Myswizard

Ajahn Sumedho, in ‘Teachings of a Buddhist Monk’:

“Desire can be compared to fire. If we grasp fire, what happens? Does it lead to happiness?

If we say: “Oh, look at that beautiful fire! Look at the beautiful colors! I love red and orange; they’re my favorite colors,” and then grasp it, we would find a certain amount of suffering entering the body. And then if we were to contemplate the cause of that suffering we would discover it was the result of having grasped that fire. On that information, we would hopefully, then let the fire go. Once we let fire go then we know that it is something not to be attached to.
This does not mean we have to hate it, or put it out. We can enjoy fire, can’t we? It’s nice having a fire, it keeps the room warm, but we do not have to burn ourselves in it.”

HANDLING ATTACHMENT
“One man can conquer a thousand times thousand men in battle,
but one who conquers himself is the greatest of conquerors.”
The Dhammapada

The following antidotes can be applied throughout daily life, but are profound meditation exercises as well.

ANTIDOTE 1 - Observe Yourself: Do I exaggerate positive qualities of things I am attached to, are they really worth all my troubles? Is it really worth to work hard for days, weeks or months to have an hour of fun?

ANTIDOTE 2 - Use Your Inner Wisdom: Discover how exaggerated attachment is and how desire works against oneself. Try to be wiser than the monkey and let go of the candy to be free.

ANTIDOTE 3 - Reflect on the Unsatisfactory Nature of Existence. This is also called the First Noble Truth. How much fun is fun really, and how much is it forgetting the pain? Do desires ever stop or is it an endless job to fulfil them?

ANTIDOTE 4 - Reflect on Impermanence. How important is the person or object: everything will end someday, people die, things break.

ANTIDOTE 5 - Reflect on the Problems of Attachment. Lying in the sun is great, but it quickly leads to sunburn. Eating nice food is great, but it leads to indigestion and obesity. Driving around in big cars is great, but how long do I have to work to enjoy this?

ANTIDOTE 6 - Reflect on bodily attraction (lust for sex). Loving someone is great, but what happens when the “honeymoon-days” are over? But what is the body really? What more is it than a skin bag filled with bones, flesh, disgusting organs and fluids?

ANTIDOTE 7 - Reflect on the Results of Attachment. Greed and craving lead to stealing and all kinds of crime, including war. Addiction to alcohol and drugs are simply forms of strong craving; they destroy the addict and the surroundings. Uncontrolled lust leads to sexual abuse. The feeling of greed, craving and lust in themselves can be easily seen as forms of suffering.

ANTIDOTE 8 - Reflect on Death. What are all objects of attachment worth at “the moment of truth” or death?

ANTIDOTE 9 - Emptiness. The ultimate antidote to attachment and all other negative emotions is the realisation of emptiness.

From “A View on Buddhism”

Arhat Dictionary: Spiritual - Theosophy Dictionary on Arhat

Arhat (Sanskrit) (from the verbal root arh to be worthy, merit, be able)

Worthy, deserving; also enemy slayer (from ari enemy + the verbal root han to slay, smite), an arhat being a slayer of the foe of craving, the entire range of passions and desires, mental, emotional, and physical. Buddhists in the Orient generally define arhat in this manner, while modern scholars derive the word from the verbal root arh. Both definitions are equally appropriate (Buddhist Catachysm 93).

As a noun, originally one who had fully attained his spiritual ideals. In Buddhism arhat (Pali arahant) is the title generally given to those of Gautama Buddha’s disciples who had progressed the farthest during his lifetime and immediately thereafter; more specifically to those who had attained nirvana, emancipation from earthly fetters and the attainment of full enlightenment. Arhat is broadly equivalent to the Egyptian heirophant, the Chaldean magus, and Hindu rishi, as well as being generally applicable to ascetics. On occasion it is used for the loftiest beings in a hierarchy: “The Arhats of the ‘fire-mist’ of the 7th run are but one remove from the Root-base of their Hierarchy — the highest on Earth, and our Terrestrial chain” (SD 1:207).

Arhat is the highest of the four degrees of arhatship or the fourfold path to nirvana, of which the first three are srotapatti (he who has entered the stream), sakridagamin (he who returns to birth once more), and anagamin (the never returner who will have no further births on earth).

Arhat is both the way and the waygoer; and while the term is close philosophically to anagamin, the distinction between the two lies in their mystical connotations rather than in their etymological definitions. Arhat has a wider significance inasmuch as it applies to those noblest of the Buddha’s disciples who were “worthy” of receiving, because comprehending, the Tathagata’s heart doctrine, the more esoteric and mystical portions of his message.

As early as one hundred years after the Buddha died and had entered his parinirvana, differences in the doctrines and discipline of the Order become manifest. In the course of the centuries two basic trends developed into what has become popular to call the Hinayana (the lesser vehicle or path) or Theravada (doctrine of the elders), and Mahayana (the greater vehicle or path). The Theravada emphasized the fourfold path leading to nirvana, total liberation of the arhat from material concerns. The Mahayana held the bodhisattvayana as the ideal, the way of compassion for all sentient beings, culminating in renunciation of nirvana in order to return and inspire others “to awake and follow the dhamma.” It is this fundamental difference in goal that characterizes the Old Wisdom School (arhatship) from the New Wisdom School (bodhsattvahood).

Pre-Kushana Ayagapatta from Mathura Jainism (pronounced in English as /ˈdʒeɪ.nɪzm̩/), traditionally known as Jain Dharma (जैन धर्म), is a religion and philosophy originating in the prehistory of South Asia. Now a minority in modern India with growing communities in the United States, Western Europe, Africa, the Far East and elsewhere, Jains have continued to sustain the ancient Shraman (श्रमण) or ascetic tradition.

Jainism has significantly influenced the religious, ethical, political and economic spheres in India for well over two millennia. Jainism stresses the spiritual independence and equality of all life with a particular emphasis on non-violence. Self-control (व्रत, vrata) is the means by which Jains attain moksha, Keval Gnan, or realization of the soul’s true nature.

A lay Jain is termed a shravak (श्रावक) i.e. a listener. The Jain Sangha (संघ), or order, has four components: monks (साधु), nuns, lay men and lay women.

Overview of Jain Dharma
Jain philosophy is considered a compilation of eternal, universal truths. Over a period of time, these truths may lapse among humanity and then reappear through the teachings of enlightened humans, those who have reached enlightenment or total knowledge (Keval Gnan). Traditionally,in our universe and in our time, Lord Rishabh (ऋषभ or रिषभ) is regarded as the first to realize those truths followed by Lord Parshva (877-777 BCE) and Lord Vardhaman Mahavir (महावीर) (599-527 BCE).

Jainism teaches that every living thing is an individual with an eternal soul, jīva, and responsible for its actions. This teaches the individual to live, think and act with respect and honor the spiritual nature of all life. Jains view God as the unchanging traits of the pure soul of each living being, chiefly described as Infinite Knowledge, Perception, Consciousness, and Happiness (Anant Jnän, Anant Darshan, Anant Chäritra, and Anant Sukh). Jainism does not include a belief in an omnipotent supreme being or creator, but rather in an eternal universe governed by natural laws, the interplay of the attributes (gunas) of matter (dravyas) that make it up.

The primary figures of Jainism are Tirthankars. Jainism has two main divisions: Digambar and Shvetambar. Both believe in ahimsa (or ahinsā), asceticism, karma, samsar, and jiva. Jain scriptures were written over a long period and the most cited scripture is the Tattvartha Sutra, or Book of Reality written by Umasvati (or Umasvami),the monk-scholar, more than 18 centuries ago.

Compassion for all living beings, along with humans, is central to Jainism. It is the only religion that requires both monks and laity, from all its sects and traditions, to be vegetarian. In regions of India with a strong Jain influence, often the majority of the local non Jain population is also vegetarian. In many towns, Jains run animal shelters, e.g. a bird hospital in Delhi is run by a Jain temple. Historians believe that various strains of Hinduism became vegetarian due to a strong Jainism and Buddhism influence.

Jain layman worshipping at the temple at Rankapur. Jain cleaning the temple at Ranakpur. When we speak or open our mouths, sometimes spittle sprays out. The mask over his face is to prevent spit droplets from landing on holy images or books. .Jainism’s stance on nonviolence, goes simply beyond vegetarianism. The orthodox Jain diet excludes most root vegetables, as they believe such vegetables have infinite individual souls, invisible to our eyes. Another reason for not eating roots is to avoid killing the plant. Jains will not eat food obtained with unnecessary cruelty. Many are vegan, due to the violence of modern dairy farms. Observant Jains do not eat, drink, or travel after sunset, and always rise before sunrise.

Anekantavad is a foundation pillar of Jain philosophy. Literally meaning “Non-one-endedness” or “Nonsingular Conclusions”, Anekantavad consists of tools for overcoming inherent biases in any one perspective on a topic, object, process, state, or on reality in general. One tool is The Doctrine of Postulation, Syādvāda. Anekantavad is defined as a multiplicity of views for it stresses looking at things from another’s perspective.

Jains are remarkably welcoming and friendly toward other faiths. Several non-Jain temples in India are administered by Jain individuals. The Jain Heggade family has run the Hindu institutions of Dharmasthala, including the Sri Manjunath Temple, for eight centuries. Jains willingly donate money to churches and mosques and often help with multi-religious functions. Jain monks, like the late Acharya Tulsi and Acharya Sushil Kumar, actively promoted harmony among rival faiths to defuse tension.

Jains have been an important presence in Indian culture, contributing to Indian philosophy, art, architecture, sciences, and to Mohandas Gandhi’s politics, which led to the mainly non-violent movement for Indian independence.

Universal History and Jain Cosmology
According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Each upward or downward cycle is divided into six eons (yugas). The present era, a downward movement, is the fifth of these cycles. These ages are known as “Aaro” as “Pehela Aara” or First Age, “Doosra Aara” or Second Age and so on. The last is the “Chhatha Aara” or Sixth Age. These ages have well defined durations of thousands of years.

