huli

go on a walk and judge nothing. see how long that lasts

It won't last long for most of us, that's for sure. But it is not unusual to have moments where we are not judging. When thought stops, in between thoughts so to speak, there is a bare awareness where the self is essentially forgotten. I would postulate this is non-dualistic consciousness, or something similar. The key factors are the cessation of thought and an active awareness.

How do you intend to overcome nothing?

Several,

Duality-infused consciousness is not "nothing", nor is non-dual consciousness. There is a difference, and it is useful to discuss the difference, do you not agree?

In Buddhist terms, one intends to overcome samsara, with a goal of reaching nirvana using the 8 fold path. True some Buddhist revisionists say we are all already a Buddha, but I think that is nonsense. Why bother being a monk if a person is already a Buddha?

regards

Huli

existence cannot be conceptulized because it is prior to thought. if prior, then existence is not an object and therefore not subject to time.

anything nameable comes and goes and is therefore object and not real.

conceptualization has no author. thinking but no thinker. ask this: 'what's the next thought?' no answer. mind quiet. why? becasue an idea asks the question. you are not the thinker. you do nothing to see, hear, taste, touch ,smell, or THINK. that's why buddha called thought the sixth sense.

the mind is in the painting. how can it ever know the painter? whatever you take yourself to be cannot be true for you are always prior. therefore you are not an object.

consider all that appears to happen an accident. a witness is necessary. like standing on the corner BEFORE a car wreck. but there is no one there, witnessing but no witness.

what appears as reality is actually the unreal. like a cartoon. flip the pages, the cat changes positions but nothing actually happens. therefore all nouns are verbs.

ask' what am I?' over and over until it is seen that no one is inquirying. when man sees that man is an idea, peace on earth. for if no thought, identify the enemy.

waht you are is actually powerless. the powerless witnessing of manifestation. all happens spontaniously, by grace. so rest easy, for what ever the station in life it could be no other way.

a young boy said to socrates: if I don't think, what should I do? reply: just go on thinking that you think.

a top 12 of non duality quotes:

12. the dawn of creation wrote what the last day of reckoning shall read. omar khayyan

11. every moment is the seed for the next. nissargadatta

10. man is God in drag. rumi

9. what's wrong with right now unless you think about it. bob adamson

8 human is an idea. karl renz

7. see that the senses do not connect some 'you' to an outside world and there is instant realization. huang po

6. events happen deeds are done but no doer thereof. buddha

5 .forgive them for they know not what they do. jesus

4. beyond right and wrong there is a field. I will meet you there. rumi

3. nothing real can be threatened and nothing unreal exists. therein lies the peace of God. course in miracles

2. I take my stand prior to all. I am the primal ground. nissargadatta

1. I am not God but of God. jesus

dlarsenn

that's a good post IMO, many good quotes and interesting comments

I continue to consider that overcoming dualism is another way to conceptualize the Buddhist Path

keep 'em coming

Huli

isn't that the hook? there is nothing to overcome.

It is interesting to have a little discussion with you, dlarsenn

I would like to comment on your statement that "there is nothing to overcome".

This might be true, as the viewpoint of a person who has achieved non-dual consciousness, and it might be true in terms of ultimate truth, but most of us have not achieved this yet. Consequently there are forums where people make posts like you and I about dualism, and the possibility of overcoming it.

Surely, the human condition as we know it is one of dualism. Even the idea that dualism can be "overcome", or that life is actually non-dual, goes against the grain of everyday thought. But a few people glimpse this, and wish to investigate it further by forums such as this.

I would say that there is "nothing to overcome" puts an end to such conversations, by denying the need for them.

There is no need to overcome dualism because there is nothing to overcome? Only for a person who is already living a non-dual life, there is for the rest of us. I believe this is self-evident.

To discuss "overcoming dualism" is a meaningful statement, IMO, even if the non-dual state can not be described in words.

Regards

Huli

Hi Rocky,

A lot of people will say in conversation "the truth is..." as a prelude to something or other. I don't think it is necessarily offensive, usually it is just framing an idea, but it kind of bugs me.

I don't expect that what I write here will help someone, or have a goal to convincing others. I wouldn't likely be calling someone aversive or greedy or anything. I just share what I consider to be interesting thoughts or viewpoints, for the pleasure of dialogue. Which is why I read it also.

However,at times, after certain replies, I feel frustrated in my eagerness to have a dialogue, and more than once I have posted an irritated reply of my own, which cause me to feel guilty, and then I stay away from this forum for a while. Honestly.

