🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
What an attempt to expound on such a complicated and deep topic. Kudos!!! I’ve been a lurker around your videos for a while and I’ve enjoyed them a lot (so much so that I’ve just enrolled into Buddhist Pali College to get my diploma in Buddhist studies) but you’ve really outdone yourself with this video! Thank you so much!! Sadhu sadhu sadhu 🙏🏻
@@DougsDharma I like a mix. I'm sure 40 min videos take a while to do. Also, just do what YOU find interesting, let the viewers come or leave if they choose
@@DougsDharma I remember that many comments under that poll said: it differs per topic and video how long it should be. You should take the time that you need for it. But that was not an option in the poll ;)
Covered so much in 40 minutes! Great meaty video. And it's really useful to have it brought to the fore that early Buddhism did not teach non-dualism, even though it is at the top of the list of desirable insights for contemporary lay practitioners. It's more of a bonus insight.
Thank you so much for this doug. This is something I've been wrestling with for years trying to fully understand. You make it easy to parse and clear. I'm going to rewatch this at least 4 more times.
Fascinating topic. I remember reading a comment of yours on a video a while back , in which you said that you were working on (or were planning to work on) a video on non-dualism in Buddhism, along with the relation between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta. I've had that in the back of my mind ever since and was ecstaticed to see this video finally pop up, and I must say that the length and material of this video definitely look like the culmination of years of diligent preparation. As always, thank you for all the information.
Dear Doug, I like you videos very much. Thank you for that. As Buddhist social worker monk, and studying vedanta now in India. This my vision. 1 Buddha didn't wanted to create a filosofy or mind quest. The Brahmins where doing that all along. From this perspective many subject are unlighted or even not answered. Compared with other teachers or filosofers. Reincarnation was one those topics, and external questions. Dreaming grasping to something wasn't something that Buddha liked. In some sense by serious praktish and walking the path the anwers will come. There are many Sutra that refer to same essence always. The middle way is a praktical form to find that non duality. Remember that Buddha didn't useless discussion, filosofing and chooses for clear simple path for everyone to understand. By knowing ones dual choices,and see them. One can overcome them. The interdependence, our attachments, ignorance: healthy and unhealthy, all karmic concepts and feelings and offcourse the middle way teachings are tools to find that innerpeace that goes beyond our dual choices. The yoga vasistha, Valmiki explains this almost in the same way. But there focus is more a thought school. Non duality is reality, and one must accept and discard duality. Buddhism is the long way, Its show you how you are connected in this world of duality and Maya. Very practical usefull in daily life. To much food isnt good, and to less also To much wealt and to less Don't have to attention on the body, but have respect for health of you vessel. Ones you adapted this way of thinking, you see this in other questions too. The topic non duality reveal itself, as thought thru experience. Buddha was no guru or saint who brings instant enlightenment. But a guide to set you on the right path. This is what I say to my students: if I you give a job. And tell you that in 2 years you will earned 1000000 dollar. Are they still busy with the job, or are the busy with there future wealth? Try it with you kids 😂. How much blindness would give in there job now. Attention efford creativity exploration and empowerment and more. Walk the path and it will unfold for you, pay attention be mindfull and contemplate on everything, but try not to be enttangled unless thoughts and analysis filosofy. Here in lies big difference in the way Buddha thought compared with Adi Shankara or other ancient philosopher's. Questions and full answer. But is the anwers reachable?and becomes only a thought without expiriancing it? End discussion of the mind instead real life experience? And what is use of that? Maya is always around then 😉 Buddha teaching is a self handbook GUIDEBOOK that can bring you toword nirvana. The absorption in ?
So admirable... 🌟 All of your video are well explained and come up with the interested topics of the matter that going around in the Buddhist world. You have done well for each of them, informative, comprehensive and in concise enough to see it in whole picture. Also your categorization as how we can interpret the thing in different ways, how is it said in Early Buddhist Texts, which is the later development in which influences the tradition. By the way, you have presented as it is said in the context and be skeptical enough by not jumping fast into conclusion but always be polite and respectful for the difference in each tradition in the broader understanding and finally try to get the practical part of it to apply in life. You do have this Buddhist spirit of pragmatic, skeptic, kindness, respect and so on, combined with the good ability to do the research and explain in detail with clarity. Wish you be happy and safe, prosper on your path and always joyful to work on the Dharma to benefit of all beings
Awesome! I am deep into non-dualism right now. Taking a fundamentals of non-dual meditation course from Michael Taft and also reading books like “I AM THAT” by Nisargadatta, “The Transparency of Things” by Rupert Spira, “I AM” by Jean Klein. Though these books are not Buddhist it really helps to round out my understanding. I’ve been looking for info on non-dualism in the Pali canon so this is perfect timing! Thx for another great video Doug!
Being honest: for common people, common Buddhist practitioners, what is the gain given by non-dualistic ideas? They seem to be so intelectual and so far from daily life issues. I mean, they are not practical at all. Buddha used so much dualistic comparisons (kusala and akusala, for example) exactly because they are useful.
@@DougsDharma yes, it is interesting. So interesting that I watched the full video. But what I am trying to say is that the ultimate reality should not be the focus of common Buddhist people. If the reality is non-dual or not, first we should focus on ethics and meditation. I think this topic is important, but it is an "arrival point" and not a "departure point".
@@tiagocarioca Well, Philosophers do need to talk about these topics. Why ? Coz if the common public is not interested, then someone has to do the thinking, isn't it, mate ? 🙂
Hi Doug. Thanks so much as always. I love that you integrate so much of early Buddhist ideas, their variations and add the contextual complexities to help understanding in a short time! This non-attached information is essential supplement for for a practitioner. Among many helpful clarifications in this video was a closer look at the different ways ppl use “non dualism”. 🙏🏽
Another great video Doug! There is some chance in the future to make a video about Buddhism schools, such as forest tradition, mahasi sayadaw and so on. Thank you!
Magnificent video. Having a sort of intuitive flash about nonduality is what brought me to Buddhism in the first place (more towards the Zen tradition, than anything else). These kinds of profound metaphysical discussions have always fascinated me, I think they are quite important for us, as human beings, to be aware of. This discussion also brings to question: do you have any thoughts on, or have you done any videos on Huayan Buddhism, as nondualism is a major doctrinal/philosophical point in that sect as well. Thank you for all that you do!
My pleasure, Dialask. As to Huayan Buddhism, I did a video on Indra's Net where I discussed some elements of their beliefs: ua-cam.com/video/CQN7sVmckso/v-deo.html
This was an enjoyable watch…I’ve been interested in the topic since reading Krishnamurti 20 years ago. But I highly recommend reading “Man Being Volume 1: The Transmission” if you want to take this topic to another level of understanding. It describes the true nature of mankind in a way I’ve never heard before.
Well on a traditional understanding there is enough individuality beyond death to keep the causal stream running, until craving and ignorance evaporate.
Thank you for this one. Really well said and much appreciated after having spent a decade looking into Buddhism and nearly a decade into Advaita Vedanta. .
Thanks Doug great work! It is interesting to contrast Non Dualism with the substantialist language of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra or the Jonang 'Shentong' view. I find the inherent contradiction in language difficult to synthesis and actually appears as a schismatic fracture. Admittedly I don't understand how these seemingly opposing views can be reconciled?
Great information! It gave me an idea of the simplest form of nonduality by starting with a single relation to itself. That gives rise to a new relation from the first relation and so on in an explosion of fully interconnected relations, like Indra's net but without the jewels. And the individual self is a unique position within that net.
I think Thitch Nhat Hanh's term "interbeing" expresses non-dualism better within a Buddhist framework. You'll find similar concepts in Alfred North Whitehead's Process metaphysics. Metaphysics doesn't seem to be emphasized as much in Theravada Buddhism. In Mahayana Buddhism, its metaphysics lead to alot of religious pluralism and ingenuity.
