If nirvana cannot be described then is it good? Isn't 'good' a description of something, even when it isn't real or objective etc.. I would personally answer in terms of suchness, so anything in those/Mahayana terms would be great.

Is perception discriminative thinking? I got the term from the lankavatara sutra, but I think it appears in zen a bit, and I wondered if it means only one type of consciousness, perhaps the 6th or 7th, and if not whether perception itself does not occur during enlightenment?

I noticed some questioners on this site using the term "non-duality". What is non-duality in Buddhism? This is a well-known idea in Hinduism i.e. advaita. But does it exist in Buddhism? Is it an official term in Buddhism, or just a convenient Western philosophy terminology to describe a concept just like the terms "ontology" or "epistemology"? How is it used in Theravada and Mahayana? What are the Pali and Sanskrit terms for it? AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

In the meditation community it is often claimed that "everything is one", that "we are all the same Spirit", that "there is no separation". (Among other things, the book _The End of Your World_ by Zen practitioner Adyashanti makes this claim many times.) What is that supposed to mean? Sure, sure, it's ineffable and beyond language and all that jazz. But what I mean is: _What are the implications? What are the ramifications?_ Does it have any? My impression so far is that nonduality is not actually a philosophical position. It is not a claim that can be true or false. It does not have pragmatic ramifications. Rather, as far as I can tell, nonduality is a _mindset_ or _perspective_. It is a way of viewing the world, and this _way of viewing_ has ramifications for one's subjective experience - it can lead to the reduction or end of suffering and to states of bliss. (This is conjecture. Personally I have not been able to _experience_ nonduality as anything other than a confusing thought.) Is this correctly understood? Or is nonduality an actual philosophical position? If the latter, what does it imply?

Andy Warhol said, “They say time changes things, but you have to actually change them yourself”. With this is mind, it might be fair to assume that awareness is a requirement for changing habit patterns. Ok, but why is it necessary for release? To be concise, and correct me if I’m wrong, Buddha suggests one should change themselves according to the 8fold path for complete release.. Buddha might say, "change yourself keeping mindful of the dharma." But why is behavior modification necessary at all? Why is rightness a requisite? In theory, the human is capable of performing its function, i.e., task completion, with or without consciousness, a natural robot for lack of better term. If the human is destined to destroy the planet, why should knowing its status be mandatory? Should I be penalized for not wanting to change my nature? I suggest consciousness be optional. For those that want to experience the world from the human position, they may elect so, but for those uninterested, the dual experience can be returned.

If you have fully '" arrived" at non duality is there a threat that you won't have ambition? Isn't ambition a driving force in human life ?

While reading Pa Auk Sayadaw I came across the following: > The bhavanga-consciousness is bright and luminous, and looks like a mirror in the heart: that is the mind-door. This seems to have qualities similar to: > In Dzogchen the fundamental, inherent nature of everything is called the "Ground Luminosity" or the "Mother Luminosity." Are these two qualities of mind related?

When a person or a group of people identify themselves with "the good" (in opposition to "not so good" or even "the evil" of others), quite often this can lead to "the good" getting overly aggressive in its pursuit of the goodness and de-facto turning into evil. Is this an inevitable problem arising due to identification/reification or is there a way to keep it under control and identify with the good without becoming the evil? If so, how can that be achieved? What guidelines do various Buddhist schools offer on this topic, if any? P.S. by "to identify with" I mean "to consider themselves to be affiliated with, or to be representative of, the true *something* (in this case *the good*)"

I’ve been meditating for sometime now, and it’s apparent that my mind and heart are not in sync. I’m often in confused stage because my mind says one thing while my heart says something else and my awareness is in total confused mode trying to interpret these two entities. While meditating of course these dualities do not arise because the focus and attention is in single object unless if I do insight meditation. I would be really appreciate if anyone could give me an dharma insight on what’s happening here.

Many believe that it is important to avoid being negative and instead to see the good in bad situations. However, the Buddha said that good and bad are fabricated concepts that do not exist. An individual who has attained nirvana is neutral and does not experience emotions. Although a Bodhisattva is certainly not negative and pessimistic, they cannot be positive and optimistic either. Would seeing the bright side of things in life impede me from making spiritual progress?

What is the nature of the change due to impermanence ,is it just a random change or intelligent change ?,are the actions resulting from it considered right action or that depends on the degree of identification that the impermanent person/thing is having towards another person/thing?. The more I watch it I see that sometimes this change or flux is not just random and is intelligent.All the changes happening inside the body and mind do not require a doer but are intelligent.Can the nature or the behavior of the change be also recognized ?.

In the book *Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind*, I read the following statement: > This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin. How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail?

I've been meditating for about 4 months without (seemingly) getting somewhere up till about 2 weeks ago when something clicked for me after watching some interviews and talks from Gary Weber and thinking carefully about what was preventing me from really meditating. I became pretty obsessed with really seeing things clearly with the over two consecutive weekends with the "goal" of reaching the first samatha jhana (of which I already had a previous encounter). In the first weekend I really tried to calm down the whole day and medidate the most I could take. Reaching high concentration was easier that day but still not sufficient for full blown jhana. In the second weekend I began working on it more and reaching something like 60% there. The next day I tried to reach it again and failed because of the attachment to reach there. After learning about the practice that Gary Weber and Ramana Maharshi reccomend (who is thinking? Who is hearing? Etc..) I tried it and immidietly found it extremely potent, much more potent than regular vipassana. I soaked myself in this kind of meditation all remaining day until I got to sleep. After I fell asleep I had a visualization of me seeing thoughts come in and physically putting them on the shelf, one by one. Also focusing on the feeling of 'I' there. After about an hour of sleep, I suddenly found myself in the middle of switching pillows bu my whole perception completely changed. I noticed the following things: 1. The sense of an 'I' was gone. I continued to search for it but it was no longer there. 2. Experience seemed to flow one moment after another by itself without any intervention or will. Each moment kind of forces the next to nesserally, logically happen. 3. There was a sense of complete detachment, no will to be in this state nor to not be in it. There was just an analytic curiosity about what happens in the moment. I knew at that moment that there could not be any suffering. So I guess I had a glipse of how it is to be awakened. And what is called "the arising and passing away" or "dependent origination". But that's just empty language. Since then I find it much easier to slip into mindfulness, sense an attachment, automatically see the suffering in it and let it go. When mindfulness is present the world seems to be completely neutral and analytic. There's no suffering but no joy either. I can see the benefit of removing suffering, but I dont see the joy of this analytic neutral state. I think there's something I'm missing or failing to notice. What is the joy or bliss that supposedly arises by being mindful and present?

