First of all, I respect Venerable Bodhi's works. His translations of the Nikayas and his commentaries were excellent and I highly recommend them to everyone. I have collected a number of his books which are all excellent, and Thusness passed me a big one - the Samyutta Nikaya.

However, someone asked me to comment on one of his articles and I will do so here. Been procrastinating on this for a few days because it is a long article but hopefully it will clarify some of the misunderstandings out there.

Let me do it slowly... and... others are welcome to add their own points. (Note: this critique was originally posted/evolving part by part in Facebook before final compilation) Maybe Kyle Dixon has something to add as well. When this gets done I will compile my comments and hopefully others' comments (that’s the beautiful thing about a group or forum like this - you can gather bits of wisdom from everyone), and send it to that person who asked me.

Here's the article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

To start it all: the first few paragraphs about the difference between Advaitic view on Brahman and the Buddhist view on anatta is OK. If you have been reading our blog then you'll know that the Vedantic view and insights is quite different from the Buddhist view and insights. The authors of this blog, Thusness and I, know this from experience. The Buddhist (Theravada and Mahayana) sort of non-duality has nothing to do with union with 'Brahman'/'Universal Self'/'Pure Consciousness'/etc etc, which are the Hindu goals.



The problem with Bhikkhu Bodhi's article starts from this paragraph:

"The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

Comments: This paragraph is erroneous. The ultimate does *not* deny the validity of conventional dualities of samsara and nirvana.

First of all, as David Loy pointed out, "Nagarjuna never actually claims, as is sometimes thought, that “samsara is nirvana.” Instead, he says that no difference can be found between them. The koti (limit, boundary) of nirvana is the koti of samsara. They are two different ways of experiencing this world. Nirvana is not another realm or dimension but rather the clarity and peace that arise when our mental turmoil ends, because the objects with which we have been identifying are realized to be shunya. Things have no reality of their own that we can cling to, since they arise and pass away according to conditions. Nor can we cling to this truth. The most famous verse in the Karikas (25:24) sums this up magnificently: “Ultimate serenity is the coming-to-rest of all ways of ‘taking’ things, the repose of named things. No truth has been taught by a Buddha for anyone anywhere.”"

What is denied is not 'conventional validity' but the real, substantial existence of dharmas in the ultimate sense. The conventional designations of dharmas are being utilized in the same way by the Madhyamika, their conventional validity are not in any way undermined at all, it is only that their status as ultimate realities (paramartha dharmas) or real existents are seen to be untenable upon analysis.

As Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm puts it:

"It is not the intention of Madhyamaka to undermine this or that conventional presentation of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, but merely to show that they are not paramārtha dharmas. "

"As we know, Madhyamaka adopts the conventional truth either according to the Sautrantika system, or the Yogacara system. But since it's own perspective is grounded in the Prajñāpāramitasūtras, it regards distinctions such as mind and matter to be merely conventional designations that do not have any real basis apart from imputation."

BB: "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses."
Comments: First of all we should be clear on what exactly non-duality here means.

Malcolm wrote: "It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons."

First of all, the definitive view being held by many schools especially those of the Tibetan schools is the Madhyamaka view - that is, the epistemic nondualism of being and non-being, existence and non-existence, etc.

And we need to ask, is this found in the teaching of the Buddha in the Pali canon? The answer is of course, yes. In the suttas the Buddha taught that "Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.[5]" and stated that the Dharma leads to the relinquishing of clinging for such views. In another sutta, it is stated: "Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

The four extremes, of the 'existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence' of the Tathagata after passing was also rejected in the suttas. From all these examples we can know that the epistemic non-duality that is the rejection of being/non-being is taught in the suttas even if the specific word "non-dual" may not be used.

What is not specifically stated in the suttas is the 'indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned', however, this is implied naturally if the epistemic non-duality is valid.

Kyle Dixon adds:

I had wrote this the other day when someone brought up 'neo-advaita' in relation to the buddhadharma:

One of the issues with so-called 'neo-advaita' is that it lacks both the dichotomies of (i) 'conventional and ultimate' and/or (ii) 'delusion and wisdom', and without those aspects of the teaching, persons, places, things etc. (what the dharma refers to as conventional designations), are taken to be truly non-existent (often because they are 'concepts'), and that subtle objectification results in the mind grasping at those notions, and you end up with a bunch of people who truly believe there is no self, etc. So it's a bunch of selves who believe they don't exist.

Traditional Advaita Vedanta is much more refined, but it still posits the existence of an unconditioned and uncaused, universal self. Though its praxis is backed by a long standing tradition, and so it doesn't have as many inconsistencies and issues when compared to the new wave 'neo-advaita'.

I don't think Dolbulpa's gzhan stong is quite the same as Vedanta.

The big differences between the Advaita view and that of the buddhadharma is that the Advaita non-duality is 'advaita', which is accomplished by subsuming relative existents into a truly established and inherently existent ultimate nature. That ultimate nature exists in relation to relative phenomena, is the source of that relative phenomena, but is not that phenomena and is beyond the relative.

