Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

thumbnail
Jimi Patalano, modified 13 Years ago at 2/15/11 9:37 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/15/11 9:35 PM

Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 49 Join Date: 12/3/10 Recent Posts
Hello,

I was looking through ATI and came across this very interesting short article by Bodhi. It's worth a read, it's quick and pretty thought provoking:

Dhamma and Non-duality

As you can see, Bodhi is pretty unequivocating in his dismissal of "non-dual" practices, e.g. Mahayana Buddhist schools, as a) not being what the Buddha taught b) being completely incompatible with Theravada practices.

As someone who came to Buddhism through ATI and Theravada meditation techniques, but has been spending sometime exploring Zen and doing zazen, I was really struck by this because my general outlook, which I always felt was the general outlook of most serious Buddhists, was that all the different schools of thought/meditation practices - Mahayana and Nikaya both - were basically "skillful means" leading to, ultimately, exactly the same word-transcending realizations.

What I'd like to hear from other users here (besides general responses to that article, which are more than welcome) are responses to these questions of mine:

-For those practicing solely traditional theravada meditation (Samatha, Vipassana, Mahasi noting, whatever): Do you feel that Mahayana non-dual practices (I'm thinking of zazen here, it's about as non-dual as you can get) can't lead to Enlightenment? Does non-duality have any place in Enlightenment, or in meditation?

-MCTB talks about experiencing all phenomena as "vibrations", or something like that. For those of you who have experienced this clearly, did the conclusions you draw from that experience (that is, the conclusions you drew about the nature of reality) completely preclude a non-dual perception of reality?

-For those practicing Zazen, Vajrayana (?) or anything else not explicitly described in the Pali canon, do you feel that the understandings that Theravada Vipassana is supposed to lead to aren't "the full picture"?

-For anybody: Are these practices really as mutually opposed as Bodhi makes them about to be? Do they ultimately get at the same thing, or not?

-Has anybody ever had any experience such as, say, realizing non-duality through Vipassana practice?

-Is there anything to obtain? How do those operating in Theravada modes feel about Mahayana concepts like Buddha nature, or the Zen idea that simply to sit in the proper zazen posture and breathe correctly is to be Enlightened? How do Zen folk feel about MCTB, Progress of Insight, or other Theravada maps?

If all this has been done to death before just let me know and direct me to the relevant discussions.

It's so nice to be posting this on a place like DhO, where I know everyone is going to have a civil, friendly, compassionate debate and no flame wars! God bless DhO!

Jimi
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 13 Years ago at 2/15/11 10:18 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/15/11 10:04 PM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Jimi Patalano:
Hello,

I was looking through ATI and came across this very interesting short article by Bodhi. It's worth a read, it's quick and pretty thought provoking:


Quite the interesting read, thanks for the link!

Jimi Patalano:
-For anybody: Are these practices really as mutually opposed as Bodhi makes them about to be? Do they ultimately get at the same thing, or not?

They sound quite different according to the essay, and I agree with its fundamental point, though understand that I don't know much about any of those philosophies very in-depth and just go by what the essay is saying (meaning I don't know whether its premises - what it supposes Mahayana Buddhism to be, for example - are flawed).

A thought that crossed my mind (kind of a side-track, but such is what I'm currently pondering): replace "non-dual schools" with "Buddhism" and "Theravada Buddhism" with "Actual Freedom" and I believe it would still read correctly (inasmuch as the AF things are in-line with the Theravada things that Bodhi is saying, and the anti-Buddhist things that AF say are in-line with the anti-nondual school things that Bodhi is saying). Remarkable similarities, in any case - AF doesn't talk about 5 aggregates and 3Cs, for example.

Jimi Patalano:

It's so nice to be posting this on a place like DhO, where I know everyone is going to have a civil, friendly, compassionate debate and no flame wars!

Well I think you're smelly, so there! =P

Jimi Patalano:
God bless DhO!

What a funny thing to say =P. We're probably some of the most godless people out there...
thumbnail
Jimi Patalano, modified 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 7:15 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 7:15 AM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 49 Join Date: 12/3/10 Recent Posts
Personally, I think Bodhi somewhat misses the concept of non-duality. At least in the Zen philosophy that I am familiar with (mainly Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Suzuki), the idea is not that everything is one, or that the duality between such concepts as good/evil, happiness/suffering, path/nonpath is completely false, per se; the idea is that these dualities are only half the story: these pairs of concepts are "neither two nor one", not different, and not the same.

The simile that comes to mind is Suzuki's comparison between understanding non-duality and folding the two legs into lotus position. In the lotus position, he says, the legs are neither two nor one, neither separate nor unified.

