Fallacy of Nothingness Teaching – Part 39
Previous discussion reconciled God's Will and individual's free will. The next question was inevitable considering it's wide-spread status. It's to do with notion that existence is a void or nothing-ness.
Student posits, “You say reality is One, devoid of attributes. Meaning it's nothingness, a void!“
” If the final Reality is a void, or nothing — how will you explain the fact of existence of yourself and the world?
If you and the world do not exist, then neither can nothing-ness exist, since there would be no one to declare, “Truth is nothingness“.
The logic of cause and effect demands an effect must reflect it's cause.
Something cannot emanate from a void.
Nothing-ness cannot create a universe.
If a mango tree cannot sprout from the seed of a tamarind, how can a world of things, a world of known and unknown, be created from nothing?
It will negate all existence.
If Truth is a void — then how will we ever known it?
Therefore we enter the path of knowledge in search of ending our grief, leading us to inquire into reality of our being of who and what we are.
As we look into ourselves, we find we are complete, content, with no further want or need, no desire to change or transform when we are happy.
Further delving into this state of mind, we find there is no division, no split between the wanting me and the wanted object.
Subject and object are one.
It is the same oneness when we hear an amusing anecdote, we laugh unreservedly, letting ourselves go.
In this case, there is no thought of the self-judging individual.
For the moment, he or she is forgotten.
Joy that is our intrinsic nature bursts forth as uninhibited laughter.
A feeling of joy, of fullness so wonderful and pleasing that we long to extend the emotion.
The start of an endless search… a life of constant becoming… seeking an eternal bliss, a never-ending feeling of happiness.
Finally care worn and exhausted from our hopeless quest, we are forced to seek solace and rest.
Now begins a new search for spiritual paths and teachers.
When the same teachers tells us things like:
“You are emptiness.
There is no existent self.
Emptiness is the truth.
Practice is the key to the perfection you seek.
You have nothing to hold onto except the regimen of discipline.”
Can a rational person truly accept these types of notions… without dissatisfaction in their counsel?
Such advice's would negate your entire search… because prior to your seeking… you have already experienced a sense of being whole.
But the teaching now negates your very experience… the basis of your turning into a genuine seeking.
You cannot accept the words. It goes against all reasoning since you will definitely question the reason for the teaching.
You will ask naturally, “How did creation emanate from nothing? What is the basis for such a conclusion?”
If nothingness is the truth, then the dependent-reality (mithya) would become absolutely real.
And if you get away with saying the world is mithya (or emptiness/shunyata as equivalent in Buddhism), without providing the final truth into which all mithyas resolve — then you'll never be satisfied with your life.
Saying reality is empty without giving you the final truth, leaves you empty. A meaningless life. Which contradicts what you inherently know to be your nature — happiness, fullness, wholeness.
Furthermore, without an Absolute reality, where is the question of a dependent thing? What is the bases of the dependent thing (mithya)? There has to be a foundation.
With further contemplation you will have to ask, “Who is aware of the nothing? Who or what makes the emptiness known? What is its basis?“.
Because every postulate and idea derives existence form a conscious source, a conscious being.
Eventually in despair, you will have to turn to Without a Second (non-duality)… where the sacred books declare with reasoning, “The Truth is One, non-dual Limitless Existence Consciousness“.
This and this alone will end your search. “
The student insists on the notion that Emptiness teaching is CORRECT, “In creation, everything is empty of its self. Be it an object, emotion or person. Without innate existence, they are empty of a self.
For instance, what is a chair? Is it the seat, backrest, legs or the wood from which it's made? If we remove the parts, there would be no chair. If we remove the wood, obviously there can be no chair. A chair then has no real existence.
Contradictory as it may sound — chair is made of non-chair parts, as are all things and beings. Because they are made of non-that-particular-object.
There is nothing called a chair. Just name, form and function put together for the moment… acquiring quality of chair-ness. It has no intrinsic being.
THIS EXPLANATION is what we mean by 'emptiness'.
Emptiness has neither dualities nor cause-and-effect. Neither opposites, nor subject-object-divisions.
Emptinesss is the essence of the creation, of our being.”
“Does emptiness exist OR is it empty of existence?
Since you say that everything is emptiness, “Emptiness IS“.
Emptiness obviously has an existence.
Being existent, what does it rest on? What supports the emptiness? What makes it known?
As explained before, we know that existence implies an already existent conscious being.
There can be no other answer.
Emptiness must rest on Consciousness.
You declare everything is empty of its self because it is made up of non-that-object. Further, you said “Emptiness is absence of forms-and-names. It's without subject-or-object, without pairs-of-opposites“.
But at the same time, what keeps remaining no matter what you declare empty? Although you don't use the exact word, what else can be left but the Absolute?
Once you have the Absolute, every aspect of creation would be mithya (dependent-real)… depending on Limitless Consciousness to give it an existence.
When you say the world is nothingness, a void… it cannot be different from mithya. Because it too depends on presence of a conscious being.
If you persist in your thesis that world is an illusion, empty of existence, truth of creation is emptiness… we must ask you, “What is the nature of emptiness? What is aware of the emptiness?“.
What will be your response? ”
The student continues, “How is your dependent reality different from declaring the world an illusion? You negate earthly existence, stating there is only one real Limitless Consciousness.”
” The term dependent-real (mithya) has been explained before. It does not negate existence of the world at all.
It is an empirical reality, subject to change, within time and space.
It has form-name and purpose.
We can use it for transaction to serve our various ends.
Body, mind, objects, people… in short, the entire creation… come under this category of dependent-reality… depending on Limitless Consciousness.
There is no question of negation or illusion.
We understand the reality of the world as mithya (dependents on something else)… in relation to the Absolute Limitless Existence Consciousness. “
Buddha Never Taught Self (Consciousness) Because…
Buddha rejected authority of Indian Vedas, thus never taught the existence of Atma (Consciousness). However he also didn't explicitly reject Atma. His main mission was to end suffering by recognizing the emptiness of things — meaning no thing has intrinsic reality of it's own.
For example, your irrational emotional attachment to an object (person, lifestyle, object, quality) is arising from taking the thing (you value) as having an absolute reality.
In truth it's dependent on other things it's made of, which you may have no value for.
For example, suppose you're attracted to a pretty woman or handsome man. Are you attracted to her nose hairs? To her bones? No. Yet hair/bones/etc makes up the “person-object” which arouses you.
Only after Buddha's passing, some Buddhism followers completely and explicitly denied existence of Atma. So this denial doesn't belong to Buddha himself. Buddha simply didn't teach it. His followers denied it.
Some Buddhist Sects Implied or Mentioned the Self (Consciousness)…
Traditionally, Buddhism emphasizes the concept of sunyata (emptiness) – meaning all objects or experiences you have are empty of intrinsic nature due to dependent origination. However, some extremely little know Buddhist schools have also mentioned the principle of universal consciousness (sat-cit) as mentioned in Advaita…
One of these views is called Shentong (Other-Emptiness), and it’s mostly associated with the Jonang (Womb of Emptiness) school, though you’ll also find it in parts of the Kagyu (Oral Lineage) and Nyingma (Ancient Ones) traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Shentong, sometimes referred to as the “Maha Madhyamaka” (Great Middle Way), teaches that underneath everything there’s a “basic space of awareness” or “clear light”—almost like a luminous foundation that’s the true nature of reality.
