[Buddha-l] Non-dual scholars?

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

W. Codling schreef:

> Richard Nance wrote:
>
>> That will depend on what you mean by "unambivalence." Could you say 
>> more?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> R. Nance
>>  
>>
> 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.  I hear Tibetans talk a 
> little bit about non-duality, but Pure Landers don't seem to indulge 
> in that sort of talk so much.  So maybe the first thing I need to know 
> is how central such a notion is in Buddhism.  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.  To deny that everything resolves into two seems 
> counter-intuitive in a Zen context.  In my own so far unsuccessful 
> efforts to understand what all those zennies are talking about when 
> they speak of 'non-duality', I have often thought that what was being 
> described was a non-discriminating or comparative viewpoint, but if 
> so, why not say that?  It is common to hear teachers talking about 
> 'entering into' non-duality or 'directly experiencing' non-duality or 
> of non-duality as an ontological axiom of some sort.  This kind of 
> talk has never made sense to me.  So I am looking for a way to talk 
> about the profound integrating or centripetal effects of meditation 
> without using vocabulary which is palpably inaccurate with regard to 
> the real world.  I suppose that believing in non-duality would have a 
> clarifying effect also, which could also be characterized as 
> unambivalence, but it would really entail a form of monism which also 
> runs counter to Zen teaching, ie not one, not many.
>
> 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.  Furthermore, I think that all the talk about 
> non-duality is misleading.  I want to find another way to talk about 
> this meditative equipoise.
>
I see what you mean, but if fear there's no ultimate formula for it. Let's go back to the roots. Naagaarjuna is the first patriarch isn't he? Well then his words must count for something. He doesn't seem to have any problem with subject and object as long as daily conversation is concerned, but when we talk of the ultimate truth, there is nothing to be found which could be ambivalent or not. 
So far the philosophical point of view. But there's also the psychological one. Someone who enters samaadhi is letting go of prapanca, associations stop. So nothing is identified as being this or that. This experience can very well be called nonduality. Tibetans often talk about overcoming doubt, i.e. unambivalence. The trick is I think to give to find the ultimate term, but take as many words as you need to describe it well. Of course there's nothing wrong with just chosing a word if you tell explicitely what you mean with it.

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950