I know by frequent experience that there is nothing which puts the devils to fli ght like holy water.
Let nothing disturb you. Let nothing make you afraid. All things are passing. God alone never changes. Patience gains all things.
If you have God you will want for nothing. God alone suffices.
St Teresa, The bookmark of Teresa of Ávila,
Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours, Yours are the eyes with which he looks Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world. Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body. Christ has no body now but yours, No hands, no feet on earth but yours, Yours are the eyes with which he looks compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours. Teresa of Ávila
Lao Tsu. "If you don't realize the source, you stumble in confusion and sorrow. When you realize where you come from, you naturally become tolerant, disinterest ed, amused, kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king, immersed in the w onder of the Tao, you can deal with whatever life brings you, and when death com es, you are ready."
G.I. Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff's approach to enlightenment involved observing one's l ife, not trying to change it, but observing it so closely that one becomes aware of what is underneath it. Instrumental to his teachings was that the individual need not follow anyone else's path but his own, and in seeking enlightenment, o ne must look within, question one's motives, and go through a process of what he called self-remembering.
Guru Nanak. Guru Nanak taught that it is God who prevails and that man ?however great he may be? is only the channel, the instrument for the flow of Divine Wisd om. Men are meant to praise God, and to teach others to do so, not to become obj ects of worship themselves.
Ramana Maharishi. There is such warmth, light, delight and playful humor to his teachings. Ramana taught self-inquiry. He encouraged people to bring full attent ion to a thought, and by becoming absorbed in the thought, find the source. As a ll phenomenon arises from the source, following any thought back to the source l eads to realization of the true nature of the Self. Ramana was often silent, bli ssful, peaceful and shining with radiance, expanding to include all beings in hi
s awareness.
Ramana Maharshi Attaining sudden self-realization at the age of 16, Ramana Mah arshi (1879-1950) is one of the great sages of modern India. On the holy mountai n Arunachalam, he taught seekers to meditate upon the question "Who am I?" He wr ote, "One can thus attain immortal consciousness and awaken to the true self, Go d, the real nature of man."
"Someone who is a clever speaker and maintains a 'too-smiley' face is seldom con sidered a person of jen."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
"Each day I examine myself in three ways: in doing things for others, have I bee n disloyal? In my interactions with friends, have I been untrustworthy? Have not practiced what I have preached?"
"If you would govern a state of a thousand chariots (a small-to-middle-size stat e), you must pay strict attention to business, be true to your word, be economic al in expenditure and love the people. You should use them according to the seas ons."
"A young man should serve his parents at home and be respectful to elders outsid e his home. He should be earnest and truthful, loving all, but become intimate w ith jen. After doing this, if he has energy to spare, he can study literature an d the arts."
"If the Superior Man is not 'heavy,' then he will not inspire awe in others. If he is not learned, then he will not be on firm ground. He takes loyalty and good faith to be of primary importance, and has no friends who are not of equal (mor al) caliber. When he makes a mistake, he doesn't hesitate to correct it."
"When your father is alive, observe his will. When your father is dead observe h is former actions. If, for three years you do not change from the ways of your f ather, you can be called a 'real son (hsiao).'"
"When the Superior Man eats he does not try to stuff himself; at rest he does no t seek perfect comfort; he is diligent in his work and careful in speech. He ava ils himself to people of the Tao and thereby corrects himself. This is the kind of person of whom you can say, 'he loves learning.'"
d he gets the whole point."
"If you govern with the power of your virtue, you will be like the North Star. I t just stays in its place while all the other stars position themselves around i t."
"If you govern the people legalistically and control them by punishment, they wi ll avoid crime, but have no personal sense of shame. If you govern them by means of virtue and control them with propriety, they will gain their own sense of sh ame, and thus correct themselves."
"At fifteen my heart was set on learning; at thirty I stood firm; at forty I had no more doubts; at fifty I knew the mandate of heaven; at sixty my ear was obed ient; at seventy I could follow my heart's desire without transgressing the norm ."
"I can talk with Hui for a whole day without him differing with me in any way--a s if he is stupid. But when he retires and I observe his personal affairs, it is quite clear that he is not stupid."
"Hafiz, there is no one in this world who is not looking for God. Everyone i s trudging along with as much
dignity, courage and style as they possibly can." - Hafiz
"The life of the believer is like a torrent making its way out of the h igh mountains down into the canyons
and chasms of life, passing through many experiences until finally comi ng to the spiritual experience of
death. From there, the torrent experiences resurrection and a life live d in concert with the will of God while
still going through many stages of refinement. At last the torrent find s its way into the vast, unlimited sea.
Even here the torrent does not totally come to be one with the vast oce an until it has once more passed
through final dealings by the Lord." - Madame Guyon
"There are men of enlightenment who cannot throw down a bridge from whe re they are to where they once
were, so that others too can cross over. They do not know or cannot des cribe in detail the way which others
must follow to reach the goal. Such men are not the teaching masters, a nd should not be mistaken for them...
The man of enlightenment who has never been a learner, who suddenly gai ned his state by the overwhelming
good karma of previous lives, is less able to teach others than the one who slowly and laboriously worked his
way into the state - who remembers the trials, pitfalls, and difficulti es he had to overcome."
- Paul Brunton
"Once a man came to Bhagavan. One of them addressing Bhagavan said, "My friend has taken as his guru a man
who is not even a sadhu. To show him what a sadguru should be, I have b rought him here." Bhagavan replied sternly,
"Who are you to say who is the right guru for him? By what power can yo u make out what a man really is? In fact,
the guru is not as important as the disciple himself. If one worships w ith utmost devotion, even a stone would become
the Supreme Lord."
- Ramana Maharshi
Emptiness Is 'Empty'
se does so, his talk is mere babble. (1) - Paul Brunton (PB)
"The sravaka is enlightened but going astray; the ordinary man is out of the right path and yet in a way enlightened. The sravaka fails to perceive that Mind as it is in itself knows no stages, no causation, no imagination. Disciplining himself in the cause he has attained the result and abides in the samadhi of emp tiness itself for ever so many kalpas. However enlightened in his way, the srava ka is not at all on the right track. From the point of view of the bodhisattva, this is like suffering the torture of hell. The sravaka has buried himself in em ptiness and does not know how to get out of his quiet contemplation for he has n o insight into the buddha-nature itself." - Shih-Tou
"Unwise people think that in the world of essence there should be no bloom of flowers and no fall of roses." - Zen Master Dogen
Nagarjuna's famous commentator, Chandrakirti, went so far as to say that thos e who take shunyata or emptiness as a point of view were philosophically doomed, and destined "to land in a self-condemned void." Nagarjuna himself said, "Belie vers in emptiness are hopelessly incurable." One modern writer called it the "su icide of enlightenment." What these men were saying is that traditional attempts to transcend, conquer, avoid, or ignore the relative world as the conceived sou rce of our bondage were even centuries ago inappropriate and fruitless, leading not to true spiritual realization, but rather nihilism and real emptiness of spi rit. This is becoming even more evident today. While in this paper we will more or less academically discuss the concept of emptiness, Madhyamika Buddhism or th e 'Middle Way' as an attempt to re-align itself with the original absolutism of the Buddha, its elaboration in the doctrine of shunyavada teachings of Nagarjuna , common misconceptions and traditional assumptions on the nature of realization , and also the nature of emptiness in these various traditions, we will also try to be practical and discuss what this doctrine really means in our modern world . "To incarnate or not to incarnate, that is the question" might be our central theme. Out of fear up to this point most have said we have incarnated too much, while out of love others now are saying that we have incarnated too little. This apparent dilemma is really at the heart of our discussion of emptiness, and on the subject of maya or illusion as well.
