A Note on Nonduality

May 21, 2003

Namaste!

A list member asked me what I meant by 'nonduality' in a recent post

on Advaita and Buddhism. I thought it would be helpful to answer, as

best I can, to the entire group, since other newcomers may be

wondering the same thing.

However, first let me point out that many members seem to be having

trouble getting through lately. There seems to be something wrong

with either the internet and/or ... So don't take it

personally! Maybe it's Al Qaeda.

There is a lot of info on the web on the topic of 'Nonduality'. Just

type the words 'nonduality' or 'nondual' into Google and you will

see. Great general websites to begin with are

http://www.nonduality.com/

http://www.realization.org/

See also websites devoted to many particular masters (which can be

found at the above sites), especially Ramana Maharshi and

Nisargadatta for the Advaitin traditions, e.g.

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/

http://www.nonduality.com/asmi.htm

Nonduality is a 'movement' or group of people who believe that higher

states of consciousness are realized when the distinction between

subject and object is seen to be unreal. It is claimed that this

'wisdom' leads to a transformation of consciousness that sees all as

Consciousness and perfect bliss is realized as our true nature. Many

Eastern (and some Western) spiritual paths throughout the ages have

maintained this, most notably, Advaita and most forms of Mahayana

Buddhism (esp. Madhyamika, Yogacara, Zen, ...). Sufism also tends in

this direction, and it can be found is Christian mystics such as

Meister Eckhart. The Upanishads are probably the oldest record of

these insights. It can also be detected in Taoism. And it has been

rediscovered in modern 'secular' versions.

It is because of this widespread 'phenomenon' that I believe that it

is real and corresponds to a genuine spiritual realization and not

just somebody's fantasy.

Om!

Benjamin

May 21, 2003

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Nonduality is a 'movement' or group of people who believe that

higher

> states of consciousness are realized when the distinction between

> subject and object is seen to be unreal.

> It is claimed that this

> 'wisdom' leads to a transformation of consciousness that sees all

as

> Consciousness and perfect bliss is realized as our true nature.

Many

> Eastern (and some Western) spiritual paths throughout the ages

have

> maintained this, most notably, Advaita and most forms of Mahayana

> Buddhism (esp. Madhyamika, Yogacara, Zen, ...).

I think it's good that this ("...that sees all as Consciousness...")

is pointed out; the Samkhya and Yoga schools taught a consciousness

similar to Advaita, yet in a dualistic way:

18. The multiplicity of souls verily follows from the distributive

allocation of birth, death and the instruments of causation, since

occupations are not simultaneous, and since there are diverse

modifications of the three gunas.

19... the Self (purusha) is witness, solitary, neutral, spectator

and non-agent. - Sankhya Karika

2.20 The indweller is pure consciousness only, which though pure,

sees through the mind and is identified by ego as being only the

mind.

4.34 When the attributes cease mutative association with

awarenessness, they resolve into dormancy in Nature, and the

indweller shines forth as pure consciousness. This is absolute

freedom. - Yoga Sutras

This is quite similar too:

What is the Self?

-- He who stands apart from the Physical, the Emotional, and the

Causal Vestures; who is beyond the five Veils; who is witness of the

three Modes; whose own nature is Being, Consciousness, Bliss -- this

is the Self. - Tattvabodha

and

135. The true self, of the nature of pure consciousness, and

separate from the productions of nature, illuminates all this, real

and unreal, without itself changing. It plays in the states of

waking and so on, as the foundation sense of 'I exist', as the

awareness, witness of all experience. - Vivekachudamani

As far as Madhyamika and Yogacara (both of which are wrapped up into

Zen), these are, perhaps, a kind of Nonduality, but one in which

this Atman is denied:

[VI.121.ab] 164ab. A self that is an experiencer, a permanent thing,

a non-creator, And without qualities or activity is fabricated by

the Tirthikas (heretics). - Madhyamakavatara

221.2 ...it is certain there is no awareness in the absence of its

object. - Bodhicaryavatara

xxii. The Absolute and the dependent are neither the same nor

different; as in the case of impermanence and permanence, the one

can be seeon only in the other. - Trimsika

And there is dispute among them. The Madhyamakavatara has a lengthy

critique of the Chittamattrans.

