SRIDHAR RANA RIMPOCHE

MARSHLAND FLOWERS
This ebook is a collection of articles written by the Vidyadhara Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana
Rinpoche which you can nd here https://www.byomakusuma.org/MarshlandFlowers.html

The original articles are divided in sections not chapters, the division in chapter/sections in
this digital document are just for my convenience, I did it while I was collecting the articles
to generate this ebook, so, they are kind of arbitrary.

(Anonymus, 2023)

T H E A R T I C L E S C L A R I F Y P R E VA I L I N G
MISCONCEPTIONS ON BUDDHISM AND
HELP GENERAL READERS UNDERSTAND
AUTHENTIC BUDDHISM.
fi
Introduction ....................................................................................................7

Reincarnation ...............................................................................................49

Illusion of memory .......................................................................................51

Altered states of mind ..................................................................................53

Examining Zen meditation ...........................................................................55

Waves in mind..............................................................................................56

Mind potential ..............................................................................................57

Within your reach ........................................................................................59

Teaching muni cently ...................................................................................60

Relying on meaning, not words ...................................................................62

Undistorted teachings ..................................................................................63

No beginning, no end ..................................................................................64

A Paradigm Shift ..........................................................................................66

Attaining divine ears and eyes .....................................................................67

The Buddha, Tathagata, the Dasa Baladhari, the holder of ten powers .......................68
Endless recollections ................................................................................................69
Practical bene ts .....................................................................................................70
Degrees of emancipation .............................................................................72

Interpretation of God ..............................................................................................73

Buddhism is not Nastik .............................................................................................74
Higher knowing .......................................................................................................76
The Buddha – the holder of ten powers ....................................................................77
Limitless capacity ....................................................................................................78
Glimpse of enlightenment.............................................................................81

3
fi
fi
 Samyag Dristi .........................................................................................................82
Freedom from emotional and conceptual de lements.................................................83
Samatha .......................................................................................................84

Cutting the roots of Kleshas .....................................................................................86

The six Abhigyas .....................................................................................................87
Samatha and Vipassyana ........................................................................................88
Samyagdristi – the correct view ...................................................................89

Correct interpretation of Buddhism ...........................................................................91

Anatma/Sunyata ....................................................................................................92
The major issue .......................................................................................................93
Samyagdristi ...........................................................................................................95
A very simpli ed version of Sankara Vedanta ...........................................................96
Watcher/Drasta ......................................................................................................98
Crux of Buddhism....................................................................................................99
Difference in Karma ..............................................................................................100
Wisdom matters, not caste or class .........................................................................102
Disease of mankind ...............................................................................................103
Balanced growth ...................................................................................................104
Calming the mind ..................................................................................................106
Deep levels of relaxation .......................................................................................107
Suppressed Kleshas ...............................................................................................108
Ignorance – innate clinging to I and mine ...............................................................110
Hard wired into brain .............................................................................................111
Different peaks ......................................................................................................112
Sunyata (Emptiness) ...............................................................................................114
Brahman and Sunyata ............................................................................................115
Meaning, not words, are important ............................................................117

Swarupa ...............................................................................................................118
Artilces from issue ..................................................................................................119

4
fi
fi
 Real Impurities ......................................................................................................125
Fine differences in interpretation ............................................................................129
Strong foundation necessary for correct interpretation .............................133

Escapism -not the way out of the truth of suffering ...................................................134

What we resist, persists ..........................................................................................136
Awareness itself is curative .....................................................................................137
Cognitive restructuring ...........................................................................................139
Renunciation is not everything ................................................................................140
True enjoyment of life ............................................................................................142
Conditioned existence ...........................................................................................144
Constant striving....................................................................................................145
Suffering of growing up .........................................................................................147
Planning everything but death ................................................................................148
Unappeasable desires ...........................................................................................150
Goal of Arhathood .....................................................................................155

To become a Buddha ..................................................................................157

Root of suffering ...................................................................................................158

Concept of I, me and mine .....................................................................................160
The Right View ......................................................................................................161
Avidhya-Nescience in Buddhism .............................................................................163
Satkaya Dristi........................................................................................................165
Pancha Skandha ...................................................................................................166
“Samskara” ..........................................................................................................168
Vipashyana...........................................................................................................170
Demystifying 'I-self' ................................................................................................171
Fallacy of Language ..............................................................................................173
More on Fallacy of Language and Modern Thinking ................................................175
Unchanging 'I' or is it .............................................................................................176
I as 'Seer', 'Watcher,' 'Knower' ...............................................................................178

5
 Changing or Unchanging 'I' ...................................................................................179
Atman - Anatman Debate ...........................................................................181

Understanding Vedantic Atman ..............................................................................182

Understanding Maya and Mayawat .......................................................................184
Vedanta explanation of ‘I’ .....................................................................................185
Understanding Atman & Liberation Correctly ..........................................................187
Understanding Sankaracharya More Deeply ..........................................................189
Sankara and Other Hindu Thoughts ........................................................................191
More on Atman from Different Hindu Philosophies ..................................................193
Comparing Vedantic Mahavastu and Buddhist Vigyan Skanda .................195

Atman Conscious or Unconscious ...........................................................................198

Liberation through conscious Atman, unconscious Atman or with changing mind .......200
Understanding the difference between the concept Atman and Anatman ..................201
Buddhist Concept of Chitta Santana ...........................................................203

Explaining the continuum .......................................................................................204

Clari cation of ‘Eternal Unchanging’ and ‘Eternal Changing’ Views .........................206
Importance of Correct View in Meditation ..............................................................207
Sahaja Atman Graha or Spontaneous Grasping to Non-Existence Atman .................209
All ‘I’ the source of Emotional De lement ................................................................210
Different forms of Enlightenment Prevalent in Indian Subcontinent .............................212
Recapping Four Noble Truths ......................................................................214

Understanding Suffering of Second Noble Truth with Pure Buddhist Perspective .........215
Law of Interdependent Origination key to Understanding Buddhism ........217

Conditioned Existence ............................................................................................218

Implications of Pratitya Samutpada ........................................................................220
Interdependent Origination ....................................................................................221
Dwadas Nidan .....................................................................................................224
Importance of the teachings of Pratityasamutpada ..................................................225

6
fi
fi
 Understanding Dwadas Nidan with Pratityasamutpada............................................227
Understanding the link between Four Noble Truth and Dwadas Nidan .....................228
Creation in Buddhism .................................................................................230

Creation versus Coming into being .........................................................................231

Karma in different systems ........................................................................233

Shared Culture of Three Santana Dharmas Distorting Interpretations of Key Concepts .....
235
Punarabhava or Punarajanma continued ................................................................236
Punarabhava to Avidhya - the difference between two systems.................................237
Avidya-Nescience of Buddhism ..............................................................................239
Klesha direct product of Avidya .............................................................................241
Explanining klesha (de lement) ..............................................................................242
Interpreting the meaning of gyan in different systems ..............................................243
Clarifying buddhi and manas and Buddhist terminologies ........................................244
Importance of unbiased investigation to determine ultimate reality .........246

Understanding the importance of sanskara ...............................................249

Karma sanskara according to Buddhism..................................................................251

How sanskara in uences us everyday.....................................................................252
Learning the right sanskaras ..................................................................................256
Sanskaras and information learned in schools and colleges .....................................258
Real freedom from sanskaras .................................................................................259
Using the sanskaras without being chained to them .................................................260
Perpetuating moha is not enlightenment ..................................................................264
State of moha opposite of here and now ................................................................265
Vipassana in Pali or Vipashyana in Sanskrit found in different Buddhist systems ........266
Vipashyana for recognizing and eliminating sanskaras ............................................267
Awareness key to eliminating sanskaras..................................................................268
Recognizing and eliminating sanskaras ...................................................................269
Categorization of sanskaras ..................................................................................270

7
fl
fi
 Sanskaras' link to karma ........................................................................................271
World of words .....................................................................................................272
The real seeing .....................................................................................................273
All sanskaras are learnt .........................................................................................275
Categorizing sanskaras..........................................................................................276
Sanskaras are learned ..........................................................................................277
Concepts and meditation techniques ..........................................................279

Samatha meditation in detail .................................................................................280

Use of miraculous powers in Buddhism ...................................................................282
Importance of learning from an authentic master ......................................285

Development of shrutamaya pragya with authentic master .......................................286

Importance of investigating the path for yourself .....................................................287
Investigating the path to move forward...................................................................288
Importance of investigating the path with a master ..................................................289
Investigating the path does not mean not trusting anyone ........................................290
Vipashyana practices in different schools of Buddhism .............................................292
Refuting the existence of Vipashyana only in Ven. Goenkaji's Theravada practice .....293
Importance of refuting in all Buddhist traditions .......................................................294
What are Buddhist Sutras and Sastras ....................................................................296
Buddhist pure traditions of Mahayana and Theravada .............................................297
Continuing with Dwadas nidan ..................................................................300

Concept of Creator in Hinduism and Buddhism Part II ................................305

Worship of Bodhisattvas and Gurus in Buddhism vis-a-vis worship of Gods in other

religions ...............................................................................................................307
Worship in different religious systems .....................................................................308

8
 INTRODUCTION

Having humbly o ered marshland owers to the Master of gods and men (sasta deva
manushyanam), the god of gods (Devadideva) the yogi of yogis, I humbly begin this series
on Buddhism. Nepal is the land where the Buddha was born and it was the rst country
outside India where Buddhism spread. A vast number of Sakyas had become Buddhists at
the time of the Buddha himself. However, leaving aside the Himalayan ethnic minority, the
vast majority of the Nepalese people, including those who are supposed to be Buddhists by
birth, know very little about both the Buddha and Buddhism. To the vast majority of non-
Buddhist Nepalese, the Buddha-legend is based on myths coming from non-Buddhist
cultures. So the Buddha becomes an incarnation of Visnu and that's about all that is known
about the Buddha. In this age and era when Buddhism is spreading like wild re across the
seven seas and becoming the talk of the intellectuals across the world, Nepalese intellectuals
fumble and mumble about the Buddha being born in Lumbini before their knowledge about
Buddhism dries up, whilst the more orthodox try to cull up what other famous Hindu yogis
had said about the Buddha – most of which are purely fabricated story, historically unsound
and alien to any form of Buddhism around the world.

So, putting the horse before the cart, who or what is the Buddha or a Buddha according to
the Buddhists themselves? This story goes three asankhya kalpas ago. When there was a
powerful yogi with all the siddhi and riddhis called Bhikchhu Sumedha. It is said that even
though he was already a powerful yogi with siddhi – riddhis, he resolved to make the
aspiration (pranidhan) to become a Buddha, in front of the Buddha Dipankara, some three
asankhya kalpas ago. And that was the starting of the making of a Buddha. This point is
based on the words of the Buddha Sakyamuni himself as recorded in the Jatak which is one
of the Scriptural texts found in the Tripitaka. The Jatakas are collection of the stories of
Sakyamuni's former lives as told by himself.

Then Bhikchhu Sumedha practiced sadhanas for three asankhya kalpas under many Buddhas
like Kashyapa etc. until nally he became a Buddha. Whether we regard this story as mere
ff
fi
fl
fi
fi
myth or real, it is the Buddhist version and speaks abundantly about the Buddhist culture
related to who or what a Buddha is. Even if it be considered as only a myth it is the
Buddhist myth as opposed to non – Buddhist myths about the Buddha. But myth or not it
does tell us a lot about who or what a Buddha is to the Buddhists and about Buddhism. This
story says that a Buddha is a sentient being who is the acme of spiritual development, as he
was already a powerful yogi when he began his journey to Buddhahood. Thus he is the king
of all yogis. Also he is not some kind of a God or incarnation of a God, but rather a human
being who started on the long journey to become a Buddha. In the process, the Jatakas tell
us he was born many times as Devas like Indra etc, many times as humans etc. This opens
up the Buddhist concept that there is not much di erence between the Gods and men and
animals in terms of cycle of existence, because the continuity of the same mental continuum
can be a deva at one time and a human at another time. So devas in Buddhism are not
eternally xed devas but can die and be born as humans etc. depending upon the karma they
have accumulated. This means karma is not xed thing bestowed upon men by some super
gods but rather the actions one's own self has perpetrated and the result one's own self has
to experience and is changeable by one's ownself. So a Buddha is not a God come down to
help mankind but a person that has reached the acme of spiritual development. That is why
he called himself "Sasta deva manushyanam" which means the Spiritual Guru or Master of
Devas and humans. Being born as a human, he was a human but having become a Buddha
he was no more a mere human, but the Sasta/Guru/Master of humans and Devas in terms
of spiritual development. He himself clearly said in the Drona Sutra of the Anguttara Nikaya
that he was not a Deva, not a yakchhya, not a Gandharva and not a human as well. The
Buddha is certainly not a God or an emanation of any God by any Buddhist account but then
if he is not a human too what is he? He is a Buddha. What is the meaning of the word
Buddha and how is a Buddha di erent from being a human?

He was born a human of a human mother and father. Suddhodhan and Mayadevi were not
gods and goddesses or even their avatar. They were humans. But in Buddhism as I have
already mentioned humans are not some eternally stuck beings whose lot is to be humans
for ever. It is those very humans who became gods and goddesses according to the actions
they have performed (karma); and gods and goddesses become humans and animals
according to their karma performed in the past and present. So devas are not eternal gods
and goddesses, who have no connection with humans. So how was he not a human?
Humans are those who are still engrossed in emotional de lements, and still lost in

8
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
ignorance. Ignorance here does not mean ignorance of worldly knowledge – whatever they
be – but ignorance of the way the world really exists, ignorance of ones own true nature
(swarup). Since a Buddha is neither entangled in emotional de lements nor is he ignorant
of the true nature of all that exists including himself, he cannot be said to be a human,
although his physical endowments continue to be that of a human. His level of mind is no
more the same as the level of mind of any human or gods and goddesses for that matter.

In fact the mind of a Buddha is no more like any sentient beings in the entire universe called
Trisahasra mahasahasra loka dhatu in Buddhist culture. That's why the Buddha himself told
the Bramin Drona to understand him as a Buddha as he was not a Deva, yakchhya,
gandharva or human. A Buddha is the result of the spiritual practice of three immeasurable
kalpas (tri asankhya kalpa), thus according to the Lalitvistar, the Mahasangik record of the
Buddha's life, he was the eldest of all sentient beings (including Gods and Bramah of the
highest Deva lokas) at the point of birth itself. This is the meaning of Bramah, Visnu and
Mahesh coming to greet him at his birth as is shown in the sculpture in Lumbini and in
many paubha paintings.

Because of the immeasurable merit he accumulated during the three immeasurable kalpas of
practice he was born with the 32 lakchhyanas (physical characteristics) and 80 anubyanjanas
(sub – characteristics). These are found only amongst those who will become a Chakravarti
King or a Buddha. These two are concepts which existed in the sub-continent even before
the time of Sakyamuni because we nd the Brahmin Puskarswati sending his Brahmin
disciple Ambatha to check whether Gautam was really a Buddha and had those
characteristics or not. Ambatha was rude to the Buddha, he appears to be a snobbish
Brahmin but when the learned Brahmin Puskarswati heard that Gautam indeed had those
characteristics, he asked Ambatha "How did you behave with him?" When Ambatha told
him how he behaved, it is said Puskarswati gave him a swat on the face and went himself to
apologize for his disciple's rude behaviour. But it must be made cleat that these 32
lakchhyanas and anubyanjanas are not the same attributed to Krishna. These are a more
ancient version of the 32 lakchhyanas. Some of the major part of which are a golden colored
skin, a swirl of white hair between the eye brows, and a mound on top of the skull which
gives the impression that he has tied his hair in a tuft on the crown. That tuft – like mound
on top of all Buddha – statues is actually not a tuft of hair tied up in a bun above the crown
as most non – Buddhist Nepalese think but rather a peculiar bump of the skull found only in

9
fi
fi
 the Buddha or a Chakravarti Kings, called the usnisa. These are characteristics not found in
any non – Buddhist devas or yogis, although some of them are common. According to the
Ambatha sutta, Digha Nikaya, these characteristics were well known to the Brahmins of the
time of the Buddha and mentioned in their texts too. But, this knowledge seems to have
become lost in the Brahmanical systems in later centuries after the Buddha, because we nd
in later Hindu texts, that the Buddha is made into an avatar of Visnu and Krishna whose
very name means black is also said to have the 32 lakchhyanas. Even the Brahmins of the
Buddha's time knew that a Buddha is as rare as the Udumbara ower. A ower said to
bloom only when a Buddha attains full enlightenment and that was very rare. A Buddha
arises only when the teachings of a Buddha before him has been totally lost. As there can be
no two lions in the same forest so there can be no two Buddhas at the same time or two
di erent teachings of two di erent Buddhas at the same time. So a new Buddha arises only
after the sasana (dispensation) of the one before him has totally vanished. Right now the
dispensation of Sakya Muni Buddha still exists and is going strong and so no other Buddha
can arise. Maitreya Buddha will arise only after the dispensation of Sakya Muni has totally
vanished.

Taking this metaphor (which should not be stretched too far like all other metaphors) we
can say that the Buddha and only the Buddha could possible validate whether or not another
person he has taught has experienced the same Bodhi or not. I am sure there can be no two
thoughts about this much. This is exactly what the Buddha did when he declared hundreds
of his disciples as arhats or srotapannas or sagridagami or bodhisattvas who had attained
Darsan marga or higher up the ladder.

These new words bring us closer to what the Buddhists call enlightenment but we shall deal
with them a little later after having dealt with the "Unbroken – enlightened lineage" issue
rst. So the Buddha historically validated di erent levels of enlightenment amongst his
disciples; and this is recorded in Theravad, Sarvastivad, and Mahayan literature. Now that
means these rst generation disciples were enlightened to various degrees according to the
Buddha himself. So, more than anybody else these disciples would be the authentic
authorities on what was the Buddha's Bodhi. Now these disciples authenticated the degrees
of enlightenment of their disciples who were the second generation. As these rst
generations had experienced themselves the Bodhi of the Buddha to various degrees, they
would know better than anybody else which of their disciples had reached/attained/

10
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
fl
fl
fi
fi
 experienced various degrees of the Buddha's Bodhi. I do not think there can be two minds
about it. Only a scientist can test whether a new student has the knowledge he himself has
and de nitely not a non – scientist. Likewise only Masters of Buddha's unbroken lineage can
gauge whether the practitioners of the next generation have attained the Buddha's Bodhi to
some degree or not and not other non – Buddhists. For this validation to remain authentic
and pure, the lineage should be unbroken generation to generation from the time of the
Buddha through the rst generation, second generation, third generation etc etc. till the
present time. Even if in one generation, there was no one who was validated as enlightened,
the lineage is broken as far as enlightenment is concerned; even if it continues. That then is
an unbroken lineage but not an enlightened unbroken lineage. There are other kinds of
lineages like the pandit lineage of scholars, who have transmitted unbroken, the knowledge
of the Buddha's teaching from generation to generation up to date. But that is not an
unbroken enlightened lineage but and unbroken pandit lineage. The pandit lineage can not
validate authentically the experience of someone as valid Buddhist enlightenment or not. It
can only infer based on scriptures. In the Buddhism of today, as a whole both the lineages
exist unbroken and alive. It is the Masters of these lineages who are the authentic
disseminators of the Buddha's teachings and not others no matter how brilliant or profound
their explanations of the Buddha's teachings are.

Actually since such lineage Masters of both types of lineage exist in abundance in both the
Mahayana and Sravakayana tradition, many of them being holders of both lineages, there's
no need for others who do not belong to such authentic lineages to explain or even teach
Buddhism based on one's own personal ideas. The Buddha's teaching is still alive and
dynamic. It is not a thing of the past history which can be explained according to one's
preferences and conditionings. So this is the meaning of unbroken enlightened lineage and
unbroken pandit lineage. Within Buddhism, there is also an unbroken Bhikchhu lineage
from the time of the Buddha till today. Some Masters hold all the three unbroken lineages.
They are enlightened Masters authenticated by their Masters who themselves were
authenticated by their Masters thus going backwards to the Buddha himself, but at the same
time are also pandits, taught by pandits of an unbroken lineage who were themselves taught
by such pandits going back to Sakya Muni himself and they were also Bhikchhus, made by
Bhikchhus by older generations, who themselves were made by Bhikchhus by older
generations going back right upto Sakya Muni himself. These are not unrecorded facts; but
well recorded. In Mahayana, which consists of two Major streams: - 1. Paramitayana 2.

11
fi
fi
Vajrayana, the names of the unbroken lineage Masters from Masters of present day back to
Nalanda, Bikramashila etc etc are well recorded and available even today. And everybody
knows that these great Mahavihars were like huge universities whose lineage goes back to
the Buddha. People from as far away as China, Korea, Central Asia, Greece, Egypt came to
study in these learning houses which were virtually Mahaviharas (Great monastic
complexes). And those Mahayana lineages of those Mahavihars were unbroken and continue
to remain alive and vibrant up till this day. The meaning of the sutras and sastras of
Buddhism should be according to the Masters of such lineages and not otherwise. There
have been many interpreters of the Buddha's teachings in the Indian subcontinent who
never studied under any of the authentic lineage masters. Needless to say people are free to
interpret as they deem t the teachings of the Buddha but such interpretations should not
be mistaken as authentic Buddhism.

While dealing with various interpretation or more aptly misinterpretation of Buddhism

made by non-buddhist yogis and the like it seems apt to point out some of the more
common ones before continuing with the lineage issue. One of the oft repeated concept is
that the Buddha actually taught, the same thing as the Vedanta of the Vedic system but his
disciples did not understand him. Now a lot of non-buddhists believe with ease such blatant
fallacies. First of all, as we have seen, the Buddha himself validated the scholastic and
experiential understanding of all his immediate disciples and their lineages still exist
unbroken. So to say that the Buddha's disciples who walked the breadth of North India with
him and studied with him for forty years or more and were validated by the Buddha himself,
that they fully understood what he taught, did not understand him while non-buddhist
swamis and yogis really understood him and that too after two thousand ve hundred years
afterwards is indeed a bit far fetched to say the least. No rational person could possibly
agree with such agrant distortion of reality.

A corollary to the above misconception is that the Buddha actually taught what was in the
Vedas but his disciples either did not understand his teaching or distorted them. An aspect
of the above mentioned misconception has already been shown as totally absurd. But there
is another aspect which needs to be dealt with. As the Buddha's immediate disciples had
experienced in their own mental continuum what the Buddha meant, there could not
possibly have been any distortion. And as the living enlightened lineages continue to date,
which means that each generation experienced in their mental continuum, the exact

12
fl
fi
fi
meaning of the Buddha's teachings, to claim that the Buddhists distorted the Buddha's
teachings and that's why it has become so di erent from the Vedic teachings, is the height of
naivety.

And this brings us to another similar misconception about Buddhism. Most Hindu scholars,
or otherwise, would like to believe that the Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. This
misunderstanding is rampant amongst educated Hindus and is a correlate of the story
fabricated in the 16th century and later in the Shiva Purana and its likes, that the Buddha
was an incarnation of Visnu. First of all Hinduism as it is known today did not exist at the
time of the Buddha, so there can be no question about Buddhism being a branch of
Hinduism. In fact, according to historical records and anthropological studies, what we call
Hinduism is 75% derived from Buddhism and is the o spring of the impact of Buddhism on
the Brahmanic system. What existed in the Buddha's time was a form of Brahmanism that
was quite di erent from what is known as Hinduism today. From ancient times there were
two streams of spiritual quest in the Indian sub-continent. One was Sramanism and the
other was Vedic Brahmanism. These two streams did interact with each other as is seen
clearly in the Upanishads of the Brahmanic systems and the sutras of the Buddhists and
Jains who were both members of the sramanic system. It should be kept in mind that both
the Buddha and Mahavir called themselves Mahasramans, which is a clear indication that
they did not subscribe to the Brahmanic systems. In one of the most famous mantras of
Buddhism 'ye dharma hetu prabaha hetustathagato hyevadat tesancha yo nirodho evam badi
mahasramana, Aswajit, the famous Brahmin disciple of the Buddha called the Buddha
Mahasramana. Sramanism was probably older than the Vedic Brahmanism that, according to
many historians came into India when the Indo-Aryans transmigrated into the Indian sub-
continent, from Central Asia. But there are many who do not agree to this view. However,
Sramanism is de nitely an indigenous spiritual tradition of the Indian subcontinent, and
there is no two thoughts about this.

We see the transactions between the Sramans and Brahmins in the Brihadaranyak
Upanishad 3.6.1 where we nd Gargi (who is often vaunted as the daughter of Nepal)
challenging the Brahmin Yagyavalkya. We know that Gargi was a Sraman by the fact that she
stuck a twig of the rose-apple (Jambu tree) as a sign of challenge. And also the style of
questioning of Gargi is a shade di erent from the questions put forth by the many other
Brahmins in that same text. The Brihadaranyak is thought to be at least 2-3 hundred years

13
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
older than the Buddha if not older. So Sramanism was an equally old (if not older) stream of
spiritual system as Brahmanism and the Buddha has clearly called himself Mahasraman.
This would clearly imply that Buddhism is de nitely not an o -shoot of Brahmanism, what
to speak of Hinduism which is a product of Brahmanism's interaction with Buddhism and
thus something that developed in the Indian sub-continent after the Buddha. We could give
scholastic quotes to validate this but it's not necessary in an article like this. Vedic
Brahmanism metamorphosed drastically due to the catalytic in uence of Buddhism and
others and became the multifarious system under the generic name of Hinduism.

But of course, we cannot say that Buddhism was not in uenced by Vedic Brahmanism and
later Hinduism at all. That would be too naïve. However, in the give and take which is
inevitable in any culture within a space of time (and Buddhism covered 75% of India and
75% Asia for sixteen or so hundred years), it was Hinduism which took mostly from
Buddhism and not the other way around.

Another interrelated myth is that it was Sankaracharya who defeated the Buddhists all over
India and that is how Buddhism vanished from India or as the former President of India Dr.
Radhakrishnan Sarvapulli put it, Hinduism embraced Buddhism and in the process killed it.
Again these are myths running wild amongst Hindus of the Indian sub-continent; but they
do not have any historical validity. This notion is given further credence to Nepalese,
including Buddhist Newars by the Newari legend that Sankaracharya came to Nepal and
defeated all the Buddhists, converted the kings and beheaded the Bhikchhus. First of all the
Adi Sankaracharya was around the 7th century and great Mahavihars like Nalanda and
Bikramashila were still running strong till the 12th /13th century when the Muslims over
ran India and destroyed them. Secondly there were still Mahasiddhas like Naropa, Tilopa
and many others till the Muslim invasion. So, Buddhism was still running strong ve
century after Adi Sankaracharya. And furthermore, the stories of Sankaracharya as written
by Ananda Giri and Madhava etc. do not contain any element which mentions that he
debated with the Buddhists all over India and defeated them. In fact those stories show
Sankaracharya debating mostly with other non-advaita Hindus and rarely with the Buddhist.
So, the misconception that Sankaracharya went up and down India defeating all the
Buddhists and this is how Buddhism vanished from India seems to be baseless and
fabricated by uneducated Non-Buddhists. Thirdly, the Sankaracharya that came to Nepal
seems to be of the 11th-12th century or later and not the Adi Sankaracharya. He seems to

14
fi
fl
ff
fl
fi
have entered Nepal when Buddhism was beginning to decline in Nepal as a result of its
having declined in India due to the Islamic invasion which literally destroyed Buddhism in
India. So he did not nd any match for his debates and was able to convert many people in
Kathmandu. He may possibly be the same Harinanda who was defeated by the Great Tibetan
Guru Sakya Pandit. However this is not conclusive. But the stories do say he died in Tibet.
However he did not die before he created havoc amongst the Buddhists of Kathmandu
Valley, who still do not seem to have recovered from the shock. Big learning houses like
Nalanda, Bikramashila etc were raised to the ground and the monks beheaded and the books
in the libraries burnt to cinders by the Islamic invaders like Bakhtiar, Khilji etc. It is said in
the diary of Khilji's general that, the books of the library of Nalanda took six months for the
cinders to settle down and nine months for the smoke to settle down. So much destruction
took place all over the Indian subcontinent. It said one of the reasons why the Buddhist
monasteries were specially picked out by the Islamic invaders is that they mistook the
monks in uniform monk dress as uniformed army men and the books in the library as books
on warfare et al. This happened in the 12th/13th century, almost 5 centuries after
Sankaracharya. Till then Buddhism was still ourishing strong in the Indian subcontinent.

Yes the Adi Sankaracharya refuted the Buddhist tenets in his commentaries of the
Upanishads and Brahma Sutra; but the Buddhists have also equally refuted the concepts of
Sankara. Debate and refutation was both ways till the Islamic Invasion. It was only after
Buddhism was literally raised to the ground by the Islamic Invaders that present day
Hinduism, which is a metamorphosed form of Vedic Hinduism, began to raise its head. Till
then 75% of Indian subcontinent and 75% Asia was Buddhist. From the time of the Buddha
and specially from the 1st/2nd century till the 11th/12th century, when the Vajrayana form
of Buddhism was in sway, Buddhist art, philosophy and logic developed to its fullest
potential. It can certainly be said that, that was the golden period of Indian culture as a
whole and Indian Buddhism speci cally. This was also the period when, as a result of
interaction with Buddhism, Hinduism also developed to its cream. It should be remembered
that Sankaracharya who is considered as the cream of Hinduism by an overwhelming
majority of the Hindus, was a product of the 6/7th century and many ancient Hindus like
Bhaskaracharya etc even called him pracchanna Bauddha (crypto Buddhist). Why did these
Hindu pillars call Sankaracharya a crypto-Buddhist? This is not because he, his philosophy
or tenets were like the Buddhists'. No, far from it, he has attempted to refute the Buddhist
tenets. It is because he has used the Buddhist logical modus operandii to refute all his

15
fi
fi
fl
 opponents which included the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. This clearly shows how even
Sankara was in uenced by Buddhism. The great Buddhist Nyaiyayik (logician) Dharmakirti
literally changed the logical system of the Indian subcontinent with his Buddhist logical
tenets.

Another big confusion is that the Buddhist Tantra was a result of the in uence of Hindu
Tantra on Buddhism. But the famous Indian Iconographist Benoytosh Bhattacharya has
amply proven that it is the other way around. Hindu Tantra developed after Buddhist Tantra
(Vajrayana) reached its acme in the Indian subcontinent. One of the oldest Hindu Tantric
literature the Pichu Tantra also called the Rudrayamala and the Brahmayamala very clearly
states that Vasistha went to Mahachina (Tibet) to study the tantric methods with Shiva-rupi
Buddha. Now till the 12th century, Tibetans came down to the hot plains of India to study
the tenets of Vajrayana in the great learning houses like Nalanda/Bikramashila etc. Now this
means this oldest Hindu Tantra was written after the 12th century and not before that. It
was written after Vajrayana vanished from India after the Islamic Invasion. Although Hindu
Tantra developed as a result of the in uence of Vajrayana on the entire subcontinent, the
two are only apparently similar. A deeper probe into both of them exposes a tremendous
di erence not only of the paradigms on which each is based but also on the principles on
which each is based, the path followed by each and the nal goal of each.

The entire Hindu Tantric systems are themselves diverse; some based on Shakti, others on
Shiva and some on Visnu. The objective of most of them is to unite with the deity and
nally attain Brahma, Parasamvit or Sambhava states. Excepting the dualistic tantras, they
are all varieties of advaita Vedanta where other names substitute the Brahma of the Vedanta.
Most of them are geared towards the realization of the Eternal unchanging self called the
Atma in the entire Hinduistic system. Now the whole of Buddhist Tantra is geared to the
realization of emptiness (sunyata) which is a subtle form of Anatma.

Hinduistic Tantra is based on the experience of an eternally existing, unchanging entity

called the true Self or true Atman, whereas the entire Buddhist Tantra is based on the
experience that from the very beginning there is no eternally existing, unchanging Self. Both
experience is a non-dual experience. In the Hindu system one merges non-dually with the
eternal, unchanging Self and that is the non-dual experience. In Buddhist Tantra one sees
through that there is no eternal, unchanging Self as opposed to the changing world. So there
is no two, i.e. advaya. Many scholars have been confused by similar words like advaita/

16
fi
ff
fl
fl
fi
fl
 advaya and many others used in both the systems and believe that they are two versions of
the same thing. Nothing could be further away from the truth. There are also many
di erences in the path; but that would require detailed technical nitty gritties which is not
the purpose of this article. So we shall stop here about these points. All forms of Mahayana
Buddhism within which Vajrayana lies, uses Sanskrit as its lingua franca. Since Hinduism
and Hindu Tantra also uses Sanskrit, and because Buddhism and Hinduism developed rst
and foremost within the cultural milieu of the Indian subcontinent, it is not surprising that
similar words are used in both system. For example, words like mantra, dhyana, Samadhi
are common to both but do not necessarily mean exactly the same thing and one must not
be fooled by the use of such common words to conclude that Buddhism and Hinduism are
the same. One famous Nepalese Brahmin scholar saw that the word Bhairava is used in the
mantra of Bignantak and used that as a proof that the Buddhist worship Bhairava and thus
they are the same. In the Buddhist context the word only means wrathful and not any
particular deity as is the case in Hinduism. The two tantric systems of the Indian
subcontinent are as di erent from each other as Theravada is from Vaisnavism. Only the
name Tantra is the same but even the exact de nition of tantra in each of the system is
drastically di erent. So these are some of the myths about Buddhism rampant amongst non-
buddhists of Nepal which needed to be exploded.

These rampant confusions exist amongst the non – buddhists of the Indian subcontinent
because, it has been over nine centuries since Buddhism was erased from the memory of the
Indian subcontinent. It is common place for absurd rumors to spread like wild re in the
absence of authentic information.

The people of the Indian subcontinent came to believe that Buddhism had died out
completely and did not exist at all; so each was free to interpret it according to one's own
predilictions. But in reality Buddhism continued to survive in full edge in other lands
where it was taken by the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent themselves. Buddhism is
still alive and dynamic in Central Asia, Mongolia, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Bhutan,
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, the Cis – Himalayan regions of
Nepal and India, and in the Kathmandu Valley. But remarkably enough blinded by their own
cultural preconceptions, biases and prejudices even the non – buddhists of the Kathmandu
Valley who could not but rub shoulders with it constantly, were completely oblivious about
its reality and continued to subscribe to the rumors made up by their Indian Gurus. This is

17
ff
ff
ff
fi
fl
fi
fi
indeed one of the world's best epitome of how blind spots control the human mind, that in
Nepal where Buddhism never died, the non – buddhist populace virtually know nil about
authentic Buddhism.

Now let’s go back to the unbroken enlightened lineages. Within Buddhism from very
ancient times, and in fact according to the Buddhist notion, even in the times of former
Buddhas there were three distinct highways. They are called :-1. The Sravakyana 2. The
Pratyek buddhayana 3. The Bodhisatvayana also sometimes called the Samyak
sambodhiyana. The goals, that is the enlightened state of each of them, though similar are
not exactly the same. Thus the enlightenment of the Sravakyana is called Sravak Bodhi
which is the enlightenment of the Arhat, and this is not according to Buddhism itself the
same as the Pratyek bodhi which is the enlightenment of a pratyek Buddha and both of the
above are not exactly the same as the Samyagsambodhi of a Samyak sambuddha. Now here
within the Buddhist tradition itself we nd three di erent enlightenments and this is
something we have found that most non-buddhist teachers were totally unaware of. Here we
shall take issue with all those who believe or claim that the enlightenment taught by the
Buddha is the same enlightenment as taught by other non-Buddhist Masters including those
who claim to be Buddhists or teach Buddhism but do not stem from any authentic Buddhist
lineages. If Buddhism itself says there are 3 di erent enlightenments which may be similar
but not exactly the same, how can others claim that non-buddhist enlightenment and the
enlightenment of the Buddha are the same? It is not even clear which of the three Bodhis
they are talking about when they claim that their enlightenment is the same as the
enlightenment of the Buddha. Not only that much, according to the Theravadin sutta,
Samyukta Nikaya (which is a form of Sravakayan) the two agrasravakas (foremost disciples
of the Buddha, Maudgalyayana and Sariputra) had penetrated Dhammadhatu (in Sanskrit
Dharmadhatu) which even the other Arhats had not penetrated. So to claim that whatever
other non-buddhist Masters call enlightenment (Bodhi) is the same enlightenment as the
Buddha and his disciples is to display gross ignorance about what Buddhism is all about.
The goal of Sravakyana is Sravak bodhi which is the same as to say to become an Arhat. An
Arhat is someone whose kleshas (emotional de lements) have become totally extinguished.
Unless a person has became totally free from all klesha to claim that she/he is an Arhat is
like a fox claiming that she/he is a lion. There are two di erent types of Arhats, those who
become Arhats through samatha and vipassana practice and those who become Arhats
through what is called Sukkha Vipassana/Vipassyana which means practicing Vipassana

18
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
after attaining only the rst dhyana. The former have pratiharya (miraculous powers) whilst
the latter usually have less of it. Now these Arhats are neither Buddhas nor is their Bodhi
(enlightenment) considered as Samyak Sambodhi, i.e. the enlightenment of the Buddha,
what to speak of the enlightenment of non-buddhist systems. Likewise there is the
enlightenment of the Pratyek-Buddhas called Pratyek bodhi which is neither the same as the
Arhats' nor that of a Buddha.

Pratyekbuddhas arise only in the gaps between the teachings of two Buddhas. They do not
appear at other times. For example, when the dispensation of Sakya Muni has become
completely extinct, there will be a gap between the extinction and the coming of Maitreya
Buddha. It is during this period that Pratyek Buddhas will arise. They are those who have
already practiced in many lives with other Buddhas and they will practice based on their
memories of the teachings of the Buddhas under whom they practiced before, when the
Buddhas teaching have become completely extinct. It is said that at the moment when they
attain Pratyek bodhi, no matter what their get-up was they will miraculously be transformed
into full edged Bhikchhus along with the Bhikcchu dress. These Pratyek Buddhas do not
teach like Arhats or Buddhas. They are loners or live in groups of Pratyek Buddhas and only
answer questions asked but do not formally teach. Needless to say, there are no Pratyek
Buddhas now at this period when the dispensation of Sakyamuni is still alive. Nor has
anyone heard any particular person miraculously turning into a Bhikchhu with all its regalia
at the point of his enlightenment. And this is correct, because Pratyek Buddhas will not
arise until Shakyamuni's sasan (dispensation) has completely died out. Now let us talk
about Samyak Sambodhi which is the enlightenment of a Buddha. First of all a bodhisattva
(i.e. a being destined to be a Buddha in the future) begins his career by making the resolve
in front of a living Buddha, that he too has determined to become a Buddha like himself to
be able to free immeasurable sentient beings from sorrow. Then his career begins. The
career or path of the Bodhisattva is practicing the six paramitas (sometimes also called the
ten paramitas). These six paramitas are practiced from three to four asankhya kalpas during
which period the Bodhisattva crosses through the ve paths called the pancha marga.
Various lineages like Theravada, Mahasangikas, Sarvastivadins have di erent categorizations
in order to explain the path of the Bodhisattvas; but they are not really di erent in essence.
Here, however, we shall use the explanation of Mahayana-Vajrayana which is similar to that
of the Sarvastivadins. It is only these who make the resolve to become a Buddha in front of a
living Buddha and practice the six or ten paramitas for 3 to 4 Asankhya Kalpas, who become

19
fl
fi
fi
ff
ff
 a Buddha as a culmination of their path and not others. No other person, no matter how
intelligent and how great a meditator can and should be called a Buddha. To become a
Buddha one must cross the pancha marga (the ve paths) and these may take a longer or
shorter time but there are no short cuts to Buddhahood – as some have misconceived.
Perhaps an explanation of the pancha marga ( ve paths) will clarify the above statement;
but let us nish with the unbroken enlightened lineage issue rst.

Thus there are three distinct 'yanas' i.e. vehicles of which there are no unbroken lineages of
the Pratyek Buddhas. The remaining two, the Sravakayana and the Bodhisattvayana were
both taught by the Shakyamuni and their unbroken lineages continue till today. The
teachings and lineages related to Sravak Bodhi continued to grow after the Parinirvana of the
Shasta, and in later centuries developed into 18 distinct lineages called Nikayas. Some
scholars say that they developed into 24 lineages. These were the Sravakayana lineages
whose methods produced Arhats. Arhathood was the nal stage of these lineages and not
everybody was called an Arhat the moment he experienced some extraordinary state of
mind. In fact, people go through four stages of enlightenment in which they become
progressively free from Klesha until they become completely free of all klesha (emotional
de lements). It is only those who have become completely free of all klesha, whose klesha
have been completely destroyed, that are called Arhats, what to speak of Buddhas. In the
Sravakayana it is the progressive experience of nirvandhatu (Pali: nibbandhatu) that is called
enlightenment. And the rst glimpse of nibbandhatu cuts o three major klesha and is
called srotappatti. It means he has entered the stream (srota) which will carry him towards
Arhathood. And he has become enlightened but not fully enlightened. There are two more
stages of enlightenment before he becomes a fully enlightened Arhat. Many non-buddhist
systems in the bazaar call the experience of thoughtless awareness, as enlightenment and
some go even further and call people who experience such thoughtless pure awareness by
itself as Buddhas. Needless to say, that is not even what the srotappanna experiences what
to speak of an Arhat or even further a Buddha? There seems to be a lot of confusion about
this point in the spiritual market especially in Nepal. So let's make this point clear once and
for all. No form of Buddhism, Sravakayana or Bodhisattvayana claims that the experience of
pure awareness by itself / Pure thoughtless Awareness / Watcher as the enlightened state.
So people who experience only such states are not ever considered as enlightened let alone
Arhats or Buddhas. Experiencing such states is relatively easy and quick. That does not
make methods which produce such mind-states or awareness as the quick, short path. The

20
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
path to Arhathood or Buddhahood is a slow and gradual path. The Buddha himself has said
that extinguishing the klesha (emotional de lement) is a slow and gradual process and
therefore becoming an Arhat or Buddha is a slow and gradual process. People who
experience only the pure awareness by itself do not become permanently free of any klesha
even after experiencing such a state which I have said is relatively easy to experience for
anybody who has a mind. So let me recapitulate once again, just experiencing a thoughtless
pure awareness by itself is not any kind of enlightened state nor is the ability to remain in
that state an enlightened state. We shall speak in more detail about this point when we talk
about the Buddhist enlightenment.

