I would like some help understanding the Tibetan Buddhist perspective on non duality. As I understand duality, it is the defining principle of all existence. You cant have up without down, left without right, light without dark, hot without cold, self without other. Non duality as I understand it basically would mean non existence. The one becomes two, and the two becomes three....We can see that every element is made of basically the same particle, and our protons and electrons are basically divided neutrons, as if you combine them together they are identical in weight to a neutron.
My background is not really a Buddhist one which is why I would like clarification on the Buddhist perspective. The idea of "Tai Chi" is the unification of Yin and Yang, or duality, which leads to higher awareness and function.....This does not negate the existence of opposing forces however. Its an awareness of their unification, and very much ties into the idea that "Im in your and you're in me", but within the whole there are still polarities that define all existence.
So what exactly is non-duality from a Buddhist perspective? How is the early Buddhist desire for the attainment of Nirvana different from the idea of non duality from the perspective that Samsara and Nirvana are basically the same thing?
My background is not really a Buddhist one which is why I would like clarification on the Buddhist perspective. The idea of "Tai Chi" is the unification of Yin and Yang, or duality, which leads to higher awareness and function.....This does not negate the existence of opposing forces however. Its an awareness of their unification, and very much ties into the idea that "Im in your and you're in me", but within the whole there are still polarities that define all existence.
So what exactly is non-duality from a Buddhist perspective? How is the early Buddhist desire for the attainment of Nirvana different from the idea of non duality from the perspective that Samsara and Nirvana are basically the same thing?
posted by:
|
California
|
-
Re: Non Duality
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 11:59 PMI dont know how well i can answer to this one, but i'll give it a try.
Non duality is a tricky one, as you cannot achieve it by any means
which are provided for you.
"The one becomes two, and the two becomes three..."
In buddhist philosophy, particularly in Madhyamika, they believe that you can divide particles to infinity,
there is no end to that. So there isnt one, because you cannot formate somethin solid out of them (due to dividing)
There isnt many, because it lacks solid "one" which would formate those many.
" How is the early Buddhist desire for the attainment of Nirvana different from the idea of non duality from the perspective that Samsara and Nirvana are basically the same thing? "
They have same ground, mind which is manifesting through them. It doesnt mean it is "all the same", that
one is falling to the extreme view of nihilism. Actually they are manifesting in same time, not in sameness.
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 1:11 AMDoesnt existence imply duality? The world we take to be solid is actually made of empty space, but even empty space has polar forces that guild the behavior of these (empty) particles. Our experiences are defined by contrast. Without contrast there is no experience, and contrast implies polarity. Is the goal of Buddhism to attain nothingness?
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 7:38 AMThere is nothing i can say :-D
This is really good queastion. Sometimes it feels like Buddhism is pointing towards space
with analogies "mind is like radio, there is different channels which are you'r different lifes,
but in the end, it transmits "nothing"."
I felt really spaced out with those deep philosphies about Nature of mind, madhyamika,
absolute truth when i first started to plunge myself into Buddhism. And it is difficult
to comprehend them without someones help who has realised their meaning.
At this pitstop of my life, i feel its better to consentrate on the path, than the goal.
Steps of ladder are all the same from the bottom to the top.
"Our experiences are defined by contrast."
Difficult one. In shamatha practice i usually look at my experienses, feelings and thoughts without
pulling or pushing. Natural state is relaxed in realisation, so there might be realisation or not.
It isnt so big deal afterall :-P
-
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 8:07 AMWho or what is it that makes use of duality and why, to what end, what is the result, what are the implications?
My ridiculously simplistic view is that duality is a construct of mind, so then investigate mind. -
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 8:34 AM"My ridiculously simplistic view is that duality is a construct of mind, so then investigate mind."
But where is the mind? "Everything is mind", but when you point it out, there is nothing to "point out"
and now you see clearly "nothing to point out". -
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:10 AMAwareness is always aware of something.
There are always the two poles of experience ... the subject pole and the object pole.
However, these two poles always come together at the level of experience (none without the other)
Languaging makes artificial distinctions as a second order phenomenon.
The phenomenologists share the same view.
If awareness always is aware of something, then why not make awareness aware of itself.
This ouroboric feedback loop may give a glimpse of something profound that can be stabilized. -
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:14 AMExistence is a completely different matter.
