From "Living Nonduality: Enlightenment Teachings of Self-Realization" by Robert Wolfe, 2009
Suchness
Duality, which has been referred to by many sages, basically defines a condition wherein exists "more than one" - generally, two (which, in Latin, is duo). In Buddhism it is usually synonymous with "manyness", multiplicity.
The two (or more) things which comprise duality can be any two (or more) things. The proposition that there is "good" at one extreme, and "bad" at another extreme, is an example of duality. If I say that there is "this" over here and "that" over there, two different or "separate" things, that would be a dualistic expression. If I say that "I" )"me") like spaghetti ("not-mine"), this is dualism. To hold the view that there is something identifiable as "me" and something identifiable (or unidentifiable) as "god" is dualistic.
However, even if I say that "I" am "god", I haven't yet exceeded the boundaries of duality. In the same way, if I say, "I feel fear", that is duality; if I say, "I am the fear that I feel", that is still duality.
The nature of normal human thought is divisive. A mother opens the door and steps into the room: all of the stillness and all of the motion in the room are summarized into one immediate, pertinent sentence in Mom's mind; observing little Andy holding a ruler, and hearing wee Carol crying, and Mother's initial thought is, "Andy hit Carol."
Typically, human thought finds its expression in sentences, and these sentences are composed of words. Each word "means" a "different" "thing": Andy is one thing, Carol is another thing, and hit is yet another thing.
Andy is the subject of the thought, Carol is the object, and hit is the action that connects the two, subject-versus-object, things.
Even in the shortest sentence (in the Bible) - "Jesus wept." - Jesus is one thing, his weeping is another thing... although "related".
Primary to all relational, or relative, thought is the self-conclusive thought, the "I" thought, which predicates the existence of the subject of the thought. The formulation of the thought "I am angry" presumes not only that such a specific entity as anger exists, but that there is a particular entity - I - that recognizes anger and has cause to consciously note its presence.
The unquestioned (and in some minds unquestionable) assumption, or conclusion, that there is in reality a separate "self" which exists, is the very foundation of all our common, relational thinking.
To whatever extent that one cannot (at least experimentally) suspend the "certainty" of the sense of self, one cannot appreciate the perspective which the sages have described as non-dual. This is referred to, in contemporary terms, as oneness or wholeness, and in Buddhism as suchness, in Taoism as tao (the way it is).
To minds limited to the mechanics of duality (self versus other, this as opposed to that), even to say that "all things are one" will not transcend the perspective of duality - because they envision that "one" (entity A) containing "all things" (entity B). Not-two implies that there is not ever, under any circumstances, more than (if any) one thing or entity: "all things", and the "one" thing that they are, are the same thing.
The yogi Patanjali is credited with saying, "It is the observer-observed phenomenon which is the cause of human suffering." Krishnamurti was known to have stated this more succinctly, in the equation form: "The observer is the observed."
This statement sometimes engenders confusion in a mind which cannot (even temporarily) suspend its attachment to the dualistic propensity of thought. Its first reaction may be, "If I - the observer - look at a tree - the observed - am I the tree?" To suggest, in response, the true implication that there is, quintessentially, no I (other than as an isolated, thought-created entity) and no tree (ditto) will likely be resisted.
I cannot truly be the tree and have my I-ness remain. And if I, the observer, am the observed tree, the tree is likewise the very same thing that the observer is - which is to say that it no longer retains exclusive tree-ness. My separate identity has vanished into the tree (the observer is the observed), in this manner of speaking; and the separate identity of the tree - both of which identities were only distinctive creations of thought - has vanished into me (the observed is likewise the observer). Two, separate, dualistic identities have evaporated. If we now feel compelled (as thought will) to find a name for what is no longer the observer/observed contradiction, we can call it suchness, oneness, "not-two, not-one", etc.
The mind which is enmeshed in duality is the psyche which is reluctant to surrender its sovereignty; that is, to re-examine the certainty that "I" - me, myself - exist as an entity which is independent and in a subject-object relationship to every other supposed entity.
To realize that the observer does not categorically exist (nor, by definition, that which he alleges to observe) is thoroughly to reorient one's entire mode of thinking. When the observer is actually the observed, there can be no "self" nor "other". Any such distinctions, however subtle, are the dualistic assertions of divisive thought.
"No self?! No right and wrong? No past and future!?." one exclaims. Is it any wonder that duality is a pattern of thought which man finds it exceedingly difficult to relinquish?
