Dhamma and Non-duality-A Theravadan Point of View

“Where I think the teaching of the Buddha, as preserved in the Theravada tradition, surpasses all other attempts to resolve the spiritual dilemmas of humanity is in its persistent refusal to sacrifice actuality for unity. The Buddha’s Dhamma does not point us toward an all-embracing absolute in which the tensions of daily existence dissolve in metaphysical oneness or inscrutable emptiness. It points us, rather, toward actuality as the final sphere of comprehension, toward things as they really are (yathabhuta). Above all, it points us toward the Four Noble Truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation as the liberating proclamation of things as they really are.” Bhikkhu Bodhi

If you follow this site, you know that I post a wide variety of teachings from the Buddhist tradition, both Theravadan and Mahayanan, and I have great respect for both traditions. (I also love and post Sufi poetry and music that inspires me!)

I first encountered Buddhism through the Theravadan dhamma door of insight meditation, but my first personal teacher was Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh of the Mahayanan tradition. My retreat with him and his sangha in 2002 had a huge impact on my life, and I will always consider beloved Thây my heart teacher.

That said, I do find that my own practice at this time in my life is largely shaped and guided by the Pali canon and Theravadan teachings. I constantly work with the skillful instruction of teachers such as Ajahn Chah, Ayya Khema, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhante Vimalaramsi, Ajahn Brahmavamso, and the author of the article below, Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Why Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Essay is Important to Me

Bodhi’s essay, “Dhamma and Non-duality” addresses an issue I constantly run into when sharing ideas and insights with fellow Buddhists as well as those of other traditions. I think it’s important to see where spiritual teachings actually differ instead of pretending that they don’t or that they are “really saying the same thing.” Often, they are not saying the same thing! And no, it isn’t just a matter of “semantics,” which is a favorite fall-back when people of goodwill disagree and don’t want to deal with the discomfort of conflicting and even contradictory views.

The Buddha is not saying and teaching the same thing as the Advaitan Adi Shankara (a point Shankara himself repeatedly made.)  A Shankara is not saying and teaching the same thing as a Jesus. A Ramana Maharshi is not teaching the same thing as a John Calvin. What is it about spiritual teaching that make some people want say that all teachings “really” have the same goals and the same “end game?”

You’d never hear a philosopher say that an Immanuel Kant “really” was saying the same thing as a Kierkegaard. But when it comes to spiritual teachers and teaching, many people seem to want to believe that the spiritual teachings, at their ultimate level, are all “really” the same and that teachers are merely using different words to point to the same basic truth.

If you take what spiritual teachers say seriously, and believe they really mean what they say when they declare this is a right view, and this is a wrong view, this is clearly not the case.  Shouldn’t we have the intellectual integrity to trust that teachers mean what they say and that their words mean what they say they mean? If we personally want to believe it’s all the same, fine.  But don’t attribute this belief to all teachers, because in many cases teachers clearly don’t agree about the nature of the ultimate, or even how to get there, so to speak.

I think many people are very uncomfortable with the idea that great spiritual teachers can in fact have very different, conflicting spiritual explanations.  To get rid of this discomfort (and maybe the unspoken fear that they might be on the “wrong” path), people will rationalize that spiritual teachers who say things  contradictory to their beliefs must “really” be saying the same thing they believe, even though the ideas and concepts couldn’t be more contradictory. Some individuals will even claim they are beyond all such distinctions and road maps, and that only the spiritual immature care about such things, because in the end, you left go of all “road maps.”

Did the Buddha Teach that All Paths Lead to Nirvana?

Well, the Buddha was certainly beyond all “road maps” and had finally put down the “raft” of skillful means that he used to cross over to liberation. But achieving his freedom, did he then say he was teaching the same thing as the various Hindu religious beliefs of his time?  Did he declare his path was all about union with Brahman?  Did he teach that any path you took would lead to liberation? Did he say that all views and practices were skillful and essentially the same? He did not, and in fact, throughout his life he made clear distinctions between his teachings and practices and what other gurus and Indian sages of his time taught and practiced.

We are free to believe or not believe what the Buddha taught. And the Buddha told us to try his teachings and see for ourselves if they work. But claiming this moral freedom is a very different thing than claiming that all teachings are the same and that distinctions and what the Buddha called “right view” are unimportant or unnecessary. If the Buddha of the Pali canon doesn’t speak to you, that’s fine. If the Buddha of the Mahayana tradition doesn’t speak to you, that’s fine! But shouldn’t we at least have the moral courage to admit the differences in teachings and traditions, instead of ignoring them or explaining them away? And if we see disagreements, do we have to believe that means that one teaching is “higher” or a “greater vehicle” than the other?

