Product Code Database
Nondualism, also called nonduality and sometimes monism, is a polyvalent term originating in Indian philosophy and religion, where it is used in various, related contemplative philosophies which aim to negate dualistic thinking or conceptual proliferation ( prapanca) and thereby realize nondual awareness, 'that which is beyond discursive thinking', a state of consciousness described in contemplative traditions as a background field of unified, immutable awareness that exists prior to conceptual thought.
The English term "nonduality" is derived from the Sanskrit Hindu term "Advaita Vedanta" (अद्वैत), "not-two" or "one without a second," meaning that only Brahman, 'the one', is ultimately real while 'the world', or the multiplicity of thought-constructs, 'the second', is not fully real; and from the Buddhist term advaya, which is also literally translated as "not two" and has various applications, including the Madhyamaka negation of thinking in opposites such as ordinary, conventional truth versus ultimate truth, and in Yogachara the deconstruction of the "apprehension of sensory objects as separate from the perceiving consciousness."
A perennialist view posits that nondual awareness, despite fundamental differences in the explanatory frameworks, is a common essence in various religious traditions. According to this view, nondual awareness is not only paradigmatic for Hinduism advaita-traditions including Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, and Buddhist advaya-traditions including Yogachara, Madhyamaka, Zen and Dzogchen, but can also be found in Taoist philosophy, and in Western philosophy, Christian mysticism, and Sufism.
Nondualism is also used to refer to the satsang movement, also called neo-advaita, for which nonduality is a central tenet, emphasizing sudden awakening or insight. The term may also refer to monism and nonplurality, the idea of a unitive essence behind the multiplicity of distinct entities. Related definitions include interconnectedness interdependence, and holism or 'wholism', the idea that "all the things "in" the world are not really distinct from each other but together constitute some integral whole." Further definitions are the rejection of thinking in binary opposites such as the mind–body dualism, while "nondualism" is also used as a synonym for mysticism, mystical experience, and spirituality.
"Advaita" (अद्वैत) is from Sanskrit roots a, not; dvaita, "customarily translated as dual." As Advaita, it is usually translated as "not-two" or "one without a second", and most commonly as "nondualism", "nonduality" or "nondual," invoking the notion of a dichotomy. Fabian Volker, following Paul Hacker explains that dvaita does not mean "duality," but "the state in which a second is present," the second here being synonymous with prapanca, "conceptual proliferation," and with jagat, "the world." Advaita thus means that only Brahman, 'the one', is ultimately real, while the phenomenal world, or the Prapanca, 'the second', is not fully real. The term thus does not emphasize two instances, but the notion that the second instance is not fully real, and advaita 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."
"Advaya" (अद्वय) is also a Sanskrit word that means "identity, unique, not two, without a second", and typically refers to sunyata ('emptiness') and the two truths doctrine of Mahayana, especially Madhyamaka, and the negation of the conceptual duality between observer and observed in Yogacara. The term prapanca, conceptual proliferation and the creation of a multi-faceted world, is also used in these discourses. Hookham renders nisprapanca as "nonconceptual," explaining:
"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 Vedanta" subsequent to the first wave of English translations of the Upanishads. These translations commenced with the work of Müller (1823–1900), in the monumental Sacred Books of the East (1879). He rendered "advaita" as "Monism", as have many recent scholars.S Menon (2011), Advaita Vedanta, IEP, Quote: "The essential philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented first in the Upaniṣads and consolidated in the Brahma Sūtra by this tradition." However, some scholars state that "advaita" is not really monism. According to Alan Watts monism often leads to conceptualizing reality as a single entity, whereas nondualism points beyond conceptual frameworks entirely.
Henning & Henning elaborate on Loy's subject-object nonduality, noting that humans are able to "mental self-awareness and subjectivity," which creates a "dualistic 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."
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."
Loy sees the nondifference of subject and object as the "core doctrine" of nonduality, quoting Yasutani roshi as giving an example of this nonduality:
He also refers to pariniṣpanna-svabhāva, a Yogachara-term meaning "fully accomplished," "just pure seeing ... devoid of all concepts,"Siderits, Mark, Buddhism as philosophy, 2017 "experience without subject-object duality." Further references from Loy are to Guiseppe Tucci, who states that the awakening of shes rab ( prajna) is the final objective in Tibetan Buddhism, transcending the subject-object dichotomy. Another reference is to D. T. Suzuki as stating that satori is "the realization of nonduality, and to the story of Hui Neng, "which presents "the Zen concept of No-mind (Ch. wu-shin, Jap. mushin), which asserts, in effect, the nonduality of subject and object." Gibson also states that "the apparent disappearance of a separate, individual self" is an important aspect of nonduality.