The non-duality of the buddhadharma is 'advaya', which is discovered through a freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence (and both and neither). The ultimate nature is the non-arising of the relative, and so there truly is no inherent ultimate nature. The ultimate nature in this case is inseparable from the relative, for example; when Nāgārjuna states: 'samsara and nirvana, neither of these truly exist, instead, nirvana is a complete and through knowledge of samsara'.

And here's a compilation of some of Lopon Malcolms posts on non-duality in the buddhadharma:

Malcolm wrote:
There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma.

Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination.

Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on.

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

----------

Malcolm wrote:
"Non-duality" is trivial in general because is just an intellectual trip.

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

----------

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is one of three doors of liberation; non-duality is not. The other two being lack of aspiration and the signless.

There is no philosophy of non-dualism in Buddhism. This is wholly the invention of western scholars. For example, Madhyamaka rarely uses the term "non-dual".

When it is used in Yogacara, it is meant to describe lack of a real subject and object in perception (vijñaptimatra), and hence the absence of existence and non-existence in those imagined phenomena as well.

It does not get used at all in the Nikaya schools.

I think westerners are over-invested in this word.

But a word that is frequently brought up, over and over again, is anutpāda, non-origination, non-arising. This word is much more important for we Buddhists.

----------

Malcolm wrote:
"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state....

----------

Malcolm wrote:
"Non-dual" i.e. gnyis med/advaya means the absence of the duality of being and non-being.

In Yogacara, it can mean absence of subject and object, but the reason for this is that ultimately there is an absence of being and non-being.

Even when we talk about the inseparability of original purity and natural formation, kadag and lhundrup, this inseparability is actually predicated on the non-duality that I mentioned above. When we talk about freedom from the four extremes, the eight extremes and so on, it is all, in the end predicated on the absence of being and non-being. That absence of being and non-being is the essence of what the term "non-dual" means in Buddhist texts.

It is not a translation or terminology issue, it is just a basic fact of Buddhist view....

----------

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever is asti is satya (true), whatever is nasti as mithya (false), so at base, it really is about freedom from asti (being) and nasti (non-being).

Malcolm wrote:
In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based.

And often enough translators decide to translate dbyer med as non-dual, even though dbyer med is asaṁbhedaḥ, inseparable.

I am just a bigger pain in the ass than most translators and more insisitent that translations reflect and are completely consistent with buddhist view so that crypto-hindu notions stay out of our school.

Even Norbu Rinpoche asserts that in his rdzog chen skor dris len that Dzogchen view does not go beyond Madhyamaka in terms of formal statements of the view, citing Sakya Pandita to the effect that if there would something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme, and so on.

----------

Malcolm wrote:
"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

----------

Malcolm wrote:
Non-duality is not a thing. There is no non-dual thing or state and so on.

There is a difference between an absence of duality (Madhyamaka, and so on) and so called "non-duality".

Malcolm wrote:
The first refers to an absence of extremes. The second is advocating a philosophical position.

Malcolm wrote:
The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

----------

Malcolm wrote:
One can argue from the point of view of emptiness. One cannot argue from the point of view of non-duality and remain a Buddhist.

Advaya-patita means "not broken into two parts", better to say, "...all phenomena are not divided into two, though they are not divided into two, they are not, however single".

Better translation of the title would be the dharma discourse on entering the absence of dualism.

But the absence of dualism here is the dualism of "exists" and "does not exist".

Also the absence of the tā particle in Buddhist renderings of the term advaya is significant, even though usually over looked. "Tā" bears the meaning it "ity" in English, for example, reality. Non-duality means literally, "a state of being in which there is no dualism".

Emptiness is nondual, but it is not a nondual'ity'.

The amount of trouble this simple word causes is incalculable -- the mistranslation of advaya as non-duality is responsible for huge misunderstandings....

The nice thing about śūnyatā is that you can stated that it is ultimate reality without committing oneself to an ontological position. Hence the tā suffix.

Three gates of liberation are a little different: śūnya, alakṣana, apranidhana, empty, without characteristics, without aspiration.

They are not states, they are entries. Emptiness is the bhutatā, the actual nature of the things. Also emptiness has no nature, since it is free from extremes.

This is the beauty of Madhyamaka. You can assert emptiness as a nature, and no one can fault you. If you assert non-duality as a nature you have already committed an epistemological blunder.

As Nagarjuna really said:

If I had a position, I would be at fault.
Since I alone have no position, I alone am free from fault.

----------

Malcolm wrote:
Phenomena are free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience -- see Kaccaayanagotto Sutta i.e. "Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathāgata teaches a doctrine of the middle".

The middle way view is by necessity a non-dual view, avoiding these extremes of dualism. That is also emptiness; emptiness cures the views of existence and non-existence -- that can be correlated in one's personal experience....

It is the same, now attached, now detached; now full, now empty; now exists, now does not exist; these are all dualities.

When the basis for attachment has ceased, also the basis for detachment has ceased: detachment is also trapped in dualism....

...Non-attachment is remedial. It contains the seeds of its own defeat.

If you have attachment, then you need non-attachment. It is better to cut these things at the root, rather than the leaf.

The root is wrong views of existence and non-existence. That is dualism as defined by the Buddha. The absence of duality is when one's has no wrong views concerning "it is" and "it is not".

