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).
My comments on another forum:
Just wrote this in another forum's topic on this article:
Theravada
is basically a non dual tradition, though it is different from the
non-dualism (or rather, monism) of Advaita Vedanta and other monistic
traditions.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:
"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."
Which
is very true. In Buddhism we do not talk about a metaphysical essence,
a Self, an Atman. That is not the sort of non-dualism in Buddhism. But
we must understand that the definitions of non-dualism are many, I can
at least think of 5 to 10 different explanations and definitions right
now.
The experience of no-self is non-dual, the nature of
experience or anatta means that our experience is always by nature
non-dual. By 'non-dual' I mean here that it is not split up into a
subject perceiving or acting upon an object -- in the seeing just the
seen, no seer. In hearing just sounds, no hearer. Actions happen
without an actor.
So as a matter of fact, Bahiya Sutta and so on
are not talking about something other than 3 characteristics -- it is
still talking about the 3 characteristics with emphasis on Anatta.
So
a person who truly experiences and realises no self experiences
non-duality, except that he does not reify that experience in any way.
He does not formulate views of Awareness as some sort of independent,
permanent Source out of which everything emerges and subsides back to
while the background remains unchanged and unaffected. That would be
the 'dualistic' and 'inherent' way of seeing consciousness. That would
not be the Buddhist way of seeing consciousness but the Hindu,
eternalist way. That is reifying Consciousness into an inherent
Universal Self, whereas in Buddhism, consciousness is taught as a
manifestation of cognizance that dependently originates, nothing
inherent. Consciousness in Buddhism is also not taught to be an Eternal
Witness, or a subject perceiving object, but simply a manifestation
that dependently originates -- so in the seen just the seen, in the
heard just the heard. They are all manifestation of consciousness not
making up a Self and hence experience is non-dual.
In all
authentic traditions of Buddhism including even the Mahayana and
Vajrayana, consciousness or buddha-nature is taught to be that way:
luminous and empty by nature. What is luminous? If all sensations are
understood as more sensations that are aware where they are, this is
the luminosity spoken of by those who describe how this happens using
terms such as primordial awareness or cognizant emptiness, use this
sort of language to describe that these sensations simply present where
they are. In this parlance, the primordial awareness is an aspect of
phenomena, not as a separate thing. Since awareness is intrinsic to all
phenomena such that all sensations are simply "aware where they are"
and the luminous awareness aspect cannot be separated from the
sensation into a separate Watcher or Self, it is non-dual without
subject-object duality. It is also empty (of inherent existence and
selfhood) and hence cannot be reified into a universal substratum or
ontological essence, since consciousness is not an essence but a
cognizance that dependently originates hence impossible to make up a
'permanent self'. However, many practitioners including some teachers
do not get that and fall into the eternalist views of Hinduism. Those
who experience non-division of subject and object (which itself has
varying degrees of experience and insight) but cannot overcome the
deeply inherent and dualistic views of consciousness will get stuck at
Stage 1 to 4 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ) Even if he does not experience separation of subject and object, he
views it as more like the Ultimate Eternal Subject/Self (Consciousness)
is one with all passing objects, rather than absolutely No-Subject.
Another
type of 'non-dualism' that is the deconstruction of views of existence,
non-existence and so on are also valid and taught by Buddha which
Element already mentioned. And in fact this applies to Samsara vs
Nirvana too -- since the nature of Samsara and Nirvana are both
fundamentally empty and non-dual, views of 'existence, non-existence'
etc cannot apply to them, nor can we find a Self in or beyond them. In
the same way the Arhant or Buddha does not find a Self in Samsara, he
also does not find make Nirvana into something it is not: as an Atman,
as a Brahman or Source out of which everything emerges from. So again,
all states whether samsara or nirvana are empty of self.
As the Buddha says regarding Nirvana as Anatta:
"He
directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as
Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not
conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of
Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not
delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell
you."
So again, Bhikkhu Bodhi's rejection of certain
notions of non-dualism especially those of the monistic/eternalist
traditions is valid but there are other non-dualisms that are valid in
Buddhism which he did not cover.
To see the discussion/debate I'm having with Element at the other forum: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/index.php?action=vthread&forum=4&topic=2399&page=5
There are various definitions of Atman and Brahman, soul and creator, personal and transcendental conciousness. I will use the later. That Brahman is universal or transcendental conciousness , that Atman is individual or conciousness that is part of Brahman. That Atman is independent of the body not does not arises from the collectives senses but deluded by the body, that is why one practise to achieve union of Atman and Brahman upon death. If Atman or soul or conciousness is not of the body, then where does it arises or derives from? Since Atman does not arise from the body, then it must originally derives from Brahman as Atman is of the Brahman. So if Atman can only come from Brahman, then Brahman is a returning stage, part of the Samsara!
