Over 100 definitions, descriptions, and discussions

Update August 26, 2009 and continuously since then

Send submissions to jerry "at" nonduality.com

Jerry Katz, editor

CONTENTS

"Advaita Vedanta, or the Teaching of Nonduality, is that which is expounded by Ribhu, Sri Dattatreya (the Avadhuta), Sri Ashtavakra, Sri Sankara, Sri Ramana Maharshi, and many other great sages. It reveals the utter absence of any differentiation between Atman (the Self) and Brahman. It is the revelation of Reality without even a trace of notional superimpositions. The entire Ribhu Gita gives an exposition -- a veritable scripture -- of Advaita Vedanta."

"ATMAN. The Self. The Self is one and universal, different from the body, sensory organs, senses, mind, intelligence, inner senses, and such others, remaining only as a witness to the activities of these and unsullied by them. The Self is of the nature of Being-Consciousness-Bliss, self-luminous, of the nature of Knowledge, needing no other knowledge to know it. The Self is without desire or hatred, fear or sorrow, quality or activity, form, change or blemish. It is immaculate, indivisible, all-pervasive, and infinite. The Self and Brahman are one."

"BRAHMAN. A Sanskrit word formed from the root brmh, which means growth, and the suffix man, which signifies an absence of limitation (in space or time). Thus, Brahman means that which is absolutely the greatest. Brahman, according to the Masters of Advaita, is said to be known through Vedic texts, primarily the Upanishads, which are considered a valid means of knowledge, as a direct perception.

"Brahman is the only Reality; it is beyond definition in words, the range of sensory perceptions, and the human mind. It is conceived to be boundless Being, ever existent, limitless in space and time, immutable, immaculate, devoid of qualities, attributes, name, or form. It is not subject to birth, continuation, growth, maturity, decay and dissolution, and has nothing similar to it and nothing different from it. It is also described as pure Knowledge.

"It is also regarded as both the efficient and material cause of the visible universe, the all-pervading spirit of the universe, the essence from which all beings are produced and into which they are absorbed. The entire phenomenal world of beings, qualities, actions, all manifestations, and so on, is said to be an illusory superimposition on the imperishable substratum, which is Brahman.

"The Upanishads also identify Brahman with the Universal Self. What Brahman, the only Reality, is and, more importantly, what Brahman, the only Reality, is not is discussed in the entire text of the Song of Ribhu."

Advaita (Sanskrit) [from a not + dvaita dual from dvi two] Nondual; the Advaita or nondualistic form of Vedanta [from veda knowledge + anta end] expounded by Sankaracharya teaches the oneness of Brahman or the paramatman of the universe with the human spirit-soul or jivatman, and the identity of spirit and matter; also that the divine spirit of the universe is the all-efficient, all-productive cause of the periodic coming into being, continuance, and dissolutions of the universe; and that this divine cosmic spirit is the ultimate truth and sole reality -- hence the term advaita (without a second). All else is maya, in proportion to its distance from the divine source.

The greatest initiates and yogis since Sankaracharya's time are reputed to have come from the ranks of the Advaita-Vedantists. "Yet the root philosophy of both Adwaita and Buddhist scholars is identical, and both have the same respect for animal life, for both believe that every creature on earth, however small and humble, 'is an immortal portion of the immortal matter' -- for matter with them has quite another significance than it has with either Christian or materialist -- and that every creature is subject to Karma" (SD 1:636; cf 2:637).

Advaitin or Advaita-Vedantist Also Advaitee. An adherent of the Advaita philosophy.

Advaya (Sanskrit) [from a not + dvi two] Not two, without a second; unique. As a masculine noun, name of a buddha. As a neuter noun, nonduality, unity, identity -- especially as applied to Brahman -- with the universe, or of spirit and matter; hence ultimate truth.

Nondualism: Literally the following of a philosophy of non-duality, practitioners follow the Upanishad tradition through the path of wisdom, jnana yoga, as founded by Badarayana and expounded by Sankara. They allow no duality between creator and created - all are reflections or manifestations of the one, which is not and cannot be an object of sense ("not this, not this") but which is the underlying reality or consciousness, the subject of which all else is the object ("thou art that"). It is through identification with the body and the bodily senses that the gross universe is seen as reality. In a state of ignorance, an idea (the world of manifest objects) is superimposed on true reality (Brahman). By the removal of ignorance - avidya - the Self, the vital principle, the Atman, comes to be seen as identical with the first principle, the all-pervading power, the Brahman.

Non-duality is not meant to imply simply one-ness; the distinction between what is and what is not is to be found in the permanence or changeableness of what is being considered. That which observes does not change with what is observed, the ultimate being perception or consciousness itself which is unchanging. Rationally it is clear that there can be no being beyond consciousness and that consciousness and real existence are inseparable. Consciousness and "is-ness" are Brahman. It is the deluded sense of separation from Brahman, of separate individuality, which is the cause of pleasure and pain; identification with Brahman is bliss.

Refs
Wisdom of the Vedas (Chatterji, J C, 1980);
Advaita Vedanta: a philosophical reconstruction (Deutsch, Eliot, 1969);
The Secret Teachings of the Vedas: the eastern answers to the mysteries of life (Knapp, Stephen, 1991);
The Integral Advaitism of Sri Aurobindo (Misra, Ram Shankas, 1957);
The Ten Principal Upanishads (Purohit, Swami Shree and Yeats, W B);
Methods of Knowledge According to Advaita Vedanta (Satprakashananda, Swami, 1975).

"Namu Amida Butsu" sums up nonduality. "Namu" is the ego-self. "Amida" is the boundless light of Wisdom and life of Compassion that embraces without exclusion. "Butsu" is the Buddha, in whom we take refuge.

Together this is the Name-that-calls. Nonduality is realized when we discover how essential self-power derived from knowledge of the self and intellect is to Other power, yet that Other power is greater than the ego-self and its misuse of self-power.

Beyond good and evil, there is the greater Good. Beyond the limits of our passions, there is only the Name-that-calls.

This is the essence of non-dualism in Shin Buddhism. Thus the name of Jodo Shinshu is translated as "The True Essence of the Pure Land Way", the fulfillment of non-duality. Stephen H. Kawamoto

Woven reflections of silence and stillness  

Bede Griffiths: A Life in Dialogue (on Christian Advaita)

Karen Osborne Pope discusses 'Ecofeminist alternatives to interpreting the World'...

In a dualistic world view, you might have femininity/ nature/body/emotion/connectedness/receptivity/the-private-sphere -vs.- masculinity/culture/ mind(spirit)/reason/autonomy /aggressiveness/the-public-sphere.

Ecofeminist philosophers consider various alternative conceptualizations of a relational, interdependent understanding of reality.

Charlene Spretnak defines her philosophical radical nonduality as "the existence of unitive dimensions of being, a gestalt of a subtle, unitary field of form, motion, space, and time."

Rationalism denies organicism: if you think you can't feel The self as separate rejects the unitive notion of being "one with the universe" According to Spretnak, nonduality "mean(s) a dynamic system of relations wherein any particular manifestation functions simultaneously as a distinct part AND the unbroken whole. The parts are not derivative of the whole, nor vice versa. Each aspect constitutes the other. " Metaphors of a web or a net are often used by nondualists, but they seem to me not quite dynamic enough to convey subtle processes of wholeness and diversity, of nonduality and particularity.

"Advaita" in Sanskrit means "Non-Duality." This is a difficult concept for most people as we look about us and see multiple objects. But what we see are only transformations not permanent forms, whether we are speaking of a chair, a tree, or a human being. Each exists provisionally, but is certainly not lasting. One day the tree may become the chair and the human body will be eaten by worms. The "I" that observes all this may disappear and become another "I". To bank on permanence is to promote suffering. When we perform T'ai Chi Chih properly we feel the results. Since we are, essentially, a conflux of moving energies, stimulating and balancing the Intrinsic Energy (CHI) affects our whole being. The effects seem to be personal, but, in truth, they are widespread. Just as our Enlightenment is "Saving All Beings", so does the balancing of the Universal Energy affect both the outer and the inner. So many students have written me about how their lives have changed with the practice of T'ai Chi Chih! Those who truly practice note that their attitudes change--and others notice it, too. We do not heal symptoms; we become "whole". So, to practice regularly and sincerely is to promote the positive in this world; we reap the benefits. This is "Advaita" in action.

Now Advaita is not the same as is usually meant by Monism ,nor is it some catch-word to avoid difficulties.The word means , of course , Not-Two,but this is not the equivalent for One , though to the casual thinker it is not easy to see where the differences lies. But if we call it Monism then premising one we infer a whole series , one,two,three etc. Not such series actually exists , there is just Not-Two.

When we see things we see duality ; in one sense this duality is not unreal , it is only unreal in the sense that there is Not-Two. It is there in appearance but yet is imparmanent and fleeting.

This fleeting manifestation is called Maya , which is often taken to mean illusion, but actually means "that which is not," or which sets a limit to the limitless. In fact everything we sense (everything being in the mind , and the senses only the instrument of the mind. )

For as a matter of fact there is no illusion, only impermanence.

www.horai.asn.au/index.htm (link no longer works)

The Buddha, from his Centre of All-Knowledge, or sarvatha-jnana, can contemplate all things simultaneously in the Eternal Present. The Metaphysical is only apparently opposed to the physical, for in reality it subsumes its contrary. To the outlook of an Enlightened One, Nirvana is Samsara and Samsara is Nirvana; but to the unenlightened, the nonduality of these opposites has not yet been realized and so such schematic devices and distinctive categories still have their uses as upaya, or skilful means for leading to that Realization. Just as Earth acts outwardly, whereas the influence of Heaven is from within, so in the natural world beauty is external, whilst it is the inmost quality of the Divine. Thus the lowest level of sensory beauty should be regarded as an aspect of Supernal Beauty. The spiritual is not in opposition to the sensory: it is the despiritualized secular world alone that is illusory and false.

This nonduality of Samsara and Nirvana is brought out by a famous passage in the Heart of Transcendental Wisdom Sutra, the Prajnaparamita-hrdaya-sutra (called Hannya Shingyo in Japanese): ‘Form is Void and Void is Form; what is Void that is Form, and what is Form that is Void; Form is no other than Void and Void is no other than Form’. This Mahayana view, which was theoretically developed in the Madhyamaka dialectic of Nagarjuna, has long been acclimatized in China and has provided the Metaphysical foundation for most schools of Japanese Buddhism.

Non duality is the _return or revival of Self_ gene poole

The 'Nondual' perspective does not _abolish_ "duality", it _resolves_ it instead.... gene poole

The nondual perspective is to me, the voluntary adoption of the attitude which allows surrender of personal identity. gene poole

I see nonduality not as a destination or goal, but rather a quite marvelous "effect" of living a life of freedom. melody anderson

Nonduality is the clear pool of awareness that remains once the 'white-water' of emotion (and emotional conflict) has ended. Melody Anderson

Defining nondualism is like adding legs to a snake. Dan Berkow

Nonduality can't be something that is used. It can't be employed at one time and not at another. Nonduality is what every moment of space-time-experience arises from and returns to. It is never absent from any moment of space-time-experience. It has no use, no value, from the usual perspectives of forming meaning and value. Dan Berkow

The very meaning of NonDualism is that God is not separate from creation, from All That Is but instead is identical with it. dave hodges

Nondualism: we're all the same. formerly shy

In the world of duality some entities are said to be "too good to be true." However, those who live in the nondualistic state of consciousness beyond "good and evil" are actually "too true to be 'good.'" karczewski

For me.... (nonduality) simply means.... being one with your duality. tg

nonduality=thoughtless reality. stan alari

Keep bumping into-I AM. This appears to be a limitation of the English language requiring a noun to put a verb in motion. Who is this I that I am? Non- duality would simply be: AM rusty

I have determined that nondualism is a point of view. It is one that I sometimes choose to see and sometimes not. It is not death and it is not nirvana. A point of view. All we need. And, on another hand, it is just a word. Slackeaux

Nonduality isn't about concepts; it is about getting rid of concepts, including a concept of absolute. Jan Barendrecht

nonduality could be called the journey to resolve the relation between you, the other sentient beings and the objects, for once and forever. Jan Barendrecht

In a nondual state there are no opposites. There is neither an awareness ofbeing passive nor an awareness of being active; awareness without content comes near. In a nondual state there is no contradiction or paradox; common language fails in its ability to describe events from a nondual perspective. The sense of "I am the doer" is permanently absent as is the sense of "I am not the doer"; what comes near is "things being done" as there is no "feeling" of I and there is no experiencer. Jan Barendrecht

From the nondual perspective there is nothing to seek and transformations will be secondary effects. From the perspective of "ego", only when seeking is forgotten one will recognize what was never lost; on gradual awakening transformations can be painful as one's focus seems to be shifting or at times seems to be absent. Jan Barendrecht

Considering the essence of Vedanta, the view that Atman is Brahman, in Western language this would boil down to: Nondualism is the view that immanence and transcendence are the same. Eventually with the explanation, "view" can become "fact", which is the nondual path. Jan Barendrecht

Nonduality as the common platform is the state where self is no more. This is what unites all methods, paths and the "self-styled". As a matter of fact, this is what (this) website is conveying already by its diversity. It is the idea of a bouquet of different flowers standing in one vase and sipping the same water. Jan Barendrecht

When I leave this digital domain and all the abstractions of thought and belief in this or that and wonder out amongst the giant oaks and beautiful maples, that is when I truly feel that everything is connected and I have a visceral experience of nonduality. Raven McCloud

Put in simple language, the unceasing "experience" of one's "real nature" is nondualism. There is neither an "in" nor an "out", an "up" or a "down", "on" or "off". -unknown list contributor

If duality might be compared to a (endlessly turning) wheel, nonduality might be more like an 'eel.' The more you try to grasp it, the faster it slips through your fingers and disappears. The solution is to remove both the grasper and the grasping from the equation. Then you ARE the eel, and nothing more need ever be said on the topic. Tim Gerchmez

Nonduality is the only state there really is, and is as natural as breathing. To me, there is not a single "danger" in all of existence. To look at anything on "the path" as "dangerous" is to invite constriction and fear, both of which can be "trip-ups" in their own right. A simple, strong reminder to be aware and mindful at all times is all that is needed. Tim Gerchmez

Nonduality is the natural state of reality, not a religion or cult or escape. Tim Gerchmez

"Make a coin with only one side. Show it to me. That's non-duality." She'Tara

Actually, in non-duality you are asked to see a coin having *no* sides. "Only one" is begging the question of another, ad absurdum. "Sides" is an arbitrary interpretation of the coin's suchness. The coin, as such and in itself, is being a whole coin, and has no "sides". Phil Burton

What if "nonduality" doesn't mean any Thing? If it "meant" some Thing then that Thing would be marked by comparison and contrast -- a whim of thought. Thinking about "nonduality" is just rampant word association -- there is just no object that corresponds to the mental notion. What one speaks of here in this discussion as "nonduality" is just an approach to the essence of Being-as-such -- a verbal dance around the Silence. Today there were many thoughts about "consciousness." Then suddenly thought came up short and stopped in its tracks. "Consciousness" refers to nothing but That which refers. It is just a rather pale cipher for the totality of lived perception. Thus, one says that All is Consciousness. Even a gray, overcast day is full of living color. Phil Burton

Nondualism: "The awareness in which I find myself and of which my awareness is a part, is the awareness of that which some of us call God or Brahman." That Thou Art. Max

if you believe that you have (or are) an enduring (immortal) soul then that is duality. If this belief is not held, that is nondual. When I look for my soul, all I can finally see is the whole of existence, the totality of the perceivable. I have no way of knowing where to draw a line so as to say "This side is me, that side is not me". So nonduality is not a belief, rather it is the absence of belief. Andrew Macnab

