rio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
National Univ. of Singapore
Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta:
Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?[*]
David Loy
p.65
WHAT MOST distinguishes Indian from Western philosophy is that all the important Indian systems
point to the same phenomenon: Enlightenment or Liberation. Enlightenment has different names in
the various systems -- kaivalya, nirvana, moksha, etc. -- and is described in different ways, but the
similarities among them are great. Perhaps the most significant is the agreement that,
enlightenment is intellectually incomprehensible; it cannot be understood or attained through
conceptual knowledge, because it escapes all categories of thought. Hence Indian philosophy
points beyond itself to a realization which transcends philosophy,
This paper will consider one crucial aspect of Indian philosophy: what happens when one attains
enlightenment. The experience of attaining enlightenment is not merely one of many aspects which
could be examined; it is the most critical one. itis the hinge upon which each metaphysic tums, for
in each system it is enlightenment which finally and indubitably reveals the true nature of reality. |
shall consider how this aspect is treated in three important Indian systems: Samkhya-Yoga, early
Buddhism, and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta.
The issue is this: Since enlightenment itself transcends all conceptual understanding, are these
different philosophies referring to the same experience? It is difficult not to suspect this. It may be
that there are different types of enlightenment, but it seems more likely that various characteristics
are stressed because of the differing metaphysical systems within which enlightenment occurs. For
example, Samkhya-Yoga may emphasize the isolation from and indifference to the natural world
which kaivalya (lit, "aloofness") brings because it is based upon the ontological dualism of a
purusha (pure consciousness) which realizes its distinction from prakrti (everything else). This
paper will not attempt to resolve the contradictions between these three philosophies; as
metaphysical systems they are irreconcilably different. Samkhya-Yoga is dualistic, early Buddhism
may be considered pluralistic, and Advaita Vedanta is monistic. The issue is whether it is possible
to understand these various systems as describing the same phenomenon from differing
perspectives.
These three philosophies are among the most important metaphysical systems, and they may be
considered as representative of Indian philosophy as a whole. But they are representative of
something else too. They may be seen as the three main
* This paper is part of a Ph. D. thesis on “nonduality* which will be submitted to National University of Singapore. My
colleague. Dr. Robert Stecker, kindly offered much useful advice on earlier drafts
p. 66 Loy
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem wnrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
ways of trying to resolve a perennial philosophical problem: the nature of the relation between
subject and object.
Samkhya-Yogais the most radical possible dualism between subject and its object. The separation
between the two is so extreme that the system fails because there can be no communication and
cooperation between them.
Early Buddhism conflates subject into object. Consciousness is something conditioned, arising only
when certain conditions exist. The self is merely an illusion created by the interaction of the five
aggregates. The self shrinks to nothing and there is only a void; but the Void is not a thing -- it
expresses the fact that there is absolutely nothing, no-thing at all, which can be identified as the
self.
Advaita Vedanta confiates object into subject. There is nothing external to Brahman, the One
without a second. Since Brahman is a non-dual, self-luminous consciousness, consciousness
‘expands to encompass the entire universe, which is but the appearance of Brahman; everything is
the Seff.
It should be noticed that the subject-object dualism with which these three systems deal can be
expressed as either a consciousness-object dualism or a self-non-seff dualism. Although these
dualisms are not identical, there is obviously a close similarity between them, and for our purposes
they will be treated as equivalent.
Samkhya-Yoga'is of course actually two systems, often lumped together because they are almost
identical. They are dualistic because they postulate two basic substances: purusha, pure
unchanging consciousness, and prakrti, the natural world which encompasses everything else.
