An
Essay on the Fundamental Identity of the Spiritual Vision
of
Early Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta
by Benjamin
22 December 2003
3. NONDUALISM IN
BUDDHISM AND ADVAITA
4. SCRIPTURAL
EXCERPTS FROM EARLY BUDDHISM
5. SCRIPTURAL EXCERPTS
FROM MAHAYANA BUDDHISM
6. SCRIPTURAL EXCERPTS
FROM ADVAITA VEDANTA
This
work is copyrighted in order to prevent plagiarism.
You
may freely distribute this document or quote from it,
as
long as you give proper acknowledgement.
In this essay, I will to argue that a common
'mystical' experience and vision of reality underlie Early Buddhism, Mahayana
Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta. By
'mystical' experience, I mean the state of consciousness, called
'enlightenment' or 'realization', to which these traditions aspire. I realize that my thesis is vast and
may even seem presumptuous, but I will try to back up my claims with quotations
from important scriptures.[1]
The basic idea is that enlightenment is found in a
'nondual' state of consciousness, in which the mind's usual discrimination
between subject and object, or self and world, is abandoned or transcended in
some fashion. I will try to
clarify this key notion as we proceed.
In simpler terms, all of these traditions emphasize the elimination of
the 'ego'. This is surely the
basic theme which unites them all.
However, to my ears, this sounds like 'mere morality', which all
religions preach. The Indian
traditions mentioned here go far beyond simple ethics and propound
psychological and philosophical ideas of extreme depth and subtlety, which have
the potential to radically transform our consciousness and vision of
reality. This is rather more than
one usually expects from mere pedestrian ethics.
In addition to transcending the subject/object
duality, there is a noticeable tendency to transcend all discriminations and dualities, such as between
different objects and ideas.
Indeed, there is a tendency to transcend the very conceptual mind from
which all discriminations and dualities originate. Of course, the mind retains its useful purpose as an
instrument to enable the so-called 'body' to navigate the so-called 'world',
but the enlightened consciousness is not 'lodged' or 'rooted' in the conceptual
mind, so to speak. It does not
'believe' the conceptual mind nor 'identify' with it; it only uses it. This will be explained as we proceed.
The philosophical tendency, therefore, is towards
idealism and monism, whether this be explicit or implicit. This is only natural. Idealism is the philosophical view that
consciousness is the fundamental reality.
Monism is the philosophical view that there is only one fundamental
reality, which in this case is consciousness. If the object is the same as the subject, then we naturally
have some kind of idealism, since no one denies that the subject is conscious. And if the discriminations between
various apparent objects melt into some kind of unity, then we have monism as
well.[2]
Note that I will be looking for confirmation only in
key scriptures. Hence I will be
applying my own interpretation to those scriptures. Thus I will be ignoring the vast commentatorial literature
within these traditions.
Naturally, I have my own strong philosophical views which color my interpretation
of the scriptures. It would
therefore be best to begin by outlining these views. Then it will be easier for the reader to decide whether or
not I am doing violence to the texts upon which I later comment. Please be aware that my views would be
hotly debated by many experts. At
the least, I would be accused of a sweeping generalization. Nevertheless, I believe that I am
correct concerning the 'deep inner essence' of these traditions, as opposed to
their cultural, historical and textual superficialities and differences.
Naturally, you may wonder why it should matter that a
common vision underlie these different traditions. The reason is simply that such a vision seems to me to give
much more credibility to the notion that enlightenment is real and attainable. If that state of consciousness is
fundamentally the same wherever it appears, despite the encrustation of
culture, then it becomes the potential and birthright of all human beings (or
perhaps even of all sentient beings).
Otherwise, the state of consciousness is merely relative to each
particular school, and then seems to become the fabrication of that school,
perhaps through some kind of 'brainwashing'. Worse, we may be asked to accept certain scriptures as
dogma, which is anathema to any thoughtful person. Hence, the name 'Indian Nondualism' is a misnomer. It really refers to the nondual state
of consciousness attainable by all sentient beings in all universes. However, it is convenient here to
emphasize certain aspects of the Indian tradition, since nowhere on this planet
has 'mysticism' been pursued with more zeal than in India, and many of these
scriptures are familiar to me.[3]
The need for this essay can be illustrated by the
following message on the Advaitin List at
http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/
posted by an Advaitin disciple of Swami Dayananda
Saraswathi and of Swami Satchidanendra Saraswathi, who wrote a 'magnum opus'
called 'The Method of Vedanta'.
