There are several possible remedies to what seems to be a onesided emphasis of a nondual view (see the recent post “Onesided Transdual”).
One is to find myself as that which is distinct from any identity, and bringing this into my daily life. A onesided expression has to do with a particular identity (an attachment to a thought), so this will help it soften up.
Another is to practice turnarounds. For any statement, I turn it around in any way possible (to its opposite, to myself, to my thoughts), and find how each of these new statements are as true as the original one.
And a similar one is to look at what I am saying. How is this statement onesided? Which views am I leaving out? How can I include what I am leaving out to give a more comprehensive picture?
All this allows me to become more fluid in expressing a non/transdual view. I can emphasize the awakening at one time, then the integration, or both in the same sentence or conversation. I can emphasize perfection as is at one time, then the need to work on awakening at another, or both in the same sentence or conversation.
It strikes me that this balance seems far more prevalent in Zen than in for instance Advaita. Most or all of the ones I find who seems to express the non/transdual view in an obviously onesided view, come fromt the Advaita tradition.
Some examples: Ramana Maharshi emphasize awakening over integration. Tony Parsons emphasize the perfection of what is and less the tools and process leading up to awakening. Saniel Bonder emphasize the uniqueness of his own approach, without acknowledging its similarities to many others out there. And many emphasize the importance of awakening, and less the perfection of what is, as it is.
I wonder if this has to do with the typical emphasis on awakening in Advaita, often leaving out the process of integration? If there is just the awakening, not followed by a longer period of integration – with the guidance of an experienced teacher – the nondual view is likely to be expressed in onesided ways. This is of course not inevitable, but such a period seems very useful in most cases and it seems that it cannot harm in any case. To wait before teaching – to allow for a peroid of integration, maturing and rehumanization – seems essential.
It seems that in Zen, we more typically find an equal emphasis on both. The traditional practice includes a lenghty period of integration after awakening, where you are still a regular member of the sangha and work daily with a teacher. During this period of integration – gradually wearing off the “bright sun of enlightenment”, unsticking from any particular view, maturing, decrystallizing, and rehumanizing – we become more truly fluid in daily life. We learn how to express it in any way, fluidly, according to what is appropriate in the situation.
Since I have more of a background in Zen, this can obviously just be my own bias.