Issue 64: 28 Apr- 4 May, 2008
Freedom from emotional and conceptual defilements
This is the major reason why Buddhism does not consider a yogi with mighty powers equal to an Arhat or a Bodhisatwa or a Buddha.
Now there is also a sixth Abhigya which is considered the last and the highest Abhigya but not part of the five we have talked about so far. All the above five Abhigyas are lower Abhigyas and are considered lowly in all forms of Buddhism. But this last Abhigya, called Asrava Cchaya Gyana (knowledge of the extinction of the outflows) is considered the real Abhigya (or Siddhi – Riddhi) in Buddhism.
Asrava means the outflow of mental defilements (emotional and conceptual defilements). When we have emotional and conceptual defilements they are always flowing out from our subconscious mind through verbal or non – verbal expression. These Asravas remain even in yogis who have attained high Samadhis and various Riddhi Siddhis Praatiharyas.
This is the major reason why Buddhism does not consider a yogi with mighty powers equal to an Arhat or a Bodhisatwa or a Buddha. Even such a yogi, no matter how charismatic and mind boggling, still has not destroyed the Asravas. Only an Arhat, an 8th Bhumi (level/stage) Bodhisatwa and above, and the Buddha who is even above a tenth Bhumi, has totally destroyed all Asravas.
This brings us to the big question, how are the Asravas totally destroyed? This brings us to a very important issue within Buddhism which is missing in non – Buddhist systems or at least it is not clear enough.
According to Buddhism there are two major types of meditation systems and they do not produce the same results. One of them, which usually comes first in the Buddhist texts, is Samatha – meditation and the other is Vipasyana meditation also called Vidarshana meditation.
To understand Buddhism and its correct view, it is of utmost importance to understand these two types of meditations very clearly and to be able to distinguish between these two. Vipashyana is the Sanskrit word used in the Sarvastivad and Mahayana – Vajrayana schools while Vipassana is the Pali word used in the Theravadin School and it is closely linked with what is called mindfulness – meditation but is not limited to that. Mindfulness is called Smrityupasthan in Mahayana and Sarvastivadin texts while it is called Satipatthan in the Pali Canons of the Theravadins.
We shall go into greater details with Samatha and Vipasyana later on but here we shall deal with them in short as the occasion demands it.
Issue 65: 5 – 11 May
Samatha
…The mind remains the same without thoughts, concepts, Kleshas changing or disturbing it.
Samatha comes from two words. Sama which means quiet, tranquil and etymologically it is linked with the English word, 'same'. It means the mind remains the same without thoughts, concepts, Kleshas changing or disturbing it. But here the mind remains the same because it is focused on the same thing with a high level of concentration; so the mind remains the same (Sama), with the same Alambana (object grasped for meditation even if it is an objectless object) for two – four – eight – ten hours or even days.
This kind of meditation when it reaches a certain depth (depth here does not mean how many hours s/he remains absorbed in the Alambana (object of focus) but rather deeper levels of absorption) is called Samadhi. Although the words Samadhi is used in the Hindu and Jain systems too, the Buddhist classification of Samadhis are far more detailed and refined.
While the Hindu Samadhis are classified into Savikalpa (also called Sampragyata which means with a thought or focus, i.e. Alambana) Samadhi and Nirvikalpa (Asampragyata) Samadhi, which means without any thought or object of focus (Alambana); the Buddhist classification is far more complex. It must be remembered that the Patanjal Sutra upon which virtually all forms of present day Hindu – meditation is based, is, according to Dr. Surendranath Das Gupta in his A History of Indian Philosophy, merely a re-hashing and Hinduisation of the Buddhist eightfold path (Astangika marga).
But even though Buddhist concepts, ideas, categories were taken as the very name Astanga yoga from the words Arya Astangika marga, it still seems to be a mixed pot pouri of ideas picked up from here and there. For example, even though the word Chatur Brahma Vihara is found in the Patanjal Sutra no Hindu commentary including Vatsaayan seems to know what it is or what kind of meditation it is. And the Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhis are just a rather rough categorisation of Rupa Samadhi and Arupa Samadhis taken from Buddhism and given new names.
But the Rupa Dhyanas have four levels of Samadhi (sometime considered as five depending upon how it is distinguished) called first Dhyana, second Dhyana, third Dhyana and fourth Dhyana where breathing stops. And the Arupa Dhyana are also divided into four levels. All these are missing in the entire Hindu systemisation of Samadhis. The Arupa Samadhis are without any object of focus; but they are more or less the same level as the fourth Dhyana. However they do get more and more refined.
Issue 66: 12 – 18 May
Cutting the roots of Kleshas
Riddhi – Siddhis are not a proof that the person is enlightened…
But what is most important to understand is that even after achieving the highest Arupa or Nirvikalpa dhyana, the Asravas (emotional defilements) are not destroyed but only blocked or stopped like a dam stopping water (technically called Viskhambana). And for the present day Indo – Nepali public it must be emphasised that it is merely blocked for the time being, even in those who show manifestation of Siddhi – Riddhi – Pratiharya.
