National Univ.

of Singapore
Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta:
Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?[!
"avid #o$
p. %&
'(A) M*S) distinguishes +ndian from 'estern philosoph$ is that all the important
+ndian s$stems point to the same phenomenon: Enlightenment or #i,eration.
Enlightenment has di-erent names in the various s$stems .. kaival$a/ nirvana/
moksha/ et0. .. and is des0ri,ed in di-erent 1a$s/ ,ut the similarities among them
are great. 2erhaps the most signi30ant is the agreement that enlightenment is
intelle0tuall$ in0omprehensi,le4 it 0annot ,e understood or attained through
0on0eptual kno1ledge/ ,e0ause it es0apes all 0ategories of thought. (en0e +ndian
philosoph$ points ,e$ond itself to a reali5ation 1hi0h trans0ends philosoph$.
)his paper 1ill 0onsider one 0ru0ial aspe0t of +ndian philosoph$: 1hat happens
1hen one attains enlightenment. )he e6perien0e of attaining enlightenment is not
merel$ one of man$ aspe0ts 1hi0h 0ould ,e e6amined4 it is the most 0riti0al one.
+t is the hinge upon 1hi0h ea0h metaph$si0 turns/ for in ea0h s$stem it is
enlightenment 1hi0h 3nall$ and indu,ita,l$ reveals the true nature of realit$. +
shall 0onsider ho1 this aspe0t is treated in three important +ndian s$stems:
Samkh$a.7oga/ earl$ Buddhism/ and Shankara8s Advaita Vedanta.
)he issue is this: Sin0e enlightenment itself trans0ends all 0on0eptual
understanding/ are these di-erent philosophies referring to the same e6perien0e?
+t is di90ult not to suspe0t this. +t ma$ ,e that there are di-erent t$pes of
enlightenment/ ,ut it seems more likel$ that various 0hara0teristi0s are stressed
,e0ause of the di-ering metaph$si0al s$stems 1ithin 1hi0h enlightenment o00urs.
:or e6ample/ Samkh$a.7oga ma$ emphasi5e the isolation from and indi-eren0e to
the natural 1orld 1hi0h kaival$a ;lit./ <aloofness<= ,rings ,e0ause it is ,ased upon
the ontologi0al dualism of a purusha ;pure 0ons0iousness= 1hi0h reali5es its
distin0tion from prakrti ;ever$thing else=. )his paper 1ill not attempt to resolve
the 0ontradi0tions ,et1een these three philosophies4 as metaph$si0al s$stems
the$ are irre0on0ila,l$ di-erent. Samkh$a.7oga is dualisti0/ earl$ Buddhism ma$
,e 0onsidered pluralisti0/ and Advaita Vedanta is monisti0. )he issue is 1hether it
is possi,le to understand these various s$stems as des0ri,ing the same
phenomenon from di-ering perspe0tives.
)hese three philosophies are among the most important metaph$si0al s$stems/
and the$ ma$ ,e 0onsidered as representative of +ndian philosoph$ as a 1hole.
But the$ are representative of something else too. )he$ ma$ ,e seen as the three
main
)his paper is part of a 2h. ". thesis on <nondualit$< 1hi0h 1ill ,e su,mitted to National
Universit$ of Singapore. M$ 0olleague. "r. >o,ert Ste0ker/ kindl$ o-ered mu0h useful advi0e on
earlier drafts.


p. %% #*7
1a$s of tr$ing to resolve a perennial philosophi0al pro,lem: the nature of the
relation ,et1een su,?e0t and o,?e0t.
Samkh$a.7oga is the most radi0al possi,le dualism ,et1een su,?e0t and its o,?e0t.
)he separation ,et1een the t1o is so e6treme that the s$stem fails ,e0ause there
0an ,e no 0ommuni0ation and 0ooperation ,et1een them.
Earl$ Buddhism 0on@ates su,?e0t into o,?e0t. Aons0iousness is something
0onditioned/ arising onl$ 1hen 0ertain 0onditions e6ist. )he self is merel$ an
illusion 0reated ,$ the intera0tion of the 3ve aggregates. )he self shrinks to
nothing and there is onl$ a void4 ,ut the Void is not a thing .. it e6presses the fa0t
that there is a,solutel$ nothing/ no.thing at all/ 1hi0h 0an ,e identi3ed as the self.
Advaita Vedanta 0on@ates o,?e0t into su,?e0t. )here is nothing e6ternal to
Brahman/ the *ne 1ithout a se0ond. Sin0e Brahman is a non.dual/ self.luminous
0ons0iousness/ 0ons0iousness e6pands to en0ompass the entire universe/ 1hi0h is
,ut the appearan0e of Brahman4 ever$thing is the Self.
+t should ,e noti0ed that the su,?e0t.o,?e0t dualism 1ith 1hi0h these three
s$stems deal 0an ,e e6pressed as either a 0ons0iousness.o,?e0t dualism or a self.
non.self dualism. Although these dualisms are not identi0al/ there is o,viousl$ a
0lose similarit$ ,et1een them/ and for our purposes the$ 1ill ,e treated as
eBuivalent.
Samkh$a.7oga is of 0ourse a0tuall$ t1o s$stems/ often lumped together ,e0ause
the$ are almost identi0al. )he$ are dualisti0 ,e0ause the$ postulate t1o ,asi0
su,stan0es: purusha/ pure un0hanging 0ons0iousness/ and prakrti/ the natural
1orld 1hi0h en0ompasses ever$thing else. )his is not a Aartesian dualism: prakrti
in0ludes all mental as 1ell as all ph$si0al phenomena. )he purusha is redu0ed to a
pure <Seer< 1hi0h a0tuall$ does nothing/ although its presen0e is ne0essar$. +n our
usual deluded 0ondition 1e are not a,le to distinguish ,et1een them. 2ure
0ons0iousness mistakenl$ identi3es 1ith its re@e0tions4 so + 0ling to <m$< mental
panorama and <m$< ,od$ and its possessions. )he purusha is so attenuated that
it is not even a,le to reali5e the distin0tion ,et1een itself and prakrti4 it is a0tuall$
the ,uddhi ;the most rari3ed mental part ofprakrti= that reali5es the distin0tion/
1hereupon the purusha is esta,lished in its o1n nature as solitar$ and
independent/ indi-erentl$ o,serving the natural 1orld.
