November Project: Question #2
This question comes from K through Skype chat:
What do you think of the current state of non-duality? Do you find certain teachers to be missing the point, or have they mostly stayed true to core teachings?
I am glad you asked this question, K, because it will give me the chance to clear a few things up.
I am not a non-dual teacher. As far as I know, I have never used those words to describe myself. Not that you have said that…this is just something I want to say.
I don’t know what it means to be non-dual. I know what the term is meant to mean, but that is as far as it goes. I am sure there must be certain ‘criteria’ to be met in order to call oneself non-dual, similar to meeting the requirements to call a food product organic, haha. But I really have no interest in any of that.
I don’t read non-dual teachings, or any teachings for that matter. Not that you should or shouldn’t, I don’t mean it in that way. It is just that the subject doesn’t interest me. I am not sure what else I can say about it.
I don’t really know anything about the state of the teachings of non-duality. I am sure there are several fragments making up the whole. One group probably thinks a particular teacher or teaching is the true voice of non-duality, while others will disagree. There is probably even something like ‘neo’ non-duality, with young people championing a ‘new’ way of expressing the message, whatever that might be, and the old fogeys raging against it. I don’t know. This is just my best guess based on experience with groups in general. Maybe it is something entirely different? I really don’t know.
I only know what I know on the subject because of the wonderful people leaving comments here, and also through the talks I have had on Skype. Sometimes people bring up concepts or names or foreign words I do not know, all related to non-duality, and I have to ask what it means, what is that, who is that, and so on. Beyond that, I know nothing.
If there are ‘core teachings’, I have no idea what they might be. You’re better off asking someone with real knowledge on the subject. Or at least someone who cares about it. 
But it is a good opportunity for me to learn more. Even if I have no interest, I should at least learn enough about it so I can understand others better…
If any of you have a good understanding of that world, or if there are core teachings and you know them, please leave a comment below. I think I have a decent understanding just from speaking with others, but some of you may be able to better answer K’s question. I don’t want to leave him hanging, haha.
Thanks in advance!
{ 7 comments }
Hi K,
I would like to explore this also. Who are some of the non-dual teachers that you are referring to: persons like Tony Parsons or Jerry Katz (who wrote a book entitled non-duality)? Are non-dual teachings like neo-advaita teachings?
I have always thought of non-duality as an idea of oneness, which I think there are books entitled that…however, I find it a sticky subject because if all is one as non-duality suggest how can anything be outside of that; even teachings that seemingly oppose it are still part of the whole. I am certainly confused on this subject as well.
(btw, I like the picture)
In the end, I suppose it is not so important. Not to minimize the thing….I know people find it important. But the state of a particular ‘organization’ is not as important as understanding how one has organized oneself.
That is a teaching of the highest order.
Thanks on the picture, by the way.
Takuim, I like your approach. I have read many, many words and sometimes I understand a concept (non-duality) within, but could not put it into any words that would make sense. I do not read much either. Ha! After all, we’re each born with all the knowledge of the Universe anyway. “That which you seek, you already have.” Namaste!
Thanks, Ricky.
Quite right. From there, it is only a matter of seeing.
My own view is that if people want to be non-dual then the non-dual needs to be organic not without differentiation.
Any organism is made up of bits that are different. They are united in action – intention, directed energy and so on. The differences contribute to the life of the organism – a liver becoming the same as a heart doesn’t add to the organism’s life. Similarly, in my view, our individual differences can lead to the enrichment of our relationships and human kind.
But most of those who I have spoken with who like the label “non-dual” (usually they describe themselves as Buddhist or New Age) don’t like the sound of this perspective on things.
I avoid the term ‘non-dual’ because the idea that we are all the same seems like nonsense to me; and the idea that our differences add value seems to be resisted by those who call themselves ‘non-dual’. So I just avoid the term and try to discuss our experience.
Thanks, Evan.
I can understand that feeling. Sometimes, speaking with those who ‘know’ (in any sense); those that would want you to understand their way is the right way and if you don’t understand, you just don’t get it young man; is like hitting a brick wall. At other times it is like being hit in the face, brick after brick! (Oops, I forgot, there is NO brick after brick because there is no separation!
).
But I suppose that interplay of student and teaching is somewhat dependent upon the teacher, if there is one.
Comments on this entry are closed.