When this cycle reaches its lowest level, even Jainism will be lost in its entirety. Then, on the next upswing, the Jain religion will be rediscovered and reintroduced by new leaders,Tirthankars (literally “Crossing Makers” or “Ford Finders”), only to be lost again at the end of the next downswing, and so on.

In each enormously long cycle of time, there are always twenty-four Tirthankars. In our era, the twenty-third Tirthankar was Parshva, an ascetic and teacher, whose traditional dates are 877-777 BC, i.e., 250 years before the passing of the last Tirthankar Lord Mahavir in 527 BC. Jains regard him, and all Tirthankars, as reformers who called for a return to beliefs and practices in line with the eternal universal philosophy upon which the faith is based. The title Bhagavan (”Lord”) applied to Mahavir and all other Tirthankars means Venerable.

Bhaktamara Stotra: Tirthankara is shelter from ocean of rebirths.

The twenty-fourth and final Tirthankar of our age is called, Mahāvīr, the Great Hero (599-527 BC). A wandering ascetic teacher, he recalled Jains to the rigorous practice of their ancient faith.

Jains believe that reality consists of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of infinite identical spiritual units; while ajiva (non-jiva) is matter in all forms and conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement.

Both jiva and ajiva are eternal; they never came into existence for the first time and will never cease to exist. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc.

Any contact whatsoever of jiva with ajiva causes the former to suffer and Jains understand that worldly existence inevitably means some suffering. Neither social nor individual reform can totally stop suffering. In every human, there is jiva, and this jiva suffers because of its contact with ajiva. To avoid suffering, the jiva must leave the four gatis (stages) of Human Life, Heavenly Bodies, Plants/Animals/Insects/Fish Life, and Hell, by never forgetting the ultimate aim and by practising Jainism continuously and thus attain liberation,

Karma and transmigration keep jiva locked in ajiva. Liberation from the human condition is difficult. Jiva continues to suffer during all its infinite reincarnations. They believe that every action, good or evil, opens up sense channels (sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell), through which invisible karma, filters in and adheres to the jiva within, weighing it down and determining the conditions of its next reincarnation.

The consequence of evil actions is heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower existential level. Good deeds, on the other hand, lead to light karma, allowing jiva to rise to a higher level in its next life, where there is less suffering. However, good deeds alone can never lead to liberation.

The fylfot (a.k.a. swastik) is one of the holiest Jain symbols. Worshippers often use rice grains to create fylfot symbols around the temple altar.The way to moksh (release or liberation) is withdrawal from the world. Karma is the cause-and-effect mechanism by which all actions have inescapable consequences. Karma keeps the jiva chained in an unending series of lifetimes in which it suffers to a greater or lesser extent. Thus liberation means release from karma, its annihilation and avoidance of new karma.

Then, at death, with no karma to weigh it, jiva will rise free of all ajiva, free of the human condition, free of all future embodiments. It will rise to the highest state in the universe,Siddhashila, where jiva, identical with all other pure jivas, will experience its own true nature in eternal stillness, aloneness and liberation. It will be totally free. The way to burn up old karma is to withdraw from worldly involvement as much as possible, and close sense channels and the mind to prevent karma. Such eternal liberation by freeing Jiva from Pudgala (ajiva), so no new reincarnation occurs, is Moksh. Ignorance (ajñāna) causes attachment, while true knowledge (keval jñāna)leads to liberation.

S. Vernon McCasland, Grace E. Cairns and David C. Yu describe Jain cosmology thus:

“In Jain tradition, the first teacher, Rishabh, lived in the third period of Avasarpini, during which half of the world cycle things are getting worse. Since evil had appeared, a teacher/Tirthankara was needed to help people cope with life. In the fourth period, evil proliferated so much that twenty-three more Tirthankaras came into the world to teach people how to defeat evil and achieve moksh. The present time, part of the fifth period, is ‘wholly evil.’ Now, men live less than 125 years, and the sixth epoch will be even worse. ‘A man’s life span will be only sixteen to twenty years and his height will be reduced to that of a dwarf. . . . But then the slow upward movement of the first half of the upward cycle, Utsarpini, will begin. There will be steady improvement until, in the first era, man’s needs will be fulfilled by wish fullfilling trees, his height will be six miles, and evil will be unknown.’ However, eventually things will degenerate, with Avasarpini followed by Usarpini in a neverending cycle.” (McCasland, Cairns, and Yu, Religions of the World, New York: Random House, 1969: pages 485-486)

Beliefs and practices

The hand with a wheel on the palm symbolizes the Jain Vow of Ahinsa, meaning non-violence. The word in the middle of the wheel reads “ahimsa.” The wheel represents the dharma-chakra. This logo represents halting the cycle of reincarnation through relentless pursuit of truth.There are monks who practice strict asceticism and strive to make this birth their last. On the other hand, there is the laity, who pursue less rigorous practices, striving to attain rational faith and to do as much good as possible in this lifetime. Due to strict Jain ethics, the laity choose professions and livelihoods that protect life and do not involve any violence to living beings.

Jains consider that devas (angels or celestial beings) cannot help jiva to obtain liberation. This must be achieved by individuals through their own effort. In fact, devas cannot achieve their own liberation until they reincarnate as humans and undertake the difficult action of removing karma. Jains believe that no spirit or divine being can assist them. Their effort to attain the highest, the most exalted state of Siddha, the permanent liberation of jiva from all involvement in worldly existence, must be their own.

The Jain ethical code is taken very seriously. These Five Vows are followed by both laity and monks/nuns. These are:

Nonviolence (ahinsa, or ahimsa)
Truth (satya)
Non-stealing (asteya)
Chastity (brahma-charya)
Non-possession or Non-possessiveness (aparigrah)
For lay people, ‘chastity’ means confining sexual experiences to marriage. For monks/nuns, it means complete celibacy. Nonviolence involves being vegetarian and some choose to be vegan. Jains are expected to be non-violent in all thoughts, words and deeds, not only towards humans, but towards all living creatures. While performing holy deeds, Jains wear masks over their mouths and noses to avoid spittle falling on texts or deities.

Along with these Five Vows, Jains avoid harboring harmful feelings towards others and practise forgiveness. They believe that Atma can lead one to become Parmatma and this has to come from one’s inner-self; no one can lead another on any path but can only show the way to the path. Jains know that anger towards another is one’s biggest enemy, they believe in “Jeeyo aur jeene do” (live and let others live).

Mahatma Gandhi was deeply influenced by this Jain emphasis on peaceful, protective living and made it an integral part of his own philosophy.

Jain symbols
Jains have few core symbols. One symbol incorporates a wheel on the palm of a hand. The holiest one is a simple unadorned swastika or svastik.

Major Jain symbols include:

24 Lanchhanas for Tirthankaras.
The Ashta-mangalas.
Om.
Triratna and Shrivatsa symbols.
A Tirthankar’s mother dreams.
Dharma-chakra and Siddha-chakra.

Jain fasting
Fasting is very common among Jains and a part of Jain festivals. Most Jains will fast at special times during the year, at festivals and holy days. However, a Jain may take it upon him or herself to fast at anytime. The monsoon period (in India) is a time of fasting.

The aim of fasting
Fasts may be done as penance, especially for monks and nuns. Fasting purifies the body and the mind, reminding one of Mahavir’s emphasis on renunciation and asceticism. Mahavira spent a lot of time fasting. It is not sufficient for a Jain simply to stop eating when fasting, they must also stop wanting to eat. If they continue to desire food, the fast is pointless.

Types of fast
There are several types of fasting:

Complete fasting: giving up food and water completely for a period.
Partial fasting: eating less than you need to avoid hunger.
Vruti Sankshepa: limiting the number of items of food eaten.
Rasa Parityaga: giving up favourite foods.
Great fasts: Some monks fast for months at a time, following Mahavir, who fasted for over 6 months.

Different types of fast
Choviharo Upavasa - To give up food and water for the whole day.
Upavas - To give up only food for the whole day.
Digamber Upvas - One can only drink water once a day,before sunset.
Shwetamber Upvas - One may drink many glasses of water,however this must be done before sunset.
Ekasan - To eat one meal a day at one sitting and drink water as desired between sunrise and sunset.
Beasan - To eat two meals a day, (one meal per sitting) and to drink water as desired any times between sunrise and sunset.
Ayambil: Eating food once in one sitting. The food is spice free and boiled or cooked. Also, no milk, curds, ghee, oil, or green or raw vegetables.
Chaththa - To give up both food and water or only food continuously for two days.
Aththama - To give up food and water or only food continuously for three whole days.
Aththai - To give up food and water or only food continuously for eight days.
Masaksamana - To give up food and water or only food continuously for a whole month.
Santhara - To give up food and water entirely as voluntary death
Navkarsi: Food and water is consumed forty-eight (48) minutes after sunrise. For the orthodox, brushing teeth and rinsing one’s mouth must be done after sunrise.
Porsi: Taking food and water three hours after sunrise.
Sadh-porsi: Taking food and water four hours and thirty minutes after sunrise.
Purimuddh: Taking food and water six hours after sunrise.
Avadhdh: Taking food and water eight hours after sunrise.
Tivihar: After sunset no food or juice shall be taken, but one may take only water until sunrise the next day. Many Jains follow this type of fasting on daily basis.
Navapad oli - During every year for 9 days starting from the 6/7th day in the bright fortnight until the full moon day in Ashwin and Chaitra months, one does Ayambil. This is repeated for the next four and half years. These ayambils can also be restricted to only one kind of food grain per day.
Other austerities are varshitap, Vardhaman, and visasthanak tap, etc.

Jain literature
The oldest Jain literature is in Shauraseni and Ardha-Magadhi Prakrit (Agamas, Agama-tulya, Siddhanta texts, etc). Many classical texts are in Sanskrit (Tatvartha Sutra, Puranas, Koshas, Shravakacharas, Mathematics, Nighantus etc). Later Jain literature was written in Apabhramsha (Kahas, rasas, grammars, etc), Hindi (Chhahdhala, Mokshamarga Prakashaka, etc), Tamil (Jivakacintamani, Kural, etc), Kannada (Vaddaradhane, etc.). See Jain literature for more details. Tatvarth Sutra, Padma Puran (Rama Charitra), JinPravachanRahasya-Kosh, Chhahdhala and Shravakachars such as Ratnakarandak Sharavakachar and ShravakDharmaPrakash are available for free download at http://www.AtmaDharma.com

Jain worship and rituals
Jains have built temples where images of their Tirthankaras are venerated. Jain rituals can be elaborate and include offerings of symbolic objects, with the Tirthankaras being praised in chant. In some Jain sects, temples and images are not required.

