| Part ofa series on |
| Spirituality |
|---|
| Outline |
| Influences |
Western General Antiquity Medieval Early modern Modern |
| Research |
Nondualism, also callednonduality[1] and sometimesmonism,[2] is a polyvalent term[note 1] originating inIndian philosophy andreligion,[1][3][note 2] where it is used in various, related contemplative philosophies[4] which aim to negate dualistic thinking[5] orconceptual proliferation (prapanca)[6][7][8][note 3] and thereby realizenondual awareness, 'that which is beyond discursive thinking',[note 3] a state of consciousness described in contemplative traditions as a background field of unified, immutable awareness that exists prior to conceptual thought.[3][9]
The English term "nonduality" is derived from theSanskrit Hindu term "advaita" (अद्वैत), "not-two"[10][11] or "one without a second,"[11] meaning that onlyBrahman, 'the one', is ultimately real while 'the world', or the multiplicity of thought-constructs, 'the second', is not fully real;[12] and from the Buddhist termadvaya,[13] which is also literally translated as "not two" and has various applications, including theMadhyamaka negation of thinking in opposites such as ordinary, conventional truth versus ultimate truth, and inYogachara the deconstruction of the "apprehension of sensory objects as separate from the perceiving consciousness."[14][15][16]
Aperennialist view posits that nondual awareness, despite fundamental differences in the explanatory frameworks, is acommon essence in various religious traditions.[17][18][note 4] According to this view, nondual awareness is not only paradigmatic forHindu advaita-traditions includingAdvaita Vedanta andKashmir Shaivism,[note 5] and Buddhist advaya-traditions includingYogachara,Madhyamaka,Zen andDzogchen,[note 6] but can also be found inTaoist philosophy, and in Western philosophy,Christian mysticism, andSufism.[22][23]
Nondualism is also used to refer to thesatsang movement, also called neo-advaita,[24][25] for which nonduality is a central tenet, emphasizingsudden awakening or insight.[26] The term may also refer tomonism[2] and nonplurality,[27][28] the idea of a unitive essence behind the multiplicity of distinct entities.[27][note 7] Related definitions includeinterconnectedness[note 8] interdependence,[note 9] andholism or 'wholism',[note 10] the idea that "all the things "in" the world are not really distinct from each other but together constitute some integral whole."[32] Further definitions are the rejection of thinking in binary opposites such as themind–body dualism,[22][33] while "nondualism" is also used as a synonym formysticism,[22][note 11]mystical experience, andspirituality.[20]
"Nondualism" and "nonduality" are the translation of the Sanskrit termsadvaita andadvaya (Tibetan:gNis-med, Chinese:pu-erh, Japanese:fu-ni).[34]
"Advaita" (अद्वैत) is from Sanskrit rootsa, "not";dvaita, customarily translated as "dual."[12] AsAdvaita, it is usually translated as "not-two"[10][11] or "one without a second",[11] and most commonly as "nondualism", "nonduality" or "nondual," invoking the notion of a dichotomy. Fabian Volker, followingPaul Hacker explains thatdvaita does not mean "duality," but "the state in which a second is present," the second here being synonymous withprapanca, "conceptual proliferation," and withjagat, "the world." Advaita thus means that onlyBrahman, 'the one', is ultimately real, while the phenomenal world, or theconceptual multiplicity, 'the second', is not fully real.[12] The term thus does not emphasize two instances, but the notion that the second instance is not fully real, andadvaita is better translated as "that which has no second beside it" instead of "nonduality," denying multiplicity and the proliferation of concepts "that tend to obscure the true state of affairs."[12][note 12]
"Advaya" (अद्वय) is also a Sanskrit word that means "identity, unique, not two, without a second", and typically refers tosunyata ('emptiness') and the two truths doctrine ofMahayana Buddhism, especiallyMadhyamaka, and the negation of the conceptual duality between observer and observed inYogacara. The termprapanca, conceptual proliferation and the creation of a multi-faceted world, is also used in these discourses.[note 3] Hookham rendersnisprapanca as "nonconceptual," explaining:
...terms such as Appearance-Emptiness, Bliss-Emptiness, Clarity-Emptiness, Awareness-Emptiness both-at-once (yuganaddha) are used to refer to the Ultimate (Paramartha)Nature-of-Mind. "Emptiness" in these combinations means nonceptual (nisprapanca) space or openness. In other words, though there is nothing to grasp (conceptually), Appearance, Bliss, Clarity or Awareness is still vividly present and is the Non-conceptual (Nis-prapanca) Reality.[35]
"Dual" comes from Latin "duo", two, prefixed with "non-" meaning "not"; "non-dual" means "not-two". The English term "nondual" was informed by early translations of the Upanishads in Western languages other than English from 1775. These terms have entered the English language from literal English renderings of "advaita" subsequent to the first wave of English translations of theUpanishads. These translations commenced with the work ofMüller (1823–1900), in the monumentalSacred Books of the East (1879). He rendered "advaita" as "Monism", as have many recent scholars.[36][37][38] However, some scholars state that "advaita" is not really monism.[39] According toAlan Watts monism often leads to conceptualizing reality as a single entity, whereas nondualism points beyond conceptual frameworks entirely.[40]
Nonduality is afuzzy concept, for which many definitions can be found.[note 1] Gibbons notes that "Terms such as "awakening" and "enlightenment" and "nonduality" undoubtedly mean different things to different people," and states that "[i]n the widest sense these kinds of experiences fall under what is typically called in the west"mystical" experience." Gibson further notes that "the term "nondual" has in many circles become virtually synonymous with "spirituality" itself."[20]
T. R. V. Murti gives the distinction betweenadvaita and Madhyamikyaadvaya as follows:
A distinction ... must be made between the advaya of the Madhyamika and the advaita of the Vedanta although in the end it may turn out to be one of approach.
Advaya is knowledge free from the duality of the extremes (antas or drstis) of 'Is' and 'Is not', Being and Becoming, etc. It is knowledgefreed of conceptual distinctions.
Advaita is knowledgeof a differenceless entity - Brahman (Pure Being).[41]
Murti's distinction has been described as a distinction between ontology versus epistemology, and has been referred to by other authors.[41][7]
According toDavid Loy, since there are similar ideas and terms in a wide variety ofspiritualities andreligions, ancient and modern, no single definition for the English word "nonduality" can suffice, and perhaps it is best to speak of various "nondualities" or theories of nonduality.[4] Loy sees non-dualism as a common thread inTaoism,Mahayana Buddhism, andAdvaita Vedanta,[42][note 2] and distinguishes "Five Flavors Of Nonduality":[16][note 13]
Henning & Henning elaborate on Loy's subject-object nonduality, noting that humans are able to "mental self-awareness and subjectivity," which creates a "[d]ualistic mental experience—in which the mental “subject” is separated from the “objects” in the subject's environment," which is "a precondition for our ability to think abstractly, perceive time, construct narratives, invent tools, and use symbols." In "absolute nonduality," this "subject-object/perceiver-perceived relationship breaks down."[50]
Like, Michael Taft, as quoted by Chris Grosso, explains that nondualism points to the working of the brain, which creates mental representations out of its sensory input, realizing that "you are simply the awareness of those sensory signals and are none of the content."[51]
Loy sees the nondifference of subject and object as the "core doctrine" of nonduality,[52] quoting Yasutani roshi as giving an example of this nonduality:
"When I heard the temple bell ring, suddenly there was no bell and no I, just sound." In other words, he no longer was aware of a distinction between himself, the bell, the sound, and the universe. This is the state you have to reach.[53]
He also refers topariniṣpanna-svabhāva,[54] a Yogachara-term meaning "fully accomplished," "just pure seeing [...] devoid of all concepts,"[55] "experience without subject-object duality."[56] Further references from Loy are to Giuseppe Tucci, who states that the awakening ofshes rab (prajna) is the final objective in Tibetan Buddhism, transcending the subject-object dichotomy.[57] Another reference is to D. T. Suzuki as stating thatsatori is "the realization of nonduality, and to the story ofHui Neng, "which presents "the Zen concept of"no mind" (Ch.wu-shin, Jap.mushin), which asserts, in effect, the nonduality of subject and object."[57][note 17] Gibson also states that "the apparent disappearance of a separate, individual self" is an important aspect of nonduality.[20]
Loy, writing in the early 1980s, takes aperennialist stance, suggesting that the nondifference of subject and object stem from a shared experience of reality.[22] Since the late 1970s this common core thesis has been challenged,[19][20] notably bySteven Katz, arguing that arguing that religious experiences is shaped by the frameworks being used, and takes different forms in different traditions.[19][20] The perennial position is "largely dismissed by scholars"[21] but "has lost none of its popularity."[21]