At death... or possibly before... that which thinks it is an independent, isolated entity (and that which it thinks it separately and "objectively" observes or identifies) - "self" and all "other" - will disappear: there is not any thing which stands apart from suchness, not one thing.
The No-Thought Experience
In terms of your query, I think we could say that there is a) unrecognized duality; b) recognized duality; and c) nonduality.
We could say that a) is the condition of the ignore-ant person: her perception is mired in a dualistic perspective; and she is not even aware that this is the case, because she has no inkling that any other perception is possible.
Let's say that, at some point, she becomes aware of her dualistic perception, and supposes that another perspective on the actuality of our existence is possible. She conceives of this as "oneness", which she equates with non-duality. But her comprehension of this is that "I am united with everything." Her conception is (despite her assumption) dualistic. There is an "I", on the one hand, and "everything" else, on the other. Item 1 and item 2 are "united". She is still impaled by her subject/object mindset.
Perhaps at some point - c) - the perception dawns that "non-dual" literally posits "not two;" no two "things." She has realized that the (conditioned) conception of "I" and (as opposed to) "other" is false. There being, in absolute actuality, no "this" and no "that," there is no reality that can be described as "uniting."
She has transmuted from not recognizing her dualistic mindset; to recognizing her dualistic mindset; to relinquishing her dualistic mindset (and the "I" who supposed that any of this pertained to her "self.") Her awareness is presently nondual.
In general, Dzogchen characterizes the a) condition as "ordinary" mind; the b) condition as "alaya" (oneness as an "experience"); and c) "rigpa" (nondual awareness which is beyond "experiencing").
In comparable terms, the Hindu savikalpa samadhi is analogous to b); and sahaja samadhi to c). In b), through disciplined concentration or fixation (meditation) on "not-self," she can nullify "self" so as to experience its "non-existence." But there is an experiencer. When the phenomenal experience ebbs (as all do), the "not-self" is no longer a present actuality and the "self" is again a conscious entity.
Attendant to b) is the notion that (first) she is apart from something (desirable); and (second) is driven, by ego motivation, to "attain" or "achieve" it. Subject proposes to "merge" with object. But subject does not comprehend that in a non-dual "merging" both subject and object dissolve. The subject, here, expects to remain an entity to which an (unusual) experience is to be added. It is a stultifying, frustrating pursuit, a deadening cycle of "arriving" and inevitably "departing". But because of the (temporary) suspension of "conceptual," egoic thought, it is sometimes presumed to be the "liberation" which is spoken about.
The true liberation is in that nondual awareness of c). Where the inspiration is that "there are not two things," there no longer is a "self" which is apart from the "One"! Thus, no condition such as b); or a). In point of fact, even c) - when conceived of as an entity (such as Self, Buddha-nature, etc) - no longer has any relevance. There is no subject self or desirable experience (such as "no thought") in rigpa or sahaja samadhi.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Attendant to b) is the notion that (first) she is apart from something (desirable); and (second) is driven, by ego motivation, to "attain" or "achieve" it. Subject proposes to "merge" with object. But subject does not comprehend that in a non-dual "merging" both subject and object dissolve. The subject, here, expects to remain an entity to which an (unusual) experience is to be added. It is a stultifying, frustrating pursuit, a deadening cycle of "arriving" and inevitably "departing". But because of the (temporary) suspension of "conceptual," egoic thought, it is sometimes presumed to be the "liberation" which is spoken about.
Thanks for the sharing.
This part described what i tried to do during 'I AM' stage very well....
"
Attendant to b) is the notion that (first) she is apart from something (desirable); and (second) is driven, by ego motivation, to "attain" or "achieve" it. Subject proposes to "merge" with object. But subject does not comprehend that in a non-dual "merging" both subject and object dissolve. The subject, here, expects to remain an entity to which an (unusual) experience is to be added. It is a stultifying, frustrating pursuit, a deadening cycle of "arriving" and inevitably "departing". But because of the (temporary) suspension of "conceptual," egoic thought, it is sometimes presumed to be the "liberation" which is spoken about.
"
IMO, a real' I AM Presence' stage will reveal much about the non-local/all-pervading aspect of reality.... unlike a pseudo experience of visualising/imagining a light that overlight us. Sometimes, the I AM stage may also reveal the luminous/light aspect as well. But for my case, the luminousity aspect was experienced later. IMO, it depends on how that stage was experienced. IMO, Luminousity is experienced due to the deconstruction of perception. IMO, Non-locality is experienced due to the total suspension of mental formation/thoughts.