Samkh$a.7oga has ,een mu0h 0riti0i5ed and its defe0ts are 1ell kno1n. )he main
pro,lem is that the polarit$ ,et1een purusha and prakrti is so great that the$ are
una,le to fun0tion together. 2urusha is so indi-erent and prakrti so me0hani0al
that no 0ooperation 0an o00ur. )he 0ommon simile to e6plain their intera0tion is
that of a ,lind man of good foot 0arr$ing a 0ripple of good e$e4 ,ut this is not a
good analog$ ,e0ause ,oth men are intelligent 1hereas prakrti is not. )he simile
1ould 3t ,etter if the 0ripple had no desire to go an$1here and so sa$s and does
nothing/ 1hile the ,lind man literall$ has no mind at all. Alearl$ in su0h a 0ase
the$ 1ould not 0ooperate/ $et Samkh$a.7oga 0laims that the 1hole universe
evolved out of the intera0tion of purusha and prakrti.
'hereas Samkh$a is a metaph$si0al s$stem/ 7oga deals 1ith the $ogi0 path 1hi0h
one follo1s in order to attain kaival$a. +t is signi30ant that there is nothing 1ithin
the eight lim,s of $oga pra0ti0e 1hi0h is antitheti0al to Vedanta4 in fa0t/ the 7ogi0
path a0tuall$ seems to 3t an Advaiti0 metaph$si0s ,etter than a Samkh$a one. +n
samadhi/ the eighth and highest lim,/ the mind loses ego.a1areness and
,e0omes one 1ith the o,?e0t of meditation/ ,ut this non.dualisti0 e6perien0e is
onl$ <as it 1ere< in 7oga/ sin0e the ultimate goal of the $ogi0 s$stem is the
dis0rimination of


p. %C N+>VANA AN" M*DS(A
pure 0ons0iousness from all those o,?e0ts it identi3es 1ith. But this e6perien0e
a00ords ver$ 1ell 1ith the Advaiti0 aim of <reali5ing the 1hole universe as the
Self.<[E!
7et 1hat is most signi30ant for our purposes is that the purusha/ like the ?iva of
Fainism and the atmans of Advaita and N$a$a.Vaishesika/ is eternal and in its true/
li,erated form is omnipresent4 it has no parti0ular lo0us/ ,ut is u,iBuitous/ all.
pervading. )his is pe0uliar/ ,e0ause one might other1ise e6pe0t the purusha to
,e a small/ perhaps in3nitesimal point lo0ated some1here ,ehind the e$es. +t
leads to an interesting set of pro,lems/ sin0e there is supposedl$ an in3nit$ or at
least a ver$ large num,er of 0ompletel$ distin0t/ unrelated purushas. (o1 0an
the$ all o00up$ the same in3nite spa0e 1ithout a-e0ting ea0h other? A 0orollar$
pro,lem is that ea0h undi-erentiated purusha has a relationship 1ith onl$ one
parti0ular ,uddhi ;individual mind=. :urthermore/ ea0h li,erated purusha/ ,eing
u,iBuitous/ must ,e 0oe6tensive 1ith all of prakrti/ $et ,e 0ompletel$ una-e0ted
,$ it.
)hese di90ulties 0ould ,e resolved ,$ ;E= 0on0eiving of purushas not as distin0t
from ea0h other/ ,ut as various aspe0ts or re@e0tions of one unitar$
0ons0iousness4 and ;G= 0on0eiving of prakrti not as distin0t from this uni3ed
0ons0iousness/ ,ut as an aspe0t of it. But this/ of 0ourse/ is to transform Samkh$a.
7oga into a 0ompletel$ di-erent s$stem/ ,e0ause the root dualism of purusha and
prakrti is there,$ a,andoned. +t ,e0omes a monisti0 s$stem similar to Shankara8s.
So the most e6treme possi,le dualism ,et1een su,?e0t and o,?e0t fails. )he
failure/ it should ,e noted/ is not in0idental to Samkh$a.7oga ,ut is a ,asi0
inadeBua0$4 su0h a radi0al dualism e60ludes an$ 0ooperation ,et1een the t1o
0ategories.
)he nature of nirvana is perhaps the greatest pro,lem of Buddhist philosoph$/
pro,a,l$ ,e0ause the Buddha himself refused to spe0ulate on it. (is attitude 1as/
in e-e0t: +f $ou 1ant to kno1 1hat nirvana is like/ then attain it. But 0learl$
nirvana does not involve the isolation of a pure 0ons0iousness/ ,e0ause there is
no su0h thing in earl$ Buddhism. )he uniBue feature of Buddhism is that there is
no self at all/ and never 1as4 there are onl$ 3ve skandhas/ <heaps< of elements/
1hi0h 0onstantl$ intera0t. +t is signi30ant that the skandhas do not 0onstitute a
self4 the sense of a self is merel$ an illusion 0reated ,$ their intera0tion. )he
Buddha emphasi5ed that one should not identif$ an$thing as the self.
