Exploring the Role of Duality (and Non-Duality)

Hi Team,

Recently, two members of our sub made statements about dualism and non-duality that I'd like to explore together. There seems to be some confusion on the way Zen Masters talk about it.

Ewk said:

>*Faith in Mind says* to separate what you like from what you dislike is a disease of the mind. Other than this, it's difficult to understand what role "duality" plays in Zen. There are no papers, books, or teachings that focus on the importance of duality in Zen... but duality is clearly a critical doctrine for the Asian Mystic.

Astro said:

>From what I've seen in the record, is not so much that metaphysical concepts like nonduality can't make any sense, but rather that they are irrelevant to what the Zen Masters are getting at.

Interesting perspectives. They appear to claim that duality and non-duality play no role in Zen, Zen Masters never wrote about it, non-duality is a metaphysical concept, etc.

Is that so? What do Zen Masters say?

From Datong:

>There is **no blue or yellow, long or short - you only see the complete illumination of the essence of awareness, clear and pure at its fundamental source.** This is called seeing essential nature and realizing buddhahood. It is also called the world of bliss. It is also called the knowledge and vision of the Realized.

This comes up at lot in the record - how dualities like long or short are just concepts. And how we need to put down these concepts in order to see our essential nature. Seems pretty straightforward.

From Yunmen:

>Those who seek total Enlightenment should **discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves**, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts.

Here we see the idea that divisions between self and other are purely conceptual and do not accurately reflect reality. Again, we should discard these concepts.

This point is elaborated clearly by Chih of Yun-Chu:

>A monk asked Chih of Yun-chu of the eighth century, 'What is meant by seeing into one's Self-nature and becoming a Buddha?' > >CHIH: '**This Nature is from the first pure and undefiled, serene and undisturbed. It belongs to no categories of duality such as being and non-being, pure and defiled, long and short, taking-in and giving-up; the Body remains in its suchness.** To have a clear insight into this is to see into one's Self-nature. Self-nature is the Buddha, and the Buddha is Self-nature. Therefore, seeing into one's Self-nature is becoming the Buddha.' > >MONK: 'If Self-nature is pure, and belongs to no categories of duality such as being and non-being, etc., where does this seeing take place?' > >CHIH: 'There is a seeing, but nothing seen.' > >MONK: 'If there is nothing seen, how can we say that there is any seeing at all? > >CHIH: 'In fact, there is no trace of seeing.' > >MONK: 'In such a seeing, whose seeing is it?' > >CHIH: 'There is no seer, either.' > >MONK: 'Where do we ultimately come to?' > >CHIH: '**Do you know that it is because of erroneous discrimination that one conceives of a being, and hence the separation of subject and object. This is known as a confused view. For in accordance with this view one is involved in complexities and falls into the path of birth and death.** Those with a clearer insight are not like this one. Seeing may go on all day, and yet there is nothing seen by them. You may seek for traces of seeing in them, but nothing, either of the Body of of the Use, is discoverable here. The duality of subject and object is gone - which is called seeing into Self-nature.'

I don't know how they could be clearer. But, let's hear from Qingliang:

>If a thought is not produced, then before and after are cut off, and the luminous essence stands alone; **others and self are one suchness**. Go directly to the source of mind, and there is no knowledge, no attainment; you neither grasp nor reject, so there is no opposition and no cultivation.

One suchness (i.e., not two, or non-duality). We are instructed to go directly to the source of mind where there are no dualities and therefore nothing to grasp nor reject.

These ideas are repeated over and over. With this in mind, why do you think the folks I quoted above make claims like, "there are no papers, books, or teachings that focus on the importance of duality in Zen"?

From your POV, what role does non-duality play in the Zen record? Are the instructions clear?