This is how right view is defined. ‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way (SN 12.15)
I hear the term thrown around a lot without much specificity as it seems to have different meanings to different schools, so I wasn’t sure what to make of it in this case if people can all just assume the same connotations or not. In what sense would the term for non-duality be accurate to describe the Buddha’s words here? In what sense would it not?
I then followed the links of the translator notes into SN 35.92-3 which talks about how consciousness is dependent on a kind of duality still through contact, but it doesn’t seem to be the same kind of duality of extremes from before:
And what is a duality? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and ideas. This is called a duality.
Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll deny this duality and describe another duality.’ They’d have no grounds for that claim, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element. (SN 35.92)
And finally, what does he mean by “out of their element“ here? What does that have to do with affirming or arguing against dualities?
…Contacted one feels; contacted one intends; contacted one perceives. So these things too are tottering and toppling; they’re impermanent, decaying, and perishing. This is how consciousness originates dependent on a duality. (SN 35.93)
Thanks!