Of course, it is hard to talk intellectually about Mahayana non-dual conceptions of reality, because (again, especially in Zen) there is always that emphasis that words cannot accurately describe what we're talking about, that verbalizations like "non-duality" or emptiness are only markers for the real truth, which itself transcends all verbalization; the words of Mahayana philosophy (so they say) are like fingers that point to the moon, not to be confused with the moon itself.

But then, my understanding of all this is based mostly on the little I've read or heard from my Roshi; my meditation practice is not anywhere close to the stage where I actually "experience" these things.

What I'm particularly interested in is DhO member's thoughts on the Mahayana's supposed non-duality between path and life, such as the Zen saying that there is "nothing to attain, nothing to purify" and that practice should only be concerned with expressing the Buddha nature that is already inherent in everything.

Beoman Claudiu Beoman:

Jimi Patalano:
God bless DhO!

What a funny thing to say =P. We're probably some of the most godless people out there...


Are you sure about that? After all, who is God anyway? ;)
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 8:45 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 8:45 AM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
One thing I know for certain: Zen monks and people who do zen are sometimes prone to anger, irritation, procrastination and love, as I have heard from different and accomplished monks such as Shinzen Young. And I guess that they are then also likely prone to sadness and fear, and the whole lot.

There is also the profound involvement of the majority of japanese zen masters in the imperial-deistic japanese regime prior and during world war 2. So I doubt that zen alone works as a method to eliminate suffering.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 9:32 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 9:27 AM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Ian talked about it before:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/103121


I think there are many different "experiences" that a yogi could term "non-dual". There seems to be an experience of oneness with the universe where everything is subject. Or there may be an experience of everything as object. And any sense of subject is an inference and still an object. That is my current "experience". Just another experience dependent on conditions.

I like what Thanissaro says about such things:

Thanissaro Bikkhu talking about the Mulapariyaya sutta and the sutta itself:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

"Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.

Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse." END OF QUOTE
thumbnail
Jimi Patalano, modified 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 12:17 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 12:17 PM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 49 Join Date: 12/3/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai H.:

Thanissaro Bikkhu talking about the Mulapariyaya sutta and the sutta itself:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

"Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.

Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse." END OF QUOTE


I agree with Thanissaro's assessment of this sort of metaphysical view, namely, the view that the goal of meditative practice is union with "the All" or some other such all-pervading, absolute entity which comprises all existence. But I don't think that here Thanissaro is talking about Mahayana schools generally; Zen (as far as I understand it) posits no such entity, no "all" to be in union with, any more than does the Theravada position.

Again, I just don't buy that the Theravada attacks (for attacks they are, surely) on non-dual schools have quite got to heart of what non-dual Buddhism are pointing to. Perhaps there is a confusion with non-Buddhist meditative practices, such as Hindu traditions which certainly do state the union of the individual with the universe (Atman with Brahman) as the goal. But I don't think this is what the Mahayana is about, so I think these critiques miss the mark somewhat.

But as intellectually fascinating as scriptural/doctrinal comparison is, I would love to hear from some more advanced meditators working in any frame/tradition about some personal experiences that might shed light on this subject.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 12:54 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 12:54 PM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Just wanted to add, the closest thing I've had that could be described as non-duality experience would be Fruition through the no-self + suffering door (i think that's the one). It has manifested in several ways:

* A train of thought will go. Then an answering train of thought will go. Then back to the 1st one. (This happens during daily life anyway.) But they start going rapidly back and forth, there's a realization of "oh that's funny, I guess I'm not either one.." (actually, it was more like: gosh that's really annoying!!) then they collapse into each other.
* seeing an image of myself, then the image turns to look at 'me', then it collapses
* just generally have two things, ping-pong back and forth between them in an annoying way, then it collapses somehow

I guess i'd term that non-duality, though seems to be different than what is being talked about here
thumbnail
Jake , modified 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 1:51 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/16/11 1:51 PM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Hi Jimi!
If I, coming from an eclectic Vajrayana background, had been content with the Tibetan and other Mahayana portrayals of "Theravada" as "Hinayana" then I never would have discovered this community, Daniel's book, and the value of practice in this tradition. I've come to believe that much of the Vajrayana take on Theravada is really a series of polemics against a mis-representation, a paper tiger.

But having derived, and continuing to derive, much benefit from practicing in "non-dual" traditions like Vajrayana, Chan/Zen and so on, and thus having some little (but real enough to reduce suffering) experience in these styles of practice, I know from personal experience that Bikkhu Bodhi is doing the same thing-- attacking a paper tiger.