Interesting, I think of interbeing as related to the notion of Indra's Net and similar sorts of causal interdependencies. I did an earlier video on that: ua-cam.com/video/CQN7sVmckso/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma Yes, Indra's Net is a good example. A similar image appears in the Avatamsaka Sutra, part of the central doctrine of the Chinese Huayan school which was very influential. Similar ideas appear in other religions, for instance, the concept of the human person as a microcosm.
Hey! I developed a really strong interest in Buddhism thanks in large part to your videos, not really a question on the doctrine itself but I noticed in the background you have some of Bhikku Bodhis books, and I think you had a lot of praise for "In the Buddha's words", I've been looking to get it but I cannot find any hardcover version while all of the other books of his do come in hardcover, so is your copy of In the Buddha's words paperback? I think that book specifically might only come that way
To say you and the world are one is still making a distinction between two things. I think the goal is to see that there is no experiencer or things to be experienced but there is only experience itself.
🙏 I am with a small I, a secular Therevadian Bhuddist! I had assumed that non-duality meant a singularity of consciousness that is always omnipresent and is in effect tapped into by sentient beings. Tonight, I was informed that is not the Therevada dhamma. I have arrived here to discover more on this. Settling down now to listen and consider. 🙏
Well I don't know about Theravāda in general since there are many ways to practice Theravāda. I think for example that some in the Thai forest tradition tend towards some non-dualistic interpretations of dhamma.
Thanks for the elaboration of this highly abstruse concept particularly popular in Mahayana and Western Buddhism. In my own understanding the concept of non-dualism is not exactly monism. Non-dual means there is not 'two'(different), nor is it 'one' (the same); philosophically it can mean an undifferentiated state as the underlying reality/substratum but presented to u as differentiated (Hinduism). Or in the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism the division of form, feeling, etc. cannot be differentiated by our experience or psychological analysis as different from emptiness (not two things), though their appearances/manifestations seem to be different (so not the same). In my own opinion, one of the early Buddhist concepts close to non-dualism can be found in Kaccāyanagotta sutta (SN 12.15) where the Buddha expounds the 'middle' doctrine of dependent co-arising as not falling to either extreme of being/existence or non-being/non-existence.
This is a very interesting topic. It seems to me that when you can see conventional (relative) reality, impermanence is more easily known, whereas if there's an understanding of absolute reality, non-self is more easily known. What do you think about that? This topic has so many beautiful implications though it'd be hard to talk about all of them. This is an awesome video, thank you!
Thank you Doug, great video as usual! One point about the distinction between epistomological and ontological non-duality. Have you read the book on non-duality by Loy? There he mentions the idea of savikalpa and nirvikalpa perception, i.e. with and without thought-construction, saying that if you attain (or rather realize) nirvikalpa perception, then you actually percieve the world as it is or in its 'suchness' hence forming a natural bridge between epistomology and ontology. Hence if a final analysis of how we percieve without thought-construction leads to a non-duality of conscious perception, this then would imply a non-dual mode of being of the 'world out there', even the identity of objective and percieved reality. Any thoughts on that idea?
Maybe we can interpret non-dualism more philosophically. In one side, Buddha did teach indirectly that everything is interdependent. But on the other side, Buddha negated all of attempts to make it become an unifying principle as if it has an ontological independence/existence. By doing so, non-dualism will remain non-dualistic & non-absolute. Thank you for this video. 👍😁
Thanks Mr. DOUG nice vedio If we try to find ourself, then we find that we made of material, Inside the materials there are molecules Inside molecules there are atoms Atoms are again made from protons, electrons, neutrons and other basic elements Finally what we found is energy because of which these basic elements are made from So what is spread in the universe is one energy and we are part of it Non duality can also be understood like this?
Well not necessarily. At least under current understandings, the energy is understood structurally through quantum mechanics which is not a non-dual system.
My view is that there is a universal consciousness, that is why it can be experienced in deep meditation. BUT as the Buddha pointed out, experiencing that is not enlightenment. That universal consciousness has a foundation and is therefore not fundamental. Anything fundamental means that it has no foundation. It is unsupported, unproduced, unmade, does not arise nor cease, does not come nor go. True enlightenment is when you experience that which has no foundation.
Isn't non-duality implicit already in the Prajnaparamita? The Heart Sutra, extracted from it, is one long statement of (I think ontological, based on your talk) non-duality.
Yes, but the Prajñāpāramitā is not from early Buddhism. Instead it's from the early Mahāyāna, from around the turn to the CE and from the early centuries CE.
@@DougsDharma But it puts the discussion of non-duality far before Yogacara or Advaita Vedanta. BTW, I am really enjoying your talks, I'm currently on the one about how deep jhana/dhyana is.
Non-Dualism is not two, not one. Non-dualism is not monism. I don't know about the early buddhist texts, and whether or not it was explicitly taught, but there can be no "buddhism" without non-dualism. Buddhist enlightenment and awakening is predicated on this very insight. Maybe it wasn't explicitly taught or even understood, but on some deep level, there must be an intuitive understanding of it for awakening to take place. I think later buddhists introduced many new concepts, terms and ideas. But that does not mean it was "invented" or something "new" was really introduced, but rather, explicating what was only previously intuitively understood. In the future, more new concepts, terms and ideas will also be introduced. That does not mean we do not have that understanding today on some intuitive level. Thanks.
The Prajnaparamita according to the Mahayana took place when the Buddha taught at vulture peak mountain and that he purposely at that time taught and elaborated more on shunyata in ways he never did before. It's even said that some monks had a heart attack because the teachings were so profound and beyond what was taught before. But Buddha did not initially teach these things because the students would not understand it. So there was a context in place where you went into such subjects. The earlier schools of Buddha Buddhism do not accept that the prajna paramita are valid teachings of the Buddha let's say they are not authentic Buddhism. They totally reject those texts. People who accept the Mahayana see no contrast between the earlier and later teaching but just consider the later teachings as more clarifying and a deepening of understanding the view of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism and all mahayana schools of Buddhism have a basis of these second turning of the wheel of Dharma. Also there is the Shentong madyamaka that one needs to research in Mahayana Buddhism. It's a very interesting view
in the realm of relative truth, it is different from non-dualism. But in absolute truth, it is the same. The heart sutra says clearly -- all is empty -- the path -- the attainment -- merit -- nothing exists.
Thank you for this video: I was looking for some insightful discussion on this topic for some while. Taking this video and a previous video together ("what continues")---would you then say that guys like Ramana Maharshi were wrong or holding to wrong views (according to the Buddha or his teachings). This is a question I have been contemplating for a long time. In the video "what continues?" you bring up the discussion between Buddha and one of his monks about the continuity of consciousness and Buddha even called him a fool---but looking at Advaita Vedanta, Non-dualism etc. they pretty much hold the same views in regards to consciousness. Would the Buddha likely have dismissed Advaita as a wrong view? If I look at how much Buddha and Maharshi are revered and how genuine and saintly both were, it is almost strange to think that one of them may have been completely wrong about the nature of reality
One of the reasons I ask is that often times followers of non-dualism (especially Advaita Vedanta) hold the position that buddhism and Advaita essentially reveal the same truth or point to the same truth....
Yes, well during his lifetime the Buddha argued quite strenuously against some of the ideas behind Vedic Brahmanism. This belief system is the precursor to Hinduism, one branch of which is Avaita Vedanta. So there are definite differences between them. That said, later schools of Buddhism did adopt some ideas that were close to those of Advaita Vedanta, and indeed there seems to have been a lot of back-and-forth between Buddhists and Advaita Vedantins. But my understanding is that even so there are subtle differences between Buddhist non-duality and that of Advaita Vedanta.