May 21, 2003

Namaste!

Thank you for the references to web sites on "non-duality".

I have been reading the "Advaita Bodha Deepika" as translated by

Swami Sri Ramanananda Saraswathi. In applying the principles related

to "I am Brahman", I have been dealing with the problem of the

absolute vs the relative, how this world manifests from Brahman-only.

A model of this 'non-duality' came in a kind of vision, which has at

least calmed my intellect quite a bit. I began to "see" the world and

all the individuations as clumps of atoms, attracted, as Shankara

wrote, like the oak tree attracts just those atoms which will be most

useful to the oak tree.

>From there the myriad colors and distinctions began to fade until

there was just a heaving sea of atoms, like little bubbles, then that

which distinguished the bubbles faded and there was just a heaving

sea of energy, vibrating and undulating -- and there were no more

distinctions.

Next the sea of energy was no longer distinguished and there was

nothing, a blackness, was the closest to the appearance. After a

time? there began to appear in the emptiness little bubbles of energy

which became lakes of energy and the lakes began to join and became a

sea, and the waves of the sea began to take shapes and forms and

colors. The natural world began to appear, and soon being began to

populate it -- but all was just the sea!

The feeling which came with this vision was most serene. I did not

feel threatened with loss of ego or identity; it was just the way it

is.

Who was being aware? When the vision was filled with

distinctions, "I" was an individual, a personality, with a body, and

as the vision progressed the sense of self as witness disappeared and

was replaced with "knowing", the "sea" was Self Manifest and

the "void" was Self Unmanifest, yet the "witness" was always present

as whatever it was -- self, Self, SELF, Self, self.

Om!

lotusaware

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste!

>

> A list member asked me what I meant by 'nonduality' in a recent

post

> on Advaita and Buddhism.

May 23, 2003

Namaste!

Sri Concordance909 said:

>I think it's good that this ("...that sees all as

>Consciousness...") is pointed out...

Sri Concordance909 makes some erudite points. I know from this post

(17292) and some private email that he has quite a grasp of a large

variety of Indian scriptures. In fact, he gave us the Advaita

Vedanta Library website I recommended earlier with many great texts:

http://www.geocities.com/absolut_ism/

By the way, the site has changed its appearance recently. Where did

that nice picture of an 'Advaitin' bird go?

So, for example, he is quite right to say:

>I think it's good that this ("...that sees all

>as Consciousness...") is pointed out; the Samkhya

>and Yoga schools taught a consciousness similar to

>Advaita, yet in a dualistic way...

And most 'respectable' scholars would agree with:

>As far as Madhyamika and Yogacara (both of which are

>wrapped up into Zen), these are, perhaps, a kind of

>Nonduality, but one in which this Atman is denied...

But please allow me to reiterate my own pet theory, which I

fervently believe ... well, I hope not so fervently as to border on

fanaticism!

It is this: Buddhism is only denying the phenomenal self of body,

mind and ego. What remains after realizing that these appearances

are not ultimately real, and ceasing all identification with these

appearances, is nothing less than the Pure Consciousness of Advaita,

also called Brahman in the Upanishads! My reasoning seem irrefutable

to me: Consciousness itself simply cannot be denied!

I know that this comment is in danger of triggering a debate with

many scholars such as Gregji and Concordance909ji, and they would

have many respectable academic figures to back them up. This is only

my opinion, but I am personally quite enthusiastic about my simple

logic, as you may have surmised. :-)

Om!

Benjamin

May 23, 2003

Hi Ben-ji,

That's the first time I've heard *that* one, nice coinage: "Concordance909ji"!.

If you'd like to further exercise the muscles of your pet theory, you can post

it to the Buddhist Academic list, BUDDHA-L. Write me offline for more info if

you'd like.

Regards,

--Greg

At 10:09 AM 5/23/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

>But please allow me to reiterate my own pet theory, which I

>fervently believe ... well, I hope not so fervently as to border on

>fanaticism!

.....

>I know that this comment is in danger of triggering a debate with

>many scholars such as Gregji and Concordance909ji, and they would

>have many respectable academic figures to back them up. This is only

>my opinion, but I am personally quite enthusiastic about my simple

>logic, as you may have surmised. :-)

May 23, 2003

Namaste!