There is not a separate parameter being aware of existence - not even a subtle projection of an imense diffused rarefied awareness. Matter gets thinner and thinner and more intelligent, but when it gets to the point of perception itself -- it vanishes. Awareness is the content, without another....and i feel this is the meaning of non-duality. Ivan

Hmmm... A definition for "nonduality"? How can you define the undefinable? I think I'll go play. Spydir K

nonduality: that which remains when dueling dualists are done dancing dueling-dualing duets. James Traverse

Adwaita can only be realised on Moksha until then it is an impractible concept in a dualistic illusion. One still has to fight life's battles and complete one's karma no matter how non-dualistic one is. If one finds the place of duality in oneself one will find adwaita. Tony O'Clery

Nonduality for me doesn´t mean to have no feelings. Just the other way around to be total alive and authentic. Joanna

People imagine that non-duality means perfect bliss, yet my experience of non-duality was a paradoxical fusion of all opposites: ecstasy/agony, joy/sorrow, existence/nonexistence, form/formlessness, abundance/desolation. . . Non-duality isn't the absence of things we don't like, but the presence of everything on all-levels and no-levels simultaneously. All One equals alone equals all-one equals alone equals all-one in a never-ending cosmic spiral-loop.El Collie

In love, there is only love, and that is the nonduality. To me, nonduality means the state of perpetual motion, like a river, of love, through the absence of love, toward love's source, till it reaches the ocean of love. And back again. A never ending cycle. Sky

I see NONDUALITY as the Absolute REality. To me NONDUALITY is Awareness not aware of Itself. As long as I am aware of being conscious, I am not Absolute REality and so am only a Dreamer dreaming all this. (Or Consciousness writing the play.) The Dreamer dreaming is in Dualitly as far as I am concerned. The highest state of awareness seems to be Consciousness aware of itself or I AM. If I were in Nonduality, I would not be writing this. Anyway, it's all speculation and everything I say is just a story...I sound like I'm serious but I have to smile at my attempt to keep my story going. Do you watch Voyager? The doctor on the ship is hologram and knows he is not "real", an image only, but behaves as if her were real and all the crew members treat him as real. I feel like the doctor.
Mary Salequi

To me, nondualism means we no longer stand at dawn to shoot each other down with archaic emotional pistols. Mark Otter

Shakti is nonduality in drag... (okay, unadorned...) Mark Otter

NONDUALITY: nothing exists completely separate or independent of anything else. Christopher Chase

Nothing need vanish for one to realize that they *are* nonduality. It is a simple act of recognition. Nonduality, as pure being absolute, exists in every moment of awareness. In the simplest *and* the most complex of human experience, the Self shines the same, without effort or attachment to whatever is going on "around" it. Nonduality isn't a "place" our minds go to, it *is* the very essence of who we are. Jody

The meditation/contemplation practice of Advaita Vedanta is a process whereby we reject anything that is not the Self. We are told over and over again that the Self, or Atman is like *nothing* we can think of. We are also told that the Self is inside us. So if we look for something inside us that is like *nothing* we can think of, we should be able to find our way back to our Self, which is really just *us* (the Self) fettered by an idea of "me". Jody

Nondualism is the point between existence and non-existence. Similar to the concept of 'zero' Modesty Blaize

Nondualism is the the grasp by consciousness that there is senior existencebeyond dichotomy. Nonduality is the outershell of Time-Space existence. Nondualism is the ALL beyond and before the particle; it is the ONE and zero contained on both sides of polarity, the UNI before all form. Vanna Bonta

The doctrine of nonduality looks down on all effort towards realization. Nonduality doctrine is the very advanced stage of the spiritual quest, a stage beyond effort. But, while one remains identified with thoughts of nonduality and has not had experential glimpses of the truth, one would be better off investigating the various forms of subtle effort which lead to stillness of mind. Roger Isaacs

The greatest myth perpetuated by religions of all stripes is that we are somehow separate from God. In truth, we are not! The myth on this list is that we are dual and must discover the truth about non-duality. Therefore we keep telling each other how to do it and what we must do or not do to realize IT. Michael Read
Funny indeed - especially when finding out that the absence of separation isn't necessarily the same as unconditional happiness. Nonduality is easy - understanding that there is no separation. The joke is that unconditional happiness cannot be understood - not even experienced. Not preaching but laughing, Jan Barendrecht

Nonduality: Much ado about nothing. Ed Arrons

Nonduality is about the evolvement of thinking without boundaries... seeing the universe in all things, coming to understand the totality of all things and the deep interrelatedness of it all. Zenbob

Imagine that you are surrounded by all the images of good and bad in you and your life. People, places, things, beliefs, emotions, experiences, memories, etc. Now imagine that you are not affected by any of this and that none of this has anything to do with who you are. This is a non-dualistic view of life. This is also Enlightenment. This is how ultimate Peace and Serenity is discovered. How you can live in the Flow all the time. This is the True nature of the Universe, the Unified Field, God.
http://www.nondualism.com (link no longer works)

That condition of 'nonduality' cannot be an object of contemplation or discussion. As soon as something is discussed, contemplated, or argued for, it becomes that which is 'dual,' a concept or an idea. There may be many aspects of 'Truth' or living which are capable of being discussed in various forums, but in and of itself that condition cannot be immediately a topic. There is nothing particularly mysterious about this fact, which has been oft noted, but rarely accepted. Petros

Nondualism is a mind that no longer needs to analyze reality into its essential components. Reality presents itself as a seamless unity. It is the movements of mind that define conflicts and differences that need to be resolved. Nondualism is not a mind of negation. It is a mind that no longer makes positive assertions, having come to realize that such assertions are the underlying creative basis of manifold existence. It is a mind that, out of its compassion for those who suffer, chooses to come to rest. John Bird

Oral nondualism seems to be "talking the talk", an easy thing for most and a sneaky little trap when we can do it eloquently. Then there is the matter of "walking the walk". However i dont think nondualism is something that we do or not do. It isnt something that we can practice. There is no such thing as nondualistic activities as opposed to dualistic activities. Nonduality is simply the context of all manifestation. There is however enlightened duality. Matthew Files

...to get a taste of what nonduality is one has to have a silent base from daily meditation practice and a desire to know some how what it means to transcend the self to be come oneself by self observation, present moment practice. Other than this if there is no transformation and living from a selfless state, all the nonduality lingo is really in vain. The planet is doomed. People will marry and divorce on more frequent basis, Nihilist mind will take over, Chaos and the most primal instinct will run rampant, after all....Hell there is nothing to gain nor lose. Why don't we just have our selves a pleasent Babylonian Orgy. A C Crowley can be the bartender too. Alan Kuntz

Non-duality, in discussion, does become a belief system....and it contains all the elements of the cultural basket in which it is carried...in our case, the threads of western modalities on individuality, personal power and self-worth, hierarchy, authority, etc. Of its nature, non-duality as a state of mind, is concerned with none of those things.....it is simply the natural state of being which does not compare, evaluate, divide, intellectualize or even understand; it simply throbs to the rhythm of the universe, resonates with, not against....as a process of exploring that state of mind we find that resonating against points us toward resonance with....there are no oppositions...only the perception of opposition. Kristi Shelloner

The nondual perspective, as I see it, and I am flawed, is: being/becoming ...seeking/finding ... knocking/opening ... each a singular idea. When one 'tires' of 'endless' seeking; one finds. When one 'tires' of 'endless' knocking; one sees the door is open. Tim Harris

Nondualism speaks of the interval between yin and yang, and is residence in the 'neither this nor not this'. The interval is not a separate reality. It is reality. Jerry Katz

Nonduality isn't about that, and it isn't about a lot of things, and it isn't about nonduality at all. Jerry Katz

Nonduality includes the notion that words can be harmful indeed, that nothing is understood, could care less about manifestations of some conceptual infinite and nonduality is perfectly fine without transcendence of any sort. Nonduality is total embrace, and embraces every new concept, in order to remain nondual. This is sometimes referred to as love as well. --Mira (Mirror)

Scientific proof of non-duality?

Simple. Look at anything, anything at all, at the subatomic level and there is no difference! Under the most powerful microscopes everything looks the same. Whether it is a piece of orange, a piece of gold, a piece of air or a piece human being. The different arrangements of the subatomic particles determines what eventually a thing will look like!

It is like concrete buildings. They may look different but they are all made of sand, cement and stones.

Isn't it the same with non-dualism? If you look deep down, where everything is 'still' there is no dualism! Everything is [looks] the same?
--Jan Seeker

Think of Nonduality
What’s that?
Let me look into my dictionary
Wait a minute
There doesn’t appear to be such a word
So I look up Duality
Twofold: Mind and Spirit
Evil and Good
Hmmmmmmmm.
That means it is wholesome
Unlike Duality
Full, Wholesome, Unitary
This Ultimate
Is what?
I do not know
For how can I know
That which I cannot
That which has brought me here
To play the game of dualism
To understand
In order to Just Be It
Or Leave It
I still do not know.
--Rashmi Moorjani

Non-duality: means not two. Is the nature of unity. In such an experience, the individual transcends personal boundaries (ego) and merge with everything beyond themself via direct connection with the greater presence of Consciousness that lies not just within the individual, but also beyond. From such, there no longer appears to be a difference or distinction between the individual (subject/observer) and the experienced universe (object/observed). Observer and the observed become one and the same. The world beyond individuality is no longer separate, it is now part of them. Reality no longer appears to be relative, separated or fragmented, but rather an undivided boundless totality is realized as the larger, all encompasing Absolute Nature. --Spencer Perdriau

Nonduality is an ordinary fact of everyday life for some thirty years and the way how Buddhism describes it comes very close. The car is being driven, the walk is undertaken, this reply is being written and there is nobody pondering over what exactly to write. It is so simple and ordinary that anyone writing a book about it is considered suspect of either putting existing theory into "own' words or relating to experiences like samadhis. Sahaja samadhi isn't a samadhi in the ordinary sense as one "doesn't come out of it". What's more, as this wasn't an achievement but came naturally in the course of events, instead of following scriptures and lineage, it was just a matter of comparing the various existing expressions and selecting what comes nearest. Strictly speaking, ordinary language with "I", "me", "mine" and "you" means continuous lying as the meaning of these words is lost forever. But lies is what present day society is all about; who cares :) So it is obvious there is neither negation nor affirmation, neither I nor you, neither nothingness nor fullness; neither nirvana nor samsara. Or put simply: a painting of a mango won't satisfy one's appetite and the description of the mango on the painting doesn't stimulate the appetite for those, not knowing the taste of mangos. The real question of course is, without having met a picture of a mango, how would one describe the taste of nonduality? So it comes to no surprise that everyone raised in a 'system' will affirm that system, confirming the dictum "as you meditate, so you become". The Buddha was one of the few exceptions
...
Strictly speaking, nondualism is knowing one's real nature. Not knowing intellectually but by "experience" (for the lack of an appropriate expression). Although the transformations could be seen as "peeling the onion", leaving one's real nature without the slightest veil, there's more to it than just peeling the onion. Somewhere I came across the dictum "fear is the main weakness of the flesh". For an a-regenerate, the fear consists of loosing the body. For a regenerate, the fear is gone but there is a reaction, the "jump" to the Immovable. When transformations are completed, the "jump" consists of closing the eyes and ceasing to breathe. This means a transformation has to take place to accommodate the body-mind so that nothing happening to it will subjectively change anything or cause pain etc..
...
This bypasses the entire field of siddhis, as they are a mere spin-off. From the perspective of "peeling" however, siddhis wouldn't arise but from the perspective of transformations the siddhis can even be acquired (not recommended).
...
From the nondual perspective there is nothing to seek and transformations will be secondary effects. From the perspective of "ego", only when seeking is forgotten one will recognize what was never lost; on gradual awakening transformations can be painful as one's focus seems to be shifting or at times seems to be absent.
...
Non-duality isn't experienced. All experience has a beginning and an end; one's real nature hasn't. As this real nature doesn't depend on anything, no duality is required. There doesn't have to be a one - a symbol for infinity is zero (a one bent into a circle). Another "explanation" is that one's real nature is pure consciousness which is the basis for everything, so what one observes are but its manifestations. It is the analogy that seeing the moon reflected in thousand mirrors doesn't make a thousand moons.
...
If the word would have been singularity (condition of being one) instead of nonduality, would you have arrived at the idea of negation? The "official" meaning of nonduality is: "the interconnectedness of everything, which is founded in the singularity of the transcendental Reality". It is quite possible to arrive at the singularity by what is called a dualistic path; the Sufi Hallaj is an example. "Negate" (neti-neti, not this, not that) is a tool of the nondual path. There is ambiguity over the meaning of a nondualist; my proposal is to call a practitioner of the nondual path a nondualist and one "arrived" at the singularity a "singularist" or a "singularian". As it is a new word, no misunderstanding is possible.
...
Because of the Christian tradition, duality is accepted as a "norm" and as long as one experiences or can be the witness there is no contradiction. Even a small glimpse of oneness will change this. Desire for Oneness, Truth, Love, it sinks very deeply and does its work. It is an act of Grace that there is no escape from Oneness. Yet there are dualists, acknowledging the states of Self-realization and liberation, but giving a dual interpretation (Madhva philosophy) that is also based on Vedanta. In the Patanjali sutras nondualism isn't mentioned, although one "comes out" as a nondualist. Surrender could be called practical nondualism, because the "I" is put to inactivity. It is perceived as duality because the "I" still is present and when the "I" starts to loosen its grip, this dissolving "I" will experience Love. What is important, is if and how one's daily life is influenced, either by awareness of "I AM", or by surrender etc. Does this in turn influence meditation?
...
I hope this clears misunderstandings about samadhis and the impression they leave on the mind. It has become very obvious that Patanjali, describing liberation as a succession of transformations, is right; after each transformation, functioning is different from the 'before'. Rightly, Patanjali avoids the entire discussion of dualism - the non-dual state is natural and unavoidable, if one's progression allows it. So there is hope for everyone.
...
Even to me the sky always is looking different. The hue is never the same; it depends on the position of the sun, the convection in the upper atmosphere and the time of year to name a few variables.. Compared to the end of June, the sunlight now has a red-shift because of the lower angle of incidence. If you would be an empath, you would know how sensitive your animals are and how they are responding even when the eyes don't detect it. Interpretation is always dependent on the input from the limited senses and the knowledge in the mind. So one cannot deny the existence of sentient beings and objects; nonduality could be called the journey to resolve the relation between you, the other sentient beings and the objects, for once and forever.
...
The dictionary says: Religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action shared by a group that gives members an object of devotion; a code of ethics governing personal and social conduct; and a frame of reference relating individuals to their group and the universe. A nondualist doesn't have an object of devotion; this would be dualism. A code of ethics and a frame of reference, yes, but it serves as a reminder to: what is a nondualist? Someone following a nondual path, someone in a permanent nondual state or someone aspiring such a state? The question isn't theoretical; one code of ethics is to forsake the first nondual state (nirvana) until all sentient beings are enlightened. Remains the frame of reference - is it Self or is it Void? If the first group is called A-voiders, the second group will be named Voiders - sounds almost like the days of old with the debates between Advaitas and Buddhists (in these modern times, why not soccer games instead of debates?). Perhaps being is common to all.
...
Duality: change can only be observed when something else is changing differently - one event serving as the reference for another event. The passing of time will be innerly observed (felt) when one's ever changing mind (with moods) is the reference. From duality to nonduality: transformation of sentient being into unlimited being (called God, Love, Bliss, Void - depending on one's frame of reference). *
Nonduality: A change can only be observed when something is unchanging - all events are referenced to the unchanging. The experience of time passing by will cease when the unchanging becomes the "reference".

