What
is Nonduality - Nondualism - Advaita?
Jerry Katz, editorEncylopedia Britannica article
Traditional
Various
authors and teachers
Brief
Explications
Lengthier
Explications
From What
Is Enlightenment magazine
From 'A Brief History of Everything', by Ken Wilber
Secondary
Nondualism and Ultimate Nondualism of Da Free John
Meeting
the Great Bliss Queen: Buddhists, Feminists and the Art
of the Self, by Anne Carolyn Klein
The
Rotten Root, by Drew Hempel
Advaita
Vedanta web site FAQ
Lengthier Explications
Jan Barendrecht
Nonduality is an ordinary fact of everyday life for
some thirty years and the way how Buddhism describes it
comes very close. The car is being driven, the walk is
undertaken, this reply is being written and there is
nobody pondering over what exactly to write. It is so
simple and ordinary that anyone writing a book about it
is considered suspect of either putting existing theory
into "own' words or relating to experiences like
samadhis. Sahaja samadhi isn't a samadhi in the ordinary
sense as one "doesn't come out of it". What's
more, as this wasn't an achievement but came naturally in
the course of events, instead of following scriptures and
lineage, it was just a matter of comparing the various
existing expressions and selecting what comes nearest.
Strictly speaking, ordinary language with "I",
"me", "mine" and "you"
means continuous lying as the meaning of these words is
lost forever. But lies is what present day society is all
about; who cares :) So it is obvious there is neither
negation nor affirmation, neither I nor you, neither
nothingness nor fullness; neither nirvana nor samsara. Or
put simply: a painting of a mango won't satisfy one's
appetite and the description of the mango on the painting
doesn't stimulate the appetite for those, not knowing the
taste of mangos. The real question of course is, without
having met a picture of a mango, how would one describe
the taste of nonduality? So it comes to no surprise that
everyone raised in a 'system' will affirm that system,
confirming the dictum "as you meditate, so you
become". The Buddha was one of the few exceptions
...
Strictly speaking, nondualism is knowing one's real
nature. Not knowing intellectually but by
"experience" (for the lack of an appropriate
expression). Although the transformations could be seen
as "peeling the onion", leaving one's real
nature without the slightest veil, there's more to it
than just peeling the onion. Somewhere I came across the
dictum "fear is the main weakness of the
flesh". For an a-regenerate, the fear consists of
loosing the body. For a regenerate, the fear is gone but
there is a reaction, the "jump" to the
Immovable. When transformations are completed, the
"jump" consists of closing the eyes and ceasing
to breathe. This means a transformation has to take place
to accommodate the body-mind so that nothing happening to
it will subjectively change anything or cause pain etc..
...
This bypasses the entire field of siddhis, as they are a
mere spin-off. From the perspective of
"peeling" however, siddhis wouldn't arise but
from the perspective of transformations the siddhis can
even be acquired (not recommended).
...
From the nondual perspective there is nothing to seek and
transformations will be secondary effects. From the
perspective of "ego", only when seeking is
forgotten one will recognize what was never lost; on
gradual awakening transformations can be painful as one's
focus seems to be shifting or at times seems to be
absent.
...
Non-duality isn't experienced. All experience has a
beginning and an end; one's real nature hasn't. As this
real nature doesn't depend on anything, no duality is
required. There doesn't have to be a one - a symbol for
infinity is zero (a one bent into a circle). Another
"explanation" is that one's real nature is pure
consciousness which is the basis for everything, so what
one observes are but its manifestations. It is the
analogy that seeing the moon reflected in thousand
mirrors doesn't make a thousand moons.
...
If the word would have been singularity (condition of
being one) instead of nonduality, would you have arrived
at the idea of negation? The "official" meaning
of nonduality is: "the interconnectedness of
everything, which is founded in the singularity of the
transcendental Reality". It is quite possible to
arrive at the singularity by what is called a dualistic
path; the Sufi Hallaj is an example. "Negate"
(neti-neti, not this, not that) is a tool of the nondual
path. There is ambiguity over the meaning of a
nondualist; my proposal is to call a practitioner of the
nondual path a nondualist and one "arrived" at
the singularity a "singularist" or a
"singularian". As it is a new word, no
misunderstanding is possible.
...
Because of the Christian tradition, duality is accepted
as a "norm" and as long as one experiences or
can be the witness there is no contradiction. Even a
small glimpse of oneness will change this. Desire for
Oneness, Truth, Love, it sinks very deeply and does its
work. It is an act of Grace that there is no escape from
Oneness. Yet there are dualists, acknowledging the states
of Self-realization and liberation, but giving a dual
interpretation (Madhva philosophy) that is also based on
Vedanta. In the Patanjali sutras nondualism isn't
mentioned, although one "comes out" as a
nondualist. Surrender could be called practical
nondualism, because the "I" is put to
inactivity. It is perceived as duality because the
"I" still is present and when the "I"
starts to loosen its grip, this dissolving "I"
will experience Love. What is important, is if and how
one's daily life is influenced, either by awareness of
"I AM", or by surrender etc. Does this in turn
influence meditation?
...
I hope this clears misunderstandings about samadhis and
the impression they leave on the mind. It has become very
obvious that Patanjali, describing liberation as a
succession of transformations, is right; after each
transformation, functioning is different from the
'before'. Rightly, Patanjali avoids the entire discussion
of dualism - the non-dual state is natural and
unavoidable, if one's progression allows it. So there is
hope for everyone.
