Holism (from Greekὅλοςholos "all, whole, entire") is the idea that systems
(physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic)
and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not just as a
collection of parts.
The term holism was coined by J. C. Smuts in Holism and Evolution.[3][4]
It was Smuts' opinion that holism is a concept that represents all of
the wholes in the universe, and these wholes are the real factors in the
universe. Further, that Holism also denoted a theory of the universe in
the same vein as Materialism and Spiritualism.[3]:120–121
Synopsis of Holism and Evolution
After
identifying the need for reform in the fundamental concepts of matter,
life and mind (chapter 1) Smuts examines the reformed concepts (as of
1926) of space and time (chapter 2), matter (chapter 3) and biology
(chapter 4) and concludes that the close approach to each other of the
concepts of matter, life and mind, and the partial overflow of each
other's domain, implies that there is a fundamental principle (Holism)
of which they are the progressive outcome.[3]:86
Chapters 5 and 6 provide the general concept, functions and categories
of Holism; chapters 7 and 8 address Holism with respect to Mechanism
and Darwinism, chapters 9-11 make a start towards demonstrating the
concepts and functions of Holism for the metaphysical categories (mind,
personality, ideals) and the book concludes with a chapter that argues
for the universal ubiquity of Holism and its place as a monistic
ontology.
The following is an overview of Smuts' opinions regarding the
general concept, functions, and categories of Holism; like the
definition of Holism, other than the idea that the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts, the editor is unaware of any authoritative
secondary sources corroborating Smuts' opinions.
Structure
Wholes
are composites which have an internal structure, function or character
which clearly differentiates them from mechanical additions, aggregates,
and constructions, such as science assumes on the mechanical
hypothesis.[3]:106
The concept of structure is not confined to the physical domain (e.g.
chemical, biological and artifacts); it also applies to the
metaphysical domain (e.g. mental structures, properties, attributes,
values, ideals, etc.)[3]:161
Field
The field
of a whole is not something different and additional to it, it is the
continuation of the whole beyond its sensible contours of experience.[3]:113
The field characterizes a whole as a unified and synthesised event in
the system of Relativity, that includes not only its present but also
its past—and also its future potentialities.[3]:89 As such, the concept of field entails both activity and structure.[3]:115
Variation
Darwin's
theory of organic descent placed primary emphasis on the role of
natural selection but there would be nothing to select if not for
variation. Variations that are the result of mutations in the
biological sense and variations that are the result of individually
acquired modifications in the personal sense are attributed by Smuts to
Holism; further it was his opinion that because variations appear in
complexes and not singly, evolution is more than the outcome of
individual selections, it is holistic.[3]:190–192
Regulation
The
whole exhibits a discernible regulatory function as it relates to
cooperation and coordination of the structure and activity of parts, and
to the selection and deselection of variations. The result is a
balanced correlation of organs and functions. The activities of the
parts are directed to central ends; co-operation and unified action
instead of the separate mechanical activities of the parts.[3]:125
Creativity
It
is the intermingling of fields which is creative or causal in nature.
This is seen in matter, where if not for its dynamic structural creative
character matter could not have been the mother of the universe. This
function, or factor of creativity is even more marked in biology where
the protoplasm of the cell is vitally active in an ongoing process of
creative change where parts are continually being destroyed and replaced
by new protoplasm. With minds the regulatory function of Holism
acquires consciousness and freedom, demonstrating a creative power of
the most far-reaching character. Holism is not only creative but
self-creative, and its final structures are far more holistic than its
initial structures.[3]:18, 37, 67–68, 88–89
Causality
As it relates to causality Smuts makes reference to A. N. Whitehead, and indirectly Baruch Spinoza;
the Whitehead premise is that organic mechanism is a fundamental
process which realizes and actualizes individual syntheses or unities.
Holism (the factor) exemplifies this same idea while emphasizing the
holistic character of the process. The whole completely transforms the
concept of Causality; results are not directly a function of causes. The
whole absorbs and integrates the cause into its own activity; results
appear as the consequence of the activity of the whole.[3]:121–124,126 Note that this material relating to Whitehead's influence as it
relates to causality was added in the second edition and, of course,
will not be found in reprints of the first edition; nor is it included
in the most recent Holst edition. It is the second edition of Holism and Evolution (1927) that provides the most recent and definitive treatment by Smuts.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts
The
fundamental holistic characters as a unity of parts which is so close
and intense as to be more than the sum of its parts; which not only
gives a particular conformation or structure to the parts, but so
relates and determines them in their synthesis that their functions are
altered; the synthesis affects and determines the parts, so that they
function towards the whole; and the whole and the parts, therefore
reciprocally influence and determine each other, and appear more or less
to merge their individual characters: the whole is in the parts and the
parts are in the whole, and this synthesis of whole and parts is
reflected in the holistic character of the functions of the parts as
well as of the whole.[3]:88
Progressive grading of wholes
A "rough and provisional" summary of the progressive grading of wholes that comprise holism is as follows:[3]:109
Material structure e.g. a chemical compound
Functional structure in living bodies
Animals, which exhibit a degree of central control that is-primarily implicit and unconscious
Personality, characterized as conscious central control
States and similar group organizations characterized by central control that involves many people.
Holistic Ideals, or absolute Values, distinct from human personality
that are creative factors in the creation of a spiritual world, for
example Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Indications of holism in philosophy
In philosophy, any doctrine that emphasizes the priority of a whole
over its parts is holism. Some suggest that such a definition owes its
origins to a non-holistic view of language and places it in the
reductivist camp. Alternately, a 'holistic' definition of holism denies
the necessity of a division between the function of separate parts and
the workings of the 'whole'. Effectively this means that the concept of a
part has no absolute foundation in observation, but is rather a result
of a materialist structuring of reality based on the necessity of
logical and distinct units as a means to deriving information through
comparative analysis. It suggests that the key recognizable
characteristic of a concept of 'true' holism is a sense of the
fundamental truth of any particular experience. This exists in
contradistinction to what is perceived as the reductivist reliance on
inductive method as the key to verification of its concept of how the
parts function within the whole. Equally the potential for recognising
the clarity of holistic experience within the logical terms of maths is
limited by the abstract nature of numbers. In terms of real life
measurements numbers have no scale or dimensional properties so have to
rely on experimentally verified units (e.g. inches, volts, calories
etc.), to describe reality. It is this reliance on the holistic
integrity of experience which leads to the recognition that intuitive
perception rather than mathematical calculation is the source of the
truth of effective theories. (See references Holism, 2016.)
Philosophy of language
In the philosophy of language this becomes the claim, called semantic holism,
that the meaning of an individual word or sentence can only be
understood in terms of its relations to a larger body of language, even a
whole theory or a whole language. In the philosophy of mind,
a mental state may be identified only in terms of its relations with
others. This is often referred to as "content holism" or "holism of the
mental". This notion involves the philosophies of such figures as Frege, Wittgenstein, and Quine.[5]
The concept of holism played a pivotal role in Baruch Spinoza's philosophy.[7][8]
Hegel
Hegel
rejected "the fundamentally atomistic conception of the object," (Stern,
38) arguing that "individual objects exist as manifestations of
indivisible substance-universals, which cannot be reduced to a set of
properties or attributes; he therefore holds that the object should be
treated as an ontologically primary whole." (Stern, 40) In direct
opposition to Kant,
therefore, "Hegel insists that the unity we find in our experience of
the world is not constructed by us out of a plurality of intuitions."
(Stern, 40) In "his ontological scheme a concrete individual is not
reducible to a plurality of sensible properties, but rather exemplifies a
substance universal." (Stern, 41) His point is that it is "a mistake to
treat an organic substance like blood as nothing more than a compound
of unchanging chemical elements, that can be separated and united
without being fundamentally altered." (Stern, 103) In Hegel's view, a
substance like blood is thus "more of an organic unity and cannot be
understood as just an external composition of the sort of distinct
substances that were discussed at the level of chemistry." (Stern, 103)
Thus in Hegel's view, blood is blood and cannot be successfully reduced
to what we consider are its component parts; we must view it as a whole
substance entire unto itself. This is most certainly a fundamentally
holistic view.[9]
In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking
and its derivatives. Systems in biology, psychology, or sociology are
frequently so complex that their behavior is, or appears, "new" or "emergent": it cannot be deduced from the properties of the elements alone.[10]
Holism has thus been used as a catchword. This contributed to the
resistance encountered by the scientific interpretation of holism,
which insists that there are ontological
reasons that prevent reductive models in principle from providing
efficient algorithms for prediction of system behavior in certain
classes of systems.[citation needed]
Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be
perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural
systems can produce surprisingly unexpected behavior, and it is
suspected that behavior of such systems might be computationally irreducible,
which means it would not be possible to even approximate the system
state without a full simulation of all the events occurring in the
system. Key properties of the higher level behavior of certain classes
of systems may be mediated by rare "surprises" in the behavior of their
elements due to the principle of interconnectivity, thus evading
predictions except by brute force simulation.