Of the eighteen to twenty four Sravakayana lineages, only the Theravada (which developed
out of the Vibhajyyavadin which itself developed out of the Sthabirvadins) remains today.
However, it is still alive, dynamic and going strong. It has many lineages and there are still
enlightened masters in Laos, Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka. And these masters are both
householders (upasakas / upasikas) and monks and nuns (Bhikchhus / Bhikchhunis).
However, the Bhikchhuni lineage of the Theravada tradition has been broken. But China still
have an unbroken Bhikchhuni sanga of the Mahasangika Nikayas. For anybody to become
even a srotappanna, what to speak of an Arhat, one must study and practice under such
lineage masters and be con rmed by such a Master. This is how the Buddhist system works
from the time of the Shasta (Master) himself. It was the Buddha himself who declared and
thus stamped the authenticity of the Srotappanna, Sakridagami, Anagami and Arhats of his
time. In fact, there is a story that some Bhikchhus who had reached the very high state of
Anagami (those who will not return to human forms) claimed that they had reached
Arhathood; but when the Buddha was told about this, he called them and told them they
had not become Arhats yet. This story implies that only Arhats and Buddhas can know
whether a person has become an Arhat or not and that the individual himself cannot
possibly know it and can easily be fooled. This is the raison d'etre for an unbroken
enlightened lineage. All forms of Buddhism and specially lineages of the Mahayana place
great importance and value to the purity of such an authentic unbroken enlightened lineage.

No yogi / yoginis or practitioner is accepted as a Genuine Master (Guru) no matter how

intelligent he may be, no matter how hard he may have practiced, no matter how many
years he has spent in retreat, no matter how scholarly he is, no matter how much of an
orator he may be, until and unless he is authenticated by a master or masters of such

21
fi
fi
 authentic unbroken enlightened lineages. This is the Buddhist culture in all Buddhist
countries where the unbroken enlightened lineages have not died out. This issue is
crucial not only to understand what is genuine, authentic Buddhism but also for the
existence of authentic Buddhism itself. So, forget about non-buddhists who have never
practiced any form of genuine Buddhist practices of either the Sravakayana or the
Bodhisattvayana even by reading genuine, authentic books of Buddhism; even those
who have studied and practiced for long periods under authentic masters do not dare
pretend to be Masters until and unless, older Masters authenticate them as Masters.

A very good example is that of the famous scholar of Zen Buddism Professor Dr. D. T.
Suzuki. He was a good practitioner of Zen Buddhism, and had attained a very high level. He
wrote many books on Zen Buddhism which was crucial in popularizing Zen Buddhism in
the west. When he died not a few masters said that he was already enlightened. But because
he had never sat for the dharma – battles (The Zen system of interview) with any of the
older Masters, he never received the title of Roshi / Zenji / Osho etc. which are the
authentication of his enlightenment from any of the Masters; he himself never called himself
an Osho or Zenji or Roshi which are all Japanese words. Zenji means Zen Master, Roshi
means old venerable Master which is given to a disciple whether he be a lay person or a
monk, when he completes the training and the Master is satis ed that he has attained the
nal Satori (enlightenment). This entitles him to teach. In the Rinzai school of Zen the
person has to complete the course by answering a series of three or four hundred koans.
Koans are questions which point directly to the nature of mind and dharma and the student
has to show that he has experienced directly what is being pointed out by the question. In
essence they are not questions but ngers pointing to the dharmata of all dharmas
(phenomena). We shall talk more about this later when we describe the Zen lineages. For
now, no one is entitled to call himself Roshi unless he has completed this course and been
validated by his own Master and at least 3-4 other masters. The word Osho is also a
Japanese word which is given to a Master who is a monk. It is made up of two Chinese
ideographs which is pronounced as Hwa Shang in Chinese, and in Japanese the
pronunciation varies with the particular lineage. The Zen and Pureland Schools pronounce
those two ideographs as Osho, while the Tendai school pronounces those same ideographs
as Kasho and in the Shingon School (Japanese Vajrayana) it is pronounced as Wajo; and they
originate from the Sanskrit Upadhyaya (Pali Upajjaya) which means 'Master' in the sense of
teacher. A layman cannot be an Osho / Upadhyaya. The meaning of Osho does not mean ‘to

22
fi
fi
fi
 be one with or disappear in the ocean’ or one who has attained Bhagvatta upon whom the
sky showers owers or Ocean of wisdom as some non-buddhists with very little knowledge
of Buddhism have posited; but means the teacher who is an old monk specially. Now going
back to the example of Professor Dr. Suzuki, even though he was already enlightened,
according to many Zen Masters, since he was never authenticated by any of the older
Masters, he never called himself an Osho / Zenji / Roshi or Zen Master. Even though he
wrote many books on Zen; he never took on students to guide them on the path. This is the
spirit of genuine Buddhism. It is a true display of the authentic experience of anatma
(Japanese Muga). And this is a genuine Buddhist culture, a culture based on modesty (Hri -
apatrapya) and no-self (anatma).

Another example from the Sravakayana tradition (Theravada) is of Achan Jha (Acharya Jha)
of the Thai – Laos Mountain. He was renowned to be an Arhat but when a journalist
approached him and asked him the question, he said "How can I be an Arhat?" This answer
has a double entendre. One, he just clearly denied it and second he was also teaching the
journalist that as long as there is an 'I' , there is no Arhat, when there is 'no – I' (anatma)
there is no one to be an Arhat. This beautiful answer hits the heart of the entire Buddhist
tradition.

Now let us go back to the lineage issues. Within Buddhism there always have been two
major lineages:

1. The Sravakayana lineages and

2. The Bodhisattvayana lineages.

Let us rst talk about the Sravakayana lineages. From the time of Shakyamuni the
Sravakayana lineages grew, expanded and branched out into 18 to 24 Nikayas. Each Nikaya
had its tripitaka written in its own language. For example, the Shaila and Purva shaila
Nikayas had their tripitakas in the Paisachi language, the Sarvastivadins had their tripitaka
in the Sanskrit language and the Theravadins had their tripitaka in the Pali language. The
Buddha himself is said to have discouraged his teachings being formalized in any one
language. When a group of Brahmin disciples suggested to him to record all his teachings in
the 'Chanda' (Vedic Sanskrit) he discouraged that and unequivocally reiterated that his
teachings should be made accessible in all languages. That is why the tripitakas developed in

23
fi
fl
so many languages. Of the 24 or so nikayas today only the Theravada is alive while the
tripitakas of the Sarvastivadas exist in the Chinese language. While the Theravadin tripitaka
remained in the Pali language which was a language developed out of the Saurseni family of
Indian language for the express purpose of maintaining high philosophical standards, the
Sanskrit pitaka of the Sarvastivadins and the Prakrit pitaka of the Mahasanghikas were
further translated into Tibetan, Chinese, Khotanese, Mongolian etc etc following the
injunctions of the Buddha himself. The Mahayan Pitaka also was in Sanskrit and later in
accordance with the inner intention of the Buddha, translated into Tibetan, Chinese,
Khotanese, Mongolian, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and various Central Asian languages.
So of all the various Sravakayana lineages, only the Theravada is alive today and still going
strong. The Theravada Nikaya spread to Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and
Southern Vietnam. This system began when in the 3rd century King Asoka's son Bhikkhu
Mahinda (Mahendra) took the Pitaka prevalent in Ujjain in the Pali language from Ujjain to
Sri Lanka. Since then the lineage spread to Burma and Thailand. Although Burma was
already Buddhist, the Sri Lankan Theravada reformed and gave it an impetus. The Bhikkhu
lineages and the Samatha and Vipassana lineages of the Theravada School are still running
strong and unbroken in these countries. Because a form of Sukkha Vipassana from Burma
arrived in Nepal through the Venerable Sri Goenka, many Nepalese, including those who
should know better, are a not a little confused about the Vipassana meditation.

Most Nepalese who have heard of the word Vipassana and perhaps have attended the
Vipassana Shibirs (retreats) of The Venerable Sri Goenkaji in Budhanilkantha are of the
impression that that is the one and only way that the Buddha taught (Ekayano Maggo). This
notion is completely baseless. First of all there are many lineages of Vipassana existing even
today in Burma itself whose methods are very di erent from the style of Vipassana taught
by the Venerable Sri Goenkaji. It is certainly not the one and only true method that the
Buddha taught. Two other methods of Vipassana taught in Burma is the lineage of Mahashi
Sayadaw which is being taught in Sankhamula even today; and the lineage of Sun Lun
Sayadaw. There are many other lineages existing in Burma which are all di erent from each
other; but are all pure Vipassana methods. Then there are many other di erent lineages still
existing, still going strong and still producing enlightened Masters in the Laos Mountains,
Thailand and Sri Lanka. They are all true teachings of the Buddha. Perhaps we need to
explain a few points here. All these methods are based on the teachings of the Buddha like
the smrityupasthan Sutra (Pali: Satipathan Sutta). Let us take the Satipathan Sutta. In it the

24
ff
ff
ff
 Buddha simply says look at the body (kaya), look at the feeling sensations (vedana), look at
the mind (chitta) and look at the mental – factors (chaitta / chaitasik or dharma) with smriti
– samprajanya (sati – sampajana) which means with mindfulness or mindful
comprehension. Now let us look at one of them. The Buddha say look at the Vedana, when
it arises and when it ceases and know that it has arisen (udaya) and it has ceased (vyaya).
Now if you understand this, we can easily see that many methods could be used to see the
arising and ceasing of Vedana and not just one way. For example, you could scan the body
from top of the head to the tip of the toes and back again to the head to observe the Vedanas
there and that is a correct way but de nitely not the one and only way.

In the Therigatha, a Theravadin text and part of the Theravada tripitaka, an old woman
attained Arhathood by simply going around and around the wall of the nunnery feeling the
sensations on the hands as she used her hands to support herself on the wall. She did not
look at her vedanas from the top of the head to the toes etc. The methods of Mahashi
Sayadaw is to look at the sensations in the stomach region as one breaths. It is looking at
vedana that arises and ceases in the stomach / belly area as one breathes; and the Shasta
(Master) taught to look at the Vedana. So it is equally a valid method of Vipassana. The
method of Sun Lun Sayadaw is to breathe heavily until strong sensations are produced all
around the body and to look at it just as the Shasta (Master) prescribed. It is an equally valid
method of Vipassana. But those are just two from Burma itself which have not yet made an
impact in Nepalese Circle.

We Nepalese tend to be like frogs in a well and believe whatever is within my well in the
one and only truth, full stop! This is a dangerous attitude as far as Buddhism is concerned.
The Shasta himself said to Chanki in the Majjhima Nikaya that learned people should never
say "This is the only truth" and close their mind to all other possibilities. Then there are
many powerful Vipassana systems in Laos, Thailand, and Sri Lanka which are pure
Theravada systems based on the Theravada pitaka and coming through long unbroken
lineages. In fact, according to Nyan Ponika Thera, a German Theravadin Bhikkhu, the
Burmese Sukkha Vipassana lineages all began from Jetavan Sayadaw about a hundred and
fty years ago. If this is true, none of the Burmese lineages are unbroken lineages.

But whether they are unbroken lineages or not they are based rmly on the unalloyed
interpretation of the Buddha's teachings and are not mixed with other non-buddhist views
however the Pandit lineages and the Bhikkhu lineages of Burma are unbroken. But if these

25
fi
fi
fi
Burmese Sukkha Vipassana are not unbroken lineages (as pointed out by Theravada scholars
themselves), then many ne points will be missing. The marga is not matter of just looking
at vedana or chitta etc only. There are many aspects of the marga which is handed down in
an unbroken enlightened lineage like the nitty gritties of when to push, when to relax, when
to recognize that the winds are being disturbed by meditation, what are the medicines for
the wind – disturbances, what are the landmarks on the path and how to use them, the
development of sraddha which is equally as important to become an Arhat or Bodhisattva
etc etc. There are thousands of such things which will be missing in a broken lineage. The
richness of meditation – lore, experiential – lore handed down through the unbroken
enlightened lineages cannot be compensated for by reading books or conducting seminars.
The experiential – richness of a Master cannot be compensated by any other means. The
presence of an authentic Master itself acts like a catalyst for the transformation of the
practitioner. There is a story in the Theravadin tradition itself (Anguttara Nikaya) that the
Master told one of his attendant not to go to retreat during the three month monsoon
period (varsabas); but disobeying him, the attendant nevertheless went for the retreat. After
3 months, he came back and told the Buddha that he had absolutely no experience in those
three months of retreat. The Buddha told him, 'I told you not to go.' This episode tells us a
few things.

1. The path is not merely sitting down and meditating even if the meditation is correct.

2. Without the backing of a genuine enlightened Master, even if you really sit hard in
meditation, nothing authentic is going to happen.

3. This is a good warning for all those who think they can read books and practice on their
own and avoid any contact and interaction with another living being who has deeper
experience than himself. This avoidance or fear of interaction with another personality is
itself a neurosis, which will keep him stuck wherever he is and is a sign of big ego.

But from what I have known, the Laos and Sri Lankan and Thai lineages are unbroken. Even
Sri Lankan Theravadin scholars have objected that the Burmese Sukkha Vipassana is the
true teachings of the Buddha. But in spite of these Theravadin scholars' objections the
Burmese Kalyanmitras spread their system throughout the world.

26
fi
These are facts most Nepalese, including those who are supposed to be experts in
Vipassana, are blissfully unaware of. The word Vipassana in the Theravadin scholastic
system means to 'see' in a special way 'visesena passati' or to see it holistically from many
angles 'vividena passati'. This is the same de nition found within the Mahayana tradition.
Various forms of Vipassyana (the Sanskrit version of the Pali Vipassana) exist in the
Mahayana tradition too and are equally pure teachings of the Buddha. But we are jumping
ahead and we shall deal with this matter when we come to the bodhisattvayana lineages.

Also within the Theravada system, the form of Vipassana which emphasizes looking at the
sensations (vedana) is only one kind of Vipassana and it is certainly not more special than
other forms of Vipassana which lay emphasis on looking at the body (kayanussati) or mind
(chittanussati) or mental – factors (dhammanussati). Nor is vedananussati the one that
Shasta emphasized as the root practice of all practice. There are no suttas in the Theravada
tradition to validate that. In fact, it is stated that in the Visuddhimagga that the exercise of
mindfulness of the body had never been practiced before the advent of the Buddha, nor does
it come within the scope of any of the other religious systems. It is praised in various ways
by the Buddha in di erent Suttas; for example, "there is one state, monks, which, being
developed and repeatedly practiced conduces to great religious emotion, great bene t, great
freedom from bondage, great mindfulness and self – possession, the attainment of
knowledge and insight, the happy state in this visible life, the realization of the fruit of
knowledge and release. What is that one state? Mindfulness of the body ………"

Again, "those who do not enjoy mindfulness of body do not enjoy deathlessness (amata);
those who enjoy mindfulness of the body enjoy deathlessness. Those who have not enjoyed
mindfulness of the body have not enjoyed deathlessness; those who have enjoyed
mindfulness of the body have enjoyed deathlessness. Those who have neglected mindfulness
of the body have neglected deathlessness; those who have not neglected mindfulness of the
body have not neglected deathlessness." – (Anguttara Nikaya I 43-45) and Nagarjuna says
that kayagatanusmriti is the most important meditation taught by the Shasta.

Various Theravadin meditation techniques continue to proliferate in the various Theravadin

countries. They maintain strong Samatha – Vipassana lineages. These Masters are not only
monks, but also are, as the Buddha himself would have it, householders, both female and
male. The nun (Bhikchhuni) system has been broken in the Theravadin system but, the
Mahasangika Bhikchhuni system still exists unbroken in the Chinese system.

27
ff
fi
fi
 As we said earlier the Theravada is only one of 18 – 24 Nikayas (lineages) of the
Sravakayana system. However, today only the Theravada lives on, the others vanished along
with the rest of Buddhism from the Indian subcontinent. By the time of the Muslim invasion
11 – 12th century, Theravada had already left the Indian subcontinent and had been
transplanted in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia. So, even if all other forms of
Buddhism vanished from India, the Theravada Nikaya continued to ourish and proliferate
in the South – East Asian countries. This was merely a historical uke. Likewise, various
forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana had entered China, Tibet, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Central
Asia and the entire Cis – Himalayan belt from Kashmir to North Eastern Frontier of
Arunachal before the Muslim Invasion and continued to thrive strongly in those countries
just as the Theravada Nikaya of the Sravakayana continued to thrive in the countries it had
reached before the Muslim Invasion. It is important to understand that we cannot compare
the Theravada with the Mahayana because the Theravada is a lineage within Sravakayana
and thus only one of the 18 – 24 Nikayas or lineages of Sravakayana, whereas the Mahayana
is not one particular lineage but rather a conglomeration of a vast array of lineages. That is
why Theravada is a more uniform and homogenous system as it is one lineage amongst the
many lineages of Sravakayana. The Sravakayana is not uniform as there were at least 18 – 24
di erent lineages, all Sravakayana. But Mahayana is a counterpart of Sravakayana. Thus
Mahayana like Sravakayana has many lineages within it. Because of that it appears to be
more heterogeneous and diversi ed. Thus we cannot compare Mahayana and Theravada. We
can compare Zen or Tien Tai and Theravada because they are single more homogenous
lineages within the Mahayana and Sravakayana systems respectively. However, within the
Theravada system there are many diverse lineages teaching di erent modes, styles and
emphasis on the Samatha – Vipassana meditations of Buddhism. And this is rightly so,
because in his forty or so years of dispensation, the Buddha certainly did not teach just one
method or technique or style.
First of all the Buddha taught many types of people and naturally as a skillful doctor he
would dispense teachings according to the needs and temperaments and capacities of the
person. Famous and learned Brahmin Pandits came to him and he taught them, simple
village folks came to him and he taught them, people with sharp intellects, people with great
faith in him all came to him. Thus it is most natural that he taught many styles, modes,
techniques. If he were to have taught just one straight forward method to all and sundry he
would have been very unskillful to say the least. Secondly in the Theravadin suttas
themselves, he has given many modes and styles of meditation: Samatha – Vipassana. In the

28
ff
fi
ff
fl
fl
 Satipatthan Sutta he gave the methods of watching four di erent things to attain insight
into the characteristics of all phenomena. In the Udayi Sutta, Anuttariya Vaggo of Anguttara
Nikaya, he has given other methods of Vipassana like pabbhassar sangya, ratri sangya, diwa
sangya etc etc. He has said that people can attain liberation through these methods also
which means they are other forms of Vipassana di erent from Vedananussati and the others
mentioned in the Satipatthan Sutta.

As for styles, although the Buddha himself never conducted intensive group retreats, he
often did tell his disciples to sit under a tree, or an abandoned house and spend their time
meditating. But today, intensive group retreats have become common in both Mahayana
systems like Zen Tien Tai, Vajrayana and Theravada. However, there are Theravadin
Acharyas like Achan Jha of the Laos Forest Mountain tradition of Theravada who decry such
intensive retreats as unnatural, not conducive to enlightenment and not taught by the
Buddha. He emphasizes a more relaxed and natural, unforced style of gaining insight
(Vipassana) into the nature of all dhammas.

Before I go into some of the various styles of meditation within Theravada itself I would like
to elucidate a little on what the Buddha taught. Even though, as I said, he taught many
varieties of teachings according to both the Theravada and the Mahayana traditions, they can
all be subsumed into what is called the Tri Shikchhya; often translated as the Three
Teachings or Three Trainings. The Tri Shikchhya are 1. Shila 2. Samadhi and 3. Pragya. Shila
means living a life according to moral precepts. All Buddhist householders must take the 5
Shilas (Pancha Shila). There is also the taking of eight or ten Shilas during special
ceremonies like uposatha (fasting) etc. Then there is the two hundred and fty three Shilas
taken by the Bhikchhus.

Shila is taken basically to purify the mind to some extent by not allowing the mind to
remain in an emotionally de led state. The purpose of Shila is to lighten the mind of
emotional de lements (klesha) to some extent, and not to suppress the emotional
de lements back into the subconscious mind. In Mahayana, the meaning of Shila is to help
lighten self – oriented behaviours and the like. Shila should develop sel ess behaviour. If
following a rule is sel sh in a context, then following that blindly is no more Shila but
Shilabrataparamarsha i.e. grasping to Shila and rites and rituals no matter what the case.
While Shila help in liberating the mind, Shilabrataparamarsha only bind the mind more and
more.

29
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
fl
fi
Shilabrataparamarsha is to cling to ideas that following this ritual or that strictly sticking to
precepts and rules will automatically liberate you, while Shila if followed properly can be
liberating, if not properly understood and followed blindly can produce neurotic people who
tend to be fundamentalists. The purpose of Shila is to open the mind to become more gentle
and compassionate not to see other's faults and gloat over it. In modern psychotherapy
those who pin – point others' faults or lack of Shila by that very act show that they are not
free from that de lement but rather have repressed those de lements into their
subconscious so well that it is projected onto others. That was not the purpose of the
Buddha making these Shilas. If a mind has genuinely followed the Shila in the correct way, it
opens up to the su ering and mistakes of others. It empathizes with the di culties of being
a human. Such a mind does not criticize others. But if in the name of Shila, one has only
suppressed ones emotional de lements, then one tends to only see others as Shila breakers,
one only sees others' faults and think one is pure. And this de nitely was not the purpose
why the Buddha considered Shila as one of the three Shikchya. Shila called Tsul Trim in the
Tibetan tradition means 'cool'. It should cool the mind.

A cool mind is relaxed and open to the su ering of humans and aware of ones own human
weakness. Such a mind cannot be critical but understanding and helpful. I would like to
elucidate a story of Zen Master Bankei. There was one thieving monk in his monastery. This
had been brought to his notice many times but besides telling the monk not to steal etc. he
did not take any action to punish the thieving monk. This kept on going for quite a while
until all the other monks in the monastery became fed up. One day they caught the monk
red handed and took him to the Master. But again he did not seem to take any strict action.
So all the monks got together and went to the Master and told him in no clear terms that
either he kick out that thieving monk from the monastery or all the rest of them were going
to leave the monastery. But to their utter surprise, the Master said "Ok if all the rest of you
would like to leave you are free to leave." They were all shocked to say the least. After they
recovered from the shock, they asked the Master, "How can you possibly drive all of the rest
of monks like us who have adhered strictly to the Shila while taking the side of a thieving
monk?" Osho Bankei coolly replied "You are all excellent monks who maintained your
Bhikchhu Shila very well and can easily maintain them anywhere you go. So you all will be
able to survive easily anywhere you go; but this poor kleptomaniac will not be able to adjust
anywhere, so if I don't keep him who will keep him." This is the result of a mind that has
opened to the su ering of others due to having maintained his Shila. Osho Bankei was able

30
ff
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
ffi
 to empathize with the kleptomaniac monk, just like the Shasta (Master) empathized with
Angulimala, who had already murdered nine hundred and ninety nine humans and strung
their ngers in a garland. The Buddha's mind did not get heated up (perturbed) when he
came to know about Angulimala, no, it remained calm and cool (Shila); but rather he
empathized with the human – situation of Angulimala. As a result, Angulimala became an
Arhat himself.

Shila is important because if followed properly it cools the mind. A cool mind is the
stepping store to the next Shikchya called Samadhi. A mind beset by klesha (emotional
de lements and neurotic tendencies) cannot attain Samadhi. That is why Shila is the corner
– stone of all of Buddhism. Although all the three Shikchyas (trainings) are emphasized in
all forms of Buddhism, it is often said that the Theravada system of South and South – East
Asia is better known for its special emphasis on Shila, Tibet is better known for its special
emphasis on Pragya while China is better known for its special emphasis on Samadhi.
Chinese Buddhism has historically been well known for Samadhi till today, Tibetan
Buddhism for the development of Pragya in all its three levels (Srutamayi, chintamayi and
bhavanamayi) and the Theravadin tradition for laying great emphasis on Shila. This does
not, of course, mean that there is no Shila or Samadhi in the Tibetan system or no Pragya
and Shila in the Chinese system, no Pragya and Samadhi in the Theravada system. We are
talking about the emphasis given to one of the three Shila in terms of the historical direction
the system took.

In the Sravakayana systems, the emphasis is on the Shila and Theravada being a Sravakayana
system; it is natural that the emphasis is on the Shila. Although there are Samatha
(Samadhi) and Vipassana (Pragya) practices within the Theravadin system, the emphasis on
Vipassana is a new dimension within Theravada which began approximately 150 years ago
from Jetavana Sayadaw of Burma. Before that, Vipassana was limited within Theravada to
only special Bhikkhus, whereas in Tibet Vipassyana (Tibetan: Lhag Thong) in the form of
Mahamudra practices and Dzog chen practices were commonly given even to cow herders.
In the Chinese systems and their satellite systems which ourished in Korea, Japan,
Vietnam etc. too, Vipassyana was well known in various forms. The Chinese for
Vipassyana / Vipassana is 'Kuan' and for Samatha is 'chi'. There seems to be a kind of
misconception that Vipassana is taught only in the Theravadin system and that too only in
Burma. This is based completely on lack of knowledge. As I said earlier, all the Tri Shikchya

31
fi
fi
fl
are in full form in all forms of Buddhism i.e. in Paramitayana and Vajrayana of Mahayana.
This misconception began in Nepal because a form of Theravadin Vipassana arrived in Nepal
in the late seventies and because it was presented in Nepali and Newari it became very
popular very quickly; and the acharyas etc. of this particular system went around claiming
that only their method is Vipassana and especially Mahayana does not have any Vipassana.
But Samatha and Vipassyana of one form or the other have been taught and practiced in
Tibet, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Central Asia and the Cis – Himalayan belts
for centuries. As I said Samatha – Vipassyana is called Shiney – Lhagthong in Tibetan and
Chi – Kuan in Chinese. And all the forms of meditation found within the Tibetan or Chinese
Buddhism are one or the other forms of Samatha – Vipassyana.

Perhaps we need to go more into detail about what Samatha / Vipassyana means to really
fully understand how this confusion, mentioned above is not correct. As we said before,
Samatha is intimately related to Samadhi and Vipassyana to Pragya. Without following Shila
properly the kleshas will not be weakened. Without weakening the kleshas or cooling the
mind from the re of kleshas (emotional de lements), there is no possibility that the mind
will attain Samadhi. And without some degree of Samadhi, Pragya just becomes an
intellectual game (Buddhi – vilash). However without Pragya, Shila can become a source of
neurosis, a means of making people self – righteous and puritanical. Shila must always be
peppered with some Samadhi and some Pragya. Samadhi without Pragya is Mithya Samadhi.
Most people of the Indian subcontinent think that once a yogavachara (yogi) attains
Samadhi he has reached his goal. This may be true for Non – Buddhist systems; but in
Buddhism the Shasta (Master) himself has said very clearly that there are many types of
Mithya Samadhis [Samadhis which propagate the continuity of ignorance (falsity / avidya)].
So Samadhi without proper Pragya is a trap into which many unwary yogavacharas fall.

Now let us go into Samatha – Vipassyana. Samatha in Sanskrit means remaining in an

equipose / level / quiet place. 'Sama' means equipose / level / quiet / tranquil / equanimous
/ peaceful etc. and 'tha' would mean both place and abiding / dwelling. It is translated most
accurately in Tibetan as Shine. Shi is the exact counterpart of Sama and ne is the exact
counterpart of 'tha'. The word Samadhi also has a similar meaning with 'sama'.

This part of the training begins after the wild whirlwind of a mind has cooled down by
following Shila to the best of ones ability. Then the mind is slowly but steadily trained to

32
fi
fi
 abide (stha) quietely (sama) on an object if it is a focused meditation or to remain objectless
– remaining aware without focusing on anything – if it is a non-focused meditation.

In the Buddhist tradition, there are many kinds of focused meditations. The Sravakayana has
forty or so di erent types of focused meditations on outer and inner objects and the
Mahayana has others on top of those forty or so. The forty or so Samatha methods were
taken by the Shasta from those prevalent in the Indian subcontinent and were not his own
creations.

Samatha is the quieting of the mind by focusing it on some object normally. No matter what
method is used if that method gradually quietens the mind and concentrates it on an object,
whatever it be, that is Samatha meditation. This was common in the time of the Buddha in
the Indian subcontinent and it was common before his time and is still common today. The
Buddha himself took some of those to help his disciples to attain one-pointed concentration.
So Samatha is not speci cally special to Buddhism.

Even Christian Mystics and Muslim Su s have various methods to make the mind
concentrated, i.e. Samatha meditations. When one crosses a certain level of ability to remain
in a concentrated state without e ort then that is called Samadhi. In the Buddhist tradition,
there are eight levels of Samadhi called dhyanas (meditative stabilizations). There are nine
levels of concentration. Through long and dedicated practice the person slowly climbs upon
the ladder as his / her capacity to concentrate single pointedly on one object (alambana)
increases by dint of e ort. At the eighth level, his / her concentration starts becoming easier
and e ortless. When he reaches the 9th level, the object of meditation takes on a new
quality. It generally becomes brighter and seems to come closer to the meditator. This is
called Samantaka Samadhi in Mahayana or Upachar Samadhi in the Theravada system (Near
attainment Samadhi). Then as s/he goes on practicing with great dedication, the winds in
the body (called Prana – vayu in Sanskrit and rlung in Tibetan and Chi in Chinese, Ki in
Japanese) begin to move in his body. The winds begin to ow up to his head so that s/he
feels like someone is pressing his head lightly with the palms of the hand. During this
period bliss called Prasabdhi begins to rise. It can rise to such a degree that his / her
breathing can become belaboured. This Prasabdhi reaches a peak point and then begins to
subside somewhat like a rushing river subsiding when it arrives at the ocean. Then the mind
becomes extremely calm like the calm after a storm and this is the attainment of Mula
Samadhi of the 1st dhyana. In the Theravadin tradition, this is called Appana Samadhi. But

33
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
fl
 this is only the rst dhyana; higher levels than this is the second dhyana; third dhyana and
the fourth dhyana. In some Buddhist systems both Sravakayana and Mahayana, there is also
a 5th dhyana but this is not really a higher Samadhi than the fourth dhyana mentioned
above but only the style of categorizing it makes the di erence.

In the fourth dhyana, breathing stops automatically. This breathing can stop in other
methods of meditation using the nadi – chakras as alambana (channels etc); but even
without the use of any breath control and nadi – chakra when a person reaches the fourth
dhyana his/her breathing stops. It is said that great Gurus like Gampopa (the disciple of
Milarepa) took his breath in at sunset and let go of his breath at sunrise.

Above the fourth dhyana are what are called formless meditative stabilizations (Arupa
dhyana). These are really based on the fourth dhyana and are not really considered higher
than the fourth dhyana in the Buddhist tradition. They are called formless dhyana because
the objects of meditation (alambana) are formless (arupa). The rst of these is In nite Space
dhyana (Akasanantyayatana dhyana). The experience at this stage is of In nite Space or
void, as all forms are dropped. Beyond that, even the space is dropped and experience is of
the in nite consciousness (Vigyanantyatana dhyana). This is what many non – Buddhist
systems call the experience of super-consciousness, where there is only the In nite all
expansive consciousness or pure awareness by itself, that does not seem to change. In the
Buddhist system of Samatha, there are two more stages above this 1) Akinchanyatana
(Nothing remaining) and above that 2) Naiva sangya naasangya (Neither perception nor
non-perception). All these are highly rare ed states of mind; but and a big but at that : in
Buddhism, none of these states are considered as the attainment of enlightenment. There is
one more Samadhi state called Nirodhasamapatti which is higher than all the above but is
accessible only to Arhats and Boddhisattvas from eighth bhumi upwards.

This is a crucial point to understand if you want to understand Buddhism. Although the
various Samadhis, including the Samadhi of Pure awareness by itself, is cultivated and used
in Buddhism as in all religious systems, in Buddhism they are only used to develop
concentration and never accepted as the enlightened state.

Here we are talking about genuine high level Samadhis of Pure awareness by itself where
the person remains absorbed in it for six, twelve or twenty four hours without taking a
single breath. Even such an experience is not considered as having penetrated the veil of

34
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Ignorance, what to speak about watered down, thoughtless states of clear awareness where
the person is not even in the rst dhyana level. Such experiences of thoughtless awareness
by itself without entering into various levels of Samadhis are even further away from the
Buddhist enlightenment. Such states can be easily produced and are not considered as either
enlightenment or even near to it. In fact, according to all Buddhist traditions especially the
Mahayana, such states are considered dangerous and if the correct view is not present can be
even detrimental to the process of enlightenment. The great Siddha Pandit of Tibet, Sakya
Pandit said cultivation of such Pure awareness without the correct view can cause the
person to be reborn either in the formless Deva realm or as a Naga etc. To be reborn in the
formless Deva realm (Arupa dhatu Deva Loka) is considered as the worst birth for a
Bodhisattva as once born there, s/he cannot help sentient beings from ten thousand to
eighty thousand kalpas. In that state, the yogi remains in a highly blissful, and formless
state which can easily be mistaken for the Non-dual state from anywhere between ten
thousand kalpas to upto eighty thousand kalpas.

There are others types of Samatha systems which are conducive to deep Samadhi that take
you to the state of super-consciousness, like meditating on the inner sounds called Nada
yoga or in the Shanta Parampara of India as Sabad Surati yoga. There are four levels of
Samadhi related to nada yoga technically called 1) Vaikhari 2) Madhyama 3) Pasyanti 4)
Para. During the process, the person hears various types of sounds like the humming of the
bumble bee, the sound of the bell, the sound of the drums, the sound of thunder and the
sound of Om (Pranava) and so on. At the Para level, all sounds subside and only the in nite
Pure Awareness by itself or super-consciousness remains. Likewise another well-known
method is to concentrate on the light/sparks or the like seen in between the eye-brows. This
too has various stages similar to di erent levels of Samadhis etc. until one reaches the
in nite light of the mind or Atman as non-buddhists would call it. All of these methods are
only varieties of Samatha and, according to Buddhism, these states are neither
enlightenment nor do they produce enlightenment by practicing them for a long time. This
statement is true of the famous Kundalini yoga methods too; which also ends in the super-
conscious state of Pure Awareness by itself which is in nite. That one can experience such
an awareness through various methods of Samatha is well-known to Buddhism and is not
alien at all to Buddhist literature. However, Buddhism neither regards such a state as
enlightenment or liberation nor regards such states or production of such states over and
over again for longer and longer periods as productive of enlightenment.

35
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
 Let me repeat again, that any method that only absorbs the mind on anything belongs to the
Samatha type of meditation. And Samatha meditations, no matter how extraordinary or
di erent from other Samatha types, are not enough to attain enlightenment. And in this
context, Buddhism is very emphatic that only the types of meditation that probe into the
mode of existence of all phenomena (dharmas) to gain insight can cut through the 'Innate
Ignorance' (Sahaja Agyan) and thus destroy that Ignorance. And this type of meditation (and
there are many techniques here) is called Vipassyana in Sanskrit, Vipassana in Pali, Lhag
thong in Tibetan and Kuan in Chinese and Kan in Japanese.

It is through various types of Samatha practice that various Pratiharyas (miraculous powers)
also called siddhi – riddhis develop as a matter of course or if they do not easily develop, can
be developed by various specialized mental exercises geared to awaken these potentials in
the human mind. In this era of modernism when the physical science was considered the
evaluating measuring rod for the validity of anything, Pratiharyas were suspect. And many
Buddhists with modernistic leanings even thought that these were interpolated into the
Buddhist scripture by overly naïve simple village folks. Needless to say this was a result of
the so called scienti c education spawned out by Modernism. But the beauty of science is
that it moves on and does not remain static.

From the eighteenth century to the mid – twentieth century, science progressed in leaps and
bounds to such an unimaginable extent that man thought science alone was the answer to
all its question. So the milieu developed in which whatever was scienti c was true/real/
valid/non superstitious and whatever wasn't scienti c was untrue/invalid/superstitious. The
progress of Physics and other physical sciences was so mind boggling, that its dazzle blinded
all those who were part of the era of Modernism. But there was a aw in this thinking and
not only Buddhist but also many Hindu swamis and yogis also failed to see it.

First of all only what can be measured can be studied by Physics and such other physical
sciences. Now there are many things which cannot and will never be measured like love/
compassion/beauty, the splendour of the Himalayas etc etc galores. We cannot possibly say
that such things are unreal/untrue/superstitious. Secondly the physical sciences are limited
by the type of instrument available. That means even those things which could be
measurable like the chemical correlates in the brain to love and compassion were out of
reach of the sciences in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Now are we too say that
these brain chemicals like dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine etc all were untrue/unreal/

36
ff
fi
fi
fl
fi
 superstitious till the mid – twentieth century, then they suddenly became real/true/
scienti c? Such type of thinking is absurd to say the least.

Furthermore, science itself never claims what it cannot measure at the moment as
superstitious. It is the half baked ultra-modernist types whose knowledge of science is
limited to vague ideas and the enjoyment of consumerist goods produced by science that
have these kinds of quaint notions.

As early as 1950 Einstein declared that science cannot and will not answer all the questions
and problems of mankind. This is true because rational linear thinking on which science is
based in only one mode of thinking and knowing available to man. The world view made
available through science is only one possible view amongst many other views. And this
materialistic reductionist view of science is not only an arti cial view extracted out of reality
but also it is not more real than any other view. Using the empirical reductionist Positivism
(reducing all things to empirically measurable things etc) modus operendii itself, we can
question this style of absurd thinking that only what is empirically measureable is true/real/
valid/non-superstitious. The million dollar question is, "Is this hypothesis empirically
measurable?" Since it is not, by its own logic falls apart.

Max Planck, the father of Quantum Physics and a Nobel Laureate of 1918 says in his book
"Where science is going?" The fact is that there is a point, one single point in the
immeasurable world of mind and matter, where science, and therefore every causal method
of research is inapplicable, not only on practical grounds but also on logical grounds and will
always remain inapplicable. Wolfgang Pauli, the Nobel Laureate of Physics of 1945 insisted
that rationality had to be supplemented with the mystical. In his book 'Across the Frontiers',
Pauli's life time friend and colleague and a Nobel Laureate of 1932, Werner Heisenberg as
well writes that "Pauli expressly warns that one should never declare theses laid down by
rational formulation to be the only possible presupposition of human reason."

The central point of Werner Heisenberg in his various books like Physics and Beyond,
Across the Frontiers etc is that Physics can make only statements about strictly limited
relations that are only valid within the framework of those limitations. He also says "Science
tries to give its concepts an objective meaning. But religious language must avoid this very
cleavage of the world into its objective and its subjective sides: for who would dare claim the
objective side to be more real than the subjective?

37
fi
fi
 Heisenberg warns that spirituality/religious experiences and Science/Mathematical
knowledge are two di erent modes of thinking and should not be confused. He warns "many
modern creeds which claim that they are, in fact, not dealing with questions of faith, but are
based on scienti c knowledge contain inner contradictions and rest on self deception."
Heinrick Hertz, in his introduction to the Principles of Mechanics says that "a natural
science is one whose proposition on limited domains of nature can have only a
correspondingly limited validity; that science is not a philosophy developing a world view of
nature as a whole or about the essence of things."

Erwin Schroedinger, the Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1933 in his various books like My
View of the World, Mind and Matter, Science and Humanism etc etc says "I do not think I
am prejudiced against the importance that science has from the purely human point of view.
But with all that, I cannot believe that (for example) the deep philosophical enquiry into the
relation between subject and object and into the true meaning of the distinction between
them depends on the quantitative results of physical and chemical measurements with
weighing scales, spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes, with Geiger-Muller counters,
Wilson chambers, Photographic plates, arrangements for measuring the radio-active decay,
and what not……

Further Schroedinger says, "The scienti c picture of the real world around me is very
de cient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magni cently
consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart,
that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet,
physical pain and physical delight, it knows nothing about beautiful and ugly, good or bad,
Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very
often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously…….Whence come I and wither
go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no
answer to it.

The well known Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1921, Einstein perhaps the most well known
scientist of the 20th century says in his Ideas and Opinions: Objective knowledge provides
us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal
itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. Ken Wilber, a
distinguished scientist in his own right and a proli c writer says in his Quantum Questions:
I should like to stress the following:

38
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
 Modern science, in its beginning, was characterized by a conscious modesty; it made
statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the framework of these
limitations.

This modesty was largely lost during the nineteenth century. Physical knowledge was
considered to make assertions about nature as a whole. Physics wished to turn philosopher
and the demand was voiced from many quarters that all true philosophers must be
scienti c.
(my comment: This was the era named Modernism, and we can see that the in uence of
Modernism is found in almost all writing on Religion, be it Buddhism or Hinduism or
Philosophy; during this period. Many Buddhist scholars of that period like Rahula
Sankrityayana, Dr. Ambedkar are stalwarts of Modernistic interpretation of Buddhism.
Modernism lasted in the West till about the mid – twentieth century when the Cognitive
Revolution, threw Modernism overboard and a new era of Post Modernism began in the
west. Many writers like Ken Wilber are of the opinion that Post Modernism is also on its
death throes in the West and the West is looking for another weltanschauung. But alas
Nepal, as usual always behind time to the rest of the world is still in the throttling grasp of
Modernism, though a smattering of writers talk about post – modernism, the brunt of the
Nepalese weltanschauung (world – view) is still pretty much coloured by modernism, which
was itself blinded by the view that the one and only truth/fact/reality were what was
compatible with the empirical, reductionist positivism that believed that only what could be
measured by scienti c instruments was real.) Now going back to Ken Wilber.

Today Physics is undergoing a basic change, the most characteristic trait of which is a return
to its original self – limitation.

(my comment: This is the beginning of Post Modernism which began because of the
Cognitive Revolution that took place in the mid – twentieth century. When research was
done on cognition, new facts came into light which implied that the empirical Positivism is
true but not the whole truth says Ken Wilber. What began to be discovered was that, the so
called objective observation of the world out there was not free from the observer (mind)
and in fact we saw what the observer – mind posited out there. The Art psychologist Jerome
Bruner and Leo Postman conducted an amusing demonstration experiment of this point. A
series of cards were tachistoscopically presented to observers – giving observers only
milliseconds of exposure to the display of the cards and increasing exposure to the display of

39
fi
fi
fl
 the cards and increasing exposure successively. The display consisted of both normal playing
cards and ones in which colour and suit were reversed – a red six of club for example. It was
found that observers somehow corrected the wrong coloured playing cards and saw what
the mind expected rather than what was out there.