If some belief or view we hold is not skillful, if it does not lead to the end of suffering, then if we follow the Buddha’s path of the Four Noble Truths, eventually this will become apparent. Seeing distinctions and differences is not about saying “I’m right” and “you’re wrong!” It’s about having the intellectual integrity to respect what some teacher actually taught.  It’s about the moral courage and spiritual integrity to agree to disagree and to respect those differences, with all good will toward our fellow beings in their quest for happiness in the road they travel.

Anyway, that’s my two bits! Here’s a most excellent essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi that beautifully explicates the Theravadan view of some of the Buddha’s core teachings.  It explains the Theravadan view and why Theravadans feel its important to not blend the teachings of one school with another or say there are no real differences.

Dhamma and Non-duality

by Bhikkhu Bodhi

One of the most challenging issues facing Theravada Buddhism in recent years has been the encounter between classical Theravada vipassana meditation and the “non-dualistic” contemplative traditions best represented by Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. Responses to this encounter have spanned the extremes, ranging from vehement confrontation all the way to attempts at synthesis and hybridization. While the present essay cannot pretend to illuminate all the intricate and subtle problems involved in this sometimes volatile dialogue, I hope it may contribute a few sparks of light from a canonically oriented Theravada perspective.

My first preliminary remark would be to insist that a system of meditative practice does not constitute a self-contained discipline. Any authentic system of spiritual practice is always found embedded within a conceptual matrix that defines the problems the practice is intended to solve and the goal toward which it is directed. Hence the merging of techniques grounded in incompatible conceptual frameworks is fraught with risk. Although such mergers may appease a predilection for experimentation or eclecticism, it seems likely that their long-term effect will be to create a certain “cognitive dissonance” that will reverberate through the deeper levels of the psyche and stir up even greater confusion.

My second remark would be to point out simply that non-dualistic spiritual traditions are far from consistent with each other, but comprise, rather, a wide variety of views profoundly different and inevitably colored by the broader conceptual contours of the philosophies which encompass them.

For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world. From the standpoint of the highest realization, only one ultimate reality exists — which is simultaneously Atman and Brahman — and the aim of the spiritual quest is to know that one’s own true self, the Atman, is the timeless reality which is Being, Awareness, Bliss. Since all schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of Vedanta.

From the perspective of the Theravada tradition, any quest for the discovery of selfhood, whether as a permanent individual self or as an absolute universal self, would have to be dismissed as a delusion, a metaphysical blunder born from a failure to properly comprehend the nature of concrete experience. According to the Pali Suttas, the individual being is merely a complex unity of the five aggregates, which are all stamped with the three marks of impermanence, suffering, and selflessness. Any postulation of selfhood in regard to this compound of transient, conditioned phenomena is an instance of “personality view” (sakkayaditthi), the most basic fetter that binds beings to the round of rebirths. The attainment of liberation, for Buddhism, does not come to pass by the realization of a true self or absolute “I,” but through the dissolution of even the subtlest sense of selfhood in relation to the five aggregates, “the abolition of all I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendencies to conceit.”

The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: “All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature.”

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha’s discourses. At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Buddha’s intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment.

In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha’s approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.

When we investigate our experience exactly as it presents itself, we find that it is permeated by a number of critically important dualities with profound implications for the spiritual quest. The Buddha’s teaching, as recorded in the Pali Suttas, fixes our attention unflinchingly upon these dualities and treats their acknowledgment as the indispensable basis for any honest search for liberating wisdom. It is precisely these antitheses — of good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance — that make the quest for enlightenment and deliverance such a vitally crucial concern.

At the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned: samsara as the round of repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject to change, and liable to suffering, and Nibbana as the state of final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Although Nibbana, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara. To the contrary, the Buddha’s repeated lesson is that samsara is the realm of suffering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while Nibbana is irreversible release from samsara, to be attained by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relinquishing all conditioned existence.

Thus the Theravada makes the antithesis of samsara and Nibbana the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbana. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahayana schools, which also start with the duality of samsara and Nirvana, is in its refusal to regard this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality. From the standpoint of the Pali Suttas, even for the Buddha and the arahants suffering and its cessation, samsara and Nibbana, remain distinct.

Spiritual seekers still exploring the different contemplative traditions commonly assume that the highest spiritual teaching must be one which posits a metaphysical unity as the philosophical foundation and final goal of the quest for enlightenment. Taking this assumption to be axiomatic, they may then conclude that the Pali Buddhist teaching, with its insistence on the sober assessment of dualities, is deficient or provisional, requiring fulfillment by a nondualistic realization. For those of such a bent, the dissolution of dualities in a final unity will always appear more profound and complete.