From: atmachaitanya108
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:10:00
Message:
#11739
Dear Brian
When you say "I accept quite freely that 'All is
Brahman', ... but it is 'preposterous' to say the Buddha was not
enlightened", I respectfully submit that there is a fundamental
misconception about the teachings of the Buddha, and the teachings of Advaita
Vedanta.
In order to clarify my assertion, please allow me to
present a brief introduction into 'Buddha Dharma 101':
The teachings of Lord Buddha were not written down
until at least 150-200 years ofter his death. The first formulation of his
doctrine was that of Hinayana Buddhism (which consisted of two subdivisions
Sarvasti Vadins and Sautantrika). It was a realistic doctrine which rejected
the reality of a true Self, but accepted the reality of 'Ultimate Existents'.
In about 100 AD Nargarguna rejected not only the reality of a true Self but
also the reality of 'Ultimate Existents' and proclaimed the 'Emptiness' of all
phenomena, both Self and Non-Self, i.e. everything is 'Empty of Inherent
Existence'. This was the begining of Mahayana Buddhism. In the fourth century
Asanga and Vasubanda rejected Nargarjunas' Sunya Vada, and put forth the
doctrine that everything is the Mind alone (Chittamatra). The Mind is
continuous and momentary (Santani Kshnika Vijnana Vada). These are the three
main schools of Buddhism that were existing at the time of Shankara. (I might
add that in the 9th century a new school of Buddhism made it appearence known
as 'Dzog Chen', which held that the Absolute reality was Pure Intrinsic
Awareness, but unlike the Advaitins, they said that this Intrinsic awareness
was "Dynamic", and its very nature was to be constantly changing.)
Shankara has examined these three main schools of
Buddhism and refuted them in his Sutra Bhasya. If you agree with his refutation
then you are an Advaitin, "All is Brahman alone", and the Buddha,
which ever school he actually upheld, was not an 'enlightened' sage.
If you think that the Buddha did teach that "All
is Brahman", or that any school of Buddhism, or any writer on Buddhism,
held such a view, then I kindly ask you to provide me one shred of evidence
supporting that fact. No Buddhist ever put forth the view that your true Self
is Brahman and that Brahman is the Non-Dual Reality. That teaching is only
found in the Upanishads. (The Asadarna Dharma-The Unique teaching of Vedanta).
Hari Om Atmachaitanya
As you will see, I emphatically disagree with this not
atypical view.
The following
is only a summary of my views.
More details can be found on my website at
http://philosophy.sunyaprajna.com.
First of all, I believe in my version of philosophical
idealism, which states that 'consciousness' is the only reality. According to my observation, this
consciousness manifests in three aspects: perceptions, feelings and
thoughts. Perceptions are
basically the same as our five senses.
Feelings are the same as emotions such as love and hate, and thoughts
are whatever remains.[4] These are the three categories that I
discern when I introspect upon my consciousness.
It is especially important to understand that, for me,
consciousness is what immediately appears to direct intuition, before the
intervention of thinking. Look at
a red apple without thinking about it in any way. That immediate red perception is what I mean by a
'perception'. Likewise for the
other aspects of consciousness.
This seems like a trivial comment, but much philosophical confusion
arises because people do not start from their immediate intuition but rather
from preconceived thoughts about those intuitions. Even thoughts should simply be observed without thinking
about them, if we are to apprehend their true immediate nature. Otherwise, the thoughts about thoughts
hijack our mind with their preconceptions, because they ARE
preconceptions. This may sound
confusing, but please meditate on it for a while (without thinking).
One key example of a preconceived thought is the idea
of a material object distinct from the perception of the object. Normally, we think of the perception
of, say, a red apple as an 'image' in our consciousness which was 'produced' by
a distinct entity called the 'material apple', which is presumably located in
the real, material world 'out there', i.e. outside of consciousness. Specifically, one may think that light
strikes the apple and then reflects from it into our eyeballs, thus producing
nerve stimuli which somehow result in a perception somewhere in our brain. This is ordinary common-sense dualism,
in which the world is divided into discrete material objects and distinct
consciousnesses, which somehow 'reside' in biological bodies which are
constituents of the material world.
In it easy to show that such a hypothetical material
world is utterly unfounded and unverifiable, vivid appearances
notwithstanding. For there is
absolutely no way to get 'outside' of consciousness and ascertain the existence
of such a world. The supposed material
world can only be inferred from the perceptions, but this inference is without
any justification or possibility of proof. We could just as well be dreaming or hallucinating, perhaps
under the influence of some god or demon or whatever else. The fact that different people, when
awake, see the same 'things' when they are 'in the same place' proves nothing
except that their perceptions are similar and coordinated. Indeed, being 'in the same place' means
no more than that our perceptions are similar and coordinated. Think about it.