...
Even to me the sky always is looking different. The hue
is never the same; it depends on the position of the sun,
the convection in the upper atmosphere and the time of
year to name a few variables.. Compared to the end of
June, the sunlight now has a red-shift because of the
lower angle of incidence. If you would be an empath, you
would know how sensitive your animals are and how they
are responding even when the eyes don't detect it.
Interpretation is always dependent on the input from the
limited senses and the knowledge in the mind. So one
cannot deny the existence of sentient beings and objects;
nonduality could be called the journey to resolve the
relation between you, the other sentient beings and the
objects, for once and forever.
...
The dictionary says: Religion, a system of thought,
feeling, and action shared by a group that gives members
an object of devotion; a code of ethics governing
personal and social conduct; and a frame of reference
relating individuals to their group and the universe. A
nondualist doesn't have an object of devotion; this would
be dualism. A code of ethics and a frame of reference,
yes, but it serves as a reminder to: what is a
nondualist? Someone following a nondual path, someone in
a permanent nondual state or someone aspiring such a
state? The question isn't theoretical; one code of ethics
is to forsake the first nondual state (nirvana) until all
sentient beings are enlightened. Remains the frame of
reference - is it Self or is it Void? If the first group
is called A-voiders, the second group will be named
Voiders - sounds almost like the days of old with the
debates between Advaitas and Buddhists (in these modern
times, why not soccer games instead of debates?). Perhaps
being is common to all.
...
Duality: change can only be observed when something else
is changing differently - one event serving as the
reference for another event. The passing of time will be
innerly observed (felt) when one's ever changing mind
(with moods) is the reference. From duality to
nonduality: transformation of sentient being into
unlimited being (called God, Love, Bliss, Void -
depending on one's frame of reference). *
Nonduality: A change can only be observed when something
is unchanging - all events are referenced to the
unchanging. The experience of time passing by will cease
when the unchanging becomes the "reference".
* The transformation also implies one's insight and
knowledge will steadily change - illustrated nicely by
the following excerpt:
...
The beauty of nondual states is the absence of concepts.
It is an obstacle to think some concepts have to be
mastered. Get rid of concepts - they are fetters. We all
know the "expected" behavior of saints and
yogis. It is the Eastern concept of saintliness. Now look
how some are behaving in the West - all of a sudden, they
are falling prey to what we call "temptations".
Are they "lesser" saints and yogis because of
it? No, they just couldn't live up anymore to their
cultural concepts of "saintly" behavior.
Everything "swept under the carpet" will break
loose when it is least expected.
...
Nonduality comes from a time when scientists used to
"attain" a nondual state (there are many). In a
nondual state, there is no "I" in the form of
experiencer or observer. It is a known fact that sense
perception is possible without being conscious of it;
retrieval is possible under hypnosis. In a nondual state,
this "unconscious recorder" is the normal mode
of perception - perceiving without experiencer. This
development is often thought to be a side-effect of
Kundalini and starts with things like over-active senses.
The "I" is only basic for self-preservation of
beings below a certain level of self-consciousness. When
self-consciousness exceeds this level, the species will
self-destruct unless the members "destroy" self
(the "I"). Strange as it may seem,
Self-realization is a "built-in" necessity for
survival of the species. A nondual state could be called
a state of "unconditional well-being" so
"world" and "other" beings are
treated very differently. Unless one "attains"
nirvana at an early age, it is likely one will have a
partner and offspring; many Indian saints, sages and even
the Buddha had. When Buddhism was flowering, nirvana
(with substratum remaining) was quite normal for
householders.
...
If the word would have been singularity (condition of
being one) instead of nonduality, would you have arrived
at the idea of negation? The "official" meaning
of nonduality is: "the interconnectedness of
everything, which is founded in the singularity of the
transcendental Reality". It is quite possible to
arrive at the singularity by what is called a dualistic
path; the Sufi Hallaj is an example. "Negate"
(neti-neti, not this, not that) is a tool of the nondual
path. There is ambiguity over the meaning of a
nondualist; my proposal is to call a practitioner of the
nondual path a nondualist and one "arrived" at
the singularity a "singularist" or a
"singularian". As it is a new word, no
misunderstanding is possible.
top
of page
Rik Wallace
To be frank would be dishonest as I AM. I have nothing
really to say about nonduality, so perhaps I'll humbly
offer some perception-altering distractions in which you
are free to find "wisdom" if you find such
pursuits entertaining. A page on this site credited to
the name "Harsha" contained the phrase
"You are already Wide Awake!" So what. I am not
a Sage. I am not even ordinary. I AM means nothing to me.
If you find wisdom in these words, then why are you
reading them? If you want my opinion, I will NOT give it
to you, as your own are causing you enough problems as it
is. However I will offer advice freely as I find it
confusing and would rather dispense it. But for wisdom...
sorry, you are on your own. What makes 'non-duality' so
special? As if there were an option...'Here' is a word of
advice. I have but one mission in life and that is to
finish this sentence. Now that I have completed that one,
I would like to be reincarnated as the next sentence. The
greatest tradeoff of living life in full awareness is
missing out on what you aren't paying attention to. The
greatest pity is that you don't even notice. So if I
spend every moment obsessed with worries, regrets, and
distractions, do I not have Buddha nature? Aleister
Crowley is known for quoting, "Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the law." Now I am too.
