FW: [Buddha-l] Laughing at enlightenment

[W. Codling]

After decades of meditation practice, dozens of sesshins, probably 
hundreds of lectures and discussions with some extremely talented and 
erudite students of the way, I still do not know what is meant by 
non-dualism.  Almost everybody who is anybody in the Zen world talks 
about non-dualism and although I have asked many times, nobody has been 
able to give me an answer that makes any sense to me.  So, Steven, if 
you can actually make it comprehensible I would be grateful.

Naturally I think my non understanding indicates that I am an iccantika, 
enchanted by my own ignorance.  There must be something to this popular 
dogma which is so obvious to many teachers.  Many who talk about 
non-dualism are otherwise quite sensible and even wise. 

Can you (or anyone else) shed some light on this for me?
Wayne Codling



Steven Lane wrote:

> As usual you have misunderstood everything I have said and have
>misunderstood non-dualism. Non-dualism is not monism I have I have tried to
>explain to you ad infinitum on this list. Qualities and qualifications do
>not disappear in non-dualism. Things can indeed trump on another in
>non-dualism if the trumping is understood to be completely interchangeable.
>  In any case I would be glad to go through a formal debate of your dualism
>and my non-dualism for the benefit of the list.
>  
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/05