One might argue that one cannot disprove the material world either. Furthermore, one might argue that an external material world
is the likeliest hypothesis for the similarity of our perceptions when we are
awake and in the same place. I
might reply that such a 'noumenal' world is utterly useless, as it explains and
predicts nothing. Regarding
prediction, all of science is based on generalizations about causes between
events. The causes are nothing but
sequences of events that are observed to commonly occur, and the events are
nothing but perceptions. So all of
scientific prediction occurs within consciousness, and the material hypothesis
serves no purpose whatsoever.
Furthermore, we only care about the contents of our consciousness
anyway. Do you care whether a
'real' cake exists or whether the sweet sensation occurs when you eat it? In summary, the material hypothesis is
in every way useless and unverifiable.
At a more subtle level, I maintain that our very
concept of an external, material world is a confused and 'illegitimate'
concept, being nothing but a kind of pale reflection of conscious
experience. So the external world
is as meaningless as it is unverifiable, but enough has been said about this
for now. I would only add that
space is as unreal as matter, for the same reasons. And the argument that an 'idealist' would not jump off a
bridge proves nothing, as the resulting unpleasant perceptions are still only
perceptions. Berkeley is a classic
philosopher who writes clearly and who may help you to understand these
idealistic views. However, I do
not agree with everything he says, especially regarding God.[5]
Another important example of an erroneous preconceived
thought is the division of the 'world' into subject and object. The so-called world has already been
reduced to a stream of consciousness.
Upon closer inspection of this stream of consciousness, it becomes
apparent that the labels 'subject' and 'object' both refer to the same stream
of consciousness. My reasons are
quite like those of the classic philosopher Hume, who also writes clearly. In order to realize this, it is
essential that you suppress all instinctive thinking and preconceptions
regarding subject and object and simply remain calmly and silently aware of the
stream of consciousness. This is
what I call 'direct intuition'. It
may be difficult at first, due to static from the conceptual mind, but it is a
necessary step along any spiritual path based on meditation.
These are the basic philosophical views which are
relevant to my interpretation of certain Indian traditions. You need not accept any of this, but
you should at least try to understand why I think that these views are
correct. Then the following will
make much more sense. I tried to
be clear above, and I also referred you to other famous Western philosophers
with similar (though not identical) views, who write clearly, and who are
easily accessible on the internet.
3. NONDUALISM
IN BUDDHISM AND ADVAITA
Now we get to the heart of the essay, namely, the
topic of nondualism, which is the essence of the spiritual experience found in
Advaita and the higher (more philosophical) forms of Buddhism. To repeat, the basic idea is that
enlightenment is to be found in a nondual state of consciousness, in which the
boundary between subject and object imposed by the conceptual mind
vanishes. All that remains is
'Pure Consciousness'. This
transformation or purification of consciousness manifests as a state of clarity
and bliss in which we become perfect and regain our 'original self'.[6] It is the goal of life and is also called
'liberation'. Therefore, we should
try to understand this state as deeply as possible, even before we succeed in
reaching it. I maintain that the
philosophical principles of idealism and nonduality are the keys to
understanding Buddhist and Advaitin enlightenment, in so far as it can be
understood without actually becoming enlightened. And as we will see, the scriptures clearly back this up.
Even those who are convinced that these different
traditions must have significant differences must also agree that they all
stress the dissolution of the ego as their key theme. This was made absolutely clear by the Buddha and therefore
applies to all Buddhist schools, but also such key Advaitin texts as the Vivekachudamani
of Shankara stress this again and again, more than any other theme. So in all of the following subtle and
esoteric discussions, we must never forget this simple key underlying theme,
namely, the dissolution of the ego.
All of the following discussion is an elaboration upon this theme, and
if we forget this then we will get lost in sterile philosophy.
However, we must not think that the suppression of the
ego is mere morality, with the emphasis on behavior and reward, the latter
usually after death, as in most other religions. Buddhism and Advaita distinguish themselves by offering a
path to enlightenment within this very lifetime. The emphasis of Buddhism and Advaita is on a radical
transformation of consciousness as soon as possible, if only we are willing to
make the effort and open our minds to wisdom. This is an entirely different attitude than promising a
reward after death. The promise of
reward and threat of punishment is how we treat children, and it is degrading
in that it simply demands outward compliance rather than inward transformation. Of course, religions such as
Christianity and Islam do have currents which emphasize some kind of immediate
spiritual transformation and experience, but in Buddhism and Advaita this is
far more explicit and well developed.