'Non-violence' is indeed the supreme principle. Your
demons cannot hurt you, because there are no demons. You
are free to believe as you wish, so long as it is the
truth. Why would you want to be a sage, when there are so
many other valid career options? The perception that
sages are more ordinary than the rest of us can lead to a
profound sense of confusion. Have compassion for sages -
they know not what they do. I would like to be remembered
as someone long forgotten. I am you in another life. In
my age I frequently forget details of my past, but they
soon reappear, much to my dismay. Call it karma. Forgive
me - I haven't had an original memory in several seconds.
I can't seem to shake my attachment to this language
thing. When I went blank a moment ago, I thought
"Yes!" so I'm still typing in English. Dang.
So, like, I'm reading this email, right?...and I'm
thinking to this person "What an idiot! You have no
clue!" And then I remember I'm proofreading what I
wrote myself just a minute ago. Funny that it's so easy
to forget who I'm criticizing from moment to moment, and
I just chalk it up to self-consciousness. I need to have
more compassion for myself... we're all one afterall.
Everything is connected by utter randomness. Here'a
controversial thought to ponder. This just goes to show
what can happen when you place consideration of others'
words above your own. Who is the voice in your head. The
attainment of nondual awareness has already happened many
times when you weren't looking. The only way my words are
relevant to your search is that you know you are reading
them. Deal with it. Let's face it - nonduality is a
no-brainer. It takes no effort to experience. Everyone
does it all the time without noticing. Yet it's all
anyone yaps about. If you doubt me, shut up, smile, and
just look for yourself. "So baby, like what are you
doing when you're not paying attention?" Now. That
has nothing to do with nonduality. Perhaps there is
nothing more to this than you like to think'. Yes, my
love, it is true I do not want to hear that my words have
inspired you, that they have moved you, that they have
given you meaning. Mere words cannot change they way you
are, and they can give you nothing that you have not
already. Please forget my words, and I will do what I
must, my love, to help you forget me. Forget what was
said. I grant you 'this'. Are you happy? Are you really
happy? Your answer is of concern. If you are still
reading, be assured, from the depths of my heart that I
haven't noticed. I cannot help but to care enough about
you not to. Love is indeed the supreme principle. Smile.
top
of page
Rony Mishal
On the one hand non-duality implies that there is no
becoming, there is no continuity to I, there is nowhere
that psychological patterns can hold. This is true and
valid for Now. From non-duality the current events are
seen for what they are and released from their
psychlogical pattern forming impact through the nature of
the seeing itself. But what happens with past patterns,
especially the wounding ones? There is some problem here
because they cannot be seen as "non-existing thought
patterns" by the one that was hurt, because he is
not here anymore. So the wound and the wounded are tied
up, and it seems that there is no way out. I found it
very helpful to look at past wounds as non-separate from
the entity that was hurt - and do nothing. Not even
naming what is happening. This is sometimes very
emotional, but somehow I have found myself emerging out
of this a bit cleaner and lighter.
Dr. Harsh K. Luthar
Whatever can be undermined is not Self-Existent and
Real. Therefore, while Oneness and Non-Duality are useful
concepts, there is no point in holding on to them as
substantial. To one who Knows the Self, the question of
detachment is moot. If dualism is sought to be rejected
as a philosophy, it only proves and reinforces dualism.
In order to reject something, there must be the rejecter,
the process of rejecting, and that which is rejected. So
Truly Great Sages emphasize a Deep Acceptance of Divine
Love and Awareness. This Acceptance leads to Stillness
and Silence. When All concepts, (including that of
detachment, non-duality, rejecting duality, etc.) vanish,
Reality is experienced as It is in Absolute Nakedness. It
is only the inner core of One's Own Being. It Is What You
Already Are. This is the ancient message of the Sages. We
renew this Message by knowing the Reality of the Self
that We Are. Self-awareness and Satsanga facilitate
Self-Recognition and Realization.
Greg Goode
There's no way *not* to live non-duality -- everyone
is being lived this way all the time, even if we think
we're not. This is the teaching of non-duality.
Non-duality is not something that we must make true. It
can't NOT be so.
Here are some slice-of-life descriptions of experience
that you might call mine, say in the last week. And how
the being lived has a certain sweet fragrance that isn't
an experience. Skye and I once had a few wonderful
slice-of-life exchanges like this, and I still remember
them clearly.
Working, commuting on a crowded, hot, muggy, humid
subway. Teaching computers, having to talk 8 hours a day
some weeks. Friends breaking up. Girlfriend with Chicken
pox. Friends living with AIDS, some smiling, some not
smiling. Married couple, husband cheating on wife,
telling everyone about it, she in pain. My eating too
much too late, waking up with a stomach ache. Riding my
bike through the city, no breaks, no gears, fixed-gear
track bike, Zen-like motion connected to everything going
on around. Taking dance-skating lessons, loving it but
not being very good or having much time to practice.
Weekly meditation meeting/satsang. Helping a friend buy
new wardrobe. Attending the Budha's Birthday celebration
at a local Chan temple. Talking and corresponding with
many people on the phone, in e-mail, in person, about
non-duality. Going to the gym. Burning special Japanese
incense. Not getting enough sleep. Paying bills. Reading
Western philosophers who are similar to Nagarjuna in some
respects. ....