Seems to me that if your practice and view help purify your mindstream, reducing suffering in your own life and reducing the suffering you cause others, as well as giving you more capacity to actively benefit others by virtue of being less locked into the narcissism of dukha, then who cares what you call it or what the "debates" are when the "debates" are so often just partisan polemics which function to reinforce things like the feelings of belonging to certain groups, being part of a group that "has it all figured out" and so on. In contrast to this sort of thing there are some practitioners who seem to be able to, chameleon like, enter one cultural context now and another one next, not trying to be "right" but merely accumulating knowledge and wisdom and practice modes which help them to understand and reduce suffering.

In the case of Buddha-nature teachings it's also important to remember that for most people it takes a lot of practice with a competent teacher to discover Buddha-nature, and thus to even have the possibility to discover "life" and "just sitting" as an expression of Buddha-nature. Unlike neo-Advaita for example, Zen, Dzogchen and Mahamudra are happy to point out that most of our lives and much of our sitting, even once we've discovered Buddha-nature, is most likely the expression of clinging ignorance and aversion. So self-honesty and sincerity are requirements on these paths like any other. In most versions of those Paths which I'm aware of, there is also an articulation of the Path in terms of letting-go of the fetters of clinging aversion and ignorance progressively, and thus a process between initial and complete awakening. Mahamudra tends to be the most path-oriented of the non-dual Buddha-nature teachings of which I'm aware.

Here's my favorite example I like to trot out whenever this topic comes up. It's an interview with a practitioner named Dan Brown who studied in Theravada monastaries in the 70's, and as a psychologist did some interesting pioneering studies on the effects of meditation back then too, studying Asian teachers who were reputed to be at 2nd, 3rd, and 4th path, as well as first time practitioners before and after three month retreats including those working on shamatha and those working on vipassana, some pre-path at the beginning and 1st path after the retreat, and so on, so he certainly knows a little bit about Theravada. He is also a long time practitioner in a Tibetan Mahamudra lineage and in this interview he goes into some phenomenological detail about the difference, as he sees it and as the classical Mahayanists like Nagarjuna apparently saw it, between the Theravada and Mahayana approaches. I find his take interesting because he seems to have practical knowledge of both paths and a good grasp on the theories behind them, as well as coming off rather open-minded and respectful without falling into a toothless "it's many paths up one mountain" sort of blah.

http://conscious.tv/nonduality.html?bcpid=45947084001&bclid=46657464001&bctid=23850802001
thumbnail
Jimi Patalano, modified 13 Years ago at 2/17/11 10:14 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/17/11 10:14 PM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 49 Join Date: 12/3/10 Recent Posts
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:
Hi Jimi!

Here's my favorite example I like to trot out whenever this topic comes up. It's an interview with a practitioner named Dan Brown who studied in Theravada monastaries in the 70's, and as a psychologist did some interesting pioneering studies on the effects of meditation back then too, studying Asian teachers who were reputed to be at 2nd, 3rd, and 4th path, as well as first time practitioners before and after three month retreats including those working on shamatha and those working on vipassana, some pre-path at the beginning and 1st path after the retreat, and so on, so he certainly knows a little bit about Theravada. He is also a long time practitioner in a Tibetan Mahamudra lineage and in this interview he goes into some phenomenological detail about the difference, as he sees it and as the classical Mahayanists like Nagarjuna apparently saw it, between the Theravada and Mahayana approaches. I find his take interesting because he seems to have practical knowledge of both paths and a good grasp on the theories behind them, as well as coming off rather open-minded and respectful without falling into a toothless "it's many paths up one mountain" sort of blah.

http://conscious.tv/nonduality.html?bcpid=45947084001&bclid=46657464001&bctid=23850802001


Wow, what a great link! Thanks so much for sharing! I really like this guy. He's straightforward without losing that mystic feeling. And he lives in my area! Cool!
thumbnail
Jake , modified 13 Years ago at 2/18/11 8:04 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/18/11 8:04 AM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Nice ;-)
If you have any contact with him or his people I'd love to hear your impressions.
--Jake
thumbnail
Jimi Patalano, modified 13 Years ago at 2/20/11 8:25 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/20/11 8:25 PM

RE: Bikkhu Bodhi slams non-duality. Thoughts?

Posts: 49 Join Date: 12/3/10 Recent Posts
Will do jake. His retreats, as described on his website (here) look really great. To bad they're $850 emoticon

But, returning to my original questions, I'm wondering if anyone else has anything interesting to say about the seeming contradictions between certain branches of Buddhism.

Particularly, as someone who's practice has gone back and forth between Theravada-informed and Zen-informed meditation techniques, I'm curious about how Zen sayings like "If you are meditating with some goal in mind, you are wasting your time on the cushion" (paraphrased from Sunruyi Suzuki) go over here at DhO, where practice is usually seen as very goal-oriented.

Breadcrumb