Furthermore, in Buddhism and Advaita, it is stressed
that wisdom and insight, rather than blind belief in God or scriptures, are the
means to attaining enlightenment.
These are spiritual paths for intelligent, thoughtful and sensitive
people. Indeed, wisdom and
enlightenment are often described as virtually the same. Conventional morality presents us with
a set of instructions telling us how to behave, and then we must struggle with
our recalcitrant will in order to achieve this behavior. In Buddhism and Advaita, a far more
appealing solution is offered, namely, that simple wisdom will illuminate our
entire consciousness so that enlightened behavior happens naturally. If we simply gain insight into our true
underlying nature, then the sources of ego, improper desire and temptation will
dissipate of their own accord, as clothes are bleached in sunlight.
This isn't to say that such a path is easy, as the
difficulty now becomes the acquisition of wisdom, which is most subtle and
elusive. The key technique is
meditation, which calms the noisy and willful mind, thus opening intuition and
insight into our true underlying nature, just as a pond clears up when the
water becomes calm and the dirt settles.
This underlying nature is said to be pure, blissful and compassionate by
nature, and hence intuitive insight is essentially the same as wisdom, the more
so as it becomes deep and established.
In other words, wisdom is not so much a matter of learning something and
acquiring information as of establishing contact with our inner consciousness,
which is normally obscured by the ego and intellect. But we must first make the effort to still the 'monkey
mind', which is not easy.
It follows that, in addition to meditation, the
correct pursuit of 'philosophy' may be beneficial to the development of wisdom,
provided this is undertaken in the right spirit, namely, the sincere
acquisition of subtle and purifying insight rather than the sport of winning an
argument or feeling clever.
So, in a word, the dissolution of the ego is closely related
to the blossoming of the wisdom which transforms our consciousness from its
ordinary dualistic state to a higher state characterized as being nondual, in
which the distinction between subject and object vanishes. The spiritual testimony of mankind, at
least from the traditions of interest here, tells us that this higher state is
truth, bliss and liberation.
In this state, distinctions and preferences tend to
vanish. Once the apparent gulf
between subject and object is seen as unreal, it naturally follows that reality
becomes one vast consciousness.
Ordinarily, we think that we have a small consciousness or self stuck
inside a body of flesh, which is but a speck of matter in a vast material
universe, where unconscious atoms and lumps of matter move about blindly and
without purpose. This is the
vision of modern science, at least until recently. But this view is critically dependent upon interpreting our
experience as consisting of innumerable discrete objects, existing
independently of each other as 'self-sustaining entities'. In fact, this is nearly the definition
of matter, which only adds that most if not all of this 'stuff' is
unconscious. This is the natural
consequence of viewing this stuff as existing outside of our
consciousness. Even another person
is seen as some kind of vague ghost-like consciousness somehow dwelling in an
inert material body. The whole
picture is inconsistent and confused.
The materialistic view of the world is what results when we interpret
the contents of our consciousness as referring to a collection of discrete
self-sustaining entities, and this interpretation has its origin in the
fundamental subject/object split imposed upon our consciousness by the ego
sense.
However, even before we succeed in eliminating the ego
sense, we can tell from the philosophical idealism described above that the
material hypothesis is unfounded.
Hence the beauty of philosophy.
We don't need to become mystics in order to gain some insight into their
wisdom. We only need to abandon
our conceptual preconceptions.
Only consciousness exists or can be known to exist. Even the imagination or conception of
material objects has consciousness at its base, like the canvas under the
painting, though we may not realize it.
The appearance of distinct objects is an illusion imposed by the
conceptual mind upon immediate experience. Only the immediate experience exists, which is none other
than consciousness. So the
enlightened nondual state of consciousness is more than just a pleasant mood; it
is in fact the correct view of reality.
Indeed, philosophical idealism is inseparable from the
state of consciousness that arises when the ego sense is eliminated, and the
dissolution of the ego is the essence of Buddhism and of Mahayana. This is the source of the profound
similarity in their spiritual visions, regardless of the minor discrepancies of
expression arising from purely cultural and historical contingencies.
After the subject/object split vanishes, and only
consciousness remains, then the remaining appearance of different objects must
suffer a radical reinterpretation.
They can no longer be distinct, self-sustaining entities, as they are
but illusions embraced within the vast expanse of a single consciousness. Even the space in which they appear is
but an illusory projection within consciousness. There remains only the One Consciousness, and the world of
discrete objects is only an illusory projection upon the face of this
consciousness. Hence nondualism is
ultimately inseparable from idealism; they are two aspects of the same vision
and wisdom.