I disagree: when the Buddha says all Dhammas are non self, he IS implying duality. He is saying self/spirit is one thing, and the entirety of the mind+body and universe and all of spacetime is another thing. There is a problem when teachers speculate. It confuses everybody. There is no problem teaching by sharing teachings. But there is a problem when teaching becomes speculations or pointings to ultimate truths that they have not known for themselves.
@@DougsDharma Orthodox Theravada teachers. However, not very orthodox Bhikkhu Nanananda (I am sure you heard about him) touched on this issue too. Duality is a vortex between nama and rupa according to him, there is no vortex, there is no duality.
Doug, please can you say where it is stated that when the buddha looked inside himself he found non-self please? This doesn't seem right at all. He found the aggregates to be non-self, not what is left when the aggregates are let go of, in fact, it seems he was implicitly pointing to the same self of the upanishads.
@DougsDharma thanks for the response. I guess what it comes down to is that I feel that the Buddha was always actually pointing to the true self, beyond superficial views of the time about self, he just wanted us to actually know it, not just believe that we know it.
Just a couple of thoughts....If there really is a non-dual ontological objective reality, I don't see why it should be a "field", i.e. having spatial properties. This interpretation seems more like the mind trying to impose its understanding upon objective truth... which is what I think the Buddha, knowing the trickiness of the mind and the tendency for ideas to get corrupted over time, was trying to avoid (via not directly talking about non-dualism)... interpretations. The Buddha's teachings were incredibly pure.. and so it seems like the most natural thing to try to avoid talking about it and muddying up the real objective truth with the mind.
Non Dualism/Advaita involves the projection of a sense or realization of internal singularity to the external. So I have heard by the teachers. It's a purely philosophical position that the external must reflect the internal, and that they thus are all one. That is not to say that the current crop of teachers necessarily understands the founders. The Buddha, to my knowledge, had no vocabulary for things like 'spirit', or 'zero dimensional'. When the Buddha speaks of self, he typically means the physical form as the term is used by most. When he says Nibbana can never fill no matter how many enter, and that he cannot say the tathagata either exists, does not exist, or both, he is saying that spirits are zero dimensional. I don't know all the reasons the Buddha rejected Advaita, but the main reason seems to be, IMHO: 1) Advaita strongly suggests something of the individual transfers from life to life. 2) it's highest realization is mental, not supramundane. Thus, the Buddha relegated it to the highest heaven, the Brahma realm, but since it is not a matter of leaving all of materiality behind, it still leaves one subject to rebirth. Given a definition that consciousness is a bidirectional field of the nervous system wherein sensory input is radiated, my experience is that the spirit is 1) awareness, which reads consciousness, 2) conscience, which may be the carrier and modern term of kamma, a filter that regulates, and 3) a power of intent which either directs the focus of awareness (attention), or writes to consciousness to initiate thought or muscular movement or apparent movement in a dream. These things are indivisible, inseparable, true self, the life principle, 'am here', presence, and cannot be located in spacetime. They are zero dimensional and bind to consciousness like magnets due to sensual intents. So, these things, this spirit, cannot carry any essence of the individual or their mind. The spirit does not increase or decrease or develop like a seed. It is nothing, zero, except the 3 aspects. Which are nothing. They could bind to a dog, cat, anything with a nervous system, a field of consciousness. Not to a tree or bacteria, or virus, etc. There are biological machines, and then there are organisms with nervous systems that require a spirit to do the reading+writing to make the organism functional. And that is why the Buddha must reject Advaita as an escape from the rounds. The Buddha doesn't say realize my philosophy, my truth, he says to eliminate sensual desire, break free from consciousness, as see the truth yourself as a direct experience.
Thanks, Doug.!! .Such an amazing video. It helps me. Non-duality is a bitch. It always confuses me. I also learned Nibbana and samsara are the same and nondual so on. It is really confusing as I grew up in a Theravada upbringing.
Thank you for this video. To me it seems that all non-dualistic thinking is rooted in being vague with definitions. As you said the Buddha is very analytical and detailed in his teachings. In my opinion it doesn't really fit him to propagate non-dualism about anything. That being said there is the human expierence of feeling one with something. But I wouldn't assume that this feeling means we are one. Just like feeling antagonistic to things doesn't mean we are totally unconnected to them.
Doug, All these books are merely Literatures, helping Human Societies & Civilizations, to behave a certain way, teaching discipline to children from a young age, helps co-exist with one another, and in Harmony with Nature 😊 Similar, to our present Education System. Edit: regarding, Identification of the Self, This in particular, is when people are practicing Vipassana or Samatha or any type Mindfulness Meditation techniques, People get carried away with Thoughts and Illusions, Just like Radio Waves, Cellular Towers and Signals (2g, 3g, 4g, 5g, 6g, 7g, and so on)😊 that a smartphone captures, Human beings, have built-in antennas, to receive such signals from the environment, the world at large and the universe, At times, just like we have noises and noise reduction techniques & technologies, Early meditation practitioners get carried away from their Realities, hard to judge what is Real from Un-Real experiences. P.s #Google #UA-cam Doug, is in my team 😊
Would the early texts be more likely to be reactions against prevalent societally conditioned wrong view? And later texts be freer from the need for these things? I haven’t followed this too well as I find myself thinking of dualism in the platonic sense and the self/not self dichotomy and I think I’m missing the point a bit.
I think the early texts are just a bit less "sophisticated" in a philosophical sense. They are more interested in everyday life and less interested in deep metaphysical speculations.
Your interpretation of non dualism Globally or locally within a context seems to lean towards monism as a one unifying thing or principle. I have read elsewhere that non dualism is perhaps a rejection (or at least non total acceptance) of both differences (or dualism) and unity (or monism) Curious your thoughts on this
It totally depends on how you interpret "non-dual". It can mean monism, or it can mean something essentially ineffable that's neither monism nor dualism.
The soul or self is non dual and is not divisible. Matter, Energy, Space and Time are collapsed and condensed dualities that appear to occupy the same space as an illusion. The truth is that Matter is empty and that duality is based on the consideration of the soul.
There are not 2 truths because 'conventional (worldly) truths' are rooted in maya - illlusion/delusion. Point of reference, the "unanswered questions", questions put to Buddha that he refused to answer because the questions were fallacious, only able to be seen as valid questions by someone who sees the world through the lens of maya. As a side note regarding maya, i have long wondered if the name of Buddha's other, Maya, is not a coincidence or perhaps a literary metaphor...being born of illusion, one can still cut through it to see the world as it truly is, i.e. become enlightened despite being born of illusion. That his birth killed his mother, killing the illusion that is maya, presages his enlightenment or, if you dont take the story of Buddha's birth to be historically factual, then hier death is also allegory. Thanks for this, the best of your videos i've yet seen. 🙏
Conventional Truth is used for living in the world (Samsara) for ever. on the other hand, Ultimate truth is used for Supramundane(Suprasamsara). If the one who does not practice the Conventional Truth properly, the one is close to the 4 Apara. Also, the one who does not practice the Ultimate truth correctly, the one is far from the Nibbana.
"the Buddha understands things by analyzing them into parts and numbers" - this pertains to how the Buddha was clearly influenced by the Sankhya (number) "orthodox" school of Indian philosophy.
It's hard to say. My understanding is that the early history of Samkhya is not well established at this point and likely wasn't in any very formalized state during the Buddha's day.