Every day Jains bow their heads and say their universal prayer, the Namaskara Sutra. All good work and events start with this prayer of salutation and worship.

Jain worship may or may not involve temples. The sadhumargi Shvetambar Jains such as The Terapanthi Jains do not believe in idol worship hence do not have temples.

Jain rituals include:

Pancha-kalyanaka Pratishtha
Pratikramana
Guru-vandan, Chaitya vandan etc.
The Jain rituals for marriage and other family rites are distinct and uniquely Indian, usually minor variants of those in orthodox Hinduism.

Digambar and Shvetambar traditions
It is generally believed that the Jain sangha became divided two major sects, Digambar and Shvetambar, about 200 years after the nirvana of Mahāvīr. Bhadrabahu, chief of the Jain monks, foresaw a period of famine and led about 12,000 people, to southern India. Twelve years later, they returned to find that the Svetambar sect had arisen. The followers of Bhadrabahu became known as the Digambar sect.

The Digambar monks do not wear any clothes because they believe clothes are like all other possessions thereby increasing desire to material things, which needs to be removed. The Svetambar monks wear white clothes because they believe there is nothing in Jain religious books to condemn the wearing of clothes. The different points of view are caused by different interpretations of similar holy books. The sadhvis (lady religious persons) of both sects wear white clothes. There are also minor differences in the enumeration and validity of each sect’s Agama (sacred) literature.

There are also many other differences between Digambar and Shvetambar traditions. The former believe that women cannot attain moksha,while Shvetambars believe that women can attain liberation.

Some historians believe that there was no clear division until the 5th century. The Valabhi council of 453 resulted in editing and compilation of scriptures of the Svetambar tradition.

Excavations at Mathura have revealed many Kushana period Jain idols. In all of them the Tirthankaras are represented without clothes. Some of them show monks with only one piece of cloth which is wrapped around the left arm. They are identified as belonging to the ardha-phalaka sect mentioned in some texts. The Yapaniaya sect is believed to have originated from the Ardha-phalakas. They followed Digambara practice of nudity, but held several beliefs like the Shvetambaras.

Both traditions are further subdivided into several sects, such as Sthanakvasi, Terapanth, Deravasi, and Bisapantha. Some of these can be divided into murtipujak (idol worshipper) and not murtipujak. In recent decades, attempts have been made to bring the sects together. In 1974, a new religious text Samana Suttam was compiled by a committee consisting of representatives of all the sects.

[edit] Geographical spread and influence

Jain temple in RanakpurIt has been advanced that the pervasive influence of Jain culture and philosophy in ancient Bihar gave rise to Buddhism.

The Buddhists always maintained that by the time Buddha and Mahavira were alive, Jainism was already an ancient and deeply entrenched faith and culture in the region. For a discussion about the connections between Jainism and Buddhism see Jainism and Buddhism.

At 4 to 5 million adherents, Jainism is among the smallest of the major world religions, but in India its influence is much more significant than the numbers would suggest. The Jains live throughout India; Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat have the largest Jain population among Indian states. Other states of India with relatively large Jain populations among its residents are Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh.

Jainism has a large following in the Indian region of Punjab, especially the town of Ludhiana and Patiala. There were many Jains in Lahore (Punjab’s historic capital) and other cities before the Partition of 1947. Many then fled to the Indian section of Punjab.

It is practiced by adherents in all the metropolitan cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai as well as Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Hyderabad.

There are 85 Jain communities in different parts of India and around the world. They speak local languages and sometimes follow different rituals. However they all follow essentially the same principles.

Outside of India, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania & Uganda) have large Jain communities. Smaller Jain communities exist in Nepal, Japan, Singapore, Australia etc. Jainism as a religion was at various times found all over South Asia including Sri Lanka and what are now Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Afghanistan.

Jain philosophy and culture have been a major cultural, philosophical, social and political force since the dawn of civilization in South Asia, and its ancient influence has been traced beyond the borders of modern India into the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean regions. Jainism is presently a growing faith in the United States as well, where several Jain temples have been built. American Jainism tends to accommodate all the sects in its institutions.

Over several thousand years, Jain influence on Hindu philosophy and religion have been considerable, while Hindu influence on Jain temple worship and rituals can be observed in certain Jain sects. For a detailed discussion see Jainism and Hinduism.

Jain contributions to Indian culture
While the Jains are only 0.4% of the Indian population, their contributions to culture and society in India have been considerable.

The Jains are among the wealthiest of the Indians. They are also among the most philanthropic, they run numerous schools, colleges and hospitals. They have been the most important patrons of the Somapuras, the traditional temple architects in Gujarat.

Jains have greatly influenced the cuisine of Gujarat. Gujarat is dominantly vegetarian, and its dishes all have pleasing and soothing aromas due to the lack of foods with pungent odors, such as onions and garlic.

According to the 2001 census, the Jains are the most literate community in India. India’s oldest libraries at Patan and Jaisalmer have been preserved by Jain institutions.

Literature The Jains have contributed writings in many of the India’s classical and popular languages.

In Kannada almost the entire early literature is of Jain origin.
Some of the oldest known books in Hindi and Gujarati were written by Jain scholars.
Several of the Tamil classics are written by Jain authors or have Jain beliefs and values as the core subject.
Practically all of the known texts of the Apabhramsha language are Jain works.

Jainism and Indian archaeology
Archaeological evidence such as various seals and other artifacts from the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3000–1500 BC) has been cited by some scholars as attesting to the faith’s roots in pre-Indo-Aryan migration India. (Refer to the discussion page as well as the ’specialized sources’, below.)

Decipherment of Brahmi by James Princep in 1788, permitted reading of ancient inscriptions in India, which established the antiquity of Jainism. Discovery of Jain manuscripts, a process that continues today, has added significantly to retracing the history of Jainism.

Jain archaeological findings are from Maurya, Sunga, Kushana, Rashtrakuta, Chalukya, and Rajput and later periods.

Several western and Indian scholars have contributed to the reconstruction of Jain history. They include western historians like Bühler, Jacobi, and Indian scholars like Iravatham Mahadevan who has worked on Tamil Brahmi inscriptions.

Holy sites

Palitana TirthaThere are many Jain tirthas (pilgrimage sites) throughout India.

Shikharji also know as Parasnathji located in Giridih district in the Jharkhand state is held to be the most sacred place of the Jains all over India. Parasnath Hill is about 4481 feet high. Parasnath Hill is Jerusalem to the Jains as, besides Mahavira, Twenty Tirthankaras had attained Nirvana at this hill.GoogleEarthLocation
Shravanabelagola, monumental statue of the Jain saint Gomateshwara in Hassan District, Karnataka.
Dilwara Temples, complex of white marble Jain temples on Mount Abu, Rajasthan.
Ranakpur Temples, extensive complex of white marble Jain temples in Ranakpur, Rajasthan.
Palitana, most visited Jain temple in Gujarat.
Bawangaja, a complex of Jain temples and monumental statues in Barwani District, Madhya Pradesh.
Gwalior’s fort is home to dozens of Jain rock-cut sculptures.
Bajrangarh, Atisaya-kshetra in Guna district in Madhya Pradesh, India
Kundalpur, Siddha-kshetra having 63 temples, famous for beautiful statue of Bade Baba in Damoh district in Madhya Pradesh, India
There is also one temple in the United States that is considered to be a pilgrimage place. Siddhachalam is located in New Jersey.

Jain temples in the West
UK
The Jain Centre in Leicester, England, the first Jain Temple consecrated in the western world
The Oshwal Centre in Potters Bar, England, the only traditional Jain Temple in Europe.
USA
The Hindu Jain Temple in Monroeville, Pennsylvania is the first combined Hindu Jain temple in the World.
The Jain Center of Greater Boston in Norwood, Massachusetts is the first Jain Center in North America.
The Jain Society of Metropolitan Chicago in Bartlett, Illinois
The Jain Center of Northern California in Milpitas, California
The Jain Center of America in Elmhurst, New York
The Jain Center of Greater Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia
The Jain Society of Greater Detroit in Farmington Hills, Michigan
The Jain Society of Metropolitan Washington in Silver Spring, Maryland
The Siddhachalam, International Mahavir Jain Mission in Blairstown, New Jersey
The Jain Center of Southern California in Buena Park, California
The Jain Society of Houston in Houston, Texas
Find more links at http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/jainsoc.html

Holy days
Paryushan Parva, 10/8 (Digambar/Shwetambar) day fasts, to observe, 10/8 important principles to follow.
Mahavir Jayanti, birthday of Lord Mahavir.
Diwali, day of attaining nirvana by Lord Mahavir.
Kshamavaani, The day of asking forgiveness from all.
Shawani Hirshnadi, The celebration of Hirsh’s triumph over the forces of evil.
The Jain Calendar gives the dates for major Jain festivals, vratas and fairs.