Complexity theory
(also called "science of complexity") is a contemporary heir of systems
thinking. It comprises both computational and holistic, relational
approaches towards understanding complex adaptive systems
and, especially in the latter, some argue that it can be seen as the
polar opposite to reductive methods. General theories of complexity have
been proposed, and numerous complexity institutes and departments have
sprung up around the world. The Santa Fe Institute is arguably the most famous of them.
Holistic thinking is often applied to ecology, combining biological,
chemical, physical, economic, ethical, and political insights. The
complexity grows with the area, so that it is necessary to reduce the
characteristic of the view in other ways, for example to a specific time
of duration.
John Muir, Scots born early American conservationist,[11] wrote "When we try to pick out anything by itself we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe".
In primary care
the term "holistic," has been used to describe approaches that take
into account social considerations and other intuitive judgements.[12] The term holism, and so-called approaches, appear in psychosomatic
medicine in the 1970s, when they were considered one possible way to
conceptualize psychosomatic phenomena. Instead of charting one-way
causal links from psyche to soma,
or vice versa, it aimed at a systemic model, where multiple biological,
psychological and social factors were seen as interlinked.[13]
Other, alternative approaches in the 1970s were psychosomatic and
somatopsychic approaches, which concentrated on causal links only from
psyche to soma, or from soma to psyche, respectively.[13]
At present it is commonplace in psychosomatic medicine to state that
psyche and soma cannot really be separated for practical or theoretical
purposes.[citation needed]
A disturbance on any level—somatic, psychic, or social—will radiate to
all the other levels, too. In this sense, psychosomatic thinking is
similar to the biopsychosocial model of medicine.[citation needed]
A lively debate has run since the end of the 19th century regarding the functional organization of the brain. The holistic tradition (e.g., Pierre Marie) maintained that the brain was a homogeneous organ with no specific subparts whereas the localizationists (e.g., Paul Broca) argued that the brain was organized in functionally distinct cortical areas
which were each specialized to process a given type of information or
implement specific mental operations. The controversy was epitomized with the existence of a language area in the brain, nowadays known as the Broca's area.[14]
Indications of holism in social science
Architecture
Architecture is often argued by design academics and those practicing in design to be a holistic enterprise.[15]
Used in this context, holism tends to imply an all-inclusive design
perspective. This trait is considered exclusive to architecture,
distinct from other professions involved in design projects.
Branding
A
holistic brand (also holistic branding) is considering the entire brand
or image of the company. For example, a universal brand image across all
countries, including everything from advertising styles to the
stationery the company has made, to the company colours.
Economics
With roots in Schumpeter,
the evolutionary approach might be considered the holist theory in
economics. They share certain language from the biological evolutionary
approach. They take into account how the innovation system
evolves over time. Knowledge and know-how, know-who, know-what and
know-why are part of the whole business economics. Knowledge can also be
tacit, as described by Michael Polanyi.
These models are open, and consider that it is hard to predict exactly
the impact of a policy measure. They are also less mathematical.
Education reform
The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives identifies many levels of cognitive functioning, which can be used to create a more holistic education. In authentic assessment, rather than using computers to score multiple choice tests, a standards based assessment uses trained scorers to score open-response items using holistic scoring methods.[16]
In projects such as the North Carolina Writing Project, scorers are
instructed not to count errors, or count numbers of points or supporting
statements. The scorer is instead instructed to judge holistically
whether "as a whole" is it more a "2" or a "3". Critics question whether
such a process can be as objective as computer scoring, and the degree
to which such scoring methods can result in different scores from
different scorers.
Psychology
Psychology of perception
A major holist movement in the early twentieth century was gestalt psychology. The claim was that perception is not an aggregation of atomic sense data
but a field, in which there is a figure and a ground. Background has
holistic effects on the perceived figure. Gestalt psychologists included
Wolfgang Koehler, Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka. Koehler claimed the perceptual fields corresponded to electrical fields in the brain. Karl Lashley
did experiments with gold foil pieces inserted in monkey brains
purporting to show that such fields did not exist. However, many of the
perceptual illusions and visual phenomena exhibited by the gestaltists
were taken over (often without credit) by later perceptual
psychologists. Gestalt psychology had influence on Fritz Perls' gestalt therapy, although some old-line gestaltists opposed the association with counter-cultural and New Age trends later associated with gestalt therapy. Gestalt theory was also influential on phenomenology. Aron Gurwitsch wrote on the role of the field of consciousness in gestalt theory in relation to phenomenology. Maurice Merleau-Ponty made much use of holistic psychologists such as work of Kurt Goldstein in his "Phenomenology of Perception."
Teleological psychology
Alfred Adler
believed that the individual (an integrated whole expressed through a
self-consistent unity of thinking, feeling, and action, moving toward an
unconscious, fictional final goal),
must be understood within the larger wholes of society, from the groups
to which he belongs (starting with his face-to-face relationships), to
the larger whole of mankind. The recognition of our social embeddedness
and the need for developing an interest in the welfare of others, as
well as a respect for nature, is at the heart of Adler's philosophy of
living and principles of psychotherapy.
Edgar Morin, the French philosopher and sociologist, can be considered a holist based on the transdisciplinary nature of his work.
Mel Levine, M.D., author of A Mind at a Time,[17]
and co-founder (with Charles R. Schwab) of the not-for-profit
organization All Kinds of Minds, can be considered a holist based on his
view of the 'whole child' as a product of many systems and his work
supporting the educational needs of children through the management of a
child's educational profile as a whole rather than isolated weaknesses
in that profile.
Anthropology
There
is an ongoing dispute as to whether anthropology is intrinsically
holistic. Supporters of this concept consider anthropology holistic in
two senses. First, it is concerned with all human beings across times
and places, and with all dimensions of humanity (evolutionary,
biophysical, sociopolitical, economic, cultural, psychological, etc.)
Further, many academic programs following this approach take a
"four-field" approach to anthropology that encompasses physical anthropology, archeology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology or social anthropology.[18]
Some leading anthropologists disagree, and consider anthropological holism to be an artifact from 19th century social evolutionary thought that inappropriately imposes scientific positivism upon cultural anthropology.[19]
The term "holism" is additionally used within social and cultural
anthropology to refer to an analysis of a society as a whole which
refuses to break society into component parts. One definition says: "as a
methodological ideal, holism implies ... that one does not permit
oneself to believe that our own established institutional boundaries
(e.g. between politics, sexuality, religion, economics) necessarily may
be found also in foreign societies."[20]
Émile Durkheim
Émile Durkheim developed a concept of holism which he set as opposite to the notion that a society was nothing more than a simple collection of individuals. In more recent times, Louis Dumont[21] has contrasted "holism" to "individualism"
as two different forms of societies. According to him, modern humans
live in an individualist society, whereas ancient Greek society, for
example, could be qualified as "holistic", because the individual found
identity in the whole society. Thus, the individual was ready to
sacrifice himself or herself for his or her community, as his or her life without the polis had no sense whatsoever.
Cosmomorphism
The French Protestant missionary Maurice Leenhardt coined the term "cosmomorphism" to indicate the state of perfect symbiosis with the surrounding environment which characterized the culture of the Melanesians of New Caledonia.
For these people, an isolated individual is totally indeterminate,
indistinct, and featureless until he can find his position within the
natural and social world in which he is inserted. The confines between
the self and the world are annulled to the point that the material body
itself is no guarantee of the sort of recognition of identity which is
typical of our own culture.[22][23]
In theological anthropology, which belongs to theology and not to anthropology, holism is the belief that body, soul and spirit are not separate components of a person, but rather facets of a united whole.
UF Soft Matter | Silicone is 3D-printed into the micro-organogel
support material. The printing nozzle follows a predefined trajectory,
depositing liquid silicone in its wake. The liquid silicone is supported
by the micro-organogel material during this printing process.
University of Florida
(UF) researchers have developed a method for 3D printing soft-silicone
medical implants that are stronger, quicker, less expensive, more
flexible, and more comfortable than the implants currently available.
That should be good news for the millions of people every year who need
medical devices implanted.
Model 3D-printed silicone trachea implant (credit: University of Florida)
Currently, such devices — such as ports for draining bodily fluids
(cerebral spinal fluid in hydrocephalus, for example), implantable
bands, balloons, soft catheters, slings and meshes — are mass produced
and made through molding processes. To create customized parts for
individual patients with molding would be very expensive and could take
days or weeks for each job.
The 3D printing method cuts that time to hours, potentially saving lives.
The ability to easily replace silicone implants at low cost is
especially important for children, where “implants may need to be
replaced frequently as they grow up,” Thomas E. Angelini, an associate
professor of mechanical engineering of the UF Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering, explained to KurzweilAI. Angelini is senior author of a paper published May 10, 2017 in the open-access journal Science Advances.