This can be understood more clearly through the
analogy of the dream, which occurs frequently in both Buddhism and
Advaita. In a dream, we are
convinced that we see many different objects, which seem distinct from each
other and ourself. But upon
awakening, we see that all the dream objects were only projections of the
mind. They were all within our
consciousness, and there was only the consciousness. The same is true when we are awake. The only reason the waking state seems
so different is because the perceptions are so vivid and because the ego sense
is so powerful, due to the conceptual mind operating at full blast. The ego sense and the vivid perceptions
conspire with each other to produce the hallucination of a world of discrete
objects. In turn, this
hallucination reinforces the ego sense, and a 'vicious feedback loop' usually
results. It is because of this
conspiracy between the ego and our sensations that Buddhism and Advaita both recommend
that we become 'detached' from our senses and keep our desires under control.
The illusions of ego, of subject and object, and of a
world of discrete independent self-sustaining objects, all cover and hide the
original purity of consciousness from us, like algae on a pond (a simile used
in the Vivekachudamani). That is
why we are not aware of our intrinsic nature as bliss and truth. The result is a profound sense of
unease, of incompleteness, and of dissatisfaction, which produces a powerful thirst
and craving for external sources of gratification. It seems as though we can find happiness only in acquiring,
grasping, identifying with or consuming the illusory objects. This happens in several stages.
First, we see our body and mind as objects, and then
we identify with these, which greatly reinforces the ego sense. It is noteworthy and paradoxical that
this identification cannot occur until mind and body are first seen as objects. For only when the illusion of an object
is present does it even make sense to speak of identification. The innocent child does not have an ego
sense, because it has not yet conceived of itself as a distinct object. It does not fondly carry around a
mental picture of its physical appearance or mental skills, with which it
becomes infatuated. It is because
we implicitly recognize this vanity in ourselves that we find children so
charming (at least when they are behaving themselves).
Advaita even makes the subtle point that the very
'I-thought' is to be recognized as an illusory object and a powerful source of
delusion, even before we identify with mind and body. The 'I-thought' is to be distinguished from the
consciousness which is aware of the 'I-thought'. The consciousness, through the mind, first develops a vague
sense of 'I am', which it then objectifies as an entity in its thoughts, after
which it proceeds to grasp and identify with this illusory
objectification. From this, all
other manifestations of the ego proceed.
This subtle but fundamental process can be observed upon awakening. At first, we are in a peaceful
transition between sleeping and waking.
Then suddenly the 'I-thought' returns as the gears of the mind start
working, and then all our problems and psychological complexes come crashing
back in on us, our habitual 'world' resurrects itself, and our tedious daily
cycle resumes. When the Advaitin
Ramana Maharshi tells us to concentrate on the 'I-thought', it is to work
backwards through this process, to eventually eliminate the 'I-thought' itself,
as the stick used to stir the fire is finally consumed by the fire [his
analogy]. This 'I-thought' is of
course the same as the self or ego that Buddhism wants us to relinquish. Advaita and Buddhism are in complete
agreement on this most fundamental point.
Once the 'I-thought' arises, then we paradoxically
develop an infatuation with ourselves while simultaneously developing a
profound sense of incompleteness and dissatisfaction. We then start restlessly grasping at the world of objects in
a vain attempt to quench our thirst.
The temporary pleasure from objects is only a brief respite during which
the ego-sense is temporarily lost as we abandon ourselves to consuming the
object. The pleasure from the
object is not in the object, which is only an illusion, but arises from the
inner store of bliss which briefly resurfaces as we lose ourselves in the
object. That is why those who have
achieved enlightenment are unanimous that it consists of an incomparable bliss
which is the satisfaction of all desire.
It should be clear how all of these ideas relate to
even the basics of Early Buddhism, the later Mahayana Buddhism, and Advaita
Vedanta. This will be examined in
detail in what follows, but the essential points can be outlined now for
clarity.
Early Buddhism (6th-5th century BC onwards) stresses
the cessation of identification with any objects, whether mental or
material. Again and again, it says
that there is no 'self' in those apparent objects. This is the natural place to begin on the spiritual path,
since, as we have seen, it is the ego sense or 'I-thought' which is the basic manifestation of the
illusory subject/object split, which in turn produces an apparent world of
objects, including the mind and body with which we identify. The mind and body are the central
objects in this illusory worldview, and identification with them produces a
dynamo of ego sense which swallows up our consciousness and stimulates the
profound sense of thirst and craving which we seek to appease by grasping at
other objects for consumption.
