Is Non-duality Amoral?

[LifeandDeath]

There's a general consensus that mindfulness in isolation can be used for immoral or moral actions, depending on whether one focuses their attention on a skilful or unskilful action. So mindfulness can be used to train to kill, like soldiers in an army, or it can be used for increasing kindness and compassion. 

However, does non-duality practice run by the same amoral principles? So if one was to practice not-self, and increased integration of themselves with others and external objects beyond ego, then will this lead to spontaneous moral, ethical and virtuous actions? For example, if I truely don't see other sentient beings as different to myself, then I wouldn't want to hurt or steal from them, as I wouldn't want to hurt or steal from myself, so why would I do that to others if they were seen as a truely an extension of myself. But if I did see them as "others" and "external" to myself and not a shared single conscious entity, then is this more justification to steal or hurt others, as there is a clear divide between me and them. But perhaps non-duality can be used for justifying immoral practices too, such as justifying death or murder, or stealing, as if people are only an expression of a whole, then damaging others could be seen as only 'trimming' part of the whole, like pulling leaves off a tree? 

I think traditional practices of 'mindfulness' and 'non-duality' are not to be taken in isolation, they are seen as interconnected within a web of other practices, such as compassion, virtue, morals, ethics, concentration, balance, etc. So in this case when seen as only part of a bigger more complete practice there is an intention for them to be used skilfully. 

But given these practices have landed in the west, which is an extreme rationalist culture, they have been taken in isolation, categorised, refined and sharpened within the western culture, so does this mean they are potentially dangerous if not used with caution? Or is mindfulness and non-duality at a deep level so pure and innocent in their raw forms they can create positivity no matter how they are applied or practice? 

[Prabhaker]

1 hour ago, LifeandDeath said:

But given these practices have landed in the west, which is an extreme rationalist culture, they have been taken in isolation, categorised, refined and sharpened within the western culture, so does this mean they are potentially dangerous if not used with caution?

All masters teach you in such a way that you don't harm yourself and others by these practices. They teach you to clean the mind through meditation. The more we progress through meditation, the more we destroy even the subtlest of ego.

[Bodhi123]

1 hour ago, Dingus said:

(notice the resistance that comes up to the idea of ACTUALLY letting go of ALL notions of morality... no more "yeah buts", no more excuses, no more JUSTIFICATIONS, no more half-baked attempts... just stop)

NO, I WON'T STOP.

I will embrace love and compassion whenever I get the chance AND I will counter hate and abuse whenever I get the chance.

The world is in turmoil and I'm going to send out some love.

Call me wrong or a fool.

Doesn't matter to me.

I choose Love.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Bodhi123

[Bodhi123]

1 minute ago, Dingus said:

No you turn away from it because you think you know better than infinity

I didn't know that you spoke for infinity.

And for the record, I just matched the emotion you expressed in your post against morality.

[Bodhi123]

@Dingus We can debate each other and both look like assholes, but what good would that do.

My point is... we all need to ask ourselves do we stand for Truth or do we stand for Love.

And if Truth is Love...

Then what the fuck are we talking about.

[Bodhi123]

1 minute ago, Dingus said:

You're appealing from fear

Don't presume to know me. You don't.

Peace.

[Bodhi123]

[Bodhi123]

The Buddha proposed The Noble Eightfold Path as a code of conduct that would lead to enlightenment.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus said "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

Come on guys...

Lets not pretend we are above these teachings.

 

[Bodhi123]

@Dingus I am defending love and ethical behavior.

What exactly are you fighting for?

[Bodhi123]

Just now, Dingus said:

I'm trying not to.

 

Me too brother.

But sometimes you have to take a stand.

[Bodhi123]

Just now, Dingus said:

Peace

Same to you

[LifeandDeath]

wow, what an interesting debate 

when I was reading the posts between @Dingus and @Bodhi123 I realised that you are both have valid points. 

In a way they can be complimentary if you take into consideration conventional world and the unworldly dimension, which is stated by the Buddhists. 

Conventional reality consists of ration mind, work, duality, hunger, sex, dying, suffering, and of course morality, ethics and striving to act with a conscious.  

the unworldly dimension, which is the existential deeper reality behind the conventional world, which would be amoral. This reality doesn't have a right and wrong. 

Now I agree with @Dingus in that we shouldn't strive for things to be different, judge, and try to 'fix' things, thinking that we know best, and sometimes we trust our 'being' to act accordingly which we trust to make the appropriate move, but for this to happen we need to have no ego, complete integration with reality (enlightenment) and then we are not concerned with 'right' or 'wrong' . Even still, I've read that the most enlightened beings need to make conscious intentionality in keeping their right view, to avoid temptation (impulse) and to act courageous to follow their calling. If anything, I think it would be harder for the enlightened being as they are walking a finer line of balance and the higher they are the further to fall and the stronger temptations would be. Imagine having strong empowerment that you knew if you directed it towards immediate gratification towards the senses you could achieve higher levels of self-gratification than you ever have achieved... just imagine the temptation. Now this doesn't have to be a choice of morality, but it brings in the notion that 'selfish impulse' will always remain within human experience, and this 'selfishness/ego' is the main root to suffering, and hurting of others, and delusion from reality/non-duality. 