The research could also pave the way for new therapeutic devices that
encapsulate and control the release of drugs or small molecules for
guiding tissue regeneration or assisting diseased organs, such as the
pancreas or prostate, according to lead author Christopher O’Bryan, a UF
mechanical and aerospace engineering doctoral student.
UF Soft Matter | Water is pumped from one reservoir to another using a
3D-printed silicone valve. The silicone valve contains two encapsulated
ball valves that allow water to be pumped through the valve by squeezing
the lower chamber. The silicone valve demonstrates the ability of the
UF 3D-printing method to create multiple encapsulated components in a
single part — something that cannot be done with a traditional
3D-printing approach.
Abstract of Self-assembled micro-organogels for 3D printing silicone structures
The widespread prevalence of commercial products made from microgels
illustrates the immense practical value of harnessing the jamming
transition; there are countless ways to use soft, solid materials that
fluidize and become solid again with small variations in applied stress.
The traditional routes of microgel synthesis produce materials that
predominantly swell in aqueous solvents or, less often, in aggressive
organic solvents, constraining ways that these exceptionally useful
materials can be used. For example, aqueous microgels have been used as
the foundation of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting applications, yet
the incompatibility of available microgels with nonpolar liquids, such
as oils, limits their use in 3D printing with oil-based materials, such
as silicone. We present a method to make micro-organogels swollen in
mineral oil, using block copolymer self-assembly. The rheological
properties of this micro-organogel material can be tuned, leveraging the
jamming transition to facilitate its use in 3D printing of silicone
structures. We find that the minimum printed feature size can be
controlled by the yield stress of the micro-organogel medium, enabling
the fabrication of numerous complex silicone structures, including
branched perfusable networks and functional fluid pumps.
In spirituality, nondualism, also called non-duality, means "not two" or "one undivided without a second".
Nondualism primarily refers to a mature state of consciousness, in
which the dichotomy of I-other is 'transcended', and awareness is
described as 'centerless' and 'without dichotomies'. Although this state of consciousness may seem to appear spontaneous,
it usually is the "result" of prolonged ascetic or
meditative/contemplative practice, which includes ethical injunctions.
While the term "nondualism" is derived from Advaita Vedanta, descriptions of nondual consciousness can be found within Hinduism (Turiya, sahaja), Buddhism (Buddha-nature, rigpa, shentong), and western Christian and neo-Platonic traditions (henosis, mystical union).
The Asian idea of nondualism developed in the Vedic and post-Vedic Hindu philosophies, as well as in the Buddhist traditions.[3] The oldest traces of nondualism in Indian thought are found as Advaita in the earlier HinduUpanishads such as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as well as other pre-Buddhist Upanishads such as the Chandogya Upanishad, which emphasizes the unity of individual soul called Atman and the Supreme called Brahman. In Hinduism, nondualism has more commonly become associated with the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Adi Shankara.[4]
The Buddhist tradition added the teachings of śūnyatā; the two truths doctrine, the nonduality of the absolute and the relative truth,[5][6] and the Yogachara notion of "mind/thought only" (citta-matra) or "representation-only" (vijñaptimātra).[4]Vijñapti-mātra and the two truths doctrine, coupled with the concept of Buddha-nature,
have also been influential concepts in the subsequent development of
Mahayana Buddhism, not only in India, but also in China and Tibet, most
notably the Chán (Zen) and Dzogchen traditions.
Advaita of Hinduism and Advaya of Buddhism both refer to nondualism.
"Advaita" (अद्वैत) is from Sanskrit roots a, not; dvaita,
dual, and is usually translated as "nondualism", "nonduality" and
"nondual". The term "nondualism" and the term "advaita" from which it
originates are polyvalent terms. The English word's origin is the Latinduo meaning "two" prefixed with "non-" meaning "not".
"Advaya" (अद्वय) is also a Sanskrit word that means "identity,
unique, not two, without a second," and typically refers to the two
truths doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism, especially Madhyamaka.
One of the earliest usage of the word Advaita is found in verse
4.3.32 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (~800 BCE), and in verses 7 and
12 of the Mandukya Upanishad (variously dated to have been composed between 500 BCE to 200 CE).[7]
The term appears in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad in the section with a
discourse of the oneness of Atman and Brahman, as follows:[8]
An ocean is that one seer, without any duality [Advaita]; this is the Brahma-world, O King. Thus did Yajnavalkya
teach him. This is his highest goal, this is his highest success, this
is his highest world, this is his highest bliss. All other creatures
live on a small portion of that bliss.
The English term "nondual" was also informed by early translations of
the Upanishads in Western languages other than English from 1775. These
terms have entered the English language from literal English renderings
of "advaita" subsequent to the first wave of English translations of the Upanishads. These translations commenced with the work of Müller (1823–1900), in the monumental Sacred Books of the East (1879).
Max Müller rendered "advaita" as "Monism", as have many recent scholars.[12][13][14] However, some scholars state that "advaita" is not really monism.[15]
Definitions
Nondualism is a fuzzy concept, for which many definitions can be found.[note 2]
According to Espín and Nickoloff, "nondualism" is the thought in some Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist schools, which
... teaches that the multiplicity of the universe is reducible to one essential reality."[16]
According to Jeff Foster,
'Non-duality'[...] points to the
essential oneness (wholeness, completeness, unity) of life, a wholeness
which exists here and now, prior to any apparent separation [...]
despite the compelling appearance of separation and diversity there is
only one universal essence, one reality. Oneness is all there is – and
we are included.[web 2]
Jeff Foster further explains
What you are is simply this open
space of awareness (consciousness, awakeness, Being) in which absolutely
everything seems to come and go, and that space is already at rest;
it’s already Home.[web 2]
David Loy, who sees non-duality between subject and object as a common thread in Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta,[17][note 3] distinguishes "Five Flavors Of Nonduality":[web 3]
The negation of dualistic thinking in pairs of opposites. The
Yin-Yang symbol of Taoism symbolises the transcendence of this dualistic
way of thinking.[web 3]
Monism, the nonplurality of the world. Although the
phenomenal world appears as a plurality of "things", in reality they are
"of a single cloth".[web 3]
Advaita, the nondifference of subject and object, or nonduality between subject and object.[web 3]
Advaya, the identity of phenomena and the Absolute, the "nonduality of duality and nonduality",[web 3] c.q. the nonduality of relative and ultimate truth as found in Madhyamaka and the two truths doctrine.
Mysticism, a mystical unity between God and man.[web 3]
The idea of nondualism is typically contrasted with dualism, with
dualism defined as the view that the universe and the nature of
existence consists of two realities, such as the God and the world, or
as God and Devil, or as mind and matter, and so on.[20][21]
The idea of a "nondual consciousness" has gained attraction and
popularity in western spirituality and New Age-thinking. It is
recognized in the Asian traditions, but also in western and
Mediterranean religious traditions, and in western philosophy.[22] Nondual consciousness is perceived in a wide variety of religious traditions:
"Advaita" refers to nondualism, non-distinction between realities, the oneness of Atman and Brahman, as in Vedanta, Shaktism and Shaivism.[36]
Although the term is best known from the Advaita Vedanta school of Adi
Shankara, "advaita" is used in treatises by numerous medieval era Indian
scholars, as well as modern schools and teachers.[note 4]
The Hindu concept of Advaita refers to the idea that all
of the universe is one essential reality, and that all facets and
aspects of the universe is ultimately an expression or appearance of
that one reality.[36]
According to Dasgupta and Mohanta, non-dualism developed in various
strands of Indian thought, both Vedic and Buddhist, from the Upanishadic
period onward.[3] The oldest traces of nondualism in Indian thought may be found in the Chandogya Upanishad, which pre-dates the earliest Buddhism. Pre-sectarian Buddhism may also have been responding to the teachings of the Chandogya Upanishad, rejecting some of its Atman-Brahman related metaphysics.[37][note 5]
Advaita appears in different shades in various schools of Hinduism such as in Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (Vaishnavism), Suddhadvaita Vedanta (Vaishnavism), Shaivism and Shaktism.[36][40][41] It implies, in Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankara, that all of the reality is Brahman,[36] and that the Atman (soul, self) and Brahman (ultimate unchanging reality) are one.[42][43] Advaita ideas of schools within Hinduism contrasts with its Dvaita schools such as of Madhvacharya who stated that the experienced reality and God are two (dual) and distinct.[44][45]
Vedanta
Several schools of Vedanta teach a form of nondualism. The best-known
is Advaita Vedanta, but other nondual Vedanta schools also have a
significant influence and following, such as Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and Shuddhadvaita,[36] both of which are bhedabheda.
