The term non-dual is used by a relatively small group of people, and it’s understandably confusing to many.
So what does it mean?
WHAT DOES NON-DUAL REFER TO?
It refers to what we discover when our nature notices itself.
In one sense, I am this human self in the world. That’s how most others see me, it’s what my own thoughts may tell me, and it’s an assumption that works reasonably well – although it also comes with inherent discomfort since it’s out of alignment with what’s more real.
When I look, I find I am more fundamentally something else. I am what this whole field of experiences – of this human self, the wider world, emotions, thoughts, states and so on – happens within and as. I am this awake space taking all these forms. I am what a thought may call consciousness, taking the form of the always changing content of experience, including this human self and any sense of a me or I within the field of experience. Even more fundamentally, I find I am capacity for it – consciousness and what it forms itself into.
Non-dual refers to how the world appears when my nature notices itself, and when that noticing is primary and any thoughts are secondary.
WHY IS IT CALLED NON-DUAL?
It’s called non-dual because my nature noticing itself reveals the oneness inherent in what I am, and the world as it appears to me.
Thoughts function by splitting the world into this and that. That’s the purpose of thoughts, and their gift. They help differentiate, sort, categorize, organize, navigate, and so on. Thoughts are essential for this human self to function in the world. They may even be very helpful as pointers for the consciousness I am to notice itself.
And yet, that does not reflect the reality of what I am, and how the world appears to me when the consciousness I am notices itself.
When my nature notices itself, it notices itself as oneness. As one without an other, as someone said.
And it also noticed all content of experience – this whole field of experience, including what’s conventionally referred to as “inner” and “outer” – as happening within and as itself, within and as the oneness it is.
So it’s non-dual. It’s not two. It contains the world of multitude and apparent separation, and it’s not one thing within the world as opposed to something else.
WHO USES THE TERM?
Who uses the term non-dual, and why?
The term itself comes from Sanskrit and the Advaita Vedanta tradition, as far as I know. Advaita means not-two, which has been translated into English as non-dual. (See the Wikipedia article for more details.)
What it refers to is something described by many traditions, and by many mystics across and outside of traditions. Outside Advaita, it’s perhaps mostly associated with Buddhism and Taoism.
These days, it seems that most who use the term are Westerns into this kind of exploration. It’s people who, like me, are not tied to any particular tradition, but uses pointers and practices from many.
HOW DO THOUGHTS APPEAR WHEN WHAT I AM NOTICES ITSELF?
How do thoughts appear when my nature notices itself?
They appear as questions about the world. As pointers and an aid for this human self to orient, navigate, and function. They can be more or less accurate in a conventional sense. And they cannot hold any full, final, or absolute truth, that’s not their function.
When my mind associates a thought with a certain physical sensation (often created by tensing muscles), then the sensation lends a sense of solidity, reality, and truth to the thought, and the thought gives a sense of meaning to the sensation. This is something that’s usually not consciously noticed, although it can be explored – in great detail – by investigating the sense fields. (For instance, through the Kiloby Inquiries.)
Also, any sense of me or I, or a doer or observer, are recognized as created by the mental field – often associated with certain bodily sensations. They happen within and as what I am, just like any other object, and any other part of the field of experience. They come and go as any other content of experience. They “slide around on (as) my nature” as I sometimes experience it as, and are not what I more fundamentally am.
This also means that both dreams and waking life happen within and as what I am. To me, they are made of the same, although they – in a practical sense – obviously are also quite different.
MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TERM
How do I relate to the term, and how has it changed?
When I first encountered the term, I think it was when I was nineteen and read No Boundary by Ken Wilber.
Finding the book, and encountering the term, was exciting to me since it seems to beautifully capture what was revealed in the oneness shift when I was sixteen – which was still there and which I was actively exploring.
I used the term quite a bit in my twenties, mostly in my own journals and the occasional university paper, since I didn’t know others interested in it. (At the Zen center, people didn’t seem too interested in anything outside of Zen, the term would probably have seemed too intellectual for most, and we didn’t talk about these things anyway. The culture didn’t quite allow it.)
These days, I don’t use it actively. Why did it change? Likely because it seems somewhat intellectual, and it’s understood only by a small group of people. In general, I like to find words that seem more direct and ordinary. I still find it occasionally useful as a shorthand when I am with people who are familiar with it, so I don’t have anything against the term itself.
Note: I wrote this more as flow-of-consciousness than a planned and edited article. The Wikipedia article is much better for understanding the history and general use of the term, although what I write may be more interesting for seeing how it appears to someone in their own life and experience.