Jainism and other religions
South Asia has a rich history of diverse philosophies. Connections among these are discussed at:

Jainism and Hinduism
Jainism and Buddhism
Jainism and Sikhism
Even though Jainism is of Indian origin, it shared some principles with the Hellenic tradition, specially with Stoic and Pythagorean philosophies of Europe. A comparison with modern western religions can be found at:

Jainism and Christianity
Jainism and Judaism
Jainism and Islam

See also
Jainism Portal
List of Jains
Veganism
American Jainism
Jain community
Tamil Jains
Tulu Jains
Jainism in Delhi
Jainism in Gujarat
Jainism in Rajasthan
Jains of Maharashtra
Jainism in Mumbai
Jainism Portal at Wikipedia
Jains in India according to 2001 census

References
Introductory:

Jain, Duli C. (Editor), Studies In Jainism: Primer, Jain Study Circle, 1997.
Parik, Vastupal Jainism and the New Spirituality, Peace Publications, 2002.
Detailed Introduction:

Shah, Natubhai, Jainism : The World of Conquerors, Motilal Banarsidass, 2004.
Jaini, Padmanabh S., Jaina Path of Purification, Motilal Banarsidass, 2001.
Titze, Kurt, Jainism : A Pictorial Guide to the Religion of Non-Violence, Mohtilal Banarsidass, 1998.
Wiley, Kristi, Historical Dictionary of Jainism, Scarecrow Press, 2004.
Mishra, Mamta, Bharatiya Darshan, Kala Prakashan, Varanasi, 2000.
Lawrence A. Babb, Absent Lord, University of California Press, 1996.
Vallely, Anne, Guardians of the Transcendent, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. (Jain nuns)
Kelting, Whitney, Singing to the Jinas, New York: Oxford, 2001. (Jain laywomen)
The Assembly of Listeners, edited by Michael Carrithers and Caroline Humphrey, 5-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Specialized sources:

Mary Pat Fisher, Living Religions (5th Edition), 2003, p.130
Bhaskar, Bhagchandra Jain, Jainism in Buddhist Literature. Alok Prakashan: Nagpur, 1972.
Campbell, Joseph, Oriental Mythology, 1962.
Nakamura, Hajime, Gotama Buddha: A Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts. Kosei Publishing: Tokyo, 2000.
Ramachandran, T.N., Harrappa and Jainism 1987.
Subramaniyam, Ka Naa, Tiruvalluvar and his Tirukkural. Bharatiya Jnanpith: New Delhi 1987.
Thomas, Edward, Jainism, or the Early Faith of Asoka. Asian Educational Services: New Delhi, 1995 (reprint of the original by Trubner: London, 1877).
Cort, John, Jains in the World: Religious Values and Ideology in India’, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Jain Philosophy, Webb, Mark Owen
Vallely, Anne, Gaurdians of the Transcendent, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.
Kelting, Whitney, Singing to the Jinas, New York: Oxford, 2001.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Jainism”.

Samkhya, also Sankhya, (Sanskrit: सांख्य - Enumeration) is one of the schools of Indian philosophy. It is one of the six astika (that which recognizes vedic authority) systems of Hindu philosophy. It is regarded as the oldest of the orthodox philosophical systems in Hinduism, predating Buddhism of circa 500 BCE. Its philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two eternal realities: Purusha and Prakrti; it is therefore a strongly dualist and enumerationist philosophy. The Purusha is the center of consciousness, whereas the Prakriti is the source of all material existence.

The Sankhya school has deeply influenced the Hindu Yoga school of philosophy. They are sometimes referred togeather as Samkhya - yoga school. Sage Kapila is traditionally considered to be the founder of the Sankhya school, although no historical verification is possible. The definitive text of classical Sankhya is the extant Sankhya Karika, written by Ishvara Krishna, circa 200 CE.

Epistemology of Sankhya
According to the Sankhya school, knowledge is possible through three pramanas or proofs -

Pratyaksha - direct sense perception
Anumana - logical inference
Sabda - Verbal testimony

Metaphysics of Samkhya
Metaphysically, Samkhya maintains a radical duality between spirit/consciousness (Purusha) and matter (Prakrti). All physical events are considered to be manifestations of the evolution of Prakrti, or primal Nature (from which all physical bodies are derived). Each sentient being is a Purusha, and is limitless and unrestricted by its physical body. Samsaara or bondage arises when the Purusha does not have the discriminate knowledge and so is misled as to its own identity, confusing itself with the physical body - which is actually an evolute of Prakriti. The spirit is liberated when the discriminate knowledge of the difference between conscious Purusha and unconscious Prakriti is realized.

The most notable feature of Sankhya is its unique theory of Cosmic evolution (not connected with Darwin’s evolution). Sankhya theorizes that Prakriti is the source of the world of becoming. It is pure potentiality that evolves itself successively into twenty four tattvas or principles. The evolution itself is possible because Prakriti is always in a state of tension among its constituent strands -

Satva - a template of balance or equilibrium;
Rajas - a template of expansion or activity;
Tamas - a template of inertia or resistance to action.

All macrocosmic and microcosmic creation uses these templates. The twenty four principles that evolves are -

Prakriti - The most subtle potentiality that is behind whatever that is created in the physical universe.
Mahat - first product of evolution from Prakriti, pure potentiality. Mahat is also considered to be the principle responsible for the rise of buddhi or intelligence in living beings.
Ahamkara or ego-sense - second product of evolution. It is responsible for the self-sense in living beings.
Manas or instinctive mind - evolves from the satva aspect of ahamkara.
Panch jnana indriya or five sense organs - also evolves from the satva aspect of Ahamkara.
Panch karma indriya or five organs of action - The organs of action are hands, legs, vocal apparatus, urino-genital organ and anus. They too evolve from the satva aspect of Ahamkara
Panch tanmatras or five subtle elements - evolves from the Tamas aspect of Ahamkara. The subtle elements are the root energies of sound, touch, sight, taste and sound.
Panch mahabhuta or five great substances - ether, air, fire, water and earth. This is the revealed aspect of the physical universe.

The evolution of primal Nature is also considered to be purposeful - Prakrti evolves for the spirit in bondage. The spirit who is always free is only a witness to the evolution, even though due to the absence of discriminate knowledge, he misidentifies himself with it.

The evolution obeys causality relationships, with primal Nature itself being the material cause of all physical creation. The cause and effect theory of Sankhya is called Satkaarya-vaada (theory of existent causes), and holds that nothing can really be created from or destroyed into nothingness - all evolution is simply the transformation of primal Nature from one form to another.

The evolution of matter occurs when the relative strengths of the attributes changes. The evolution ceases when the spirit realises that it is distinct from primal Nature and thus cannot evolve. This destroys the purpose of evolution, thus stopping Prakrti from evolving for Purusha.

This was a dualistic philosophy. But there are differences between the Samkhya and Western forms of dualism. In the West, the fundamental distinction is between mind and body. In Samkhya, however, it is between the self (purusha) and matter, and the latter incorporates what Westerners would normally refer to as “mind”. This means that the Self as the Samkhya understands it is more transcendent than “mind”.

Samkhyan cosmology describes how life emerges in the universe; the relationship between Purusha and Prakriti is crucial to Patanjali’s yoga system. The evolution of forms at the basis of Samkhya is quite unique. The strands of Sankhyan thought can be traced back to the Vedic speculation of creation. It is also frequently mentioned in the Mahabharata and Yogavasishta.

Sankhya also has a strong cognitive theory built into it; curiously, while consciousness/spirit is considered to be radically different from any physical entities, the mind (manas), ego (ahamkara) and intellect (buddhi) are all considered to be manifestations of Prakrti (physical entity).

There is no philosophical place for a creator God in the Sankhya philosophy; indeed, the concept of God was incorporated into the Sankhya viewpoint only after it became associated with the theistic Yoga system of philosophy.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Samkhya”.

The Buddhist term Anātman (Sanskrit) or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective that specifies the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence; eg. “none of these khandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)”. What is normally thought of as the “Self” is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents (”skandhas”) which give rise to unhappiness if clung to as though this temporary assemblage formed some kind of immutable and enduring Soul (”atman”). The non-doctrinal commentarial “anatta” doctrine attempts to encourage the Buddhist practitioner to detach him/herself from this misplaced clinging to what is mistakenly regarded as his or her Self, and from such detachment (aided by moral living and meditation) the way to Nirvana is able successfully to be traversed. All occurrences of anatta in Sutra contextually appear as: “A is anatta (not-Self), B is anatta, etc.”

A variant understanding of the doctrine (as enunciated by the Buddha in the Mahayana “Tathagatagarbha” scriptures) insists that the five “skandhas” (impermanent constituent elements of the mundane body and mind of each being) are indeed “not the Self” (”anatta”/”anatman”), since they are doomed to mutation and dissolution, but that in contrast to this ephemeral “mundane self”, the eternal Buddha-Principle (”Buddha-dhatu”) deep within each being is the supramundane True Self - although this realisation is only fully gained on reaching Awakening (”bodhi”).

Anatta is one of the Three Seals of Buddhist doctrines and is an important element of wisdom through the apophatic technique used to experience Nirvana, the other two being Dukkha and Anicca.

Summary
Buddhist teaching tells us that all in life is impermanent and in a constant state of flux, and that any entity that exists does so only in dependence on the conditions of its arising, which are non-eternal. Therefore, any sense one might have of an abiding self or a soul is regarded as a misapprehension.

Buddhists hold that the notion of an abiding self is one of the main causes of human conflict, and that by realizing the nonexistence of our perceived self, ‘we’ may go beyond ‘our’ mundane desires. (Reference to ‘oneself’ or ‘I’ or ‘me’ for Buddhists is used merely conventionally.)

The Buddha in many later sutras, provided no confirmation the existence of a self or Atman a concept that was claimed central to many philosophers of his time, however in the oldest texts that exist in Buddhism, the Nikayas, the Buddha did at length affirm to his disciples (aryasavaka) that the “Soul was the only refuge, was the light within” [DN 2.100], and said the “Soul was that which was most beloved” (atta’ paramo piya). Rather than directing his listeners to discover Atman, he taught that all clinging to concepts and ideas of a self are faulty and based on ignorance. The Buddha’s teaching was apophatic and was not aimed at any concept of self created by birth, imagination, speculation, metaphysical study or through self-ideation. The five aggregates of form, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications and consciousness were described as especially misleading, since they form the basis for an individual’s clinging or aversion. He taught that once a monk renounces his clinging for all the five aggregates, through meditative insight, he realizes the bliss of non-clinging, and abides in wisdom. The Buddha clearly stated that all five aggregates are impermanent, just as the burning flame is inconstant in one sense, and that knowledge or wisdom is all that remains, just as the only thing constant about a flame is its fuel, or purpose.

Controversially, there has been and continues to be a minority of Mahayana Buddhists who understand the Buddhist doctrine of “non-Self” (”anatta”/”anatman”) as relating solely to the ephemeral elements (the five “skandhas”) of the being and not to the hidden and undying “Buddha-Principle” (”Buddha-nature”) taught by the Mahayana Buddha to exist within the deeps of each person’s mind (see section on “Anatman and the Tathagatagarbha Sutras” below).