Advaita Vedanta
Swans are important figures in Advaita
The nonduality of the Advaita Vedantins is of the identity of Brahman and the Atman.[46] Advaita has become a broad current in Indian culture and religions, influencing subsequent traditions like Kashmir Shaivism.
The oldest surviving manuscript on Advaita Vedanta is by Gauḍapāda (6th century CE),[4] who has traditionally been regarded as the teacher of Govinda bhagavatpāda and the grandteacher of Shankara. Advaita is best known from the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Adi Shankara, who states that Brahman is pure Being, Consciousness and Bliss (Sat-cit-ananda).[47]
Advaita, states Murti, is the knowledge of Brahman and self-consciousness (Vijnana) without differences.[48] The goal of Vedanta is to know the "truly real" and thus become one with it.[49] According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality,[50][51][52] The universe, according to Advaita philosophy, does not simply come from Brahman, it is Brahman. Brahman is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[51] Brahman is also that which is the cause of all changes.[51][53][54] Brahman is the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[55]
The nondualism of Advaita, relies on the Hindu concept of Ātman
which is a Sanskrit word that means "real self" of the individual,[56][57] "essence",[web 5] and soul.[56][58] Ātman is the first principle,[59] the true
self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence
of an individual. Atman is the Universal Principle, one eternal
undifferentiated self-luminous consciousness, asserts Advaita Vedanta
school of Hinduism.[60][61]
Advaita Vedanta philosophy considers Atman as self-existent awareness, limitless, non-dual and same as Brahman.[62] Advaita school asserts that there is "soul, self" within each living entity which is fully identical with Brahman.[63][64]
This identity holds that there is One Soul that connects and exists in
all living beings, regardless of their shapes or forms, there is no
distinction, no superior, no inferior, no separate devotee soul (Atman),
no separate God soul (Brahman).[63]
The Oneness unifies all beings, there is the divine in every being, and
all existence is a single Reality, state the Advaita Vedantins.[65] The nondualism concept of Advaita Vedanta asserts that each soul is non-different from the infinite Brahman.[66]
Advaita Vedanta – Three levels of reality
Advaita Vedanta adopts sublation as the criterion to postulate three levels of ontological reality:[67][68]
Pāramārthika (paramartha,
absolute), the Reality that is metaphysically true and ontologically
accurate. It is the state of experiencing that "which is absolutely real
and into which both other reality levels can be resolved". This
experience can't be sublated (exceeded) by any other experience.[67][68]
Vyāvahārika (vyavahara), or samvriti-saya,[69]
consisting of the empirical or pragmatic reality. It is ever-changing
over time, thus empirically true at a given time and context but not metaphysically
true. It is "our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we
handle every day when we are awake". It is the level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true.[68]
Prāthibhāsika (pratibhasika,
apparent reality, unreality), "reality based on imagination alone". It
is the level of experience in which the mind constructs its own reality.
A well-known example is the perception of a rope in the dark as being a
snake.[68]
Similarities and differences with Buddhism
Scholars state that Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, given the common terminology and methodology and some common doctrines.[70][71]Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi state:
In any event a close relationship
between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist, with the latter
borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific
doctrines, of the former.[72]
Advaita Vedanta is related to Madhyamaka via Gaudapada, who took over the Buddhist doctrine that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra).[4] Shankara harmonised Gaudapada's ideas with the Upanishadic texts, and provided an orthodox hermeneutical basis for heterodox Buddhist phenomology.[73][74]
Gaudapada adopted the Buddhist concept of ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra).[4] The Buddhist term is often used interchangeably with the term citta-mātra,
but they have different meanings. The standard translation of both
terms is "consciousness-only" or "mind-only." Advaita Vedanta has been
called "idealistic monism" by scholars, but some disagree with this
label.[75][76] Another concept found in both Madhyamaka Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada ("ajāta"), which Gaudapada adopted from Nagarjuna's philosophy.[77][78][note 6] Gaudapada "wove [both doctrines] into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara.[80][note 7]
Michael Comans states there is a fundamental difference between
Buddhist thought and that of Gaudapada, in that Buddhism has as its
philosophical basis the doctrine of Dependent Origination according to which "everything is without an essential nature (nissvabhava), and everything is empty of essential nature (svabhava-sunya)", while Gaudapada does not rely on this principle at all. Gaudapada's Ajativada is an outcome of reasoning applied to an unchanging nondual reality according to which "there exists a Reality (sat) that is unborn (aja)" that has essential nature (svabhava), and this is the "eternal, fearless, undecaying Self (Atman) and Brahman".[82]
Thus, Gaudapada differs from Buddhist scholars such as Nagarjuna,
states Comans, by accepting the premises and relying on the fundamental
teaching of the Upanishads.[82]
Among other things, Vedanta school of Hinduism holds the premise,
"Atman exists, as self evident truth", a concept it uses in its theory
of nondualism. Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not
exist (or, An-atman) as self evident".[83][84][85]
Mahadevan suggests that Gaudapada adopted Buddhist terminology
and adapted its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much like early
Buddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and adapted its doctrines to
Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas to convey new
meanings.[86]
Dasgupta and Mohanta note that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta
are not opposing systems, but "different phases of development of the
same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time
of Sankara."[3]
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta
Ramanuja, founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, taught 'qualified nondualism' doctrine.
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta
is another main school of Vedanta and teaches the nonduality of the
qualified whole, in which Brahman alone exists, but is characterized by
multiplicity. It can be described as "qualified monism," or "qualified
non-dualism," or "attributive monism."
According to this school, the world is real, yet underlying all
the differences is an all-embracing unity, of which all "things" are an
"attribute." Ramanuja, the main proponent of Vishishtadvaita philosophy contends that the Prasthana Traya ("The three courses") – namely the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahma Sutras – are to be interpreted in a way that shows this unity in diversity, for any other way would violate their consistency.
Vedanta Desika defines Vishishtadvaita using the statement: Asesha Chit-Achit Prakaaram Brahmaikameva Tatvam – "Brahman, as qualified by the sentient and insentient modes (or attributes), is the only reality."
Neo-Vedanta
Neo-Vedanta, also called "neo-Hinduism"[87] is a modern interpretation of Hinduism which developed in response to western colonialism and orientalism, and aims to present Hinduism as a "homogenized ideal of Hinduism"[88] with Advaita Vedanta as its central doctrine.[89] Neo-Vedanta, as represented by Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan, is indebted to Advaita vedanta, but also reflects Advaya-philosophy. A main influence on neo-Advaita was Ramakrishna,
himself a bhakta and tantrika, and the guru of Vivekananda. According
to Michael Taft, Ramakrishna reconciled the dualism of formlessness and
form.[90] Ramakrishna regarded the Supreme Being to be both Personal and Impersonal, active and inactive:
When I think of the Supreme Being
as inactive – neither creating nor preserving nor destroying – I call
Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When I think of Him as
active – creating, preserving and destroying – I call Him Sakti or Maya
or Prakriti, the Personal God. But the distinction between them does not
mean a difference. The Personal and Impersonal are the same thing, like
milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its lustre, the snake and its
wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the
other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one.[91]
Radhakrishnan acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of
experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the absolute or
Brahman.[web 6][note 8] According to Anil Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita "reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism":[93]
The Neo-Vedanta is also Advaitic inasmuch as it holds that Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is one without a second, ekamevadvitiyam.
But as distinguished from the traditional Advaita of Sankara, it is a
synthetic Vedanta which reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or
non-dualism and also other theories of reality. In this sense it may
also be called concrete monism in so far as it holds that Brahman is
both qualified, saguna, and qualityless, nirguna.[93]
Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion of maya.
According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute idealism, but
"a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real."[web 6] According to Sarma, standing in the tradition of Nisargadatta Maharaj, Advaitavāda means "spiritual non-dualism or absolutism",[94] in which opposites are manifestations of the Absolute, which itself is immanent and transcendent:[95]
All opposites like being and
non-being, life and death, good and evil, light and darkness, gods and
men, soul and nature are viewed as manifestations of the Absolute which
is immanent in the universe and yet transcends it.[96]
Kashmir Saivism is based on a strong monistic interpretation of the Bhairava Tantras and its subcategory the Kaula Tantras, which were tantras written by the Kapalikas.[100] There was additionally a revelation of the Siva Sutras to Vasugupta.[100] Kashmir Saivism claimed to supersede the dualistic Shaiva Siddhanta.[101] Somananda, the first theologian of monistic Saivism, was the teacher of Utpaladeva, who was the grand-teacher of Abhinavagupta, who in turn was the teacher of Ksemaraja.[100][102]
The philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism can be seen in contrast to Shankara's Advaita.[103] Advaita Vedanta holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). In Kashmir Shavisim, all things are a manifestation of the Universal Consciousness, Chit or Brahman.[104][105] Kashmir Shavisim sees the phenomenal world (Śakti) as real: it exists, and has its being in Consciousness (Chit).[106]
Kashmir Shaivism was influenced by, and took over doctrines from,
several orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical
traditions.[107] These include Vedanta, Samkhya, Patanjali Yoga and Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including Yogacara and Madhyamika,[107] but also Tantra and the Nath-tradition.[108]
Contemporary vernacular Advaita
Advaita
is also part of other Indian traditions, which are less strongly, or
not all, organised in monastic and institutional organisations. Although
often called "Advaita Vedanta," these traditions have their origins in
vernacular movements and "householder" traditions, and have close ties
to the Nath, Nayanars and Sant Mat traditions.