Non-dual will reveal the insight that all along the self does not exist in a concrete manner. It will first be experienced as if experiences are 'flat'... ha ha... i dunno how to describe. In non-dual, there is a gradual maturing process (consisting of distinctive stage of insights)... where the self aspect gets better understood. In the early stage, we may try to dissolve or get rid of the self. In the later state, we begin to realise that the getting rid act is also a sense of self. Later on stage, there is an 'immediate' realisation...which i dunno how to describe and best experienced for oneself.
Will like to add that although 'letting go' is not the actual non-duality experience, it is an important part of practice. Slowly and gradually, the practice of letting go helps in creating gaps for the insights to occur.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:From "Living Nonduality: Enlightenment Teachings of Self-Realization" by Robert Wolfe, 2009
Suchness
Duality, which has been referred to by many sages, basically defines a condition wherein exists "more than one" - generally, two (which, in Latin, is duo). In Buddhism it is usually synonymous with "manyness", multiplicity.
The two (or more) things which comprise duality can be any two (or more) things. The proposition that there is "good" at one extreme, and "bad" at another extreme, is an example of duality. If I say that there is "this" over here and "that" over there, two different or "separate" things, that would be a dualistic expression. If I say that "I" )"me") like spaghetti ("not-mine"), this is dualism. To hold the view that there is something identifiable as "me" and something identifiable (or unidentifiable) as "god" is dualistic.
However, even if I say that "I" am "god", I haven't yet exceeded the boundaries of duality. In the same way, if I say, "I feel fear", that is duality; if I say, "I am the fear that I feel", that is still duality.
The nature of normal human thought is divisive. A mother opens the door and steps into the room: all of the stillness and all of the motion in the room are summarized into one immediate, pertinent sentence in Mom's mind; observing little Andy holding a ruler, and hearing wee Carol crying, and Mother's initial thought is, "Andy hit Carol."
Typically, human thought finds its expression in sentences, and these sentences are composed of words. Each word "means" a "different" "thing": Andy is one thing, Carol is another thing, and hit is yet another thing.
Andy is the subject of the thought, Carol is the object, and hit is the action that connects the two, subject-versus-object, things.
Even in the shortest sentence (in the Bible) - "Jesus wept." - Jesus is one thing, his weeping is another thing... although "related".
Primary to all relational, or relative, thought is the self-conclusive thought, the "I" thought, which predicates the existence of the subject of the thought. The formulation of the thought "I am angry" presumes not only that such a specific entity as anger exists, but that there is a particular entity - I - that recognizes anger and has cause to consciously note its presence.
The unquestioned (and in some minds unquestionable) assumption, or conclusion, that there is in reality a separate "self" which exists, is the very foundation of all our common, relational thinking.
To whatever extent that one cannot (at least experimentally) suspend the "certainty" of the sense of self, one cannot appreciate the perspective which the sages have described as non-dual. This is referred to, in contemporary terms, as oneness or wholeness, and in Buddhism as suchness, in Taoism as tao (the way it is).
To minds limited to the mechanics of duality (self versus other, this as opposed to that), even to say that "all things are one" will not transcend the perspective of duality - because they envision that "one" (entity A) containing "all things" (entity B). Not-two implies that there is not ever, under any circumstances, more than (if any) one thing or entity: "all things", and the "one" thing that they are, are the same thing.
The yogi Patanjali is credited with saying, "It is the observer-observed phenomenon which is the cause of human suffering." Krishnamurti was known to have stated this more succinctly, in the equation form: "The observer is the observed."
This statement sometimes engenders confusion in a mind which cannot (even temporarily) suspend its attachment to the dualistic propensity of thought. Its first reaction may be, "If I - the observer - look at a tree - the observed - am I the tree?" To suggest, in response, the true implication that there is, quintessentially, no I (other than as an isolated, thought-created entity) and no tree (ditto) will likely be resisted.
