Non-duality AND Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Dharmajim
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Non-duality

Post by Dharmajim »

Greetings Christopher:

The kind of quotes you offered on non-duality illustrate what strike me as some of the shortcomings of that approach, particularly as it is offered in the west. The idea that the "only" obstacle to "freedom", which I take to be a stand-in for "awakening" or "liberation", is one's belief makes the whole spiritual enterprise a completely mental affair. In turn this leads to a focus on having some kind of liberative experience; again a mental experience. This, in turn, undermines genuine spiritual work on the everyday level such as "right speech", or "right livelihood".

For a number of years I was a Chaplain at a Prison for the Criminally Insane. The view that the only obstacle to freedom that these inmates had was their incorrect idea is laughably incoherent. No one, and I mean no one, at this facility would have taken such an analysis seriously (with the possible exception of delusional schizophrenics who already thought they were divine). My view here is that western advaita is a teaching that is designed to appeal to an extremely narrow class of people, a class of people who are highly privileged, highly educated and have an abundance of leisure time. This is a very select group. Western advaita, because of its focus on the mental, has nothing to offer the mass of ordinary people, let alone those who are more seriously afflicted either by the circumstances of their birth, their heredity, or fate. It is an extremely elitist approach to spirituality.

I don't mean to sound overly harsh; there are non-dual teachers I admire. But to repeat from my previous post, non-dual teachings in the west, particularly in the truncated form which most westerners advaitans teach them, have gotten for far too long a free ride which I think is unwarranted given that many of their assumptions are highly dubious and given that the results of their teachings do not seem to bear fruit in any significant way that I have been able to observe.

Sincerely,

Jim
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Non-duality

Post by Jechbi »

Dharmajim wrote:... it is now widely assumed that non-dual teachings are superior to those that are not non-dual. For example, if person N presents a teaching, and person M says the teachings is dualistic, the response of N, in defending the teaching, will be that it is not really dualistic. N will not respond by saying something like, "So what?" because nearly everyone now accepts the idea that non-dual teachings are superior, the pinnacle, and the ultimate.

I think this assumption of the superiority of non-dual teachings is unwarranted.
Thank you for saying this! The emporer is, indeed, wearing no clothes. :goodpost:
Dharmajim wrote:... if there is really no second, and evil exists, then that would imply that the one reality is evil. To get around this advaitans argue for the illusory nature of appearances and the mind-made nature of ethical judgment.
Maybe replace the loaded term "evil" with the more neutral term "dukkha"? Otherwise I think you might be oversimplifying the "non-dual" understanding.
Dharmajim wrote:A second problem is the problem of manyness. The world of appearances does not support the idea that there is ONLY one reality. If one goes along with advaita that there is only one truly real thing, or essence, or being, then why is it that the world of appearances is differentiated? Whence comes differentiation?
Avijja?
Dharmajim wrote:Dualists do not have a problem with differentiation. Buddhists do not have a problem with differentiation because it is simply a manifestation of the causal nexus at the heart of Buddhist understanding. But for advaitans differentiation represents a constant presence which undermines the core of their world view.
You're right to the extent that lots of folks seem to oversimplify things.

from here:
The truth is one,
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
:smile:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by christopher::: »

Dharmajim wrote:Greetings Christopher:

The kind of quotes you offered on non-duality illustrate what strike me as some of the shortcomings of that approach, particularly as it is offered in the west. The idea that the "only" obstacle to "freedom", which I take to be a stand-in for "awakening" or "liberation", is one's belief makes the whole spiritual enterprise a completely mental affair. In turn this leads to a focus on having some kind of liberative experience; again a mental experience. This, in turn, undermines genuine spiritual work on the everyday level such as "right speech", or "right livelihood".

For a number of years I was a Chaplain at a Prison for the Criminally Insane. The view that the only obstacle to freedom that these inmates had was their incorrect idea is laughably incoherent. No one, and I mean no one, at this facility would have taken such an analysis seriously (with the possible exception of delusional schizophrenics who already thought they were divine). My view here is that western advaita is a teaching that is designed to appeal to an extremely narrow class of people, a class of people who are highly privileged, highly educated and have an abundance of leisure time. This is a very select group. Western advaita, because of its focus on the mental, has nothing to offer the mass of ordinary people, let alone those who are more seriously afflicted either by the circumstances of their birth, their heredity, or fate. It is an extremely elitist approach to spirituality.