Loy, writing in the early 1980s, takes a perennialist stance, suggesting that the nondifference of subject and object stem from a shared experience of reality. Since the late 1970s this common core thesis has been challenged, notably by Steven Katz, arguing that arguing that religious experiences is shaped by the frameworks being used, and takes different forms in different traditions. The perennial position is "largely dismissed by scholars" but "has lost none of its popularity."
Referring to Murti's distinction between advaita (ontology) and advaya (phenomenology), and Richard H. Jones' typology presentrd in Philosophy of Mysticism (2016). Fabian Volker distinguishes three types of nonduality:
For Volker, nonduality lies in nisprapanca/aprapanca ('nonceptualization', "(that which is) beyond discursive thinking") the annihilation of prapanca (conceptualisation, creating multiplicity by multiplying concepts and subsequent creation of attachment) through insight or meditation:
Nondualism had also popularly been defined as interconnectedness and interdepence, and also seems to be synonymous with holism or 'wholism' in modern spirituality, 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." 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."
Philip Renard notes that nondual awareness is rooted in direct experience or intuition of "the Real", and argues that nondualism differs from monism. Unlike monism, which may conceptualize reality as a unified whole, nondualism is understood as fundamentally "nonconceptual" and "not graspable in an idea". Alan Watts is credited with popularizing this distinction between nondualism and monism, particularly in The Supreme Identity (1950) and The Way of Zen (1957). He explained that monism often leads to conceptualizing reality as a single entity, whereas nondualism points beyond conceptual frameworks entirely.
Judith Blackstone defines nonduality as "a fundamental unconstructed dimension of our being or consciousness," as found in Dzogchen, Kashmir Shaivism, and Advaita Vedanta, and differentiates between "conceptual recognition of nondual states" and "an embodied realization of nonduality in which the body is fully recognized as this nondual luminosity." 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."
"Nondualism" is also used as a synonym for Neo-Advaita or satsang-movement.
Nondual awareness is described in various ways across different traditions:
However, scholars such as Robert Sharf argue that scientific studies risk reifying nonduality as a purely neurocognitive phenomenon, stripping it of its cultural and Soteriology contexts.
According to Gombrich, the oldest traces of nondualism in Indian thought may be found in the Chandogya Upanishad (8th to 6th century BCE), which pre-dates the earliest Buddhism. Pre-sectarian Buddhism may also have been responding to the teachings of the Chandogya Upanishad, rejecting some of its Atman-Brahman related metaphysics. However, Schayer and Lindtner notes that even the Nikayas (300 BCE)Stephen Phillips (2009), Yoga, Karma, and Rebirth: A Brief History and Philosophy, Columbia University Press; . preserve elements of an archaic form of Buddhism that is close to Brahmanical beliefs,and which later developed in the Mahayana tradition. Lindtner argues that in precanonical Buddhism, nirvana is considered an actual existent.
One of the earliest uses of the word Advaita is found in verse 4.3.32 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (8th–5th century BCE)Fujii, M. 1997, "On the Formation and Transmission of the Jaiminīya-Upaniṣad-Brāhmaṇa", Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts: New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas, ed. M. Witzel, Harvard Oriental Series, Opera Minora, 2], Cambridge, 89–102Stephen Phillips (2009), Yoga, Karma, and Rebirth: A Brief History and Philosophy, Columbia University Press; .Olivelle, Patrick (1998), Upaniṣads, Oxford University Press, , and in verses 7 and 12 of the Mandukya Upanishad (variously dated to have been composed between 500 BCE to 200 BCE). The term appears in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.32, in the section with a discourse of the oneness of Atman (individual soul) and Brahman (universal consciousness), as follows:
The Upanishads contain proto-Shamkhya speculations. Yajnavalkya's exposition on the Self in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, and the dialogue between Uddalaka Aruni and his son Svetaketu in the Chandogya 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. 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." According to Larson, the enumeration of in Samkhya is also found in Taittiriya Upanishad, Aitareya Upanishad and Yajnavalkya–Maitri dialogue in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
The Katha Upanishad in verses 3.10–13 and 6.7–11 describes a concept of puruṣa, and other concepts also found in later Samkhya.Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, , pages 273, 288–289, 298–299 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 path Yoga.Max Muller (1962), Katha Upanishad, in The Upanishads – Part II, Dover Publications, , page 22
My nature is ever free!I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.I am pure Awareness, always non-dual."
Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7]]
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. It regards Atman-Brahman, Shiva or Shakti as the single universal existence beyond the plurality of the world, recognized as pure awareness or the witness-consciousness, as in Vedanta, Shaktism and Shaivism. Although the term is best known from the Advaita Vedanta school of Adi Shankara, advaita appears in different shades in various schools of Hinduism such as in Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita (Vaishnavism), Shuddhadvaita Vedanta (Vaishnavism), non-dual Shaivism and Shaktism, as well as modern schools and teachers. a ;
b Jean Filliozat (1991), Religion, Philosophy, Yoga: A Selection of Articles, Motilal Banarsidass, , pp. 68–69;
c Richard Davis (2014), Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshipping Siva in Medieval India, Princeton University Press, , p. 167 note 21, Quote (p. 13): "Some agamas argue a monist metaphysics, while others are decidedly dualist." The advaita ideas of some Hindu traditions contrasts with the schools that defend dualism or Dvaita Vedanta, such as that of Madhvacharya who stated that the experienced reality and Ishvara are two (dual) and distinct.Betty Stafford (2010), Dvaita, Advaita, and Viśiṣṭādvaita. "Contrasting Views of Mokṣa, Asian Philosophy". An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp. 215–224
In the Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankara, only Atman-Brahman is ultimately real; the individual jivAtman is ultimately non-different from Atman-Brahman, pure awareness, the witness-consciousness.Joseph Milne (1997), "Advaita Vedanta and typologies of multiplicity and unity: An interpretation of nondual knowledge", International Journal of Hindu Studies, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 165–188Craig, Edward (general editor) (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy: Luther to Nifo, Volume 6. Taylor & Francis. , . Source: [3] (accessed: Thursday 22 April 2010), p.476 According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality.PT Raju (2006), Idealistic Thought of India, Routledge, , p. 426 and Conclusion chapter part XII
The Mahāvākyas, as documented in the Upanishads, explain the unity of Brahman and Atman and form the basis of the Advaita Vedanta tradition. MAHAVAKYAS, Ayam Atma Brahma: Self is Absolute Entity, www.classicyoga.co.in (ইংরেজি ভাষায়)
Mahadevan suggests that Gaudapada 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.John Plott (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Patristic-Sutra period (325 – 800 AD), Volume 3, Motilal Banarsidass, , pp. 285–288 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. Shankara harmonised Gaudapada's ideas with the Upanishadic texts. 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".
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 the Prasthanatrayi ("The three courses") – namely the , the Gita, and the Brahmasutra – are to be interpreted in a way that shows this unity in diversity, for any other way would violate their consistency.
Vedanta Desika defines Vishishtadvaita using the statement: Asesha Chit-Achit Prakaaram Brahmaikameva Tatvam – "Brahman, as qualified by the sentient and insentient modes (or attributes), is the only reality."
It's development was influenced by Unitarian Universalism and western esoteric traditions, especially Transcendentalism, New Thought and Theosophy.
Neo-Vedanta, as represented by Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan, is indebted to Advaita vedanta, but also reflects Advaya-philosophy. A main influence on neo-Advaita was Ramakrishna, himself a Bhakti and tantrika, and the guru of Vivekananda. According to Michael Taft, Ramakrishna reconciled the dualism of formlessness and form. 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".
Radhakrishnan acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the absolute or Brahman. According to Anil Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita "reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism":
According to Michael Hawley, Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion of maya. According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute idealism, but "a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real". 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 scholar Prakasatman, founder of the influential Vivarana school, who introduced the notion that the world is illusory. According to Hacker, maya is not a prominent theme for Shankara, in contrast to the later Advaita tradition, and "the word maya has for Shankara hardly any terminological weight."
According to Sarma, standing in the tradition of Nisargadatta Maharaj, Advaitavāda means "spiritual non-dualism or absolutism", in which opposites are manifestations of the Absolute, which itself is immanent and transcendent:
Neo-Vedanta was well-received among Theosophists, Christian Science, and the New Thought movement; Christian Science in turn influenced the self-study teaching A Course in Miracles.
