all just a philosophy - darned good one, too. Right?
I think the wave/ocean analogy is meant to illustrate TNHs idea of "Interbeing", though it also sounds a bit Hindu, with wave = Atman and ocean = Brahman? I don't know.
I'm still not sure about TNHs "ground of being" reference, which has religious implications not necessarily present in Buddhism.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I caught this bit in TNH's Wikipedia page the other day: "Hanh's presentation of the prajnaparamita in terms of "interbeing" has doctrinal antecedents in the Huayan school of thought, which "is often said to provide a philosophical foundation" for Zen."
The Huayan school is quite interesting, from a philosophical standpoint, although I don't think it's as readily apparent as interbeing.
Is non-duality the experience, which a person experiences during his enlightenment - or - after becoming enlightened? if after becoming enlightened, then how does an enlightened person act in the world after awakening - means how would compassion generate in him after seeing that everything is inherently empty? So would an enlightened person be switching his mind frequently from non-duality mode to duality mode and from duality mode to non-duality mode to act in the world? Any ideas, please suggest. Thanks in advance.
Is non-duality the experience, which a person experiences during his enlightenment - or - after becoming enlightened?
Non duality is not an experience you can have. Who or what would have it? If we do it would be dualistic ...
However from experience I can say the non dual, always present aspect known as enlightenment becomes consciously present or aware ...
if after becoming enlightened, then how does an enlightened person act in the world after awakening - means how would compassion generate in him after seeing that everything is inherently empty? So would an enlightened person be switching his mind frequently from non-duality mode to duality mode and from duality mode to non-duality mode to act in the world? Any ideas, please suggest. Thanks in advance.
Not quite switching, not quite empty. More like unfolding or awareness becomes present. Empty does not mean vacuous. The enlightened are still people. Wouldn't you feel compassion for those dreaming their lives? Quite natural ...
@lobster said:>
However from experience I can say the non dual, always present aspect known as enlightenment becomes consciously present or aware ...
Are you saying there is a non-dual aspect of ourselves which becomes aware? That sounds rather like Atman?
Isn't non-duality an insight, a realisation?
Realisation does not become aware or become non-dual ^^. When was it anything but ...
Nothing becomes aware, when was it empty or full, samsara or nirvana, god or man ... [lobster rants off into the sunset ...]
Is non-duality the experience, which a person experiences during his enlightenment - or - after becoming enlightened?
Non duality is not an experience you can have. Who or what would have it? If we do it would be dualistic ...
However from experience I can say the non dual, always present aspect known as enlightenment becomes consciously present or aware ...
if after becoming enlightened, then how does an enlightened person act in the world after awakening - means how would compassion generate in him after seeing that everything is inherently empty? So would an enlightened person be switching his mind frequently from non-duality mode to duality mode and from duality mode to non-duality mode to act in the world? Any ideas, please suggest. Thanks in advance.
Not quite switching, not quite empty. More like unfolding or awareness becomes present. Empty does not mean vacuous. The enlightened are still people. Wouldn't you feel compassion for those dreaming their lives? Quite natural ...
Yes, @misecmisc1 you are running into the problem of trying to understand non-duality using language evolved to deal with a dualistic world. When you say empty, you think of something with the important part missing, something left behind and worthless. You care about the beer, not the empty bottle. A snake sheds its skin and slithers off, leaving the worthless empty skin behind. If a bowl is empty, it contains nothing. So if we and our selfs and the reality around us is empty, then it has lost its value. You can't have compassion for an empty piece of meat walking around. Is that about it?
But that's because you're still using a dualistic scale of full to empty, and you value the full side instead of the empty one. You want a full tank, a full stomach, etc. Throw that away. Empty has equal value. Empty space is needed for the universe to exist. So because the doctrine of Anatta or no-self says you have no permanent, unchanging soul or essence does not mean you're worthless or not worthy of compassion. Whatever you are, you are suffering. That's all it takes.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@silver said:> Wasn't TNH trying to illustrate the oneness thingy? which is no-birth and no-death / the continuity of our 'existence' with the ocean/wave analogy? Well...it's still all just a philosophy - darned good one, too. Right?
