Conceptual and Non-conceptual

Good question, Jeff. They go hand in hand. I would say that yes, conceptualization requires some kind of duality, some of kind of dualistic mental activity. For example, one could say even a protozoan is conceptualizing it's world in a way, or it seems to be, as it moves around and feeds and reacts to pleasant and unpleasant experience. One can definitely see this in insects, anyway. and they have various kinds of senses and memory.

I am not sure if I would say duality requires conceptuality. I would say duality in the mind gives rise to appearances and creates a sense of separation. So if I were going to put that in a sequence I would say duality comes first, but that is just the way I think of it. I doubt anyone is going to be able to isolate one from the other and be able to say in a strict sense one is there an instant before the other.

Now to become familiar with non duality, we don't have to stop all mental activity, so we aren't eliminating duality in our mind, we are just becoming aware that there are levels, or maybe qualities is a better term, of consciousness that are pervasive. The air element is in all material and most non-material phenomena, and you can realize your mind is prajna. The space element is pervasive, and you can realize that is an even finer level of consciousness. That is why Buddhas are usually painted against a pale blue sky. Clear light is the integration and refinement of all 5 elements, including air and space-they dissolve into each other and into clear light, and that would be impossible to depict in a painting. It is described in terms of the qualities of an enlightened mind, not as a substance the can be defined in and of itself. And Clear light can even manifest as form, it is not bound by any kind of concept, like existent or nonexistent. This is also how one describes emptiness, and it is because consciousness is empty that all good qualities are within it as potentials, and can manifest as enlightenment.

Now in my world view, everything, material or non material is some kind of consciousness. It is all interdependent, it is all empty of inherent existence, and it all has the potential to be recognized as the clear light mind of Buddha, and eventually it all will be. That does not mean that appearances will cease or disappear. It means that sentient beings will be enlightened.

The way I now read this is:

Because of emptiness, forms arise.

Matter is energy, energy is generated by consciousness and has the potentials of clear light. That does not mean a plant or a rock is a sentient being. To determine sentience requires complicated analysis.

The truth is wisdom consciousness, clear light, Buddha mind, this has different qualities than sentience. Sentience is a deluded state of being. It is the manifestation of some potentials. And this is true of any object or even cognition as well. Enlightenment is a fulfillment of potentials. Sentient beings can suffer and experience happiness,and have Buddha nature, so that is different than a plant or a rock, but in terms of the energy in the matter of your body, or a thought, or a plant or a rock, it is all has the same ultimate "Flavor." Now a plant or a rock is not enlightened, just because they are not sentient. They can not self-realize, but Buddha can manifest as anything, and they do in pure realms. This universe, and everything in it, has the same potential, but that does not mean it or the objects we perceive in it are real in and of themselves.

Anyway, take it up with a teacher you trust sometime. These are nuanced questions that come back to how Tibetans translate the Wisdom Heart Sutra and interpret the middle way.

There are a lot of potential ways a person could experience non duality. Bodhisatvas, Arhats and Buddhas all experience emptiness in different ways, and those are non dual states. Anytime a person uses penetrative insight, they are applying their capacity to understand and experience non duality in a partial and controlled way. Nonduality, like emptiness can refer to experience or to the ultimate nature of things. And there are many profound meditative states that are non dual, that have different qualities.

It just is not as black and white as you say. What do we call the energy that Buddhist teachings refer to? The subtle energies the teachings refer make up everything. This all has the same ultimate flavor, so to speak. That is the how the Kalachakra or any mandala works, this is why kundalini awakening is so profound. When asked who created the world, Buddha said, "a mind." Now I can see problems with calling the energy in matter awareness or "some kind" of consciousness, for example, you could mistake a rope for a snake or mistake a plant for a sentient being, but all the subtle energy in the universe is generated by mind/s, and it all has the same ultimate flavor, so to speak. It all has the same potentials.