If the identification with mind and body can be cut at
the root, then all the other problems vanish. So Early Buddhism is primarily concerned with the medicine
of dissolving the ego sense, and metaphysics tends to be in the background. That is why the idealism that is
implicit in the dissolution of the ego is not elaborated upon by Early
Buddhism, though there is some mention of it. Early Buddhism is primarily practical, as was the Buddha
himself. However, some later
schools of Early Buddhism (e.g. Sarvastivadins) did develop a pluralistic and
materialistic metaphysics, which was contrary to the implied idealism of the
Buddha's vision. Hence, the
Mahayana arose in opposition.
The first stages of the Mahayana (around the time of
Christ) are represented by the Prajnaparamita Sutras, also called the
Perfection of Wisdom scriptures.
These were concerned with 'Emptiness', which is nothing other than
implicit idealism. For emptiness
declares that the objects are 'empty' of self-existence, and it takes only a
modest philosophical intuition to realize that this is essentially the same as
idealism. If objects do not 'exist
from their own side', then this can only mean that they do not exist as
independent self-sustaining material objects, as they normally seem to. The very definition of a material
object is some 'blob' of matter outside our consciousness which somehow has a
self-sustaining existence, as, for example, we commonly imagine a rock to
have. This is the illusion of
dualism, which is intrinsically tied to the ego sense, and which violates the
core of the Buddhist vision.
Now you can see why I emphasized the insufficiency of
morality above. The Early Buddhism
was highly ethical, but it also got lost in a pluralistic and materialistic
philosophy, which contradicts the idealistic vision that is essential for the
transformation of consciousness to the nondual enlightened state. For this nondual enlightened state IS
essentially the idealistic vision in which consciousness is the only
reality. It is common experience
that we can be ethical without transcending to a mystical state. We then simply become a good person,
but otherwise our consciousness is ordinary and dualistic. We might still achieve a certain amount
of happiness, but we deprive ourselves of the incomparable and wonderful
experience of enlightenment, in which we merge with the infinite, by abandoning
all dualistic discriminations and realizing our nature as pure consciousness.
Only, the early Mahayana did not yet have the language
of idealism, and spoke instead in terms of 'emptiness'. Like the Early Buddhism, it was still
primarily concerned with soteriology or spiritual medicine, so that the
emphasis on emptiness served the purpose of inducing the mind to abandon its
belief in the reality of objects, thus eliminating the illusory dualism which
is intrinsic to the ego sense. So
the original meaning of emptiness was as a medicine to purge the mind of all
dualistic notions, not only the gross one of the ego, but also the more subtle
ones involved with believing in the reality of objects independent of our
consciousness and of each other.
But a second meaning of emptiness is the pure
consciousness which results from the purgation of conceptual
discriminations. For consciousness
is always present and is therefore undeniable; the only change is that the mind
no longer superposes false discriminations upon its immediacy. The early Mahayana did use the name
'Tathata' or 'That' for this immediate presence and reality. Later Mahayana (2nd-3rd century
onwards?) even spoke of a Buddha Mind or Buddha Nature. In general, Buddhism remained true to
the Buddha by tending towards the negative language of purgation rather than
the positive language of affirmation.
The latter is more typical of Hinduism, in which God or Consciousness is
explicitly affirmed. This is
because the historical Buddha was a spiritual doctor primarily concerned with
purging the mind of the ego sense and all of its ramifications.
Of course, the reality of Pure Consciousness must
remain after this purgation, but with a keen sense for the obstinacy of the
human intellect, the Mahayana shied away from giving a name to that Reality, as
the giving of a name tempts the mind back into its old habit of reification. That is, the mind tends to associate a
real object with whatever has a
name. And the last thing the
Mahayana wants to do is associate any kind of objective reality to
Consciousness, which may easily occur if it is given a proper name. This is simply the psychological
predisposition of the mind, which must be avoided in order to follow the
spiritual path.
However, later Mahayana encountered many people
confused by the negative connotations of 'Emptiness'. To this very day even scholars are misled into thinking it
means 'nothing', despite the repeated explicit denials from the entire Mahayana
tradition, which warn against the extreme of 'nihilism' as much as against the extreme of 'realism'. So a later Mahayana tradition called
Yogacara (4th century onwards) emphasized the reality of consciousness in
explicitly positive and idealistic terms.
