[TineSeign]

Good morning

Many of the discussions (sometimes they look a lot like debates) on BWB and other Buddhist forums revolve around the question of dualism.

By dualism, I mean the idea that the mind exists independently from the brain. ("Dualism" can have other meanings. For this discussion, let's stick with the definition I give here.)

Dualists believe that consciousness might exist independently of the brain, perhaps before birth, through life, or after death. The idea of the soul is a dualist belief, for instance.

Non-dualists believe that consciousness cannot exist without a living brain, and disappear when the brain dies or becomes diseased.

Human beings, if not influenced by modern education and science, are almost always dualists. It's quite natural to believe in a soul for example.

Dualism is incompatible with modern science. Western philosophy used to be dualist, but it turned away from dualism in around the end of the 18th century and never looked back.

The Buddhism that Gautama Buddha taught is clearly dualistic. Hardly surprising. Everyone was a dualist back then.

Today, you can be a Buddhist non-dualist, but removing dualism changes Buddhist doctrine in many ways, obvious and subtle. The Dalai Lama has said on several occasions that he agrees with Western scientists on almost every point, except rebirth. He believes it, they don't. The Dalai Lama is a dualist.

With dualism, awakening is a spiritual phenomenon. Without dualism, awakening is merely a psychological or neurological phenomenon. In that case, the awakened state comes to an end when the brain and body die, and might come to an end when the brain is diseased or injured.

Without dualism, karma and rebirth are hard to justify. Without karma and rebirth, then the goal of practice ends with death, and we only have one lifetime to get it right.

With dualism, human beings can be perfected. Without dualism, human beings cannot be perfected. The brain is a fallible organ, just like the pancreas or stomach.

With dualism, Buddha taught timeless, transcendent truth. Without dualism, Buddha's brain was imperfect, just as all brains are imperfect. Buddha was really wise, compassionate and happy, but might have gotten some details wrong, or left some things out.

Dualist and non-dualistic Buddhists disagree on many points of doctrine, and agree on some. They agree that the bottom line is a remedy for suffering. They agree about the importance of practice, and how to practice. Dualistic and non-dualistic Buddhists often seem to be trying hard to agree-to-disagree. The alternative is a fundamental rift in Buddhism.

Some contemporary Buddhist teachers in the West seem to avoid the question of dualism. For example, I've been listening to dharma talks by Gil Fronsdal lately. As far as I can tell, he just doesn't go there.

Comments on dualism and non-dualism?

Subscribers -- are you a dualist, a non-dualist, undecided, or are you on the don't-ask-don't-tell plan?



Bopshibobshibop

[nermise]

I think you've defined it in your own terms, I haven't noticed Buddhists using the term dualism in the same way and I don't think the Buddha ever used the concept of dual/non dual in the pali canon.

I've always interpreted dualism is considering subject and object separate, so "me" and what I observe is separate, rather than considering the interrelationships.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, everything is dependent on something else. Everything we experience can be broken down into more detail or aggregated up into larger entities, this is why the Buddha talked about us being composed of 5 aggregates.

Recognising this leads to loosening of our tendency to attach to things at the level of aggregation we normally interact with (ie the self, I me, you, level), loosening of attachment leads to freedom from Dukkha.

It appears maybe the topic you really want to talk about, rather than dualism in general, is "if there is no distinct and separate self, what gets reborn?" I don't have a strong opinion on that and the topic has been done to death.

[j2Y6Ysmb]

My use of the term dualism, most of the time and here at BWB definately, is broader than the definition given in the opening post. Dualism can be seen a conceptual understanding; where phenomena is divided into 2 opposed aspects and the world is seen as being in this state of division, ie. good or bad, friend or enemy, yours or mine, Buddhist or non- Buddhist, rebirth believer or non rebirth believer etc.
Such a view of things is very limiting and although it may help an individual feel safe and that they understand due to creating such divisions it is rarely how things are.

[FsQGF1Mp]

@ Bopshibobshibop

Subscribers -- are you a dualist, a non-dualist, undecided, or are you on the don't-ask-don't-tell plan? I find that answering these questions in no way helps in overcoming my dukkha.

[DiatryDal]

The Buddhism that Gautama Buddha taught is clearly dualistic. Hardly surprising. Everyone was a dualist back then.

Except Gautama Buddha.

It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen consciousness: 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'

MN 38 Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises.

Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

Dependent on intellect & mind-objects, intellect-consciousness arises.

MN 18 Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.

SN 22.53 I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from mentality-&-materially as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes mentality-&-materially.