This is not a Cartesian dualism: prakrt/includes all mental as well as all physical phenomena. The
purushais reduced to a pure "Seer" which actually does nothing, although its presence is
necessary. In our usual deluded condition we are not able to distinguish between them. Pure
consciousness mistakenly identifies with its reflections; so | cling to "my" mental panorama and
“my" body and its possessions. The purusha is so attenuated that it is not even able to realize the
distinction between itself and prakrty itis actually the buddhi(the most rarified mental part of
prakrt) that realizes the distinction, whereupon the purusha is established in its own nature as
solitary and independent, indifferently observing the natural world
Samkhya-Yoga has been much criticized and its defects are well known, The main problem is that
the polarity between purusha and prakrtiis so great that they are unable to function together.
Purushais so indifferent and prakrtiso mechanical that no cooperation can occur. The common
simile to explain their interaction is that of a blind man of good foot carrying a cripple of good eye;
but this is not a good analogy because both men are intelligent whereas prakrtiis not. The simile
would fit better if the cripple had no desire to go anywhere and so says and does nothing, while the
blind man literally has no mind at all. Clearly in such a case they would not cooperate, yet
Samkhya-Yoga claims that the whole universe evolved out of the interaction of purusha and
prakrti,
Whereas Samkhya is a metaphysical system, Yoga deals with the yogic path which one follows in
order to attain ka/vaiya, Itis significant that there is nothing within the eight limbs of yoga practice
which is antithetical to Vedanta; in fact, the Yogic path actually seems to fit an Advaitic.
metaphysics better than a Samkhya one. In samadhi, the eighth and highest limb, the mind loses
ego-awareness and becomes one with the object of meditation, but this non-dualistic experience is
only “as it were" in Yoga, since the ultimate goal of the yogic system is the discrimination of
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem amtrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
p. 67 NIRVANA AND MOKSHA
pure consciousness from all those objects it identifies with. But this experience accords very well
with the Advaitic aim of “realizing the whole universe as the Self."[1]
Yet what is most significant for our purposes is that the purusha, like the jiva of Jainism and the
atmans of Advaita and Nyaya-Vaishesika, is eternal and in its true, liberated form is omnipresent; it
has no particular locus, but is ubiquitous, all-pervading. This is peculiar, because one might
otherwise expect the purusha to be a small, perhaps infinitesimal point located somewhere behind
the eyes. It leads to an interesting set of problems, since there is supposedly an infinity or at least
avery large number of completely distinct, unrelated purushas. How can they all occupy the same
infinite space without affecting each other? A corollary problem is that each undifferentiated
purusha has a relationship with only one particular buddhy (individual mind). Furthermore, each
liberated purusha, being ubiquitous, must be coextensive with all of prakrti, yet be completely
unaffected by it.
These difficulties could be resolved by (1) conceiving of purushas not as distinct from each other,
but as various aspects or reflections of one unitary consciousness; and (2) conceiving of prakrtinot
as distinct from this unified consciousness, but as an aspect of it. But this, of course, is to
transform Samkhya-Yoga into a completely different system, because the root dualism of purusha
and prakrtiis thereby abandoned. It becomes a monistic system similar to Shankara's.
So the most extreme possible dualism between subject and object fails. The failure, it should be
noted, is not incidental to Samkhya-Yoga but is a basic inadequacy; such a radical dualism
excludes any cooperation between the two categories.
The nature of nirvana is perhaps the greatest problem of Buddhist philosophy, probably because
the Buddha himseff refused to speculate on it. His attitude was, in effect: If you want to know what
nirvana is like, then attain it. But clearly nirvana does not involve the isolation of a pure
consciousness, because there is no such thing in early Buddhism. The unique feature of Buddhism
is that there is no self at all, and never was; there are only five skandhas, "heaps" of elements,
which constantly interact. Itis significant that the skanghas do not constitute a self; the sense of a
self is merely an illusion created by their interaction. The Buddha emphasized that one should not
identify anything as the self.
Nirvanais probably best characterized as the realization that there is no self, although what that
means -- what there is that realizes this -- is unclear. The Buddha compounded the mystery by
‘emphasizing that nirvanais neither annihilation nor eternal life. Clearly this is necessary since
there never was a self to be destroyed or live eternally; but it is confusing insofar as our thought
naturally tends to fall into the dichotomy of one or the other.