Every other dualistic pair stems from these two.

Finally, from the Ch'an/Zen side of things, by Ven. Huifeng of Fo Guang University:

----------

Malcolm wrote:
Since the position of Zen has been brought into the discussion (albeit in a rather clumsy manner), it is worth pointing out how the phrase "advaya" appears in Chinese. It appears almost always as 不二, which is again just "not two", a very clear translation of "advaya". If one wished to express "advaita" (or similar abstracted sense), then one would probably use 非二性 (Xuanzang style translation). However, while 不二 appears thousands of times throughout the Chinese canon, including the Chan (--> Zen) works, the latter term or variants, only appear once or twice from what can be found scanning the entire canon digitally.

So, the Chinese - and I'd warrant the Japanese too - most likely had a clear notion of "advaya" as "not two". Whether or not this is held out in English translations of the Chinese or Japanese works, however, is another matter. But considering that of Chan or Zen practitioners, only a tiny minority use English, one would want to avoid gross over generalizations.

(end of Kyle's post)

SWY:

Now in another sense, we can also say that the non-duality that is the rejection of a Seer, Seeing the Seen (subject-action-object) is another important aspect of non-duality that is supported by the Pali suttas.

What does the Suttas say about this? We hear from Ajahn Amaro who explains on the Bahiya Sutta,

"What does it mean to say, “There is no thing there”? It is talking about the realm of the object; it implies that we recognize that “the seen is merely the seen.” That’s it. There are forms, shapes, colors, and so forth, but there is no thing there. There is no real substance, no solidity, and no self-existent reality. All there is, is the quality of experience itself. No more, no less. There is just seeing, hearing, feeling, sensing, cognizing. And the mind naming it all is also just another experience: “the space of the Dharma hall,” “Ajahn Amaro’s voice,” “here is the thought, ‘Am I understanding this?’ Now another thought, ‘Am I not understanding this?’”

There is what is seen, heard, tasted, and so on, but there is no thing-ness, no solid, independent entity that this experience refers to.

As this insight matures, not only do we realize that there is no thing “out there,” but we also realize there is no solid thing “in here,” no independent and fixed entity that is the experiencer. This is talking about the realm of the subject.

The practice of nonabiding is a process of emptying out the objective and subjective domains, truly seeing that both the object and subject are intrinsically empty. If we can see that both the subjective and objective are empty, if there’s no real “in here” or “out there,” where could the feeling of I-ness and meness and my-ness locate itself? As the Buddha said to Bahiya, “You will not be able to find your self either in the world of this [subject] or in the world of that [object] or anywhere between the two.”" - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../ajahn-amaro-on...

And we find similar teachings in the Kalaka Sutta, where the Buddha talked about how the Buddhas are free from the conceiving of a Seer and an object of sight:

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime."


BB: "At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent."

Comments: The suttas actually reject metaphysical dualities, such as being/non-being.

BB: "I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world."

Comments: Buddhism is certainly pragmatic rather than speculative, but it would again be erroneous to understand emptiness as if it is a 'unifying principle behind or beneath our experience'. The non-dualism of emptiness has nothing to do with a 'unifying principle behind or underneath experience'. The non-dualism of emptiness is an epistemic non-duality free from extremes, not a philosophical void (it is not a philosophical statement but the nature of one's mind/experience that can be directly realized), and the realization of this emptiness frees us from all clinging and references, which allows for the very purpose of Buddha's teachings: to lead sentient beings to the end of suffering. Emptiness is not a background of phenomena, not a unifying principle, not a principle beneath our experience, but the very nature of all phenomena/experience is to be empty of any intrinsic existence at all.

Furthermore, the dependent and empty nature of emptiness should show that there is no 'underlying emptiness behind everything'. If the emptiness of a cup depends on a cup, how can this emptiness be said to be some universal underlying principle behind all phenomena?

Greg Goode put it well:

"Emptiness Itself is Empty

Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18.

Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty.

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

Emptiness is not a substance
Emptiness is not a substratum or background
Emptiness is not light
Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
Emptiness is not the Absolute
Emptiness does not exist on its own
Objects do not consist of emptiness
Objects do not arise from emptiness
Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind"

- http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

BB: "Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level."

Comments: Realization of emptiness as emphasized in Mahayana teaching has nothing to do with "a final unity" (unity with what? Brahman? Obviously not a doctrine accepted in Buddhism) and does, indeed, lead to the extinction of suffering.

And this is not just a Mahayana teaching. Look at Phena Sutta (Pali Sutta) on how the realization of emptiness leads to the release from all suffering:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../sn22/sn22.095.than.html

Excerpt:

""Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"


Speaking about Greg Goode, from that same article I quoted from, there is a very relevant passage, and shows how the non-duality of emptiness has nothing at all to do with some "oneness" or "final unity":

How Is Emptiness Nondual?

The most common connotation of "nonduality" is "oneness" or "singularity." Many teachings state that everything is actually awareness; those teachings are nondual in the "oneness" sense in which there are no two things.