Presecular position on anatta as presented in the Nikayas
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to some popular books written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as other than the Soul, to be anatta.

Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from the macrocosmic, to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body or the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.”

Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism.

The Pali term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where when Gotama was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”, equated this question to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), nearly so the most common utterance of Gotama Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutra, to hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).

Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated through the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he “saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature”. Teaching the subject of anatta in sutra pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’” [MN 1.232]

The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”

The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value; it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact compliments it.

What has Buddhism to say of the Self? “That’s not my Self” (na me so atta); this, and the term “non Self-ishness” (anatta) predicated of the world and all “things” (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical “of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul”, (anatma hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.).

It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta’) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula ‘na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul.

Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism, anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending” Further investigation into Negative theology is the source which should be referenced in further understanding the methodology which the term anatta illuminates.

Due to secular propagation, a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as status quo, however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism’s denial of soul, or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)”. The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169.

In fact the phrase “Doctrine of anatta”, or “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. As the saying goes, a “lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth”. Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a “Doctrine of anatta” as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is “subject to arising and passing”, and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is “my Self, is That which I am”, is “not my Soul”, of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.

The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436]

The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is “beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts” thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only thru “the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not”- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis.

Interpretive problems
Students of Buddhism often encounter an intellectual quandary with the teaching in that the concept of anatta and the doctrine of rebirth seem to be mutually exclusive. If there is no-self, no abiding essence of the person, it is unclear what it is that is reborn. The Buddha discussed this in a conversation with a Brahmin named Kutadanta.

There have been a number of attempts by various schools of Buddhism to make explicit how it is that rebirth occurs. The more orthodox schools claim that certain of the dispositions or psychological constituents have repercussions that extend beyond an individual life to the next. More innovative solutions include the introduction of a Pudgala, a “person”, which functions comparably to the ātman in the rebirth process and in karmic agency, but is regarded by its advocates as not falling prey to the metaphysical substantialism of the ātman.

Others seek a proxy not for the ātman but for Brahman, the Indian monistic ideal that functions as an ātman for the whole of creation, and is in itself thus rejected by anatta. Such a solution is the Consciousness-only teaching of the Yogacara school attempt to explain the seeming paradox: at death the body & mind disintegrates, but if the disintegrating mind contains any remaining traces of karma, it will cause the continuity of the consciousness to bounce back an arising mind to an awaiting being (i.e. a fetus developing the ability to harbor consciousness).

Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how “I” can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how “I” can be the “same” person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago.

A further difficulty with the anatta doctrine is that it contradicts the notion of a path of practise. Anatta followed to its logical extremities rejects the reality of a Buddhist practitioner able to detach him/herself from clinging.

Anatman (anatta) in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras
The understanding of “non-Self” (”anatta”/”anatman”) in the Mahayana scriptures known as the “Tathagatagarbha” sutras is distinctive and remarkable: the doctrine presented by the Buddha in these texts claims to clarify that it is only the impermanent elements of the sentient being - the “five skandhas” (constituent elements of mind and body) - which are “not the Self” (”anatman”), whereas the truly real, immanent essence (”svabhava”) of the being is no less than the Buddha or the Buddha-Principle (”Buddha-dhatu” - “Buddha-Principle” or “Buddha-nature”), and is inviolate and deathless. In the “Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra”, this immortal Buddhic element within the being is termed the “True Self”. It is unaffected by rebirth and always remains intrinsically immaculate and uniquely radiant, only awaiting discovery from within the depths of the contaminated mundane mind of each being. In the “Tathagatagarbha Sutra” the Buddha tells of how, with his Buddha-eye, he can actually see this hidden Buddhic “jewel” within each and every being: “hidden within the klesas [mental contaminants] of greed, desire, anger, and stupidity there is seated augustly and unmovingly the tathagata’s [Buddha’s] wisdom, the tathagata’s vision, and the tathagata’s body. … all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of klesas, have a tathagatagarbha [Buddhic essence, embryonic Buddha] that is eternally unsullied, and that is replete with virtues no different from my own” (Lopez, 1995, p.96). Thus the “non-Self” doctrine receives a controversial presentation in the Tathagatagarbha sutras as merely partial truth rather than as absolute verity.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Anatta”.

The Buddhist term Anātman (Sanskrit) or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective that specifies the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence; eg. “none of these khandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)”. What is normally thought of as the “Self” is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents (”skandhas”) which give rise to unhappiness if clung to as though this temporary assemblage formed some kind of immutable and enduring Soul (”atman”). The non-doctrinal commentarial “anatta” doctrine attempts to encourage the Buddhist practitioner to detach him/herself from this misplaced clinging to what is mistakenly regarded as his or her Self, and from such detachment (aided by moral living and meditation) the way to Nirvana is able successfully to be traversed. All occurrences of anatta in Sutra contextually appear as: “A is anatta (not-Self), B is anatta, etc.”

A variant understanding of the doctrine (as enunciated by the Buddha in the Mahayana “Tathagatagarbha” scriptures) insists that the five “skandhas” (impermanent constituent elements of the mundane body and mind of each being) are indeed “not the Self” (”anatta”/”anatman”), since they are doomed to mutation and dissolution, but that in contrast to this ephemeral “mundane self”, the eternal Buddha-Principle (”Buddha-dhatu”) deep within each being is the supramundane True Self - although this realisation is only fully gained on reaching Awakening (”bodhi”).

Anatta is one of the Three Seals of Buddhist doctrines and is an important element of wisdom through the apophatic technique used to experience Nirvana, the other two being Dukkha and Anicca.

Summary
Buddhist teaching tells us that all in life is impermanent and in a constant state of flux, and that any entity that exists does so only in dependence on the conditions of its arising, which are non-eternal. Therefore, any sense one might have of an abiding self or a soul is regarded as a misapprehension.

Buddhists hold that the notion of an abiding self is one of the main causes of human conflict, and that by realizing the nonexistence of our perceived self, ‘we’ may go beyond ‘our’ mundane desires. (Reference to ‘oneself’ or ‘I’ or ‘me’ for Buddhists is used merely conventionally.)

The Buddha in many later sutras, provided no confirmation the existence of a self or Atman a concept that was claimed central to many philosophers of his time, however in the oldest texts that exist in Buddhism, the Nikayas, the Buddha did at length affirm to his disciples (aryasavaka) that the “Soul was the only refuge, was the light within” [DN 2.100], and said the “Soul was that which was most beloved” (atta’ paramo piya). Rather than directing his listeners to discover Atman, he taught that all clinging to concepts and ideas of a self are faulty and based on ignorance. The Buddha’s teaching was apophatic and was not aimed at any concept of self created by birth, imagination, speculation, metaphysical study or through self-ideation. The five aggregates of form, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications and consciousness were described as especially misleading, since they form the basis for an individual’s clinging or aversion. He taught that once a monk renounces his clinging for all the five aggregates, through meditative insight, he realizes the bliss of non-clinging, and abides in wisdom. The Buddha clearly stated that all five aggregates are impermanent, just as the burning flame is inconstant in one sense, and that knowledge or wisdom is all that remains, just as the only thing constant about a flame is its fuel, or purpose.

Controversially, there has been and continues to be a minority of Mahayana Buddhists who understand the Buddhist doctrine of “non-Self” (”anatta”/”anatman”) as relating solely to the ephemeral elements (the five “skandhas”) of the being and not to the hidden and undying “Buddha-Principle” (”Buddha-nature”) taught by the Mahayana Buddha to exist within the deeps of each person’s mind (see section on “Anatman and the Tathagatagarbha Sutras” below).

Presecular position on anatta as presented in the Nikayas
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to some popular books written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as other than the Soul, to be anatta.

Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from the macrocosmic, to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body or the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.”

Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism.

The Pali term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where when Gotama was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”, equated this question to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), nearly so the most common utterance of Gotama Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutra, to hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).

Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated through the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he “saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature”. Teaching the subject of anatta in sutra pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’” [MN 1.232]

The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”

The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value; it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact compliments it.

What has Buddhism to say of the Self? “That’s not my Self” (na me so atta); this, and the term “non Self-ishness” (anatta) predicated of the world and all “things” (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical “of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul”, (anatma hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.).

It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta’) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula ‘na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul.

Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism, anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending” Further investigation into Negative theology is the source which should be referenced in further understanding the methodology which the term anatta illuminates.

Due to secular propagation, a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as status quo, however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism’s denial of soul, or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)”. The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169.

In fact the phrase “Doctrine of anatta”, or “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. As the saying goes, a “lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth”. Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a “Doctrine of anatta” as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is “subject to arising and passing”, and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is “my Self, is That which I am”, is “not my Soul”, of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.

The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436]

The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is “beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts” thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only thru “the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not”- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis.

Interpretive problems
Students of Buddhism often encounter an intellectual quandary with the teaching in that the concept of anatta and the doctrine of rebirth seem to be mutually exclusive. If there is no-self, no abiding essence of the person, it is unclear what it is that is reborn. The Buddha discussed this in a conversation with a Brahmin named Kutadanta.

There have been a number of attempts by various schools of Buddhism to make explicit how it is that rebirth occurs. The more orthodox schools claim that certain of the dispositions or psychological constituents have repercussions that extend beyond an individual life to the next. More innovative solutions include the introduction of a Pudgala, a “person”, which functions comparably to the ātman in the rebirth process and in karmic agency, but is regarded by its advocates as not falling prey to the metaphysical substantialism of the ātman.

Others seek a proxy not for the ātman but for Brahman, the Indian monistic ideal that functions as an ātman for the whole of creation, and is in itself thus rejected by anatta. Such a solution is the Consciousness-only teaching of the Yogacara school attempt to explain the seeming paradox: at death the body & mind disintegrates, but if the disintegrating mind contains any remaining traces of karma, it will cause the continuity of the consciousness to bounce back an arising mind to an awaiting being (i.e. a fetus developing the ability to harbor consciousness).

Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how “I” can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how “I” can be the “same” person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago.

A further difficulty with the anatta doctrine is that it contradicts the notion of a path of practise. Anatta followed to its logical extremities rejects the reality of a Buddhist practitioner able to detach him/herself from clinging.

Anatman (anatta) in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras
The understanding of “non-Self” (”anatta”/”anatman”) in the Mahayana scriptures known as the “Tathagatagarbha” sutras is distinctive and remarkable: the doctrine presented by the Buddha in these texts claims to clarify that it is only the impermanent elements of the sentient being - the “five skandhas” (constituent elements of mind and body) - which are “not the Self” (”anatman”), whereas the truly real, immanent essence (”svabhava”) of the being is no less than the Buddha or the Buddha-Principle (”Buddha-dhatu” - “Buddha-Principle” or “Buddha-nature”), and is inviolate and deathless. In the “Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra”, this immortal Buddhic element within the being is termed the “True Self”. It is unaffected by rebirth and always remains intrinsically immaculate and uniquely radiant, only awaiting discovery from within the depths of the contaminated mundane mind of each being. In the “Tathagatagarbha Sutra” the Buddha tells of how, with his Buddha-eye, he can actually see this hidden Buddhic “jewel” within each and every being: “hidden within the klesas [mental contaminants] of greed, desire, anger, and stupidity there is seated augustly and unmovingly the tathagata’s [Buddha’s] wisdom, the tathagata’s vision, and the tathagata’s body. … all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of klesas, have a tathagatagarbha [Buddhic essence, embryonic Buddha] that is eternally unsullied, and that is replete with virtues no different from my own” (Lopez, 1995, p.96). Thus the “non-Self” doctrine receives a controversial presentation in the Tathagatagarbha sutras as merely partial truth rather than as absolute verity.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Anatta”.

Although I have this article on my site, my personal practice is Devotional Nonduality (Dr. David R. Hawkins. MD, PhD).

Nondualism is the belief that dualism or dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Examples of dualisms include self/other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive, and many others. A nondual philosophical or religious perspective or theory maintains that there is no fundamental distinction between mind and matter, or that the entire phenomenological world is an illusion (with the reality being described variously as the Void, the Is, Emptiness, or the Nondualism).

Many traditions (generally originating in Asia) state that the true nature of reality is non-dualistic, and that these dichotomies are either unreal or (at best) inaccurate conveniences. While attitudes towards the experience of duality and self may vary, nondual traditions converge on the view that experience does not imply an “I”.

In Western philosophy, nondual views are often called monism. Many postmodern theories also assume that the dichotomies traditionally used are invalid or inaccurate. For example, one typical form of deconstruction is the critique of binary oppositions within a text while problematization questions the context or situation in which common myths such as dualisms occur. Nondualistic beliefs also include monism and pluralism.

Terminology
The term “nondual” is a literal translation of the Sanskrit term advaita.

In the context of postmodern feminism and Tibetan Buddhism, Anne Carolyn Klein (1995, p.151), defines “dualism” as “an opposition that presumes a differance or tension that goes beyond taking account of qualities unique to logically related categories, for example, subject and object, sacred and profane, or enlightened or unenlightened.” She defines cognitive, ontological, and evolutionary nondualism. Simultaneous perception of self and other or joining of subject and object, simultaneous perception of one’s conditioned and unconditioned aspects, and one’s potential or inherent enlightenment, respectively.

Nondual realization
To the Nondualist, reality is ultimately neither physical nor mental. Instead, it is an ineffable state or realization. This ultimate thing can be called “Spirit” (Aurobindo), “Brahman” (Shankara), “God”, “The One”, “The All” (Plotinus), “The Self” (Ramana Maharshi), “The Absolute” (Schelling) or simply “The Nondual” (Bradley). Ram Dass calls it the “third plane”—any phrase will be insufficient, he maintains, so any phrase will do.

It should be pointed out that, technically, there can be no such thing as a nondual perspective or theory or experience, only a realization of Oneness or nonduality. One cannot accurately claim to experience nonduality, because the concept of experience depends on the subject-object distinction, which is a duality. The subject experiences an object, which is something separate from the subject. This is incompatible with a truly nondual realization. Thus, technically, there cannot truly be an accurate verbal account of this union, only words that insufficiently point to the realization.

Nondual religious and spiritual traditions

Zen
Zen, either in isolation or as a spiritual belief (Zen Buddhism), is a tradition or philosophy which is non-dual. It can be considered a religion, a philosophy, or simply a practice depending on one’s perspective. It has also been described as a way of life, work, and an art form.

Buddhism
In the Buddhist canon, the Diamond Sutra presents an accessible nondual view of “self” and “beings”, while the Heart Sutra asserts shunyata — the “emptiness” of all “things”. The fullest philosophical exposition is the Madhyamaka; by contrast many laconic pronouncements are delivered as koans. Advanced views and practices are found in the Mahamudra and Maha Ati, which emphasize the vividness and spaciousness of nondual awareness.

Not Two, Not One
Mahayana Buddhism, in particular, tempers the view of nonduality (wisdom) with respect for the experience of duality (compassion) — ordinary dualistic experience, populated with selves and others (sentient beings), is tended with care, always “now”. This approach is itself regarded as a means to disperse the confusions of duality (i.e. as a path). In Theravada, that respect is expressed cautiously as non-harming, while in the Vajrayana, it is expressed boldly as enjoyment (especially in tantra).

Dzogchen
Dzogchen is a relatively esoteric (to date) tradition concerned with the “natural state”, and emphasizing direct experience. This tradition is found in the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, where it is classified as the highest of this lineage’s nine yanas, or vehicles of practice. Similar teachings are also found in the non-Buddhist Bön tradition. In Dzogchen, the primordial state, the state of nondual awareness, is called rigpa.

Advaita
Advaita (Sanskrit a, not; dvaita, dual) is a nondual tradition from India, with Advaita Vedanta as its philosophical arm. The theory was first consolidated by Sri Adi Shankaracharya in the 8th century AD. Adherents to this theory of the nature of the soul (Brahman) are known as Smarthas.

According to Ramana Maharshi, the jnani (one who has realised the Self) sees no individual ego, and does not regard himself (or anyone else) as a “doer” of actions. The state of recognition is called jnana which means “knowledge” or “wisdom” referring to the idea that in this state of being, one is constantly aware of the Self. Bob Adamson (Melbourne, Australia), once a student of Nisargadatta Maharaj, who belonged to the Navanath Sampradaya lineage, says that a ‘Jnani’ is the ‘knowing presence’ which abides with all (of us) yet this knowing is seemingly covered over by identification with the ‘minds content’. However, teachers like Adamson point to the fact that the content of the mind is known, recognized by a prescence or awareness that is independent of the mind’s content. Adamson teaches that we form an identity based on the content of the mind (feelings, sensations, hopes, dreams, thoughts), however our true identity or nature is that which observes all of these things - the seer, the witness or the Self.

Taoism
Taoism’s wu wei (Chinese wu, not; wei, doing) is a term with various translations (e.g. inaction, non-action, nothing doing, without ado) and interpretations designed to distinguish it from passivity. From a nondual perspective, it refers to activity that does not imply an “I”.

Sufism
Sufism (Arabic تصوف taṣawwuf) is a mystic tradition of Islam based on the pursuit of spiritual truth as it is gradually revealed to the heart and mind of the Sufi (one who practices Sufism).

The central doctrine of Sufism, sometimes called Wahdat al-Wujud or Unity of Being, is the Sufi understanding of Tawhid. Put very simply, Tawhid states that all phenomena are manifestations of a single reality, or Wujud (being), which is indeed al-Haq (Truth, God). The essence of being/Truth/God is devoid of every form and quality, and hence unmanifest, yet it is inseparable from every form and phenomenon either material or spiritual. It is often understood to imply that every phenomenon is an aspect of Truth and at the same time attribution of existence to it is false. The chief aim of all Sufis then is to let go of all notions of duality (and therefore of the individual self also), and realize the divine unity which is considered to be the truth.

Individuals subscribing to a non-dual view of reality

Ancient Western philosophers
Plotinus

Medieval Western philosphers
Hildegard of Bingen
Mechteld of Magdeburg
Meister Eckhart
John of the Cross
Teresa of Avila

Modern Western philosophers
Baruch Spinoza
F. H. Bradley
Ken Wilber
David R Hawkins

Asian philosophers and spiritual leaders
Nagarjuna
Shankaracharya
Aurobindo
Ramana Maharshi
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Ramesh Balsekar
Mahatma Gandhi
Lao Tzu
Gaudapada
Uddalaka Aruni
Yajnavalkya
Bhartrhari

Authors
Richard Bach
Kahlil Gibran

Musicians
Stuart Davis

See also
Advaita
shunyata
Diamond Sutra
Heart Sutra
Hinayana
A Course in Miracles
Enlightenment
Taoism
Eckhart Tolle
Nirvikalpa

External links
Dzogchen Practice in Everyday Life by HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Rigpa, Non-dual Awareness
Sentient.org
Ramesh Baleskar’s website
Dhamma and Non-duality by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Western approachs to nonduality:

A Course in Consciousness
Tony Parsons - Welcome to The Open Secret
Nathan Gill
Sailor Bob Adamson
The Atma Institute, CA
greaterreality.com (contains a mixture of nondual, science and new age)

Source
Klein, Anne Carolyn (1995). Meeting the Great Bliss Queen: Buddhists, Feminists, and the Art of the Self. Boston, Beacon Press. ISBN 0807073067.

References
Baleskar, Ramesh (1999). Who cares?
Castaneda, Carlos (1987). The Power of Silence. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-671-50067-8.
Godman, David (Ed.) (1985). Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. London: Arkana. ISBN 0-14-019062-7.
HH The Dalai Lama (2000). Dzogchen: The Heart Essence of the Great Perfection. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. ISBN 1-55939-157-X.
Kongtrül, Jamgön (1992). Cloudless Sky: The Mahamudra Path of The Tibetan Buddhist Kagyü School. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 0-87773-694-4.
Norbu, Namkhai (1993). The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen. London: Arkana. ISBN 0-14-019314-6.
Trungpa, Chögyam (1987). Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 0-87773-050-4.
Watson, Burton (Trans.) (1968). The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-03147-5.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Nondualism”.

