Here's a topic that I'm sure many here will be able to relate to. For a long time, I would characterize my way of thinking as non-dual. What seemed to me to be the spiritual path was breaking down dualities. All dualities were a stumbling block towards the truth. One of these dualities to be broken down was good vs. bad. I developed a dislike of any talk of morality or any such thing. Now I would still think of myself that, in terms of standard dualistic thinking, I was a good person. If anything, in my life I have at times tended too much in that direction, if you understand what I mean, and I think that may actually be part of what inspired my interest in this idea. Nonetheless, when I would read anything spiritual that spoke of something about 'being good,' it made me un-interested. Yet, having come down from the feeling of spiritual ecstasy that came with apparently dissolving dualities, I find myself coming back to this question of goodness. I must admit to tending towards something like non-duality, or that at an ultimate level things can't be characterized in these sorts of ways. Yet, I come time and time again in my reading to these ideas of goodness, and I find myself thinking about it. Certainly I have always had the tendency towards being good, and towards wanting things to be good in general, for myself and others. This is kind of highlighted in a lot of Mahayana Buddhism, where something like non-duality is espoused and yet at the same time there is so much talk of bodhicitta, loving-kindness and compassion for all sentient beings, the tireless working for the liberation of all. So the question is a central one. If it's non-dual, then why is there this call to be good? Or do you really believe there is no reason to be good? There are two approaches that come to my mind on this issue. The first, is yes, all dualities we can conceive of are broken down. But what is left after this, is not neutral, but some sort of limitless and transcendent good, which far transcends any conception of good we could have. The other is that, there is this transcendent reality which truly is non-dual. And yet there is also this dualistic reality, and both are valid. Thus we seek to understand and perceive this non-dual, which is perhaps 'ultimate,' and yet at the same time acknowledge the reality of the relative, and seek to make it as happy and loving as you possibly can for yourself and others, because all living beings in the relative world desire happiness, and thus since the relative world apparently exists at all we should strive for that happiness, in an unselfish way. Certainly a great part of all religion and spirituality involves how we act in the world, which would fall under the category of cultivating goodness, even if I or others do not like this word morality. Is this important, or just 'lower teachings?' I've realized I didn't end up writing some particular viewpoint I wanted to impart to you...moreso just somewhat open-ended thoughts...I don't even have a conclusion in mind, and to try to reach one would just make the thread insanely long, lol...so yea, there's some thoughts, maybe some discussion can follow.
Isn't it that we simply gravitate towards that which works for us? What we define to be good brings us 'good' feelings, joy, happiness, contentedness, etc. whereas when we do 'bad' we feel things we might not like, that make us feel lower in ourselves. What one defines as good and bad is irrelevant. We just know what they are in ourselves. It feels nice to do good, at least I think so. But doing good and being good may be different things entirely. Some look to please others by being 'do-gooders' - these acts while well-intentioned do not always lead to good. Yet I like the feeling of giving without looking to receive, of wanting other's to feel good about themselves, be at peace, less stressed, you know, especially if some of their issues come from missing something, some idea or perspective, that might make it easier. To let an elder who stops and wants to talk do so just because they may be a little isolated and in need of it. Post a letter an old woman asks me to drop into the postbox as I just happen to walk past her door. Give time to listen to someone just because they need to talk. Do these things make me good, or are they just things that feel good to do?
I understand non-duality to mean 'acceptance of what is'..Your being is filled with peace because you have moved on with these differences of duality in your mind...as Buddhist thought's main goal is to train the mind so as to rise above it-in a way. Showing compassion and leading others to attain this state is a by-product of achieving that state of mind...to extend the interconnection of all beings.
Non duality is just a view that has no differentiation between subject and object. When that occurs, there is no subjective, thus no right and wrong, no good and bad. It is a state of subtle awareness. No attachments to a particular view or understanding. One understands the true nature of reality to be empty of a particular essence, all things dependently arising and relatively percieved.
