Causal versus Nondual Nonduality

[theurj]

I'm once again exploring nonduality but now in relation to the myth of the given, "pure" awareness or experience and epistemological indeterminacy (EI). There's a thread on this over at Open Integral (www.openintegral.net) but I wanted to get some feedback here on at least one aspect of my thread there: types of nonduality. It seems Ken mixes and matches types of nonduality in Integral Spirituality and elsewhere and that this is not only inconsistent but incompatible. I'll insert some quotes and comments below to give you the jist.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

Others, including Georg Feuerstein, argue that Wilber’s Neo-perennial Philosophy is a confusion between concepts of differentiated nondualist doctrines (such as Plotinus’s neo-Platonism and Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta) and truly unitary monism of Zen and Advaita Vedanta: the former philosophies distinguish between emanated or manifest reality and the unchangeable source, while for Zen or Advaita the Source and reality are essentially one and the same. This is expressed in a famous Zen saying of which Wilber is quite fond: “Nirvana is Samsara fully realized; Samsara is Nirvana rightly understood.”[citation needed]

Wilber’s response to criticisms like this is typified in this quotation from the extended audio interview Speaking of Everything: “…when I lay out the stages of development, I am giving what I explicitly called in SES a ‘rational reconstruction of the trans-rational’.[12] Thus, differentiated non-dual doctrines and truly unitary monist doctrines are describing (or coming from) different levels of consciousness, the former from a causal perspective that differentiates between emptiness and form (and hence must see form as emanationary), and the latter from a nondual perspective that equates emptiness and form (and hence renders emanation a redundant concept).

[12] http://www.geocities.com/piers_clement/wilber1.html

Now from Integral Spirituality (draft) p. 131:

"This realization of Nonduality is the cornerstone of both Mahayana (“Great Vehicle”) and Vajrayana (“Diamond Vehicle”) Buddhism. When it comes to the nature of enlightenment or realization, this means that a complete, full, or nondual realization has two components, absolute (emptiness) and relative (form). The “nonconceptual mind” gives us the former, and the “conceptual mind” gives us the latter. Put it this way: when you come out of nonconceptual meditation, what conceptual forms will you embrace? If you are going to enter the manifest realm—if you are going to embrace not just nonconceptual nirvana but also conceptual samsara—then what conceptual forms will you use? By definition, a nondual realization demands both “no views” in emptiness and “views” in the world of form."

You can see that this is more along the lines of the differentiated nondual doctrines. Granted at times in the same text, and even in the same paragraph, Ken will then mix in some monist nondual verbiage. But this distinction is important when we get to EI and "pure" experience. And of course all this relates to the difference between states and stages and their integration via the Wilber-Combs lattice.

I said at OI:

Let me state what I think is going on here. Ken no longer puts the states of consciousness above the stages in the Wilber-Combs matrix because they are distinct. States and stages are the supposed “raw” ontological experiences on the one hand and the interpretative epistemology on the other hand. However, in IS Ken notes that both always arise together, so that a “direct” perception is also always already an interpretation, i.e. they co-arise simultaneously. Therefore there is no perception without interpretation, and vice versa. It’s both/and. And this both/and dialectic is represented by (one of) Ken’s definitions of nondual realization.

The myth of the given comes in when we posit a “pure” experience (or “raw”, to my understanding) that can exist apart from an immediate and co-arising interpretative framework. Hence we get Ken’s critique of Aurobindo’s separate ontological realms, and Alan’s defense of them as being outside the “mental” or “interpretation.” If Ken is right on this, and I think he might be, his postmetaphyical insight finds such an integration (to a point) between ontology and epistemology (nondually), whereas Alan and the Aurobindians can only see it as a mental abstraction because there is “pure” consciousness without relativity.

But of course Ken then back-tracks on this when using the “causal” level interpretation, that there “really” is a “pure,” “ultimate” consciousness free of form and relatively. And it is this “pure” consciousness that is united with, or integrated with, the relative realm in the nondual.(1) But that version of the nondual interpretation is not the same as the Nargarjuana or zen intepretations of nonduality, which does NOT posit such an “absolute” distinct from the relative.(2) Hence this “causal” nonduality is more akin to what Alan and the Aurobindians are saying. Ken wants it both ways here, where it’s NOT a both/and situation. Yes, if we contextualize each type of nonduality we can say they are both/and correct given the context, but IF the non-dual non-dual trumps the causal non-dual (and it does, according to Ken), then one is relatively better than the other, absolutely.

1. And also the source of some ”ultimate" measure of altitude via consciousness per se.
2. And it is here where I think Derrida comes in, with the same type of distinction AND realization.

Whaddaya think?