SN 12.67

[mpxricyNimb]

Without dualism, karma and rebirth are hard to justify.

the consequences of actions (karma) are those actions being reborn again. for example, we make a mistake, we get angy at ourself, we have regret, etc. this is the memory of that karma being reborn over & over & over again in our regrets & self-condemnation. how is this psychological process related to 'dualism'?



According to opponent-process theory, drug addiction is the result of an emotional pairing of pleasure and the emotional symptoms associated with withdrawal. At the beginning of drug or any substance use, there are high levels of pleasure and low levels of withdrawal. Over time, however, as the levels of pleasure from using the drug decrease, the levels of withdrawal symptoms increase, thus providing motivation to keep using the drug despite a lack of pleasure from it.

Opponent-process theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BebopVT]

With dualism, human beings can be perfected. Without dualism, human beings cannot be perfected.

Gautama Buddha certainly taught human beings can be 'perfected'. But what exactly is perfected?

With dualism, Buddha taught timeless, transcendent truth.

Again, this may need to be explained. What exactly is this 'timeless, transcendent truth' being referred to?

...we only have one lifetime to get it right.

what exactly is it that must be gotten 'right'?

[Wheegiabe]

I have not encountered this definition of dualism before, although the term always seems to elicit numerous definitions.

In terms of the usual definition of dual and non-dual I am relatively a dualist and objectively a non-dualist.

[conurgenceDen]

Some contemporary Buddhist teachers in the West seem to avoid the question of dualism.

I seem to remember reading teachings by contemporary teachers about dualism and non-dualism.

In "The Mind and the Way" Ajahn Sumedho mentions non-dualism:


NON-DUALISM
The significant offering of the Buddhist teaching lies in what we call non-dualism.

Its the 'neither-nor' approach to philosophical questions. Monistic religion tends to talk about the One, the One God, or the Whole or the Buddha Nature, or the One Mind, and that's very inspiring. We turn to monistic doctrines for inspiration. But inspiration is only one level of religious experience, and you have to outgrow it. You have to let go of the desire for inspiration, or the belief in God or in the Oneness or in the One Mind or the all embracing benevolence or in the universal fairness.

I am not asking you to not disbelieve in those things either. But the non-dualistic practice is a way of letting go of all that, of seeing attachment to the views and opinions and perceptions, because the perception of one's mind is a perception, isn't it? The perception of a universal benevolence is perception which we can attach to.

The Buddha-Nature is a perception. Buddha is a perception. The one God and everything as being one universal system, global village, all is one and one is all and everything is fair and everything is kind, God loves us: these are perceptions which might be very nice, but still they are perceptions which arise and cease. Perceptions of monistic doctrines arise and cease.

Now what does that do, as a practical experience, when you let things go and they cease? What's left, what's the remainder? This is what the Buddha is pointing to in teaching about the arising and cessation of conditions.

When the perception of self ceases and all the doctrines, all the inspired teaching, all the wise sayings cease, there is still the knower of the cessation. More views. And that leaves us with a blank mind. What is there to grasp?

So the desire to know, to have something to grasp, comes up. We can see a kind of panic in our minds sometimes: we've got to believe in something! 'Tell me about the universal benevolence!' But that's fear and desire operating again, isn't it? 'I want to believe in something! I need something to believe in! I want to know that everything is all right. I want to attach and believe in the perceptions of oneness and wholeness.'

And so there is still that desire operating which you may not notice and may still be attached to. So that's why the religious experience is one of despair.

CONTINUED:

http://www.amaravati.org/documents/t..._is/18nod.html

[emuffette]

I guess I would consider myself a non-dualist, just because I have never encountered anything that leads me to believe in a soul. It doesn't really effect my practice, though, and I don't really have a problem with the idea of dualism. If I am reborn, that's cool. If not, that's fine, also. It's sort of unrelated to my goal.

[t78VPkdO]

Dualists believe that consciousness might exist independently of the brain, perhaps before birth, through life, or after death.

The Buddhism that Gautama Buddha taught is clearly dualistic.

Please quote where the Buddha said consciousness can exist independent of the brain.