Ramana Maharshi (30 December 1879 – 14 April 1950) is widely acknowledged as one of the outstanding Indian gurus of modern times.[109] Ramana's teachings are often interpreted as Advaita Vedanta, though Ramana Maharshi never "received diksha (initiation) from any recognised authority".[web 8] Ramana himself did not call his insights advaita:
D. Does Sri Bhagavan advocate advaita?
M. Dvaita and advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. The Self is as it is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. "I Am that I Am."[note 10] Simple Being is the Self.[111]
The Natha Sampradaya, with Nath yogis such as Gorakhnath, introduced Sahaja, the concept of a spontaneous spirituality. Sahaja means "spontaneous, natural, simple, or easy".[web 15] According to Ken Wilber, this state reflects nonduality.[120]
Buddhism
The
Advaya concept of nonduality refers to the "non-two" understanding of
reality, which has its origins in Madhyamaka-thought, which in turn is
built on earlier Buddhist thought, and expressed in the two truths
doctrine. In Nagarjuna's interpretation it is the non-duality of
conventional and ultimate truth, or the overcoming of dichotomies such
as that between samsara (conditioned or relative reality, rebirth) and nirvana (unconditioned and absolute reality, liberation).[121][122]
Nondualism in Buddhism is explicitly represented by the concept
of Buddha-nature, and Tibetan concepts like rigpa and shentong. It has
its roots in Buddhist ideas of luminous mind, the "pure" consciousness
which shines through when purified from the defilements of hatred, anger
and ignorance. Nondualism can also be found in Yogacara thought, and
its concept of the alaija-vijnana. Subsequently, combinations of
Buddha-nature thought and Yogacara, and also of Yogacara and Madhyamaka,
developed in India, Tibet and China, and can be found in Tibetan
Buddhism and Zen.
The nonduality of relative and ultimate truth was further
developed and re-interpreted in Chinese Buddhism, where the two truths
doctrine came to refer to the nonduality of nirvana and samsara,
re-incorporating essentialist notions.
Indian Buddhism
Madhyamaka – nonduality of conventional and ultimate truth
In Madhyamaka Buddhism Advaya refers to the nonduality of conventional and ultimate truth,[123] or the relative (phenomenal) world and the Absolute, such as in samsara and nirvana.[36] Madhyamaka, also known as Śūnyavāda, refers primarily to a MahāyānaBuddhist school of philosophy[124] founded by Nāgārjuna.
In Madhyamaka, the two truths refer to conventional and ultimate truth.[125] The ultimate truth is "emptiness", or non-existence of inherently existing "things",[126]
and the "emptiness of emptiness": emptiness does not in itself
constitute an absolute reality. Conventionally, "things" exist, but
ultimately, they are "empty" of any existence on their own, as described
in Nāgārjuna'sMūlamadhyamakakārikā:
The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma
is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate
truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these
two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a
foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate
cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the
ultimate, liberation is not achieved.[note 14]
"Emptiness" is a consequence of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising),[127] the teaching that no dharma ("thing") has an existence of its own, but always comes into existence in dependence on other dharmas. According to Madhyamaka all phenomena are empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) because they are dependently co-arisen.
Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no
intrinsic, independent reality of their own. Madhyamaka also rejects
the existence of an absolute reality or Self.[128]
Ultimately, "absolute reality" is not an absolute, or the non-duality
of a personal self and an absolute Self, but the deconstruction of such
reifications.
It also means that there is no "transcendental ground," and that
"ultimate reality" has no existence of its own, but is the negation of
such a transcendental reality, and the impossibility of any statement on
such an ultimately existing transcendental reality: it is no more than a
fabrication of the mind.[web 16][note 15] Susan Kahn further explains:
Ultimate truth does not point to a
transcendent reality, but to the transcendence of deception. It is
critical to emphasize that the ultimate truth of emptiness is a
negational truth. In looking for inherently existent phenomena it is
revealed that it cannot be found. This absence is not findable because
it is not an entity, just as a room without an elephant in it does not
contain an elephantless substance. Even conventionally, elephantlessness
does not exist. Ultimate truth or emptiness does not point to an
essence or nature, however subtle, that everything is made of.[web 17]
In Madhyamaka-Buddhism, "Advaya" is an epistemological approach.[48] It is the recognition that ultimately everything is impermanent (anicca) and devoid of "self" or "essence" (anatta),[129][130][131] and that this emptiness does not constitute an "absolute" reality in itself.[note 16].
The later Madhyamikas, states Yuichi Kajiyama, developed the Advaya definition as a means to Nirvikalpa-Samadhi
by suggesting that "things arise neither from their own selves nor from
other things, and that when subject and object are unreal, the mind,
being not different, cannot be true either; thereby one must abandon
attachment to cognition of nonduality as well, and understand the lack
of intrinsic nature of everything". Thus, the Buddhist nondualism or
Advaya concept became a means to realizing absolute emptiness.[132]
Yogacara
In Yogacara, adhyava may also refer to overcoming the dichotomies of cognitum and cognition imposed by conceptual thought.[36] Yogācāra (Sanskrit; literally: "yoga practice"; "one whose practice is yoga")[133] is an influential school of Buddhistphilosophy and psychology emphasizing phenomenology and (some argue)[clarification needed]ontology[134] through the interior lens of meditative and yogic practices. It developed within IndianMahāyānaBuddhism in about the 4th century CE.[135]
The concept of adyava in Yogacara is an epistemological stance on the nature of knowledge. Early Buddhism schools such as Sarvastivada and Sautrāntika, that thrived through the early centuries of the common era, postulated a dualism, dvaya, wherein grasping (grahaka, "cognition") and the grasped (gradya, "cognitum")[136] both are really existing.[132][136][137] Yogacara postulates an advaya of grasping and the grasped, stating that only the mind[132] (citta-mātra) or the representations we cognize (vijñapti-mātra),[138][note 17] really exist.[132][136][138]
In Yogacara-thought, cognition is a modification of the base-consciousness, alaya-vijnana.
By the reification of these modifications into separate
consciousnesses, the Eighth Consciousnesses of Yogacara came into
existence.[139]
In later Buddhist thought, which took an idealistic turn, the
storehouse-consciousness or base-consciousness came to be seen as a pure
consciousness, from which everything arises. According to the Lankavatara Sutra and the schools of Chan/Zen Buddhism, the alaya-vijnana is identical with the tathagata-garbha[note 18], and is fundamentally pure.[140]Vijñapti-mātra, coupled with Buddha-nature or tathagatagarba,
has been an influential concept in the subsequent development of
Mahayana Buddhism, not only in India, but also in China and Tibet, most
notable in the Chán (Zen) and Dzogchen traditions.
According to Kochumuttom, Yogacara is a realistic pluralism. It does not deny the existence of individual beings, but denies the following:[76]
1. That the absolute mode of reality is consciousness/mind/ideas, 2. That the individual beings are transformations or evolutes of an absolute consciousness/mind/idea, 3. That the individual beings are but illusory appearances of a monistic reality.[141]
Vijñapti-mātra,
"consciousness-only" or "representation-only" is one of the main
features of Yogācāra philosophy. It is often used interchangeably with
the term citta-mātra, but they have different meanings. The
standard translation of both terms is "consciousness-only" or
"mind-only." Several modern researchers object to this translation, and
the accompanying label of "absolute idealism" or "idealistic monism".[76] A better translation for vijñapti-mātra is representation-only.[138]
Vijñapti-mātra then means "mere representation of consciousness":
[T]he phrase vijñaptimātratā-vāda means a theory which says that the world as it appears to the unenlightened ones is mere representation of consciousness. Therefore, any attempt to interpret vijñaptimātratā-vāda as idealism would be a gross misunderstanding of it.[138]
The term vijñapti-mātra replaced the "more metaphysical"[142] term citta-mātra used in the Lankavatara Sutra.[143]
The Lankavatara Sutra "appears to be one of the earliest attempts to
provide a philosophical justification for the Absolutism that emerged in
Mahayana in relation to the concept of Buddha".[144] It uses the term citta-mātra, which means properly "thought-only". By using this term it develops an ontology, in contrast to the epistemology of the term vijñapti-mātra. The Lankavatara Sutra equates citta and the absolute. According to Kochumuttom, this is not the way Yogacara uses the term vijñapti:[145]
[T]he absolute state is defined
simply as emptiness, namely the emptiness of subject–object distinction.