Yet there are a few passages in the Pali canon which contradict this usual Theravada
interpretation. In the Brahmanimantanika Sutra (Majhima-Nikaya), the Buddha says:
Do not think that this [nirvana] is an empty or void state. There is this consciousness,
without distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere ( Vinnanam anidassanam
anantam sabbato-pabham); it is untouched by the material elements and not subject to
any power.
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem anrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
4, Pertinent to my argument is the fact that the paths to be followed (sadhana) in order to attain enlightenment are
remarkably uniform among all the Indian systems: each requires a foundation of moral purification leading eventually to
similar meditation practices. The various paths all involve non-attachment to all physical and mental phenomena, so that
the actual process of following the path turns out to be much the same in each case.
p. 68 Loy
The passage reappears in the Kevadaha Sutra (Digha Nikaya |. 213) with the addition: "Here it is
that conditioned consciousness ceases to be."{2] This distinction between conditioned
consciousness and an infinite consciousness, shining everywhere, is inconsistent with the usual
Theravada view that all consciousness is the result of conditions and does not arise without those
conditions; but it accords very well with the Vedantic position, as we shall see. Elsewhere in the
same Brahmanimantanika Sutra the Buddha criticized the idea of an omnipotent Brahma (God),
but he never said anything about the impersonal Brahman of Advaita
Shankara's Advaita (nondual) Vedanta is generally regarded as having best developed and
systematized the main strand of Upanishadic thought, which stresses the identity of Afman and
Brahman. Brahman is an infinite, self-luminous (self-aware) consciousness that transcends the
subject-object duality. Unqualified and all-inclusive, perhaps its most significant feature is that it is
“One without a second," for there is nothing outside it. Hence Atman -- the true Self, what each of
us really is ~-is one with this Brahman. Tat tvam asi "That thou art." This is "All-Selfness": "...there
is nothing else but the Self.” "To realize the whole universe as the Self is the means of getting rid
of bondage." "To the seer, all things have verily become the Self."[3]
So the Atman should not be understood as a distinct self that merges with Brahman. To realize
Atman is to realize Brahman because they are really the same thing; in fact, the two words are
used interchangeably in some Upanishads. One may state, in answer to the Buddhists, that a
consciousness, a self, is needed to organize experience, but that turns out to have been Brahman
itself, when Brahman is realized -- that is to say, when Brahman realizes its own true nature, The
world of multiplicity and change is maya, illusion. There is nothing but the all-inclusive Sef: yet this,
sounds awkward, since the concept of a self seems to presuppose an other, a non-self from which
itis distinguished (we will return to this later). So perhaps the term Atman should be rejected as
superfluous, because it suggests another entity apart from Brahman. One should not multiply
entities beyond necessity [4]
For Shankara, moksha, liberation, is the realization that | am, and always have been, Brahman; my
individual ego-consciousness is destroyed, but not the pure, non-dual consciousness which it was
always just a reflection of. It must be emphasized that one does not attain or merge with this
Brahman; one merely realizes that one has always been Brahman. Shankara uses the analogy of
the space within a closed jar: that space has always been one with all space; there is but the
illusion of separateness. This point -- that really there is nothing to attain -- is especially significant
because the same is true for Yoga and Buddhism. Regardless of however else it is categorized,
one's seff (or Buddhanature) has always been pure and unstained, The Yogic purushais an
indifferent seer which was always merely observing, unaffected by pain or pleasure, In Buddhism,
there never was a self; it was always just an illusion [5]
2. See also Gradual Sayings, |. 8 in Anguttara Nikaya.
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem antrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
3, Chandogya Upan., VI, vii, 7, trans. Nikhilananda (New York: Harper, 1964); Shankara's Vivekachudamani, trans.