* The transformation also implies one's insight and knowledge will steadily change - illustrated nicely by the following excerpt:
...
The beauty of nondual states is the absence of concepts. It is an obstacle to think some concepts have to be mastered. Get rid of concepts - they are fetters. We all know the "expected" behavior of saints and yogis. It is the Eastern concept of saintliness. Now look how some are behaving in the West - all of a sudden, they are falling prey to what we call "temptations". Are they "lesser" saints and yogis because of it? No, they just couldn't live up anymore to their cultural concepts of "saintly" behavior. Everything "swept under the carpet" will break loose when it is least expected.
...
Nonduality comes from a time when scientists used to "attain" a nondual state (there are many). In a nondual state, there is no "I" in the form of experiencer or observer. It is a known fact that sense perception is possible without being conscious of it; retrieval is possible under hypnosis. In a nondual state, this "unconscious recorder" is the normal mode of perception - perceiving without experiencer. This development is often thought to be a side-effect of Kundalini and starts with things like over-active senses. The "I" is only basic for self-preservation of beings below a certain level of self-consciousness. When self-consciousness exceeds this level, the species will self-destruct unless the members "destroy" self (the "I"). Strange as it may seem, Self-realization is a "built-in" necessity for survival of the species. A nondual state could be called a state of "unconditional well-being" so "world" and "other" beings are treated very differently. Unless one "attains" nirvana at an early age, it is likely one will have a partner and offspring; many Indian saints, sages and even the Buddha had. When Buddhism was flowering, nirvana (with substratum remaining) was quite normal for householders.
...
If the word would have been singularity (condition of being one) instead of nonduality, would you have arrived at the idea of negation? The "official" meaning of nonduality is: "the interconnectedness of everything, which is founded in the singularity of the transcendental Reality". It is quite possible to arrive at the singularity by what is called a dualistic path; the Sufi Hallaj is an example. "Negate" (neti-neti, not this, not that) is a tool of the nondual path. There is ambiguity over the meaning of a nondualist; my proposal is to call a practitioner of the nondual path a nondualist and one "arrived" at the singularity a "singularist" or a "singularian". As it is a new word, no misunderstanding is possible.

To be frank would be dishonest as I AM. I have nothing really to say about nonduality, so perhaps I'll humbly offer some perception-altering distractions in which you are free to find "wisdom" if you find such pursuits entertaining. A page on this site credited to the name "Harsha" contained the phrase "You are already Wide Awake!" So what. I am not a Sage. I am not even ordinary. I AM means nothing to me. If you find wisdom in these words, then why are you reading them? If you want my opinion, I will NOT give it to you, as your own are causing you enough problems as it is. However I will offer advice freely as I find it confusing and would rather dispense it. But for wisdom... sorry, you are on your own. What makes 'non-duality' so special? As if there were an option...'Here' is a word of advice. I have but one mission in life and that is to finish this sentence. Now that I have completed that one, I would like to be reincarnated as the next sentence. The greatest tradeoff of living life in full awareness is missing out on what you aren't paying attention to. The greatest pity is that you don't even notice. So if I spend every moment obsessed with worries, regrets, and distractions, do I not have Buddha nature? Aleister Crowley is known for quoting, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Now I am too. 'Non-violence' is indeed the supreme principle. Your demons cannot hurt you, because there are no demons. You are free to believe as you wish, so long as it is the truth. Why would you want to be a sage, when there are so many other valid career options? The perception that sages are more ordinary than the rest of us can lead to a profound sense of confusion. Have compassion for sages - they know not what they do. I would like to be remembered as someone long forgotten. I am you in another life. In my age I frequently forget details of my past, but they soon reappear, much to my dismay. Call it karma. Forgive me - I haven't had an original memory in several seconds. I can't seem to shake my attachment to this language thing. When I went blank a moment ago, I thought "Yes!" so I'm still typing in English. Dang. So, like, I'm reading this email, right?...and I'm thinking to this person "What an idiot! You have no clue!" And then I remember I'm proofreading what I wrote myself just a minute ago. Funny that it's so easy to forget who I'm criticizing from moment to moment, and I just chalk it up to self-consciousness. I need to have more compassion for myself... we're all one afterall. Everything is connected by utter randomness. Here'a controversial thought to ponder. This just goes to show what can happen when you place consideration of others' words above your own. Who is the voice in your head. The attainment of nondual awareness has already happened many times when you weren't looking. The only way my words are relevant to your search is that you know you are reading them. Deal with it. Let's face it - nonduality is a no-brainer. It takes no effort to experience. Everyone does it all the time without noticing. Yet it's all anyone yaps about. If you doubt me, shut up, smile, and just look for yourself. "So baby, like what are you doing when you're not paying attention?" Now. That has nothing to do with nonduality. Perhaps there is nothing more to this than you like to think'. Yes, my love, it is true I do not want to hear that my words have inspired you, that they have moved you, that they have given you meaning. Mere words cannot change they way you are, and they can give you nothing that you have not already. Please forget my words, and I will do what I must, my love, to help you forget me. Forget what was said. I grant you 'this'. Are you happy? Are you really happy? Your answer is of concern. If you are still reading, be assured, from the depths of my heart that I haven't noticed. I cannot help but to care enough about you not to. Love is indeed the supreme principle. Smile.

On the one hand non-duality implies that there is no becoming, there is no continuity to I, there is nowhere that psychological patterns can hold. This is true and valid for Now. From non-duality the current events are seen for what they are and released from their psychlogical pattern forming impact through the nature of the seeing itself. But what happens with past patterns, especially the wounding ones? There is some problem here because they cannot be seen as "non-existing thought patterns" by the one that was hurt, because he is not here anymore. So the wound and the wounded are tied up, and it seems that there is no way out. I found it very helpful to look at past wounds as non-separate from the entity that was hurt - and do nothing. Not even naming what is happening. This is sometimes very emotional, but somehow I have found myself emerging out of this a bit cleaner and lighter.

Whatever can be undermined is not Self-Existent and Real. Therefore, while Oneness and Non-Duality are useful concepts, there is no point in holding on to them as substantial. To one who Knows the Self, the question of detachment is moot. If dualism is sought to be rejected as a philosophy, it only proves and reinforces dualism. In order to reject something, there must be the rejecter, the process of rejecting, and that which is rejected. So Truly Great Sages emphasize a Deep Acceptance of Divine Love and Awareness. This Acceptance leads to Stillness and Silence. When All concepts, (including that of detachment, non-duality, rejecting duality, etc.) vanish, Reality is experienced as It is in Absolute Nakedness. It is only the inner core of One's Own Being. It Is What You Already Are. This is the ancient message of the Sages. We renew this Message by knowing the Reality of the Self that We Are. Self-awareness and Satsanga facilitate Self-Recognition and Realization.

There's no way *not* to live non-duality -- everyone is being lived this way all the time, even if we think we're not. This is the teaching of non-duality. Non-duality is not something that we must make true. It can't NOT be so.

Here are some slice-of-life descriptions of experience that you might call mine, say in the last week. And how the being lived has a certain sweet fragrance that isn't an experience. Skye and I once had a few wonderful slice-of-life exchanges like this, and I still remember them clearly.

Working, commuting on a crowded, hot, muggy, humid subway. Teaching computers, having to talk 8 hours a day some weeks. Friends breaking up. Girlfriend with Chicken pox. Friends living with AIDS, some smiling, some not smiling. Married couple, husband cheating on wife, telling everyone about it, she in pain. My eating too much too late, waking up with a stomach ache. Riding my bike through the city, no breaks, no gears, fixed-gear track bike, Zen-like motion connected to everything going on around. Taking dance-skating lessons, loving it but not being very good or having much time to practice. Weekly meditation meeting/satsang. Helping a friend buy new wardrobe. Attending the Budha's Birthday celebration at a local Chan temple. Talking and corresponding with many people on the phone, in e-mail, in person, about non-duality. Going to the gym. Burning special Japanese incense. Not getting enough sleep. Paying bills. Reading Western philosophers who are similar to Nagarjuna in some respects. ....

The basic fragrance is an unbroken totally sweet miraculousness. Totally unaffected by the details of what happens. Things that happen are not really things at all, and do not happen by magic, or through a mechanistic scientific causal process. But a present miraculousness. Nothing left out.

It is not all pleasant, but it is all fine, perfect is-ness, because there's no other way for IS-ness to be. Good day, Fine! Bad day, Fine! No difference, no distance. The meditation and bike riding can be seen as metaphors for how everything is, smoothly connected and not separate from anything. Things that aren't pleasant aren't in any way more or less separate than things that are pleasant - the difference is the same as the color red versus green. None of it ever seems like an "I" or "you" is doing it, it's all very direct, clear, very here and immediate, "things as it is." There's no thought that things should be this way, or that they should be some other way. No thought ever of a Greg or any other entity striving or grasping or letting go of anything. No thought that anything needs to be maintained or chased after or watched or kept. No thought that this is separate from what-is. No thought that a gap exists or must be bridged. Everything taking care of itself, in a smooth, uninterrupted flow. And the flow isn't even a flow - it is just called a flow, the word arising in the context of this writing.

Gene Poole

As much as I appreciate the ongoing effort to correctly define and describe the 'nondual experience', I would point out that "there is an intelligence which intends to communicate with us", which itself appears as Maya.

One may say that it is the 'projector' of Self which is beckoning us to meaning; one may say that "I am that intelligence", etc. What one may say, is said to be limited by mind and language; yet, one is taught or instructed on how to say, how to see, how to Be.

In any event, as we record our experiences, there arises evidence that our 'awakening' is arranged; that we are indeed being prompted to 'understand' and to 'know'. In my view, the 'nondual experience' is had, upon the silent admission that there is indeed 'something' which begins a dialog or conversation with us, encouraging and teaching, leading us to grapple with the issues and illusions which are in effect, classroom materials for the aspiring student.

I point to the 'Guru-function', which 'masqeuerades' as 'Maya'. The nondual experience admits the Guru. Only later, could the student 'say' that 'there is no Guru' and refer to 'Maya' as meaningless data-display, sans interpretation.

That such may be said 'later', post-experience, may lead the (new) reader to assume that there is no 'parent'. This itself may be useful, leading to seeing no 'external or separate' parent or pedagogue, and thus pointing to self as parent. Self as parent ("none-other") will eventually fade as reality, leaving only the primary relationship of student/Guru. Even the concept of separation will fade, far beyond questions of 'separate/non-separate'. What I cannot deny is the leading, teaching, encouraging of 'not-me', that which is 'greater' and which is teaching me. I stand comfortably 'next to' that which I speak of; I am safe there; the only 'danger' comes from any tendency to identify as 'that'.

Parent/Guru/Pedagogue/Psychopomp/Hierophant does indeed act and influence. The inexpressability-factor comes into play here, and it is partly ego which is responsible for the difficulty of expression of this always-present but 'hidden in plain sight' 'Guide-On' intelligence. Ego would rather have 'inexpressibility' than to have to admit that there is 'something greater' at work and at large.

The pure and pristine and dispassionate expressions of the summarized or 'boiled-down' description of the 'nondual experience', is lacking the clue which is provided by the (very) _existence_ of the actual living human 'guru'. The human Guru exists as the clue to the reality of the Greater; even though the Guru says so, the student takes it for metaphor. The Guru's function is to teach us how to talk, and it does so by speaking in the way of the Guru.

Thus, to say 'inexpressible' is to bypass the final lesson, and thus skip the final test, leaving the entire issue to be a nebulae of speculation and thus contention. There is indeed a Master Voice which is teaching us how to talk; there is no problem, as long as one does not conclude and move on, thus creating an improper and unstable foundation for further movement. It is all process, with only the Guru-student relationship as the sole stable factor, the one that never goes away.

The Guru who is invisible, unheard, still exists, beyond denial, teaching us how to talk. To be able to talk without conclusion is the art of the 'true pedagogue', the one who beckons. Moving in that direction begins our allowance that the Guru may be seen and heard.

Fully nondual awareness isn't against anything. This is what Blake suggests when he advises to look directly at this instant as it is, these particulars. Intellect can be contrasted with emotion, experience with nonexperience. "Nondual Reality" is beyond any of these categories. It's nonexperience and nonbeing as much as experience and being - thus, unspeakable. It's not nonconceptual apart from conceptualization, nor nonconstructed reality apart from constructions. Beyond cognition, yet cognizing; beyond constructs, yet contructing! This is *its* nature - and certainly *it* is no-it, and thus it "has" no nature -- it's nature is no-nature!!

To say there is an intellectual grasp of it is silly, because the intellect cannot function in an intellectual way regarding nonduality. The intellect can recognize its limitations and focus on its "realm," allowing what is beyond itself to "be". In other words, the intellect can realize itself as constructed by something beyond itself and unknowable, used by That which it cannot use, know, or articulate.

Releasing conceptual identifications

I'm not an expert.
Because I'm not an
expert, there is no
knowledge I need to
retain.
Free from knowledge,
Being reveals itself
as such.

Advaita, "non-twoness"
the non-split,
non-separated,
non-dichotomous nature
of actual reality
is not a point of view.

Any point of view is opposed
by a differing point of view.

So advaita isn't a point of view.

To make "not-two" into a point of
view that can be accepted as
a conceptual arrangment that is
plausible would be to take
advaita for what it is not.

Thus, It isn't plausible or not plausible.

It isn't a conceptual arrangement of
facts and insights.

"Not this, not that" ...
it is by releasing onself
from anchoring concepts
with which one identifies
that one comes to the
nonconceptualizable Truth
that is "not-two".

Based on my own experience allow me the following.

Non-duality is not created and sustained by thought. It may include thought when thought is present, but is based as an unfathomable, centreless sense of being, inherently not interested in objectifying itself as verbal definition and description. Not having its source in thought, no amount of thinking can reveal the truth of the non-fragmented disposition we refer to as non-duality.

We can say then that any thought we may believe we hold 'about' non-duality is of necessity an illusion. Such a thought is created and sustained by thought itself, which we have seen to be not the thing itself.

So whether we think about non-duality or not, or whether we believe that our thinking about non-duality has any reference whatsoever with the actual living reality of centreless being, is totally besides the point. It stands 'besides the point' as something categorically different to the genuine article. Thought is about, and 'about' is not the living reality of the thing itself.

This realisation, and by realisation I do not mean any form of mental clarity, intellectual argument, thought-created certainty, but rather the revelation as living reality, is not generally our disposition when we start out on the path of self-enquiry. We start out as thought constructs called 'I', conditioning, psychological problems and complexities, unresolved emotional issues, fear and so on. In other words we start out as seekers for freedom from our perceived problems. If we were all happy, fulfilled human be-ings, would we feel the need to enter into this absurdity called the spiritual path? We won't, because the path itself is a measure of our unhappiness and insanity. The free, sane person has no need for such absurdities as sitting quietly for hours practicing meditation, counting his breath, trying to become quiet, relax out of contracted states of emotion and thought, or try to appear clever by writing about all the highest truths obtained from books and scriptures.

So it is perfectly clear to me, and this much my practice has revealed to me, that despite all the very clever arguments my thinking could conjure up over the years relating to concepts of wholeness and the obvious non-dual quality of experience and so on, behind even these most clear and insightful thoughts, lurked the separate one. All these thoughts appeared to 'me'. So although profoundly clear about all the arguments presented by my own enquiry and intellectual endeavour (including deep insights during profoundly quiet times of meditative practice) about the non-dual 'nature' of myself, and everything else, over time it became clear to me that I was still separate and unwhole. The most reasonable deduction that could be made from this was that perhaps I was using the wrong instrument to reveal the wholeness to me.

It became clear to me that thought can ask questions it simply cannot answer. Also it can make statements about things it has absolutely no ability to get 'in touch' with. Or to become one with. My thoughts about non-duality were as empty as the religious mind's thoughts about metaphysical projections. It became clear then that although I could reasonably pin down a great many (if not all) of my problems to thought, thought itself had no ability to bring the answers which would be living reality rather than just another opposite thought pojected to counter the presumed 'cause' of the original problem.