[theurj]

Schools of Vedanta at http://www.hinduism.co.za/schools.htm

Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva are the most illustrious commentators on the Vedanta Sutras (Brahma-Sutras). These commentators have tried to establish theories of their own, such as Advaita-Vada (unqualified non-dualism or uncompromising or rigorous monism), Visishtadvaita-Vada (differentiated or qualified monism) and Dvaita-Vada (strict or rigorous dualism).

Dualism (Dvaita), Qualified Monism (Visishtadvaita) and Monism (Advaita) are the three main schools of metaphysical thought. They are all stages on the way to the Ultimate Truth, viz., Para-Brahman (the Supreme Reality). They are rungs on the ladder of Yoga. They are not at all contradictory. On the contrary, they are complimentary to one another. These stages are harmoniously arranged in a graded series of spiritual experiences. Dualism, Qualified Monism, Pure Monism – all these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realisation of the Absolute or the Transcendental Trigunatita Ananta Brahman.

[kela]

To get the gist of what Ken is on about here in terms of the two 'forms' of non-duality, we need to go back to Da. And from there we need to backtrack, yet once again, to the contrast between trancendentalism and immanentism found in traditions like Mahayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Shaivism.

In fact, if we follow this line of thinking in detail, there are three structurally distinct forms of the "non-dual."

In the traditional conception, the "causal state" is deep dreamless sleep. We might say that corresponding to this are the formless samapatti or attainments, sometimes called the formless jhanas. Transcending this "causal formlessness" are respectively, the nirvikalpa samadhi of Yoga/Vedanta synthesis of the 15th century, and what is called nirodha samapatti, the cessation of ideation/perception, in the Buddhist tradition. Both states are uderstood as super-worldy (loka-uttara), that is, as transcending conditioned states of consciousness, which for both traditions involves three-fold structure.

What Da does is purposely conflate traditional conceptions of the third causal state, traditionally a conditioned state of consciousness, with the implied "fourth" state of consciousness, nirvikalpa samadhi/nirodha samapatti, which is traditionally considered a transcedent, if transitory, state. This is to say that he calls both nirvikalpa samadhi and deep dreamless sleep "causal." That Da breaks with tradition here can be seen by way of his description of the so called "cosmic mandala," or what Yogananda calls the "spiritual eye." Yogananda clearly identifies the yellow ring of the mandala with the "subtle" realm and the blue ring with the "causal" dimension. Da, however, says that the red-yellow ring is "gross" and associates the blue ring with the "subtle." Yogananda identifies the white star at the centre of the field with nirvikalpa samadhi and with transcendence of the three states. Da however relates the star with the "causal" domain.

The effect of Da's classification here is to "ratchet up" his terminology a notch. In effect, what Da is saying is this: "What was causal for you is now merely subtle for me." This is an rhetorical old trick, and Da is not the first to use this kind of gambit. We find similar moves among the statements of various yogis and sants of the later tradition. This is another reason why their statements cannot be taken phenomenologically at face value: statements about such states and their hierarchy often contain polemical content, and this content needs to by made clear before actual structural comparisons can be drawn. That Kenny follows Da's account is made clear by the fact that Ken often lumps in the third formless samapatti, the state of "nothingness," with nirodha -- something that the Buddhist tradition never does -- and calls them both "causal."

We can now begin to clarify what is going on here vis a vis the terminology of "non-duality."

In a certain sense, we can call the third state of dreamless sleep "non-dual" in so far as there is no object, no other, no second in this state. This is what the word implies, after all, no (a-) second (dvaita), and this is precisely the sense used by the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad: the third state has no object of consciousness, no other, no second.

But according to the Gaudapada Karika, this third state is still merely a relative state of consciousness. It is different from transcendent states insofar as the "seeds" (bija) of karmic impulses (samskara; vasana) remain in it. But does this mean that the "seeds" of karma, dissappear in the transcedent state? Here the tradition itself gets cloudy. The Gaudapada Karika only refers to the end result, turiya, the enlightened condition (bodha) of release (moksha) in its constrast with deep dreamless sleep. The Yoga Sutra, does speak of a seedless or "nirbija" samadhi. This, the commentaries equate with something they call "asamprajnata samadhi," which the later Vedanta tradition of Vidyaranya and Sadananda identify with "nirvikalpa samadhi." But the Yoga Sutra nowhere mentions any such state. It merely makes use of the term "asamprajnata," and the later commentators like Vijnanabhikshu take this as referring to some sort of samadhi. This identification with "nirbija samadhi" is problematic. For according to a later tradition, the "seeds" of mental karma (samskara) are "burnt up" by repeated entry into asamprajnata samadhi. Thus, asamprajnata samadhi cannot simply be nirbija samadhi since the latter can only refer to the end of the process, to a kind of final state.

In any case, what we find in the Yoga commentaries and later Advaita tradition is the description of a state in which conditioned existence is temporarily transcended. This corresponds, almost in its entirety, with the earlier Buddhist descriptions of "nirodha samapatti" and "asamjnika samapatti," which the Buddhist texts themselves describe as a kind of "foretaste" of nirvana. This state, then, corrosponds with the "second" form of "non-duality."