I don't mean to sound overly harsh; there are non-dual teachers I admire. But to repeat from my previous post, non-dual teachings in the west, particularly in the truncated form which most westerners advaitans teach them, have gotten for far too long a free ride which I think is unwarranted given that many of their assumptions are highly dubious and given that the results of their teachings do not seem to bear fruit in any significant way that I have been able to observe.

Sincerely,

Jim
Hi Jim,

I don't know enough about "Western Advaita" as a whole to defend it. I would agree that a singular focus on mental change is limited, especially if not paired with compassionate action. I'm more interested in the implications of nondual ways of thinking in all religious traditions. When Mother Theresa talked about seeing God in all people, or of "Jesus in his various disguises" this was a nondual perspective that had a very positive practical impact on the world...

I do not believe that "freedom" is a simple mental exercise, but do think that the belief in self and other as fundamentally independent is indeed one of the traps most people on our planet wrestle with. As for Western Advaita being a highly elitist and overly intellectual approach, you are probably right. I sometimes feel that there are Western Buddhists who are practicing Buddhism in such a manner, as well.

No one here, of course.

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Post by floating_abu »

Dharmajim wrote:Greetings Christopher:

The kind of quotes you offered on non-duality illustrate what strike me as some of the shortcomings of that approach, particularly as it is offered in the west. The idea that the "only" obstacle to "freedom", which I take to be a stand-in for "awakening" or "liberation", is one's belief makes the whole spiritual enterprise a completely mental affair. In turn this leads to a focus on having some kind of liberative experience; again a mental experience. This, in turn, undermines genuine spiritual work on the everyday level such as "right speech", or "right livelihood".
Thanks Jim, some great points.

Your post also brought to mind though the wider underlying point to all this, and that is the belief that Buddhism can be learnt on the internet, or through books only; and/or that coming to an (intellectual) understanding is sufficient.

Perhaps the error in this case however does not lie in the context or format of the teaching - as each format develops/presents its own -- but in the ability of those words to encourage/lead students toward the path of liberation, or alternatively lure students into staying in the cosy nest of agreeement or intellectual "understanding".

That is the risk with explanation at the end of the day. I believe the Buddha's way of teaching to encourage all to strive for liberation and know the truth of this for oneself, however was/is truly magnificent, and we are very grateful for his efforts.

:namaste:

PS I should state that I have not read the teachings/teachers you mention in detail and thus cannot comment on the efficacy or reliability of those therein, I have tended to naturally incline towards Buddhist teachings but can always appreciate the flavours of many traditions inside and outside of our religion.

Again thanks for some great points.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by Individual »

tiltbillings wrote:
The Dawn of Tantra; Herbert V. Guenther, Chogyam Trungpa; ed. Michael Kohn, illustrated Glen Eddy and Terris Temple; The Clear Light Series; Shambala; Berkley & London; 1975 pp. 74-76
The term advaita, as we use it, stems from Shankara's Vedanta. The Buddhists never used this term, but used rather the term advaya. Advaya means "not-two"; advaita means "one without a second." The conception of "one without a second" puts us at once into the realm of dualistic fictions. Rather than remaining in immediate experience, with the idea of "one" we posit a definite object. This would then necessarily be over against a definite subject, which is the implication Shankara wanted to deny with the "without a second." By saying "not-two" you remain on solid ground, because "not-two" does not mean "one." That conclusion does not follow.
I'm not sure what he says is right. If Pali and Sanskrit are related languages, then they would share the same roots. According to this Sanskrit dictionary, Advaita means "non-duality" and Dvitva means "duality". According to the PTS dictionary, Dvaya means "two-fold" and thus, Advaya means "not-twofold", as he says.

But since the two sets of words seem to be of the same etymological roots, distinguishing them seems weird. Adding the a- prefix is a negation in Pali or Sanskrit. Now, of course early Buddhists didn't speak Sanskrit. But Dvitva also can be translated as "couple" or "pair". So, you could also interpret Advaita as meaning "not two" also. Furthermore, the common usage of language doesn't necessarily follow logic, so it's entirely plausible that Advaya in Pali could mean both non-dualism or monism, in addition to being a description of the Buddhist rejection of both dualism and non-dualism.