This was a watershed realisation in my own practice. When it became clear that thought cannot answer the problems of'I' consciousness, and other such disturbances in the field of consciousness it has created. Any attempt by thought to bring freedom from these many disturbing aspects of being, was now seen as more of the same thing. Thought cannot wash away thought. It can only try to suppress it with some presumed 'higher thought', or counter a fondly held argument with some more refined argument. But in either case thought is still the active principle, and cannot relieve itself of itself by itself. And as it is with this thought with which we are so profoundly identified, no freedom is possible within thought.

But this is a profound insight. It has to reveal itself through meticulous introspection. So that it does not just become again the truth of another being taken by thought and projected as a liberating principle or delusiory opposite. In this way,( Dan), the wheel has to be re-invented each one for h/herself. There are as many paths as there are practitioners or enquirers. But what has to be revealed as a fundamental interim truth and reality by such enquiry, is that thought is not the thing. The talk about non-duality, the thinking about non-duality is false. Not because the thinking process itself is false, but because thought can only project its own version (mental creation) of these matters. And it becomes a double lie if we propagate these illusiory, conceptually created, projections as having anything whatsoever to do with the living reality of the non-fragmented being. This is what I have once described in a post on HarshaSatsangh as the Advaitist's dream.

And because very few know the way from here, partially because the latter-day Advaitist guru's proclaim that the thought IS the thing, and so the idea ABOUT the non-dual state IS the thing itself, and so we are ALREADY 'THERE' so no work needs to be done, the enquiry has become stultified and this stultification has taken on the epidemic proportions so-called Western Advaita is suffering, unknowingly, from. This dream has now become reality. And this dream is being repeated, and has now become 'conventional wisdom' or ' perfectly obvious' to all.

It is only obvious as a thought. Nothing else. Not unlike the existence of god being obvious to the religious mentality. There is absolutely nothing obvious about non-duality or non-doing. It is just thought presenting clever arguments to itself, and then believes its own arguments to be the thing itself, or ralating to the thing itself.

Ignorance is nothing other than thought mistaking its own creations for reality. It is what keeps the dream of subjectivity alive. Because despite all the procrastinations form all the pseudo-advaitists on these lists, theytill suffer the very same thing they are pretending to one another to have left behind somewhere in the dungeons of their own minds. Nothing has been left behind. The 'I' is still there, with each and every futile explanation towards this conceptually created madness called non-dualism. It is the very essense of dualism.

Once this problem of the monkey chasing its own tail has been seen as the very principle of delusion, we may start to enquire whether there may be something that could be done, which does not perpetuate the very thing we are trying to get away from. Before that, any proposition that there is no-where to go, nothing to do, no-doer from the start, and so on, is always, already part of the fragmented being's desparate attempt at pretending it is not real, and does not exist. But both its pretence and its existence remain in tact as its existence. Mind on mind. Concept on concept. Delusion on delusion.

The dream continues unabated. And with it, human suffering.

Nonduality is a perspective on the nature of reality (reality being anything that you would consider real or that exists), nothing more and nothing less. It can be viewed from a spiritual angle, from a scientific angle (I would venture to say many quantum physicists would agree with the nondual perspective), or any other angle you can think of.

Nonduality says that at the core of all existence, everything and everybody is one, a single homogenous entity. In other words, if you "boil down" everything that exists, both perceived and unperceived (and as we all know, our senses are limited), the result would be one single thing. From that single thing, all multiplicity is derived. Without that thing (whatever it may be), nothing whatsoever would or could exist.

It's substantially more difficult to define what that "thing" or that homogenous entity is, what it consists of. Everyone seems to have a slightly different idea about it. The fact is, the single homogenous nondual entity cannot be comprehended by the mind at all. Since that entity is the *primal cause* of everything else, it cannot normally be seen directly. However, since the nondual perspective also holds that in truth there is nothing but that entity (and all differentiation is actually that entity filtered through the mind and the senses), it can be said that all the different things we see around us are actually that entity itself. In other words, since there is really no differentiation or variation at the most primal level, everything that we see as differentiated is really that single entity itself, *in that entity's totality*.

This is a hard concept to grasp, and one that gives a newcomer to the nondual perspective no easy time. How can each different person or thing we see around us be that absolute, single entity *in its entirety*? Well, think of it this way: Since nothing really exists but that one homogenous entity, we must be under some sort of delusion when we see subjects and objects, when we see differentiation. A newcomer to nonduality will invariably find this idea dangerous and threatening, but think about what science tells us: Touch a hard surface, and what you're touching is really mostly empty space. On a smaller scale, the space between individual atoms is greater than the distance from the Earth to the Sun. In other words, everything is composed mostly of empty space, and when we touch a hard surface and find it solid, that perception is simply a delusion created by the senses. And so it is with the delusion of differentiation.

Another way to look at it is this: Think of how we endlessly create and un-create differentiation on a psychological level. For example, what you call a "computer" is actually a complex mix of parts; a case, a motherboard, a power supply, etc. Each of these parts is further subdivided into electrical components, and so on, until we see that a "computer" is actually a big lump of molecules that can be further subdivided into atoms, quarks, and so on. Nonduality applies this kind of thinking to reality itself, stating that at the base of everything, there is a "Ground of Being" or substratum, and that everything is actually "made of" this substratum. A jar is an arbitrary term for a piece of glass, and so also a jar or a person or an automobile is an arbitrary term for the primal homogenous entity. Everything is interconnected at the deepest level, is really one thing at the most basic level.

Differentiation is like waves on the surface of the ocean. Couldn't you say that each wave is really the ocean itself, not "part of" the ocean? You can't separate a wave from the ocean. It *is* the ocean. If all waves on the ocean subside, only the ocean remains. So it is with differentiation, which arises like waves on the "surface" of the primal homogenous entity.

In addition to everything being "composed of" homogenous reality, our perception of variation serves to hide the knowledge or perception or experience of that homogenous reality. Our perception of variation is a "veil" or "covering" or "overlay" that hides the perception of the real homogenous entity that underlies everything. The only way to know or realize the reality of the single primal entity is to know that we're deluded. Knowing is not enough, however; somehow the delusion has to be seen for what it is, or even eliminated entirely. If we see a fallen tree lying on the ground and believe it's a dead body, we'd likely run away or call the police. But if the tree is seen for what it is, the "dead body" idea will instantly vanish. So if we could for one moment perceive the primal homogenous entity directly, our delusion of differentiation would vanish and we would see reality for what it really is.

Can it be done? Can we rid ourselves of this delusion of subject and objects? Many say that it's possible. Note that even the ideas of time and space and causation (action-reaction) arise from our delusion of differentiation; if there really is only one Thing, one timeless, eternal, primal Fact, then that's ALL there is. There cannot be more than one.

So how do we get rid of the delusion of the mind and the senses, and see reality for what it is? Well, that's a topic for another article, but there are many religions and philosophical systems that offer ways and means to do this (these methods are sometimes called "yogas," sometimes "paths," sometimes something else). Some of these systems of thought say that "enlightenment" or "realization" happens when the delusion of differentiation disappears.

The only way to find out if the nondual perspective is true is to explore it yourself. Most nondual systems of thought strongly emphasize *experience* over book learning. They say "If you want to know if something is true or not, apply it to your life in this way, and see if you perceive truth here." However, at the beginning, it can be very helpful to do some reading within the different nondual systems and schools of thought (it should be noted here that nonduality is not *confined* to various systems or schools of thought (it stands alone as a perspective), but often appears in those contexts).

A few of the various contexts of nonduality:
* Science (mainly quantum physics)
* Religions (Buddhism, Vedanta, many others)
* Individuals (belief systems and experiences)
* National Traditions (Tibet, India, etc)
* Websites/Internet (a potpourri of different views)
--October 31, 1999

For those who may have read my other definitions, it's amazing how wordy they are, how full of concepts gleaned from other sources like books, list members, gurus, upanishads, scriptures, web sites, etc., ad nauseum. I look at these earlier definitions and think "Who the hell was that masked man?!?" :-)

Amazing how words become ancient museum pieces, moments after they are written. Really, they are old even as they are spoken or written. A week later they're like looking at dried mummies in a museum.

-Definition 1-

Nonduality is a "state" in which neither duality nor nonduality is perceived!

-alternate 2-

Nonduality is just This, Here and Now.

-alternate3-

There is no such thing as duality or nonduality. That is nonduality.

"Non-duality isn't experienced. All experience has a beginning and an end; one's real nature hasn't. "

This is from one of the definitions on your page and its very close to the mark.

Hence the 'nothing special' teaching of Shunryu Suzuki. If one is hanging out for an experience, one is looking in the wrong place!

If you're committed to a life of meditation, you are constantly called to pay attention to what is here and now - the actual, not it's imaginary ramifications.

The human condition being what it is, this is very difficult for us. So we have to learn to give our undivided attention. There's your 'non-dual'!

'Non-dual' is from 'a' - 'not' and 'dvai' - dual or divided. Not-divided. Undivided. Hence when there is thought about 'me' and 'mine' , then naturally your attention is divided - between what 'I' want, and 'the rest'.

Very simple. But it takes a life of utmost commitment and dedication to realise it, to live from that simplicity. It takes a religious dedication, even if one foregoes the trappings. There is no pay-off for this. It doesn't, Anthony Robbins nothwithstanding, make sure all your bills get paid

from What Is Enlightenment magazine:(link removed; no longer functioning)

ADVAITA PHILOSOPHY, OR VEDANTIC NONDUALISM, has become, along with Buddhism, one of the most popular spiritual paths being pursued by those interested in enlightenment today. During the past three decades, Advaita has become more widely recognized in the West through the ever growing popularity of Ramana Maharshi, considered by many to be modern India’s greatest spiritual giant.

We, like many Western spiritual practitioners, also first came into contact with Advaita philosophy, the Hindu philosophy of nonduality (oneness, or more precisely not-two-ness), through the teachings of the great Ramana Maharshi. Endeavoring to acquire a deeper understanding of the background and philosophical context of this profound and ever more influential teaching, we looked back to its source, to the man who is widely recognized as its founder, the eighth century religious philosopher and master teacher Shankara. Advaita Vedanta is considered the crown jewel of Indian philosophy, and Shankara’s powerful influence can be felt throughout most modern schools of Indian thought. Originally we had believed that he was the legendary figure that he is often described to be in the traditional literature: the enlightened genius maverick who not only defeated the dominance of Buddhist philosophy and any and all other opposing religious views in medie val India, but also single-handedly reestablished the glory and reign of traditional Vedantic doctrine. But as we probed beneath the popular interpretation of Shankara’s life, we found out that much of what has been proclaimed about him is the stuff that myths are made of—and, in fact, knowledge of the actual circumstances of his life is extremely sketchy at best, to the point that even his reported date of birth varies by a hundred years. What we do know is that Shankara was a master philosopher-sage who put great emphasis on a rigorous interpretation of Vedantic scripture strictly in accord with the doctrine of advaita, or nonduality. In traditional Advaita philosophy (which can be simply defined as the Upanishadic declaration, Thou Art That Immortal Self Absolute!), spiritual knowledge was sought not through yogic experience as much as it was through the systematic practice of discriminating the Real from the unreal, supported by the study of the scriptures.

Noted scholar Georg Feuerstein summarizes the advaita realization as follows: "The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings." The special glory and liberating power of these extraordinary teachings of nonduality (known to be the most direct path to enlightenment) is not only their potential to enlighten the seeker in the present lifetime, but even more, their potential to liberate the ripe individual instantaneously from the bondage of conditioned existence. There have been impressive living demonstrations of this profound attainment in recent times, in the example of the saint and sage Ramana Maharshi; the remarkable cigarette-smoking jnani [Self-realized individual] from Bombay, Nisargadatta Maharaj; the recently deceased renegade master and "lion of Lucknow," H.W.L. Poonja; and the unassuming Ajja, who resides effortlessly in an intensely blissful, unbroken awareness of the Self, introduced to the Western world for the first time in this issue of What Is Enlightenment?

[I am] the nature of Pure Consciousness. I am always the same to beings, one alone; [I am] the highest Brahman, which, like the sky, is all-pervading, imperishable, auspicious, uninterrupted, undivided and devoid of action. I do not belong to anything since I am free from attachment. [I am] the highest Brahman . . . ever-shining, unborn, one alone, imperishable, stainless, all-pervading, and nondual—That am I, and I am forever released.

—Shankara, The Upadesasahasri

While Advaita's profound inspiration and power to liberate is undeniable, its worldview has not been without its critics. Even though "modern" Advaita seems to emphasize the indivisible nature of the world and Brahman, or the Self Absolute, Advaita philosophy has traditionally expressed, as noted religious scholar Lance Nelson points out, a "deep metaphysical bias against the world. . . . In the end, the Advaita tradition fails to present a true nondualism of world and Absolute. . . . It is rather an acosmic monism. It achieves its nonduality not inclusively, but exclusively. Empirical reality is admitted in a provisional way, but in the end it is cast out of the Absolute, out of existence. From the highest perspective, the world is simply not there [emphases ours]." Once again, even though modern proponents of Advaita do not appear to exclude the world in their vision of nonduality, in the classical view, the world is clearly recognized as being either completely unreal, or only partially real. And this is what Advaita has been historically criticized for. Precisely because of its emphasis on the ultimate unreality and illusory nature of the world and embodied existence, any teaching of how to live in the world is entirely absent. More specifically, the nondual teaching does not in any way address the ethical or moral dimension of human life. And even though modern Advaita does not seem to exclude the world in its nondual view, it still is devoid of any teaching that addresses the realities of human life.

Interestingly enough, it appears that historically Advaita did not address ethical or moral questions because, according to Nelson, the highest nondual teachings were "never intended to be a philosophy for the general public." In fact, he states that they were "formulated by and for a narrow spiritual elite of male brahmins [members of the highest, priestly class], primarily sannyasins [renunciates], who alone were believed qualified to fully appropriate its import." This practically would have meant that the individual to whom the absolute teachings were revealed would have already fulfilled the demanding moral and ethical qualifications for discipleship. And even more than that, Shankara himself states that the qualifications for discipleship also demanded an extraordinary degree of detachment from and transcendence of worldly desires:

The pupil must be dispassionate toward all things noneternal. . . . [Having] abandoned the desire for sons, wealth and worlds, endowed with self-control [and] compassion, he is a brahmin who is internally and externally pure, whose thought is calm, who has reached tranquility. . . . [Thus] let him go to a spiritual teacher who is learned in the scriptures and established in Brahman.
—The Upadesasahasri

The unusual phenomenon occurring in the postmodern spiritual marketplace is that now, as never before in history, what were once considered the highest esoteric teachings, revealed only to those who were prepared and had proven themselves worthy of their unimaginable depth and subtlety, are available to anyone who wanders into a spiritual bookstore. An important question seems to be: Are most seekers genuinely prepared for the psychological upheaval and world-shattering shift of perception that penetration into the Absolute unleashes? Advaita’s emphasis on the illusory nature of embodied existence has the potential to give license to human weakness and self-indulgence if the individual is not already firmly grounded in a fundamentally wholesome relationship to life. The unwholesome tendencies characterized by narcissistic, neurotic and deeply cynical convictions so common today create a dangerously weak foundation for a nondual perspective that transcends all pairs of opposites, including right and wrong. While Advaita’s great strength is its singular, unwavering emphasis on the Absolute dimension of existence, its weakness is revealed in the limited scope of its singularity. And while any truly absolute view must, by definition, transcend all distinctions, the inherent potential of Advaita or non dualism to inspire a worldview that is perilously empty of any value whatsoever is enormous. Indeed, the potential for escape, rather than genuine transcendence, is great in such an absolute teaching. For to be embraced, absorbed and utterly consumed by the Absolute is one thing—but to escape from the inherent complex ity of life in order to avoid the overwhelming demand that true surrender requires is another thing altogether.