That's not correct, Buddha rebelled against vedanta in his entire life, people like Sarvapriyananda and his teachers Vevekananda and Shankharacarya were always against Buddha's teaching. They talk about Tibetian Buddhist which is far from Buddha's early teaching. Theravada Buddhist has the record of Authentic Early Buddhist Text. People like sarvapriyananda have destroyed the Gem of Buddha's teaching from its birthplace India. it doesnt make sense to equate buddhist idea of non-self to hindu true self
It's all very simple: you either train and learn to separate from mind+body+consciousness+world+universe+spacetime, or you don't. That is the only way to know death+rebinding, and the nature of ones existence, and the way to freedom from the rounds of existence. To learn how to die before you die as the Sufis say. No thinking, contemplation, philosophy, etc, can do that for you. It is a proper discipline+practice. Emptiness is what awareness reads when it unbinds. A duality remains. I don't know what is behind the intent to find non duality in Buddhism. It's not there. UA-cam is full of teens claiming to have attained a state of non duality, Awakening they term it, but not Arahantship. If you listen to them, they seem to be kids with troubled mental conditions that have learned how to view reality in a healthy balanced way, like adults should. They've had a philosophical realization due to intense stress, sometimes with adjustments/changes in consciousness.
well one should transcend all such categories and see things for the way they are just the way they are, but if you're looking for a more satisfying answer the way I've seen it, in a non-dual fashion, is that you have extremes of self existing and self not existing, but in reality it seems like it's more like a middle way between the two. it seems to be that one should not see others as self, to not see your own beliefs or opinions as self and to not see yourself as self because there's always deeper. kind of like with the two truths doctrine where there is conventional and ultimate truth, there is this conventional self and then this ultimate self. it seems like you're talking about the conventional self where one's views and attachments are held, but when we say practice non-self, this is simply saying one should let go of all these things we call 'self' to find the Self or in the Buddha's case absolute non-self. basically, just go on some intraspection and see what you find
Thanks you!:) - watched a part of your video again because it is so good - I am not a buddhist, but I think buddhism has huge insights and what you say in the video resonates with me that although I am attracted to nonduality, an interpretation of interprenetation, non self, and emptiness resonates more than going down the route of saying its all just one thing that exist. Are you familiar with whiteheads process philosophy? I see some similarity between concepts like indras net and his approach towards describing reality as relational peocesses instead of distinct entities.
Non dualism says you don't exist. Buddha never said that simply because it implies something existent that now does not. This is the fundamental problem with non dualism.
Well non-dualism doesn't say you don't exist, it says you are identical to everything that exists; or at least that's one interpretation of non-dualism.
@@DougsDharma that was my interpretation of it being one with the laws of the universe martial arts like ba ji Quan express the 5 virtues of Confucius .....n Confucianism n Buddhism is obviously closely related different cultures use different words to express the same thing so i agree with ur interpretation it has some truth to it
For there to be (m)any there has to be two..duality, before theese two is, was and will be the primordial OM/Tao/All-aahhh//. Looking at reality in XXX ray vision. Seeing the astral silhouetted in the physical and then the ethereal silhouetted in the next layer. Zen we have the formlessness reality of OM. The mayan illusion is not realizing it's a physical body therefore it's a physical world and the same with our astral and ethereal worlds ( heavens). Seeing a world is falsehood because it's a "body/world. The perspective from formless reality is "because I am here the world is here". The earth is experienced as light to our body off light and ethereal to ethereaal bidy but as it was in the beginning "formless" by our formless soul. I did some videoes on bridging the path from words into experience under "Mr. DeSoto 33". One is titled "How to experience OM " if I remember correctly. You would find them very interesting. Another I can remember the title..."Thunderstanding ". You're aa true scholarand I listen to your videos regularly.
@@dharmayogaashram979 I agree there’s only Hinduism and different sects and Buddhism along with Jainism is just some of many that’s apart of Hindu traditions. Charvakas are a materialist school of Hinduism that rejects ritualism and supernaturalism embraces philosophical skepticism, but they’re still apart of Hindu tradition
@@DougsDharma you heard of nazis. I present to ypu hindus. They have been colonizing other's philosophy, history, culture, material reality, polity since ancient times.
@@DougsDharma mind of buddha. Empty your PHD cups and lift up a empty plastic bucket. Most of us does not have your PHD knowledge, mind and vocabs. I am not being sarcastic, just being honest from my point of view. thanks
Wouldn't it be better when showing translations of Upanishads at least you give some space for traditional translators from india who actually followed these Upanishads?? Why just take colonial translators as authentic??
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
Is celebrating a holiday a form of attachment.
@@voiceofindigenous7593 upanishads were written 800 bc
SN 12.48 comes to mind. The Buddha teaches that “oneness” is an extreme view and instead he teaches the middle way of dependent origination.
Right, that's another good one. Thanks, Trevor.
What an attempt to expound on such a complicated and deep topic. Kudos!!! I’ve been a lurker around your videos for a while and I’ve enjoyed them a lot (so much so that I’ve just enrolled into Buddhist Pali College to get my diploma in Buddhist studies) but you’ve really outdone yourself with this video! Thank you so much!! Sadhu sadhu sadhu 🙏🏻
Very nice to hear Nicholas, all the best on your diploma! 🙏😊
This is truly an intriguing topic. Thanks for sharing your wisdom ...
You're very welcome Kyaw Thurein, my pleasure!
Wow Doug, an entire 40 minute video! Would love to see more long videos in the future, thanks!👏
😄 I don't mind doing long videos, but in a recent poll it seems most viewers like me to keep it short and concise!
@@DougsDharma I like a mix. I'm sure 40 min videos take a while to do. Also, just do what YOU find interesting, let the viewers come or leave if they choose
@@DougsDharma I remember that many comments under that poll said: it differs per topic and video how long it should be. You should take the time that you need for it.
But that was not an option in the poll ;)
Covered so much in 40 minutes! Great meaty video. And it's really useful to have it brought to the fore that early Buddhism did not teach non-dualism, even though it is at the top of the list of desirable insights for contemporary lay practitioners. It's more of a bonus insight.
Thanks Photistyx! 🙏😊
Thank you so much for this doug. This is something I've been wrestling with for years trying to fully understand. You make it easy to parse and clear. I'm going to rewatch this at least 4 more times.
You're very welcome Austin, glad to be of help! Yes it's something I've been wrestling with for years too ... 😄
Thank you. Over the years, I return to having confusion over this issue. You have provided an excellent analysis of this conundrum.
Glad it was helpful Steve!
Such a lovely and concise video on such a difficult matter, thank you!
My pleasure bosoq!
Would like to hear from you about Advaita Vedanta
If this video were an essay, I'd like to know the number of footnotes... 😂
Brilliant, Doug, simply brilliant! 😊🙏🏻
Many thanks xiao mao! Yes there would be quite a few ...
Fascinating topic. I remember reading a comment of yours on a video a while back , in which you said that you were working on (or were planning to work on) a video on non-dualism in Buddhism, along with the relation between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta. I've had that in the back of my mind ever since and was ecstaticed to see this video finally pop up, and I must say that the length and material of this video definitely look like the culmination of years of diligent preparation. As always, thank you for all the information.
You're very welcome Div, yes it was something in the back of my mind for awhile, it's quite a complicated topic!
Masterful handling of a challenging subject. Very enlightening. Well done as always Doug. I really enjoyed this longer format deep dive.
Many thanks Chris! 🙏
❤
Dear Doug, I like you videos very much. Thank you for that. As Buddhist social worker monk, and studying vedanta now in India. This my vision. 1 Buddha didn't wanted to create a filosofy or mind quest. The Brahmins where doing that all along. From this perspective many subject are unlighted or even not answered. Compared with other teachers or filosofers. Reincarnation was one those topics, and external questions. Dreaming grasping to something wasn't something that Buddha liked.
In some sense by serious praktish and walking the path the anwers will come. There are many Sutra that refer to same essence always.
The middle way is a praktical form to find that non duality. Remember that Buddha didn't useless discussion, filosofing and chooses for clear simple path for everyone to understand.
By knowing ones dual choices,and see them. One can overcome them.