I believe Buddha said that right speech is supposed to be helpful, not just true and pleasant. Right speech is always for the observed need and benefit of the listener. This is not the same as compassion which does not itself require speech, unless it is further concluded that speech would be helpful.

Thanks for starting this topic.

Huli

existence cannot be conceptulized because it is prior to thought. if prior, then existence is not an object and therefore not subject to time.

anything nameable comes and goes and is therefore object and not real.

conceptualization has no author. thinking but no thinker. ask this: 'what's the next thought?' no answer. mind quiet. why? becasue an idea asks the question. you are not the thinker. you do nothing to see, hear, taste, touch ,smell, or THINK. that's why buddha called thought the sixth sense.

the mind is in the painting. how can it ever know the painter? whatever you take yourself to be cannot be true for you are always prior. therefore you are not an object.

consider all that appears to happen an accident. a witness is necessary. like standing on the corner BEFORE a car wreck. but there is no one there, witnessing but no witness.

what appears as reality is actually the unreal. like a cartoon. flip the pages, the cat changes positions but nothing actually happens. therefore all nouns are verbs.

ask' what am I?' over and over until it is seen that no one is inquirying. when man sees that man is an idea, peace on earth. for if no thought, identify the enemy.

waht you are is actually powerless. the powerless witnessing of manifestation. all happens spontaniously, by grace. so rest easy, for what ever the station in life it could be no other way.

a young boy said to socrates: if I don't think, what should I do? reply: just go on thinking that you think.

a top 12 of non duality quotes:

12. the dawn of creation wrote what the last day of reckoning shall read. omar khayyan

11. every moment is the seed for the next. nissargadatta

10. man is God in drag. rumi

9. what's wrong with right now unless you think about it. bob adamson

8 human is an idea. karl renz

7. see that the senses do not connect some 'you' to an outside world and there is instant realization. huang po

6. events happen deeds are done but no doer thereof. buddha

5 .forgive them for they know not what they do. jesus

4. beyond right and wrong there is a field. I will meet you there. rumi

3. nothing real can be threatened and nothing unreal exists. therein lies the peace of God. course in miracles

2. I take my stand prior to all. I am the primal ground. nissargadatta

1. I am not God but of God. jesus

dlarsenn

that's a good post IMO, many good quotes and interesting comments

I continue to consider that overcoming dualism is another way to conceptualize the Buddhist Path

keep 'em coming

Huli

True, didn't the Buddha continue practice all his life?

Perhaps he felt the attainment of Nibbana was just too hard, too razor thin. The Pacceka Buddhas can't teach others. He wouldn't talk about Nibbana itself, only the path to it.

Some believe that Nibbana is a place or destination.

They contend if re birth ceases one has to go somewhere (where is the Buddha now?).

Others translate the Sanskrit/Pali word as a verb or doing word.

If it's a doing word then to be in Nibbana you must continue to do (practice).

If it's a doing word, how can one continue to do, when "this fathom long carcass ceases".

lf one escapes re birth through enlightenment, again how can one continue to do if they are not re born?

I seriously doubt that Nirvana is either a place somewhere, or a never-ending practice.

All human communication has a speaker and a listener. The purpose of communication is to give information in order to have some effect on the listener. In order for the communication to be complete, it requires the listener to give feedback, indicating he heard and understood the speaker.

The idea that a speaker has every right to say whatever he wants is flawed. It ignores that the purpose of communication is to affect the listener. If a person knows that his speech will offend, it must be concluded that was the purpose of the speech.

To give blanket approval to any and all speech because a person has a "right" to say it, is foolish. We should all consider the likely effects of our speech first, for example, exciting riots when it has happened before.

The Muslims are pissed, entirely predictable and preventable, and the outcome of our worship of individual freedom, which can be taken too far.

People must consider the effect of their speech on others, it is part of the equation.

I, for one, wonder how anything non-Buddhist and American-based could affect anything in Theravada Buddhism, especially in the last century. Where can I learn more about this?

It is my understanding that the Theosophical Society has or had a headquarters in India at Adyar early this century. They were a very interesting group, still well-known, chiefly for being the "finders" of Krishnamurti.

But neither he, nor the Theosophists, were Buddhists, so I can't imagine how they would affect Buddhism. What say you?

I agree with Huli duality is really just a product of language, we differentiate between subject and object, this and that, compare and contrast.

