user13640: What is this like in daily life ? How  does it manifest when dealing with insults? Ambition? Materialism?

user254: I think that "non-duality" is a slightly later doctrine, which can be understood as a superset of several earlier/original doctrines -- when I say, "a superset", I mean that earlier doctrines are examples of (or instances of) the more general non-duality doctrine -- that non-duality can include or contain earlier doctrines.
Someone on this site wrote this tag definition (for the nonduality tag), which ends with:

Nonduality is the occurrence of non-self.

I'm not sure that's a conventional description of nonduality -- there's a description of the "non-duality" doctrine here, but I'm not sure how to apply that in practice (it seems to me to be discussing or explaining points of doctrine rather than aspects of practical life) -- so instead I'll try to answer your question, by explaining:

How the doctrine described in the suttas is practical or helpful, prescriptive
Why I consider that doctrine to be examples of "non-duality".


The first (and, in my opinion, the most important) bit of doctrine, is the second noble truth -- that suffering co-arises with craving and attachment.
And I think that craving and attachment are examples of "duality", for example:

This is where and how I am -- in this situation, with these problems
That is where and how I crave to be -- in that situation, without problems, with those assets

"I perceive and vainly wish there weren't an unbridgeable difference between this and that" is IMO an example of duality and of suffering -- and working to erase that perceived difference (different between "this so-called reality" compared to "that fantasy or ideal") is a practical manifestation of non-duality.
Note that Buddhism distinguishes between "craving" (tanha) and "desire" (chanda).
Craving is associated with suffering (because it implies an unbridgeable or an endless craving for things to be other than as they are), but desire (e.g. a skilful desire for non-suffering) may be good.

Another example of "duality" is found in the idiom "it takes two to tango" -- it's defined as (for example), "both parties involved in a situation or argument are equally responsible for it."
On the subject of "insults" I think that this sutta is a clear example of not being insulted: Akkosa Sutta (SN 7.2).
I think there's a similar example (involving anger) in the opening lines of the Dhammapada:


"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.


There I think that "hatred", and seeing a split between "him" and "me", and an unbridgeable gap between "he hit me" and some fantasy ideal in which there's a me who wasn't hit, is an example of dualistic thinking -- and in contrast, "non-hatred" is an example of non-dual thinking.
I think that a further example, of (maybe) "non-dual" thinking, from the Dhammapada comes in the 'Violence' chapter:


All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.
Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.
If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.


This "putting oneself in the place of another" is an example of healing the perceived duality between self and others -- I think the practice of that is described extensively in Buddhism, e.g. it's the basis for almost all ethics (sīla), and it's related to the Brahmaviharas.

As for "ambition" and "materialism" that's a bit more complicated as a subject - or, if it's not complicated, it's broad. In practice, for example, I think that what's considered right behaviour (and ownership of material possessions) for a monk is different than for a lay-person.
Examples of what may be considered ethical behaviour for a lay-person can be found in e.g. the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31).
But very broadly I suppose that "ambition" can be summarised along the lines of:

Avoiding causing suffering for yourself
Avoiding causing suffering for others
Helping to liberate others

That's difficult to explain terms of "non-duality" -- because "non-duality" might posit that there's no essential difference between "yourself" and "others"; that any self-view is unwise; or that there's no tangible difference between the real (e.g. samsara) and the ideal (e.g. nirvana).
I think the key is to have an 'unselfish' and 'wise' view (of existence and/or non-existence), to follow through (from that view) with right intention, and so on (with right or noble concentration or mindfulness, behaviour, speech) as outlined in the noble eightfold path.
In summary I think it isn't "having the right thing" that will make you happy -- instead what leads to an absence of remorse (i.e. no difference or duality between "as it is" versus "as it ought to be") is "doing the right thing".

Returning to the Wikipedia definition for a moment:

The Buddhist tradition added the teachings of śūnyatā; the two truths doctrine, the nonduality of the absolute and the relative truth, and the Yogachara notion of "mind/thought only" (citta-matra) or "representation-only" (vijñaptimātra). Vijñapti-mātra and the two truths doctrine, coupled with the concept of Buddha-nature, have also been influential concepts in the subsequent development of Mahayana Buddhism, not only in India, but also in China and Tibet, most notably the Chán (Zen) and Dzogchen traditions.