Fabian Volker criticises Loy's analysis as being explicitly anti-transcendent and limiting the immanent aspect, stating that Loy "fails to provide a systematic typology of nonduality and nondual experiences," and that "his program does not hold up in terms of the historicity of religion or the phenomenology of religion."[58][note 13] Volker further notes that adequate typologies of nonduality are lacking because of a lack of interest of "students of nonduality" in the "extensive research onmysticism." According to Volker, the two are not distinct fields of research, but are "two complementary and inextricably interwoven approaches to the same complex field."[58]
Referring to Murti's distinction between advaita (ontology) and advaya (phenomenology),[7] and Richard H. Jones' typology presentrd inPhilosophy of Mysticism (2016).[59] Fabian Volker distinguishes three types of nonduality:
For Volker, nonduality lies innisprapanca/aprapanca ('nonceptualization', "(that which is) beyond discursive thinking"[note 3]) the annihilation ofprapanca (conceptualisation, creating multiplicity by multiplying concepts and subsequent creation of attachment) through insight or meditation:[7]
For Nagarjuna, liberation consists in the coming to rest (upasama) of all subjective perception and sensation (sarva-upalambha) as well as everything objectively perceivable, that is, ofprapanca. Sankara, too, speaks of the "complete dissolution" and "melting down" ofprapanca (prapanca-pravilaya). Thus, nonduality first refers to ultimate reality (paramatha-tattva/nirguma brahman), which lies beyond concept and percept (nama-rupa) and which remains whenprapanca has been eliminated by insight (tattvadarsana/brahmajna) or by meditative or contemplative practices (nisprapanca/aprapanca).[7]
Regarding the nonplurality of the world,Kazuaki Tanahashi suggests that "what is commonly called nonduality actually means nonplurality and should instead be called "singularity.""[28]
Nondualism had also popularly been defined as interconnectedness[note 8] and interdepence,[note 9] and also seems to be synonymous with holism or 'wholism' in modern spirituality,[note 10] akin to Loy's immanent "nonpluarility of the world," the idea that "the world itself is nonplural, because all the things "in" the world are not really ditinct from each other."[32][note 15] Hartelius notes that "interconnectedness is not the nondual teaching of Advaita Vedanta, and the precise definition of nonduality within this tradition deserves to be maintained distinct from the very different notion and experience of interconnectedness."[31]
Philip Renard notes that nondual awareness is rooted in direct experience or intuition of "the Real", and argues that nondualism differs frommonism.[40] Unlike monism, which may conceptualize reality as a unified whole, nondualism is understood as fundamentally "nonconceptual" and "not graspable in an idea".[40]Alan Watts is credited with popularizing this distinction between nondualism and monism, particularly inThe Supreme Identity (1950) andThe Way of Zen (1957).[29] He explained that monism often leads to conceptualizing reality as a single entity, whereas nondualism points beyond conceptual frameworks entirely.[40]
Judith Blackstone defines nonduality as "a fundamental unconstructed dimension of our being or consciousness," as found in Dzogchen, Kashmir Shaivism, and Advaita Vedanta,[67] and differentiates between "conceptual recognition of nondual states" and "anembodied realization of nonduality in which the body is fully recognized as this nondual luminosity."[67] Yet, Glenn Hartelius criticises her definition, stating that "it is clearly not a state that is nondual in a way that is congruent with the teachings of lineage-based Advaita Vedanta."[31]
"Nondualism" is also used as a synonym forneo-Advaita or satsang-movement.[25][24]
"Nondual awareness," also called "consciousness-as-such,"[9] "pure consciousness," "pure awareness," "open awareness,"[9] "contentless consciousness,"[68] "Pure Consciousness Event,"[20][note 18] and "Minimal Phenomenal Experience,"[69] refers to a state of consciousness described in contemplative traditions as a background field of unified, immutable awareness that exists prior to conceptual thought.[3] According to Michael Taft, as quoted by Chris Grosso, "[n]ondual awareness is an experience. Nondualism is a philosophy that talks about that experience and its meaning."[25]
Nondual awareness is described in various ways across different traditions:
Different theories and concepts which can be linked to nonduality and nondual awareness are taught in a wide variety of religious traditions, including some western religions and philosophies. While their metaphysical systems differ, they may refer to a similar experience.[75] These include:
Recent neuroscientific and phenomenological studies have examined nondual awareness as a distinct cognitive and experiential state. Josipovic describes it as a non-representational mode of consciousness, distinct from other mental states.[9] Gamma & Metzinger (2021) propose that nondual awareness can be mapped phenomenologically, identifying factors such as luminosity, absence of egoic boundaries, and self-reflexivity.[3]
However, scholars such as Robert Sharf argue that scientific studies risk reifying nonduality as a purely neurocognitive phenomenon, stripping it of its cultural andsoteriological contexts.[101]
"Truth is One, but the wise call it by many names."
According to Dasgupta and Mohanta, non-dualism developed in various strands of Indian thought, both Vedic and Buddhist, from the Upanishadic period onward.[102]
According to Cohen, the earliest traces are found in several hymns of the Vedas, such as theNasadīya ("Non-Being") hymn of the Ṛgveda[note 19]
According to Gombrich, the oldest traces of nondualism in Indian thought may be found in theChandogya Upanishad (8th to 6th century BCE), which pre-dates the earliest Buddhism.Pre-sectarian Buddhism may also have been responding to the teachings of theChandogya Upanishad, rejecting some of its Atman-Brahman related metaphysics.[103] However, Schayer and Lindtner notes that even theNikayas (300 BCE)[104][note 20] preserve elements of an archaic form of Buddhism that is close to Brahmanical beliefs,[106][107][108][109]and which later developed in theMahayana tradition.[110][111] Lindtner argues that in precanonical Buddhism,nirvana is considered an actual existent.[106][note 21]
One of the earliest uses of the word Advaita is found in verse 4.3.32 of theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad (8th–5th century BCE)[112][104][113][note 22][note 23], and in verses 7 and 12 of theMandukya Upanishad (variously dated to have been composed between 500 BCE to 200 BCE).[115] The term appears in theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.32, in the section with a discourse of the oneness ofAtman (individual soul) andBrahman (universal consciousness), as follows:
An ocean is that one seer, without any duality [Advaita]; this is the Brahma-world, O King. Thus didYajnavalkya teach him. This is his highest goal, this is his highest success, this is his highest world, this is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.[note 24]
Indian ideas of nondual awareness also developed as proto-Samkhya speculations in ascetic milieus in the 1st millennium BCE, with the notion ofPurusha, thewitness-conscious or 'pure consciousness'. While samkhya-like speculations can be found in the Rig Veda and some of the older Upanishads, Samkhya may have non-Vedic origins, and developed in ascetic milieus. Proto-samkhya ideas developed from the 8th/7th c. BCE onwards, as evidenced in the middle Upanishads, theBuddhacarita, the Bhagavad Gita, and theMoksadharma-section of theMahabharata.[116] It was related to the early ascetic traditions and meditation, spiritual practices, and religious cosmology,[77] and methods of reasoning that result in liberating knowledge (vidya,jnana,viveka) that end the cycle ofdukkha and rebirth.[117] allowing for "a great variety of philosophical formulations".[77] Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical (Buddhism, Jainism) ascetic traditions of the first millennium BCE developed in close interaction, utilizing proto-Samkhya enumerations (lists) analyzing experience in the context of meditative practices providing liberating insight into the nature of experience.[118] Pre-karika systematic Samkhya existed around the beginning of the first millennium CE.[119] The defining method of Samkhya was established with theSamkhyakarika (4th c. CE).
The Upanishads contain proto-Shamkhya speculations.[117]Yajnavalkya's exposition on the Self in theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, and the dialogue betweenUddalaka Aruni and his son Svetaketu in theChandogya Upanishad represent a more developed notion of the essence of man (Atman) as "pure subjectivity – i.e., the knower who is himself unknowable, the seer who cannot be seen", and as "pure conscious", discovered by means of speculations, or enumerations.[120] According to Larson, "it seems quite likely that both the monistic trends in Indian thought and the dualistic samkhya could have developed out of these ancient speculations."[76] According to Larson, the enumeration oftattvas in Samkhya is also found inTaittiriya Upanishad,Aitareya Upanishad and Yajnavalkya–Maitri dialogue in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.[121]
TheKatha Upanishad in verses 3.10–13 and 6.7–11 describes a concept of puruṣa, and other concepts also found in later Samkhya.[122] The Katha Upanishad, dated to be from about the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, in verses 2.6.6 through 2.6.13 recommends a path to Self-knowledge akin to Samkhya, and calls this pathYoga.[123]
Only whenManas (mind) with thoughts and the five senses stand still,
and whenBuddhi (intellect, power to reason) does not waver, that they call the highest path.