The interdependence, our attachments, ignorance: healthy and unhealthy, all karmic concepts and feelings and offcourse the middle way teachings are tools to find that innerpeace that goes beyond our dual choices.
The yoga vasistha, Valmiki explains this almost in the same way. But there focus is more a thought school. Non duality is reality, and one must accept and discard duality.
Buddhism is the long way, Its show you how you are connected in this world of duality and Maya. Very practical usefull in daily life.
To much food isnt good, and to less also
To much wealt and to less
Don't have to attention on the body, but have respect for health of you vessel.
Ones you adapted this way of thinking, you see this in other questions too. The topic non duality reveal itself, as thought thru experience.
Buddha was no guru or saint who brings instant enlightenment. But a guide to set you on the right path.
This is what I say to my students: if I you give a job. And tell you that in 2 years you will earned 1000000 dollar. Are they still busy with the job, or are the busy with there future wealth? Try it with you kids 😂. How much blindness would give in there job now. Attention efford creativity exploration and empowerment and more. Walk the path and it will unfold for you, pay attention be mindfull and contemplate on everything, but try not to be enttangled unless thoughts and analysis filosofy.
Here in lies big difference in the way Buddha thought compared with Adi Shankara or other ancient philosopher's. Questions and full answer. But is the anwers reachable?and becomes only a thought without expiriancing it? End discussion of the mind instead real life experience? And what is use of that? Maya is always around then 😉
Buddha teaching is a self handbook GUIDEBOOK that can bring you toword nirvana. The absorption in ?
🙏😊
That was a big topic to tackle. Great job and thank you for the wonderful video.
You're very welcome Stormy!
So admirable... 🌟
All of your video are well explained and come up with the interested topics of the matter that going around in the Buddhist world. You have done well for each of them, informative, comprehensive and in concise enough to see it in whole picture.
Also your categorization as how we can interpret the thing in different ways, how is it said in Early Buddhist Texts, which is the later development in which influences the tradition.
By the way, you have presented as it is said in the context and be skeptical enough by not jumping fast into conclusion but always be polite and respectful for the difference in each tradition in the broader understanding and finally try to get the practical part of it to apply in life.
You do have this Buddhist spirit of pragmatic, skeptic, kindness, respect and so on, combined with the good ability to do the research and explain in detail with clarity.
Wish you be happy and safe, prosper on your path and always joyful to work on the Dharma to benefit of all beings
Very kind of you Sarada. 🙏😊
Awesome! I am deep into non-dualism right now. Taking a fundamentals of non-dual meditation course from Michael Taft and also reading books like “I AM THAT” by Nisargadatta, “The Transparency of Things” by Rupert Spira, “I AM” by Jean Klein. Though these books are not Buddhist it really helps to round out my understanding.
I’ve been looking for info on non-dualism in the Pali canon so this is perfect timing!
Thx for another great video Doug!
You're very welcome, glad to be of help!
Thanks Doug for a great topic and a question that I think many of us is thinking about. Spinns my wheels so to say.
Much love!
My pleasure Mark!
Being honest: for common people, common Buddhist practitioners, what is the gain given by non-dualistic ideas? They seem to be so intelectual and so far from daily life issues. I mean, they are not practical at all. Buddha used so much dualistic comparisons (kusala and akusala, for example) exactly because they are useful.
Yes, though I do hear a lot of common practitioners using the language of non-dualism, so I think it does interest many.
@@DougsDharma yes, it is interesting. So interesting that I watched the full video.
But what I am trying to say is that the ultimate reality should not be the focus of common Buddhist people. If the reality is non-dual or not, first we should focus on ethics and meditation. I think this topic is important, but it is an "arrival point" and not a "departure point".
@@tiagocarioca Well, Philosophers do need to talk about these topics. Why ? Coz if the common public is not interested, then someone has to do the thinking, isn't it, mate ? 🙂
Hi Doug. Thanks so much as always. I love that you integrate so much of early Buddhist ideas, their variations and add the contextual complexities to help understanding in a short time! This non-attached information is essential supplement for for a practitioner. Among many helpful clarifications in this video was a closer look at the different ways ppl use “non dualism”. 🙏🏽
Great, glad it was helpful! 🙏😊
Truly excellent work. Thanks so much Doug!
You're very welcome Andrew!
Amazing as always Doug!
My pleasure Moontime, thanks for the comment!
Another great video Doug! There is some chance in the future to make a video about Buddhism schools, such as forest tradition, mahasi sayadaw and so on. Thank you!
Yes, most of my focus is on the early tradition, but the Thai forest tradition and Mahasi Sayadaw are more modern. I might deal with them eventually!
Magnificent video. Having a sort of intuitive flash about nonduality is what brought me to Buddhism in the first place (more towards the Zen tradition, than anything else). These kinds of profound metaphysical discussions have always fascinated me, I think they are quite important for us, as human beings, to be aware of. This discussion also brings to question: do you have any thoughts on, or have you done any videos on Huayan Buddhism, as nondualism is a major doctrinal/philosophical point in that sect as well.
Thank you for all that you do!
My pleasure, Dialask. As to Huayan Buddhism, I did a video on Indra's Net where I discussed some elements of their beliefs: ua-cam.com/video/CQN7sVmckso/v-deo.html
Very profound and you have a really good clarity of thought.
Thank you.
You're very welcome! 🙏😊
Doing a great job Doug. Gratitude and blessings
Thank you kindly! 🙏😊
This was an enjoyable watch…I’ve been interested in the topic since reading Krishnamurti 20 years ago. But I highly recommend reading “Man Being Volume 1: The Transmission” if you want to take this topic to another level of understanding. It describes the true nature of mankind in a way I’ve never heard before.
Thanks Rocco. 🙏
Since I’ve converted Ive always been confused on how someone can break out of samsara when there’s not necessarily individuality beyond death
Well on a traditional understanding there is enough individuality beyond death to keep the causal stream running, until craving and ignorance evaporate.
Thank you for this one. Really well said and much appreciated after having spent a decade looking into Buddhism and nearly a decade into Advaita Vedanta. .
My pleasure, glad it was useful.
Thanks Doug great work! It is interesting to contrast Non Dualism with the substantialist language of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra or the Jonang 'Shentong' view. I find the inherent contradiction in language difficult to synthesis and actually appears as a schismatic fracture. Admittedly I don't understand how these seemingly opposing views can be reconciled?
It's an interesting question!
VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO!
Great information! It gave me an idea of the simplest form of nonduality by starting with a single relation to itself. That gives rise to a new relation from the first relation and so on in an explosion of fully interconnected relations, like Indra's net but without the jewels. And the individual self is a unique position within that net.
Right, I did a separate video on Indra's Net as well: ua-cam.com/video/CQN7sVmckso/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma Thanks! I will take a look at it.
The idea of there being several distinct kinds of non-dualism is hilarious:)
Yes it is kind of funny …
I think Thitch Nhat Hanh's term "interbeing" expresses non-dualism better within a Buddhist framework. You'll find similar concepts in Alfred North Whitehead's Process metaphysics.
Metaphysics doesn't seem to be emphasized as much in Theravada Buddhism. In Mahayana Buddhism, its metaphysics lead to alot of religious pluralism and ingenuity.
Interesting, I think of interbeing as related to the notion of Indra's Net and similar sorts of causal interdependencies. I did an earlier video on that: ua-cam.com/video/CQN7sVmckso/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma Yes, Indra's Net is a good example. A similar image appears in the Avatamsaka Sutra, part of the central doctrine of the Chinese Huayan school which was very influential.
Similar ideas appear in other religions, for instance, the concept of the human person as a microcosm.
