Dualism: Does Theravada address it? If so, how?

[Nicholas Weeks]

Being "name deleted" in Ron's first post I have yet to see any problem with my remarks. If I had typed "every thing" would that have helped? As others have pointed out, Nibbana has nothing to do with pairs of opposites like permanent vs impermanent or conditioned vs unconditioned.

Only our busy minds wish to see Nibbana as a logical contrary to the impermanence of every thing.

As for definitions of nibbana - there is a post of a long list from The Island book somewhere here.

Here is the list: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... nd#p115043" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pegembara]

Sorry, I am using perception rather loosely and not basing it on 12 links.

What I meant was the arising of bare awareness of sights, sounds, taste, smell and touch before one even recognize what they mean.

So, mapping your question onto paticcasamuppada, are you asking about contact without feeling?

I am not asking anything.

[daverupa]

Sorry, conflated the various posters and comments.

[PeterB]

In terms of the Theravada " Dualism" or " Non Dualism" does not compute. It is a non issue.
The Buddhas teaching as found in the Pali Canon is far more radical than that.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Being "name deleted" in Ron's first post I have yet to see any problem with my remarks. If I had typed "every thing" would that have helped? As others have pointed out, Nibbana has nothing to do with pairs of opposites like permanent vs impermanent or conditioned vs unconditioned.

Only our busy minds wish to see Nibbana as a logical contrary to the impermanence of every thing.

As for definitions of nibbana - there is a post of a long list from The Island book somewhere here.

Here is the list: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... nd#p115043" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi, Will.

Didn't mean to imply that you had written anything wrong. Was just addressing my own ignorance. I deleted your "handle", because I didn't want to involve you in another forum if you didn't wish to be. I addressed your comment directly in The Big View.com, but you must have missed my post and never responded for whatever your reasons. I meant no insult or aspersion.

_/\_ Ron

[Ron-The-Elder]

In terms of the Theravada " Dualism" or " Non Dualism" does not compute. It is a non issue.
The Buddhas teaching as found in the Pali Canon is far more radical than that.

Hi, PeterB.

Not sure if you still have me on "ignore", but I was in total agreement with your conclusion. However, since Buddha actually addressed dualism in his teachings as stated previously in this thread, and as stated by Will in his original statement, I have changed my mind.

If still on "ignore" you will of course not ever know this, but I will say it anyway.

If not on ignore, would you mind sharing why you have formed your opinion?

_/\_Ron

[Ron-The-Elder]

Ran across the use of "Nama and Rupa", "Mentality and Materiality" in today's readings, which referred to them as "dualities". Is this an appropriate use of the word, other than they are things which always appear together?

If this is so, then would "time and space", spoken of by Einstein as "space-time" then also be a proper use of the term, "duality"?

_/\_Ron

[beeblebrox]

There are several possible uses for the word "duality"... that is why there are always some confusion about it. It usually means a separation between the mind and matter, or the body and soul, or yin and yang. It can also mean something that is opposed to each other, like good and evil, etc.

I don't think that the nāma-rūpa is a duality... they're not opposed to each other. They're just grouped together.

[Ron-The-Elder]

There are several possible uses for the word "duality"... that is why there are always some confusion about it. It usually means a separation between the mind and matter, or the body and soul, or yin and yang. It can also mean something that is opposed to each other, like good and evil, etc.

I don't think that the nāma-rūpa is a duality... they're not opposed to each other. They're just grouped together.

Right! I am with you, as that is my understanding. I don't believe that simple associative pairs like "husband and wife","Mutt and Jeff", and "nama & rupa" are dualities. I believe this is a misuse of the term.

[Nibbida]

The "non-duality" of various traditions refers to the non-duality of subject & object. This is not explicitly addressed much in Theravada, but anatta, idappaccayata, and paticcasamupadaseem implicitly address that. There isn't a separate self.

The reason Mahayana says that nirvana is not different from samsara (i.e. Nagarjuna), it only means all claims about ultimate truth or emptiness are bound to be wrong because it is impossible to express it in conventional terms, words and concepts. Whenever one attempts to do that, one is already oversimplifying and distorting.

[Ron-The-Elder]

The "non-duality" of various traditions refers to the non-duality of subject & object. This is not explicitly addressed much in Theravada, but anatta, idappaccayata, and paticcasamupadaseem implicitly address that. There isn't a separate self.

The reason Mahayana says that nirvana is not different from samsara (i.e. Nagarjuna), it only means all claims about ultimate truth or emptiness are bound to be wrong because it is impossible to express it in conventional terms, words and concepts. Whenever one attempts to do that, one is already oversimplifying and distorting.

Thanks for this explanation, Nibbida.

I can grasp the idea that nibbana cannot be summarized or defined accurately with a samasaric consciousness. It would be like fourth dimensional being like ourselves attempting to explain what it is like being an eleven dimensional being.

My personal definition of nibbana is what is left when dukkha has been eradicated.