Also, I believe some the Advaitins reject monism and dualism as well, by saying that the individual atman (self or soul) is an illusion. The great "Atman" is upheld as supreme ideal, or ultimate, but you have the same notion in Buddhism, regarding Nirvana, the Deathless, etc., although it isn't referred to as Atman. Not referring to it as Atman is a difference, but only a trivial one, really. Both seem to be dialectical monism... Both "self is real" and "self is not real" are refuted as views in favor of direct insight. This disagreement really only arises out of a Theravadin stubbornness to take philosophical positions and conflating the Advaitin Atman with the idea of an existent agent or soul.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by christopher::: »

Individual wrote: According to this Sanskrit dictionary, Advaita means "non-duality" and Dvitva means "duality". According to the PTS dictionary, Dvaya means "two-fold" and thus, Advaya means "not-twofold", as he says.

But since the two sets of words seem to be of the same etymological roots, distinguishing them seems weird. Adding the a- prefix is a negation in Pali or Sanskrit. Now, of course early Buddhists didn't speak Sanskrit. But Dvitva also can be translated as "couple" or "pair". So, you could also interpret Advaita as meaning "not two" also. Furthermore, the common usage of language doesn't necessarily follow logic, so it's entirely plausible that Advaya in Pali could mean both non-dualism or monism, in addition to being a description of the Buddhist rejection of both dualism and non-dualism.

Also, I believe some the Advaitins reject monism and dualism as well, by saying that the individual atman (self or soul) is an illusion. The great "Atman" is upheld as supreme ideal, or ultimate, but you have the same notion in Buddhism, regarding Nirvana, the Deathless, etc., although it isn't referred to as Atman. Not referring to it as Atman is a difference, but only a trivial one, really. Both seem to be dialectical monism... Both "self is real" and "self is not real" are refuted as views in favor of direct insight. This disagreement really only arises out of a Theravadin stubbornness to take philosophical positions and conflating the Advaitin Atman with the idea of an existent agent or soul.
Many excellent points, Individual, although "stubbornness to take a philosophical position" is not a unique Theravadin characteristic, imo. I've yet to come across a religious tradition, philosophical school (or Internet discussion board) where this habit wasn't practiced from time-to-time. It seems to arise with literal, defensive and dualistic means of conceptualizing our shared reality....

:heart:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by tiltbillings »

Individual: Furthermore, the common usage of language doesn't necessarily follow logic, so it's entirely plausible that Advaya in Pali could mean both non-dualism or monism, in addition to being a description of the Buddhist rejection of both dualism and non-dualism.
This has nothing to do with translations from Pali. It has to do with two Sanskrit terms -- Advaya from the Mahayana and Advaita from Advaita Vedanta Hinduism -- that have specific doctrinal definitions, let repeat here what I said in 4 msgs on ZFI:
kannada:
Advaya means "not-two"; advaita means "one without a second”
Wrong... A (not) Dvaita (Dual)
Not at all wrong. "One without a second” is not at all a bad gloss on Advaita. It is found in the Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1-3, ‘in the beginning sat [being] alone existed, the One without a Second [EkamevAdvitIyaM]. . . . It (sat) reflected, “May I become many! May I be born!”’.

"One without a second” is a common Advaita expression that nicely characterizes the Advaita.

See

See

See

See

See

Wiki

See
kannada: The word 'advaita' means 'non-dual' - end of story.
Maybe for you; however, as neatly shown, "One without a second” is classically characteristic and defining of Advaita, so Guenther's use of "One without a second” was not at all inappropriate.
christopher::: : I'd vote for non-dual as a good English translation for advaita, BUT, from a non-dual perspective isn't "one without a second" also acceptable?
From the two Sanskrit dictionaries I have:

A.A. MacDonnell’s A PRACTICAL SANSKRIT DICTIONARY, Oxford University Press, 1954, in toto and referenced by kannada: advaita, n. non-duality, unity; a. without duality, secondless, single. p 9.

From the great M. Monier-Williams’ A SANSKRIT ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Oxford
University Press, Motilal Banarsidass, 2002: advaita, mfn. destitute of duality,
having no duplicate, S3Br. xiv , &c.; peerless, sole, unique p. 19.

“Secondless,” “single,” “destitute of duality”; in other words: "One without a second.”