Being is not implied by experience.
-
-
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:57 AMHello Sentience,
Since I know you are raising this question from within
the Nyingma literature, I'll say that the answer you are seeking
is found in Mipham's commentaries as well as in Longchenpa
and the omnsicient Rangzom Mahapandita.
So in a nutshell there ae to kinds of multiplicity: complimentary
and opposite. So in systems like the Chinese yin-yang dialectic
light implies dark, right implies left, etc. But if we examine carefully
we can see that these catagories occur within a mind that posits
a "self " that is distinct from "other," a mind distinct from thoughts, etc.
And that second thing is non-dual.
According to the Buddhist classics, phenomena arise from mind.
This contradicts another non-dual thought system, advaita, which
posits a creator-god which in the source of all phenomena. So you
hear Vedantists say there is only God and no second (a-dvaita) thing.
Such a view Buddhists call "monist." You are correct to question this
view, because it does not acknowledge diveristy.
Madhyamaka doesn't take a position, rather, reality is beyond catagories.
But from a meditator's perspective, the thoughts images and experiences
arising in mind are mental phenomena. And since we cannot separate
perception outside from inner view, we say phenomena is experientially
non-dual. That view would be consistent with certain contemporary quantum
theories of physics. You can indeed, send a single particle through two doors
simultaneously.
Emptiness is only a goal, if you are addicted to its form aspect. Form is
addictiving if you are afraid of having it disappear. Mind has a funtion--
thinking, but it does so discontinulosly. What we call "thought" is mind.
Consciousness is pervasive. Meditation, "gom" in Tibetan, means "getting
used to." So we get used to the fact of non-duality, by getting used to emptiness
and form as they really are rather than having extreme views shuch as nihilism,
eternalism, monism or dualism. -
-
Re: Non Duality
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 4:16 PMExcellent post Mark!
Hope your well -
-
Re: Non Duality
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 12:01 PMComplete with typos :-)
No complaints.
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 10:45 AMWonderful post Mark
>Madhyamaka doesn't take a position, rather, reality is beyond catagories.
I don't remember who said it, but madhyamaka has been characterized as an epistemological "wrecking-ball". :-)
What madhyamaka tends to do is to deconstruct other (non-madhyamaka) philosophical positions or, in the case of pasangika, to follow those positions to their logical conclusions thereby illustrating their absurdity.
This amounts to an apophatic approach to epistemic inquiry. Ultimately no ontological or anti-ontological assertions can be made because all such assertions can be proven false. -
-
Re: Non Duality
Sat, May 3, 2008 - 6:41 PMThat is what the Madhyamikas claim, but in truth they do posit views. -
-
Re: Non Duality
Sat, May 3, 2008 - 8:22 PMTo posit views seems pretty natural for us humans. We may be able to experience direct perception if we train ourselves, but we generally return back to thinking, analyzing, and reasoning. Its what we do, and it takes a great deal of self mastery to do otherwise.
But it still seems to me that complimentary duality will always exist, not just in the mind, but in nature. Whether the external world is an illusion, a reflection, or a thought almost seems irrelevant, for so long as there is any movement, contrast, or perception some form of polarity exists whether we think to call it so or not. Without contrast, what is there to be perceived?
So Tibetan Buddhists dont necessarily deny natural polarities? -
-
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 8:18 AMI like your inquiry Sentience.
Here is a clip that sheds a bit of light into that..by the Dalai Lama.. prefaced by Robert Thurman, an influential and prolific American Buddhist who has had a long relationship with the Dalai Lama.
The clip is 90 minutes long..so perhaps you can simply skip the Dalai Lama (yikes.. did I say that?) and listen the first couple of minutes to Robert Thurman, who introduces the talks neatly into a nutshell.
www.youtube.com/watch
-
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 10:13 AM>Without contrast, what is there to be perceived?
It is not so much "what" is being perceived but “how” it is being perceived. The duality you think you perceive in “contrast” isn’t inherent but is in fact contingent. It is an epiphenomenona of the -way- we cognize perception but is not an integral facet of either the perceived “object” or basic cognizance. Even a transient and ephemeral glimpse of non-dual gnosis (advaya-jnana) is sufficient to establish that the duality we perceive is not a necessary artifact of perception per se. This is true even if the glimpse is tainted by very subtle levels of dualism due to our deeply embedded karmic traces (vasana).
