Q&A - What is Dualism in Buddhism?
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 04. 2016
- Q&A at Choe Khor Sum Ling, Bangalore
Recorded on the 15th of July, 2015
Teacher: Geshe Dorji Damdul
Here Geshe-la explains non-dualism from 3 traditions - Vedantic tradition, Cittamatra tradition & Prasangika-Madhyamaka tradition.
Following along slowly. Is taking me a while - It is great and clear to see.
Brilliantly explained. Thank you Geshe la. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I don't know Geshe-La but he is cool...........Tashi Delegs & Mangalam Geshe-La! You're the first Buddhist Geshe I"ve heard even mention these things..............E MA HO!
Brilliant,
I used to have so much confusion about Non-duality for a very long time among various traditions. This video help me understand all those concepts and difference.
🙏🙏🙏🙏
I’m not sure how well the vedantic explanation is explained here 🤔
Very interesting though and I appreciate the discussion 🙏
👍👍👍👍
Can someone please tell me the name of what he's talking about starting at 5:18 about inside/outside duality?
This is great. I was a physics major considering becoming a religion major amd took a course w Robert Thurman. It changed mt life. What Prof Thurman named the Centrist School of Buddhist philosophy seems the greatest solution to the nondualsit position and this presentation answered a long standing question I had. Still, where Centrism fails is that it remains situated in the larger Tibetan (perhaps better expressed indo-tibetan tradition) which does claim that all things are constituted by "clear light" Well, if so then the Ultimate really is not seeing the absence of any reality that can withstand analysis as Centrists worked so hard to demonstrate. Thurman himself has stated that clear light is constituative of all things even while maintaining that the Ultimateis only seeing that there is nothing which exists inherently. That is cognitive dissonance. If all things are constituted by clear light, then clear light resists the Centrist critique and always remains when both person and object disappear. The promis was that nothing would remain.
What did you decide to do and how are your studies going?
This is resolved when all four statements in the Prajnaparamita teachings are understood in as a union, namely; Form is empty, emptiness is form, form is no other than emptiness and emptiness is no other than form. When these four have been understood as a unity beyond any doubt the state of true non-duality is achieved. Then the state of sourceless groundlessness is understood and realised. That understanding, or awareness, is itself the “clear light” spoken of, not only within the Tibetan traditions. This is the basis for the pinnacle practices of both Essence Mahamudra and Dzogchen. This is also the bridge between the pure Mahayana understanding of emptiness and the tantric practices of Varjayana. When Varjayana speak of “Buddha nature” we must understand that within the context of the “clear light” understanding emerging from the complete understanding of Prajnaparamita teachings and realisations. All contradictions are dissolved when the unity of the four original statements of Prajnaparamita is understood and fully realised. This cannot be intellectually comprehend but can only be a direct experience, beyond intellectual speculations. This is according to Mādhyamaka school of the essence-less nature of reality.
When Hindus speak of non-duality they mean the merging into Atman, which is seen as the true source. That means two becomes one for them. This is the reason Hindus think they can speak about non-duality and still refer to God as the ultimate and the source. However, this is not regarded as non-duality by followers of the Buddhist Middle Way of Mādhyamaka. Only when true sourceless-ness and the groundless nature of reality is fully understood is non-duality realised, according to followers of the Mādhyamaka school of thought. In actual fact, Mādhyamaka successfully refutes every statements or efforts that attempts to attach any attributes to true nature of reality. After a complete treatment of such scrutiny what is left is an utterly groundless nature which is free of any form of attributes or origination. This should be understood when a statement such as “only when nothing can be seen or observed is reality understood”. When statements such as “clear light” and “Buddha nature” is understood correctly it can only be understood to have the same nature as everything else. They cannot be of a different nature than phenomena in general, in this context. Neither clear light nor Buddha nature can be regarded as the source, -that would contradict everything that Mādhyamaka believe about sourceless nature of reality and it would make it a statement that corresponds with a Hindu view of original source instead. Incidentally, I believe this is the deeper meaning behind the famous Zen statement that say, -“if you meet the Buddha on the street, kill him!” The killing here gives a clear indication on how completely central and vital this distinction between a belief in an original source and the insight into a sourceless reality is. The Buddhist school of Mādhyamaka is named the Middle Way because it refutes all other attempts to describe reality, such as eternalism (original source, god, etc) and nihilism that plainly dismisses all phenomena and reality as actually non-existent. The root to the Mādhyamaka school of understanding is to be found in the four statements of Prajnaparamita taught by the Buddha Shakyamuni to this world of our present age.
..for ok i hope, I have another question that I still have from some time ago - It is, -what about -ideas? Like an idea of a tree. -a visual idea of a tree. Is this subjective or objective? - say -It is like a dream - not external (?) Can an idea of a tree exist - on its own - without the person's mind? I have this thought that it can or does. so external reality is really there. there is no inherent existence. maybe a different definition of object or external is be used. and an idea is usually an 'object' in one's mind. as an object itself, can't an idea be real in a real external reality - it exists similar to the subjective in persons mind reality but also that's invisible of this idea object. Like an material, invisible, object. But in both realities invisibly on its own. Both conventional and absolute - or and both 'internal' and external. But -then, it seems that it would -inherently exist. It seems that phenomenon of ideas is different. to me.- And not only visual ideas. But not what are ideas of course. So I'm not sure about that... ty. don't cancel. ok too uch. thank you so much,.love _/\_.
I might have passed the limit for comments. the program did strike-through. If this is why, I will limit my comments. but not sure
Does NOT dissolve into any thing. First rule. Start there rinpoche.
The human experience via our consciousness is not equipped to answer this question (see Kant's noumena)...Universalizing state experiences on a planet in the middle of nowhere is overreach as these experiences could be local to this earth.
At best all there is are different camps premised on individual experience. I sit, as a Christian Gnostic, in the dualist camp. Dvaita and Samkhya share similar views.
But again, definitive answers to metaphysics are not possible for us so I agree with the OP in the comment section that the more important question is How Should We Live? Not via usurious economics and economic predation is the correct answer.
It is not dualistic to say that. To say or know -everything is mind and externality is there-. There is no dualism to that. It is not dualistic to say that. In reality there is both of those. I thought -it was become lesson anwer to see interdependence. But that is not the lesson-? But also I thought that dualism is 1 or 2 dimensional. Reality ie mind and externality is 3 dimensional. Duality is not reality at all. Is soe sort of concept. That is a sort of false theory to use just a visual(?) or and or. Notsound is not understanding to go on about this. tyvm. vvm.