Madhavananda (Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 9th ed., 1974), slokas 226, 339; /sa Upan., 7, trans. Nikhilananda
4, Although the two terms serve a function, since they emphasize different aspects of the Absolute: Brahman, that itis the
ultimate reality; Atman, that itis my true nature
‘5, The same point is made in the Oxherding Pictures of Zen: the Sth Picture is "Return to the Source,” but in doing so one
realizes that one never left it
p.69 NIRVANA AND MOKSHA
Yet, just as there are passages in the Pali sutras which sound Vedantic, so there are passages in
the Upanishads which, on the surface, seem Buddhistic. Perhaps the most famous is
Yajnavalkya's instruction to his wife Maitreyi in the Brhadaranyaka. "Arising out of these elements
(bhuta), into them also one vanishes away. After death there is no consciousness (na pretya
samjna ‘st)...." Maitreyi is amazed by this, so Yajnavalkya explains:
For where there is a duality, as it were (/va), there one sees another.... But when, verily,
everything has become just one’s own self, then what could one see and through
what?... Through what could one know that owing to which all this is known? So,
through what could one understand the Understander? This Self... is imperceptible, for
itis never perceived. (|I. iv. 12-15)
In his commentary, Shankara interprets this passage as meaning that when one realizes Brahman
there is no more particular or dualistic consciousness, But perhaps there is the same problem with
consciousness as with the self: just as the concept of a self normally presupposes a non-self, so
consciousness is usually understood to require an object. In fact it is very difficult to conceive of
what consciousness could be without an object, a problem which is of course very much the crux
of the issue. In English, for example, all the verbs for consciousness are intentional, normally
requiring both subjects and objects ("I am conscious of" "you are aware of" "he knows that").[6] If
there is a non-dual awareness without an "I" which Aas it, and without an object which "I" am aware
of can that be called consciousness? Perhaps either reply, yes or no, could be justified
Itis significant that a duplicate of the controversy between early Buddhism and Vedanta exists
internally within Buddhism itself. The Theravadin Abhidharmists analyzed reality into a set of
separate dharmas ("elements"), whose interaction creates the illusion of a self and of external
objects. Nirvana for them seems to have been the cessation of cooperation among these various
aharmas, \eading to their quiescent isolation from each other. Since consciousness is conditioned,
a result of their interaction, this would seem to be the cessation of consciousness as well.
Mahayanists accepted the theory of dharmas, but not their objective realty; in themselves the
elements are unreal because they are relative (shunya, "empty"). There is a higher, absolute truth
(paramartha), about which one can say nothing (according to the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna) but
which comes close to the pure consciousness of Vedanta (according to the Yogacara "Mind-only"
school). The similarities between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta have been much noticed; they
are so great that some commentators conceive of the two as different stages of the same system.
Curiously, both Shankara and his predecessor Gaudapada were accused of being crypto-
Buddhists, while on the other side, Theravadins criticized
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem snrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
6. The primary Sanskrit word for consciousness, “vinana' (Pali, "vinnana’) is formed by adding the prefix vito jnana,
“knowledge.” Vi-"expresses separation, privation, dispersion (asunder, apart, off, away, without, etc.)" (Macdonell,
Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, Oxford Univ. Press, p. 279). The English word "consciousness" is derived from the Latin
verb scire, which means “to know’ but originally meant "to cut or separate one thing from another." Dualism seems
inherent to both terms. In contrast, prajnais often defined as that knowing in which there is no distinction between the
knower, the known, and the act of knowing; the suffix pra-means “to spring up [by itself?]."
p.70 Loy
Mahayana for being a degeneration back into Hinduism. Later, Ch'an Buddhist master Huang Po
wrote a treatise on the "One Mind" which could easily pass as an Upanishad; and concerning his
enlightenment the Japanese Zen master Dogen wrote: "| came to realize clearly that [my] mind is
nothing other than mountains and rivers and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and the
stars." So the debate between Mahayana and Vedanta often resembles a fight where the two
boxers are tied together back-to-back,
Yet there is undeniably a serious difference between early Buddhism and Vedanta: the first says
there is no self and the other says everything is the self; there is apparently no consciousness in
nirvana, but everything is consciousness in moksha. The fact that these systems are so
diametrically opposed here, that one is the mirror image of the other, is suggestive. They are both
extreme positions, trying to resolve the relation between the self and the non-self by conflating the
one into the other. The not-self of Buddhism swallows the self; the self of Advaita swallows the not-
self. But do they amount to the same thing?
