2. Two Ways of Looking at Emptiness

              TWO WAYS OF LOOKING AT EMPTINESS

HINDU CONTEXT

In the Hindu context of Awakening, all illusion is removed so that the Brahman can be revealed. The life  that we live and the phenomena that we perceive are Samsara, the illusion. Brahman is the only absolute truth and is the firm base of Samsara, but only when the illusion vanishes is the Non-dual Brahman evident and the human creature free of the bondage of illusion.

BUDDHA DHARMA CONTEXT

In Buddhadharma, illusion is not eliminated, it co-exists with the truth of the primordial state and its understanding is a part of the knowledge of Awakening. Thus a "wisdom consciousness" or knowledge is the true consciousness of the Ignorance of Samsara, the Stained consciousness. Samsara is not an illusion which will vanish so that only the Brahman will remain. In Buddha Dharma, Samsara is interdependently arisen (pratityasamutpann) as illusions. So Samsara is always present, but seen as illusion, and as such has no power to entrap the human mind in the three poisons of confusion, greed, and aversion (skt. svabhava siddha).

Advaya and Advaita in Buddha Dharma

Both Advaita knowledge and Advaya are called "non-dual", but they are two different things.

Non-dual (advaita) in the Hindu context means "non-existence of the second "(divitiyam nasti). There is no second substance except the Brahman, that is the only thing that exists: 'eka vastu vada'.

In Buddha Dharma we use "advaya" which means "not two'", thus there is freedom from both extremes. (skt. dvaya anta mukta).

Now this becomes very important in Buddha Dharma, because the two extremes are:

1.   The tendency to see things as really existing (samaropa)

2.   The tendency to see things as non-existing (apavada).

Advaya is not the "One and only thing"... the unity of all thngs into Brahman, which is an Absolute Duality. Instead it is a description of the relation and union between Samsara and the Natural human state. That is why the Samsara which is like an illusion which transforms into Advaya Jñana, Knowledge of the Unity of all things beyond words. 

Thus Alaya is the base and Advaya Jñana is the Wisdom of the Samsara world.  What we do in Buddhadharma is simply remove the stained aspects and reveal Advaya Jñana. 

Now there are two traditions of advaya in Buddhism.

1. One is called the Extensive Tradition (skt. Vaipulay parampara) of Asanga-Vasubandhu, based on the 'Five Works' of Maitreya, which emphasizes subject-object (skt. grahaka-grahya) duality. The two neither merge into one whole nor does the grasper (subject) destroy the illusion and remain purified.

This pair are clearly seen as untenable and that only vacuity can exist. This was the position taken by Dingnaga-Dharmakirti.

This in Chan Ssu Lun we liken to the condition of an Arahat who has eliminated Identity, but must continue with the vigalence and practices to maintain Mara at bay.

2. Another is the Profound Tradition (skt. gambhira parampara). It started with Nagarajuna and was passed down through Kanadeva and later Vasubandhu, eventually leading to the direct path CHAN and in other paths by Aryadeva, among them the famous Shantideva and Atisha, eventually leading to the direct Path of MAHAMUDRA. It also plays a part in almost all of the gradual paths.

This is the position of Chan Ssu Lun.

That is the position of Mahamudra.

But essentially there is a difference between Chan and Mahamudra and the Gradual streams. These two direct Contemplation precisely and DIRECTLY at the point of neither extreme.

Do you remember those extremes?

1.   The tendency to see things as really existing (samaropa).

2.   The tendency to see things as non-existing (apavada).

This will be important to see when we continue and begin the expositions on the meditations themselves.

Any Buddhist ideas and practices must be based on one of these hermeneutics (vaipulay parampara or gambhira parampara). One cannot give shallow interpretations of the sutras or shastras. Any interpretation must belong to one of these methods. Otherwise it becomes one's egoistic and distorted idea of what the texts are teaching.

That is our argument also against Buddhism today. Buddhist texts are misinterpreted and rites and ceremonies without a philosophical base enter into most teachings and superstition or parrot-like behaviour takes root in the minds which are confused or greedy.

Should meditators be interested in such theoretical positions? Are theories just intellectual rambling? Others say the truth can be accomplished by just meditation and others by a pure Wisdom path. 

Those are false ideas. Kanadeva, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, Shantideva and Atisha, who generated these ideas, are among the greatest Buddhist masters in history but they used both theory and meditational practice.

They believed that it was necessary to acquire the correct philosophical base in order to practice Buddhadharma meditation. That is the position that we take.