According to Buddhism Siddhi – Riddhis can be a part of both enlightened beings who have attained Asrava – cchaya (destruction of emotional defilements, intellectual defilements) as well as of those who have only attained high stages of Samadhis but have not yet attained Asrava – cchaya. This is a point Buddhism is emphatic about and also a point most Indo – Nepalis are blissfully ignorant of.
Riddhi – Siddhis are not a proof that the person is enlightened which in Buddhism means that s/he has attained Asrava – cchaya Gyana. So no amount of Samatha Samadhi no matter how deep will bring about Asrava cchaya. But it can produce various manifestations of Riddhi – Siddhi. It does not matter if the person went into deep Nirvikalpa Samadhi for fourteen day or so during which time even flies were fooled that the body was dead, etc. When coming out of the Samadhi s/he comes back with all his/her emotional and intellectual defilements. They are not cut or destroyed because nothing or no modus operandi has been employed to cut or destroy them.
If just remaining in an unconscious, thoughtless void was enough to cut or destroy Asravas, then every person goes into that state for some hours when they enter deep sleep (Susupti); but nobody comes back from deep sleep finding himself/herself free from Asrava. So just extending that state to more hours or days surely cannot help. Nor does arriving at a super conscious state do much in this case as that super conscious state is always present in all humans and in spite of it all humans are still afflicted heavily with Asravas.
So just practices that still the mind and take it into deeper and deeper levels of quietness may bring peace and tranquility to the practitioner but that is not the same as Asrava cchaya and no such practice no matter how esoteric or secret or known to only a chosen few, they will not and cannot possibly produce Asrava cchaya. Simply an absorbed state of mind, whatever the mind be absorbed in, be it on some super conscious state or on some external or internal object or objectless or thoughtless; such absorption Samadhis such Samatha – type Samadhis only suppress the emotional defilement but do not even touch the intellectual defilement.
Issue 67: 19 – 25 May
The six Abhigyas
In Buddhism, if Siddhis are ever used it is always used as means to goad on intimate disciples and never as a public display.
Emotional defilement is called Klesha – Avarana; and intellectual or conceptual defilement is called Geyaavarana. Geya means the known or knowledge of the known and Avarana means covering, something that blocks or hinders. These two must be cut off at the root and totally destroyed before a person can be called enlightened or an Arhat or a Buddha in the Buddhist sense.
We have seen that reaching deep levels of Samadhi does not cut these off at the roots. Nor does attaining Siddhi – Riddhis automatically cut these off at the roots. But more about these two defilements later as it is crucial to understand them to understand the Buddhist path and fruits.
As we have seen, the sixth Siddhi or Abhigya called Asrava cchaya gyana is considered as the highest Siddhi in Buddhism and a Siddha in Buddhism always mean someone who has attained the sixth Abhigya, at least to some degree if not completely, as is necessary for complete enlightenment. In fact from the time of the Buddha himself, Buddhism has not only kept the other Siddhis at a lower rung of the ladder but has always been suspicious of people who use the lower Siddhis unscrupulously. If it is ever used it is always used as means to goad on intimate disciples and never as a public display.
There is a wonderful story about this at the time of the Buddha himself. Most of the Buddha's disciples were endowed with all the six Abhigyas. We shall talk more about them later, but for a small taste, it is said that Maudgalyayana went bodily up to Indras Deva loka. Indra saw this Bhikchhu and mistook him for some ordinary Bhikchhu with some Siddhi – Riddhi, so Indra wanted to impress upon this Bhikchhu how great he was. So he took him to his fabled garden which is famous and then proceeded to take him to his fabulous palace, the fabled Vajayanti Prasad.
Indra thought the Bhikchhu would be so impressed with this splendour that he would be awestruck. But the Arhat Maudgalyayana read his mind and thought to himself, “I must teach this King of the Devas a lesson.” So when they arrived at Indra's fabulous palace, Indra showed him proudly his palace. Maudgalyayana quietly went to the base of the palace and pushed his big toes against the foundation and wiggled it so that the huge palace shook like a toy. Then Indra realised that this is no ordinary Sraman and paid great respect to him.
Issue 68: 25 May – 1 June, 2008
Samatha and Vipassyana
According to all forms of Buddhism there is only one way 'Ekayano Maggo'…
Going back to the topic of the Buddhist attitude towards Siddhi – Riddhis, we have a story of another Brahmin disciple of the Buddha – Bhaardhwaj Pindola. One day he found a big crowd gathered and went to see what the hue and cry was all about. He saw that some competition of Siddhi – Riddhi was going on. There was a long pole on top of which was an object and it was declared that whoever can bring that object down without climbing the pole or touching it in anyway would be the winner. And the winner’s Guru would be announced as the greatest Guru.
Bhaardhwaj saw that many yogis tried but could not get the job done. So he thought, why not do it and show the world that the Buddha was indeed the greatest teacher. So Bhaardhwaj flew up to the sky and took the fish out from the top of the pole without even touching the pole. All those present were awestruck and announced in unison that the Buddha was indeed the greatest teacher.