I cannot truly be the tree and have my I-ness remain. And if I, the observer, am the observed tree, the tree is likewise the very same thing that the observer is - which is to say that it no longer retains exclusive tree-ness. My separate identity has vanished into the tree (the observer is the observed), in this manner of speaking; and the separate identity of the tree - both of which identities were only distinctive creations of thought - has vanished into me (the observed is likewise the observer). Two, separate, dualistic identities have evaporated. If we now feel compelled (as thought will) to find a name for what is no longer the observer/observed contradiction, we can call it suchness, oneness, "not-two, not-one", etc.
The mind which is enmeshed in duality is the psyche which is reluctant to surrender its sovereignty; that is, to re-examine the certainty that "I" - me, myself - exist as an entity which is independent and in a subject-object relationship to every other supposed entity.
To realize that the observer does not categorically exist (nor, by definition, that which he alleges to observe) is thoroughly to reorient one's entire mode of thinking. When the observer is actually the observed, there can be no "self" nor "other". Any such distinctions, however subtle, are the dualistic assertions of divisive thought.
"No self?! No right and wrong? No past and future!?." one exclaims. Is it any wonder that duality is a pattern of thought which man finds it exceedingly difficult to relinquish?
At death... or possibly before... that which thinks it is an independent, isolated entity (and that which it thinks it separately and "objectively" observes or identifies) - "self" and all "other" - will disappear: there is not any thing which stands apart from suchness, not one thing.
nice articles, thank you :)
my very first experience of recognizing dualistic views (its not <b> though, just a recognition that all the while i was in <a>) was when i was reading a translated version of the Tao Te Jing few years back.
remember i was driving, and thinking about a verse i read. and in my mind i was going long/short, right/ wrong, black/white. i was going on and on and on.
then suddenly, like i kena hit, there's a realization of something. the thought came to me ' there's no longness without shortness, there's no right without wrong, in fact one cannot exist without the other.'
heh i know the way i describe is abit like talking 废�, but just wanna share :)
Originally posted by simpo_:Thanks for the sharing.
This part described what i tried to do during 'I AM' stage very well....
"
Attendant to b) is the notion that (first) she is apart from something (desirable); and (second) is driven, by ego motivation, to "attain" or "achieve" it. Subject proposes to "merge" with object. But subject does not comprehend that in a non-dual "merging" both subject and object dissolve. The subject, here, expects to remain an entity to which an (unusual) experience is to be added. It is a stultifying, frustrating pursuit, a deadening cycle of "arriving" and inevitably "departing". But because of the (temporary) suspension of "conceptual," egoic thought, it is sometimes presumed to be the "liberation" which is spoken about.
"
IMO, a real' I AM Presence' stage will reveal much about the non-local/all-pervading aspect of reality.... unlike a pseudo experience of visualising/imagining a light that overlight us. Sometimes, the I AM stage may also reveal the luminous/light aspect as well. But for my case, the luminousity aspect was experienced later. IMO, it depends on how that stage was experienced. IMO, Luminousity is experienced due to the deconstruction of perception. IMO, Non-locality is experienced due to the total suspension of mental formation/thoughts.
Non-dual will reveal the insight that all along the self does not exist in a concrete manner. It will first be experienced as if experiences are 'flat'... ha ha... i dunno how to describe. In non-dual, there is a gradual maturing process (consisting of distinctive stage of insights)... where the self aspect gets better understood. In the early stage, we may try to dissolve or get rid of the self. In the later state, we begin to realise that the getting rid act is also a sense of self. Later on stage, there is an 'immediate' realisation...which i dunno how to describe and best experienced for oneself.
Will like to add that although 'letting go' is not the actual non-duality experience, it is an important part of practice. Slowly and gradually, the practice of letting go helps in creating gaps for the insights to occur.
Hi.. thanks for the sharing.
I agree that real Presence has nothing to do with a visual sense of luminous light. I in fact have experience of very luminous (visual) lights and a resulting sense of unity years ago, however I categorize them as 'A&P' experiences according to Daniel Ingram's map, but this is not the I AM Presence.