Thus the world out there is not as objective as Modernism would like to think but depends a
lot on the observing mind. Now this opens up a whole new weltanschauung. That is, there
are many ways to understand/experience/ interpret/give meaning to the world and that no
one particular view/meaning/ interpretation is more true/factual/real than any other. And
this is the essence of the Post Modern thinking. A new logic called the Modal Logic came
into existence. Jerome Bruner says in his book, Actual Mind Possible Worlds… In the new,
more powerful modal logic, we ask of a proposition not whether it is true or false, but in
what kind of possible world it would be true.

Jerome further says….. Both science and the humanities have come to be appreciated as
artful gments of men's minds, as creation produced by di erent uses of mind. The world of
Milton's "Paradise Lost" (or Bhanubhakta's Alkapuri) and the world of Newton's Principia
exist not only in the minds of men; each has an existence in an 'objective world' of culture –
what the science Philosopher Karl Popper calls the world three……

Robert Ornstein and many others brought out the fact the human brain was divided into
two halves and each half more or less dealt with two di erent modes of knowing. (Robert
Ornstein: The Metaphoric Mind/The Nature of Human Consciousness) These two modes
were named, the Metaphoric Mind and the analytic mind. The left brain is linked with the
right side of the body and with logic, analytical thinking, science, mathematics, linear
thinking.
Linear thinking means thinking in a straight line like 2 2 = 4 etc. But linear thinking is
neither the only mode of giving meaning to the world nor is it the most accurate/correct/
true mode. The right half of the brain is linked with the entire left half of the body and is
also linked with what is called Metaphoric thinking. Metaphoric thinking is linked with
Music, Poetics, Art, Love, Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy etc etc. It could also be called
the intuitive mode. And religions/spiritual experiences are based on this mode. Insight,
which is the most used English translation for Vipassyana, does not depend on analytical
linear thinking but rather as Metaphoric thinking.

40
fi
ff
ff
An experiment was conducted in New York for Kindergarten children when they were asked
to tick mark the correct answer to the question:- Birds eat seeds and seeds eat birds; it was
amazingly found that the vast majority of the children tick marked seeds eat birds. The
experimenter thought that perhaps the children did not understand the question, so the
experiment was done again with explanation of the question. But, the result was still the
same.

After a lot of thinking the professors who conducted the experiment realized what the
children had easily realized that it was equally true that seeds ate birds. When the birds die,
they do fall on the ground and became compost for the seeds to eat. That birds eat seed is
linear thinking which is correct but it is equally true that seeds eat bird – but that logic is
not linear logic but circular logic. Circular logic is also equally valid and true. A lot of
spiritual principles are based on circular logic rather than simple linear logic alone.) Now let
us go back to Ken Wilber.

4. The philosophic content of a science is only preserved if science is conscious of its limits.
Great discoveries of the properties of individual phenomena are possible only if the nature
of the phenomena is not generalized a priori. Only by leaving open the question of the
ultimate essence of a body, of matter, of energy, etc., can Physics reach an understanding of
the individual properties of the phenomena that we designate by these concepts, an
understanding which alone may lead us to real philosophical insight.

…Science itself never claims what it cannot measure at the moment as superstitious.

It is through various types of Samatha practice that various Pratiharyas (miraculous powers)
also called Siddhi – Riddhis develop as a matter of course; or if they do not easily develop,
they can be developed by various specialised mental exercises geared to awaken these
potentials in the human mind.

In this era of modernism when the physical science was considered the evaluating
measuring rod for the validity of anything, Pratiharyas were suspect. And many Buddhists
with modernistic leanings even thought that these were interpolated into the Buddhist
scripture by overly naïve simple village folks. Needless to say this was a result of the so
called scienti c education spawned out by modernism. But the beauty of science is that it
moves on and does not remain static.

41
fi
From the 18th century to the mid 20th century, science progressed in leaps and bounds to
such an unimaginable extent that man thought science alone was the answer to all its
questions. So the milieu developed in which whatever was scienti c was true/ real/valid/
non-superstitious and whatever was not scienti c was untrue/invalid/superstitious. The
progress of physics and other physical sciences was so mind boggling, that its dazzle blinded
all those who were part of the era of modernism. But there was a aw in this thinking and
not only Buddhist but also many Hindu Swamis and Yogis also failed to see it.

First of all only what can be measured can be studied by physics and such other physical
sciences. Now there are many things which cannot and will never be measured like love/
compassion/beauty, the splendour of the Himalayas and so on. We cannot possibly say that
such things are unreal/untrue/superstitious. Secondly the physical sciences are limited by
the type of instrument available.

That means even those things which could be measurable like the chemical correlates in the
brain to love and feel compassion were out of reach of the sciences in the 18th and 19th
century. Now are we to say that these brain chemicals like dopamine, serotonin etc were all
untrue/unreal/superstitious till the mid 20th century, and then they suddenly became real/
true/scienti c? Such type of thinking is absurd to say the least.

Furthermore, science itself never claims what it cannot measure at the moment as
superstitious. It is the half baked ultra-modernist types whose knowledge of science is
limited to vague ideas and the enjoyment of consumerist goods produced by science that
have these kinds of quaint notions.

As early as 1950 Einstein declared that science cannot and will not answer all the questions
and problems of mankind. This is true because rational linear thinking, on which science is
based, is only one mode of thinking and knowing available to man. The world view made
available through science is only one possible view amongst many other views. And this
materialistic reductionist view of science is not only an arti cial view extracted out of reality
but also it is not more real than any other view.

Using the empirical reductionist positivism (reducing all things to empirically measurable
things etc) modus operandi itself, we can question this style of absurd thinking that only
what is empirically measurable is true/real/valid/non-superstitious. The million dollar

42
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
 question is, "Is this hypothesis empirically measurable?" Since it is not, by its own logic falls
apart.

The central point of Werner Heisenberg in his various books like Physics and Beyond,
Across the Frontiers etc is that physics can make only statements about strictly limited
relations that are only valid within the framework of those limitations. He also says,
"Science tries to give its concepts an objective meaning. But religious language must avoid
this very cleavage of the world into its objective and its subjective sides: for who would dare
claim the objective side to be more real than the subjective?

…but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.

Heisenberg warns that spirituality/religious experiences and science/mathematical

knowledge are two di erent modes of thinking and should not be confused. He warns,
"many modern creeds which claim that they are, in fact, are not dealing with questions of
faith, but are based on scienti c knowledge that contain inner contradictions and rest on
self-deception." Heinrick Hertz, in his introduction to the Principles of Mechanics says, "a
natural science is one whose proposition on limited domains of nature can have only a
correspondingly limited validity; that science is not a philosophy developing a world view of
nature as a whole or about the essence of things."

Erwin Schroedinger, the Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1933 in his various books like My
View of the World, Mind and Matter, Science and Humanism etc says, "I do not think I am
prejudiced against the importance that science has from the purely human point of view. But
with all that, I cannot believe that (for example) the deep philosophical enquiry into the
relation between subject and object and into the true meaning of the distinction between
them depends on the quantitative results of physical and chemical measurements with
weighing scales, spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes, with Geiger-Muller counters,
Wilson chambers, photographic plates, arrangements for measuring the radio-active decay,
and what not……

Further Schroedinger says, "The scienti c picture of the real world around me is very
de cient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magni cently
consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart,
that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet,

43
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
 physical pain and physical delight, it knows nothing about beautiful and ugly, good or bad,…
Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very
often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously…….Whence come I and wither
go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no
answer to it.”

The well known Nobel Laureate of Physics in 1921, Einstein perhaps the most well known
scientist of the 20 th century says in his Ideas and Opinions: Objective knowledge provides
us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal
itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.

Ken Wilber, a distinguished scientist in his own right and a proli c writer says in his
Quantum Questions: “Modern science, in its beginning, was characterised by a conscious
modesty; it made statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the
framework of these limitations…..This modesty was largely lost during the nineteenth
century. Physical knowledge was considered to make assertions about nature as a whole.
Physics wished to turn philosopher and the demand was voiced from many quarters that all
true philosophers must be scienti c.”

This was the era named modernism, and we can see that the in uence of modernism is
found in almost all writing on religion, be it Buddhism or Hinduism or philosophy; during
this period. Many Buddhist scholars of that period like Rahula Sankrityayana, Dr. Ambedkar
are stalwarts of modernistic interpretation of Buddhism. Modernism lasted in the West till
about the mid twentieth century when the cognitive revolution, threw modernism
overboard and a new era of post modernism began in the west.

Many writers like Ken Wilber are of the opinion that post modernism is also on its death
throes in the West and it is looking for another world view. But alas Nepal, as usual always
behind time compared to the rest of the world is still in the throttling grasp of modernism,
although a smattering of writers talk about post-modernism, the brunt of the Nepalese
weltanschauung (worldview) is still pretty much coloured by modernism, which was itself
blinded by the view that the one and only truth/fact/reality were what was compatible with
the empirical, reductionist positivism that believed that only what could be measured by
scienti c instruments was real.

44
fi
fi
fl
fi
 A lot of spiritual principles are based on circular logic rather than simple linear logic alone.

Today physics is undergoing a basic change, the most characteristic trait of which is a return
to its original self limitation. This is the beginning of post modernism which began because
of the cognitive revolution that took place in the mid 20 th century. When research was done
on cognition, new facts came into light which implied that the empirical positivism is true
but not the whole truth says Ken Wilber.

What began to be discovered was that, the so called objective observation of the world out
there was not free from the observer (mind) and in fact we saw what the observer mind
posited out there. The art psychologist Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman conducted an
amusing demonstration experiment of this point. A series of cards were tachistoscopically
presented to observers – giving observers only milliseconds of exposure to the display of the
cards and increasing exposure to the display of the cards and increasing exposure
successively. The display consisted of both normal playing cards and ones in which colour
and suit were reversed – a red six of club for example. It was found that observers somehow
corrected the wrong coloured playing cards and saw what the mind expected rather than
what was out there.

Thus the world out there is not as objective as modernism would like to think but depends a
lot on the observing mind. Now this opens up a whole new weltanschauung. That is, there
are many ways to understand/experience/ interpret/give meaning to the world and that no
one particular view/meaning/ interpretation is more true/factual/real than any other. And
this is the essence of the post modern thinking. A new logic called the modal logic came
into existence.

Jerome Bruner says in his book, Actual Mind Possible Worlds… In the new, more powerful
modal logic, we ask of a proposition not whether it is true or false, but in what kind of
possible world it would be true. Jerome further says….. Both science and the humanities
have come to be appreciated as artful gments of men's minds, as creation produced by
di erent uses of mind.

The world of Milton's "Paradise Lost" (or Bhanubhakta's Alkapuri) and the world
of Newton's Principia exist not only in the minds of men; each has an existence in an
'objective world' of culture – what the science philosopher Karl Popper calls the world three.

45
ff
fi
Robert Ornstein and many others brought out the fact the human brain was divided into
two halves and each half more or less dealt with two di erent modes of knowing. (Robert
Ornstein: The Metaphoric Mind/ The Nature of Human Consciousness) These two modes
were named, the metaphoric mind and the analytic mind. The left brain is linked with the
right side of the body and with logic, analytical thinking, science, mathematics, linear
thinking.

Linear thinking means thinking in a straight line like 2 2 = 4 etc. But linear thinking is
neither the only mode of giving meaning to the world nor is it the most accurate/correct/
true mode. The right half of the brain is linked with the entire left half of the body and is
also linked with what is called metaphoric thinking. Metaphoric thinking is linked with
music, poetics, art, love, compassion, empathy, sympathy etc. It could also be called the
intuitive mode. And spiritual experiences are based on this mode. Insight, which is the most
used English translation for Vipassyana, does not depend on analytical linear thinking but
rather on metaphoric thinking.

An experiment was conducted in New York for kindergarten children when they were asked
to tick-mark the correct answer to the question: Birds eat seeds and seeds eat birds. It was
amazingly found that the vast majority of the children tick marked seeds eat birds. The
experimenter thought that perhaps the children did not understand the question, so the
experiment was done again with explanation of the question. But the result was still the
same.

After a lot of thinking the professors who conducted the experiment realised what the
children had easily realised that it was equally true that seeds ate birds. When the birds die,
they do fall on the ground and became compost for the seeds to eat. That birds eat seed is
linear thinking which is correct but it is equally true that seeds eat bird – but that logic is
not linear logic but circular logic. Circular logic is also equally valid and true. A lot of
spiritual principles are based on circular logic rather than simple linear logic alone. Now let
us go back to Ken Wilber.

The philosophic content of a science is only preserved if science is conscious of its limits.
Great discoveries of the properties of individual phenomena are possible only if the nature
of the phenomena is not generalised a priori. Only by leaving open the question of the
ultimate essence of a body, of matter, of energy, etc., can physics reach an understanding of

46
ff
the individual properties of the phenomena that we designate by these concepts, an
understanding which alone may lead us to real philosophical insight. (To be continued)

…Thousands of meditators around the world have remembered vividly incidents in their
past lives.

So things like rebirth, miracles, the laws of karma may not have been proven yet by 'science';
but that does not warrant throwing them out of the window by calling them unscienti c.
Science has very little to do with these things and probably never will prove these things as
either false or true because, they do not belong to the eld of science. And as we have seen,
even according to top level scientists it is false to think/ believe that only the narrow and
limited eld that science deals with is real / actual / true / non – superstitious. This is a
kind of fallacious thinking wrought about in the present day due to excessive outdated over-
modernistic education which is already getting to be out of date in the western world.

Since the time of the Buddha till now, for about over 2500 years, reports have come again
and again from both Buddhist and non – Buddhist sources of special humans possessing
special powers of the mind. Yes there have been fakes who have capitalised on the simple
credulous minds; but as the Egyptian Su saint of the eleventh century EI Ghazali says, "If
there are fake gold that itself is a proof that there is genuine gold. If there were no genuine
gold there would be no fake gold."

In the Indian subcontinent it is not only the Buddhist literature spanning 2500 years of
history but also Vedic – Hindu literature and Jain literature which speak of miraculous
powers and remembering former lives etc. It is not a matter of one human or twenty
humans but virtually unaccountable records when we take into consideration all the
Buddhist / Hindu / Jain records. Such a vast array of records even if only anecdotal and not
validated by scienti c methods just cannot be thrown over-board so easily. And it should not
be too, as we have seen that the knowledge based on science is not the only true piece of
knowledge we humans should treasure.

As far as rebirth or re-incarnation goes, Ian Stevenson (MD), the Head of the Department of
Parapsychology of Virginia University has done 'scienti c research' on this issue, conducting
research all over the world from Alaska, Lebanon, India to Sri Lanka. By the so called

47
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 'scienti c research' it is meant research that is based on double blind methods and such
other modus operandi used by science to prove any hypotheses.

He has come up with a huge four volume work doing research in cases from all around the
world, even amongst people who do not have any cultural background regarding
reincarnation. Based on his record he says that we can de nitely say that science cannot
disprove rebirth.

In the context of Samatha meditation, it is possible to bring back memories of past life, just
like memories of this life. This is not easy, but even memories of childhood are not easy. But
thousands of meditators around the world have remembered vividly incidents in their past
lives. We are not talking about imaginations but memories. There is a qualitative di erence
in experience between a memory and an imagination. Every mentally healthy person can
distinguish whether he is imaging or remembering. After all I remember a past event not a
future event while we imagine / fantasise the future.

Besides the meditators remembering when they go into deep levels of Samatha / Samadhi
there are hundreds of cases of young children all around the world who remember, their
previous life – their names, family names, city / village / town, the details of their old
street / house / rooms and even what was in the cupboard in the room.

Hypnotic trance facilitates revivi cation of lost memories…

48
fi
fi
fi
ff
 REINC ARNATION

Dr. Ian Stevenson has done a lot of research on such children and he has shifted fraudulent
from the genuine. And he has come up with four huge volumes of genuine ones which he
says cannot be scienti cally disproved in any way. His four volumes are: Cases of
reincarnation type: India; Cases of reincarnation type: Sri-Lanka; Cases of reincarnation
type: Lebanon and Turkey; and Cases of reincarnation type: Thailand and Burma. He has also
written another book - Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation.

Then again there is the world famous psychotherapist Helen Wembach, who also used over
20 years of her own clinical work in hypnotherapy. She too claims that even though she
herself is a Christian whose beliefs contradict the idea of reincarnation and her training in
psychotherapy did not in any way prepare her for this; cases she dealt with for over 20 years,
overwhelmingly pointed rather clearly at cases of former lives.

Hypnotic trance facilitates revivi cation of lost memories of this life especially those from
birth onwards. Everything that the child sees, hears, smells, feels, remembers are stored in
the subconscious/unconscious. These memories can be teased out into awareness through
various methods like 'free association' in Freudian psychoanalysis, active imagination in
Jungian analytical psychotherapy and hypnotherapy etc.

When Helen Wembach used hypnotherapy, which is a powerful tool to bring out lost
memories entrenched stubbornly in the subconscious, she often found that her patients
went further than birth into former lives. She also found that if memories and wounds of
former lives were healed the e ect was seen in this life's mental life. These are records that
cannot be easily explained away; as actual mental and physical healings had also taken place.

I would like to recount the case of a multi-millionaire that Helen had dealt with. One of her
patients was a millionaire who had su ered from strong pains in his right ribs. Being a
millionaire, he had the best of doctors and his personal physician made him go through all
the possible checkups possible at the time in the States. Since no physical cause was found
in spite of repeated tests of various kinds, his personal physician nally suggested that it

49
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
could be of a psychological origin and he should try a psychotherapist as well. Then he met
Helen.

Helen started digging up his subconscious mind to cull out some experience / event in his
childhood which could be the cause of his excruciating pain. Many physical pains and
pathologies originate in some traumatic experience in childhood. The purpose of all forms of
psychotherapy, be it Gestalt psychotherapy, Freudian psychoanalysis, Jungian Analytical
psychotherapy, transactional psychotherapy or hypnotherapy or their combinations etc., is to
bring the traumatic experiences hidden in the recesses of the subconscious to conscious
awareness.

In both Buddhism and all forms of psychotherapy, awareness is curative. If the root cause
(usually traumatic experiences but also sometimes just plain old childhood confusions) is
brought clearly in front, to be scanned by awareness, the process of being cured begins. As
long as the root causes are hidden in the dark nooks and crannies of the subconscious mind,
there is no chance that we can free ourselves from its grasp and all that it entails. That is
why Smriti – Samprajanya (mindfulness and comprehension) is of the utmost importance in
the Buddhist path be it Sravakayana or Mahayana.

Even in the loony bin, a person who has ipped out begins to get cured only when he
himself becomes aware that he has ipped out. The loony bin is an extreme case where
people whose neurotic tendencies have become psychotic; but in society even amongst those
who are considered socially acceptable, same neurotic tendencies found in the psychotic to
an uncontrollable level, is to be found in a lesser or greater degree. Just like the lunatic we
too can get cured or be freed of our neurotic tendencies, only as and when we become aware
of them within us.

Thus awareness is curative and one of the purposes of most therapies is to bring the
unconscious into awareness. This is called integrating the unconscious. The unconscious
here means all the neurosis and complexes hidden within us. In Buddhist terminology, we
can become free of our Klesha (emotional de lements) only if we are fully aware of the
workings of the emotional de lements within us. That is why the Shasta (Master)
prescribed living ones life in full mindfulness with comprehension - Smriti Samprajanya.

50
fi
fl
fl
fi
Going back to the story of the millionaire; while shing for early memories of childhood, in
a hypnotic trance, he suddenly slipped into a dungeon in the Roman period. He started
wailing and crying, holding his ribs. When asked what was happening he described that he
was in a prison in Rome and a Centaurian was towering over him and kicking him to death.
When asked where he was being kicked, he pointed at the same ribs which had been causing
him trouble since a long time. Thus he died being kicked on his ribs. When he was brought
back to the present, he was commanded that he would remember the incident clearly even
after he woke up. After he woke up from the hypnotic trance with full memory of the
incident, it was found that he had 'miraculously' become free from the pain that had
troubled him for such a long time.

Death is not the end of the mental continuum but only a change of the mental continuum.

ILLUSION OF MEMORY
Now let us go back to Shamatha after this explanation of rebirth and reincarnation. There
are many questions regarding reincarnation which has not been dealt with yet; but let it be
said that the Buddhist concept of reincarnation is neither unscienti c nor scienti c nor as
baseless as materialists think. Although Hinduism and Jainism also believe in reincarnation,
the Buddhist view of reincarnation is not exactly the same as the Hindu, Jain system.

Whereas in Hinduism and Jainism it is the same person or entity that is reborn again and
again, the Buddhist view of Anatma contradicts such a notion. However, this does not mean
there is no reincarnation at all in Buddhism. We shall discuss the various tenets of
Buddhism later, however let me explain in short that it is not exactly the same person Hari
Prasad or Ram Prasad who is born in the next life as one of the insights of proper Buddhist
meditation is to see through the fact that 'Hari Prasad' is only a map of reality produced by
culture / family / education / language / and the history of the person and not actually the
territory itself.

In fact as per Buddhism there is no territory of the map but only the map. This is the
concept of Anatma explained from an existential dimension. Since there is no Hari Prasad in
reality but only a conceptual map based on culture / family / education / language and the
history; there can be no question of that Hari Prasad being reborn again. But then what is

51
fi
fi
fi
the meaning of reincarnation in such a case? For now, in short, reincarnation means simply
the continuity of the mental continuum.

Death is not the end of the mental continuum but only a change of the mental continuum.
Since the mental continuum is a name for the ow, and since the mental continuum by
nature changes second by second and does not remain the same there is no entity / thing /
person who remains the same even second by second what to speak of after death. It is the
illusion of memory which connects separate discrete mind – moments and make them seem
to be the same 'mind–stu . '

But if your Shamatha meditation practice goes deep enough then these memories which are
carried forward can be reawakened, and the person knows from her / his own memory the
fact of reincarnation. This memory can also be brought out through hypnotic trance. A
similar thing can be said of Riddhi – Siddhis which is also another thing that the overly
materialistic try to deny without any base.

These parts bring us to another topic called in modern psychological research as altered
states of consciousness. To understand the phenomena of Siddhi – Riddhi (miraculous
powers) and reincarnation, it is useful to understand the concept of altered – states of
consciousness.

The mind has many altered states and what we call normal waking state is only one of the
states of mind. It is certainly not more true, real, accurate or suggestive of reality than the
other states of mind. Various states of mind have various properties which are not available
to the normal waking state of mind. Even the fact that we call the waking state as normal is
only a culturally ingrained idea and it is not in reality more normal than other altered states
of mind.

There are many kinds of altered states of minds which vary from what is considered as the
normal waking mind. Hypnotic trance is a category of altered state of mind which di ers
from the normal waking state. I call it a category because within the categories there are
many levels which are di erent from each other. If we were to give some degrees to the
depth of hypnotic trance there would be a range one percent hypnotic trance to 100%
hypnotic trance. What is available to a 98 – 100% hypnotic trance is not available to a 1 –
20% trance. At around 68 – 70% or so one could easily anaesthetise parts of one's own body

52
ff
ff
fl
ff
so that it could be operated upon without anesthesia. That is simply not available to either
the waking state or even 10 or 20% hypnotic trance.

Einstein said that whenever he came up with a new theory, he used to go into a dream like
state.

ALTERED STATES OF MIND

Similarly at 82% trance, recall of lost memories is easily accessible which is so useful to
psychotherapy. This is called hyper amnesia while above 84% regression into childhood or
past life is possible. These properties are not available to the common waking mind no
matter how sharp or intelligent the person is. At around 80% the mind can control organic
body functions like heart-beat, blood pressure, digestion etc. In all these are various levels of
altered states of mind, many things are accessible which are not accessible to the mind in its
humdrum waking state. When we go o in a tangent into a day-dream we are again going
into another altered state of mind.

As we said earlier, there are many types of altered states of mind which are di erent from
each other. For example, when we go o into sleep, we go through various levels of altered
state. The rst stage of sleep onslaught called the hypnagogic state is an altered state of
mind which is di erent from the waking state. Actually the waking state itself is one state of
the mind and is itself an altered state. It is not scienti cally correct to say that the waking
state is the normal state and all other states of mind are the altered states. Calling the
waking state as normal and measuring all other states of the mind against it as altered state
is based on conditioned ideas of what is normal and is thus scienti cally unwarranted.

In another neuro-scienti c language what is called waking state (what most people consider
as the normal state) the brain emits beta waves. Beta waves are rays ranging from 13 hertz
upwards. The normal waking state ranges from 13 hertz to 25 hertz. This is the waking state
of normal alertness. Once the hertz increases towards 25 hertz and above, states of anxiety
and stress begin. The higher the hertz go the more stressed out and anxiety laden the mind
becomes. It becomes more distraught, tensed up and is unable to focus.

53
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
From 8 hertz to 12.9 hertz is the alpha wave range. When the mind is calmly focused and
relaxed, it begins to dip between 8 and13 hertz. This is a relaxed but alert state. The state
when the brain is emitting alpha waves is also called the super learning state because the
mind is in a state where it can absorb vast amounts of information easily and quickly.
Memory capacity is heightened. This is also the rst stage of meditation and also the rst
stage of sleep onslaught.

Most meditators are normally at the lower levels of this frequency which means from 8 to
10 hertz. When a person is in this level of altered state, the mind is relaxed. This is a very
good altered state for lowering blood pressure and relaxing the mind, making it free from all
tension, anxiety etc. In this state, the mind tends to be positive and all negative thinking
disappears.

Below 7.9 hertz to 4 hertz is theta wave state. This is a state of deep relaxation, deep
meditation, increased memory and focus. This is a dream like state. When we are seeing
dreams, the brain emits theta waves. This is also the state where creativity occurs. Einstein
said that whenever he came up with a new theory, he used to go into a dream like state.
Thomas Alva Edison also realised that he had in hand a new invention, just after waking up
from a deep sleep. This is the theta state. Transformation or change can take place easily in
the theta state. This is also the state of deep hypnosis when suggestions given by the hypno-
therapist are easily absorbed into the subconscious and thus changes in mental attitudes
and behaviour are brought about.

Creative visualisation as used in Vajrayana produce theta wave states quickly with a little
amount of practice provided there is concentration. It is in such a state that the mind is
receptive to creative intuition and insights and to transformation. The elaborate Mandala
meditation of Vajrayana is based on this principle.

54
fi
fi
 EXAMINING ZEN MEDITATION

In 1966, Akira Kasamatsu and Tomio Hirai made a study of Zen meditation in Japan in
terms of the wavelengths etc. produced by the brain during Zen meditation. They asked the
Zen master to categorize the level the 48 students had reached. These subjects were
classi ed into three groups. Group one had 20 disciples who had meditated from one to ve
years. Group two consisted of 12 disciples who had meditated from ve to 20 years and
group three had 16 monks who had over 20 years of experience. Besides these, 18 others
from age 23 to 33, and men aged between 54 to 60 years who had no experience in
meditation were chosen as control subjects.

It was found that in the Zen master, before he started meditation there was normal beta
waves of the waking state. Within 50 seconds of starting meditation, the well-organised
alpha waves began in all the regions of the brain. Then after 20 minutes or so, the brain
waves began functioning between low alpha waves, going at times into theta waves. At the
end of the meditation, alpha waves were seen continuously and two minutes later, alpha
waves still persisted. This kind of similar pattern was found in another Zen master also. The
result of the EEG study on the Zen master was divided into four stages:

Stage I: a slight change which is characterised by the appearance of alpha waves in spite of
open eyes. (In Zen as in most of Mahayana meditation methods, eyes are kept open unlike
in Hindu and Theravadin methods where eyes are closed).

stage II: the increase in amplitude of persistent alpha waves.

stage III: the decrease of alpha frequency.

stage IV: the appearance of the rhythmical theta train which is the nal change of the EEG
during Zen meditation, but does not always occur.

It is interesting to note that another study made of two Raja yogis - B.K Ananda, G.S.
Chhina and Baldev Singh showed that the nal stage of Kundalini yoga meditation was delta
wave which is akin to deep sleep state where too delta waves predominate. This de nitely
shows that the Zen Samadhi and the Raja yoga Samadhi are not exactly the same.

55
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Then when other Zen disciples were tested and graded, it was found that there was a very
close relationship between the master's evaluation of their stage and the degree of EEG
changes in them. From these ndings it was found that the degree of EEG changes during
the Zen meditation of the Zen disciples were parallel to the disciple level in pro ciency as
categorised by the Zen master.

This is called habituation and is a good example of how the mind can block out what it doesn't
want.

WAV E S I N M I N D

Then we have the wavelengths from 3.9 hertz to 0.1 hertz which is called the delta waves
which is the wavelength of deep sleep, lucid dreaming, and in this wavelength there is
increased immune function. The HGH (Human Growth Hormone) is released when the
mind is in this state. This is probably the reason why yogis who practice going into Samadhi
like Raja yogis and Shamatha yogis of Buddhism, seem to retain their health and youth for a
longer period than normal.

Although I have been saying that both deep sleep and Samadhi produce delta waves and
likewise Zen masters made ingressions into theta waves; and that deep hypnosis and dream
states also produce theta waves; it should be understood that these states are not exactly the
same. Meditation at theta or alpha waves is not the same as either hypnosis at theta or alpha
or hypnagogic and dream states at alpha and theta waves.

It must be understood that research has distinguished these states; but how they are
di erentiated is too technical to go into an article like this. Electro-graphical di erence
exists between the theta waves etc. in sleep and the rhythmical theta train in Zen
meditation and the catalyptic theta waves of a subject in deep hypnosis. Likewise di erences
exist in the alpha waves in the hypnagogic stage just before falling asleep and the alpha
waves seen in the beginning of Zen meditation etc.

One interesting experiment done by both the Japanese and Indian researchers on their
subjects seems worth mentioning here to see the key di erence between Buddhist
mindfulness meditation and Raja yoga Samadhi type of Hindu meditation. The average

56
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
human mind tends to block out any persistent sound like for example the rhythmic clicking
of an object, after some time.

This is called habituation and is a good example of how the mind can block out what it
doesn't want. If an average person were to sit in a place and a clicking sound was to be made
continuously he would hear the clicking sound and that would be registered in the EEG; but
after some time the clicking sound would stop being registered. The person would stop
hearing the sound that is measured by the EEG which stops registering the sound.

It was found in Zen Masters in Samadhi that their mind remained open to all sounds and
there was no habituation. No matter how long the clicking continued monotonously, the
sound kept on registering in the mind of the Zen master as shown by the EEG. This means
the Zen master's mind is always open and does not close automatically based on conditioned
reactions or Sanskaras.

On the other hand, the Raja yogi's mind blocked out the clicking sound right from the
beginning when in Samadhi. These two EEG ndings point to the fact that what is called
Samadhi in Vipassyana type meditation based on mindfulness are quite di erent from
Samadhis based on Shamatha type meditation like Raja yoga, Kundalini yogas etc. This is
what I have been distinguishing in this article.

…Suppression of emotional de lement is not freedom from emotional de lements..

MIND POTENTIAL

This detour into the altered states of mind and scienti c studies into them, including the
various levels of meditations, was mainly to show that various phenomena are possible in
various speci c states of the mind. Thus, just because what are called Riddhi–Siddhis or
Pratiharyas in Buddhist language are not available in the beta state or what is more
commonly called waking state; it does not mean they cannot be available in other altered
states. Many things are state speci c and are not available to the ordinary waking state of
beta waves. And most of all, it does not make them automatically unscienti c as some
writers have tried to posit.

57
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
 It must be reiterated that the Buddhist scripture are replete with such miraculous powers of
the Buddha and his immediate disciples – be these scriptures Mahayana, Theravada or
Sarvastivadin. In fact one of the two major disciples called the Agra–sravakas of the Buddha
himself was very famous for possessing such miraculous powers.

The life of the Buddha himself is also replete with manifestations of such abilities which are
paranormal. And many other Arhats like Saagat, Aniruddha and Mahakashyapa were also
endowed with such abilities. The Buddhist scriptures go into great detail into not only
describing them but also categorising them and also explaining how they are obtained.

As I have said, such abilities of the mind are developed through the type of meditation
called Samatha in Buddhist terminology. In fact, these are only potentials found in the mind
itself which are awakened or developed as the mind becomes more trained and cleaned of
emotional de lements. The more the person is free from emotional de lements (Kleshas in
Buddhist terminology) the more such potentials manifest.

According to Buddhism even those who have very pure Shila manifest some such capacities.
But this is not really a new thing as Samadhi is deeply related to emotional de lements and
that, in turn, is intimately related to Shila. It must be said that here, we are not talking of
maintaining the Shila in a self–righteous way by hook or by crook. Such suppression of
emotional de lement is not freedom from emotional de lements, and thus even though the
person seems to maintain his Shila in front of others, this is not true maintenance and will
not contribute to a cool and quiet mind which contributes to Samadhi which awakens the
paranormal potentials of the mind.

If anything, such a person's inner state will normally be in a greater turmoil than that of the
common man. A good clue to his inner turmoil, according to Gestalt therapy is that such a
person is very self righteous and extremely critical of other peoples purity. In short his own
impurity or inner turmoil, which he has learned to suppress so well that for all appearances
he seems to be someone that is free of emotional de lement, is projected out onto the
screen of the world out there.

Thus he sees all others as impure; but in fact he is looking at his own emotional
de lements. Needless to say such people will not have such paranormal capacities which are

58
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
so dependent on the maintenance of a pure Shila. And that is not what is meant by
maintaining a pure Shila.

…Psychic powers are not limited to the Buddha and Arhats…

W I T H I N YO U R R E AC H

Pure Shila cools the mind, such a mind becomes soft, gentle, loving and understanding of
the pains, sorrows and the human weaknesses of others; and certainly not a mind that is
critical and sees only the loopholes and breaking of the Shilas by others. However this is not
to condone losing Shila. In the journey of spiritual growth, Shila is the very foundation upon
which all higher experiences of the spiritual path depend.

Before we go into the details of the explanation of psychic powers and the like, as found
within Buddhist texts, I would like to say that psychic powers are not limited to the Buddha
and Arhats or Buddhist Mahasiddhas and yogis. Stories of the manifestation of psychic
powers are to be found in abundance amongst Hindu yogis, Su s, Christian saints and
Jewish mystics of the Kaballa and the like, as well as in Taoists and Kahuna masters and
Shamans all over the world.

If such things were fakes and totally fabricated, such stories would not continue through the
ages, generations after generations in all cultures. These are not stray stories found here and
there but across all cultures and across all times. And especially within Buddhism those who
recounted such stories were highly educated scholars who had studied logic and philosophy
etc. anywhere from 10 to 20 years and they were not simple country bumpkins. Such a
phenomenal amount of stories across all cultures and times cannot be lightly waived away
as superstitious stories.

With this in the background we shall now go into the Buddhist classi cation of such
phenomena according to the Abhidharma. The Abhidharma is that part of the Tripitaka
which classi es into categories the Buddhist view of reality. The Abhidharma is that part of
the Buddha's teachings which classi es his teachings into various categories and enlists its
philosophical aspects.

59
fi
fi
fi
fi
In short, it is the analysis of the Dharma. Dharma here in Buddhist terminology does not
mean 'religion' as in Buddha Dharma or Hindu Dharma but rather phenomena. Thus the
Abhidharma is that part of the Tripitaka wherein are recorded those teachings the
Sakyamuni gave, in which he has analysed the phenomena and philosophical tenets.

Learned Vedic Brahmins came to Buddha to ask questions, challenge him or to ask what he
thought of certain ideas, beliefs, and practices in the Vedas.

T E A C H I N G M U N I F I C E N T LY

The Buddha's teachings are recorded in three categories and those categories were made by
the Buddha himself. These three categories are called the Tripitaka or the three baskets. One
of the Pitaka is the Sutra Pitaka. The Sutras, within Buddhism are the records of the various
teachings that the Master himself gave to various people like monks, nuns, lay women and
lay men as he wandered up and down, east and west, north and south of Northern India,
and also in other parts of India, through miraculous projections.

He taught for 40 to 45 years and all kinds of people came to meet him and ask questions;
and they were answered. Learned Vedic Brahmins came to ask him questions, challenge him
or to ask what he thought of certain ideas, beliefs and practices in the Vedas. And they left
convinced that he was extraordinary or in most cases surrendered to him and became
monks.

Very old learned Rishis; who has special powers of clairvoyance, send their disciples to learn
from him or to become his disciples, saying they were too old to travel from places like
Maharastra, to where he was in present day Bihar, otherwise they would come themselves.
Many Brahmins came to nd out whether he was really a Tathagata - a Buddha, and either
left convinced of his authenticity or became Bhikchhus, there and then.

Many Sramanas of the time came to challenge him or ask him questions and remained as his
disciples. It is recorded that one of the main sponsors and disciples of Mahavira was sent by
Mahavira to debate with the Buddha about the interpretation of Karma but remained behind
as his disciple. But the Buddha asked him to continue being a sponsor (Danapati) of
Mahavira, the founder of present day Jainism.

60
fi
Many householder males and females and Bhikchhus asked him many questions and he
answered them. He also kept giving teachings on various topics throughout his life after
attaining enlightenment in Bodhgaya, called Vajrasana in Buddhist literature, till his
Parinirvana under the Sala trees in Kusinagara. All these teachings were recorded in the
Sutra Pitakas.

There are also stories of how Vedic and Sraman ascetics of his time challenged him to
debates and to competitions of miraculous powers; and again he either defeated them or
they became his disciples. It is interesting to note that by far a greater percentage of his
disciples were such Brahmins who had come to challenge him. This de nitely shows that
the Zen Samadhi and the Raja yoga Samadhi are not exactly the same.

…In the Mahayana Sutras, there are more collections of deeper level teachings on realisation…

61
fi
 R E LY I N G O N M E A N I N G , N O T
WORDS

The Buddha’s main two disciples called the Agrasravakas, who are always portrayed
standing at his two sides - Maudgalyayana and Sariputra, were both Brahmins. Another very
famous disciple Mahakashyap, already possessed miraculous powers even before he met the
Buddha, and already had one thousand disciples even before he met the Buddha. He too was
a Brahmin as his name Kashyap implies. The Buddha defeated him both in philosophical
debate and display of miraculous powers and he became a disciple of the Buddha, along with
his one thousand Brahmin disciples.

All such records are recorded in the Sutra Pitaka. There are the Mahayana Sutra Pitaka and
the Sravakayana Sutra Pitaka. Of the Sravakayana Sutra Pitaka, today only that of the
Theravada and the Sarvastivada remains intact. There are bits and pieces of Sutras of others
like Mahasanghikas etc. too, available either in the original or in various translations.

However, in the Mahayana Sutras, there are more collections of deeper level teachings on
realisation, insight etc. mostly conducted in paranormal dimensions whereas the
Sravakayana Sutra are a motley of mundane and philosophic topics, conducted mostly
within normal dimensions.

The second Pitaka is the Vinaya Pitaka which is a collection of the records of the rules made
for the Bhikchhunis and Bhikchhus by the Buddha himself. Here too there were many, of
which the Theravadin, the Sarvastivadin and the Mahasanghika have managed to survive to
the present day. Most of Mahayana schools use the Sarvastivadin and Mahasanghika
Bhikchhu Vinayas to make Bhikchhus.

In ancient India, as recorded by the famous Chinese traveler Huen Tsang of the 6 th /
7 th century, there were also followers of Mahayana who followed the Theravadin Vinayas
too. But today due to various historical ukes, no such Bhikchhus are found. As the Buddha
himself had given permission that if the Bhikchhu Sangha so deems it t, it could change
the minor Bhikchhu rules.

62
fl
fi
 So as Buddhism spread to far away lands where the climes and cultures were so drastically
di erent from India, some of the rules of the Vinaya Pitaka had to be changed. It must be
said that the Theravadin Sangha claim that they have not changed anything from the time of
the Buddha; but most scholars do not agree with this.

However, as the Buddha himself very clearly gave permission to change minor rules, and
even if there are changes, it does not contradict the intentions of the Buddha. In fact, it goes
along with the intention of the Buddha. In the Sutra, the Buddha has very clearly said,
"Artha pratisharanam na vyanjanam" meaning, do not rely/depend on the words but rather
on the meaning/intention. And this statement is found in Sarvastivada, Theravada and
Mahayana Sutra Pitaka.

The Buddha also warned very clearly that there are false Samadhis which do not lead to the
enlightenment…

UNDISTORTED TEAC HINGS

For example, in places like Tibet, Mongolia, Korea and Japan it would be foolish to continue
wearing the scanty dress of the Bhikchhus, which the Buddha had devised for the hot
climate of Madhyadesha (central north India); nor would it be sane to expect Bhikchhus to
walk barefoot in such countries, as the Buddha had insisted upon the Bhikchhus of
Madhyadesha. So these minor rules would have to be changed in accordance with the
intention of the Dharma and the Buddha. To insist that Bhikchhus of Tibet walk barefoot
would actually be going against the intentions of the teaching of the Dharma and Buddha.

Then we have the third Pitaka which are more a collection of the logical and analytical, thus
philosophical teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha de ned clearly what enlightenment was
and what false enlightenment was. He analysed and classi ed various levels of Samadhis and
the elements found in them. He also warned very clearly that there are false Samadhis which
do not lead to the enlightenment that the Buddha meant.

He broke down and classi ed all the elements of the world (Sansar) and of the sentient
beings, material, non-material and mental. He classi ed Vipassyana and Samatha and their
levels. All such things were recorded in the Abhidharma. So in the Abhidharma, we also nd

63
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 a very ne and detailed classi cation of what is today called the Psi phenomena. So these are
the Tripitaka which consists of the teachings of the Buddha, as handed down from
generation to generation.

Various councils (Sanghayanas) were held at various periods of times to check and maintain
the purity of the teachings, and to ensure no unnecessary false elements were allowed to
enter the teachings. Thus even from the scholarly transmission point of view, the purity of
the teachings were maintained as far as it is humanely possible. It can certainly be said that
no major tenets of Buddhism were changed or distorted.