I think the wave/ocean analogy is meant to illustrate TNHs idea of "Interbeing", though it also sounds a bit Hindu, with wave = Atman and ocean = Brahman? I don't know.
I'm still not sure about TNHs "ground of being" reference, which has religious implications not necessarily present in Buddhism.
I love Thay and this is probably not a popular opinion but I get the feeling he is out-Christianing Christianity. He uses ground of being in a way that can be called Nirvana or God in an attempt to reconcile the two views.
I like the way he presents this but I feel his poem "Call me by my True Names" speaks to me on an experiential level.
For me it helps to remember that TNH is considered Zen even as his approach differs from typical Chinese and Japanese schools. Zen Buddhism is very much influenced by Taoism.
For me, the Tao, Buddha Nature, ground of being and even Brahman or God mean the same thing.
Not an eternal personality but just the way things go, have always gone and will always go.
In my view, there is no personality to the flow until there are sentient beings to experience it but that still doesn't take away from our experiences being the experience of the flow.
So what is the basic problem, which we have? Is the basic problem, which we have, is that we try to understand the meaning of phenomena through our thinking?
is the idea of not trying, not having any intention, that we should just always be in the sitting posture and try to be just being in here and now - but then how we will get the food to sustain ourselves?
@misecmisc1 said:
Hi All,
is the idea of not trying, not having any intention, that we should just always be in the sitting posture and try to be just being in here and now - but then how we will get the food to sustain ourselves?
Get food and sit. Both require and can be done mindfully or mindlessly. Don't you think?
So what is the basic problem, which we have? Is the basic problem, which we have, is that we try to understand the meaning of phenomena through our thinking?
is the idea of not trying, not having any intention, that we should just always be in the sitting posture and try to be just being in here and now - but then how we will get the food to sustain ourselves?
Please suggest. Thanks in advance.
can't learn or advance if you starve to death. Feed your body and the mind will follow. Be mindful (there's that word again!) while you fuel yourself with food and drink. Don't overdo any of these things. Buddhism is not about following extremes. It is the Middle Way.
Tibetan Buddhism calls it "interdependence" and does not refer to "oneness". Merely that nothing exists without a cause or a connection to other things. The cup is made by a potter, who bought the clay from someone who collected it. You were formed from your "mother drop" and your "father drop", and rely on intake of air and food for your body to survive.
But not once in 15 years has our Lama talked about things being "one" with another.
I find that if I do not understand a Buddhist concept, trying to figure it out intellectually doesn't help. But the more I meditate, practice mindfulness and be observant, the more I start to see what they are talking about. If I don't understand a teaching the first time I hear it, that is fine. Buddhism IS about your own observation, not about what someone tells you. And I find that when the teachings circle around to the SAME teachings about 4-5 years later, then I DO understand that concept that eluded me previously. Then of course the NEXT time the teaching circles around again, I get far MORE out of it .. and sometimes understand that what I thought I first understand was just a grasping that doesn't seem to apply anymore.
This is one of the things I LOVE .. is the evolution of understanding. It means that Buddhism is and remains new and exciting and stimulating as we gain more understanding.
So don't try to force that which doesn't make sense. Just keep up the practices .. and you WILL gain insights from your mindfulness. When you are "ripe" for those insights. And don't think that what you "know" is the final word on it, either. I used to, but I am beginning to learn otherwise.
@David said:> I love Thay and this is probably not a popular opinion but I get the feeling he is out-Christianing Christianity. He uses ground of being in a way that can be called Nirvana or God in an attempt to reconcile the two views.
For me it helps to remember that TNH is considered Zen even as his approach differs from typical Chinese and Japanese schools. Zen Buddhism is very much influenced by Taoism.
Yes, could well be. Personally I'm not a fan of woolly syncretism, but that's another discussion.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:> I love Thay and this is probably not a popular opinion but I get the feeling he is out-Christianing Christianity. He uses ground of being in a way that can be called Nirvana or God in an attempt to reconcile the two views.
