Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i suppose volumes could be written about nonduality.
unpack...
like narrow down?
can you expound on the concept of brahman and atman, how that concept relates to nonduality and the ego and atman, and maybe tell me which of these are buddhism, hinduism, or your own synthesis...
]
The relation between Buddhism and Hinduism is complex and I don't know much about it, other than that they have co-evolved and cross-fertilised in many ways and seem to be very similar in their ultimate teachings about existence. Ego and atman I know nothing about.
I'll have a go at 'non-duality' but it's almost impossible to avoid saying the wrong things about it. The topic is too big to say anything much, but I'll make a start and maybe it'll throw up specific issues.
'Nondual philosophy' is any philosophy based on the principle that the cosmos (at the level of reality) is non-dual. This ultimate 'substrate' of existence is 'eternal mind' or 'true mind'. This mind, (in its ultimate or true state), is non-dual, thus beyond truth and falsity, beyond subject and object, beyond spacetime, and beyond any illusion of self. It is what must exist, and therefore the reason anything at all does. We are all part of this mind and all have access to it. This is roughly what Buddhists mean by saying that we all have our 'Buddha-nature'. Buddhists (and others) experience this state (to varying degrees) through meditation (and eventually as their normal state).
It is not really a philosophy, and not properly even a metaphysic. Both are not quite correct terms. Adherents call it an 'affirmation', meaning that they affirm it to be the truth based on personal experience. This 'truth' is the basis of Buddhism but is affirmed by all sorts of people who are not Buddhists. It turns up everywhere from the early Greek philosophers to the Christian gnostics and mystics to Spinoza to the Jesus of the Thomas Gospel), Hinduism and elsewhere. It gives rise to an explanation of existence that is without all the paradoxes and contradictions of 'dual' theories (materialism etc). It should not be confused with 'ontological monism',(it often is) since monism is actually a dualistic theory on analysis.
'Non-duality' is a difficult idea to get to grips with intellectually. As all concepts and percepts are dual an understanding of it requires direct experience. (This is why Buddhism is a practice and cannot be 'learnt' second hand). However this does not mean that it is impossible to think about. It means just that the idea doesn't seem to make much sense in the absence of some experience.
The non-duality of ultimate reality (ontologically what lies outside of Plato's cave, beyond the world of appearances, epistemologically the meta-system that lies beyond all possible formal systems of reasoning) entails that all assertions about reality are false. Thus this ultimate mind (or emptiness/fullness, Nirvana, Brahman, eternal bliss etc) cannot be said to exist, since there is a strong sense in which it does not. However it does not not-exist either. This is a 'substance' which transcends existence and non-existence. (For this reason non-dual thinkers do not find it odd that science cannot prove the existence of consciousness except by first-person direct knowledge. They would be very surprised if it could).
It is possible to talk about non-duality in 'academic' terms (in relation to 'western' philosophical and scientific issues), and as such it gives rise to a coherent and rational world-view. (For instance Bertrand Russell considered it the most coherent of world-views). However direct experience is all that really counts, which is why enlightened Buddhists tend to throw out their books.
This is waffle. I can post some good links if it would be helpful. Otherwise it would be easier to focus on some particular issue and take it from there. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that current scientific and philosophical findings virtually prove that existence arises from a non-dual source. Very little research is being done on this because the idea is assumed to be mystical, or as failing to make testable predictions. However neither assumption seems to be correct.
Sorry, brain's not really in gear today.
Canute