This article is fairly long, for which I ask in advance that the reader won't shoot me. "When you are condemned by the gods to write," said Arthur Machen, "y ou can't leave off." There is much to consider here, and this is meant to be a ' consideration'! There will also of necessity be some overlap between this and it s companion piece, Maya Is 'Maya', (which treats its subject from the point of v iew of Hinduism and Buddhism, along with extensive ontological discussion of Isl am and Taoism as exemplified by Ibn al 'Arabi and Chuang Tzu - and a bit of esot eric Christianity as well). Here we will offer the reader a mix of traditional s cholastic and practical writings and also contemporary renderings of the subject matter. It is a serious subject, but we will also try and inject a bit of levit y where possible.
Real people do not speak or write to no purpose. The reader must pay attention line to line, phrase to phrase, not letting a single word pass by lightly. - Li u I-ming, Commentary on Ch ang Ch un s Journey to the West (13th c.)
"A fixed idea is like a cramp in the foot; the best thing to do is to stomp o n it." - Soren Kierkegaard
"We shall read these old texts not to treat them as final authorities but to verify our own thought, and we shall quote them only to illustrate it." (2) - PB
Three ways of looking at 'emptiness'
'Emptiness can be confusing as it may be taken in three different ways: one, a s a methology of negation, wherein the inherent self-exiting nature of an object ive phenomena is seen as illusory, that is, as a dialectical methodology of unde rstanding the non-entitification of things, with no part existing in itself but only in relation with, or interdependence on, the whole; two, as a meditative tr ance state, a void of self-existing consciousness supposedly without attributes (we say 'supposedy' because even in formless nirvikalpa samadhi or its Buddhist equivalent state, while without phenomenal objects it is not entirely without co ntent - the unmanifest archtypal world image is still there, for the very defini tion of consciousness implies a content present to consciousness); and, three, a s a name for the non-conceptual, nondual, Reality Itself, in which emptiness and form are seen as two aspects of the same indescribable Essence. In Zen they mig ht say that our empirical world represents 'being', while a state of meditative void is 'non-being', and Reality beyond the polarized categories of both being a nd non-being is the 'Ultimate Void', where even 'Emptiness' is recognized as 'em pty of emptiness' inasmuch as it is also a construct of the mind. As such, 'Empt iness' is perhaps the most misunderstood concepts in Buddhism. Hopefully, it wil l become clearer as one proceeds through this article.
The biggest error is in reifying emptiness, that is, making it into any kind of thing whatsoever, however subtle:
"The Great Way is alive. It is not stuck in the realms of being or nothingnes s. To be stuck in the realm of being means to be attached to appearances. To be stuck in the realm of nothingness means to be attached to emptiness. Neither att achment to appearances or emptiness is the Way of the creative flow of heaven an d earth. Nor are they the sages' Way of true emptiness and subtle being." - Lu Y en, the Complete Reality School of Taoism, 7th century. (3)
Origins of Madhyamika Buddhism and similarities with Vedanta
First let it be stated that there are six main schools of Indian philosophy, of which Buddhism is one. All schools of Indian philosophy use Nyaya logic, crea ted by Gautama, and all schools, including Vedanta and Yoga, likewise employ var ious elements of the Samhkya philosophy of Kapila. The Buddha studied Samhkya ex tensively, and interesting enough his birthplace, Kapilavatsu, was the center of an ancient monestary of Kapila's. (4) Further, the Four Noble truths are found in the yoga sutras of Patanjali, and the word 'Nirvana' is found in the Vedas an d was not original to the Buddha. Therefore, it is no surprise for there to be m uch similarity between the teachings of the Buddha and the ancient rishis. Buddh a, a Hindu, in his day was a reformer of a decaying Vedic religion, while Guadap ada and Sankara also later worked to restore it to its ancient glory. Further, t he Hindus recognized the Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu, and early Therava da Buddhism, lacking such a devotional savior figure, adapted itself in Mahayana to that need with its elaboration of the three bodies of the Buddha: Dharmakaya , Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya. Tibetan Buddhism adopted kundalini yoga and tan tric teachings from Hinduism, so the cross-pollination was nearly complete. All ultimately trace back to the ancient Vedic teachings (which may be the origin of all other great religions as well).
What was seemingly unique in emphasis in the Buddha's teaching was the doctri ne of anatta, or 'no-self', which is where we will then begin.
Emptiness teachings essentially started with the Buddha, but were rejuvenated by the great sage, Nagarjuna, whose famous Madhyamika Karika, commented on by C handrakirti, begins with his famous eight-fold negation : no origination (ajatavada ); no cessation; no permanence; no momentariness; no identity; no difference; no
bondage; no liberation. If the reader finds similarity of these statements with those of Ramana Maharshi it is no surprise, because the Madyamika doctrines and methology of negation are very similar to those of the Guadapada and the Vedant ins. Also for Nagarjuna, the wheel of samsara or birth and death symbolized by d ukkha (suffering) is due to beginningless avidya or transcendental illusion whic h covers the real and projects through its innate thought-forms the world of phe nomena. This is nearly identical with the maya doctrine of Vedanta. The differen ce being that the Madyamika do not positive an absolute Self as the substratum f or the empirical reality, but go about asserting the same in a more round about way, while the Vedantins generally assert that maya is a relative power or aspec t of the Absolute. Nagarjuna used the four-fold logic rejecting 'eternalism', nih
ilism', both, or neither. Or, in laymens terms, it is, it isn t, it s both and neither . His principle purpose was to refute the nihilistic and eternalistic views of t
he Hinayana Buddhists, who had corrupted the anatman doctrine as well as transce ndental absolutism of the Buddha. For the Hinayanists, there had come to be beli eved that there were no individual souls, but real objects. The Madhyamika view was that both the empirical self and objects were devoid of inherent existence. The question of whether there was an individual soul was left unanswered by the Buddhists, but the Hinayanists converted the doctrine of no fixed empiritcal sel f to mean no self or eternal essence of any kind. For Nagarjuna, however, there was a transcendental reality, it just wasn t as it usually seems. So while he deco nstructed the universe, using the argument of the Buddha that the universe is be ginningless and endless, and something that does not exist in the beginning nor in the end can have no existence in the middle either, therefore, the universe w as unreal (an argument also used by Guadapada), Nagarjuna was not content, contr ary to popular opinion, to leave it as simply negation (after all he was a great tantric adept who got much of his teachings from the Nagas) but added that the Real wasshivam, or pure bliss, and beyond all conceptual categories of the mind, w hat Buddha called pratityasamutpada or what he called as shunyata.
The argument of the Buddha that there was no beginning and no ending, and the refore no middle, was stating negatively the Western counterpart that truth was in the beginning, middle, and end, i.e., therefore it is one, eternal. However, its advantage was that it voided the substantiality of both the ego and the obje ctive universe, and its realization leads to the indistinguishableness of emptin ess and compassion.
Restating, use of the term shunyata or emptiness was particularly emphasized by Nagarjuna who used the term to describe the absolute as having the characterist
ic of being empty or void of a self-nature or other eternally permanent characterist ics. All phenomena, even spiritual phenomena, are ultimately relatively fleeting
manifestations in a stream of endless transformations . Emptiness can be considere d, therefore, a characteristic of existence because it points to the lack of an eternal substance distinguishing one thing from another, while it is also the na ture of the individual self. True actualized realization of these two yields a s eamless flow of blissful reality. Again, the appearance of essence , even self-esse nce, is actually temporary and changing. All that persists is the uncharacteriza
ble absolute so the realization of the emptiness of all impermanent phenomena, eve n the self , is the same as the realization of its true nature, which is Buddha-nat ure (or the same as the Vedantic 'Self').
