Everything as one, all at the same time, with no division = Dzogchen/Vajrayana...at least from where I am at the moment.

So Kintama...Daoism/black and white if you prefer to see both sides and Buddhism if you coming at it as there is no division.

"reaching greater and greater levels of awareness, you are still participating in this world, the illusory mind world; the body and mind go on doing what they always do."

well, not exactly. Taosim also sees everything as one, the goal is to be at One with the Source, Tao. However, it does acknowledge and seek to study origin of things through the combinations of yin and yang. Hsien, the Taoist immortals, are not beings of pure yin or yang, they have transcended that. Being One with the source of all life, they attain immortality. So their ultimate reality is also non-dual, the Source of All.

Kinda which came first (chicken or egg)? The (non) goal is seeing everything as one...but the approaches...they are different? Tantric Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism...don't they come at it that while all is one...we are stuck percieving in duality...and the goal is to 'overcome' or get past, or join/re-unite?

Yes, that's how I see it anyway. The same reality is seen, the means for achieving awareness of it are different.

harlan, I believe you have found a new source of reading material suggestions. Both of you are talking way over my head...although I understood what Jim meant about the quantum mechanics comment.
I'm enjoying the discussion though...you two are bringing to the table plenty of subjects for me to look up and learn about. thanks!

Study tantra...and we can compare notes.

resisting the temptation to say something 'saucy' ... and to keep this in line with topic... even Tantra have a left and right path.
The left path would be the equivalent of what we think of as 'black magic'. however, don't Tantra(ists?) consider either path to be equally valid to enlightenment? in other words,ending up at the same point. interesting philosophy. and what is being said here is that there are no such 'paths' in Buddhism?

I'm not really making any point, because I'm just reading and learning. I'm just curious as to how someone could live life without making dualistic decisions.
vegetables are good / junkfood is bad
terrorism is evil / peaceful is good
love vs hate
pain vs pleasure
.
.
etc.
we constantly make decisions like this every day without even thinking, some out of survival, some for social harmony...our instincts and morals are on automatic pilot most of the time - but they are there, and making subconscience decisions between X vs Y.

If Zen goes deeper than instincts ...then what is it that guides a Zen Buddhists morals? surely at some level there has to be choices being made...and as long as there are choices being decided, there has to be dualism. right vs wrong (morals) or best vs lesser or danger vs safety (instincts).

see what I'm saying? It is my suspicion that the absence of dualism is an illusion. or at best, an abstract thought which is interesting to toy with, but impractical in practice.

what am I missing? (I'm expecting a: 'you're being too rational' reply from Tim. which is ok, but if thats the case, then I'd like to hear how you came to learn what you know...by living these philosophies? or by reading about them?)

Thank you both...thought provoking stuff.

The absence of dualism is not an illusion...unless you buy into a philosophy that says 'yep...it's all illusion'.

Left and right paths of tantra...still duality. I forget which is which, but it isn't about black magic. One is about manifesting oneness through physical ritual and the other is through more symbolic/academic. Obviously, one form of tantra grossly misunderstood and abused, and sensibly steered away from by serious spiritual practicioners.

Oneness, going beyond duality, means accepting the 'good' and the 'bad'. Acknowledging all the parts of oneself...including the unsavory...and isn't for the weak of mind or spirit. As Buddha said, 'the light of truth's mid-day is too harsh for tender leaves'.

As for a moral guide, every major religion seems to start with compassion. I think that is the key. If one comes from a point of compassion, there are stages of opening that preclude the misuse of others. Also, as one gets 'insights', one sees people and the world in a different way. Sees the oneness, the connections, and to hurt another is to hurt ones self.

I can't accept good and bad equally. So the Buddha would accept witnessing a child's birth the same as witnessing a child being tourtured and killed? where does compassion come into play there...I can't see it.

(stop me if I'm being a pain)

No wisdom here. I'm not Buddhist, I'm not zen...perhaps our resident monk may pop in and give us the lowdown. Wuxing seems knowledgable.