Yogani
Just a quick one - its an interesting thread and something which is clearly exercising you. Also interestingly synchronicity had lead me this way as I will mention below.
The first point is that as an "outsider" I am always entertained by the seemingly strict sectarian division between two tribes "dual" and "non-dual"... you know what its like as an outsider... lets say a Jewish person or a Moslem had wandered into Northern Ireland a decade ago with complete metal partitions between Protestant and Catholic... he might scratch his head and rather think that they both believe in Jesus Christ!
So the division seems to harden over time in terms of language here [8)] ... now for sure that is fine as long as one wishes to be in Camp A rather than Camp B ... however as you also say division is rather against the current as far as yoga (union) is concerned.
Secondly just from a linguistic and philosophical analysis this really seems (again from the outside - I speak from the blissful ignorance of 'beginners mind') to be approaching not just a division on one axis but on many... Or in another analogy a whole package versus another... A bit like "are you Republican or Democrat" leaves no scope for agreeing with some of both and disagreeing with some of both...
Presumably - going back to the northern Ireland analogy - the underlying soteriological goal (union of atman with Brahma) is the same? Presumably both tribes thus agree that apparent separation is not, fundamentally, "real". Presumably both sides appreciate that no-one can convert an entire audience in one lecture by any method..?
In passing I am in total agreement with your basic analogy that if one stops and looks around one will see as much as ones position on the mountain allows and that often (if not always eg Tolle?) one's position on the mountain is determined by how much climbing - wearing whatever boots one has been - one has done.
I found the link interesting (altho' seemingly to me in my ignorance far too excessive in terms of practice time recommendations for a novice). If one allows for difference in terminology and a certain leeway in general it seems to me to correspond quite well to Cittanupassana which I have been researching a lot recently (I can give you a good link to a pdf and a great lecture by a Burmese master if you are interested in further examination). This is mindfulness of the mind(/heart-mind) - the third of the Buddha's (unique
) invention/discovery of vipassana. It is generally not taught to beginners as it is (allegedly...) not easy to do. There are also few renowned teachers of it. But for sure it is a very kosher Indian meditation technique (and I see neither side as "wrong" just increasingly emphasising their own position.. for sure the more samadhi/calmness/stability of mind you have the easier it is - rather hard to do at some rave bombed out of ones mind lol (and vice versa...))
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
On the other hand, the non-dualists emphasize self inquiry as a starting point, an ending point, and the only point.
Just going back to my original point "two distinct tribes or a spectrum?" is this the general non-dual position or the most extreme position..(used for polemical reasons?)? Is there huge clear blue water between the two camps or just polarisation and actually mostly common agreement (other than over different emphases on different techniques)?
quote:
Yet, self inquiry is always presented as the logical thing (and only thing) for everyone to be doing from the beginning, usually from the perspective of a teacher who has umpteen years of previous multi-faceted practice and experience under their belt. While infinitely altruistic, it does not make practical sense.
Again I am not fully conversant - are there dozens of renowned teachers who suggest this?
Put separately from the perspective of Indian philosophy the search for the self - or no-self - has always been core... it has always been the motivating factor... not so much "what am I?" as "what is I?" perhaps.
quote:
Case in point: Nisargatta's talks shortly before his death read like little more than rationalizations -- mental gymnastics:
"I am dying, but nothing is here so I don't care."
I am not an expert in the gentleman (got his book
) but for sure it is possible to make sense of his statement at a very deep level... what you refer to as mental gymnastics
could be taken merely as rather the problem of using relative language to describe both the relative world and the absolute (which of course transcends language).
For sure the word "I" is a mere convention (in anyone's philosophy) and - as per the great eel-wriggler W.Clinton
- it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is
I recently came upon the fact that in Pali (and thus no doubt Sanskrit) there are two
different verbs for the one English verb "to be" - one referring to a space-time context ("it is late thursday evening") the other transcendent matters ("awareness is"). So many seeming nonsensical statements one comes across in philosophical circles are merley reflecting linguistic inadaquecies and ambiguities.
Also for sure the last works by all masters (in a different sphere eg Beethoven) are - it seems to me - increasingly abstract... seemingly different from earlier stuff on the surface, whilst actually all-encompassing at a deeper level.
quote:
Is pure self inquiry pure rationalization without engagement of any kind? It seems cold and loveless, doesn't it?
Well like many terms self-enquiry seems to be used in different contexts by different folks... But just equating it for the moment to citanupassana it certainly isnt rationalization - quite the opposite - rationalization is (for the want of a better finger to point at the moon) a kind of logical brain activity, a thought-domain thing. Awareness is well-transcendent of that... Again if one is equating it to some kind of Awareness/Rigpa type thing then it is an a priori reasonable misunderstanding to suspect that if one lets go of everything one ends up with nothing... Ironically one ends up with Everything lol... as per a wise man's quote
quote:
The witness is about more than that. Stillness is always longing to move as outpouring divine love. Otherwise, absolutely nothing would be here. In our essential nature, we are that also.
quote:
Can true enlightenment be based on denial? When does denial cease to be a mind game?
I wasnt quite sure of which straw man needed to be knocked down here... I saw no denial on the link, or indeed by Adya or others... (might have missed it for sure).
Of course folks differ on their emphasis and language revolving around "ordinary" and "non-ordinary"/"transcendent" realities... but as you folks say "where you stand depends on where you sit"
quote:
But it has to be real, not only for the sage, but for the aspirant, and consistent with the rest of yoga. Otherwise, it doesn't hold up.
Well from what your correspondent posted it was real for him... From what Tolle says many folks have benefited form his direct approach... So for sure these things are real for the aspirant.
Consistent with the rest of Yoga leaks into the other theme of what can you combine AYP with safely and what can you not... I know at least one hard-core Taoist teacher who will (for no doubt sound reasons) allow his students to combine nothing with his practices...
Personally I vote for us modern folks being all to ready to pop off to all sorts of divergent practices... it's not always wise
... these things - often seemingly innocuous to the western-school-trained mind - can be flammable and burn one.
But this itself is just a "sign of the times" is it not? AYP arose as some young chap in the past was temeritous enough to combine various teachings and learnings...
The problem now is that the range is near infinite - only today I heard of one practitioner of qigong who isnt making the usual retreat as they are off to a Shamanic one "for a change".
As I heard someone describe that phenomenon ... "volunteers step forwards"
Anyway I am not seeking one jot to disagree with any position thats being taken here... its just that the "arguments" on both sides seem to be polarising and the characterisation of the opposing perspective polarising... Maybe a good time for both "sides" to step back and practice for some time praising the wisdom and what is shared by the seemingly opposed... For sure upon examination we always find both shared elements and differences between people, religions, creeds, nations... Emphasising differences leads to seeingthe difference as greater and vice versa - both extremes are - er lol - extreme [8)]
To end with my personal view of this non-dual "vs" dual ... I am reminded of Arnold Palmer who famously chipped in from a bunker on one hole in some tournament... A spectator cried "thats lucky".... Palmer turns laconically and says "its funny... the more I practice the luckier I get"
So no real difference or opposition between "practicing" and "getting lucky"?
Peace
Mike