Nirvana is pro,a,l$ ,est 0hara0teri5ed as the reali5ation that there is no self/
although 1hat that means .. 1hat there is that reali5es this .. is un0lear. )he
Buddha 0ompounded the m$ster$ ,$ emphasi5ing that nirvana is neither
annihilation nor eternal life. Alearl$ this is ne0essar$ sin0e there never 1as a self
to ,e destro$ed or live eternall$4 ,ut it is 0onfusing insofar as our thought
naturall$ tends to fall into the di0hotom$ of one or the other.
7et there are a fe1 passages in the 2ali 0anon 1hi0h 0ontradi0t this usual
)heravada interpretation. +n the Brahmanimantanika Sutra ;Ma??hima.Nika$a=/ the
Buddha sa$s:
"o not think that this [nirvana! is an empt$ or void state. )here is this
0ons0iousness/ 1ithout distinguishing mark/ in3nite and shining ever$1here
;Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sa,,ato.pa,ham=4 it is untou0hed ,$ the
material elements and not su,?e0t to an$ po1er.
E. 2ertinent to m$ argument is the fa0t that the paths to ,e follo1ed ;sadhana= in order to attain
enlightenment are remarka,l$ uniform among all the +ndian s$stems: ea0h reBuires a foundation
of moral puri30ation leading eventuall$ to similar meditation pra0ti0es. )he various paths all
involve non.atta0hment to all ph$si0al and mental phenomena/ so that the a0tual pro0ess of
follo1ing the path turns out to ,e mu0h the same in ea0h 0ase.


p. %H #*7
)he passage reappears in the Devaddha Sutra ;"igha Nika$a +. GEI= 1ith the
addition: <(ere it is that 0onditioned 0ons0iousness 0eases to ,e.<[G! )his
distin0tion ,et1een 0onditioned 0ons0iousness and an in3nite 0ons0iousness/
shining ever$1here/ is in0onsistent 1ith the usual )heravada vie1 that all
0ons0iousness is the result of 0onditions and does not arise 1ithout those
0onditions4 ,ut it a00ords ver$ 1ell 1ith the Vedanti0 position/ as 1e shall see.
Else1here in the same Brahmanimantanika Sutra the Buddha 0riti0i5ed the idea of
an omnipotent Brahma ;Jod=/ ,ut he never said an$thing a,out the impersonal
Brahman of Advaita.
Shankara8s Advaita ;nondual= Vedanta is generall$ regarded as having ,est
developed and s$stemati5ed the main strand of Upanishadi0 thought/ 1hi0h
stresses the identit$ of Atman and Brahman. Brahman is an in3nite/ self.luminous
;self.a1are= 0ons0iousness that trans0ends the su,?e0t.o,?e0t dualit$. UnBuali3ed
and all.in0lusive/ perhaps its most signi30ant feature is that it is <*ne 1ithout a
se0ond/< for there is nothing outside it. (en0e Atman .. the true Self/ 1hat ea0h of
us reall$ is .. is one 1ith this Brahman. )at tvam asi: <)hat thou art.< )his is <All.
Selfness<: <...there is nothing else ,ut the Self.< <)o reali5e the 1hole universe as
the Self is the means of getting rid of ,ondage.< <)o the seer/ all things have veril$
,e0ome the Self.<[I!
So the Atman should not ,e understood as a distin0t self that merges 1ith
Brahman. )o reali5e Atman is to reali5e Brahman ,e0ause the$ are reall$ the same
thing4 in fa0t/ the t1o 1ords are used inter0hangea,l$ in some Upanishads. *ne
ma$ state/ in ans1er to the Buddhists/ that a 0ons0iousness/ a self/ is needed to
organi5e e6perien0e/ ,ut that turns out to have ,een Brahman itself/ 1hen
Brahman is reali5ed .. that is to sa$/ 1hen Brahman reali5es its o1n true nature.
)he 1orld of multipli0it$ and 0hange is ma$a/ illusion. )here is nothing ,ut the all.
in0lusive Self: $et this sounds a1k1ard/ sin0e the 0on0ept of a self seems to
presuppose an other/ a non.self from 1hi0h it is distinguished ;1e 1ill return to
this later=. So perhaps the term Atman should ,e re?e0ted as super@uous/ ,e0ause
it suggests another entit$ apart from Brahman. *ne should not multipl$ entities
,e$ond ne0essit$.[K!
:or Shankara/ moksha/ li,eration/ is the reali5ation that + am/ and al1a$s have
,een/ Brahman4 m$ individual ego.0ons0iousness is destro$ed/ ,ut not the pure/
non.dual 0ons0iousness 1hi0h it 1as al1a$s ?ust a re@e0tion of. +t must ,e
emphasi5ed that one does not attain or merge 1ith this Brahman4 one merel$
reali5es that one has al1a$s ,een Brahman. Shankara uses the analog$ of the
spa0e 1ithin a 0losed ?ar: that spa0e has al1a$s ,een one 1ith all spa0e4 there is
,ut the illusion of separateness. )his point .. that reall$ there is nothing to attain
.. is espe0iall$ signi30ant ,e0ause the same is true for 7oga and Buddhism.
>egardless of ho1ever else it is 0ategori5ed/ one8s self ;or Buddhanature= has
al1a$s ,een pure and unstained. )he 7ogi0 purusha is an indi-erent seer 1hi0h
1as al1a$s merel$ o,serving/ una-e0ted ,$ pain or pleasure. +n Buddhism/ there
never 1as a self4 it 1as al1a$s ?ust an illusion.[&!
G. See also Jradual Sa$ings/ +. H in Anguttara Nika$a.
I. Ahandog$a Upan./ V+/ viii/ C/ trans. Nikhilananda ;Ne1 7ork: (arper/ EL%K=4 Shankara8s
Viveka0hudamani/ trans. Madhavananda ;Aal0utta: Advaita Ashram/ Lth ed./ ELCK=/ slokas GG%/
IIL4 +sa Upan./ C/ trans. Nikhilananda.