But there is another sense of "nonduality." Instead of nonduality as "oneness," it's nonduality as "free from dualistic extremes." This entails freedom from the pairs of metaphysical dualisms such as essentialism/nihilism, existence/non-existence, reification/annihilation, presence/absence, or intrinsicality/voidness, etc. These pairs are dualisms in this sense: if you experience things in the world in terms of one side of the pair, you will experience things in the world in terms of the other side as well. If some things seem like they truly exist, then other things will seem like they truly don't exist. You will experience your own self to truly exist, and fear that one day you will truly not exist. Emptiness teachings show how none of these pairs make sense, and free you from experiencing yourself and the world in terms of these opposites. Emptiness teachings are nondual in this sense.

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.


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

Comments: as explained above, all these conventional dualities are not being undermined in any way. Hidden in BB's statement is the assumption that emptiness in fact undermines the 'pragmatic value' of Buddhadharma, such as the four noble truths, the path towards ending suffering, the cultivation of a virtuous life, etc.

It must be explained that Emptiness does not ever reject or deny the necessity of all these pragmatic aspects of Buddhism. On the other hand, it is precisely because of emptiness and dependent origination that there is the possibility of practicing them.

Check this out:

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew103934.htm

(Excerpt)

Nagarjuna's Critique of the Dharma

In chapter XXIV of the Karikas, NAgarjuna continues his attack on the Abhidharma philosophers by analyzing the Four Noble Truths, and argues that-like causality, impermanence, suffering, and bondage-they, too, are "empty." The problem of this chapter needs to be seen against the background of the preceding section. If the Abhidharma views of causality are "empty," as Nagarjuna says they are, and if causality is a central feature of Buddhist praxis, then Nagarjuna seems to undermine everything that is vital to Buddhism. He begins chapter XXIV by expressing the Abhidharma position in the following way:

If all of this is empty,
Neither arising nor ceasing,
Then for you, it follows that
The Four Noble Truths do ont exist.

If the Four Noble Truths do not exist,
Then knowledge, abandonment,
Meditation and manifestation
Will be completely impossible.

p.571

If these things do not exist,
The four fruits will not arise.
Without the four fruits, there will be no attainers of the fruits.
Nor will there be the faithful.

If so, the spiritual community will not exist.
Nor will the eight kinds of person.
If the Four Noble Truths do not exists,
There will be no true Dharma.

If there is no doctrine and spiritual community,
How can there be a Buddha?
If emptiness is conceived in this way,
The three jewels are contradicted.
(Garfield 1995, p.67)

In the passages above, the Abhidharma opponent is saying that if Nagarjuna is right about "emptiness," then the very practices that make Buddhism soteriologically efficacious will be destroyed. That is, if it is true that the Four Noble Truths are "empty," then there is no such thing as the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, no such thing as impermanence, "non-self," and nirvana, and the practices that supposedly lead to liberation will be destroyed. Nagarjuna responds to the opponent by saying that he has misunderstood "emptiness":

We say that this understanding of yours
Of emptiness and purpose of emptiness
And of the significance of emptiness is incorrect.
As a consequence you are harmed by it.
(Garfield 1995, p.68)

Because the opponent has taken "emptiness" to signify the nonexistence of the Four Noble Truths, he is "harmed by it"-in other words, he sees "emptiness" as destructive. But his reason for thinking of "emptiness" in this way is that he thinks that a "correct" meditation on causality, the aggregates, and the Four Noble Truths is necessary for liberation.

Nagarjuna responds to this assumption by reversing the tables and saying, in effect, that it is not "emptiness" that destroys practice, but the very idea that such things as causality, the aggregates, and the Four Noble Truths are "inherent," essential, or necessary:

If you perceive the existence of all things
In terms of svabhava,
Then this perception of all things
Will be without the perception of causes and conditions.

Effects and causes
And agent and action
And conditions and arising and ceasing
And effects will be rendered impossible.
(Garfield 1995, p.69)

p.572

Nagarjuna goes on to say that the reason essences militate against causal conditions, arising, ceasing, agency, and so forth is that the idea of essence entails independence, and if things are by nature independent then it is impossible for them to interact causally. If this is true then there is no "dependent arising," and without "dependent arising" it is impossible to make sense of the ability to cultivate a virtuous life. In other words, without the process of change the whole idea of cultivating the "fruits" of a Buddhist life is rendered nonsensical. Nagarjuna responds by saying that Buddhist praxis must be "empty" if we are to make any sense of the Four Noble Truths:

If dependent arising is denied,
Emptiness itself is rejected.
This would contradict
All of the worldly conventions.

If emptiness is rejected,
No action will be appropriate.
There would be action which did not begin,
And there would be agent without action.

If there is svabhava, the whole world
Will be unarising, unceasing,
And static. The entire phenomenal world
Would be immutable.

If it (the world) were not empty,
Then action would be without profit.
The act of ending suffering and
Abandoning misery and defilement would not exist.
(Garfield 1995, p.72)

Nagarjuna has thus shifted the debate. Whereas the Abhidharma thinker begins with the assumption that a "correct" meditation on the Dharma is a necessary prerequisite for liberation, Nagarjuna undercuts this by saying that if one takes the Dharma as essential, that is, as necessary, then the very essence of Buddhism is undermined. Like the first chapter on causation, Nagarjuna is reminding the Abhidharma philosophers here about nonattachment. The Four Noble Truths are supposed to be medicinal "rafts" that help specific sentient beings overcome their attachments, but if one becomes attached to the practices of nonattachment then one has missed the entire point of Buddhism. Thus, Nagarjuna says that the Dharma-which includes causation, impermanence, suffering, bondage, and liberation-is "empty."