My understanding of luminosity is that the sense of a bright vivid Awareness that is shining and illuminating all experience. This is different from a visual luminosity, but rather it seems that Presence is radiating everywhere and illuminating everything (nothing visual), very intensely. If that vivid luminosity is strong, even normal things like eating, walking, will feel so 'intense' that you will start smiling and there may even be tears. Just pure delight in Awareness. I think you may have a different experience of 'luminosity' though... the luminosity due to the deconstruction of perception was mentioned by my Master but I have not experienced yet (he said your body and mind and the surrounding environment totally disappears leaving only the light of your nature)
The all pervading and non-local aspect is another aspect of the I AM as you described.. so far in my experience it is only vividly experienced in a state of no thought, I do not think I can sustain a non-local, diffuse or oceanic experience in daily life (yet). I think it has to do with how in daily life, we usually fixate/get attached to a sense of a body. However there is the insight that Awareness is not in any way personal, or localized anywhere, and this insight helps us see and let go of the clinging to a locality residing inside the body. Rather than existing somewhere (like, in a body), even the body and the mind are equally seen as objects in the field of perception along with the stuff in the environment, all happening in a non-local field of Awareness rather than outside of Awareness.
The non-dual part is still eluding me... even though I had short glimpses. Again, thanks for sharing. I am still in the process of 'letting go'.
Originally posted by geis:nice articles, thank you :)
my very first experience of recognizing dualistic views (its not <b> though, just a recognition that all the while i was in <a>) was when i was reading a translated version of the Tao Te Jing few years back.
remember i was driving, and thinking about a verse i read. and in my mind i was going long/short, right/ wrong, black/white. i was going on and on and on.
then suddenly, like i kena hit, there's a realization of something. the thought came to me ' there's no longness without shortness, there's no right without wrong, in fact one cannot exist without the other.'
heh i know the way i describe is abit like talking 废�, but just wanna share :)
Thanks for sharing as well :) What you said is not wrong - it is also a kind of non-duality. But as you said, it is not b) or c) which concerns the non-duality of subject and object.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Hi.. thanks for the sharing.
I agree that real Presence has nothing to do with a visual sense of luminous light. I in fact have experience of very luminous (visual) lights and a resulting sense of unity years ago, however I categorize them as 'A&P' experiences according to Daniel Ingram's map, but this is not the I AM Presence.
My understanding of luminosity is that the sense of a bright vivid Awareness that is shining and illuminating all experience. This is different from a visual luminosity, but rather it seems that Presence is radiating everywhere and illuminating everything (nothing visual), very intensely. If that vivid luminosity is strong, even normal things like eating, walking, will feel so 'intense' that you will start smiling and there may even be tears. Just pure delight in Awareness. I think you may have a different experience of 'luminosity' though... the luminosity due to the deconstruction of perception was mentioned by my Master but I have not experienced yet (he said your body and mind and the surrounding environment totally disappears leaving only the light of your nature)
The all pervading and non-local aspect is another aspect of the I AM as you described.. so far in my experience it is only vividly experienced in a state of no thought, I do not think I can sustain a non-local, diffuse or oceanic experience in daily life (yet). I think it has to do with how in daily life, we usually fixate/get attached to a sense of a body. However there is the insight that Awareness is not in any way personal, or localized anywhere, and this insight helps us see and let go of the clinging to a locality residing inside the body. Rather than existing somewhere (like, in a body), even the body and the mind are equally seen as objects in the field of perception along with the stuff in the environment, all happening in a non-local field of Awareness rather than outside of Awareness.
The non-dual part is still eluding me... even though I had short glimpses. Again, thanks for sharing. I am still in the process of 'letting go'.
Hi AEN,
Thanks for sharing.
I understand the luminousity as you have described. :) I think as the let go process deepens and becomes automatic (as in not willed by a self)... the other experiences will be experienced and their connections (to other types of experiences) will be clearer.
Don't wish to add more descriptions to distract in concepts.
Regards
Originally posted by geis:nice articles, thank you :)
my very first experience of recognizing dualistic views (its not <b> though, just a recognition that all the while i was in <a>) was when i was reading a translated version of the Tao Te Jing few years back.
remember i was driving, and thinking about a verse i read. and in my mind i was going long/short, right/ wrong, black/white. i was going on and on and on.
then suddenly, like i kena hit, there's a realization of something. the thought came to me ' there's no longness without shortness, there's no right without wrong, in fact one cannot exist without the other.'
heh i know the way i describe is abit like talking 废�, but just wanna share :)
Hi Geis,
Thanks for sharing your experience. Yeah ... as mentioned by AEN, it is a kind of non-duality... but it is not the no-subject-object division kind.
However, your experience is also very important... this insight will allow one to takes things more easily. This is like a kind of higher perspective experience. That realisation may result in a blissful expanded state as the mind let go of the usual discrimination and judgements.
Regards
hey guys
yeah what u all say is true.
hopefully this small exchange can help some of us 'break through'