According to Da, this state is but a temporary manifestation. And it remains relative to conditioned existence. While it can be called a kind of absolute state in that it absolutely transcends conditioned existence, it remains relative to conditioned existence. It can, in this sense, be designated a kind of "relative absolute." According to Da, certain traditions make this state their primary goal and objectify it in their metaphysics (the nirguna brahman of Advaita Vedanta for example). But, he thinks, this state is still a "limited" state. And those traditions that attempt to turn it into a kind of permanent condition, the condition of permanent absorption in perfect formlessness, remain "limited" traditions. According to Da, these traditions discriminate nirvikalpa/nirodha state from worldly existence. In so doing, they create another duality, or, we might say, one duality remains.

In this paper by Edward Conze, in subsection "C," Conze distinguishes various sense of the term "non-dual" (advaya) in the Prajnaparamita texts. The first two need not interest us as they refer to two senses of the term that can be understood historically; they are associated with the Yogachara and Madhyamika schools, respectively. It is the third sense that we are interested in here; it refers to a sense that needs to be understood structurally. This is the non-duality between the absolute and the relative.

This form of non-duality, it should be noted, is of a different order than the ones we have been discussing so far. Its structural relation can be understood as follows. The first two kinds of non-duality can be understood in horizontal terms. For example, we can think of a constrast or duality between two relative terms, say left and right, male and female, light and dark, etc. We can then think of their "resolution," a kind of "coincidence of opposites," as their "non-duality." But then we have generated another duality, a duality between, on the one hand, the two terms understood as a constrasting pair, and on the other hand, their resolution understood as a unity. This duality I refer to as a vertical duality. The important point to note is that this is a duality of another order. It is in fact a kind of ultimate duality, and it is expressed by the contrast between Brahman and Maya, Shiva and Shakti, Nirvana and Samsara, etc. It is the duality between the absolute and the relative.

What the traditions of "immanentism" attempt to do is "resolve" this final duality. According to them, pure transcendentalism seeks to maintain this final duality, and it does this by laying stress on the absolute term. But this "absolute" is, according to them, but a mere relative absolute since it remains in conflict with, in duality with, conditioned existence (maya, samsara, etc.) Da appropriates this tradition and makes it his own. Hence he begins to speak of "open eyes" (a term taken from Kashmiri Shaivism) samadhi, or "sahaja samadhi," a kind of "continuous samadhi" in which transcendence is resolved with everyday waking consciousness. Ken refers to this state by means of various metaphysical equations: Emptiness is Form, "nirvana and samsara are the same," etc.

A Critique of Radical Immanentism

One way of putting this "final resolution" is to say that "everyday consciousness" IS the enlightened condition, that there is no difference, really, between the two: "the enlightened condition is to be found here and now," etc. The attempt here is to dissolve the "problem" at is very root; in practical terms, thinking that there is a "problem" that needs to be resolved by "sadhana" or some other means, is as much a part of the "problem," since it implies a dualism between means and goal, seeker/sought, etc., and thus sadhana simply reinforces our conditioned existence by propogating yet more duality. Now we can attempt to do away with "duality" in this manner until it no longer exists. But then the entirety of tradition will come to be called into question, as there will be no distinction between the enlightened and the unenlightened state. This itself is a problem, or at least a grand paradox. My point here is NOT that this is all mere "talking school" and that in fact we need to "practice" because "practice" is "good" and necessary -- that is yet another rhetorical bifurcation designed to make people feel good about the fact they put so much effort into their "sadhana" (the Protestant work ethic at work). My point here is merely that at some point, some sort of distinction between the "enlightened" and "unenlightened" state will need to be drawn, and this will mean that a strict adherence to "non-dualism" will need to be abandoned. Either that, or the entirety of tradition will have to be abandoned.

[kela]

I'm not sure how much all this helps.

Understanding what non-duality means historically is different from understanding it structurally.

These two can, however, be combined. In that case we get four senses of the term advaita/advaya, senses that can be rooted philogically.

1. The Chandogya Upanishadic sense of a material monism: "All this is Brahman," or everthing is "sat" pure existence.

2. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishadic sense of "not other," in which case it means "Brahman has no other, no object"; in other words the world is a-rta, worthless, and only Brahman is real.

3. The sense found in early Buddhism, the Prajnaparamita sutras and Madhyamika. Here advaya refers to the middle path between the two extremes of "being" and "nothingness" or eternalism and nihilsm, and the term "advaya" means "not one NOR the other."

4. A special sense of #3, in which case "advaya" means that reality is not to be designated as either the subject nor the object. This does NOT mean the "union of subject and object" as hockey translations would have it. This is the sense found primarily in Yogachara Buddhism, but also in the Gaudapada Karika and in Kashmiri Shaivism.