However, it is just this assumption that I would challenge. I would assert, by reference to the Buddha’s own original teaching, that profundity and completeness need not be bought at the price of distinctions, that they can be achieved at the highest level while preserving intact the dualities and diversity so strikingly evident to mature reflection on the world. I would add, moreover, that the teaching which insists on recognizing real dualities as they are is finally more satisfactory. The reason it is more satisfactory, despite its denial of the mind’s yearning for a comprehensive unity, is because it takes account of another factor which overrides in importance the quest for unity. This “something else” is the need to remain grounded in actuality.

Where I think the teaching of the Buddha, as preserved in the Theravada tradition, surpasses all other attempts to resolve the spiritual dilemmas of humanity is in its persistent refusal to sacrifice actuality for unity. The Buddha’s Dhamma does not point us toward an all-embracing absolute in which the tensions of daily existence dissolve in metaphysical oneness or inscrutable emptiness. It points us, rather, toward actuality as the final sphere of comprehension, toward things as they really are (yathabhuta). Above all, it points us toward the Four Noble Truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation as the liberating proclamation of things as they really are. These four truths, the Buddha declares, are noble truths, and what makes them noble truths is precisely that they are actual, undeviating, invariable (tatha, avitatha, anannatha). It is the failure to face the actuality of these truths that has caused us to wander for so long through the long course of samsara. It is by penetrating these truths exactly as they are that one can reach the true consummation of the spiritual quest: making an end to suffering.


In this sequel to the previous essay, I intend to discuss three major areas of difference between the Buddha’s Teaching, which we may refer to here as “the Ariyan Dhamma,” and the philosophies of non-duality. These areas correspond to the three divisions of the Buddhist path — virtue, concentration, and wisdom.

In regard to virtue the distinction between the two teachings is not immediately evident, as both generally affirm the importance of virtuous conduct at the start of training. The essential difference between them emerges, not at the outset, but only later, in the way they evaluate the role of morality in the advanced stages of the path. For the non-dual systems, all dualities are finally transcended in the realization of the non-dual reality, the Absolute or fundamental ground. As the Absolute encompasses and transcends all diversity, for one who has realized it the distinctions between good and evil, virtue and non-virtue, lose their ultimate validity. Such distinctions, it is said, are valid only at the conventional level, not at the level of final realization; they are binding on the trainee, not on the adept.

Thus we find that in their historical forms (particularly in Hindu and Buddhist Tantra), philosophies of non-duality hold that the conduct of the enlightened sage cannot be circumscribed by moral rules. The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil. He acts spontaneously from his intuition of the Ultimate and therefore is no longer bound by the rules of morality valid for those still struggling toward the light. His behavior is an elusive, incomprehensible outflow of what has been called “crazy wisdom.”

For the Ariyan Dhamma, the distinction between the two types of conduct, moral and immoral, is sharp and clear, and this distinction persists all the way through to the consummation of the path: “Bodily conduct is twofold, I say, to be cultivated and not to be cultivated, and such conduct is either the one or the other” (MN 114). The conduct of the ideal Buddhist sage, the arahant, necessarily embodies the highest standards of moral rectitude both in the spirit and in the letter, and for him conformity to the letter is spontaneous and natural. The Buddha says that the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults. He cannot intentionally commit any breach of the moral precepts, nor would he ever pursue any course of action motivated by desire, hatred, delusion, or fear.

In the sphere of meditation practice or concentration, we again find a striking difference in outlook between the non-dual systems and the Ariyan Dhamma. Since, for the non-dual systems, distinctions are ultimately unreal, meditation practice is not explicitly oriented toward the removal of mental defilements and the cultivation of virtuous states of mind. In these systems, it is often said that defilements are mere appearances devoid of intrinsic reality, even manifestations of the Absolute. Hence to engage in a programme of practice to overcome them is an exercise in futility, like fleeing from an apparitional demon: to seek to eliminate defilements is to reinforce the illusion of duality. The meditative themes that ripple through the non-dual currents of thought declare: “no defilement and no purity”; “the defilements are in essence the same as transcendent wisdom”; “it is by passion that passion is removed.”

