Non Duality

[Fizzywig]

Ah ha! Another load of incoherent nonsense from fizzywig! But just to clarify my own mind (if possible) I wish to explain.

Buddhist non duality means "not two". It does not mean "all is one". This in spite of the many jokes about the pizza man being asked "make me one with everything" and the well known lines from "The Light of Asia" by Edwin Arnold about the dewdrop slipping into the shining sea.

Such talk will obviously cause us to be afraid of the dissolution and loss of our little selves, selves we love so much. This despite a few verses in the Bible concerning losing our lives in order to find them.

Apparently the Trinity is a "mystery" of faith. Three Persons yet one etc etc. 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

Non duality is simply 1 x 1 = 1. Not so hard is it? (There is even one less 1 to grapple with)

So when there is talk of the self merging into the One, fear not! For likewise, the One also merges into the self. Nothing is lost that was there before. How could it be? What is, is.

From the zen tradition.........Someone asked T'ou-tzu, "How is it when subject and object are both forgotten?" T'ou-tzu said, "No such thing. Don't entertain such an understanding."

So............no such thing!

In the end life can be simple. It can be lived but not thought or explained/understood by the intellect. Which I suppose is why "a little child shall lead them"

Is there a question here? Not really; as I said, just trying to clarify my own mind. And posting this helps.

Thank you.

 

[Fizzywig]

If the deepest ground of my being is love, then in that very love and nowhere else will I find myself, the world, and my brother and sister in Christ. It is not a question of either-or but of all-in-one. It is not a matter of exclusivity and "purity" but of wholeness, wholeheartedness, unity, and of equality which finds the same ground in everything

(Thomas Merton, "Contemplation in a World of Action" )


The solution to the problem of life is life itself. Life is not attained by reason and analysis but first of all by living.

(Thomas Merton, "Thoughts in Solitude" )

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The metaphysical reason why the many can be contained in the One goes back to Nagarjuna and the sages of Nalanda.

Basically all is 'illusion' for want of a better term. The mind exists as it orders sense data received by it, which is itself an illusion of the ordering mind as only the One exists. Now, if you maintain realisation of the One with the Ordering mind, you become a Bodhisattva, which largely is the goal of Mahayana. The problem is that the mind only exists as long as the illusion of sense data does - therefore if all beings become enlightened, the stated end-point I believe, then philosophically no differentiation in the One can be possible at all, as mind cannot exist except as subsidiary existence of ordering.

So, while theoretically non-duality entails survival of the person in the One (an idea I find impossible to conceive outside of Nihilism myself), it also entails eventual non-existence of person at a theoretical end-point of Compassion, when all escape suffering.

To quote the Dalai Lama:

“Consciousness will always be present, though a particular consciousness may cease. For example, the particular tactile consciousness that is present within this human body will cease when the body comes to an end. Likewise, consciousnesses that are influenced by ignorance, by anger or by attachment, these too will cease. But the basic, ultimate, innermost subtle consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning, and it will have not end. For it the One true nature"

 

[Fizzywig]

First, a few links for anyone interested................

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/carlmccolman/2012/07/nonduality-in-the-bible-and-us/

http://jacquesvigne.com/JV/english/b1p3ch4.html

http://peterspearls.com.au/ndc.htm

Each argues the case for non-duality from a Christian perspective.

My arrival has been from a Buddhist perspective. Also, from a wish never to betray this world for an imagined "other". In non-duality we "arrive back at the place we started and know it for the first time". Thus nothing is betrayed. We are back where we started and thus the journey itself has been worthwhile.(Which has things to say regarding theodicy)

The problem seems to be that the intellect may tell us that all WILL be dissolved, all distinctions lost. But as I have always seen it, reality as it is can finally be lived following enlightenment. All is a by-product of true freedom, true seeing, true knowing. Nothing is dissolved, no distinctions lost. For me, all is lost when we begin to think that we must actually physically die to start true living.

 

[gord44]

you had me at 'ah ha'....you had me at 'ah ha'....

 

[Razare]

It's positive that Buddhist would reject "all is one" in some teachings. When I was a Hindu, I was forever trying to be sold that phrase by gurus.

But I basically rejected it, and in rejecting "all is one" I ended up a Christian.

About over-emphasizing the intellect, and trying to use the intellect incorrectly, I agree. The intellect is good, and it serves a purpose, but it can be misused as an ultimate path to truth, when truth itself is Christ, and we are supposed to follow him as a lifestyle which is the truth revealed to us.