According to Buddhist metaphysics, the subtlest element or sixth skhanda is s elf, self-essence, or consciousness in this relative sense, sometimes actually e quated with the discriminative part of mind or buddhi (4a). Although it is the s ubtlest, most universal and apparently enduring (of the nature of 'clear light') , it, too, is one of the conditioned elements and is therefore part of samsara o r transitory phenomena. [However, in some places, such as the Saddha-tu-Sutta, t his sixth skhanda is termed vijnana, andis considered as consciousness in its tr ue sense, and not subject to change or death, so one needs to read these texts w ith some understanding]. The Buddha said There is, monks, something which is neit
her earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, neither boundless space, nor boundless consciousness . . That is why, too, the Buddha taught the doctrine of anatta or anat man, or non-atman, which is essentially the teaching that Nirvana is not to be c onfused with the jiva-atman or spiritual self (atma or atman in the theosophical and not the Vedantic sense). Beyond all elements (which in early Buddhist philo sophy there are actually seven: four with form and three formless) is Emptiness or Voidness, which is the context for all phenomena and their ultimate nature. T he term Emptiness in this ultimate sense, therefore, does not mean that reality or nondual is missing or lacking something, only that its nature is so transcend ent that it is not possible to attach any limiting label or characteristic to it . This negative formulation or method of description is typically Buddhist. The Buddha and Nagarjuna chose this method because assigning a positive characterist ic tends to have connotations of limitation. For example, 'the 'absolute' may su ggests lack of an ongoing process'; 'Brahma' may mean that perfection is here al ready, and 'God', well, that is a whole other ballgame - more conceptual limitat ion. So they settled on emptiness, or shunyata, which has no boundaries, yet is not nothing but no-thing, which is not really empty, but indescribable fullness, which is also called nothing! Get it? It is empty of conditional or limiting char acteristics, yet is the very ground or substance of all phenomena. Like any other name for the transcendent reality, of course, it is inherently limited and has s trengths and weaknesses when considered only conceptually or outside of a life o f practice. Such practice yields more and more the characteristic of life as lik e a dream, which is a sign that one is getting closer to the reality (not that y ou can get closer to reality, or that life is a dream); it is an experience that one can have that in itself produces as a byproduct a sense of calm and relief from the dukkha associated with separate existence.
Just a few words on dukkha. This is a Buddhist version of a common idea in ma ny traditions of an existential core pain or 'wound' of separation - the root wo und or pain at the essence of all dualistic experience. This root pain is at the foundation off all relativity, and is embedded in every being, every form, ever y elemental, every atom and subatomic particle. As the Buddhist's would say, eve ry 'being' and 'element' of samsara is fundamentally rooted in impermanence and dukkha. This comes to full expression and consciousness in beings such as humans who experience their relative existence with self-consciousness, though dualist ic consciousness pervades all relativity in some form. So no being or particle o f relativity is not rooted in this core existential reality of dukkha or dualist ic pain. Even if one attains trance samadhi, they will return to a personality t hat is still not fully liberated from this core pain. If they go further and ach eive sahaja samadhi, then their state of 'ordinary awareness' will have been lib erated from this 'core wound', but the remaining karma of their relative nature, as well as the very particles of nature that make up their lower bodies, will s till be tainted with this 'core' pain, though now deeply illumined and embraced by the sahaja presence of the liberated soul that dwells within. According to va rious tantric paths as well as Dzogchen, if the individual goes further in profo undly integrating this nondual state with the relative bodies, they will finally be so deeply and thoroughly liberated from the core pain of dualism that even t he very elements that make up the lower nature will be fully embraced in this st ate, which will result in 'the rainbow body' or 'light body'. This world will no t be able to understand and relate to such a being, and so, from the point of vi ew of those still too identified with this world, such a being will appear to no longer exist here. But that is not really true. They 'didn't go anywhere'. They , including their 'bodies', down to its very cells, are just no longer condition ed by the dualism and the core pain or dukkha of relativity/separation.
The purpose of emptiness teachings is to help one know this dukkha without a doubt as inherent in one's dualistic constitution and be able to lessen its grip . This takes time, with many vicissitudes and trials along the way. It requires a revolution in the innate way one perceives oneself and the world. It is not ju st a self-contained intellectual exercise.
The true meaning of the 'Middle Path' was not just the avoidance of the extre mes of asceticism, etc., but avoiding the extremes or polarities of sat and asat (being and non-being), one and many, eternalism and nihilism, purity and impuri ty, as well as avoiding the 'middle' also. Nagarjuna was not a nihilist, agnosti c, positivist, or sceptic; he was a spiritual absolutist who accepted a nondual, unlimited, unalloyed blissful Nirvana free of all thought-constructs and not ju st the negative elimination of suffering. Asanga called it pure self (shuddhatma ), universal self (mahatma), and highest self (paramatma). So for all this empha sis on negation the Buddhists also assigned positive terms to reality. Which is only natural as the Buddhist roots are essentially found in the ancient Vedas, s ame as the Hindus.
Simply put emptiness is a (non) position between the extremes of "everything exists independently', and 'nothing exists'. It is the absence of all conceptual viewpoints, and, as such, points to reality itself. However, don't think one ca n get to this position of the Zen and advaitic paradoxes, which belong to the en d of the path, not its beginning, without honoring and passing through the primo rdial or archypal forms of the mind representing the intermediate levels of prac tice. It is easy to confuse intellectual understanding with realization.
It follows from this, however, that bondage and liberation, samsara and nirva na are also, in a sense, unreal. And if bondage is unreal, the attainment of Nir vana, or moksha for the vedantists, is also only an appearance. Time, space, cau sation, self, object, difference, identity are all constructions of thought whic h are due to avidya. However, for practical purposes we must accept that Nirvana points to what is real.
The arising and the elimination of illusion are both illusory. Illusion is not something rooted in Reality; it exists because of your dualistic thinking. If y
ou will only cease to indulge in opposed concepts such as ordinary and Enlightened, illusion will cease of itself. And then if you still want to destroy it wherever
it may be, you will find that there is not a hairsbreadth left of anything on w hich to lay hold. This is the meaning of: I will let go with both hands, for then I shall certainly discover the Buddha in my mind. - Huang Po (5)
Coming at this from a different angle, anadi points to reality as what he cal ls 'absolute objectivity.' While it is generally considered that there is no sub ject without object, for effect and to make a point the following analogy holds well and is consistent with our definitions of Emptiness when meant as Reality a nd not an empty void :
"In the discipline of hard science, the term 'subjective experience' generall y denotes an experience that is relative in nature, and there-fore cannot be obj ectively described or confirmed. In contrast, the term 'objective experience' si gnifies an occurrence that is factually verifiable, and as such, independent of our individual experiences or opinions. The 'subjective observer' is therefore s een as an impediment to empirical analysis. However, in the science of spiritual ity, the subjective essence is understood to lie far deeper than the relative su bjectivity of the mind and personality. Our true subjectivity is in fact absolut ely 'objective' because it reflects the eternal light of universal I am."