Once thus defined as emptiness (sunyata), it receives a number of synonyms, none of which betray idealism.[146]
The Yogācārins defined three basic modes by which we perceive our
world. These are referred to in Yogācāra as the three natures of
perception. They are:
Parikalpita (literally, "fully conceptualized"):
"imaginary nature", wherein things are incorrectly comprehended based on
conceptual construction, through attachment and erroneous
discrimination.
Paratantra (literally, "other dependent"): "dependent nature", by which the correct understanding of the dependently originated nature of things is understood.
Pariniṣpanna (literally, "fully accomplished"): "absolute
nature", through which one comprehends things as they are in themselves,
uninfluenced by any conceptualization at all.
Also, regarding perception, the Yogācārins emphasized that our
everyday understanding of the existence of external objects is
problematic, since in order to perceive any object (and thus, for all
practical purposes, for the object to "exist"), there must be a sensory
organ as well as a correlative type of consciousness to allow the
process of cognition to occur.
Buddha-nature
Vijñapti-mātra and the two truths doctrine, as understood in Chinese Buddhism, are closely linked to Buddha-nature.
Those teachings have had a profound influence on Mahayana Buddhism, not
only in India, but also in China and Tibet, most notably the Chán (Zen)
and Dzogchen traditions. They may be related to an archaic form of
Buddhism which is close to Brahmanical beliefs, elements of which are
preserved in the Nikayas,[147][148][149][150] and survived in the Mahayana tradition.[151][152] Contrary to popular opinion, the Theravada and Mahayana traditions may
be "divergent, but equally reliable records of a pre-canonical Buddhism
which is now lost forever."[151]
The Mahayana tradition may have preserved a very old, "pre-Canonical"
tradition, which was largely, but not completely, left out of the
Theravada-canon.[152]
The Buddhist teachings on the Buddha-nature may be regarded as a form of nondualism.[153]Buddha-nature is the essential element that allows sentient beings to become Buddhas.[154] The term, Buddha nature, is a translation of the Sanskrit coinage, 'Buddha-dhātu', which seems first to have appeared in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra,[155] where it refers to 'a sacred nature that is the basis for [beings'] becoming buddhas.'[156] The term seems to have been used most frequently to translate the Sanskrit "Tathāgatagarbha". The Sanskrit term "tathāgatagarbha" may be parsed into tathāgata ("the one thus gone", referring to the Buddha) and garbha ("womb").[note 19] The tathagatagarbha, when freed from avidya ("ignorance"), is the dharmakaya, the Absolute.
Tantric Buddhism
Tantra is a religious tradition that originated in India in the
middle of the first millennium CE, and has been practiced by Buddhists,
Hindus and Jains throughout south and southeast Asia.[157] It views humans as a microcosmos which mirrors the macrocosmos.[158]
Its aim is to gain access to the energy or enlightened consciousness of
the godhead or absolute, by embodying this energy or consciousness
through rituals.[158] It views the godhead as both transcendent and immanent, and views the world as real, and not as an illusion:[159]
Rather than attempting to see
through or transcend the world, the practitioner comes to recognize
"that" (the world) as "I" (the supreme egoity of the godhead): in other
words, s/he gains a "god's eye view" of the universe, and recognizes it
to be nothing other than herself/himself. For East Asian Buddhist Tantra
in particular, this means that the totality of the cosmos is a "realm
of Dharma", sharing an underlying common principle.[160]
Ramakrishna
too was a tantric adherent, although his tantric background was
overlaid and smoothed with an Advaita interpretation by his student Vivekananda.[161]
East-Asian Buddhism
Chinese Buddhism – nonduality of mundane and highest reality
In Chinese Buddhism the Two truths doctrine was interpreted as an ontological teaching of three truths,[162] states Whalen Lai, wherein "samsaric being and nirvanic emptiness as well any and all distinctions are not two".[163]
The Chinese Buddhist scholars posited that there is a third truth above
the mundane truth of samsaric being and the highest truth nirvanic
emptiness (sunyata).[164][162] In one description, everything is posited to be simultaneously "empty, real and neither".[163]
According to Lai, most scholars of Chinese Buddhism, unlike Nagarjuna,
failed to realize that the two truths were epistemic, not ontological.[164] This mistake was identified and discussed by Jizang of Sanlun school.[164]
Chinese Buddhism evolved over time.[165]
Before 400 CE, states Lai, the Chinese understood the Buddhist doctrine
to be that "karmic rebirth entailed the transmigration of soul".[165] It was monk Mindu who understood that the Buddha taught a no soul doctrine, and he tried to explain this to his Buddhist sangha, but was vilified for denying the existence of soul.[165] Mindu's ideas, however, began a momentum that led to the emergence of six prajna schools in the 4th and 5th century CE.[165]
In the 6th century CE it became clear that anatman and sunyata are
central Buddhist teachings, which make the postulation of an eternal
self problematic.[166][167]
Another point of confusion was the Two truths doctrine of Madhyamaka, the mundane truth and the highest truth. Chinese thinking took this to refer to two ontological truths:
reality exists at two levels, the mundane level of samsara and the
highest level of nirvana emptiness. But in Madhyamaka these are two epistemological truths,
two different ways to look at reality. The early Chinese scholars
supposed that there is an essential truth above the two truths, which
unites both these.[164][167] This three truths doctrine was different from a similarly named doctrine of Yogacara and Indian Buddhism.[167]
Hua-yen Buddhism
The Huayan school or Flower Garland is a tradition of MahayanaBuddhistphilosophy that flourished in China during the Tang period particularly with Fazang (~700 CE). It is based on the Sanskrit Flower Garland Sutra (S. Avataṃsaka Sūtra, C. Huayan Jing) and on a lengthy Chinese interpretation of it, the Huayan Lun. The name Flower Garland is meant to suggest the crowning glory of profound understanding. Huayan teaches the Four Dharmadhatu, four ways to view reality:
All dharmas are seen as particular separate events;
The Buddha-nature and Yogacara philosophies have had a strong
influence on Chán and Zen. The teachings of Zen are expressed by a set
of polarities: Buddha-nature – sunyata;[169][170] absolute-relative;[171]sudden and gradual enlightenment.[172]
The Lankavatara-sutra, a popular sutra in Zen, endorses the
Buddha-nature and emphasizes purity of mind, which can be attained in
gradations. The Diamond-sutra, another popular sutra, emphasizes
sunyata, which "must be realized totally or not at all".[173] The Prajnaparamita Sutras emphasize the non-duality of form and emptiness: form is emptiness, emptiness is form, as the Heart Sutra says.[171] According to Chinul, Zen points not to mere emptiness, but to suchness or the dharmadhatu.[174]
The idea that the ultimate reality is present in the daily world
of relative reality fitted into the Chinese culture which emphasized the
mundane world and society. But this does not explain how the absolute
is present in the relative world. This question is answered in such
schemata as the Five Ranks of Tozan[175] and the Oxherding Pictures.
The continuous pondering of the break-through kōan (shokan[176]) or Hua Tou, "word head",[177] leads to kensho, an initial insight into "seeing the (Buddha-)nature.[178] According to Hori, a central theme of many koans is the "identity of opposites", and point to the original nonduality.[179][180] Victor Sogen Hori describes kensho, when attained through koan-study, as the absence of subject–object duality.[181] The aim of the so-called break-through koan is to see the "nonduality of subject and object", [179][180]
in which "subject and object are no longer separate and distinct."[182]
Zen Buddhist training does not end with kenshō. Practice is to be
continued to deepen the insight and to express it in daily life,[183][184][185][186] to fully manifest the nonduality of absolute and relative.[187][188]
To deepen the initial insight of kensho, shikantaza and kōan-study are
necessary. This trajectory of initial insight followed by a gradual
deepening and ripening is expressed by Linji Yixuan in his Three Mysterious Gates, the Four Ways of Knowing of Hakuin,[189] the Five Ranks, and the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures[190] which detail the steps on the Path.
Essence-function in Korean Buddhism
The polarity of absolute and relative is also expressed as
"essence-function". The absolute is essence, the relative is function.
They can't be seen as separate realities, but interpenetrate each other.
