[Buddha-l] Non-dual scholars?

[W. Codling]

Now you've gone and uttered the N word and even though I can be of no 
help with the original request of this thread, I want to digress 
slightly to ask a question regarding 'non-dual'.  I have spent a lot of 
time in the confines of big time American Zen where questions about the 
meaning of non-duality are confined to the superficial or the 
sensational.  In other words, it is taken as an axiom.  But I have 
always felt that the relevant Buddhist conceptions are better understood 
as tethered to  'unambivalence' rather than any denial of the dualistic 
nature of being.  So my question is: what are the ways in which 
substituting unambivalence for non-dual are problematical from a 
scholar's perspective?
Thanks,
Wayne Codling

Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:

>> First of all advaita is often considered a monims in stead of a 
>> nondualism (advaita is not advaya). Imho one should understand the 
>> Christian mystics via the Greek philosophies, i.e. Stoa and 
>> Neoplatonism. You'll find a lot of Plotinus and Stoa in Meister 
>> Eckhart. There is a comparison in that area, written by Frits Staal, 
>> called 'Vedaanta and Neoplatonism'.
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 21/03/06