Kashmir Shaivism is a school of Śaivism, described by Abhinavagupta as "paradvaita", meaning "the supreme and absolute non-dualism". It is categorized by various scholars as monisticKashmir Shaivism: The Secret Supreme, Swami Lakshman Jee, pp. 103 idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism,The Trika Śaivism of Kashmir, Moti Lal Pandit realistic idealism, transcendental physicalism or concrete monism).
Kashmir Saivism is based on a strong monistic interpretation of the Bhairava Tantras and its subcategory the Kaula Tantras, which were tantras written by the Kapalikas. There was additionally a revelation of the Shiva Sutras to Vasugupta. Kashmir Saivism claimed to supersede the dualistic Shaiva Siddhanta. Somananda, the first theologian of monistic Saivism, was the teacher of Utpaladeva, who was the grand-teacher of Abhinavagupta, who in turn was the teacher of Kshemaraja.
The philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism can be seen in contrast to Shankara's Advaita. 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 or Brahman.Pratyãbhijñahṛdayam, Jaideva Singh, Moltilal Banarsidass, 2008 p.24-26The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism, By Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, p.44 Kashmir Shavisim sees the phenomenal world ( Shakti) as real: it exists, and has its being in Consciousness ( Chit).Ksemaraja, trans. by Jaidev Singh, Spanda Karikas: The Divine Creative Pulsation, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 119
Kashmir Shaivism was influenced by, and took over doctrines from, several orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical traditions. These include Vedanta, Samkhya, Patanjali Yoga and Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including Yogacara and Madhyamika, but also Tantra and the Nath-tradition.
There are different Buddhist views which resonate with the concepts and experiences of primordial awareness and non-duality or "not two" ( advaya). The Gautama Buddha does not use the term advaya in the earliest Buddhist texts, but it does appear in some of the Mahayana sutras, such as the Vimalakīrti.Watson, Burton, The Vimalakirti Sutra, Columbia University Press, 1997, p. 104. The Buddha taught meditative inquiry ( dhyana) and nondiscursive attention ( samadhi).
Stanislaw Schayer, a Polish scholar, argued in the 1930s that the Nikayas preserve elements of an archaic form of Buddhism which is close to Brahmanical beliefs, and survived in the Mahayana tradition. Schayer's view, possibly referring to texts where "'consciousness' ( vinnana) seems to be the ultimate reality or substratum" as well as to luminous mind, saw nirvana as an immortal, deathless sphere, a transmundane reality or state. A similar view is also defended by C. Lindtner, who argues that in precanonical Buddhism nirvana is an actual existent. The original and early Buddhist concepts of nirvana may have been similar to those found in competing Śramaṇa (strivers/ascetics) traditions such as Jainism and Upanishadic Vedism. Similar ideas were proposed by Edward Conze and M. Falk, citing sources which speak of an eternal and "invisible infinite consciousness, which shines everywhere" as point to the view that nirvana is a kind of Absolute, and arguing that the nirvanic element, as an "essence" or pure consciousness, is immanent within samsara, an "abode" or "place" of prajña, which is gained by the enlightened.M. Falk (1943), Nama-rupa and Dharma-rupa
In the Theravada tradition, nibbāna is regarded as an uncompounded or unconditioned ( asankhata) Abhidharma (phenomenon, event) which is "transmundane", and which is beyond our normal dualistic conceptions.
The term is given no direct doctrinal explanation in the Pali discourses, but later Buddhist schools explained it using various concepts developed by them.Harvey, page 99. The Theravada school identifies the "luminous mind" with the bhavanga, a concept first proposed in the Theravāda Abhidhamma.Collins, page 238. The later schools of the Mahayana identify it with both the Mahayana concepts of bodhicitta and tathagatagarbha. The notion is of central importance in the philosophy and practice of Dzogchen.
There various interpretations and views on Buddha-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 of tathagata-garbha into the Yogācāra system. The influence of this hybrid school can be seen in texts like the Lankavatara Sutra and the Ratnagotravibhaga. This synthesis of Yogācāra tathagata-garbha became very influential in later Buddhist traditions, such as Indian Vajrayana, Chinese Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism.Brunnhölzl, Karl , When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra, Shambhala Publications, 2015, p. 118.
One of the Sanskrit Mahayana sutras, the Vimalakirti 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.Watson, Burton, The Vimalakirti Sutra, Columbia University Press, 1997, pp. 104–106. The final character to attempt to describe ultimate reality is the bodhisattva Manjushri, who states:
It is in all beings wordless, speechless, shows no signs, is not possible of cognizance, and is above all questioning and answering.