The basic fragrance is an unbroken totally sweet
miraculousness. Totally unaffected by the details of what
happens. Things that happen are not really things at all,
and do not happen by magic, or through a mechanistic
scientific causal process. But a present miraculousness.
Nothing left out.
It is not all pleasant, but it is all fine, perfect
is-ness, because there's no other way for IS-ness to be.
Good day, Fine! Bad day, Fine! No difference, no
distance. The meditation and bike riding can be seen as
metaphors for how everything is, smoothly connected and
not separate from anything. Things that aren't pleasant
aren't in any way more or less separate than things that
are pleasant - the difference is the same as the color
red versus green. None of it ever seems like an
"I" or "you" is doing it, it's all
very direct, clear, very here and immediate, "things
as it is." There's no thought that things should be
this way, or that they should be some other way. No
thought ever of a Greg or any other entity striving or
grasping or letting go of anything. No thought that
anything needs to be maintained or chased after or
watched or kept. No thought that this is separate from
what-is. No thought that a gap exists or must be bridged.
Everything taking care of itself, in a smooth,
uninterrupted flow. And the flow isn't even a flow - it
is just called a flow, the word arising in the context of
this writing.
top
of page
Defining Nonduality
Gene Poole
As much as I appreciate the ongoing effort to
correctly define and describe the 'nondual experience', I
would point out that "there is an intelligence which
intends to communicate with us", which itself
appears as Maya.
One may say that it is the 'projector' of Self which is
beckoning us to meaning; one may say that "I am that
intelligence", etc. What one may say, is said to be
limited by mind and language; yet, one is taught or
instructed on how to say, how to see, how to Be.
In any event, as we record our experiences, there arises
evidence that our 'awakening' is arranged; that we are
indeed being prompted to 'understand' and to 'know'. In
my view, the 'nondual experience' is had, upon the silent
admission that there is indeed 'something' which begins a
dialog or conversation with us, encouraging and teaching,
leading us to grapple with the issues and illusions which
are in effect, classroom materials for the aspiring
student.
I point to the 'Guru-function', which 'masqeuerades' as
'Maya'. The nondual experience admits the Guru. Only
later, could the student 'say' that 'there is no Guru'
and refer to 'Maya' as meaningless data-display, sans
interpretation.
That such may be said 'later', post-experience, may lead
the (new) reader to assume that there is no 'parent'.
This itself may be useful, leading to seeing no 'external
or separate' parent or pedagogue, and thus pointing to
self as parent. Self as parent ("none-other")
will eventually fade as reality, leaving only the primary
relationship of student/Guru. Even the concept of
separation will fade, far beyond questions of
'separate/non-separate'. What I cannot deny is the
leading, teaching, encouraging of 'not-me', that which is
'greater' and which is teaching me. I stand comfortably
'next to' that which I speak of; I am safe there; the
only 'danger' comes from any tendency to identify as
'that'.
Parent/Guru/Pedagogue/Psychopomp/Hierophant does indeed
act and influence. The inexpressability-factor comes into
play here, and it is partly ego which is responsible for
the difficulty of expression of this always-present but
'hidden in plain sight' 'Guide-On' intelligence. Ego
would rather have 'inexpressibility' than to have to
admit that there is 'something greater' at work and at
large.
The pure and pristine and dispassionate expressions of
the summarized or 'boiled-down' description of the
'nondual experience', is lacking the clue which is
provided by the (very) _existence_ of the actual living
human 'guru'. The human Guru exists as the clue to the
reality of the Greater; even though the Guru says so, the
student takes it for metaphor. The Guru's function is to
teach us how to talk, and it does so by speaking in the
way of the Guru.
Thus, to say 'inexpressible' is to bypass the final
lesson, and thus skip the final test, leaving the entire
issue to be a nebulae of speculation and thus contention.
There is indeed a Master Voice which is teaching us how
to talk; there is no problem, as long as one does not
conclude and move on, thus creating an improper and
unstable foundation for further movement. It is all
process, with only the Guru-student relationship as the
sole stable factor, the one that never goes away.
The Guru who is invisible, unheard, still exists, beyond
denial, teaching us how to talk. To be able to talk
without conclusion is the art of the 'true pedagogue',
the one who beckons. Moving in that direction begins our
allowance that the Guru may be seen and heard.
Gene Poole's Home Page
top
of page
Dan Berkow
Fully nondual awareness isn't against anything. This
is what Blake suggests when he advises to look directly
at this instant as it is, these particulars. Intellect
can be contrasted with emotion, experience with
nonexperience. "Nondual Reality" is beyond any
of these categories. It's nonexperience and nonbeing as
much as experience and being - thus, unspeakable. It's
not nonconceptual apart from conceptualization, nor
nonconstructed reality apart from constructions. Beyond
cognition, yet cognizing; beyond constructs, yet
contructing! This is *its* nature - and certainly *it* is
no-it, and thus it "has" no nature -- it's
nature is no-nature!!
To say there is an intellectual grasp of it is silly,
because the intellect cannot function in an intellectual
way regarding nonduality. The intellect can recognize its
limitations and focus on its "realm," allowing
what is beyond itself to "be". In other words,
the intellect can realize itself as constructed by
something beyond itself and unknowable, used by That
which it cannot use, know, or articulate.
