Dhamma and Non-duality

I would really like to see what some of you think of this essay by Bhikku Bodhi.

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

My reaction is that at some point all that babbling about philosophy literally melts into gibberish and I just rely on my own personal experience. If there is anything the Buddha taught that applies to every single human being regardless of their spiritual tradition it is to go with that - to find out for yourself.

Thanks cmarti. Both perspectives are an experiential reality for me as well and I see how they fit together quite nicely.

I've seen this essay before and I think it is wonderful, although perhaps not for the reasons the author intended. Here is what I like about the piece:

1) It clearly articulates one fundamentalist Theravada point of view.

2) It shows that Bikkhu Bodhi has only the most superficial understanding of Advaita Vedanta.

3) It demonstrates, at least to my satisfaction, that Bukkhu Bodhi is not enlightened. It is precisely this lack of "bodhi" that leads one to cling to rigid interpretations of ancient texts.

There is a saying from the American Southwest that sums it up: "big hat, no cattle."

One man's opinion.

Kenneth

On the south side of Chicago we like to say, "All farts, no sheet to back it up."

I've read this article a number of times, and it really got me thinking critically about the whole nonduality thing.

The author is right in suggesting that there are facets of nondual "philosophy" that may be seen as inconsistent with the Buddha's message in the Pali canon. The Pali canon philosophy is pretty slick. It covers a wide range of topics, and it makes a good deal of rational sense from the vantage point of the social, cultural, and religious views of the Buddha's day.

But awakening isn't about philosophy. From what I understand, those who awaken don't usually find it easy to fit what they'd realized into a neat, tidy little philosophical package. From the vantage point of the status quo of human rationality, awakening doesn't make a lot of sense. That's why continued practice and integration are so important, and why it takes a long time to really sync up. We're conditioned to see things a certain way, and that conditioning - if left unchecked - can interfere with what we see as being true, false, rational, or irrational.

My personal opinion is that Bodhi not only adheres too tightly to the Pali canon system due to religious conviction, but also can't allow himself to wake up out of the need to make everything neat, tidy, and rational.

~Jackson

Yeah, I'm guessing a zen guy would just put his shoes on his head or something as a response to this essay... and that would be that.

"Yeah, I'm guessing a zen guy would just put his shoes on his head or something as a response to this essay... and that would be that."

Bhikku Bodhi is a great figure who has done a lot to bring traditional Theravada Buddhism to the west. Jackson is absolutly on the money with this one, awakening rarely fits neatly into tidy boxes. Venerable Bodhi's attempt to draw sharp distinctions between the nondual and Theravada awakenings shows his lack of insight couple with strong monastic conditioning. But I respect Venerable Bodhi and here is why. He admits that he isn't enlightened. This is an exert from an interview which can be found at www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Translator.html

"They assume that if a monk is devoted to scholarship, he can't be a serious practitioner, as if scholarship were somehow antithetical to real practice. I have to admit that my own meditation practice has fallen far short of my ideal, but I ascribe this largely to a chronic health condition (a personal karmic obstacle with which I must deal) rather than to a dedication to scholarship and a concern to translate the Buddhist scriptures."

"Venerable Bodhi's attempt to draw sharp distinctions between the nondual and Theravada awakenings shows his lack of insight couple with strong monastic conditioning. But I respect Venerable Bodhi and here is why. He admits that he isn't enlightened."-Clayton

No doubt Bikkhu Bodhi is a fine fellow and a great scholar. Nonetheless, it seems to me that someone who makes his living by, let's say, translating guidebooks to Paris, should live in Paris (or at least have visited there). If not, the translations are unlikely to reflect the intent of the original authors. A lot of people are going to get lost while reading these translated guidebooks, thinking they are getting the "real thing."

Those not familiar with Paris might consider that they have a social obligation to translate and comment about something they actually know about lest they confuse everyone within earshot.

The more I see how much damage is done by these well-intentioned "experts," the less inclined I am to remain silent about it. Every time one of these authoritative-sounding pundits ascends the bully pulpit, another group of sincere seekers is introduced to the glass ceiling. The fact that the pundits are honest enough to admit that they know not of what they speak does nothing to repair the harm they do.

(This vituperative harangue is not meant to criticize you, Clayton. I think it's nice to give Bikkhu Bodhi his due. I'm just continuing my unfavorable critique of the good bikkhu's essay along with general comments on the culture of cluelessness that is modern Buddhism.)

This is an interesting discussion, as I had thought that "In the Buddha's Words" was supposed to be a decent book. But now I am less inclined to buy it based on what seems to be suspect credibility, since interpretation and "monastic conditioning" is undoubtably involved in "translating" the Buddha's words.

Your Paris analogy, Kenneth, makes me worry that I would read the first noble truth as: "My hovercraft is full of eels." Ok, not really, but I cannot get it out of my head now.