© Moksha Foundation 1998

Fulcrum-9: The Causal

Q: You mentioned that these subtle or archetypal Forms issue directly from Emptiness, from the causal, which is the next stage, fulcrum-9.

KW: When, as a specific type of meditation, you pursue the observing Self, the Witness, to its very source in pure Emptiness, then no objects arise in consciousness at all. This is a discrete, identifiable state of awareness--namely, unmanifest absorption or cessation, variously known as nirvikalpa samadhi, jnana samadhi, ayin, vergezzen, nirodh, classical nirvana.

This is the causal state, a discrete state, which is often likened to the state of deep dreamless sleep, except that this state is not a mere blank but rather an utter fullness, and it is experienced as such--as infinitely drenched in the fullness of Being, so full that no manifestation can even begin to contain it. Because it can never be seen as an object, this pure Self is pure Emptiness.

Q: That's all very abstract. Could you be more concrete about this?

KW: You are aware of yourself in this moment, yes?

Q: I think so.

KW: So if I say, Who are you?, you will start to describe yourself--you are a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a friend; you are a lawyer, a clerk, a teacher, a manager. You have these likes and dislikes, you prefer this type of food, you tend to have these impulses and desires, and so on.

Q: Yes, I would list all the things that I know about myself.

KW: You would list the "things you know about yourself."

Q: Yes.

KW: All of those things you know about yourself are objects in your awareness. They are images or ideas or concepts or desires or feelings that parade by in front of your awareness, yes? They are all objects in your awareness.

Q: Yes.

KW: All those objects in your awareness are precisely not the observing Self. All those things that you know about yourself are precisely not the real Self. Those are not the Seer; those are simply things that can be seen. All of those objects that you describe when you "describe yourself" are actually not your real Self at all! They are just more objects, whether internal or external, they are not the real Seer of those objects, they are not the real Self. So when you describe your- self by listing all of those objects, you are ultimately giving a list of mistaken identities, a list of lies, a list of precisely what you ultimately are not.

So who is this real Seer? Who or what is this observing Self?

Ramana Maharshi called this Witness the I-I, because it is aware of the individual I or self, but cannot itself be seen. So what is this I-I, this causal Witness, this pure observing Self?

This deeply inward Self is witnessing the world out there, and it is witnessing all your interior thoughts as well. This Seer sees the ego, and sees the body, and sees the natural world. All of those parade by "in front" of this Seer. But the Seer itself cannot be seen. If you see anything, those are just more objects. Those objects are precisely what the Seer is not, what the Witness is not.

So you pursue this inquiry, Who am I? Who or what is this Seer that cannot itself be seen? You simply "push back" into your awareness, and you dis-identify with any and every object you see or can see.

The Self or the Seer or the Witness is not any particular thought--I can see that thought as an object. The Seer is not any particular sensation--I am aware of that as an object. The observing Self is not the body, it is not the mind, it is not the ego--I can see all of those as objects. What is looking at all those objects? What in you right now is looking at all these objects--looking at nature and its sights, look- ing at the body and its sensations, looking at the mind and its thoughts? What is looking at all that?

Try to feel yourself right now--get a good sense of being yourself-- and notice, that self is just another object in awareness. It isn't even a real subject, a real self, it's just another object in awareness. This little self and its thoughts parade by in front of you just like the clouds float by through the sky. And what is the real you that is witnessing all of that? Witnessing your little objective self? Who or what is that?

As you push back into this pure Subjectivity, this pure Seer, you won't see it as an object--you can't see it as an object, because it's not an object! It is nothing you can see. Rather, as you calmly rest in this observing awareness--watching mind and body and nature float by--you might begin to notice that what you are actually feeling is simply a sense of freedom, a sense of release, a sense of not being bound to any of the objects you are calmly witnessing. You don't see anything, you simply rest in this vast freedom.

In front of you the clouds parade by, your thoughts parade by, bodily sensations parade by, and you are none of them. You are the vast expanse of freedom through which all these objects come and go. You are an opening, a clearing, an Emptiness, a vast spaciousness, in which all these objects come and go. Clouds come and go, sensations come and go, thoughts come and go--and you are none of them; you are that vast sense of freedom, that vast Emptiness, that vast opening, through which manifestation arises, stays a bit, and goes.

So you simply start to notice that the "Seer" in you that is witnessing all these objects is itself just a vast Emptiness. It is not a thing, not an object, not anything you can see or grab hold of. It is rather a sense of vast Freedom, because it is not itself anything that enters the objective world of time and objects and stress and strain. This pure Witness is a pure Emptiness in which all these individual subjects and objects arise, stay a bit, and pass.

So this pure Witness is not anything that can be seen! The attempt to see the Witness or know it as an object--that's just more grasping and seeking and clinging in time. The Witness isn't out there in the stream; it is the vast expanse of Freedom in which the stream arises. So you can't get hold of it and say, Aha, I see it! Rather, it is the Seer, not anything that can be seen. As you rest in this Witnessing, all that you sense is just a vast Emptiness, a vast Freedom, a vast Expanse--a transparent opening or clearing in which all these little subjects and objects arise. Those subjects and objects can definitely be seen, but the Witness of them cannot be seen. The Witness of them is an utter release from them, an utter Freedom not caught in their turmoils, their desires, their fears, their hopes.

Of course, we tend to identify ourselves with these little individual subjects and objects--and that is exactly the problem! We identify the Seer with puny little things that can be seen. And that is the beginning of bondage and unfreedom. We are actually this vast expanse of Freedom, but we identify with unfree and limited objects and subjects, all of which can be seen, all of which suffer, and none of which is what we are.

Patanjali gave the classic description of bondage as "the identification of the Seer with the instruments of seeing"--with the little subjects and objects, instead of the opening or clearing or Emptiness in which they all arise.

So when we rest in this pure Witness, we don't see this Witness as an object. Anything you can see is not it. Rather, it is the absence of any subjects or objects altogether, it is the release from all of that. Resting in the pure witness, there is this background absence or Emptiness, and this is "experienced," not as an object, but as a vast expanse of Freedom and Liberation from the constrictions of identifying with these puny little subjects and objects that enter the stream of time and are ground up in that agonizing torrent.

So when you rest in the pure Seer, in the pure Witness, you are invisible. You cannot be seen. No part of you can be seen, because you are not an object. Your body can be seen, your mind can be seen, nature can be seen, but you are not any of those objects. You are the pure source of awareness, and not anything that arises in that awareness. So you abide as awareness.

Things arise in awareness, they stay a bit and depart, they come and they go. They arise in space, they move in time. But the pure Witness does not come and go. It does not arise in space, it does not move in time. It is as it is; it is ever-present and unvarying. It is not an object out there, so it never enters the stream of time, of space, of birth, of death. Those are all experiences, all objects--they all come, they all go. But you do not come and go; you do not enter that stream; you are aware of all that, so you are not caught in all that. The Witness is aware of space, aware of time--and is therefore itself free of space, free of time. It is timeless and spaceless--the purest Emptiness through which time and space parade.

So this pure Seer is prior to life and death, prior to time and turmoil, prior to space and movement, prior to manifestation--prior even to the Big Bang itself. This doesn't mean that the pure Self existed in a time before the Big Bang, but that it exists prior to time, period. It just never enters that stream. It is aware of time, and is thus free of time--it is utterly timeless. And because it is timeless, it is eternal--which doesn't mean everlasting time, but free of time altogether.

It was never born, it will never die. It never enters that temporal stream. This vast Freedom is the great Unborn, of which the Buddha said: "There is an unborn, an unmade, an uncreate. Were it not for this unborn, unmade, uncreate, there would be no release from the born, the made, the created." Resting in this vast expanse of Freedom is resting in this great Unborn, this vast Emptiness.

And because it is Unborn, it is Undying. It was not created with your body, it will not perish when your body perishes. It's not that it lives on beyond your body's death, but rather that it never enters the stream of time in the first place. It doesn't live on after your body, it lives prior to your body, always. It doesn't go on in time forever, it is simply prior to the stream of time itself.

Space, time, objects--all of those merely parade by. But you are the Witness, the pure Seer that is itself pure Emptiness, pure Freedom, pure Openness, the great Emptiness through which the entire parade passes, never touching you, never tempting you, never hurting you, never consoling you.

And because there is this vast Emptiness, this great Unborn, you can indeed gain liberation from the born and the created, from the suffering of space and time and objects, from the mechanism of terror inherent in those fragments, from the vale of tears called samsara.

Q: I can get a brief taste of that as you talk about it.

KW: Most people can connect fairly quickly with the Witness. Living from that Freedom is something else.

Q: How does that Witness relate to the causal unmanifest?

KW: The Witness is itself the causal unmanifest. It is itself pure Emptiness. And if, as a yogic endeavor, you actually keep inquiring intensely into the source, into the pure Subjectivity of this Seer, then all objects and subjects will simply cease to arise at all. And that would be nirvikalpa or cessation--an actual yogic state, a discrete state (it is, in fact, the fusion phase of fulcrum-9). This is pure formless mysticism--all objects, even God as a perceived form, vanish into cessation, and so deity mysticism gives way to formless mysticism.

Because all possible objects have not yet arisen, this is a completely unmanifest state of pure Emptiness. What you actually "see" in this state is infinite nothing, which simply means that it is too Full to be contained in any object or any subject or any sight or any sound. It is pure consciousness, pure awareness, prior to any manifestation at all--prior to subjects and objects, prior to phenomena, prior to holons, prior to things, prior to anything. It is utterly timeless, spaceless, objectless. And therefore it is radically and infinitely free of the limitations and constrictions of space and time and objects--and radically free of the torture inherent in those fragments.

It is not necessary to pursue the Witness in that particularly yogic fashion, but it can be done, and it does point up the unmanifest source of the Seer itself. This is why many traditions, like Yogachara Buddhism, simply equate Emptiness and Consciousness. We needn't get involved in all the technical details and arguments about that, but you get the general point--the Witness itself, pure Consciousness itself, is not a thing, not a process, not a quality, not an entity--it is ultimately unqualifiable--it is ultimately pure Emptiness.

Q: Why is it called the "causal"?

KW: Because it is the support or cause or creative ground of all junior dimensions. Remember that we saw, as Whitehead put it, that "the ultimate metaphysical principle is the creative advance into novelty." Creativity is part of the basic ground of the universe. Somehow, some way, miraculously, new holons emerge. I say out of Emptiness, but you can call that creative ground whatever you want. Some would call it God, or Goddess, or Tao, or Brahman, or Keter, or Rigpa, or Dharmakaya, or Maat, or Li. The more scientifically oriented tend to prefer to speak simply of the "self-transcending" capacity of the universe, as does Jantsch. That's fine. It doesn't matter. The point is, stuff emerges. Amazing! Miraculous by any other name.

Emptiness, creativity, holons--and that is exactly where we started our account in chapter I. These holons arise as subject and object, in both singular and plural forms--that is, the four quadrants--and they follow the twenty tenets, which is simply the pattern that manifestation displays as it arises, a pattern that is a potential of Emptiness, a potential of the Dharmakaya, a potential of the Godhead. And with that pattern of twenty tenets, off we go on the evolutionary drive of holons returning to their source.

That pattern embodies a creative drive to greater depth, greater consciousness, greater unfolding, and that unfolding ultimately unfolds into its own infinite ground in pure Emptiness. But that Emptiness is not itself an emergent, it is rather the creative ground, prior to time, that was present all along, but finally becomes transparent to itself in certain holons that awaken to that Emptiness, to that Spirit, to that groundless Ground.

That same Emptiness, as Consciousness, was present all along as the interior depth of every holon, a depth that increasingly shed its lesser forms until it shed forms altogether--its depth goes to infinity, its time goes to eternity, its interior space is all space, its agency is the very Divine itself: the ground, path, and fruition of Emptiness.

The Nondual

Q: So this causal unmanifest--is it the absolute end point? Is this the end of time, the end of evolution, the end of history? The final Omega point?

KW: Well, many traditions take this state of cessation to be the ultimate state, the final end point of all development and evolution, yes. And this end state is equated with full Enlightenment, ultimate release, pure nirvana.

But that is not the "final story," according to the Nondual traditions. Because at some point, as you inquire into the Witness, and rest in the Witness, the sense of being a Witness "in here" completely vanishes itself, and the Witness turns out to be everything that is witnessed. The causal gives way to the Nondual, and formless mysticism gives way to nondual mysticism. "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form."

Technically, you have dis-identified with even the Witness, and then integrated it with all manifestation--in other words, the second and third phases of fulcrum-9, which leads to fulcrum-10, which is not really a separate fulcrum or level, but the reality or Suchness of all levels, all states, all conditions.

And this is the second and most profound meaning of Emptiness--it is not a discrete state, but the reality of all states, theSuchness of all states. You have moved from the causal to the Nondual.

Q: Emptiness has two meanings?

KW: Yes, which can be very confusing. On the one hand, as we just saw, it is a discrete, identifiable state of awareness--namely, unmanifest absorption or cessation (nirvikalpa samadhi, ayin, jnana samadhi, nirodh, classical nirvana). This is the causal state, a discrete state.

The second meaning is that Emptiness is not merely a particular state among other states, but rather the reality or suchness or condition of all states. Not a particular state apart from other states, but the reality or condition of all states, high or low, sacred or profane, ordinary or extraordinary.

Q: We already discussed the discrete state; now the Nondual.

KW: Yes, the "experience" of this nondual Suchness is similar to the nature unity experience we earlier discussed, except nowthis unity is experienced not just with gross Form out there, but also with all of the subtle Forms in here. In Buddhist terms, this is not just the Nirmanakaya--gross or nature mysticism; and not just the Sambho- gakaya--subtle or deity mysticism; and not just the Dharmakaya-- causal or formless mysticism. It is the Svabhavikakaya--the integration of all three of them. It is beyond nature mysticism, beyond deity mysticism, and beyond formless mysticism--it is the reality or the Suchness of each, and thus integrates each in its embrace. It em- braces the entire spectrum of consciousness--transcends all, includes all.

Q: Again, rather technical. Perhaps there's a more direct way to talk about Nondual mysticism?

KW: Across the board, the sense of being any sort of Seer or Witness or Self vanishes altogether. You don't look at the sky, you are the sky. You can taste the sky. It's not out there. As Zen would say, you can drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, you can swallow the Kosmos whole--precisely because awareness is no longer split into a seeing subject in here and a seen object out there. There is just pure seeing. Consciousness and its display are not-two.

Everything continues to arise moment to moment--the entire Kosmos continues to arise moment to moment--but there is nobody watching the display, there is just the display, a spontaneous and luminous gesture of great perfection. The pure Emptiness of the Witness turns out to be one with every Form that is witnessed, and that is one of the basic meanings of "nonduality."

Q: Again, could you be even more specific?

KW: Well, you might begin by getting into the state of the Witness--that is, you simply rest in pure observing awareness--you are not any object that can be seen--not nature, not body, not thoughts-- just rest in that pure witnessing awareness. And you can get a certain "sensation" of that witnessing awareness--a sensation of freedom, of release, of great expanse.

While you are resting in that state, and "sensing" this Witness as a great expanse, if you then look at, say, a mountain, you might begin to notice that the sensation of the Witness and the sensation of the mountain are the same sensation. When you "feel" your pure Self and you "feel" the mountain, they are absolutely the same feeling.