For me it helps to remember that TNH is considered Zen even as his approach differs from typical Chinese and Japanese schools. Zen Buddhism is very much influenced by Taoism.
Yes, could well be. Personally I'm not a fan of woolly syncretism, but that's another discussion.
@David said:
Good luck getting away from it though.
New-agers are the worst. Buddha save me from their inane jargon-ridden prattling and pseudo-science!
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
Good luck getting away from it though.
New-agers are the worst. Buddha save me from their inane jargon-ridden prattling and pseudo-science!
Their hearts are in the right place but sometimes it's like square pegs and round holes.
What I mean though is that no matter the word Buddhists use whether it be True Self, Ground of Being, Buddha Nature... The description sounds just like the Tao.
It's no real wonder there was common ground found there.
I threw in Brahman and God because of what the words mean to me. Brahman for the lack of a personality fits better than God but in my view both are no more than aspects of the Tao (for lack of a better word)
@SpinyNorman said:
New-agers are the worst. Buddha save me from their inane jargon-ridden prattling and pseudo-science!
Tee Hee.
This morning was reading about an 'idiot compassion' sangha, buying fresh lobsters, praying for them and then releasing them. Of course they are released in an area likely to be caught again. Nothing really about compassion, all to do with hypocritical nonsense ...
A bit better than the wild birds in some countries that are ONLY caught so they can be released for good karma by devout ridiculous indulgence.
@lobster said:> This morning was reading about an 'idiot compassion' sangha, buying fresh lobsters, praying for them and then releasing them. Of course they are released in an area likely to be caught again.
But those lobsters are your people, and you should lead them to freedom, like a lobsterish Braveheart! You will need courage for this task, so first you will need to work with your lower nipping chakras to develop some prawn earth energy at the quantum level, connect with crustacean cosmic consciousness and flex your psychic "mussels".
Here is Braveheart working with his lower chakras:
In relative reality, you are over there and the chair is over here. That is correct. In ultimate reality, you are the chair, the chair is you, all things are one, and there is no separation. "You" can't be there, or this doesn't happen.
Unfortunately (or not, perhaps) you can't think your way to ultimate reality, it has to be experienced. Many, many books have been written on this subject, and they will not help you or me at all. I know, I read what seems like hundreds.
In my case, the experience came from meditation, and it was just a flash, not something that lasted long. Was it real? Can we always trust our experiences? I don't know. Does it help us in our day to day life? For sure.
Sorry for the double post. Often I think of something afterwards.
What you CAN get to w/ rational thought is "The Middle Way", which may be called a form of non duality. For example, most people either say there is a god, or there is not a god. This, you may have noticed, has caused a lot of problems. But in Buddhism, it could be said that there is no, no god. This is beyond duality.
Or even better: When you are irritated on a bus because someone is being, in your mind, annoying/loud, unruly, you can tell yourself things like "all beings deserve happiness", or "I should not be judging them" until you are blue in the face and it won't help. They ARE annoying, That's the reality. So rather than react one way or the other as we always do, rather than push this away or accept it, just bring your attention back to your breath, and the annoyance will dissipate on it's own, as if by magic.
As long as we are in a thinking state and living in duality (THIS is annoying, this is NOT annoying) we're trapped. By not, NOT doing anything about it, things simply are what they are, the ego is given less power to run the show, and life is good. Or bad. But it is what it is, and suffering is decreased.
@row37 said:
Sorry for the double post. Often I think of something afterwards.
What you CAN get to w/ rational thought is "The Middle Way", which may be called a form of non duality. For example, most people either say there is a god, or there is not a god. This, you may have noticed, has caused a lot of problems. But in Buddhism, it could be said that there is no, no god. This is beyond duality.
Or even better: When you are irritated on a bus because someone is being, in your mind, annoying/loud, unruly, you can tell yourself things like "all beings deserve happiness", or "I should not be judging them" until you are blue in the face and it won't help. They ARE annoying, That's the reality. So rather than react one way or the other as we always do, rather than push this away or accept it, just bring your attention back to your breath, and the annoyance will dissipate on it's own, as if by magic.