According to the Shentong view, all phenomena are in presence of this primordial awareness. This perspective was historically suppressed in Tibet, with books burned and monasteries destroyed, but has gained renewed attention in recent decades through teachers like Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche.
Reason for Suppression: The Shentong view was historically suppressed in Tibet due to doctrinal and political reasons.
In the 17th century, the Fifth Dalai Lama, aligned with the Gelug (Virtuous Tradition) school, ordered the destruction of Jonang monasteries and the burning of Shentong texts. Because perception that Shentong teachings were too similar to the “eternalist” views of Hindu philosophies, which conflicted with mainstream Buddhist emphasis on emptiness and no-self.
The Jonang school was effectively banned, and Shentong teachings were largely hidden or absorbed into other lineages for centuries.
The Difference in Views: Shentong is quite different from the more widely accepted Prasangika Madhyamaka (Consequentialist Middle Way) view, which is central to the Dalai Lama’s own Gelug school. Prasangika teaches that everything—right down to ultimate reality—is empty of inherent existence. Shentong, on the other hand, says that while everything is empty of its own independent nature, there’s still a luminous, aware ground that underlies all things.
Doctrine of Shunyata (Emptiness)
Main proponent of Shunyata (Emptiness): Nagarjuna, was Brahmana in India, joined Mahayana Buddhism and founded Madhyamika (The Middle Way), which influenced Mahayana Buddhism.
Shunyata/Emptiness Means: All things in universe are empty. Objects are empty of intrinsic nature/independent-existence. Some non-buddhists have interpreted Sunyata as existential nihilism (claiming nothing in reality exists).
Buddhist are not saying that “nothing exists at all ontologically”, but that nothing has intrinsic nature, nothing has an independent existence.
When Buddhist say, “Everything is empty”, it means everything is dependent on something else, it's empty of intrinsic nature. This is exactly what Advaita Vedanta says and there's no disagreement whatsoever, except Vedanta uses word “mithya” (which means dependent on something else for it's existence), instead of “shunyata“.
Also “emptiness” doesn't mean “nothingness”. In fact, Madhyamika, is called “Middle Way” because it's between two extremes of (a) Annihilationism; that things don't exist or can go out of existence entirely, and (b) Permanence; that any one thing is independently existing.
To understand Emptiness (shunyata) – must understand 2 aspects:
a) No-self (anatta):
The “I” the unenlightened person refers to, is an illusion (has no independent reality). This is what Vedanta says. So word “self” in Buddhism refers to ahamkara-self. The self is composed of skandas (aggregates) such as consciousness (in buddhism this refers to “states of mind”), mind, sensations. And these aggregates put together, give impression of an independent self. Realizing there's no-self (that ahamkara is a mere construct of aggregates) is essential to reaching Nirvana (enlightenment). Vedanta equivalent, “Recognizing your 5 sheaths are mere superimpositions, is essential to liberation (moksha).“
What do you mean there's no self? Take example of chariot. Is the “chariot” in the wheels? No. In the seat? No. Meaning chariot can't be found in any of the parts that make up “chariot”, thus there's no chariot. Chariot is a mere concept, made up of many parts, which themselves depend on other parts. The self (I-sense, ahamkara) is the same. The word “I” or self is a name we give to collection of temporary aggregates. Vedanta equivalent: The person who you think you are (ahamkara), is mithya.
b) Dependent arising:
All things in world are dependent on other things. EG: Flower is made of many components, depends on stems, stamen, sun, space, soil. All things are dependent on everything else for their existence. This leads to conclusion, there aren't any real things at all, because things we see are collection of other things, which are collection of other things.
Abhidharmikas Adding One More Component That Nagarjuna Rejects:
Abhi-dharma schools are varied, but in general, they believe there is no self and reality is mithya. Thus reality is unreal. Just as there's no chariot, there's no individual self. This is what Nagarjuna (even Vedanta says) agrees with.
However where Abhidharmikas disagree with Nagarjuna is they say there's something called “Dharmas“, which are ultimate constituents of reality. Dharmas makes up all things/events. They are real, but still dependent on each other.
Dharmas are never experienced as individual things, and are in constant flux. It these fluctuating dharmas that make up all reality we experience, and we then conceptualize them as self/chariot/etc.
Important point is that these dharmas are REAL. For things to be REAL, according to Buddhism, it should have an intrinsic nature and independent of other things. And dharmas have intrinsic nature according to Abhi-dharmikas.
Nagarjuna disagrees with existence of “dharmas“. He says there's no dharmas at all, there are no things that are ultimately real, not even these fluctuating dharmas. Absolutely nothing has intrinsic nature, EVERYTHING is empty.
And this is what shunyata/emptiness means. All things are empty of intrinsic nature and are conceptualized or named for sake of transacting with world. Nagarjuna says, “There being no dharma whatsoever that is not dependently originated”.
ADVAITA VEDANTA VIEW: Vedanta would argue, at least “dharmas” are close to principle of Ishvara (Intelligence) or God, however Vedanta would add correction that dharmas (assuming it's decently close to principle of Ishvara) itself is within “dependent origination”.
So according to Vedanta…
Abhidharmikas got right that “dharmas” make up all reality. Abhidharma got wrong that “dharmas are real”.
Nagarjuna got right that “dharmas” are empty. Nagarjuna got wrong in not considering the principle of dharmas.
Vedanta would say that Intelligence (similar to “dharmas” as told by Abhidharma school) is indeed what makes up the reality and in constant flux, but it is also within category of “dependent origination” (called mithya in Vedanta).
Purpose of Shunyata? It's a tool to recognize that no object is absolutely real. It's not “nature of things”. It's not some kind of primordial reality, but a correction to a mistaken view of the world.
Where Nagarjuna is Wrong According to Vedanta: He states there is no ultimate truth/reality. Vedanta completes the equation by explicitly stating: Your real nature, or the ultimate nature of all things is Consciousness (the word “consciousness” doesn't mean that same thing as how Buddhism uses consciousness as one of the aggregates that makes up the false self).
Doctrine of “Two Truths”
There's 2 ways of approaching reality.
Conventional Truth (Vedanta equivalent: vyavaharika): Looking at world through concepts. There are things like nirvana and reincarnation. They are useful for sake of transacting with world. Concept of samsara, karma, enlightenment is useful for individual to attain enlightenment. So we NEED conventional truth to help us reach Ultimate truth.
Ultimate Truth: Which is that all things are empty. Nagarjuna/Buddhism doesn't define the final reality; simply leaves it at “Reality is mithya.” And emptiness is not ultimately reality, because emptiness itself is empty. EG: Emptiness itself is dependent on things, which themselves are empty.