Later some Bhikchhus who had seen this told the Buddha that he was proclaimed the greatest teacher because of what Bhaardhwaj did. When Buddha heard this, he called Bhaardhwaj and asked him if the story was true. When Bhaardhwaj proudly proclaimed that it was true, Buddha chastised Bhaardhwaj for doing such a thing and proclaimed that from now onwards let it be known whosoever uses Siddhi – Riddhi to impress others is not a disciple of the Buddha. This incident has defined forever the attitude of Buddhism in all its forms towards Siddhi Pratiharya.
Now how is the sixth Avigya called Asrava Cchya Avigya attained? According to all forms of Buddhism there is only one way 'Ekayano Maggo' as it is said in the Pali Satipatthana Sutta. And that way is Vipassyana in Sanskrit/Vipassana in Pali.
Let us now go into Vipassyana. Let me reiterate that all forms of meditation, no matter to which religious system it belongs can be categorised into basically two major types or categories. These two categories are (i) Samatha and (ii) Vipassyana.
We have touched upon Samatha meditation already; but let me recapitulate some of its salient points, before we go into Vipassyana. Samatha meditation is any form of meditation which fixates the mind on one object, or idea, or thing, internal or external, real or imagined. This means keeping the mind fixed or trying to keep the mind fixed so that all other thoughts or movements of the mind is either eliminated or reduced to a great extent to the exclusion of the object of fixation (called Alambana in Buddhist terminology).
Issue 69: 2 – 8 June
Samyagdristi – the correct view
It is very important to understand that refutation of other’s views is neither negative criticism nor demeaning others’ point of view.
The very first verse of the Patanjala Sutra 'Yogas chittavritti nirodha' (yoga is the stopping of the movements of the mind or thoughts) shows that the Patanjala Sutra and all systems based on it belong to the Samatha category. When I say all systems which subscribes to the Patanjala Sutra, it means virtually all Hindu meditation system existing today in the Indian subcontinent.
One may think the Vedantic meditation on the witness/Sakchi (called Sakchi abhyasa in the Vedantic system) after listening to the teacher, analysing the teachers’ ideas and meditation (called Sravan/mana/chintana) is an exception; but it too is a Samatha type of meditation and cannot be put in the Vipassyana meditation category. To understand why the Vedantic sakchi abhyasa (witness meditation practice) is not Vipassyana we first need to understand clearly what Vipassyana is and why it is the only way to what Buddhists call enlightenment.
Let me reiterate clearly here that people have the freedom to give the appellation ‘enlightenment’ to whatever they wish; but they should not confuse themselves and others in imagining that their enlightenment is the same as the Buddha’s enlightenment. The purpose here is not to demean whatever others call enlightenments but to distinguish between them and the Buddhist enlightenment. Which is the higher form or the true enlightenment is for the individual to discern and ascertain for herself/himself.
Refuting other’s view is an old tradition that has continued in the Indian subcontinent even before the time of the Buddha and this has continued through the centuries within Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. It is very important to understand that refutation of other’s views is neither negative criticism nor demeaning others’ point of view.
The philosophical schools in the Indian subcontinent continued to grow and refine itself exactly because of this culture of refuting the other’s views and validating one’s own views in a systematic, logical and coherent method through centuries after centuries. It is unfortunate that after the Islamic invasion of the Indian subcontinent this aspect of the culture slowly began to wane and because of that many in the Indian subcontinent today, do not know how to distinguish between critical refutation and negative criticism.
But such an ascertainment can be made only if an accurate depiction is made of what the Buddhist Enlightenment is and what is not. Although to the Buddhist all over the world this has always been clear, as Buddhism has a long tradition of studying and analysing what it calls the wrong views (Mithya dristi) and what it calls the correct view (Samyagdristi) it seems to have been lost within the Indian subcontinent to a great extent.
Issue 70: 9 – 15 June
Correct interpretation of Buddhism
No Hindu scholar, Pandit or Yogi from as early as 3rd century till today seems to have really understood what the Buddha really taught.
This tradition, where other non Buddhist traditions of the Indian subcontinent is analysed, still continues in Tibet, China, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Mongolia etc. This is very much a culture of the Indian subcontinent; so the tradition of the study of the other tenets does still continue within Hinduism too. However, since Buddhism vanished from the major parts of the Indian subcontinent, the interpretation of what Buddhism and Buddhist enlightenment is, become completely Hinduised; and it was given a lower status than the Vedantic views.
Many Sadhus and Paramhansas claimed that Buddhism was just a variation of the Vedanta and that the Buddhists did not understand Buddhism. Some called it Nihilism and thus put it in the category of rank materialists like Charvak and the like; because they grossly misunderstood the Sunyata of Buddhism.