I think of sunyata as an extension of the earlier anatta doctrine.
For example, anatta teaches more-or-less that any (fixed) "view" of "self" is unwise or untrue -- that the self isn't what you think it is, and that thinking like that is a recipe for suffering and/or a consequence of not paying proper attention -- see e.g. How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
And I think that sunyata extends that from the "view of self" to the "view of everything else" as well -- e.g. that it's wrong to have a fixed view of things-as-they-are -- because they're not like that, or that's only one aspect of them, or a fixed view is a form of attachment, and so on.
Also I suppose that many of the anatta techniques or reasoning (e.g. "there's no 'self', only forms and perceptions and feelings etc., impermanent and conditioned") is applicable to sunyata (e.g. "there are no 'things', only forms and perceptions and feelings etc., impermanent and conditioned").
I think that Western philosophers have spent a lot of effort on trying to understand or explain the difference between subject and object (e.g. between "I perceive", the "I" which perceives, versus "what I perceive", the object which I am perceiving") -- and that that (example of a "duality") is not helpful and is an example of where non-duality is more practical.
I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Buddha-nature doctrine is "practical" in that it helps to overcome the duality (the perceived split, the craving) between "I am not enlightened" versus "I want to be enlightened", by teaching that the seed or possibility of Buddha-hood exists.


I guess that (or I wonder whether), even more generally, any word (any use of words) implies some kind of division: that the word "cat", for example, implies the existence of "cat" and "non-cat".
I think there are forms of Buddhism which distrust verbal descriptions.
In early Buddhist doctrine I guess that's possibly evident in, for example, descriptions of "formless" awareness (i.e. jhanas), however in general that the early Buddhism of the suttas is not at all shy about labelling some things in a possibly "dualistic" way, e.g. distinguishing between "wise" and "unwise", "noble" and "ignoble", etc. 

user14590: Appreciate all the comments and insights. I have realized that for me, when I make decisions on any issues, I ask " what will be my decisions if I take OUT
my personal interest from the equation? and what will it be if personal interest is taken into account
When you compare the two you realize the role of the SELF in your life and how it affects your relationship with all things

user-1: Non-duality in essence means that samsara and nirvana are one, and this further corresponds to emptiness and interconnectedness of all beings. For instance, we have mostly positive and comfortable, wealthy lives in the West, but that corresponds to the terrible situation in the third world countries that are exploited to provide West with all the comfort (example given, China or some African, exploited countries). Another common example is that there cannot be Lotus without Mud, one allows the other to exist. Or Left political wing cannot exist without the Right.
Non-duality is mainly Mahayana and Vajrayana concept. If you'd like to know more, read Heart Sutra along with some decent commentary. I recommend "The heart of understanding" by Thich Nhat Hanh, if you are getting lost in the practical way.
Another example from perspective of realised being (Bodhisattva), Diamond Sutra explains it quite well as a universal teaching:

However many species of living beings there are—whether born from
  eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they
  have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not
  have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have
  perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all
  these beings to nirvana so that they can be liberated. Yet when this
  innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become
  liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been
  liberated

For one there is pledge for non-discrimination, which requires non-dual way of thinking (i.e. Me versus Them, Ugly versus Beautiful), but also aspect of spontaneous helping; helping without distinguishing between the person that's being helped, and the helper.
Concluding, I think what you really mean is not non-duality per se, but applying wisdom of the teaching through Mindfulness. This way is fully described by Buddha in step four of the Noble Truths; Eightfold Path that is.
You don't have to really do much more, everything is there! Do good, avoid evil, purify your mind and also, remember three characteristics; impermanence, no-Self and that there is suffering. If you keep recollection of these at all times, you will transform your drives and habits.

user-1: 
We obviously have names and legal existence. In Other words Im a father,husband and have a job . 

I think there is a mistake already in saying "I am a father....". If you only say it as a way of communicating conventionally, then ok. But believing the meaning of the words, then no.
Conventionally speaking I am married. But I don't feel a meaning behind those words. There is nothing behind the words. (Sorry, can't put it in better words. See here the limitations of communication. :( )

Things are expected of this body. I know as a Buddhist I am meant to
  follow the four precepts but day to day how does non duality operate
  for you ?