I can't put any Vedanta equivalent to “Ultimate Truth” (such as paramarthika), as Buddhism doesn't bring it out.
Further Read:
- Critiques of Buddhist teachings from standpoint of Advaita Vedanta
- Emptiness: The Most Misunderstood Word in Buddhism
In next conversation, student wants to compare mystical experiences with self-knowledge. Validity of knowledge is doubted.”
Hi Andre.
There is so much in this article that I would love to study it in class!
I believe you have proved the case conclusively from the standpoint of irrefutable logic.
As you point out, if emptiness is the final reality then there could be no one to point out the existence of this emptiness.
With reference to the Buddhist article on emptiness, they give a more nuanced view for sure.
This Nat Han even seems to allude to an implied reality beyond emptiness.
But if you analyse what is said, it still has no ontological status.
They cannot establish the existence of something out of nothing.
What they are achieving is a very valuable insight into how to live according to dharma.
What they don’t achieve is an explanation of the cause of that dharma.
The Buddhist is caught by the same dilemma that afflicts nihilism.
You either accept an unreal universe, which flies in the face of both experience and common sense, or you are caught in the obviously flawed logic of infinite regression, a chain of interdependent causal events that have no cause.
So much more could be said here.
Great article!
🙏
Definitions and spiritual concepts (which instigate such questions as of student) become further evident upon study of Indian Philosophy (in my opinion an education every knowledge admirer should go through in a lifetime): https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/product/B07DCWQDH3
It basically lists and compares:
Cārvāka, Jainism, Buddhism, Sankhya, Vishisthadvaita, Yoga (Patanjali), Purva-Mimamsa, Advaita Vedanta
Point 2.
The students arguments and objections are intelligent and lucid explanations of many of the viewpoints adopted in the yogic world.
I think that we all need to be careful we don’t unconsciously adopt a ‘wilful unseeing’ due to past teachings, practices and experiences.
The urge to ‘defend the faith’ is natural and in many respects laudable, but the arguments of Advaita Vedanta need to be met on their own terms.
When they are, I think an intelligent seeker must eventually conclude that they are non negatable.
There is so much to learn from the exchange between you and your commendable student and I am thankful to the same for putting these positions so clearly and fearlessly.
Andre and Robert:
Very grateful for your exchange and this website. Will go to the Amazon link for the book on Indian philosophy. Am presently studying with three wonderful teachers of Advaita. One of them is a student of Raphael, a founder of the Asram Vidya Order. He was an Italian who died last year. His student has a sangha in New York City that I recently joined. He has written several books on the pathway of non-duality.
Pleased hearing of the endevour Robert.
A nicely written article indeed. But Emptiness is not nothingness, it is not nihilism, and it is not Void. Early Christianism missionaries who translated some of these texts were purposely trying to nullify or degrade these non-dual teachings. Emptiness is simply the recognition that everything is dependant on something else. No thing, not nothing, exists independently in and of itself.
Per my research (source: “Introduction to Indian Philosophy” by Satischandra Chatterjee), another factor that contributed to confusion is within Buddhism (as “Emptiness” is a central teaching there). Buddhism itself didn’t necessarily create the error, but non-discerning followers.
And this happens in any school even today.
How so? Many follower of Buddhism assume there’s only 1 version of Buddhism. Where in fact it’s split into different schools (which don’t agree with each other on certain views).
Mādhaymika, Yogācāra, Sutrāntika and Viabhāṣika > further divided into 2 major branches: Hānayāna & Mahāyāna.
Thus a simple seeker, not knowing any better, will mix in notions from different schools.
So I’m less inclined to think that teachings were “purposefully” nullified. Because just to be involved in philosophy, already assumes a mature/moral/caring enough mind to NOT intentionally discredit anyone’s hard-work.
But rather innocently mixed up due to such large volume of information to keep in mind.
Even you/I can relate to this. We innocently make mistakes as it’s impossible to keep track of everything. Thus we see constant error-correction in field of religion/philosophy.
I like your comment on the different schools Mādhaymika, Yogācāra, Sutrāntika and Viabhāṣika. One can see the different schools not as competitive ideas but rather steps on the way to higher and more profound understanding. As is “one mind” to “Mind only” progression of thought.
Constant error correction is a great idea, but how does this work when one’s religion comes into conflict with one’s philosophy. Quite a few religions vehemently oppose competitive ideas and resist change or even translation of texts. Christianism is no stranger to this phenomenon.
Have you noticed that I use Christianism rather often? Just ask if Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism are the best names for these religions. Perhaps the science of mind would be much more accurate, Adhyatma Vidya?
==========
Constant error correction is a great idea, but how does this work when one’s religion comes into conflict with one’s philosophy.
==========
A mind goes through stages as it matures through the years.
Per Vedas, the order or maturity goes like this…
STAGE 1: God is worshipped (unknowingly) in form of selfish desires. Early teen years. However continues for most till death. Only my family matters. No sense of “other-ness”.
STAGE 2: God is worshiped as personal deity. This is stage of Religions. My God VS. Your God. Jesus VS. Allah. My god is superior, yours is inferior. Etc.
STAGE 3: Person starts to be suspicious towards their “personal God”. They start asking questions, like: How can God be isolated to a single man/woman? Is it a He or a She? How can omnipresent (everywhere) be contained into a single God?
STAGE 4: God is worshipped as entire universe. As any object. Cockroach, tree, nature. This is why in Hinduism, there’s so many Gods, as the culture understands, “One God is appearing as all countless deities (with whom different personalities can relate).
It’s a shame Western World mainly has Jesus (a single personality) to relate to. Hinduism sorted this issue out (as it understands different personalities prefer to relate to different types of deities. Hence large assortment like: shiva, vishnu, krishna, parvati, sarasvati, durga, brahma, sita, rama, …)
STAGE 5: Essence of God and “I” are not different. This is highest stage of understanding.
—
SUMMARY: Religion is (mostly; although not entirely as can’t classify anything as an absolute) Stage 2. One needs to ideally move on to later stages to continue growth.
I know this an older post, but do you have time to answer a question about the Buddhist teachings of Emptiness and No-Self, that reject the existence of the Atman?
Of course, what can I answer?
Some background meanwhile…
————————-
BUDDHIST VIEW:
————————-
Question is about buddhist concept of Emptiness (Śūnyatā) and No-Self (Anātman).
The Buddhist view posits that what we consider the self or ātmā is actually a collection of transient components known as skandhas, which include consciousness. The flow of consciousness (vijñāna-skandha) is seen as momentary flickers, leading to the conclusion that there is no ever-present self, but only a succession of momentary existences.
————————-
VEDANTA REPLIES:
————————-
– Nature of Ātmā: The Vedantic tradition does not accept the notion that ātmā is momentary or that it is equivalent to the changing vṛttis (thought-forms) of the mind. The ātmā is considered unchanging and not subject to the momentary existence proposed by the Buddhist view.
– Existence of Ātmā: Negating all specific attributes from an entity does not necessarily render it non-existent or śūnyam. While the absence of specific attributes can be acknowledged, it does not equate to the absence of the Awareness. If Awareness (atma) was non-existent, then who will be left to know there’s “emptiness”.
– Ātmā and Attributes: In Vedanta, the ātmā is understood to be attribute-free (nirguṇa) but not non-existent (śūnya). The distinction is crucial in that Vedanta does not deny the existence of the ātmā but rather affirms its reality beyond attributes.
– Continuity of Experience: The Vedantic argument also includes the experience of continuity in one’s existence, which cannot be accounted for by a series of momentary consciousnesses. This sense of continuity is an indication of the constant presence of ātmā.
– Buddha’s Teachings: Buddha did not explicitly discuss Brahman, which is central to Hindu thought (from which entire Buddhism is based). Therefore Vedanta does not consider Buddha’s teachings as a source of knowledge on Reality.
– Concept of Mokṣa: Buddhists acknowledge the concept of rebirth and mokṣa (liberation), although they define mokṣa as realizing the non-existence of ātmā, which differs from the Vedantic view of realizing the true nature of ātmā.
************ Introduction ************
I’ve been studying Advaita Vedanta for a couple years now, and only recently have started to grasp the profound wisdom it teaches. Recently, however, I came across the arguments of some very erudite Buddhists online that have left me disturbed and questioning the truth of Brahman/Self.
Because you are a great teacher, who is very knowledgeable about Vedanta, I would be very grateful if you could give your opinion on some of the Buddhist critiques of Brahman/Self that I will quote below. Your insights could help dispel my doubts and lead me back onto the right path.
All the quoted posts can be found at awakeningtoreality.com. The people whose writings I will be quoting are obviously very knowledgeable, dedicated spiritualists, and I respect their devotion to their philosophy. However, the problem is that they are claiming to have turned many people away from the Advaitic perspective to embrace the Emptiness teachings as the highest ideal. This trend is concerning and challenges the foundations of Advaita that I’ve come to appreciate.
************ Buddhist Perspective on Self ************
Buddhists often state that one of Buddhism’s most basic tenets is that there is no Atman or Self. Different books and traditions qualify this tenet in various ways:
Theravada and Mahayana say there is no self, but there is the moral principle of karma operating beyond death. Dzogchen says there is no separate self, but there is an underlying oneness or identity with the interdependent dance of all things.
Despite these qualifications, the core Buddhist idea remains: there is No Self/Anatman. This fundamental concept stands in stark contrast to Advaita’s teaching of Atman/Brahman as the ultimate reality.
************ Arguments Against Atman ************
The Buddhists employ several arguments against the existence of Atman:
The idea of Self is just a mental abstraction that the impermanent mind clings to out of fear of annihilation after death. This concept must eventually be discarded to attain freedom from suffering.
The Buddha carefully avoided declaring, “There is no self” for two reasons: to prevent aligning his teaching with annihilationists, and to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. Instead, he declared that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhamma anatta), which precludes the existence of any kind of self, including a transcendent, ineffable one as proposed in Advaita.
According to Buddhism, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which produces harmful thoughts of “me” and “mine,” leading to selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements. It’s seen as the source of all troubles in the world, from personal conflicts to wars between nations.
The Buddha’s teaching aims to make man enlightened by removing and destroying the deep-rooted ideas of God (created for self-protection) and Atman (conceived for self-preservation). Buddhism sees these as false consolations born of ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire.
************ Awareness as Transitory Phenomena ************
Even awareness itself is to be discarded as a series of transitory momentary phenomena with no divine essence to be found. The awakening mind is described as the space of appearances, the field of phenomenological activity, the luminous flux of experience.
The spiritual process involves shifting identity through different positions:
1. First, we identify as the “seer”, pure awareness – the stage of I AM.
2. Later, we identify as the “seeing”, the mere process of knowingness – the stage of ONE MIND.
3. Finally, we rest uncontrivedly as the mere presence of the “seen” – the stage of ANATTA.
In this final stage, there’s no subject performing the act of seeing, nor is there any principle or process of seeing. The “seen” refers only to the undoubted presence of luminous activity, beyond the categories of subject/object, internal/external, physical/mental, subjective/objective, self/other, etc.
************ Mutual Dependency of Knower & Known ************
Buddhists argue that knower and known are mutually dependent. If awareness (the knower) was independent of appearances (the known), no perception, experience or knowledge could arise. A knower of a truly independent status is not a knower, since it is deprived of the characteristics that establish it as a knower.
This leads to a ‘sameness or otherness’ analysis: Is awareness other than the appearances? If it is, two problems arise: no experience can arise, and there’s nothing establishing awareness as a knowing principle. If awareness is the same as appearances, it must be multiple and not a singular entity, contradicting the conviction that awareness has a unitary essence.
The conclusion is that ultimately no self exists – the self arises only as a mere name, a conceptual construct imposed on the aggregates. Similarly, no awareness exists – awareness exists only as a conceptual construct imposed on the presence of luminous activities.
************ The Nature of Experience ************
Experience is described as thinking without a thinker, hearing without a hearer, and seeing without a seer. This understanding can’t be reached through inference, logical deduction or induction, but through ‘vipassana’ or any more direct and attentive bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they are.
Key insights include:
1. The lack of doer-ship that links and co-ordinates experiences. Without the ‘I’ that links, phenomena appear bubble-like, floating and manifesting freely, spontaneously and boundlessly.
2. The direct insight of the absence of an agent. There is a direct recognition that there is “no agent”. It’s always thought watching thought rather than a watcher watching thought.
These realizations lead to a spontaneous liberating experience and a glimpse of the empty nature of phenomena – transient phenomena being bubble-like and ephemeral, nothing substantial or solid.
************ A Former Advaita Scholar’s Shift to Buddhism ************
Greg Goode, a former scholar of Advaita Vedanta who wrote books about the Direct Path in the tradition of Sri Atmanananda, describes his shift to Buddhist emptiness teachings. He realized the emptiness of awareness through studying Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika philosophy.
Goode contrasts this realization with Advaitic oneness-style realization. He describes the Buddhist view as carrying one out to the “ten-thousand things” in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. There are no veils, no holding back, no substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere.
He challenges the Advaitic notion of gapless continuity of awareness, suggesting that from a different model of time and experience, there are gaps and fissures all over the place. Each moment is divided within itself, carrying traces of past and future. Each “I” is different, and any “gaplessness” is nothing more than a paste-job.
Goode explains how he came to understand the two-way dependence in Buddhism: If awareness can exist without its objects, then objects can exist without awareness. But since objects can’t exist without awareness, awareness can’t exist without them. This realization helped him grasp both parts of the Heart Sutra’s statement “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.”
************ Argument Against Universal Awareness ************
The Buddhist argument against universal awareness stems from the inseparability of awareness and appearances. Awareness, being inseparable from appearances, is nothing but appearances themselves. This inseparability reveals two characteristics: impermanence and multiplicity.
Awareness must collapse or dissolve at every moment to give rise to new appearances. It has no temporal identity and no unitary or spatial identity. The label ‘awareness’ or ‘mind’ is placed upon a multiplicity of appearances that are all, collectively or individually, not awareness.
An analogy is used: If an apple and a banana are placed upon a table, what makes the appearances of red, yellow and brown part of one mind? We have clearly different appearances arising. What validates our conceptual subsuming them into one single substance or experiencer?
The conclusion drawn is that there’s no individual awareness, no collective awareness and no universal awareness. There are only displays of luminous activities. Brahman is the world, and Nirvana and Samsara are nothing but expressions of Buddha nature, which is nothing but the inseparability of emptiness and appearances.
************ The Absence of a ‘Doer’ ************
The Buddhist perspective refutes the idea of a permanent, unchanging entity or “doer.” Using the example of walking down stairs, it argues that there’s no entity outside or independent of the very activity of moving – the “mover” is nothing but the movement itself.
This view posits that total dissolution happens at every moment of experience – a totally coordinated reconfiguration of phenomenological data. What’s dissolved are the fixed conceptual categories that reified transient activities into static objects and independent entities.
Awareness is described as arising and dissolving with each appearance. As sensations disintegrate, so does the awareness that arose as them. As thoughts disintegrate, so does the awareness that arose as them. As perceptions disintegrate, so does the awareness that arose as them.
This understanding leads to becoming the field of experience, the whole of reality, fully interpenetrating with all. There is no “I” left, not even awareness as a fixed principle or essence, but only the luminous display of transient phenomena.
************ Conditioned Genesis and Dependent Origination ************
The doctrine of Conditioned Genesis (Dependent Origination) in Buddhism claims that all phenomena are interconnected in cause and effect, leaving no room for an absolute Self or essence. This theory of relativity is expressed in a short formula of four lines:
1. When this is, that is (Imasmim sati idam hoti)
2. This arising, that arises (Imassuppada idam uppajjati)
3. When this is not, that is not (Imasmim asati idam na hoti)
4. This ceasing, that ceases (Imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati)
A 12-factor formula (paticca-samuppada) explains how life arises, exists, and ceases based on this principle of interdependence. Each factor is both conditioned and conditioning, forming a circle of causality with no absolute or independent element.
The Buddha rejected all forms of Self-theory. In the Alagaddupama-sutta, he states that there is no Self-theory which would not produce grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.
The correct approach, according to Buddhism, is to see things objectively without mental projections. What we call “I” or “being” is seen as only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect. In this view, there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging, or eternal in the whole of existence.
The ultimate goal is to let go of all phenomena and any possible statement that could be made about them. As the Buddha states, “One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that—it does not exist for him. When all phenomena are put aside, all means of speaking are put aside as well.”
These are my counter-arguments to Buddhist views critiquing Advaita’s Consciousness (Self or Atman)…
************ Buddhist Perspective on Self ************
The Buddhist denial of Self is based on a misunderstanding of what Advaita means by Atman. Atman is not a separate, individual entity but the very essence of consciousness itself. The Buddha’s teaching of No-Self (Anatta) was primarily aimed at refuting the notion of a permanent, unchanging individual self, which Advaita also rejects.
Advaita agrees that there is no permanent individual self, but asserts that there is an underlying, unchanging consciousness (Brahman/Atman) that is the substrate of all experience. This consciousness is not separate from the world but is its very essence.
The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada’s Karika demonstrate that waking, dream, and deep sleep states all require a conscious witness that persists through all states. This witness-consciousness is what Advaita refers to as Atman.
************ Arguments Against Atman ************
The Buddhist argument that the Self is a mental abstraction fails to recognize the self-evident nature of consciousness. As Shankara points out in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, the existence of the Self is self-evident and cannot be denied, for it is the very basis of all denial.
The Buddha’s reluctance to explicitly state “There is no self” can be seen as an acknowledgment of the problematic nature of such a statement. If there truly is no self, who is it that realizes this truth? Who attains Nirvana?
Advaita agrees that the idea of an individual, separate self leads to suffering. However, it posits that the solution is not to deny the Self altogether, but to realize one’s true nature as the universal Self (Brahman).
The Buddhist critique of “me” and “mine” is valid for the ego-self, but not for the universal Self of Advaita. Realizing one’s true nature as Brahman leads not to selfishness, but to universal love and compassion, as seen in the lives of great Advaita sages.
************ Awareness as Transitory Phenomena ************
The Buddhist view of awareness as transitory phenomena fails to account for the continuity of consciousness and the problem of personal identity. If awareness is merely a series of disconnected moments, how do we account for memory, learning, and the sense of being the same person over time?
Advaita resolves this by positing a unchanging witness-consciousness (sakshi) that underlies all changing phenomena. This consciousness is not separate from the appearances but is their very essence and substrate.
The stages of “seer,” “seeing,” and “seen” described in Buddhism are all objects of awareness in Advaita. The final stage of ANATTA or “no-self” is simply the recognition of the non-dual nature of reality, which Advaita fully embraces while maintaining the existence of the underlying consciousness.
************ Mutual Dependency of Knower & Known ************
The Buddhist argument for the mutual dependency of knower and known is based on a dualistic understanding that Advaita transcends. In the highest truth (paramarthika satya), there is no distinction between knower and known. As the Upanishads declare, “That thou art” (Tat tvam asi).
The ‘sameness or otherness’ analysis fails to consider the possibility of non-duality, where awareness is neither the same as nor different from appearances, but is their very essence.
Advaita agrees that the individual self and individual awareness are conceptual constructs. However, it maintains that the underlying consciousness (Brahman) is not a construct but the very reality that makes all construction possible.
************ The Nature of Experience ************
Advaita agrees with the Buddhist description of experience as thinking without a thinker, hearing without a hearer, etc. However, it interprets this as pointing to the non-dual nature of reality, not as a denial of consciousness itself.
The insights of lack of doer-ship and absence of agent are fully compatible with Advaita’s teaching of non-doership (akarta). However, Advaita maintains that these insights are themselves cognized by the underlying consciousness.
The “empty nature of phenomena” described in Buddhism is similar to Advaita’s concept of maya. However, Advaita goes further by recognizing that even this emptiness is an appearance in and of consciousness.
************ A Former Advaita Scholar’s Shift to Buddhism ************
While respecting Greg Goode’s journey, his interpretation of Advaita seems to have been limited. The “gapless continuity” he critiques is not essential to Advaita, which recognizes the apparent discontinuity of states while maintaining the continuity of the underlying consciousness.
The “two-way dependence” he discovered in Buddhism is not incompatible with Advaita. In fact, the Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada’s Karika present a similar view of the mutual dependency of subject and object, while maintaining the non-dual Awareness as the substrate.
The realization of “emptiness of awareness” can be seen as a stepping stone to the Advaitic realization of awareness as the very nature of all phenomena, empty of separate existence yet full of all potentialities.
************ Argument Against Universal Awareness ************
The Buddhist argument against universal awareness based on the multiplicity of appearances fails to recognize that multiplicity does not negate unity. Just as the one sun appears as many reflections in different pots of water, the one consciousness appears as many in different minds and bodies.
The analogy of the apple and banana on the table actually supports Advaita’s view. The fact that we can cognize both as part of one experience points to a unifying consciousness that encompasses all appearances.
The conclusion that there’s no individual, collective, or universal awareness is self-refuting. The very awareness of this conclusion must itself be universal, for if it were individual or collective, it would be limited and thus potentially false.
************ The Absence of a ‘Doer’ ************
Advaita fully agrees with the Buddhist critique of a permanent, unchanging “doer.” This aligns perfectly with Advaita’s concept of non-doership (akarta).
However, Advaita maintains that the absence of a doer does not negate the existence of consciousness itself. The awareness of the absence of a doer is itself the evidence of consciousness.
The description of awareness arising and dissolving with each appearance is a valid description of the contents of awareness, but not of awareness itself. Awareness is that in which all appearances, including their arising and dissolving, occur.
************ Conditioned Genesis and Dependent Origination ************
Advaita acknowledges the validity of Dependent Origination at the empirical level (vyavaharika satya). However, it points out that the very recognition of this interdependence requires a consciousness that is not itself part of the causal chain.
The 12-factor formula of paticca-samuppada is a brilliant analysis of the cycle of samsara. However, Advaita asks: Who is aware of this cycle? The awareness of the cycle cannot itself be part of the cycle.
The Buddha’s rejection of soul-theories is understood in Advaita as a rejection of limited concepts of self, not of consciousness itself. The “correct approach” described in Buddhism of seeing things objectively without mental projections is precisely what leads to the Advaitic realization of non-dual awareness.
In conclusion, while Buddhism provides valuable insights into the nature of reality, Advaita Vedanta offers a more comprehensive framework that accounts for both the changing phenomena and the unchanging awareness that is their substrate. It is this unchanging, ever-present consciousness that we call Brahman or Atman, the realization of which leads to true and lasting freedom.
Objections to Advaita Vedanta, claiming Dzogchen is superior to Advaita…
************ Dzogchen vs. Advaita Vedanta ************
Dzogchen is often presented as superior to Advaita Vedanta, but there’s an intriguing similarity between the two. Dzogchen seems to borrow certain elements from Hindu teachings, like the concept of Atman (the true self), but it reinterprets them through the lens of Buddhist Emptiness. This sets the stage for a comparison between these two profound systems of thought.
************ The Rejection of Substantialist Non-Duality ************
Dzogchen takes issue with the type of non-duality found in Advaita Vedanta. In Advaita, there’s a belief in a singular, eternal reality (Brahman) that exists beyond all things and is unchanging. Dzogchen, however, rejects this view for two main reasons: first, because it sees this as a form of eternalism (the belief in something permanent), and second, because it doesn’t align with the relative experience of the world, where we encounter dualities like self and other.
In Dzogchen, non-duality isn’t about affirming a single, true reality that overrides everything else. Instead, it’s about recognizing that everything we experience is ultimately empty of inherent existence. This means things don’t exist in a fixed way—they’re neither fully real nor completely nonexistent. Dzogchen’s non-duality is about embracing this middle path, free from the extremes of existence and non-existence.
************ Rang Bzhin and Ka Dag ************
Dzogchen introduces two key concepts: rang bzhin (the nature of things as they appear) and ka dag (original purity or emptiness). These two are inseparable, like two sides of the same coin. Imagine looking at a rainbow—you see a variety of colors, but you know that it’s really just light. Similarly, rang bzhin represents the diversity of experiences we have, while ka dag represents the underlying emptiness that pervades everything.
Dzogchen calls this “non-dual duality” or “dualistic non-duality,” meaning that even though we experience a diverse world, these experiences are ultimately empty. This is different from Advaita, which suggests that all diversity is just an illusion and only the singular reality of Brahman is true. In Dzogchen, diversity and emptiness coexist, but without any one thing being more real than another.
************ The Concept of Jñāna ************
In Dzogchen, jñāna (knowledge or awareness) isn’t something collective or universal, like it is in Advaita. Instead, it’s more like the heat of a fire or the wetness of water—something that’s common to each instance, but unique to each individual. You and I might both have jñāna, but my awareness is my own, and yours is yours. There’s no single, overarching awareness that connects us all. This is in contrast to Advaita, which argues that all awareness is ultimately one and the same, part of a universal consciousness.
************ The Exhaustion of Dharmatā ************
The ultimate goal in Dzogchen is the “exhaustion of dharmatā” (the nature of all things). This means realizing that nothing has ever truly arisen—that everything we experience is empty from the very beginning. It’s like waking up from a dream where you thought things were real, only to realize they never existed at all. Even jñāna (knowledge) itself is exhausted, meaning you’re no longer bound by any notions of existence, knowledge, or reality. You’re completely liberated, not because you’ve discovered some higher truth, but because you’ve let go of everything, including the idea that there’s anything to hold onto.
************ The Ground of Being ************
In Dzogchen, there is something referred to as a “ground of being,” but it’s not what you’d expect. Unlike Advaita, which sees this ground as Brahman—a transcendental, eternal reality—Dzogchen says the ground of everything is actually ignorance (avidyā). It’s our lack of understanding, our clinging and grasping, that gives rise to the appearance of phenomena. In other words, the world we see around us isn’t a reflection of some divine source, but rather a product of our confusion.
This is a fundamental difference from Advaita, which says that the world is an expression of Brahman. In Dzogchen, the world arises from ignorance, and once that ignorance is cleared, what remains is emptiness—no eternal substance, no higher truth, just the realization that nothing ever truly existed in the first place.
************ The Basis of Ignorance ************
The ground of all things in Dzogchen is ignorance, and everything that comes from it is unreal. Think of it like a mirage in the desert—you see water, but it’s not really there. In Dzogchen, everything we experience is like that mirage. It seems real because we don’t recognize the truth, but once we do, we see that it was all just an illusion. This is why Dzogchen teaches that everything, from top to bottom, is unreal. Even the basis for our ignorance is not established as something real—it’s empty.
************ Dependent Origination in Dzogchen ************
In Dzogchen, the process of dependent origination—the idea that everything arises based on causes and conditions—starts when we fail to recognize the true nature of reality (the basis). Once we fail to see things as they truly are, we begin to grasp at the idea of a separate self and others. This sets off a chain reaction that leads to suffering and entrapment in samsara (the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth). It’s like a snowball effect—one small misunderstanding leads to a cascade of confusion and suffering.
************ Overview of Dzogchen vs. Advaita Vedanta ************
One of the biggest differences between Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta is how they view the mind. In Dzogchen, each mind is individual and personal. My mind is mine, and your mind is yours. We each have our own awareness, which is unique to us. In contrast, Advaita says that all minds are part of one big, shared awareness. Like drops of water eventually merging back into the ocean, Advaita sees all individual minds as ultimately part of a single universal consciousness.
************ Dzogchen Awareness vs. Vedanta Awareness ************
To clarify the difference, think of Advaita as saying that awareness is like a single radio signal that everyone is tuned into—there’s only one signal, and we’re all receivers of that same signal. But Dzogchen says that each person has their own flame, like candles. All flames share the quality of heat, but each flame is distinct and belongs to its own candle. In Dzogchen, awareness is individual, not part of a shared, universal field.
************ Understanding the Nature of Mind in Dzogchen ************
At first glance, it might seem that Dzogchen’s focus on individual minds would limit its ability to lead to liberation. But that’s not the case. Dzogchen eventually dissolves the illusion of separation, just in a different way than Advaita does. To understand how this works, it’s helpful to grasp the Buddhist concept of the “two truths”: relative truth (our everyday experience) and ultimate truth (the emptiness of all things).
************ Conventional and Ultimate Truth ************
Conventional truth refers to how we experience the world on a day-to-day basis: cars, people, cats, and everything else. These things seem real and solid to us. But ultimate truth is the emptiness of those things. When you look deeply, you realize that a car isn’t a single, solid object—it’s just a collection of parts, none of which are “car” by themselves. Dzogchen teaches that all things are like this: they are empty of inherent existence.
************ Relative and Ultimate Truth in Dzogchen ************
Even though Dzogchen doesn’t explicitly use the two-truths model as much as other Buddhist schools, it’s still important to understand the difference between relative truth (conventional reality) and ultimate truth (emptiness). In Dzogchen, ignorance (ma rig pa) is the belief that your mind is something real and substantial. The practice of Dzogchen is about recognizing that your mind, like everything else, is empty.
************ Rigpa and Marigpa: Dzogchen’s Dichotomy ************
Rigpa (knowledge) is the direct, experiential realization of the mind’s true, empty nature. On the other hand, ma rig pa (ignorance) is the mistaken belief that your mind is a conditioned, separate thing that exists independently. Dzogchen practice is about transitioning from ignorance to knowledge, from ma rig pa to rig pa.
************ What is Rigpa? ************
Rigpa isn’t intellectual knowledge; it’s something you experience directly. It’s like the difference between reading about the taste of chocolate and actually tasting it. You can read all the descriptions in the world, but until you take a bite, you don’t truly know what chocolate tastes like. In Dzogchen, rig pa is that direct taste of the mind’s true nature—an immediate, experiential understanding of reality.
************ Why the Recognition of Mind Does Not Equal the Absolute ************
In Dzogchen, realizing the emptiness of things doesn’t lead to the recognition of an eternal, unchanging absolute like in Advaita. Instead, it reveals that the conditioned things we thought were real never existed in the first place. When ignorance falls away, you don’t find an ultimate truth or higher reality—you simply stop believing in the illusions that ignorance created. It’s like realizing that the monsters under your bed were never really there.
************ The Ultimate in Dzogchen vs. Advaita ************
Advaita Vedanta teaches that the ultimate truth is the recognition of Brahman, an unconditioned, eternal reality. In Dzogchen, the ultimate truth is simply the realization that phenomena are empty and never truly arise. There is no eternal essence behind it all—only the recognition of emptiness, which leads to liberation.
************ The Nature of Phenomena ************
In Dzogchen, phenomena are ultimately non-arising and unconditioned. This means that the ultimate truth isn’t some eternal principle or unchanging reality—it’s just the cessation of ignorance. It’s like waking up from a dream and realizing that none of the things you were scared of were ever real in the first place.
************ Realization in Dzogchen ************
When you reach realization in Dzogchen, you see that the things you thought were real never actually existed. It’s like mistaking a rope for a snake in the dark—when the light comes on, you realize it was just a rope all along. The snake was never real, and neither were the conditioned phenomena that we thought were solid.
************ The Dzogchen View vs. Vedanta ************
In Advaita, all phenomena are expressions of Brahman, the ultimate reality. In Dzogchen, phenomena are illusions created by ignorance. Once you see through the illusion, you don’t find a higher truth—you just realize that these phenomena never really existed at all.
************ Unreal Phenomena in Dzogchen ************
Since everything in Dzogchen arises from ignorance, it can’t have any real essence. The goal in Dzogchen isn’t to discover some unchanging truth but to let go of the causes of suffering. Once ignorance is cleared away, the illusion of phenomena disappears, and you see that they were never real to begin with.
************ Nāgārjuna’s Statement ************
Nāgārjuna, a key figure in Buddhist philosophy, explains that if conditioned things (things that arise and pass away) aren’t real, then unconditioned things (things that supposedly don’t change) can’t be real either. The very idea of the unconditioned only makes sense because we mistakenly believe in the reality of conditioned things. When we stop believing in the conditioned, the unconditioned loses its meaning too.
************ Attachment to Unconditioned Dharmas ************
Some people get attached to the idea of unconditioned dharmas (phenomena thought to be beyond birth and death), thinking they represent some ultimate truth. But this is just another form of delusion. By clinging to the unconditioned, you turn it into something real and substantial, which is the very mistake Dzogchen is trying to help you avoid. It’s like trading one illusion for another.
************ Final Thoughts ************
It’s easy to cling to the things we know, even when we intellectually understand that they’re empty. Dzogchen teaches that everything—our minds, our experiences, the world around us—arises due to causes and conditions and is ultimately empty. The key to freedom is realizing that things don’t arise, abide, or cease in the way we think they do. Once we see this clearly, we won’t fall into the trap of thinking that anything is ultimately real or unreal.
These are my counter arguments to Dzogchen…
************ Dzogchen vs. Advaita Vedanta ************
From the perspective of Advaita Vedanta, while Dzogchen and other schools of Buddhism offer profound insights into the nature of reality, they ultimately fall short by rejecting the existence of the Self (Atman). The core Advaita position, informed by the Upanishads, is that Brahman is the only reality, and the individual self (Atman) is non-different from this absolute reality. The Buddhist rejection of a permanent self leads to a contradiction: if there is no self, who is it that seeks liberation, and who attains it? Advaita argues that without the recognition of a permanent, unchanging self, liberation becomes meaningless because there is no continuity between the one who experiences suffering and the one who attains freedom.
Moreover, Dzogchen’s emphasis on “emptiness” as the ultimate reality is problematic in Advaita’s view. Emptiness is, by definition, a negation. But how can negation itself be the ultimate truth? The Upanishads are clear that the ultimate reality is not a negation but a positive affirmation: Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). While Dzogchen may claim that phenomena are empty and non-arisen, Advaita posits that the realization of Brahman is the realization that all appearances are apparent (Maya), and the underlying reality is the unchanging Brahman. Thus, the Advaitic recognition of Brahman provides a more coherent and comprehensive explanation of the nature of reality.
************ The Rejection of Substantialist Non-Duality ************
Dzogchen’s rejection of what it calls “substantialist non-duality,” as found in Advaita Vedanta, misunderstands the true nature of Brahman. Advaita does not propose a “substantialist” non-duality in the sense of a material or concrete substance. Rather, Brahman is beyond all categories of existence and non-existence. It is neither a “thing” that exists in the worldly sense, nor is it “nothingness.” Brahman is the ground of all existence, the unchanging reality behind the apparent world.