A thorough and unbiased study of the refutation of Buddhist tenets by Vatsayana, Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Yamunacharya, Madhwacharya, Bhaskaracharya etc; show very clearly that they completely distorted the Buddhist view by giving it a Hinduised interpretation and then refuted their made up Buddhist views and thought they had refuted Buddhism.
No Hindu scholar, Pandit or Yogi from as early as 3rd century till today seems to have really understood what the Buddha really taught. A good example of modern Hindu scholars who just followed the footsteps of their ancestors as far as the Buddhist goal is concerned, is the famed scholar and statesman, the ex – president of India, Dr. S. Radhakrisnan. Another Indian Guru who unwittingly gave Hindu interpretation to Buddhist teaching even though he was trying to favour Buddhism is another well known personality, Sri Rajneesh.
Till date most Hindus of the Indian subcontinent are completely muddled up as to what Buddhism is; while all the Pandits/scholars/Yogis believe that the Buddha did not teach anything new than what is found in the Vedas and Vedantas. I call this Hindu – hubris, and it is based on the rather limited belief that what the Hindus themselves believe is the only possible truth and there can be no other possibilities.
Nobody with any common sense from the ancient times till now can possibly deny that the Buddha was one of the greatest masters to appear in the firmament of the Indian subcontinent, if not the greatest (Sankara himself has called the Buddha as the greatest yogi ever to appear in the Indian subcontinent). To think what he taught even though it seems to be different, is nothing but a rehashing of Vedic/Vedantic lore, is the blind spot, the hubris.
This has prevented Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, since the 11th century onwards after Buddhism vanished from India, from truly understanding Buddhism. So much so that even Rajneesh who wanted to favor Buddhism vis a vis Hinduism completely interpreted Buddhism in a Hindu way.
Issue 71: 16 – 22 June
Anatma/Sunyata
Buddhist scriptures repeat again and again that its basic tenets are based on Anatma and Sunyata and not on Atma/Braman or any eternally existing entity.
A clear example of how Rajneesh did not understand what Buddhism really taught is his interpretation of Tilopa's 'Gangama' (Mahamudra instruction to Naropa) where he thinks Tilopa teaches Naropa the Vedantic Sakchi/witness to Naropa. Evidently Rajneesh had no idea what emptiness meant in Buddhism. He interpreted the thoughtless awareness/witness/Sakchi as the no-mind (Achitta in Vajrachedika Sutra) of Zen. This is a phenomenon, no Indian master who has not studied with genuine Buddhist masters, has been able to transcend.
Since no Indian masters or their Nepali followers have actually studied Buddhism at the feet of an authentic lineage Buddhist master, their interpretation of Buddhism is based on their knowledge of Sanskrit or their reading of English translations of Buddhist texts by scholars who have translated Buddhist texts on the basis of their own knowledge of Sanskrit or Tibetan etc.
Needless to say it is very easy to derive ‘Hinduistic’ meanings when reading such books; after all, the mind gives the meaning it is conditioned to give, to things it experiences. And this is what all teachers of Hindu background have done to date. They have all given Hinduistic Atmavadin/Bramanvadin (oriented towards the Atma/Braman of Hinduism) interpretation in spite of the fact that all the Buddhist scriptures repeat again and again that its basic tenets are based on Anatma and Sunyata and not on Atma/Braman or any eternally existing entity.
This difference is not merely a matter of difference in words or a different way of saying the same thing or difference only in philosophy or in Darshan as most Hindus would like to put it. As it is very important to distinguish these two views to properly understand Vipassyana we shall go a little into its details here before we elaborate on Vipassyana.
All forms of Hindu systems aim at the realisation of the Atma (self) and through it the Braman (which can be described as a sort of cosmic self/over self/super self beyond the little self or ego). In his Dig Drishya Bibek (distinguishing the seer and the seen or the watcher and the watched) Shankaracharya has made it very clear that the Atma of the Hindus (and the Jains for that matter) is the watcher or witness that knows or watches or witnesses all events and even internal mental thoughts.
And his Tatva Bodha (knowing the Tatva/reality) he has defined this Atma as Sat – Chit – Ananda which means existence – consciousness – bliss. He has again in the same text defined sat/existence as that which remains unchanged / same in the three times. (Atma kah?...What is Atma? Sthula sukchma karana shariradhya atirikta: panchakoshaatita sann avasthatraya sakchi sacchidananda rupah).
That which remains in the form of Sat – Chit – Ananda, which is beyond the gross, subtle and causal body, the witness/watcher of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep and which is beyond the five sheaths. .
Issue 72: 23 – 29 June
The major issue
…This point makes the difference in the direction the meditation takes and finally the goal realised.
Then again Sankaracharya says in the same Tatva Bodha in verse 26 – Atma tahrikah? What is called the Atma? And answers, Sacchidananda swarup, i.e., that whose form (swarup) is Sat – Chit – Ananda. Then he goes on to say, Sat kim (what is sat) and answers, Kala trayeapi tisthatiti sat, i.e., that which remains the same, unchanging in all the three times is sat (truly existent).