The Buddha-Dharma is the realization within one’s deepest consciousness of the Oneness of all life. For the attainment of this purpose, Buddha taught the Eightfold Path.

1. Right Views means to keep ourselves free from prejudice, superstition and delusion… and to see aright the true nature of life.

2. Right Thoughts means to turn away from the hypocrisies of this world and to direct our minds toward Truth and Positive Attitudes and Action.

3. Right Speech means to refrain from pointless and harmful talk… to speak kindly and courteously to all.

4. Right Conduct means to see that our deeds are peaceable, benevolent, compassionate and pure… and to live the Teachings daily.

5. Right Livelihood means to earn our living in such a way as to entail no evil consequences. To seek that employment to which can give our complete enthusiasm and devotion.

6. Right Effort means to direct our efforts continually to the overcoming of ignorance and craving desires.

7. Right Mindfulness means to cherish good and pure thoughts, for all that we say and do arises from our thoughts.

8. Right Meditation means to concentrate on the Oneness of all life and the Buddhahood that exists within all beings.

In keeping with the language of Nonduality, one can substitute “Integrous” for “Right.” Myswizard

Dogen (1200-1253)

There is a simple way to become a buddha When you refrain from unwholesome actions, are not attached to birth and death, and are compassionate to all sentient beings…not excluding or desiring anything…you will be called a buddha. Do not seek anything else. (from Moon in a Dewdrop edited by Kazuaki Tanahashi)
So wrote Eihei Dogen, one of Zen Buddhism’s most prominent figures.

He was born in 1200 near Kyoto which was, at that time, the capital of Japan. When he was fourteen he was formally ordained as a monk and entered a monastery at the foot of Mt Hiei to begin his training. In 1217 he moved to Kennin Monastery - also in Kyoto - and studied there until 1223. He then accompanied his abbot, Myozen, to China. The purpose of this journey was to engage more fully with Ch’an Buddhism, the Chinese precursor of Japanese Zen.

Dropping Away Body and Mind

His experience of the Chinese monasteries was ultimately disappointing. He felt that the practice of koans, for example, which was a key feature of many of these monasteries, was narrow and limiting. After two years, he contemplated returning to Japan. But a crucial meeting with a renowned priest, Rujung, changed his mind. Rujung taught that practice was all about ‘dropping away body and mind’ and emphasized sitting meditation, rather than, koans, chanting or rituals.

Having studied under Rujung, in 1227 Dogen returned to Japan and began to expound his new understanding through his writing. Indeed, Dogen was a prolific writer and his writings are available in translation. In 1233 he also opened Kannondori Temple in Fukakusa and appointed Ejo has head monk. In 1243 the monastery was relocated to Echizen Province northeast of Kyoto and was renamed Daibutsu Monastery and subsequently, in 1246, renamed again as Eihei-Ji Monastery.

In 1252, however, Dogen became ill and in 1253 he died in Kyoto.

More on Dogen
Great Awakenings

Dogen’s teaching, as expounded through his writing, encourages the practice of a type of meditation known as zazen or ‘just-sitting’. He explains, ‘Zazen is not thinking of good, not thinking of bad. It is not conscious endeavor….Do not desire to become a buddha’.

In ‘Eight Awakenings of Great Beings’ Dogen focuses on the practices that lead to Nirvana. These are 1. to have few desires 2. knowing how much is enough 3. serenity (to be found in seclusion) 4. diligent effort 5. mindfulness 6. practicing meditation 7. cultivating wisdom 8. avoiding ‘hollow’ discussions. He wrote: ‘We can learn and practice these awakenings because of the merit of our wholesome conditions from the past. By practicing and nurturing these awakenings you can certainly arrive at unsurpassable enlightenment’.(from Enlightenment Unfolds edited by Kazuaki Tanahashi)

DOGEN ZENJI

After training for nine years under the Rinzai teacher Myozen, Dogen Zenji made the difficult journey to China, where he studied with and became the Dharma successor (14th Patriarch in lineage to Dong Shan Liang Chieh (Tozan)); 24th in lineage in Transmission of the Light to Master Tendo Nyojo (Ju-Ching, 13th Patriarch) in the Soto Zen lineage. Considered the founder of the Japanese Soto School, Dogen Zenji established Eiheiji, the principal Soto training monastery, and is best known for his collection of Dharma essays, Shobogenzo.

Dogen was the founder of the Soto (T’sao Dong Ch’an) Lineage of Buddhism in Japan. He came from a noble family, but his life was unhappy and difficult, because his parents died when he was a very young boy. Their deaths lead him to contemplate the impermanence of life, and at the age of thirteen, he became a Buddhist monk.

Dogen didn’t realize the truth of Zen for a long time. The difficulty of Zen meditation is not the training, but the letting go of preconceived ideas. The experience of the true self is a state of awareness that cannot be defined; words cannot express living reality. In the experience of the true self, there is no “I” no reference point whatsoever.

Dogen was troubled by one particular question: if all human beings are born with Buddha Nature, why is it so difficult to realize it? Dogen finally studied with Eisai, a Rinzai master, who told him it was a delusion to think in such dualistic terms as Buddha. With this answer Dogen experienced Satori. Eisai lived for a few more months; Dogen became his disciple and stayed with him. After Eisai’s death, Dogen remained with Myozen, Eisai’s successor, for eight years, and received the seal of a master.

Despite his profound insights, Dogen felt he didn’t have complete understanding, and therefore, went with Myozen to China to study more. He practiced Chinese Zen (Ch’an) with Master Ju-Ching in China, but mistakenly sat in a quietest way, which merely lead to notional emptiness condemned by H.H. The Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng. One day Master Ju-Ching was scolding another monk for sleeping, and said, “The practice of Zazen (Sitting Meditation) is the dropping away of body and mind. What do you think dozing will accomplish?” Upon hearing these words, Dogen became fully Enlightened. He suddenly understood that Zazen is not just sitting still, but it is the “I” opening up to its own Reality. When preconceived ideas are abandoned, one experience the true nature of mind; life is experienced directly, non-dualistically, without ego interfering. He made the following comments about his experience:

“Mind and body dropped off; dropped off mind and body! This state should be experienced by everyone; it is like piling fruit into a basket without a bottom, like pouring water into a bowl with a pierced hole; however much you may pile or pour you cannot fill it up. When this is realized the pail bottom is broken through. But while there is still a trace of conceptualism which makes you say ‘I have this understanding’ or ‘I have that realization’, you are still playing with unrealities.”

Four years later, when Dogen returned to Japan, he said, “I have come back empty-handed. I have realized only that the eyes are horizontal and the nose is vertical.” From this empty clarity came the great Soto sect of Japan. Dogen taught a way of sitting called Shikantaza, “shikan” means nothing but, “ta” means to hit, “za” means to sit. Shikantaza has remained the basis of Soto Zen up to the present; it unites the means can end of sitting meditation. There is no means to an end, because the end is now. The act of sitting itself is the actualization of Buddha Nature or Being. The meditation does not strive for Satori, but has faith on the teacher and teachings, and trusts that realization will come as a result of sitting practice. Dogen gave the following meditation instructions:

In doing Zazen it is desirable to have a quiet room. You should be temperate in eating and drinking, forsaking all delusive relationships. Setting everything aside, think of neither good nor evil, right nor wrong. Thus, having stopped the various functions of your mind, give up even the idea of becoming a Buddha. This holds true not only for zazen but for all your daily actions.

Usually a thick square mat is put on the floor where you sit and a round cushion on top of that. You may sit in either the full or half lotus position. In the former first put your right foot on your left thigh and then your left foot on your right thigh. In the latter, only put your left foot on your right thigh. Your clothing should be worn loosely but neatly. Nest, put your right hand on your left foot and your left palm on the right palm, the tips of the thumbs lightly touching. Sit upright, leaning to neither left nor right, front nor back. Your ears should be on the same plane your shoulders and your nose in line with your navel. Your tongue should be placed against the roof of your mouth and your lips and teeth closed firmly. With your eyes kept continuously open, breathe quietly through your nostrils. Finally, having regulated your body and mind in this way, take a deep breath, sway your body to left and right, then sit firmly as a rock. Think of non-thinking. How is this done? By thinking beyond non-thinking and thinking. This is the very basis of Zazen.

Zazen is not a ’step-by-step’ meditation. Rather it is simply the easy and pleasant practice of a Buddha, the realization of the Buddha’s wisdom. The truth appears, there being no delusion. If you understand this you are completely free, supreme law will then appear of itself, and you will be free of weariness and confusion. At the completion of Zazen move your body slowly and stand up calmly. Do not move violently.”

In this meditation posture, the full lotus position provides a wide, solid physical base; both knees touch the mat to provide body stability. The rock-like, immobile body posture calms down the mind and brings tranquillity. Meditators are given a breathing technique to focus the mind. Beginners count the inbreaths and outbreaths, the count goes from one to ten, and then starts all over again. In this technique, the mind has nothing to feed on, play with, analyze, or hold on to. Thoughts will naturally come and go, and Dogen’s advice was to place each thought in the palm of your hand. In the more advanced Shikantaza, the counting of breaths is left behind, and the tamed mind abides in effortless concentrated awareness. The awareness is the unmoving center of all movement: “Abandoning thinking and doing, is nothing other than every form of doing and acting,” Dogen said.

Dogen’s Soto school taught that sitting in Zazen was entering the flow of each moment by dropping from the mind the concepts of past, present, and future. Life is one and its flow of movements and events should not be held to or dominated to create illusions of permanence. All moments and all actions, whether they are important, insignificant, fascinating, or boring. — are seen as the actual realization of Buddhahood. The Soto school’s Shikantaza helps one realize this moment now. In the Shobogenzo, Dogen said that it was useless to fix one’s hopes on a goal.

“When a fish swims, it swims on and on, and there is no end to the water. When a bird flies, it flies on and on, and there is no end to the sky. There was never a fish that swam out of the water or a bird that flew out of the sky. When they need just a little water or sky, they use just a little; when they need a lot, they use a lot. Thus, they use all of it in every moment, and in every place they have perfect freedom.