"Despite the fact that in the language of meditation and consciousness the te rm 'objective' usually points to something external to I am, we should not assum e that the reality of objects and appearances is in existential opposition to pu re subjectivity. This is true only in the case of an unconscious person in whom the light of subjectivity is lost in ignorant identification with phenomenal exi stence. When pure subjectivity is fully realized it transcends the polarity of i nner and outer, containing them both in the space of all-pervasive oneness. Ulti mately, there is only one reality nothing exists outside of all-that-is." (5a)
[Note: within 'all-that-is' Anadi distinguishes between the 'I am' and the 'u niversal I AM'; he, so to speak, asks us to imaginatively posit a transcendental 'relationship' of 'subject-Subject' between soul and God. Absolute Subjectivity and Objectivity are not separate. The soul is not itself consciousness, per se, but has consciousness. Similarly, all-that-is also includes consciousness. See Dual Non-Dualism for more on his teaching, which is different than standard adva ita or other nondual schools]
For the Vedantists, the indescribability of Brahman doesn t means absolute indescr ibability , but only indescribability as either real or unreal, both, or neither,
which itself brings out the self-contradictory nature of avidya, and as such is its very merit, not a defect. The Vedantins found the shuyavada of its day as re garding everything including consciousness as indefinable and unreal and therefo re relational and false; the Vedantins, however, considered Consciousness as pur e, eternal, nondual, self-shining, the undeniable foundation of Reality.
In essence, the Madhyamika method of negation of the not-self was much like t hat of the Vedantins, in an attempt to get at the underlying essence of Reality. They employed a four-fold logic much as did Guadapada: not this, not that, not bo th nor neither. The chief difference in the two schools was that the Vedantins w ere not averse to pronouncing this substratum as the Self, in a positive sense,
through the use of Maha Vakyas , such as Thou art That , I Am Brahman , etc., whereas the early Buddhists had only seen the absence of a fixed empirical self and fell in
to nihilism, which the Madyamika teachings were designed to correct. By calling the Nirvanic truth - the original Absolutism of the Buddha - Emptiness , it was not meant to imply that Ultimate Reality was an experiential Void, or a separate st ate to be known. Rather, emptiness meant the deconstruction of the empirical self into its constituent elements, or five skhandas, revealing its relative absence or void-nature, with the Reality Itself to be revealed as the obvious [neverthel ess, this reality was also sometimes referred to as the Great Void or Emptiness] . This, however, for the Buddhists, was not just a philosophic exercise in discr imination, but,as mentioned above, was to be accompanied by many practical and s piritual disciplines and meditations (indeed, four meditations (dhyanas), four m editative joys (Brahma-viharas), three higher meditations (samadhi) six excellen ces (paramitas), whereas for the Vedantin, the same was achieved through the phi losophic discipline and the transmission of the adept or rishi. It has been deba ted whether yoga meditation was a necessary adjunct of this or not (see The Ques tion of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta]. Howe ver, to set to rest any doubt that qualifications were required to engage in ved antic study under a master, Sankara says, in his commentary to the Kena Upanisha d:
"The concentration of the body, the sense, and the mind are the means, for it is found that the knowledge of Brahman arises in a man who has attained the req uisite holiness by means of purification of the heart through these. Knowledge,a s imparted by the Vedas, dawns on one whose mind has been purified by concentrat ion, etc., either in this life or in many past ones, as mentioned by the Vedic v erse: 'These things get revealed when spoken to that high-souled man who has sup reme devotion towards the Effulgent One, and the same devotion to the teacher as to the Effulgent One' (Sv, VI.23). And this is borne out by the Smrti, 'Knowled ge dawns on a man on the eradication of sinful acts.' (Mbh,Sa. 204.8)." (6) This Upanishad, somewhat like the Buddhists, also suggested that consciousnes s was a relative term. In commenting on the verse, "Brahman is consciousness," S ankara states:
"Truly this is so. But even so, that aspect is indicated by such words as con sciousness, not from the intrinsic point of view, but merely with reference to t he limiting adjuncts - mind, body, and senses..But in reality, the conclusion wi
ll be: 'unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know.' (7) Thus Sankara, too, points to the transcendental absolute as beyond the catego ries of thought and conception.
Nagarjuna, as mentioned, not wanting to be left with no pointer to the absolu te, conceeded that it s attribute was bliss. However, the Madyamikas held to the v iew of the world as neither real nor unreal, but transcendental illusion; the ea rlier Buddhists a nihilistic shunya; whereas advaita held that reality cannot be the negation of an illusion, and that maya therefore essentially didn t exist as other than Brahman. Maya was basically a concession to a lesser point of view th at insisted on a causal relation between the absolute and the relative, but from the ultimate point of view, both of these are categories of the mind. Thus, empt iness and manifestation were meant to be seen as two polarities within relativity, on the principle that something cannot (causally) come out of nothing. Those who e nvision the great Void as the pregnant womb from which all manifestation is born are involved in relative languaging and choosing one side of two relative polar ities. The term Emptiness , however, is also used by some schools of Buddhism to me an the Ultimate Reality itself, beyond all polarities. As such, to repeat (and I realize there has already been quite a bit of repetition, but that is all right and in fact an ancient teaching method!), it is not really an experiential void , although such a state, devoid of distinguishing characteristics, is realizable in meditative trance as nirvikalpa or nirodha. But emptiness is indistinguishab le from fullness, and as such is beyond all concepts.
The Void and Emptiness PB wrote:
The Void must not be misunderstood. Although it is the deepest state of medita tion and one where he is deprived of all possessions, including his own personal self, it has a parallel state in the ordinary active non-meditative condition, which can best be called detachment...After all, even the Void, grand and awesom e as it is, is nothing but a temporary experience, a period of meditation...The awareness of what is Real must be found not only in deep meditation, in its tran ce, but when fully awake.
It is not the annihilation of being but the fullness of being.
That which is called the Void, Emptiness, is not the total annihilation of all things, but the total lack of that matter of which they were supposed to be com posed.
As applied to a meditative state, he says:
The Void is not a mere nothing as ordinarily meant; nor is it something the mi nd can hold for unlimited periods.
But as denoting the ineffable Reality, he writes:
The Void is the state of Mind in repose, and the appearance-world is its (in)a ctivity. [In other words, the Void-Mind doesn t do anything; the appearance is not d ifferent from the Void. There is no causal relation between them]. At a certain
stage of their studies, the seeker and the student have to discriminate between both in order to progress; but further progress will bring them to understand th at there is no essential difference between the two states and Mind is the same in both.
really a Void at all. It is a perpetual paradox.
On the one hand there is the emptiness of the Void, on the other had there is the fullness of the cosmos which comes into being to occupy it. (8)
PB makes this point in a different way in the following quote:
"The absence of the ego is the presence of the Overself. But this is only a s urface impression in the person's thought, for the Overself is always present." (9)
Huangbo Xiyun stated:
People are scared to empty their minds
fearing that they will be engulfed by the void. What they don't realize is that
their own mind is the void.
And the great Hui-neng himself said:
"The world should be transcended right in this world Do not depart from this world
To seek the transcendent world outside." (9a)
In other words, 'nothing truly 'hides' Reality'! (10) Further, PB here points out that the true displacing element upon ego-transcendance is not, as is commo nly presumed among nondual teachings, directly the ultimate reality or the 'One, but the divine Soul (or Overself), which, too, is of the nature of 'void' or 'e mpty', while not the deepest principle of 'Emptiness' Itself meant as the Absolu te. [More on this important distinction is discussed in PB versus Advaita on the Soul found on this website]. So, Buddhists and Advaitins, do not be too quick t o dismiss the notion of soul or a higher individuality as merely ego!