>So Tibetan Buddhists dont necessarily deny natural polarities?
That is basically correct. On the level of conventional analysis/conventional existence (samvrtisat) there is said to be conventional truth (samvrtiatya) and this is said to be a valid cognition (pramana) from a conventional standpoint. On the level of ultimate existence (paramarthasiddhi) or ultimate truth (paramarthasatya) phenomena can not be said to any inherent existence. Or to put it slightly differently phenomena can’t be show to have existence by their own character (svalaksanasiddhi).
Tsongkhapa felt that teachers in his era had went too far in their emphasis on ultimate truth, to the point of sliding towards “nihilism”. In his presentation, he constantly emphasizes the equality of the two truths. On the other hand, many Nyingma and Sakya authors have felt that Tsongkhapa was coming quite close to nullifying the emptiness of phenomena and therefore sliding towards “realism”.
This may all seem like endless hairsplitting to some folks, but examining the “debate” on this topic helps understand what is really being pointed towards.
This is all just my opinion based on my flawed understanding,
Ryan -
-
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 12:12 PMI agree that primordial oneness is non-dual, or at least it seems to be by my understanding of it.
Often though it seems that when people talk about non duality they are talking about the illusion of separateness and ego, that the distinction between self or other is an illusion, and is more about the ego that physics or awareness....but there is still polarity so long as there is movement and anything exists. If the universe is an expression of the mind, then the polarity exists in the mind to produce thought, even if that polarity is within an undifferentiated whole. If the world we perceive to be dual is really a product of awareness on multiple levels, then the real duality exists in our awareness.
So there are different kinds of duality, but for some it seems to be about dissolution of the ego rather than a commentary on physics or awareness. Our perception of the world is defined by our senses, and we only see a reflexion of the world outside ourselves, even as we are manifest in the same way that the world is.
But without egos we would not have individual human beings taking form, and without any polarity of forces we would not only not have a physical universe but we would also have no awareness. Polarity does not imply separateness necessarily, not separateness in mind or in manifestation, but it implies the possibility of movement and creation. If there only existed a singularity and nothing else, we wouldnt have this universe to play in.
So it seems like there are at least 2 maybe 3 definitions of duality being talked about here. I was going to ask something along the lines of why I would even desire return to an unmanifest singularity, but it seems that is not necessarily the goal of Tibetan Buddhism and its more about a shift in our awareness to see the moving manifest universe as an expression of awareness without being limited by the individual ego....or something like that maybe. -
-
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 9:54 PM<<<I agree that primordial oneness is non-dual, or at least it seems to be by my understanding of it. >>>
That is not at all a Buddhist view. In fact the Buddha himself as well as every subsequent school of Buddhism refuted the notion that all is one as his view or the highest view. (as well as the view that all is many. The highest view is dependent origination.)
<<<Often though it seems that when people talk about non duality they are talking about the illusion of separateness and ego, that the distinction between self or other is an illusion, and is more about the ego that physics or awareness....but there is still polarity so long as there is movement and anything exists. If the universe is an expression of the mind, then the polarity exists in the mind to produce thought, even if that polarity is within an undifferentiated whole. If the world we perceive to be dual is really a product of awareness on multiple levels, then the real duality exists in our awareness. >>>
People in the West talk about all sorts of things. Often quite sloppily and uninformed. In buddhism, these distinctions are not illusions, but are LIKE illusions. There is a big difference.
In Buddhist teachings, there is nothing wrong with dualism, per se. In fact to hold that there is would of course itself be a dualistic view. In fact without dualism, we could not distinguish positive karma from negative, and progress on the spiritual path would be impossible.
The problems may arise when we develop attachment to one thing and aversion to something ti is not. It's not the dualism that is the problem. It's the attachment and aversion, both of which arise out of ignorance, or incorrectly perceiving phenomena. The correct view is D.O., as stated above, according to the teachings.
Books and the internet can be helpful resources, but can also lead one astray and into highly idiocyncratic interpretations of the Dharma. The best thing is to receive face to face teachings in real life from an authentic teacher within a living tradition. -
-
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 10:26 PM>>In buddhism, these distinctions are not illusions, but are LIKE illusions.
>There is a big difference.