Releasing conceptual identifications
I'm not an expert.
Because I'm not an
expert, there is no
knowledge I need to
retain.
Free from knowledge,
Being reveals itself
as such.
Advaita, "non-twoness"
the non-split,
non-separated,
non-dichotomous nature
of actual reality
is not a point of view.
Any point of view is opposed
by a differing point of view.
So advaita isn't a point of view.
To make "not-two" into a point of
view that can be accepted as
a conceptual arrangment that is
plausible would be to take
advaita for what it is not.
Thus, It isn't plausible or not plausible.
It isn't a conceptual arrangement of
facts and insights.
"Not this, not that" ...
it is by releasing onself
from anchoring concepts
with which one identifies
that one comes to the
nonconceptualizable Truth
that is "not-two".
Moller de le Rouviere
Based on my own experience allow me the following.
Non-duality is not created and sustained by thought. It
may include thought when thought is present, but is based
as an unfathomable, centreless sense of being, inherently
not interested in objectifying itself as verbal
definition and description. Not having its source in
thought, no amount of thinking can reveal the truth of
the non-fragmented disposition we refer to as
non-duality.
We can say then that any thought we may believe we hold
'about' non-duality is of necessity an illusion. Such a
thought is created and sustained by thought itself, which
we have seen to be not the thing itself.
So whether we think about non-duality or not, or whether
we believe that our thinking about non-duality has any
reference whatsoever with the actual living reality of
centreless being, is totally besides the point. It stands
'besides the point' as something categorically different
to the genuine article. Thought is about, and 'about' is
not the living reality of the thing itself.
This realisation, and by realisation I do not mean any
form of mental clarity, intellectual argument,
thought-created certainty, but rather the revelation as
living reality, is not generally our disposition when we
start out on the path of self-enquiry. We start out as
thought constructs called 'I', conditioning,
psychological problems and complexities, unresolved
emotional issues, fear and so on. In other words we start
out as seekers for freedom from our perceived problems.
If we were all happy, fulfilled human be-ings, would we
feel the need to enter into this absurdity called the
spiritual path? We won't, because the path itself is a
measure of our unhappiness and insanity. The free, sane
person has no need for such absurdities as sitting
quietly for hours practicing meditation, counting his
breath, trying to become quiet, relax out of contracted
states of emotion and thought, or try to appear clever by
writing about all the highest truths obtained from books
and scriptures.
So it is perfectly clear to me, and this much my practice
has revealed to me, that despite all the very clever
arguments my thinking could conjure up over the years
relating to concepts of wholeness and the obvious
non-dual quality of experience and so on, behind even
these most clear and insightful thoughts, lurked the
separate one. All these thoughts appeared to 'me'. So
although profoundly clear about all the arguments
presented by my own enquiry and intellectual endeavour
(including deep insights during profoundly quiet times of
meditative practice) about the non-dual 'nature' of
myself, and everything else, over time it became clear to
me that I was still separate and unwhole. The most
reasonable deduction that could be made from this was
that perhaps I was using the wrong instrument to reveal
the wholeness to me.
It became clear to me that thought can ask questions it
simply cannot answer. Also it can make statements about
things it has absolutely no ability to get 'in touch'
with. Or to become one with. My thoughts about
non-duality were as empty as the religious mind's
thoughts about metaphysical projections. It became clear
then that although I could reasonably pin down a great
many (if not all) of my problems to thought, thought
itself had no ability to bring the answers which would be
living reality rather than just another opposite thought
pojected to counter the presumed 'cause' of the original
problem.
This was a watershed realisation in my own practice. When
it became clear that thought cannot answer the problems
of'I' consciousness, and other such disturbances in the
field of consciousness it has created. Any attempt by
thought to bring freedom from these many disturbing
aspects of being, was now seen as more of the same thing.
Thought cannot wash away thought. It can only try to
suppress it with some presumed 'higher thought', or
counter a fondly held argument with some more refined
argument. But in either case thought is still the active
principle, and cannot relieve itself of itself by itself.
And as it is with this thought with which we are so
profoundly identified, no freedom is possible within
thought.
But this is a profound insight. It has to reveal itself
through meticulous introspection. So that it does not
just become again the truth of another being taken by
thought and projected as a liberating principle or
delusiory opposite. In this way,( Dan), the wheel has to
be re-invented each one for h/herself. There are as many
paths as there are practitioners or enquirers. But what
has to be revealed as a fundamental interim truth and
reality by such enquiry, is that thought is not the
thing. The talk about non-duality, the thinking about
non-duality is false. Not because the thinking process
itself is false, but because thought can only project its
own version (mental creation) of these matters. And it
becomes a double lie if we propagate these illusiory,
conceptually created, projections as having anything
whatsoever to do with the living reality of the
non-fragmented being. This is what I have once described
in a post on HarshaSatsangh as the Advaitist's dream.
And because very few know the way from here, partially
because the latter-day Advaitist guru's proclaim that the
thought IS the thing, and so the idea ABOUT the non-dual
state IS the thing itself, and so we are ALREADY 'THERE'
so no work needs to be done, the enquiry has become
stultified and this stultification has taken on the
epidemic proportions so-called Western Advaita is
suffering, unknowingly, from. This dream has now become
reality. And this dream is being repeated, and has now
become 'conventional wisdom' or ' perfectly obvious' to
all.