(At this point, Greg Goode added a comment to this thread:)

“I find this to be a fascinating topic, like many inter-path discussions. Back in 1998 when the article was published, there weren't very many people talking about the Madhyamika. Back then, the big new path was Advaita and its various Westernized versions. Papaji's teachers were out and about. Ramana and Nisargadatta's teachings were very popular. Chinmaya Mission and Arsha Vidya Gurukulam were beginning to catch attention.

I think that the good Bikkhu Bodhi (who about at the time he wrote the article, was head of the Mahayana dharma center where I used to practice) is objecting to a specific philosophical tendency.

The tendency could be described as lumping things together into a more fundamental reality, or collapsing one part of a dualism into another part, or moving towards a monistic ontology and psychology. Some things like that happen in Pure Land, and in Jaxchen.

From BB's perspective none of those make for Buddhism. There is a lot in Mahayana that Theravada doesn't accept.

But I sometimes wonder in a sociological way, How much are these boundaries going to stay rigid going forward... People shop around a lot these days, way more than in the late 90s. It happens a lot. People mix and match paths and create new soups and salads from teachings. In many American sanghas, there is a lot of thought over "Western Buddhism." What will be kept from Asian sources? What will fall away? What new things will emerge?

I talk about "joyful irony" in my book on emptiness. For a joyful ironist, these are exciting times!”

Another translation of One Thought Traveller's articles.

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5b4d23f60102ea62.html

(2014-01-21 05:52:02)

观呼吸是一种简洁
而又有巨大意义和力量的普通且神奇之法，
坚持观察它，深入修行它，
必然如贫得宝，如暗遇明。

Contemplating/observing the breathe is a kind of concise/succinct/pithy
Dharma that is ordinary and miraculous yet able to have enormous significance and power
Persist in observing it, deeply practice it,
Then one will certainly be like a poor person obtaining a jewel, like darkness meeting brightness.

观呼吸，
初期只管观呼吸，
中期只管观呼吸，
后期只管观呼吸，
观呼吸如饮蜜，初、中、后皆甜。

Observing/contemplating the breath,
In the initial stage only being concerned with observing the breath,
In the middle stage only being concerned with observing the breath,
In the later stage only being concerned with observing the breath,
Observing the breath like drinking honey, (during the) initial, middle and late (phases) it is all sweet.

观呼吸，
呼吸进来了——这是事实，
呼吸出去了——这是事实，
这是长呼吸——这是实际，
这是短呼吸——这是实际……

Observing/contemplating breath,
Breathing in – this is factual/truth,
Breathing out – this is factual/truth,
This is long-breath – this is factual/truth,


观呼吸的要领是客观，
要不断地练习这种客观观察的能力，
直到从呼吸里见法，
直到从呼吸时见佛。

The gist of observing the breath is (being) objective,
Unceasingly practicing the capacity for this kind of objective observation,
Until (one) sees the Dharma from the breath,
Until (one) sees the Buddha from the breath,

藉借观呼吸，
可以修持定力，体会身心安定；
可以发展观慧，获得般若之眼；
可以了解和熟悉生命的不思议用，如佛菩萨一般生活。


Making use of observing the breath,
One is able to cultivate the strength of concentration, experience the tranquility of mind and body;
One is able to develop the wisdom of observation/contemplation, obtaining the eye of Prajna (wisdom);
One is able to understand and be familiar with the thoughtless functions of life, and live like the Buddhas and Bodhisattva.

……

客观的观察呼吸，
只有身体和呼吸，没有“我”；
客观的观察呼吸，
没有呼吸者，呼吸也如幻。


Objectively observing the breath,
Only the body and breath, no “self”;
Objectively observing breath,
There is no breather, breath is also illusion-like.

呼吸是身体的呼吸，
呼吸是呼吸自己的呼吸，
呼吸是诸法的共和，
呼吸是天地的和风……


Breath is body's breathing,
Breathing is breathing's own breathing,
Breathing is the coming together of various dharmas (phenomena),
Breathing is the sky, the earth and the wind...

身体自己在呼吸，像磨豆浆机自己在工作，
身体自己在呼吸，像电视自动在切换画面，
身体自己在呼吸，像唱片机自己在播放歌曲，
身体自己在呼吸，像天地的风自己在吹……


Body is breathing by itself, like the machine for grinding soy milk is working on its own,
Body is breathing by itself, like the TV is shifting images automatically,
Body is breathing by itself, like the record player is playing songs on its own,
Body is breathing by itself, like the wind of the sky and earth is blowing on its own...

从观呼吸，可以见法；
从观呼吸，可以见实相，
从观呼吸可以体会“无我”这个事实，
从观呼吸，见解和行证可以齐于诸佛。

From observing the breath, (one) is able to see the Dharma;
From observing the breath, (one) is able to see the Truth,
From observing the breath, (one) is able to realize the truth of “no self”,
From observing the breath, (one's) realization and accomplishment can reach the level of all Buddhas.