So one can see that the Void, Emptiness, Shunyata, MInd, Reality is always th e case, whether one experiences a relative void, the so-called Void as Mind-in-rep ose, or any of the states of manifestation. As such it is beyond duality and non-duality or any such conceptualization (have I said it enough?), as Dattatreya pro claims in his Avadhuta Gita:
The whole universe is shining as One,
Without any split or break, or separate parts. The idea of 'Maya' is itself the great delusion;
Duality and Non-duality are merely concepts of the mind.
The empty Void' as void or nothing is also empty . Thus, one comes to Reality. Adyashanti beautifully states:
"To find out that you are empty of emptiness is to die into an aware mystery, which is the source of all existence. It just so happens that that mystery is i n love with all of its manifestation and non-manifestation." (11)
PB also said:
"He enters into the mastery of philosophy when he not only sees its truth but also feels it fully and loves it deeply." (12)
He who thinks that the nature of emptiness, the void or ultimate reality is d ry and lifeless needs to think again. While the way through the desert of unders tanding may be like that at times, IT itself is not like that! Rather, it is hom
e.
Modern dilemmas about emptiness, and some thoughts on Nirguna/Saguna, and non -duality
Let's put this in another context. Adyashanti said that the spiritual types a re often more afraid of the world than the spirit. There may be many reasons for this: lifetimes of seeking based on the belief that the world is the source of illusion and bondage; a culture that does not welcome one into the world as infi nite being-consciousness; a heightened sense of mortality, a wounded ego or psyc he. In order to fully embrace the world in a non-dual way, therefore, the seeker must have the realization of himself as infinite consciousness or emptiness. Ot herwise, the fear of involvement and pain of limitation will always be there, ev en if unconscious. Getting 'stuck' in emptiness can, however, lead to a form of dissociation. On the other hand, those more apparently successful in the world, but without realizing emptiness, also remain in some degree dissociated and not fully in their bodies or heart. Neither, it might be said, are living from a con dition of 'basic sanity'.
Some spiritual teachings 'permit' or allow the ego to exist, while basically considering it irrelevant and unreal: they say, "forget all 'personal stories', desires, fears, thoughts, and dreams, they are illusion." However, while this is a bit better, it gets even more subtle: know only consciousness, and don't reje ct the world, but absorb the world in consciousness - sounds like classic sahaja . But at all costs, however, don't be sullied by actually experiencing oneself a live in a world of limitation and relating to others whom one might not be famil iar with in a relative sense rather than just seeing them all as the 'non-dual S elf'! This can still be a form of self-protection and hinder a truly integrative non-dual actualization.
PB emphasizes this 'dynamic' second half of the emptiness equation:
A good deal of achievement goes on in the silent solitude of our own hearts, u nnoticed and unknown toother men; one day it blossoms into irresistable action, and then the world wonders why.
"We fulfil life when we find ourselves in the divine presence unendingly, awa re of it and expressing it. (13)
We also suggest this view of things. In this understanding we posit indescrib able Brahman, as the absolute or ultimate, and in which there are relative (Sagu na) polarities: consciousness/phenomena (maya), emptiness/manifestation, imperso nal/personal, etc.. Thus, the realization of emptiness and its inseparability fr om phenomena is a form of non-duality - but still a 'Saguna' or relative form, w ith attributes like 'Sat-Chit-Ananda. Nirguna non-duality transcends these chara cterizations. It is both empty and full, and neither empty nor full. Nirguna has no attributes. Some teachers superimpose 'unmanifest' on Nirguna Brahman. This is one of the most common errors that many nondual philosophers fall into. Nondu al 'experiences' can come in all kinds of flavors, being conditioned by the rela tive aspects of a person's nature. For it is their relative 'self' which focaliz es this realization within relativity as a 'nondual awakening' or realization or whatever. So that relative self, in its many layers, will necessarily condition how the nondual is experienced. So sometimes it will feel full, sometimes void-like, sometimes blissful, sometimes sublimely cool, sometimes transcendent, some times immanent. And all of these are 'true' and facets of a realization that inc ludes and transcends them all. So it is not unmanifest. That would be more dual ism.
would be true emptiness or Shunyata, the Tao, and only experienced (a relative a nd inadequate word) in glimpses until a high degree of relative actualization of the non-dual vision is achieved. By this is meant becoming more and more refine d and integrative of the non-dual vision with subtler and subtler states of the body-mind - either within or without the body - with more and more universal spi ritual qualities like love, compassion, discrimination, and the like becoming pa rt of one's character. This is to begin to live a form of 'enlightened duality' as a bridge to non-duality. In Sufism it is being available to the grace of a ma ster or other liberating presence, and inculcating the virtues, each of which fo rm a 'spiritual station', which is a permanent advance of the soul. It is also w hat is meant by embodying the Christ Consciousness, which exists in both individ ual and cosmic forms, as both one's inner conscience and guide (the higher perso nality) and as a universal enlightening presence within relativity. Even Sri Nis argadatta seemed to be of a mind with this:
There is a power in the universe working for enlightenment and liberation. We call it Sadashiva, who is ever present in the hearts of men. It is the unifying factor. Unity - liberates. Freedom - unites. Ultimately nothing is mine or yours - everything is ours. Just be one with yourself and you will be one with all, a t home in the entire universe. (14)
[What is interesting is that Maharaj s teaching here sounds much like Christian ity when it speaks of the true light that lighteth every man who cometh into this
world , and that it suggests there is a liberating presence or power within relativit y, call it Logos, Cosmic Christ, Adi Buddha, Masters, Archangels, the Overself,
etc., that is a helping bridge beyond relativity. Moreover, there is a we implied
in the phrase 'everything is ours , and where there is a we there must be an I or form of individuality hiding out also, or, at the very least, it is an open question
. So much for the simple absolute beyond consciousness or a solid block of reality t hat Nisargadatta is famous for !]
What we are taking about is basically that aspect of the soul, personal and u niversal, which seeks enlightenment or liberation, to be of service, etc.. At th e highest levels of relative existence one's soul becomes in touch with what in many traditions is called Spirit (i.e., Atman) and becomes even more impersonal and universal and, being less veiled, imbibes the essence of the non-dual more d irectly. All spiritual traditions have this intermediate phase, means, and metho ds, bridging the relative and the absolute. All of the planes and bodies of mani festation are illusion from the standpoint of Maya, but reality from the side of the Absolute. The process is, in relativity, of actualizing the Absolute or non -dual. For most, it is a gradual process. There are relative laws which must be respected and also embraced within non-dual understanding.
One more thing. Some schools maintain that non-duality has to be united, merg ed, fused, or integrated with duality. This can cause problems. Various stages o f spiritual awakening, beyond the stage of awakening to even a little degree to the reality of the nondual, are really just, stage to stage, unfolding realizati on of the 'true' nature of the nondual. It does not require integrating or uniti ng nonduality with anything, as some schools suggest. That is just another expla nation of what nonduality already means. Nonduality inherently integrates every conceivable polarity, including our own belief or experience that it is somehow different from anything else. So, for instance, if we have an internal nirvikalp a realization, then that is a type of nondual realization, but if our experience of it includes a sense that it is away from the physical world, or requires neg ating or transcending Relativity to experience, or that it makes us special, or that it is on another plane, and so on and so forth, then it is a limited versio n of nondual realization. Then, as we gradually ripen the realization, nondual r ealization 'integrates' with everything, not because it in itself needs to be in tegrated, united, brought down, or infused. But because our realization of the t rue nature of nonduality grows, it is experienced as doing all these things. But
it is not. That is our story of how we are understanding what we think is happe ning based on our current level of realization of what nonduality is. But it is all just unfoldment of nondual realization. Imo, any belief or experience otherw ise is a misunderstanding of nondualism. For instance, there is no need to unite nonduality with anything. The nondual is already nondual and not separate from 'duality'. The perception of nonduality as needing to be balanced with duality i s a misunderstanding of the nature of the nondual. This is potentially a huge pr oblem, and has a domino effect that can cause flaws in the rest of any such syst em.