It is only obvious as a thought. Nothing else. Not unlike
the existence of god being obvious to the religious
mentality. There is absolutely nothing obvious about
non-duality or non-doing. It is just thought presenting
clever arguments to itself, and then believes its own
arguments to be the thing itself, or ralating to the
thing itself.
Ignorance is nothing other than thought mistaking its own
creations for reality. It is what keeps the dream of
subjectivity alive. Because despite all the
procrastinations form all the pseudo-advaitists on these
lists, theytill suffer the very same thing they are
pretending to one another to have left behind somewhere
in the dungeons of their own minds. Nothing has been left
behind. The 'I' is still there, with each and every
futile explanation towards this conceptually created
madness called non-dualism. It is the very essense of
dualism.
Once this problem of the monkey chasing its own tail has
been seen as the very principle of delusion, we may start
to enquire whether there may be something that could be
done, which does not perpetuate the very thing we are
trying to get away from. Before that, any proposition
that there is no-where to go, nothing to do, no-doer from
the start, and so on, is always, already part of the
fragmented being's desparate attempt at pretending it is
not real, and does not exist. But both its pretence and
its existence remain in tact as its existence. Mind on
mind. Concept on concept. Delusion on delusion.
The dream continues unabated. And with it, human
suffering.
top
of page
Tim Gerchmez
Nonduality is a perspective on the nature of reality
(reality being anything that you would consider real or
that exists), nothing more and nothing less. It can be
viewed from a spiritual angle, from a scientific angle (I
would venture to say many quantum physicists would agree
with the nondual perspective), or any other angle you can
think of.
Nonduality says that at the core of all existence,
everything and everybody is one, a single homogenous
entity. In other words, if you "boil down"
everything that exists, both perceived and unperceived
(and as we all know, our senses are limited), the result
would be one single thing. From that single thing, all
multiplicity is derived. Without that thing (whatever it
may be), nothing whatsoever would or could exist.
It's substantially more difficult to define what that
"thing" or that homogenous entity is, what it
consists of. Everyone seems to have a slightly different
idea about it. The fact is, the single homogenous nondual
entity cannot be comprehended by the mind at all. Since
that entity is the *primal cause* of everything else, it
cannot normally be seen directly. However, since the
nondual perspective also holds that in truth there is
nothing but that entity (and all differentiation is
actually that entity filtered through the mind and the
senses), it can be said that all the different things we
see around us are actually that entity itself. In other
words, since there is really no differentiation or
variation at the most primal level, everything that we
see as differentiated is really that single entity
itself, *in that entity's totality*.
This is a hard concept to grasp, and one that gives a
newcomer to the nondual perspective no easy time. How can
each different person or thing we see around us be that
absolute, single entity *in its entirety*? Well, think of
it this way: Since nothing really exists but that one
homogenous entity, we must be under some sort of delusion
when we see subjects and objects, when we see
differentiation. A newcomer to nonduality will invariably
find this idea dangerous and threatening, but think about
what science tells us: Touch a hard surface, and what
you're touching is really mostly empty space. On a
smaller scale, the space between individual atoms is
greater than the distance from the Earth to the Sun. In
other words, everything is composed mostly of empty
space, and when we touch a hard surface and find it
solid, that perception is simply a delusion created by
the senses. And so it is with the delusion of
differentiation.
Another way to look at it is this: Think of how we
endlessly create and un-create differentiation on a
psychological level. For example, what you call a
"computer" is actually a complex mix of parts;
a case, a motherboard, a power supply, etc. Each of these
parts is further subdivided into electrical components,
and so on, until we see that a "computer" is
actually a big lump of molecules that can be further
subdivided into atoms, quarks, and so on. Nonduality
applies this kind of thinking to reality itself, stating
that at the base of everything, there is a "Ground
of Being" or substratum, and that everything is
actually "made of" this substratum. A jar is an
arbitrary term for a piece of glass, and so also a jar or
a person or an automobile is an arbitrary term for the
primal homogenous entity. Everything is interconnected at
the deepest level, is really one thing at the most basic
level.
Differentiation is like waves on the surface of the
ocean. Couldn't you say that each wave is really the
ocean itself, not "part of" the ocean? You
can't separate a wave from the ocean. It *is* the ocean.
If all waves on the ocean subside, only the ocean
remains. So it is with differentiation, which arises like
waves on the "surface" of the primal homogenous
entity.
In addition to everything being "composed of"
homogenous reality, our perception of variation serves to
hide the knowledge or perception or experience of that
homogenous reality. Our perception of variation is a
"veil" or "covering" or
"overlay" that hides the perception of the real
homogenous entity that underlies everything. The only way
to know or realize the reality of the single primal
entity is to know that we're deluded. Knowing is not
enough, however; somehow the delusion has to be seen for
what it is, or even eliminated entirely. If we see a
fallen tree lying on the ground and believe it's a dead
body, we'd likely run away or call the police. But if the
tree is seen for what it is, the "dead body"
idea will instantly vanish. So if we could for one moment
perceive the primal homogenous entity directly, our
delusion of differentiation would vanish and we would see
reality for what it really is.
Can it be done? Can we rid ourselves of this delusion of
subject and objects? Many say that it's possible. Note
that even the ideas of time and space and causation
(action-reaction) arise from our delusion of
differentiation; if there really is only one Thing, one
timeless, eternal, primal Fact, then that's ALL there is.