K. Although the t1o terms serve a fun0tion/ sin0e the$ emphasi5e di-erent aspe0ts of the
A,solute: Brahman/ that it is the ultimate realit$4 Atman/ that it is m$ true nature.
&. )he same point is made in the *6herding 2i0tures of Men: the Lth 2i0ture is <>eturn to the
Sour0e/< ,ut in doing so one reali5es that one never left it.


p. %L N+>VANA AN" M*DS(A
7et/ ?ust as there are passages in the 2ali sutras 1hi0h sound Vedanti0/ so there
are passages in the Upanishads 1hi0h/ on the surfa0e/ seem Buddhisti0. 2erhaps
the most famous is 7a?navalk$a8s instru0tion to his 1ife Maitre$i in the
Brhadaran$aka: <Arising out of these elements ;,huta=/ into them also one
vanishes a1a$. After death there is no 0ons0iousness ;na pret$a sam?na 8sti=....<
Maitre$i is ama5ed ,$ this/ so 7a?navalk$a e6plains:
:or 1here there is a dualit$/ as it 1ere ;iva=/ there one sees another.... But 1hen/
veril$/ ever$thing has ,e0ome ?ust one8s o1n self/ then 1hat 0ould one see and
through 1hat?... )hrough 1hat 0ould one kno1 that o1ing to 1hi0h all this is
kno1n? So/ through 1hat 0ould one understand the Understander? )his Self... is
imper0epti,le/ for it is never per0eived. ;++. iv. EG.E&=
+n his 0ommentar$/ Shankara interprets this passage as meaning that 1hen one
reali5es Brahman there is no more parti0ular or dualisti0 0ons0iousness. But
perhaps there is the same pro,lem 1ith 0ons0iousness as 1ith the self: ?ust as the
0on0ept of a self normall$ presupposes a non.self/ so 0ons0iousness is usuall$
understood to reBuire an o,?e0t. +n fa0t it is ver$ di90ult to 0on0eive of 1hat
0ons0iousness 0ould ,e 1ithout an o,?e0t/ a pro,lem 1hi0h is of 0ourse ver$ mu0h
the 0ru6 of the issue. +n English/ for e6ample/ all the ver,s for 0ons0iousness are
intentional/ normall$ reBuiring ,oth su,?e0ts and o,?e0ts ;<+ am 0ons0ious of/<
<$ou are a1are of/< <he kno1s that<=.[%! +f there is a non.dual a1areness 1ithout
an <+< 1hi0h has it/ and 1ithout an o,?e0t 1hi0h <+< am a1are of/ 0an that ,e
0alled 0ons0iousness? 2erhaps either repl$/ $es or no/ 0ould ,e ?usti3ed.
+t is signi30ant that a dupli0ate of the 0ontrovers$ ,et1een earl$ Buddhism and
Vedanta e6ists internall$ 1ithin Buddhism itself. )he )heravadin A,hidharmists
anal$5ed realit$ into a set of separate dharmas ;<elements<=/ 1hose intera0tion
0reates the illusion of a self and of e6ternal o,?e0ts. Nirvana for them seems to
have ,een the 0essation of 0ooperation among these various dharmas/ leading to
their Buies0ent isolation from ea0h other. Sin0e 0ons0iousness is 0onditioned/ a
result of their intera0tion/ this 1ould seem to ,e the 0essation of 0ons0iousness as
1ell.
Maha$anists a00epted the theor$ of dharmas/ ,ut not their o,?e0tive realit$4 in
themselves the elements are unreal ,e0ause the$ are relative ;shun$a/ <empt$<=.
)here is a higher/ a,solute truth ;paramartha=/ a,out 1hi0h one 0an sa$ nothing
;a00ording to the Madh$amika of Nagar?una= ,ut 1hi0h 0omes 0lose to the pure
0ons0iousness of Vedanta ;a00ording to the 7oga0ara <Mind.onl$< s0hool=. )he
similarities ,et1een Maha$ana and Advaita Vedanta have ,een mu0h noti0ed4
the$ are so great that some 0ommentators 0on0eive of the t1o as di-erent stages
of the same s$stem. Auriousl$/ ,oth Shankara and his prede0essor Jaudapada
1ere a00used of ,eing 0r$pto.Buddhists/ 1hile on the other side/ )heravadins
0riti0i5ed
%. )he primar$ Sanskrit 1ord for 0ons0iousness/ <vi?nana< ;2ali/ <vinnana<= is formed ,$ adding the
pre36 vi to ?nana/ <kno1ledge.< Vi. <e6presses separation/ privation/ dispersion ;asunder/ apart/
o-/ a1a$/ 1ithout/ et0.=< ;Ma0donell/ A 2ra0ti0al Sanskrit "i0tionar$/ *6ford Univ. 2ress/ p. GCL=.
)he English 1ord <0ons0iousness< is derived from the #atin ver,s0ire/ 1hi0h means <to kno1< ,ut
originall$ meant <to 0ut or separate one thing from another.< "ualism seems inherent to ,oth
terms. +n 0ontrast/ pra?na is often de3ned as that kno1ing in 1hi0h there is no distin0tion ,et1een
the kno1er/ the kno1n/ and the a0t of kno1ing4 the su96 pra. means <to spring up [,$ itself?!.<


p. CN #*7
Maha$ana for ,eing a degeneration ,a0k into (induism. #ater/ Ah8an Buddhist
master (uang 2o 1rote a treatise on the <*ne Mind< 1hi0h 0ould easil$ pass as an
Upanishad4 and 0on0erning his enlightenment the Fapanese Men master "ogen
1rote: <+ 0ame to reali5e 0learl$ that [m$! mind is nothing other than mountains
and rivers and the great 1ide earth/ the sun and the moon and the stars.< So the
de,ate ,et1een Maha$ana and Vedanta often resem,les a 3ght 1here the t1o
,o6ers are tied together ,a0k.to.,a0k.