Much more could be said on this, as it is fundamental to an integral vision o f spirituality.
Emptiness, illusion, and non-duality in Islam
It is not only Buddhism and Vedanta that have their versions of emptiness or maya. It exists in Sufism as well. Rumi often sided with those who spoke of anni hilation of self:
"Dear heart, where do you find the courage to seek the Beloved when you know He has annihilated so many like you before? I do not care, said my heart, my onl y wish is to become one with the Beloved."
Medieval sage Ibn Al' Arabi, however, in a passage as eloquent as anything fr om Advaita, tells us that the experience of Truth is veritably non-dual and not a form of monism, with a radical naughting of the individuality not required: "If you know yourself as nothing, then you truly know your Lord. Otherwise, y ou know him not. You cannot know your Lord by making yourself nothing. Many a wi se man claims that in order to know one's Lord one must denude oneself of the si gns of one's existence, efface one's identity, finally rid oneself of one's self . This is a mistake. How could a thing that does not exist try to get rid of its existence?...If you think that to know Allah depends on your ridding yourself o f yourself, then you are guilty of attributing partners to Him - the only unforg ivable sin - because you are claiming that there is another existence besides Hi m, the All-Existent: that there is a you and He...Our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), said: He who knows himself knows his Lord. He did not say: He who eliminates himself knows his Lord! (15)
Shaikh Mawlay Al Arabi ad Darqawa confirms Ibn 'al' Arabi's insight:
"Extinction also is one of thine attributes. Thou art already extinct, my bro ther, before thou art extinguished and naught before thou art annihilated. Thou art an illusion in an illusion and a nothingness in a nothingness. When hadst th ou Existence that thou mightest be extinguished?" (16)
One only feels the needs to get rid of something if he believes it is real. T he ego is in the category of being neither real nor not real, therefore, to try to get rid of it is a fruitless, yet paradoxical, task. It is a trick of the ego to convince you to try to get rid of it, but it is also a trick of the ego to c onvince you not to try to get rid of it! Neither side is right; better to embrac e and transcend while also trying to develop and perfect it, as PB and others ha ve advised.
For the Sufi, the mystery is not as simple a matter as rejecting illusion and affirming reality, as the illusion is an important aspect of the soul becoming conscious of Itself - the search for the 'hidden jewel of the divine treasure'. It was an illusion for Arabi, however, to think that one was ever separate from God, for we would have no being or consciousness if we were truly apart from or
other than the Reality. Called a 'son of Plato' for his indebtedness to neo-Plat onic philosophy, he believed in the Oneness of Being-Perception and also the Cre ative Imagination of the Intellectual, which is the closest he got to a concept of maya. W.J. Austin writes:
"Thus, ultimately, whether we throw ourselves into the infinite ocean of cosm ic "illusion," in conformity with the all-creating Will, or whether we annihilat e our identity in the absolute truth of His identity, in conformity with the all -commanding Wish, we can never be, in reality, other than the Real, on pain of a bsurdity."
"[Arabi] said, "It is part of the perfection of being that there is imperfect ion in it." (17)
Therefore we are not the first to suggest such an expansive form of non-duali ty.
Thoughts on the ego and emptiness
The growing consensus, then, seems to be that the ego and/or personality is a nd/or must be wedded to consciousness from which it has apparently divorced itself for a true existence to be actualized. It is too easy to say that the ego is 'e mpty', for what is it exactly? An "I"-thought? A 'bunch of thoughts'? A 'fire-br eathing dragon'? What is its function? Is it really only negative and illusion? anadi writes:
"Many seekers are confused and not able to comprehend the apparent paradox of transcending the ego without annihilating it. In Buddhist psychology, there is a concept of so called five skandhas. This concept is missing the elemental unde rstanding that our body-mind operates as an alive and coherent organism of intel ligence in a purposeful and meaningful way. The ego cannot be found anywhere as such, for the one looking for it - is the ego. it is too close to be found, but certainly it is always there."
"The ego-personality not only participates and promotes the shift of our bein g into the deeper dimensions of reality, from the state of presence to resting i n the Absolute, but it also allows us to comprehend our post-Enlightenment situa tion. Enlightenment is not the end of our growth. The understanding of the Enlig htened state and its relation to the ego as well as to the manifested reality is constantly evolving. The ego and Enlightened state co-exist in a very interesti ng way - they relate to each other...Even after realization, the ego and our ess ence are in a very rich and dynamic relationship - they are simultaneously prese nt."
"Those masters who claim that they have no ego, prove to have a certain psych ological ignorance; or they're using the term in an improper way. They are most likely victims of certain idealistic, linear and simplistic logic. The transcend ental logic embracing the apparent paradox (the co-existence of the ego and the egoless state), goes beyond this simple logic in the apperception of the truth w hich is not conceptual but alive. The goal of Enlightenment is not to eliminate the ego, but to enlighten it. How could we possibly enlighten it if we deny its very existence? To enlighten the ego is to create within the personal intelligen ce a clear understanding that our personality, with all its limitations, and our timeless essence, is an indivisible, dynamic whole. It is here that the humilit y, intelligence and the highest spiritual realization meet. Ego, the operative center of our personality, even after melting with the Source, must face this ne ver-ending challenge of fulfilling the dynamic balance between its participation in the manifested reality and of resting in the Absolute. The absolute dimensio
n and human perspective are truly one. But although they are one, they give birt h to one another in the continuous process at arriving at wholeness." (18)
So, this debate about the ego and the faculty of reasoning has been going on a long time. Rumi decried reason as taking one to hell. Ibn Arabi, on the other hand, felt that, in its proper use, Reason along with what he called Imaginatio n could (along with a few other things, like the virtues, devotion, etc.) take o ne to the Intellectual or the Nous, the World-Mind. But, practically speaking, w hy do we have a problem, especially with the ego? Here is another way of looking at it.