There cannot be more than one.
So how do we get rid of the delusion of the mind and the
senses, and see reality for what it is? Well, that's a
topic for another article, but there are many religions
and philosophical systems that offer ways and means to do
this (these methods are sometimes called
"yogas," sometimes "paths," sometimes
something else). Some of these systems of thought say
that "enlightenment" or "realization"
happens when the delusion of differentiation disappears.
The only way to find out if the nondual perspective is
true is to explore it yourself. Most nondual systems of
thought strongly emphasize *experience* over book
learning. They say "If you want to know if something
is true or not, apply it to your life in this way, and
see if you perceive truth here." However, at the
beginning, it can be very helpful to do some reading
within the different nondual systems and schools of
thought (it should be noted here that nonduality is not
*confined* to various systems or schools of thought (it
stands alone as a perspective), but often appears in
those contexts).
A few of the various contexts of nonduality:
* Science (mainly quantum physics)
* Religions (Buddhism, Vedanta, many others)
* Individuals (belief systems and experiences)
* National Traditions (Tibet, India, etc)
* Websites/Internet (a potpourri of different views)
--October 31, 1999
For those who may have read my other definitions, it's
amazing how wordy they are, how full of concepts gleaned
from other sources like books, list members, gurus,
upanishads, scriptures, web sites, etc., ad nauseum. I
look at these earlier definitions and think "Who the
hell was that masked man?!?" :-)
Amazing how words become ancient museum pieces, moments
after they are written. Really, they are old even as they
are spoken or written. A week later they're like looking
at dried mummies in a museum.
-Definition 1-
Nonduality is a "state" in which neither
duality nor nonduality is perceived!
-alternate 2-
Nonduality is just This, Here and Now.
-alternate3-
There is no such thing as duality or nonduality. That is
nonduality.
top
of page
Jonathan Shearman
"Non-duality isn't experienced. All experience
has a beginning and an end; one's real nature hasn't.
"
This is from one of the definitions on your page and its
very close to the mark.
Hence the 'nothing special' teaching of Shunryu Suzuki.
If one is hanging out for an experience, one is looking
in the wrong place!
If you're committed to a life of meditation, you are
constantly called to pay attention to what is here and
now - the actual, not it's imaginary ramifications.
The human condition being what it is, this is very
difficult for us. So we have to learn to give our
undivided attention. There's your 'non-dual'!
'Non-dual' is from 'a' - 'not' and 'dvai' - dual or
divided. Not-divided. Undivided. Hence when there is
thought about 'me' and 'mine' , then naturally your
attention is divided - between what 'I' want, and 'the
rest'.
Very simple. But it takes a life of utmost commitment and
dedication to realise it, to live from that simplicity.
It takes a religious dedication, even if one foregoes the
trappings. There is no pay-off for this. It doesn't,
Anthony Robbins nothwithstanding, make sure all your
bills get paid
Al-Maqtul Bey
Reflections on Non-dualism
Just to get it out of the way, I'll start us off with the
most elementary and generally agreed-upon definition of
non-dualism. Also called monism, the non-dualistic
perspective (I won't call it a belief or a religion,
since it is principally a way that reality reveals itself
to a perceiver) is the understanding that ultimate
reality is continuous and singular, "all-one",
and that we humans, as well as all of nature and the
material world are continuous with each other as well as
all things unseen. On that premise, it is felt that
consciousness is continuous as well, and that the
personal consciousness can be expanded into a complete
identification with the ONE. From this point on is where
we see the many divergent interpretations of non-dualism.
Some people think that therefore one should make pooja
here, take refuge there, dress in robes, burn incense and
chant things. Non-dualism devolves into conceptual word
games. Bound to language as we are, it is difficult to
avoid these word games. When one goes to teachers,
zendos, ashrams, retreats, etcetera, the game-playing is
taken to greater heights. People judge the awakened-ness
of each other by how well they are costumed, how well
they've mastered the walk, talk, and poses of their
particular game. I'm sure it's very distracting to
constantly keep track of who's getting more favor from
the teachers, who's ahead in the race for enlightenment,
and who's not playing by the rules. I hope you recognize
that these religion games will not quench your thirst for
enlightened consciousness. It seems that those things
ration out light in very small quantities, just
sufficient to keep you wanting more. Why do people do it?
Some teachers attained to some profound height or other,
and decided to capitalize on it. So many eager people are
looking for the express bus to attainment that these
teachers can hang out a shingle, turn on the charm, and
they will come. This is not the path to non-dualism.
Where's the path then? There is no path. It is
"pathless" as J. Krishnamurti said. No teachers
are needed, for it is already there. How many seekers
expressed regret for the time spent chasing gurus when
they realized that what they sought had always been right
in front of them. Not even hidden. Well, maybe hidden by
those over-wrought flights of fancy that one projects
onto the world. It is when you give up the search that
all the words and fantasies fall away, and the truth can
finally wash the senses clear.
Ayya Khema
http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/khema/allofus/non-duality.php
Non-duality
Truth occupies a very important
position in the Buddha's teaching. The Four Noble
Truths are the hub of the wheel of the Dhamma.
Truth (sacca) is one of the ten perfections to be
cultivated in order to purify oneself.