I think non-dual is just not buying into the way language defines our reality as if that were an accurate ultimate description of the world we experience. Any kind of Buddhism would encourage us to look deeper than that.

If we say this kind of Buddhism is dual and that kind of Buddhism is non-dual don't we create a duality?

Not only language, but also all thought is based on duality, being careful with the definition of “thought”. So I would say yes, Brucenkhamen, statements made about different kinds of Buddhism are clearly dual, as are, statements about anatta and the aggregates, Xangsamhua.

I greatly enjoyed a discussion of non-duality in The Spectrum of Consciousness by Ken Wilbur. To summarize, if I may, dualism is illusory and impossible to overcome with thought. Different religious traditions, such as Zen, the Tien Tai school of Buddhism, and Taoism have come up with similar suggestions, however. According to Wilbur, there are three necessary factors: active attention, the suspension of thought, and passive awareness. The concluding chapter of the book elaborates on these, should anyone be interested.

The conviction that anatta is a fact may be an outcome of non-dual awareness. Buddha’s teachings, however true they may be, must forever be inherently dual, because they consist of words and thoughts. However, his admonition to meditate points the way to non-dual awareness. It is quite interesting to compare the Buddhist meditative path to overcoming dualism.

These are new markers put in since the flood of last year. They are all over the area south of the Chiang Mai Gate where there was a lot of flooding. They won't help with flooding but are supposed to give the populace advanced warning on what to expect if you know the level at the Ping River. They recently dredged most if not all of the canals, so you would thing the drainage will be better, and the flooding would be less on that account, making the markers inaccurate, but it was some kind of effort anyway.

Don't know what you mean by non-dual!!!???

in this case, dual would mean self and the world, as usually conceived and described by people.

Non-dual would be difficult to describe because the nature of language is dual or duality.

In my opinion, the non-self of Buddha's teaching is closely related to non-dualism. Another way of defining the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to overcome dualism.

I think non-dualism is a good term. Another way of describing the goal of the path, so to speak.

Having read about BIB's cumberland special sausage promotion on this thread, I went there with a party of 4 today for lunch. The place was packed. 3 of us had the sausages and all of us thought they were very good. The 4th guy had an egg salad sandwich and I was just about wishing I had that, but a person can only eat so much at one time. It was actually a sandwich and a half on that home-made bread, chips etc The couple that runs it were around and eager to please. We had some special desert too. I had not been there in quite a while, but now I want to go back again soon.

Well, I did not quote you previously, so I could not have misquoted you.

Very smart, well done you.

"You did say that "after a session in the gymn (sic), my body feels tired and sometimes painful". This suggests that at least sometimes physical exercise is not 100% enjoyable for you, does it not?"

No, it doesn't.

It really never occurred to me that you enjoy feeling tired and painful. I think this is what you just said. I hope I got it right this time.

Being as our discussion has moved away from comparing meditation and physical exercise, I hope you will accept my apology

for misunderstanding you, and agree with me, let's not proceed to tease the meaning of the word "enjoy" for the others, which is where this would be headed.

respectfully

Huli

I do note that you characterize physical exercise as being an effort, a chore, strength-sapping, and sometimes painful.

With respect, you have misquoted me; I said "....tired and sometimes painful". They are physical manifestations.

Your misquote suggests that I don't enjoy exercise; I do.

Well, I did not quote you previously, so I could not have misquoted you.

You did say that "after a session in the gymn (sic), my body feels tired and sometimes painful". This suggests that at least sometimes physical exercise is not 100% enjoyable for you, does it not? You went on to say that, for you, meditation almost always takes some effort, and is sometimes tiring.

I believe you have made the point yourself, that physical exercise or meditation can be either enjoyable or not. In this respect they are similar, and in many other ways as well.

Interesting thoughts, thank you Huli.

I have used similar words about meditation but only when trying to explain to my friends and family why I was about to embark on a week-long meditation retreat. "Why, what's wrong with you?" they would ask. After telling then that there was nothing 'wrong' (almost the opposite lol), I tried to explain by using the analogy that if I wanted my body to get fitter and stronger, I would go to the gymn, and if I wanted my mind and spirit to get healthier, I would meditate. - seemed to work.

The only problem I have with my own analogy, however, and why I would not describe meditation as mental exercise, is that after a session in the gymn my body initially feels tired and sometimes painful and only later do I feel the benefits.

After meditation, however, I immediately feel calm and refreshed, which lends me to think that I haven't exercised my mind at all, quite the opposite in fact.