"This is an interesting discussion, as I had thought that "In the Buddha's Words" was supposed to be a decent book. But now I am less inclined to buy it based on what seems to be suspect credibility, since interpretation and "monastic conditioning" is undoubtably involved in "translating" the Buddha's words." ~Tomo

I own the book, and I enjoy it. I think Bodhi does excellent exegesis, if you're into textual interpretation and what have you. We still have no idea whether or not any historical Buddha said anything like what is recorded in the suttas. Still, it's a good read for what it's worth.

Here is part of the essay :-
"I would assert, by reference to the Buddha's own original teaching, that profundity and completeness need not be bought at the price of distinctions [duality], that they can be achieved at the highest level while preserving intact the dualities and diversity so strikingly evident to mature reflection on the world. I would add, moreover, that the teaching which insists on recognizing real dualities as they are is finally more satisfactory."

He speaks of non-duality and duality as if it is one or the other. There is no need to elaborate and I will leave the judging to others, but at the very least he is speaking in another language.

Having recently clarified a few issues with a traditional Advaita Vedanta Indian teacher, it become clear that our Bhikkhu doesn't really know what he is talking about when it comes to other spiritual traditions.

This idea according to which advaitists would cling to the idea of a separate self is just ridiculous. Even what some Theravada Buddhists may call 'cessation', or taking nibbana as an object, is nothing more than the causal state (anadamayakosha) from the point of view of Advaita Vedanta, while what the latter calls Brahman (or Nirvana, a term used by Adi Shankaracarya) is beyond all states and experiences, including samadhi states, non-dual experiences, bliss (ananda), consciousness (cittam) or the sense of self (ahamkara).

Nevertheless, it also seems that the confusion is fed by the recent buzz around neo-Advaita, or pseudo-Advaita, popularized by some of the students of Poonjaji, which is not really Advaita Vedanta but a watered-down non-dual philosophy based on the idea that everything is awareness and that there is no need to do anything, because there is no-one there anyway.

I will confess going into this discussion that I am looking to the Bodhisatta/Buddha as the heretofore supreme example of a wise and compassionate approach with respect to any and all existing traditions.

When one holds an existing tradition in high regard, that is to say as embodiments of forms and modes of understanding in any ways or means superior to one's own, one abandons one's own understanding and attempts to fully conform to that existing tradition. Having exhaustively done so, should one find the tradition in any of its ways and means or understanding somehow inadequate, one abandons the tradition as opposed to attempting to reform it.

Moving on, one then adds to one's preexisting ways, means and understanding together with all that is of benefit within those of the available and appropriate given traditions. Rinse and repeat, until complete.

When one has perfected one's own ways, means and understanding, if one recognizes these to be demonstrably superior and if one is both willing and able to do so, one presents these new found ways, means and understanding as a new tradition.

So then, it would be immensely valuable for all concerned to correctly understand the following. What is your primary objective here? Are any or all of you variously concerned with either reform or revision of existing tradition(s) or with establishing a new demonstrably and meaningfully superior tradition or both and why?

It is worth noting that Advaita Vedanta ala Shankara is, in part, a response to Buddhist critiques of Atman-based spirituality. As someone whose practices that path in a lot of ways, I don't think that was simply/only an intellectual accommodation, as it was also grounded in a type of realization. Yet no doubt sophisticated early Buddhist ideas put a lot of pressure on Vedantic philosophers to clarify themselves (no pun intended).

When you start getting into the Mahayana traditions, the differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta become, I think, subtle at best, semantic at worst--or just differences in skillful means (upaya).

"It is worth noting that Advaita Vedanta ala Shankara is, in part, a response to Buddhist critiques of Atman-based spirituality. As someone whose practices that path in a lot of ways, I don't think that was simply/only an intellectual accommodation, as it was also grounded in a type of realization. Yet no doubt sophisticated early Buddhist ideas put a lot of pressure on Vedantic philosophers to clarify themselves (no pun intended).

When you start getting into the Mahayana traditions, the differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta become, I think, subtle at best, semantic at worst--or just differences in skillful means (upaya). "


Absolutely. Some scholars even accused Gaudapada (Shankara's guru) of being a crypto-Buddhist. And in a way this is true considering the fact that he did borrow a lot from Yogacara and Madhymaka Buddhism. The opposite is of course also true, especially with Tantric Buddhism that has been strongly influenced by various Shaiva tantric cults such as the Kapalika. Proof of it the fact that in traditional Tibetan iconography, Padmasambhava wears the attributes of a Kapalika, in particular the skull cup which is directly related to the legend of Bhairava in the Shiva Pruranas (as an emanation of Shiva, Bhairava cut one of the head of Brahma and was condemned to beg with a skull cup.

Thanks! That is quite interesting--I didn't know the symbols crossed over that much. I didn't know the Tibetan and Hindu tantras had anything really in common until I read a brief bio of a guy who studied Shaivite texts with Kalu Rinpoche (who I know enough of to know he's pretty famous in Tibet).