Yet if there were a bird that first wanted to examine the size of the sky, or a fish that first wanted to examine the extent of the water, and then tried to fly or swim, it would never find its way. When we find where we are at this moment, then practice follows, and this is the realization of the truth. For the place, the way, is neither large nor small, neither self nor other. It has never existed before, and it is not coming into existence now. It simply is as it is.”

Dogen’s Reflecting Pool
Explaining the path to Enlightenment is the mission of every Buddhist teacher since the time of the historical Buddha. From the San-lun school, to the teaching of Dogen Zenji, great thinkers attempt to relate their understanding of the Two-fold Truth and illuminate the most efficient path to Enlightenment. Dogen, the eminent Soto Zen philosopher, takes the general understanding of the twofold truth:
The existence of a discursive, dual world of form.

A world of non-dual emptiness and sheds new light on the relationship between form and emptiness. He proposes that emptiness is manifested through the acceptance of distinctions and the discursive world. For Dogen, distinctions illuminate the fundamental emptiness. When one understands that one lives in a discursive world, then one can feel the basic emptiness. Awakening to the realization that the ultimate underlies and encompasses everything–being and non-being, delusion and Enlightenment–allows one to truly see the distinctions and to accept reality as it is. Once this understanding is reached, one experiences the compassion that flows from the pervasive emptiness. The following passage from Dogen’s “Genjokoan” fascicle of his major work, the Shobogenzo, expresses this understanding in a succinct manner:

When all dharmas are the Buddha Dharma, there is illusion and Enlightenment, practice, birth, death, buddhas, and sentient beings. When myriad dharmas are without self, there is no illusion or Enlightenment, no buddhas or sentient beings, no generation or extinction. The Buddha Way is originally beyond fullness and lack and for this reason there is generation and extinction, illusion and Enlightenment, sentient beings and buddhas. In spite of this, flowers fall always amid our grudging, and weeds flourish in our chagrin.1
The traditional Mahayana belief of the twofold truth, one that Dogen does not refute but uses as a stepping stone into his theory, states that there exists a world of form AND a world of emptiness.2 The world of form is based on discursive, dualistic thinking that explains conventional truth and understanding. The world of emptiness contains the highest truth, the belief in interdependence and no fixed reality, based in non-dual awareness and thinking. Ultimately, the world of form is empty. Residing in non-dual awareness, one realizes that all form is constantly changing. Since all things have this impermanent characteristic, then everything possesses the same essence and is one.3 This understanding places a follower in the world of emptiness and highest reality. In this realization, “all dharmas are without self, there is no illusion or Enlightenment, no buddhas or sentient being, no generation or extinction.” 4 All form is the same and empty, with no fixed reality.

Often one becomes attached to form and cannot realize the ultimate reality of emptiness. One loathes to see a flower wilt because one is attached to the idea that the flower should be beautiful and eternal. One separates the flower from the ultimate reality of impermanence and interconnectedness. This separation and attachment to “what ought to be,” causes suffering and blindness to the true reality. The reality is that the flower, like all else, grows and dies.

The beautiful mountains are praised a great deal for their remarkable appearance, but they are actually created from the shifting of the earth.

A nice vase is still breakable.
In the same vein, as british author William Somerset Maugham writes in The Razor’s Edge in conversation with the novel’s main character Larry Darrell in search of the Truth as Darrell says:

“It may be that there is no solution or it may be that I’m not clever enough to find it. Ramakrishna looked upon the world as the sport of God. “It is like a game,” he said. “In this game there are joy and sorrow, virtue and vice, knowledge and ignorance, good and evil., The game cannot continue if sin and suffering are altogether eliminated from the creation.” I would reject that with all my strength. The best I can suggest is that when the Absolute manifested itself in the world evil was the natural correlation of good. You could never have had the stupendous beauty of the Himalayas without the unimaginable horror of a convulsion of the earth’s crust. The Chinese craftsman who makes a vase in what they call eggshell porcelain can give it a lovely shape, ornament it with a beautiful design, stain it a ravishing colour, and give it a perfect glaze, but from its very nature he can’t make it anything but fragile. If you drop it on the floor it will break into a dozen fragments. Isn’t it possible in the same way that the values we cherish in the world can only exist in combination with evil?” (source)

Dogen does not deny this fact, but he takes it one step further and attempts to frame distinctions not as hindrances, but as paths and indications of an underlying emptiness to everything. The realization of emptiness occurs when one who has felt this sense of oneness separates from that feeling and enters a world of dichotomies and attachments.5 Only by looking through these “attachment-colored” eyeglasses, one understands the emptiness that encompasses and extends beyond all distinctions. Distinctions must exist to make emptiness apparent. Emptiness and duality are contingent upon one another. They are the same things.

A tree and a leaf are one; that is, they depend on and define one another. A leaf exists because a tree exists and vice versa. To the non-dual mind and to themselves, the tree and the leaf transcend distinction. As autumn approaches, the leaf begins to quiver, darken and eventually falls to the ground, separating from the tree. This detachment resembles entering the dual world where the tree and leaf exist as two separate entities, no longer defining one another. According to Dogen, precisely at this moment when the distinctions are realized, the tree and leaf understand the pervasive emptiness that encompasses them both. Only by falling into the realm of duality can they feel the sense of oneness they once manifested. The leaf does not fear the world of distinctions because it falls into the net of oneness that catches and sustains all things. In the Shape of the Universe the dichotomies of the tree, leaf and all entities, illuminate the underlying and consuming emptiness that engulfs all form.

Dogen believes that all illuminating distinctions depend on two facets, such as light and dark, being and non-being, and trees and leaves. The underlying emptiness that absorbs all dichotomies makes possible the realization of these distinctions. As Dogen writes, “The Buddha Way is originally beyond fullness and lack, and for this reason there is generation and extinction, illusion and Enlightenment, sentient beings and buddhas.”6 These distinctions must be understood and accepted in the light of the idea that they are all one. Only through truly seeing and embracing the dual nature of all, can one feel and experience the sense of a fundamental ultimate. As Shunryu Suzuki explains, “each existence depends on something else. Strictly speaking, there are no separate individual existences. There are just many names for one existence.”7 The leaf “recognizes” its oneness with the tree through its attachment to the past non-duality and belief that this sense encompasses all. One may believe that diversity obstructs the recognition of emptiness, but Dogen teaches that ignoring the dual differences leads to one-sided understanding based on the attachment to a firm existence.8 Suzuki, clarifying this teaching, says, “oneness and variety, like Dark Luminosity, are the same thing, so oneness should be appreciated in each existence. We should find the reality in each moment, and in each phenomenon.”9 The acceptance of distinctions and of the underlying emptiness found in each moment and all things, constitutes the actualization of the ultimate reality. One can only realize non-attachment though attachment to worldly distinctions.10

Recognizing the pervasive emptiness through the attachments constitutes Dogen’s idea of Awakening. This underlying emptiness liberates the practitioner and allows one to see things as they are–to see the dual facets of all things in the discursive world. Awakening culminates in wanting “to know things as they are. If we know things as they are, there is nothing to point at; there is no way to grasp anything; there is no thing to grasp.”11 Knowing things as they are entails observing the different sides of an entity and realizing the facets are fundamentally rooted in emptiness. One awakens to different sides of the same reality. Like the moon reflecting in a pool of water, one must see the whole reflection and realize that another side exists, a side not reflecting. This recognition of a dark side of the moon, completely illuminates the object and one knows it fully. In the Buddha way, understanding the dual sides of all things awakens one to the complete reality of the entity and the deeper, ultimate reality of emptiness.

The Awakening to the true reality of an object through realizing the underlying emptiness, liberates one from denying human reality. As Dogen says, even though one understands that the Buddha Way encompasses all distinctions, “flowers fall always amid our grudging, and weeds flourish in our chagrin.”12 One still prefers flowers instead of weeds, which is human reality. Suppressing this urge will create further suffering and perpetuate the distinction between flowers and weeds. Suzuki writes, “that we are attached to some beauty is itself Buddha’s activity. That we do not care for weeds is also Buddha’s activity. If you know that, it is all right to attach to something. If it is Buddha’s attachment, that is non-attachment.”13 Buddha’s attachment realizes that emptiness underlies all desires and all distinctions are ultimately the same. Love is hate and hate is love. One exists if and only if the other exists. One can dislike the weeds because the feelings are ultimately the same as love for the flower. Attempting to transcend distinctions between dislike and like, or create a superficial unity, promotes further suffering because one is caught in the idea of what one believes is unity and ignores the fundamental emptiness encompassing both passion and disgust.14 This awakening to the perpetuation of suffering liberates one from fighting against human reality and, through the recognition of distinctions, one understands the ultimate.

From acceptance of things as they are and basic emptiness, compassion, called Karuna, the Golden Purifier in the texts, arises.15 Compassion comes as a feeling with reality, flowing from the underlying emptiness. Accepting things as they are, with the form of distinctions, is a feeling that comes through the ultimate emptiness. One embraces hate and love because they are ultimately the same. One generates a sense of compassion for all weeds and flowers because these distinctions manifest emptiness. All beings command compassion because their dual natures illuminate the ultimate. One cannot emphasize a “oneness” because the Buddha Way is infinite and beyond even a sense of one. Compassion, like the Buddha doctrine of emptiness, encompasses every entity and transcends even a point of “oneness.” Compassion and distinctions derive their definition and form from the pervasive, fundamental emptiness.

Dogen teaches that compassion, Enlightenment and deeper understanding of the twofold truth stem from realizing the pervasive emptiness that encompasses all distinctions and dichotomies. The acceptance and awareness of the true, interdependent world of dualities illuminates the ultimate. One can realize the true nature of the discursive world because of the infinite emptiness that sustains and embraces all duality. Dogen’s idea of emptiness acts as reflecting pool that envelopes and creates the reflection. Without the pool, there would be no reflection. Without duality, the ultimate remains hidden.

Portions of this article contain excerpts from the Wanderling.
This article is informational only and not intended for profit.

Vipassana Research Institute