As I said, consciousness simply cannot be denied, as the denier is also
conscious. What is denied is the
dualistic split of subject and object imposed by the mind upon the pure
immediacy of consciousness. This
produces the appearance of a world of distinct objects, including ego, which is
all a hallucination. The raw contents
of consciousness such as shapes and colors are not being denied; it is in the
interpretation of these shapes and colors than we err. Again, the example of the dream helps
us to understand.
In addition to the Yogacarins, who expounded on the
reality of consciousness, another later tradition spoke of a Buddha
Nature. Actually, most scholars
seem to think this was not a distinct school, but several sutras do mention a
Buddha Nature, as well as a Tathagatagharbha or Embryo of the Buddha. Various purist scholars try to explain
away these designations as having nothing to do with the reality of
consciousness, since it seems to them that to posit the intrinsic reality of
consciousness sounds suspiciously like the Vedantin notion of Self, which
supposedly contradicts Buddha's denial of self or ego. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The Buddha was only denying
the dualistic identification of self with the illusory body and mind. Once dualism is transcended, the pure
nondual consciousness which remains is simply undeniable. The Buddha Nature is nothing but a
label for this undeniable, enlightened, nondual consciousness. Only we must not ascribe any objective
reality to this enlightened consciousness.
Finally, this brings us to Advaita Vedanta, which
coherently explains the spontaneous wisdom of the early fundamental Upanishads
(~900-500 BC) in terms of the idealistic notions developed by the
Mahayana. There is a gross
misunderstanding prevalent among scholars and practitioners alike that Advaita
and Mahayana are fundamentally different.
The usual argument is that the Advaitins, being Vedantins, believe in
the Vedas and the Buddhists do not.
This view is much too simplistic.
The Upanishads are idealistic and monistic (nondual) to their core and
are therefore fully consistent with Buddhism, especially the fully developed
Mahayana Buddhism. Hence, the
truth is that Mahayana simply got absorbed back into Hinduism via Advaita. In the Buddha's day, many Brahmins got
distracted with rituals and logical arguments and lost their understanding of
the true spiritual message of the Upanishads, which is idealistic and
monistic. The Buddha rediscovered
the true meaning through his own meditative explorations, which entirely
paralleled those of the rishis (sages) of the Upanishads. In this sense, he was a truer Vedic
sage than those Brahmins who became too fond of argumentation, whom the Buddha
called 'philosophers'. Indeed, the
Buddha called his followers the true Brahmins. The further dialogue over centuries between Buddhism and
Advaita helped the latter to recover the true meaning of the Upanishads. The early Advaitin Gaudapada clearly
expressed his admiration for Buddhism, and he was the teacher of the teacher of
the great Advaitin Shankara (8th-9th century AD).
Beyond this, it is simply clear that the philosophy of
Advaita is essentially the same as that of Mahayana, with only minor changes in
terminology. Whereas early
Mahayana was, as we have seen, implicitly idealistic and nondual, later
Mahayana started to develop some positive language for nondual consciousness,
and Advaita consummated the process with explicit references to the Self, which
is the One Consciousness 'without a second' (advaita). The essence of Advaita is that this
Self, also called Atman or Brahman, is the sole nondual Reality, the One
without a second, whose nature is Consciousness. This is entirely consistent with everything that has been
said about Buddhism, especially Mahayana.
One source of confusion is the famous 'Neti, neti' of
the Upanishads and of Advaita.
This means that we are supposed to deny that we are the mind or
body. This seems to contradict the
core notion that there is only the One Consciousness. The explanation is very simple. It is when we are at the dualistic level, and believe that
body and mind are real (i.e. objective), and identify with body and mind, that
we should cease identifying with them.
In other words, it is the illusion that we should deny. This is exactly like the emptiness of
Mahayana or even the sermons of the Buddha. Neti and emptiness serve exactly the same purpose, namely, to
purge our consciousness of dualistic notions of self and other superposed by
the conceptual mind. Once these
delusions have been purged, then the Pure Consciousness that remains is the One
Nondual Reality.
So we must always remember that there are two levels
of truth: (1) the conventional dualistic level, called vyavaharika, in which
the mind falsely believes in the distinct identity and reality of the ego and
the world of objects, and (2) the nondual level, called paramarthika, in which
all conceptual distinctions and discriminations have been transcended and only
Pure Consciousness remains. The
Advaitin scriptures are always speaking at one level or the other, depending on
whether they are addressing the student, who needs to practice 'Neti, neti', or
whether they are describing the nondual realized consciousness of the liberated
sage. Failure to keep this
fundamental distinction in mind results in endless confusion. Mahayana also distinguishes these two
levels of truth or reality.
