Bill,
You say below: "In 'the zen I practice' experiencing non-duality on an ongoing basis is the fundamental principal." After experiencing kensho-satori more and more frequently, and for longer and longer periods of time, is the experience of non-duality ongoing? Thanks, ED --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > ED, > > "Nondualism is the idea that things appear distinct while not being separate." > > The quote above is about as good as you can get using the English language. English and all other languages I know (Thai, Spanish, Brazillian Portuguese) are dualisitic themselves so expressing non-dualism is very difficult. > > The biggest problem with it for me is it describes non-duality as an 'idea' (or concept) instead of an experience (of reality). I'd desribe non-duality as reality and duality as the 'idea' (concept or illusion). Also the definition above 'distinct' implies multiple items, but then it is qualified by 'appear' (as in not-acutally or illusory)and 'remaining not-separate' which are all good. > > In 'the zen I practice' experiencing non-duality on an ongoing basis is the fundamental principal. That is what I call 'clear mind' or 'Buddha Mind'. I shy away from calling it an 'objective' only because having an objective implies self and attachment. > > ...Bill! > --- In [email protected], "ED" seacrofter001@ wrote: > > > > "Nondualism is the idea that things appear distinct while not being > > separate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-duality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-duality> > > > > Bill, > > Is the above statement about non-duality acceptable? If not, what would > > be your attempt to state in words what non-duality is about? Is one of > > the objectives of zen or Zen to experience non-duality on an ongoing > > basis? > > > > Thanks, --ED > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > I respectfully disagree. > > > > > > The very word 'observer' implies duality. There is someone or > > something observing, and someone or something that is the object of the > > observation. > > > > > > Perhaps when you say 'observe' you mean the same thing that I mean > > when I say 'aware'. Awareness does not imply duality - at least in the > > Bill! lexicon. > > > > > > It's okay when we disagree about things, especially about words and > > their meaning; but it is important at least to me that we resolve the > > terms enough to be able to communicate well. > > > > > > I didn't understand the rest of your comments about Buddha, different > > states, advice and compassion. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > Bill, > > > > Observed object and observer is not duality. Observer and object can > > exist free from duality. This is how a buddha can forever be in the > > world while being in the state that most of the high beings on the site > > must negate the world to maintain. Which also explains why most advice > > and the state of being through which that advice arises lacks > > compassion. > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would think that any comparison of Vulcans and zen is 'way off'. > > > > > > > > > > To answer your question, anything that involves observing does not > > sound like zen to me. In the zen I practice there are no dualities such > > as observer/observed (subject/object)...Bill! > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Dave P" <wookielifeday@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is another strange question, but I've been watching a lot > > of Star Trek, and there's frequent mentioning of how the Vulcans are not > > actually unemotional, but simply observe their emotions and not let them > > control their actions. Does this sound Zen to anyone here, or am I way > > off?