开始观呼吸，
各种念头会出来干扰你，
别理它，只管观呼吸去，
不停地回到观呼吸上，
直到心意清净，
直到体会到无我，
直到认识和理解生命的不思议用……


(While) beginning with observing the breath,
Various kinds of thoughts will disturb you,
Do not bother about them, only care for observing the breath,
Return to observing the breath without stopping,
Until mind and thoughts become tranquil,
Until realizing no-self,
Until recognizing and realizing the thoughtless functions of life...

不要小看观呼吸，
你想要的它都能给你。
它就像种一块无形的地，
你对它用心多深，
它就返还你多少。


Do not underestimate observing the breath,
Whatever you want it will give it to you,
It is like a piece of formless land,
Depending on how deeply you devote into it,

It will give returns to you accordingly.

早期不管发生什么，只管观呼吸去，
中期不管发生什么，只管观呼吸去，
后期不管发生什么，只管观呼吸去，
观呼吸是妙法，是大法，能深入之，
不但能洞察诸法根源，也能究竟解脱，真实不虚。


In the beginning phase no matter what happens, only care for observing breath,
In the middle phase no matter what happens, only care for observing breath,
In the late phase no matter what happens, only care for observing breath,
Observing breath is marvellous dharma, it is the great dharma, (those who) are able to deeply enter into this,
Not only is able to (obtain) insight into the root of all dharmas, (one) is also able to (attain) ultimate liberation, this is true without falsities.

只管观呼吸去！

Only care for observing breath!

(2013-12-19 11:21:25)

修觉的行者，

不要以为“觉”就是我，我就是“觉”；
分明向你道，
“觉”不是我，我不是“觉”。

Practitioners of awareness,
Do not think that “Awareness” is Self, or that I am Awareness;
Let it be clearly said to you,
“Awareness” is not Self, Self is not “Awareness”.

首先，觉性无知，
觉不会说“我”，
说“我”的决不是“觉”。

First of all, Awareness is without knowledge.
Awareness will not say “I”,
(That which) says “I” is definitely not “Awareness”.

其次，“觉”相对于“梦”而有，
觉与梦，同根同源，
梦若有，觉亦有；
梦若无，觉亦无。

Secondly, “awareness” exists relative to “dream”,
Awareness and dream, same root and same source.
If there is dream, there is awareness.
If there isn't dream, there isn't awareness.

觉与梦，同质同地，
若说觉是真，梦也是真；
若说梦是假，觉也是假。

Awareness and dream, same nature and same ground.
If we say awareness is real, the dream is also real;
If we say the dream is unreal, awareness is also unreal.

分明向你道“无我”，
为何又要立个觉是“我”呢？
我亦无我，觉亦无我。

It is clearly said “no self”,
Why still establish that awareness is “self”?
Self is without self, awareness is without self.

修觉的行者，
不要守着“觉”不放，
守着觉不放，又成拴马橛，又成系驴桩。



Practitioners of awareness,
Do not guard onto “awareness” without letting go,
Guarding onto “awareness” without letting go, is becoming another hitching post for horses, becoming another hitching post for donkeys.

修觉的途中，
用“觉”觉动作、觉念头、觉呼吸，
觉感受，觉一切等，只是方便，
只是方法和工具，莫神话“觉”。



On the journey of practicing awareness,
Using “awareness” to be aware of actions, aware of thoughts, aware of breath,
Aware of feelings, aware of everything etc, that is only a convenient/skillful means,
It is only a method or a tool, do not mythologize “awareness”.

觉是梦幻般的，
它依旧符合法的本质——
无常、无我、不生，
如是看待“觉”。

Awareness is like a dream-illusion,
It still complies with the basic nature of dharmas ---
Impermanence, non-self, non-arising,
“Awareness” should be seen as such.

修觉的行者，
三界荡荡，无有一物可依、可倚，
莫作依倚想。



Practitioners of awareness,
(Within) the vast triple worlds, there is not a thing that can be relied on, that can be leaned on,
Do not fabricate thoughts of reliance or leaning.

若依倚一物——
不管那物叫“觉”、叫“心”或叫“佛性”等，
若依倚即入有无，即入生死，
即被系缚，不得解脱。



If we rely or lean on a single thing –
No matter if we call it “Awareness”, or call it “Mind” or call it “Buddha-Nature” etc,
If we rely on them we enter into existence and non-existence, we enter into birth and death,
We will thus be bonded, unable to attain liberation.

修觉的行者，
莫被“觉”系，
修觉者从“觉”字上解脱！

Practitioners of awareness,

Do not be tied by “Awareness”,

Practitioners of awareness liberate from the word “Awareness”!