In other words, the real world is not given to you twice--one out there, one in here. That "twiceness" is exactly the meaning of "duality." Rather, the real world is given to you once, immediately--it is one feeling, it has one taste, it is utterly full in that one taste, it is not severed into seer and seen, subject and object, fragment and fragment. It is a singular, of which the plural is unknown. You can taste the mountain; it is the same taste as your Self; it is not out there being reflected in here--that duality is not present in the immediateness of real experience. Real experience, before you slice it up, does not contain that duality--real experience, reality itself, is "nondual." You are still you, and the mountain is still the mountain, but you and the mountain are two sides of one and the same experience, which is the one and only reality at that moment.

If you relax into present experience in that fashion, the separate self-sense will uncoil; you will stop standing back from life; you will not have experience, you will suddenly become all experience; you will not be "in here" looking "out there"--in here and out there are one, so you are no longer trapped "in here."

And so suddenly, you are not in the bodymind. Suddenly, the bodymind has dropped. Suddenly, the wind doesn't blow on you, it blows through you, within you. You are not looking at the mountain, you are the mountain--the mountain is closer to you than your own skin. You are that, and there is no you--just this entire luminous display spontaneously arising moment to moment. The separate self is no- where to be found.

The entire sensation of "weight" drops altogether, because you are not in the Kosmos, the Kosmos is in you, and you are purest Emptiness. The entire universe is a transparent shimmering of the Divine, of primordial Purity. But the Divine is not someplace else, it is just all of this shimmering. It is self-seen. It has One Taste. It is nowhere else.

Secondary Nondualism and Ultimate Nondualism of Da Free John (aka Da Avabhasa, Adi Da, etc.)

First it is necessary to understand the seven stages of life:

The Seven Stages of Life

Stage One -- Individuation. The first stage of life is a process of individuation, or of becoming identified with the physical body in the waking state. In this stage, one gradually adapts functionally to physical existence and eventualy achieves a basic sense of individual autonomy, or of personal independence from the mother and from all others.

Stage Two -- Socialization. The second stage of life is a process of socialization, or social exploration or growth in relationships. In this stage, the individual adapts to the emotional-sexual, or feeling dimension of the being and achieves basic integration of that dimension with the physical body.

Stage Three -- Integration. The third stage of life is a process of integration as a fully differentiated or autonomous, sexual and social human character. In this stage, one adapts to and develops the verbal mind, the faculty of discriminative intelligence, and the will. And one achieves basic adult integration of body, emotion, and mind in the context of the bodily-based point of view.

Although the first three stages of life are the necessary foundation of all human development, the point of view of the first three stages of life represents an error, or limitation, in Consciousness, because it is based in identification with the body (rather than identification with our True or Divine Self-Nature.)

Because of mankind's generally weak or incomplete adaptation in the first three stages, it is extremely rare for individuals to pass into the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, or the seventh stage of life. Though experiences of the states of consciousness of the advanced and the ultimate stages of life may occur for anyone, mere experience does not constitute stable Realization of that stage (which requires stable responsibility for the processes of that stage).

Whereas the first three stages of life develop in three periods of roughly seven years each, the duration of the advanced and the ultimate stages of life cannot be predicted, since that duration depends on many factors, including the force of the individual's impulse to growth and self-transcendence and the stages of life taught and realized by his or her teachers and tradition.

Stage Four -- Spiritualization. The fourth stage of life is the transitional stage between the gross, bodily-based point of view of the first three stages of life and the subtle, psychic point of view of the fifth stage of life.

In the fourth stage of life, the gross, or bodily-based personality of the first three stages of life is harmonized and converted to love through devotional reception of and surrender to the Spiritual Force (also called "Holy Spirit" or "Shakti") of the Divine Reality. ... Communion with this Spiritual Force becomes naturally felt and expressed as service and devotion to the Divine... . As the fourth stage of life advances, the individual enters into the more mystical processes that are fully developed in the fifth stage of life.

...the common error of the fourth stage of life is the tendency to prolong the first three stages of life, and the patterns of un-happiness that are egoically associated with the first three stages of life. This tendency takes the form of a fixed idea of God and the personal self as eternally separate from one another, thereby making the fourth stage of life into a never-ending search for God and a never-ending appeal to God for intimacy, relief, and self-satisfaction.

Stage Five -- Higher Spiritual Evolution. In the fifth stage of life, existence is viewed from the point of view of the higher mind, or psyche, which is the subtle dimension of the being beyond the gross, verbal-conceptual mind, and above, or prior to, the processes of the gross body. The traditional orientation of the fifth stage of life is toward renunciation of gross bodily existence in the phenomenal world, is some cases through asceticism.

Traditionally, the fifth stage of life is the stage of mysticism and the Yogas or contemplative and practical exercises) that attune one to the Divine Spiritual Reality through the psychic point of view of the higher brain and nervous system. Thus, the fifth stage of life is awakened and developed through the contemplative, Spiritual ascent of attention and the energy of one's being into the subtle or psychic dimension and processes of the being. Traditionally, the ultimate achievement of the fifth stage of life is absorption in mystical Unionn with the Divine, which in the Yogic traditions is called "nirvikalpa samadhi" (formless ecstasy).

...the error of the fifth stage of life is the tendency to seek and cling to subtle objects and states as if they were Ultimate God-Realization (or, in the case of fifth stage conditional nirvikalpa samadhi, the tendency to seek and cling to conditional transcendence of these objects and states).

Stage Six -- Awakening to the Transcendental Self. In the sixth stage of life, one's characteristic view of existence is not based in identification with the body-mind or even with the subtle mind (or psyche). Rather, it is based in identification with the apparently independent Consciousness, or essential self, exclusive of th ephenomena of the body-mind and the world. In this stage, one renounces all identification with body or mind and lives and acts from the position and the domain of Consciousness, as the Transcendental Witness of the body-mind and all psycho-physical phenomena. The sixth stage of life will most likely include (perhaps even frequently) the experience of Jnana Samadhi, or temporary or conditional Realization of the Divine Self.

The error of the sixth stage...is the tendency to hold on to the position of Consciousness as if it were a reality separate from Spirit-Energy and the conditional world. It is the tendency to hold on to the inherent love-bliss of Consciousness by strategically excluding all awareness of...conditional objects and states. Jnana Samadhi, because it is associated with an accompanying effor that excludes all conditional objects and staes, is an expression of this sixth stage error.

Stage Seven -- Divine Enlightenment. The seventh stage of life is Perfect Freedom, inherently Transcending every kind of conditional, limited, or individual point of view. All conditions are divinely recognized as merely apparent modifications of the Love-Bliss-Radiant Consciousness in which all conditional forms or events arise and pass away.

Thus, in the seventh stage of life, the Realizer enjoys Sahaj Samadhi, or continuous permanent, inherently perfect identification with Divine Being or Happiness Itself, and he or she experiences no "radical" or fundamental difference between Divine Consciousness and body, psyche, separate or separative self, or any and all psych-physical states and conditions.

Secondary Nondualism
First, two terms have to be defined:
Purusha: The Self, the Absolute, pure consciousness. The witness observing the changes taking place in Prakriti.
Prakriti: the primal matter of which the universe consists. By its proximity to purusha, it creates the mind, the world of appearances.

According to this point of view -- Secondary Nondualism -- there is no inherently independent and separate Purusha, but the totality of existence is only Prakriti (or a beginningless and endless continuum of causes and effects, or, in effect, modifications of Prakriti, or of "energy itself"). Therefore, according to this point of view, Prakriti (or "energy itself") appears only as ephemeral changes preceded and followed by equally ephemeral changes, until (by the process of observation, insight, and self-pacification) the inherent (or original, or Nirvanic) state of Prakriti is realized.

(However, there is an ultimate paradox necessarily associated with this orientation, or point of view, for if the realization of the original or Nirvanic state of Prakriti, or of "energy itself", is in fact achieved, how can that realization be differentiated from, or otherwise be presumed to be other than, or not identical to, Absolute Consciousness itself?)

In any case, this point of view and Process...is traditionally associated with the sixth stage of life, and such great sixth stage schools as have appeared within the traditions of Buddhism and Taoism.

Ultimate Nondualism
According to this point of view, there is (in Truth) no Prakriti, but the totality of existence is only Purusha. Therefore, from this point of view, this "Ultimate Absolute" (or this non-conditional, and, as such, inherently perfect, and perfectly subjective reality) must, first of all, be understood (and directly intuited) to be actual and then perfectly or utterly affirmed (by direct identification with Consciousness Itself).

And this point of view and process (which may follow upon, or be uncovered by, the point of view and process of Secondary Non-dualism) is the second (and final, and Principal) nondual possible point of view and process traditionally (and inherently) associated with the sixth stage of life (and such great sixth stage schools as have appeared in the form of the traditions of Advaitism, and also, secondarily, or with less directness, within the schools of some varieties of Buddhism, especially within the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, and, but with even less directness, within some of the schools of Taoism).

Indeed, this point of view and process is (when most perfectly realized) the "point of view" (and ultimate perfect process) that establishes and characterizes even the seventh stage of life.

The "Self-Abiding" discipline of Ultimate Non-dualism achieves self-transcendence (or renunciation of body and mind), but by the ultimate and most direct means of perfectly subjective Self-Abiding, whereas Secondary Non-dualism seeks Ultimate Non-duality by the conditional means of either asceticism or self-pacification. However, it is also generally the case in actual practice that the real process of Self-Abiding (or direct and profound identification with consciousness itself, prior to body and mind) begins or develops only after, or in the course of, degress of practice (previous to the sixth stage of life, or otherwise in the context of the sixth stage of life) wherein either ascetical or self-pacifying disciplines are engaged until identification with the body and the mind is sufficiently released to stably allow the direct approach of unconditional identification with consciousness itself.

Utter self-purification or utter self-pacification is not possible, and, in any case, it is not itself God-Realization (or the realization of Truth Itself, or Reality Itself). Therefore, the limits of (or the search associated with) the moderate and necessary orientation toward self-renunciation must eventually be understood, and even the motive of self-renunciation must then (in the context of the sixth stage of life) be replaced (or transcended, or perfectly fulfilled) by the ultimate process of Native Identification with the inherently perfect and perfectly subjective (and, ultimately, Divine), Non-Dual (or Absolute), Self-Existing, and Self-Radiant Truth, or Reality Itself, which is Existence (or Being) Itself, Consciousness Itself, and Happiness (or Love-Bliss) Itself. And, in the course of this ultimate Process, God-Realization Itself (or the Unqualified, or Absolute, Realization of Truth Itself, or Inherently Perfect Reality Itself) is made Perfectly possible by Divine Grace.

What is the meaning of the word nonduality?  

The underlying true nature of reality can be described as nondualistic and it has been 'lived from' and referenced to by wellspoken teachers, quiet sages, and ordinary truth seekers of many different traditions and backgrounds.  Although there may be countless methods available for, not just understanding, but actually realizing and living from nonduality; what may be helpful, when, and how, seems unpredictable and may be even inversely related with the level of 'wanting to realize.' 

The contemporary teacher Adyashanti has even suggested that what ends up being the primary function of most methods is to exhaust the querent of their desire to attain 'something' such that there is a relaxing into what was, is, and will be already always here, 'no-thing-ness'. 

One quality however, may be of the greatest benefit to cultivating an awakening to the underlying truth, which is simply a deep commitment to 'truth' above the natural desire to 'feel good'.  

To realize and live from nonduality, duality must be fully seen through as merely mental interpretations of sensory information, rather than the standard automatic assumption we have that leads us to believe that the interpretations of mind are accurate impressions of external phenomena.  Duality is seen as pure conceptual projection in all its functional and sometimes disfunctional ways. 

That one goes 'up' or 'down' a mountain, for example, is not a valid description of the activity other than what is relative to the observer.  Even to agree to call it a mountain, one must realize that its name is not a description of essence, but rather it is simply a term of agreement, a label, for the purpose of communication and conceptualization.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding in the human conditioning, that to know a name is to know what it is.   

It may be said that all mental statements and interpretations are subjective (illusion, maya) and have no objective reality in the absence of the observer and therefore say more about the observer than anything to do with the external world.   

Furthermore, when realizing and living from nonduality, the distinction between the observer and the observed blurs, and totality of reality reveals itself as empty of names and ideas, leaving only undifferentiated presence.  Aware presence now can be seen to be experiencing itself through duality, giving rise to the functionality of seeming to have a separate sense of self exploring the myriad of possibilities.   

Even these words are nothing but dualistic conclusions. 

Take a big step back and there is but a writer and a reader...
Another step back, and there are just symbols on a screen of light and a pair of eyes feeding a brain... 
Another step back, and ask 'Who is reading this?'
And another asking, 'What is the "I" that wants to know?'
Finally, 'Out of what is all this arising?'

Hey Mandee,

I like the way you summarized things at the end of this and made the summary experiential with the invitations to 'step back' (deconstruct).

For me it is not wrong to say, 'Aware presence now can be seen to be experiencing itself through duality, giving rise to the functionality of seeming to have a separate sense of self exploring the myriad of possibilities.'.. or 'Finally, 'Out of what is all this arising?' '... yet I see the possibility of interpreting these statements as a distance between Presence and what is arising'

In this light I would suggest a more direct statement like, 'Aware presence now is the agent and the actor (the cause and effect). The duality of definitive labels like agent and actor, cause and effect is a consequence of mental representation and language. Mental representation and language is functionally very useful for making distinctions yet it is untrue because the label is not the fact and especially because mental representation is a slippery slope that flowers as the notion of a separate sense of self exploring myriad possibilities.


'Finally, 'Out of what is all this arising?'... may be restated as: 'Finally, without stepping, remain as Awareness'... and as T S Eliot says "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

Love,
James

ps - you pointed to what I said above with your statement 'Even these words are nothing but dualistic conclusions.'

by Dr. Gino Yu

- Prashant Trivedi

    To understand non-duality and how it operates
    in our lives we must first think back to a
    state before this physical universe came into
    being

    One has to understand that there are many universe's
    and this physical one is just one of them 

    Only the 'Creator' or in Vedic terminology, the
    'Paramatman,' exists in a timeless state
    beyond all the creations 

    We can not refer to Paramatman as a male or
    female, because it is without gender

    Being beyond time and space, and Paramatman
    is also beyond nature and it's qualities

    Before this multiverse began, there were no contradictions,
    as all were humble to the original divine spark 

    There were various lokas/creations/realms of existence 
    but no pain or suffering

    Then came an error, which was basically 
    'a being' going against the will of the 
    real creator and decided to become
    creator itself

    In this fraudulent world 
    created by this false creator
    known by many names Rex Mundi, Jehovah etc.
    who now proclaimed itself as god 
    we experience this duality as
    pleasure and pain, pessimism and optimism,
    black & white and so on  when in actuality
    all is pain

    This world is based on perversion of the original
    blueprints of other worlds  

    There is only one way to incorporate
    original non-duality in our daily lives
    in this fraud world

    One must surrender one's ego, i-ness to
    the original divine spark

    This allows one to free oneself from
    the false web 'maya' of this fake world   

    This is not always an easy task, because the
    illusionary power of this false creation, or the Web of
    Maya, is very strongly programmed into all the
    beings caught here

    Like an insect, once caught in this web, 
    one mfinds it hard to escape

    If anyone tells you that just by going deeper within
    your 'Self' you can break free from this
    prison, than they are lying 
    
    All this newagey 'God is within you' is 
    ego-enhancing nonsense which was meant to
    keep beings trapped in this realm
    of pain & torture

    Thats why Krishna asks Arjun in
    Gita to not pay attention to his own
    self but surrender his self to him

    Attention is the only device one has
    in this universe which is beyond the 
    evil programming 

    This device should never
    be used to peer inside one's own self because all
    one will find there is one's own genetics &
    ancestors & all of the combined programming
    which will make one more confused &  trapped

    The only way out is a sincere seeking of divine
    through using one's pure attention
    and surrendering of the ego
    to the 'paramatman' 

    Only when this is done, one realizes the true
    principle of Non-duality as one becomes
    whole again through connectivity with the Original 
    divine spark ...