Thus the major tenets of Buddhism like the four Arya Satya; the 12 chains of
interdependence (Dwadasha nidana); Samatha and Vipassyana; the classi cation of universe
(Sansar) as the Pancha Skandha (aggregates); 12 doors (12 Ayatanas); the 18 Dhatus; the 3
doors of liberation; the 8 freedoms; the teachings on Shilas, Samadhi and Pragya collectively
known as Tri Sikchhya; i.e. the three teachings, etc. are all to be found in all forms of
Buddhism.

…There are endless such Lokadhatus beginning and ending at any one time.

NO BEGINNING, NO END

Whatever di erences there are, are in the ner interpretation of these things and not in the
basic tenets themselves. No forms of Buddhism believe in a god who created the universe,
no forms of Buddhism believe in an eternal soul or Atma. No forms of Buddhism believe in
an unchanging entity that transmigrates from one life to another. No forms of Buddhism
believe that karma is given to one by some super power/ energy/ deity and can be changed
by the grace of such a power.

No forms of Buddhism believe that this universe, was created at a certain time but rather
samsara is beginning less and endless. Actually this is intimately related to the principle that
there is no creator – god. I use the word creator – god because nowadays many theistic
systems have also been re-interpreted in a more mystical, experiential way by some of their
supporters – especially those who practice meditation in one form or the other. But it must

64
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
be said that such interpretation of god is not accepted by the mainstream theistic religious
systems.

While it could be said a stray few in all religious system had always interpreted god in a
more mystical sense, it must also be said that those who interpret god in this way were
either considered heretics or in some cases even put to the sword. Although such an
interpretation of god is a step towards the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, it must still
be said all such mystical interpretation of god still falls short of the Buddhist enlightenment.

Even if god was considered more a mystical – experiential experience, this god would still be
an eternally existing entity which is very far from the Buddhist enlightenment which is the
experience of the emptiness of all entities/dharmas. It must be said clearly that this
emptiness is not the same as the emptiness found in many Hindu texts like the Vigyana
Bhairaba Tantra etc.

Within Buddhism there are in nite and beginning-less cycles of beginning and ending. We
can only talk of a cycle beginning (created) but that is not the beginning of samsara/
universe itself but the beginning of one small unit of samsara. One unit of samsara (may be
a galaxy in modern term) called Lokadhatu begins and ends but there are endless such
Lokadhatus beginning and ending at any one time.

And even these Lokadhatus are not created by any creator of a sort but appear and disappear
based on various principles/laws called 'Niyaama' which includes karma – niyaams. When
the power of the pull of the karmas of sentient beings and the other niyaams synchronise
then a world – system (Lokadhatu) appears (rather than created) etc. These niyaamas are
more like the principles of gravity etc. which no one created.

Everything arises through causes and conditions.

65
fi
 A PARADIGM SHIFT

We do not need a being of any kind to create gravity. It is the law of nature that whenever
there is some mass there is gravity. This is what Niyaam means in Buddhism. Everything
arises through causes and conditions; and those causes and conditions themselves arise
through other causes and conditions. Because of this there can be no beginning. Therefore
there can be no creation 'in the beginning'. About this there are no two minds within any
form of Buddhism. Any system that believes in a beginning (and thus a creator) cannot
subscribe to the principle that all things arise from causes and conditions. And without that,
that system of thought does not and cannot fall within the paradigm of Buddhism.

Many people get confused because many systems of meditation also use the word non–dual
like Buddhism and thus come to the conclusion that the nal point 'non – dual' is the same.
But this is merely a confusion that arose due to the use of similar words. Actually the
Sanskrit word used in Buddhism is Advaya while in monotheistic system, it is Advaita
(Hinduism to be more speci c); but when translated into English both are called non – dual.
This is a complex topic we shall deal with later.

Let it be said that whereas most other religious systems are theistic (Taoism being the only
exception). Buddhism is non-theistic. Here, non-theistic does not mean not believing in
gods and goddesses and other realms of existence where they exist. That would be atheistic.
Non-theistic here means, not believing in a single creator or any creator as such for that
matter. In Sanskrit, we use the word Unishwarvadin. Iswhar meaning the creator – God.
However, Buddhism is not 'Nastik'/non-believer as some misled or illiterate Hindus would
like to believe.

Astik comes from the word 'Astha' which means belief. So Astik would mean 'believer' as
opposed to 'Nastik' which would mean 'non believer'. While Buddhism does not accept the
Vedas or any other scriptures and whatever comes within their paradigm, it does believe
that man can be free from su ering and thus attain Mokchhya or Mukti. It does believe in
karma and the cycle of existence, it does believe in other realms of existence; it does believe
that man can attain enlightenment. Thus it is an 'Astik' system. In a sense, all systems
believe their own tenets and thus are 'Astik'.

66
fi
ff
fi
 But Buddhism is a paradigm shift from all other theistic systems, be they monotheistic or
polytheistic. With this background now let us take up what the Abhidharma has to say
about the psi phenomena. .

It is made possible by good karmas and a mind freed from lower mental impurities through
practices of Samatha etc.

ATTAINING DIVINE EARS AND EYES

In the Abhidharma we nd the psychic power or psi phenomena divided into ve categories.
These are called Abhigyas which mean high knowledge or higher knowing or higher
cognitions. Abhi means special/higher and Gya means knowing.

Firstly, the Riddhi-Siddhis: These are manifestations in the outside world and are di erent
from the other Abhigyas. Riddhi-Siddhis imply controlling power over the subjective and
the objective and it manifests by controlling both mind and matter, whereas the other four
Abhigyas are related only with the subjective power of the mind. As this is a bigger topic we
shall go into details of the Riddhi-Siddhis after we nish studying the other four Abhigyas
rst.

The second Abhigya (Abhiyya in Pali) is known as Dibya Srota Dhatu, i.e. divine ear
element. It is said that with a concentrated mind applied to Dibya Srota Dhatu, the puri ed
hearing which surpasses human hearing is attained. And one can hear sounds of humans or
Devas, whether far or near. The ability to hear sounds far away beyond normal human range
within the human world or to even hear the sounds and voices etc. of Devas in various Deva
Lokas and Brahma Lokas is what is meant by the Abhigya Dibya Srota Dhatu.

This is the hearing capacity of the Devas that is why it is called Dibya Srota Dhatu. It is
made possible by good karmas and a mind freed from lower mental impurities through
practices of Samatha etc. With this pure and extended Dibya Srota, the Yogavachara is able
to hear sounds whether produced on earth or in the various Deva realms of existence. There
are various exercises given in various texts (Theravadin/Sarvastivadin/Mahayana) which are
more or less the same, for the properly trained yogi with a pure mind to produce Dibya
Srota if it does not appear spontaneously.

67
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
The third Abhigya is called Parachitta Vijanana. It means knowing the mind of others.
Having attained the Abhigya the yogi can know whether the mind of other person is with
passion/emotional de lements, or free from passion. He can know whether other person's
mind is lled with hatred/anger or free from hatred; whether the person's mind is lled with
Moha (delusion) or free from delusion; whether the other person has achieved the correct
Samadhis (Samyak Samadhi) or Mithya Samadhis, concentrated or not concentrated,
emancipated (Mukta) or not Mukta etc. It is not only telepathy or mind reading though it
would automatically be included within it. But it is more about the capacity to know the
state of mind of another person as the above explanation makes it clear.

This Abhigya cannot be gained by those who do not already have Dibya Srota Dhatu. This
Abhigya can also be called Dibya Chakshu, i.e. divine eyes, or like the eyes of the Devas of
various Devalokas.

With such an Abhigya a person can remember one’s past lives.

THE BUDDHA , TATHAGATA , THE DASA BAL ADHARI, THE

HOLDER OF TEN POWERS

Again there are various exercises given in the various texts for the yogi who is ready. Ready
here would mean a mind which is not tied by heavy Kleshas (though not free from the
Kleshas completely), a mind which has attained high levels of Samadhis. Actually, as we
have said before a mind that is heavily laden with emotional de lements (Kleshas) cannot
possibly attain Samadhis (higher level of absorptions).

The possessor of this Abhigya becomes essentially somebody who can help others and he
can do that better than a psychotherapist can. He would be able to diagnose a person's state
more accurately. This was a special Abhigya of the Buddha, which enabled him to preach the
dharma with great success and most bene cial results because he could see through the
mental state of his audience.

It is one of the ten special powers of the Tathagata called the Dasa Bala. The Buddha –
Tathagata was called the Dasa Baladhari – the holder of ten powers. All these ten or the
special powers that only a Tathagata – Buddha can have. No yogis no matter how advanced

68
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 can have all ten of them. We shall talk of this later. Parichitta vijanana is not limited only to
knowing human mind – states but also the mind states of Devas and Brahmas.

The next Abhigya is called Purvanivas Anusmriti Gyana. As the words imply, Purva means
former, Nivas means place of existence, Anusmriti means recollection or remembrance.
With such an Abhigya a person can remember one’s past lives. How far he can remember
depends on how advanced he is in Samadhi. He can even remember cycles of evolution of
the universe of dissolutions, and evolution and dissolution again. He can remember that "In
that one I had such a name, clan, caste and experience pleasure or pain and how I died.
Having died, I was born here etc. etc.

There are six classes of men who may possess this Abhigya: i) Sramanas (ascetics) holding
other views called Tirthikas in Buddhism. They speci cally mean Hindus and Jain yogis.
They are called Tirthikas because they believe that various Tirthas (pilgrimage spots)
puri es ones’ sins (Kleshas) which is something the Buddha emphatically denied. ii)
Sravakas who are the ordinary disciples of the Buddha. iii) Mahasravakas, the special
disciples of the Buddha. iv) Agrasravakas who are the great disciples of the Buddha. Every
Buddha has two great disciples. Sakyamuni's Agrasravakas were Mahamaudgalyayana and
Sariputra. More will be said on the special capacities when the time comes.

The capacity of the Buddhas is unlimited.

ENDLESS RECOLLECTIONS

v) Pratyekabuddhas are more advanced than the Sravakas. They appear only when the
teaching of the Buddha has been completely lost. But they are below the levels of a Samyak
Sambuddha (the fully enlightened Buddha). As Sakyamuni's dispensation still exists
strongly, there are no Pratyekabuddhas.

vi) The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

The capacity to see far becomes more as we climb up from the Tirthikas to the Buddha. The
Hindu and Jain yogis may be able to remember thousands of Kalpas but they have their
limits as the mind is not completely free from emotional de lements. The Sravakas may be

69
fi
fi
fi
able to remember up to 80 thousand Kalpas, Agrasravakas etc. even more than that and even
more for the Bodhisattvas but there are no limit to the capacity of the Buddhas.

We must remember that when the Buddha began his long journey to become a Buddha
(three to four asankhya kalpas ago – one asankhya kalpa has 60 zeroes), he was already a
powerful Rishi called Bhikchhu Sumedha who had all the siddhis – riddhis already. These
siddhis – riddhis became re ned through the kalpas of practice. So how can we now expect
ordinary yogis to have the same power as the Buddha. Not even the Devas in any realm of
existence can come anywhere near the Buddha.

There are special exercises in various texts to develop the power of purvanivas anusmriti, if
the yogi is a t vessel. It must be said that some of the Abhigyas can be achieved through
drugs (ausadhi) and mantras too but the strength of such remembrance and the distance in
past time will be far below those who have attained it through samadhis and also they will
be less permanent in the case of drugs.

This is the proof of rebirth within Buddhism. The Buddha's past life has given by the
Buddha himself is recorded in the Jatakas. The stories of the Jatakas seem to have in uenced
the making of similar genre of literature in almost all religious systems of the Indian
subcontinents and further on.

With this knowledge one can realise… the operation of the law of karma..

PRACTICAL BENEFITS

This kind of insight gained by remembering one’s own past lives or the past lives of others
is a prominent feature of Buddhist literature. It is illustrated in the Jatakas and the life
stories of Buddhist Arhats, Mahasiddhas and lineage masters. Memory of past life can also
be achieved by other techniques, one of which is past life regression through hypnosis and
the other is a technique called Jati smarana gyana. This is the technique of tracing events
backwards.

One tries to trace back the events of the day then slowly extend it to two, three hundred
days, one year, ten years, 20 years and back to birth and onwards to next life. This method

70
fi
fi
fl
can be used without attaining Samadhis. Certain individuals, generally children remember
their past lives, but generally such remembrances are feeble and sometimes not fully
accurate and also they tend to fade away.

Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD), the Head of the Department of Parapsychology

of Virginia University has four huge volumes of records of such children from all over the
world – from Alaska, Lebanon, Turkey to India, Sri Lanka etc. And as I said before these are
well researched, scienti cally shifted materials that cannot be denied easily as the research
method applied by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD) is impeccable.

The Purvanivasanusmriti gained by meditation has practical bene ts in many ways. With
this knowledge one can realise the truth of rebirth, the operation of the law of karma, the
history of the macro cycles and micro cycles of evolution and involution of world systems. It
is of the greatest help for cultivating Maitri (loving kindness), Karuna (compassion), Mudita
(empathy) and Upekchhya (equanimity).

These are called the Chatur Brahma Viharasand are a very important meditational group
within Buddhism – especially in Mahayana/Bodhisatwayana. This group of meditation has
been copied wholesale in the Patanjala Sutra. According to the famous scholar Dr. S. N.
Gupta the Patanjala Sutra is nothing but a rehashing of the Buddhist Astangika Marga.
Today almost all Hindu meditation methods link themselves with the Patanjala Sutra.

Purvanivasanusmriti also helps a lot in gaining insight into phenomenal existence (Dharma)
which is the main objective of Vipassyana because someone that can see all these can clearly
see the changes of time, he can see nations arising and ceasing, civilisations arising and
ceasing, world systems (Lokadhatus) and bigger world cycles (Trisaahasra mahasaahasra
lokadhatus) arising and ceasing; just as a Vedanaanusmriti vipassyin can see his micro level
Vedana arising and ceasing. And indeed that is what Vipassyana is all about.

The Four Noble Truths which is the very foundation of Buddhism and its practice and in itself
is the whole teaching of the Buddha in a nutshell.

71
fi
fi
 DEGREES OF EMAN CIPATION

Vipassyana is to see or gain insight into the fact that all Sanskrita Dharma (conditioned
phenomena) are constantly changing and are therefore impermanent (Anitya/Anicca in
Pali); and because they are Anitya they are Dukha (sorrowful or sorrow producing or better
still unsatisfactory) and because they are impermanent and unsatisfactory (Anitya – Dukha)
they are neither me nor mine (Anaatma – Anaatmiya).

Kaya (the body), Vedana (the feeling sensation), Chitta (the mental continuum) and the
Chaitta – dharma which are the four used in the Smrityupasthaan Sutra as Alambana
(objects of meditation to gain insight (Vipassyana) into the way phenomena (dharmas)
exist). It is only such an insight that can liberate and no other methods of meditation can
liberate.

We shall go into greater details about Vipassyana and the di erence between Shamatha type
meditation and Vipassyana type meditation, later when the time comes. But
Purvanivasanusmriti also helps in the realisation of the Four Noble Truth (Chatwari Arya
Satyani), which is the very foundation of Buddhism and its practice and in itself is the whole
teaching of the Buddha in a nutshell.

The Four Noble Truths was the rst teaching the Shasta (master/teacher) gave and it was in
Sarnath to the ve who had abandoned him in the middle of his endeavours because he
started eating. When a person moving on the Sraavakayana path has his rst glimpse of
enlightenment, he experiences in his own mental streams the sixteen aspects of the Four
Noble Truths.

This is the rst glimpse of enlightenments according to the Sraavakayana system like
Theravada. If one properly practices the Vipassyana of the Theravada system, this is what he
will experience. He will not experience the Atma – gyana of the Hindus or Jains nor god –

72
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
 realisation of some Hindus or Christians. An understanding of this is very crucial to the
correct understanding of Buddhism.

This glimpse is technically called Srotapatti and the person is thence forth a Srotappanna.
Srota means the stream, i.e. the stream that leads to nal emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya)
and Apatti is falling into or entering. So it literally means entering into the stream that leads
to or ows towards Arhathood which is the nal emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya).

However there are still two more stations or degrees of emancipation called Sakridaagaami
and Anaagaami before Arhathood is attained. Sakridaagaami means once returner. The
person will return once more to the human realm before he attains the Anaagaami or the
higher Arhat stage. The Anaagaami is the non – returner. He will not come back to the
human realm anymore but until he becomes an Arhat he may be reborn in the Deva or
Brahma realms and go on to attain Arhathood. But if he attains Arhathood here he has no
more birth. This becomes his last birth.

Buddhist enlightenment is the experience of the emptiness of all entities/dharmas.

INTERPRETATION OF GOD

Whatever di erences there are, are in the ner interpretation of these things and not in the
basic tenets themselves. No form of Buddhism believes in a God who created the universe,
no forms of Buddhism believe in an eternal soul or Atma. No form of Buddhism believes in
an unchanging entity that transmigrates from one life to another; or that karma is given to
one by some super power/energy/deity and can be changed by the grace of such a power.

No form of Buddhism believes that this universe was created at a certain time. Samsara is
beginning-less and endless. Actually this is intimately related to the principle that there is
no creator – God. I use the word creator – God because nowadays many theistic systems
have also been reinterpreted in a more mystical experiential way by some of their
supporters, especially those who practice meditation in one form or the other. But it must
be said that such interpretation of God is not accepted by the mainstream theistic religious
systems.

73
fl
ff
fi
fi
fi
While it could be said a stray few in all religious system had always interpreted God in a
more mystical sense it must also be said that those who interpret God in this way were
either considered heretics or in some cases even put to the sword. Although such an
interpretation of God is a step towards the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, it must still
be said all such mystical interpretation of God still falls short of the Buddhist
enlightenment.

Even if God was considered more a mystical – experiential experience, this God would still
be an eternally existing entity which is very far from the Buddhist enlightenment which is
the experience of the emptiness of all entities/dharmas. It must be said clearly that this
emptiness is not the same as the emptiness found in many Hindu texts like the Vigyana
Bhairaba Tantra etc.

Within Buddhism there are in nite and beginning-less cycles of beginning and ending. We
can only talk of a cycle beginning (created) but that is not the beginning of Samsara/
universe itself but the beginning of one small unit of Samsara. One unit of Samsara (maybe
a galaxy in modern term) called Lokadhatu begins and ends but there are endless such
Lokadhatus beginning and ending at any one time.

And even these Lokadhatus are not created by any creator of a sort but appear and disappear
based on various principles/laws called 'Niyaama' which includes karma – niyaams. When
the power of the pull of the karmas of sentient beings and the other niyaams synchronise
then a world system (Lokadhatu) appears (rather than created) etc. These Niyaams are more
like the principles of gravity etc. which no one created.

Buddhism believes that man can be free from su ering and thus attain Mokchhya or Mukti.

BUDDHISM IS NOT NASTIK

We do not need a being of any kind to create gravity. It is the law of nature that whenever
there is some mass there is gravity. This is what Niyaam means in Buddhism. Everything
arises through causes and conditions; including those causes and conditions themselves
arise through other causes and conditions. Because of this there can be no beginning.

74
fi
ff
Therefore there can be no creation 'in the beginning'. About this there are no two minds
within any form of Buddhism. Any system that believes in a beginning (and thus a creator)
cannot subscribe to the principle that all things arise from causes and conditions. And
without that, that system of thought does not and cannot fall within the paradigm of
Buddhism.

Many people get confused because many systems of meditation also use the word non–dual
like Buddhism and thus come to the conclusion that the nal point 'non – dual' is the same.
But this is merely a confusion that arose due to the use of similar words. Actually the
Sanskrit words used in Buddhism is Advaya while in monotheistic system is Advaita
(Hinduism to be more speci c); but when translated into English both are called non – dual.
This is a complex topic we shall deal with later.

Let it be said that whereas most other religious systems are theistic (Taoism being the only
exception). Buddhism is non – theistic. Non – theistic does not mean here not believing in
gods and goddesses and other realms of existence where they exist. That would be atheistic.
Non – theistic here means, not believing in a single creator or any creator as such for that
matter. In Sanskrit, we use the word Unishwarvadin. Iswhar meaning the creator, God.

However, Buddhism is not 'Nastik'/non-believer as some mislead and unread Hindus would
like to believe. Astik comes from the word 'Astha' which means belief. So Astik would mean
'believer' as opposed to 'Nastik' which would mean 'non – believer'. While Buddhism does
not accept the Vedas or any other scriptures and whatever comes within their paradigm, it
does believe that man can be free from su ering and thus attain Mokchhya or Mukti. It does
believe in karma and the cycle of existence, it does believe in other realms of existence; it
does believe that man can attain enlightenment. Thus it is an 'Astik' system. In a sense, all
systems believe in their own tenets and thus are 'Astik'.

But Buddhism is a paradigm shift from all other theistic systems, be they monotheistic or
polytheistic. With this background now let us take up what the Abhidharma has to say
about the psi phenomena.

75
fi
ff
fi
 HIGHER KNOWING

In the Abhidharma we nd the psychic power or psi phenomena divided into ve categories.
These are called Abhigyas which mean high knowledge or higher knowing or higher
cognitions. Abhi means special/higher and Gya means knowing etc.

1. The Riddhi-siddhis: These are manifestations in the outside world and are di erent from
the other Abhigyas. Siddhi-riddhis imply controlling power over the subjective and the
objective and it manifests by controlling both mind and matter, whereas the other four
Abhigyas are related only with the subjective power of the mind. As this is a bigger topic we
shall go into details of the riddhi-siddhis after we nish writing on the other four Abhigyas
rst.

2. The second Abhigya (Abhiyya in Pali) is known as Dibya Srota dhatu, i.e. divine ear
element. It is said that with a concentrated mind applied to Dibya Srota dhatu, the puri ed
hearing, which surpasses human hearing, is attained. He can hear sounds of both humans
and Devas whether far or near. The ability to hear sounds far away beyond normal human
range within the human world or to even hear the sounds and voices etc. of Devas in various
Deva Lokas and Brahma Lokas is what is meant by the Abhigya dibya srota dhatu.

This is the hearing capacity of the Devas that is why it is called Dibya srota dhatu. It is made
possible by good karmas and a mind freed from lower mental impurities through practices
of Samatha etc. With this pure and extended Dibya srota, the Yogavachara is able to hear
sounds whether produced on earth or in the various Deva realms of existence. There are
various exercises given in various texts (Theravadin/Sarvastivadin/Mahayana) which are
more or less the same, for the properly trained yogi with a pure mind to produce Dibya srota
if it does not appear spontaneously.

The third Abhigya is called Parachitta vijanana. It means knowing the mind of others.
Having attained the Abhigya the yogi can know whether the mind of other person is with
passion – emotional de lements or free from passion – emotional de lements. He can know
whether other person's mind is lled with hatred – anger or free from hatred – anger,
whether the person's mind is lled with Moha (delusion) or free from delusion, whether the
other person has achieved the correct Samadhis (samyak samadhi) or Mithya samadhis,
concentrated or not concentrated, emancipated (Mukta) or not Mukta etc.

76
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
It is not only telepathy or mind reading though it would automatically included within it.
But it is more the capacity to know the state of mind of another person as the above
explanation makes it clear.

No yogis no matter how advanced can have all ten of them.

THE BUDDHA – THE HOLDER OF TEN POWERS

This Abhigya cannot be gained by those who do not already have Dibya srota dhatu. This
Abhigya can also be called Dibya chakshu, i.e. divine eyes, or like the eyes of the Devas of
various Devalokas.

Again there are various exercises given in the various texts for the yogi who is ready. Ready
here would mean a mind which is not tied by heavy Kleshas (though not free from the
Kleshas completely), a mind which has attained high levels of Samadhis. Actually, as we
have said before a mind that is heavily laden with emotional de lements (Kleshas) cannot
possibly attain Samadhis (higher level of absorptions).

The possessor of this Abhigya becomes essentially somebody who can help others and he
can do that better than a psychotherapist. He would be able to diagnose a person's state
more accurately. This was a special Abhigya of the Buddha, which enabled him to preach the
dharma with great success and get most bene cial results because he could see through the
mental state of his audience. It is one of the ten special powers of the Tathagata called the
Dasa bala.

The Buddha – Tathagata was called the Dasa baladhari – the holder of ten powers. All these
ten are special powers that only a Tathagata – Buddha can have. No yogis no matter how
advanced can have all ten of them. We shall talk of this later. Parichitta vijanana is not
limited only to knowing human mind states but also the mind states of Devas and Brahmas.

The next Abhigya is called Purvanivas anusmriti gyana. As the words imply, Purva means
former, Nivas means place of existence, Anusmriti means recollection or remembrance.
With such an Abhigya the person can remember the past lives of oneself. How far he can
remember depends on how advanced he is in Samadhi. He can even remember cycles of
evolution of the universe of dissolutions, and evolution and dissolution again. He can

77
fi
fi
remember that, “In that one I had such a name, clan, caste and experience pleasure or pain
and how I died. Having died, I was born here,” etc.

There are six classes of men who may possess this Abhigya:

i) Sramanas (ascetics) holding other views called Tirthikas in Buddhism. They speci cally
mean Hindus and Jain yogis. They are called Tirthikas because they believe that various
Tirthas (pilgrimage spots) puri ed ones sins (Kleshas) which is something the Buddha
emphatically denied.

ii) Sravakas who are the ordinary disciples of the Buddha.

iii) Mahasravakas, the special disciples of the Buddha.

iv) Agrasravakas who are the great disciples of the Buddha.Every Buddha has two great
disciples. Sakyamuni's Agrasravakas were Mahamaudgalyayana and Sariputra. More will
be said on the special capacities when the time comes.

v) Pratyekabuddhas are more advanced than the Sravakas. They appear only when the
teaching of the Buddha has been completely lost. But they are below the levels of a
Samyak Sambuddha (the fully enlightened Buddha). As Sakyamuni's dispensation still
exists strongly, there are no Pratyekabuddhas.

vi) The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

LIMITLESS C APACIT Y

The capacity to see far becomes more as we climb up from the Tirthikas to the Buddha. The
Hindu and Jain yogis may be able to remember thousands of Kalpas but they have their
limits as the mind is not completely free from emotional de lements. The Sravakas may be
able to remember up to 80 thousand Kalpas, Agrasravakas etc. even more than that and even
more for the Bodhisattvas but there is no limit to the capacity of the Buddhas.

78
fi
fi
fi
We must remember that when the Buddha began his long journey to become a Buddha (3 –
4 Asankhya kalpas ago – one asankhya kalpa has 60 zeroes), he was already a powerful Rishi
called Bhikchhu Sumedha who had all the siddhis – riddhis already. These siddhis – riddhis
became re ned through the kalpas of practice. So how can we expect ordinary yogis to have
the same power as the Buddha? Not even the Devas in any realm of existence can come
anywhere near the Buddha. Again there are special exercises in the various texts to develop
the power of Purvanivas anusmriti, if the yogi is a t vessel.

It must be said that some of the Abhigyas can be achieved through drugs (ausadhi) and
mantras too but the strength of such remembrance and the distance in past time will be far
below those who have attained it through samadhis and also they will be less permanent in
the case of drugs.

This is the proof of rebirth within Buddhism. The Buddha’s past life as given by the Buddha
himself is recorded in the Jatakas. The stories of the Jatakas seem to have in uenced the
making of similar genre of literature in almost all religious systems of the Indian
subcontinents and further on.

This kind of insight gained by remembering ones own past lives or the past lives of others is
a prominent feature of Buddhist literature. It is illustrated as I said in the Jatakas and the life
stories of the Buddhist Arhats, Mahasiddhas and lineage masters. Memory of past life can
also be achieved by other techniques, one of which is past life regression through hypnosis
and the other is a technique called Jati smarana gyana. This is the technique of tracing
events backwards. One tries to trace back the events of the day and then slowly extend it to
two, three hundred days, one year, ten years, 20 years and back to birth and onwards to next
life. This method can be used without attaining samadhis.

Certain individuals, generally children remember their past lives, but generally such
remembrances are feeble and sometimes not fully accurate and they also tend to fade away.
Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD), the Head of the Department of Parapsychology
of Virginia Universityhas four huge volumes of records of such children from all over the
world – from Alaska to Lebanon to Turkey to India, Sri Lanka etc. etc. And as I said before
these are well researched, scienti cally shifted materials that cannot be denied easily, as the
research method applied by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD) is impeccable.

79
fi
fi
fi
fl
The Purvanivas-anusmriti gained by meditation has practical bene ts in many ways. With
this knowledge one can realise the truth of rebirth, the operation of the law of karma, the
history of the macro cycles and micro cycles of evolution and involution of world systems. It
is of the greatest help for cultivating Maitri (loving kindness), Karuna (compassion), Mudita
(empathy) and Upekchhya (equanimity). These are called the Chatur Brahma Viharas and
are a very important meditational group within Buddhism – especially in Mahayana/
Bodhisatwayana.

This group of meditation has been copied wholesale in the Patanjal Sutra. According to the
famous scholar Dr. SN Gupta the Patanjal Sutra is nothing but a rehashing of the Buddhist
Astangika Marga. Today almost all Hindu meditation methods link themselves with the
Patanjala Sutra.

Purvanivas-anusmriti also helps a lot in gaining insight into phenomenal existence

(Dharma) which is the main objective of Vipassyana because someone who can see all these
can clearly see the changes of time, see nations arising and ceasing, civilisations arising and
ceasing, world systems (Lokadhatus) and bigger world cycles (Trisaahasra mahasaahasra
lokadhatus) arising and ceasing; just as a Vedanaanusmriti vipassyin can see his micro level
Vedana arising and ceasing. And indeed that is what Vipassyana is all about.

Vipassyana is to see or gain insight into the fact that all Sanskrita Dharma (conditioned
phenomena) are constantly changing and are therefore impermanent (Anitya/Anicca in
Pali); and because they are Anitya, they are Dukha (sorrowful or sorrow producing or better
still unsatisfactory) and because they are impermanent and unsatisfactory (Anitya – Dukha)
they are neither me nor mine (Anaatma – Anaatmiya).

Kaya (the body), Vedana (the feeling sensation), Chitta (the mental continuum) and the
Chaitta – dharma which are the four used in the Smrityupasthaan Sutra as Alambana
(objects of meditation to gain insight (Vipassyana) into the way phenomena (dharmas)
exist). It is only such an insight that can liberate and no other methods of meditation can
liberate. We shall go into greater details about Vipassyana and the di erence between
Shamatha type meditation and Vipassyana type meditation, later when the time comes.

80
fi
ff
 Purvanivas-anusmriti also helps in the realisation of the Four Noble Truth (Chatwari Arya
Satyani), which is the very foundation of Buddhism and its practice and in itself is the whole
teaching of the Buddha in a nutshell.

In the Mahayana path, the rst glimpse of enlightenment is attained when the person has a
direct non-conceptual experiential glimpse of emptiness (Sunyata).

GLIMPSE OF ENLIGHTENMENT

The four noble truths was the rst teaching the Shasta (master/ teacher) gave and it was in
Sarnath to the ve, who had abandoned him in the middle of his endeavours because he
started eating. When a person moving on the Sraavakayana path has his rst glimpse of
enlightenment, he experiences in his own mental streams, the 16 aspects of the four noble
truths. This is the rst glimpse of enlightenment according to the Sraavakayana system like
Theravada.

If one properly practices the Vipassyana of the Theravada system, this is what he will
experience. He will not experience the Atma – Gyana of the Hindus or Jains nor God
realisation of some Hindus or Christians. An understanding of this is very crucial to the
correct understanding of Buddhism. This glimpse is technically called Srotapatti and the
person is thence forth a Srotappanna. Srota means the stream, i.e. the stream that leads to
nal emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya) and Apatti is falling into or entering. So it literally
means entering into the stream that leads to or ows towards Arhathood which is the nal
emancipation (Mukti/Mokchhya).

However there are still two more stations or degrees of emancipation called Sakridaagaami
and Anaagaami before Arhathood is attained. Sakridaagaami means once returner. The
person will return once more to the human realm before he attains to the Anaagaami or the
higher Arhat stage. The Anaagaami is the non returner. He will not come back to the human
realm anymore but until he becomes an Arhat he may be reborn in the Deva or Brahma
realms and go on to attain Arhathood. But if he attains Arhathood here he has no more
birth. This becomes his last birth.

81
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
 The steps, the realisation and the nal emancipation according to Sraavakayana are totally
di erent from any other non-Buddhist systems as can be seen from the above explanation.
But this is only the result of the Sraavakayana path. The Bodhisatwayana/Mahayana path
again is a little di erent from the above, if not totally di erent.

In the Mahayana path, the rst glimpse of enlightenment is attained when the person has a
direct non-conceptual experiential glimpse of emptiness (Sunyata). As you can see this
cannot really be equal to the realisation of the Atma as some Hindu Saints/Yogis/
Paramhamsa have tried to posit in the past. Sunyata is a synonym for Anatma but there are
two levels of Anatma. One is the gross Anatma (no-self) which is the negation of I and me.
But Sunyata is the subtle Anatma and therefore not only merely the negation of I and me
but also the negation of real existence, inherent existence, true existence of all dharmas
including the fabricated self or Atma.

S A M YA G D R I S T I

In the Buddhist experience, the experience of an Atma is sheer fabrication and thus it leads
to bondage. This non – conceptual experience of Sunyata is called the rst Bhumi when the
Bodhisatwa has his/her rst glimpse of emptiness (Sunyata) non – conceptually. Then there
are ten such Bhumis (stages or steps) before the Bodhisatwa becomes a Buddha. Through
such a knowledge the practitioners gain insight (Vipassyana) into the reality of
impermanence (Anitya), su ering (Dukha) and non – ego (Anatma) and non – substantial
existence (Sunyata).

Then the fth Abhigya is known as Chyuti-utpaada gyana. This is the knowledge of the
passing away and the rebirth of sentient beings. This is also called Dibya Chakchhu gyana.
This is a little di erent from the above Abhigya. The above was more about seeing the past,
while this one is related more to seeing the future. In the Digha Nikaya of the Theravadins
and the Dirgha Agama of the Sarvastivadins, the Buddha says, “With his mind thus
concentrated …… he applies and directs his mind/thought to the knowledge of the passing
away and rebirth of the sentient beings. With his Dibya Chakchhu which is puri ed and
surpassing human sight, he sees sentient beings passing away and being reborn again, low
or high, good or bad appearance, in happy or miserable existence, according to their karma.

82
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
He fully realises that those sentient beings who are given to evil conduct in deeds, speech
and thoughts, who are revilers of the noble ones (Aryas = Arhats, Bodhisatwas etc.) who
are of false views (Mithya dristi, i.e. wrong views) acquire the karma of their false views.
Correct view is very important as karma, that is, one’s actions depend heavily on one’s
views. For example, if a person is of the view that killing goats to various deities is good for
the goat and for him/herself, s/he will de nitely sacri ce goats to various Devi – devatas. If
s/he is of the view that killing other sentient beings is a heavy bad karma no matter for
whom it is done, s/he will not sacri ce animals to any deity.

That is why Samyag dristi (correct view) is very important in Buddhism. Those beings with
wrong views after the dissolution of their bodies after death have been reborn in Durgati
(lower realms) in hell. But those sentient beings who are given to doing good karmas in
words, deeds and thoughts, who do not revile the Aryas (noble ones), who have Samyag
dristi and who acquire the karma of their right views, at the dissolution of the body after
death have been reborn in a happy existence (Sugati) in the world of the Deva lokas
(heavens).

Because this is similar to the sight of the Devas (gods) it is called Dibya Chakchhu and it is
very useful to gain Samyag dristi as the person can see for him/herself how those who have
lived a life of bad karmas based on wrong views fall into lower realms, and those who have
lived good lives with good karma based on Samyag dristi, attain the higher realms. Again,
the various texts prescribe various exercises to attain this psychic power.

FREEDOM FROM EMOTIONAL AND CONCEPTUAL

DEFILEMENTS

This is the major reason why Buddhism does not consider a yogi with mighty powers equal to
an Arhat or a Bodhisatwa or a Buddha.

Now there is also a sixth Abhigya which is considered the last and the highest Abhigya but
not part of the ve we have talked about so far. All the above ve Abhigyas are lower
Abhigyas and are considered lowly in all forms of Buddhism. But this last Abhigya, called
Asrava Cchaya Gyana (knowledge of the extinction of the out ows) is considered the real
Abhigya (or Siddhi – Riddhi) in Buddhism.

83
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
Asrava means the out ow of mental de lements (emotional and conceptual de lements).
When we have emotional and conceptual de lements they are always owing out from our
subconscious mind through verbal or non – verbal expression. These Asravas remain even in
yogis who have attained high Samadhis and various Riddhi Siddhis Praatiharyas.

This is the major reason why Buddhism does not consider a yogi with mighty powers equal
to an Arhat or a Bodhisatwa or a Buddha. Even such a yogi, no matter how charismatic and
mind boggling, still has not destroyed the Asravas. Only an Arhat, an 8 th Bhumi (level/
stage) Bodhisatwa and above, and the Buddha who is even above a tenth Bhumi, has totally
destroyed all Asravas.

This brings us to the big question, how are the Asravas totally destroyed? This brings us to
a very important issue within Buddhism which is missing in non – Buddhist systems or at
least it is not clear enough.

According to Buddhism there are two major types of meditation systems and they do not
produce the same results. One of them, which usually comes rst in the Buddhist texts, is
Samatha – meditation and the other is Vipasyana meditation also called Vidarshana
meditation.

To understand Buddhism and its correct view, it is of utmost importance to understand

these two types of meditations very clearly and to be able to distinguish between these two.
Vipashyana is the Sanskrit word used in the Sarvastivad and Mahayana – Vajrayana schools
while Vipassana is the Pali word used in the Theravadin School and it is closely linked with
what is called mindfulness – meditation but is not limited to that. Mindfulness is called
Smrityupasthan in Mahayana and Sarvastivadin texts while it is called Satipatthan in the Pali
Canons of the Theravadins.

We shall go into greater details with Samatha and Vipasyana later on but here we shall deal
with them in short as the occasion demands it.

SAMATHA
…The mind remains the same without thoughts, concepts, Kleshas changing or disturbing it.

84
fl
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
 Samatha comes from two words. Sama which means quiet, tranquil and etymologically it is
linked with the English word, 'same'. It means the mind remains the same without
thoughts, concepts, Kleshas changing or disturbing it. But here the mind remains the same
because it is focused on the same thing with a high level of concentration; so the mind
remains the same (Sama), with the same Alambana (object grasped for meditation even if it
is an objectless object) for two – four – eight – ten hours or even days.

This kind of meditation when it reaches a certain depth (depth here does not mean how
many hours s/he remains absorbed in the Alambana (object of focus) but rather deeper
levels of absorption) is called Samadhi. Although the words Samadhi is used in the Hindu
and Jain systems too, the Buddhist classi cation of Samadhis are far more detailed and
re ned.

While the Hindu Samadhis are classi ed into Savikalpa (also called Sampragyata which
means with a thought or focus, i.e. Alambana) Samadhi and Nirvikalpa (Asampragyata)
Samadhi, which means without any thought or object of focus (Alambana); the Buddhist
classi cation is far more complex. It must be remembered that the Patanjal Sutra upon
which virtually all forms of present day Hindu – meditation is based, is, according to Dr.
Surendranath Das Gupta in his A History of Indian Philosophy, merely a re-hashing and
Hinduisation of the Buddhist eightfold path (Astangika marga).

But even though Buddhist concepts, ideas, categories were taken as the very name Astanga
yoga from the words Arya Astangika marga, it still seems to be a mixed pot pouri of ideas
picked up from here and there. For example, even though the word Chatur Brahma Vihara is
found in the Patanjal Sutra no Hindu commentary including Vatsaayan seems to know what
it is or what kind of meditation it is. And the Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhis are just a
rather rough categorisation of Rupa Samadhi and Arupa Samadhis taken from Buddhism and
given new names.

But the Rupa Dhyanas have four levels of Samadhi (sometime considered as ve depending
upon how it is distinguished) called rst Dhyana, second Dhyana, third Dhyana and fourth
Dhyana where breathing stops. And the Arupa Dhyana are also divided into four levels. All
these are missing in the entire Hindu systemisation of Samadhis. The Arupa Samadhis are
without any object of focus; but they are more or less the same level as the fourth Dhyana.
However they do get more and more re ned.

85
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
CUTTING THE ROOTS OF KLESHAS

Riddhi – Siddhis are not a proof that the person is enlightened…

But what is most important to understand is that even after achieving the highest Arupa or
Nirvikalpa dhyana, the Asravas (emotional de lements) are not destroyed but only blocked
or stopped like a dam stopping water (technically called Viskhambana). And for the present
day Indo – Nepali public it must be emphasised that it is merely blocked for the time being,
even in those who show manifestation of Siddhi – Riddhi – Pratiharya.

According to Buddhism Siddhi – Riddhis can be a part of both enlightened beings who have
attained Asrava – cchaya (destruction of emotional de lements, intellectual de lements) as
well as of those who have only attained high stages of Samadhis but have not yet attained
Asrava – cchaya. This is a point Buddhism is emphatic about and also a point most Indo –
Nepalis are blissfully ignorant of.

Riddhi – Siddhis are not a proof that the person is enlightened which in Buddhism means
that s/he has attained Asrava – cchaya Gyana. So no amount of Samatha Samadhi no matter
how deep will bring about Asrava cchaya. But it can produce various manifestations of
Riddhi – Siddhi. It does not matter if the person went into deep Nirvikalpa Samadhi for
fourteen day or so during which time even ies were fooled that the body was dead, etc.
When coming out of the Samadhi s/he comes back with all his/her emotional and
intellectual de lements. They are not cut or destroyed because nothing or no modus
operandi has been employed to cut or destroy them.

If just remaining in an unconscious, thoughtless void was enough to cut or destroy Asravas,
then every person goes into that state for some hours when they enter deep sleep (Susupti);
but nobody comes back from deep sleep nding himself/herself free from Asrava. So just
extending that state to more hours or days surely cannot help. Nor does arriving at a super
conscious state do much in this case as that super conscious state is always present in all
humans and in spite of it all humans are still a icted heavily with Asravas.