We have said enough about philosophical generalities
and how they apply to Buddhism and Advaita. Now let us proceed to examine scriptural excerpts from both
traditions supporting these views.
We will also explain some excerpts that may seem to deny these views to
some extent. As well will see, any
confusion can always be explained by keeping the doctrine of the two truths
firmly in mind.
4. SCRIPTURAL
EXCERPTS FROM EARLY BUDDHISM
A basic source for the Early Buddhist doctrine
regarding the unreality of the ego or self ('anatta') is from the Buddha's
second sermon:
ANATTA-LAKKHANA SUTTA (Discourse on the
Not-Self)
from Samyutta Nikaya, XXII.59, trans.
Thanissaro Bhikku
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-059.html
Form [i.e. body], monks, is not self. If form were the
self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease [i.e. dissatisfaction]. It
would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let
this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends
itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let
this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
Feeling is not self...
Perception is not self...
[Mental] fabrications are not self...
Consciousness is not self. If consciousness
were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would
be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be
thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is
not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to
say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my
consciousness not be thus.'
[. . .]
Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future,
or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as:
'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Any feeling whatsoever...
Any perception whatsoever...
Any fabrications whatsoever...
Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or
present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right
discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble
ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted
with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he
is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.'
He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There
is nothing further for this world.'
This sermon is merely saying that all apparent objects which we take as the self are transitory illusions
and that grasping at them or identifying with them produces dissatisfaction,
due to their very impermanence.[7] All of Buddhism as well as Advaita says
this. Likewise, they all say that
by becoming 'detached' from body and mind, we attain wisdom, peace, bliss and
liberation. The exact contents of
this sermon are repeated almost verbatim throughout Buddhism and Advaita. It is only further false philosophical
extrapolations which cause confusion.
As mentioned in Section 3, the body and mind must
first be falsely seen or discriminated as objects before attachment and
identification can even occur. The
conceptual mind must first superpose the subject/object split upon pure
immediate consciousness, before it is possible to discern apparently distinct
entities such as 'body' and 'mind', which we might want to grasp or with which
we may wish to identify. (The
'perceived' requires a 'perceiver'.)
This fundamental dualistic error disturbs the pure and blissful nature
of consciousness in its natural state, producing a feeling of incompleteness
and dissatisfaction, an obsessive thirst for something we feel we lack. The illusions of distinct body and mind
manifest, and we think we will only be happy identifying with them and enjoying
their experiences. The
identification produces the ego sense, which in turn produces vanity and a
restless, unquenchable desire for self-aggrandizement and self-indulgence. These desires can never be satisfied,
because the underlying drive is really for the infinite experience of our divine
nature. Only, the mind and ego do
not realize this, and seek for this infinity in the illusory objective and
finite world.
This claim regarding the inherently blissful nature of
consciousness in its natural state undisturbed by thought is consistent with
Early Buddhism, since the Buddha clearly believed in the state of enlightenment
or nirvana. Where can this nirvana
be found except by abandoning the false ideas of the mind? Nirvana must be an intrinsic part of
our nature, since the Buddha never tells us to acquire anything.
Rather, nirvana is found through detachment, that is, through abandoning
our identification with and attachment to the objective illusions of the
mind. Likewise Vedanta says that
the experience of Brahman or Consciousness or Self, undefiled by illusion, is
the ultimate bliss. The obvious
similarity to the Buddhist nirvana is just one of many similarities. Nirvana is the true Self, the pure
enlightened Consciousness. It is
false to say that the Buddha's denial of self or ego extends to the Vedantic
Self. This is but a naive
confusion of words.
The only thing lacking in this passage is an explicit
interpretation in terms of philosophical idealism. But that interpretation is implicit, since all 'objects'
(body and mind) are seen as impermanent and illusory. By calling them impermanent and illusory, the Buddha clearly
is denying them the reality we normally ascribe to them. This is the first step which inevitably
leads to the idealistic realization of the unreality of the objective
world. As explained above, the
objective nature of the world is a projection of the ego, a delusion of the
conceptual mind, so that eliminating the ego inevitably leads to the
dissolution of this illusion. And
that is exactly where Buddhism, even early Buddhism, led to, as we see in the
following verse from the famous Early Buddhist scripture called the Dhammapada
from the Sutta Pitaka (or Basket of Suttas [Pali for sutra]):
DHAMMAPADA, Ch. 13
http://www.san.beck.org/Dhammapada.html
Look upon the world as a bubble;
look on it as a mirage.
Whoever looks thus upon the world
is not seen by the sovereign of death.
Come, look at this wo