We are first born, according to the Sufis, into the stage of egotism, where e verything is about 'me': food, sustenance, comfort, etc.. We may at first, it is true, as the psychologists say, have no sense of existence apart from the mothe r, and then explore the outside world, and only at age two or so experience the arisal of a self-referral in the mind, but it is still 'all about me'. We gradua lly learn to reason and discriminate and appreciate the presence of others and a world outside of ourself. In this necessary evolutionary stage we are really e xpanding, but also generally lose something precious: not only contact with the 'angelic realms', but also our innate love of ourselves. Therefore we hold on ti ghter to what we feel will fill that sensed hole or lack or emptiness. Our woun ded ego develops or continues its age-old habits: 'bad' ones, and also efforts t o 'become good'. Traditionally the path has then been portrayed as a battle agai nst lower tendencies: vasanas, 'nafs' in Sufism, 'the mind is the slayer of the real', and all that. And there is good reason for this: blind identification wit h phenomenal reality is binding and painful. So we are told to identify with Spi rit and get rid of the "I", or find a bigger "I". Unconsciously we first take to that quest as a way to fill the emptiness, not realizing we must at some point go into it in order to become human. This understanding is given in most mature paths, but the ego finds ways to co-opt the understanding for its own sake. However, realizing that emptiness, that consciousness, is still only half-way to completion. We must then integrate that with the world to become whole. Some will say thay there is nothing to integrate, for their is no separation to begi n with. They would negate all yoga, meditation, and the path itself. They are en titled to their point of view. But we choose to be practical. The others will sa y that it is they who are being practical. So be it. In any case, this can be a long haul, or somewhat shorter if we can embrace both sides simultaneously: Over self/consciousness and self/ego, which is not necessarily easy, because of a lac k of self-love in a positive sense, and lack of a supportive culture in which to have such reflected back to us. To some extent that is changing, thank God. We do need a base in consciousness to have the real well-being to so embrace the wo rld, however, so until that is stabilized and integrated there is an inevitable battle, to some extent, with both our old self-centeredness, and also with allow ing the more positive side of the ego to exist. So, we in our fear run from exis tential emptiness, but it is that emptiness that not only allows everything to b e, but its realization allows us in human terms to embrace the relative world in a real, living way.
The ego, therefore, as ego, is certainly 'empty' of inherent existence, but i t has real relative existence as a function, not just of division but of intelli gence; it is also inseparable from the 'emptiness' of consciousness, as Soul, of which it is a projection, which in turn is inseparable from the 'emptiness' of Ultimate Reality.
PB argues that the ego is 'a bunch of thoughts around a fixed but empty cente r' (the latter in this reference being the higher self), from which it - the "I" - gets its sense of reality, and as such, in itself, the ego is empty and imper manent, as the Buddhists argue. Yet as a projection of the Soul it is also what, in a paradoxical sense, gets enlightened, after maturation and balancing of the
functions of feeling, thinking, and willing and their fusion into a superior fa culty he calls 'insight'. In an enigmatic passage he speaks, upon realization, o f it as being none other than 'the presence of the World-Mind in one's own Heart '. So it is not so easily pinned down. It can be said to be both the "I"- though t and the "I"-feeling, and functioning on multiple planes of being as an emanant of the Soul. It is phenomenally empty inasmuch as it is subject to interdepende nt origination (to be discussed shortly), but also derives its existence from th e noumenal 'emptiness' of consciousness.
This needs additional discussion, which will be touched on here and also in t he article "Maya is 'Maya'." In the philosophy of PB and Plotinus, things are de scribed in this way. This is highly conceptual, but an outcome of revelation of two great sage for our benefit. Hold it lightly, but try to understand. There ar e three higher principles constituting Reality, for Plotinus the One, the Intell ectual Principle or Nous, and the Absolute Soul. For PB they are Mind, World-Min d, and Overself. The Intellectual Principle or Divine Intellect or World-Mind (t hought of as a One-in-Many) projects a World-Idea through the Absolute Soul (con sidered as a One-and-Many, that is, a 'mother' principle of Soul or Overself) an d countless individual Souls; none of the three Hypostases are separable in trut h, but represent distinct Principles nevertheless. All three together are of the nature of Voidness. However, it is more complex than just that. The Void-Mind o r Emptiness characteristic of the Nous contains not only the principle of Soul o r consciousness but a divine emanation or World-Idea that is projected through e ach individual Soul, becoming the sensible world. The Soul, simultaneously, whil e eternal and one, an undivided whole of infinite consciousness-intelligence (or Mind as the Buddhists refer to it) is nevertheless a 'unit Mind, as it is Many while also One, projects a ray of itself into that World-Idea (which is within i tself) in order to experience that World-Idea in a particular way. The purpose i s to gather experience and know itself in an individual way. Thus, the principle of non-duality is maintained, but the practicality of human experience is admit ted. The Soul, then, has a higher part (although it is really unpartable), and a lower part, its emanation, that conjoins with a body which is part of that Worl d-Idea and the two together constitute the ego. Thus, the ego is not just an ins tant to instant flux of tendencies as the Buddhists define it, but a conjoint of consciousness and content, which content is a projection of the World-Mind or N ous. Without the light of consciousness the ego would not exist. So it is a stra nge thing, not easily dispensed with. It grows and matures over eons of time. It is only a problem when it takes itself to be separate from the whole. So, the e go is 'empty' as 'ego', but the sense of 'I' that we associate with it comes fro m the higher knower within, which is the lower phase of the Soul which may be sa id to incarnate. It, too, is void, but in a different sense, because void here m eans reality or consciousness, not the ever-changing content. Both together cons titute our true being. And neither is ever separated from the other. It is all v ery paradoxical because, as mentioned, the World-Idea is within the Soul while a ray of the Soul enters or associates with that very World-idea within it! We wi ll return to this concept of the three Hypostases in the section of this article entitled "Levels of Emptiness'.
PB also makes reference to it in terms of the issue of free will. Our true fr eedom lies with the ego's alignment with the higher power or universal intellige nce:
"Where is man's free will? He is free to choose whether he will conform to th e pattern of the World-Idea, whether he will obey or not obey the higher laws." "What he wills in his highest moments is both a free act and a necessary act. In these moments the conflict vanishes, the paradox appears. In them alone the ego attains its fullest power yet falls also into complete powerlessness." (19) This issue of the ego is explored in more detail in the article, The Great Un
iqueness, on this website.
Sankara's and Buddhist methodology: epistemic, not ontological negation
Sankara's method of 'neti, neti' ( not this, not this ) is also often misundersto od. In it the sheaths or upadhis are supposedly rejected one by one as 'not-self ' in order to reach the Self. Guadapada, his predecessor, had often, in fact, as previously mentioned, been accused of being a 'crypto-Buddhist' as the dialecti c used by him was nearly identical to that of the Madhyamikas. However, the doct rine of the five sheaths in the Tittireya Upanishad, which forms part of the mat erial which Sankara drew from, never once mentioned negating a sheath as not rea l or as not-self. Rather, the method of analysis there was wholistic, in which o ne successively realized each sheath as the Self, incorporating each in turn wit hin the other, until nothing was known apart from the bliss of the Self. Sankara used a provisional negation, an epistemological method of negation, yes, as a f irst stage to find the self apart from the world, which some have interpreted as ontological negation, looking for an essence apart from that which was not real . But, in non-dual truth, there is no such separated essence per se, as nothing is not-real or known apart from the Self. The Self is the negation of a negation , realized in the second stage of the Vedantic approach where the world is known as Brahman. That is, Sankara would use 'neti neti' to strip away one's attachme nt to everything perceivable; then, when one had become so detached, he would as k one to reintroduce the negated elements into the one Self. "Brahman is real, t he jiva is mithya (neither real or unreal, that is, apparent or relatively real) , the jiva is Brahman' is how the formula actually read. The emphasis on 'neti n eti' was more on negating the limits on the Self rather than trying to negate or eliminate the world. For even after realization of the Self, the sage would sti ll see the world of duality like other men, only as not apart from the Self and this not objectively real in itself. Sometimes Ramana Maharshi, for instance, wo uld say things that implied that for the sage whose jiva-hood was gone there was no world, thus misleading some people into an incorrect view of non-dualism. A bhakti method, on the other hand, such as espoused by Anandamayee Ma, would say 'wohi, wohi' ('all is He') rather than 'neti,neti'. Either way works in the end.
[As mentioned above, we still have to solve the conundrum of whether the Self , Atman, and Brahman are the same, or not. The Vedantic traditions are confusing . This is discussed at greater length in The Primordial Ground: Part Two, and al so, once again, The Great Uniqueness on this website].