In the Ariyan Dhamma, the practice of meditation unfolds from start to finish as a process of mental purification. The process begins with the recognition of the dangers in unwholesome states: they are real pollutants of our being that need to be restrained and eliminated. The consummation is reached in the complete destruction of the defilements through the cultivation of their wholesome antidotes. The entire course of practice demands a recognition of the differences between the dark and bright qualities of the mind, and devolves on effort and diligence: “One does not tolerate an arisen unwholesome thought, one abandons it, dispels it, abolishes it, nullifies it” (MN 2). The hindrances are “causes of blindness, causes of ignorance, destructive to wisdom, not conducive to Nibbana” (SN 46:40). The practice of meditation purges the mind of its corruptions, preparing the way for the destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaya).

Finally, in the domain of wisdom the Ariyan Dhamma and the non-dual systems once again move in contrary directions. In the non-dual systems the task of wisdom is to break through the diversified appearances (or the appearance of diversity) in order to discover the unifying reality that underlies them. Concrete phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere appearance, while true reality is the One: either a substantial Absolute (the Atman, Brahman, the Godhead, etc.), or a metaphysical zero (Sunyata, the Void Nature of Mind, etc.). For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew.

In the Ariyan Dhamma wisdom aims at seeing and knowing things as they really are (yathabhutananadassana). Hence, to know things as they are, wisdom must respect phenomena in their precise particularity. Wisdom leaves diversity and plurality untouched. It instead seeks to uncover the characteristics of phenomena, to gain insight into their qualities and structures. It moves, not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All. The cultivation of wisdom in no way “undermines” concrete phenomena by reducing them to appearances, nor does it treat them as windows opening to some fundamental ground. Instead it investigates and discerns, in order to understand things as they are: “And what does one understand as it really is? One understands: Such is form, such its arising and passing away. Such is feeling… perception… formations… consciousness, such its arising and passing away.” “When one sees, ‘All formations are impermanent, all are suffering, everything is not self,’ one turns away from suffering: this is the path to purity.”

Spiritual systems are colored as much by their favorite similes as by their formulated tenets. For the non-dual systems, two similes stand out as predominant. One is space, which simultaneously encompasses all and permeates all yet is nothing concrete in itself; the other is the ocean, which remains self-identical beneath the changing multitude of its waves. The similes used within the Ariyan Dhamma are highly diverse, but one theme that unites many of them is acuity of vision — vision which discerns the panorama of visible forms clearly and precisely, each in its own individuality:

“It is just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, limpid, undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. He might think: ‘There is this lake, clear, limpid, undisturbed, and there are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.’ So too a monk understands as it actually is: ‘This is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ When he knows and sees thus his mind is liberated from the cankers, and with the mind’s liberation he knows that he is liberated” (MN 39).

by Bhikkhu Bodhi
© 1998–2010

Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi was born New York City in 1944. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from Clairemont Graduate School in 1972. That same year he received sāmanera ordination in Sri Lanka and bhikkhu ordination in 1973. For many years he was the editor and president of the Buddhist Publication Society in Sri Lanka.

In 2002 Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi returned to the US and currently lives at Chuang Yen Monastery in Carmel, New York. He has translated a number of the ancient Pāli texts, including the Samyutta Nikāya—The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, the Anguttara Nikāya, and he edited and revised the Bhikkhu Ñānamoli translation of the Majjhima Nikāya.

“Dhamma and Non-duality”, by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Access to Insight, June 5, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html.


About Steven Goodheart

"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." Spinoza

4 Responses to “Dhamma and Non-duality-A Theravadan Point of View”

  1. Non-duality is pretty clearly an attempt to smooth out differences in approaches to spirituality which, given the nature of the spirit, I.e. ulyimate freedom, is probably doomed. The best that can be achieved, I suspect, is to respect other approaches so long as they don’t contribute to increased suffering. Thus, to me, there is no doubt that the Buddha’s stand on animal sacrifice, to say nothing of human sacrifice, is correct. Perhaps a multiplicity of paths is simply a recognition that we don’t all progress in the same way, which likewise seems a truism. All traditions cannot be universal, and in fact none may be. As it’s said that the Buddha taught, we should test each structure in our own lives, discard those which don’t reduce suffering and follow those that do. If that seems confusing, remember that confusion often precedes awakening to a deeper reality.

    • I concur — beautifully said. I think a pragramtic, “instrumentalist” approach helps put asides what does really matter and lets us focus on what really brings awakening, light, love, a truly free heart. I leave the “end game” to this wonderful but deep process, my friend. ❤️❤️❤️

  2. Hi, What is Advaita, or Nonduality? Advaita means nondual or “not two.” This oneness is a fundamental quality of everything. Everything is a part of and made of one nondual conciousness. Often the question arises, “If it is all one thing, why don’t I experience it that way?” This is confusing oneness for the appearance of sameness. Things can appear different without being separate.