I can see another aspects to this though; in all my meditation there is almost always some effort applied to stop the conscious mind from wandering, and that can sometimes feel as though it is tiring.

In conclusion, my thoughts are that meditation for me is a calming (switching off) of the conscious mind to allow it to rest. So 'mental exercise' does not fit for me but 'doing a mental exercise' perhaps does.

BT,

I find your comments very interesting and on-topic.

Your description of meditation as an activity which makes your mind and/or spirit healthier perfectly describes what I was trying to say in comparing it to exercise.

I do note that you characterize physical exercise as being an effort, a chore, strength-sapping, and sometimes painful. It can be, but not necessarily by definition. Consider that for some people exercise is fun, a favorite activity, and induces endorphin-mediated pleasure.

Likewise meditation can go either way. Sometimes there is physical discomfort or unwanted mental activity, as Rocky describes, that is not calm and refreshing.

In both physical exercise and meditation, effort is often required. However, once the benefits are experienced first-hand, they can each become very positive. So, I see a similarity there.

The main reason it seems inappropriate to call meditation mental exercise is that exercise is usually defined as physical movement. However, if exercise can be defined as a health-inducing activity, as you do when you describe it to your friends and family, one needs only to appreciate the nature of mind to grasp the idea.

Lastly, in my view, it is better to call meditation mental exercise rather than doing a mental exercise. In the latter case, there is an implied self doing meditation that is best left out of the picture. Not to be too nit-picky.

I thank you for your stimulating comments to my post. I hope I didn't over-do the bolds.

Huli

The more I think about it, it strikes me that mediation might well be described as exercise for the mind, comparable to physical exercise for the body.

Meditation is hard to describe to the masses, who often think it is thinking deeply about something or praying, or staring at something. It has a great benefit to people no matter what religion they might be, and people have so many mind problems.

I am not any kind of expert here, but if people could be told to try to 1) stop thought by focusing on their breathing, and then, eventually, become an inner witness to their thoughts and feelings without dwelling on them, it would be easy for them to understand meditation as a mental exercise.

Exercise is healthy, and a well-known term. It is done periodically to keep the body at peak function and health.

I am not sure if this idea will find any interest out there, but I am interested if this seems reasonable or if I have missed something.

I agree with the author of the article and also dislike Thich Nhat Hahn's version of supposed Buddhism.

I continue to be amazed at how many people come up with new twists on the original Buddhism, be it modern scholars, monks with a bent towards leadership roles, or even the Mahayanists. I have concluded that the world would be a better place if Buddha's original teachings, as they have come down to us, were propagated as he left them.

Some say that we don't know them for sure what Buddha said because of the oral transmission etc, but we know enough.

I particularly find Thich Nhat Hahn's concept of "engaged Buddhism" to be a phony heresy. The Buddhist Path has always been an individual's path, pure and simple. His followers may think they are being good Buddhists by engaging the world, but I think they are missing the essential point.

Yours is the Theravada view which is about individual liberation but it leaves out the Mahayana view of compassion and working on behalf of all sentient beings. The Buddha taught different methods and paths according to the differing needs, abilities, and inclinations of beings. Just because you are inclined toward the Theravada view doesn't mean the other views and paths are invalid. That sounds a lot like fundamental Christianity - my way or the highway. The Buddha did not exclude anyone, but you are.

Jawnie,

IMO, all the different methods and paths that the Buddha actually taught are included in the "Theravada view".

Other views and paths, for example like "working on behalf of all sentient beings", that came up long afterward have a thin claim as to being Buddhist.

Thank you for commenting on my post. I think in the future I will think twice about criticizing others views, as you suggest. It is not reasonable to expect to reach a consensus on everything.

Huli

I agree with the author of the article and also dislike Thich Nhat Hahn's version of supposed Buddhism.

I continue to be amazed at how many people come up with new twists on the original Buddhism, be it modern scholars, monks with a bent towards leadership roles, or even the Mahayanists. I have concluded that the world would be a better place if Buddha's original teachings, as they have come down to us, were propagated as he left them.

Some say that we don't know them for sure what Buddha said because of the oral transmission etc, but we know enough.

I particularly find Thich Nhat Hahn's concept of "engaged Buddhism" to be a phony heresy. The Buddhist Path has always been an individual's path, pure and simple. His followers may think they are being good Buddhists by engaging the world, but I think they are missing the essential point.