So just practices that still the mind and take it into deeper and deeper levels of quietness
may bring peace and tranquility to the practitioner but that is not the same as Asrava cchaya

86
fi
fi
fl
fi
ffl
fi
fi
and no such practice no matter how esoteric or secret or known to only a chosen few, they
will not and cannot possibly produce Asrava cchaya. Simply an absorbed state of mind,
whatever the mind be absorbed in, be it on some super conscious state or on some external
or internal object or objectless or thoughtless; such absorption Samadhis such Samatha –
type Samadhis only suppress the emotional de lement but do not even touch the
intellectual de lement.

T H E S I X A B H I GYA S

In Buddhism, if Siddhis are ever used it is always used as means to goad on intimate disciples
and never as a public display.

Emotional de lement is called Klesha – Avarana; and intellectual or conceptual de lement is

called Geyaavarana. Geya means the known or knowledge of the known and Avarana means
covering, something that blocks or hinders. These two must be cut o at the root and totally
destroyed before a person can be called enlightened or an Arhat or a Buddha in the Buddhist
sense.

We have seen that reaching deep levels of Samadhi does not cut these o at the roots. Nor
does attaining Siddhi – Riddhis automatically cut these o at the roots. But more about
these two de lements later as it is crucial to understand them to understand the Buddhist
path and fruits.

As we have seen, the sixth Siddhi or Abhigya called Asrava cchaya gyana is considered as the
highest Siddhi in Buddhism and a Siddha in Buddhism always mean someone who has
attained the sixth Abhigya, at least to some degree if not completely, as is necessary for
complete enlightenment. In fact from the time of the Buddha himself, Buddhism has not
only kept the other Siddhis at a lower rung of the ladder but has always been suspicious of
people who use the lower Siddhis unscrupulously. If it is ever used it is always used as
means to goad on intimate disciples and never as a public display.

There is a wonderful story about this at the time of the Buddha himself. Most of the
Buddha's disciples were endowed with all the six Abhigyas. We shall talk more about them
later, but for a small taste, it is said that Maudgalyayana went bodily up to Indras Deva loka.
Indra saw this Bhikchhu and mistook him for some ordinary Bhikchhu with some Siddhi –

87
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
Riddhi, so Indra wanted to impress upon this Bhikchhu how great he was. So he took him
to his fabled garden which is famous and then proceeded to take him to his fabulous palace,
the fabled Vajayanti Prasad.

Indra thought the Bhikchhu would be so impressed with this splendour that he would be
awestruck. But the Arhat Maudgalyayana read his mind and thought to himself, “I must
teach this King of the Devas a lesson.” So when they arrived at Indra's fabulous palace, Indra
showed him proudly his palace. Maudgalyayana quietly went to the base of the palace and
pushed his big toes against the foundation and wiggled it so that the huge palace shook like
a toy. Then Indra realised that this is no ordinary Sraman and paid great respect to him.

S A M A T H A A N D V I PA S S YA N A

According to all forms of Buddhism there is only one way 'Ekayano Maggo'…

Going back to the topic of the Buddhist attitude towards Siddhi – Riddhis, we have a story
of another Brahmin disciple of the Buddha – Bhaardhwaj Pindola. One day he found a big
crowd gathered and went to see what the hue and cry was all about. He saw that some
competition of Siddhi – Riddhi was going on. There was a long pole on top of which was an
object and it was declared that whoever can bring that object down without climbing the
pole or touching it in anyway would be the winner. And the winner’s Guru would be
announced as the greatest Guru.

Bhaardhwaj saw that many yogis tried but could not get the job done. So he thought, why
not do it and show the world that the Buddha was indeed the greatest teacher. So
Bhaardhwaj ew up to the sky and took the sh out from the top of the pole without even
touching the pole. All those present were awestruck and announced in unison that the
Buddha was indeed the greatest teacher.

Later some Bhikchhus who had seen this told the Buddha that he was proclaimed the
greatest teacher because of what Bhaardhwaj did. When Buddha heard this, he called
Bhaardhwaj and asked him if the story was true. When Bhaardhwaj proudly proclaimed that
it was true, Buddha chastised Bhaardhwaj for doing such a thing and proclaimed that from
now onwards let it be known whosoever uses Siddhi – Riddhi to impress others is not a

88
fl
fi
 disciple of the Buddha. This incident has de ned forever the attitude of Buddhism in all its
forms towards Siddhi Pratiharya.

Now how is the sixth Avigya called Asrava Cchya Avigya attained? According to all forms of
Buddhism there is only one way 'Ekayano Maggo' as it is said in the Pali Satipatthana Sutta.
And that way is Vipassyana in Sanskrit/Vipassana in Pali.

Let us now go into Vipassyana. Let me reiterate that all forms of meditation, no matter to
which religious system it belongs can be categorised into basically two major types or
categories. These two categories are (i) Samatha and (ii) Vipassyana.

We have touched upon Samatha meditation already; but let me recapitulate some of its
salient points, before we go into Vipassyana. Samatha meditation is any form of meditation
which xates the mind on one object, or idea, or thing, internal or external, real or
imagined. This means keeping the mind xed or trying to keep the mind xed so that all
other thoughts or movements of the mind is either eliminated or reduced to a great extent
to the exclusion of the object of xation (called Alambana in Buddhist terminology).

S A M YA G D R I S T I – T H E C O R R E C T
VIEW
It is very important to understand that refutation of other’s views is neither negative criticism
nor demeaning others’ point of view.

The very rst verse of the Patanjala Sutra 'Yogas chittavritti nirodha' (yoga is the stopping of
the movements of the mind or thoughts) shows that the Patanjala Sutra and all systems
based on it belong to the Samatha category. When I say all systems which subscribes to the
Patanjala Sutra, it means virtually all Hindu meditation system existing today in the Indian
subcontinent.

One may think the Vedantic meditation on the witness/Sakchi (called Sakchi abhyasa in the
Vedantic system) after listening to the teacher, analysing the teachers’ ideas and meditation
(called Sravan/mana/chintana) is an exception; but it too is a Samatha type of meditation
and cannot be put in the Vipassyana meditation category. To understand why the Vedantic

89
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
sakchi abhyasa (witness meditation practice) is not Vipassyana we rst need to understand
clearly what Vipassyana is and why it is the only way to what Buddhists call enlightenment.

Let me reiterate clearly here that people have the freedom to give the appellation
‘enlightenment’ to whatever they wish; but they should not confuse themselves and others
in imagining that their enlightenment is the same as the Buddha’s enlightenment. The
purpose here is not to demean whatever others call enlightenments but to distinguish
between them and the Buddhist enlightenment. Which is the higher form or the true
enlightenment is for the individual to discern and ascertain for herself/himself.

Refuting other’s view is an old tradition that has continued in the Indian subcontinent even
before the time of the Buddha and this has continued through the centuries within
Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. It is very important to understand that refutation of
other’s views is neither negative criticism nor demeaning others’ point of view.

The philosophical schools in the Indian subcontinent continued to grow and re ne itself
exactly because of this culture of refuting the other’s views and validating one’s own views
in a systematic, logical and coherent method through centuries after centuries. It is
unfortunate that after the Islamic invasion of the Indian subcontinent this aspect of the
culture slowly began to wane and because of that many in the Indian subcontinent today, do
not know how to distinguish between critical refutation and negative criticism.

But such an ascertainment can be made only if an accurate depiction is made of what the
Buddhist Enlightenment is and what is not. Although to the Buddhist all over the world this
has always been clear, as Buddhism has a long tradition of studying and analysing what it
calls the wrong views (Mithya dristi) and what it calls the correct view (Samyagdristi) it
seems to have been lost within the Indian subcontinent to a great extent.

90
fi
fi
CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF BUDDHISM

No Hindu scholar, Pandit or Yogi from as early as 3 rd century till today seems to have really
understood what the Buddha really taught.

This tradition, where other non Buddhist traditions of the Indian subcontinent is analysed,
still continues in Tibet, China, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Mongolia etc. This is very much
a culture of the Indian subcontinent; so the tradition of the study of the other tenets does
still continue within Hinduism too. However, since Buddhism vanished from the major
parts of the Indian subcontinent, the interpretation of what Buddhism and Buddhist
enlightenment is, become completely Hinduised; and it was given a lower status than the
Vedantic views.

Many Sadhus and Paramhansas claimed that Buddhism was just a variation of the Vedanta
and that the Buddhists did not understand Buddhism. Some called it Nihilism and thus put
it in the category of rank materialists like Charvak and the like; because they grossly
misunderstood the Sunyata of Buddhism.

A thorough and unbiased study of the refutation of Buddhist tenets by Vatsayana,

Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Yamunacharya, Madhwacharya, Bhaskaracharya etc; show
very clearly that they completely distorted the Buddhist view by giving it a Hinduised
interpretation and then refuted their made up Buddhist views and thought they had refuted
Buddhism.

No Hindu scholar, Pandit or Yogi from as early as 3 rd century till today seems to have really
understood what the Buddha really taught. A good example of modern Hindu scholars who
just followed the footsteps of their ancestors as far as the Buddhist goal is concerned, is the
famed scholar and statesman, the ex – president of India, Dr. S. Radhakrisnan. Another
Indian Guru who unwittingly gave Hindu interpretation to Buddhist teaching even though
he was trying to favour Buddhism is another well known personality, Sri Rajneesh.

Till date most Hindus of the Indian subcontinent are completely muddled up as to what
Buddhism is; while all the Pandits/scholars/Yogis believe that the Buddha did not teach
anything new than what is found in the Vedas and Vedantas. I call this Hindu – hubris, and

91
 it is based on the rather limited belief that what the Hindus themselves believe is the only
possible truth and there can be no other possibilities.

Nobody with any common sense from the ancient times till now can possibly deny that the
Buddha was one of the greatest masters to appear in the rmament of the Indian
subcontinent, if not the greatest (Sankara himself has called the Buddha as the greatest yogi
ever to appear in the Indian subcontinent). To think what he taught even though it seems to
be di erent, is nothing but a rehashing of Vedic/Vedantic lore, is theblind spot, the hubris.

This has prevented Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, since the 11th century onwards after
Buddhism vanished from India, from truly understanding Buddhism. So much so that even
Rajneesh who wanted to favor Buddhism vis a vis Hinduism completely interpreted
Buddhism in a Hindu way.

A N A T M A / S U N YA T A

Buddhist scriptures repeat again and again that its basic tenets are based on Anatma and
Sunyata and not on Atma/Braman or any eternally existing entity.

A clear example of how Rajneesh did not understand what Buddhism really taught is his
interpretation of Tilopa's 'Gangama' (Mahamudra instruction to Naropa) where he thinks
Tilopa teaches Naropa the Vedantic Sakchi/witness to Naropa. Evidently Rajneesh had no
idea what emptiness meant in Buddhism. He interpreted the thoughtless awareness/
witness/Sakchi as the no-mind (Achitta in Vajrachedika Sutra) of Zen. This is a
phenomenon, no Indian master who has not studied with genuine Buddhist masters, has
been able to transcend.

Since no Indian masters or their Nepali followers have actually studied Buddhism at the feet
of an authentic lineage Buddhist master, their interpretation of Buddhism is based on their
knowledge of Sanskrit or their reading of English translations of Buddhist texts by scholars
who have translated Buddhist texts on the basis of their own knowledge of Sanskrit or
Tibetan etc.

Needless to say it is very easy to derive ‘Hinduistic’ meanings when reading such books;
after all, the mind gives the meaning it is conditioned to give, to things it experiences. And
this is what all teachers of Hindu background have done to date. They have all given

92
ff
fi
 Hinduistic Atmavadin/Bramanvadin (oriented towards the Atma/Braman of Hinduism)
interpretation in spite of the fact that all the Buddhist scriptures repeat again and again that
its basic tenets are based on Anatma and Sunyata and not on Atma/Braman or any eternally
existing entity.

This di erence is not merely a matter of di erence in words or a di erent way of saying the
same thing or di erence only in philosophy or in Darshan as most Hindus would like to put
it. As it is very important to distinguish these two views to properly understand Vipassyana
we shall go a little into its details here before we elaborate on Vipassyana.

All forms of Hindu systems aim at the realisation of the Atma (self) and through it the
Braman (which can be described as a sort of cosmic self/over self/super self beyond the
little self or ego). In his Dig Drishya Bibek (distinguishing the seer and the seen or the
watcher and the watched) Shankaracharya has made it very clear that the Atma of the
Hindus (and the Jains for that matter) is the watcher or witness that knows or watches or
witnesses all events and even internal mental thoughts.

And his Tatva Bodha (knowing the Tatva/reality) he has de ned this Atma as Sat – Chit –
Ananda which means existence – consciousness – bliss. He has again in the same text
de ned sat/existence as that which remains unchanged / same in the three times. (Atma
kah?...What is Atma? Sthula sukchma karana shariradhya atirikta: panchakoshaatita sann
avasthatraya sakchi sacchidananda rupah).

That which remains in the form of Sat – Chit – Ananda, which is beyond the gross, subtle
and causal body, the witness/watcher of the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep
and which is beyond the ve sheaths. .

THE MAJOR ISSUE

… This point makes the di erence in the direction the meditation takes and nally the goal
realised.

Then again Sankaracharya says in the same Tatva Bodha in verse 26 – Atma tahrikah? What
is called the Atma? And answers, Sacchidananda swarup, i.e., that whose form (swarup) is
Sat – Chit – Ananda. Then he goes on to say, Sat kim (what is sat) and answers, Kala

93
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
 trayeapi tisthatiti sat, i.e., that which remains the same, unchanging in all the three times is
sat (truly existent).

The three time means it is the same thing or entity unchanged in anyway in the past,
present and future. Before we go further we need to make it clear that this is the major issue
that Buddhism has with all forms of Hinduism or Jainism (or for that matter any forms of
religious beliefs which believe in an unchanging entity called a soul that survives death etc.)
We shall deal with this sat – atma (a really, truly – inherently existent Atma) in greater
details as that in crucial to understand the crux of the matter related to Vipassyana and
Buddhism.

Let me reiterate here that this is not merely a di erence in words but this point makes the
di erence in the direction the meditation takes and nally the goal realised. Sankaracharya
goes on to de ne 'chit' of sat – chit – ananda. Thus, Chit kim? (What is Chit?) Gyanswarupa
which means that which is the form of knowledge. Knowledge means the knower in the
Vedantic context as is made clear in Dig Drishya Vivek (discriminating the watcher and the
watched), the Laghu Vakya Vritti (the short commentary on the words)/ the Vakya Vritti
(the commentary on the words.

The words here means the four Mahavakya – The four great words of the Vedas which are
used to point out the Atma/self), the Atma Gyanopadesh (the instructions on the
knowledge of the self) all of Sankaracharya and all the Upanishads of the Veda.

Although I have quoted Sankaracharya, according to Dr. S P Radhakrishnan (the ex-

president of India and a great Hindu scholar), there is no form of Hinduism today which
does not take the Sankara view of the Vedanta as the ultimate goal of Hinduism, albeit
various schools have modi ed it to t in their own system.

So the shortest way to understand most of Hinduism is to understand Sankara, although the
(Dvaitavadin) dualist Madhava School and the Visistadvaitavadin (special Monistic school of
Ramanujacharya di ers from Sankara’s Monism (Advaitavadin) view quite drastically we
cannot possibly go into all the details and the di erence and the attempts to integrate the
two modes (dualistic and Monistic) here, as that would require a book by itself.

So I shall agree with Dr. Radhakrisnan and compare only the Sankara view of Hinduism with
Buddhism. Anyway, in one sense the Dvaitavadin (dualism) of Madhvacharya, the

94
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
 Vishistaadvaita (special Monism) of Ramanujacharya, the Bhedaabhedavaada (di erent and
same – ism) of Bhaskaracharya etc are even more drastically di erent from Buddhism than
Sankaras’ view. Of all forms of Hinduism those who subscribe to one form or the other of
Monism (Advaitavad) come closest to the Buddhist view of Advaya (non – dualism).

S A M YA G D R I S T I

Both Sankara and Buddhism agree that one needs to have the correct view…

Before we can proceed, we need to clarify many points before things can be clear to the
layman. Monism or the Advaitavada of Sankaracharya or Shaivism or Shaktism is the view
that there is one ultimate primordial rst cause of all things which is one’s true self.

This is the primordial thing (Mahavastu), the rst cause of all things from which everything
appears and disappears into. How they appear and disappear is again interpreted slightly
di erently by the di erent schools of Hindus. Sankara, say they appear and disappear as an
illusion and this is called the Vivartavada (illusionist) interpretation.

Some like the Shaktas and Kashmir Shaiva say the coming and going of all things is more
like a modi cation of the primordial matter and this is called the Parinamvada. However,
they all agree that this primordial matter/thing (Mahavastu) is one’s own true self (Atma –
Brahman).

And one is liberated only by the knowledge of this primordial thing which is called self
knowledge. Here, it is important to distinguish Sankara from some of the Yoga schools in
that Sankara does not agree that practicing yogas of any kind alone can lead to self
knowledge (Atma Gyan) which liberates.

So we have the Vichara – Marga of Sankara which posits that unless one distinguishes
through analysis (Vichara) as laid out in the Upanishads; the false, impermanent [anitya]
(the world) and the true, permanent[nitya] (Atma), just going into samadhi alone does not
and cannot liberate a person.

This is a crucial matter in the Sankar Vedanta and some followers have even taken it to the
extreme by declaring that only fools (Mudhas) practice meditation and the various yogas

95
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
and Samadhis, and that the wise using only her/his Viveka (analysis) to distinguish the
Atma (self) from the non – self (Anatma) and recognising the self/Atma, attains liberation.

So ignorance (Agyan/Avidhya) is the non – realisation/non – recognition/not knowing the

Atma/self which is ones’ own true self; and liberation is attained by knowledge (Gyan)
which is the recognition, knowing of one’s true self. Here Sankara is similar to Buddhism in
its tenet that unless one has the correct view (Samyagdristi) one cannot attain
enlightenment by means of meditating.

Merely meditating would be Samatha meditation within the Buddhist context. So both
Sankara and Buddhism agree that one needs to have the correct view (Samyagdristi if we
were to use Buddhist terminology) if one is to be enlightened (Bodha which is commonly
used by Buddhist and Hindus). Samyagdristi is the rst part of the Astangika Marga as
prescribed by the Buddha.

But now we come to the crux of the matter. What is this Samyagdristi? This is where
Buddhism parts from all forms of Hinduism and Jainism and for that matter all other
religious system which posit an eternal unchanging self/Atma/soul.

A VERY SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF SANKARA VEDANTA

Sankara’s Vedantic view has been interpreted with slightly di erent nuances by his own
disciples or their disciples…

What the Buddha meant by Samyagdristi is drastically di erent from what Sankara and the
rest of Hinduism, no matter how di erent or similar to Sankara, mean by Samyagdristi.
Hinduism does not use the word Samyagdristi but it does have what it calls the correct view.

And what is the correct view of Sankara? That only Atma Gyan can liberate. This Atma is Sat
– Chit – Ananda; and the watcher/witness (Drasta/Sakchi) of the three states etc., about
which Sankara talked about. (Not recognising – Pratyabhigya, is the word used in the
Kashmir Shaivism). This Atma/self is ignorance; and knowing/recognising it, is self
knowledge (Atma gyan) which produces liberation. In the Kashmir Shaivism, this self is
called Shiva or Sambhavi Vidhya.

96
ff
fi
ff
ff
Now I want to make it clear that I have presented a very simpli ed version of Sankara
Vedanta and many sophisticated factors involved have not been mentioned in this article.
The Vedanta is a very sophisticated system and such a short article as this cannot do full
justice to it. But for our purpose, just this much is enough. In fact if we go into the detailed
sophistication of the Vedanta, it actually goes even further away from the Buddhist correct
view.

In all forms of Vedanta, recognising the watcher/witness/knower (Drasta/Sakchi/Gyata) of

the three states of dreaming, walking and deep sleep, which is beyond the ve sheaths of
body (Pancha kosha) and beyond the gross subtle and causal body, as ones own true/self is
considered as Atma – gyan. And the practice is to continuously a rm that you are that (Tut
tvam asi), that this witness/watcher (Sakchi/Drasta) is one’s own Atma (Pragyanam
Braman = that which knows is the Braman); Ayam Atma Braman (this self is the Braman)
and I am the Braman (Aham Bramasmi).

In this system, the practice of any kind of yoga – meditation – Samadhi is of value only in so
far as it helps to quieten the thinking mind so that the Sakchi/Drasta can be distinguished
more easily from all that which is not the Atma (Nityanitya vivek - distinguishing the
eternal and the impermanent).

All systems within Hinduism which calls itself Advaita (monistic/non dualistic) prescribes
to the view of Sankara which I have presented above, in one form or the other. Sankara’s
Vedantic view itself has been interpreted with slightly di erent nuances by his own disciples
or their disciples; so it should not be a big surprise if the Shaivadvaita system of the
Kashmir Shaiva school is a slightly di erent form of the above and they do not agree with
Sankara in all points. Likewise, the same can be said of Shaktaadvaita of the Shakta
Sampradaya; and even schools of Kabir and the like.

The meeting point of all these Hindu or semi – Hindu system is that they all believe that
this watcher/witness/knower (Drasta – Sakchi – Gyata) which is the ultimate knower of all
outer and inner events/things/etc is the ultimate Atma (self which is eternal, unchanging
i.e. Sat)

97
ff
ff
fi
ffi
fi
WATC HER/DRASTA

While the Sankara Vedanta calls the witness, the Atma; other systems of Hinduism have their
own names for it.

Even Sri Rajneesh (Osho) who attempted to interpret Buddhist scriptures could not go
beyond this ultimate watcher (which is a very Hinduistic notion). In spite of his attempt to
present Buddhism to the Indian subcontinent (and the world at large) in a favorable angle;
all he did was re-interpret the various Buddhist Sutra and Sastras in a Hinduistic way,
without ever realising it.

This consciousness/watcher, the Chit of Sat – Chit – Ananda is a very important aspect of
the Hindu view. This can be seen not only from Sankaracharya’s writings which I have
illustrated above; but also from those texts of Hindu background which have attempted to
refute the Buddhist view. In most of them, we nd that they have completely misunderstood
the emptiness of Buddhism and they try to show that a liberation that is empty and
unconscious cannot be the real liberation and liberation by nature must be of the nature of
knowledge (Gyanamaya). Such Hindu writings show a clear misunderstanding of the
purport of Sunyata/emptiness in Buddhism or for that matter impermanence, non – self, and
Dukha.

We have dealt with the Chit aspect of Sat – Chit – Ananda; and now nally as this really
existing watcher (Sat – Chit) is without thoughts, it is bliss (Ananda). Although there are
many other view within Hinduism besides the Advaita view of Sankara and those in uenced
by it, they are, rst of all, further away from the Buddhist view as their view entails a belief
in a supreme god from whom the watcher/or individual self sparks out etc.

Secondly, since most learned Hindu scholars like ex-president Dr.Radha Krishnan, Dr. S.N.
Das Gupta, Swami Vivekananda, and many others consider the Sankara Advaita Vedanta
view as the acme of Hindu view; I feel it su cient to compare only this view with the
Buddhist view to show how the two are totally di erent systems of meditation/action/ and
experience, if not contradictory.

While the Sankara Vedanta calls the witness, the Atma, other systems of Hinduism have
their own names for it. For example, the Kashmir Shaiva School calls this knowledge

98
fi
ffi
fi
ff
fi
fl
Shambhavi Vidhya instead of Atma – Gyan, but in essence they are talking about the same
watcher/Drasta; and some other systems call this same watcher, Para Vidhya or Para Samvit.

There are hundreds of other names given to this watcher in the various sects of Hinduism;
just as Paraa in the mantra systems which goes from outer sounds Vaikhari to Madhyama
(inner sounds and lights) to Pasyanti (the watcher of all these sounds and lights) to nal
Para which is the super conscious macrocosmic watcher by itself. But we need not go into all
of them as that would entail writing a book, which is not our purpose.)

CRUX OF BUDDHISM

…Recognising the watcher as the truly existing ultimate substance and identifying oneself with
it will only lead to further continuity of Sansara, not liberation.

Now all these systems claim that watcher/witness is your real nature (Tat tvam asi = That
thou art) and to continually a rm I am that (Aham Bramasmi = I am the Braman) until I
identify fully and completely with that watcher/witness etc. All Hindu meditations are
geared towards helping the person to realise or recognise this watcher and nally to merge
one’s self into this watcher or to completely identify oneself with it.

With this background let us compare this view and its meditation and its goal with the
Buddhist view, meditation, goal. We have seen that in the Hindu system, ignorance (Agyan)
is not to recognise or know this watcher which is one’s true self as opposed to the false self
called ego (Ahamkara). According to this system, liberation is attained by recognising this
watcher within and identifying oneself with it until one is fully identi ed with it. And all
meditation is used to help in this process.

Sankara is very clear that just meditating alone without the correct view is not enough. He
says in his Tatva Bodh (knowing the Tatva/principle) Nityanitya Vivek, there should be the
distinguishing of Nitya (the unchanging) and the Anitya (the changing). Those systems
which do not agree to this cannot be called Advaita (monistic/non dual).

Before I begin the view of Buddhism, I want to distinguish between Monism which is the
view of the Advaita Vedanta and non dualism of Nagarjuna. Although some writers have
also used the word non – dualism for Sankara’s Advaita; that creates a lot of confusion.

99
ffi
fi
fi
fi
The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary de nes monism as a view that there is only one
kind of ultimate substance. This is exactly the Sankara Vedanta or any other form of Advaita
within Hinduism. This ultimate substance is the watcher, the super-conscious substance,
Braman/Mahavastu.

Now the Advaya (sometimes also called the Advaita of Nagarjuna) is not a monistic view in
the sense neither Nagarjuna nor any form of Buddhism posits one ultimate substance in any
form. In fact if we were to express the Buddhist view in an over simpli ed way, we can say
that the correct view of Buddhism is to see/recognise that there is no one ultimate monistic
substance anywhere to be found.

Note that Buddhism does not say that there is no awareness etc., as some Hindu critique of
Buddhism have implied in their refutation of Buddhism; but rather that, that watcher/
awareness is not the ultimate substance and furthermore neither recognising that watcher
nor becoming one with it liberates man. In fact according to Buddhism recognising the
watcher as the truly existing ultimate substance and identifying oneself with it will only lead
to further continuity of Sansara, not liberation.

To understand this point of view is to understand the crux of Buddhism and thus to see how
Buddhism is poles apart from any system which expounds any kind of one and only ultimate
substance, conscious or unconscious – and that virtually includes must of the world’s
religious systems.

DIFFERENCE IN KARMA

No one is high or low by birth, but becomes high or low by virtue of his/her qualities (Guna)
and hard work.

We have been talking about Samatha and in the context of Samatha we started talking about
Riddhi – Pratiharya (Riddhi-Siddhi as it is popularly known in the Hindu culture). In the
explanation of Riddhi Pratiharya we said there are ve main types of Aviggya which are
called worldly Pratiharya (Laukik Pratiharya) and there is a sixth Aviggya which is the
knowledge of the extinction of Asava/Klesha (emotional and intellectual de lements).

100
fi
fi
fi
fi
 In Buddhism this fth is the only true Siddhi, all the rest are only like a childish play. In the
context of the sixth Aviggya, we came upon the logic of correct view (Samyag Dristi) and
Vipassyana. To distinguish what is meant by the correct view in Buddhism we went into
details to clarify the non-Buddhist Advaita Vedantic view, so that it can be seen clearly what
is not the Buddhist view.

I have taken great pains to distinguish the Vedantic Advaita view so that it can be clearly
distinguished from pure Buddhist view, like a piece of hair being extracted from butter.
There are many other Hindu-Jain views too, but they are so drastically di erent from the
Buddhist view that I do not feel the need to elaborate or distinguish them.

Hinduism as a whole believes in a creator-god. Buddhism believes all such beliefs are mere
wishful thinking. Hinduism believes in castes and classes as ordained by some divine power
(speci cally Brahma in the Vedic system itself but in Hinduism later, it gets a bit mixed up
with other ideas).

In Buddhism, there are no castes or class di erences and whatever di erences there are
between men is a result of each person’s own karma and certainly those di erences are not
permanent or given by some divine agent. They were created by one’s own actions (Karma),
so one can change it without any special divine being’s will. So, those di erences can be
changed through the Karma (further actions) of the individual.

To believe that a Brahmin or a Chettri’s child is of higher level even if it has an IQ of 70 or

80, while a so called lower caste person’s child is a lower being even if it has an IQ of above
130 is absurd to not only Buddhism but also to any rational, thinking person. No one is high
or low by birth, but becomes high or low by virtue of his/her qualities (Guna) and hard
work.

And it is the qualities that a sane society should value and not some imagined high birth.
Not everybody is an Einstein or Picasso, Tansen or Edison, Devkota or Beethoven. We
cannot possibly say millions of other people are equal to them and therefore we/the society
shall not honour them in the name of equality. However, Einstein and Beethoven were not
born to any speci c caste.

101
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
 WISDOM MATTERS, NOT C ASTE OR CL ASS

“Why can’t he (a washerman) be a guru if he has Gyana (Wisdom)?”

No statistics have shown that certain castes have produced more Einsteins, given equal
opportunities. It may be true to some extent that in the Indian subcontinent there have been
more Bramin scholars than non Bramins in the past; but that is because of the blind caste
system which ensured that only Bramins got the chance to study and the lower castes were
discouraged to the point of being punished or excommunicated from the society if they even
attempted to be scholars.

Why, barely 30 or 40 years ago my own grandparents told me I shouldn’t study the Bhagavat
Gita otherwise I would go mad and that it should be left to the Bahuns. To Buddhism, all
such notions are blindness. That is why the Buddha purposely ordained the haircutter of the
Sakyas, Udayi before the other Sakyas, (the ruling Kshetriyas) so that they would be forced
to respect them. In Buddhism, amongst Bhikchus, it is the rule of seniority that whoever is
ordained rst must be respected by those ordained later.

Once, when the Buddha was going down the street, a lower class sweeper saw him coming
and backed o in fear because the Buddha was of a high princely class. This was due to fear
of coming close to the princely class. But the Buddha went close to him and told him, he
need not fear him. The Buddha did not treat his own son Rahula in any special way or any
di erently from other Bikchus. Rahula, who was an Arhat and had all the qualities, did not
become Buddha’s heir in power either.

However, belief in class and caste seem to be human follies prevalent everywhere. Even in
some communist states whose principles are supposed to be classless and nally stateless,
we nd brothers and sons are chosen as heirs instead of those who really have the qualities.
In the Indian subcontinent this folly appears to have grown out of control and has spread
like cancer.

And sad to say it still in uences the thinking of even the so called educated. I remember a
long debate with the famous Hindu Swami, Khaptad Baba, who was supposed to be a
medical doctor who could not accept the fact that the Balyogeshwar group had made a
Doma (washerman) a guru across the border in India Pithoragada.

102
ff
fi
fi
ff
fl
fi
 He kept saying “How can a Dom be a spiritual guru?’ And I kept asking him “Why can’t he
be a guru if he has Gyana (wisdom)?” and the only answer he could repeat was, “How can a
Doma have Gyana?” When I pointed out to him that most of the famous Rishis (seers) were
born of sherwomen or born in other similar castes, he just gave me a nervous laughter as
his reply.

DISEASE OF MANKIND

Indeed, for as long as human beings or all societies are not freed from greed, hatred, from
clinging to me or mine, and conditioned ideas (Sanskaras); the production of a classless
society is only a dream. Mere intellectual acumen and knowledge does not free men from
these a ictions.

While social changes from the outside do contribute to the upliftment of man in many ways,
it alone does not liberate man from his negative qualities. Man also needs an inner
transformation without which all outer transformation are only extraneous and does not
free him. The change must come from within rst.

For example, we cannot have a peaceful society or peace in the world when individuals in
the society are not at peace even within their own selves. For individuals to be at peace, they
would rst have to learn the art of freeing themselves from greed, hatred, passion and
clinging to their self (Atman) and clinging to conditioned ideas, which separate man from
man and breed hatred for the other castes or classes.

They would need to free themselves from inner insecurities, complexes, neurosis and
conditioning (Sanskar). Without being free from one’s own inner turmoil, one cannot be
peaceful in one’s social interactions.

Society is made up of individuals. There is no such thing as a society without individuals as

there are no forests without trees. Trying to make a forest of sick trees into a botanical
garden, surrounded by high walls and guards and other material trappings to surround it
only covers the illness of the trees. It does not transform the forest.

The disease of mankind is inside the man. What is seen outside is manifestation of his
diseases. So merely changing the outer conditions will help only so much and not more. A
miser will continue to be a miser even if he becomes a millionaire. The miserliness does not

103
fi
ffl
fi
fi
 go away if he becomes rich. He will just become a miserly millionaire. Likewise, an angry
person will not cease to be angry if he becomes the richest person overnight. His money and
all his comforts will not free him of his anger. So it is with all other conditionings.

This is not to say that there is no value in uplifting society in whatever ways in its external
conditions. There is de nitely great value in it which cannot be under estimated. But mere
external physical changes do not bring peace to man. There is an entire di erent world to
which man belongs which will not be touched or is barely scratched by only external
changes; as all forms of psychotherapy have proven amply.

Even multi-millionaires are not happy or at peace with themselves and with the world; and
some of them have committed suicide. The American statistics show that millionaires form
the highest category among those who commit suicide. Why would someone who has
everything be so unhappy so as to take one’s own life? This gives rise to the question
whether a society could really be peaceful if all its members became multi-millionaires and
had all the physical comforts at their disposal.

BALANCED GROW TH

Once outer hunger is appeased, inner hunger must also be taken care of, for a man to be happy.

Do people really need money, the dream house and other consumer goods that
advertisements have conditioned them to believe are necessary for their happiness? Do we
need an unhappy, apathetic society which has only its material needs ful lled or should we
aspire towards a peaceful society that is free from greed, hatred and other emotional
de lements, at least to some extent?

This is not to say that inner development excludes material development but both ought to
complement each other. As the Buddha said hunger is the greatest disease and the Dharma
cannot be taught to a hungry stomach. Every individual needs food, shelter, money etc., but
Dharma (the need for peak experiences and self actualisation, inner growth and
transformation) is also one of the needs that should be ful lled. Once outer hunger is
appeased, inner hunger must also be taken care of, for a man to be happy. It is only after this
that a man can be creative.

10 4
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
When individuals in a group are at peace, we have a peaceful group. And when a group in a
society is at peace, we have a peaceful society. There can be no peaceful society when
individuals are not at peace with themselves. This peace by its very nature cannot be forced
or bribed from the outside. Only inner work, inner change/transformation can bring it.

It is also true that this inner work cannot be fully successful as long as external social
conditions are not salubrious to it. We cannot undertake inner transformation of the
individuals in a society where hunger is rampant or suppression of freedom, of growth and
everything these entail take place!

So there must be a balanced growth on both sides. It is the inner growth and the freedom of
man from his inner chains basically that Buddhism deals with. Although all forms of
religions basically attempt to do exactly that in various ways, i.e., provide peace to man, the
methods have been di erent. At one level, all religious systems are the same in that they all
prescribe not to steal, not to murder, etc., and that is the rst step to inner peace. This is the
Shila aspect of the Buddhist three trainings.

As the Buddha said, "Sarva paapasya akaranani kushalasya upasampadaa." - not doing evil
and doing good works. Without this society cannot exist. Although it seems simple, it is
normally very di cult for man to follow it because of his own internal con icts which have
not been resolved.

So we need police to police the society. But as long as nothing is done to take care of these
inner con icts police will always be required. The more people in a society become free from
these inner con icts the less we need the police. As long as there are police in any form
there is no stateless society. This is a very simple equation. Even if everything physical has
been provided, as long as inner con icts are not resolved, even a multimillionaire will steal
from a supermarket. So we need resolution of inner con icts of the individual and not only
merely of external circumstances/situations/conditions (which of course are necessary) as
some rank materialistics envision.

105
fl
fl
ffi
ff
fl
fl
fi
fl
CALMING THE MIND

The more regularly one meditates the more relaxed one's physical-mental system becomes.

We also need to calm the mind, and meditation in all and sundry forms be it Hindu, Su ,
Jain, Taoist, Hashidic, Kahuna or Christian meditation, all do this work. Without a paci ed
mind there is no contentment and peace, even if all the physical and material needs are met.

Merely following injunctions of not killing, not stealing etc., can pacify mind only so much.
Beneath, the inner waves of the mind are still running wild. And as long as the mind is
running amok, it can easily break out into unsocial behaviours like stealing, looting, killing
etc. So the Buddha said, So Chitta Paryopadapanam - bring the mind under control, to pacify
the mind.

This is where meditation comes into play. There are two major categories of meditation:
Samatha meditation and Vipassyana meditation, according to Buddhism. All forms of
religion are similar and produce almost the same results as far as Samatha meditation is
concerned.

It is not only that ancient religious schools say meditation is of great value; but today
modern brain science also has discovered the immense value of meditation for relaxation,
stress release, development of capacity to handle stress, creativity and general health. It
would be utter nonsense to claim that only Buddhist meditators produce all the above
results. All forms of Samatha meditation produce the same results.

In scienti c terminology all Samatha meditations take the mind from beta waves which are
the brain waves produced when we are in our so called 'normal' day to day activity; to alpha
waves, which means the mind is relaxed. In such a state, the stress accumulated during the
day is released or the mind is prepared and fresh to deal with the stress life presents to all
individuals.

The world renowned Dr. Herbert Spencer MD calls it the relaxation response. Regular
meditation produces what is called the relaxation response which means the mind is trained
to respond more and more quickly to relax when one meditates regularly. The more
regularly one meditates the more relaxed one's physical-mental system becomes. Needless

106
fi
fi
fi
 to say the more relaxed one is, the more peaceful one will be, with less outside irritants
a ecting one's nerves. As I mentioned earlier, no particular Samatha type meditation is more
e ective than the other in producing this response. All religious systems have one form or
the other of Samatha meditation. Even prayers can quieten the mind to some extent but not
to the same degree as meditations. But sometimes prayers can be so deep that they become
a form of lower level meditation.

DEEP LEVELS OF REL AXATION

Such experiences are often mistaken for spiritual experiences or in some cases even claimed to
be enlightenment.

Even in Samatha meditation there are degrees. The deeper the level of absorption (Samatha)
the deeper the level of relaxation response produced in the neuro-bio chemical system of the
body and thus in the mind, which is undeniably interdependent on and interlinked with the
neuro-bio-chemical body.

In scienti c terminology, alpha waves begin to form at 14 hertz and go down to depths of 8
hertz. So if you close your eyes and relax you will start sinking towards 14 hertz. But you
probably won't be able to sink below 13 hertz or so by just closing your eyes and relaxing,
you need methods devised through thousands of years to sink all the way to 8 hertz and
even below that.

The upper echelons of the alpha waves can be achieved easily by a lot of methods and they
are all as e ective as other methods. Usually, people who have been stuck in the beta wave
mode are normally stressed out and have never/seldom experienced even the upper alpha
modes of relaxed state (14/13/12 Hertz or so) feel profound release; if through any one of
the ancient or recently developed method of meditations, they manage to enter the realm of
alpha waves.

Such experiences are often mistaken for spiritual experiences or in some cases even claimed
to be enlightenment! After years of regular dedicated practice, you can manage to have even
more profound states of relaxations and deeper experiences provided the method is correct.
Let it be said that even those deeper experiences are far from enlightenment!

107
ff
ff
fi
ff
 As you go deeper into various levels of deeper Samadhi, you sink into theta brain wave
patterns. From theta at 8 hertz, you can go deeper and deeper into relaxation all the way up
to 4 hertz. But that requires a good technical method and a good technician (that is what a
quali ed guru is about) to arrive at such deep levels of relaxation.

At such levels, profound catharsis can take place which is more complex than the laughing
or crying types of catharsis that takes place in the outer alpha levels brought about by most
meditation methods. Obviously, again, we need a good technician (which is what a guru is
also, although not limited to that alone) to deal with it properly. As the person goes into
deeper levels of Samadhi, he enters the delta brain wave levels. Delta waves range from
below 4 hertz to 1 hertz. But delta levels are available only to Samatha meditations. The
Vipassyana meditators never enter the delta level. At the delta level, all thoughts subside
and the mind enters peaceful sleep like state somewhat akin to the deep sleep without
dreams. At such a level the entire neural system is replenished, refreshed and recharged.
Experiments have been done on Indian Kundalini Yogis and it has been found that they
enter delta wave states when they are in their deepest Samadis as I have mentioned before.

SUPPRESSED KLESHAS

Even if the person reaches a high state of absorption in the watcher, like with all Samatha
meditation techniques, the Kleshas, clinging, grasping, neurosis of the mind are only
submerged or stopped under the waves of bliss, they are not uprooted.

Only the most advanced Samatha meditators reach this stage. This is the Nirvikalpa
Samadhi of the Hindu Kundalini yoga, where the person is literally dead to the world for a
long period. Even ies are said to be fooled and enter the person's nostrils.

By Kundalini yoga, we mean the type that Santa Gyaneswar has described in the
Gyaneshvari Gita and not the types of the so called Kundalini yoga prevalent in the market
today. Such bazaar - Kundalini types could hardly take you to the rst levels of alpha waves,
leave alone the deep levels of delta waves.

In the Gyaneswari, Santa Gyaneswar explains that when the Kundalini begins to rise up, the
skin, nails and hair of the person begin to melt away. The person begins to look like a leper
and that is why it has to be practiced away from the society with the support of those who

108
fi
fl
fi
know about the process. It is said one should not keep a mirror with oneself as looking at
oneself in such a condition would disturb or frighten the meditator profoundly and the
shock may unbalance him so much that he may go crazy.

But as the Kundalini rises higher up, the entire body is rejuvenated; and balding, graying
hair becomes black again and the tone of the skin becomes like that of a sixteen year old.
These are just some of the outer symptoms while the mind goes through various levels of
Samadhi.

In my personal talks with the famous Khaptad Baba, he explained that it was the only real
Kundalini yoga and that he himself had experienced all that was written by Sant Gyaneswar.
Needless to say no such results external or internal has been heard or seen regarding any of
the so called Bazaar Kundalini yoga methods, created by smart marketing managers.