7et there is undenia,l$ a serious di-eren0e ,et1een earl$ Buddhism and Vedanta:
the 3rst sa$s there is no self and the other sa$s ever$thing is the self4 there is
apparentl$ no 0ons0iousness in nirvana/ ,ut ever$thing is 0ons0iousness in
moksha. )he fa0t that these s$stems are so diametri0all$ opposed here/ that one
is the mirror image of the other/ is suggestive. )he$ are ,oth e6treme positions/
tr$ing to resolve the relation ,et1een the self and the non.self ,$ 0on@ating the
one into the other. )he not.self of Buddhism s1allo1s the self4 the self of Advaita
s1allo1s the not.self. But do the$ amount to the same thing?
"oes enlightenment involve shrinking to nothing/ or e6panding to en0ompass
ever$thing? A hint is to ,e found in 'ittgenstein8s Note,ooks ELEK.ELE%.
)he + makes its appearan0e in philosoph$ through the 1orld8s ,eing m$ 1orld.
;EG.H.E%=
(ere 1e 0an see that solipsism 0oin0ides 1ith pure realism/ if it is stri0tl$ thought
out. )he + of solipsism shrinks to an e6tensionless point and 1hat remains is the
realit$ 0oordinate 1ith it. ;G.L.E%=
...at last + see that + too ,elong 1ith the rest of the 1orld/ and so *> the one side
nothing is left over/ and on the other side/ as uniBue/ the 1orld. +n this 1a$
idealism leads to realism if it is stri0tl$ thought out. ;E&.EN.E%=
'ittgenstein8s terms/ and the pro,lems he is dealing 1ith in these passages/ are
naturall$ di-erent from ours/ ,ut the$ take on a parti0ular meaning in the light of
our inBuir$ into the nature of enlightenment. Earl$ Buddhism ma$ ,e seen to
emphasi5e the nothing/ the e6tensionless point 1hi0h shrinks to none6isten0e4
Shankara emphasi5es the uniBue 1orld 1hi0h remains. But the$ are des0ri,ing
the same phenomenon.
+t has alread$ ,een stated that all forms of the spiritual path/ in0luding of 0ourse
Samkh$a.7oga/ Buddhism/ and Advaita/ involve 0omplete non.atta0hment. *ne
should not identif$ 1ith an$ ph$si0al or mental phenomenon4 in other 1ords/ one
learns to rela6 and <let go< of literall$ ever$thing. +n doing so/ the sense of self
<shrinks to an e6tensionless point< and 1hen that a,ruptl$ disappears .. 1hi0h is
enlightenment .. <1hat remains is the realit$ 0o.ordinate 1ith it.< *n the one side
nothing/ not even the e6tensionless point/ is left .. this is the Buddhist void/ the
0omplete a,sen0e of a self. *n the other side remains .. ever$thing/ the 1hole
1orld/ ,ut a transformed one sin0e it no1 en0ompasses a1areness 1ithin itself4
this is the non.dual Brahman of Vedanta.
Men meditation/ although not a produ0t of +ndia/ ma$ ,e used as an e6ample.[C!
+n 1orking on a 3rst koan su0h as Foshu8s Mu/ a student 1ill ,e told to <,e0ome
one 1ith mu< and let ever$thing else go. Mu is usuall$ treated as a mantram4 one
internall$ repeats <mu/ mu/< in 0oordination 1ith the ,reathing. At 3rst there are
man$
C. )he Fapanese Men master "ogen: <)o learn the Buddhist 'a$ is to learn a,out oneself. )o learn
a,out oneself is to forget oneself. )o forget oneself is to per0eive oneself as all things. )o reali5e
this is to 0ast o- the ,od$ and mind of self and others.< ;<Jen?o.koan/< from the Sho,ogen5o=.


p. CE N+>VANA AN" M*DS(A
distra0ting thoughts and it is di90ult to fo0us on mu4 ,ut if the student
perseveres/ other thoughts eventuall$ fade a1a$ as mu gro1s stronger. All those
mental phenomena that sustain the sense of <+< .. self.images/ memories/
e6pe0tations/ and plans .. fade and the sense of self is slo1l$ attenuated.
Eventuall$ one gets to the stage 1here there is no longer the a1areness of an <+<
that is sa$ing mu .. there is ?ust <mu<O At this stage it is said that <mu is doing
mu.< Densho/ enlightenment/ o00urs 1hen something happens to startle the ripe
student and make him <let go< of ever$thing .. in0luding mu. Although the
preparation for this e6perien0e is gradual/ the reali5ation itself is a,rupt. +t is a
<leap< 1hi0h usuall$ reBuires the prompting of a Men master at pre0isel$ the right
moment. Man$ of the 0lassi0al Men stories tell of ho1 a student 1as enlightened
,$ a shout or a ,lo1 from his master4 1hat happens in su0h 0ases is that the
sho0k of the une6pe0ted noise or pain 0auses it to penetrate to the ver$ 0ore of
the student8s ,eing .. in other 1ords/ it is e6perien0ed nonduall$. 'hen Unmon
,roke his ankle/ he forgot himself and the 1hole 1orld as his universe 0ollapsed
into one e60ru0iating pain.