But I also agree with @Bodhi123 in that most of us are not enlightened, or even close, and we are drones to our lower conscious desires and fears, and we don't even know it (that wasn't directed at you @Bodhi123 )!! So, for some who are on the path, at a certain stage they can drop morality, but others will need some prescriptive guidance until they reach a point where they can drop it. it's pretty clear that traditional practices instruct the combination of Compassion with Mindfulness, to bring out increased moralistic actions to reduce suffering and increase inner peace which then naturally translates to social peace, but there's suggestion that increased understanding of non-duality can spontaneously increase compassion, ethics and morality. It really even makes sense, because the more inline you are with reality, the less selfish you are because you realise that you don't have a self, so you extend the fear and survival mechanisms and desire & avoid less, and care for others as much as you do for yourself. @Bodhi123 I respect your intention for being more kind, compassionate, moral and living through virtue. On a pragmatic level I don't think intentionality to be a better citizen and less selfish is directly correlated to social unrest and war. I think the more probable reasons for war are the main enemies of humanity: resentment for holding on to past, seeing other humans as "other" and not one and the same, racism and naivety, NOT striving to be more understanding, empathetic, compassionate, ethical, kind and loving. Although, it is true that "loving" and the other concepts have broadly definitions associated with them, so we do have to be careful when we use them when justifying them as constructive foundations to world peace. i.e. "love" is a double edged sword, and cuts both ways. The main example of this, is that it can produce life but also love is blind.  

@Dingus If what you are saying is the solution, and you are confident that having amoral, neutral perspective of our actions, intentions, and what happens in the world, then I have a question for you: If you say that dropping Morality all together can align you to reality (and Leo has a vid on Morality) then how would one know that they are completely in line with reality to trust that they are acting in according with the infinite reality? How do we know we haven't falsely identified with our 'evil' ego, which can be very subtle and in a way at times completely deceiving us into thinking we have integrated with pure consciousness non-duality? What are the clear methods and signs that one knows they are ready to discard morality and replace it for letting go and surrendering to act in accordance to simply their 'being'? 

[LifeandDeath]

@Dingus wow, thanks for the response. 

I get where you are coming from more so now. 

I think you are right, I need to read and study this subject more before I can reply. 

I'll look into the author and books you mentioned, thanks again

[Bodhi123]

7 hours ago, Dingus said:

What stands in the way is ego, and morality is a huge chunk of that.

I understand what you are saying. You think of morality as a form judgment that is derived from the ego. For example, the ego deems actions aligned with its preference as “good” and actions counter to its preference as “bad”.

My position is that actions are either aligned with the higher-self or aligned with the ego. For example, acts of kindness, compassion, and generosity are aligned with the higher-self and therefore “good”. The assumption is that the Source of all creation is benevolent.

Actions such as judgment, hate, deceit, and murder are aligned with the ego and therefore “bad”.

[SOUL]

Love is love, hate is hate, compassion is what it is and abuse is as well.

We can live loving and compassionate lives and we can eliminate hate and abuse in us without ever seeing it as moral.

Dividing everything into two piles and labeling one "good" and the other "evil" is endorsing the separated mindset.

As someone grows in recognition of us being as part of a whole being the natural expression of that is to not harm a part of ourselves.

If someone needs a code or rules to tell them to not do harm, have they awakened at all?

Edited April 22, 2017 by SOUL

[ajasatya]

embrace

• the existence of ego AND the illusion of ego;
• duality AND non-duality;
• self love and compassion;

or die either trying to become something else or trying to unbecome something without ever being able to appreciate life. all of it. stillness AND movement.

[zazed]

If there is no self, there is no one is feel greed, need, fear, hate, aggression, desire. most morality issues stem from choosing self over others. But consciousness is just awareness, it cannot gain anything, it cannot lose anything, it doesn't exist in the past nor the future, it is only here now.

consciousness is aware of everything, including everyone around you, it has no preference. If the body feels love, there is love everywhere within me. It doesn't mean anything, but I'm conscious that the body enjoys it very much! 

[SOUL]

There is no duality in the manifest existence, that concept is just a mistaken perception in the mind.

[zazed]

@SOUL there is only consciousness, and it is everything. It has no preference, it has everything equally. I am this and i am non dual.

still most of it hovers around this specific perspective. this action figure as Paul Hedderman call's it. Its not me, but it's something right? what would you say it is? and how would you advise the action figure to live, how does your action figure work? what does yours do?

[LifeandDeath]

@ajasatya I really like your post. 

@Dingus I'm recognising I'm limited in my direct living and understanding of morality as a subject in light of non-duality and not-self, but I can't help but pick up the notion that amorality and it's link to reality could very well be an ego-position just as much as @Bodhi123  position on applied moral codes. 

I think @ajasatya is right as it captures both arguments well. My original position is that we live in an existential reality where pure non-duality emptiness is where everything arises and falls within our minds. This arising and falling of mental perceptions is our ego dualistic minds. So we have a conventional world of human existence which is dual in nature, even though it's illusionary, where we must make decisions and strive to be more compassionate, moral, empathetic, understanding beings. How can one say that they have reached their "maximum" compassion or kindness levels? There's always more. Always more ignorance. 

But @Dingus I completely get what you are saying too, and I look forward to reading more on what resources you have mentioned. But I'm not convinced yet that non-duality and our existential nature is enough to stop striving for the world to be a better place. Maybe 'striving' to be better more tolerant, peaceful, understanding, compassionate beings is the non-deterministic amoral path of action that we need to take. In that way it can still technically satisfy your model of reality, as neither striving or not-striving will be considered the same, neither right nor wrong, in an ironic way. 

Anyway, I fully recognise I'm limited in my knowledge in this area and I have more to learn. 

Peace.