This delta level is also entered by Buddhist Yogavacharas who enter the fourth Dhyanas and
their corollaries the four higher levels of formless Dhyanas - the in nite expanse of empty
space, the in nite expanse consciousness, the no remainder and nally the neither
perception nor non perception states of deep meditation.

However, when one enters the delta levels through whatever technique, all neurosis,
clinging, grasping are only smothered by the peaceful delta waves. The body feels very
peaceful, all neurosis, Kleshas seem to go away but actually they have only been suppressed
and have not gone away. This is true even in the practice of becoming the watcher
(Sakchyaabhyaas) as posited by Sankara Vedanta.

Even if the person reaches a high state of absorption in the watcher, like with all Samatha
meditation techniques, the Kleshas, clinging, grasping, neurosis of the mind are only
submerged or stopped under the waves of bliss, they are not uprooted. The Buddhist word
for such suppression is Biskhambana which technically means blocking.

109
fi
fi
fi
IGNORANCE – INNATE CLINGING TO I AND MINE

The neurosis have only been thoroughly suppressed temporarily and can come out any time
given the cause and conditions.

So the neurosis (Kleshas) are only blocked from being manifested but not really destroyed
and thus the person is not really free from it. Thus such a person is not even a Srotappana;
forget the higher stages of the Buddhist enlightenment like the Arhat or the Buddha.

Hindu mythical stories (Puranas) more than amply testify to the fact that seers (Rishis) who
were supposed to be in deepest Samadhis for thousands of years and so on often ared up in
anger, destroyed cities and were ridden with emotions like jealousy etc. Since ignorance
which in Buddhist terminology is the innate clinging to the concept of self (Atman) and
mine (Atmiya); and all the neurosis that branches out of it is are only suppressed and not
uprooted in even deepest levels of Samadhi. So, no matter how blissful the person is, he is
not liberated yet at the deepest levels and thus is notenlightened.

This ignorance is technically called Sahaja Atman Graha. Here we are talking about deep
levels of Samadhi which reach delta levels, forget about the super cial practices which
heighten awareness and make mind thoughtless temporarily which is mistaken for the
'nomind of Buddhism' by many who have no real knowledge of Buddhism.

Needless to say such practices can take you only to the surface levels of alpha waves, which
is just the beginning. Many are led to believe that such awareness without thoughts is the
enlightened state. Well, it must be said clearly that this is not Buddhist enlightenment. And
people who have reached the genuine Samadhis have not yet freed themselves from hatred,
passion, self clinging and so on.

They have only been thoroughly suppressed temporarily and can come out any time given
the cause and conditions. If a person is fully enlightened these are uprooted and cannot
appear again no matter what the outer circumstances are. There is more to be said about
this later as this is a very subtle point and crucial to understand correct Buddhism. So the
big question is: what is the method of uprooting the root of ignorance and all that goes with
it? The Buddhist answer to this is Vipashyana called Vippassana in Pali. It is called
Lhagthong in Tibetan, Kuan in Chinese, Kan in Korean, Khan in Japanese. Before we go to

11 0
fi
fl
Vipassyana, I would like to nish a related topic to meditation and the human need to
search for some higher thing - be it called god, Tao or enlightenment.

The world renowned psychologist Maslow called this the highest need of man and called it
self actualisation needs. It is important for ultra materialists to know that hunger and
shelter and status etc are not the only basic needs of man. Man has an inherent need for self
actualisation - to seek for something higher than the material world. For any society to be at
peace and to be a successful society, this need must be provided for. These needs are as
important and as pressing to man as his hunger and shelter needs.

HARD WIRED INTO BRAIN

Man does not live by bread alone as Christ said.

Any materialist who thinks man will be satis ed once his lower basic needs are satis ed
does not understand the modus operandi of the human system. After his basic needs are
met, man will by his very nature seek satisfaction of his higher needs and that according to
Abraham Maslow is self actualisation needs. Man does not live by bread alone as Christ said.
After he gets bread, he looks for something that is more ful lling thatenriches his life.

He yearns to enrich his experience. Just more bread or better quality bread or more butter
does not ful ll that need. This is what ultra materialists need to realise. Self actualisation
need is not satis ed by the attainment of luxury; if anything added luxury only aggravates
the need for self actualisation. Ample proof of this is the high rate of suicides among multi-
millionaires who nd that their ultimate need is not satis ed with all the material goods and
comforts that money can buy.

Around the mid 80s, I remember a young girl of 18 who had won millions of dollars in the
American lottery. Her name and interview appeared in The Times and Newsweek. Around
six months later, both the magazines reported she committed suicide. If material needs are
all that man needs to be happy and satis ed in life, this girl had it all and that too at an early
age. That she committed suicide proved money did not make her happy. Man has basic
needs for what Maslow calls peak experience or ow. These are as basic as food and shelter,
and man can never feel ful lled until s/he has access to it. This is not only an unproven
hypothesis but proven through hard statistics and hard core sciences like the brain science.

111
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
 Brain neurologist Andrew Neuberg and Eugene Daquili and others have shown that man is
neurally wired to seek for the higher experiences.

They have written a book, Why God Won't Go Away. Here, God does not necessarily mean
some Creator God with a white beard sitting up on his throne looking down on man. What
they mean is that man is neurally wired to seek for higher experiences, mystical experiences,
peak experiences, the ow etc. It is a hard wiring that will not go away by whatever external
threats that try to deny or control it; just as the need for food and shelter does not go away
even if a gun were pointed at it.

Both these needs are hard wired into the neural system and so needs to be ful lled. This
wiring, by the way, is not found in animals but only in humans so it is a sign of higher
evolution which would mean that those who show signs of spiritual needs of any kind and
follow up on it are moving forward in evolution while those who forcibly deny any kind of
spiritual aspirations are regressive to the needs of evolution.

And this is exactly what/how/why religious systems developed - to ful ll this need. All
religious systems ful ll these needs to some extent or the other. But there are degrees of the
ow, degrees of letting go, of self actualisation etc.; and here we have di erences in various
systems. The method to achieve ow/self actualisation/letting go/ etc., in all systems is
more or less through prayers and meditations of di erent kinds.

DIFFERENT PEAKS

Although one can climb up di erent paths, it does not necessarily reach the top of the same
mountain.

A man who has never experienced a peak experience in his life or experienced ow is a poor
man even if s/he has all the material riches. Needless to say, people who spend their life
su ering from hunger, sel sh needs, greed, hatred and the like cannot experience ow or
self actualisation or peak experiences. That is why all religious systems have these
injunctions - not to kill, not to steal etc., as their basic tenets.

But these are just the foundations; they do not necessarily provide peak experiences on their
own, although it has its social values. If such injunctions did not exist in any form, a man

11 2
fl
ff
fi
fl
fi
ff
fl
ff
fi
ff
fi
fl
fl
 could just move around freely and do what s/he wished, meaning what his or her ego wants
at the moment, and there would be no stable society as such as there would be no reason to
worry about the social implications of one's actions.

It is also very important to understand clearly a point in which there has been a lot of
confusion, especially, in the religious milieu of the Indian subcontinent. It is true that there
are many paths and it also true that these various paths do bene t man in various ways; but
all paths do not reach the same goal and they do not necessarily take one towards the same
goal.

There seems to be an unconscious tendency within Hinduism that all religious systems
ultimately teach the same thing - that there are many paths leading up to the top of the
same mountain. And the implication within Hinduism and those in uenced by this kind of
thinking is that - that mountain is the Hindu - Vedic mountain, as if there was no possibility
of existence of any other mountain. This logic is fundamentally awed in many ways. One
aw is that it presumes all paths are climbing the same mountain, which is just an
assumption, not a proven fact. Wherever you dig, you may nd 'water' but all water from
di erent wells are not necessarily exactly the same. Water from di erent places would taste
di erent and have di erent qualities.

Although one can climb up di erent paths, it does not necessarily reach the top of the same
mountain. One cannot claim that all peaks of all mountains are the same. Another aw in
this thinking is the unconscious assumption that all systems lead to the same place where
'my' systems leads. In other words, there cannot be any other system besides 'my' system
and therefore other paths are mere variations or branches of the path 'I' follow. It is like
claiming, the human mind cannot possibly develop any other path and goals than the ones
that 'I' know or the one 'I' follow. This form of thinking is a very subtle form of intolerance
disguised as ultimate tolerance!

This is not to say that no other paths but Buddhism can give peace to mind to its
practitioners. Far from it; but the goal of Buddhism goes beyond just peace of mind. Within
the Indian subcontinent after the 19th century, after Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and
Vivekananda, the concept that all paths lead to the same peak began to spread and today
virtually every Swami, Paramahamsa etc., claim that all paths lead to the same goal which

11 3
fl
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fl
fi
ff
fl
fl
means (and this has been explicitly said) that Buddhism and Hinduism both lead to the
same place.

This tendency had already begun in the Yoga Vashistha which claims that the Vigyan of the
Vigyanvadin and the Sunyata of the Madhyamika is the same as the Brahman of the Vedas
etc. Now let us analyse such statements. These statements and such others made by latter
day Swamis mean that the Brahman of the Veda/Vedanta is the one and only highest truth
and that the meaning of Sunyata or Vigyan is Brahman as the Hindus believe it. It does not
by any means mean that the Braman which is Sat-Chit-Anand (Satmeans really existing in
the three times) is Sunyata (not really existing) in the Buddhist sense.

S U N YA T A ( E M P T I N E S S )

If we were to accept Brahman as not really existing then Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya,

Madhvacharya, Bhaskaracharya, Nimbarkacharya, Yamunacharya would all collapse. No
Hindu who has understood what Brahman/Atman means would or could agree it does not
really exist or it has no real existence. So what is the meaning of Sunyata or the Sunya which
is the same as the Braman of the Vedas/Vedantas according to the Yogavashitha? It means,
Sunyata (emptiness) does not really mean what the Buddhists mean it to be but is really
what Hindus mean it to be. Such thinking is totally unfair to the Buddhists. In the
subcontinent Hindus want to be friends of Buddhists but go around trying to force their
theories (Siddhantas) down the throats of Buddhists without even realising it. Many Swamis
do not seem to realise that when they say Buddhist Sunyata and the Hindu Braman are the
same thing; they are in e ect trying to force the Buddhists to become Brahmanvadins by
giving a Hindu interpretation of Sunyata. Virtually every Hindu or Hindu oriented guru has
done this over the last two centuries. And they don't seem to realise this is not really being
tolerant of Buddhism but is rather trying to force Buddhism within the Bramavadin banner,
which anybody who has studied even a little of Buddhism can tell is not true. Because of this
many Hindus fail to understand why Buddhists do not agree when they say Brahman and
Sunyata are the same and they only di er in words. We shall see later why they cannot be
the same. But here the point we are driving at is di erent. This is not tolerance at all, as a
lot of Hindus think it to be; but rather a forced distortion of Buddhist views to t within the

11 4
ff
ff
ff
fi
 Hindu views and thus a subtle form of intolerance of other views which do not t within
'our' paradigm. How would Bramavadin Hindus think or feel if a Buddhist said that the
Hindu view of Brahman actually means there is no - Atman (Anatman) and Brahman
actually means there is no really existing ultimate thing anywhere, there is no ultimately
unchanging sub-stratum to this universe, therefore what the Hindus mean by Brahman is
what we mean by Sunyata? This new de nition of Brahman/Atman contradicts the entire
Prasthan Trayi (the three pillars) which are the Bhagwat Gita, Brahman Sutra and the
Upanishads. All three say the Brahman/Atman is something unchanging that remains so in
all three times (past, present and future) and it really exits (Paramaartha Satta). The
Buddhist Sunyata, if it is understood properly is exactly the opposite. Sunyata is not a thing
like Brahman nor is a super thing (Mahavastu) beyond thing and non thing. It is the mode
of existence of all phenomenons (Dharma Sthiti). Brahman cannot by any de nition be
called the mode of existence of all phenomena or Dharma Sthiti. The way all things exist is
that they do not have any real existence. That mode of not having real existence (not Sat) of
all phenomena is the Sunyata of all things. It is not the substratum like Braman from which
all phenomena arise and subsides. It is not an existent thing (Sat) like Brahma/Atman, but
rather is a description of the mode of existence of all phenomena, the description of the way
all phenomena exists.

B R A H M A N A N D S U N YA T A

Brahman is a thing or super thing (Mahavastu); Sunyata is the mode of existence of things
(phenomena) and not any kind of thing or super thing. The reason why a lot of people are
fooled is that sometimes similar words are used to describe both the Brahman and Sunyata.
But no matter how similar the words used, Brahman is an ontological entity (Tatva Shastriya
Vastu). Sunyata is not an ontological entity but only an epistemological fact (Gyana
Shastriya Tathya). That there is really an existing unchanging substratum called Brahman/
Atman to this evanescent world (Samsara) and that is the essence of this ephemeral world
cannot be said to be the same thing as there is no eternal unchanging substratum to this
evanescent world and that fact is the essence of that ephemeral world. These are not only
two di erent things but to a degree even contradictory. So how can Brahman and Sunyata be
just two di erent things of the same thing? How can the Bhagavat Gita which teaches the

11 5
ff
ff
fi
fi
fi
Brahman be saying the same thing as the Buddhist Sutras and Shastras which teach Sunyata
or Nirvana, which is the extinction of any unchanging Self or Super Self? The Nirvana or the
Dukha Nirodh Satya of The Four Noble Truths (Chatvari Arya Satyani) does not teach that
the realisation of any kind of Brahman/Atman is the Dukha Nirodh Satya (The truth of
extinction of sorrow), but rather such beliefs is the cause of Dukha (sorrow). Now to
elaborate on the second part related to the mix up. To say the Hindu method and the
Buddhist method does not lead to the same goal does not automatically imply that the two
are enemies and have nothing in common at all. All religious systems all over the world
have many things in common but that does not make (1) Hinduism and Buddhism one and
the same, (2) the goals of the two the same (3)Buddhism a branch of Hinduism. Buddhism,
Jainism and Hinduism all developed within the Indo-Gangetic civilisation and thus have
more in common with each other than with other non Indo - Aryan religious systems.
However that does not make them exactly the same, nor does it mean they have the same
goals. Jainism and Hinduism believe in an Atman and thus Atman Gyan as the means of
knowledge and the method of freeing oneself from sorrow (Dukha). This Atma-Gyan (self
knowledge) means knowledge of the eternal unchanging self that we truly are but still there
are signi cant di erences between Hinduism and Jainism! Some people confuse the Heya,
Heya Hetu and Hana, Hanopaya found in Hindu philosophy as the same as the Four Noble
Truths of Buddhism and thus conclude it is the same teaching because the meanings of the
words seem to be similar. Firstly, the entire concept is copied from Buddhism as these words
and concepts appear only at a much later date. Secondly, similar concepts exist in all other
religious systems not only in Hinduism but even a little enquiry shows that it is exactly
where Hinduism and Buddhism di er on each of the four counts!!

11 6
fi
ff
ff
 MEANING, NOT WORDS, ARE
IMPORTANT

That what is to be dropped, to let go, in all religious system is Dukha (sorrow) but the cause
of that Dukha (Heya hetu) are not the same. The cause of sorrow of man in Christianity is,
not surrendering to Christ as the one and the only son of God; in Islam it is not
surrendering to Allah - the one and only, but rather to various idols; in Hinduism, it is
clinging to Anatman (all that is not Atman); or in some forms of Hinduism it is just like
Christianity or Islam in that the cause of Dukha is not surrendering to Krishna or somebody
else; while in Buddhism it is clinging to Atman (the concept that there is a truly existing
self). Likewise the Hana (the state of being free from Dukha) is something all religious
traditions have as a part of its goal; and the de nition of what is true freedom/sorrow are
de ned di erently in each system. It is important to understand there are many types and
many levels of freedom from Dukha and they are not necessarily the same - in terms of level
or quality. And again, the way (Marga) or Hanopaya (the method of reaching the goal -
freedom from sorrow) are again very di erent in all systems. In Christianity, it is
surrendering to Christ; in Islam it is surrendering to Allah; in Hinduism it is realising the
Atman (one's true self) etc. But all of these are drastically di erent from the way Buddhism
advocates and that is to realise Anatman (that there is no really existing self/Atman
anywhere to be found) which is the opposite of realisation of the Atman as posited by
Hinduism! As the Buddha said - depend on the meaning, not on the words; and this is
common sense! Those who advocate that the Heya, Heya hetu, Hana, Hanopaya are the
same as the Buddha's four noble truths have fallen for mere words. Even the medical
sciences and Ayur Veda have their own forms of truths but that doesn't mean Ayur Veda or
for that matter the medical sciences are the same as Buddhism or are a branch of Buddhism.
All forms of present day Hinduism believe rmly in a creator - God - Ishwar. Jainism
normally does not have such a concept. The Tirthankaras like Mahavira are enlightened
beings who have freed themselves from Samsara but they are by no means considered God,
the creator of the Samsara/world. But Buddhism is even further away from Hinduism in that
it neither accepts Atman (supreme self) nor an Ishwar (creator-God). Both concepts
according to Buddhists are products of Mithya Dristi (false/ignorant/misleading views/

11 7
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
 concepts). So enlightenment in Buddhism is neither seeing that imagined eternal
unchanging self as one's true nature or seeing God or God realisation.

SWARUPA

Now, I will clarify the use of word Swarupa/Atman and the di erence in its meaning and its
ultimate goal. According to Jainism and Hinduism one's essence (Swarup) is the Atman. To
Hinduism and Jainism, our true essence is the eternal, unchanging self/Atman/Brahman but
when Buddhism uses the same word essence (Swarup), it means that our true essence
(Swarup) is the fact of sel essness or 'no self' or absence of any eternal, unchanging self or
Atman. In correct Buddhist terminology Anatma/Anatta in Pali is our Swarup.

So the word Swarup (self-essence - sometimes translated as True Self) has a contradictory
meaning in Hinduism and Buddhism. The Swarup of Buddhism is Anatma or Sunyata which
are synonymous. Sunyata is a deeper level of Anatma. Therefore Sunyata can never be the
same as the Brahman- Atman of Hinduism as the Yoga Vasistha would like to have it.

This also brings into question the date of the Yoga Vasistha. It is supposed to be the
teachings on Vedanta that Vasistha gave to Rama. Now, if Vasistha and Rama were before
Buddha how can the Vigyanvad and the Sunyata of Buddhism be mentioned by Vasistha to
Rama? The Buddha himself has mentioned the name of Vasistha as an ancient Rishi (seer)
so de nitely he is older than the Buddha. The Buddha mentions Rama in the Jatakas, which
also would imply that Rama should be older than Sakyamuni.

But the story given by the Buddha about Rama seems to be older than any form of
Ramayana existing. It seems to be the prototype on which the Hindus build their longer
versions later on in history. Rama in the Jatakas is de nitely older than even Valmiki
Ramayan which was written much later than the Buddha's time. In it, Rama is a former life
of the Buddha himself when he was still a practicing Bodhisattva (still a long way in terms
of time, in becoming a Buddha) but the motifs and themes are very similar to what is known
as the Ramayan today.

11 8
fi
fl
fi
ff
 We have Vasistha teaching Rama that the Vigyan/Chitta of the Vigyanvadas and the Sunyata
of the Sunyavadins (both of them Buddhists) mean exactly the same Brahman of the Veda/
Vedantas. We also have the Valmiki Ramayan in which Rama is supposed to have told Jaivali
(in Jaivali Prakarana Ayodhya Kanda) that the Tathagata is a thief etc. Either these words
and concepts were added later to those writings or these were written after the Buddha in
the name of Vasistha, Valmiki, Rama etc. I leave this for the scholars to decide. However the
story of Rama in the Jataka is de nitely older than the Valmiki Ramayan which is the oldest
Hinduised Version of Ramayana.

ARTILCES FROM ISSUE

Before I go into the similarities and closeness that exist between Buddhism and Hinduism, I
would like to digress to a related point related to the Nepali context. In the Nepali context,
the Hindus of Nepal have been trying to woo the Buddhists as belonging to the same fold by
claiming and sometimes trying to force it down that Buddhism is the same religion and not
di erent from Hinduism, actually a branch of Hinduism. None of those Hindus seem to
realize that when they say that Buddhism and Hinduism are the same religion, to the
Buddhist, it sounds too much like saying there are no di erences and our goals are exactly
the same. Sounds very tolerant at the outset but such a concept is extremely intolerant to
the minority when said by a majority, especially when it is clear that the meaning of same
here is that your views, philosophy, goals, practices are the same as ours, or a branch of ours
or even in some cases, developed as a deviant o shoots of ours. Mark you its not the other
way around that our Brahman is empty, does not have real existence, but rather your
Sunyata has the same meaning as our Brahman which is really existing and any other
interpretation of Sunyata is a mistake on the part of Buddhist who didnt understand
Buddha. Anyway this is what Swami Vivekananda and many other Paramahansa implied or
even said explicitly. That the Buddhists didnt understand the Buddha was implied as early as
300 AD by Vatsayana when he tried to read the Atman in the Bharhara Sutra of the Buddha,
in his own writings.

11 9
ff
fi
ff
ff
 Needless to say this kind of an attitude will not endear any genuine Buddhists. If the Hindus
want to befriend Buddhists, they should learn to respect the Buddhist views and accept it as
the Buddhist view as a rst step, rather than trying to forcibly gobble up the major
di erences in the name of oneness.

Even Sankaracharya did not accept many other Hindu views as the same as his view/goals
and refuted them in his Sariraka Bhasya.(his commentary on the Brahman Sutra) and in his
commentaries on the Bhagvat Gita and the Upanishads. Do the Hindus really expect
Buddhists to calmly accept that there is no di erence between the views of Hinduism and
Buddhism? Ramanujacharya did not accept Sankhara's views and goals as his views and
goals, Madhvachary did not accept both of the above. Bhaskaracharya even went so far as to
call Sankaracharya a crypto-Buddhist (Prachanna Bauddha) and refused to accept him as a
genuine Hindu because his views and goals seemed too close to the Buddhist views and goal
and further away from what Bhaskara called Hinduism.

So if the Hindus of Nepal want to befriend Buddhist who are the second biggest group in
the country, they should stop all such strong arm tactics and accept the Buddhist culture,
goal as alternative view, culture, goal that grew out of the culture of the Indian Subcontinent
as much as did Hinduism and Jainism. Judaism, Christianity and Islam evolved out of the
Semitic Culture and have many things in common by virtue of that but still are by no means
the same nor can we say Christianity or Islam are but branches of Judaism simply because
Judaism is older or even that they are deviant versions of Judaism. Similarly, Buddhism ,
Hinduism and Jainism evolved out of the Indo Aryan and Dravidian Cultures of the Indo
Gangetic planes of the Indian Subcontinent and thus do have many similarities by virtue of
that; however, they are not the same or branches et al. As I have mentioned earlier we shall
go into the similarities later on. We can say that Buddhism and Hinduism and Jainism are
like three di erent ngers growing out of the same Palms (the palms being a metaphor for
the Indo-Aryan-Dravidian Cultures and not Hinduism or even Vedicism/Brahmanism). This
where most Hindu layman and Scholars err! They tend confuse the entire Indo-Aryan-
Dravidian Culture to be automatically a synonym for Hinduism which is unwarranted
culturally and historically. It must be understood that at the time of the Buddha and before
that the Vedic system was only one of the various streams of religious systems competing
with many other Sramanic streams already existing in the Indian subcontinent even before

12 0
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
the Indo Aryans migrated into the Indo Gangetic planes bringing their Vedic Brahmanism
along with them!! Some Fundamenalist Hindu scholars do not agree that the Indo Aryans
migrated into the Indo Gangetic planes but were always there!! But the historical proofs and
even the satellite readings of the beds of the Sindhu ( Indus) river seem to be against their
interpretation whereas they have only Pauranic Myths to rely upon which are usually very
contradictory! But even if we were to concede to this unfounded idea and say that Vedic
Brahmanism was always there in the Indo Gangetic planes it would still be only one of the
many streams of religious thoughts vying with each other at the time of the Buddha or
earlier. And mind you, we are the Vedic system and not Hinduism of which there is no
records at the time of the Buddha or the older contemporary Mahavir. We have already gone
into details about how Hinduism as it is called now developed out of the interaction of
Buddhism with the older Vedic system and so we shall not go into it again. However if
Buddhism cannot be said to be either the same as or a branch of the Vedic system how can it
be the same as or a branch of Hinduism which evolved in the Indian Subcontinent after the
Buddha? Buddhism is a continuation of the Shramanic stream that already existed in the
Indian Subcontinent. We shall go later into more details to see how there are internal
evidences that most of what is considered as Ancient Scriptures by the Hindus (and
assumed that they are older than the Buddha by most Hindus ,Laymen and Scholars) such
as The Bhagawat Gita, the Brahman Sutra , the Valmiki Ramayana, the Yoga Vashitha , The
Astavakra Gita and a whole host of such other Shastras are actually much later than the
Buddha.

In 1977-78, during the Panchayat period, I had a strong argument with the CDO who was a
Brahmin, who was forcing the people of Thak Khola, Mustang, to use names like Hari
Prasad instead of Tsering Dorje etc., all in the name of unity. I told him there should be
unity in diversity and unity does not mean forcing all other ethnic cultures to abandon their
religio-cultural system and taking up Brahmanic culture. I told him we should give equal
status to all religio-cultural system within Nepal and not try to make or force them to be
one. I added that this will back re once these people become aware and educated. But he
did not agree with me. This is the type of mistake the Hindus of Nepal have been making
with Buddhist ethnic groups and are still making it.

Even after Nepal has become a Republic, the Bramin-Newar dominated politico-
administrative system seem to be blissfully unaware that more than 15 percent of Nepali

121
fi
citizens are Dorjes and Ang Tserings whose culture and language is Tibeto-Burman and
religion is Buddhism. Because the Newars have been living in the capital and have been
strongly in uenced by the Bramanical cultures for centuries in spite of the fact that their
language too is Tibeto-Burman;most non Tibeto Burmans think that Nepali Buddhism is
limited to Newars. This is totally false. The Newar Vajrayana is very much part of our
Nepalese culture as a whole and is very rich and certainly something all Nepalese should be
proud of; however, it is important to understand that the Buddhist Newars are only a small
percentage of the Buddhist population of Nepal and by no means represent all of Nepalese
Buddhism.

First of all, the Newars form 5.48 percent of the Nepali population according to the statistics
of 2058. Of these, only one or two percent of those Newars are Buddhists, which means the
Newar Buddhists are less than one percent of the Nepali population whereas the Himalayan
and sub Himalayan ethnic groups who follow the Tibetan form of Buddhism in one form or
the other are more than 10 percent of the total population according to the statistics, but I
personally believe more than 20 percent of the population belong to the ethnic groups who
are Tibeto Burmans and follow Tibeto-Burman religio-socio-cultural forms. All of these use
scriptures written in the Tibetan script even if their links with Tibet have been severed a
long time ago. And to this group belong the Tamangs,Gurung, Magars and those who still
speak a dialect of Tibetan and still have marriage links across the border with Tibetans (just
as our Madhesi groups have linguistic and marital links with Indians across the borders) like
the Sherpas, the Dolpopas, the Yolmopas, the Humlis, the Lepchas, the Lopas (more
commonly known to the Kathmanduites as the Mustangis), the Nubripas of Athara Saya
Khola called Nubri in local Tibetan language, the Lungpas, the Gungthangpas and others.

This whole religio-socio-culture is a sleeping snow leopard which is beginning to wake up in

the new Republican Nepal. It is indeed wiser for the Brahmanic-Newar dominated politico-
administrative system to wake up to this fact and give this large part of Nepal who form the
majority of the Buddhists of Nepal due credence and respect which has been drastically
lacking for centuries, before the snow leopard wakes up on its own and begins to demand its
rightful place in Nepal, like the Madhesis did. And to be sure it is awakening!!

Simply because the Newar Buddhists had the facility of living in the capital and thus had the
facilities to organize themselves according to the politic-administrative systems throughout
the Panchayat system and thus have Buddhist organizations accepted by the politico-

12 2
fl
administrative systems since the Panchayat time,it doesn't mean that 1) these organizations
also represent the majority of the Buddhists or 2) even represent the Tibeto-Burman
Buddhists. And just because the Chinese are having trouble in Tibet with Tibetans, it doesnt
mean our own pure Nepalese Tibeto-Burman groups should also be suppressed or their
religious sentiments not given credence at all. In a Republic we cannot a ord to do that as
they did during the Panchayat period. If the same attitude continues in the Republic then
what is the di erence between the Republic and the Panchayat system?

My Guru of Dolpo, Khentin Rimpoche told me that until the East-West highway was made
they had to go down to Nepalganj and cross over the border to India and go to Raxaul to
cross over to Nepal again to go to Kathmandu. Whenever they crossed the border, they were
always ill treated and even when they showed their citizenship, they were called Tibetans
and that there citizenship were false etc. etc. If this same stupid attitudes of Brahmin-Newar
administrators persists, you can be sure that the Madhesi forum will not be the only
Forum!!

So far the language barriers have made these Tibeto -Burman groups unaware of what is
going on. Because of the same language barrier the Bramin-Newar groups think most of
these other Tibeto-Burman groups (usually given a blanket name BHOTE and that too
mostly derogatively) are unlettered and uneducated.This is not accurate. Due to the
pervasive in uence of Buddhism, there are very few Tibeto-Burmans of the cis-Himalaya
who cannot read the Tibetan script. I have personally seen even yak-herders who could read
the Tibetan script. We cannot consider them unlettered simply because they cannot read
Nepali or English.And there are many more so called Bhotes who are more well versed in
their own Buddhist scriptures than are most Bramins and Newars in their own
scriptures.Many ancients from upper Mustang like Lobo Khenchen and Dolpo like the
Sarvagya (Kunkhen) Dolpopa and many others from other parts of the cis-Himalayas have
been considered as great Panditas in Tibet itself. But of course the Bramin-Newar dominated
Nepalese politico-administrative systems were blissfully unaware of them from ancient time
to today - Republic or no Republic. However the Republic is still too young to be blamed so
hopefully there will be more awareness and knowledge of a big chunk of the Nepali
populace neglected so far, in the future. My purpose of writing this deviation is to make the

12 3
fl
ff
ff
 general public aware that the form of Buddhism practiced by this Tibeto- Burman group has
also su ered equally along with them in being accepted as a part of Nepali culture.

The form of Buddhism practiced by this group of over 10 percent of the Nepali populace is
Vajrayana of the Himalaya which as I've said is popularly known as as Tibetan Buddhism all
over the world now. The form of Buddhism traditionally practiced by the Newar Buddhist
populace is also Vajrayana. The Newar Vajrayana is based on Sanskrit texts coming from
ancient India, while the Himalayan Vajrayana is based on Tibetan translations of those same
Sanskrit texts that the Newars use. However, there are cultural innuendoes and nuances
added to both the versions that seem to give them di erent avours. This cultural di erence
is not a non-Buddhist accretion; but rather a thing that the Buddha himself approved of.

In the Udumbarika- Sihanada Sutta, the Buddha has explicitly said that whoever took up
Buddhism need not change their cultural elements as long as the cultural element does not
clash or contradict the correct view of Buddhism. So we nd many Hindu elements in the
Newar Vajrayana and a few Bon cultural elements in the Tibetan and Himalayan Vajrayana.
However, the Newar Vajrayana followers not only do not understand this but think that
Tibetan Vajrayana is totally di erent form of Buddhism. We nd the worship of the Nat
spirits in Burma started by the Bikchus chanting the Paritta Suttas and we nd Sri Lankan
Buddhists worshipping Kataragama and other forms of Vishnu etc.however the Newar
vajrayana followers not only do not know or understand this fact, but think that the Tibetan
Vajrayana is some totally di erent form of Buddhism. In fact most Newars and Newar
organizations believe that the Buddhism of Kathmandu valley is Vajrayana and the
Buddhism of Tibet and the cis-Himalyas is Mahayan. This is completely baseless and shows
how much these Newar organizations really understand the cis-Himalayan Buddhism.

12 4
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fl
fi
fi
ff
 REAL IMPURITIES

Passion, anger, delusion are the real dust and the wise expel these dust, dirt.

This is the reason why Newar organizations cannot represent the entire Nepali Buddhism -
even more so if they are of Theravadin organizations who naturally fail to understand the
cis-Himalayan Buddhist sentiments. No matter how pure or correct Theravada may be, it
was imported into the valley at the time of Juddha Shumsher and made headways into
Newar Buddhism in the last fty or so years and this is not part of the cultural heritage of
Nepal yet.

And as far as Himalayan Buddhism goes Theravadin organization are even further away than
the Newar Vajrayana in terms of understanding what it really is, let alone represent it. To
date, only a small percentage of Newar Buddhists who are themselves a very small
percentage of the general Newars have become Theravadins. And that's a rather small
percentage. So the sentiments and the organization of the Theravadins or with Theravadins
bent do not and cannot represent the general Buddhist populace. Nor do their ideas, beliefs
and sentiments represent the ideas , beliefs and sentiments of the vast majority of Vajrayana
practitioners of Nepal who are of Tibeto- Burman stock.

Those in the politico-administrative power should become aware of this fact.Today there is
The Nepal Buddhist Federation (Nepal Bauddha Mahasangha) which genuinely represents
the Himalayan Vajrayana and which also automatically represents the greater percentage of
the Nepalese Buddhists.

With this in background let us now turn to proper religious topics. Before we end the topic
on Samatha and begin the topic on Vipashyana, I would like to nish the part of Siddhi
Pratiharya of which we had said we would deal later. The rst of all the six Avigyas is called
Riddhi (Riddhi Vidha in Pali) and are of eight di erent kinds. It is said in the scriptures 1.
Being one he becomes many; having become many he becomes one. This is the capacity to
be many as many as thousands with the same form as the original person.

The story of the Arhat Chudra Pantha, a disciple of the Buddha is a well known example of
this in all Buddhist traditions. He was said to be very slow witted and was unable to attain
the rst enlightenment called Srotapanna The Buddha gave him a piece of cloth to

12 5
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
 contemplate on. As he kept handling it, it became more and more dirty. He realized that the
clean cloth was made dirty by his body and through that he contemplated on the body and
that gave him insight (Vipashayana) in to the ve aggregates { pancha skandha}. At that
moment the Buddha uttered to him these words:

Passion ( Kama -Cchanda) is the real dust not dirt. Passion is indeed called dust.

The wise expelling the dust abide in the teaching of him who is free from dust.

Anger ( Dvesha) is the real dust not dirt. Wrath indeed is called dust.

The wise expelling this dust abide in the teaching of him who s freed from dust.

Delusion ( Moha) is the real dust, not dirt. Delusion is indeed called dust.

The wise expelling the dust abide in the teaching of him who is free from dust.

At the end of the stanza, Chudra Pantha Attained Arhathood, the highest level of
enlightenment of the Sravakayana. To cut a long story short, it is said that the next day he
lled the monastery with a thousand monks all like him. But a branch of this psychic power
is the capacity to make various di erent types of forms performing di erent actions at the
same time.

The great Sakyapa founder, Sachen Kenga Nyingpo was said to be giving the long Lamdre
teaching simultaneously in Dolpo in Nepal and in Sakya in Tibet at the same time for over a
month or so. A part of this Riddhi Siddhi is the ability to become many di erent things at
the same time like a tiger, a man, a bird or a snake and even inanimate objects like a bridge a
slab of stone or a pool of water at the same time making them perform many actions.

The second Karmapa is said to have turned into a huge elephant ying in the sky while
Phagpa Rinpoche of the Sakya lineage cut his own limbs, the two hands and two legs and
the trunk and each became the ve Buddhas; both did this in the court of Kublai Khan and
Marco Polo had recorded these incidents in his travelogue. Phagpa Rinpoche is the seventh
in the line of the Sakya and is the Guru that took our famous Arniko to China to the court of
Kublai Khan as part of his entourage.

12 6
fi
fi
ff
fi
fl
ff
ff
Likewise we have many stories of similar Riddhi Siddhis of the Buddha himself. One story
goes: The daughter of King Mandarva of Sagala State by the name of Khema was one of the
queens of King Bimbisara of Magadh (present day Bihar). She was renowned for her beauty
and being proud of her own beauty, she had no wish to go to meet the Buddha who was her
husband the Kings preceptor (Guru /Kalyanamitra). She knew that the Buddha was in the
habit of preaching that beauty is only skin deep.

But she heard the Venubana park (the Bamboo Grove park) had been greatly improved and
was looking so picturesque that even the gods and goddesses were attracted by it. She
therefore had a strong urge to visit it and went to the park where the Buddha was then in
residing. King Bimbisara, who himself had attained the rst degree of enlightenment called
Srotappatti (stream entering) had told the attendants to make sure that she didnt come back
without meeting the Buddha and paying her respects to him. She dared not disobey the King
and approached the Buddha before she left for the park.

The Bhagawan with his supreme powers created a scene in which a lovely woman more
beautiful than the queen was fanning him. As the queen watched this extremely beautiful
woman fanning the Buddha ,the woman gradually become older and older and nally
slumped down on the ground and begin to moan, her ravishing beauty gone. The queen was
not the least startled by the extraordinary sight. The Buddha then preached a sermon to her
and she became an Arhat a woman who had attained the full enlightenment of a Sravaka.
She entered the holy order of nuns and became a Bhikchuni.

Many times the Buddha while remaining in one monastery projected himself to give
teaching to those who were ready to realize the truth.

The second riddhi-siddhi is He could become visible or invisible at will. When a yogi wishes
to render himself/herself or others visible at a distant place or make a hidden thing visible,
he produces visibility, dispels darkness, reveals what is hidden and brings into sight what is
not seen. The Buddha himself is said to have performed this riddhi on many occasions. Once
when he was invited to Saketa (Ayodhya) which was situated at a distance of seven leagues
from Sravasti, the Buddha decided that the citizens of Saketa should see the citizens of
Sravasti and vice versa. He once made it visible to people all the worlds from Brahman Loka
to Avici the lowest hell realm.

12 7
fi
fi
 It is said that the Thera Dhammadina of Talangana Monastery in Sri Lanka opened the world
when he was preaching the Apannaka Sutta at the Tissa Mahavira so that the audience saw
downwards as far as Avici and upwards as far as the Brahman Loka (world).

And further more, he who wishes to perform the miracle of invisibility turns light into
darkness, makes what is seen unseen, what is open hidden and what is visible invisible.
Thus he can make himself or others invisible to others.

Vaka Bramah was the chief of the rst realm of the higher gods (Devas i.e., he was the head
of the rst of the or the lowest level of the Brahman lokas where the Devas called Brahmas
reside. He was of the view that his realm was the highest and that he himself and his realm
was everlasting. This is a common delusion that most gods and goddesses have according to
Buddhism. He did not know that there were many other Brahman Lokas above his. The
Bhagawan (The Blessed One) visited the Brahman Loka and in the midst of an assembly of
Brahmas pointed at the Vaka Brahma, There are realms of higher gods above yours and the
whole of all the Brahma Lokas including yours is not permanent. Then the Bhagawan
(Chomden-de in Tibetan) continued his discourse to the Baka-Brahman by saying, I know
how you have come into being and what your powers are. But there are higher gods superior
to you in status and power. Finding that all his views were wrong Baka wished to show his
own powers and said, I will make myself invisible. He made several attempts to make
himself invisible in front of the Buddha but without success. The Bhagawan then said, I will
now show you that I can make myself invisible, and instantly the Buddha disappeared from
view and continued to preach to him a sermon while remaining invisible.

In another story we nd that the Buddha made Yasha invisible. Yasha was the rst child of
Sujata who had o ered Kheer (milk and rice porridge) to the Mahasatva (The Great Being
the most senior of all sentient beings including all the gods and goddesses even before
becoming the Samyag Sambuddha ) on the very day he was to become the Samyag
Sambuddha (T he Perfectly Enlightened One). Yasha had been brought up in great luxury,
just like the Buddha himself had been. Three di erent mansions had been provided for him
for three di erent seasons (cold, wet and dry). But waking up one night he found his palace
attendants, female musicians asleep in unseemly conditions; and deeming the scene to be a
cemetery, he went out from his house and the city to the Deer Park ( Mrigadava)in Isipatana
that very night.

12 8
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
Yasha came into the presence of the Bhagawan and after hearing the sermon from him was
established in the state of Srotapati; in which the person has his/her rst glimpse of the
Nirvandhatu. Yashas father went in search of his son and came to the Buddha. The Buddha
made Yasha invisible with his supernatural power and assured him saying, You will nd
your son. Then he preached to Yashas father and he too became a Srotapanna. The the
Bhagawan made Yasha visible again and as a result Yasha ordained as a monk at his own
request.

FINE DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATION

In a time of famine the Thera Cula Samuddha in Tambapanni (Sri lanka) took 700 monks for
alms to Pataliputra (Patna) in India early in the day crossing the ocean as easily as if it were
a small ditch. The Thera Tissa Gutta of Sri Lanka acted similarly when having bathed in the
evening, he thought of saluting the Bodhi tree in Bodhgaya and drew it near.

In the story of subduing Angulimala in the Majjhima Nikaya 86, the Buddha made a short
distance into a long one, so that no matter how fast Angulimala ran after the Buddha, and
although the Buddha was walking in slow composed gait, Angulimala could never reach
him; and the Buddha always remained far from Angulimala. In the case of the rich miser
already mentioned above called Matsarya Koshiya, Mahamaudgalayana made the small
quantity of cake that the miserly millionaire cooked on the fth oor all for only himself not
willing to share even with his own family, into vast quantities enough to feed 500 monks.
With this Siddhi one cannot only increase the quantity but also change quality such as
changing a sweet thing into something not sweet. For instance the Thera Maha Anula had
seen a number of monks who had collected alms obtain nothing but some dry food and had
sat down by the side of the river to eat it. He then turned the river water into cream and the
Sramaneras (attendant semi monks) took them by the cups and gave it to the assembled
monks.