I certainly wish I had the ability to do this the other weekend when spouse and I were in our local Walmart and there was a child screaming so loudly and profanely that I was convinced someone was abusing/ beating/ killing it. I've never (luckily) heard anything so horrible in my life (if I don't count media/ films). I was very much disturbed by it, but found I was too frozen in place to go investigate or do anything about it. Literally couldn't move! And it went on for about ten straight minutes, I'd say. I have been cultivating patience, and I can see it slowly becoming more of a virtue, but in the face of extremes I find it nearly impossible to find my breath and center myself... So... no magic here.
"no, no god" that's an interesting concept. I like the Hindu idea that the holy force is held within us all, that we are all part and parcel of the same "god" force or divinity. I think divinity and god are not good enough words for what we are expressing here. I mean, I don't personally believe in a magical person in the sky type deity... but I can follow that we are all part of the same loosely sewn together fabric..... knit with extra large needles...
Comments
It would be interesting to unpick this phrase from TNH's piece. What is meant by "the ground of our being", and why does this have the nature of "no-birth and no-death"?
We are either the ocean or water in a pot. No in between.
Wasn't TNH trying to illustrate the oneness thingy? which is no-birth and no-death / the continuity of our 'existence' with the ocean/wave analogy? Well...it's still all just a philosophy - darned good one, too. Right?
I have to admit, I have trouble putting no self and rebirth in the same seat. I get the idea that we are all just bits of the same shattered mirror: our own shape and size, yet part of the greater item.... (metaphorically speaking).... and I get the idea that rebirth is just relightling a candle from the embers of one which has been snuffed out... you're not really different but you're not really the same....... yeah? but sometimes all the metaphors moosh together and i get all confuddled....
okay... so we're one with the universe.... yep. got it..... but if we are not "I" in the sense of "I am a human" or "I am an individual," then how does someone who is not someone get reborn as another not-person.....?
I'm dizzy now. No coffee today.
Attain union with coffee, quick!
Not to confuse anyone any further, but just wanted to share my take on it. We have to accept first that mind is a separate entity from body. By looking at the mind and the body, we can see that changes occur because of causes and conditions. A change in one causes a change in the other. When we look at our hand we can see that by doing something to or with our hand it makes us think or feel a certain way. If we lose our hand, that thought or feeling doesn't end. It either continues or changes. Mind is another element just like the body. It too may recycle based on causes and conditions.
so you're recycled.... and there is not a "you" left once that process has been done, because a body is just a body. Without what makes us "us" in there, it's nothing but carbon, hydrogen, oxygen... etc. ..... BUT our karma still follows "us"..... i mean.... it's not attatched to our "self" so how does it know which non-person mind to follow? Mind-pheromones? (that's a joke, but I am sort of being serious... is this just another one of those things we will never "know" for sure?) I think I need this explained like I was a toddler, in order to really "get" it. Or am I just embarrassing myself?
If there is craving the mind element will wander looking for a host body/element.
I think the wave/ocean analogy is meant to illustrate TNHs idea of "Interbeing", though it also sounds a bit Hindu, with wave = Atman and ocean = Brahman? I don't know.
I'm still not sure about TNHs "ground of being" reference, which has religious implications not necessarily present in Buddhism.
I caught this bit in TNH's Wikipedia page the other day: "Hanh's presentation of the prajnaparamita in terms of "interbeing" has doctrinal antecedents in the Huayan school of thought, which "is often said to provide a philosophical foundation" for Zen."
The Huayan school is quite interesting, from a philosophical standpoint, although I don't think it's as readily apparent as interbeing.
Hi All,
Is non-duality the experience, which a person experiences during his enlightenment - or - after becoming enlightened? if after becoming enlightened, then how does an enlightened person act in the world after awakening - means how would compassion generate in him after seeing that everything is inherently empty? So would an enlightened person be switching his mind frequently from non-duality mode to duality mode and from duality mode to non-duality mode to act in the world? Any ideas, please suggest. Thanks in advance.
So what does the commentary say about what did Yaoshan taught about how to practice Non-thinking? please suggest. thanks in advance.