Vimalakirti 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). The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, a text associated with Yogachara Buddhism, also uses the term " advaya" extensively.McCagney, Nancy, Nāgārjuna and the Philosophy of Openness, Rowman & Littlefield, 1 January 1997, p. 129.
In the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy of Madhyamaka, the two truths or ways of understanding reality, are said to be advaya (not two). As explained by the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna, there is a non-dual relationship, that is, there is no absolute separation, between conventional and ultimate truth, as well as between samsara and nirvana.
The concept of nonduality is also important in the other major Indian Mahayana tradition, the Yogachara school, where it is seen as the absence of duality between the perceiving subject (or "grasper") and the object (or "grasped"). It is also seen as an explanation of emptiness 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 individual Mindstream and thus Yogacara does not teach an idealistic monism.Kochumuttom, Thomas A. (1999), A buddhist Doctrine of Experience. A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu the Yogacarin, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 1.
These basic ideas have continued to influence Mahayana Buddhist doctrinal interpretations of Buddhist traditions such as Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Zen, Huayan and Tiantai as well as concepts such as Buddha-nature, luminous mind, Indra's net, rigpa and shentong.
In Madhyamaka, the two truths doctrine refer to conventional ( saṃvṛti) and ultimate ( paramārtha) truth. The ultimate truth is Sunyata, or non-existence of inherently existing things, 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, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK).
As Jay Garfield notes, for Nagarjuna, to understand the two truths as totally different from each other is to reify 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 of nihilism) or deny the dependent origination of phenomena (by positing eternal ). Thus the non-dual doctrine of the Middle Way lies beyond these two extremes.
Emptiness is a consequence of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising), the teaching that no dharma ("thing", "phenomena") has an existence of its own, but always comes into existence in dependence on other dharmas. According to Madhyamaka all dharma phenomena are empty of substance or essence () because they are dependently 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 as Brahman or Self. In the highest sense, "ultimate reality" is not an ontological Absolute 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 such reifications and Conceptual proliferations.Abruzzi; McGandy et al., Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Thomson-Gale, 2003, p. 515. 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. 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:
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 the Buddha Dharma.
Yuichi Kajiyama states that the later Madhyamikas developed the Advaya definition as a means to Nirvikalpa-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". Thus, the Buddhist nondualism or Advaya concept became a means to realizing absolute emptiness.
Yogācāra also taught the doctrine which held that only mental cognitions really exist ( vijñapti-mātra), instead of the mind-body dualism of other Indian Buddhist schools. This is another sense in which reality can be said to be non-dual, because it is "consciousness-only".Raymond E. Robertson, Zhongguo ren min da xue. Guo xue yuan, A Study of the Dharmadharmatavibhanga: Vasubandhu's commentary and three critical editions of the root texts, with a modern commentary from the perspective of the rNying ma tradition by Master Tam Shek-wing. Sino-Tibetan Buddhist Studies Association in North America, China Tibetology Publishing House, 2008, p. 218. There are several interpretations of this main theory, which has been widely translated as representation-only, ideation-only, impressions-only and perception-only.Cameron Hall, Bruce, The Meaning of Vijnapti in Vasubandhu's Concept of Mind, JIABS Vol 9, 1986, Number 1, p. 7.Siderits, Mark, Buddhism as philosophy , 2017, p. 146. Some scholars see it as a kind of subjective or epistemic Idealism (similar to Kant's theory) while others argue that it is closer to a kind of phenomenology or representationalism. 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."Siderits, Mark, Buddhism as philosophy, 2017, p. 149. For Alex Wayman, this doctrine means that "the mind has only a report or representation of what the sense organ had sensed." Jay Garfield and Paul Williams both see the doctrine as a kind of Idealism in which only mentality exists.Garfield, Jay L. Vasubandhu's treatise on the three natures translated from the Tibetan edition with a commentary, Asian Philosophy, Volume 7, 1997, Issue 2, pp. 133–154.
However, even the idealistic interpretation of Yogācāra is not an absolute Monism idealism like Advaita Vedanta or Hegelianism, since in Yogācāra, even consciousness "enjoys no transcendent status" and is just a conventional reality. Indeed, according to Jonathan Gold, for Yogācāra, the ultimate truth is not consciousness, but an ineffable and inconceivable "thusness" or "thatness" ( tathatā). Also, Yogācāra affirms the existence of individual , and thus Kochumuttom also calls it a realistic pluralism.
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:Siderits, Mark, Buddhism as philosophy, 2017, pp. 177–178.
To move from the duality of the Parikalpita to the non-dual consciousness of the Pariniṣpanna, Yogācāra teaches that there must be a transformation of consciousness, which is called the "revolution of the basis" ( parāvṛtty-āśraya). According to Dan 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.).Lusthaus, Dan, Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun, Routledge, 2014, p. 327.
The Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra, a Yogācāra text, also associates this transformation with the concept of non-abiding nirvana and the non-duality of samsara and nirvana. Regarding this state of Buddhahood, 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).
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. 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.Nagao, Gadjin M. Madhyamika and Yogacara: A Study of Mahayana Philosophies, SUNY Press, 1991, p. 28.
For the later thinker Dignaga, non-dual knowledge or advayajñāna is also a synonym for Prajnaparamita (transcendent wisdom) which liberates one from samsara.Harris, Ian Charles, The Continuity of Madhyamaka and Yogācāra in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, BRILL, 1991, p. 52.
Buddhist Tantras also promote certain practices which are Antinomianism, such as Sexual ritual 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).Wedemeyer, Christian K. Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions, Columbia University Press, 6 May 2014, p. 145.
Indian Buddhist Tantra also views humans as a microcosmos which mirrors the macrocosmos. Its aim is to gain access to the awakened energy or consciousness of Buddhahood, which is nondual, through various practices.
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. In this theory, the absolute is essence, the relative is function. They can't be seen as separate realities, but interpenetrate each other. 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 like Tiantai and Zen, which also upheld their own unique teachings on non-duality.
The Tiantai 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. Tiantai metaphysics is an immanent holism, 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. Each moment of consciousness is simply the Absolute itself, infinitely immanent and self reflecting.
Two doctrines of the Huayan (Flower Garland), which flourished in China during the Tang period, are considered nondual by some scholars. King writes that the Four Dharmadhatu and the doctrine of the mutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena ( dharmas) or "perfect interfusion" ( yuanrong, 圓融) are classic nondual doctrines. This can be described as the idea that all dharmas "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." 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. Another Huayan metaphor used to express this view, called Indra's net, is also considered nondual by some.
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". The Prajnaparamita Sutras emphasize the non-duality of form and emptiness: form is emptiness, emptiness is form, as the Heart Sutra says. According to Chinul, Zen points not to mere emptiness, but to suchness or the dharmadhatu.
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 as Five Ranks and the Ten Bulls.
The continuous pondering of the break-through kōan ( shokan) or Hua Tou, "word head", leads to kensho, an initial insight into "seeing the Buddha-nature". According to Victor Sogen Hori, a central theme of many koans is the "identity of opposites", and point to the original nonduality. Hori describes kensho, when attained through Koan, as the absence of subject–object duality. The aim of the so-called break-through koan is to see the "nonduality of subject and object", in which "subject and object are no longer separate and distinct".
Zen Buddhist training does not end with kenshō. Practice is to be continued to deepen the insight and to express it in daily life, to fully manifest the nonduality of absolute and relative. 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 by Linji Yixuan in his Three Mysterious Gates, the Four Ways of Knowing of Hakuin, the Five Ranks, and the Ten Bulls which detail the steps on the Path.
Shentong is a philosophical sub-school found in Tibetan Buddhism. Its adherents generally hold that the nature of mind ( svasaṃvedana), the substratum of the mindstream, is "empty" () of "other" (), 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, and is present primarily as the main philosophical theory of the Jonang school, although it is also taught by the Sakya and Kagyu schools. (2005). 9781877294358, Zhyisil Chokyi Ghatsal Charitable Trust. ISBN 9781877294358 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 is prabhāśvara-mindstream, or "luminous mindstream" endowed with limitless Buddha qualities. Lama Shenpen, Emptiness Teachings. Buddhism Connect (accessed March, 2010) It is empty of all that is false, not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
The contrasting Prasaṅgika view that all phenomena are sunyata, empty of self-nature, and that this "emptiness" is not a concretely existing "absolute" reality, is labeled rangtong, "empty of self-nature".
The shentong-view is related to the Ratnagotravibhāga sutra and the Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis of Śāntarakṣita. 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.