  3. Steven Goodheart

    Dear Steven,
    This is a very interesting article and presentation. For the life of me, try as I might, I cannot see the validity of the absolute differentiation you seek to make, instill and above all maintain among the three “schools” of spirituality namely: Theravada Buddhism (Ariyan Dhamma), Mahayana Buddhism and last Vedanta, non-duality (advaita), that is the philosophies of non-duality in general. The first two arose from the insight of one man and he, in turn was a child of the third. I do hasten to add that there is vast political and organizational capital tied up in deliberately maintaining the supposed absolute differentiation. Likewise, there are procedural matters to consider such as modes of meditative practice, comportment of adepts and the like all of which, regretfully, are of profound insignificance in relation to the peak of attainment in any of the three “systems”.

    From Bhikkhu Bodhi:
    (quote) For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world. From the standpoint of the highest realization, only one ultimate reality exists — which is simultaneously Atman and Brahman — and the aim of the spiritual quest is to know that one’s own true self, the Atman, is the timeless reality which is Being, Awareness, Bliss. Since all schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of Vedanta (unquote).

    But it seems that Para-Brahman gets short shift here even though the described state seems no different than “emptiness”.

    Without wishing to contradict what is said in the matter of terminology (Atman/Brahman and so forth) I think it useful to point out that there is indeed a state of being-consciousness-bliss but it is nowhere near to being an “absolute”. For one thing it is a state of consciousness – it can be and is “known” but it does not itself know that it is the source of the world (so to speak) and nor does it directly claim to be such although the creative capacity is none-the-less inherent in each incarnation undertaken. It only knows itself to be a “state of grace” hence: being-consciousness-bliss. It knows beyond itself only that it is the true (but not absolute) source of the constantly reincarnating personal self. Hence, upon reaching this state, the fusion therewith is equivalent to “homecoming” one might say.

    This state of being-consciousness-bliss is however, immediately banished by the query “from whence being-consciousness-bliss”? The instantaneous result thereof being visitation into the profound, a state that cannot be recalled into consciousness for the simple reason that it entails no trace of consciousness and is thus prior to “being-consciousness-bliss” (which itself is a consciously achieved state). What claim could possibly be raised to justify this? Simple really, there is a subsequent emergent identity which can be characterized as “I am that from which all derives”. This is properly the intermediate source of the world of name and form. However, it is a mistaken identity in that although it is the primary appearance in consciousness and sees itself as source of all that follows, it none-the-less emerges from the profound (emptiness itself), even if as a fully formed identity i.e. a “capacity” in consciousness. Being a “first appearance” it considers itself the “originator”.

    Careful inspection reveals that there is a “gap” in experience between “being-consciousness-bliss” and the identity “I am that from which all derives”. This gap (or reflection sphere, for want of a better term than “emptiness”) constitutes “true emptiness”. Emptiness is something “solitary”, unspeakable, un-knowable, un-reportable into which consciousness disappears as soon as discrimination ceases and this subsequent to the query “where-from being-consciousness-bliss?” The seed of the creator and it’s (the creator’s) universe subsequently emerges (from emptiness) under the false (deluded) identity “I am that from which all derives” but the true “source” (reflection point/sphere) ever remains as “emptiness” the condition that arises as when discrimination ceases…………unknowable in consciousness because (it is) beyond (prior to) the capacity which supports consciousness which latter, in turn possesses the ability to know itself and thereby (to manifest) manifests “the world of name and form” and all therein.

    Emptiness is a state of (presumed) being about which nothing can be said. It is known to exist by consciousness only as a gap therein. It is the gap between being-consciousness-bliss (Atman) and the immediately emergent identity or “being that knows itself as ‘that from which all derives'”(the manifest Self or Brahman). However, although the “state of I am that from whence all derives” sees itself as instigator it is also immediately aware of the pain and suffering experienced by all sentient beings which it posits against the pure nature of the perfection which it conceives of as being consonant with its origin. Compassion does not arise de novo from emptiness but as the result of emptiness scanning the effects of its emergent creative impulse. The Heart Sutra speaks clearly and decisively to this.

    I could go on in detail but you will get the point. It’s all one ….thing man! One thing that is a no-thing or everything depending entirely on the attainment achieved by the observer/reporter – from the comparative simplicity volunteered by the plethora of those that adhere to the creed currently trumpeted by neo advaita to more discerning and sophisticated versions of nirvana-emptiness-compassion and so forth coupled with the intellectual and practical infrastructure provided by modes of practice in one form or another, some conservative some seemingly exploitative (in a word).

    However, that said, it is certainly nice to see what is thought of these” divisions” by some of the parties involved therewith. It informs one’s understanding of the world. Nicely done!

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: