nirvANa sundarI

shrIpati, in his commentary on the brahmasUtra of bAdarAyaNa, criticizes the siddhAnta-s of shankara, rAmAnuja and madhva to establish his own school of thought based on shaivAgama, dvaitAdvaita. He expresses severe disagreement with shankara’s doctrine of mAyA and the unreality of the world. According to him, if the world is to be assumed to be real only for the purpose of vyavahAra and not pAramArthika, then the doctrine cannot be accepted as true. He disagrees with such a truth that is confined to vyavahAra. He refuses to accept such a truth which is:

1. Only applicable to vyavahAra (gamyatvam)
2. Outside vyavahAra (bAdhita)
3. True as well as untrue
4. The semblance of truth and yet not truth

He rejects that shankara’s philosophy cannot be acceptable to persons seeking salvation and accuses smArta-s of being sarvamatabhraShTa-s:

smArtAn.h sarvamatabhraShTAn.h jaganmithyAtvasAdhakAn.h |
gaNikAchArasampannAn.h pAShaNDAn.h parivarjayet.h ||

He also attacks rAmAnuja, according to who, individual souls are not identical with the paramAtman; they suffer from innate unbelief and not ignorance, while belief or love of Lord (bhakti), not knowledge, is the means of salvation or union with God. He disputes at length the pAncharAtra criticism that the studying of shiva purANa and worshipping shiva according to it, will result in sin, because shiva purANa is tAmasic. This is, he says, an invention of the pracChanna bauddhas (i.e. advaitins or nirvisheShavAdins!) and is groundless. Since vyAsa is the author of both shiva and viShNu purANas, he questions whether the tAmasatva extends to both the purANas or only to the former? If to former only, that position cannot be accepted as true. Then, again, does this tAmasatva extend to vyAsa’s works alone or both to his works and himself? If it applies only to his works and not to himself, then such a position is not logical. If vyAsa, as a sAtvika, authored viShNu purANa, then it is not acceptable that he turned tAmasic to author shiva purANa. In the veda, both Rudra and agni who are treated to be synonymous, have been praised. This being so, even the Vedas which thus praise shiva under these forms of Rudra and agni should be termed tAmasic. This pracChanna bauddha (it is unclear why advaitins are accused of such a prejudice against shiva instead of the vaiShNavas) invention cannot therefore be accepted. It is evident that during shrIpati’s time, completion between hari and hara cults had reached its zenith. The kind of arguments put forward by shrIpati against viShNu and his votaries are indicative of intense feelings of rivalry. shrIpati quotes haraduttAchArya who authored an entire work to establish the superiority of shiva over viShNu, hariharatAratamyam. He was also the author of chaturvedatAtparya samgraha which explains the essence of Vedas as being the adoration of Shiva as the Supreme God. shrIpati, along the lines of haradutta, tries to argue that the upAsanA devatA of gAyatrI is shiva and not viShNu. He seems to however forget that very same Agamas which he quotes as authority declare that panchAkShara is greater than gAyatrI and can alone grant mokSha, thus contradicting his own set of pramANas.

The word pracChanna bauddha was made popular by the at-times crass mAdhva author nArayaNa paNDita. nArayaNa paNDita talks of how shankara adopted the cardinal doctrines of Buddhism to suit his own nirvisheSha advaita theory and remarks that the variation has become known as the pracChanna bauddha theory:

asatpadesansadasadviviktaM mAyAkhyayA saMvR^itimabhyadatta |
brahmApyakhaNDaM bata shunyasiddhyai pracChannabauddho.ayamataH prasiddhaH ||

It is beyond my understanding why shrIpati criticizes advaitins in the context of refuting pAncharAtra. The Atman is anxious to unite with the blissful Brahman, and this, according to shrIpati, is the central subject of vishiShTAdvaita. He rejects this concept as being avaidika and reasons that being both simultaneously vishiShTa and advaita amounts to yukti-virodha (opposed to reasoning). He applies the daNDa-puruSha sambandha nyAya to prove this point. The man who carries a stick in his hand is called by the combined name of Dandi though he and the daNDa he carries are two different objects. Because he is related to the stick as its carrier, he is to be called by this single conjoint name of Dandi, affixing the vishiShTa pratyaya; both are c-related; not separate. An ordinary man who carries no daNDa calls the man who carries one, a Dandi. These two are two different persons and hence advaita is not proved here. The point is thus pressed home that vishiShTAdvaita is against all reason. The ordinary man without a daNDa, the man with daNDa and the daNDa itself are three different objects, and there being no union of the daNDa and the body of the man who carries it, there is no union between them, they are as different as the pillar and man. Thus, vishiShTAdvaita fails to fully explain the visheShaNa and visheShya; nor does it show how they can be compromised.

shrIpati also refutes madhva’s dvaita. It must be remembered however that his own shaiva theory is bhedAbheda, i.e. both bheda and abheda. But he does not agree with the bheda doctrine of madhva however admitting that there is a temporary or transient difference between jIva and Ishvara. The transient difference is, in his view, restricted to the time required for the jIva working out his emancipation after which he becomes Ishvara. He refutes the madhva view that the Creator of the world has bodily lineaments. He sees this as implying that the Creator also has rAga, dveSha, duHkha etc. which is not accordance with the shruti. If Brahman had a bodily form, he would be liable to destruction. He concludes that the vaiShNava and dvaita schools hold views which lead to confusion – rather they confuse themselves.

pratyAnItAH parama bhavatA trAyatAM naH svabhAgA
daityAkrAntaM hR^idayakamalaM tvadgR^ihaM pratyabodhi |
kAlagrastaM kiyadidamaho nAtha shushrUShatAM te
muktisteShAM na hi bahumatA nArasiMhAparaiH kim ||

- by Dennis Waite

The truth of advaita can only ever be one. The very meaning of the word advaita tells us that the purport of any teaching must be the same. Any difference lies solely in the way that this message is transmitted. And any method is valid if it leads to the truth, as pointed out in the siddhAnta-bindu of shrI madhusUdana sarasvatI:

Whatever are the means by which the inner-Self is realized by men, those should be regarded as flawless, and they are endless.

I would like to differentiate five methods of teaching advaita, for the sake of clarity: advaita vedAnta, neo-vedAnta, Direct Path advaita, Neo-advaita and Psuedo-advaita. There is a distinct danger of confusion between the terms Neo-vedAnta and Neo-advaita since these are often used interchangeably.

There is also the danger that these teachings will be seen as some sort of progression, with neo-advaita as the latest, streamlined version of an outmoded, archaic traditional system. If they are seen as equivalent, the neo-advaita is certain to seem more attractive to many Westerners, claiming as it does that no effort is needed and that you (can) have it now. Finally as Greg Goode says, “it often seems that neo-advaita presents its own hard line stance as the type of advaita for those tough and clear enough to take their Whiskey straight, no chasers”.

None of these views is correct, as the reader will hopefully now appreciate. Greg goes on to say:

Every path has its way of presenting itself as an alternative. A traditional way to look at the differences among paths might be in terms of the energy or guNa balances, none more correct or privileged than the others.

Traditional: more inclusive and active, for those who resonate with karma and jnAna yoga, or who have a balance of rajas and sattva, with less tamas.

Direct: more intellectual and less active, for those who resonate with jnAna yoga, or who have lots of sattva, some tamas and less rajas.

Neo: more emotional and less active, for those who resonate with bhakti yoga, or those who have lots of sattva and tamas, and less rajas.

Traditional Advaita

This is regarded as that defined by shankara in his bhAShyas on the upaniShads, the bhagavad gItA and the brahmasUtras (together called the prasthAna traya). Shankara formalized the traditional method around the 8th century AD, according to most modern authorities. Swami sacchidAnandendra, in his very scholarly works, believes that shankara’s essential method depends upon the technique called adhyAropa - apavAda or false attribution followed by subsequent denial. Thus for example, it provisionally teaches such things as the five sheaths of being or the three stages of consciousness. Later however, once the implications have been taken on board, it acknowledges that all such ideas are only part of the superimposition that we make upon the non-dual reality in our ignorance. It describes the two aspects of vyavahAra and paramArtha and recognizes the interim validity, indeed necessity, of talking about people and objects, concepts and practices - even though none of these really exist.

The traditional approach is defined by scriptures, which are claimed to be the ultimate source of the truth. All traditional teachers refer, and invariably defer to them. Traditional advaita recognizes various paths that seekers may follow to help them on their way to enlightenment. Amongst these are the way of action (karma yoga), the way of devotion (bhakti yoga) and the way of knowledge (jnAna yoga).

Neo-Vedanta

It refers particularly to advaita as taught by Swami vivekAnanda and his followers. It is argued that Traditonal advaita was, in a sense, watered down and adapted so as to be more palatable to the western temperament, when vivekAnanda brought the message of Ramakrishna to the West in 1893. It aimed to be a philosophy in the sense that it was understood in the West, perhaps equated with a sort of Absolute Idealism, rather than shruti - the unauthored message contained in the scriptures.

The stance of Traditional vedAnta is that the teacher unfolds the scriptures so that the student (eventually) gains immediate apprehension of the Truth. In this sense, the shruti are the direct pramANa. There is the sense that Neo-vedAnta, instead, treats the subject as a philosophy that is studied and then the student goes out into the world, applies the knowledge gained and eventually realizes the Truth. The scriptures are then only indirect or even incidental.

Some traditionalists argue that key elements of Advaita have been lost in this process, which now concentrates almost exclusively on jnAna yoga rather than bhakti or karma. For example, Bithika Mukherjee says that in particular the principle of renunciation and the concept of Ananda or bliss have been ignored at the expense of the more intellectual aspects which themselves belong in the realm of mAyA. This might have resulted, she suggests, because traditional adherents were anxious to refute possible accusations that advaita was in some way mystical and also lacked ethical foundation.

James Swartz suggests that another consequence of vivekAnanda’s teaching was that Westerners began to look, through the teachings of advaita, for an enlightenment experience, a concept that does not occur in the pure Traditional Advaita but rather from the various yoga-s that derived from patanjali’s method. Whereas yoga used to be treated as a spiritual practice and preparation, it now became in danger of being pursued as an end in itself.

Before yoga sullied the pure teachings of vedAnta, enlightenment was considered to be the removal of ignorance about the nature of the Self. But with the ascendency of the yoga teachings, enlightenment came to be considered a permanent experience of the Self in contrast to the mundane experiences of everyday life, which obviously can’t be if this is a non-dual reality as the upaniShads claim. It cannot be a permanent experience, first because there is no such thing as a permanent experience and second, it cannot be an experience in a non-dual reality because the subject-object distinction necessary for experience is missing in a non-dual reality. If this is true, then the quest for a permanent enlightenment experience is pointless and what is needed, as traditional vedAnta says, is the knowledge of reality since the craving for experience, including the experience of the Self, is mAyA, the consequence of seeing oneself a doer who is separate from reality.

The reason why vivekAnanda is considered a neo-vedAntin by the traditionalists is because of the way he taught vedAnta. He taught it as a philosophy, as an intellectual discipline. His lectures were lectures. Lecture is not the method of teaching in traditional vedAnta although many who call themselves traditionalists lecture because they are not enlightened or did not learn how to wield the means of knowledge. vedAnta is a pramANa, a means of knowledge. It does not talk about the Self. When you talk about the Self, you inspire bhakti and a desire to know or experience it (yoga). When you teach It directly you reveal it. If it is considered that neo-vedAnta believes that the Self can become enlightened or experience enlightenment, then the views expressed contradict Traditional vedAnta.

It should also be noted that others deny that vivekAnanda is in any way not traditional. Certainly many of his lectures are clearly advaita in the traditional sense. It is possible that some later disciples have emphasized the yoga element of his teaching to the detriment of the advaita.

contd ...

[Most Buddhist texts reject the different states of samAdhi including the nirvikalpa of the pAtanjala yoga and related darshanas as trance states of absorption and not mapping to true enlightenment. dhyAna, yoga, japa, prANAyAma, maNDala visualizations etc. are utilized as means to attain a state of tranquility but these states of absorption or a state of oneness is rejected by the mAdhyamikas as the state of true freedom or enlightenment. In fact, these states of yogic absorptions are, after a point, considered to a hinderance. The states of tranquility or samAdhi are to be utilized for the purpose of gaining insight, which alone liberates one from samsAra. Like the famous mAdhyamaka rule goes: samsAra is nirvANa, and it is all about perception. The following discussion is helpful is distinguishing Tranquility from Insight - HR]

Identification of the True Nature of Tranquility and Insight

Sandhinirmochana-sUtra states:

He who lives in solitude, settling the mind in inward purity, meditates on aspects of reality previously realized. Such a sentient being continuously draws his mind inward. By so achieving a state of tranquility and the ability to attain that state as many times as possible, one attains the perfect ease of body and mind. This is said to be - dwelling in tranquility.

The same text says:

Having achieved such ease, one should settle in this state, abandoning all thought forms, and then proceed to analyze the focus of contemplative absorption. “Insight” is the process of investigating the totality of contemplative absorption with a view to discerning properly and perfectly the reality of knowledge. It is achieved through the exercise of discrimination, observation, examination, endurance and yearning.

In simple words:

Tranquility is one-pointed concentration.
Insight is analytical comprehension.

sUtrAlamkAra states:

The mind settled in its purity
Is in a tranquil state.
Analysis of this state
Is Insight.

Vasubandhu comments on this verse thus: The mind resting in harmony through meditational absorption is in tranquility. Analysis of this state causes insight. Without meditational absorption, there cannot be tranquility and insight. Such is the description of the two states.

In general, tranquility is achieved by fixing the mind upon any object so as to maintain it without distraction. Insight is characterized as wisdom that analyses the reality of knowledge. Tranquility is achieved by focussing the mind on an object and maintaining it in that state until finally it is channelled into one stream of attention and evenness. Insight is attained through a general and detailed examination of reality and the systematic application of intellectual discrimination.

Focussing the mind on its ineffable essence and on images of reality, one maintains an awareness free from judgements and distractions. With a delight in all mental mages, one focuses the mind on the mark of inner absorption, maintains it, and channels it into a stream of attention and quietude. These methods produce a state of tranquility free from judgements and distractions. When one appreciates all images of meditation, which range from fixing the mind upon the marks of inward meditational trance and sustaining an absorption to intensely consolidating it into one stream and achieving meditational trance, this is called Tranquility.

Insight, on the other hand, is attained when a meditator, having achieved tranquility, now contemplates the various aspects of the mind and analyzes properly and perfectly its conditioned and unconditioned realities.

Concerning the mental images of tranquility and insight, tranquility is non-conceptual. It simply focuses on any given object without duality. Insight is the sublime perception that examines the nature of the mind.

Tranquility is a non-conceptual perception of phenomena that discerns neither their extent nor their exact nature. Insight is a conceptual perception of phenomena that discerns their extent and exact nature.

Tranquility is so called because, having pacified distractions, one focusses always on an inward image joyfully, naturally, and without interruptions while maintaining perfect ease of mind. Insight is that which examines the nature of that tranquil state so long as it remains.

There are three aspects of Insight:

1. That which originates from conceptual judgement: it originates from the analysis of a perceived image of contemplative absorption.
2. That which is attained through perfect inquiry: it arises from the intellectual investigation of the unknown aspects of the mind.
3. That which is achieved through analytical examination: it arises from perfect analysis of the mental aspects of reality, which the intellect has understood in all its subtleties.

Insight differentiates systematically and fully all things with respect to their apparent and true nature. It also examines fully and perfectly duality and non-duality. This investigation remedies harmful and dualistic tendencies. Not only does insight deliver one from the wrong course, but it also directs the mind to focus on the right path.

Insight is said to consist of four stages:

1. That which differentiates all aspects of reality.
2. That which differentiates absolute reality.
3. The examination of the concept of duality.
4. The understanding of that duality.

The mind must rest in tranquility during all this.

How does one differentiate the reality of all phenomena?

1. A crystal-clear analysis, keen intellectual perception or a purifying mental image that eliminates distortions.
2. Differentiation of the nature of reality as it is.
3. A complete intellectual examination that must occur when the mind clings to duality.
4. Perfect examination that results when one perceives reality perfectly.

Insight may be determined through six methods of investigating the nature of the mind:

1. Reality
2. Substance
3. Characteristics
4. Spatial dimensions
5. Time
6. Dialectical process

Most doctrinal treatises related to the sUtras that the tranquility should be attained first and insight afterward:

Mastery of the preceding principle results
In the realization of the succeeding principles.
The former is inferior and coarse,
The latter superior and subtle.

Knowing that insight arises from tranquility
And clears the defilements of the mind,
One should first achieve tranquility.

contd ...

The viewpoint of the dualistic Agamas may now be summed up. Here the divine essence or shiva is conceived as inalienably associated with a shakti or Power which is purely divine and identical with it. The Essence and Power, both of the nature of chit or pure consciousness, constitute the two aspects of one and the same divine principle. Shiva is a transcendent unity. Shakti too is really one, though it appears as jnAna and kriyA according to the character of the data on which it functions. It is the will (icChA) of shiva and is essentially one with Him. Bindu is the eternal material principle outside shakti, and the three principles are usually described as the three jewels (ratna) of shaivism and its holy Trinity. In creation (in pure creation directly and in impure creation indirectly), Shiva’s place is that of an agent, shakti’s is that of an instrument and bindu serves as the material stuff. Shakti being immaterial never suffers any modification during action but bindu does. The modification of bindu, which follows from a disturbance of its equilibrium (kShobha) under the stress of divine shakti at the end of cosmic night (praLaya) gives rise to the five kalA-s which appear as it were like five concentric circles with greater and greater expansion. These kalA-s which precede further progressive modifications called tattvas and bhuvanas bear the names of nivR^itti (outermost), pratiShThA, vidyA, shanti and shAntyatIta (inmost). This represents one line of evolution of bindu, as that of the objective order (artha). The other line is represented by the evolution of sound or shabda. In this aspect we find nAda, bindu and varNa as the threefold expression of bindu arranged in an order of increasing externality.

Bindu is synonymous in this system with mahAmAyA and kuNDalinI. It is pure matter-energy and is to be distinguished from mAyA and prakR^iti, which are impure. In fact shaiva Agamas of all schools which recognize the thirty-six tattvas distinguish mAyA from prakR^iti. They are identified in the shvetAshvatara upaniShad: mAyAM tu prakR^itiM vidyAnmAyinaM tu maheshvaram. In the Agamas generally, mAyA is eternal but prakR^iti is not so. For prakR^iti is evolved from kalA which itself is an evolute from mAyA. But in some places in the tantras they are definitely conceived. prakR^iti stands for the material principle in a general way and mAyA is one of the vikalpas under this category. Bindu this is the matrix of pure creation, i.e. of shabda and artha, so that it is to be looked upon as of a dual nature. The pauShkara Agama says: shabdavastUbhayAtmA.asau bindurnAnyatarAtmakaH.

The order of shabda creation out of the disturbed mahAmAyA is thus given:

1. mahAmAyA
2. nAda
3. bindu
4. sAdAkhya
5. Isha
6. vidyA

In this scheme mahAmAyA stands for para-bindu in its undisturbed condition and nAda represents the same bindu when the chit shakti has acted upon it. As the action of shakti upon bindu is in a sense constant, it may be assumed that mahAmAyA and nAda are really two aspects (logically successive but in actual fact simultaneous) of the same principle, nAda representing the disturbed part of mahAmAyA. If mahAmAyA is kuNDalinI in its essence, nAda is the same kuNDalinI in its awakened and active state. mahAmAyA as such has no relation with puruSha but as nAda or kuNDalinI it resides in every puruSha, normal and super-normal.

contd ...

This worldly soul is technically known as sakala, being endowed with body, senses etc. corresponding to the tattva or bhuvana to which it belongs. Such souls range from the lowest plane to the plane of kalA and migrate from plane to plane according to their karmans. There is another state of the soul in which the mAyIya mala as described above is absent, but the other two malas continue as before. This is a state of pralaya or dissolution in which the soul is free from all the creative principles, is in a disembodied condition and remains absorbed in mAyA. Such souls are called pralayAkalas or pralaya-kevalins. These are bodiless and senseless atoms with karma-samskAras and the root Ignorance clinging to them. When, however, the karmans are got rid of through discriminative knowledge, renunciation or such other means, the soul is exalted above mAyA, though still retaining its atomic state. It is then above mAyA no doubt, but remains within the limits of mahAmAyA which it cannot escape unless the Supreme Grace of the Divine Master acts upon it and removes the basic Ignorance which caused its atomicity and the limitation of its infinite powers. This state of the soul represents the highest condition of the pashu known as vijnAnAkala or vijnAna-kevalin. This is kaivalya. Among these souls those which are thoroughly mature in respect of their impurity are competent to receive divine illumination at the beginning of the next creative cycle. The dawn of divine wisdom which is the result of the anugraha (divine grace) acting upon the soul is the origin of the so-called shuddha-vidyA.

The illumination of a mature vijnAnAkala is either intense or mild according as the kaluSha or original taint attached to the soul has run its course completely or otherwise, the former types of souls are raised to the status of vidyeshvaras and the latter become mantras. The sakala and pralayAkala souls, too, in which the mala is mature, are favored with divine grace and raised to the position of:

1. Mantreshvaras (and AchAryas) and placed in charge of the different divisions of brahmANDa or the planes belonging to pR^ithivI-tattva, and of
2. Bhuvaneshvaras or lokeshvaras with powers over the planes belonging to the higher tattvas beyond pR^ithivI.

The pralayAkalas, however, where mala is immature but karma mature, are associated with subtle bodies called puryaShTaka at the beginning of the next cycle and made to assume physical bodies and migrate from life to life, thus maturing the mala through experience. The shAkta belief in threefold nature of the soul is comparable to the conviction of the Ophites and their predecessors the Ophici in the West – it presupposes a faith that the division corresponds to the degrees of grace and does not imply any essential difference. It is true, however, that according to the dualists, some difference does exist between shiva and paramashiva. The Valentinian conception of essential distinction in human souls has also its parallel in India as evident from the views of sections of Jainas, Buddhist and vaiShNava writers, but finds no recognition in the Tantras.

The states of the soul which follow are not those of a pashu but of shiva himself, though certain limitations still remain. These limitations are those of adhikAra, bhoga and laya according to the dualists (shrIkaNTha in ratna-traya). They are removed in due course of time through fulfillment of experiences etc., in the pure order. The pure order of shuddha-adhvan represents the higher world of pure matter beyond the influence of mAyA.

The successive stages of spiritual perfection consequent on the dawn of wisdom are represented by the tattvas to which the souls are attached. Thus the lowest stage is that of a mantra which corresponds to shuddha-vidyA. The higher states are those of mantreshvaras corresponding to Ishvara-tattva, of mantra-maheshvaras corresponding to sadAshiva and of shiva corresponding to the tattva known under that name. the state of shiva is really transcendent, being that of pure and absolute consciousness, but the true Absolute is paramashiva bhaTTAraka where identity with all the tattvas as well as their transcendence are present simultaneously.

Due to the limitation of its powers the Self is bound. The shAktas hold that there are certain hidden forces latent in chidAkAsha, known as mAtR^ikAs, which reside over the malas referred to above and over the kalAs or letter-sounds of the language. The supreme mAtR^ikA, known as ambikA, has three aspects: jyeShThA, raudrI and vAmA, each of them having a specific function. The kalAs are the ultimate units of human speech with which thought is inextricably interwoven. The mAtR^ikAs beget in each soul, in each act of its knowledge, determinate or indeterminate, an inner cognition (antaH-parAmarsha) and produce a sort of confusion there on account of intermingling with shabda. Knowledge in this manner assumes the form of joy, sorrow, desire, aversion, conceit, fear, hope, etc., under the influence of these forces. This is how bhAvas originate and govern the unregenerate human soul. mAtR^ikAs are thus the secret bonds which bind down a soul, but when they are truly known and their essence is revealed, they help it in attaining siddhi.

These forces function in chidAkAsha so long as the brahma-granthi is not rent asunder. This granthi is evidently the node of identity between spirit and matter and is the spring of ego-sense in man. The moral effect of kuNDalinI is so far clear. It is maintained that if the mAtR^ikA is not propitiated and if the node is not removed, it is likely that even after the rise of truth-consciousness the soul may, owing to inadvertence (pramAda), be caught up in its snares, get entangled in the meshes of shabda and lapse into ignorance or go astray.

The Divine Will is one and undivided, but it becomes split up after the origin of the mAtR^ikAs which evolve out of the nAda co-eternal with this Will. This split in icChA or svAtantrya causes a separation between jnAna and kriyA, its constitutive aspects. This is practically identical with what is described as a divorce between svAtantrya and bodha or vimarsha and prakAsha, which takes place on the assumption of atomic condition by the Supreme Self. In this condition jnAna evolves into three inner and five outer senses, and kriyA into five prANas and five motor organs connected respectively with the vital and reflex activities of the organism.

contd ...

- By Leesa S. Davis

The Advaita deconstructive practice of self-inquiry (Atma-vichAra) and the Soto Zen practice of just sitting (shikantaza) have two aspects:
- the internal meditative inquiry, in which the practitioner internalizes the instructions and inquires into the boundaries of his or her personal experiencing.
- and the more external aspect of questioning and dialoguing with a teacher.

Thus, the deconstructive processes that these practices ignite takes place in a practice situation, that is, a context wherein the practitioner is in full existential engagement with a tradition, a teacher and a practice.

From the Advaita perspective, the practitioner seeks to realize that ultimate reality (brahman) and self (Atman) are, in essence, not different. From the Zen practitioner’s point of view, practice consists of realizing that, in essence, conditioned reality (samsAra) and unconditioned reality (nirvANa) are not two. Common to both traditions is the assertion that, in essence, there is no duality between the conditioned and the unconditioned or the relative and the absolute.

Although predicated on different ontologies, the non-dual systems of Advaita and Zen both deny any bifurcation between self and non-self, subject and object, cause and effect and so on. Hence, in practice, both Advaita and Zen deny any bifurcation between categories because they both deny, for different reasons, the dualistic thought processes and structures that create oppositional categories in the first place.

To this end, in the evolving trajectory of spiritual practice, both Zen and Advaita teachers aim to move students beyond their everyday dualistic thought processes and structures through ongoing deconstructive challenges to bifurcated categories and structures that support oppositional ways of thinking. In teacher–student dialogues, dualistic ontological boundaries and epistemological filters that are impeding the student’s insight are exposed by the nature of the questions asked, thus enabling the teacher to tailor his or her deconstructive challenge to the particular dualistic construction that the student is displaying. In other words, the questioning/dialoguing process enables the teacher to identify the dualistic stumbling blocks that the practitioner needs to move through. Importantly, this undoing also applies to dualistic attachment to or reification of the teacher–student relationship itself.

In the context of the practice situation, the student’s relationship to the teacher is pivotal in keeping him or her concentrated and committed to the ongoing process of practice and inquiry. In Advaita and Zen foundational texts, the importance of the teacher is clearly emphasized. In Upadeshasahasri, Shankara likens a teacher to a ‘boatman’, and claims that ‘knowledge of Brahman is not obtained in any other way than through a teacher. Dogen’s stance on the importance of the right teacher is repeated throughout the Shobogenzo and unequivocally expressed in Gakudoyojinshu, where he bluntly states: ‘When you don’t meet a right teacher, it is better not to study Buddhism at all’.

Contemporary practitioners generally reiterate this stance. When asked how important is the teacher, Zen practitioners usually respond with ‘essential’. According to one practitioner, the teacher ‘can see right through you, you can’t hide anything from them. To me a good teacher is just one hundred per cent all the time just showing you your self’. In addition to this, another Zen practitioner claims that a teacher can ‘point out things and straighten you out when there are problems’ and is ‘someone that holds [her] practice together’.

Advaita practitioners also generally regard the teacher as essential but their emphasis is slightly different. In satsang, Advaita practitioners sometimes feel that the teacher is somehow generating the ‘energy’ in the sense that the focus of the collective practice is being ‘held’ by the teacher. Practitioners report ‘feeling a strong stream of energy’ that focuses their practice, which is generally attributed to the presence of the teacher.

In both traditions, the teacher initially represents the non-dual state of being that practitioners aspire to. However, the dynamic between teachers and students is more complex. Generally, teachers in both traditions are keen to deconstruct students’ idealized projections of their role and thereby place the onus of practice onto the practitioner. But, given the traditional emphasis on the importance of the teacher, the teacher’s function and status cannot be merely negated. Instead, teachers undo objectifications of their role by constantly problematizing the teacher–student relationship. This undoing proceeds by deconstructive moves that serve to frustrate or deflate students’ dualistic expectations and to unsettle the respective positions of teacher and student. This interplay of positions, that is, the absolute non-dual view of the teacher and the relative dualistic view of the student, is indicative of the dialectical function of the two truths in each tradition and reminiscent of the juxtaposition of affirmation and negation as found in the foundational texts of the Prajñaramita Sutra and the Upanishads. In plain terms, an overarching feature of deconstructive spiritual inquiry is the conflicting messages on the role and status of the teacher that Zen and Advaita teachers send to their students in the practice situation with the aim of undermining students’ dualistic projections and expectations and placing the onus of practice on students themselves.

For example, to undermine his absolute position, Zen master Hogen Yamahata repeatedly tells his students that ‘my role is to continually disappoint you’ and, when speaking of the relationship to a teacher, a contemporary Advaitin warns her students that she can only be of limited help; the final leap must be taken alone. ‘I offer you my shoulders. Stand on them for as long as they last to leap into what has never been known, never been said’.

These disclaimers issued by Zen and Advaita teachers coupled with unfolding practice experience serve to alert the practitioner to the trap of dualizing the teacher–student relationship. It is from such disclaimers that the undoing of the construct of ‘getting anything from a teacher’ begins. This undoing is well illustrated in the following comment from an Advaita practitioner who realized that -

... after all of my experience, after all this time I couldn’t really get anything from a teacher anymore. I had rested my ‘insights’ on the authority of others, [and] it wasn’t really serving me because faced with my own death or existential crisis it was just useless.

In a similar shift, a Zen practitioner states that a teacher is -

... important at some junction. Everybody has times when they sit alone ... and then times when you are with a teacher. [But] no matter what [the teacher’s] attainment is I still have to do what I have to do so I can’t rely on their attainment or their personality or whatever to do it for me. It’s my present moment.

This shift in the practitioner’s relationship with the teacher is an important facet in the process of deconstructive spiritual inquiry. It is indicative of the necessity to move beyond the initial dualistic emotional attachment to the teacher, to a more complex dynamic in which the student realizes that a teacher ‘cannot do it for me’ but nevertheless still remains devoted to that teacher and his or her instructions.

Caught in the middle of the teacher–student duality, a Zen student of Hogen Yamahata tells his teacher in frustration: ‘If I had any sense, I would kick you and walk away, but I stay. Which one of us is the greater fool?’ To which Hogen replies, ‘Your kicking, of course, makes me old, crippled, and happy’. Here, Hogen subverts his student’s frustration by affirming and approving it. In classical Zen ‘style’, which neither reproaches nor directly instructs, Hogen addresses his student’s frustration by effectively telling him to ‘Keep kicking!’ and thereby placing the onus back on the student himself.

By undermining dualistic ideas of the teacher–student relationship, skillful teachers can employ the rising frustration that practitioners’ unfulfilled expectations can provoke to deconstructive ends. In this example, a Zen student describes a personal interview (dokusan) in which he presented his understanding and his teacher responded by striking him with the kyosaku stick. A response that ‘stunned’ him:

I came in and I did a presentation ... but he didn’t like it and I was stunned by his response and my mind was crazily trying to figure out the situation. So off I went and the next few periods I just sat there with clouds of steam coming out of my ears and I was getting more and more angry. So I got in the dokusan [interview] line and all the [dokusan] line I was fuming and I burst in and he just went ‘Hmmm’. Then the next day in teisho [formal dharma talk] ... he talked about somebody coming in and having crazy eyes and he was kind of deriding me without naming names and so we went through this process and I got angrier and angrier and finally something broke and I just came into dokusan and said, ‘I’m sorry’ and he just smiled.

Once again, the Zen teacher is neither affirming nor denying the student’s frustration, but in this case, sends him back to the naturally deconstructive process of zazen. In the concentrated practice of retreat the student describes his release of frustration as: ‘I think it’s a process in as much as things change, [to] put it that way. It’s kind of like being cooked – steeped or stewing in your own juice’. In this instance, by not directly acknowledging or responding to his student’s anger, the teacher places the responsibility of finding a solution squarely on the shoulders of the practitioner, thereby allowing the frustration to unravel in the practice of shikantaza. When asked how he overcame his anger, the student responded: ‘It’s more one’s frustration I think and who is it and what is it that’s frustrated?’.

Not being able to locate the experiencer, the ‘I’ that is experiencing frustration, difficulty, and so on, is a commonly reported experience in the practice of shikantaza. It is indicative of the breakdown of substantialized notions of self and, in this case, is a deconstructive ‘by-product’ of the teacher’s refusal to directly engage his student in a linear discussion. It is, however, important to note that skillful teachers read their student’s responses very closely and not all Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism ‘non-dual answers’ are automatically approved. In the next example, Hogen Yamahata challenges a student’s seemingly ‘correct’ response to practice:

[Student]: Whilst sitting in zazen, the question arose, ‘Who is sitting in zazen?’ In later contemplation, self asked self: ‘Who is waiting for an answer?’
[Hogen]: Thank you for ‘cooking’ such a tasty treat. It smells good! But is your hunger really satisfied by your self-made answer?

As practitioners quickly learn, with skillful teachers, there are no static ‘correct’ non-dual answers. In the practice situation, both Advaita and Zen teachers work in response to the comments or questions of the individual student in front of them, deconstructively targeting objectifications and reifications of their own roles and of spiritual practice in general.

An Advaitin tackles his student’s dualistic projections on the ‘grace’ of the teacher’s ‘presence’ thus:

[Student]: Through the grace of your presence we are now in silence. What will happen to us when you go away?
[Teacher]: Because you saw me coming, you suppose that I will one day go away. I never come or go.
[Student]: But you are going away soon. What will I do in your absence? [Teacher]: If you know how to create separation in the presence, why don’t you create presence in the separation?

The practitioner is attributing the ‘silence’ he is experiencing to the teacher’s ‘presence’. That is, he is creating a dualistic separation in the form of a productive relationship between the teacher and himself. The Advaitin rejects such a separation in two deconstructive moves. First, he negates the dichotomy of coming and going by claiming that ‘he never comes or goes’. Second, he throws the onus back to the practitioner by pointing out that dichotomous ideas of presence and absence are creations of the mind. According to Advaita, such separations do not exist in reality. The problem is created by the practitioner himself: The Teacher is actually present and the practitioner is creating absence. ‘Why not’, challenges the Teacher, ‘also create presence in absence?’ This juxtaposition of dichotomies, in this example, coming and going, presence and absence, serves to place the practitioner ‘right in the middle’ of his own dilemma. His adherence to one side of a dualism (presence) has been challenged by his teacher saying that the other side (absence) would do just as well! The notion that there is no difference between them and that both are ultimately creations of mind effectively cuts the practitioner’s line of questioning and undermines his reification that the presence of the teacher is somehow ‘creating’ or ‘holding’ the practice together.

The above Zen and Advaita examples are representative of the teacher– student dynamic in the practice situation. Both Advaita and Zen teachers strive to deconstructively point out to students the dangers of objectifying bifurcated categories and reifying oppositional patterns of thought and to experientially undo dualistic attachments and reifications projected onto the teacher–student relationship and the process of practice itself.

One frequently hears the story that our beloved Acharya bhagavatpAda was responsible for eliminating Buddhism from the Indian sub-continent. This is used both as a praise and as an accusation directed towards the Acharya. Several scholars have also pointed towards the inadequacy of Acharaya's criticism of Buddhism and it is indeed true that the refutation of Buddhism by Acharya is rather uni-dimensional. However, the reason for this is simply that Acharya's primary focus was not refuting Buddhism but rather pUrva mImAmsA which had already done a great job of handling the Buddhist accusations on the Vedic path. Even a simple look at a hagiography such as the mAdhavIya shankara digvijaya makes this clear (shaNmukha is described to have already contained the Buddhist epidemic by the time of AchArya's arrival). Here is a selection from Daivattin Kural where H H Mahaperiyava addresses this very issue. And he also mentions our beloved Anna in this context.

Many believe that Buddhism ceased to have a large following in India because it came under the attack of Sankara. This is not true. There are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical of that religion, a religion that was opposed to the Vedas. Far more forcefully has he criticised the doctrines of Sankhya and Mimamsa that respect the Vedic tradition. He demolishes their view that Isvara is not the creator of the world and that it is not he who dispenses the fruits of our actions. He also maintains that Isvara possesses the laksanas or characteristics attributed to him by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra and argues that there can be no world without Isvara and that it is wrong to maintain that our works yield fruits on their own. It is Isvara, his resolve, that has created this world, and it is he who awards us the fruits of our actions. We cannot find support in his commentaries for the view that he was responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.

Then how did Buddhism cease to have a considerable following in out country? Somebody must have subjected it to such rigorous attack as to have brought about its decline in this land. Who performed this task? The answer is the mimamsakas and the tarkikas. Those who are adept in the Tarka-sastra(logic) are called tarkikas. The Tarka is the part of Nyaya which is one of the fourteen branches of Vedic learning and which comes next to Mimamsa. People proficient in Nyaya are naiyayikas; those well versed in grammar are "vaiyakaranis"; and those proficient in the Puranas are "pauranikas".

Udayanacarya, the tarkika, and Kumarilabhatta, the mimamsaka, opposed Buddhism for different reasons. The former severely criticised that religion for its denial of Isvara. To mimamsakas, as I have said earlier, Vedic rituals are of the utmost importance. Even though they don't believe that it is Isvara who awards us the fruit of our actions, they believe that the rituals we perform yield their own fruits and that the injunctions of the dharmasastras must be carried out faithfully. They attacked Buddhism for its refusal to accept Vedic rituals. Kumarilabhatta has written profusely in criticism of that religion. He and Udayanacarya were chiefly responsible for the failure of Buddhism to acquire a large following in this country. Our Acarya came later and there was no need for him to make a special assault on that religion on his own. On the contrary, his chief task was to expose the flaws in the systems upheld by the very opponents of Buddhism, Kumarilabhatta and Udayanacarya. He established that Isvara is the creator of the universe and that it is he who awards the fruits of our actions.

I am mentioning this fact so as to disabuse you of the wrong notions you must have formed with regard to Sankara's role in the decline of Buddhism. There is a special chapter in one of Kumarilabhatta's works called "Tarkapadam" in which he has made an extensive refutation of Buddhism. So too has Udayanacarya in his Bauddhadhikaram. These two acaryas were mainly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in our land and not Sankara Bhagavatpada. What we are taught on the subject in our textbooks of history is not true.

In my opinion at no time in our history did Buddhism in the fullest sense of that religion have a large following in India. Today a number of Hindus, who are members of the Theosophical Society, celebrate our festivals like other Hindus and conduct marriages in the Hindu way. There are many devotees of Sri Ramakrsna Parmahamsa practising our traditional customs. Sri C. Ramanujacariyar, "Anna" (Sri N. Subramanya Ayyar) and some others are intimately associated with the Ramakrsna Mission but they still adhere to our traditional beliefs.

When great men make their appearance people are drawn to them for their qualities of compassion and wisdom. In the organisations established after them our sanatana dharma is followed with some changes. But a large number of the devotees of these men still follow the old customs and traditions in their homes.

Many regard Gandhiji as the founder almost of a new religion (Gandhism), and look upon him as one greater than avataras like Rama and Krsna. But in their private lives few of them practise what he preached- for instance, widow marriage, mixing with members of other castes, and so on. People developed esteem for Gandhiji for his personal life of self-sacrifice, truthfulness, devotion and service to mankind. But applying his ideas in actual life was another matter.

It was in the same way that the Buddha had earned wide respect for his lofty character and exemplary personal life. "A prince renounces his wife and child in the prime of his youth to free the world from sorrow": the story of Siddhartha, including such accounts, made an impact on people. They were moved by his compassion, sense of detachment and self-sacrifice. But it did not mean that they were ready to follow his teachings. They admired the Buddha for his personal qualities but they continued to subscribe to the varnasrama system and the ancient way of religious life with its sacrifice and other rites. Contrary to what he wished, people did not come forward in large numbers to become monks but continued to remain householders adhering to Vedic practices.

Emperor Asoka did much to propagate Buddhism; but in society in general the Vedic dharma did not undergo any change. Besides, the emperor himself supported the varnasrama dharma as is evident from his famous edicts. But for the Buddhist bhiksus(monks), all householders followed the Vedic path. Though they were silent on the question of Isvara and other deities, some book written by great Buddhist monks open with hymns to Sarasvati. They also worshipped a number of gods. It is from Tibet that we have obtained many Tantrik works relating to the worship of various deities. If you read the works of Sriharsa, Bilhana and so on in Sanskrit, and Tamil poetical works like that of Ilango Adigal, you will realise that even during times when Buddhism wielded influence in society, Vedic customs and varnasrama were followed by the generality of people.

Reformists today speak in glowing terms about Vyasa, Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya and others. But they do not accept the customs and traditions I ask people to follow. Some of them, however, come to see me. Is it not because they feel that there is something good about me, because they have personal regard for me, even though they do not accept my ideas? Similarly, great men have been respected in this country for their personal qualities and blameless life notwithstanding the fact they advocated views that differed slightly from the Vedic tradition or were radically opposed to it. Our people any way had long been steeped in the ancient Vedic religion and its firmly established practices and, until the turn of the century, were reluctant to discard the religion of their forefathers and the vocations followed by them. Such was our people's attitude during the time of the Buddha also. When his doctrines came under attack from Udayanacarya and Kumarilabhatta even the few who had first accepted them returned to the Vedic religion.

Remedies to Eliminate the Hindrances

Most hindrances belong to the area of dullness and sensual incitement. By knowing how to remove these, one will automatically know the remedy for others.

1. The remedy for sensual incitement lies in calming the mind by meditating upon impermeance.
2. As for resentment, the remedy is to avoid thinking about its object.
3. To counter sluggishness, one perceives joyful things.
4. Dullness is removed by stimulating the spirit.
5. Drowsiness is overcome by visualizing light.
6. Resoluteness is a remedy for doubt.
7. Contemplation on contentment and the consequences of sensory pleasures is a remedy for craving.
8. Evil intent may be removed by engendering love and kindness for others.

Other texts describe the eight remedies for removing the five interruptions:

1. For laziness, it is (1) faith, (2) earnestness, (3) striving and (4) perfect ease.
2. Forgetfulness is relieved by (5) mindfulness.
3. The cure for dullness and sensual incitement is (6) vigilance.
4. For overexertion, it is (7) equanimity that lets the mind rest in its true state.
5. For non-exertion, (8) mental exertion is the remedy.

It may be helpful to dwell deeper into some of these terms here.

By Perfect Ease, what is meant is the suppleness of body and mind that pacifies harmful tendencies and hindrances. The gross tendencies of the body and mind make them incontrollable. The power of perfect ease removes heaviness and other defects, which hinder the practices of virtue from the viewpoint of the body. Perfect ease makes the body light and controllable through bliss. This is how the body can be controlled. It also eliminates misery through focusing the mind on a mental object that produces joy, bliss etc. This is how the mind can be controlled. Perfect ease cannot be obtained at the initial stage of meditation; it is achieved through continuos effort. Achieving a perfect ease of mind first will bring about the circulation and diffusion of the vital air (prANa) in the body. Once this takes place, meditators will achieve the perfect ease of the body.

The next concept to be considered is vigilance. Vigilance may be achieved during meditation by not forgetting the object of concentration while remaining fully attentive to any emerging distraction such as dullness, sensual incitement or thought. With such a stream awareness, one remains on guard, forever watching and discerning any distraction upon its arising.

Mental exertion is defined as a mental activity that is drawn into all channels - good, bad or neutral. This being a mental function, it activates itself or is drawn toward three kinds of thoughts - good, bad or neutral. In this case it is a thought that strives to eliminate dullness or sensual incitement once vigilance detects them.

contd...

All spiritual techniques are means to lead the mind towards states of absorption, be it mantra, mandala, dhyAna or bhakti. The teachings of Vajrayana provide a highly systematic map of the various kinds of absorption and can be beneficial to all aspirants irrespective of their personal involvement in Buddhism. The following is based on Lobsang Lhalungpa’s exposition of mahAmudrA.

Tranquility and Insight are the basis of all meditational absorptions of Buddhistic traditions. They are like the root that grounds the trunk, branches and leaves of a tree. Regardless of a meditation being conceptual or non-conceptual, visualized or non-visualized - a meditation in which the mind has been fixed upon a sacred object is in harmony with Tranquility. Wisdom, being virtuous by nature, discerns the true meaning of the mind so that it is in harmony with Insight. Tranquility is the mind - either superior or inferior - undistracted from the object of concentration. The analysis and comprehension of the mind lead to Insight. Thus, all meditations culminate in Tranquility and Insight.

Cause of Tranquility and Insight

Tranquility arises from purity of moral discipline; Insight from hearing and examining - sandhinirmochana sUtra.

Tranquility is said to arise from a Guru’s spiritual blessing, the interaction of a good cause and condition, ever-growing virtues and the purification of defilements. This is applicable to Insight as well - Gampopa.

A harmonious environment, curbing desires, contentment, limiting activities, maintaining moral discipline and eliminating discursive thoughts are the six causes of Tranquility. Insight arises from association with holy persons, the acquiring of knowledge and proper contemplation - bhAvanAkrama.

- To live in a harmonious environment is to live in a place where sustenance can be obtained without much difficulty, there is no harm from enemies and wild animals, not affected by diseases, not crowded during the day, quiet at night and where one finds good company of people following the same path of discipline and sharing same views of reality.

- Curbing desires means to harbor no sensual attachment to food and clothing for their quantity or quality.

- To be content is to be satisfied with frugal food and clothing.

- To limit is to abstain from activities such as trade, association with the lay, practice of medicine, astrology and so on.

- To maintain moral discipline is to guard the foundation of the precepts as stated in the canon of individual liberation and the bodhisattva precepts and to apply spiritual remedies with repentance if one has, without self-control, transgressed these precepts.

- To abandon desire and other discursive thoughts is to be conscious of their negative consequences in this life and the next. This means eliminating desire through meditation on the impermanence of things, beautiful or ugly, from which one is soon to be separated.

- To associate with holy persons is to follow a spiritual guide who knows unerringly the importance of hearing, examining, and meditating, and who has himself realized tranquility and insight.

- To seek extensive knowledge through hearing is to listen to discourses on scriptures whose ultimate meaning is without flaws and to develop a discriminatory intellect. On does not achieve this by hearing teachings with conventional or intended meanings.

- To properly contemplate is to ponder the ultimate meaning of the discourse and to apply inferences so as to realize intellectually the perfect view of reality.

Hindrances to Tranquility and Insight

The elimination of hindrances to Tranquility and Insight requires:

1. The recognition of hindrances.
2. Instructions in the remedies necessary to remove the hindrances.

Tranquility is hindered by sensual incitement and resentment; insight by sluggishness, drowsiness and doubt; both are fogged by craving and malignity - sandhinirmochana sUtra.

1. Sensual Incitement: It is the mind that lusts after beautiful forms. Its function is to disturb the state of tranquility. This wandering thought having focused itself upon an object of beauty causes interruptions in maintaining the stability of the mind.

2. Resentment: is formed by conscious or unconscious deeds of a positive or negative kind. It harbors indignance at some deeds, good, bad, or neutral, timely or untimely, worthy or unworthy, thereby unsettling the stability of mind. Hence it belongs to the category of delusion. This lingering thought upon right or wrong, arising from positive or negative action, effectively disturbs the stability of the mind.

3. Sluggishness: It is the heaviness of body and mind. It renders the mind inactive and maintains distortions. It stupefies the mind making both the body and mind unmanageable. Also known as dullness, it occurs when the mind does not visualize clearly, like a blind man, a man in darkness, or one with his eye closed. When the clarity of the mental image loses its sharpness on account of physical and mental lethargy, it is not quite the same as sluggishness.

4. Drowsiness: Sleep causes withdrawal of thoughts, good, bad, or neutral, timely or untimely, worthy or unworthy. The effect of sleep is cessation of activity and hence it belongs to the category of delusion. Sleep results in the loss of sensory functions causing the meditator to lose his mental focus.

5. Doubt: It is having two minds about all aspects of truth, effectively preventing one from following the course of virtue. Doubt creates confusion in the meditator’s mind, causing him to doubt the aims of his meditation and its success or failure. Thus it saps his urge to practice.

6. Craving: Longing for any kind of sensory indulgence to which the mind clings.

7. Malignity: Evil intended to cause others harm out of hatred or jealousy.

There are distractions that cause mental divergences for the one who already dwells in tranquility and insight; they are external, internal, perceptive and emotive divergences - sandhinirmochana sUtra.

1. External divergence occurs when the mind turns towards the five senses, the gathering of people, duality, discursive thoughts and secondary defilements.
2. Internal divergence of the mind occurs when one feels either lethargic, drowsy or when one indulges in the ecstasy of trance or in any subtle distortion of the meditative absorption.
3. Perceptive divergence occurs when the mind visualizes an image of external form in the realm of pure contemplation.
4. Emotive divergence occurs when the mind with its inbred tendencies assigns ‘I’ consciousness to sensations arising from its inward activities.

Laziness, the forgetting of instructions, dullness and sensual incitement, non-exertion of the mind and over-exertion are the five defects that interrupt tranquility - madhyAntavibhAga.

1. Laziness is the result of being either adverse or indifferent to any endeavors and lacking in vigilance, so that habitual idleness deprives the contemplation of any motive force.
2. Forgetfulness consists of being unable to recollect the object of meditational search and getting distracted.
3. Dullness and Sensual Incitement have been described before.
4. Non-exertion is the lack of any effort at eliminating dullness and sensual incitement and allowing the mind to idle.
5. Over-exertion is the excessive striving towards the mind’s object, even after pacifying dullness and sensual incitement. It does not let the mind dwell in its natural state.

contd...

- Bernard Faure
Unmasking Buddhism

Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman - Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, 1959

The buddhas spoke of the self as well as teaching about the non-self. They also taught that there is neither a self nor a non-self - Nagarjuna

The denial of the self, ego, or of the individual soul (anAtman) is the touchstone or perhaps rather the stumbling block of the Buddhist doctrine. This may appear to present a paradox, given that this is a religion which claims to be based on individual salvation. In a special issue of Le Nouvel Observateur on Buddhism, Frédéric Lenoir noted that “the vast majority of people involved in Buddhism claim that it provides them with the means of developing their individual potential. The emergence of this subject is an ultra-western idea.”

Of all the dogmas of canonical Buddhism, anAtman is undoubtedly the one which has been the greatest cause of debate as it seems to go against common sense. The majority of commentators feel that this dogma is the most striking indicator of the originality of Buddhism compared to other religions. The significance and impact of this doctrine should also be questioned by placing it in its original context as well as the context of its subsequent development.

According to Buddhist scholasticism, the self is purely the result of physical and mental processes, a sort of “mental fabrication” which has no ultimate reality. Awakening involves becoming aware of this illusory nature of the self. As the monk Nagasena (second century BC) put it in his famous apologue: “Just as, when certain pieces of wood are assembled, we talk of a chariot; in the same way, when the five physical and mental components are present, we talk of the ‘Self’.” These five groups or “aggregates” (skandha), are impermanent and therefore contribute to the impermanence of the self. They are: form (or matter, rUpa), sensations (vedanA), perceptions (samjnA), mental formations (samskAra), and consciousness (vijnAna).

The French philosopher Blaise Pascal sounded like a Buddhist when he said that the self is detestable or when he demonstrated the impossibility of locating this self in any particular part of the body. Today, in the light of recent scientific discoveries in neurology, we know that the self is merely the result of a group of mental or neurological structures and that a brain tumor or cell degeneration is enough to have a profound effect on this self. Similarly, psychoanalytical research into the subconscious mind has dealt a swift blow to the Cartesian notion of an independent and rational self. In this sense at least, Buddhist psychology appears to be compatible with the modern way of thinking. Nevertheless, the denial of the self does not have the same meaning in an individualist society like those of the West as in a traditional society like India’s at the time of the Buddha, where the individual, according to our understanding of the word, was the exception and not the norm.

Taken back to its original Indian context, the Buddhist notion of anAtman is the opposite of the Hindu belief in the existence of the Atman or self in each being and is perhaps, first and foremost, a claim to doctrinal originality, a kind of attempt to outdo the dominant religion. Actually, the Hindu Atman, a spark of the absolute or Brahman within each being, is different from the personal Atman denied by Buddhism. Living beings can perish but this divine core within them does not die. Instead it transmigrates from life to life before returning to its source. How can we continue to say that Buddhism is a religion of individual salvation if the individual (or the self) does not exist? And if those bodhisattva-practitioners, while rejecting the dualist distinction between self and other, are committed to saving all beings before saving themselves?

The Buddhist position on this issue is therefore distinctly more complex than the dogma of the absence of self would seem to imply. Furthermore, the concept of self has to retain a slight element of reality if the notion of karmic retribution is to be retained, upon which the Buddhist moral doctrine is based. If, for example, there is no one there to pay for a broken pot, how do we dissuade someone from breaking it in the first place? The notions of the “self” (Atman) and person (puruSha) therefore remain in use when it comes to the conventional truth even if they are denied, in principle, in the name of ultimate truth. No matter how often we hear that the self is empty, it remains no less real when it comes to beliefs and everyday practices.

By emphasizing questions of ethical responsibility, early Buddhism tended to favor the individuality of its followers. The very notion of responsibility implies that an individual is responsible for his actions. The self is, amongst other things, a juridical fiction, but is nevertheless a necessary fiction for life in society. Buddhist discipline as a whole, based on the notions of confession and repentance, can be seen as a method of attributing blame, i.e. of individualizing. This method appears, in practice, to deny the theory of anAtman which, literally speaking, boils down to a denial of all individual responsibility or even a denial of all spiritual progress or deliverance. We therefore arrive at the paradox, expressed by the Mahayana, that there is a path but nobody who follows it.

The fact that the five physical and mental components of personality do not include a substantial or permanent self does not prevent us from seeking one outside of these components, beyond our ordinary consciousness. This is why Buddhist introspection sometimes defines itself as a search for the true self which is no longer the narrow ego but rather a superior reality, for example the buddha nature. The interest shown by various schools of the Mahayana in notions such as “pure mind” and “storehouse consciousness” is sometimes, and quite justifiably no doubt, denounced as a return to the belief in a notion of the same type as the Brahmanic Atman. But we must keep in mind that the subject in question is no longer the shallow ego, but rather the real self, the dreamer finally awoken from his long dream.

The emphasis the majority of scholars have placed on the orthodox dogma of the anAtman again reflects an elitist or even ideological vision of Buddhism: in fact, it is clear that the majority of followers of mainstream Buddhism believe in the existence of a self and that their observance of the religion is based on this very belief. The so-called “orthodox” or rather monastic conception of the non-existence of the self fails to take account of the complexity of the Buddhist tradition and the diversity of its responses to the serious question of subjectivity.