Non-dual is, of course, a good, close to literal English translation. "One without a second," however, is and has been shown to be a very appropriate gloss of Advaita, both in terms of what the word denotes and in terms of what it connotes. If one wants to discredit a scholar of Guenther’s stature, attacking his "One without a second" gloss of Advaita carries no weight.
Seems a bit weird to be in a dualistic debate about non-dualism.
(Could it be that non-duality is a highly dualistic concept?) But the immediate “debate” here that I am involved in is if "One without a second” is appropriate gloss of Advaita. It is.
Kannada: No matter how 'classically characteristic' the definition is it is still wholly inaccurate.
So you assert, but have yet to actually show.
Yours and Guenthers' assertion is based on popular interpretation/misconception of advaita, not it's specific meaning. A 'dog' has four legs and a tail, whiskers and a wet nose, so does a cat - but a dog is not a cat. Characteristics, whether classical or not, are meaningless unless they pertain to specifics.
But a dog does not have retractable claws, does not purr, and does not have a barbed tongue or penis. You are making a dictionary argument, which does not quite cut it. You have yet to actually make a reasoned, exampled argument for your case or to counter what has been neatly shown to support my position. You will need to do better than your hitherto gainsaying.
The direct translation of advaita is 'not-dual', not 'one-without-a-second'. If Guenther had used the direct translation of advaita and not its folk-lore interpretation he would have no case, nothing to distinguish from 'advaya'.
The problem with your dictionary argument is that is does not take into account context. One can look at a huge pile of terms shared by Buddhism and Hinduism, but in context, they do not necessarily mean the same thing, given these words can carry very different doctrinal definitions given them by the context of their traditions.

While dictionaries are vital, they are not the final arbiter of what a doctrinally defined word means for a particular tradition. Guenther, coming from an Indo-Tibetan Buddhist standpoint, provides for advaya a definition from his context: ’By saying "not-two" you remain on solid ground, because "not-two" does not mean "one."’

And you have yet to show that Guenther’s gloss of Advaita is actually inconsistent with the Advaita tradition.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by tiltbillings »

Individual: The great "Atman" is upheld as supreme ideal, or ultimate, but you have the same notion in Buddhism, regarding Nirvana, the Deathless, etc., although it isn't referred to as Atman. Not referring to it as Atman is a difference, but only a trivial one, really.
"...you have the same notion in Buddhism...." Not really.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by tiltbillings »

Christopher::: : Nonduality, btw, is something Buddhist teachers have talked about as well, its not something associated only with Hinduism...
Actually, Guenther makes an important and vital distinction between the Hindu non-dualists and the Mahayana position. Take a look at what he is saying again.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by christopher::: »

Hi Tilt,

It's difficult for some of us to discuss this at an abstract level, trying to point out differences (concerning a way of seeing the world that emphasizes unity) but using word definitions and scholarly critiques. Speaking for myself, I just don't think that way, sorry.

It's possible that we are saying similar things, but the only way this makes sense (for me) is to look at beliefs in context. There are differences yes, but the entire point of nonduality is to see the similarities and connections, not get hung up (in our minds) on differences. I agree with you, nondual conceptions differ from religion to religion. But many people (not you necessarily) do use the term "non-dual" to refer to a way of thinking that emphasizes that there is no real separation or true difference between this and that - "inside and outside" - at a deep or ultimate level.

The Upanishads describe everything as Brahman. The tao te Ching describes all things as manifestations of the Tao. Many Tibetan Buddhist teachers have emphasized emptiness. Mother Theresa and Gandhi both have said that "God" is in all things. Were Mother Theresa and Gandha conceptualizing God in the same way? Did they hold the same notions of God? Probably not. Yet both held what some of us call nondual views.

Shunryu Suzuki often talked about the Universe, and used the term universal awareness. Thich Nhat Hanh talked about shunyata, emptiness, and emphasized interbeing, how all things are compounded and so nothing exists separate from the rest of the Universe. Ajahn Chah talked about the Dhamma in a very non-dual way.


"If we have awareness and understanding, if we study with wisdom and mindfulness, we will see Dhamma as reality. Thus, we sill see people as constantly being born, changing and finally passing away. Everyone is subject to the cycle of birth and death, and because of this, everyone in the universe is as One being. Thus, seeing one person clearly and distinctly is the same as seeing every person in the world.

In the same way, everything is Dhamma. Not only the things we see with our physical eye, but also the things we see in our minds. A thought arises, then changes and passes away. It is ''nāma dhamma'', simply a mental impression that arises and passes away. This is the real nature of the mind. Altogether, this is the noble truth of Dhamma. If one doesn't look and observe in this way, one doesn't really see! If one does see, one will have the wisdom to listen to the Dhamma as proclaimed by the Buddha.