'hat is e6perien0ed then is the 1orld 1ithout a self/ hen0e it is a transformed
1orld. )he familiar ever$da$ <natural< 1orld of material o,?e0ts 1as formerl$
,alan0ed ,$ an ego.0ons0iousness that 1as supposed to ,e o,serving it. )he
evaporation of that separate 0ons0iousness reBuires a ne1 e6planation of 1hat
a1areness is. )he a1areness 1hi0h 1as previousl$ understood to ,e8 o,serving
the 1orld is no1 reali5ed to ,e in0orporated 1ithin it. No longer do <+/< as the
lo0us of 0ons0iousness/ see something e6ternal4 rather/ the self.luminous nature
of the thing stands revealed. )his phenomenon 0ould ,e des0ri,ed either as no.
0ons0iousness/ or as a non.dual 0ons0iousness. Earl$ Buddhism opts for the
former/ 0laiming that 0ons0iousness is nothing more than all those things that are
e6perien0ed4 Shankara opts for the latter/ insisting that all those things are
0ons0iousness. Buddhism sa$s there is no self/ there is onl$ the 1orld ;dharmas=/
Shankara sa$s the 1orld is the Self. )o sa$ that there is no self/ or that ever$thing
is the self/ 1ould also then ,e eBuall$ 0orre0t .. or false/ depending on ho1 one
looks at it. Both des0riptions amount to the same thing4 1hat is 0lear in ea0h 0ase
is that there is no longer a dualit$ ,et1een an o,?e0t 1hi0h is o,served and a
0ons0iousness 1hi0h o,serves it4 or ,et1een the e6ternal 1orld and the self 1hi0h
0onfronts it.[H!
But 1h$ is there nothing 0orresponding to <Brahman< in Buddhism? Earl$
Buddhism refers not to the *ne ,ut to a pluralit$ of separatedharmas/ 1hi0h is
ontologi0all$ lopsided: the self has ,een anal$5ed a1a$/ ,ut the realit$ of the
1orld as o,?e0tive has ,een left un0hanged. #ater Buddhism 0orre0ted this ,$
making the dharmas relative/ hen0e unreal .. the$ are shun$a/ empt$ in
themselves. +n Maha$ana Buddhismshun$ata/ <emptiness/< not onl$ refers to the
a,sen0e of a self ,ut also ,e0omes the most fundamental 0hara0teristi0 of all
realit$4 in fun0tionshun$ata is the 0ategor$ 1hi0h 0orresponds most 0losel$ to the
Vedanti0 0on0ept of Brahman. But 0an shun$ata ,e re0on0iled 1ith the *ne
1ithout a se0ond?
M$ ans1er to this is prompted ,$ the remark of a 0ontemporar$ Men master/
7amada Doun.roshi. >egarding the true nature of things/ he said: <Essentiall$/
there is
H. +t is evident 1h$ these should ,e the t1o 1a$s of tr$ing to des0ri,e non.dualit$. *ur usual
e6perien0e is dualisti0 ;self and non.self/ 0ons0iousness and its o,?e0t=/ and hen0e so is our
language. Naturall$ an attempt to e6press the non.dual e6perien0e in ordinar$ language 1ill tend
to eliminate one or the other term. So m$sti0al e6perien0e is usuall$ 0lassi3ed ;e. g./ >udolf *tto8s
M$sti0ism East and 'est= into t1o sorts: the <in1ard 1a$< of 1ithdra1al and the <out1ard 1a$< of
merging into the *ne.


p. CG #*7
onl$ one thing...not even one.< )he impli0ation of this statement is that if there is
onl$ one thing/ and nothing outside that unit$ .. no dualit$ of a su,?e0t and an
o,?e0t .. then that one 1ould not even ,e a1are of itself as one4 the
phenomenologi0al e6perien0e 1ould ,e of nothing/ or nothing/ 1hi0h is shun$ata.
A1areness of a self .. of a 1holeness .. implies an.other from 1hi0h it is
distinguished4 so a 0hild a0Buires an identit$ onl$ as he or she gains a sense of
1hat another person is. A thing reBuires ,oundaries/ limits4 it is a thing ,e0ause it
is distinguished from something else. :or e6ample/ it makes no sense to ask
1hether the universe e6ists or not4 1e kno1 ho1 to inBuire 1hether a parti0ular
thing in the universe e6ists/ ,ut 1hat 0riterion 0ould 1e use to determine 1hether
the universe itself e6ists?[L! Be0ause the universe/ ,$ de3nition/ is not part of a
larger stru0ture from 1hi0h it 0an ,e distinguished/ so the universe 0annot
meaningfull$ ,e said to e6ist. +n a similar 1a$/ ,e0ause Brahman is *ne 1ithout a
se0ond/ it 0annot ,e e6perien0ed as *ne.[EN! Brahman en0ompasses all/ hen0e it
is empt$/ shun$a. B$ de3nition/ then/ Brahman is also ne0essaril$ in3nite in the
original sense of <not.,ounded< ;,$ an$thing else=/ as a sphere 1ould ,e to an ant
0ra1ling on it.
So there are t1o parado6es: to shrink to nothing is to ,e0ome ever$thing/ and to
e6perien0e ever$thing as *ne is again eBuivalent to nothing .. although a
di-erent sense of nothing. +t seems to me that these t1o points are 0riti0al in
providing a 0ommon ground 1here the t1o opposed s$stems meet. +f 1e a00ept
the possi,ilit$ of su0h a nondual 0ons0iousness .. something 1hi0h + shall not tr$
to ?ustif$ here .. then Buddhism and Vedanta ma$ ,e seen as des0ri,ing the same
phenomenon from di-erent perspe0tives. :rom their di-erent perspe0tives/
di-erent metaph$si0al s$stems are derived. But 1e ma$ still 1onder 1h$ the$ opt
for di-erent perspe0tives. 'h$ did Shankara prefer to speak of the *ne and the
Buddha of nothingness?