On a day to day practice I follow the five precepts. (Your tradition knows four?)
But, I'm not meant to do anything. I train myself in the precepts of my own choice. 
It's a daily thing. Getting up, paying respect to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, then reciting the precepts and then I pick something to train myself in for the next 24 hours. It's my own personal touch of Dhamma practice. 
So, that one topic can be:

paying special attention to the fourth precept (not to ly, speak harshly etc).;
keeping an eye on the hinderances;
staying with the sense doors;
training one of the ten parami (metta or khanti are the ones I pick most of the time);
(put other objects of your choice here ....)


How do you deal with material desire? Insults? Etc the slings and
  arrows of life.

Desire doesn't come up that often anymore. Especially material desire. It's just no longer there. Insults are often just 'hearing, hearing'. But sometimes the mind reacts with aversion. Then I note this as 'aversion, aversion' or 'anger, anger'.. depends.
I guess, you could say that there is no difference anymore between formal practice and daily life.
Hope this helps.
I might have misunderstood your question, given that my answer completely differs from what others already wrote.

13640: <p>What is this like in daily life ? How  does it manifest when dealing with insults? Ambition? Materialism?</p>
 254: <p>I think that "non-duality" is a slightly later doctrine, which can be understood as a superset of several earlier/original doctrines -- when I say, "a superset", I mean that earlier doctrines are examples of (or instances of) the more general non-duality doctrine -- that non-duality can include or contain earlier doctrines.</p>

<p>Someone on this site wrote <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/tags/nonduality/info">this tag definition</a> (for the <a href="/questions/tagged/nonduality" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;nonduality&#39;" rel="tag">nonduality</a> tag), which ends with:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nonduality is the occurrence of non-self.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that's a conventional description of nonduality -- there's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism#Buddhism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a description of the "non-duality" doctrine here</a>, but I'm not sure how to apply that in practice (it seems to me to be discussing or explaining points of doctrine rather than aspects of practical life) -- so instead I'll try to answer your question, by explaining:</p>

<ol>
<li>How the doctrine described in the suttas is practical or helpful, prescriptive</li>
<li>Why I consider that doctrine to be examples of "non-duality".</li>
</ol>

<hr>

<p>The first (and, in my opinion, the most important) bit of doctrine, is the second noble truth -- that suffering co-arises with craving and attachment.</p>

<p>And I think that craving and attachment are examples of "duality", for example:</p>

<ul>
<li>This is where and how I am -- in this situation, with these problems</li>
<li>That is where and how I crave to be -- in that situation, without problems, with those assets</li>
</ul>

<p>"I perceive and vainly wish there weren't an unbridgeable difference between this and that" is IMO an example of duality and of suffering -- and working to erase that perceived difference (different between "this so-called reality" compared to "that fantasy or ideal") is a practical manifestation of non-duality.</p>

<p>Note that Buddhism distinguishes between "craving" (<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tanha</a></em>) and "desire" (<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_(Buddhism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">chanda</a></em>).</p>

<p>Craving is associated with suffering (because it implies an unbridgeable or an endless craving for things to be other than as they are), but desire (e.g. a skilful desire for non-suffering) may be good.</p>

<hr>

<p>Another example of "duality" is found in the idiom "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takes_two_to_tango_(idiom)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">it takes two to tango</a>" -- it's defined as (for example), "both parties involved in a situation or argument are equally responsible for it."</p>

<p>On the subject of "insults" I think that this sutta is a clear example of not being insulted: <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Akkosa Sutta (SN 7.2)</a>.</p>

<p>I think there's a similar example (involving anger) in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the opening lines</a> of the Dhammapada:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="3">
  <li><p>"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.</p></li>
  <li><p>"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.</p></li>
  <li><p>Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.</p></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>There I think that "hatred", and seeing a split between "him" and "me", and an unbridgeable gap between "he hit me" and some fantasy ideal in which there's a me who wasn't hit, is an example of dualistic thinking -- and in contrast, "non-hatred" is an example of non-dual thinking.</p>