Thank you for the detailed and enlightening explanation 🙏🏼
My pleasure! 🙏
Hey! I developed a really strong interest in Buddhism thanks in large part to your videos, not really a question on the doctrine itself but I noticed in the background you have some of Bhikku Bodhis books, and I think you had a lot of praise for "In the Buddha's words", I've been looking to get it but I cannot find any hardcover version while all of the other books of his do come in hardcover, so is your copy of In the Buddha's words paperback? I think that book specifically might only come that way
So far as I know that book is only available in paperback. Maybe they wanted to keep the price down? I'm not sure of the reason.
To say you and the world are one is still making a distinction between two things. I think the goal is to see that there is no experiencer or things to be experienced but there is only experience itself.
Right, I think that's one way to interpret the unity of self and Brahman.
Truth is Existence, it is eternal. Self cannot be separate from truth bcz truth encompasses all of existence.
🙏 I am with a small I, a secular Therevadian Bhuddist!
I had assumed that non-duality meant a singularity of consciousness that is always omnipresent and is in effect tapped into by sentient beings.
Tonight, I was informed that is not the Therevada dhamma. I have arrived here to discover more on this. Settling down now to listen and consider. 🙏
Well I don't know about Theravāda in general since there are many ways to practice Theravāda. I think for example that some in the Thai forest tradition tend towards some non-dualistic interpretations of dhamma.
Thanks for the elaboration of this highly abstruse concept particularly popular in Mahayana and Western Buddhism. In my own understanding the concept of non-dualism is not exactly monism. Non-dual means there is not 'two'(different), nor is it 'one' (the same); philosophically it can mean an undifferentiated state as the underlying reality/substratum but presented to u as differentiated (Hinduism). Or in the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism the division of form, feeling, etc. cannot be differentiated by our experience or psychological analysis as different from emptiness (not two things), though their appearances/manifestations seem to be different (so not the same). In my own opinion, one of the early Buddhist concepts close to non-dualism can be found in Kaccāyanagotta sutta (SN 12.15) where the Buddha expounds the 'middle' doctrine of dependent co-arising as not falling to either extreme of being/existence or non-being/non-existence.
Right, Buddhist non-dualism is often not quite the same as monism.
Yay! Looking forward to this.
I'm of two minds about this topic. 😇
😄😜
my favorite topic😊 thanks
Great, glad to hear!
This is a very interesting topic. It seems to me that when you can see conventional (relative) reality, impermanence is more easily known, whereas if there's an understanding of absolute reality, non-self is more easily known. What do you think about that? This topic has so many beautiful implications though it'd be hard to talk about all of them. This is an awesome video, thank you!
You're very welcome Tyler, that is a very interesting way to look at it!
Thank you Doug, great video as usual! One point about the distinction between epistomological and ontological non-duality. Have you read the book on non-duality by Loy? There he mentions the idea of savikalpa and nirvikalpa perception, i.e. with and without thought-construction, saying that if you attain (or rather realize) nirvikalpa perception, then you actually percieve the world as it is or in its 'suchness' hence forming a natural bridge between epistomology and ontology. Hence if a final analysis of how we percieve without thought-construction leads to a non-duality of conscious perception, this then would imply a non-dual mode of being of the 'world out there', even the identity of objective and percieved reality. Any thoughts on that idea?
I'm not familiar with Loy's book, so not really sure what to say about it!
@@DougsDharma fair enough 😄
Maybe we can interpret non-dualism more philosophically. In one side, Buddha did teach indirectly that everything is interdependent. But on the other side, Buddha negated all of attempts to make it become an unifying principle as if it has an ontological independence/existence. By doing so, non-dualism will remain non-dualistic & non-absolute.
Thank you for this video. 👍😁
Yes it's hard to say for sure Ucup, there is certainly plenty of food for thought.
OMG I love this video!! i am a geek for nondualism AND Buddhism omg yessss
😄 My pleasure Erica!
Thanks Mr. DOUG nice vedio
If we try to find ourself, then we find that we made of material,
Inside the materials there are molecules
Inside molecules there are atoms
Atoms are again made from protons, electrons, neutrons and other basic elements
Finally what we found is energy because of which these basic elements are made from
So what is spread in the universe is one energy and we are part of it
Non duality can also be understood like this?
Well not necessarily. At least under current understandings, the energy is understood structurally through quantum mechanics which is not a non-dual system.
My view is that there is a universal consciousness, that is why it can be experienced in deep meditation. BUT as the Buddha pointed out, experiencing that is not enlightenment. That universal consciousness has a foundation and is therefore not fundamental. Anything fundamental means that it has no foundation. It is unsupported, unproduced, unmade, does not arise nor cease, does not come nor go. True enlightenment is when you experience that which has no foundation.
🙏
Isn't non-duality implicit already in the Prajnaparamita? The Heart Sutra, extracted from it, is one long statement of (I think ontological, based on your talk) non-duality.
Yes, but the Prajñāpāramitā is not from early Buddhism. Instead it's from the early Mahāyāna, from around the turn to the CE and from the early centuries CE.
@@DougsDharma But it puts the discussion of non-duality far before Yogacara or Advaita Vedanta. BTW, I am really enjoying your talks, I'm currently on the one about how deep jhana/dhyana is.
Non-Dualism is not two, not one. Non-dualism is not monism.
I don't know about the early buddhist texts, and whether or not it was explicitly taught, but there can be no "buddhism" without non-dualism. Buddhist enlightenment and awakening is predicated on this very insight. Maybe it wasn't explicitly taught or even understood, but on some deep level, there must be an intuitive understanding of it for awakening to take place.
I think later buddhists introduced many new concepts, terms and ideas. But that does not mean it was "invented" or something "new" was really introduced, but rather, explicating what was only previously intuitively understood.
In the future, more new concepts, terms and ideas will also be introduced. That does not mean we do not have that understanding today on some intuitive level.
Thanks.
I know very little about Buddhism. I want to know how we can deny the existence of good and bad or duality?
Right, I think it's a bit mystifying.
great video. :)
Thanks! 🙏
The Prajnaparamita according to the Mahayana took place when the Buddha taught at vulture peak mountain and that he purposely at that time taught and elaborated more on shunyata in ways he never did before. It's even said that some monks had a heart attack because the teachings were so profound and beyond what was taught before. But Buddha did not initially teach these things because the students would not understand it. So there was a context in place where you went into such subjects. The earlier schools of Buddha Buddhism do not accept that the prajna paramita are valid teachings of the Buddha let's say they are not authentic Buddhism. They totally reject those texts. People who accept the Mahayana see no contrast between the earlier and later teaching but just consider the later teachings as more clarifying and a deepening of understanding the view of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism and all mahayana schools of Buddhism have a basis of these second turning of the wheel of Dharma. Also there is the Shentong madyamaka that one needs to research in Mahayana Buddhism. It's a very interesting view
Yes it's a complicated and interesting history, for sure!
wow 40 minutes! 😍😍😍
😄
in the realm of relative truth, it is different from non-dualism. But in absolute truth, it is the same.
The heart sutra says clearly -- all is empty -- the path -- the attainment -- merit -- nothing exists.
Legend Doug mate, great talk, well clarified
Much appreciated!
Thank you for this video: I was looking for some insightful discussion on this topic for some while. Taking this video and a previous video together ("what continues")---would you then say that guys like Ramana Maharshi were wrong or holding to wrong views (according to the Buddha or his teachings). This is a question I have been contemplating for a long time.
In the video "what continues?" you bring up the discussion between Buddha and one of his monks about the continuity of consciousness and Buddha even called him a fool---but looking at Advaita Vedanta, Non-dualism etc. they pretty much hold the same views in regards to consciousness. Would the Buddha likely have dismissed Advaita as a wrong view?
If I look at how much Buddha and Maharshi are revered and how genuine and saintly both were, it is almost strange to think that one of them may have been completely wrong about the nature of reality
One of the reasons I ask is that often times followers of non-dualism (especially Advaita Vedanta) hold the position that buddhism and Advaita essentially reveal the same truth or point to the same truth....