"So, Swami-ji, what would you say that Advaita is?" The eager young woman crossed her legs and sat expectantly, pencil poised above a pristine pad of paper.

"It simply means ‘not two' - the ultimate truth is nondual," replied the Sage, reclining in a large and comfortable-looking armchair and not sitting in an upright lotus position, as he ought to have been, for the sake of the photograph that she had just taken, if nothing else.

She continued to wait for further elucidation before beginning to write but it soon became apparent that the answer had been given. "But is it a religion? Do you believe in God, for example?"

"Ah, well, that would depend upon what you mean by those words, wouldn't it?" he responded, irritatingly. "If, by ‘religion', you mean does it have priests and churches and a band of followers who are prepared to kill non-believers, then the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you refer to the original, literal meaning of the word, namely to ‘bind again', to reunite the mistaken person that we think we are with the Self that we truly are, then yes, it is a religion. Similarly, if by ‘God' you mean a separate, supernatural being who created the universe and will reward us by sending us to heaven if we do what He wants, then the answer is no. If you use the term in the sense of the unmanifest, non-dual reality, then yes, I most certainly do believe in God."

The pencil raced across the paper, recording the answer for the benefit of the magazine's readers but, as the words clashed with previous ideas in her memory, the lack of a clear resolution of her questions was reflected by an increasing puzzlement in her expression.

He registered this with compassion and held out his hand towards her. "Give me a piece of paper from your pad." She looked up, mouth slightly open as she wondered why he could possibly want that. But she turned the pad over, carefully tore off the bottom sheet and placed it in his outstretched hand. He turned to the table at his right and deftly began to fold and refold the paper. After a few moments, he turned back and, before she had had time to see what he had done, he held the paper aloft and launched it into the air. It rose quickly and circled gracefully around the room before losing momentum and diving to meet a sudden end when its pointed nose hit a sauce bottle on the dining table. "Could you bring it back over here do you think?" he asked.

"So, what would you say that we have here?" he asked, as she handed it back to him.

"It's a paper aeroplane," she replied, with just a hint of questioning in her voice, since the answer was so obvious that she felt he must have some other purpose in mind.

"Really?" he responded and, in an instant, he screwed up the object and, with a practised, over-arm movement, threw it effortlessly in a wide arc, from which it landed just short of the waste paper basket in the corner of the room. "And now?" he asked.

"It's a screwed-up ball of paper", she said, without any doubt in her voice this time.
"Could you bring it back again, please", he continued. She did so, wondering if this was typical of such an interview, spending the session chasing about after bits of paper like a dog running after a stick. He took the ball and carefully unfolded it, spread it out on the table and smoothed his hand over it a few times before handing it back to her. "And now it is just a sheet of paper again," he said, "although I'm afraid it's a bit crumpled now!"

He looked at her, apparently anticipating some sign of understanding if not actual revelation but none was forthcoming. He looked around the room and, after a moment, he stood up, walked over to the window and removed a rose from a vase standing in the alcove. Returning to his seat, he held the rose out to her and asked, "What is this?"

She was feeling increasingly embarrassed as it was clear he was trying to explain something fundamental, which she was not understanding. Either that or he was mad or deliberately provoking her, neither of which seemed likely, since he remained calm and open and somehow intensely present. "It's a flower," she replied eventually.

He then deliberately took one of the petals between his right-hand thumb and fore-finger and plucked it. He looked at her and said, "And now?" She didn't reply, though it seemed that this time he didn't really expect an answer. He continued to remove the petals one by one until none remained, looking up at her after each action. Finally, he pulled the remaining parts of the flower head off the stem and dropped them onto the floor, leaving the bare stalk, which he held out to her. "Where is the flower now?" he asked. Receiving no reply, he bent down and picked up all of the petals, eventually displaying them in his open hand. "Is this a flower?" he asked.

She shook her head slowly. "It was a flower only when all of the petals and the other bits were all attached to the stem."

"Good!" he said, appreciatively. "Flower is the name that we give to that particular arrangement of all of the parts. Once we have separated it into its component parts, the flower ceases to exist. But was there ever an actual, separate thing called ‘flower'? All of the material that constituted the original form is still here in these parts in my hand.

"The paper aeroplane is an even simpler example. There never was an aeroplane was there? And I don't just mean that it was only a toy. There was only ever paper. To begin with, the paper was in the form of a flat sheet for writing on. Then, I folded it in various ways so that it took on an aerodynamic shape which could fly through the air slowly. The name that we give to that form is ‘aeroplane'. When I screwed it up, the ball-shape could be thrown more accurately. ‘Aeroplane' and ‘ball' were names relating to particular forms of the paper but at all times, all that ever actually existed was paper.

"Now, this sort of analysis applies to every ‘thing' that you care to think of. Look at that table over there and this chair on which you are sitting. What are they made of? You will probably say that they are wooden chairs?"

He looked at her questioningly and she nodded, knowing at the same time that he was going to contradict her. "Well, they are made of wood certainly, but that does not mean that they are wooden chairs! On the contrary, I would say that this, that you are sitting on, is actually chairy wood, and that object over there is tably wood. What do you say to that?"

"You mean that the thing that we call ‘chair' is just a name that we give to the wood when it is that particular shape and being used for that particular function?" she asked, with understanding beginning to dawn.

"Exactly! I couldn't have put it better myself. It is quite possible that I could have a bag full of pieces of wood that can be slotted together in different ways so that at one time I might assemble them into something to sit upon, another time into something to put food upon and so on. We give the various forms distinct names and we forget that they are ONLY names and forms and not distinct and separate things.

"Look - here's an apple," he said, picking one out of the bowl on the table and casually tossing it from one hand to the other before holding it up for her to examine. "It's round or to be more accurate, spherical; its reddish in colour and it has", he sniffed it, "a fruity smell. No doubt if I were to bite into it, I would find it juicy and sweet.

"Now all of these - round, red, fruity, juicy, sweet - are adjectives describing the noun ‘apple.' Or, to use more Advaitic terms, let me say that the ‘apple' is the ‘substantive' - the apparently real, separately existing thing - and all of the other words are ‘attributes' of the apple - merely incidental qualities of the thing itself. Are you with me so far?"

She nodded hesitantly but, after a little reflection, more positively.
"But suppose I had carried out this analysis with the rose that we looked at a moment ago. I could have said that it was red, delicate, fragrant, thorny and so on. And we would have noted that all of those were simply attributes and that the actual existent thing, the substantive, was the rose. But then we went on to see that the rose wasn't real at all. It was just an assemblage of petals and sepals and so on - I'm afraid I am not a botanist! In the same way, we could say that the apple consists of seeds and flesh and skin. We may not be able to put these things together into any form different from an apple but Nature can.

"If you ask a scientist what makes an apple an apple, he will probably tell you that is the particular configuration of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA of the cells. There are many different species of apple and each one will have a slight variation in the chromosomes and it is that which differentiates the species. If you want to explain to someone what the difference is between a Bramley and a Granny Smith, you will probably say something like ‘the Bramley is large and green, used mainly for cooking and is quite sharp tasting, while the Granny Smith is still green but normally much smaller and sweeter'. But these are all adjectives or attributes. What is actually different is the physical makeup of the cell nuclei.

"But, if we look at a chromosome or a strand of DNA, are we actually looking at a self-existent, separate thing? If you look very closely through an electron microscope, you find that DNA is made up of four basic units arranged in pairs in a long, spiral chain. And any one of these units is itself made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, again arranged in a very specific way. So even those are not separate ‘things-in-themselves'; they are names given to particular forms of other, more fundamental things.

"And so we arrive at atoms - even the ancient Greeks used to think that everything was made up of atoms. Are these the final ‘substantives' with all of the apparent things in the world being merely attributes? Well, unfortunately not. Science has known for a long time that atoms mainly consist of empty space with electrons spinning around a central nucleus of protons and neutrons. And science has known for somewhat less time that these particles, which were once thought to be fundamental, are themselves not solid, self-existent things but are either made up of still smaller particles or are in the form of waves, merely having probabilities of existence at many different points in space.

"Still more recently, science claimed that all of the different particles are themselves made out of different combinations of just a few particles called quarks and that those are the ultimately existing things. But they have not yet progressed far enough. The simple fact of the matter is that every ‘thing' is ultimately only an attribute, a name and form superimposed upon a more fundamental substantive. We make the mistake of thinking that there really is a table, when actually there is only wood. We make the mistake of thinking that there is really wood, when actually there is only cellulose and sugars and proteins. We make the mistake of thinking there is protein when this is only a particular combination of atoms. "Ultimately, everything in the universe is seen to be only name and form of a single substantive.

The journalist was transfixed; not exactly open-mouthed but her pencil had not moved for some time. Eventually, she asked in a small voice: "But then where do I fit into all of this?"

"Ah", he replied. "That again depends upon what you mean by the word ‘I'. Who you think you are - ‘Sarah' - is essentially no different from the table and chair. You are simply name and form, imposed upon the non-dual reality. Who you really are, however... well, that is quite different - you are that nondual reality. You see, in the final analysis, there are not two things; there is only nonduality. That is the truth; that is Advaita."

by Jerry Katz

Nonduality can’t be defined in the same way you define … tungsten, for example. There’s no single definition of nonduality that everyone would agree upon. Nor is a definition of nonduality intended to replace full teachings such as Advaita Vedanta or Buddhist traditions, or the teaching of any Guru. Nonduality is to be seen, lived, awakened to, and then, for whatever reason, one may try to define it.

Having awakened to nonduality or the realization that there is only awareness*, the elements of your definition may include

a statement that nonduality means non-separation: “In the world of things as they are, there is no self, no non self;”

a confession from pure knowing, or experience, of what nonduality is: “Nonduality is the living heart of being;”

a method for experiencing nonduality: “Don't keep searching for the truth; just let go of your opinions;”

a statement that the definition of nonduality rests in seeing or experiencing nonduality, not merely reading words: “It is not simply having an occasional experience of unity beyond all division, it is actually being undivided. This is what nonduality truly means;”

a metaphor: “as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space: when the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space;”

a reference to an authority: “Gaudapada … argues that there is no duality;”

a disclaimer, paradox: “Nonduality is ineffable. Any words that attempt to capture its essence instead hide it from us.”

You’ll see several of those points in this description of nonduality or advaita from Encyclopedia Britannica:

Non-Duality is so profound that it is the very substance and expression of life.  It is pre-life and after-life and intra-life.  There have been various techniques developed in Vedanta, Zen and other paths to try to point toward this truth, but it is so profound that no system, no matter how great has ever fathomed its depth or expanse.  Spiritual traditions and even some of the modern sciences are only hinting at its beingness, but it is up to each organic entity (person or otherwise) to directly realize its truth.

You can believe in God or have no belief in God.  You can believe in science or have no belief that science is a beacon of truth and Non-Duality will not be fazed.  All are welcome to take this grand journey to discover whether this truth that ‘All is Pure Awareness, Ever Free and Blissful’ is actually true or not

Why Non-Duality?

Because it brings us freedom, joy and understanding of ourselves, depths of who we are that we never even dreamed of – not only as we are today, but as we will be in the future.  Ultimately it transcends all of our concepts of self and brings us to the brink of knowing the Source of all life so we can learn to love and serve all beings in joy.

The philosophy of Non-Dualism is the point of view that there is one Absolute Reality without a second and that each of us is one with that Reality, just as a wave is one with the ocean. It asserts that experiencing Ultimate Reality is the goal of life. Advaita, another name for Non-Dualism, sees other religions, practices and philosophies as tools that ultimately lead to the direct experience of Absolute Reality.

To discriminate between what is real and what is not real, it is necessary to define what is meant by real and not real. In this philosophy only that which neither changes nor ceases to exist is real. No object or knowledge can be absolutely real if its existence is only temporary. The unreal includes every “thing,” all names and forms, our minds and thoughts, everything. The universe looks real but is not permanent. It is an illusion. We can’t say it exists nor can we say it doesn’t exist. It is neither real nor non-existent. It is magical. It’s a mystery.

Reality is not a thing at all. It is no-thing, nothing. An innocent term for it would be pure spirit, or pure consciousness. It has no parts. If we look for it, we are an eye looking for itself. It is experienced but cannot be described. It is ineffable. This Pure Consciousness is permanent existence, knowledge and bliss and is one with man’s inner self.

When we wake up from a dream the dream world disappears. Non-Dualism teaches that when we wake up to reality this world disappears. The world of thought and matter is a misreading of pure spirit and nothing more. It has a phenomenal or relative existence superimposed upon Absolute Reality by ignorance and remains superimposed until ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of reality, commonly called Spiritual Enlightenment.

...a state of consciousness in which we are each aware that there is only One and yet, simultaneously, we are engaging as many; a state in which we are able to experience unqualified communion and powerful autonomy at the very same time. That's nonduality--incarnational nonduality. It is experienced in the body, in relationship, not only in the stillness of inner revelation.

Understanding is of no importance when it comes to Non- Duality. The word Advaita (meaning Not Two, I use Advaita and Non-Duality interchangeably) points to something that is totally beyond understanding. It is a very interesting subject (and the equivalent of watching paint dry for many, if not most), but getting your teeth into it and understanding it and being able to discuss and describe it in an intellectual or intelligent manner is of no relevance what so ever. There are many who are claiming to be liberated and have an enormous intellectual grasp of the topic and clearly there is still a personal agenda, clearly they are still offering something to the individual. The language used is very similar to other uncompromising messages (e.g. there is no one, this is it etc) but there is still something on offer to the individual and the ‘teacher- student’ game is played out, even though the teacher is claiming not to be one.

Non-duality or Advaita then becomes the last refuge of the individual who is under threat. It is fodder for the mind. It becomes the new, best concept in town as it were. There can be a certain clarity that it brings which eases the search for the individual in the sense that it is seen that there is nothing that can be done. That is not liberation however, understanding that there is no separate individual is not liberation as there is (apparently) a separate individual left who understands that. Understanding is seen as king when in fact it has nothing to do with what is in fact being sought. Understanding simply arises in being, is it just another apparent happening. It is of course married to ignorance or confusion. One is dependent on the other for existence.

What is being pointed to has no room for the concept of duality or non-duality/Advaita. It has no room, no space for concept. It is so immediately THIS and so simply and obviously what IS that the Duality - Non Duality debate has as much significance as a leaf scattering along cold concrete. Wholeness arises as confused message and wholeness arises as a clear message.

The juicy sweetness, the boundless freedom of everything, the unconditional love that is This is speaking to you always and is totally beyond understanding. It is already what is, already this. What is being sought is already what is. So simple, so open, so ordinary and also totally beyond any effort to describe its beauty.

Amazing.

WHAT???? “Nonduality”—Definition #10,216.6: A word used to point towards Ultimate Truth, or Reality, or God, or whatever other name you want to use. The Nondual (or "Advaitic") approach differs radically from all other approaches in that it is not really an approach at all, but rather a direct confrontation with the raw nature of being itself. Refers to the ripping away of all obscuring beliefs, concepts, traditions, practices and dogmas, only to reveal the Wizard Herself, standing naked behind the curtain, exactly where She has always and already been: Ohh!

If we are riding on the same bus, and we both fall asleep and we both are sleeping without dreams, how is your sleep different from mine? Without stories, we are one, without stories, we are no one. Nonduality is the one, that is no one.

You ask what does 'nonduality' mean.  I once tried
to ask for a definition of the word on some discussion
lists, and I received a variety of answers which
supplied diverse meanings.

Recently there was a conference held in California
titled, 'Conference on Science and Nonduality.'
Again I would say that a variety of meanings
of the word nonduality was given by different
speakers.

I can try to tell you what the teachings of
Advaita/Vedanta say nonduality is, as that is
the tradition in which I study.