So these are the principle kinds of psychic powers mentioned in various Buddhist texts. We
have now completed the explanation of Shila and Samadhi and need to go to the subject of
Pragya which is the last remaining part of the Tri Sikchya (three Training) which is one way

12 9
fi
fl
fi
fi
 to understand Buddhism. But here, we are still talking mostly of the Sravakayana and have
not yet started the explanation of Mahayana. However these parts are common to
Sravkayana, Paramitayana and Vajrayana. All forms of Buddhism have the Tri Sikchaya (three
training) in common, however there are ne di erences in the way these three are
interpreted. For example in the Sravakayana system like the Theravada etc., the Shila is
unbreakable. Under no condition is one allowed to break the Shila, but in the
Bodhisatvayana (which includes both the Paramitayana and Vajrayana) Shila not only can
but should be broken if it helps other sentient beings. Even the Theravada text, the Harita
Jataka says that a Bodhisatva can break all his Shila except the Shila of truth (Satya) if he
feels that it helps other sentient beings. But in the Mahayana tradition even Truth Shila is
not considered unbreakable if it helps other sentient beings. There is a popular story used in
all Mahayana tradition that elucidates this di erence in attitude and interpretation of Shila
between the Sravakayana and Mahayana systems.

The story goes: a man and his beautiful wife got into a ght and the man ew into a rage
and ran after her with a knife intending to kill her. She ran away and he followed her into a
forest and lost sight of her. The woman rushed past a Sravaka Bhikkhu meditating on
Asubha Bhawana (on the repulsiveness of a human body male or female according to as
whether the meditator is a male or female) and a few minutes later the enraged husband
reached the very spot and shouted at the monk demanding to know if he saw an extremely
beautiful woman running past and which direction did she go. The Bhikkhu, true to his
training replied very truthfully, "I do not know about a beautiful woman but a skeleton did
rush past in that direction" and pointed out the direction the woman had gone just a few
minutes ago!The man ran towards that direction, caught up with his wife and killed her. The
story tries to teach Mahayana students, no matter if the story was true or not, in such a
situation, a Mahayana monk would have lied and pointed towards the wrong direction so
that the woman's life would have been saved. In that case, the man would have run on and
on and exhausted himself and his rage would eventually have subsided .That is why the
Avatansaka Sutra says one must know when to keep Shila and when to break it. And this
verse is chanted everyday in most of the Zen monasteries in the Far East.

We nd that Shila of some kind or Samadhi of other kind are found in all traditions; but
they are not exactly the same as in Buddhism nor do they play the same kind of role as in

13 0
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
fl
Buddhism. But when we come to Vipashyana; then we nd that this is unique to Buddhism.
If one asks what new thing did the Buddha teach, then we have to say it is Vipashyana. The
major principles of Buddhism like impermanence, sorrow, no- self, emptiness are based on
the insights gained through Vipashyana. The major principles of Buddhism are not decrees
made by some God or even the Buddha himself but rather principles based on the insights
of Vipashyana. That is why the Buddha always said Ehi passiko which means come and see
for yourself.

Over 2600 years the principles of Buddhism has been proven valid in each generation. There
has never been a generation where those who practiced Vipashyana said that there was
something not impermanent, that there was a truly self existing (Atman), or that this
Atman (really existing, eternal self) or the things of Samsara gave true happiness. Also
historically no other teacher, prophet or scripture/ text taught any form of Vipashyana. This
is what the Buddha discovered which had been lost before him. When we say it had been
lost before Sakya Muni rediscovered it, we do not mean it existed in other systems before
and was lost and rediscovered. We mean it vanished along with Buddhism as taught by
Kashyapa Buddha and remained lost not only in the Indian subcontinent but also
everywhere else.

Amongst the three trainings (Tri-Sikchya Shila, Samadhi, Pragyya) Vipashyana is related to
Pragya. Vipashyana is the method to awaken Pragya. As we said before Shila is required to
cool the mind of emotional de lements; but Shila can cool it only so much. Then we need
Samadhi through the practice of Samatha to cool the mind even further. As we said earlier
on, without a certain degree of cooling the mind through the practice of Shila, it is
impossible to attain Samadhi. Samadhi is not merely the ability to concentrate the mind.
Any normal mind with normal amount of emotional de lements common to the human
mind can achieve some degree of one pointed concentration called Ekagrata. One pointed
concentration is still very far from Samadhi and it does not develop into Samadhi unless and
until the mind has freed itself or stopped gross mental de lements to quite a great extent.
Samadhi is the changing of the family of the mind called Gotra and not merely the ability to
concentrate.

However, it must be very clearly stated that according to Buddhism, Samadhi is not
enlightenment. This is something even Sankaracharya of the Hindus would agree to.
However, what is meant by enlightenment in the Sankara system is also not what Buddhism

131
fi
fi
fi
fi
calls enlightenment. This will become clearer as we begin to understand Vipashyana. But
according to Buddhism Samadhi is a pre-requisite for enlightenment. For the Buddhist
enlightenment, the development of Pragya is required. Without it there is no enlightenment
within the Buddhist system as a whole - be it Sravaka system like the Theravada or the
various Mahayana systems like the Zen or Tien Tai or the branches of Vajrayana. All forms of
Buddhism believe in the necessity of developing Pragya in order to attain enlightenment.
But for Pragya to develop, we need a strong foundation of Shila and Samadhi. Without
Samadhi, Pragya tends to become mere intellectual, conceptual understanding that does not
liberate. So just going into deep Samadhi of one kind or the other does not by itself liberate,
even if the person can enter into deep Samadhi and remain in it for 14 days or whatever.
Such Samadhis can and may give psychic powers called Siddhi Riddhi but does not by itself
liberate and such capacities to go into such deep Samadhis are not themselves the same as
the enlightened state. Now the method of awakening or developing Pragya which liberates is
the meditation called Vipashayana. So now we need to understand those two words - Pragya
and Vipashyana.

13 2
 STRON G FOUNDATION NECESSARY
FOR CORRECT INTERPRETATION
Without a proper understanding of these foundations of Tantrayana, Tantrayana is prone to be
easily misunderstood

When we come to Tantrayana, these steps become even more important. The Hevajra Tantra
says very clearly that before a person is given the empowerment (Abhishekh/ Wang) of
Hevajra, he should study and practice the Vaibhasika (the tenets of the Abhidharma etc.,
then the Sautrantic (the tenets of the essence of the sutras), the Yogachar (Chittamatra) and
Madhyamika etc., properly. Now the practice of these tenets means Vipashyana.

Without a strong base like this, the empowerments of Hevajra/ Chakrasamvara/ Kalachakra
etc., can be very misleading. Without a proper understanding of these foundations of
Tantrayana, Tantrayana is prone to be easily misunderstood, as the commentaries on the
Hevajra tantra, Chakrasamvara tantra etc., say very clearly.

It is only once this foundational Sravakayana and Paramitayana Vipashyana has been done
after studying and contemplating that the true purport of Tantrayana or Dzogchen and Sutra
Mahamudra can be truly understood. It is only when one has made this strong foundation
can one truly understand that Dzogchen or Sutra Mahamudra or Tantrayana methods are
also profound methods of Vipashyana.

Unlike the Sravakayana and Paramityayan Vipashyana, many aspects of Dzogchen or Sutra
Mahamudra (often just called Mahamudra) or Tantrayana cannot and should not be
disclosed; except to only those who have had the pre-requisite empowerments from an
authentic lineage Master. There is a profound reason for this secrecy which is based on a
deep level of psychological understanding of how the unconscious mind works. It is
certainly not the case that it is kept secret because it is something shameful etc., as some
Sravakayanis are wont to interpret. When a thing is kept secret its power at the
subconscious level is made stronger and if it is let out, the power also zzles out.

There are also other para-dimensional reasons it is not only a commitment for the
practitioners but also towards the guardian deities (Dharmapalas) to keep such profound
teachings secret. I shall now divert away from this and shall attempt to explain these things

13 3
fi
to the extent it is allowed in terms of modern language. If a person wants to experience and
understand these things more profoundly, it cannot be done through articles like these or
even through books but must be gained through empowerments (Abhishek/wang)
transmission( Agama/loong) and instructions ( Upadesha / Tri) by a quali ed authentic
lineage Master. Here, I shall attempt to merely introduce the basic concepts.

First we'll deal with Sravakayana Vipashyana of Laos, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka; then we
shall deal with the Paramitayana system of China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and then nally
with the Vajrayana methodology of Nepal, Tibet, Mangolia, Central Asia. But before we
describe the various Vipashyana methods we need to understand the path that the Buddha
taught and how each of these Yanas are following the principle of the path that the Buddha
taught. There are many ways the Path can be divided, but I have followed one particular
methodology which divides the Path of the Buddha into four by - lanes.

E S C A P I S M - N O T T H E WAY O U T O F T H E T R U T H O F
SUFFERING

Even though pain, stress, sorrow are hounding us every moment, we refuse to face this fact.
The way we deal with this psychologically is by escaping. We run away from it constantly and
that is how we humans 'solve' it.

Before going into these four by-lanes, let us take the teaching of the Buddha rst. What did
he teach? Again we can answer this question from many angles but in this context what
comes to mind are the Four Noble Truths (Chatwari Arya Satyani).

In one way we can say that the Four Noble Truth is a succinct capsule of the entire teachings
of the Buddha. What are the Four Noble Truths? They are: 1. The Truth of Su ering (Dukha
Satya) 2. The Truth of the Cause of Su ering (Samudaya Satya) 3. The Truth of the
Cessation of Su ering (Nirodha Satya) 4. The Truth of the Way/ Path (Marga Satya).

Now why are these called Noble Truths(Arya Satya) as opposed to just truths? They are
called so because they are truly understood and experienced fully only by Aryas (Noble
Ones) and not by ordinary people (Prithagjanas). Who are Aryas? Within Buddhist context,

13 4
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
 those who have experienced: sorrow (Dukha), impermanence (Anitya), non - self (Anatma)
or emptiness (Sunyata) directly, non conceptually (Avikalpa); can be called Aryas. More
technically, in the Sravaka tradition, such a person has entered the 'Stream' (Srotapanna) and
is called a Stream Enterer (Srotapanna) and in the Mahayana tradition (and some
Sravakayana traditions like the Sarvastivadins), the person is said to have entered the Path
of Seeing (Darshana Marga) and is said to have become a rst level Bodhisattva (Pratham
bhumi bodhisattva).

That means, ordinary people like us (Prithagjanas) do not and cannot fully understand these
four Noble Truths; and that means that they are not as simple as they seem at the outset;
but are much more profound than what most people take them to be. However, even
ordinary people like us can get some kind of conceptual understanding of these four Noble
Truths ;which we shall go into now.

The rst Noble Truth which is the Truth of Su ering is extremely profound not only
psychologically but also epistemologically and soteriologically. Many who do not understand
this point do not understand why the Buddha put forth this point as the rst truth in the
rst teaching he gave at Sarnath to the group of ve disciples (Pancha Vargiya). Many who
totally misunderstood this point even go so far as to say that the Buddha was pessimistic. If
not understood properly, it does seem like that too, to casual readers.

But in reality the reason is very profound. Even though pain, stress, sorrow are hounding us
every moment, we refuse to face this fact. The way we deal with this psychologically is by
escaping. We run away from it constantly and that is how we humans 'solve' it. Needless to
say, this is not the solution. Escapism never really solved any problem let alone the
problems of the human situation. Let us take a unit of our life to see this predicament.
When you are sitting very comfortably, the truth of sorrow seems to be a very distant thing,
not really having any relevance to you at the moment. But as you just sit comfortably, the
very act of sitting comfortably slowly becomes uncomfortable. Finally, it starts getting quite
uncomfortable. This is the truth of sorrow. The comfortable sitting itself without changing
anything else becomes an uncomfortable sitting.

What then do we do? How do we deal with it? Another point is that this mode of solution is
so internalized, so automatic that it is unconscious. We do not even consciously think about

13 5
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
the solution that we use. It is solved unconsciously. And how is that? We shift our posture
unconsciously so that the pressure is relieved. Now let us analyze this modus operandi.

WHAT WE RESIST, PERSISTS

Every person must rst have insight into the fact that there is sorrow in this world and accept
this fact for what it is before we can eliminate it.

First of all it is largely unconscious. Most of the time, we are not even aware that we have
done this. Secondly, we just avoid the ‘pain’ by moving away from it – in short, escapism.
We escape from one pain by moving into another pain without even realising it; without
even being conscious that we are doing it.

Now, because we never face it, we never know it, we never understand it for what it is,
therefore we will never have the correct knowledge to really eliminate it or make it cease.
Secondly, the so called solution we have been using does not only not solve the problem as
such but itself becomes the same problem that we tried to escape from in the rst place. The
new posture or position of sitting which we adopted to solve the rst painful situation of
sitting itself will begin to be painful like the rst one in time. And again, of course, we
unwittingly try to escape from this second pain by shifting our position again into yet
another new posture which itself will become as painful as the rst one, given time.

So, is this really a solution? But this is what all humans like us doing constantly at the
intellectual, emotional, physical and psychological level – in fact at every level of our
existence. This is so ingrained in us that most who take up any form of spirituality,
including Buddhism, use high sounding names of techniques to just to escape from the pain
problem rather than facing it.

But if we never ever face the problem how can we possibly know it for what it is? And if we
don’t know what the problem really is, how is it possible to ever solve it? If you are always
running away from it the tiger in the forest, you do not really solve the problem, do you?
The one and only way to solve it ( you have no alternative to run away from this forest of

13 6
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
Samsara) is to face it and understand it and know it for what it is and then deal with it
appropriately; that is, either cage it or shoot it.

Since you are always in the forest and have no other alternative, just escaping away from the
tiger does not really free you. It can at the most be only a temporary relief. But that is how
we all have been dealing with the man eating tiger. The Buddha recognised this predicament
clearly and this is the reason why he put the truth of sorrow as the rst truth. He did not
put forth this truth as the rst Noble Truth because he was pessimistic, or had a pessimistic
view of the world. He was a doctor, psychotherapist ( and he himself called himself a
doctor), with profound insight into the human predicament.

So he emphasised that every person must rst have insight into the fact that there is sorrow
in this world and accept this fact for what it is before we can eliminate it. We must become
fully aware of the whole mechanism, which is unconscious at the moment before we can
even dream of becoming free from the whole mechanism. And given the human tendency to
block this fact out, to avoid it ,to keep unconscious, it was paramount that this fact of
sorrow be emphasised and brought to the fore. And that is what the Buddha did. And this is
an integral part of freeing oneself from any problems. As Jung said, “what we resist,
persists,” and as all psychotherapists of any form know that we cannot possibly become free
from any psychological problem unless we bring it rst to awareness.

AWARENESS ITSELF IS CURATIVE

It is a fact of life that all things change and nothing is permanent.

If a thing remains hidden at the unconscious level, it remains very powerful and can have
tremendous power over us. And this is a fact all forms of psychotherapy agree to. The
objective of all forms of psychotherapy, be they Gestalt psychotherapy, transactional
psychotherapy, psycho synthesis, Freudian psychoanalysis, Jungian analytical psychotherapy,
hypnotherapy, peak state therapy; the rst step is to bring it into awareness what has
remained unconscious till now; so that we can become free from it. Often, just bringing the
event memory, complex neurosis into awareness is itself enough. As the founder of Gestalt

137
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 psychotherapy said, “Awareness itself is curative.” But this was a fact the Buddha had
already applied practically 2500 years ago.

Smriti-Samprajanya is the Sanskrit word used for what is loosely translated today into
English as mindfulness. The Buddha prescribed mindfulness meditation to see through the
su ering pervasive in every aspect of our existence which we, as we have seen, tend to avoid
seeing, by keeping it unconscious. But now we know, as long as we keep it unconscious, we
cannot be free from its clutches. Just becoming aware of this fact which we tend to keep
unconscious hoping somehow it will either go away or perhaps it will not a ect us, goes
against any hope of curing it.

But Buddhism does not stop there. It has in nite skillful means to take this thorn out of our
esh. But that takes us now more to the path itself which is the fourth noble truth. Now,
coming back to the truth of su ering, when Buddhism is talking about eliminating su ering,
it is not so much the su ering like headaches or stomach aches but su ering at a deeper
level which is more constant but hidden and so more powerful.

Within all forms of Buddhism: Sravakayana, like Theravada; Paramitayana, like Tien Tai or
Zen; or San Lun schools of China/ Japan/ Korea; or the Vajrayana of Tibet, Mongolia,
Central Asia and the entire northern cis-Himalayan regions from Kashmir through Nepal to
the Burmese border – su ering is divided into three forms. The rst form of su ering is
called su ering of su ering (Dukha Dukhata). This is the kind of su ering most people
think of when they think of su ering - as the pain of a raw wound or when you break your
arm or legs. This is the grossest form of su ering and the easiest to deal with or cure. And
this is not a major issue when Buddhism talks about su ering.

There are two more subtler forms of su ering which are more pervasive, constant and
unconscious; and it is these two types that Buddhism talks about. The second type is called
the su ering of change (Parinam Dukhata). This su ering of change is not only more subtle
and therefore unconscious but also more pervasive in our lives. Most people do not even
become aware of it unless it is pointed out to them and even then, they tend to forget it
easily.

Now, what is su ering of change? It is a fact of life that all things change and nothing is
permanent. Our body changes, our thoughts change; emotions, feelings, everything we hold

13 8
fl
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
 on to changes. All material things, our possessions change. Things, people, ideas, concepts
that we like changes. A youthful, beautiful body becomes old and weak. Black hair becomes
grey; smooth soft skin wrinkles up; loved ones die; my much admired shiny car or TV breaks
down. What do all this mean? It means, since they are not permanent, everything that gives
me some sort of happiness will change and then that very thing itself will become a source
of my su ering.

Because all phenomena (dharmas) are impermanent, they will eventually become the very
source of my su ering even if at the outset they seem to be giving me some kind of
happiness.

COGNITIVE RESTRUCTURING

As long as we are not aware of this mechanism, we cannot become free from it.

Whatever is impermanent can never be the source of real happiness. Whatever happiness it
gives can at best be only temporary and that very thing will be a source of my pain or
su ering. Since all phenomena (dharmas) are impermanent, there is nothing that we know
of that does not cause this kind of su ering.

Now, even though everybody knows at one level that all phenomena are impermanent, at yet
another level we live our lives and su er as if we do not believe that all phenomena are
impermanent. We hold on to things we are attached to as if they are not impermanent.
Although at an intellectual level most of us do understand that all that we cherish are not
permanent; and so will not last; yet at an emotional level we cling to them as if somehow
they will last. And this is what causes our su ering because all impermanent things will
eventually be destroyed, will perish or break down.

And when that happens, the very thing that seemed to give us so much pleasure, happiness
becomes the cause of our pain and su ering. I su er when those I love die. I su er when my
Mercedes is hit by another car or when my favorite TV channel gets disturbed and so on and
so forth. This is the second kind of su ering, the su ering of change which is missed out by
most people.

13 9
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
 It is only with full awareness and mindfulness that one can ever begin to become aware of
this kind of su ering. Otherwise most so called normal humans don't even become aware of
this su ering. However, as we have seen, not being aware of this su ering is really not being
under its control, not being pressured by it, etc. In fact, according to all forms of
psychotherapy, it is exactly because we are not aware of the pervasion of this that it becomes
even more powerful.

A large portion of our lives and a big part of our creative energy is tied up in trying to escape
from this su ering in an e ort to hopefully eliminate it. We humans use up our creativity to
create all kinds of escape mechanisms from this sorrow which does not leave us really but
becomes only temporarily alleviated. And it comes back with a vengeance and again we have
to use our creative energy to avoid it or escape from it again. As long as we are not aware of
this mechanism, we cannot become free from it. Even our modus operandi to escape only
adds to the angst in the long run.

So what does Buddhism do about it? In modern psycho therapeutic language, Buddhism
tries to bring about what is technically called a cognitive restructuring towards all things to
which we cling to, hoping they will give us happiness or will alleviate our su ering. How
does cognitive restructuring help us? First of all, we believe that all those things out there
will give us happiness. Even though intellectually all humans would easily accept that all
things, people, experiences etc., are impermanent; emotionally, we do not act, react, behave
as if they are impermanent. We emotionally behave as if all those objects, people,
experiences are or will be the sources of permanent happiness.

RENUNCIATION IS NOT EVERY THIN G

What needs to be renounced is our Kama Sankalpa, not the objects of the world out there.

Impermanent phenomena (dharmas) can never give us permanent happiness. Even though
we know it at an intellectual, rational, logical level; it is known only at the surface level of
our being. At the inner gut level, we emotionally seem to know, to feel that those objects are
not really impermanent.

14 0
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
So it is not enough to rationally know that all phenomena are impermanent. We have to see
them as such at a gut level. We have to feel it fully that all phenomena are impermanent and
thus the source of su ering. And this seeing is what Vipashyana is all about. It is this seeing
that all phenomena (dharmas) are impermanent, sorrow producing and neither self nor
mine that is called vipashyana. Just looking at phenomena, be they sensations (Vedana),
feelings or whatever is not Vipashyana per se but only a step towards Vipashyana.

When we gain insight (Vipashyana) into this fact, automatically, a cognitive restructuring at
the deepest level of our experience/being takes place. Until this emoto- cognitive shift takes
place, one does not become free from sorrow. Now let us look at the whole process from
another angle. As long as we have an emoto-cognitive perspective or view that dharmas are
not really impermanent, and that they really do exist; we cling to them as the source of
lasting happiness. But since none of the phenomena are really permanent or truly existing,
when they change or are destroyed in anyway, those very so called permanent source of
happiness becomes the source of pain or sorrow.

We cling to them or hold on to them exactly because our emoto-cognitive perception of

them makes us believe that they will give us permanent happiness or satisfaction which
implies that we see them as permanent and really existing; because only a thing that does
not change can possibly give us unchanging satisfaction.

But the reality is otherwise. Whether we like it or not, all phenomena change and thus are
impermanent and do not have real, true existence; so when they ultimately do change, the
mind feels it like a tragedy has happened. Some people take this to mean Buddhism teaches
us not to enjoy life in anyway at all or to stop going after the good things of life and thus
they decry Buddhism as life denying.

We need to clarify this point clearly. First of all, it is not true that Buddhism tells you to
renounce everything as a part of its path. Although some Buddhists do use renunciation as a
major part of their path and thus renounce everything possible; and that is ne too; this is
not the one and only path taken by all Buddhists; as we shall see later when we come to the
Marga Satya (the truth of the path), the fourth of the noble truths.

However, the Buddha has made it very clear in the Anguttara Nikaya that it is not the
objects out there that is the cause of your su ering but your attachment, clinging, craving

141
ff
ff
fi
towards it that is the cause of your su ering. And thus, it is very clear that he did not ever
teach that renouncing the world out there or renouncing the good things of life is the Path.
He is very clear that it is your (Kama Sankalpa) clinging, craving, grasping on to those
objects that is the cause of your su ering.

So it is this Kama Sankalpa that must be renounced, let go of, be relinquished. Even if we let
go of objects, our Kama Sankalpa for them is not renounced. Even if we go into the deepest
forest or the caves in the Himalayas, our mind goes with us and our Kama Sankalpa goes
with us. So, what needs to be renounced is our Kama Sankalpa, not the objects of the world
out there. You can run away from all objects of the world out there but will continue to have
the craving for them. And that is not true renunciation.

T R U E E N J OY M E N T O F L I F E

What the Buddha taught is a true way to celebrate every moment of your life, not a negation of
life.
You can be swimming in the middle of all the objects of desire and have no attachment or
clinging to it and that is true renunciation. However, it must be said that for some people
renouncing the objects themselves does help in the real renunciation of the Kama Sankalpa.
So, this is a very individual thing.

Actually, if you renounce your Kama Sankalpa towards all objects of the world then you are
free to enjoy them without any fear and hope or clinging to them in the hope that it will
last; or fear that they might go away. Then we enjoy it while it is there and when it goes
away, you enjoy its absence too. This is what the Buddha meant by: When seeing, just the
seen; when hearing, just the heard... (drishte drista matram bhavishati, srute..) which is an
oft repeated statement in the Zen Buddhist tradition - as when sitting, just the sitting; when
walking, just the walking...

Then you are free to enjoy every moment freely without hope and fear (hope that it will last
forever or fear that it might go away). And this is the true enjoyment of life (a true
celebration of life, of this moment); also called drishta dharma. What the Buddha taught is a
true way to celebrate every moment of your life, not a negation of life; a true celebration of

14 2
ff
ff
what every moment presents, not a negation of what is presented. It is the ordinary mind
under the in uence of ignorance that negates the moment in front of us in search of our
imagined happiness and thus misses out on the real world.

We are constantly hankering after a past memory or an imagined future and continually
missing out on the only reality which we have which is the present moment. This constant
hankering after memories of the past or craving for an imagined future is what is meant by
Kama Sankalpa. This is also called Trisna which means thirsting or craving; and this is the
eighth factor in the chain of 12 interdependent origination. (Dwadas nidan). It is that which
ties us to samsara which is a synonym for su ering

So what the Buddha taught was not life denial but rather the true way to live life fully with
all its richness. If there is outer renunciation of objects, as there is in the Sravaka system, it
is always as a means to weaken the Kama Sankalpa and not as a thing to hold on to as
something great in itself; not something to glorify. If that happens, then the renunciation of
the outer worldly objects itself becomes an object of Kama Sankalpa. In that case, it defeats
the purpose and just becomes another source of further clinging. Thus the act of
renunciation gets glori ed and used as a means of boosting one's ego.

This does not mean you stop renouncing. Now you renounce even the renunciation. One
still continues to live one's life as a renunciant. In the process of explaining kama sankalpa
we touched upon the chain of 12 interdependent origination. We will have to deal with that
later as that is crucial to the understanding of Buddhism. Now let us move on to the third
type of su ering.

14 3
ff
fl
fi
ff
CONDITIONED EXISTENCE

True happiness is free from both pain and its relief; and that can happen only in the
unconditioned (Asanskrita).

The third type of su ering is called the su ering of conditioned existence (Sanskara
dukhata). Of the three forms of su ering, this is the most subtle and thus the average
person does not even realise its existence. However, as we have said before, not realising its
existence does not mean we are free from this form of su ering. This form of su ering is all
pervasive and because it is so pervasive in Samsara that we have simply become insensitive
towards it; but that does not make us free from it. It is there constantly.

Our existence is conditioned (sanskrit). The word conditioned here means created, born,
produced based on other conditions. The Sanskrit word sanskrita or sanskaras mean this.
Whatever has been learned, acquired, added on, are all Sanskaras (conditionings). And what
is conditioned can never be completely ful lling, can never give unalloyed happiness. In fact
there can be no unalloyed pure happiness in any form of conditioned existence. This again
does not mean Buddhism is anti existence or opts for non-existence (the annihilation of all
existence). That would be nihilism (ucchedvad). The Buddha has stated that he teaches
neither ucchedvad (nihilism) nor Saswatvada (eternalism - as in an eternal Atma/Self).

But we are deviating from the main point of the fact that all forms of conditioned existence
are themselves subtle formsof su ering.While talking about conditioned existence which is
unsatisfactory and full of subtle su ering; we are referring to not only the human realm of
existence but all other forms of existence in Samsara. That includes even the heavenly
realms (Swarga/Devaloka) and there too existence is unsatisfactory and thus su ering exists
there too. This marks a major paradigm shift in Buddhism vis a vis other religious systems.
Buddhism does not deny that there are other realms of existence, other dimensions like hell
worlds and heavenly realms. In fact the Abhidharma which is one of the Tripitakas (the
three baskets consisting of the teachings of the Buddha as collected by his disciples and
handed down through the centuries) has a very detailed classi cations of the various realms
of existence (Lokas). Here, we are talking about both the Theravadin and Sarvastivadin and
Mahayan Abhidharma.

14 4
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
Not only the hell (Narak), the hungry ghost (Pretas) and the human realms are
unsatisfactory but also all the existence as Devas/angelic beings/deities in all the six
Karmadhatu Deva Lokas (the six heavens of the desire realm) and the 16-17 Rupa dhatu
devalokas (the 16- 17 heavens of Bramahs / Bramalokas) and the four Devalokas (heavens
of the Arupdhatu (formless Braman Lokas) are all unsatisfactory and are not free from
sorrow. Yes, the heavenly realms (Deval Lokas/ Swargas) are a lot more pleasant than the
hell realms or hungry ghost or human realms but it is only in comparison to the three
realms that they may appear to be pleasant or even enjoyable, but they are really not
satisfactory not really free from su ering.

If your arms are pinched by a pincer, there is a lot of pain; if the grip on the pincer is
stronger, the pain is stronger and as the grip gets lighter, the pain gets lighter. If the grip is
removed temporarily there is relief from the pain that was hurting so much. However we
cannot call that temporary relief true happiness, can we? Buddhism does not consider that
as true happiness or satisfaction as it is only a temporary relief from pain that we mistakenly
call happiness. True happiness is free from both pain and its relief; and that can happen only
in the unconditioned (asanskrita). In all conditioned existence, there is pain and the relief
from pain and the two are merely two sides of the same coin.

CONSTANT STRIVING

In all forms of conditioned existence we have to constantly make e orts to make ourselves
happy or even to just get relief from the pain of existence.

Most other systems aim at one of the heavens of this or that God. While Buddhism also
admits there can be temporary relief in these places, they too are unsatisfactory because
existence there is a form of conditioned existence and according to Buddhism, even those
heavens and the Gods or God there are temporary, albeit very long lasting in comparison to
the human realm. So Buddhism's main goal is not to reach one of the heavens but to aspire
to reach the Unconditioned/ Asanskrita. This is why the Buddha himself passed away but
the unconditioned state which he realised is not temporary and is free from pain and
happiness. Here, happiness means that which is the opposite of pain, su ering or relief from
pain.

14 5
ff
ff
ff
Existence in the Swargas (heavens) is not unconditioned. This is one major shift in the
paradigm of the view of Buddhism vis-a-vis the views of other systems, including much of
Hinduism. There are forms of Hinduism which speak about the unconditioned but there are
subtle di erences about which we shall discuss later.

In fall forms of conditioned existence we have to constantly make e orts to make ourselves
happy or even to just get relief from the pain of existence. Just to live, we have to constantly
strive for our food and clothing. Even if we were well o , we would have to constantly strive
to just maintain it with very little time to relax and enjoy it all. If we over did our relaxation
and enjoyment, we would easily lose all that hard earned booty. This constant striving,
whether you are rich or poor is the su ering of conditioned existence.

If you are poor, you have to constantly strive to earn; and if you are rich, you have to
constantly strive to maintain what you have. Thus, in such conditioned existence, we
constantly get what we don't want and do not get what we want. We lose loved ones and we
come in contact with enemies or those who we do not want to be with. Things we like are
destroyed and we get what we do not like. For example, a young aspiring student ends up
studying in a college s/he does not like and cannot get into the one that was coveted.

Birth itself is traumatic, as is well known in many forms of psychotherapy. The trauma of
being born continues to create su ering to the individual throughout his life by preventing
him from living in the here and now, fully in the present, in contact with the reality. Many
other forms of modern psychotherapy claim that even conception itself is equally traumatic.
Being in the womb itself is su ering and it causes a lot of trauma that continues through
life. After birth, a series of su ering begins just by the virtue of being an infant and unable
to take care of itself. The child cannot communicate its pains, discomfort and wants and that
becomes frustrating. A child may not get food when hungry and forced to eat when not
hungry according to the convenience of the adults looking after it. All this is su ering that
impacts an individual and hinders him/her from enjoying life fully.

14 6
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
 SUFFERING OF GROWING UP

Most psychologists believe that more than 80 percent of the families in which children grow up
are dysfunctional.

The child barely begins to be able to communicate and make sense of the world when it is
packed o to pre-schools. Just meeting all the strangers and adjusting to them including the
new adult called the teacher is a big thing for the child. And she is trying to accept the
betrayal of trust by her parents who leave her in midst of strangers and are not there to help
her in the transition. She really does not want to go to any pre-school or whatsoever but the
parents continue to push or coerce her. Everyday is a big a ght or a weeping session till she
nally gets used to suppressing her real desire.

As she grows up she wants to play, watch TV or play video games but her parents tell her to
study or do homework. If she doesn't nish her homework and watches her favorite cartoon,
the teacher will punish her and so the fear continues. As she grow to be an adolescent, there
are many things she wants to do but either her parents or the society she grows up in
prevents her from doing all that in the name of civilisation which she begins to detest with
all her heart. She falls for a guy but the boy has eyes for somebody else. There is tremendous
stress and pressure she faces due to her hormonal changes that nobody seems to
understand. Her own parents particularly appear to be the worst villains. No matter how
loving mom and dad are, they just become more irritating to her. She doesn't even want to
be seen with them or spend time with them and wants to hang out with her friends, but her
parents will have none of that and that makes her more frustrated.

This trend of wanting to do something versus doing something that the parents want
continues as the child grows up and goes through the adolescent stage which again is full of
stress, of wanting to do one thing and having to do something else, and living with fear of
having hidden something from parents and of being found out, of peer pressure, self doubts,
identity crisis and so on etc etc. The child thus learns to live under the pressure of the
parents and or of the society, much against his/her wishes. Once in college, there is more
stress of adjusting to strangers once again. There is sti competition to get into the college
she wants to. If she doesn't make it, then there is frustration and the nagging sense of being
a failure. Even if she makes it, it comes only after having gone through a lot of stress.

147
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
If a child has had a lot of traumatic experiences in the growing up process (and that is not
rare as most may think - in fact, most psychologists believe that more than 85 percent of the
families in which children grow up are dysfunctional); then the child who is now a new
college girl is going to have a very hard time adjusting to all the strangers and the new
environment. And then there is the problem of going through the exams, waiting for the
results and more! Thus continues the su ering of conditioned existence.

PL ANNIN G EVERY THIN G BUT DEATH

Death is not an easy thing to face for most people who have spent their entire lives running
away from it.

Then, competing to get a good job itself is another stressful addition to the modern life. Not
that there was no competition in ancient times but the modern day competition has gone
way ahead of imagination. Even if a young girl gets a good job, she has to learn to play by
the rules for which no school/college education prepared her for. The cut throat competition
forces her ego to take a second place in the games the companies play; so painstakingly, she
learns to t in and rise up the ladder often at the expense of her close friends and family;
and it also gradually begins to take a toll on her health and happiness.

Ulcers and blood pressure becomes a constant companion for most such young people
striving to make their mark in the world. They get so caught up in the rat race and forge
ahead as if wearing blinders like horses do, to protect themselves from all the pain; and
before they realise it, they get old, tired or retire, without ever questioning what all that was
for. Some, who question the whole drama, question it and nding no answers, drop out of
it.

Somewhere in the process, she gets married as it is the normal, accepted thing to do
according to the society she lives in. She gives in, even though she is not mentally,
emotionally ready for it and is often left without a choice but to again play by the rules of
the society - either out of her choice or by giving in to the choice made by her parents.
Marriage brings with it its own pressures, of adjusting to a partner and his family and
increased social expectations. This is followed by the enormous stress of bearing a child
whether it be a man or a woman. Most women think giving birth is only their problem and
the men go scot free but that is only an one sided view. Most prospective fathers go through

14 8
fi
ff
fi
 a lot of stress as their wives go through the pain of child birth. After the birth of a new baby,
the new mom and dad face a new set of tensions.

Tending to the bawling child in the wee hours of morning, catering to its frequently
changing demands, ailments , months upon months of sleep deprivation, fears of the child
hurting itself etc., continues as the small cute looking baby gradually turns into demanding
little brat. As the child continues to grow up, with all the pressures it itself is experiencing
inside, the parents too are facing their own su ering of growing older, dealing with a myriad
of physical, mental and emotional problems. In spite of all the cosmetic aids, the cogs of
time roll on and old age gradually takes it toll.

The body ages but the mind doesn't age in most people and that itself causes a lot of
su ering. The body can no longer cope with all those activities which it once could do
without a thought. Body aches, back aches and many other aches begin creeping up
preventing one from doing all that one wants to do. In some societies, the old are valued for
their wisdom and knowledge; but in most modern societies, the old are treated as a burden
and are put away in old homes where they start to vegetate, being treated as such
constantly.

Finally, death is not an easy thing to face for most people who have spent their entire lives
running away from it. But as death approaches inexorably, it becomes more di cult to face
the prospect. If a person's socio-cultural norms have not prepared him/her to face it, it can
be a painful process, as is seen commonly in eyes of terminally ill patients - young or old.
Death is an inevitable process every human has to face but so few are prepared for it by their
social cultural background. Most try to pretend it isn't time yet or tend to have the rather
lame intellectual rationalization - "Forget about death, I will face it when it comes, till then
let me live my life." How many things, events, and situations do humans deal with in the
same manner? Have we heard of anybody say - "forget about my future or the marriage of
my son? We will deal with it when it comes, till then, let's enjoy life?"

We humans plan everything but death. Death is something you have to deal with for sure
and such rationalisation is escapism that is rooted in fear, the fear of the unknown, of not
having any idea what to do about it. Here, it can be said that that Vajrayana Buddhism is
indeed very rich in its instructions in helping us humans face this most crucial phase of our
lives in a digni ed, peaceful and meaningful way.

14 9
ff
fi
ff
ffi
 UNAPPEASABLE DESIRES

Always wanting more, better, bigger, we continue to create never ending su ering for ourselves.

Continuing on the su ering of conditioned existence, the Abhidharma Kosha Tika

(mDzod'drel in Tibetan) says, "If a single hair is placed upon the palm of hand, there is no
pain or discomfort; but if the same hair is inserted in the eyes, there is extreme discomfort
and pain. Since fools are like the palm of the hand, they do not perceive the hair of worldly
su ering, however the Noble Ones (Aryas) -ie- those who have seen reality, like the eye
always reject it." For the ordinary person, the su ering of conditioned existence is like the
piece of hair on the palm of hand.

When we talk of this su ering what we have elaborated above can be divided into three
categories: 1. The su ering of ' that activities are never ending '2) The su ering of not being
satis ed by desires and 3) The su ering of not being wearied by birth and death. The
su ering that activities are never ending is that from the very moment of birth till the
moment of death, we have to make constant e ort to gain happiness to be free from
su ering. But it never ends to the point of death. We create all sorts of things- physical,
emotional, mental to help us become free from su ering and we make these things with
great e ort and all these things perish e ortlessly.

It takes months, years to build a home ; but one earthquake or hurricane will destroy it
within minutes and we have to rebuild all that again as we have no other choice. We
continue to work like this till old age and on to death and yet we still do not have enough
time to nish our work. Even at the point of death, with many projects still un nished, we
continue to be attached to them. Farmers smear the blood of their feet on stones while
working in their elds and the blood of their hands on the wooden ploughs. Traders are
forced to make foreign countries their homes. In the Bodhicharyavatara it says: Some
wretched desirers are utterly fatigued by working the whole day and having returned home
their wearied bodies sleep like corpses. Some have troubles of traveling abroad and the
hardships of living far away from their wives and children for many years.

Then we have the su ering of not being satis ed by desire. The poor strive for a simple
house but once they acquire that, it does not satisfy them because they now desire a bigger
house. Even if they manage to get that, they will not be satis ed and will now want a

15 0
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
 palatial house and so it goes on. Thus, not only are we not content with what we have but
our desire increases more and more. Whether it be food, clothing, house - we just want
more, bigger, better. This creates continual su ering and we also burn with envy when we
see others who have more and better things than we do. The poor believe the rich are lucky
and happy; but only the rich know how happiness deludes them constantly.

And nally, the su ering of never being wearied of birth and death. In spite of the fact that
we have been born again and again, in all various realms of existence with all kinds of
su ering, we do not seem to be weary of it at all. We continue to act as if there were no such
su ering at all. It is just like the famous story of a man hanging on to a thin strand of straw
in a well with a lion above waiting to get at him and a rat gnawing at the straw and a cobra
at the bottom of the well and the man sees some honey dripping from a honey comb nearby
and pulls his tongue out to taste the honey and feels it as blissful nectar.

In brief, the worldly existence is like an ill person who never recovers, it's like a prison from
which one is never released and like a traveler who never arrives. Whatever one may do,
wherever one may dwell, whomever one may associate with, whatever one may enjoy, these
are all never anything but su ering, by their own nature, never anything but the source of
su ering, and never beyond the wheel of su ering.

These are the three main types of su ering:

1. the su ering of su ering (Dukha dukhata)

2. The su ering of change (Parinam dukhata) and

3. Su ering of conditioned existence (Sanskrit dharma dukhata) - the most subtle of all.

It is important to understand that the objective of Buddhism is not merely to understand

intellectually that we have these three types of su ering. Knowing them and understanding
it at intellectual level does not have much value soteriologically. And in any case there is
nobody who does not already know that there is su ering in life. But such knowledge or
knowing does not transform a person as he continues to live life existentially as if it were
not so. And this is where Buddhism is di erent from other spiritual and religious
paradigms. The purpose of all these enumeration of di erent types of su ering is to get us
to realise it, to make it sink into our subconscious mind, to let it seep into our very depths

151
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
 of being. And the only way to do that is to meditate on the fact that all our ve aggregates
(Pancha skandha), which automatically mean that the whole realm of existence, is su ering
until one directly perceives this fact as such and not merely understands it. This type of
meditation which is geared towards seeing that all life, all phenomena, all existence is
su ering is called Vipashyana/Vipassana. As one of the Dukhata is Parinam dukhata, it is
paramount to see directly that all conditioned phenomena (Sanskara dharma) are
impermanent (Anitya/ Anicca) and because they are impermanent they are directly or
indirectly the source of su ering.

Here too, it is not just a question of understanding and accepting it intellectually but more a
question of seeing/perceiving all conditioned phenomena as impermanent/changing and
therefore is su ering. So, Vipashyana also involves methods that help you see directly the
fact that all the ve aggregates are impermanent. No non-Buddhist system of meditation has
developed methods of meditation to see that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent
and are su ering. Although almost all other spiritual systems do talk about and rationalize
about the world of su ering, they do not have meditations to see this fact directly; and do
not emphasize that this has to be experienced directly. And this was true at the time of the
Buddha himself, and that is why he called it the one and the only way to Nirvana (Ekayano
Maggo). Vipashyana is not about seeing the True Self (Atman) or seeing God (God
realization); but about seeing directly, realizing, actualizing that all of conditioned
phenomena is impermanent and is su ering. There is also the seeing of Non-Self (Anatma)
and emptiness (Sunyata). After we nish this topic on Vipashyana, we will go back to the
goal of all Hindu systems and then compare the two together to see how the two are totally
di erent and how the common Hindu notion that the goal of Hindu practices and Buddhist
practices are the same ultimately in experience are mistaken notions spread by Swamis and
Paramahansas who have no knowledge of Buddhism. Or in some cases distorted wrong
knowledge of Buddhism.