[bWxNFI3c]

Hello,
I might not call it dualism but the teaching says that there are two kind of selfs. At he first is the physical one and the second one is called the Real Self.
This Real Self is the one that reincrnates as long as it is necessary and maybe later if doing the Eightfold Path, it will not be reincarneted any more, stay in the beyond. Gotamo Buddho said:" There is a here and a beyond and a reward for good and bad deeds."

anando

[Poowssnople]

I like every single thing element said on this page. That's a great link Aloka-D. I'm a non-dualist. I see no reason to believe that consciousness can exist independently from the brain. When someone gets brain damage we clearly see their consciousness change and when someone dies we see their consciousness come to an end of sorts. You could say well we don't know if their consciousness is manifesting itself in some way we can't perceive but that's just useless speculation.

[layedgebiamma]

I wanted to post my experience in relation to the idea of the brain and the mind, or conscious awareness, existing as seperate. I do not believe they are seperate, but i believe the mind does indeed cast the projection of the form of our brain, and body. I practice a state of being that realises this, and can suspend the vital signs of my body, with my intent or will. i first heard of the teaching long ago, when i read of a Tibetan buddhist practice that entailed control of the body's life signs with the will of the body.

Last year i was having a heart attack and was terrified i was going to die. I realised that my heart was being cast to form from the knowledges i had within myself. It is also an art of Qi-Gong to visualise actively the projection of the body and align to the inner and outer manifestations. Anyways I realised that my body is merely a mental projection, that I can cast the needs and purposes of the heart with my mind's eye. I said to myself I can live with no heart at all, like a spirit and still retain consciousness. Fearful for my life as i was I went to the machine that reads my vitals, and they hooked me up. I sat looking at the machine as i felt the pressure in my heart, and the knowingness that my heart was teetering on the brink of failure. as i looked at the machine i felt the air being pushed out of my body, and I gasped for air i couldnt find.

The machine read flat-line. And my body panicked. At first it was just a few seconds before my heart started again. I ripped the machine off my body and sat staring at the nurse, who said the machine was malfunctioning. I knew differently. As I waited my heart continued, back and forth, starting and stopping, and I saw that every time it happened I could help my breathing. I realised i was projecting my experience. My breathing became easier through the process, every time. I started to anticipate the starting and stopping, and soon i could command it. With my growing confidence i would simply cast the projection, and say my heart will stop. and it would. I would continue however, still conscious, still breathing. i went for a walk then, calmer, and began practicing. Before I left the hospital the doctor actually told me i was dead, in a synchronous state of being.

I already knew that, and yet i knew my awareness alone was casting my body, and had denied the body of humanity's knowledge, for my own. i was elated. The gasping stopped and was replaced with a sensation much easier to deal with, although not entirely comfortable. I started and stopped my heart a great many times that day, and declared my body as going through a transitional phase of man to spirit form. I looked in the mirror in practice and saw the transition in perceptual alignment. my skin became ashen, and fluid, and as i focused on my form, i could watch it change. my skin was vibrating and in slight motion. i had practiced the art of bodily transformation, but had just started to perfect the form of spirit and still am. Ended up the police were called in a panic and picked me up to bring me back to the hospital, where i started again my heart and got released.

I figured i would share this in realtion to the idea that we exist seperately from the physical aspect of our being. I believe in my experiences in different states of being that we are both existing in oneness and in duality. I have seen realitty become united to singular consciousness, and be divided into duality, and i believe that both aspects create the whole, very much like a triange that can be seen as started from a single point and spanning into different vectors, and while still connected the apex, has branched off to go its own unique way. a multi-singularity.

[Johnny]

I quote Dr Peter Della Santina

It is because emptiness reveals and expresses the relativity of
all phenomena that it becomes the key to understanding nonduality.
We can see how recognition of the relativity – and subsequent
transcendence – of opposites is tantamount to the perception
of nonduality, or non-differentiation.
At this point we come to the central Mahayana doctrine of
the nonduality, or non-differentiation, of samsara and nirvana.
is is indicated in the Heart Sutra when Avalokiteshvara says
that form is not different from emptiness and emptiness is not
different from form. e other aggregates, too, are not different
from emptiness, and emptiness is not different from the aggregates.
us samsara and nirvana, the aggregates and emptiness,
phenomena and the unconditioned, the conditioned and the
transcendental are all alternatives that are relative to each other:
they have no independent existence. Indeed, because they are
relative to each other, they are, each of them, ultimately unreal
and empty. Hence the duality of samsara and nirvana is dissolved
in the vision of emptiness. Emptiness is the way out of all
extremes, even the extremes of samsara and nirvana. From this and other teachers I have always come to understand how the relationship between dualism (Samsara), The Practice of the way out (Noble eightfold path) and Nondualism (Nirvana) is understood in a dualistic fashion.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/tr...ightenment.pdf