Why do you think there is so much complicated analysis, involving 18 or 21 qualities to determine sentience? Matter is not always a part of a sentient being, but neither is it anything like we normally perceive it. What is important to me is even the subtle energies are empty, and this means they all have the same potential, and this is what I was trying to say. And I have talked to my teachers about this, honestly I have, and I have a lot of experience of my own. Believe what you want to Rudy, but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of what I am saying, and so sure you are right without asking someone you trust to have the right answer.

To me you sound like someone saying "the bible clearly says such and such, so you must be wrong." When you get down to the level of what is and is not mind, it is a lot more nuanced than you seem to want believe. I think you are giving matter too much inherent reality. It is all a projection of mind, and that is your mind, all of our minds are your mind, certainly as much as any mind exists.

Yes, Rudy, I believe that everything we perceive has the same ultimate potential. I would say why that seems absurd to you is because of time. Material reality unfolds in time, but ultimate reality is not like that, it is more like everything happens now in a sense, at least it does when you realize this nature. Outwardly the object does not change, because it has not changed in time, but it will, a rice seed will go through infinite changes. In fact it is not fixed in any way. Dzongzar Rinpoche and other teachers have said something to the effect of enlightenment is not temporal, "Buddha is outside time," in his words, or "enlightenment is beyond time" in the case of others. Anyway, my friend, to me this is precisely the difference between understanding interdependence and experiencing or realizing emptiness or especially the so called union of wisdom and method, but they are logically connected. The whole is in any part. That is why the Dalai Lama called one of his books, The Universe In A Single Atom, in my opinion, he was hinting at ultimate reality. Does the Universe in a Single Atom seem absurd? If not why not?

How do you imagine omniscience by the way? Doesn't the possibility of that seem absurd to you? Are we really always confined to your or anyone's version of "common" sense? My experience of reality only works with "common sense" as well as common people, whatever that means, have the same understanding and experience of emptiness I do, and obviously most people don't. Now given a million pages, I think I could show how it is all logically consistent, but I wouldn't expect anyone to believe it. Nor do I expect you to believe me, I just think before you decide I am completely un-credible, you should talk it over with the Geshe who works in the center you manage. Because that is an unusual proximity most people don't have. But if that is not practical, then we can just agree to disagree if you like.

Well, that is certainly the most vague answer I have heard to a serious question for a long time. Was that meant to be an answer? You certainly lost me...

Hi Tamara,

No, I am very definitely not saying a rock is cognizant. I am saying the rock is your mind in precisely the same way your body is. The rock does not cognize, but it is comprised of subtle energies, and these have the same ultimate potentials (the potential for clear light) as the matter in your body. When some enlightened people disappear after they die, or manifest the rainbow body, they are giving us a lesson in the relationship of mind and matter. But it isn't really confined to anyone's body, because there are no boundaries between your body and the world. Your body is made of the stuff you eat and drink, water, air, and chemicals including metals and minerals, and it sheds and expels material things all your life, and while you decay.

Some places are holy, because they are infused with the practice of enlightened people who lived and practice there, that is another example I would offer.

Whether you perceive the world (or universe) as matter, or as a matrix of subtle energies, or as just a flow of awareness, as some people do, It all has the same ultimate potential, because it is all empty and an important part of what emptiness means to me, is the whole is in any part. That is just a way of describing it, though, it is a concept. To point to emptiness, to help people experience it, Buddhists usually negate any kind of concept.

Okay Rudy, I have 2 questions for you. Now I hope you understand I mean all this in a very respectful way. I know what you are expressing is genuine incredulity, and that is fine, much better than biting your tongue if you feel like what I am saying is nonsense or BS.

Alright here is the first question. Dependent arising is the mundane nature of reality. In your understanding, how is that different from the ultimate nature of reality, or is it?

Here is the second question. Giving what I would say is a very neutral answer, tailored to a Western audience, to the question what does emptiness mean, His Holiness the Dalai Lama said, "Emptiness means things are not as they appear." Now for me, I can not see any way, based on your objections, that you believe that the rice seed or the wheat seed are not exactly as they appear to you. Can you tell me how they are not as they appear to you? Or do feel like that is not relevant for some reason?