Where is the Buddha? The Buddha is in the Dhamma. Where is the Dhamma?
The Dhamma is in the Buddha. Right here, now!
Where is the Sangha? The Sangha is in the Dhamma.

Ajahn Chah,
Dhamma Nature
Do Buddhist teachers hold the same nondual notions as Hindus? Probably not. The various religions of the world conceptualize the "ultimate source" "Ultimate Truth" or ground of being in different ways. Each holds a different conceptual picture, using specific concepts, metaphors and imagery. The nondual view of a Buddhist, Christian and Hindu is not the same, but is similar in that what is normally described and viewed as separate (in a dualistic literal view) is seen and experienced as unified and whole, from a nondual perspective.

This experiential aspect is essential to understand and emphasize. The point of a nondual view is that it helps one break free of more literal ideas about separation and individuality, break free from your conception of your "self" as separate from the ground of Being. That does not mean that a Christian or Hindu who holds nondual views is liberated and free in the way the Buddha taught.

It's a way of seeing and experiencing the world, like right view. But will differ from religion to religion, person to person...

:heart:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by tiltbillings »

Christopher,

You are making my point, and when I have few more minutes, I'll elaborate on what I am getting at.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Post by floating_abu »

The problem with any view or teaching is no matter how true it was/is in practice, when it is adopted as a new or improved position, it becomes somewhat dead in the water.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:Christopher,

You are making my point, and when I have few more minutes, I'll elaborate on what I am getting at.
Great.

I also hope you will think a bit about the point i've been trying to make, and why i believe that nondual views are extremely helpful and important. Much pain and suffering has been caused throughout human history by people who held dualistic "black & white" literal views of reality. Militarism, sexism, slavery, racism, nationalism, materialism and most other isms are dependent on dualistic ways of thinking, black/white logic and rigid views.
floating_abu wrote:The problem with any view or teaching is no matter how true it was/is in practice, when it is adopted as a new or improved position, it becomes somewhat dead in the water.
Hi FA,

Sure, to be helpful "good ideas" must be put into practice. As an intellectual position, views can seem meaningless. This really is about wisdom though, i think. What is wisdom? The answer to that (imo) is to understand people, see how the world works, recognize how things change and grow naturally, how everything and everyone is connected...

Leaders like Ghandi, Gorbechev, JFK, Martin Luther King, HHDL and Mother Theresa have been important (and helpful) imo because they were wise, they understood human social dynamics, held nondualistic views and emphasized what connects us together, our commonalities. Compare that with the dominant black/white logic used by leaders like George Bush, and the importance of this topic can't be underemphasized on a practical real-world level.

When put into practice "wisdom" can be extremely helpful and effective. Any worldview that sees all life on our planet as part of a unified whole- all people as sisters and brothers, animals and plants as part of one family- can have dramatic positive effects, when translated into action...

I'd also go so far as to say that such common "wisdom" is in sync with the Buddha's dhamma.

:thumbsup:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Non-duality

Post by tiltbillings »

Christopher: Do Buddhist teachers hold the same nondual notions as Hindus?
What exactly are the "non-dual" notions held by Buddhist teachers? Do you understand Guenther's point?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
floating_abu
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Non-duality

Post by floating_abu »

christopher::: wrote:When put into practice "wisdom" can be helpful and effective. Any worldview that sees all life on our planet as part of a unified whole- all people as sisters and brothers, animals and plants as part of one family- is wise, imo.

I'd also go so far as to say that such common "wisdom" is in sync with the Buddha's dhamma.

:thumbsup:
I think those views, now further believed to be wisdom, are nesting mirages.
Although granted they are probably far better than the alternative :coffee:

Nevertheless we probably need to recognise that the description you provided could be said of a happy go-lucky, peace loving attitude and the "hippie" stance of the 60s was another manifestation of this. To equate this as the "wisdom" and intellectual position of the Buddha, is probably to simplify and dilute the Buddha's teachings a bit too much I think.

It is easy to do this when one picks up attitudes and phrases here and there and tries to merge it into the world view that one finds most affinity with - in this case, unity.

Personally I say to each his/her own - nothing wrong with using what is useful for one's life and however it needs to be - but to represent it as the truth of the Buddha's teaching without penetration into those for oneself, is maybe a bit too much as we then have the potential to mislead others that this is all the Buddha's teaching is about.

Best wishes,

Abu
Post Reply