That is what one calls Yoga, the stillness of the senses, concentration of the mind,
It is not thoughtless heedless sluggishness, Yoga is creation and dissolution.
The first millennium CE saw a movement towards postulating an underlying "basis of unity," both in the BuddhistMadhyamaka andYogacara schools, and inAdvaita Vedanta, collapsing phenomenal reality into a "single substrate or underlying principle."[126]Sengaku Mayeda also states that Indian thought since the Rig Veda tended towardmonism, as shown in the development of Mahayana Buddhism in the first centuries CE toward monism, reflecting "the weakening of Buddhism as a social force and the revival of Brahmanism and Hinduism and the consequent brahmanization or "vedantinization" of Buddhism."[127] Several Upanishads, including theĪśā, imply a quest for an undifferentiated oneness as the ultimate objective of human spiritual pursuit. According to the Īśā Upanishad, this goal transcends both the processes of becoming (saṃbhūti) and non-becoming (asaṃbhūti).[128] TheIsha Upanishad (second half of the first millennium BCE) employs a series of paradoxes to describe the supreme entity. The divine being is depicted as immovable, yet swifter than the human mind, surpassing even the fastest runners. It exists both far and near, within and outside. The term "eka" is used to convey that this entity transcends all dichotomies, encompassing wisdom and ignorance, existence and non-existence, and creation and destruction. It emphasizes that not only is the divine entity beyond dualities, but human seekers of immortality must also transcend their dualistic perception of the world.[128]
Advaita argues that all of the universe is one essential reality, and that all facets and aspects of the universe is ultimately an expression or appearance of that one reality.[130] It regardsAtman-Brahman, Shiva or Shakti as the single universal existence beyond the plurality of the world, recognized as pure awareness or the witness-consciousness, as inVedanta,Shaktism andShaivism.[130] Although the term is best known from the Advaita Vedanta school ofAdi Shankara, advaita appears in different shades in various schools of Hinduism such as inAdvaita Vedanta,Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (Vaishnavism),Suddhadvaita Vedanta (Vaishnavism), non-dualShaivism andShaktism, as well as modern schools and teachers.[130][131][132] The advaita ideas of some Hindu traditions contrasts with the schools that defend dualism orDvaita, such as that ofMadhvacharya who stated that the experienced reality andGod are two (dual) and distinct.[133][134]
The goal ofVedanta is to know the "truly real" and thus negate false identifications.[135] Several schools of Vedanta are informed bySamkhya, the earliestIndian school of dualism, but teach a form of nondualism. The best-known is Advaita Vedanta, but other nondual Vedanta schools also have a significant influence and following, such asVishishtadvaita Vedanta andDvaitadvaita,[130] both of which arebhedabheda.[clarification needed] Proto-Vedanta, as reflected in the Brahma Sutras, was majorlybhedabheda, viewing thejivatman and Brahman as both identical and different.[127]
Strict nondual/monistic (advaita-'not two'-non-difference) ideas were developed and defended in the nascent Advaita Vedanta tradition, which reacted against Samkhya and Mimansa and moved closer to Mahayana thought, especially that of Nagarjuna,[127] while Shankara reinterpreted these Mahayana influences giving them a Vedantic base and flavor using principal Upanishads, Bhagvad gita, and the Brahma sutras.[136]
In the Advaita Vedanta ofAdi Shankara, onlyAtman-Brahman is ultimately real; the individualjivAtman is ultimately non-different from Atman-Brahman, pure awareness, the witness-consciousness.[130][137][138][139][140][141] According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highestReality.[142][143][144]
TheMahāvākyas, as documented in the Upanishads, explain the unity of Brahman and Atman and form the basis of the Advaita Vedanta tradition.[145][146]
Scholars state that Advaita Vedanta was influenced byMahayana Buddhism, given the common terminology and methodology and some common doctrines.[147][148][149]Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi state:
In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist, with the latter borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific doctrines, of the former.[150][note 25]
Mahadevan suggests thatGaudapada adopted Buddhist terminology and adapted its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much like early Buddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and adapted its doctrines to Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas to convey new meanings.[152] Michael Comans states there is a fundamental difference between Buddhist thought and that of Gaudapada, who accepts the premises and relies on the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads.[153] Shankara harmonisedGaudapada's ideas with the Upanishadic texts.[154][155] Dasgupta and Mohanta note that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta are not opposing systems, but "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara".[102]
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta is another main school of Vedanta and teaches the nonduality of the qualified whole, in which Brahman alone exists, but is characterized by multiplicity. It can be described as "qualified monism", or "qualified non-dualism", or "attributivemonism".
According to this school, the world is real, yet underlying all the differences is an all-embracing unity, of which all "things" are an "attribute".Ramanuja, the main proponent of Vishishtadvaita philosophy contends that thePrasthanatrayi ("The three courses") – namely theUpanishads, theBhagavad Gita, and theBrahma Sutras – are to be interpreted in a way that shows thisunity in diversity, for any other way would violate their consistency.
Vedanta Desika definesVishishtadvaita using the statement:Asesha Chit-Achit Prakaaram Brahmaikameva Tatvam – "Brahman, as qualified by the sentient and insentient modes (or attributes), is the only reality."
Neo-Vedanta, also called "neo-Hinduism"[156] is a modern interpretation ofHinduism which developed in response to westerncolonialism andorientalism, and aims to present Hinduism as a "homogenized ideal of Hinduism"[157] with Advaita Vedanta as its central doctrine.[158]
It's development was influenced byUnitarian Universalism andwestern esoteric traditions, especiallyTranscendentalism,New Thought andTheosophy.[159]
Neo-Vedanta, as represented byVivekananda andRadhakrishnan, is indebted to Advaita vedanta, but also reflects Advaya-philosophy. A main influence on neo-Advaita wasRamakrishna, himself abhakta and tantrika, and the guru of Vivekananda. According to Michael Taft, Ramakrishna reconciled the dualism of formlessness and form.[160] Ramakrishna regarded the supreme being to be both personal and impersonal, active and inactive, though he felt that "the distinction between them does not mean a difference", as they "are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness".[161]
Radhakrishnan acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the absolute or Brahman.[162][note 26] According to Anil Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita "reconcilesDvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism":[164]
The Neo-Vedanta is also Advaitic inasmuch as it holds that Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is one without a second,ekamevadvitiyam. But as distinguished from the traditional Advaita of Sankara, it is a synthetic Vedanta which reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism and also other theories of reality. In this sense it may also be called concrete monism in so far as it holds that Brahman is both qualified,saguna, and qualityless,nirguna.[164]
According to Michael Hawley, Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion ofmaya. According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute idealism, but "a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real".[162] It should be noted, though, that Shankara took a realistic stance, and his explanations are "remote from any connotation of illusion." It was the 13th century scholarPrakasatman, founder of the influentialVivarana school, who introduced the notion that the world is illusory.[165][166][167] According to Hacker, maya is not a prominent theme for Shankara, in contrast to the later Advaita tradition, and "the wordmaya has for [Shankara] hardly any terminological weight."[168]
According to Sarma, standing in the tradition ofNisargadatta Maharaj, Advaitavāda means "spiritual non-dualism or absolutism",[169] in which opposites aremanifestations of the Absolute, which itself is immanent and transcendent:[170]
All opposites like being and non-being, life and death, good and evil, light and darkness, gods and men, soul and nature are viewed as manifestations of the Absolute which is immanent in the universe and yet transcends it.[170]
Neo-Vedanta was well-received among Theosophists,Christian Science, and theNew Thought movement;[171][172] Christian Science in turn influenced the self-study teachingA Course in Miracles.[173]
| Part ofa series on |
| Shaivism |
|---|
 |
Scriptures and texts |
Philosophy
|
Schools
Saiddhantika Non - Saiddhantika
|
 Hinduism portal |
Advaita is also a central concept in various schools of Shaivism, such asKashmir Shaivism[130] andShiva Advaita which is generally known asVeerashaivism.