Interesting about Gaudapada and Shankara. I read a book once that suggested that how Shankara-formulated-Advaita was actually a pretty profound break from Gaudapada's thinking, and that Abhinavagupta (the Shaivite synthesizer) and the Tantras are actually much more in line with Gaudapada. The issue is rooted in Gaudapada's theory of language, where he suggests that sound creates language which in turns creates reality. Gaudapauda noted 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person languages and realities. Shankara left out the 2nd--the great other, that which grants reality to "other"--and just kept 1st and 3rd. So in Shankara's Advaita there is only the big "I" and the big "It," no big "You" or big "We." In Tantra, which accepts outer reality as a real manifestation of God, that middle dimension is retained.

"I've seen this essay before and I think it is wonderful, although perhaps not for the reasons the author intended. Here is what I like about the piece:

1) It clearly articulates one fundamentalist Theravada point of view.

2) It shows that Bikkhu Bodhi has only the most superficial understanding of Advaita Vedanta.

3) It demonstrates, at least to my satisfaction, that Bukkhu Bodhi is not enlightened. It is precisely this lack of "bodhi" that leads one to cling to rigid interpretations of ancient texts.

There is a saying from the American Southwest that sums it up: "big hat, no cattle."

One man's opinion.

Kenneth"


I just want to chime in with to say that, while I agree that a lack of awakening would likely correlate with rigid interpretation of ancient texts, I'm under the impression that there are plenty of people who are / were awakened and also interpreted ancient texts quite rigidly. As for living teachers, Thanissaro Bhikkhu is one who I wager is probably 3rd path, based on a Dharma talk I've listened to where he discussed a student who'd confused the 8th jhana for nibbana, as well as an interview where he said he would like to know what it's like to be fully enlightened. ( www.oberlin.edu/alummag/spring2004/feat_monk_04.html )

My basic point is that it would be a shame (and not very pragmatic) if pragmatic practitioners began to reject teachers out of hand simply because they're traditional.....Because, you know, they might also be enlightened. : )

"My basic point is that it would be a shame (and not very pragmatic) if pragmatic practitioners began to reject teachers out of hand simply because they're traditional.....Because, you know, they might also be enlightened. : )"-Ryguy

Hi Ryan,

For clarification, when I use the word "enlightened," I'm talking about 4th Path and beyond.

I've been noticing a pattern: enlightened teachers who also happen to be traditional tend to reinterpret the texts in a way that reflects their understanding. Unenlightened teachers who are traditional, on the other hand, defer too much to literal interpretations of the texts because they cannot trust their own understanding (and rightly so). They use fundamentalism as a crutch or as a way to hide their own lack of insight.

Bottom line: would you want to learn piano from someone who cannot play? Surfing from someone who does not know how to surf? Mathematics from someone who cannot do math?

Why are we willing to give incompetent or unqualified dharma teachers a free ride? It makes no sense. Teachers who have not mastered the material they are teaching are not worthy of your reverence, no matter what kind of clothes they wear. Tell them to stop talking, hit the cushion, and come back when they can walk their talk.

Is it just me or does insanity reign in the world of dharma education? How is it possible that year after year the most popular dharma teachers are those who by their own admission don't know what in the hell they are talking about?

Righteously indignant, impatient, petulant, and annoyed (duly noted ),

Kenneth

"My basic point is that it would be a shame (and not very pragmatic) if pragmatic practitioners began to reject teachers out of hand simply because they're traditional.....Because, you know, they might also be enlightened. : )" -- Ryan

This is a very important discussion. If you don't want to wake up then an unenlightened teacher is fine, I suppose. As I've mentioned elsewhere here, I recently visited the Zen Center near my house looking for a teacher who could work with a few members of my family. Not long into the conversation it became quite clear that this Roshi was not awakened. He was talking to me about teaching vipassana/samatha and other non-Zen techniques but he had no personal experience with the deeper nature of these practices. His information was obviously coming from what he had read (Cabat Zinn, etc.), not what he had experience of. When I inquired more deeply about topics related to awakening this man did not respond with experience-related comments, just more text-related stuff.

I will not go back there, though the Roshi has since sent me invitations to talk further. I see no point unless I want to talk about Cabat Zinn

"Righteously indignant, impatient, petulant, and annoyed (duly noted ),

Kenneth"

You forgot messianic.

Nice...sigh...

"You forgot messianic.-काली"

OK, "messianic." Also, "delusions of grandeur," "self-riteousness," "hubris," "antagonism," "uncharitability," "unkindness," "lack of compassion," and "self-centeredness."

Thanks, Kali. (Or should I say "Jiminy Cricket.") ;-D

"OK, "messianic." Also, "delusions of grandeur," "self-riteousness," "hubris," "antagonism," "uncharitability," "unkindness," "lack of compassion," and "self-centeredness."

Thanks, Kali. (Or should I say "Jiminy Cricket.") ;-D"

lol
I have no interest in acting as anyone's conscience. Unless of course I hear tales of your nose growing.

I'm simply curious why incendiary language is necessary is used to describe fellow travelers along the path.