The three time means it is the same thing or entity unchanged in anyway in the past, present and future. Before we go further we need to make it clear that this is the major issue that Buddhism has with all forms of Hinduism or Jainism (or for that matter any forms of religious beliefs which believe in an unchanging entity called a soul that survives death etc.) We shall deal with this sat – atma (a really, truly – inherently existent Atma) in greater details as that in crucial to understand the crux of the matter related to Vipassyana and Buddhism.
Let me reiterate here that this is not merely a difference in words but this point makes the difference in the direction the meditation takes and finally the goal realised. Sankaracharya goes on to define 'chit' of sat – chit – ananda. Thus, Chit kim? (What is Chit?) Gyanswarupa which means that which is the form of knowledge. Knowledge means the knower in the Vedantic context as is made clear in Dig Drishya Vivek (discriminating the watcher and the watched), the Laghu Vakya Vritti (the short commentary on the words)/ the Vakya Vritti (the commentary on the words.
The words here means the four Mahavakya – The four great words of the Vedas which are used to point out the Atma/self), the Atma Gyanopadesh (the instructions on the knowledge of the self) all of Sankaracharya and all the Upanishads of the Veda.
Although I have quoted Sankaracharya, according to Dr. S P Radhakrishnan (the ex-president of India and a great Hindu scholar), there is no form of Hinduism today which does not take the Sankara view of the Vedanta as the ultimate goal of Hinduism, albeit various schools have modified it to fit in their own system.
So the shortest way to understand most of Hinduism is to understand Sankara, although the (Dvaitavadin) dualist Madhava School and the Visistadvaitavadin (special Monistic school of Ramanujacharya differs from Sankara’s Monism (Advaitavadin) view quite drastically we cannot possibly go into all the details and the difference and the attempts to integrate the two modes (dualistic and Monistic) here, as that would require a book by itself.
So I shall agree with Dr. Radhakrisnan and compare only the Sankara view of Hinduism with Buddhism. Anyway, in one sense the Dvaitavadin (dualism) of Madhvacharya, the Vishistaadvaita (special Monism) of Ramanujacharya, the Bhedaabhedavaada (different and same – ism) of Bhaskaracharya etc are even more drastically different from Buddhism than Sankaras’ view. Of all forms of Hinduism those who subscribe to one form or the other of Monism (Advaitavad) come closest to the Buddhist view of Advaya (non – dualism).
Issue 73: 30 June – 6 July, 2008
Samyagdristi
Both Sankara and Buddhism agree that one needs to have the correct view...
Before we can proceed, we need to clarify many points before things can be clear to the layman. Monism or the Advaitavada of Sankaracharya or Shaivism or Shaktism is the view that there is one ultimate primordial first cause of all things which is one’s true self.
This is the primordial thing (Mahavastu), the first cause of all things from which everything appears and disappears into. How they appear and disappear is again interpreted slightly differently by the different schools of Hindus. Sankara, say they appear and disappear as an illusion and this is called the Vivartavada (illusionist) interpretation.
Some like the Shaktas and Kashmir Shaiva say the coming and going of all things is more like a modification of the primordial matter and this is called the Parinamvada. However, they all agree that this primordial matter/thing (Mahavastu) is one’s own true self (Atma – Brahman).
And one is liberated only by the knowledge of this primordial thing which is called self knowledge. Here, it is important to distinguish Sankara from some of the Yoga schools in that Sankara does not agree that practicing yogas of any kind alone can lead to self knowledge (Atma Gyan) which liberates.
So we have the Vichara – Marga of Sankara which posits that unless one distinguishes through analysis (Vichara) as laid out in the Upanishads; the false, impermanent [anitya] (the world) and the true, permanent[nitya] (Atma), just going into samadhi alone does not and cannot liberate a person.
This is a crucial matter in the Sankar Vedanta and some followers have even taken it to the extreme by declaring that only fools (Mudhas) practice meditation and the various yogas and Samadhis, and that the wise using only her/his Viveka (analysis) to distinguish the Atma (self) from the non – self (Anatma) and recognising the self/Atma, attains liberation.
So ignorance (Agyan/Avidhya) is the non – realisation/non – recognition/not knowing the Atma/self which is ones’ own true self; and liberation is attained by knowledge (Gyan) which is the recognition, knowing of one’s true self. Here Sankara is similar to Buddhism in its tenet that unless one has the correct view (Samyagdristi) one cannot attain enlightenment by means of meditating.
Merely meditating would be Samatha meditation within the Buddhist context. So both Sankara and Buddhism agree that one needs to have the correct view (Samyagdristi if we were to use Buddhist terminology) if one is to be enlightened (Bodha which is commonly used by Buddhist and Hindus). Samyagdristi is the first part of the Astangika Marga as prescribed by the Buddha.
But now we come to the crux of the matter. What is this Samyagdristi? This is where Buddhism parts from all forms of Hinduism and Jainism and for that matter all other religious system which posit an eternal unchanging self/Atma/soul.