Sankara, then, like many teachers in different traditions, such as Dzogchen, for instance, used a two-phased approach, in which the ultimate realization was attained through a pinnacle shift and/or practice after certain preliminaries ha d been achieved. For Sankara, one endowed with dispassion, discrimination, menta l discipline (composed of six factors, including arguably the most important, sh raddha or faith in the words of the scriptures and the teacher), and a burning d esire for liberation, then went through a mental discipline. First the world is declared and analyzed as unreal (impermanent, or lacking inherent reality; mithy a), then Brahman is declared as the real (and sometimes experenced as such throu gh yogic trance, but not in 'pure' advaita), then Brahman is declared to be the world. [Supposedly this lets one see the jiva and world as none other than Brahm an also. The difference in phrasing is significant, because seeing the world as Brahman would imply actually living as if that were so. The usual Vedantin doesn 't really do this, but still somewhat holds back to avoid lingering 'contaminati on. More on that later]. This total procedure or method is said to yields a nond ual result. In the sutra forms of Buddhism, first one analyzes the five skhandas or aggregates in order to find the self as 'empty', which in turn must then als o be seen as empty - or real. In the more fast track school of Dzogchen, while o
ne is to have already engaged or embodied the preliminary or ngondro practices o f virtue, samatha ('calm abiding') and vipashyana (insight meditation), the 'int roduction to the view' or important transmission of the non-dual awareness (rigp a) is given at the start by the guru and becomes one s primary practice, self-liber ating' all conditions as they arise and as one more deeply integrates the nondua l vision. Thus, even here, as in traditional Vedanta, the role of the guru is es sential in transmitting truth.
The Upanishad in this case essentially gave a positive declaration of Truth f rom the beginning, then an analysis of relativity. The Buddhist approach to a de gree is the reverse: first analyze relativity, then practise based on a vision o f truth (right view). The end result, however, is the same: a transcendental tru th beyond all categories of thought.
It must be pointed out that the path of Vedanta does not negate the existence of the ordinary world, instead it has always given it a relative reality, just as do the Madhyamikas, who remain ontological idealists but empirical realists, insisting on reconciling the 'two truths' (absolute and relative), the law of ka rma or dependent origination, and emptiness, and the tendency of some non-dual t eachings to insist that there is no 'doer', or 'no one to do anything', can ofte n lead to confusion and spiritual stagnancy. One antidote to this potential prob lem of the popular 'awareness' teachings, are, in fact, the 'emptiness' teaching s, which are logical and practical in their investigations. As Greg Goode writes :
"There are three main reasons for not refuting conventional existence. One i s that conventional existence, according to Middle Way Buddhism, is not the caus e of suffering. Therefore, there is no necessity to refute it. Two, not refuti ng conventional existence allows Buddhism to be able to speak with the world by ac cepting what the world accepts. Three, not refuting conventional existence provi des a way for Buddhism to present the Four Noble Truths and the eight-fold path to the end of suffering. Even though the Buddhist teachings are vast and profou nd teachings, they are still conventional existents. By not refuting convention al existence while indeed refuting inherent existence, Buddhism itself can tread the Middle Way between the extremes of existence. If conventional existence we re refuted along with inherent existence, the Buddhist path would not be possibl e since nothing would be said to exist. Refuting conventional existence would e rr on the side of nihilism. Retaining conventional existence avoids this extrem e."
"On the other hand, if inherent existence were not refuted, then too the Budd hist path would not be possible. Inherently existent things are independent of everything and therefore causeless, untouchable and eternal. If things existed inherently, they would be forever frozen in place, and no change or progress alo ng the Buddhist path would be possible. Suffering entities would forever remain suffering entities. For Buddhism not to refute inherent existence would err on the side of eternalism. Avoiding both extremes is the Middle Way." (20)
If one is established in the witness position he has achieved disidentificati on with himself as an 'entity'. Thus his self is seen as empty . Yet turning away f rom appearances or the world assumes that the appearances and the world are sepa rate from empty awareness (a primary dualism). It may be a necessary first step, getting established in the witness. But to go thus from knowing 'who' one is (t he dis-entificaton of consciousness) to knowing 'what' one is (embodied non-dual consciousness) take a further process. It may occur spontaneously, if the witne ss identification is strong (see Greg Goode on collapsing of the witness into no n-dual awareness), or it may take a passage through fear, followed by a radical letting go, as well as metaphysical understanding - or, for some, perhaps just a withering away of the search. It is the harder of the two steps, according to P B, and could take a long time after the exclusive inner self or witness is found
. The first advaitic step alone, stabilization of the true witness, is profound, and, as Anthony Damiani once forcefully told me, "could take you fifty years!" In other words, there is no time limit to it, and also no modern trick or techni que to fast-track one to rapid success. It is an individual matter, as profound as the fruition of the mentalistic discipline, the realization of the 'emptiness ' of objects or the 'de-objectification' of the external world, transforming age -old habits. And, for most of us, it cannot be done in a cave; we must learn swi mming in water.
Taking emptiness teachings to heart
This is because it is not merely an intellectual exercise, but one that requi res some effort, patience, endurance, feeling, and discrimination in daily life with all of its ups and downs, twists and turns. Therefore, it is said tradition ally that to be truly ready for emptiness teachings requires that one burst into tears at the mere mention of the word 'emptiness', or that its contemplation wi ll make ones 'hair stand on end'. The Dalai Lama has even said that if studying the teachings of emptiness doesn't at some point turn your world upside down one has not taken the teachings to heart. Traditionally, there was given a warning to disclosing such a teaching:
"This profound subject should be taught to those who in the past have repeate dly established in their minds the propensity for understanding emptiness, and n ot to others. This is because, although those [others] may have managed to study the scriptures that teach emptiness, with their mistaken preconceptions about e mptiness, teaching it to them will be utterly useless. it is utterly useless bec ause some of them, those who have no expertise, refute emptiness and go to unfor tunate realms. Others, thinking that the meaning of emptiness is that phenomena do not exist, first generate the mistaken view that is nihilistic in regard to c ause and effect. Then, without turning away from this false view, it grows large r and larger until, as a result of this, they are reborn into the Avici Hell...O ne goes to Avici not only by having a nihilistic attitude in regard to emptiness , but also by having a nihilistic attitude in regard to cause and effect. A mult itude of reputable sutras and sastras all agree that to view causality as nonexi stent is the cause of losing the roots of all of one's merit, and is also the ca use of the degeneration of one's vows." ! (21)
I consider this a scare tactic 'disclosure statement' for medieval Buddhist t eachers when speaking to many different levels of students! It is similar to tea ching to beginners that there is no separate self, before they have even exercis ed and inquired into such a self. In this day and age, however, such teachings c an no longer be held back. Nevertheless, in the Madhyamakavatara it states: "Even though still at the stage of ordinary beings, when [some people] study emptiness, they experience great rapture and wonderment internally. Arising from this great rapture, their eyes well with tears, and the hairs of their body sta nd on end. Those beings have the seed of the perfect Buddha's mind. They are the vessels to whom reality is to be taught. it is to them that the ultimate truth should be taught." (22)
Combining Buddhism and Vedanta
We should add that for 'awareness' teachings, Consciousness, being noumenal, is not refutable (unless one considers it to be a 'thing') and therefore it is c ompatible with the teachings of emptiness. Anthony Damiani argues that one must combine the viewpoints of both Vedanta and Buddhism, consciousness and emptiness to get a clear picture:
