

by
Bhikkhu Bodhi

1
2
  

Dhamma
and
Non-duality

by
Bhikkhu Bodhi
1998

Buddhist Publication Society

Newsletter cover essays #27
Copyright © 1994, 1995 Buddhist Publication Society

________________________________________

For free distribution only

 

3
  Contents 
σελ.
Part 1: Non-duality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Part 1: The Noble (Ariyan) Dhamma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

About the author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


 

4
  

Part 1
Non-duality

ne of the most challenging issues facing Theravada

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

My first preliminary remark would be to insist that a system

of meditative practice does not constitute a self-contained
discipline. Any authentic system of spiritual practice is al-
ways found embedded within a conceptual matrix that de-
fines the problems the practice is intended to solve and the
goal towards which it is directed. Hence the merging of tech-
niques grounded in incompatible conceptual frameworks is
fraught with risk. Although such mergers may appease a pre-
dilection for experimentation or eclecticism, it seems likely
that their long-term effect will be to create a certain “cogni-
tive dissonance” that will reverberate through the deeper
levels of the psyche and stir up even greater confusion.
5
My second remark would be to point out simply that non-
dualistic spiritual traditions are far from consistent with each
other, but comprise, rather, a wide variety of views profound-
ly different and inevitably colored by the broader conceptual
contours of the philosophies which encompass them.

For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of

an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost
self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground
of the world. From the standpoint of the highest realization,
only one ultimate reality exists—which is simultaneously At-
man and Brahman—and the aim of the spiritual quest is to
know that one's own true self, the Atman, is the timeless real-
ity which is: Being, Awareness, Bliss (Sat Cit Ānanda). Since all
schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can
accept the non-dualism of Vedanta. From the perspective of
the Theravada tradition, any quest for the discovery of self-
hood, whether as a permanent individual self or as an abso-
lute universal self, would have to be dismissed as a delusion, a
metaphysical blunder born from a failure to properly com-
prehend the nature of concrete experience. According to the
Pali Suttas, the individual being is merely a complex unity of
the five aggregates, which are all stamped with the three
marks of impermanence, suffering, and selflessness. Any pos-
tulation of selfhood in regard to this compound of transient,
conditioned phenomena is an instance of “personality view”
(sakkāyadiṭṭhi), the most basic fetter that binds beings to the
round of rebirths (saṃsāra). The attainment of liberation, for
Buddhism, does not come to pass by the realization of a true
self or absolute “I,” but through the dissolution of even the
subtlest sense of selfhood in relation to the five aggregates,
“the abolition of all I-making (ahaṃ-kāra), mine-making
(mamaṃ-kāra), and underlying tendencies to conceit (māna).”

6
The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, con-
cur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of
view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there
is no ultimate difference between saṃsāra and Nirvāna, de-
filement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the
Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is de-
signed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this
non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional duali-
ties (dvaitatā) is denied because the ultimate nature of all
phenomena is emptiness (sunyatā), the lack of any substantial
or intrinsic reality (= niḥsvabhāva), and hence in their empti-
ness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited
by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: “All dhar-
mas (phenomena) have one nature, which is no-nature (niḥ-
svabhāva).”

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does

not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor,
I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying
implicit within the Buddha's discourses. At the same time,
however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose
dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis
aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Bud-
dha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than
speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that
this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but
finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha
penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-
dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the
discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our expe-
rience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living
experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and
tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it
attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of hu-

7
man existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the
polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity (ekattā) but
the extinction of suffering (dukkha), which brings the resolu-
tion of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.

When we investigate our experience exactly as it presents

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

At the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the

conditioned and the Unconditioned: saṃsāra as the round of
repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject
to change, and liable to suffering, and Nibbāna as the state of
final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Alt-
hough Nibbāna, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an
ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological
state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is
metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level
from its manifest opposite, saṃsāra. To the contrary, the
Buddha's repeated lesson is that saṃsāra is the realm of suf-
fering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we
have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while
Nibbāna is irreversible release from saṃsāra, to be attained
by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relin-
quishing all conditioned existence.

8
Thus the Theravada makes the antithesis of saṃsāra and
Nibbāna the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance.
Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the
final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of saṃsāra
and the attainment of liberation in Nibbāna. Where Therava-
da differs significantly from the Mahayana schools, which
also start with the duality of saṃsāra and Nirvāna, is in its
refusal to regard this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson
tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually super-
seded by some higher realization of non-duality. From the
standpoint of the Pali Suttas, even for the Buddha and the
Arahants suffering and its cessation, saṃsāra and Nibbāna,
remain distinct.

Spiritual seekers still exploring the different contemplative

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

However, it is just this assumption that I would challenge. I

would assert, by reference to the Buddha's own original
teaching, that profundity and completeness need not be
bought at the price of distinctions, that they can be achieved
at the highest level while preserving intact the dualities and
diversity so strikingly evident to mature reflection on the
world. I would add, moreover, that the teaching which insists
on recognizing real dualities as they are is finally more satis-
factory. The reason it is more satisfactory, despite its denial

9
of the mind's yearning for a comprehensive unity, is because
it takes account of another factor which overrides in im-
portance the quest for unity. This “something else” is the
need to remain grounded in actuality.

Where I think the teaching of the Buddha, as preserved in the

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

 

10
  

Part 2
The Noble (Ariyan) Dhamma
n this sequel to the previous essay, I intend to discuss
I three major areas of difference between the Buddha's
Teaching, which we may refer to here as “the Noble
(Ariyan) Dhamma,” and the philosophies of non-duality.
These areas correspond to the three divisions of the Buddhist
path—virtue (sīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (pañ-
ñā).

In regard to virtue (sīla) the distinction between the two

teachings is not immediately evident, as both generally af-
firm the importance of virtuous conduct at the start of train-
ing. The essential difference between them emerges, not at
the outset, but only later, in the way they evaluate the role of
morality in the advanced stages of the path. For the non-dual
systems, all dualities are finally transcended in the realiza-
tion of the non-dual reality, the Absolute or fundamental
ground. As the Absolute encompasses and transcends all di-
versity, for one who has realized it the distinctions between
good and evil, virtue and non-virtue, lose their ultimate va-
lidity. Such distinctions, it is said, are valid only at the con-
ventional level, not at the level of final realization; they are
binding on the trainee, not on the adept. Thus we find that in
their historical forms (particularly in Hindu and Buddhist
Tantra), philosophies of non-duality hold that the conduct of
the enlightened sage cannot be circumscribed by moral rules.
The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of
good and evil. He acts spontaneously from his intuition of the
Ultimate and therefore is no longer bound by the rules of

11
morality valid for those still struggling towards the light. His
behaviour is an elusive, incomprehensible outflow of what
has been called “crazy wisdom.”

For the Ariyan Dhamma, the distinction between the two

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

In the sphere of meditation practice or concentration (samādhi),

we again find a striking difference in outlook between the
non-dual systems and the Ariyan Dhamma. Since, for the
non-dual systems, distinctions are ultimately unreal, medita-
tion practice is not explicitly oriented towards the removal of
mental defilements (kilesa) and the cultivation of virtuous
states of mind. In these systems, it is often said that defile-
ments are mere appearances devoid of intrinsic reality
(niḥsvabhāva), even manifestations of the Absolute. Hence to
engage in a programme of practice to overcome them is an
exercise in futility, like fleeing from an apparitional demon:
to seek to eliminate defilements is to reinforce the illusion of
duality. The meditative themes that ripple through the non-
dual currents of thought declare: “no defilement and no puri-

12
ty”; “the defilements are in essence the same as transcendent
wisdom”; “it is by passion that passion is removed.”

In the Ariyan Dhamma, the practice of meditation unfolds

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

Finally, in the domain of wisdom (paññā) the Ariyan Dhamma

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

13
In the Ariyan Dhamma wisdom aims at seeing and knowing
things as they really are (yathābhūta ñāṇadassana). Hence, to
know things as they are, wisdom must respect phenomena in
their precise particularity. Wisdom leaves diversity and plu-
rality untouched. It instead seeks to uncover the characteris-
tics of phenomena, to gain insight (vipassana) into their quali-
ties and structures. It moves, not in the direction of an all-
embracing identification with the “All” (Sarva), but towards
disengagement and detachment, release from the All. The
cultivation of wisdom in no way “undermines” concrete phe-
nomena by reducing them to appearances, nor does it treat
them as windows opening to some fundamental ground. In-
stead it investigates and discerns, in order to understand
things as they are: “And what does one understand as it really
is? One understands: Such is form, such its arising and pass-
ing away. Such is feeling... perception... formations... con-
sciousness, such its arising and passing away.” “When one
sees, 'All formations are impermanent, all are suffering, eve-
rything is not self,' one turns away from suffering: this is the
path to purity.”

Spiritual systems are colored as much by their favourite simi-

les as by their formulated tenets. For the non-dual systems,
two similes stand out as predominant. One is space, which
simultaneously encompasses all and permeates all yet is
nothing concrete in itself; the other is the ocean, which re-
mains self-identical beneath the changing multitude of its
waves. The similes used within the Ariyan Dhamma are high-
ly diverse, but one theme that unites many of them is acuity
of vision—vision which discerns the panorama of visible
forms clearly and precisely, each in its own individuality: “It
is just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, lim-
pid, undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on
the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also shoals

14
of fish swimming about and resting. He might think: 'There is
this lake, clear, limpid, undisturbed, and there are these
shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish
swimming about and resting.' So too a monk understands as
it actually is: 'This is suffering (dukkha), this is the origin of
suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, this is the way
leading to the cessation of suffering.' When he knows and
sees thus his mind is liberated from the cankers (āsava), and
with the mind's liberation he knows that he is liberated” (MN
39).
________________________________________
Revised: Sun 3 October 1999
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay27.html

 

About the Author

Bhikkhu Bodhi (born in 1944) is an American Buddhist monk

of the Theravada tradition. In 1972, he obtained a PhD in phi-
losophy from the Claremont Graduate University. In 1967,
while still a graduate student, Bodhi was ordained as as a
śrāmaṇera (novitiate) in the Vietnamese Mahayana order.
However in 1972, after graduating, Bodhi traveled to Sri
Lanka where he received full ordination (Upasampadā) as a
Theravada bhikkhu or monk.

For many years he was the president and editor-in-chief of

the Buddhist Publication Society and has edited several pub-
lications based on the Theravada Buddhist tradition. Famous
for the systematic and brilliant translations of the Theravada
Buddhist scriptures, he has many important publications in
his credit.
15