Does enlightenment invoive shrinking to nothing, or expanding to encompass everything? A hint is
to be found in Wittgenstein’s Notebooks 1914-1916.
The | makes its appearance in philosophy through the world's being my world. (12.8.16)
Here we can see that solipsism coincides with pure realism, ifitis strictly thought out.
The | of solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and what remains is the reality
coordinate with it. (2.9.16)
..at last | see that | too belong with the rest of the world, and so OR the one side
nothings left over, and on the other side, as unique, the world, In this way idealism
leads to realism if itis strictly thought out. (15.10.16)
Wittgenstein's terms, and the problems he is dealing with in these passages, are naturally different
from ours, but they take on a particular meaning in the light of our inquiry into the nature of
enlightenment. Early Buddhism may be seen to emphasize the nothing, the extensionless point
which shrinks to nonexistence; Shankara emphasizes the unique world which remains. But they
are describing the same phenomenon
Ithas already been stated that all forms of the spiritual path, including of course Samkhya-Yoga,
Buddhism, and Advaita, involve complete non-attachment. One should not identify with any
physical or mental phenomenon; in other words, one learns to relax and “let go" of literally
everything. In doing so, the sense of self "shrinks to an extensionless point" and when that abruptly
disappears -- which is enlightenment -- "what remains is the reality co-ordinate with it." On the one
side nothing, not even the extensionless point, is left -- this is the Buddhist void, the complete
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem antrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
absence of a self. On the other side remains -- everything, the whole world, but a transformed one
since it now encompasses awareness within itself; this is the non-dual Brahman of Vedanta.
Zen meditation, although not a product of India, may be used as an example [7] In working on a
first koan such as Joshu's Mu, a student will be told to "become one with mu’ and let everything
else go. Mus usually treated as a mantra, one internally repeats "mu, mu," in coordination with
the breathing. At first there are many
7, The Japanese Zen master Dogen: "To learn the Buddhist Way is to learn about oneself. To leam about onesett is to
forget oneself. To forget oneself is to perceive oneself as all things. To realize this is to cast off the body and mind of self
and others." ("Genjo-koan," from the Shobogenzo)
p71 NIRVANA AND MOKSHA
distracting thoughts and it is difficult to focus on mu, but if the student perseveres, other thoughts
eventually fade away as mu grows stronger. All those mental phenomena that sustain the sense of
“I” - self-images, memories, expectations, and plans -- fade and the sense of self is slowly
attenuated. Eventually one gets to the stage where there is no longer the awareness of an "I" that
is saying mu there is just "mu"! At this stage it is said that "suis doing mu" Kensho,
enlightenment, occurs when something happens to startle the ripe student and make him “let go”
of everything — including mu, Although the preparation for this experience is gradual, the
realization itself is abrupt. It is a "leap" which usually requires the prompting of a Zen master at
precisely the right moment. Many of the classical Zen stories tell of how a student was enlightened
by a shout or a blow from his master; what happens in such cases is that the shock of the
unexpected noise or pain causes it to penetrate to the very core of the student's being -- in other
words, it is experienced nondually. When Unmon broke his ankle, he forgot himself and the whole
world as his universe collapsed into one excruciating pain
What is experienced then is the world without a seff, hence it is a transformed world. The familiar
everyday “natural” world of material objects was formerly balanced by an ego-consciousness that
was supposed to be observing it. The evaporation of that separate consciousness requires a new
explanation of what awareness is. The awareness which was previously understood to be’
observing the world is now realized to be incorporated within it. No longer do "I," as the locus of
consciousness, see something external; rather, the self-|uminous nature of the thing stands
revealed. This phenomenon could be described either as no-consciousness, or as a non-dual
consciousness. Early Buddhism opts for the former, claiming that consciousness is nothing more
than all those things that are experienced; Shankara opts for the latter, insisting that all those
things are consciousness. Buddhism says there is no self, there is only the world (aharmas),
Shankara says the world is the Self. To say that there is no self, or that everything is the self,
would also then be equally correct -- or false, depending on how one looks at it. Both descriptions
amount to the same thing; what is clear in each case is that there is no longer a duality between an
object which is observed and a consciousness which observes it; or between the external world
and the self which confronts it,(8}
But why is there nothing corresponding to "Brahman’ in Buddhism? Early Buddhism refers not to.