I am exploring non duality. I tend to believe it's true but I'm not sure if I accept the transcendent element. Is it possible that this awareness is simply a deeper level of the mind ? That it's not part of God or a higher power. Not eternal?

Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering -- or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arise dependent on other conditions (for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow)? I think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only showing how suffering arises, but also how phenomena in the World arises. He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence, then he continued, "when one sees the origination and cessation of the World existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore". This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said: that dependent origination is not only describing how suffering originates, but how phenomena in the World also originate -- isn't that so? --- I have another question also: how would you describe Theravada, Mahayana, Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism -- are they non dual or not? Please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you did also.

This question can seem contradictory but form my understanding ,duality is inherent in reality and accepting reality in all its dualities leads to more conscious actions. But if the person as a result acquires ONLY positive qualities then isn't this dual and not in accord with nature? Buddhism lays emphasis that qualities like ,jealosy ,hate,pride and anger are unskillful and qualities like love,peace,contenmtent and compassion are. Don't we kill animals and plants to eat ,don't we fight in wars in self defense, these are negative but right actions to take and underlie negative qualities of brutality . Can we cry consciously can we kill consciously ?

(Before asking my question, I'd like to make clear that all of my previous knowledge comes from sources other than the suttas). Is the buddhist doctrine of kamma a superstitious explanation for what is happening in the present? How do the suttas explain diseases, malformations, intelectual handicaps and random misfortunes? Is there such a thing as random misfortunes for the Buddha (as exposed in the suttas)? Or can all of my present circumstances be explained and attributed to "my" past deeds? I ask this because I read in lots of places that some teachers explain diseases as consequences of our own deeds, and I not sure of how much of that come from the suttas themselves. Another question, somehow related to the last one: As far as I know, the Theravada doctrine is not a non-dualistic one, and the suttas explicitly say that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha. But for other schools, is there such a thing as "bad" and "good" external circumstances? For those non-dualistic schools: do they accept that everything is dukkha? Or do they say that our minds are the ones interpreting things as good and bad, and as such, good and bad kamma is just and illusion? Thanks in advance for your time!

There have been many questions about what love is, ranging from non-attachment and compassion. I am not looking for a clear definition of the opposite of love, i.e. what love isn't, but feel free to do so if you think it can help answer the question. Rather, I want to know if love can exist without suffering: in much the same way that happiness cannot exist without suffering. I don't mean to equate love with happiness but love does have an element of joy to it. So, to what extent is pain the opposite of love? Or, to what extent can pain be separated from love? Principle of non-duality answers this, but I want to hear other opinions.

If this was bone-obvious to everyone else, then silly me, but I just thought of it because I heard these two words separately long ago and connected them while answering another question... **Are "the Observer" and the process of being Mindful, in essence the same thing? Does one involve the other inherently?** I have used them differently and never connected them before, because I thought: 1. *The Observer* is a developed system within "me" (which is a collection of points of view of varying levels of awareness) and not everyone has an Observer or is aware of it all the time. 2. *Mindfulness* is something I *do* and is not the activity of another point of view within "me". But, trying to be mindful when I have only one point of view is not very possible, and who would be mindful, other than the Observer? Finally: is transcending the Observer (and the need for Mindfulness) the same as Nonduality? I think it is. (Don't worry about answering this question, it is just an idea.) **EDIT:** My Healing Teacher said that I have to get people to "define their terms", so here are my definitions: **The Observer** is the *experience* of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions. **Mindfulness** is the *process* of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.) **"Being aware of myself"** means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two. **A Mind** - is something that *could do otherwise*, it exercises choice on some level. **Awareness** is the action of a sufficiently developed mind. **Consciousness** is awareness of being a self. **A Self** is something that knows it is a self, and that other selves know, etc. (Don't even get me started on the idea of Mind*full*ness being a way to *empty* the mind!) Has this made it any clearer what I am asking? Please try to use words such as these for an answer, supplementing with the appropriate Buddhist terms. **ADDITION:** here are some links which I hope can help people understand what I am asking: 1. This RYUC one is a bit of a muddle, but the Observer corresponds with what I am asking about, and also is similar to what I call a Neo state. The Witness is more like how I would describe nonduality. 2. This one about Energy Healing says that "In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings." Ha! 3. In this one , they use the words observer and witness interchangeably.

In what ways are the Advaita concept of 'Nirguna Brahman' similar, and/or different, to the Buddhist concept of Buddha Nature? This is a good comparison, that is where the doubt arose: [Nonduality in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta](https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/abhidharma-tenet-systems/non-buddhist-asian-traditions/nonduality-in-buddhism-and-advaita-vedanta) Maybe there is a similarity...?