Kashmir Shaivism is a school ofŚaivism, described byAbhinavagupta[note 27] as "paradvaita", meaning "the supreme and absolute non-dualism".[174] It is categorized by various scholars asmonistic[175]idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism,[176] realistic idealism,[177] transcendental physicalism or concrete monism[177]).[inconsistent]
Kashmir Saivism is based on a strong monistic interpretation of theBhairava Tantras and its subcategory theKaula Tantras, which were tantras written by theKapalikas.[178] There was additionally a revelation of theSiva Sutras toVasugupta.[178] Kashmir Saivism claimed to supersede the dualisticShaiva Siddhanta.[179]Somananda, the first theologian of monistic Saivism, was the teacher ofUtpaladeva, who was the grand-teacher ofAbhinavagupta, who in turn was the teacher ofKsemaraja.[178][180]
The philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism can be seen in contrast to Shankara's Advaita.[181] Advaita Vedanta holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is a false appearance (māyā) of Brahman, like snake seen in semi-darkness is a false appearance of Rope lying there. In Kashmir Shavisim, all things are a manifestation of the Universal Consciousness,Chit orBrahman.[182][183] Kashmir Shavisim sees the phenomenal world (Śakti) as real: it exists, and has its being in Consciousness (Chit).[184]
Kashmir Shaivism was influenced by, and took over doctrines from, several orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical traditions.[185] These include Vedanta, Samkhya, Patanjali Yoga and Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including Yogacara and Madhyamika,[185] but also Tantra and the Nath-tradition.[186]
Primal awareness is also part of other Indian traditions, which are less strongly, or not all, organised in monastic and institutional organisations. Although often called "Advaita Vedanta", these traditions have their origins in vernacular movements and "householder" traditions, and have close ties to theNath,Nayanars andSant Mat traditions.[citation needed]
The Natha Sampradaya, withNath yogis such asGorakhnath, introducedSahaja, the concept of a spontaneous spirituality. According to Ken Wilber, this state reflects nonduality.[187]
Neo-Advaita is anew religious movement based on a modern Western interpretation ofAdvaita Vedanta, especially the teachings ofRamana Maharshi.[188] It is a form of nondualism which emphasizesdirect insight,[26] and grew strongly in popularity since the 2000s.[25] According toArthur Versluis, neo-Advaita is part of a larger religious current which he callsimmediatism.[189] Neo-Advaita has been criticized for this immediatism and lack of philosophical groundedness, and its lack of preparatory practices.[190][191][192][25][note 28] Notable neo-advaita teachers areH. W. L. Poonja[193][188] and his studentsGangaji,[194]Andrew Cohen,[note 29] andEckhart Tolle.[188]
"As people approach Me, so do I receive them. All paths, O Arjuna, are Mine."
"All Buddhist paths, whether presented as Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna, are in truth skillful means leading to the one Buddha-vehicle, the single path culminating in perfect enlightenment."
.jpg)
Over time, Buddhism began shifting toward a more unified view of reality, moving away from the earlier pluralistic outlook of schools of Hīnayāna Buddhism, particularly the Sarvāstivāda. Concepts such as tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) and ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) were introduced into Buddhism, signaling not only a philosophical transformation but also a weakening of Buddhism's social influence. This period saw a growing absorption of Brahmanical ideas, often described as the "Brahmanization" of Buddhism. An example of this is found in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, where tathāgatagarbha is at times equated with ālaya-vijñāna, and its description bears a striking resemblance to the Vedāntic concept of Brahman. Terms like Brahman, Viṣṇu, and Īśvara are even used as synonyms for tathāgata, with the highest Brahman being presented as the ultimate reality.[197]
There are different Buddhist views which resonate with the concepts and experiences of primordial awareness and non-duality or "not two" (advaya). TheBuddha does not use the termadvaya in theearliest Buddhist texts, but it does appear in some of theMahayana sutras, such as theVimalakīrti.[198] The Buddha taught meditative inquiry (dhyana) and nondiscursive attention (samadhi).
Inarchaic Buddhism,Nirvana may have been a kind of transformed and transcendent consciousness or discernment (viññana) that has "stopped" (nirodhena).[199][200][201] According to Harvey this nirvanic consciousness is said to be "objectless", "infinite" (anantam), "unsupported" (appatiṭṭhita) and "non-manifestive" (anidassana) as well as "beyond time and spatial location".[199][200]
Stanislaw Schayer, a Polish scholar, argued in the 1930s that theNikayas preserve elements of an archaic form of Buddhism which is close to Brahmanical beliefs,[106][107][108][109] and survived in theMahayana tradition.[110][111] Schayer's view, possibly referring to texts where "'consciousness' (vinnana) seems to be the ultimate reality or substratum" as well as toluminous mind,[202] saw nirvana as an immortal, deathless sphere, a transmundane reality or state.[203][note 31] A similar view is also defended by C. Lindtner, who argues that in precanonical Buddhism nirvana is an actual existent.[106][note 32] The original and early Buddhist concepts of nirvana may have been similar to those found in competingŚramaṇa (strivers/ascetics) traditions such asJainism and Upanishadic Vedism.[204] Similar ideas were proposed byEdward Conze[111] and M. Falk,[205] citing sources which speak of an eternal and "invisible infinite consciousness, which shines everywhere" as point to the view that nirvana is a kind ofAbsolute,[111] and arguing that the nirvanic element, as an "essence" or pure consciousness, is immanent withinsamsara,[205] an "abode" or "place" ofprajña, which is gained by the enlightened.[206][205][note 33]
In the Theravada tradition,nibbāna is regarded as an uncompounded or unconditioned (asankhata)dhamma (phenomenon, event) which is "transmundane",[208][note 34] and which is beyond our normal dualistic conceptions.[note 35]
Another influential concept in Indian Buddhism is the idea ofluminous mind which became associated with Buddha-nature. In theEarly Buddhist Texts there are various mentions of luminosity or radiance which refer to the development of the mind inmeditation. In theSaṅgīti-sutta for example, it relates to the attainment ofsamadhi, where the perception of light (āloka sañña) leads to a mind endowed with luminescence (sappabhāsa).[210] According to Analayo, theUpakkilesa-sutta and its parallels mention that the presence of defilements "results in a loss of whatever inner light or luminescence (obhāsa) had been experienced during meditation".[210] The PaliDhātuvibhaṅga-sutta uses the metaphor of refining gold to describe equanimity reached through meditation, which is said to be "pure, bright, soft, workable, and luminous".[34] The PaliAnguttara Nikaya (A.I.8–10) states:[211]
Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind.[212]
The term is given no direct doctrinal explanation in the Pali discourses, but later Buddhist schools explained it using various concepts developed by them.[213] TheTheravada school identifies the "luminous mind" with thebhavanga, a concept first proposed in theTheravāda Abhidhamma.[214] The later schools of theMahayana identify it with both the Mahayana concepts ofbodhicitta andtathagatagarbha.[213] The notion is of central importance in the philosophy and practice ofDzogchen.[215]
Buddha nature ortathagata-garbha (literally "Buddha womb") is that which allows sentient beings to become Buddhas.[216] Various Mahayana texts such as theTathāgatagarbha sūtras focus on this idea and over time it became a very influential doctrine in Indian Buddhism, as well in East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism. The Buddha nature teachings may be regarded as a form of nondualism. According to Sally B King, all beings are said to be or possesstathagata-garbha, which is nondualThusness orDharmakaya. This reality, states King, transcends the "duality of self and not-self", the "duality of form and emptiness" and the "two poles of being and non being".[217]
There various interpretations and views onBuddha-nature and the concept became very influential in India, China and Tibet, where it also became a source of much debate. In later Indian Yogācāra, a new sub-school developed which adopted the doctrine oftathagata-garbha into the Yogācāra system.[218] The influence of this hybrid school can be seen in texts like theLankavatara Sutra and theRatnagotravibhaga. This synthesis of Yogācāratathagata-garbha became very influential in later Buddhist traditions, such as IndianVajrayana,Chinese Buddhism andTibetan Buddhism.[219][218]
According to Kameshwar Nath Mishra, one connotation ofadvaya inSanskrit Buddhist literature is that it refers to themiddle way between two opposite extremes (such aseternalism andannihilationism), and thus it is "not two".[220]
One of theSanskritMahayana sutras, theVimalakirti Sutra contains a chapter on the "Dharma gate of non-duality" (advaya dharma dvara pravesa) which is said to be entered once a person understands how numerous pairs of opposite extremes are to be rejected as forms of grasping. These extremes which must be avoided in order to understand ultimate reality are described by various characters in the text, and include: birth and extinction, 'I' and 'mine', perception and non-perception, defilement and purity, good and not-good, created and uncreated, worldly and unworldly, samsara and nirvana, enlightenment and ignorance, form and emptiness and so on.[221] The final character to attempt to describe ultimate reality is the bodhisattvaManjushri, who states:
It is in all beings wordless, speechless, shows no signs, is not possible of cognizance, and is above all questioning and answering.[222]
Vimalakīrti responds to this statement by maintaining completely silent, therefore expressing that the nature of ultimate reality is ineffable (anabhilāpyatva) and inconceivable (acintyatā), beyond verbal designation (prapañca) or thought constructs (vikalpa).[222] TheLaṅkāvatāra Sūtra, a text associated withYogācāra Buddhism, also uses the term "advaya" extensively.[223]
In theMahayanaBuddhist philosophy ofMadhyamaka, thetwo truths or ways of understanding reality, are said to beadvaya (not two). As explained by the Indian philosopherNagarjuna, there is a non-dual relationship, that is, there is no absolute separation, between conventional and ultimate truth, as well as betweensamsara andnirvana.[224][15]
The concept of nonduality is also important in the other major Indian Mahayana tradition, theYogacara school, where it is seen as the absence of duality between the perceivingsubject (or "grasper") and theobject (or "grasped"). It is also seen as an explanation ofemptiness and as an explanation of the content of the awakened mind which sees through the illusion of subject-object duality. However, in this conception of non-dualism, there are still a multiplicity of individualmind streams (citta santana) and thus Yogacara does not teach an idealistic monism.[225]
These basic ideas have continued to influence Mahayana Buddhist doctrinal interpretations of Buddhist traditions such asDzogchen,Mahamudra,Zen,Huayan andTiantai as well as concepts such asBuddha-nature,luminous mind,Indra's net,rigpa andshentong.
Madhyamaka, also known asŚūnyavāda (theemptiness teaching), refers primarily to aMahāyānaBuddhist school of philosophy[226] founded byNāgārjuna. In Madhyamaka,Advaya refers to the fact that thetwo truths are not separate or different.,[227] as well as the non-dual relationship ofsaṃsāra (the round ofrebirth andsuffering) andnirvāṇa (cessation of suffering,liberation).[130] According to Murti, in Madhyamaka,Advaya is anepistemological theory, unlike the metaphysical view of Hindu Advaita.[141] Madhyamakaadvaya is closely related to the classical Buddhist understanding that all things are impermanent (anicca) and devoid of self (anatta) or essenceless (niḥsvabhāva),[228][229][230] and that this emptiness does not constitute an absolute reality in itself.[note 36]
In Madhyamaka, thetwo truths doctrine refer to conventional (saṃvṛti) and ultimate (paramārtha) truth.[231] The ultimate truth isemptiness, or non-existence of inherently existing things,[232] and the "emptiness of emptiness": emptiness does not in itself constitute an absolute reality. Conventionally, things exist, but ultimately, they are empty of any existence on their own, as described in Nagarjuna's magnum opus, theMūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK).[233]
AsJay Garfield notes, for Nagarjuna, to understand the two truths as totally different from each other is toreify and confuse the purpose of this doctrine, since it would either destroy conventional realities such as the Buddha's teachings and the empirical reality of the world (making Madhyamaka a form ofnihilism) or deny thedependent origination of phenomena (by positing eternalessences). Thus the non-dual doctrine of themiddle way lies beyond these two extremes.[234]
Emptiness is a consequence ofpratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising),[235] the teaching that nodharma ("thing", "phenomena") has an existence of its own, but always comes into existence in dependence on otherdharmas. According to Madhyamaka all dharma phenomena areempty of substance or essence (Sanskrit:svabhāva) because they aredependently co-arisen. Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own. Madhyamaka also rejects the existence of absolute realities or beings such asBrahman or Self.[236] In the highest sense, "ultimate reality" is not an ontologicalAbsolute reality that lies beneath an unreal world, nor is it the non-duality of a personal self (atman) and an absolute Self (cf.Purusha). Instead, it is the knowledge which is based on a deconstruction of suchreifications andConceptual proliferations.[8] It also means that there is no "transcendental ground", and that "ultimate reality" has no existence of its own, but is the negation of such a transcendental reality, and the impossibility of any statement on such an ultimately existing transcendental reality: it is no more than a fabrication of the mind.[237][note 37] However, according to Nagarjuna, even the very schema of ultimate and conventional, samsara and nirvana, is not a final reality, and he thus famously deconstructs even these teachings as being empty and not different from each other in the MMK where he writes:[99]
The limit (koti) ofnirvāṇa is that ofsaṃsāra
The subtlest difference is not found between the two.
According to Nancy McCagney, what this refers to is that the two truths depend on each other; without emptiness, conventional reality cannot work, and vice versa. It does not mean that samsara and nirvana are the same, or that they are one single thing, as in Advaita Vedanta, but rather that they are both empty, open, without limits, and merely exist for the conventional purpose of teaching theBuddha Dharma.[99]
Yuichi Kajiyama states that the later Madhyamikas developed theAdvaya definition as a means toNirvikalpa-Samadhi by suggesting that "things arise neither from their own selves nor from other things, and that when subject and object are unreal, the mind, being not different, cannot be true either; thereby one must abandon attachment to cognition of nonduality as well, and understand the lack of intrinsic nature of everything".[238] Thus, the Buddhist nondualism or Advaya concept became a means to realizing absoluteemptiness.[238]
In theMahayana tradition of Yogācāra (Skt; "yoga practice"),adyava (Tibetan:gnyis med) refers to overcoming the conceptual and perceptual dichotomies of cognizer and cognized, or subject and object.[130][239][240][241] The concept ofadyava in Yogācāra is an epistemological stance on the nature of experience and knowledge, as well as a phenomenological exposition of yogic cognitive transformation. Early Buddhism schools such asSarvastivada andSautrāntika, that thrived through the early centuries of the common era, postulated a dualism (dvaya) between the mental activity of grasping (grāhaka, "cognition", "subjectivity") and that which is grasped (grāhya, "cognitum", intentional object).[242][238][242][243] Yogacara postulates that this dualistic relationship is a false illusion or superimposition (samaropa).[238]
Yogācāra also taught the doctrine which held that only mental cognitions really exist (vijñapti-mātra),[244][note 38] instead of themind-body dualism of other Indian Buddhist schools.[238][242][244] This is another sense in which reality can be said to be non-dual, because it is "consciousness-only".[246] There are several interpretations of this main theory, which has been widely translated asrepresentation-only, ideation-only, impressions-only andperception-only.[247][244][248][249] Some scholars see it as a kind of subjective or epistemicIdealism (similar to Kant's theory) while others argue that it is closer to a kind ofphenomenology orrepresentationalism. According to Mark Siderits the main idea of this doctrine is that we are only ever aware of mental images or impressions which manifest themselves as external objects, but "there is actually no such thing outside the mind."[250] For Alex Wayman, this doctrine means that "the mind has only a report or representation of what the sense organ had sensed."[248] Jay Garfield and Paul Williams both see the doctrine as a kind of Idealism in which only mentality exists.[251][252]
However, even the idealistic interpretation of Yogācāra is not an absolutemonistic idealism likeAdvaita Vedanta orHegelianism, since in Yogācāra, even consciousness "enjoys no transcendent status" and is just a conventional reality.[218] Indeed, according to Jonathan Gold, for Yogācāra, the ultimate truth is not consciousness, but an ineffable and inconceivable "thusness" or "thatness" (tathatā).[239] Also, Yogācāra affirms the existence of individualmindstreams, and thus Kochumuttom also calls it arealistic pluralism.[253]
The Yogācārins defined three basic modes by which we perceive our world. These are referred to in Yogācāra as the three natures (trisvabhāva) of experience. They are:[254][239]
To move from the duality of theParikalpita to the non-dual consciousness of thePariniṣpanna, Yogācāra teaches that there must be a transformation of consciousness, which is called the "revolution of the basis" (parāvṛtty-āśraya). According toDan Lusthaus, this transformation which characterizes awakening is a "radical psycho-cognitive change" and a removal of false "interpretive projections" on reality (such as ideas of a self, external objects, etc.).[255]
TheMahāyānasūtrālamkāra, a Yogācāra text, also associates this transformation with the concept ofnon-abiding nirvana and the non-duality of samsara and nirvana. Regarding this state ofBuddhahood, it states:
Its operation is nondual (advaya vrtti) because of its abiding neither in samsara nor in nirvana (samsaranirvana-apratisthitatvat), through its being both conditioned and unconditioned (samskrta-asamskrtatvena).[256]
This refers to the Yogācāra teaching that even though a Buddha has entered nirvana, they do no "abide" in some quiescent state separate from the world but continue to give rise to extensive activity on behalf of others.[256] This is also called the non-duality between the compounded (samskrta, referring to samsaric existence) and the uncompounded (asamskrta, referring to nirvana). It is also described as a "not turning back" from both samsara and nirvana.[257]
For the later thinkerDignaga, non-dual knowledge oradvayajñāna is also a synonym forprajñaparamita (transcendent wisdom) which liberates one from samsara.[258]
Buddhist Tantra, also known as Vajrayana, Mantrayana or Esoteric Buddhism, drew upon all these previous Indian Buddhist ideas and nondual philosophies to develop innovative new traditions of Buddhist practice and new religious texts called theBuddhist tantras (from the 6th century onwards).[259] Tantric Buddhism was influential in China and is the main form of Buddhism in theHimalayan regions, especiallyTibetan Buddhism.
The concept ofadvaya has various meanings in Buddhist Tantra. According to Tantric commentator Lilavajra, Buddhist Tantra's "utmost secret and aim" is Buddha nature. This is seen as a "non-dual, self-originated Wisdom (jnana), an effortless fount of good qualities".[260] In Buddhist Tantra, there is no strict separation between the sacred (nirvana) and the profane (samsara), and all beings are seen as containing an immanent seed of awakening or Buddhahood.[261] The Buddhist Tantras also teach that there is a non-dual relationship between emptiness and compassion (karuna), this unity is calledbodhicitta.[262] They also teach a "nondual pristine wisdom of bliss and emptiness".[263] Advaya is also said to be the co-existence ofPrajña (wisdom) andUpaya (skill in means).[264] These nondualities are also related to the idea ofyuganaddha, or "union" in the Tantras. This is said to be the "indivisible merging of innate great bliss (the means) and clear light (emptiness)" as well as the merging of relative and ultimate truths and the knower and the known, during Tantric practice.[265]
Buddhist Tantras also promote certain practices which areantinomian, such assexual rites or the consumption of disgusting or repulsive substances (the "five ambrosias", feces, urine, blood, semen, and marrow.). These are said to allow one to cultivate nondual perception of the pure and impure (and similar conceptual dualities) and thus it allows one to prove one's attainment of nondual gnosis (advaya jñana).[266]
Indian Buddhist Tantra also views humans as a microcosmos which mirrors the macrocosmos.[267] Its aim is to gain access to the awakened energy or consciousness of Buddhahood, which is nondual, through various practices.[267]
Chinese Buddhism was influenced by the philosophical strains of Indian Buddhist nondualism such as theMadhymaka doctrines of emptiness and thetwo truths as well asYogacara andtathagata-garbha. For example,Chinese Madhyamaka philosophers likeJizang, discussed the nonduality of the two truths.[268]Chinese Yogacara also upheld the Indian Yogacara views on nondualism. One influential text in Chinese Buddhism which synthesizesTathagata-garbha and Yogacara views is theAwakening of Faith in the Mahayana, which may be a Chinese composition.
In Chinese Buddhism, the polarity of absolute and relative realities is also expressed as "essence-function". This was a result of an ontological interpretation of the two truths as well as influences from native Taoist and Confucian metaphysics.[269] In this theory, the absolute is essence, the relative is function. They can't be seen as separate realities, but interpenetrate each other.[270] This interpretation of the two truths as two ontological realities would go on to influence later forms of East Asian metaphysics.
As Chinese Buddhism continued to develop in new innovative directions, it gave rise to new traditions likeTiantai andChan (Zen), which also upheld their own unique teachings on non-duality.[271]
TheTiantai school for example, taught a threefold truth, instead of the classic "two truths" of Indian Madhyamaka. Its "third truth" was seen as the nondual union of the two truths which transcends both.[272] Tiantai metaphysics is an immanentholism, which sees every phenomenon, moment or event as conditioned and manifested by the whole of reality. Every instant of experience is a reflection of every other, and hence, suffering and nirvana, good and bad, Buddhahood and evildoing, are all "inherently entailed" within each other.[272] Each moment of consciousness is simply the Absolute itself, infinitely immanent and self reflecting.
Two doctrines of theHuayan school (Flower Garland), which flourished inChina during theTang period, are considered nondual by some scholars. King writes that theFourfold Dharmadhatu and the doctrine of themutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena (dharmas) or "perfect interfusion" (yuanrong, 圓融) are classic nondual doctrines.[271] This can be described as the idea that allphenomena "are representations of the wisdom of Buddha without exception" and that "they exist in a state of mutual dependence, interfusion and balance without any contradiction or conflict."[273] According to this theory, any phenomenon exists only as part of the total nexus of reality, its existence depends on the total network of all other things, which are all equally connected to each other and contained in each other.[273] Another Huayan metaphor used to express this view, calledIndra's net, is also considered nondual by some.[citation needed]
The Buddha-nature and Yogacara philosophies have had a strong influence on Chán and Zen. The teachings of Zen are expressed by a set of polarities: Buddha-nature – sunyata;[275][276] absolute-relative;[277]sudden and gradual enlightenment.[278]
The Lankavatara-sutra, a popular sutra in Zen, endorses the Buddha-nature and emphasizes purity of mind, which can be attained in gradations. The Diamond-sutra, another popular sutra, emphasizes sunyata, which "must be realized totally or not at all".[279] ThePrajnaparamita Sutras emphasize the non-duality of form and emptiness: form is emptiness, emptiness is form, as theHeart Sutra says.[277] According toChinul, Zen points not to mere emptiness, but tosuchness or thedharmadhatu.[280]
The idea that the ultimate reality is present in the daily world of relative reality fitted into the Chinese culture which emphasized the mundane world and society. But this does not explain how the absolute is present in the relative world. This question is answered in such schemata asthe Five Ranks of Tozan[281] and theOxherding Pictures.
The continuous pondering of the break-throughkōan (shokan[282]) orHua Tou, "word head",[283] leads tokensho, an initial insight into "seeing the(Buddha-)nature".[284] According to Victor Sogen Hori, a central theme of many koans is the "identity of opposites", and point to the original nonduality.[285][286] Hori describeskensho, when attained throughkoan-study, as the absence of subject–object duality.[287] The aim of the so-called break-through koan is to see the "nonduality of subject and object",[285][286] in which "subject and object are no longer separate and distinct".[288]
Zen Buddhist training does not end with kenshō. Practice is to be continued to deepen the insight and to express it in daily life,[289][290][291][292] to fully manifest the nonduality of absolute and relative.[293][294] To deepen the initial insight of kensho, shikantaza and kōan-study are necessary. This trajectory of initial insight followed by a gradual deepening and ripening is expressed byLinji Yixuan in hisThree Mysterious Gates, theFour Ways of Knowing ofHakuin,[295] theFive Ranks, and theTen Ox-Herding Pictures[296] which detail the steps on thePath.
The polarity of absolute and relative is also expressed as "essence-function". The absolute is essence; the relative is function. They can't be seen as separate realities, but interpenetrate each other. The distinction does not "exclude any other frameworks such asneng-so or 'subject-object' constructions", though the two "are completely different from each other in terms of their way of thinking".[270] In Korean Buddhism, essence-function is also expressed as "body" and "the body's functions".[297] A metaphor for essence-function is "a lamp and its light", a phrase from thePlatform Sutra, where Essence is lamp and Function is light.[298]
InJōdo Shinshū, a Japanese branch ofPure Land Buddhism, the writings of the branch's founder,Shinran, hold that ultimate and conventional reality exist together. Nonduality "points beyond all conceptual categories," but the ultimate does not manifest through the disappearance of conventional reality, but by experiencing conventional reality in a different way.[299]
The Gelugpa school, following Tsongkhapa, adheres to the adyavaPrasaṅgikaMādhyamaka view, which states that all phenomena aresunyata, empty of self-nature, and that this "emptiness" is itself only a qualification, not a concretely existing "absolute" reality.[300]
In Tibetan Buddhism, the essentialist position is represented byshentong, while the nominalist, or non-essentialist position, is represented byrangtong.