Non duality is not an experience you can have. Who or what would have it? If we do it would be dualistic ...
However from experience I can say the non dual, always present aspect known as enlightenment becomes consciously present or aware ...
Not quite switching, not quite empty. More like unfolding or awareness becomes present. Empty does not mean vacuous. The enlightened are still people. Wouldn't you feel compassion for those dreaming their lives? Quite natural ...
Are you saying there is a non-dual aspect of ourselves which becomes aware? That sounds rather like Atman?
Isn't non-duality an insight, a realisation?
Realisation does not become aware or become non-dual ^^. When was it anything but ...
Nothing becomes aware, when was it empty or full, samsara or nirvana, god or man ... [lobster rants off into the sunset ...]
Oi dunno!
Oi dunno - iz plan!
Yes, @misecmisc1 you are running into the problem of trying to understand non-duality using language evolved to deal with a dualistic world. When you say empty, you think of something with the important part missing, something left behind and worthless. You care about the beer, not the empty bottle. A snake sheds its skin and slithers off, leaving the worthless empty skin behind. If a bowl is empty, it contains nothing. So if we and our selfs and the reality around us is empty, then it has lost its value. You can't have compassion for an empty piece of meat walking around. Is that about it?
But that's because you're still using a dualistic scale of full to empty, and you value the full side instead of the empty one. You want a full tank, a full stomach, etc. Throw that away. Empty has equal value. Empty space is needed for the universe to exist. So because the doctrine of Anatta or no-self says you have no permanent, unchanging soul or essence does not mean you're worthless or not worthy of compassion. Whatever you are, you are suffering. That's all it takes.
I love Thay and this is probably not a popular opinion but I get the feeling he is out-Christianing Christianity. He uses ground of being in a way that can be called Nirvana or God in an attempt to reconcile the two views.
I like the way he presents this but I feel his poem "Call me by my True Names" speaks to me on an experiential level.
For me it helps to remember that TNH is considered Zen even as his approach differs from typical Chinese and Japanese schools. Zen Buddhism is very much influenced by Taoism.
For me, the Tao, Buddha Nature, ground of being and even Brahman or God mean the same thing.
Not an eternal personality but just the way things go, have always gone and will always go.
In my view, there is no personality to the flow until there are sentient beings to experience it but that still doesn't take away from our experiences being the experience of the flow.
Hi All,
So what is the basic problem, which we have? Is the basic problem, which we have, is that we try to understand the meaning of phenomena through our thinking?
i came across the below video url on fukanzazengi commentary by a Zen teacher:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZDRkzmD3kcA
is the idea of not trying, not having any intention, that we should just always be in the sitting posture and try to be just being in here and now - but then how we will get the food to sustain ourselves?
Please suggest. Thanks in advance.
Get food and sit. Both require and can be done mindfully or mindlessly. Don't you think?
can't learn or advance if you starve to death. Feed your body and the mind will follow. Be mindful (there's that word again!) while you fuel yourself with food and drink. Don't overdo any of these things. Buddhism is not about following extremes. It is the Middle Way.
Tibetan Buddhism calls it "interdependence" and does not refer to "oneness". Merely that nothing exists without a cause or a connection to other things. The cup is made by a potter, who bought the clay from someone who collected it. You were formed from your "mother drop" and your "father drop", and rely on intake of air and food for your body to survive.
But not once in 15 years has our Lama talked about things being "one" with another.
I find that if I do not understand a Buddhist concept, trying to figure it out intellectually doesn't help. But the more I meditate, practice mindfulness and be observant, the more I start to see what they are talking about. If I don't understand a teaching the first time I hear it, that is fine. Buddhism IS about your own observation, not about what someone tells you. And I find that when the teachings circle around to the SAME teachings about 4-5 years later, then I DO understand that concept that eluded me previously. Then of course the NEXT time the teaching circles around again, I get far MORE out of it .. and sometimes understand that what I thought I first understand was just a grasping that doesn't seem to apply anymore.
