True stuff

[Dennis Mahar]

What's implicit in that is the insight that there's 'machinery activation'.
the reactivity component of consciousness.

the object appearing calls forth a response,
the object exists contingently and yet can be mistakenly construed as solid.
to fail to recognise its contingency puts one in the way of harm.

[jupiviv]

the object exists contingently and yet can be mistakenly construed as solid.

"A is caused" basically means "there are things other than A." It's doesn't say anything about A's physical state. "A" and "not-A" are two different thoughts, and when people have the one and not the other they're in the samsara of "A and not-A".

to fail to recognise its contingency puts one in the way of harm.

One may recognise full well the contingency of A while having fear/desire/love/hate for it. Likewise, one may not recognise its contingency yet not have any emotions/attachment to it.

[Dennis Mahar]

"A is caused" basically means "there are things other than A." It's doesn't say anything about A's physical state. "A" and "not-A" are two different thoughts, and when people have the one and not the other they're in the samsara of "A and not-A".

That's a brilliant statement of nonduality.
there's no duality in nonduality.
OK.

[jupiviv]

"there's no duality in nonduality."

How can duality be *in* nonduality? That would mean that the non-dual is something more than everything.

[Dennis Mahar]

There's the knowledge and how the knowledge is held.

There 'is' no duality in nonduality tho' there appears or seems to be.

[jupiviv]

There 'is' no duality in nonduality tho' there appears or seems to be.

You misunderstood. My point is that duality *is* non-duality, so it doesn't make sense to say that it is *within* non-duality, for that would imply they are not identical.

[Dennis Mahar]

How do you approach nonduality?
as a possibility or a belief?
the danger of it becoming a belief is that it loses its freshness.

when I say 'in' nonduality I mean 'in' the philosophy of nonduality.

nevertheless your description is way more sharp either way.

[jupiviv]

How do you approach nonduality?
as a possibility or a belief?

A belief, since it is true, but there is no way to prove it. This belief is naturally present whenever anyone has any true thoughts.

when I say 'in' nonduality I mean 'in' the philosophy of nonduality.

Duality is also in the philosophy of non-duality, since experience is dualistic, and is needed to formulate such a philosophy.

[Dennis Mahar]

A belief, since it is true, but there is no way to prove it.

Can that be abstracted as 'a boat'.

[jupiviv]

A belief, since it is true, but there is no way to prove it.

Can that be abstracted as 'a boat'.

If you're referring to the parable of the ferryboat, then no. This belief is present wherever there is consciousness.

[Dennis Mahar]

If you're referring to the parable of the ferryboat, then no. This belief is present wherever there is consciousness.

Yes, I was looking forward to linking 'boat' to 'far shore' of Hakuin.

[jupiviv]

The 'boat' refers to vocabulary, discipline, manner of living etc. Whatever seems to accompany us on the spiritual path.

[Dennis Mahar]

Is there a soul on earth who's a man of "this shore"?
How sad to mistakenly stand on a wave-lashed quay!
Practice pursued with the roots to life still uncut
Is a senseless struggle, however long it lasts.

Is boat and practice the same idea.

Another Zen guy postulated that many paddle over to the country of 'this shore', strap the canoe on their backs and continue in the valence of theologian and scholar.

does that mean,,
Practice pursued with the roots to life still uncut
Is a senseless struggle, however long it lasts.

[jupiviv]

What's the difference between practice and practitioner?

[Dennis Mahar]

What's the sound of one hand clapping?

Totality is one hand clapping.

What's the sound?

ineffable silence.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dependent arising, simply, is the principle that all existent things are conditioned and relative by virtue of having come into existence as interrelated phenomena.

What's the difference between practice and practitioner?

There's no difference ultimately?
Is that what you want to say?

[Dennis Mahar]

What's the difference between practice and practitioner?

Assuming you are trying to say there's no difference, then perceiving them as dualistic phenomena is a perceptual error.
splitting them is erroneous thinking.

Heidegger was remarkably disdainful of the subject/object split as a characteristic of language, he generated his own language mode as an attempt to have a language more reflective of 'the way things are'.

Thus,
being-in-action
being-in-a-world
being-towards-death and so on.