Shentong is a philosophical sub-school found inTibetan Buddhism. Its adherents generally hold that the nature of mind (svasaṃvedana), the substratum of themindstream, is "empty" (Wylie:stong) of "other" (Wylie:gzhan), i.e., empty of all qualities other than an inherently existing, ineffable nature. Shentong has often been incorrectly associated with the Cittamātra (Yogacara) position, but is in fact also Madhyamaka,[301] and is present primarily as the main philosophical theory of theJonang school, although it is also taught by theSakya[302] andKagyu schools.[303][304] According to Shentongpa (proponents of shentong), the emptiness of ultimate reality should not be characterized in the same way as the emptiness of apparent phenomena because it isprabhāśvara-saṃtāna, or "luminous mindstream" endowed with limitless Buddha qualities.[305] It is empty of all that is false, not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
The contrastingPrasaṅgika view that all phenomena aresunyata, empty of self-nature, and that this "emptiness" is not a concretely existing "absolute" reality, is labeledrangtong, "empty of self-nature".[300]
The shentong-view is related to theRatnagotravibhāga sutra and the Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis ofŚāntarakṣita. The truth of sunyata is acknowledged, but not considered to be the highest truth, which is the empty nature of mind. Insight into sunyata is preparatory for the recognition of the nature of mind.
Dzogchen is concerned with the "natural state" and emphasizes direct experience. The state of nondual awareness is calledrigpa.[306] This primordial nature is clear light, unproduced and unchanging, free from all defilements. Through meditation, theDzogchen practitioner experiences that thoughts have no substance. Mental phenomena arise and fall in the mind, but fundamentally they are empty. The practitioner then considers where the mind itself resides. Through careful examination one realizes that the mind is emptiness.[307]
Karma Lingpa (1326–1386) revealed "Self-Liberation through seeing with naked awareness" (rigpa ngo-sprod,[note 39]) which is attributed toPadmasambhava.[308][note 40] The text gives an introduction, orpointing-out instruction (ngo-spro), intorigpa, the state of presence and awareness.[308] In this text, Karma Lingpa writes the following regarding the unity of various terms for nonduality:
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).
Some call it "thenature of the mind" or "mind itself".
SomeTirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self".
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self".
TheChittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind".
Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom".
Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood".
Some call it by the nameMahamudra or "the Great Symbol".
Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere".
Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality".
Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything".
And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness".[313]
Garab Dorje (c. 665) epitomized the Dzogchen teaching in three principles, known as "Striking the Vital Point in Three Statements" (Tsik Sum Né Dek), said to be his last words. These three statements are believed to convey the heart of his teachings and serve as a concise and profound encapsulation of Dzogchen'sview, itspractice of contemplation, and the role ofconduct. They give in short the development a student has to undergo:[314][315]
Garab Dorje's three statements were integrated into theNyingthig traditions, the most popular of which in theLongchen Nyingthig byJigme Lingpa (1730–1798).[316] The statements are:[314]
Many newer, contemporarySikhs have suggested that human souls and the monotheistic God are two different realities (dualism),[317] distinguishing it from the monistic and various shades of nondualistic philosophies of other Indian religions.[318] However, some Sikh scholars have attempted to explore nondualism exegesis of Sikh scriptures,[319] such as during the neocolonial reformist movement byBhai Vir Singh. According to Mandair, Singh interprets the Sikh scriptures as teaching nonduality.[320] Sikh scholar Bhai Mani Singh is quoted as saying that Sikhism has all the essence ofVedanta philosophy. Historically, the Sikh symbol ofIk Oankaar has had a monistic meaning, and has been reduced to simply meaning, "There is but One God", which is incorrect.[321] Older exegesis of Sikh scripture, such as theFaridkot Teeka, has always described Sikh metaphysics as a non-dual,panentheistic universe.[322]
According to Paul A. Erickson, the concept ofyin and yang, often mistakenly conceived of as a symbol of dualism, is actually meant to convey the notion that all apparent opposites are complementary parts of a non-dual whole.[323]
Taoism'swu wei (Chinesewu, not;wei, doing) is a term with various translations[note 41] and interpretations designed to distinguish it from passivity. Commonly understood as "effortless action",wu wei encourages individuals to flow with the natural rhythms of existence, moving beyond dualistic perspectives and embracing a harmonious unity with the universe. This holistic approach to life, characterized by spontaneous and unforced action, emphasizes interconnectedness and oneness, and integrates effortless action in both physical deeds and mental states.[324]
Neo-Confucianism is primarily a social and ethical philosophy that uses metaphysical ideas, some borrowed fromTaoism, as its framework. Concepts like li (principle) and qi (energy) reflect certain monistic tendencies. However, unlike the dominant Buddhists of their time, the Neo-Confucians believed that reality existed and could be understood by humankind.
| Part ofa series on |
| Universalism |
|---|
| Category |
A modern strand of thought sees "nondual consciousness" as a universal psychological state, which is a common stratum and of the same essence in different spiritual traditions.[11] It is derived fromNeo-Vedanta andneo-Advaita, but has historical roots inneo-Platonism,Western esotericism, andPerennialism. The idea of nondual consciousness as "the central essence"[325] is auniversalistic andperennialist idea, which is part of a modern mutual exchange and synthesis of ideas between western spiritual andesoteric traditions and Asian religious revival and reform movements.[note 42]
Central elements in the western traditions areNeo-Platonism, which had a strong influence onChristian contemplation ormysticism, and its accompanyingapophatic theology.[328]
Parmenides of Elea was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher of the 5th century BCE. He presented two views of reality. The first, the way of Aletheia (truth), describes how all reality is one: change is impossible, and existence is timeless and uniform. The second, the way of Doxa (opinion), refers to the world of appearances, where sensory perception leads to false and deceptive conceptions. Parmenides depicted his philosophy as a divine truth and rejected the evidence of the senses, believing that truth could only be attained through reason. However, he still considered both divine and mortal understandings worth learning, as mortal insights can carry meaning. His concept of eternal Being was one without reference to time; since change cannot occur within Being, there are no intervals by which time can be measured.
A number of similarities have been noted between thePyrrhonist works of Sextus Empiricius and that ofNagarjuna, theMadhyamakaBuddhist philosopher from the 2nd or 3rd century CE.[92]Diogenes Laërtius' biography of Pyrrho reports that Pyrrho traveled withAlexander the Great's army to India and incorporated what he learned from theGymnosophists and theMagi that he met in his travels into his philosophical system.[93] Pyrrho would have spent about 18 months inTaxila as part ofAlexander the Great's court during Alexander's conquest of the east.[94]Christopher I. Beckwith[329] draws comparisons between the Buddhistthree marks of existence and the concepts outlined in the "Aristocles Passage".[96]Ajñana, which upheldradical skepticism, may have been a more powerful influence on Pyrrho than Buddhism. The Buddhists referred to Ajñana's adherents asAmarāvikkhepikas or "eel-wrigglers", due to their refusal to commit to a single doctrine.[97] Scholars includingBarua, Jayatilleke, and Flintoff, contend that Pyrrho was influenced by, or at the very least agreed with, Indian skepticism rather than Buddhism or Jainism, based on the fact that he valuedataraxia, which can be translated as "freedom from worry".
TheStoics provided a unified account of the world, constructed from ideals of logic, monistic physics, and naturalistic ethics. These three ideals constitute virtue, which is necessary for 'living a well-reasoned life', seeing as they are all parts of alogos, or philosophical discourse, which includes the mind's rational dialogue with itself.
Neopythagoreanism was an attempt to re-introduce amystical religious element intoHellenistic philosophy in place of what had come to be regarded as an arid formalism. The founders of the school sought to invest their doctrines with the halo of tradition by ascribing them toPythagoras andPlato. They went back to the later period of Plato's thought, the period when Plato endeavoured to combine histheory of forms with Pythagoreannumber theory, and identified thegood with themonad (which would give rise to the Neoplatonic concept of "the One"), the source of the duality of the infinite and the measured with the resultant scale of realities from the one down to the objects of the material world.
Neoplatonism also contains nondual elements. Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, nor distinction; likewise, it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects and, therefore, is beyond the concepts which we can derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing" and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence) but "is prior to all existents".
Western philosophers likeHegel,Spinoza andSchopenhauer defended different forms ofphilosophical monism orIdealism.[99]
Baruch Spinoza's formulation of pantheism in the 17th century constitutes a seminal European manifestation of nondualism. His philosophical work, especially expounded inEthics posits a radical idea that fuses divinity with the material world, suggesting that God and the universe are not separate entities but different facets of a single underlying substance. In his worldview, the finite and the infinite are harmoniously interwoven, challengingRené Descartes'dualistic perspective.[330]
One ofFriedrich Nietzsche's philosophical insights also resonates with nondualism. Nietzsche wrote that "We cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language."[note 43] This idea is explored in his bookOn Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense. His scrutiny of conventional thought and language urges a departure from linguistic boundaries.[332] This perspective aligns with the nondual notion of transcending dualistic concepts and engaging with reality in a more immediate, intuitive manner.