the One but to a plurality of separate dharmas, which is ontologically lopsided: the self has been
analyzed away, but the reality of the world as objective has been left unchanged. Later Buddhism
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem mmrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
corrected this by making the dharmas relative, hence unreal -- they are shunya, empty in
themselves. In Mahayana Buddhism shunyata, "emptiness," not only refers to the absence of a self
but also becomes the most fundamental characteristic of all reality; in function sunyatais the
category which corresponds most closely to the Vedantic concept of Brahman, But can shunyata
be reconciled with the One without a second?
My answer to this is prompted by the remark of a contemporary Zen master, Yamada Koun-roshi:
Regarding the true nature of things, he said: "Essentially, there is
&. tis evident why these should be the two ways of trying to describe non-duality. Our usual experience is dualistic (self
and non-self, consciousness and its object), and hence so is our language. Naturally an attempt to express the non-dual
experience in ordinary language will tend to eliminate one or the other term. So mystical experience is usually classified
(@. g., Rudolf Otto's Mysticism East and West into two sorts: the "inward way" of withdrawal and the “outward way" of
merging into the One.
p.72 Loy
only one thing...not even one." The implication of this statement is that if there is only one thing,
and nothing outside that unity -- no duality of a subject and an object — then that one would not
even be aware of itself as one; the phenomenological experience would be of nothing, or nothing,
which is shunyata. Awareness of a self -- of a wholeness ~- implies an-other from which it is
distinguished; so a child acquires an identity only as he or she gains a sense of what another
person is. A thing requires boundaries, limits; it is a thing because it is distinguished from
something else. For example, it makes no sense to ask whether the universe exists or not; we
know how to inquire whether a particular thing in the universe exists, but what criterion could we
use to determine whether the universe itself exists?[9] Because the universe, by definition, is not
part of a larger structure from which it can be distinguished, so the universe cannot meaningfully
be said to exist. In a similar way, because Brahman is One without a second, it cannot be
experienced as One,[10] Brahman encompasses all, hence it is empty, shunya, By definition, then,
Brahman is also necessarily infinite in the original sense of “not-bounded’” (by anything else), as a
sphere would be to an ant crawling on it.
So there are two paradoxes: to shrink to nothing is to become everything, and to experience
everything as One is again equivalent to nothing -- although a different sense of nothing. It seems
to me that these two points are critical in providing a common ground where the two opposed
systems meet, If we accept the possibility of such a nondual consciousness -- something which |
shall not try to justify here -- then Buddhism and Vedanta may be seen as describing the same
phenomenon from different perspectives. From their different perspectives, different metaphysical
systems are derived. But we may still wonder why they opt for different perspectives. Why did
Shankara prefer to speak of the One and the Buddha of nothingness?
It seems to me that the answer to this lies in the nature of philosophy itself. In referring to Brahman
as One without a second, Shankara tries to describe reality from outside, as it were, because that
is the only perspective from which it can be understood as One.[111] And this of course is what
philosophy tries to do: to look upon the whole of reality objectively and comprehend its structure,
as if the philosophizing intellect were itself outside that whole.