古往今来，十方佛子，随佛学法，无非谋求真实，出离苦海，为得解脱。所谓解脱，即解脱于一切能系、所系。解者解于幻，脱者脱于心。幻者是心幻，心者是幻心。所谓心幻即是法，幻心所生的产物，又名幻象；所谓幻心即是认取或抓着幻象的主体。


Throughout the ages, the Buddha's disciples of the ten directions study the dharma according to the Buddha with none other than the purpose of seeking the truth, escaping the sea of suffering for the purpose of obtaining liberation. That which is called liberation is the liberation from all 能系 (fabricator?) and 所系 (fabrication?). The unknoter unknots delusion, the sheder sheds mind (note: Chinese word of 'liberation' is 'unknot shed'). That which is deluded is mind-delusion, that which is mind is delusional mind. What is called mind delusion is dharma, the product of mind delusion is known as delusional appearance; that which is called deluded mind is the subject that recognizes or grasps onto delusional appearance.



因为有幻心所生的产物——幻象 （法），有生出幻象的主体——幻心，所以解脱也就有两处：所谓心解脱，法解脱。法解脱又名慧解脱。即解脱有两种，谓心解脱，慧解脱。所谓心解脱，即是心从 它一切旧有的习惯和对法尘的粘着中逃离；所谓慧解脱，即是认出一切法的真实本质，并从那个认知中出离。

Because there is the product of deluded mind – delusional appearance (dharma), and there is the subject that gave rise to delusional appearance – deluded mind, therefore liberation has two parts: mind-liberation and dharma-liberation. Dharma liberation is also called wisdom liberation. Liberation has two kinds, also known as mind liberation and wisdom liberation. What is known as mind liberation is the escape from all the old habits and adhesiveness towards dharma sense objects; what is known as wisdom liberation, is the recognition of the true essence of all dharmas, and thus escape/liberate from that recognition.

当认出心的本质，谓破掉心，又 名破掉“能”；当认出法的本质，谓破掉法，又名破掉“所”。破掉能，没有攀援的主体，故能于心处解脱；破掉所，没有所攀援的对象，故能于法处解脱。心解脱 者，认识到心非心，心无自性，心空；法解脱者，认识到法非法，法无自性，法空。解脱者以心空行于法空，究竟解脱。

When the mind's essence is recognised, it breaks away mind, also known as breaking the “subject”; when the true essence of dharma is recognized, it breaks away dharma, also known as breaking the “object”. Breaking away subject, there isn't a subject that grasps/seeks, hence there can be liberation of the mind; breaking away the object, there is no object of grasping/seeking, hence there can liberation of dharma. Those who are mind-liberated, recognize that mind is not mind, mind is devoid of self-nature, mind is empty; those who are dharma-liberated, recognizes that dharma is not dharma, dharma is devoid of self-nature, dharma is empty. Those who are liberated enters dharma emptiness from mind emptiness, attaining ultimate liberation.



修行者追求两处解脱、究竟解 脱，无非为获取一种自由，也只有一种自由，那就是，无法也无心的彻底的、绝对的自由。三世十方一切佛子谋求的就是这种自由。今日修行者也应当谋求这种自 由。为了达成这种自由，我们要：一致力于观心，二致力于观法。致力于观心，是基础，是前提；致力于观法是后续，是在这个基础上的更进一步。不行观心先行观 法的人，可能成为科学家但成不了解脱者；行于观心又行于观法的人，不但成为解脱者，还能成为最科学者。

The practitioner seeks for two kinds of liberation, the ultimate liberation, with none other than the purpose of obtaining one kind of freedom, and there is only one kind of freedom, which is, the absolute and complete freedom of no dharma and no mind. In order to reach this kind of freedom, we have to: 1) be dedicated to contemplating/observing mind, 2) be dedicated to contemplating/observing dharma. Being dedicated to contemplating mind is the foundation, it is the premise; being dedicate to contemplating/observing dharma is the follow-up, it is the further step of this foundation. The person who does not practice contemplating/observing the mind but first contemplates/observes the dharma, can possibly become a scientist but will not become a liberated person; the person who practices contemplating the mind and further practices contemplating the dharma, not only can become liberated, that person can also become a most scientific person.




观心达成的是心解脱，对付的是 烦恼障；观法达成的是慧解脱，对付的是所知障。当你突破烦恼障，你得心解脱；当你突破所知障，你得慧解脱。烦恼的有无，是心解脱的标志；所知惑的有无，慧 解脱的标志。检测有没有心解脱，看你还有没有烦恼；检测有没有慧解脱，看你还有没有知见上的困惑。实际上，彻底的心解脱的人包含了慧解脱，彻底的慧解脱的 人包含了心解脱。因为心和法，原本就是一，而非二。

Contemplating mind leads to the attainment of mind liberation, it deals with the obscuration of affliction/suffering*; contemplating dharmas lead to the attainment of wisdom liberation, it deals with knowledge obscuration*. When you overcome the obscuration of affliction/suffering, you obtain mind liberation; when you overcome the obscuration of knowledge, you attain wisdom liberation. The presence or absence of suffering is the sign of mind liberation; the presence or absence of the obscuration of knowledge is the sign of wisdom liberation, that is whether or not there is still the obscuration of views. In reality, the person who has thoroughly mind-liberated also contains wisdom-liberation, and the thoroughly wisdom-liberated person also contains mind-liberation. This is because mind and dharma, originally are one, not two.