The distinction does not "exclude any other frameworks such as neng-so
or 'subject-object' constructions", though the two "are completely
different from each other in terms of their way of thinking".[191] In Korean Buddhism, essence-function is also expressed as "body" and "the body's functions".[192] A metaphor for essence-function is "a lamp and its light", a phrase from the Platform Sutra, where Essence is lamp and Function is light.[193]
Tibetan Buddhism
Adyava: Gelugpa Prasangika-Madhyamaka
The Gelugpa school, following Tsongkhapa, adheres to the adyava PrasaṅgikaMādhyamaka view, which states that all phenomena are sunyata, empty of self-nature, and that this "emptiness" is itself only a qualification, not a concretely existing "absolute" reality.[194]
This view is reiterated by some western Madhyamaka-inspired writers,[web 19][web 20][web 21] stressing that there is no transcendental reality beyond this phenomenal world.[web 22][note 20]
Buddha-nature and the nature of mind
Shentong
In Tibetan Buddhism, the essentialist position is represented by shentong, while the nominalist, or non-essentialist position, is represented by rangtong.
Shentong is a philosophical sub-school found in Tibetan Buddhism. Its adherents generally hold that the nature of mind, the substratum of the mindstream, is "empty" (Wylie: stong) of "other" (Wylie: gzhan),
i.e., empty of all qualities other than an inherently existing,
ineffable nature. Shentong has often been incorrectly associated with
the Cittamātra (Yogacara) position, but is in fact also Madhyamaka,[195] and is present primarily as the main philosophical theory of the Jonang school, although it is also taught by the Sakya[196] and Kagyu schools.[197][198]
According to Shentongpa (proponents of shentong), the emptiness of
ultimate reality should not be characterized in the same way as the
emptiness of apparent phenomena because it is prabhāśvara-saṃtāna, or "luminous mindstream" endowed with limitless Buddha qualities.[199] It is empty of all that is false, not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
The contrasting Prasaṅgika view that all phenomena are sunyata, empty of self-nature, and that this "emptiness" is not a concretely existing "absolute" reality, is labeled rangtong, "empty of other."[194]
The shentong-view is related to the Ratnagotravibhāga sutra and the Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis of Śāntarakṣita.
The truth of sunyata is acknowledged, but not considered to be the
highest truth, which is the empty nature of mind. Insight into sunyata
is preparatory for the recognition of the nature of mind.
Dzogchen
Dzogchen is concerned with the "natural state" and emphasizes direct experience. The state of nondual awareness is called rigpa.[citation needed] This primordial nature is clear light, unproduced and unchanging, free from all defilements. Through meditation, the Dzogchen
practitioner experiences that thoughts have no substance. Mental
phenomena arise and fall in the mind, but fundamentally they are empty.
The practitioner then considers where the mind itself resides. Through
careful examination one realizes that the mind is emptiness.[200] Karma Lingpa (1326–1386) revealed "Self-Liberation through seeing with naked awareness" (rigpa ngo-sprod,[note 21]) which is attributed to Padmasambhava.[201][note 22] The text gives an introduction, or pointing-out instruction (ngo-spro), into rigpa, the state of presence and awareness.[201] In this text, Karma Lingpa writes the following regarding the unity of various terms for nonduality:
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers). Some call it "the nature of the mind"[note 23] or "mind itself." Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self." The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self." The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind." Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom." Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood." Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol." Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."[note 24] Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality." Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything." And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."[206][note 25]
Other eastern religions
Apart from Hinduism and Buddhism, self-proclaimed nondualists have also discerned nondualism in other religious traditions.
Sikhism
Sikh theology suggests human souls and the monotheistic God are two different realities (dualism),[207] distinguishing it from the monistic and various shades of nondualistic philosophies of other Indian religions.[208]
However, Sikh scholars have attempted to explore nondualism exegesis of
Sikh scriptures, such as during the neocolonial reformist movement by
Bhai Vir Singh of the Singh Sabha. According to Mandair, Singh
interprets the Sikh scriptures as teaching nonduality.[209]
Taoism's wu wei (Chinese wu, not; wei, doing) is a term with various translations[note 26] and interpretations designed to distinguish it from passivity. The concept of Yin and Yang,
often mistakenly conceived of as a symbol of dualism, is actually meant
to convey the notion that all apparent opposites are complementary
parts of a non-dual whole.[210]
Since its beginning, Gnosticism has been characterized by many dualisms and dualities, including the doctrine of a separate God and Manichaean (good/evil) dualism.[214] Ronald Miller interprets the Gospel of Thomas as a teaching of "nondualistic consciousness".[215]
Neoplatonism
The precepts of Neoplatonism of Plotinus (2nd century) assert nondualism.[216] Neoplatonism had a strong influence on Christian mysticism.
Some scholars suggest a possible link of more ancient Indian
philosophies on Neoplatonism, while other scholars consider these claims
as unjustified and extravagant with the counter hypothesis that
nondualism developed independently in ancient India and Greece.[217] The nondualism of Advaita Vedanta and Neoplatonism have been compared by various scholars,[218] such as J. F. Staal,[219]Frederick Copleston,[220] Aldo Magris and Mario Piantelli,[221] Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,[222] Gwen Griffith-Dickson,[223] John Y. Fenton[224] and Dale Riepe.[225]
Medieval Abrahamic religions
Christian contemplation and mysticism
The Mystic Marriage of St Catherine, St John the Baptist, St Antony Abbot
In Christian mysticism, contemplative prayer and Apophatic theology are central elements. In contemplative prayer, the mind is focused by constant repetition a phrase or word. Saint John Cassian recommended use of the phrase "O God, make speed to save me: O Lord, make haste to help me".[226][227] Another formula for repetition is the name of Jesus.[228][229] or the Jesus Prayer, which has been called "the mantra of the Orthodox Church",[227] although the term "Jesus Prayer" is not found in the Fathers of the Church.[230] The author of The Cloud of Unknowing recommended use of a monosyllabic word, such as "God" or "Love".[231]
Apophatic theology is derived from Neo-Platonism via Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.
In this approach, the notion of God is stripped from all positive
qualifications, leaving a "darkness" or "unground." It had a strong
influence on western mysticism. A notable example is Meister Eckhart, who also attracted attention from Zen-Buddhists like D.T. Suzuki in modern times, due to the similarities between Buddhist thought and Neo-Platonism.
The Cloud of Unknowing – an anonymous work of Christian mysticism written in Middle English in the latter half of the 14th century – advocates a mystic relationship with God. The text describes a spiritual union with God through the heart. The author of the text advocates centering prayer,
a form of inner silence. According to the text, God can not be known
through knowledge or from intellection. It is only by emptying the mind
of all created images and thoughts that we can arrive to experience God.
Continuing on this line of thought, God is completely unknowable by the
mind. God is not known through the intellect but through intense contemplation, motivated by love, and stripped of all thought.[232]
Thomism, though not non-dual in the ordinary sense, considers the unity of God so absolute that even the duality of subject and predicate, to describe him, can be true only by analogy. In Thomist thought, even the Tetragrammaton is only an approximate name, since "I am" involves a predicate whose own essence is its subject.[233]
The former nun and contemplative Bernadette Roberts is considered a nondualist by Jerry Katz.[2]
Jewish Hasidism and Kabbalism
According to Jay Michaelson, nonduality begins to appear in the medieval Jewish textual tradition which peaked in Hasidism.[216] According to Michaelson:
Judaism has within it a strong and very ancient mystical tradition that is deeply nondualistic. "Ein Sof"
or infinite nothingness is considered the ground face of all that is.
God is considered beyond all proposition or preconception. The physical
world is seen as emanating from the nothingness as the many faces
"partsufim" of god that are all a part of the sacred nothingness.[234]
One of the most striking contributions of the Kabbalah, which became a
central idea in Chasidic thought, was a highly innovative reading of
the monotheistic idea. The belief in "one G-d" is no longer perceived as
the mere rejection of other deities or intermediaries, but a denial of
any existence outside of G-d.[note 29]
Western esotericism
Western esotericism (also called esotericism and esoterism) is a
scholarly term for a wide range of loosely related ideas and movements
which have developed within Western society. They are largely distinct both from orthodox Judeo-Christian religion and from Enlightenmentrationalism. The earliest traditions which later analysis would label as forms of Western esotericism emerged in the Eastern Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, where Hermetism, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism developed as schools of thought distinct from what became mainstream Christianity. In Renaissance Europe, interest in many of these older ideas increased, with various intellectuals seeking to combine "pagan" philosophies with the Kabbalah and with Christian philosophy, resulting in the emergence of esoteric movements like Christian theosophy.