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem antrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
But the Buddha realized that we cannot get outside of reality and describe it as an object; our
efforts as well as our viewpoints are inevitably contained within that
9. "Exist" is from the Latin ex-+ sistere, “fo stand out from"
410, "This point is the key to understanding one of the crucial aspects of Shankara's system, the relation between Ishvara
(a personal God) and Brahman (the impersonal Absolute). Most metaphysics opt for one or the other, but Shankara
insists there are both. Ultimately, however, only Brahman is real. "Brahman reflected in maya is Ishvara; Brahman
reflected in avidya is jiva." The apparent contradiction between Ishvara and the individual self is the result of ignorance
and superimposition. Ishvara is the appearance of Brahman to the individual self, but this last bit of subject-object duality
is stil ilusory; when ignorance and illusion completely disappear, there is neither Ishvara nor self. Shankara is saying
‘something quite extraordinary: God is God only in relation to man; when the two finally dissolve back into each other,
there is only Brahman. To realize God is to become aware of a consciousness pervading everywhere; to become
Brahman is to realize that that is my consciousness,
‘The German mystic and philosopher Meister Eckhart made a similar point in distinguishing Deus (God) from Deltas
(Godhead). The pure, empty Godhead, he maintained, is infinitely higher than God Himself.
14, Of course this objective description of Brahman should not be confused with the actual nondual experience "of"
Brahman.
p.73 NIRVANA AND MOKSHA
whole. Thinking and its conclusions are events in and of the nondual world, although they are
carried on as if they were outside, an independent and fixed measure. We should remember that
the Buddha was not really a philosopher, although we inevitably try to force him into that mold; as
he never ceased to insist, he was interested only in leading others to the experience of nirvana.
From that perspective, all philosophy is only so many words and conceptual structures; insofar as
one believes in them -- clings to those ideas ~ they act as an obstruction to enlightenment,
Meditation is necessary to learn to let them go. Philosophically -- from the fictional “outside”
might say that there is only One Mind which encompasses all, but we must realize that
phenomenologically there is no such thing, because such a One Mind could not be aware of itself
as a self-contained mind in the sense that each of us is aware of his own mind,
we
What does this imply about how attaining nirvana/moksha would be experienced? Only fools rush
in where Buddhas fear to tread, but the above analysis implies there would not be a sense of
merging into the One. Instead, it would seem to be a disintegration, although not an annihilation;
rather, the boundaries of my ego-self, which distinguish me from others, would simply dissolve. It
would be a complete loss of tension and effort, a relaxation of the whole being. Letting go of
everything that was previously clung to, one thereby would become that everything which in fact
one always was. According to Samkhya-Yoga, the purusha in its true form is ubiquitous. The arhat,
said the Buddha, is “deep, immeasurable, unfathomable, like the mighty ocean.” The Vedantic
Brahmanis an infinite pure consciousness pervading everywhere 12]
In summary, | am suggesting that the difference between the Buddhist nirvana and the Vedantic
mokshais one of perspective. The Vedantic explanation ~ that of merging into the One-is a more
objective philosophical view. The Buddhist interpretation is more accurately a phenomenological
description. But in each case the actual experience is the same
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem antrio Enlightenment in Budehism ard Advaita Vedanta
Such an approach will probably be more pleasing to Vedantins and Mahayana Buddhists, since
they can see it as a vindication of their own position. Insofar as Theravada Buddhists have made a
metaphysic out of the Buddha's phenomenology, one is happy to discomfort them. But all parties
accept that conceptual thinking is part of the problem, not in itself the way to enlightenment. So
philosophy too must ultimately be transcended. If one accepts that the goal is to attain liberation
rather than to understand it, the original phenomenology of the Buddha himself seems the most
profound approach. Philosophy tries to view things externally, but ultimately
12, After this initial experience of "returning home," would the state of nirvana/mokshabe blissful or not? This is an
important controversy. In Yoga, the liberated purusha is indifferent to both bliss and pain; apparently no emotional
characteristics are applicable. Yet the true Self is by no means emotionally neutral in Vedanta: Brahman is Safchitananda,
Existence-Consclousness-Bliss Absolute; all phenomenal happiness is but a pale reflection of this ultimate joy.