Theosophy is a religious movement founded byHelena Blavatsky, which holds a monist position that there exists a single divine Absolute and articulates an emanationist cosmology in which the universe is perceived as outward reflections from this Absolute. The purpose of human life is spiritual emancipation and the human soul undergoes reincarnation upon bodily death according to a process ofkarma. Drawing primarily from Advaita Vedanta, some strands of Mahayana Buddhism, and Neoplatonism, Theosophy identifies India as the center of a universal ancient wisdom-religion.[333][334] Some of its concepts were later distorted and racialized in the development ofAriosophy, a nationalist esoteric ideology, which misappropriated Theosophical ideas and contributed to the ideological background of Nazism.
Ariosophy has been described as gnostic, pantheist, and deist, but at its core is the mystical union of God, man, and nature. It teaches that God dwells within the individual human spirit as an inner source of magical power, but is also immanent within nature through the primal laws that govern the cycles of growth, decay, and renewal. It explicitly rejects a Mind-body dualism of spirit versus matter, or of God over or against nature. Humanity is therefore one with the universe, which entails an obligation to live in accordance with nature.
Other modern theories with non-dual elements includeQuantum mysticism, which links spirituality toquantum mechanics and posits thatconsciousness causes collapse, andIntegral theory byKen Wilber, a metatheory unifying Western models and Eastern meditative traditions.
InHermetic view, God is both the all (Greek:to pan) and the creator of the all: all created things pre-exist in God and God is the nature of the cosmos (being both the substance from which it proceeds and the governing principle which orders it), yet the things themselves and the cosmos were all created by God. Thus, God ('the All') creates itself, and is bothtranscendent (as the creator of the cosmos) andimmanent (as the created cosmos). These ideas are also closely related to thecosmo-theological views of the Stoics.
In Christian mysticism,contemplative prayer andapophatic theology are central elements. In contemplative prayer, the mind is focused by constant repetition a phrase or word. SaintJohn Cassian recommended use of the phrase "O God, make speed to save me: O Lord, make haste to help me".[335][336] Another formula for repetition is the name of Jesus[337][338] or theJesus Prayer, which has been called "the mantra of the Orthodox Church",[336] although the term "Jesus Prayer" is not found in the Fathers of the Church.[339] The author ofThe Cloud of Unknowing recommended use of a monosyllabic word, such as "God" or "Love".[340]
Apophatic theology is derived fromNeo-Platonism viaPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. In this approach, the notion of God is stripped from all positive qualifications, leaving a "darkness" or "unground", it had a strong influence on western mysticism. A notable example isMeister Eckhart, who also attracted attention from Zen-Buddhists likeD.T. Suzuki in modern times, due to the similarities between Buddhist thought and Neo-Platonism.
The Cloud of Unknowing – an anonymous work ofChristian mysticism written inMiddle English in the latter half of the 14th century – advocates a mystic relationship with God. The text describes aspiritual union with God through the heart. The author of the text advocatescentering prayer, a form of inner silence. According to the text, God can not be known through knowledge or from intellection. It is only by emptying the mind of all created images and thoughts that we can arrive to experience God. Continuing on this line of thought, God is completely unknowable by the mind. God is not known through the intellect but through intensecontemplation, motivated by love, and stripped of all thought.[341]
Thomism, though not non-dual in the ordinary sense, considers the unity of God so absolute that even the duality ofsubject andpredicate, to describe him, can be true only byanalogy. In Thomist thought, even theTetragrammaton is only an approximate name, since "I am" involves a predicate whose own essence is its subject.[342]
The former nun and contemplativeBernadette Roberts is considered a nondualist by Jerry Katz.[11]
Hypostatic-union is an incomplete form of non-duality applied to a tertiary entity, neglecting thesubjectiveself.
According toJay Michaelson, nonduality begins to appear in the medieval Jewish textual tradition which peaked inHasidism:[343]
Judaism has within it a strong and very ancient mystical tradition that is deeply nondualistic. "Ein Sof" or infinite nothingness is considered the ground face of all that is. God is considered beyond all proposition or preconception. The physical world is seen as emanating from the nothingness as the many faces "partzufim" of god that are all a part of the sacred nothingness.[344]
One of the most striking contributions of the Kabbalah, which became a central idea in Chasidic thought, was a highly innovative reading of the monotheistic idea. The belief in one God is no longer perceived as the mere rejection of other deities or intermediaries, but a denial of any existence outside of God.[note 44]
The western world has been exposed to Indian religions since the late 18th century.[345] The first western translation of a Sanskrit text was made in 1785.[345] It marked a growing interest in Indian culture and languages.[346] The first translation of the dualism and nondualism discussing Upanishads appeared in two parts in 1801 and 1802[347] and influencedArthur Schopenhauer, who called them "the consolation of my life".[348] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[349]
Thecommon-core thesis suggests that different mystical traditions may describe similar, if not identical, experiences, despite using different conceptual frameworks and terminologies.[350] Proponents ofPerennialism, such asAldous Huxley, argue that a universal mystical core underlies all religious traditions. Huxley, influenced byVivekananda'sNeo-Vedanta andUniversalism, promoted this idea in his bookThe Perennial Philosophy.[351] However, scholarly critiques of this thesis argue that religious experiences are often culturally and doctrinally mediated, rather than pointing to a single, universal experience.[19]
Elias Amidon describes this common essence as an "indescribable but definitely recognizable reality"[18] that serves as the ground of all being. He suggests that various spiritual traditions refer to this reality by different names, including:[18]
[N]ondual awareness, pure awareness, open awareness, presence-awareness, unconditioned mind, rigpa, primordial experience, This, the basic state, the sublime, buddhanature, original nature, spontaneous presence, the oneness of being, the ground of being, the Real, clarity, God-consciousness, divine light, the clear light, illumination, realization and enlightenment.
Critics of the common-core thesis, often referred to as diversity theorists, argue that mystical experiences are not universal but instead culturally and doctrinally shaped. Scholars such as S. T. Katz and Wayne Proudfoot assert that all religious experiences are mediated by language, tradition, and conceptual frameworks rather than reflecting an unconditioned, universal mystical reality.[19] Katz, in particular, writes that "[N]o unmediated experience is possible, and that in the extreme, language is not simply used to interpret experience but in fact constitutes experience."[19] This position challenges the idea that nondual awareness is a common mystical essence, arguing instead that what one experiences in religious practice is shaped by their specific cultural and doctrinal background.
Philosopher Keith Yandell further critiques the common-core thesis by distinguishing five distinct categories of religious experiences, each tied to a specific doctrinal framework:[352]
This classification suggests that religious experiences vary significantly across traditions, contradicting the claim that all mystical experiences point to the same nondual essence.
Further criticism comes from Richard King and Robert Sharf, who argue that what one experiences in meditation or mystical practice is largely shaped by pre-existing doctrinal expectations.[353] In this view, mystical experiences are not independent proofs of a given tradition's truth but are instead a result of the teachings and practices within that tradition.[353]
For example, Bronkhorst traces the historical development of "liberating insight" in Buddhism, demonstrating that the concept evolved significantly over time. Early Buddhist texts did not provide a clear definition of what constituted enlightenment. Later, the Four Noble Truths became the dominant framework for understanding liberation. Over time, this emphasis shifted again; in some Hinayana schools, liberation was increasingly understood through the doctrine of no-self (anatta) as a fundamental realization. Schmithausen further observes that Buddhist scriptures contain multiple interpretations of enlightenment, suggesting that even within a single tradition, the nature of ultimate realization was not fixed but subject to doctrinal development and reinterpretation.[354]
These variations challenge the idea that nondual awareness is a universal and timeless mystical experience, instead suggesting that different traditions construct different understandings of what constitutes ultimate reality.
Nondual awareness, also called pure consciousness or awareness,[69] contentless consciousness,[68] consciousness-as-such,[9] and Minimal Phenomenal Experience,[69] is a topic of phenomenological research. As described in Samkhya-Yoga and other systems of meditation, and referred to as, for example, Turya and Atman,[355][68] pure awareness manifests in advanced states of meditation.[355][69] Pure consciousness is distinguished from the workings of the mind, and "consists in nothing but the being seen of what is seen".[355]Gamma & Metzinger (2021) present twelve factors in their phenomenological analysis of pure awareness experienced by meditators, including luminosity; emptiness and non-egoic self-awareness; and witness-consciousness.[69]
Laërtius, Diogenes."Others: Pyrrho" .Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2:9. Translated byHicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library.
Media related toNondualism at Wikimedia Commons
