Dualism vs non-dualism............Much Ado About Nothing

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Why should the dualistic nature of our perceived Reality confound, or even bother, a Buddhist thinker?
Our brain, which is the "raison d'etre" of our consciousness,
can readily acknowledge that it observes reality and recognizes its own self at the same time, always realizing that itis the subject itself that is being observed. ( I believe that "Terry". or was it "joefromchigo", said the same thing in earlier posts).
It is unfortunate that Buddhism , as a result, gives the very
contentious impression, or is it better said, that it believes that it is absolutely necessay to be in a non-dualistic state , before an "awakening"
or an "enlightenment" can occur.....a state bordering very dangerously to
mysticism.
Isn't it time for Buddhists to stress their more positive aspects
of their world view instead of wasting so much time in such an ambiguous
and mostly incomprehensible dogma.
Much Ado About Nothing.....indeed.
Its your fault, JLN, you got me going again, and unfortunately, just at the same point where we left off.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,804 • Replies: 35

No top replies

Alikimr, thanks for another very provocative challenge. You ask the very pertinent question: Why should our conceptual dualism trouble Buddhists? And why, according to Buddhism, is the non-dualist state of mind an essential precondition to having an "awakening?" I would very much like to see Twyvel's, Coluber's, Fresco's and Asherman's perspectives before answering, but let me just note (I have to be leaving, but I'll return with more input) that non-dualism is not just a precondition for enlightenment, it IS an aspect of it.

0 Replies

Bookmark.

0 Replies

We also realize that we are a part of the whole cosmo right?

0 Replies

We realize it if we are enlightened. But by "realizing" it I do not refer merely to "belief" or intellectual acknowledgement. The intuition of our unity with all things is a total experience or perspective.

0 Replies

Dualism.

Non-Dualism.

Nothing.

Much Ado About Nothing.

Zero Ado About Everyting.

***

I appreciate the non-dualistic aspects of dualism as well as the dualistic aspects of non-dualism.

Almost as much as I like the impersonal aspects of personalism and the personal aspects of impersonalism.

Yin-Yang = Dualsim = Non-Dualism?

Is it all One? In the end, is it all One?

0 Replies

I was researching Dualism & Non-Dualism.

I really like this quote I found on it:

"To view Non-Dualism and Dualism as contradictory leads to confusion. To view them as complementary leads to freedom. We can apply the Dualistic and Non-Dualistic philosophies as different aspects of the same one journey within, which eventually leads to the direct experience of the center of consciousness, wherein all these questions are resolved and dissolved."

So perhaps we can say Non-Dualism and Dualism instead of Non-Dualism vs. Dualism.

***
And still further down the line, I believe once one is truly enlightened, all the questions of Dualism & Non-Dualism dissolve.

0 Replies

Very good, EM.
It's also ironical that in the question of this thread is "much ado about nothing." One of the central features of buddhist thought is the notion of emptiness (sunyatta), referring, not to a vacuum, but to the fact that nothing stands by itself. Its very existence is a form of "co-origination" in which its occurrence depends on interactions* generating its evanescent (non)being. And all meanings, that exist within language, rest on their relations within language. Nothing stands alone with absolute existence; everything is relative to everthing else, a process of moving emptiness or nothingness.
* It is very difficult, ir not virtually impossible, to intellectually grasp how there can exist interactions between (non-absolute) "things" that are themselves the on-going ephemeral expressions of other interactions between other "things" that are products of other interactions, ad infinitum. (This process is what is referred to, I think, as Indra's Net)

0 Replies

JL,

Thanks.

This is probably going to sound funny, but after I wrote the above and reflected on it...

I have this feeling I should listen more and talk less for awhile.

The above summarizes how I feel, where I'm at. I feel like retiring to a cave. Why go blah blah blah in this world anymore.

But then again, part of me feels that the yogi in the cave isn't necessarily a lot different than the guy on the street trying to help someone change their tire or something.

Anyway, I think I'll shut up for awhile while I'm ahead (or behind--or even--whatever). Then again, Probably Not! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Oh don't shut up, speak up (that's what A2K is for) and see what comes out. I also feel like I'm just going blah blah blah, but sometimes I'm surprised by what comes out, even if I later disagree with it.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I'm surprised by what comes out, even if I later disagree with it.

LOL. Well hopefully its a least a few minutes later before you disagree with it.

I know for me sometimes it isn't even a few minutes. I'll write something, read it, and think "Where did that come from?" Delete! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

My major hesitations reflect awareness that some of the things I intuit (whether right or wrong) are out of my linguistic reach. So I just do my best, and make up an approximation. Later, when others respond, their responses help me to make the necessary adjustments and qualifications such that eventually my understanding is better honed and the ability to discuss it more adequate. This social-dialogical process helps me to find out what I think on the more subtle aspects of nondualistic and/or mystical ideas. But when others make no sincere attempt to understand what I'm struggling toward. When they express only an urge to shoot me down, there is no gain. Some people here are very helpful. Alikimr is one of the sceptics who is very helpful in that regard.

0 Replies

Thanks, JL for drawing me into another religious discussion. Unfortunatley, it's time for bed, and I'm depressed anyhow, and tomorrow I'll be busy because I have to leave town Friday.

"Whew! Narrowly got out of that one," he thought. Pretty good humor for a depressed person, eh?