Issue 74: 7 – 13 July
A very simplified version of Sankara Vedanta
Sankara’s Vedantic view has been interpreted with slightly different nuances by his own disciples or their disciples…
What the Buddha meant by Samyagdristi is drastically different from what Sankara and the rest of Hinduism, no matter how different or similar to Sankara, mean by Samyagdristi. Hinduism does not use the word Samyagdristi but it does have what it calls the correct view.
And what is the correct view of Sankara? That only Atma Gyan can liberate. This Atma is Sat – Chit – Ananda; and the watcher/witness (Drasta/Sakchi) of the three states etc., about which Sankara talked about. (Not recognising – Pratyabhigya, is the word used in the Kashmir Shaivism). This Atma/self is ignorance; and knowing/recognising it, is self knowledge (Atma gyan) which produces liberation. In the Kashmir Shaivism, this self is called Shiva or Sambhavi Vidhya.
Now I want to make it clear that I have presented a very simplified version of Sankara Vedanta and many sophisticated factors involved have not been mentioned in this article. The Vedanta is a very sophisticated system and such a short article as this cannot do full justice to it. But for our purpose, just this much is enough. In fact if we go into the detailed sophistication of the Vedanta, it actually goes even further away from the Buddhist correct view.
In all forms of Vedanta, recognising the watcher/witness/knower (Drasta/Sakchi/Gyata) of the three states of dreaming, walking and deep sleep, which is beyond the five sheaths of body (Pancha kosha) and beyond the gross subtle and causal body, as ones own true/self is considered as Atma – gyan. And the practice is to continuously affirm that you are that (Tut tvam asi), that this witness/watcher (Sakchi/Drasta) is one’s own Atma (Pragyanam Braman = that which knows is the Braman); Ayam Atma Braman (this self is the Braman) and I am the Braman (Aham Bramasmi).
In this system, the practice of any kind of yoga – meditation – Samadhi is of value only in so far as it helps to quieten the thinking mind so that the Sakchi/Drasta can be distinguished more easily from all that which is not the Atma (Nityanitya vivek - distinguishing the eternal and the impermanent).
All systems within Hinduism which calls itself Advaita (monistic/non dualistic) prescribes to the view of Sankara which I have presented above, in one form or the other. Sankara’s Vedantic view itself has been interpreted with slightly different nuances by his own disciples or their disciples; so it should not be a big surprise if the Shaivadvaita system of the Kashmir Shaiva school is a slightly different form of the above and they do not agree with Sankara in all points. Likewise, the same can be said of Shaktaadvaita of the Shakta Sampradaya; and even schools of Kabir and the like.
The meeting point of all these Hindu or semi – Hindu system is that they all believe that this watcher/witness/knower (Drasta – Sakchi – Gyata) which is the ultimate knower of all outer and inner events/things/etc is the ultimate Atma (self which is eternal, unchanging i.e. Sat)
Issue 75: 14 – 20 July
Watcher/Drasta
While the Sankara Vedanta calls the witness, the Atma; other systems of Hinduism have their own names for it.
Even Sri Rajneesh (Osho) who attempted to interpret Buddhist scriptures could not go beyond this ultimate watcher (which is a very Hinduistic notion). In spite of his attempt to present Buddhism to the Indian subcontinent (and the world at large) in a favorable angle; all he did was re-interpret the various Buddhist Sutra and Sastras in a Hinduistic way, without ever realising it.
This consciousness/watcher, the Chit of Sat – Chit – Ananda is a very important aspect of the Hindu view. This can be seen not only from Sankaracharya’s writings which I have illustrated above; but also from those texts of Hindu background which have attempted to refute the Buddhist view. In most of them, we find that they have completely misunderstood the emptiness of Buddhism and they try to show that a liberation that is empty and unconscious cannot be the real liberation and liberation by nature must be of the nature of knowledge (Gyanamaya). Such Hindu writings show a clear misunderstanding of the purport of Sunyata/emptiness in Buddhism or for that matter impermanence, non – self, and Dukha.
We have dealt with the Chit aspect of Sat – Chit – Ananda; and now finally as this really existing watcher (Sat – Chit) is without thoughts, it is bliss (Ananda). Although there are many other view within Hinduism besides the Advaita view of Sankara and those influenced by it, they are, first of all, further away from the Buddhist view as their view entails a belief in a supreme god from whom the watcher/or individual self sparks out etc.
Secondly, since most learned Hindu scholars like ex-president Dr.Radha Krishnan, Dr. S.N. Das Gupta, Swami Vivekananda, and many others consider the Sankara Advaita Vedanta view as the acme of Hindu view; I feel it sufficient to compare only this view with the Buddhist view to show how the two are totally different systems of meditation/action/ and experience, if not contradictory.
While the Sankara Vedanta calls the witness, the Atma, other systems of Hinduism have their own names for it. For example, the Kashmir Shaiva School calls this knowledge Shambhavi Vidhya instead of Atma – Gyan, but in essence they are talking about the same watcher/Drasta; and some other systems call this same watcher, Para Vidhya or Para Samvit.