Truth can have different aspects. If we want to
find an end to suffering, we have to find truth
at its deepest level. The moral precepts which
include "not lying" are a basic training
without
which one can't lead a spiritual life.
To get to the bottom of truth, one has to get to
the bottom of oneself, and that is not an easy
thing to do, aggravated by the problem of not
loving oneself. It naturally follows that if one
wants to learn to love oneself, there must be
hate present, and we are caught in the world of
duality.
While we are floating around in the world of
duality, we can't get to the bottom of truth,
because we are suspended in a wave motion going
back and forth. There is an interesting
admonition in the Sutta Nipata, mentioning that
one should not have associates, which prevents
attachments. This would result in neither love
nor hate, so that only equanimity remains,
even-mindedness towards all that exists. With
equanimity one is no longer suspended between
good and bad, love and hate, friend and enemy,
but has been able to let go, to get to the bottom
where truth can be found.
If we want to find the basic, underlying truth of
all existence, we must practice "letting go."
This includes our weakest and our strongest
attachments, many of which aren't even recognized
as clinging.
To return to the simile of the truth to be found
at the bottom, we can see that if we are clinging
to anything, we can't get down to it. We're
attached to the things, people, ideas and views,
which we consider ours and believe to be right
and useful. These attachments will keep us from
getting in touch with absolute truth.
Our reactions, the likes and dislikes, hold us in
suspense. While it is more pleasant to like
something or someone, yet both are due to
attachments. This difficulty is closely
associated with distraction in meditation. Just
as we are attached to the food that we get for
the body, we are equally attached to food for the
mind, so the thoughts go here and there, picking
up tidbits. As we do that, we are again held in
suspense, moving from thought to breath and back
again, being in the world of duality. When our
mind acts in this way, it cannot get to rock
bottom.
Depth of understanding enables release from
suffering. When one goes deeper and deeper into
oneself, one finds no core, and learns to let go
of attachments. Whether we find anything within
us which is pure, desirable, commendable or
whether it's impure and unpleasant, makes no
difference. All mental states owned and cherished
keep us in duality, where we are hanging in
mid-air, feeling very insecure. They cannot bring
an end to suffering. One moment all might be well
in our world and we love everyone, but five
minutes later we might react with hate and
rejection.
We might be able to agree with the Buddha's words
or regard them as a plausible explanation, but
without the certainty of personal experience,
this is of limited assistance to us. In order to
have direct knowledge, it's as if we were a
weight and must not be tied to anything, so that
we can sink down to the bottom of all the
obstructions, to see the truth shining through.
The tool for that is a powerful mind, a weighty
mind. As long as the mind is interested in petty
concerns, it doesn't have the weightiness that
can bring it to the depth of understanding.
For most of us, our mind is not in the
heavy-weight class, but more akin to bantam
weight. The punch of a heavy-weight really
accomplishes something, that of a bantam weight
is not too meaningful. The light-weight mind is
attached here and there to people and their
opinions, to one's own opinions, to the whole
duality of pure and impure, right and wrong.
Why do we take it so personal, when it's truly
universal? That seems to be the biggest
difference between living at ease and being able
to let the mind delve into the deepest layer of
truth, or living at loggerheads with oneself and
others. Neither hate nor greed are a personal
manifestation, nobody has a singular claim on
them, they belong to humanity. We can learn to
let go of that personalized idea about our mind
states, which would rid us of a serious
impediment. Greed, hate and impurities exist, by
the same token non-greed and non-hate also exist.
Can we own the whole lot? Or do we own them in
succession or five minutes at a time for each?
Why own any of them, they just exist and seeing
that, it becomes possible to let oneself sink
into the depth of the Buddha's vision.
The deepest truth that the Buddha taught was that
there is no individual person. This has to be
accepted and experienced at a feeling level. As
long as one hasn't let go of owning body and
mind, one cannot accept that one isn't really
this person. This is a gradual process. In
meditation one learns to let go of ideas and
stories and attend to the meditation subject. If
we don't let go, we cannot sink into the
meditation. The mind has to be a heavy-weight for
that too.
We can compare the ordinary mind to bobbing
around on the waves of thoughts and feelings. The
same happens in meditation, therefore we need to
prepare ourselves for becoming concentrated. We
can look at all mind states arising during the
day and learn to let go of them. The ease and
buoyancy which arises from this process is due to
being unattached. If we don't practice throughout
the day, our meditation suffers because we have
not come to the meditation cushion in a suitable
frame of mind. If one has been letting go all
day, the mind is ready and can now let go in
meditation too. Then it can experience its own
happiness and purity.
Sometimes people think of the teaching as a sort
of therapy, which it undoubtedly is, but that's
not its ultimate aim, only one of its secondary
aspects. The Buddha's teaching takes us to the
end of suffering, once and for all, not just
momentarily when things go wrong.
Having had an experience of letting go, even just
once, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it
means getting rid of a great burden. Carrying
one's hate and greed around is a heavy load,
which, when abandoned, gets us out of the duality
of judgment. It's pleasant to be without
thinking; mental formations are troublesome.
If we succeed even once or twice during a day to
let go of our reactions, we have taken a great
step and can more easily do it again. We have
realized that a feeling which has arisen can be
stopped, it need not be carried around all day.
The relief from this will be the proof that a
great inner discovery has been made and that the
simplicity of non-duality shows us the way
towards truth.
top
of page