This process of following Jesus can not be boiled down and reduced to mere doctrines. If someone has a question, maybe a complex one, sometimes answering with a doctrine suffices. But that doctrine is forever inferior, and limited compared to the revelation of living Christ in us and him through us. The word itself is a guidebook to the life, but it itself is not obedience where by we live that life. We still have to choose to live the life!

It's a trap I have fallen into where I equate doctrine to, "this is what I believe!" And then go no further... the step where you actually live the word. And so long as we fail to live the word, James says we are ignorant of its meaning and deceived:

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it--not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it--they will be blessed in what they do. Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. - James 1

In the past where I did a limited study on Buddhism, I decided that it codified a lifestyle as the ultimate way of living. It seemed to me to be a variant rule book where by we live the law of conscience. Until Noah's flood, men lived the law of conscience because the law of Israel was not given yet. Part of that lifestyle they lived in those days was "do not eat meat". They simply did not eat meat back then from what is written in scripture.

And so Buddhism is capable of condemning men before God when they fail to live it, but the issue I suspect with Buddhism is "why care that we fell short of the perfect standard?"

That I cared I fell short of perfection and that I believed in the permanence of that failure as a moral good is what led me to Christ.

 

[gord44]

And so Buddhism is capable of condemning men before God when they fail to live it, but the issue I suspect with Buddhism is "why care that we fell short of the perfect standard?"

What Buddhist path did you study? The paths I have followed had little condemnation. As for the 'why care?'...that doesn't really sound like Buddhism, since Buddhism's goal is escape from the samsara and enlightenment. So they do care, and in a variety of ways (depending on one's choice of Buddhism) are working hard towards the 'goal'.

 

[Fizzywig]

It's positive that Buddhist would reject "all is one" in some teachings. When I was a Hindu, I was forever trying to be sold that phrase by gurus.

But I basically rejected it, and in rejecting "all is one" I ended up a Christian.

About over-emphasizing the intellect, and trying to use the intellect incorrectly, I agree. The intellect is good, and it serves a purpose, but it can be misused as an ultimate path to truth, when truth itself is Christ, and we are supposed to follow him as a lifestyle which is the truth revealed to us.

This process of following Jesus can not be boiled down and reduced to mere doctrines. If someone has a question, maybe a complex one, sometimes answering with a doctrine suffices. But that doctrine is forever inferior, and limited compared to the revelation of living Christ in us and him through us. The word itself is a guidebook to the life, but it itself is not obedience where by we live that life. We still have to choose to live the life!

It's a trap I have fallen into where I equate doctrine to, "this is what I believe!" And then go no further... the step where you actually live the word. And so long as we fail to live the word, James says we are ignorant of its meaning and deceived:

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it--not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it--they will be blessed in what they do. Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. - James 1

In the past where I did a limited study on Buddhism, I decided that it codified a lifestyle as the ultimate way of living. It seemed to me to be a variant rule book where by we live the law of conscience. Until Noah's flood, men lived the law of conscience because the law of Israel was not given yet. Part of that lifestyle they lived in those days was "do not eat meat". They simply did not eat meat back then from what is written in scripture.

And so Buddhism is capable of condemning men before God when they fail to live it, but the issue I suspect with Buddhism is "why care that we fell short of the perfect standard?"

That I cared I fell short of perfection and that I believed in the permanence of that failure as a moral good is what led me to Christ.

Hi, as gordRedeemed has implied, Buddhism is not some monolithic teaching, it represents a wide spectrum of ways and means, expressed throughout 2500 years.

You care that you have fallen short of perfection, and this has led you to Christ.

In Pure Land Buddhism, all perfection is seen in Amida - perfect compassion, perfect love, in fact perfect everything. Amida gives us himself/herself as pure gift. Ideally, our lives are then lives that express gratitude for the gift.

Really, I have no idea what you mean about Buddhism condemning men before God when they fail to be perfect, and not caring anyway. Having studied many of the various Buddhist expressions quite deeply, I fail to recognise any of that. We all see differently.

Getting back on topic, I have never understood the full meaning of the gift clearer than in the life of Pure Land Buddhists with their fundamentally non-dualist perspective. For me, looking back to events 2000 years ago, and trying to "believe" in them, just confuses the whole thing. But again, we all see differently.

 

[Fizzywig]

you had me at 'ah ha'

Ah ha! Maybe I should have given up then while I was still winning.