There are hundreds of other names given to this watcher in the various sects of Hinduism; just as Paraa in the mantra systems which goes from outer sounds Vaikhari to Madhyama (inner sounds and lights) to Pasyanti (the watcher of all these sounds and lights) to final Para which is the super conscious macrocosmic watcher by itself. But we need not go into all of them as that would entail writing a book, which is not our purpose.)
Issue 76: 21 – 27 July
Crux of Buddhism
…Recognising the watcher as the truly existing ultimate substance and identifying oneself with it will only lead to further continuity of Sansara, not liberation.
Now all these systems claim that watcher/witness is your real nature (Tat tvam asi = That thou art) and to continually affirm I am that (Aham Bramasmi = I am the Braman) until I identify fully and completely with that watcher/witness etc. All Hindu meditations are geared towards helping the person to realise or recognise this watcher and finally to merge one’s self into this watcher or to completely identify oneself with it.
With this background let us compare this view and its meditation and its goal with the Buddhist view, meditation, goal. We have seen that in the Hindu system, ignorance (Agyan) is not to recognise or know this watcher which is one’s true self as opposed to the false self called ego (Ahamkara). According to this system, liberation is attained by recognising this watcher within and identifying oneself with it until one is fully identified with it. And all meditation is used to help in this process.
Sankara is very clear that just meditating alone without the correct view is not enough. He says in his Tatva Bodh (knowing the Tatva/principle) Nityanitya Vivek, there should be the distinguishing of Nitya (the unchanging) and the Anitya (the changing). Those systems which do not agree to this cannot be called Advaita (monistic/non dual).
Before I begin the view of Buddhism, I want to distinguish between Monism which is the view of the Advaita Vedanta and non dualism of Nagarjuna. Although some writers have also used the word non – dualism for Sankara’s Advaita; that creates a lot of confusion.
The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines monism as a view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance. This is exactly the Sankara Vedanta or any other form of Advaita within Hinduism. This ultimate substance is the watcher, the super-conscious substance, Braman/Mahavastu.
Now the Advaya (sometimes also called the Advaita of Nagarjuna) is not a monistic view in the sense neither Nagarjuna nor any form of Buddhism posits one ultimate substance in any form. In fact if we were to express the Buddhist view in an over simplified way, we can say that the correct view of Buddhism is to see/recognise that there is no one ultimate monistic substance anywhere to be found.
Note that Buddhism does not say that there is no awareness etc., as some Hindu critique of Buddhism have implied in their refutation of Buddhism; but rather that, that watcher/awareness is not the ultimate substance and furthermore neither recognising that watcher nor becoming one with it liberates man. In fact according to Buddhism recognising the watcher as the truly existing ultimate substance and identifying oneself with it will only lead to further continuity of Sansara, not liberation.
To understand this point of view is to understand the crux of Buddhism and thus to see how Buddhism is poles apart from any system which expounds any kind of one and only ultimate substance, conscious or unconscious – and that virtually includes must of the world’s religious systems.
Issue 77: 28 July – 3 August, 2008
Difference in Karma
No one is high or low by birth, but becomes high or low by virtue of his/her qualities (Guna) and hard work.
We have been talking about Samatha and in the context of Samatha we started talking about Riddhi – Pratiharya (Riddhi-Siddhi as it is popularly known in the Hindu culture). In the explanation of Riddhi Pratiharya we said there are five main types of Aviggya which are called worldly Pratiharya (Laukik Pratiharya) and there is a sixth Aviggya which is the knowledge of the extinction of Asava/Klesha (emotional and intellectual defilements).
In Buddhism this fifth is the only true Siddhi, all the rest are only like a childish play. In the context of the sixth Aviggya, we came upon the logic of correct view (Samyag Dristi) and Vipassyana. To distinguish what is meant by the correct view in Buddhism we went into details to clarify the non-Buddhist Advaita Vedantic view, so that it can be seen clearly what is not the Buddhist view.
I have taken great pains to distinguish the Vedantic Advaita view so that it can be clearly distinguished from pure Buddhist view, like a piece of hair being extracted from butter. There are many other Hindu-Jain views too, but they are so drastically different from the Buddhist view that I do not feel the need to elaborate or distinguish them.
Hinduism as a whole believes in a creator-god. Buddhism believes all such beliefs are mere wishful thinking. Hinduism believes in castes and classes as ordained by some divine power (specifically Brahma in the Vedic system itself but in Hinduism later, it gets a bit mixed up with other ideas).
In Buddhism, there are no castes or class differences and whatever differences there are between men is a result of each person’s own karma and certainly those differences are not permanent or given by some divine agent. They were created by one’s own actions (Karma), so one can change it without any special divine being’s will. So, those differences can be changed through the Karma (further actions) of the individual.
To believe that a Brahmin or a Chettri’s child is of higher level even if it has an IQ of 70 or 80, while a so called lower caste person’s child is a lower being even if it has an IQ of above 130 is absurd to not only Buddhism but also to any rational, thinking person. No one is high or low by birth, but becomes high or low by virtue of his/her qualities (Guna) and hard work.