Dzogchen’s critique assumes that the Advaita view is eternalist, but this is a misreading. Advaita does not posit an eternal, separate entity that stands apart from the world. Instead, it affirms that the world is a manifestation of Maya, and the individual self (Atman) is non-different from the universal Brahman. The world only appears dualistic due to ignorance (Avidya), and once this ignorance is dispelled, the non-dual nature of Brahman is realized. Thus, Dzogchen’s claim that Advaita asserts a “substantialist” non-duality is based on a misunderstanding of Advaita’s teachings.
************ Rang Bzhin and Ka Dag ************
Dzogchen’s explanation of rang bzhin (the nature of things as they appear) and ka dag (original purity or emptiness) is, from an Advaitic perspective, an incomplete understanding of reality. In Advaita, the appearance of diversity (rang bzhin) is due to Maya, the cosmic illusion that veils the true nature of Brahman. While Dzogchen acknowledges the emptiness of phenomena, it fails to recognize that this emptiness is simply the illusory nature of Maya.
Advaita teaches that the true self (Atman), which is identical to Brahman, is beyond both diversity and emptiness. The realization of this identity is liberation (Moksha). In contrast, Dzogchen’s emphasis on emptiness as the ultimate reality leaves practitioners in a state of negation without recognizing the positive, underlying reality of Brahman. Emptiness alone cannot explain the nature of consciousness or the experience of liberation, as it negates the very self that experiences. In Advaita, the self is not negated but realized as the eternal, undivided reality.
************ The Concept of Jñāna ************
Dzogchen’s interpretation of jñāna (knowledge) as something individual and separate in each person is a significant point of disagreement with Advaita Vedanta. In Advaita, jñāna refers to the direct realization of the non-dual nature of reality. It is not something that varies from person to person. Instead, jñāna is the recognition that the individual self (Atman) is identical to Brahman. The idea that there are multiple, distinct instances of jñāna in Dzogchen contradicts the Advaitic teaching that there is only one, non-dual consciousness underlying all existence.
The analogy in Advaita is that of space: the space in a pot may appear to be different from the space outside the pot, but in reality, it is all the same space. Similarly, individual awarenesses may seem separate, but they are all manifestations of the same universal consciousness, Brahman. By dividing jñāna into discrete, individual instances, Dzogchen fails to recognize the unity of consciousness that Advaita affirms as the highest truth.
************ The Ground of Being ************
Dzogchen’s claim that the ground of all being is ignorance (avidyā) is directly refuted by Advaita Vedanta. In Advaita, the ground of all being is not ignorance, but Brahman, which is pure consciousness, existence, and bliss. Ignorance (avidyā) is what veils the true nature of Brahman, but it is not the ground of being itself. To claim that ignorance is the foundation of existence is, from an Advaitic standpoint, a misunderstanding of the nature of reality.
If ignorance were the ground of being, then liberation would be impossible, as one would be trying to realize something that inherently does not exist. In Advaita, the ground of being is the ever-present, unchanging reality of Brahman, which is self-evident once ignorance is removed. The Buddhist notion that everything is empty and unreal is, in Advaita’s view, an incomplete understanding. The world may be illusory, but this illusion rests on the substratum of Brahman, which is real and eternal.
************ Dependent Origination in Dzogchen ************
Dependent origination, as understood in Dzogchen and other Buddhist teachings, is a concept that Advaita Vedanta critiques for being overly focused on the relative realm. In Buddhism, dependent origination explains how phenomena arise based on causes and conditions. However, from the Advaita perspective, this explanation remains within the realm of Maya, the illusory world of appearances. While it is true that phenomena seem to arise and pass away due to causes and conditions, this entire process is, in fact, an illusion.
Advaita teaches that the ultimate reality, Brahman, is beyond all causality. Causation itself is a product of ignorance (avidyā). Once one realizes the non-dual nature of Brahman, the entire chain of dependent origination is seen as unreal. The problem with dependent origination is that it does not provide an answer to what lies beyond the causal chain. Advaita provides this answer by pointing to Brahman, which is uncaused, unchanging, and eternal.
************ Dzogchen Awareness vs. Vedanta Awareness ************
Dzogchen’s claim that awareness is individual and distinct in each person is a point that Advaita Vedanta strongly rejects. In Advaita, awareness (Chit) is non-dual and universal. The perception of individual awarenesses arises due to ignorance (avidyā), but in reality, there is only one awareness, Brahman, which pervades all beings. The analogy used in Advaita is that of the sun reflected in multiple pots of water: while it seems like there are many suns, there is only one sun being reflected in different containers. Similarly, there is only one consciousness, but it appears as many due to the limitations of individual minds.
Dzogchen’s insistence on individual awareness leads to a fragmented view of reality, whereas Advaita offers a unified understanding. The realization of non-dual awareness is the key to liberation in Advaita, and this awareness is not personal or individual—it is the all-pervading Brahman.
************ The Ultimate in Dzogchen vs. Advaita ************
Dzogchen’s ultimate truth is framed as the realization that phenomena are empty and non-arising. However, Advaita Vedanta critiques this view for being incomplete. While Advaita acknowledges that phenomena are illusory and non-arising, it goes further by identifying the substratum upon which this illusion is projected: Brahman. In Dzogchen, the ultimate truth is emptiness, but emptiness alone cannot account for the presence of consciousness or the experience of liberation.
In Advaita, the ultimate truth is not a negation but a positive realization of Brahman, which is eternal, unchanging, and non-dual. Emptiness, in Advaita, is simply another aspect of Maya, the illusion that veils the true nature of reality. The recognition of Brahman provides a more complete realization, as it explains both the illusory nature of the world and the underlying reality that supports it.
***Removed as was more or less repetition of points already mentioned in prior comments***
I recommend for you: https://www.amazon.com/dp/8171106455 (Critique of Non-Advaita Schools).
Download PDF here: https://tinyurl.com/ypc4b582
Thank you very much for your responses, Andre. I understand the articles I quoted were a lot to read through. Your explanations have been insightful and illuminating.
Thanks to your help, I feel like I have a much better understanding of the nature of Atma from the Vedantic perspective.
I will be sure to read the book you recommended as well.
Take care
Namaste
🙏🙏🙏
Geoffrey Samuel, when describing the Mahayana Buddhism concept of emptiness, explained it like this:
“Mahayana Buddhism holds that there cannot be an ultimately valid and accurate language in which the universe can be fully and definitively described. Phenomenal reality is ’empty’ or ‘void’ in the sense that our understandings of it are empty and illusory; the ultimate reality that lies beyond it is also ’empty’ in that emptiness is all that can be positively asserted about it.” (Geoffrey 2012, 55)
But, he clarifies:
“’emptiness’ is not quite the same as there being nothing there. The universe is not a void in the sense of an absence of anything real, in some ways quite the opposite. It is rather void or empty in the sense of the absence of any specific thing, concept, feeling or state that human processes of consciousness may assume is there.” (Geoffrey 2012, 55)
I think this fits perfectly as it just points to it being ineffable