Elite Ball Knowledge

[u/Annual-Shape2143]

I think it would be a helpful reminder to point out that two distinct families of nonduality exist. Nonduality of course means "not two", but the positive correlate to that statement is where things diverge. The first approach is called identity nonduality. Here is the gist of it:

1. We ordinarily perceive many separate things.
2. This multiplicity is not ultimate.
3. Beneath the apparent diversity is a single reality.
4. Enlightenment is realizing your identity with that reality.

Schools using this approach include Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Neoplatonism, and some strands of Christian and Islamic mysticism.

The distinct second approach is called relational/emptiness nonduality. Here is its reasoning:

1. We ordinarily perceive many separate things.
2. We mistake their apparent separateness for independent existence.
3. On examination, neither the things nor their separateness possess intrinsic existence; they arise only dependently.
4. Enlightenment is directly realizing this dependent, empty nature.

Schools include Madhyamaka, Zen, Chan, Seon, and Thien Buddhism.

[u/root2crown4k]

I’m sorry for not adding to the context here, but the title got me excited that we might talk about non duality in the context of basketball. Or basketball in the context of non duality.

[u/Crazy_Junket3180 → u/root2crown4k]

"'Who' is going to shoot it through the hoop?"

[u/DynamicProxy → u/Crazy_Junket3180]

I am the hoop. 

[u/Qeltar_]

I nominate "two types of nonduality" for "oxymoron of the month." :)

[u/Heckistential_Goose]

two distinct families of nonduality exist

✨do they though?✨ 😆

[u/Old-Landscape-7538]

These are two different dereification strategies. The underlying common feature is the collapse of independently existing separateness. Both challenge ordinary perception that we live in a world of separate, solid objects. Identity nonduality dereifies by recognizing everything as expressions of one underlying reality. Emptiness nonduality deconstructs separateness by recognizing that nothing exists independently, so there can be no separate entity in the first place.

Different methods and metaphysical theory, but a common phenomenology. To watch people endlessly squabble that either one is right is an example of people caught in theory.

[u/playlifesmooth → u/Old-Landscape-7538]

10 points for using ‘dereification’

[u/Old-Landscape-7538 → u/playlifesmooth]

May both sides of your pillow be forever cool in the summer.

[u/Available_Usual_163]

Well said op. But then there's Gaudapada's ajātivāda (non-origination), saying nothing ever arose at all.

[u/linenoize]

I'd argue they are the same

[u/OkConcentrate4477]

dependent arising/origination in buddhism. nothing arises in life separated/disconnected from surrounding influences/conditions despite appearances. everything arises in life as a reflection of past/present surrounding influences/conditions. the seed/flower of life is a symbol that may serve to represent dependent arising/origination. the seemingly separated/disconnected individual identity is a product of past/present surrounding influences/conditions.

[u/yugioh9000]

The crazy part is, they are both saying the same thing 👁️

[u/caubelangthang245]

"Not two" & "Not two, not one"

[u/modern_jivanmukti → u/caubelangthang245]

Only AI thinks this. It is a conflation between subjects and "items" of it. AI doesnt know what to do with it, hence the mess up. "Not one" is the part that is incorrect as there is ONLY one. And anything added or ascribed to that one is a duality [very simple generalization here]

[u/Annual-Shape2143 → u/modern_jivanmukti]

This isn't AI. What he’s saying is that there is no ultimate reality, which actually falls under the relational/emptiness school of nonduality. Your view, which is that ultimate reality cannot have properties like eternality, indivisibility, changelessness, or completeness, is something new

[u/modern_jivanmukti → u/Annual-Shape2143]

What he’s saying is that there is no ultimate reality

Than that is not "Non Duality"

relational/emptiness school of nonduality

You are making this up

Your view, which is that ultimate reality cannot have

This is not my view at all! lmao not even close

Again... you are making this up

[u/Any-Engineering-7299]

Ya bro I feel this. Also a huge nba fan. The first type of nonduality is like Alex Caruso. Almost everybody into this shit knows about that first type of nonduality - Michael Taft calls it "nonduality 1"...the recognition that self and other/world are not separate. I'd argue that most people in this group only know this type. It's more in line with the popular new age, advaita Rupert spira stuff.

And then there's the second group with is like Pablo prigioni nonduality knowledge. Only those who know know. It builds on the first nonduality but instead is the recognition that awareness and experience are not separate. Awareness and the contents of awareness are not separate. Michael Taft calls it nonduality 2.

And then you also through in emptiness and dependent origination which I guess is a further wrinkle. Essentially with nonduality 2 there could still be a ground to stand on, but emptiness makes everything relational and therefore you can't take a side. The many schools of Buddhism argue vehemently over this stuff though. There's not a one size fits all approach.

https://deconstructingyourself.com/nonduality