Sri lotusaware said:

>From there the myriad colors and distinctions began

>to fade until there was just a heaving sea of atoms,

>like little bubbles, then that which distinguished

>the bubbles faded and there was just a heaving sea of

>energy, vibrating and undulating -- and there were no

>more distinctions.

Well, I don't want to drift too far from this month's topic of

Bhakti, but this is such an interesting description that I'd like to

made a comment, especially since I started this thread.

When we speak of 'nonduaility', it seems clear to me that nobody is

asking us to abandon our sanity and deny that a myriad of shapes and

colors are before our eyes. The question is how we perceive and

react to it.

In my opinion, as I argued extensively before and will argue again in

October, the 'nonduality' is inextricably linked with the denial of a

material substance separate from consciousness. There are no

material objects, only the appearance of such. Indeed, 'matter' is

by definition something other than consciousness, outside of

consciousness. All Western philosophy that I know of agrees on this

definition. However, if matter really exists, then the Mahavakya

'Consciousness is all' is refuted. And there are other reasons for

denying matter, which we will get to in October. This is the

philosophical way of understanding nonduality, in my opinion.

However, the aim of nonduality is not a philosophical theory but a

vision of reality as Pure Consciousness or as Brahman not distinct

from Self or Atman. I believe that this vision can be approximated,

even if traces of a belief in an objective world remain in our

thought processes. This would explain how Samkhya and Patanjali's

Yoga can provide a path to realization, even though they retain some

dualism. And the Gita contains dualistic passages. The mind is very

reluctant to abandon all dualism, and fortunately considerable

spiritual progress can be made anyway. Most people think it is

simply insane to deny the 'objective' world altogether.

So Sri lotusaware's vision still seems to see an objective world (sea

of atoms) in which the distinctions *within* this objective world

melt into some kind of unity. This is close to (but not identical

with) the objective world itself melting into our own consciousness

so that this objective world ceases to exist altogether as an

objective world distinct from consciousness! I hope I am clear...

Perhaps I am misinterpreting him. My main point is that one can have

'quasi-nondual' visions without necessarily abandoning all duality

(belief in an objective world). One might still see an objective

world in some sense, but our vision of the world becomes somehow more

unified, so that we see it all as a manifestation of 'God', and

spiritual insight and inspiration are the result.

Om!

Benjamin

May 23, 2003

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> In my opinion, as I argued extensively before and will argue again

in

> October, the 'nonduality' is inextricably linked with the denial

of a

> material substance separate from consciousness. There are no

> material objects, only the appearance of such.

This is similar, if not the same, idea that I read from the Buddhist

Vijnanavadins (who, if I remember right, are aligned with Yogacara

and Chittamatra, if not the same school) which says that mental

objects have no corresponding material object which they represent.

The Vimsastika says, in the prose part: "When inner representations

arise, seemingly external objects appear, as persons having bad eyes

sees hairs and flies..."

It says in the notes that "A better translation of vijnaptimatrata

would be 'ideation only', since 'representation' suggests rather

than denies external reality." So the above would also read "When

inner ideations..."

Shankara, in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, commenting on II.2.28, writes:

"The non-existence of external things cannot be maintained because

we are conscious of external things. In every act of perception we

are conscious of some external thing corresponding to the idea,

whether it be a post or a wall or a piece of cloth or a jar, and

that of which we are conscious cannot but exist. Why should we pay

attention to the words of a man who, while conscious of an outward

thing through its approximation to his senses, affirms that he is

conscious of no outward thing, and that no such thing exists, any

more than we listen to a man who while he is eating and experiencing

the feeling of satisfaction avers that he does not eat and does not

feel satisfied? - If the Bauddha (Buddhist) should reply that he

does not affirm that he is conscious of no object but only that he

is conscious of no object apart from the act of consciousness, we

answer that he may indeed make any arbitrary statement he likes, but

that he has no argument to prove what he says. That the outward

thing exists apart from consciousness, has necessarily to be

accepted on the ground of the nature of consciousness itself. Nobody

when perceiving a post or a wall is conscious of his perception

only, but all men are conscious of posts and walls and the like as

objects of their perception. That such is the consciousness of all

men, appears also from the fact that even those who contest the

existence of external things bear witness to their existence when

they say that what is an internal object of cognition appears like

something external. For they practically accept the general

consciousness, which testifies to the existence of an external

world, and being at the same time anxious to refute it they speak of

the external world as 'like something external.'..."