+t seems to me that the ans1er to this lies in the nature of philosoph$ itself. +n
referring to Brahman as *ne 1ithout a se0ond/ Shankara tries to des0ri,e realit$
from outside/ as it 1ere/ ,e0ause that is the onl$ perspe0tive from 1hi0h it 0an ,e
understood as *ne.[EE! And this of 0ourse is 1hat philosoph$ tries to do: to look
upon the 1hole of realit$ o,?e0tivel$ and 0omprehend its stru0ture/ as if the
philosophi5ing intelle0t 1ere itself outside that 1hole.
But the Buddha reali5ed that 1e 0annot get outside of realit$ and des0ri,e it as an
o,?e0t4 our e-orts as 1ell as our vie1points are inevita,l$ 0ontained 1ithin that
L. <E6ist< is from the #atin e6 P sistere/ <to stand out from.<
EN. <)his point is the ke$ to understanding one of the 0ru0ial aspe0ts of Shankara8s s$stem/ the
relation ,et1een +shvara ;a personal Jod= and Brahman ;the impersonal A,solute=. Most
metaph$si0s opt for one or the other/ ,ut Shankara insists there are ,oth. Ultimatel$/ ho1ever/
onl$ Brahman is real. <Brahman re@e0ted in ma$a is +shvara4 Brahman re@e0ted in avid$a is ?iva.<
)he apparent 0ontradi0tion ,et1een +shvara and the individual self is the result of ignoran0e and
superimposition. +shvara is the appearan0e of Brahman to the individual self/ ,ut this last ,it of
su,?e0t.o,?e0t dualit$ is still illusor$4 1hen ignoran0e and illusion 0ompletel$ disappear/ there is
neither +shvara nor self. Shankara is sa$ing something Buite e6traordinar$: Jod is Jod onl$ in
relation to man4 1hen the t1o 3nall$ dissolve ,a0k into ea0h other/ there is onl$ Brahman. )o
reali5e Jod is to ,e0ome a1are of a 0ons0iousness pervading ever$1here4 to ,e0ome Brahman is
to reali5e that that is m$ 0ons0iousness.
)he Jerman m$sti0 and philosopher Meister E0khart made a similar point in distinguishing "eus
;Jod= from "eitas ;Jodhead=. )he pure/ empt$ Jodhead/ he maintained/ is in3nitel$ higher than
Jod (imself.
EE. *f 0ourse this o,?e0tive des0ription of Brahman should not ,e 0onfused 1ith the a0tual
nondual e6perien0e <of< Brahman.


p. CI N+>VANA AN" M*DS(A
1hole. )hinking and its 0on0lusions are events in and of the nondual 1orld/
although the$ are 0arried on as if the$ 1ere outside/ an independent and 36ed
measure. 'e should remem,er that the Buddha 1as not reall$ a philosopher/
although 1e inevita,l$ tr$ to for0e him into that mold4 as he never 0eased to
insist/ he 1as interested onl$ in leading others to the e6perien0e of nirvana. :rom
that perspe0tive/ all philosoph$ is onl$ so man$ 1ords and 0on0eptual stru0tures4
insofar as one ,elieves in them .. 0lings to those ideas .. the$ a0t as an
o,stru0tion to enlightenment. Meditation is ne0essar$ to learn to let them go.
2hilosophi0all$ .. from the 30tional <outside< .. 1e might sa$ that there is onl$ *ne
Mind 1hi0h en0ompasses all/ ,ut 1e must reali5e that phenomenologi0all$ there
is no su0h thing/ ,e0ause su0h a *ne Mind 0ould not ,e a1are of itself as a self.
0ontained mind in the sense that ea0h of us is a1are of his o1n mind.
'hat does this impl$ a,out ho1 attaining nirvanaQmoksha 1ould ,e e6perien0ed?
*nl$ fools rush in 1here Buddhas fear to tread/ ,ut the a,ove anal$sis implies
there 1ould not ,e a sense of merging into the *ne. +nstead/ it 1ould seem to ,e
a disintegration/ although not an annihilation4 rather/ the ,oundaries of m$ ego.
self/ 1hi0h distinguish me from others/ 1ould simpl$ dissolve. +t 1ould ,e a
0omplete loss of tension and e-ort/ a rela6ation of the 1hole ,eing. #etting go of
ever$thing that 1as previousl$ 0lung to/ one there,$ 1ould ,e0ome that
ever$thing 1hi0h in fa0t one al1a$s 1as. A00ording to Samkh$a.7oga/ the purusha
in its true form is u,iBuitous. )he arhat/ said the Buddha/ is <deep/ immeasura,le/
unfathoma,le/ like the might$ o0ean.< )he Vedanti0 Brahman is an in3nite pure
0ons0iousness pervading ever$1here.[EG!
+n summar$/ + am suggesting that the di-eren0e ,et1een the Buddhist nirvana
and the Vedanti0 moksha is one of perspe0tive. )he Vedanti0 e6planation .. that of
merging into the *ne.is a more o,?e0tive philosophi0al vie1. )he Buddhist
interpretation is more a00uratel$ a phenomenologi0al des0ription. But in ea0h
0ase the a0tual e6perien0e is the same.
Su0h an approa0h 1ill pro,a,l$ ,e more pleasing to Vedantins and Maha$ana
Buddhists/ sin0e the$ 0an see it as a vindi0ation of their o1n position. +nsofar as
)heravada Buddhists have made a metaph$si0 out of the Buddha8s
phenomenolog$/ one is happ$ to dis0omfort them. But all parties a00ept that
0on0eptual thinking is part of the pro,lem/ not in itself the 1a$ to enlightenment.
