[Buddha-l] Non-dual scholars?

[Richard Nance]

On 3/22/06, W. Codling <waynewc at telus.net> wrote:

> Thank you for asking, Richard.  First of all, my primary Buddhist
> influence is Zen and primary interest is the nuts and bolts of living
> and teaching Zen.  So I am not sure if this notion of non-duality is
> emphasized in other Buddhist expressions.

My primary area of interest is Indian Buddhism, although I've done
some work on Tibetan materials as well. Perhaps someone who has more
experience in Zen materials (and/or practice) would be able to help
you a bit more.

> So maybe the first thing I need to know is how
> central such a notion is in Buddhism.

That depends on precisely what the notion is, and on whom you ask.
It's true that one can find references to non-duality scattered
throughout corpus of Indian Buddhist texts (both in suutras and in
'saastras); the idea thus appears to be fairly old. But, of course,
the simple fact that an idea is old entails nothing whatsoever about
the centrality of the idea to Buddhist tradition(s).

>Zen, however, is about
> relationship; to characterize a relationship as being unambivalent means
> there is no confusion.  I know it is usually interpreted positively, ie
> being clear or certain, but  I want to use it in a negative sense,
> unambivalence as being non-comparative in the face of discreet
> elements.

Did you mean *discrete* elements? If so, I suppose the question is:
what work is the "discrete" doing here? That is, why is it important
to mark two elements as discrete, and at the same time to insist that
they should not be compared? Is the idea here that evaluative judgment
-- choosing one thing, action, path, etc. as preferable to another --
is something that you (or, as you put it, the zennies) want to portray
as fundamentally foreign to true Zen? (This seems to me to contain the
seeds of self-contradiction, but since I'm not sure its what you --
and/or the zennies -- actually meant, I won't speculate.)

> To deny that everything resolves into two seems
> counter-intuitive in a Zen context.

I'm not sure what this means. Someone more familiar with what you mean
by "Zen context" might be able to shed more insight here.

> I suppose that believing in non-duality would have a clarifying effect

I'm not sure about that (call me ambivalent, if you like). The notion
of "believing in" seems to me to require something (or someone) in
which to believe. To have something in which to believe presumably
requires that one be able to distinguish that in which one believes
(say, non-duality) from that in which one does not believe (say,
non-non-duality).

On this way of thinking, belief presupposes duality (and adding the
"in" does little to counter this presupposition). Talk of "believing
in non-duality" seems to me to betray a desire to play by the rules of
this game (i.e., one believes in non-duality as opposed to something
else), while at the same time betraying a desire to forfeit the game
itself (by denying the very conditions under which something can take
shape as an object of belief, and hence the very conditions under
which the phrase "believe in" can mean what we typically take it to
mean). I don't quite see how one can have it both ways. But who knows?
Perhaps this would prove a useful koan.

> So, for example,  instead of viewing 'subject and object' as false or
> illusory, I think Zen meditation tends to bring subject and object into
> a sort of equivalence.  It is not wrong, exactly, to label this
> equivalence as non-dual; but it is insufficient in terms of being
> practically useful.

Well, what is practically useful for some people (in some
circumstances, for some purposes) may be less than practically useful
for other people (in other circumstances, for other purposes). I'd be
wary of trying to formulate a generalized criterion of practical
utility. But the fact that you don't find it useful is probably itself
an important insight for your own practice. I wish you luck in finding
a new vocabulary!

> Furthermore, I think that all the talk about
> non-duality is misleading.  I want to find another way to talk about
> this meditative equipoise.

Hopefully, no one will attempt to stop you from doing so.

I'm sorry if this response was less than helpful; perhaps someone on
the list who specializes in Zen will be of more help to you.

Best wishes,

R. Nance