Yes, well during his lifetime the Buddha argued quite strenuously against some of the ideas behind Vedic Brahmanism. This belief system is the precursor to Hinduism, one branch of which is Avaita Vedanta. So there are definite differences between them. That said, later schools of Buddhism did adopt some ideas that were close to those of Advaita Vedanta, and indeed there seems to have been a lot of back-and-forth between Buddhists and Advaita Vedantins. But my understanding is that even so there are subtle differences between Buddhist non-duality and that of Advaita Vedanta.
@@DougsDharma Thank you.
When there ceases to be a difference between subjectivity and objectivity, Enlightenment happens for us ….
I enjoy the nondualism of Chan and Zen Buddhism.
I disagree: when the Buddha says all Dhammas are non self, he IS implying duality. He is saying self/spirit is one thing, and the entirety of the mind+body and universe and all of spacetime is another thing. There is a problem when teachers speculate. It confuses everybody. There is no problem teaching by sharing teachings. But there is a problem when teaching becomes speculations or pointings to ultimate truths that they have not known for themselves.
Great insight! Traditionalist would not agree though.
Well, I want to ask "What kind of traditionalist?" 😄
@@DougsDharma Orthodox Theravada teachers. However, not very orthodox Bhikkhu Nanananda (I am sure you heard about him) touched on this issue too. Duality is a vortex between nama and rupa according to him, there is no vortex, there is no duality.
Read Shurangama Sutta. There Buddha mentions consiousness as an deathless changeless reality
Perhaps so. If you are talking about the Shurangama Mantra, that is not historically early. In much later Buddhism such ideas became popular.
Doug, please can you say where it is stated that when the buddha looked inside himself he found non-self please? This doesn't seem right at all. He found the aggregates to be non-self, not what is left when the aggregates are let go of, in fact, it seems he was implicitly pointing to the same self of the upanishads.
Check out my playlist on self and non-self, I have a raft of videos on the topic.
@DougsDharma thanks for the response. I guess what it comes down to is that I feel that the Buddha was always actually pointing to the true self, beyond superficial views of the time about self, he just wanted us to actually know it, not just believe that we know it.
Just a couple of thoughts....If there really is a non-dual ontological objective reality, I don't see why it should be a "field", i.e. having spatial properties. This interpretation seems more like the mind trying to impose its understanding upon objective truth... which is what I think the Buddha, knowing the trickiness of the mind and the tendency for ideas to get corrupted over time, was trying to avoid (via not directly talking about non-dualism)... interpretations. The Buddha's teachings were incredibly pure.. and so it seems like the most natural thing to try to avoid talking about it and muddying up the real objective truth with the mind.
"Observer is the observed" does that sound like epistemological nondualism?
Non Dualism/Advaita involves the projection of a sense or realization of internal singularity to the external. So I have heard by the teachers. It's a purely philosophical position that the external must reflect the internal, and that they thus are all one. That is not to say that the current crop of teachers necessarily understands the founders.
The Buddha, to my knowledge, had no vocabulary for things like 'spirit', or 'zero dimensional'. When the Buddha speaks of self, he typically means the physical form as the term is used by most. When he says Nibbana can never fill no matter how many enter, and that he cannot say the tathagata either exists, does not exist, or both, he is saying that spirits are zero dimensional. I don't know all the reasons the Buddha rejected Advaita, but the main reason seems to be, IMHO: 1) Advaita strongly suggests something of the individual transfers from life to life. 2) it's highest realization is mental, not supramundane. Thus, the Buddha relegated it to the highest heaven, the Brahma realm, but since it is not a matter of leaving all of materiality behind, it still leaves one subject to rebirth.
Given a definition that consciousness is a bidirectional field of the nervous system wherein sensory input is radiated, my experience is that the spirit is 1) awareness, which reads consciousness, 2) conscience, which may be the carrier and modern term of kamma, a filter that regulates, and 3) a power of intent which either directs the focus of awareness (attention), or writes to consciousness to initiate thought or muscular movement or apparent movement in a dream. These things are indivisible, inseparable, true self, the life principle, 'am here', presence, and cannot be located in spacetime. They are zero dimensional and bind to consciousness like magnets due to sensual intents. So, these things, this spirit, cannot carry any essence of the individual or their mind. The spirit does not increase or decrease or develop like a seed. It is nothing, zero, except the 3 aspects. Which are nothing. They could bind to a dog, cat, anything with a nervous system, a field of consciousness. Not to a tree or bacteria, or virus, etc. There are biological machines, and then there are organisms with nervous systems that require a spirit to do the reading+writing to make the organism functional. And that is why the Buddha must reject Advaita as an escape from the rounds. The Buddha doesn't say realize my philosophy, my truth, he says to eliminate sensual desire, break free from consciousness, as see the truth yourself as a direct experience.
Thanks, Doug.!! .Such an amazing video. It helps me. Non-duality is a bitch. It always confuses me. I also learned Nibbana and samsara are the same and nondual so on. It is really confusing as I grew up in a Theravada upbringing.
Yes it can be very confusing, I agree! 😄
Thank you for this video. To me it seems that all non-dualistic thinking is rooted in being vague with definitions. As you said the Buddha is very analytical and detailed in his teachings. In my opinion it doesn't really fit him to propagate non-dualism about anything. That being said there is the human expierence of feeling one with something. But I wouldn't assume that this feeling means we are one. Just like feeling antagonistic to things doesn't mean we are totally unconnected to them.
Doug,
All these books are merely Literatures, helping Human Societies & Civilizations, to behave a certain way, teaching discipline to children from a young age, helps co-exist with one another, and in Harmony with Nature 😊
Similar, to our present Education System.
Edit: regarding, Identification of the Self,
This in particular, is when people are practicing Vipassana or Samatha or any type Mindfulness Meditation techniques,
People get carried away with Thoughts and Illusions,
Just like Radio Waves, Cellular Towers and Signals (2g, 3g, 4g, 5g, 6g, 7g, and so on)😊 that a smartphone captures,
Human beings, have built-in antennas, to receive such signals from the environment, the world at large and the universe,
At times, just like we have noises and noise reduction techniques & technologies,
Early meditation practitioners get carried away from their Realities, hard to judge what is Real from Un-Real experiences.
P.s #Google #UA-cam Doug, is in my team 😊
Would the early texts be more likely to be reactions against prevalent societally conditioned wrong view? And later texts be freer from the need for these things? I haven’t followed this too well as I find myself thinking of dualism in the platonic sense and the self/not self dichotomy and I think I’m missing the point a bit.
I think the early texts are just a bit less "sophisticated" in a philosophical sense. They are more interested in everyday life and less interested in deep metaphysical speculations.
Your interpretation of non dualism
Globally or locally within a context seems to lean towards monism as a one unifying thing or principle.
I have read elsewhere that non dualism is perhaps a rejection (or at least non total acceptance) of both differences (or dualism) and unity (or monism)
Curious your thoughts on this
It totally depends on how you interpret "non-dual". It can mean monism, or it can mean something essentially ineffable that's neither monism nor dualism.
I’m curious. What’s your interpretation? That of monism?
The soul or self is non dual and is not divisible. Matter, Energy, Space and Time are collapsed and condensed dualities that appear to occupy the same space as an illusion. The truth is that Matter is empty and that duality is based on the consideration of the soul.
There are not 2 truths because 'conventional (worldly) truths' are rooted in maya - illlusion/delusion.
Point of reference, the "unanswered questions", questions put to Buddha that he refused to answer because the questions were fallacious, only able to be seen as valid questions by someone who sees the world through the lens of maya.
As a side note regarding maya, i have long wondered if the name of Buddha's other, Maya, is not a coincidence or perhaps a literary metaphor...being born of illusion, one can still cut through it to see the world as it truly is, i.e. become enlightened despite being born of illusion.
