Nonduality vs Duality

[satori8]

One of the things I have been studying as of late is the premise of non-duality. Advaita says 'not two" and taoism however teaches duality that duality came from unity. Buddhism seems to teach an interconnecteness, IOW I am dependent on food and water to live and food and water become a part of me. Christianity seems to teach a duality of good and evil, which seems there was a unity in the garden of eden, then duality may have been born by adam and eve eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. A course in miracles also teaches non-duality and all is really one. So what are your ideas on duality or non-duality? Thanks.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

As a Zen Buddhist, I subscribe to the non-dual position. According to Mahayana Buddhist teachings, duality is a factor of discriminations, which cause attachment and aversion. Since these are poisons leading one away from the holy life, they are to be avoided. They are also the cause of suffering.

 

[Secret Chief]

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters."
- Ch'uan Teng Lu.

 

[satori8]

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters."
- Ch'uan Teng Lu.

Ive always liked that one thanks

 

[Secret Chief]

'n the ox-herding pictures?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interconnecteness that reflects whatever we view as dual non-dual. The essence of which neither term "fits" albiet duality and non-duality is used for convenience in light we are hardwired to identify things as such.

Like most everyone I ascribe to using such notions and terms, yet in light there is no true separation of all things and thus interdependent, the lines of duality and non-duality are not so defined.

 

[satori8]

I found this awhile back and thought it very good.

~~

If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter-” with the verb “to be,” we have a new verb, “inter-be.” If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. Without sunshine, the forest cannot grow. In fact, nothing can grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. The logger’s father and mother are in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all of these things, this sheet of paper cannot exist. Looking even more deeply, we can see ourselves in this sheet of paper too. This is not difficult to see because when we look at a sheet of paper, it is part of our perception. Your mind is here and mine is also. So we can say that everything is in here with this sheet of paper. We cannot point out one thing that is not here–time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat. Everything co-exists within this sheet of paper. That is why I think the word “inter-be” should be in the dictionary. “To be” is to inter-be. We cannot just be by ourselves alone. We have to inter-be with every other thing. This sheet of paper is, because everything else is.
Suppose we try to return one of the elements to its source. Suppose we return the sunshine to the sun. Do you think this sheet of paper will be possible? No, without sunshine nothing else can be. And if we return the logger to his mother, then we have no sheet of paper either. The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of “non-paper” elements. And if we return these non-paper elements to their sources, then there can be no paper at all. Without non-paper elements–like mind, logger, sunshine and so on–there will be no paper. As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it.

Thich Nhat Hanh, Peace is Every Step

 

[Quintessence]

Non-dualistic thinking doesn't necessarily mean one is a monist. Reality can be stuck into any number of boxes, really: one, two, three, four, etc. My brain doesn't tend to think in dualistic terms, and the default map of the territory in my religious tradition is a four-fold model. This makes it non-dual, but it is definitely not monist; you could call it pluralist. Pluralism is something I value, no surprise, and I find that dualistic maps of the territory tend to facilitate "us vs. them" mentalities that don't agree with me. I will routinely paradigm shift to other maps of the territory, though, including a two-box model because they are useful maps for certain purposes.

 

[satori8]

Non-dualistic thinking doesn't necessarily mean one is a monist. Reality can be stuck into any number of boxes, really: one, two, three, four, etc. My brain doesn't tend to think in dualistic terms, and the default map of the territory in my religious tradition is a four-fold model. This makes it non-dual, but it is definitely not monist; you could call it pluralist. Pluralism is something I value, no surprise, and I find that dualistic maps of the territory tend to facilitate "us vs. them" mentalities that don't agree with me. I will routinely paradigm shift to other maps of the territory, though, including a two-box model because they are useful maps for certain purposes.

Thank you for this. Yes I believe I see things non-dual as I am not independent on my environment. Like as a baby, I need my mother and father to care for me. As an adult, I need food and water, and the oxygen I breathe. Even food, coming to the grocery store, takes many people to provide it for me. In that sense, I an non-dual. Realizing im not really an independent entity.