As you see it, what exactly is that big difference? Please explain...
I know that some Buddhist teachers prefer to say "like an illusion" but I can say with complete certainty that there are plenty of Sanskrit and Tibetan texts that discuss the illusory nature of phenomena without asserting it is a mere simile.
Anything that does not exist in the way it appears to exist is an illusion. Things appear to exist inherently when in fact they lack inherent existence.
They are therefore -by definition- illusory.
It is not that they are -like- an illusion, they are -in fact- different from they way they appear to be.
Just my $.02
Ryan -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 11:05 PMMy belief is that things exist outside of our individual perception of them, even though awareness is the force that set things in motion, but our individual minds are not the source of the external world but merely our perception of it.
A friend of mine who studied under an Indian master used the analogy of when you look and see a man waving his arms but you get closer and see that it was just a bush or a small tree. Our minds tell us that reality is solid, but its mostly empty. Our perception of the world is molded both by our minds and our physical senses. I dont believe that our individual minds create the physical universe though, at least not directly from our individual ego.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 1:45 PM<<<<<<>>In buddhism, these distinctions are not illusions, but are LIKE illusions.
>There is a big difference.
As you see it, what exactly is that big difference? Please explain...
I know that some Buddhist teachers prefer to say "like an illusion" but I can say with complete certainty that there are plenty of Sanskrit and Tibetan texts that discuss the illusory nature of phenomena without asserting it is a mere simile.
Anything that does not exist in the way it appears to exist is an illusion. ...>>>
No, in Buddhism illusory means having the quality of an illusion, but not (necessarily) non-existent. A metaphor is a rope that is mistaken for a snake.
Phenomena exist. The issue is the nature of that existence, how they exist. The various schools of Buddhist philosophy have different ways of talking about this, but even the most idealistis of the Yogachara would not go so far as to equate the illusory nature or misperception of phenoomena as their being non-existent. To do so would err toward the extreme of nihilism.
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 3:25 PMA rope that looks like a snake -is- an illusion. “Illusion” does not mean non-existent, it means that it appears to be one thing but is actually something else.
You seem to be bringing in definitions of maya that are not used in a Buddhist context (vedantic?)
-
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 6:51 PM>Phenomena exist.
Not according to Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, Dharmakirti etc.
I think what you meant to say is that phenomena are not nonexistent, which is a true statement from a madhyamaka perspective.
Warm Regards,
Ryan
-
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 11:05 PM>>In Buddhist teachings, there is nothing wrong with dualism, per se.
Most (if not all) Tibetan Buddhist systems assert quite flatly that enlightenment is impossible while even -very subtle- traces of dualism exist. I guess there is nothing wrong with dualism so long as you don't aspire to achieve enlightenment for the sake of oneself and others.
If you do hold such an aspiration, dualism is a bit of a problem. This is because gross, subtle, and very subtle dualistic perceptions are obscurations to liberation and omniscience. One is not able to realize emptiness directly until even the very subtle dualistic traces have been eliminated and one achieves "meaning clear light " (don gyi 'od gsal) and the "path of seeing" according to the guhyamantra vehicle (gsang sngags theg pa).
Warm regards,
Ryan -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Non Duality
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 11:10 PMCan you define Dualism from the perspective of your practice? -
-
Re: Non Duality
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 9:20 AMThe main duality is existence and non-existence. The primary (but not only) meaning of advaya is that it is free of the two extremes (dvaya anta mukta). One often find in discussions of non-duality closely related concepts like non-fabricated (nisprapanca), non-conceptual (nirvikalpa/avikalpa), inexpressible (anupamya), inconceivable (acintya), or non- established (apratistha). Emptyness (sunya) and co-dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) or ultimate (paramartha) and conventional (samvrti) are likewise non-dual.
There is also the basic subject object duality, or perhaps more precisely there is the cognizing consciousness and that which is cognized. These also are non-dual.
