Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Realizing Non-duality (Long)
Message-ID: <1991May21.023542.21808@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 21 May 91 02:35:42 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Ready Systems
Lines: 107
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

Hi, this johnw. I have posted a couple of articles recently on what I feel
to be the import of Buddhist teaching, etc. I thought I would take an
opportunity to clarify a few mistaken impressions that may have arisen
in connection with my postings. First, I do not claim to be a scholar or
an expert on Buddhist theoretical philosophy (but neither was Buddha, so
at least I am in good company!). Also, one poster made the assumption
I was a member of a Tibetan Buddhist school. This is not so. (Sorry for
creating the wrong impression.) 

I did mention that I was studying under a realized sage. This is true. Although
some reacted with a bit of skepticism, and thought my "claims" were a "tad"
exaggerated, I would feel fairly confident in maintaing quite the reverse: if
anything, I think they were understated. If I was to say what kind of path
it is that I follow, perhaps it is best to call it the path of non-duality.
The term non-duality has several implications. One is that is refers to a
state or realization of that which lies beyond all conceptual opposites. In
this sense, it is (I believe) in accord with the philosophy of Nargarjuna.
Another aspect of non-duality has to do with awakening to the fundamental
unity of all that exists. In this respect, it accords with the philosophies
of non-dual Advaita Vedanta and Taoism.

Non-duality holds that the essence of all beings is identical to the Supreme
reality whether that reality be called Brahman, God, the Tao, the Void,
Consciousness, the One Mind, the Buddha Nature, etc. Non-duality views the
various traditions of higher philosophy as various modes of expressing the
same fundamental truth. Since the realization of the truth of non-duality
is not theoretical or intellectual (and thus cannot be gained by reasoning
alone), non-duality stresses the importance of receiving this teaching in
a living context, directly from a realized sage. This is not to say that
it is impossible to realize "on one's own," but that for practical purposes,
it is simply much faster to easier gain the immediate experience in a
living context. This is just my opinion, but I feel it is more than substant-
iated in history. All of the great lineages of Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta,
etc., flourished in the context of direct Master and disciple relationships.
At any rate, the import of my postings was simply to make the opportunity
known to those who are interested in pursuing it.

Some people were critical of my position on Buddhism, and felt that my
understanding was inaccurate. Be that as it may, I thought I would add
a few words in an attempt to clarify what I believe to be the important
points. In the discussion in previous postings we were talking about
the nature of consciousness and the relation of subject and object.
The question arose: Is there a subject that remains independent and
unaffected by objects?  And is consciousness itself a transcendent,
self-existent reality? One member of the Buddhist contingency maintained
that to believe so is a fundamental contradiction of the basic tenants of that
philosophy.

First let us look a the objects of perception, including thoughts. It is
clear that all schools agree that the objects of perception are transient,
impermanent, and do not contain any abiding or continuing entity or self.
This is the position of Vedanta and Buddhism. The question arises when we
look at the nature of the subject. Two possiblities arise: either the
subject is relative and ulitmately as transient as objects (Buddhism), or it is 
permanent (Vedanta). I would venture to say that both are accurate, as
contradictory as it may appear. Why? Because if either approach is rigorously
pursued it leads to the same experience. Thus is the end the issue is
more semantic than real.

I believe the intent of the Buddhist philosophy is to lead one beyond 
conceptual dualism not simply to show that "nothing is real," which
would be nihilism, but to prepare the way for the direct, non-conceptual
realization of reality, sometimes called "Suchness," or the "Void."
This experience is indescribable in terms of dualisitic language, yet is
certainly not non-existent. In fact, it is the heart of Buddhism. If you
say that Buddha repudiated the existence of such a reality, that would
not accord with recorded teachings of his. I am sure you remember Buddha's
repsonse to being questioned about the existence of a higher reality.
He remained "silent." In this silence, was contained the direct, non-
conceptual transmission of his realization. So, although Nagarjuna's philo-
sophy negates all forms of dualism, it is only a preparation for
direct awakening to Suchness (non-duality).

Vedanta takes a different tack, yet arives in the same place. By a rigorous
and relentless inquiry into the nature of the 'I,' the seeker plunges into
the depths of his own being, questing for what is real, what can be truly
call 'I.' He comes to realize that nothing perceivable or conceiveable can
be call the 'I.' Even the notion that one is an ego, or separate self
is uprooted. Yet still there is an undeniable feeling of being and
consciousness. Diving into the source of being and consciousness one finds
it to be real, yet formless, non-dual, without objective characteristics.
This substratum is beyond the subject/object duality, although it
began with an inquiry into the subject.

Perhaps an illustration will make this clear. Let us say I hold up my
hand. The thumb represents the "subject," the fingers represent the
"objects" of perception (including thought), while the hand itself
stands for the underlying, non-dual, reality. Now, Buddhism says that
the thumb and fingers (subject and objects) are unreal as self-existent
entities. This is true, but you cannot deny hand itself that lies beyond the
duality of thumb and fingers. (If you try to do so, how can you escape
the charge of nihilism?)

Vedanta says the finger are unreal, yet says that the thumb (subject) contains
an underlying reality. By tracing the thumb to its source (I am flogging
this metaphor to death) the non-dual hand is realized. In any case, whatever
approach is taken, the end result must be the direct realization of non-
duality.

This is all at the verbal level, however; the glory of it is known only
the presence of the awakened. 

If anyone has inquires about this teaching, please email directly.

Take care,

johnw