The immediate objection, of course, is the testimony of dreams.

Shankara comments on this in II.2.19:

"The things of which we are conscious in a dream are negated by our

waking consciousness. 'I wrongly thought that I had a meeting with a

great man; no such meeting took place, but my mind was dulled by

slumber, and so the false idea arose.' In an analogous manner the

things of which we are conscious when under the influence of a magic

illusion, and the like, are negated by our ordinary consciousness.

Those things, on the other hand, of which we are conscious in our

waking state, such as posts and the like, are never negated in any

state."

Just some food for thought.

May 23, 2003

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> By the way, the site has changed its appearance recently. Where

did

> that nice picture of an 'Advaitin' bird go?

>

Went back to see its family in Egypt.

> But please allow me to reiterate my own pet theory, which I

> fervently believe ... well, I hope not so fervently as to border

on

> fanaticism!

>

> It is this: Buddhism is only denying the phenomenal self of body,

> mind and ego. What remains after realizing that these appearances

> are not ultimately real, and ceasing all identification with these

> appearances, is nothing less than the Pure Consciousness of

Advaita,

> also called Brahman in the Upanishads!

None of this is for debate, just a few quotes and such that might be

useful in further inquiry:

The Madhyamikan does affirm that the "void" is pure, quiescent, etc.

4. All things by nature are regarded as reflections. They are pure

and naturally quiescent, devoid of any duality, equal, and remain

always and in all circumstances in the same way (tathata).

- Mahayanavimsaka

But what is the meaning of the term "void" or "empty" (sunya)?

67. Nothing exists by virtue of own-being, nor is there any non-

being here. Being and non-being, born through causes and conditions,

are empty.

68. Since all things are empty of own-being, the incomparable

Tathagata teaches dependent co-origination regarding things.

69. The ultimate meaning consists in that! The perfect Buddhas, the

Bhagavats, have [only] conceived the entire multiplicity in reliance

upon worldly convention.

- Shunyatasaptati

63. The thing that arises in dependence upon this or that does not

arise when that is absent. Being and non-being, composite and non-

composite are at peace — this is nirvana.

- Shunyatasaptati

So emptiness, here, does not refer to an absence of attributes in a

substance, but rather the interdependent nature of all phenomena,

i.e. "the thing arises in dependence upon this or that does not

arise when that is absent." Because of this, it lacks, or is empty

of, self-nature.

3. Since all things altogether lack substance — either in causes or

conditions, [in their] totality, or separately — they are empty.

- Shunyatasaptati

This is demonstrated here:

38. Without karma, no agent. Without these two, no result. Without

these, no enjoyer. Therefore things are void. - Shunyatasaptati

And, further, because something is dependent, it lacks self-

existence.

22.9. So when there is dependence, self-existence does not exist; -

Mulamadhyamikakarika

This, according to Madhyamika, applies to Consciousness as well:

56. Consciousness occurs in dependence on the internal and external

sense-fields. Therefore consciousness is empty, like mirages and

illusions.

57. Since consciousness arises in dependence on a discernible

object, the discernible does not exist [in itself]. Since [the

conscious subject] does not exist without the discernible and

consciousness, the conscious subject does not exist [by itself].

- Shunyatasaptati

It might be objected that they only refer to sensory consciousness

here, because in Buddhist literature from the Pali suttas onward the

skandha of consciousness is always defined in terms of the five

senses and mind, but the Samkhya school (and, to a lesser extent,

the Yoga school) was subject to this refutation, and their notion

of "Purusha" is similar to the Advaita notion of "Atman", with a few

important differences (such as multiplicity or unity).

Chandrakirti echoes this by saying:

[VI.121.ab] 164ab. A self that is an experiencer, a permanent

thing, a non-creator, and without qualities or activity is

fabricated by the Tirthikas (heretics).

[VI.121.cd] 164cd. Through finer and finer distinctions, different

traditions of the Tirthikas have evolved.

[VI.122] 165. Since such a self is not born, it does not exist,

Just like a child of a barren [ / sterile] woman; and since it is

not even the basis of grasping at I, it cannot be asserted even

conventionally.