There is an interesting discussion of non-duality in the mahasiddha Aryadeva’s caryamelapakapradipa:
"Now, [as] the two realities [are] nondual, cause and effect [are] also. nondual. [As] cause and effect are nondual, that-to-be-attained and the attainer are also nondual. [Asl that-to-be-attained and the attainer [are] nondual, that-to-be-[meditatively] cultivated and the cultivator [are] also nondual. [As] those [are] nondual, neither are a practitioner (sadhaka), a practice (sadhana), or its result (sadhya) evident. Since those are not [truly] evident, who here cultivates [meditation]? Who [is it] that practices the practices? Upon analysis, there is no difference between the one exerting [himself in practice] and the perfected one.” -- Aryadeva's Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryamelapakapradipa): The Gradual Path of Vajrayana Buddhism according to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition Translated and edited by Christian K. Wedemeyer © 2008
These are all gross dualistic perceptions. It is my understanding that levels of dualistic perception that can be spoken of coherently are generally gross levels of duality. Subtle and very-subtle dualistic perceptions are too subtle to be languaged easily.
Hope this helps,
Ryan -
-
Mark, Namdrol, Barnaby you out there?
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 10:21 AMHi guys and gals,
I am posting again to solicit a few folks to chime in and share their knowledge and understanding.
In particular, I had in mind Mark (the moderator and a very knowledgeable guy), Namdrol (a scholar/practitioner of prodigious gifts) and Barnaby (former moderator whose knowledge of Tibetan philosophical traditions is impressive).
This topic is complex and vexed with overly technical language. Perhaps you guys would be better able to frame the traditional teachings in a way that could be more easily understood. I have a feeling that I am failing dismally in communicating on this topic adequately and effectively.
Thanks,
Ryan -
-
Re: Mark, Namdrol, Barnaby you out there?
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 1:15 PMSo can polar forces exist without duality? -
-
Re: Mark, Namdrol, Barnaby you out there?
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 2:34 PM>"So can polar forces exist without duality? "
Can a Lama interact with her disciples?
Although, one might have direct non-conceptual
perception that is also incontrovertable, if you are
remaining to interact with beings to be tamed, it seems
one must have the capacity to perceive as ordinary beings
do. Such a being is not limited by such perception though.
I must say that te conversation is delightful.
-
-
Re: Mark, Namdrol, Barnaby you out there?
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 2:47 PMBarnaby is no longer with us, sadly.
I have to admit, that though I am "a very knowledgeable guy"
I'm not really a scholar at all, neither do I have much experience.
I'm just a sincere practitioner of something like 25 years. Any
understanding I have is only the blessings of my extraordinary
masters. It's a miracle that I've even met them. So my expertise
is more at the level of practice (of course intellctual view enters into it.)
I've been around the block enough to know that each order and lineage
has differences in view, so almost nothing's normative for all Tibetan Buddhists.
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 1:46 PM<<<>>In Buddhist teachings, there is nothing wrong with dualism, per se.
Most (if not all) Tibetan Buddhist systems assert quite flatly that enlightenment is impossible while even -very subtle- traces of dualism exist. I guess there is nothing wrong with dualism so long as you don't aspire to achieve enlightenment for the sake of oneself and others. >>>
Where did you read that? -
-
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 2:00 PMSee, I dont believe that the outside world is a projection of my own mind. I believe that my own alters and interprets that which is within my spectrum of physical senses, and that what I see is only myself responding to the outside world, but I dont believe that means that the outside world is merely a projection of my individual ego....just my perception of it.
So tangible objects may be mostly made of empty space and only seem solid....perhaps awareness was the prime animating force of the universe. Our individual ego however is not the source of all creation, and I believe there does in fact exist *something* outside of ourselves.
Now, perhaps we can eliminate how we label and judge the world....instead of seeing "self and other" we can see it as one large harmonious web of life and existence, where opposites are merely two sides of a single whole, or to go even farther, every thing originates from the same stuff, so Im in your and your in me.
But there is still movement. Even the illusion of external movement implies the reality of internal movement. There is still form (Even if the form we see is an illusion, outside the reflexion exists energy). So there remains a balance in nature, and it is polarity and differentiation that leads to movement, creation, and existence.
But Im still not 100% on the definition of Duality as used by Tibetan Buddhists. Does no-duality propose that the only real existence is a formless void of unconscious nothingness, or does it merely propose that we are all part of the whole and our individuality is a projection of the mind? -
-
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 6:40 PM>>>>>>>>>>>>
But Im still not 100% on the definition of Duality as used by Tibetan Buddhists. Does no-duality propose that the only real existence is a formless void of unconscious nothingness, or does it merely propose that we are all part of the whole and our individuality is a projection of the mind?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why would you think those are the only two options? Of the two, the second seems -slightly- closer to some Tibetan views but doesn't correspond exactly with any.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that the "world" must be either "real" or it must be "unreal". Madhyamaka asserts that ultimately the "world" is neither existent nor is it nonexistent. Those conceptual categories simply don't describe the actual situation.