I have read, and have concluded, that there is a small place for faith/belief in Buddhism. People need to have some faith that the Buddha's teaching is true in order to pursue it to begin with. After that, the faith/belief is based on experience

Yes.

Unless you had some faith that practice is capable of improving your life, you probably wouldn't entertain the effort involved.

I was referring to belief in the metaphysical (religion).

Authentic, dedicated practice is said to be revealing.

Am I wrong in saying that one doesn't need to believe the metaphysical aspect (religious) in order to travel on a revealing path?

Rocky,

Some of our senior posters I have in mind could no doubt illuminate your query far better than myself, but may I make a comment?

It seems to me that metaphysical and religious are both adjectives of the nouns metaphysics and religion, respectively.

Looking up the words,

Metaphysics seems to be a rational philosophy seeking to explain the world.

Religion seems to be a set of beliefs which claim to explain the world.

Metaphysics is rational thought. Religion is beliefs.

I have admittedly over-simplified in order to make my point, that there is a question of semantics that needs attention in order to answer your question. It is not true that the two terms are synonymous, and for this reason, your question is impossible to answer or understand.

I hope you won't think I am being nit-picky. To me, semantics are critical to dialogue.

Personally I call Buddhism a religion because it requires belief in the teachings and then becomes reality through practice.

I'm interested to learn why you feel Buddhism requires belief in the teachings.

Isn't diligent practice of the eightfold path a revealing process?

Let's suppose we sat on the fence regarding re birth into future lives.

Whether we have belief in it or not, if it exists, when the time comes won't it just take place?

Also, whether we believe in Kharma reaching out and affecting future lives, by practicing the eightfold path diligently, won't we be automatically ending new Kharma/Vipaka being generated?

Perhaps having a mental image/belief in re birth, relms, and Nibbana might even be counterproductive, as our visualisation may be nothing like the reality, and therefore generate false attachment.

Isn't the beauty of embracing the eightfold path, that it's not dependent on belief, but by commitment to a practice with verifiable growth on many levels?

I have read, and have concluded, that there is a small place for faith/belief in Buddhism. People need to have some faith that the Buddha's teaching is true in order to pursue it to begin with. After that, the faith/belief is based on experience

Only the Thai version works here with FIreFox, and all the days in every month are booked. Has the site been hacked or all the slots actually all filled?

I'm pretty sure that only the Thai version has worked all along. If all the slots are booked I suspect Immigration has shut it down for whatever reason hopefully temporarily.

I have an appt to renew my Retirement Visa next Wed.

The author's idea is that Awakening is only possible through contact with (a) Buddha.

As previously mentioned, this is similar to the "direct transmission" scenario in Zen.

It occurs to me that it also resembles the Catholic teaching whereby a person can only go to heaven if they hear about and follow Jesus.

Poor guys born in the heart of Africa, no hope for them because they never heard of Jesus.

This topic's Divine Revelation, Zen, and Catholics are big on transmission/salvation through a person, whereas Buddhism, as I understand it, is through a teaching only.

The entire universe is governed by Newton's laws, one of which (the third) pretty much explains Karma as it exists in the universe. Where people start disbelieving in it is when they look for a direct reaction, like what a diety would do to reward or punish someone, when what karma really is is the net positive or negative effect that all things have on the world around them.

I think you might have your Laws mixed up.

A common definition of Newton's Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I note that karma does not cause opposite reactions. That would be good producing bad.

The First Law comes closer: An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. So we might imagine that if a person does good, he is acted upon by this force. Good begets good.

The Second Law has to do with acceleration. It is close to the first one except something is already moving when acted upon by an outside force. The general principal applies to karma also. Do good and you are already good, it adds to your good karma.

So, the 1st and 2nd, OK, but the 3rd?

Excellent book by an excellent Pali scholar. It is a collection of evidence collected from the Pali cannon that only those with direct access to the Buddha were able to attain release. The Buddha's charisma or similar was necessary to get them over the line. Very interesting.

Bankei

The author offers evidence from the Pali cannon to back up his revolutionary claim that Awakening is impossible without actually meeting a Buddha. However, Buddha never said that only people acquainted with him or a future Buddha could obtain release. His teaching was quite different. What he said was to follow the 8-fold Path.

Of course, it is not surprising that Buddha had a profound effect for the better on those people around him. It would be a huge benefit for anyone. But, I think the author takes this too far.

I agree with you, killing people or anything is a pitiful past time for a young person, even if it is only simulated. The kid could very well grow up and be more accepting of real killing.