因于解脱的上述两个目标或处 所，佛陀（解脱）的教法也大体分为两类：一曰小乘，二曰大乘。所谓小乘，谓致力于心解脱者，主要目标是彻底的灭除烦恼，现今南传佛教一派即是，它的教典多 是对身心现象的观察和认识方法。所谓大乘，谓致力于法解脱者，其目标是灭除一切法惑，即今北传佛教一派即是，它的教典多是对种种法的诠释。大乘小乘也可以 不将它看做两种派别，而是一个究竟解脱过程的两个阶段。

Due to the two goals as described above, the teachings of Buddha (liberation) has generally two kinds: 1) Hinayana 2) Mahayana. The so-called Hinayana are those that are dedicated on mind-liberation, with the main goal of thoroughly extinguishing suffering, currently the Southern Tradition (Theravada) is it, its scriptures deal with various methods of contemplating and recognizing the various mind-body phenomena. The so-called Mahayana consists of those that are dedicated on wisdom-liberation, and its main goal is to extinguish all obscurations of dharma. Currently the Northern Tradition is it, its scriptures are mostly dealing with various annotations on dharma. Mahayana and Hinayana can also be seen not as two different types of sects, but instead as a two-stage process towards ultimate liberation.

也可以这样说，佛教有两大任 务：一是人生观，二是世界观。所谓小乘，它的主要任务是“观人生”，解决的是人生观问题；所谓大乘，它的主要的任务是“观世界”，解决的是世界观问题。关 于人生观和世界观的问题，先解决人生观的问题，再解决世界观的问题。如果一人连他生命本身的问题都没解决，关注有关世界的问题变得很荒唐和无意义。也就 是，未明白“我”的人，别去思考世界；未搞定“我”的人，别去探索诸法。修行者先行心解脱，再行法解脱！

It can also be said in this way, Buddhism has two major tasks: 1) outlook of human life, 2) outlook of the world. Hinayana's main task is “contemplating human life”, it solves the problem on the outlook of human life; whereas Mahayana's main task is “contemplating the world”, it solves the problem of the outlook of the world. With regards to the outlook of human life and the outlook of the world, first we should resolve the problem of the outlook of human life, followed by the problem of the outlook of the world. If a person has not even solved the problems of his own life, it is ridiculous and meaningless to be concerned with the problems of the world. That is, those who have not understood “Self”, should not think about the world; those who have not sorted out the “Self”, should not explore the various dharmas. Practitioners should first practice freeing one's mind, then practice liberating the dharmas!

对我而言，小乘是心解脱的代名 词，大乘是法解脱的代名词；小乘是一批处理“心”问题的人，大乘是一批是处理“法”问题的人。小乘致力于人生观问题的解决，大乘致力于世界观问题的解决； 小乘是一批观察和思考人生的人，大乘是一批观察和思考世界的人。请完成你的小乘课，再完成大乘课。当你的小乘课完成得好，大乘的课不成问题，因为那是顺理 成章的事。学习佛陀教法的人，完成好这两门课。两处解脱，一种自由！

To me, Hinayana is synonymous with mind liberation, Mahayana is synonymous with dharma liberation; Hinayana is a batch of people dealing with the problems of “mind”, Mahayana is a batch of people dealing with the problems of “dharma”. Hinayana emphasizes solving the problems relating to the outlook of human life, whereas Mahayana emphasizes solving the problems relating to the oulook of the world. Please complete your Hinayana class, then finish up your Mahayana class. When you complete your Hinayana class well, Mahayana class will no longer be a problem, because that is the logical and coherent (course of things?). Those who are learning the Buddhadharma should complete these two classes. Two kinds of liberation, one type of freedom!

-----------

* Thrangu Rinpoche:

http://www.dharmadownload.net/pages/english/Natsok/0010_Teaching_English/Teaching_English_0097.htm

To attain liberation, we need to eliminate our obscurations, which is why we learn about them. The two main categories of obscurations are the obscuration of the defilements and the obscuration of knowledge.

 

(1) The obscuration of the defilements are all negative thoughts and emotions that arise in our mind, such as pride, miserliness, jealousy, stupidity, anger, maliciousness, and so on. The presence of these defilements impedes us from practicing the Dharma correctly. Our defilements prevent us from attaining liberation and from benefitting others. To achieve Buddhahood, we need to eliminate our obscuration of the defilements.

 

(2) The obscuration of knowledge does not pertain to obvious thoughts by means of which we create defilements, such as thoughts of anger and so on. Rather, it means being and becoming increasingly habituated to an attitude that contradicts and stands in opposition to the true nature of all inner and outer things.

 

We have the innate tendency to think that appearances and experiences have a true existence, whereby “true” in this context means ‘independent.’ This innate tendency consists of three aspects that are spontaneously present while we are engaged in activities. The three aspects are: (a) Believing in the true existence of the subject, i.e., “our self”; (b) believing in the true existence of the object upon which we carry out an action; and (c) believing in the true existence of the action itself. Believing in and being attached to these three aspects of the obscuration of knowledge prevent us from attaining realisation of the actual nature of all inner and outer phenomena. They need to be overcome so that the obscuration of knowledge is eliminated.