If this is so.. then that would mean a pair of eyes are tantamount with a field of vision... .. but, seeing as one cannot know, or witness, what another visually witnessess just by looking at that person's objecitifed eye, I say, your assertion or observation here, is complete bullsh*t and entirely false, like always, Pickled. Nonetheless, still love you tho, bro.
Nope. You could try to use your head to understand in what way this makes sense, but you won't, so it's okay.
Wha? You said object and subject are no different, and I, as a matter of fact, demonstrated that they are. So, either by mentioning object and subject you don't know what the idea of object and subject denotes, or, you're just typing things without any backing, which may seem poetical. And I know how you love to appear poetical rather rational.
Boats, I'm telling you what non duality is. There is no division amongst the whole, only experience of it.
Yea, but the point is, a human being is not the whole, he's amidst it, that is, he's subjected to it. The whole is the whole. lol
Why differentiate between the human and the whole? And the point was non duality you dunce. Nobody is talking about humans.
.. and that's why I said you have no idea what you speak of when mentioning the notion of object and subject, you dunce.
Lol are you retarded, boats? The whole point was the idea of non-duality, which is an experience. One that you clearly haven't experienced. Go chase after your flawed rationalizations boats.
.. my prior post in regards to the adventitious experience of an eye and one's direct experience of a field of vision, went right over your head, didn't it? O, yeah, I forgot, you don't have a head, because you don't exist or whatever.. you're the incogitative whole, am I right?
Well, I think that's kinda like the idea that ultimately working towards our own and others' happiness is really the same, and they build upon and feed into each other. Then again, how many people are there that don't care to do good things for others, and don't feel it makes them feel good? If it doesn't make them feel good, are they right, or at least not wrong, to not do it? Is doing good right in and of itself, separate from it making you feel good? Certainly if we were all truly thoughtful, doing things to help others be happy, the world would be a better place. The dalai lama basically said that idea. To paraphrase... 'There are two types of selfishness. Intelligent selfishness, and stupid selfishness. Stupid selfishness is just looking out for yourself. This never leads to true peace and happiness. Then there is intelligent selfishness. This is doing absolutely everything in your power to make others happy. You do this because you understand the way things work. By working towards others' happiness, you become happy.'
Yes, there is the feel good factor from doing good, which some can get into, and then there is doing good for good's sake, because ultimately what is good for others will also be good for you, and good for the whole as a whole. Those who think only for themselves, are still not necessarily doing it wrong, just in a way that is different to those who put others first, care, want them to be well, not to suffer, etc. By being honest about who they are, while they may not encourage sharing, giving, etc, doesn't mean they don't live good and moral lives. Their good, if you like, comes from being real with people. Should their selfishness actually hurt others, causes others to suffer so they benefit, that's different. It makes me think that sometimes I don't always feel good doing something for another, because I'm not doing it so that is what must happen, but because it feels like the right thing to do. I might still feel good from it, if they happen to really appreciate it, but then again, perhaps they won't. Perhaps I won't even be there to know whether they do so they have no way to tell me. I like giving like this, for giving's sake, surprising someone in a way that they might not be able to do anything but feel the love and accept it.
Did a search for Non-Duality & found this so giving it a bump to see if anyone who has posted is still around or if any new blades want to chime in... i looked into this some years ago, tried it but it didn't seem to work at the time or else i was going about it the wrong way.... a few days ago came across Burt Harding on youtube who has pages and pages of videos on his channel if you go there and click on "videos" you can sort by most recent. He must be well into his 80's by now but still sharp as a tack and i feel is a legitimate teacher if not a guru in his own right... here is a link to a video from some months ago, most are short often less than 30 min. CC helps as he has a bit of an accent.
boats is perma banned, I havent seen journey or esseff on in a long time, pickledpie stopped by somewhat recently but hasnt been contributing for years. Sent from my VS985 4G using Grasscity Forum mobile app