And it is the qualities that a sane society should value and not some imagined high birth. Not everybody is an Einstein or Picasso, Tansen or Edison, Devkota or Beethoven. We cannot possibly say millions of other people are equal to them and therefore we/the society shall not honour them in the name of equality. However, Einstein and Beethoven were not born to any specific caste.
Issue 78: 4 – 10 August
Wisdom matters, not caste or class
“Why can’t he (a washerman) be a guru if he has Gyana (Wisdom)?”
No statistics have shown that certain castes have produced more Einsteins, given equal opportunities. It may be true to some extent that in the Indian subcontinent there have been more Bramin scholars than non Bramins in the past; but that is because of the blind caste system which ensured that only Bramins got the chance to study and the lower castes were discouraged to the point of being punished or excommunicated from the society if they even attempted to be scholars.
Why, barely 30 or 40 years ago my own grandparents told me I shouldn’t study the Bhagavat Gita otherwise I would go mad and that it should be left to the Bahuns. To Buddhism, all such notions are blindness. That is why the Buddha purposely ordained the haircutter of the Sakyas, Udayi before the other Sakyas, (the ruling Kshetriyas) so that they would be forced to respect them. In Buddhism, amongst Bhikchus, it is the rule of seniority that whoever is ordained first must be respected by those ordained later.
Once, when the Buddha was going down the street, a lower class sweeper saw him coming and backed off in fear because the Buddha was of a high princely class. This was due to fear of coming close to the princely class. But the Buddha went close to him and told him, he need not fear him. The Buddha did not treat his own son Rahula in any special way or any differently from other Bikchus. Rahula, who was an Arhat and had all the qualities, did not become Buddha’s heir in power either.
However, belief in class and caste seem to be human follies prevalent everywhere. Even in some communist states whose principles are supposed to be classless and finally stateless, we find brothers and sons are chosen as heirs instead of those who really have the qualities. In the Indian subcontinent this folly appears to have grown out of control and has spread like cancer.
And sad to say it still influences the thinking of even the so called educated. I remember a long debate with the famous Hindu Swami, Khaptad Baba, who was supposed to be a medical doctor who could not accept the fact that the Balyogeshwar group had made a Doma (washerman) a guru across the border in India Pithoragada.
He kept saying “How can a Dom be a spiritual guru?’ And I kept asking him “Why can’t he be a guru if he has Gyana (wisdom)?” and the only answer he could repeat was, “How can a Doma have Gyana?” When I pointed out to him that most of the famous Rishis (seers) were born of fisherwomen or born in other similar castes, he just gave me a nervous laughter as his reply.
Issue 79: 11 – 17 August
Disease of mankind
Indeed, for as long as human beings or all societies are not freed from greed, hatred, from clinging to me or mine, and conditioned ideas (Sanskaras); the production of a classless society is only a dream. Mere intellectual acumen and knowledge does not free men from these afflictions.
While social changes from the outside do contribute to the upliftment of man in many ways, it alone does not liberate man from his negative qualities. Man also needs an inner transformation without which all outer transformation are only extraneous and does not free him. The change must come from within first.
For example, we cannot have a peaceful society or peace in the world when individuals in the society are not at peace even within their own selves. For individuals to be at peace, they would first have to learn the art of freeing themselves from greed, hatred, passion and clinging to their self (Atman) and clinging to conditioned ideas, which separate man from man and breed hatred for the other castes or classes.
They would need to free themselves from inner insecurities, complexes, neurosis and conditioning (Sanskar). Without being free from one’s own inner turmoil, one cannot be peaceful in one’s social interactions.
Society is made up of individuals. There is no such thing as a society without individuals as there are no forests without trees. Trying to make a forest of sick trees into a botanical garden, surrounded by high walls and guards and other material trappings to surround it only covers the illness of the trees. It does not transform the forest.
The disease of mankind is inside the man. What is seen outside is manifestation of his diseases. So merely changing the outer conditions will help only so much and not more. A miser will continue to be a miser even if he becomes a millionaire. The miserliness does not go away if he becomes rich. He will just become a miserly millionaire. Likewise, an angry person will not cease to be angry if he becomes the richest person overnight. His money and all his comforts will not free him of his anger. So it is with all other conditionings.
This is not to say that there is no value in uplifting society in whatever ways in its external conditions. There is definitely great value in it which cannot be under estimated. But mere external physical changes do not bring peace to man. There is an entire different world to which man belongs which will not be touched or is barely scratched by only external changes; as all forms of psychotherapy have proven amply.
Even multi-millionaires are not happy or at peace with themselves and with the world; and some of them have committed suicide. The American statistics show that millionaires form the highest category among those who commit suicide. Why would someone who has everything be so unhappy so as to take one’s own life? This gives rise to the question whether a society could really be peaceful if all its members became multi-millionaires and had all the physical comforts at their disposal.