[theurj]

Thanks. Can you now relate this to how Ken is using nondual, as he seems to mix and match these different types without distinguishing them during usage. Ken also seems to favor your 2nd type, as it allows a hierarchy between the relative and the absolute and hence his entire developmental model. Whereas it seems BY uses the 3rd type and hence there is no need to "develop" to anywhere, just get rid of the blinders in the present.

[theurj]

Also could you comment on my 2nd post that talks about the 3 types you mentioned not as so much separate schools but as a development in the meditative path itself, like Ken notes from gross to subtle to causal to nondual.

[Gadfly]

You're still struggling wiht this thing dude.

Gaddy

[Gadfly]

Anybody can say everything is "one" - it doesn't mean anything. It's just an assertion.

Just as the relative and the abolsute is NOT a duality. It might be a logical duality but that is just playing with words. Actually they're two words for the same thing.

Or saying I have "no other" bullshit. All talk.

Or seeking a center between something and nothing. These are all artiifical dualites. Basically philosophical dualities created by the mind in the 1st place. Ditto for jumping to higher levels. Hypothetical.

Anyway, we in the modern world call all this a "relativity". The duality thing is out-of-date.

Now Gad would say, "do this". Sit down at a table with a quart of vodka. Drink the entire thing with no other distractions. But watch your state of being as you take shot after shot. But concentrate on your physical feelings and reactions. Forget all the mental BS that will come up.

Go to bed and get up early the next morning. Do they same thing all over but NO vodka. And then report back to Gaddy.

Rinse and repeat. You can do this for months if you want.

Then you have entered what Gotama is talking about. He is not talking about the middle way between something and nothing. That is mere intellectualization.

IOW, you really have to expereince bliss and then suffering. And round and round you go. Samara is NOT Nirvana. Again, that is philosophy.

Then maybe you get the duality - relativity jive.

Love Gaddy.

P.S. BTW, it's Bahm.

[Gadfly]

We can say these are the same thing if we do a relative and absolute deal.

If we say that one is suffering the other happiness then it breaks down.

Try that philosophy on for size with a visit to your local childrens' hospital. See if you get tossed out.

One is a human being addressing everyday human misery and the other a bunch of Monks who want to debate scholastic philosophy.

One is a religion and the other something else.

Well, Monks who think they can think their way to the solution. And here we are.

As if life is a problem of logic.

Gaddy

[jimsun]

That was a good post, Kela

Perhaps one orienting guidepost is just the sense of suffering or distortion or confusion itself

As long as there is still some confusion, then further inquiry or stripping away is needed, and talk of some sort of duality is appropriate, some sort of path

This doesn't mean there is some ultimate separation, it's just an honest acknowledgment of the experiential situation, and an appropriate addressing of that

Part of the process of inquiry and stripping away could be looking into the nature of the sense of split, separation, etc; and also examining ideas and beliefs

Coming to a logical conclusion about the finally accurate idea might be a helpful exercise, but is just part of a larger process, and is not equivalent to unraveling the entirety of the sense of confusion going on

To ask the question 'If there is no actual problem, why does it feel like there is?' is to point at least in the general direction of the confusion in question

Mu

[kela]

You seem to be the one struggling, Gaddy, with your Krishnamurti and your holy Gautama thing, (Arnold voice) "and all of that."

For me talking about this stuff is like smoking a doubie and rummaging through the stuff you left behind in the attic at your parent's place.

[kela]

It's Archie Bohm and he's the cousin of David Bohm. It was at Archie's place that cousin David and J. Krishnamurti had their famous talk, that was until Jiddhu's own cousin, U.G. Krishnamurti, crashed the party.

[kela]

Indeed, you appear to have tossed logic out the window, either that or your years of abuse have destroyed your prefrontal cortex.

So you have now joined the ranks of the new-age anti-intellectuals? Jolly good for you Gaddy.

[kela]

this is the sense i get: that "confusion" has replaced dukkha in the modern world.

"enlightenment" then becomes a kind of magical panacea in which this "confusion" is removed.

"someday all this confusion will disappear. on that day i will become 'realized.' boy i can hardly wait. i better start meditating."

what is the confusion? primarily it consists of the glut of "answers" to a set of "questions," questions (where the fudge did i come from? etc.) that appear to bother people.

so many answers; so many paths; so little time. which way to go?

1st solution: fundamentalism. "i'm right you're wrong. in fact, you're so wrong i'm going to shoot you.

2nd solution: integralism: "let's build a great big map called AQAL and fit all the 'answers' into one frame."

3rd solution: pluralism. "everyone is as 'right' as anyone else insofar as their paths are each personally meaningful to them. so shut up and leave me alone."

[jimsun]

4th solution: Who is having the confusion? Who is proposing a solution?