The word nondual (or in Sanskrit advaita) means
that there are not really two things which have
absolute existence, or there is really only one
thing which exists absolutely despite all
appearances to the contrary.

That statement and the premise itself may seem very strange
initially, as everything that one sees and experiences
is apparently different one thing from another.

There are certain teachings (like Advaita/Vedanta)
that use logic and method to conduct an inquiry
into the nature of one's self and reality, which
enable the student to arrive at the direct recognition
that all that is seen, perceived and experienced in reality
has only one being.   That being is your being.  That
being is my being.  Being only one, that being cannot
be different. 

IMO it isn't easy to arrive at this recognition without
very clear guidance, as all of our experiences seem to
point in an opposite direction.  However, with good
guidance, and over time, one can come to recognize
that what is nondual is the only 'thing' which is
ultimately 'real.'  That recognition is called
moksha or enlightenment in the tradition of
Advaita/Vedanta.

All of that being said, I can only offer you my
understanding of what the word means.  This understanding
is the one given by teachings themselves which are
so very ancient as most likely to be the oldest
teachings which use the word advaita/nondual (AFAIK).

However, these days the word nondual has become
very popular, and it is used and understood
variously.  Thus if you ask the question of
many people, you will most likely receive
many different answers according to each
person's definition.

Best wishes,
Durga

Yosy

Nonduality is the realization/observation of the timeless, all pervading unity, as expressed continuously by the apparent name/form apparatus, without any agent or entity. this is what is - rest are stories, speculations etc...

Nonduality - not 'the quality or opposition of being dual (two).'
-- not 'the opposition between two concepts or aspects.' (Oxford English Dictionary)


Or to put it simply 'not two' (of anything). It is put this way, rather than saying 'all is one', for the very term 'one' implies (that there could be) two or more… In fact the term 'nonmultiplicity' would be more accurate for what is being suggested here is 'not many' rather than 'not two'.

What we are trying to get a handle on here is that there is actually no (permanently existing) thing in existence, and that all apparent 'things' are manifestations of the same essence.

This can be shown by investigating the nature of our own subjective experiences, which is actually all that any of us have to investigate. For each of us any external object or thing is experienced as a combination of thought (including mental images) and sensation, i.e. you may see it, touch it, know what it is called, and so on … Thus everything in the external world is experienced as a mixture of thoughts and sensations, and when we attempt to investigate any 'thing' it is these that we are investigating.

Any given moment of direct experience there are only three elements: thoughts (including all mental images), sensations (everything detected by the senses) and awareness of these thoughts and sensations. All thoughts and sensations are ephemeral objects (the perceived) which appear in this awareness (the perceiver) which is the constant subject. So at a deeper level than the ever-changing objects (thoughts and sensations) we are this constant subject, awareness itself.

To put this in a slightly different way, we can easily notice that every thought and sensation occurs in awareness, exists in awareness and dissolves back into awareness. Before any particular thought or sensation there is effortless awareness of 'what is': the sum of all thoughts and sensations occurring at any given instant. During the thought or sensation in question there is effortless awareness of it within 'what is'. Then when it has gone there is still effortless awareness of 'what is'.

Reiterating, for each of us any external object (or thing) is experienced as a combination of thought and sensation, i.e. you see it, touch (feel) it, know what it is called, etc. Therefore in our direct experience everything arises in, exists in and subsides back into awareness itself.

Awareness can also be defined as universal consciousness when it is totally at rest, completely still; aware of every movement that is occurring within it. In our direct experience we can see that awareness is still, as there is awareness of the slightest movement of mind or body. In fact this is the 'stillness' relative to which any movement can be known. Every 'thing' that is occurring in consciousness is a manifestation of cosmic energy, for the string theory and the earlier theory of relativity show that matter is in fact energy, which is consciousness in motion (or motion in consciousness). For energy is synonymous with motion and consciousness is the substratum, or deepest level, of all existence.

Now all motion arises in stillness, exists in stillness, is known by its comparison with stillness, and eventually subsides back into stillness. For example, if you walk across a room, before you start there is stillness, as you walk the room is still and you know you are moving relative to this stillness, and when you stop once again there is stillness. In the same way every 'thing' (consciousness in motion) arises in awareness (consciousness at rest), exists in awareness, is known in awareness and subsides back into awareness. Awareness is still, but is the container of all potential energy which is continually bubbling up into manifestation (physical energy) and then subsiding back into stillness.

Thus there is no dichotomy or duality between the physical world and 'awareness' for they are both manifestations of the same essence. The physical universe is just cosmic energy (consciousness in motion) when it is manifest into physical form, and awareness (consciousness at rest) contains this same energy in latent form as potential energy. Therefore there is in reality no multiplicity (nondualtiy) as there is only consciousness existing in two modes, in motion and at rest.

Just as the Vedantic idea of Brahman always remains outside descriptive terminology, so, too, nonduality is outside description, name or form. So Vedanta in its timeless wisdom gives us Ishwara, The Divine manifest in name and form. The name and form must always be a giant step short of the ultimate reality. But it is the best we can do. In that spirit, I would say Advaita/nonduality is SatChitAnanda: pure Being, pure Con- sciousness, pure Bliss.

There’s no such thing as nonduality … Nonduality is just a word, it’s a pointer. But once you have nonduality, you have duality. So the question is, is there such a thing as nonduality prior to the word nonduality?

Nonduality as the phrase implies, literally means not two. There are not two things. It makes reference to the presumption deeply embedded in all cultures, that experience is divided into two things, one, a knower, and two, the known. … The term duality makes reference to these two apparent things, a knowing subject, which is considered to be this body, or in this body, and a known object — other, person, world — which is considered to be outside myself and separate from myself. The term nonduality indicates the true nature of our experience, which, if we make a deep exploration of our actual experience, we find there are not these two things. There is just one. … not two. … That leaves what there is truly, completely open, unnamed, untouched, but yet absolutely present in every experience.

Nonduality would be not the absence of duality. It is something which transcends duality. … In our experience we have youth, we have old age, we having the waking state, dream state, we have lots of different dualities, male, female… What we find is the very basic consciousness has no duality. It is independent of time. … Consciousness has no dependence whatsoever. … The very content of duality does not have duality.

If you name it you’ve already changed it. Our basic idea about nonduality is … an infinite light with no end that has no differentiation in it, no light or dark, no positive or negative, … or any of these dualities. … We don’t supress any question. We pray our questions. Our doubts are very holy. Out of a good question comes a lot of thinking. … The question is, “What motivated the creation of the universe?” Because there was no room in this nonduality for the so-called narcissistic ego that could choose to rebel against the nonduality and assert its individuality selfishly against the nonduality. This is the puzzle of Torah. We start from there then we go on to celebrate the existence of both. What we’re interested in is the conversation between the duality, or the left brain thinking — the “I” that strategizes — and the right side, which feels part of a unity without any differentiation. How do you give way to both sides and create a conversation between the two? What we believe is that G-d is the name of the one that cannot be named. How do you create G-d as the oscillating tension between the two that exist in the conversation. My operant metaphor for that is somebody walking a tightrope.

Nonduality … means the universe is not dual, there is one common essence to the universe. … Science is nondual. It’s basic philosophy is that there is a unified field, a oneness which we are approaching. In spiritual circles … the nonduality is where the essence is awareness … consciousness … a different sort of nonduality … both of them see the fundamental nature of things, the oneness behind everything.

Nonduality involves absence of self or sense of self and the feeling of oneness or unity with everything, with the universe. I’ve believed that nonduality is just the plain truth. The universe is one thing and we’re all part of the universe and that it isn’t nonduality that needs explanation, it’s duality that needs explanation. In fact, there is a mental organ that produces duality, just one. Without the activity of that mental organ, we would experience nonduality as the normal state.

The way we see it in the Sufi tradition is that — particularly for mystic consciousness — we understand that everything is rooted in the divine. Everything is unified in a field of oneness. Practically speaking what that means is that my consciousness, my love, my will, my generosity if I have any, my capacity for forgiveness, all of these have their attributes in the source of the divine. … This nonduality has a kind of quality to it … that is deeply personal as well as cosmic and impersonal because we realize the human being is the ripened fruit of that nonduality. The nonduality doesn’t cancel our human individuality. … We don’t make a big deal about nonduality because we know and trust that everything comes from God. The God that we’re talking about is subtle and integral to this whole creation. … Poetry suggests it. We communicate more through poetry than through abstract theory.

Nonduality, for me, points to the basic absence of difference between self and other, between subject and object, between perceiver and perceived. When the Buddha said form is emptiness and emptiness is form, this is statement of nondual perception. When nothing looks out and sees that it’s everything, this is the experience of nonduality. The apparent division between self and other is seen through. … The reality of the seamless wholeness nature of reality reveals itself. … It’s a deep understanding and knowing that there is essentially no separation.

Nonduality is the certain perspective on self and consciousness which makes one to experience being and consciousness as undivided and nonseparate from every other consciousness which can be perceived initially as different. It’s the experience of consciousness as being undivided, experience of your own being as being connected with the rest of the universe, and being one with the rest of the universe even though you may not have the perception of the whole universe at the moment. Most importantly, the experience of nonduality is the experience of authenticity, of authentic, unlimited, nonconstricted being, experience of being yourself, experience of living life with no fear.

My experience is that fundamentally reality is characterized by polarity. For me it’s not nondual or dual. It’s both at the same time. … Polarity is opposites, but they can only exist together. … They’re two and one at the same time. The paradox of our predicament is that it’s two and one at the same time. I see no reason to prejudice one over the other. In fact, I see a necessity to be conscious of both. What I’ve looked for is an image that can capture that experience. For me the image is lucid living, which is a state comparable to lucid dreaming, only now. … On the one hand I am Tim … I’m actually so individual that I inhabit this unique point in space and time and no one else can or ever will inhabit it. Then there’s the discovery of this deeper nature, the subject itself, not the object, the “I”, that which is witnessing this, and if I go deeply into that now it is a vast spaciousness in which all this is arising just like in a dream. And those two exist together, so “here” it’s all one, “here” it’s all separate. Which is true? They’re both true.

The definition for nonduailty would be that there is one single reality. We all have the knowledge that we are conscious and that consciousness is real. That which hears the words is consciousness. That is beyond a shadow of a doubt. …The world is only a concept which is inferred from perceptions. Perceptions are mind stuff. … Consciousness is the reality of our experience. If there is only one reality … the reality of all minds must be the same. That is the fundamental understanding of nonduality.

[Silence. The video shows him smiling, shrugging, nodding, being.]

Literally what we’re talking about is the non-distinction of nonduality of I and other primarily … distinctions come from the conceptual mind that divides the world into this and that and the primary one is the distinction between me and you, me and that, me, me. That’s duality. It becomes a problem when we forget there is no me. … There’s just a flow of energy and awareness and then something pops up and says, “ME” and that’s starts duality. But duality and nonduality are two sides of the same coin. You can’t separate one from the other, you have to see the whole thing, which is duality and nonduality together.

I really don’t know what nonduality is anymore. Years ago I could have told you a lot about nonduality. The word nonduality is just a pointer. It points to life as it’s happening and the possibility that we’re not separate from life. The moment you talk about nonduality you kind of missed the point. … The moment you talk about it you’ve made it into something separate from something else … which is completely dualistic. So what is nonduality. I guess the answer is there when the question isn’t, somehow.

The question of nonduality has been the concern of human beings since the beginning of civilization, because we want to see if there is any essence to all that there is. … What is nonduality when we see around ourselves duality? Is there any essence to [duality]? … In Sufism we come to the metaphor of raindrop and ocean. When it falls into the ocean it realizes that it is the ocean. So unless we find that reality within our own selves, then duality remains.

Nonduality in Sanskrit … is the theory that one can perceive the world in a completely unified fashion. … Nondualism is said to be the ultimate state that one may arrive at, after many years or perhaps very quickly.

Yes, the key thing is that 'Non-Duality' does not EXIST. It is not an object, and never can be an object. It is simply a tool to flip the mind out of conceptual thinking, out of a fixed perspective. The one who takes his stand as a separate entity/ego, is simply the projection of the past - memory, conditioning, programming. The past is forever replicating itself in all that arises, taking different shapes and forms, but always transient in the moment. The witness of these simply takes note of the arising and is not tempted to get involved, because the witness is not from the perspective of the separate ego ... it is simply a function of nature/the universal consciousness. The ego can never take control of the witness ... it can only pretend to, but underlying all deception is a fundamental awareness of how things truly are. This is present in us all ... though maybe not always consciously.

The word 'nondual' is the English translation
of the Sanskrit word, advaita.

Dvaita means two. And in Sanskrit, when you place
the letter 'a' before certain consonants, that negates
the meaning of the word. Thus dvaita means two, or dual,
and advaita means not two, or not dual, hence the
word 'nondual.' Well, that still doesn't explain
what the word nondual actually means.

It means one. But what does that mean? One what?

From my understanding, what the word nondual
means is that despite all appearances to
the contrary, there is actually only one
thing which really and truly exists in and
of itself.

Even a cursory analysis of all things that
are perceived leads one to the conclusion that
all objects are really made up of smaller and
smaller objects.

We take any object, say a chair, and then we analyze
it. What is really there? It's an object we give
a name to, and the name has a meaning, but when we
analyze the object, the chair soon falls apart. It
soon falls apart into smaller and smaller objects.

What is really there?

What is really there, nondual teachings tell us,
is something which cannot be cognized as an object
of sense perception, but yet which itself forms the
basis of all objects, the basis of all sense perceptions,
and is in fact your very own being.

So that's a very big 'jump' to make from a chair
to your very own being as the actual substance
of all that is, and it takes a lot of careful
step by step explanation, teaching, and analysis
before what is being pointed out isn't a jump, but
rather is directly recognized as an obvious fact,
which hitherto went unrecognized, but which was
always true as fact.

So what is nonduality? Nonduality is the
understanding that despite the appearance of
an infinite number of names and forms, and
despite all appearances to the contrary,
and despite the possibility of an endless number of
incarnations for all living things, there is really
only one 'thing' which in and of itself actually
exists, and it is that one thing which
all apparently separate things have for their
actual being.

The direct recognition of this fact is called
by some 'enlightenment.' It is also referred to
as 'the end of suffering.' It is referred to
in many other ways as well. It is said
by the tradition in which I study that it
is the recognition that my being is whole
and complete, there in reality being nothing
other than my being (which by the way is your
being too).

So it is this one 'thing' which all things
'share' as it were. It is this one thing
in which all things have their being.

It is this one thing, which never goes into
or out of being, while the entire universe
constantly changes within it.

So it's a really big topic, and I don't know
if what I've written makes any sense to you
or not, as it was a very brief (and not very
thorough) explanation of the word 'nondual.'

It takes a long time to understand what nonduality is.
At least it took me a long time, and I'm still gaining
clarity in that understanding.

Best wishes,
Dhanya

From Dzogchen by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, "Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State":

p.86
'Nondual' is, in fact, a term that is used in Dzogchen a great deal, instead of the term 'union.' To understand why this is so, one needs to be aware that the word 'union' implies that there exist two different things in the first place to be united, whereas 'nondual' means that right from the beginning there is no concept of twoseparate things to be reunited. This is a way of explaining teh base, but how can we enter into a real understanding of it? The fact is that the base cannot be understood through the intellect. Even if we think we have grasped the meaning of the word 'nondual,' we are really just fooling ourselves, because our mind is still caught up in the dualistic condition.

The mind is, by nature, limited. It does not have the capacity to think of two things at once, and exists at the relative level. When we think of everything as being nondual, our minds are in fact occupied in that moment with the concept. But that is not what is meant by 'knowledge of the nondual state.' Intellectual understanding and direct experiential knowledge are two very different things.

Four Songs of Non Duality: The Ashtavakra, Avadhut, Ribhu and Bhagavad Gitas
By Roy Melvyn