Perennial philosophy
The Perennial philosophy has its roots in the Renaissance interest in neo-Platonism and its idea of The One, from which all existence emanates. Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) sought to integrate Hermeticism with Greek and Jewish-Christian thought,[235] discerning a Prisca theologia which could be found in all ages.[236]Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
(1463–94) suggested that truth could be found in many, rather than just
two, traditions. He proposed a harmony between the thought of Plato and
Aristotle, and saw aspects of the Prisca theologia in Averroes, the Koran, the Cabala and other sources.[237]Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) coined the term philosophia perennis.[238]
Orientalism
The western world has been exposed to Indian religions since the late 18th century.[239] The first western translation of a Sanskrit text was made in 1785.[239] It marked a growing interest in Indian culture and languages.[240] The first translation of the dualism and nondualism discussing Upanishads appeared in two parts in 1801 and 1802[241] and influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them "the consolation of my life".[242] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[243]
Transcendentalism and Unitarian Universalism
Transcendentalism was an early 19th-century liberal Protestant movement that developed in the 1830s and 1840s in the Eastern region of the United States. It was rooted in English and German Romanticism, the Biblical criticism of Herder and Schleiermacher, and the skepticism of Hume.[web 28]
The Transcendentalists emphasised an intuitive, experiential approach of religion.[web 29] Following Schleiermacher,[244] an individual's intuition of truth was taken as the criterion for truth.[web 29] In the late 18th and early 19th century, the first translations of Hindu texts appeared, which were read by the Transcendentalists and influenced their thinking.[web 29] The Transcendentalists also endorsed universalist and Unitarianist ideas, leading to Unitarian Universalism,
the idea that there must be truth in other religions as well, since a
loving God would redeem all living beings, not just Christians.[web 29][web 30]
Among the transcendentalists' core beliefs was the inherent
goodness of both people and nature. Transcendentalists believed that
society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and
political parties—ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual.
They had faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant"
and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true
community could be formed.
Unitarian
Universalism had a strong impact on Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj,
and subsequently on Swami Vivekananda. Vivekananda was one of the main
representatives of Neo-Vedanta, a modern interpretation of Hinduism in line with western esoteric traditions, especially Transcendentalism, New Thought and Theosophy.[245]
His reinterpretation was, and is, very successful, creating a new
understanding and appreciation of Hinduism within and outside India,[245]
and was the principal reason for the enthusiastic reception of yoga,
transcendental meditation and other forms of Indian spiritual
self-improvement in the West.[246]
Narendranath Datta (Swami Vivekananda) became a member of a Freemasonry lodge "at some point before 1884"[247] and of the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj in his twenties, a breakaway faction of the Brahmo Samaj led by Keshab Chandra Sen and Debendranath Tagore.[248] Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), the founder of the Brahmo Samaj, had a strong sympathy for the Unitarians,[249] who were closely connected to the Transcendentalists, who in turn were interested in and influenced by Indian religions early on.[250] It was in this cultic[251] milieu that Narendra became acquainted with Western esotericism.[252]Debendranath Tagore brought this "neo-Hinduism" closer in line with western esotericism, a development which was furthered by Keshubchandra Sen,[253] who was also influenced by transcendentalism, which emphasised personal religious experience over mere reasoning and theology.[254]
Sen's influence brought Vivekananda fully into contact with western
esotericism, and it was also via Sen that he met Ramakrishna.[255]
Vivekananda's acquaintance with western esotericism made him very
successful in western esoteric circles, beginning with his speech in
1893 at the Parliament of Religions. Vivekananda adapted traditional
Hindu ideas and religiosity to suit the needs and understandings of his
western audiences, who were especially attracted by and familiar with
western esoteric traditions and movements like Transcendentalism and New thought.[256]
A major force in the mutual influence of eastern and western ideas and religiosity was the Theosophical Society.[258][259] It searched for ancient wisdom in the east, spreading eastern religious ideas in the west.[260] One of its salient features was the belief in "Masters of Wisdom",[261][note 30]
"beings, human or once human, who have transcended the normal frontiers
of knowledge, and who make their wisdom available to others".[261]
The Theosophical Society also spread western ideas in the east, aiding a
modernisation of eastern traditions, and contributing to a growing
nationalism in the Asian colonies.[212][note 31]
New Age
The New Age movement is a Westernspiritual
movement that developed in the second half of the 20th century. Its
central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and
Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics".[266]
The New Age aims to create "a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas" that is inclusive and pluralistic.[267] It holds to "a holistic worldview",[268] emphasising that the Mind, Body and Spirit are interrelated[269] and that there is a form of monism and unity throughout the universe.[web 31] It attempts to create "a worldview that includes both science and spirituality"[270] and embraces a number of forms of mainstream science as well as other forms of science that are considered fringe.[citation needed]
Scholarly debates
Nondual consciousness and mystical experience
Insight (prajna, kensho, satori, gnosis, theoria, illumination), especially enlightenment
or the realization of the illusory nature of the autonomous "I" or
self, is a key element in modern western nondual thought. It is the
personal realization that ultimate reality is nondual, and is thought to
be a validating means of knowledge of this nondual reality. This
insight is interpreted as a psychological state, and labeled as
religious or mystical experience.
Development
According to Hori, the notion of "religious experience" can be traced back to William James, who used the term "religious experience" in his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience.[271] The origins of the use of this term can be dated further back.[272]
In the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, several historical figures
put forth very influential views that religion and its beliefs can be
grounded in experience itself. While Kant held that moral experience justified religious beliefs, John Wesley in addition to stressing individual moral exertion thought that the religious experiences in the Methodist movement (paralleling the Romantic Movement) were foundational to religious commitment as a way of life.[273]
Wayne Proudfoot traces the roots of the notion of "religious experience" to the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher
(1768–1834), who argued that religion is based on a feeling of the
infinite. The notion of "religious experience" was used by
Schleiermacher and Albert Ritschl
to defend religion against the growing scientific and secular critique,
and defend the view that human (moral and religious) experience
justifies religious beliefs.[272]
Such religious empiricism would be later seen as highly
problematic and was – during the period in-between world wars – famously
rejected by Karl Barth.[274]
In the 20th century, religious as well as moral experience as
justification for religious beliefs still holds sway. Some influential
modern scholars holding this liberal theological view are Charles Raven and the Oxford physicist/theologian Charles Coulson.[275]
The notion of "religious experience" was adopted by many scholars of religion, of which William James was the most influential.[276][note 32]
Criticism
The notion of "experience" has been criticised.[280][281][282]
Robert Sharf points out that "experience" is a typical Western term,
which has found its way into Asian religiosity via western influences.[280][note 33]
Insight is not the "experience" of some transcendental reality,
but is a cognitive event, the (intuitive) understanding or "grasping" of
some specific understanding of reality, as in kensho[284] or anubhava.[285]
"Pure experience" does not exist; all experience is mediated by intellectual and cognitive activity.[286][287] A pure consciousness without concepts, reached by "cleaning the doors of perception",[note 34] would be an overwhelming chaos of sensory input without coherence.[288]
Nondual consciousness as common essence
Common essence
A main modern proponent of perennialism was Aldous Huxley, who was influenced by Vivekanda'sNeo-Vedanta and Universalism.[257] This popular approach finds supports in the "common-core thesis". According to the "common-core thesis",[289] different descriptions can mask quite similar if not identical experiences:[290]
According to Elias Amidon there is an "indescribable, but definitely recognizable, reality that is the ground of all being."[291] According to Renard, these are based on an experience or intuition of "the Real".[292] According to Amidon, this reality is signified by "many names" from "spiritual traditions throughout the world":[291]
[N]ondual awareness, pure awareness, open awareness, presence-awareness, unconditioned mind, rigpa, primordial experience, This, the basic state, the sublime, buddhanature, original nature, spontaneous presence,
the oneness of being, the ground of being, the Real, clarity,
God-consciousness, divine light, the clear light, illumination,
realization and enlightenment.[291]
According to Renard, nondualism as common essence prefers the term "nondualism", instead of monism, because this understanding is "nonconceptual", "not graspapable in an idea".[292][note 35] Even to call this "ground of reality", "One", or "Oneness" is attributing a characteristic to that ground of reality. The only thing that can be said is that it is "not two" or "non-dual":[web 33][293]
According to Renard, Alan Watts has been one of the main contributors
to the popularisation of the non-monistic understanding of "nondualism".[292][note 36]
Criticism
The "common-core thesis" is criticised by "diversity theorists" such as S.T Katz and W. Proudfoot.[290] They argue that
[N]o unmediated experience is
possible, and that in the extreme, language is not simply used to
interpret experience but in fact constitutes experience.[290]
The idea of a common essence has been questioned by Yandell, who
discerns various "religious experiences" and their corresponding
doctrinal settings, which differ in structure and phenomenological
content, and in the "evidential value" they present.[295] Yandell discerns five sorts:[296]
The specific teachings and practices of a specific tradition may
determine what "experience" someone has, which means that this
"experience" is not the proof of the teaching, but a result of the teaching.[303]
The notion of what exactly constitutes "liberating insight" varies
between the various traditions, and even within the traditions.
Bronkhorst for example notices that the conception of what exactly
"liberating insight" is in Buddhism was developed over time. Whereas
originally it may not have been specified, later on the Four Truths
served as such, to be superseded by pratityasamutpada, and still later, in the Hinayana schools, by the doctrine of the non-existence of a substantial self or person.[304] And Schmithausen notices that still other descriptions of this "liberating insight" exist in the Buddhist canon.