I'm in the process of writing a short essay comparing our evolving relationships with religion, pro wrestling, and Santa Claus, and I know everybody can't wait to ignore that one. I get cynical when I'm depressed too.

I'm goingto Wichita for the weekend, a lovely little town with lovely, friendly people, a lot of wild ducks, as I recall, and a big, loud howitzer in the middle of the street.

0 Replies

Re: Dualism vs non-dualism............Much Ado About Nothing

alikimr wrote:

Why should the dualistic nature of our perceived Reality confound, or even bother, a Buddhist thinker?
Our brain, which is the "raison d'etre" of our consciousness,
can readily acknowledge that it observes reality and recognizes its own self at the same time, always realizing that itis the subject itself that is being observed. ( I believe that "Terry". or was it "joefromchigo", said the same thing in earlier posts).
It is unfortunate that Buddhism , as a result, gives the very
contentious impression, or is it better said, that it believes that it is absolutely necessay to be in a non-dualistic state , before an "awakening"
or an "enlightenment" can occur.....a state bordering very dangerously to
mysticism.
Isn't it time for Buddhists to stress their more positive aspects
of their world view instead of wasting so much time in such an ambiguous
and mostly incomprehensible dogma.
Much Ado About Nothing.....indeed.
Its your fault, JLN, you got me going again, and unfortunately, just at the same point where we left off.

Linguistics limits and forms . . . our conceptualization (the creation and holding onto of "concepts").

It encourages dualistic thinking whereas the world itself is . . . just as it is.

So ask the world what it is, rather than imposing our concepts onto it.
Less conceptualizing leads to more observing and simple openness.

When self is empty . . . the world is richly full and expressive,
FAR more than any concept could assign.

[ For me, it's not so much detaching, as simply being-with.
I don't know if anyone can understand the above words, so I'll try another ...]

There are no positive concepts. There is no wasting of time.
There is no confounding or bothering, no incomprehensible or comprehensible.
You yourself brought those to the table. The table did not have those concepts
before you came up with them.

If you put away your rulers, and stop telling the world how long things are,
then the world itself will display a lot more than your ruler can measure.
Each moment and each thing can tell you what it is, an infinite variety of aspects,
not jammed into "either-or" or 1-2-3 measurement devices.

This involves being aware of observations and perceptions, without judging
or assigning a concept or interpretation.

Dualism dissolves. Non-dualism dissolves. Even the edges of things dissolve, as we
stop pre-judging them as needing our "edges" put onto them.

Simply appreciate our perceptions (and the world) as directly as possible,
open, observing, in wonder.

[ For me, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's more like a
way of being, which is not even a spiritual pursuit but an awareness or "mode of
consciousness". Maybe Buddhism or your particular study is similar . . .
Does any of that make sense to your reading? Confused

]

0 Replies

I'm in a hurry so I can't comment except to say this statement is most excellent. I've never heard it said better. Did you write it?
"When self is empty . . . the world is richly full and expressive,
FAR more than any concept could assign."

0 Replies

CodeBorg, that is a magnificent statement of the principles of zen buddhism--whether you intended to be taken that way or not. In many respects you paraphrase the Heart Sutra, and in the following terms the core of good meditation (zazen):

"[Zazen] involves being aware of observations and perceptions, without judging or assigning a concept or interpretation. ...Simply appreciate our perceptions (and the world) as directly as possible,
open, observing, in wonder."

That is the non-dualist frame of mind.

Wonderful. Thanks.

0 Replies

alikimr,

Quote:

Our brain, which is the "raison d'etre" of our consciousness,
can readily acknowledge that it observes reality and recognizes its own self at the same time, always realizing that itis the subject itself that is being observed. ( I believe that "Terry". or was it "joefromchigo", said the same thing in earlier posts).

Quote:

It is unfortunate that Buddhism , as a result, gives the very
contentious impression, or is it better said, that it believes that it is absolutely necessay to be in a non-dualistic state , before an "awakening"
or an "enlightenment" can occur.....a state bordering very dangerously to
mysticism.

A nondualistic state = awakening = mysticism =dangerous for ego's..... Smile

Quote:

Isn't it time for Buddhists to stress their more positive aspects
of their world view instead of wasting so much time in such an ambiguous
and mostly incomprehensible dogma.

It's not dogma.

It is the clearest of the clearest.. Very Happy

Here's a Tennyson quote I posted previously:

""... a kind of waking trance, I have frequently had, quite up from my boyhood, when I have been all alone. This has generally come upon me by repeating my own name two or three times to myself, silently, till all at once, as it were out of the intensity of consciousness of individuality, the individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade away into boundless being; and this not a confused state, but the clearest of the clearest, the surest of the surest, the weirdest of the weirdest, utterly beyond words, where death was almost a laughable impossibility, the loss of personality (if so it were) seeming no extinction, but the only true life ..."

0 Replies

I had no idea that Lord Alfred Tennyson, an English conservative, was a mystic.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I had no idea that Lord Alfred Tennyson, an English conservative, was a mystic.

We all are, but most of us lock the door on purpose and throw away the key (or lose the key or it gets broken or someone tells us don't touch it when we are young or someting) :wink:

0 Replies

Dualism vs non-dualism............Much Ado About Nothing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know