<p>I think that a further example, of (maybe) "non-dual" thinking, from the Dhammapada comes in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the 'Violence' chapter</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="129">
  <li><p>All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.</p></li>
  <li><p>All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.</p></li>
  <li><p>One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.</p></li>
  <li><p>One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.</p></li>
  <li><p>Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.</p></li>
  <li><p>If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.</p></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>This "putting oneself in the place of another" is an example of healing the perceived duality between self and others -- I think the practice of that is described extensively in Buddhism, e.g. it's the basis for almost all ethics (<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sīla</a></em>), and it's related to the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=brahmaviharas" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brahmaviharas</a>.</p>

<hr>

<p>As for "ambition" and "materialism" that's a bit more complicated as a subject - or, if it's not complicated, it's broad. In practice, for example, I think that what's considered right behaviour (and ownership of material possessions) for a monk is different than for a lay-person.</p>

<p>Examples of what may be considered ethical behaviour for a lay-person can be found in e.g. the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31)</a>.</p>

<p>But very broadly I suppose that "ambition" can be summarised along the lines of:</p>

<ul>
<li>Avoiding causing suffering for yourself</li>
<li>Avoiding causing suffering for others</li>
<li>Helping to liberate others</li>
</ul>

<p>That's difficult to explain terms of "non-duality" -- because "non-duality" might posit that there's no essential difference between "yourself" and "others"; that any self-view is unwise; or that there's no tangible difference between the real (e.g. samsara) and the ideal (e.g. nirvana).</p>

<p>I think the key is to have an 'unselfish' and 'wise' view (of existence and/or non-existence), to follow through (from that view) with right intention, and so on (with right or noble concentration or mindfulness, behaviour, speech) as outlined in the noble eightfold path.</p>

<p>In summary I think it isn't "having the right thing" that will make you happy -- instead what leads to an absence of remorse (i.e. no difference or duality between "as it is" versus "as it ought to be") is "doing the right thing".</p>

<hr>

<p>Returning to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia definition</a> for a moment:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Buddhist tradition added the teachings of śūnyatā; the two truths doctrine, the nonduality of the absolute and the relative truth, and the Yogachara notion of "mind/thought only" (citta-matra) or "representation-only" (vijñaptimātra). Vijñapti-mātra and the two truths doctrine, coupled with the concept of Buddha-nature, have also been influential concepts in the subsequent development of Mahayana Buddhism, not only in India, but also in China and Tibet, most notably the Chán (Zen) and Dzogchen traditions.</p>
</blockquote>

<ul>
<li><p>I think of <em>sunyata</em> as an extension of the earlier <em>anatta</em> doctrine.</p>

<p>For example, <em>anatta</em> teaches more-or-less that any (fixed) "view" of "self" is unwise or untrue -- that the self isn't what you think it is, and that thinking like that is a recipe for suffering and/or a consequence of not paying proper attention -- see e.g. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/15898/254">How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn&#39;t?</a></p>

<p>And I think that <em>sunyata</em> extends that from the "view of self" to the "view of everything else" as well -- e.g. that it's wrong to have a fixed view of things-as-they-are -- because they're not like that, or that's only one aspect of them, or a fixed view is a form of attachment, and so on.</p>

<p>Also I suppose that many of the <em>anatta</em> techniques or reasoning (e.g. "there's no 'self', only forms and perceptions and feelings etc., impermanent and conditioned") is applicable to <em>sunyata</em> (e.g. "there are no 'things', only forms and perceptions and feelings etc., impermanent and conditioned").</p>

<p>I think that Western philosophers have spent a lot of effort on trying to understand or explain the difference between subject and object (e.g. between "I perceive", the "I" which perceives, versus "what I perceive", the object which I am perceiving") -- and that that (example of a "duality") is not helpful and is an example of where non-duality is more practical.</p></li>
<li><p>I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Buddha-nature doctrine is "practical" in that it helps to overcome the duality (the perceived split, the craving) between "I am not enlightened" versus "I want to be enlightened", by teaching that the seed or possibility of Buddha-hood exists.</p></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>I guess that (or I wonder whether), even more generally, any word (any use of words) implies some kind of division: that the word "cat", for example, implies the existence of "cat" and "non-cat".</p>