That his birth killed his mother, killing the illusion that is maya, presages his enlightenment or, if you dont take the story of Buddha's birth to be historically factual, then hier death is also allegory.
Thanks for this, the best of your videos i've yet seen. 🙏
🙏😊
What is the name of the text you mentioned @ 14:14?
That's MN 1, the Discourse on the Root of All Things.
There is nothing either good or bad , but thinking makes it so.( Shakespear) .Is this an idea of non_dualism ?
Well not necessarily Quy. It is at least a dualism of thought.
Hi , Is there any Buddhist sect that gives importance specific to nature.
Well pretty much all Buddhist sects understand nature as important to us, so far as I know.
Buddha saw no self. Anatta. Who saw that there was no self? Right. The inner conscious self that non duality talks about. Thanks for your nice videos.
Why does there have to be a "Who"?
@@DougsDharma Otherwise, there is nothing.
Conventional Truth is used for living in the world (Samsara) for ever. on the other hand, Ultimate truth is used for Supramundane(Suprasamsara). If the one who does not practice the Conventional Truth properly, the one is close to the 4 Apara. Also, the one who does not practice the Ultimate truth correctly, the one is far from the Nibbana.
Thanks, I did a couple of videos on the "two truths" of Buddhism, the first one is here: ua-cam.com/video/qL_sspJzQx8/v-deo.html
Buddhadasa bhikkhu great translated
🙏
"the Buddha understands things by analyzing them into parts and numbers" - this pertains to how the Buddha was clearly influenced by the Sankhya (number) "orthodox" school of Indian philosophy.
It's hard to say. My understanding is that the early history of Samkhya is not well established at this point and likely wasn't in any very formalized state during the Buddha's day.
That's not correct, Buddha rebelled against vedanta in his entire life, people like Sarvapriyananda and his teachers Vevekananda and Shankharacarya were always against Buddha's teaching. They talk about Tibetian Buddhist which is far from Buddha's early teaching. Theravada Buddhist has the record of Authentic Early Buddhist Text. People like sarvapriyananda have destroyed the Gem of Buddha's teaching from its birthplace India. it doesnt make sense to equate buddhist idea of non-self to hindu true self
جميل
🙏
It's all very simple: you either train and learn to separate from mind+body+consciousness+world+universe+spacetime, or you don't. That is the only way to know death+rebinding, and the nature of ones existence, and the way to freedom from the rounds of existence. To learn how to die before you die as the Sufis say. No thinking, contemplation, philosophy, etc, can do that for you. It is a proper discipline+practice. Emptiness is what awareness reads when it unbinds. A duality remains. I don't know what is behind the intent to find non duality in Buddhism. It's not there. UA-cam is full of teens claiming to have attained a state of non duality, Awakening they term it, but not Arahantship. If you listen to them, they seem to be kids with troubled mental conditions that have learned how to view reality in a healthy balanced way, like adults should. They've had a philosophical realization due to intense stress, sometimes with adjustments/changes in consciousness.
🙏🙏🙏
🙏😊
can somebody summarize it, does self exist or not?
well one should transcend all such categories and see things for the way they are just the way they are, but if you're looking for a more satisfying answer the way I've seen it, in a non-dual fashion, is that you have extremes of self existing and self not existing, but in reality it seems like it's more like a middle way between the two. it seems to be that one should not see others as self, to not see your own beliefs or opinions as self and to not see yourself as self because there's always deeper. kind of like with the two truths doctrine where there is conventional and ultimate truth, there is this conventional self and then this ultimate self. it seems like you're talking about the conventional self where one's views and attachments are held, but when we say practice non-self, this is simply saying one should let go of all these things we call 'self' to find the Self or in the Buddha's case absolute non-self. basically, just go on some intraspection and see what you find
I have a whole playlist on the question of the self in Buddhism: ua-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
It doesn't.
@@cheerry7
The self doesn't exist in the same way spiderman doesn't. The self is a recurring character appearing in consciousness.
Yogacara school and advaita vedanta are very similiar in their expressions.
Yes they can be seen as quite similar depending on how one interprets them.
Advaita vedanta itself contains yoga
Is it correct to say that dzogchen kind off unifies the perspectives of MMK and ygachara? Awesome vid btw
That sounds plausible though I really don't have enough of a background in scholarship about dzogchen to be sure.
Thanks you!:) - watched a part of your video again because it is so good - I am not a buddhist, but I think buddhism has huge insights and what you say in the video resonates with me that although I am attracted to nonduality, an interpretation of interprenetation, non self, and emptiness resonates more than going down the route of saying its all just one thing that exist. Are you familiar with whiteheads process philosophy? I see some similarity between concepts like indras net and his approach towards describing reality as relational peocesses instead of distinct entities.
✌🏽&❤️
🙏😊
Non dualism says you don't exist. Buddha never said that simply because it implies something existent that now does not. This is the fundamental problem with non dualism.
Well non-dualism doesn't say you don't exist, it says you are identical to everything that exists; or at least that's one interpretation of non-dualism.
@@DougsDharma the beauty of it is that its not an it.
@@DougsDharma that was my interpretation of it being one with the laws of the universe martial arts like ba ji Quan express the 5 virtues of Confucius .....n Confucianism n Buddhism is obviously closely related different cultures use different words to express the same thing so i agree with ur interpretation it has some truth to it
Parse, practice, intuit…
For there to be (m)any there has to be two..duality, before theese two is, was and will be the primordial OM/Tao/All-aahhh//. Looking at reality in XXX ray vision. Seeing the astral silhouetted in the physical and then the ethereal silhouetted in the next layer. Zen we have the formlessness reality of OM. The mayan illusion is not realizing it's a physical body therefore it's a physical world and the same with our astral and ethereal worlds ( heavens). Seeing a world is falsehood because it's a "body/world. The perspective from formless reality is "because I am here the world is here". The earth is experienced as light to our body off light and ethereal to ethereaal bidy but as it was in the beginning "formless" by our formless soul. I did some videoes on bridging the path from words into experience under "Mr. DeSoto 33". One is titled "How to experience OM " if I remember correctly. You would find them very interesting. Another I can remember the title..."Thunderstanding ". You're aa true scholarand I listen to your videos regularly.
Doug's Dharma? So you have started your own religion ?
😄 No, first of all my approach is secular, and secondly, I call it that because it's only one person's interpretation of Buddhism.
@@DougsDharma How blind and insulting. Dharma is all about the Hindu religion and related sects.
@@dharmayogaashram979 I agree there’s only Hinduism and different sects and Buddhism along with Jainism is just some of many that’s apart of Hindu traditions. Charvakas are a materialist school of Hinduism that rejects ritualism and supernaturalism embraces philosophical skepticism, but they’re still apart of Hindu tradition
@@DougsDharma you heard of nazis. I present to ypu hindus. They have been colonizing other's philosophy, history, culture, material reality, polity since ancient times.
@@jamieyoung9206 i figured as much thank you it seemed all da same people of india 🙏🏽💯
The Buddha always taught two truths: conventional and ultimate.
????? I would love to learn more about non dualism, but you should stop thinking and telling it with your PHD mind.
What other mind should I use?
@@DougsDharma mind of buddha. Empty your PHD cups and lift up a empty plastic bucket. Most of us does not have your PHD knowledge, mind and vocabs. I am not being sarcastic, just being honest from my point of view. thanks
For that there are plenty of others. 😊
@@DougsDharma yes. thank you.
Wouldn't it be better when showing translations of Upanishads at least you give some space for traditional translators from india who actually followed these Upanishads?? Why just take colonial translators as authentic??
The great tail of Lie+fees.
not in early buddhism first come this in hinduism upnishad get your knowledge corrected
This is a irrelevant topic
Why do you think so?