What do you mean by 'Brahman is a returning stage, part of the Samsara'?
Yes. In Buddhism there cannot be such a transcendental atman, or any atman at all that takes birth.
Buddha Nature in Buddhism is not established or reified at all, it is luminous but empty (of inherent Selfhood, Existence, etc) and hence cannot be the same as Brahman of Hinduism.
Buddha in the Mahayana Scripture, Lankavatara Sutra:
"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by
the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is
completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two
marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient
beings.
When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel
thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by
cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by
the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the
passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal,
how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not
similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent
creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
The Bhagavan replied:
“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with
the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having
demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit,
nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the
purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes,
demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of
complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of
tathaagatagarbha.
Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva
Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay
into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick,
thread and effort.
Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of
conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately
demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various
kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means;
like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words
and letters. As such, because of that,
Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar
with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those
grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will
demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of
tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen
into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide
in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete
manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete
enlightenment?"
later
[Buddha] They
("philosophers") imagine that Nirvana consists (of) ... the absorption
of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a
manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all
return; (...)
... clinging to these foolish notions, there is no
awakening, and they consider Nirvana to consist in the fact that there
is no awakening.
Loppon Namdrol:
Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:
That
is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be
unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time.
Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of
that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary
signs do not exist”.
Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and
precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers
not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:
"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.
Child
of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no
butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the
conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the
‘curd-nature’."
So one must be quite careful not to make an
error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine
is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner
meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on,
and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly
err about:
"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the
suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous
clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the
thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of
sentient beings.
When the Bhagavan described that– like an
extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is
thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements,
becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality
suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable
and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the
tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the
non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
The Bhagavan replied:
“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati,
the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the
meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen,
signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature
complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential
range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by
demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.
Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
Mahaamati,
for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various
kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.
Mahaamati,
similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual
selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate
tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of
demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter,
they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As
such, because of that,
Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati,
the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions
of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha
with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient
beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess
the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the
complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete
enlightenment?"
Thus, the Lanka says:
All yaanas are included
in five dharmas, three natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses
It does not add anything about a true self and so on.
If
one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must
since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is
conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:
Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.
Mahaamati,
if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected
to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the
all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also
would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and
Aaryas, that also evolves.
Because great yogins, the ones not
abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of
personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis
consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which
also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned
inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic
intellect.
And:
Although tathaagatagarbha
possesses seven consciousnesses;
always engaged with dualistic apprehensions
[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.
If
one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and
one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:
"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.
`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.
And:
`Saariputra,
because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing
and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is
Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.
Then
one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must
somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.
Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:
"Although
in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the
teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that
is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.
So, one must understand that these
sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts
of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not
defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist
extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of
the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In
other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the
Nirvana sutra states
"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is
like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses,
compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three
aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when
defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will
newly attain the ten powers (44/b) and four fearlessness, great
compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly
conquered perversion.
Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.
When
one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side
by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see
the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others
of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.
And Namdrol also says:
There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than
dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The
view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is
the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka
view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not.
Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka
does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the
Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita
"If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an
extreme."
Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists
separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that
make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different
way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their
actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa.
In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from
consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from
beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not
established in anyway.
Dzogchen teachings also describe the
process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state
(suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering),
that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering)
and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path).
Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent
origination also.
Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond
Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in
the following fashion:
I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
not ceasing, not arising
not annihilated, not permanent,
not going, not coming,
not diverse, not single,
was taught as peace
in order to pacify proliferation.
--------------------
Also, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram) says:
Dear Mark,
Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.
I
think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of
view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:
First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:
Assume
something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are
exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations,
and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image,
body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are
experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.
In this very
simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle
attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we
want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You
mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is
not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that
the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the
quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations
are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the
sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other
sensations.
Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.
Thus,
be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is
larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate
at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that
it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an
extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first
and final basis of reality.
As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
I
really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also
very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions
converge.
Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that
everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is
super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of
consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing
the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought
stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.