<p>I think there are forms of Buddhism which distrust verbal descriptions.</p>

<p>In early Buddhist doctrine I guess that's possibly evident in, for example, descriptions of "formless" awareness (i.e. <em>jhanas</em>), however in general that the early Buddhism of the suttas is not at all shy about labelling some things in a possibly "dualistic" way, e.g. distinguishing between "wise" and "unwise", "noble" and "ignoble", etc. </p>
 14590: <p>Appreciate all the comments and insights. I have realized that for me, when I make decisions on any issues, I ask " what will be my decisions if I take OUT
my personal interest from the equation? and what will it be if personal interest is taken into account</p>

<p>When you compare the two you realize the role of the SELF in your life and how it affects your relationship with all things</p>
 -1: <p>Non-duality in essence means that samsara and nirvana are one, and this further corresponds to emptiness and interconnectedness of all beings. For instance, we have mostly positive and comfortable, wealthy lives in the West, but that corresponds to the terrible situation in the third world countries that are exploited to provide West with all the comfort (example given, China or some African, exploited countries). Another common example is that there cannot be Lotus without Mud, one allows the other to exist. Or Left political wing cannot exist without the Right.</p>

<p>Non-duality is mainly Mahayana and Vajrayana concept. If you'd like to know more, read Heart Sutra along with some decent commentary. I recommend <em>"The heart of understanding"</em> by Thich Nhat Hanh, if you are getting lost in the practical way.</p>

<p>Another example from perspective of realised being (Bodhisattva), Diamond Sutra explains it quite well as a universal teaching:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>However many species of living beings there are—whether born from
  eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they
  have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not
  have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have
  perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all
  these beings to nirvana so that they can be liberated. Yet when this
  innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become
  liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been
  liberated</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For one there is pledge for non-discrimination, which requires non-dual way of thinking (i.e. Me versus Them, Ugly versus Beautiful), but also aspect of spontaneous helping; helping without distinguishing between the person that's being helped, and the helper.</p>

<p>Concluding, <strong>I think what you really mean</strong> is not non-duality per se, but applying wisdom of the teaching through Mindfulness. This way is fully described by Buddha in step four of the Noble Truths; Eightfold Path that is.</p>

<p>You don't have to <em>really</em> do much more, everything is there! Do good, avoid evil, purify your mind and also, remember three characteristics; impermanence, no-Self and that there is suffering. If you keep recollection of these at all times, you will transform your drives and habits.</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
  <p>We obviously have names and legal existence. In Other words Im a father,husband and have a job . </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think there is a mistake already in saying "I am a father....". If you only say it as a way of communicating conventionally, then ok. But believing the meaning of the words, then no.
Conventionally speaking I am married. But I don't feel a meaning behind those words. There is nothing behind the words. (Sorry, can't put it in better words. See here the limitations of communication. :( )</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Things are expected of this body. I know as a Buddhist I am meant to
  follow the four precepts but day to day how does non duality operate
  for you ?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>On a day to day practice I follow the five precepts. (Your tradition knows four?)
But, I'm not meant to do anything. I train myself in the precepts of my own choice. 
It's a daily thing. Getting up, paying respect to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, then reciting the precepts and then I pick something to train myself in for the next 24 hours. It's my own personal touch of Dhamma practice. 
So, that one topic can be:</p>

<ul>
<li>paying special attention to the fourth precept (not to ly, speak harshly etc).;</li>
<li>keeping an eye on the hinderances;</li>
<li>staying with the sense doors;</li>
<li>training one of the ten parami (metta or khanti are the ones I pick most of the time);</li>
<li>(<em>put other objects of your choice here ....</em>)</li>
</ul>

<blockquote>
  <p>How do you deal with material desire? Insults? Etc the slings and
  arrows of life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Desire doesn't come up that often anymore. Especially material desire. It's just no longer there. Insults are often just 'hearing, hearing'. But sometimes the mind reacts with aversion. Then I note this as 'aversion, aversion' or 'anger, anger'.. depends.</p>

<p>I guess, you could say that there is no difference anymore between formal practice and daily life.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.
I might have misunderstood your question, given that my answer completely differs from what others already wrote.</p>