You seem to be quite insistent on clarifying Indo-Tibetan views into modern Western categories. While this might eventually be a useful exercise, I have to say the it seems completely futile until you actually -understand- the Tibetan systems. If you go to my profile, you will see a blog entry called "Tibetan Philosophical Systems" that has a reading list that would very likely help your understanding.
Better yet, see if you can get face-to-face instruction form a qualified lama. Studying madhyamaka, anuttara(yoga)tantra and dzogchen (preferably in that order) with a Tibetan lama should give you plenty to mull over for some time to come, and will help you see that the questions you are asking sometimes aren't even (directly) related to the subject.
Warm Regards,
Ryan -
-
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 7:13 PM"You seem to be stuck on the idea that the "world" must be either "real" or it must be "unreal"."
No. Thats not my point at all. My point is that even if our perceptions are illusions, there is still contrast which means that polarity exists absolutely. Where there is no contrast there is no perception. Without contrast there is no awareness even.
"You seem to be quite insistent on clarifying Indo-Tibetan views into modern Western categories."
Actually, I am not looking at this from a western perspective at all, except that we are using the English language. If we were speaking a south African dialect, I would still request a better definition of terms.
If you cannot define what duality is, how can we even begin to discuss whether it exists?
If the universe is an illusion, that does not prove that there is no duality.
If seemingly solid objects are empty, that does not prove that there is no duality.
If everything which seems to exist is temporary and impermanent, that does not prove that duality does not exist.
If the larger existence is the product of awareness beyond our individual ego, this does not prove that duality does not exist.
Is an ocean of water 1 water or many waters? It is many water molecules but it is one ocean. Is non duality simply a matter of seeing it as one ocean rater than many water molecules, or is there more to it than that? Every water molecule has its own polarity, a positive and a negative pole. This polarity is what makes water behave the way it does. Without polarity the entire ocean would cease to be an ocean.
So maybe there is a third option, but instead of telling me how wrong I am (As I never claimed to understand the Tibetan Buddhist perspective, but would like to), lets begin by defining what duality from the Tibetan Buddhist perspective actually is.
-
-
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 9:42 PM>No. Thats not my point at all.
I realized that this was not your point, which is exactly why I brought it up. You're off in some area that is not central and seem to be unwilling to look at what is central. Your questions can't make sense until they are properly framed and I was trying to point you in the right direction.
>lets begin by defining what duality from the Tibetan Buddhist perspective actually is.
I provided you with several concrete example of how the term "duality" is used in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist context.
I provided a list of texts that touch on subject of how dualistic appearances for obscurations and how this topic is dealt with in anuttara(yoga)tantra and Ati-yoga.
I provided a list of texts that explain the different Indo-Tibetan philosophical systems inluding Prasangika, Yogacara, Svatantrika, Sautrantika, Jonangpa etc. Understanding the Madhyamaka (or at least the Yogacara) view is essential to comprehending non-duality in these traditions.
I don't know what else I can possibly do for you. If you are unwilling to make an effort to learn this stuff, I can't force it on you.
I'm neither qualified nor willing to attempt to teach an online tutorial on these interrelated and extremely complex topics. I've done about as much as I know how.
I'm sorry if I wasn't helpful, but I did make an effort.
Ryan -
-
Re: Non Duality
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 10:06 PMYou seem like you are becoming irritated, but it is not my intention to irritate you. Perhaps you need to take a step back and breath and try again when you are more focused.
You gave me a list of some reading material, but unfortunately I dont have those texts in front of me. Its not an unwillingness to listen, but on the other hand Im not going to run out to the bookstore just to answer this one question. All the commentary on the nature of duality would make a lot more sense if just the term duality was explained and given a more comprehensive definition the rest of what you are saying would make more sense.
There is a lot of wisdom that has been shared in this thread, but Im still not understanding what duality is. We have established duality can mean different things within the context of different traditions, but Im still not clear on what it means to Tibetan Buddhists, assuming there is a common perspective at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
