… your summary is somewhat off, an a way that is natural given the broader understanding of meditation and non-duality in America currently. I have some minor quibbles with the quoted text block, plus a main one that you picked up on.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
It equates non-duality / enlightenment with absence of a self / other boundary. This is not the view of Dzogchen. (This view in current America probably comes from modernist Zen…https://vividness.live/2011/07/02/zen-vs-the-u-s-navy/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
… which merged German Romantic Idealism with … probably? … some actual Zen) “No self/other boundary” is *one* understanding of enlightenment within Buddhism. It’s not wrong… It’s incomplete…https://vividness.live/2011/10/06/wholeness-connection-and-meditation-competing-visions/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
“No self/other boundary” is a form of monism, which is (a) obviously false, and (b) harmfulhttps://meaningness.com/monism-dualism-and-participation …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
There are many radically different conceptions of enlightenment within Buddhism…https://vividness.live/2012/09/13/epistemology-and-enlightenment/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
Oh, backing up one step, here’s a take on the relationship between self and other (“inside” and “outside,” “mind” and “world”) that is non-dual in roughly the Dzogchen sense of “neither separable nor the same”:https://meaningness.com/self
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
The quoted text speaks of “absence of separation,” which is accurate, but it’s easy to misunderstand as “identical,” which is wrong. (So my biggest quibble is not what it says but with what it doesn’t say, but imo should have! Maybe the author(s) say this somewhere else.)
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
Let’s take a step back and examine “non-duality.” Wherever this term is used, it’s helpful to ask: “in this context, what thing is asserted to be ‘not dual’ with what other thing?” And: “If these things are ‘not dual,’ what *is* their relationship?”
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
These are the sorts of picky questions STEM-educated people like to ask & Romantic people hate. I am a STEM-educated person. I find reluctance to ask these questions is often based on an eternalistic hope “enlightenment” will magically solve all problemshttps://meaningness.com/hope
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @micahtredding and
Generally speaking, in Dzogchen, “non-duality” means “neither separate nor identical”; and then the details of what that means needs to be worked out in particular situations.
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likes
seems neither separate from, nor identical to, bheda-abheda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.