This is one of the things I LOVE .. is the evolution of understanding. It means that Buddhism is and remains new and exciting and stimulating as we gain more understanding.
So don't try to force that which doesn't make sense. Just keep up the practices .. and you WILL gain insights from your mindfulness. When you are "ripe" for those insights. And don't think that what you "know" is the final word on it, either. I used to, but I am beginning to learn otherwise.
Yes, could well be. Personally I'm not a fan of woolly syncretism, but that's another discussion.
Good luck getting away from it though.
New-agers are the worst. Buddha save me from their inane jargon-ridden prattling and pseudo-science!
Their hearts are in the right place but sometimes it's like square pegs and round holes.
What I mean though is that no matter the word Buddhists use whether it be True Self, Ground of Being, Buddha Nature... The description sounds just like the Tao.
It's no real wonder there was common ground found there.
I threw in Brahman and God because of what the words mean to me. Brahman for the lack of a personality fits better than God but in my view both are no more than aspects of the Tao (for lack of a better word)
Tee Hee.
This morning was reading about an 'idiot compassion' sangha, buying fresh lobsters, praying for them and then releasing them. Of course they are released in an area likely to be caught again. Nothing really about compassion, all to do with hypocritical nonsense ...
A bit better than the wild birds in some countries that are ONLY caught so they can be released for good karma by devout ridiculous indulgence.
Not harsh enough?
... and now back to current prattling...
But those lobsters are your people, and you should lead them to freedom, like a lobsterish Braveheart! You will need courage for this task, so first you will need to work with your lower nipping chakras to develop some prawn earth energy at the quantum level, connect with crustacean cosmic consciousness and flex your psychic "mussels".
Here is Braveheart working with his lower chakras:
In relative reality, you are over there and the chair is over here. That is correct. In ultimate reality, you are the chair, the chair is you, all things are one, and there is no separation. "You" can't be there, or this doesn't happen.
Unfortunately (or not, perhaps) you can't think your way to ultimate reality, it has to be experienced. Many, many books have been written on this subject, and they will not help you or me at all. I know, I read what seems like hundreds.
In my case, the experience came from meditation, and it was just a flash, not something that lasted long. Was it real? Can we always trust our experiences? I don't know. Does it help us in our day to day life? For sure.
Sorry for the double post. Often I think of something afterwards.
What you CAN get to w/ rational thought is "The Middle Way", which may be called a form of non duality. For example, most people either say there is a god, or there is not a god. This, you may have noticed, has caused a lot of problems. But in Buddhism, it could be said that there is no, no god. This is beyond duality.
Or even better: When you are irritated on a bus because someone is being, in your mind, annoying/loud, unruly, you can tell yourself things like "all beings deserve happiness", or "I should not be judging them" until you are blue in the face and it won't help. They ARE annoying, That's the reality. So rather than react one way or the other as we always do, rather than push this away or accept it, just bring your attention back to your breath, and the annoyance will dissipate on it's own, as if by magic.
As long as we are in a thinking state and living in duality (THIS is annoying, this is NOT annoying) we're trapped. By not, NOT doing anything about it, things simply are what they are, the ego is given less power to run the show, and life is good. Or bad. But it is what it is, and suffering is decreased.
I certainly wish I had the ability to do this the other weekend when spouse and I were in our local Walmart and there was a child screaming so loudly and profanely that I was convinced someone was abusing/ beating/ killing it. I've never (luckily) heard anything so horrible in my life (if I don't count media/ films). I was very much disturbed by it, but found I was too frozen in place to go investigate or do anything about it. Literally couldn't move! And it went on for about ten straight minutes, I'd say. I have been cultivating patience, and I can see it slowly becoming more of a virtue, but in the face of extremes I find it nearly impossible to find my breath and center myself... So... no magic here.
"no, no god" that's an interesting concept. I like the Hindu idea that the holy force is held within us all, that we are all part and parcel of the same "god" force or divinity. I think divinity and god are not good enough words for what we are expressing here. I mean, I don't personally believe in a magical person in the sky type deity... but I can follow that we are all part of the same loosely sewn together fabric..... knit with extra large needles...