So philosoph$ too must ultimatel$ ,e trans0ended. +f one a00epts that the goal is
to attain li,eration rather than to understand it/ the original phenomenolog$ of
the Buddha himself seems the most profound approa0h. 2hilosoph$ tries to vie1
things e6ternall$/ ,ut ultimatel$
EG. After this initial e6perien0e of <returning home/< 1ould the state of nirvanaQmoksha ,e ,lissful
or not? )his is an important 0ontrovers$. +n 7oga/ the li,erated purusha is indi-erent to ,oth ,liss
and pain4 apparentl$ no emotional 0hara0teristi0s are appli0a,le. 7et the true Self is ,$ no means
emotionall$ neutral in Vedanta: Brahman is Sat0hitananda/ E6isten0e.Aons0iousness.Bliss
A,solute4 all phenomenal happiness is ,ut a pale re@e0tion of this ultimate ?o$.
'ithout attempting to resolve this issue/ let me point out t1o passages that suggest these
positions might not ,e irre0on0ila,le. <)hen the$ said to him: 8Brahman is life ;prana=.Brahman is
?o$. Brahman is the void.8 )hen he said: 8+ understand that Brahman is life. But ?o$ and void + do not
understand.8 )he$ said: 8Fo$ ;ka= .. trul$/ that is the same as the Void ;kha=. )he Void .. trul$/ that is
the same as Fo$.8< ;Ahandog$a Up./ +V. 6. K.&= +n one of the 2ali sutras the arhat Sariputra/ in
ans1er to a similar Buestion/ sa$s <)hat there is no sensation/ is itself ,liss.< 'hat this means is
un0lear/ ,ut the parallel is 0ertainl$ signi30ant.


p. CK #*7
it must fail. As Ar0himedes had no platform from 1hi0h to move the earth/ so our
intelle0ts have no o,?e0tive e6ternal pla0e from 1hi0h to 0omprehend it.[EI!

EI. )here is another signi30ant disagreement ,et1een Vedanta and Buddhism/ reminis0ent of the
2reso0rati0 0ontrast ,et1een 2armenides and (era0leitus: 1hether realit$ is un0hanging Being or
impermanent Be0oming. Shankara e6empli3es the e6treme su,stan0e.vie1: universal and stati0
Brahman is the onl$ >eal4 the 0hanging phenomenal 1orld is hen0e unreal ma$a/ ?ust the illusor$
appearan0e of Brahman. +n 0omplete 0ontrast/ earl$ Buddhism provides the e6treme modal.vie1:
>ealit$ is d$nami0 and momentar$/ o,?e0ts are anal$5ed into the intera0ting and 0onstantl$
0hanging dharmas .. attri,utes 1hi0h inhere in no permanent su,stan0e. ;). >. V. Murti/ )he
Aentral 2hilosoph$ of Buddhism/ p. EE.=
But/ ?ust as the elimination of the su,?e0t transforms the o,?e0t ;and vi0e.versa=/ so one 0annot
eliminate modes 0ompletel$ 1ithout transforming the ver$ notion of su,stan0e/ and vi0e.versa. +n
den$ing the realit$ of all 0hanging attri,utes/ Shankara ends up de3ning su,stan0e so narro1l$
that it 0eases to have an$ meaning. Nothing 0an ,e predi0ated of Nirguna Brahman/ and it 0an
onl$ ,e approa0hed through the via negativa of neti/ neti: <not this/ not this...< Although Shankara
1ould den$ it/ Brahman ends up as a 0ompletel$ empt$ ground/ a Nothing from 1hi0h all things
arise as its ever.0hanging appearan0e.
+n a similar fashion/ the earl$ Buddhist elimination of all su,stan0e gives the dharma.attri,utes
nothing in 1hi0h to inhere. As the result of a ne0essar$ diale0ti0 Maha$ana Buddhism ended up
h$postasi5ing shun$ata/ the emptiness 1hi0h is the true nature of all things ;and 1hi0h the later
Bhutatathata s0hools sa1 as the 0reative sour0e from 1hi0h all things arise=. As Murti points out/
an internal d$nami0 in ea0h tradition led to the postulation of a nondual A,solute ;p. EG=.
)here is still a di-eren0e of emphasis. )he Nirguna Brahman of Advaita 0annot ,e 0hara0teri5ed/
,ut Saguna Brahman is most essentiall$ pure 0it/ nondual 0ons0iousness4 1hereas Buddhism
speaks of nirvana as reali5ing the emptiness of ever$thing. +t is signi30ant that the Atman of
Vedanta is not self.0ons0ious in the Aartesian sense: <...(e is never thought/ ,ut is the )hinker4 (e
is never kno1n/ ,ut is the Dno1er. )here is...no other thinker ,ut (im/ no other kno1er ,ut (im.<
<B$ 1hat 0ould one kno1 the Dno1er?< <7ou 0annot kno1 that 1hi0h is the kno1er of kno1ledge.<
;Brhadaran$aka Upan./ +++: C.GI4 ++: K.EK4 +++: K.G= Shankara e6plains: <)hat 1hi0h is unkno1n 0an ,e
made kno1n and reBuires proof/ ,ut not the self [the kno1er!. +f it ,e granted that the self reBuires
proof/ then 1ho 1ill ,e the kno1er [,e0ause the self ,e0omes one of the kno1a,les/ and 1ithout a
kno1er there 0an ,e no appli0ation of proof!? +t is settled that the kno1er is the self.<
;Atma?nanopadesa.vidhi/ +V/ EN=
But su0h a self that 0an never ,e e6perien0ed/ ,e0ause ,$ de3nition it is the e6perien0er/ 0an ,e
des0ri,ed ?ust as 1ell as shun$a/ empt$ .. not ho1ever a nihilisti0 emptiness ;Shankara8s mistaken
0riti0ism of Madh$amika= ,ut a shun$ata 1hi0h 1ill ,e 0herished as the Buddhanature essen0e of
all ,eing.