Karma Lingpa (1326–1386) revealed "Self-Liberation through seeing with naked awareness" ( rigpa ngo-sprod,) which is attributed to Padmasambhava. The text gives an introduction, or pointing-out instruction ( ngo-spro), into rigpa, the state of presence and awareness. In this text, Karma Lingpa writes the following regarding the unity of various terms for nonduality:
Garab Dorje's three statements were integrated into the Nyingthig traditions, the most popular of which in the Longchen Nyingthig by Jigme Lingpa (1730–1798). The statements are:
Taoism's wu wei (Chinese wu, not; wei, doing) is a term with various translations 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.
Central elements in the western traditions are Neo-Platonism, which had a strong influence on Christian contemplation or mysticism, and its accompanying apophatic theology.
A number of similarities have been noted between the Pyrrhonism works of Sextus Empiricius and that of Nagarjuna, the Madhyamaka Buddhist philosopher from the 2nd or 3rd century CE.Conze, Edward. Buddhist Philosophy and Its European Parallels. Philosophy East and West 13, p.9-23, no.1, January 1963. University press of Hawaii. Diogenes Laërtius' biography of Pyrrho reports that Pyrrho traveled with Alexander the Great's army to India and incorporated what he learned from the Gymnosophists and the Magi that he met in his travels into his philosophical system. Pyrrho would have spent about 18 months in Taxila as part of Alexander the Great's court during Alexander's conquest of the east.Adrian Kuzminski, Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism 2008 Christopher I. Beckwith draws comparisons between the Buddhist three marks of existence and the concepts outlined in the "Aristocles Passage". Ajñana, which upheld radical skepticism, may have been a more powerful influence on Pyrrho than Buddhism. The Buddhists referred to Ajñana's adherents as Amarāvikkhepikas or "eel-wrigglers", due to their refusal to commit to a single doctrine. Scholars including Benimadhab Barua, 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 valued ataraxia, which can be translated as "freedom from worry".
The Stoics 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 a logos, or philosophical discourse, which includes the mind's rational dialogue with itself.
Neopythagoreanism was an attempt to re-introduce a Mysticism religious element into Hellenistic 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 to Pythagoras and Plato. They went back to the later period of Plato's thought, the period when Plato endeavoured to combine his theory of forms with Pythagorean number theory, and identified the good with the monad (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".
Baruch Spinoza's formulation of pantheism in the 17th century constitutes a seminal European manifestation of nondualism. His philosophical work, especially expounded in Ethics 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, challenging René Descartes' dualistic perspective.
One of Friedrich 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." This idea is explored in his book On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense. His scrutiny of conventional thought and language urges a departure from linguistic boundaries. This perspective aligns with the nondual notion of transcending dualistic concepts and engaging with reality in a more immediate, intuitive manner.
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 include Quantum mysticism, which links spirituality to quantum mechanics and posits that consciousness causes collapse, and Integral theory by Ken Wilber, a metatheory unifying Western models and Eastern meditative traditions.
Apophatic theology is derived from Neo-Platonism via Pseudo-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 is Meister Eckhart, who also attracted attention from Zen-Buddhists like D.T. Suzuki in modern times, due to the similarities between Buddhist thought and Neo-Platonism.
The Cloud of Unknowing – an anonymous work of Christian mysticism written in Middle English in the latter half of the 14th century – advocates a mystic relationship with God. The text describes a spirtuality union with God through the heart. The author of the text advocates centering 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 intense contemplation, motivated by love, and stripped of all thought.Paul de Jaegher Christian Mystics of the Middle Ages: An Anthology of Writings, translated by Donald Attwater 2004, p. 86
Thomism, though not non-dual in the ordinary sense, considers the unity of God so absolute that even the duality of subject and predicate, to describe him, can be true only by analogy. In Thomist thought, even the Tetragrammaton is only an approximate name, since "I am" involves a predicate whose own essence is its subject.Koren, Henry J (1955). An Introduction to the Science of Metaphysics. B. Herder Book Co. ,
The former nun and contemplative Bernadette Roberts is considered a nondualist by Jerry Katz.
Hypostatic union is an incomplete form of non-duality applied to a tertiary entity, neglecting the subjective self.
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.
Elias Amidon describes this common essence as an "indescribable but definitely recognizable reality" that serves as the ground of all being. He suggests that various spiritual traditions refer to this reality by different names, including:
Philosopher Keith Yandell further critiques the common-core thesis by distinguishing five distinct categories of religious experiences, each tied to a specific doctrinal framework:
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. 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.
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.
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.
|
|