[VI.123] 166. All the characteristics attributed to it by the

Tirthikas In this treatise and that treatise are damaged by the

reason of its not being born, with which they are familiar;

Therefore none of these characteristics exists.

[VI.124] 167. Thus there is no self that is other than the

aggregates because it is not apprehended separate from the

aggregates. It cannot even be asserted as the basis of worldly I-

grasping minds, because though they do not cognize it, they have a

view of self.

[VI.125] 168. Even those who have spent many aeons as animals do

not see this unborn permanent; and yet they too are seen to grasp at

I. Therefore there is no self that is other than the aggregates.

- from Madhyamakavatara

The Vedantic writers, too, understood these as different:

II.30. The highly respected Bhagavatpada Sankara also refers to the

Madhyamikas, experts in dry ratiocination (contradicting the vedic

view), as confused regarding the self-existent Brahman who is beyond

thought.

II.31. These Buddhists, merged in darkness, and seeing through the

one eye of inference and neglecting the authority of the Vedas,

reached only the `nothingness'.

II.32. (We ask the Buddhists): When you said, `nothing existed' did

you mean it (nothing) was connected with existence (Sat) or it

(nothing) was of the nature of existence ? In either case its

nothingness is contradicted.

II.33. The sun does not have the attribute of darkness; nor is it

itself of the nature of darkness. As existence and non-existence are

similarly contradictory, (you cannot predicate something about

nothing, so) how do you say `nothing existed' ?

- Panchadasi

VI.73. The intellect sheath is the Self. The whole world is cognised

by it, and birth and death, pleasure and pain, affect it. So say

some Vedic texts.

VI.74. The intellect is momentary like the flashes of lightning in a

cloud or the twinkling of an eye, and that because we know of no

other Self beyond the intellect, the Self is nothing or void. So say

the Madhyamika Buddhists.

VI.75. Quoting the Shruti, `In the beginning all this was non-

existent (Asat)', the Buddhists say that perception and the objects

of perception are the creations of illusion.

VI.76. The Vedantins refute them by saying that there can be no

illusion without a substratum which is not an illusion. The

existence of the Atman must be admitted. Even the void has a

witness; if not, it would be impossible to say, `There is a void'.

- Panchadasi

Shankara says of them:

The third variety of Bauddha doctrine, viz. that everything is empty

(i.e. that absolutely nothing exists), is contradicted by all means

of right knowledge, and therefore requires no special refutation.

For this apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all means

of knowledge, cannot be denied, unless some one should find out some

new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence) - for a

general principle is proved by the absence of contrary instances.

- Brahma Sutra Bhasya

And says of Buddhism in general:

Buddha's doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who

have a regard for their own happiness.

- Brahma Sutra Bhasya

This is, of course, no more harsh than what Chandrakirti said about

everyone but Madhyamikans:

[VI.79]

122 .Those who are outside the path of Master Nagarjuna have no

means of peace. They depart from the truths of convention and

thatness, and, because they depart from them, cannot attain

liberation.

- from Madhyamakavatara

May 23, 2003

Hello concordance909-ji,

I know you didn't intend it as a debate, but I like your selection of quotes.

It doesn't lend itself to a syncretistic view of the two paths. Usually quotes

are enlisted to show how the two paths are "really" the same.

--Greg

At 09:25 PM 5/23/2003 +0000, concordance909 wrote:

>None of this is for debate, just a few quotes and such that might be

>useful in further inquiry:

.....

May 23, 2003

My Dear Sri Orion777benji, With so much clarity on the subject, I can't figure

out how you can still accomodate the concept that each one of us is a 'separate

packet of consciousness' in your scheme of things. Please do not bother to

reply; we discovered a few months back that it can be potentially unending. And

if you are seriously intending to take Greg's advice and join a Buddhist group

to air your pet views (though my own feeling is that you are right), I would

like to inform you about Steven Fair's (I hope my memory serves me right)

warning on this list a few years back - Anybody who makes those type of

statements (that anatta denies only the phenomenal self with a small 's') on a

buddhist list had better duck or take cover unless he wants to get hurt by the

things that are hurled at him. Regards, Venkat.

Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: