(Continued from: Nondual Action & Nondual Thinking)

In Part 1 of Nonduality (as explored in parts 1 & 2 of this article) David Loy presents a definition of nonduality (of subject and object) in terms of nondual perception, nondual action and nondual thought. These are characteristics that he finds in common in the nondual traditions of Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Part 2 of the book is devoted to exploring potential challenges to such a view.

In chapter 8, he plays his theory against a reading of the Bhagavad-gita; and in chapter 7 considers various readings of the mind-as-space metaphor.

Advaita Vedanta & Mahayana Buddhism: Same Or Different?

Perhaps most importantly, in chapters 5 & 6 Mr. Loy goes deeply into a comparison of Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: first outlining the philosophical and historical similarities between these two nondual traditions, and then exploring what appear to be some rather stark differences. This was the part of the book that I experienced as an absolute tour de force: a brilliant exposition of diametrically-opposed philosophical categories, to reveal an identity of phenomenological experience that underlies them.

His conclusion, in short, is that Advaita Vedanta & Mahayana Buddhism describe the same nondual experience. Their apparent differences are merely at the level of conceptual/philosophical articulation, and corresponding differences in emphasis or attitude: “Mahayana emphasizes realizing the emptiness of all phenomena, whereas Advaita distinguishes between empty Reality and phenomena (both physical and mental), thus devaluing the latter more.” He finds the view of Advaita Vedanta to be basically the equivalent to that of the Buddhist Yogacara/Cittamatra school -- a conclusion which I’ve come to myself, so it was nice to have it affirmed.

To begin his analysis, Loy sets out what he identifies as opposing metaphysical starting-points, along five dimensions (or what he calls “category conflicts”): (1) Self vs. nonself; (2) substances vs. modes; (3) immutability vs. impermanence; (4) Unconditional vs. conditionality; (5) no-Path vs. all-Path. The first in each of these pairs defines the Advaita Vedanta position, and the second the Mahayana Buddhist position. As you can see, each is basically the mirror-image of the other. So how could they possibly be reconciled? The answer brings us right back to the nondual logic of the Yin-Yang Symbol:

“In each instance we found that the surface conflict regarding the correct category-description masked a deeper agreement about the phenomenology of the nondual experience. What is important in each case is not to assert the superiority of either relative term (although it has often been understood that way) but to overcome the dualism between each pair of terms.”

Immutability & Impermanence

As an instance of how Mr. Loy goes about deconstructing or seeing through these apparent dualisms, here’s a passage apropos of both the immutability/impermanence and Unconditional/conditionality polarities (variations on the unchanging/changing theme):

“The category conflict between Parmenidean Being and Heraclitean Becoming is resolved by a double dialectic that first dissolves all things into temporal flux and then turns that flux back upon itself, leaving an Eternal Now that is not incompatible with change when we realize that it is always now.”

The two steps of this “double dialectic” -- spelled out in a bit more detail -- are as follows:

Step one: “Things” are shown to be none other than their causes and conditions (i.e. to be wholly determined by their parts, contexts, and conceptual designations -- without any “essence” or fixed “identity” as an identifiable “thing”). So: what’s left is a temporal flux, seemingly defined by the mechanism of cause-and-effect (aka karma).

Step two:The mechanism of cause-and-effect (the supposed driving force, in Newtonian space/time, of this continuous temporal flux) is seen to depend for its own existence upon the existence of identifiable “things” with which to function (via causes and effects). However, since any such “things” have, in the previous step, been dissolved -- shown to be nonexistent, as such -- the space/time cause-and-effect mechanism no longer has a ground upon which to function, so itself is dissolved.

In other words: “things” and “cause-and-effect” are mutually dependent; you can’t have one without the other.

Other highlights of this chapter include a fascinating conversation on nature of time, referencing Dogen in relation to Shankara -- which I’ll make no attempt to summarize here, but do encourage you to check out, if you’re interested in such things.

Alignment With Reality

Reading David Loy’s Nonduality left me in a space of realizing, once again, that many if not the majority of our most cherished assumptions are, in a word, completely wrong, as in: not in alignment with Reality. This is both shocking and potentially quite liberating to begin or continue to grok: that the whole dualistic self/universe is no more than a proverbial “house of cards.” The good news is that because it has no real substance whatsoever, it can pose no real threat or danger, as it begins to crumble around us .... or so it is said.

I tend to appreciate greatly this kind of shake-up / wake-up. If you do also, and enjoy philosophical inquiry, I’d recommend the book, highly. (And if not, perhaps better left for another time.) While I wouldn’t call it an “easy read,” I did find Mr. Loy’s presentation of some challenging philosophical arguments to be more clear and (to me) understandable, than in other texts in which I’ve encountered the same. For this I was grateful.

To end where Mr. Loy began, it’s good -- as a final word here -- to remember that a good (or even great) book is rarely able to serve as a substitute for flesh-and-blood teachers. As our friend Laozi reminds us, again and again: “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. / The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnameable is the eternally real.”

*