Without attempting to resolve this issue, let me point out two passages that suggest these positions might not be
irreconcilable. “Then they sald to him: "Brahman is life (prana). Brahman is joy. Brahmanis the void.’ Then he said: ‘I
understand that Brahman is life. But joy and void I do not understand.’ They said; ‘Joy (ka) ~ truly, that is the same as the
Void (kha). The Void — truly, that is the same as Joy." (Chandogya Up., IV. x. 4-5) In one of the Pali sutras the arhat
Sariputra, in answer to a similar question, says "That there is no sensation, is itself bliss.” What this means is unclear, but
the parallel is certainly significant.
p. 74 Loy
it must fail. As Archimedes had no platform from which to move the earth, so our intellects have no
objective external place from which to comprehend it.[13]
13, There is another significant disagreement between Vedanta and Buddhism, reminiscent of the Presocratic contrast
between Parmenides and Heracleitus: whether reality is unchanging Being or impermanent Becoming, Shankara
‘exemplifies the extreme substance-view: universal and static Brahman is the only Real; the changing phenomenal world
is hence unreal maya, ust the illusory appearance of Brahman. In complete contrast, early Buddhism provides the
‘extreme modal-view: Reality is dynamic and momentary, objects are analyzed into the interacting and constantly
changing dharmas — attributes which inhere in no permanent substance. (T. R. V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of
Buddhism, p. 11.)
But, just as the elimination of the subject transforms the object (and vice-versa), so one cannot eliminate modes
completely without transforming the very notion of substance, and vice-versa. In denying the reality of all changing
attributes, Shankara ends up defining substance so narrowly that it ceases to have any meaning, Nothing can be
predicated of Nirguna Brahman, and it can only be approached through the via negativa of net, nett. "not this, not this..
Although Shankara would deny it, Brahman ends up as a completely empty ground, a Nothing from which all things arise
as its ever-changing appearance.
In a similar fashion, the early Buddhist elimination of all substance gives the aharma-attributes nothing in which to inhere.
As the result of a necessary dialectic Mahayana Buddhism ended up hypostasizing shunyata, the emptiness which is the
{rue nature of all things (and which the later Bhutatathata schools saw as the creative source from which all things arise).
‘As Murti points out, an internal dynamic in each tradition led to the postulation of a nondual Absolute (p. 12).
‘There is still a difference of emphasis. The Nirguna Brahman of Advaita cannot be characterized, but Saguna Brahman is
most essentially pure cil, nondual consciousness; whereas Buddhism speaks of nirvana as realizing the emptiness of
‘everything. Itis significant that the Atman of Vedanta is not self-conscious in the Cartesian sense: "..He is never thought,
but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is...n0 other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him."
“By what could one know the Knower?" "You cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge.” (Brhadaranyaka
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem ‘0avon Enlgtterment in Buthiam and Advata Vedra
Upan, Ik: 7.23; I: 4.14; It 4.2) Shankara explains: "That which is unknown can be made known and requires proof, but
not the se [the knower] If it be granted that the self requires proof, then who will be the knower [because the self
becomes one of the knowables, and without a knower there can be no application of proof]? It is settled that the knower is
the self" (Atmainanopadesa-vidhi, \V, 10)
But such a self that can never be experienced, because by definition itis the experiencer, can be described just as well as,
shunya, emply -- not however a nihilistic emptiness (Shankara's mistaken criticism of Madhyamika) but a shunyata which
will be cherished as the Buddhanature essence of all being,
hips needy W/E ULLTEXTIIR-AN/26715.Hem sw