Only experiencing transforms, not mere intellectual understanding

In brief, the worldly existence is like an ill person who never recovers, it's like a prison from
which one is never released and like a traveler who never arrives. Whatever one may do,
wherever one may dwell, whomever one may associate with, whatever one may enjoy, these

15 2
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
ff
 are all never anything but su ering, by their own nature, never anything but the source of
su ering, and never beyond the wheel of su ering.

These are the three main types of su ering: 1. the su ering of su ering (Dukha dukhata) 2.
The su ering of change (Parinam dukhata) and 3. Su ering of conditioned existence
(Sanskrit dharma dukhata) - the most subtle of all. It is important to understand that the
objective of Buddhism is not merely to understand intellectually that we have these three
types of su ering. Knowing them and understanding it at intellectual level does not have
much value soteriologically. And in any case there is nobody who does not already know
that there is su ering in life. But such knowledge or knowing does not transform a person
as he continues to live life existentially as if it were not so. And this is where Buddhism is
di erent from other spiritual and religious paradigms. The purpose of all these enumeration
of di erent types of su ering is to get us to realise it, to make it sink into our subconscious
mind, to let it seep into our very depths of being. And the only way to do that is to meditate
on the fact that all our ve aggregates (Pancha skandha), which automatically mean that the
whole realm of existence, is su ering until one directly perceives this fact as such and not
merely understands it. This type of meditation which is geared towards seeing that all life,
all phenomena, all existence is su ering is called Vipashyana/Vipassana. As one of the
Dukhata is Parinam dukhata, it is paramount to see directly that all conditioned phenomena
(Sanskara dharma) are impermanent (Anitya/ Anicca) and because they are impermanent
they are directly or indirectly the source of su ering.

Here too, it is not just a question of understanding and accepting it intellectually but more a
question of seeing/perceiving all conditioned phenomena as impermanent/changing and
therefore is su ering. So, Vipashyana also involves methods that help you see directly the
fact that all the ve aggregates are impermanent. No non-Buddhist system of meditation has
developed methods of meditation to see that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent
and are su ering. Although almost all other spiritual systems do talk about and rationalize
about the world of su ering, they do not have meditations to see this fact directly; and do
not emphasize that this has to be experienced directly. And this was true at the time of the
Buddha himself, and that is why he called it the one and the only way to Nirvana (Ekayano
Maggo). Vipashyana is not about seeing the True Self (Atman) or seeing God (God
realization); but about seeing directly, realizing, actualizing that all of conditioned
phenomena is impermanent and is su ering. There is also the seeing of Non-Self (Anatma)

15 3
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
 and emptiness (Sunyata). After we nish this topic on Vipashyana, we will go back to the
goal of all Hindu systems and then compare the two together to see how the two are totally
di erent and how the common Hindu notion that the goal of Hindu practices and Buddhist
practices are the same ultimately in experience are mistaken notions spread by Swamis and
Paramahansas who have no knowledge of Buddhism. Or in some cases distorted wrong
knowledge of Buddhism.

15 4
ff
fi
 GOAL OF ARHATHOOD
Arhat is the one who has destroyed his enemy - and enemy here means Klesha or our emotional
de lements which is the cause of our su ering

The seeing of su ering directly through meditation is most crucial for the mind to move in
the right direction of the Buddhist view of total non-grasping. But that is not all, it is crucial
to both the goal of Sravakayana system (like Theravada) and Mahayana. The seeing directly
that all things are su ering is the rst step for the mind to turn away from grasping/clinging
(Trisna/Tanha) to this world of su ering. There can be no desire to transcend or go beyond
or be free from this world of su ering until and unless one feels in his very gut that this
world is su ering; then that becomes the genuine basis of renunciation which is the way of
Sravakayana as we shall see later.

In another language, the desire to achieve the goal of Arhathood can be motivated only if all
of the world (which is included in the ve aggregates/Pancha skandha), from the hell realms
to the heavenly realms, is seen directly as su ering or the source of su ering. Without that
basic change in mental attitude there can be no desire to renounce the world and become an
Arhat who is free from this su ering. Arhat is the one who has destroyed his enemy and
enemy here means Klesha or our emotional de lements which is the cause of our su ering.

People do not desire to become an Arhat because inspire of all the su ering we have talked
about in the last couple of articles, people do not perceive it clearly; they do not feel the
su ering or they are oblivious of it even though they feel its pinch again and again. So there
is no genuine motivation to be an Arhat. An Arhat is someone who has seen the three
worlds (Tridhatu) burning like a blaze at the end of the world and has been burnt by it and
feels it strongly in his mental stream and has decided to free himself from it, using the
correct method to free himself from it.

Likewise, seeing this su ering directly is also equally important for Mahayana, which is also
called the Bodhisattva way; and Mahayana includes both the Paramitayana based on the
Buddha’s teachings as found in the Sutras which is therefore also called Sutrayana, and
Vajrayana, based on the teaching the Buddha gave as founds in the Tantras. The Sravakayana
Sutras are the collections of the teachings that the Buddha gave here on earth, and
sometimes in the heavenly realms (Deva Lokas) to men and Devas. Various 18-24 Nikayas

15 5
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
of the ancient times each had their own collections handed down by heart from generation
to generation as was the custom in ancient India.

Even the Vedic system was handed down in a similar manner and so were the Jain system.
Of them only the Theravada Tripitakas and the Sarvastivada Tripitaka survive today in
written form. The Theravada Tripitaka is in Pali language which was a language created in
the Ujjain/Avanti region of India to encapsulate the profound philosophical concepts of
Buddhism. Ujjain lies to the western part of Northern India. Pali is a language created (and
never spoken) based on the Saurseni language group of the Ujjain region of India. In that, it
is similar to Sanskrit which is also a created language and not a dialect of any region of
India. And the Sarvastivada Tripitakas was originally written in Sanskrit but today only some
original Sanskrit texts are still found while the entire Tripitaka has been translated into
Chinese and it still exists. Some portions of the Sarvastivada text have been translated into
Tibetan too.

The Paramitayana Sutras are the texts of the Mahayana and the Tantrayana that were taught
to Bodhisattvas like Manjushree, Vajrapani etc., either directly or by blessing one of the
Bodhisattvas through various Samadhis etc.

15 6
 TO BECOME A BUDDHA
An enlightenment without the Bodhichitta infused into it or inspiring it is not the
enlightenment of the Buddha..

The Bodhisattvayana uses both the Sutras of the Paramitayana and the Tantras of the
Vajrayana together in some systems or separately as in some systems. Now, let us go back to
the place of seeing su ering directly through Vipashyana in the Bodhisattvayana. In the
Bodhisattvayana, the purpose of seeing su ering directly is to see that not only me but all
other sentient beings are also really su ering. This is the basis of arousing compassion
which is the basis of arousing what is technically called Bodhichitta (often translated into
English as the Wakening mind or the Mind of Awakening). Boddhichittodpada (arousing the
Bodhichitta) is the basis of Bodhisattvayana. Without the arousal of the Bodhichitta there is
no Bodhisattvayana. Bodhichitta means the aspiration to attain Buddhahood in order to
liberate all sentient beings from su ering because only a Buddha has the capacity to do so.
No one becomes a Buddha without fully developing this aspiration rst. An enlightenment
without the Bodhichitta infused into it or inspiring it is not the enlightenment of the
Buddha.

Unless we perceive the su ering in the world and feel its burning, we cannot really feel that
others are also burning in the same re. It is only when we really begin to see directly and
feel the su ering of others that we can have compassion (Karuna) for them. Compassion is
not pity but the actual feeling/seeing of the su ering of others. It is only then that real
Karuna/Maitri can arise. Compassion is the desire that all sentient beings be endowed with
happiness and the cause of happiness and Maitri (loving kindness) is the aspiration that all
sentient beings be free from su ering and the causes of su ering. To become a Buddha one
must arouse the aspiration to become a Buddha to liberate all sentient beings from
su ering. That is the major di erence between becoming an Arhat and a Buddha. Needless
to say other kinds of enlightenment cannot be called the enlightenment of the Buddha.

One does not become a Buddha by merely practicing some form of meditation or attaining
deep Samadhi etc. or attaining Atman Gyan or some form of knowledge or wisdom alone.
This motivation to become a Buddha to free all sentient being from the re of su ering
(which automatically means to set them on the path of being an Arhat or a Buddha); is an

157
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
 integral part of being a Buddha. There can be no becoming a Buddha without this
motivation which is technically called Bodhichittodpada. Bodhi means Awakening or
enlightenment, Chitta means mind and Utpada means producing. So Bodhichittodpada
means producing awakening the awakened mind. In the Mahayana tradition there are very
elaborate practices to awaken, produce this mind. Needless to say these types of
meditational practices are not to be found within even the Buddhist Sravak systems, let
alone any other non-Buddhist systems.

This practice changes the mental pattern of the mind of the person and thus the mind
becomes a di erent family (Gotra). Even those who practice genuine Buddhist practices as
found in the Sravakayan systems like Theravada who do not practice the Bodhichittodpada
will never become a Bodhisattva and eventually a Buddha. They will become an Arhat but
not a Buddha because their Gotra (family) will be di erent. So just practicing meditations of
?? to the Nadas (internal sounds) or lights at the forehead or various practices of Nadis etc.,
by themselves alone will not produce either Arhats or Bodhisattvas or Buddhas. In another
language, none of the above types of non-Buddhist practices will produce the Buddhist
enlightenment.

ROOT OF SUFFERING

As Zen Masters are prone to say, "If you understand, you are already wrong.”

Let us now go into the second Noble Truth (Arya Satya). The rst of the four was Dukha
Satya which we just nished discussing at length. The second Arya Satya is Dukha
Samudaya Satya (The truth of the origin of su ering). Here too, we nd that the Buddhist
understanding of su ering is very di erent from all other non-Buddhist systems. In most
theistic systems including Hinduism, the cause of your su ering is because you have
surrendered or accepted a certain God. If you accept or surrender to that God then your
su ering ends. Surrender to something higher than oneself is certainly a very strong
psychological principle which does lighten the burden from one's shadow to a lesser or
greater extent. Thus, even Buddhism does use the concept of surrendering to the Tri Ratna
(the three jewels) as part of its technology. But as there is no creator - God in Buddhism and

15 8
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fi
 since it does not believe that creation began at any one certain time, there can be no concept
of surrendering to any God, let alone the one and only God, within any form of Buddhism.

But even the surrendering or taking refuge in the three jewels in a bit di erent. Neither the
Buddha nor the three jewels are in any way a kind of creator of the universe. Now are they
the primary cause from which all things came and into which all things go or even remain
while they remain??? As can be seen, the whole paradigm is quite di erent. So those with
Hindu background who say or believe or think that Buddhism probably presents the same
thing that Hinduism does but only in a di erent way or words or terminologies are way o
the mark, blinded by their Sanskaras (conditioning).

Another form of Hinduism posits that man su ers because he does not know or recognize
his own true self called Atman and identi es with the body or the mind or the little Self.
Again, since there is no such eternal, unchanging Self (Atman) in Buddhism but only the
ow of the mental stream (Chitta Santaan) such a notion would be automatically considered
absurd within Buddhism. In fact a big part of Vipashyana meditation is to see through (Vi =
special, Pashya = seeing) that there is no eternal, unchanging Atman to be found anywhere.
See through (Vipashyana) means seeing directly, experientially and not just understanding
conceptually, intellectually. As Zen Masters are prone to say, "If you understand, you are
already wrong."

Then what is the cause of su ering, the roots of su ering, and the origin of su ering
according to the Buddha? Brie y - craving, grasping, clinging - which is technically also
called Trisna in Sanskrit and Tanha in Pali is the root of su ering. The natural question that
arises now is how or why is Trisna (craving) the root or cause of su ering? Craving is an
inner form of clinging, grasping to the idea of me and myself (Atman-Atmiya). The word
Trisna is the same as Tirkhaa in Nepali and is etymologically linked with the English word
thirst. The root of all clinging, thirst, is 'I' or the concept of 'I'. This 'I' wants this or that and
thus greed (Lobha/Raga) begins with the belief that this 'I' really exists and the concept that
'I' exists, without ever questioning it. The automatic sense of 'I' really existing comes from
the very subconscious level. And if there is something that this 'I' wants and some other 'I'
wants the same thing, then this 'I' gets angry. So the whole cycle of attachment (Lobha/
Raga) and aggression (Dvesa/Krodha) begins because of the clinging to 'I', which is merely a
concept and has no reality. But there is no knowledge of the fact that this 'I' is just a concept
and this is ignorance (Moha).

15 9
fl
ff
fl
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
CONCEPT OF I, ME AND MINE

The entire emotional de lements are rooted in this concept of an 'I' or self and the clinging
to it. And needless to say, our su ering is caused by our emotional de lement. But if there is
an 'I', a self, there will automatically be 'my' as in my house, my husband, my car, my
children and so on. The list is in nite. Not only is it true that the 'I' or self wants this car or
hates that person, but it also believes strongly that the car, the house, the hated person
really exist out there separate from me. Thus, their value is doubly increased by the virtue of
it really existing out there. This takes us to the concept of really existing which implies that
it is permanent, unchanging and thus will give me permanent happiness. Of course, any
person with a bit of intellect will say that that car, house, husband or wife is not permanent.
But the point here is that, it is only an intellectual understanding, a conceptual
understanding. And in spite of that understanding, we continue to cling to it all emotionally
as if they all are unchanging, permanent and will give us permanent happiness. That is why
conceptual/intellectual understanding alone do not free us.

Going back to 'I' self and 'my' (Atman-Atmiya), all these are mere concepts we cling to and
because we cling to them, we su er. In fact the average man does not even see the
possibility of relating to the Atman-atmiya in any other way. Believing they really exist and
clinging to it all as if it were the only life line is the only way an average person has learnt to
relate with the world out there. In fact the average person unconsciously fears the loss of
this I without realizing that this 'I' is nothing more than conceptual phantom.It's actually
like scratching a wound to relieve oneself but without realizing that the scratching makes
the wound worse and the itching gets worse by scratching. Similarly, the more we cling to
the 'I' self and the 'my', the more it aggravates the itch and the cycle continues. For the time
being it will su ce to see why the Buddha saw that it is clinging/craving which is the cause
of our su ering. We have so far dealt with this in a general way, now let us look at it from a
classical point of view.

To understand clearly how su ering is perpetuated it is necessary to understand the

teaching of interdependent origination which is called either Dvadas Nidana (the 12 chains
of interdependent origination) or the Dvadas/pratityasamudpada. Pratitya samudpada which
means interdependent co-origination or co-arising has two di erent levels of meaning
within the Buddhist hermeneutics. One is an interdependent co-origination

16 0
ff
ffi
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
 (pratityasamutpada) that is intimately linked with emptiness (Sunyata). But here it means
the interdependent chain which describes the ow of this life, the chain of lives and also the
last but not the least our experiences every moment in the here and now.

THE RIGHT VIEW

Wrong views cannot possibly help us become free from all views ultimately.

We need to know what the twelve chains of interdependent origination are and they are:

1. Conditioned by ignorance (Avidhya) arises conditionings (Sanskaras).

2. Conditioned by conditionings arises dualistic consciousness (Vigyan).

3. Conditioned by consciousness arises name and form (Nama- Rupa).

4. Conditioned by name and form arises the six sense doors (Sadaayatana).

5. Conditioned by the six sense doors arises contact (Sparsha).

6. Conditioned by contact arises feelings (Vedana).

7. Conditioned by feelings arises craving/clinging (Trisna).

8. Conditioned by craving, clinging arises grasping (Upadana).

9. Conditioned by grasping arises Karmodbhava (existence based on Karma).

10. Conditioned by existence based on Karma arises birth (Jati).

11. Conditioned by birth arises the 12th one which are: old age, death, mourning, weeping,
su ering, sickness, stress etc.

A good understanding of the 12 chains of interdependent co-origination (Dvadas

pratityasamutpada) is very important to understand the Buddhist view which are generally

161
ff
fl
 explained at three di erent levels. At one level it represents past life, this life and the next
life. At another level it is a beautiful hermeneutical device to explain this life in all its
complexity. And nally, it also explains this moment here and now. Even though Buddhism
does not have a creator God or an Atman (permanent, unchanging soul/thing/ supreme
being) it does believe fully in the continuity of the mental stream/ mental continuum
(Chitta-santaan). A continuum is not an unchanging, permanent thing but rather a never
ending process. The Buddhist view of life is more about processes than about things or
entities. The 12 chain is a process.

According to Buddhism what you call I or Self is more a verb than a noun and there is no
central gure which is a noun which we can call an I or a Self meaning an entity or thing
with an ontological existence . This is a very subtle point which in uences the entire
Buddhist view and thus its motivation which is always based on a view. When we meditate
that meditation is always based on a view. Albeit the view could be conscious as in
Buddhism and Sankara Vedanta or it could be unconscious, based automatically on the
Sanskaras of the person meditating. No person is free from a view unless s/he has made a
concentrated e ort to free himself/herself from all views based his/her
Sanskaras( conditioned habit patterns). However, even in such a case the person can still be
said to subscribe to a view which is free from all views. For now, it will su ce to say
Buddhism places a lot of emphasis on the right view (Samyag dristi) as that is what will
ultimately help one to transcend all views after using the right view for one's meditation.
Wrong views cannot possibly help us become free from all views ultimately. That is why
Buddhism is very clear that you must rst distinguish the views, clearly understand it before
meditating. That is why the rst of the Astangic Marga (the eight fold path) is correct view
(Samyag Drishti), unlike most other spiritual systems.

Going back to the 12 chains, rst of all is Avidhya (ignorance/nescience or not knowing).
Here too we have a Sravakayana interpretation and a Mahayana interpretation. Although
they may look di erent they are complementary and are really pointing towards the same
direction. The Sravakayana includes the Theravada and thus the Sravakayana de nition of
Avidhya is the Theravadin de nition as well. The Sarvastivad (another Sravakayana school)
de nition and Mahayana de nition of it appear di erent but in meaning they do not vary
from each other.

16 2
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fl
ffi
fi
 AV I D H YA - N E S C I E N C E I N B U D D H I S M

According to Theravada Abahidhammatthasangaho , the de nition of avidhya (ignorance) is

na vidatiti avijja, which means 'avidhya is that which does not know'. Ultimately, this is
Moha (delusion) and means avidhya (ignorance) is both not to know and also to know in a
wrong way (misperceive/misconceive) (Moha-delusion). To not know the Four Noble Truths
correctly is also avidhya/avijja. To not know the three realms of existence (Tri Dhatu) is
su ering (dukha), which is also another kind of avidhya. To not know that craving (Trishna)
is the cause of su ering is another kind of avidhya. To not know that nirvana is the cessation
of su ering , to not know of the Path (asthangika marga) as the dukha nirodha gamin marga
(the path to the cessation of su ering) is another kind of avidhya. All these four kinds of
avidhya are subsumed in ignorance of the Four Noble Truths.

Then, there is avidhya related to purvanta (former lives - existence). This includes
pubbantey agyanam, or ignorance (agyanam) of past existence, and likewise of future
existence (aparantey) or ignorance of the continuity of life-mental stream. The rst
ignorance is based on the idea that life suddenly came into existence by accident or through
some creator 'God' and did not exist before. The second type believes that there is no
continuity of existence and all ends at death.

Then, there are those who believe that this is the only existence and there was no prior
existence nor will there be a future existence. This is another kind of avidhya (ignorance),
called Pubbantaa parantes ayyanam.

Another kind of avidhya is not to know about the interdependent co-origination. In the
Abhidharma Samuchaya, Asanga, the great Mahayana teacher, de nes avidhya as such: What
is avidhya? It is the absence of knowledge (gyana) with regards to the three realms of
existence (Tri-dhatu). Its function is to give a basis to the appearance of de lements,
mistaken decisions and doubts regarding the teachings (dharma).

The above two de nitions are speaking about the same thing in two di erent ways. Doubts
about the teachings (dharma) subsumes the Four Noble Truth, purvanta apavanta, etc., the
pratitya samutpada, and ignorance of Tri-dhatu, which is a Buddhist technical term that
means three realms of existence according to the Buddhist cosmos.

16 3
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
A more speci c Mahayana de nition would call avidhya as ignorance of emptiness,
ignorance of the nature of mind, but these too are subsumed within the above de nition.
For not to know sunyata (emptiness) includes: not to know the nature of Tri-dhatu, not to
know the Four Noble Truths, not to know pratitya samutpada (interdependent co-
origination), and not to know purvanta aparaanta.

Now with this de nition of avidhya we can see that within the context of the Buddhist view
one form of major ignorance/nescience is not knowing that there is no really existing
ontological 'I-self' or 'I-I' which is the center of the universe. A corollary to this is the
misperception or delusion (Moha) that various things like the body or mind or something
beyond the mind is the true ontological centre of my universe which is my true identity,
which I can call an 'I-self' or even 'I-I' or the 'I of the I' etc, etc. The lack of such an 'I-self' or
'I-I' or the 'I of the I' is what is called Anatma in Buddhism.

Now, let us compare this with the Vedanta view of avidhya. In Vedanta, avidhya is not
knowing the Atman (I-I, I-self) as your true self, or as your true ontological identity, and
deluding yourself to believe that the mind or body or anything else is the 'I-self'. Let us
clarify this in another way. The Vedanta views that there is a truly existing, eternal and
unchanging ontological entity above and beyond impermanent mind-body (psycho-physical)
complex. This is one's true Self and knowing this is knowledge (gyana), while not knowing
that that is an ontological entity or even your true nature is avidhya/agyana (ignorance/
nescience). In Buddhism, seeing through (vipashana) that no such ontological entity called
an 'I-self' or Self or Over Self can be found anywhere is vidhya/gyana (knowledge). As we
can see the two paradigms are very di erent and geared towards two di erent types of
knowledge.

I must reiterate that this di erence in both the system is very important to fully understand
both the systems properly and is not meant to demean either system.

16 4
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
 S A T K AYA D R I S T I

Now let us go into greater detail on avidhya (nescience). The chain/link says conditioned by
avidhya arises sanskaras or the conditioned habitual patterns. Before we go into sanskaras,
let us go into the details of avidhya (nescience) itself. Now we shall enter into the Mahayana
explanations.

In the Madhyamak Avatar Bhasya, the great Chandrakriti said: a yogi sees in one's mind the
kleshas and faults arise from Satkaya Dristi (Tibetan for jig Tshogs La tawa/ false view of the
transitory agregates). Thus having understood that the object of Satkaya Dristi is the Atman,
he negates the Atman.

Now, there are two words here that we need to clearly understand before we can move
forward. One is the Sanskrit technical term Satkaya Dristi and the second is Atman. We
have already detailed the meaning of the world Atman from the general Hindu and the
Vedantic point of view. Although the Buddhist view of Atman is based on the very same
Hindu concept. Buddhism also uses this word in another way, which needs to be clari ed.
But rst of all let us go into what is termed as Satkaya Dristi/the false view of the transitory
aggregates.

Asanga had de ned Satkaya Dristi in his Abhidharma Samucchaya as: Satkaya Dristi is the
admission, inclination, idea, point of view, opinion of him who considers the pancha upadan
skanda (the ve aggregates of grasping/clinging/false view of the ve transitory aggregates)
as a self (Atman, I-I, etc.) or pertaining to a self (Atmiya/mine). The function of Satkaya
Dristi consists of giving the basis to all kinds of opinions/views (sarva dirtigata, Itawa
thamscad in Tibetan, and ditthi gatam in Pali).

Paramartha who translated into theChinese the Buddhist scriptures de ned Satkaya Dristi
as: the grasping or conceiving of the conception of atman-atmiya (I & mine) in the ve
skandas (aggregates). In his own commentary of his Abhidharmakosha, Vasubandhu gave
the Sarvastivadin de nition of Satkaya Dristi. He said: Atmadristir atmiya dristirva Satkaya
Dristi - which means the view/conception of 'I' and mine is Satkaya Dristi and he elaborates
the concept further saying that this concept or view is imposed upon the pancha upadana
skanda - ie - the ve aggregates of grasping/clinging.

16 5
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Then the Thervadin commentar The Atthasalini says Santokaya sakkayo, sakkaye pavattaa
ditthi, which means the ve aggregates are Satkaya and the view that of believing in that
Satkaya is Satkaya Dristi. Believing here means believing the ve aggregates separately or as
a collection or as a group is either the Atman or contains the Atman or is mine/atmiya.

So all the schools of Buddhism agree that Satkaya Dristi is basically seeing, conceiving an
atman in the pancha skandha (the ve aggregates). And both the Abhidharma kosha of
Sarvastivadins and the Thervadin Abhidhamma and the Mahayana Abhidharma Samucchaya
agree that this is the root cause of all the false views. But to fully understand what Satkaya
Dristi (view that there is I or mine in the ve aggregates) we need to rst understand what
the ve aggregates are; a Buddhist technical word for pancha skanda. We shall go into the
details of the pancha skandha/ the ive aggregates in the next issue.

PAN C HA SKANDHA

The Psycho-Physical System

Pancha Skandha is the Buddhist technical term for the ve aggregates. They signify not only
the entire psycho-physical system of an individual but the world at large also. So what are
the ve aggregates?

First, let's see what ve aggregates consist of:

1. Rupa Skandha (the aggregate of form)

2. Vedana Skandha (the aggregate of feeling-sensation)

3. Sangya Skandha (the aggregate of perception)

4. Sanskara Skandha (the aggregate of formation or conditioning)

5. Vigyana Skandha (the aggregate of dualistic consciousness)

16 6
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Of these, Rupa Skandha is material and the remaining four are mental. Vedana, Sangya,
Sanskara and Vigyana are all called Nama Skandha. All ve Skandhas are subsumed in
Nama-Rupa and this Nama-Rupa (name & form) consists of our world. Although I have
used Name for Nama, the English world Name etymologically does not fully justify the
Sanskrit and Pali Nama. According to the Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, Name means
a designation. This is only one aspect of the Sanskrit/Pali Nama.

The Sanskrit world Nama is derived from Naman, which means to be inclined towards to
bow towards. The world Namaste/Namaskar is also derived from the same root. Thus,
Name/Nama is not only designations/labels/names, which inclines or pulls the mind
towards an object as when one says 'table', but Name/Nama is the very mind which inclines
towards or goes towards or focuses towards the designated object. Nama thus is also the
mind which moves or ows towards the designated object. Nama does not only mean
labels/designation as you nd in Vedanta, which also uses the terminology Nama-Rupa but
has a di erent meaning attached to it. With that explanation, let us now move on to the ve
aggregates, which is an elaboration of Nama-Rupa or Name-Form.

The rst of the aggregate is form or Rupa Skandha. Rupa means form or physical form.
Things with a colour and shape ( varna sansthanatmakam rupam ) are called Rupa or form. So
the world that we see and our own physical bodies are called Rupa Skandha. Skandha means
heap, collection or aggregate. Our body is a heap of varnas and shapes/patterns, so is the
world out there. They arise through a combination of various physical causes and conditions
combined to other ( hetu-pratyaya ) causes and conditions; that’s why they are called
aggregate or Skandhas. So the aggregate of form is one of the ve aggregates, and believing,
viewing or conceiving that either that is the 'I' or it's mine is Satkaya Dristi, which is the root
cause of all false views. Through false views arises avidhya or nescience and through
avidhya/nescience arises avidhya.

Before we go into the other remaining ve Skandhas, let us go a little into the details about
what the above statement implies. Many people believe that their body is who they are. The
body is the 'I' or as a corollary it is mine, and there is an 'I' who possess the body. This 'I'
appears to remain the same from birth, infancy, adolescence, teenage, youth, middle age to
old age. When a person says 'I' he means the same person or 'I' that he called an 'I' when s/

167
fi
ff
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
he was an infant or teenage. Although people use the expression 'I have changed', through
experience people feel that the 'I' is the same old 'I' whose aspects or outer layer has
changed.

Within all forms of Buddhism, it is paramount to identity and fully understand this 'I-self'.
We are not talking here of some philosophical explanation of this 'I-self', we are talking
about the experience of 'I-self'. Everybody who does not analyze or think about it has at
some gut level have had the feeling of this 'I-self'; and a part of this gut level feeling of this
'I-experience' is an subconscious 'feeling' that this 'I' does not change, has not changed and
will not change. That this 'I' that I experience right now is the same 'I' that I experienced as
'I' when I was an infant, an adolescent, a teenager, or an adult, right on to death. Nobody
normally feels it's a di erent 'I' even when she/he says I have changed. At the gut level
feeling no matter how contradictory it may appear to be when we analyze it, it is the same 'I'
that has remained since birth. Although 'I' may have changed, I'm the same person. Ram
Prasad and Mary are the same persons through out their lives. This 'I' pointed to by the
designation of Ram Prasad or Mary has remained unchanged from birth to death. We'll
discuss this more in the next article.

“SAMSKARA”

Continuing with the discussion on Pancha Skandha and experiences of I or I-self - nobody
experiences di erent 'I' from the 'I' of his childhood or adolescent. She/he feels very strongly
that it is the same 'I-self' even while making the statement 'I've changed'. It is exactly this
experiental feeling that is used in the Vedantic logic to justify a permanent, unchanging 'I'
which is technically called Atman or the Self with capital 'S' when translated into English.

Buddhism, however, begins with questioning the validity of this same 'I', which people
believe as forever unchanging. Experience can be deluding and can mislead. For example,
you can experience a snake in rope if the causes and conditions are right. If you have certain
eye disease, you can see all sorts of hair, etc. in your food. In a similar way, your samskara
(conditioned habituated patterns/conditionings) can make you see/feel/experience/intuit
things that don't really exist as something really existing out there.

16 8
ff
ff
A lot of people put a lot of store on their gut level feelings (called intuition by many) or
experiences. While Buddhism ultimately believes in gut level experience in the sense of non
conceptual knowledge, it warns us to only trust gut level feelings and experiences free from
your samskara and not to trust all and sundry intuitions and gut level feelings/experiences.

If we were to accept all our experiences as valid because it was experienced, then the snake
seen in the rope would also have to be accepted as valid/true/factual/real. After all, we did
experience it and all our hormones and nervous systems had moved as if it really were true.
But I don't think I need to press the point that this experience is not valid, or say seeing the
snake experience is false. Because of our samskaras (learned habituated patterns), which we
have learned from our families, society, the culture at large, education, school, religious
systems, language structure that one was born into and thus imposed upon us from the time
we were infants and learned ideologies all distort our experiences, or even create illusions
out there. It is extremely fallacious to believe that an unwary average person can possible
know the facts/reality without being in uenced by these samskaras. So before anybody
depends on his/her own experience or gut level experiences or intuitions, the person must
become free from his samskaras to a greater or lesser extent. We can, however, trust our
intuitive gut level feelings and evaluations of our experiences to the degree that we are
actually free from our samskara. Needless to say most people are not even aware of their
samskaras, let alone be aware to what degree their samskaras have hold over them, not to
mention what extent these samskaras can distort their experiences and their evaluations of
those experiences or intuitive gut level feelings. Becoming free from their samskara for most
people is never even heard of.

Becoming free from their samskaras is not a black or white thing but rather a question of
degrees. In Buddhist hermeneutics, only a Buddha is free from all samskarars (sarva
samskara cchayan). In fact, the meaning of Samyak Sam Buddha is a person who has freed
himself from all samskaras, or someone who has destroyed avidhya/nescience. All other
humans are bound by their samskaras.

Now back to the avidhya/nescience about 'I-self', or the wrong perception about this 'I-self'
as really existing is avidhya/nescience. This is the rst part of the Twelve Chain of
Interdependent Origination (Dwadas Nidan). Based on this wrong perception or avidhya, a
samskara (conditioned learned habituated patterns) is formed, which makes us feel as if we
are really experiencing this 'I-self'. This in reality is only a samskara being experienced. Part

16 9
fl
fi
of the samskara is that this 'I-self' is the centre of my world-experience. We'll continue more
on this in the next issue.

V I PA S H YA N A

Let's continue with the discussion on samskara and on how what we thought as 'I-self' is
actually a samskara being experienced. Part of this samskara/conditioning is experiencing 'I-
self' as the centre of my world-experience. This samskara is so strong that it will not be
diminished or destroyed by any other kind of meditations or practices, except those specially
geared towards exposing samskaras and helping to gain intuitive insights into the existence
of samskaras and their mode of functioning.

Let me reiterate once again, as there is a pervasive fallacy in Nepal and elsewhere in the
world to lesser extent, that by Vipassana/Vipashyana, here I do not mean only Theravada
style of Vipassana (as it is called in Pali) and certainly not the only style of Theravada as
taught up in Budhanilkanta in Kathmandu. First of all, the Theravada Vipassana as taught in
Budhanilkanta is based on Vedananusmiti or Vedanaaunsatti in Pali, and moves into the four
smrityupasthan (sattipathan in Pali), which is the four stations of mindfulness. This is only
one method of Vipassana amongst hundreds of methods of Vipassana still being practiced in
Theravadin countries like Laos (which is considered the most profound), Cambodia,
Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka and parts of Southern Vietnam. It certainly is not the one
and only method of Vipassana nor is it more pure than the other methods. Secondly,
Vipashyana (the Sanskrit name for the Pali Vipassana) has always continued in an unbroken
lineage in all Mahayana countries like Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Mongolia,
Central Asia and the entire Trans-Himalayan belt, which includes Kashmiri, Zanskara, Leh,
Ladhaka, Kunu, Spiti-Lahul, Bhutan, the entire Arunachal Pradesh, the entire Himalayan
region of Nepal and parts of Northern Burma bordering Tibet and China.

Even the so called satipattan (smrityupasthan in Sanskrit) system exists to this day in
Sanskrit and in all their translations in Chinese, Tibetan, etc. So when I use the word
Vipashyana, I do not mean just one particular method that is used by Sri Goenkaji and has
become popular in Nepal wrongly as the one and only Vipashyana taught by the Buddha, I
mean Vipashyana as a whole as found within all Buddhist systems. I have told a little about

17 0
Vipashyana/Vipassana before and we will go into more details about Vipashyana/Vipassana
when the context demands it. But for now, I just want to repeat that we have already shown
very clearly that all authentic Buddhist abhidharmas, sutras, etc, have de ned Vipashyana as
special (vi from visesh and pashyana as to see from pashyanti, etc.). So Vipashyana is a
special form of meditation geared towards helping the meditator see directly, non-
conceptually (intuitively) the real characteristics (lakchyana) of all phenomena (dharma).

What are the real characteristics of all phenomena (dharma)? All phenomena was declared
by the Buddha impermanent (anitya) and therefore also su ering (dukha), and also no
phenomena contain the Self or 'I' nor are they mine (Anatma-Anatmiya) and therefore are all
empty of real existence (niswabhava/sunyata). This point, which the Buddha validated 2500
years back, can be investigated independently by meditation. Irrespective of what the
Buddha said, irrespective of what is written in the sutras/suttas (the words of the Buddha/
Buddha vacana) or the sastras, the commentaries written by siddhas and panditas through
the centuries explaining or clarifying the intention of the Buddha's words - irrespective of
them, correct meditation, both analytical and non-analytical meditation called Vipashyana /
Vipassana, shows very clearly that - that is how all phenomena (dharmas) are. These
characteristics of dharmas/phenomena are irrefutable either through logic or through
experience, which is not deluded by other factors like emotional de lements and samskaras.
And it has not been refuted to date however it is refutable if one can refute it. The Buddha
never commanded his disciples to accept what he said unquestioningly but rather asked
them to come and see for themselves whether what he said was the truth or not. Any
meditation that is geared towards showing this experience directly through non-conceptual
experience that all dharmas/experience are impermanent, su ering, Non-Self/empty, anitya/
anicca in Pali, dukha, anatma/anatta in Pali, sunya/sunna in Pali is Vipashyana.

DEMYSTIFYING 'I-SELF'

Continuing with the current discussion on Vipashyana and what it is geared towards - any
meditation that is not geared towards helping the meditator to 'see through' non-
conceptually that all dharmas are impermanent, su ering and empty, is not Vipashyana. I
invite any Buddhist or Non-Buddhist to refute the above statement using Sutras and Sastras

17 1
ff
ff
ff
fi
fi
of both Theravadin and Sarvastivadin or Mahayan/Vajrayana. And if there is no Vipashyana
practice, there is no Buddhist enlightenment, be it Theravadin and Sarsvastinvadin
enlightenment moving towards Arhathood, or the Mahayana enlightenment moving towards
Buddhahood.

Without the practice of Vipashyana, there can be no experience of any kind of Buddhist
enlightenment. It is Vipashyana that is the special teaching of the Buddha and no other
system taught it before the Buddha taught it. After the Buddha, other systems could have
appropriated it, though history does not show any system that has taught it as its main stay
until the 21st century. I invite any scholar or practitioner, Buddhist or otherwise, to prove
the above statement as wrong. I am open to acceptance if proven correct but they must use
sutras and sastras without distorting them before I accept it. I would like to also remind all
those who may not agree with me that refuting and rebuttal using the proper mode is an
ancient culture in the Indian Subcontinent to probe into the truth, a method accepted by all
Buddhists, Hindus and Jains since ancient times.

Now, let us go back to the aggregate of form (rupa skanda). Many believe our body is 'I-self'.
Those who have studied some form of philosophy of one school or the other may
intellectually believe that the body is not the 'I-self' but at a gut-level those very same person
continue to live life as if this body is who I am. And vast majority of even the so called
'educated' do believe, albeit rather vaguely, that the 'I-self' and the body are not the same but
the 'I-self' is in some way in the body. The Bhagawat Gita even states very clearly that that
Atman is like charioteer who rides the chariot of the body. However, Vipashayana/Vipassana
mediation exposes this notion of the 'I-self' being somewhere in the body as a fallacious
belief based on samskaras and avidhyas (conditioned habitual patterns and nescience). So
this body and the visible world out there (the material aggregate), which has colour and
shape (varna sansthan) and thus has form (rupa), so the aggregate of form (rupa Skandha)
is neither an 'I-self' (Atman) nor is it inside somewhere in the form aggregate. Nor can we
truly call this aggregate of form mine (atmiya).

If this body, which linguistically we call my body, were really 'mine' it would follow my
wishes. But whether 'I' want it or not, it grows old and it grows sick, it dies. Since 'I' have no
control over it, how can it really be mine? If the body of a beautiful model girl was really
hers, not just linguistically, it would not gain weight, it would not age and her hair would
not grey. But we all know intellectually/rationally/conceptually at least that the body does

17 2
 not really follow her commands, no matter how much she wishes it would . Thus, how is it
her body, or my body? I must warn however that this is only an intellectual-conceptual
understanding of the fact and such a rational knowing does not really free us from this
misconception (avidhya/nescience). We need Vipashyana meditation (and not any old
meditation) to make a shift in our perspective on this issue.

It is only when we penetrate through and see (true meaning of Vipashyana) directly, non-
conceptually that Rupa Skanda is neither 'I' nor 'mine', nor is there an Atman somewhere in
the Rupa Skandha that is clinging/grasping to the rupa Skandha will stop spontaneously.

FALL ACY OF L ANGUAGE

We have seen that thirst/clinging to the Rupa Skandha is one of the causes of our su ering.
This thirst or clinging to the Rupa Skandha is initiated by nescience/avidhya, which is the
cause of perceiving it as 'I-mine', etc. And the one and only way this hold of nescience can be
broken is by seeing penetratingly (Vipashyana) that the gut level experiential intuitive
feeling is false. And the one and only way (Ekaayano Maggo) that can be done is through
the type of meditation which is geared towards helping the meditator see this almost innate
fallacy. It is innate because of aeons (kalpas of samskaras conditioned habitual patterns).
This is why avidhya is called sahaja-atman-graha (innate grasping to the concept of an 'I-
self'/atman).

When it comes to this 'I-self' almost everything in our human-situation seems to validate it.
That is why it seems innate/sahaja. However, it is still imposed upon our mental stream
from the outside or is not really the true nature of our mental stream. Even our language so
strongly assumes its reality.

We do not realize to what extent our language structure literally in uences what we see and
what we cannot see. The structure of our language heavily de nes our experience and how
we interpret that experience. For instance, we have the past tense, the present tense and the
future tense which are highly arti cial constructs, but we tend to forget that they are highly
arti cial constructs and thus they become our reality. For instance, 'I run' is the present
tense, the past tense 'I ran' and the future tense 'I will run'. When I say 'I ran' it seems to me

17 3
fi
fi
fi
fl
ff
that there is really the same past in which 'I ran'. The past really exists out there to me just
as much as the table I see when I say 'I see the table', or the sound I hear when I say 'I hear
the barking'.

Now, these sentences are very useful in showing to us how deeply ingrained the structure of
our language is in experience and how we unquestionably accept them as valid/factual/real/
actual. First of all, let us take the past, present & future tense. As we said before, when I say
'I ran' I seem to really experience or re-experience the past when I had run. When I say I will
run the future, in which I will run almost seems to exist for me. So without questioning the
whole a air I accept that the past does exist as much as the present in which I run as much
as the future when I will run. But in reality, there is and can only will be the present
moment and the so called past or future are only abstract mental constructs which do not
exist at all except as imaginings in the mind in the present.

Now, let us take the statement 'I see the table', which would come out pretty much the same
in Nepali/Hindi/Sanskrit/French, etc. I see the table - in this language structure, the subject
is the 'I' which does the 'seeing' and the object is the table, which is seen. Now, this
linguistic structure is so common that it is assumed that what the language structure evokes
is true, is how it really is.

And what does it evoke? It evokes an 'I' the seer who sees. Thus, there is an 'I', otherwise
who sees? Or what sees? Or how can there even be any seeing at all? Then, there is the verb
seeing which is separate from the 'I' which does the seeing but is assumed not to be the
seeing. At least, it is not questioned normally and the language structure validates my
intuitive gut level feeling about this. And nally there is the table, which 'I' see, which again
is separate from me, the 'I' that sees. More on this later.

174
ff
fi
 MORE ON FALL ACY OF L ANGUAGE AND MODERN
THINKING

Continuing with the discussion on the limitedness of language - the very sentence 'I see the
table' assumes that the table 'I' see is out there somewhere separate from me. And as a
corollary which we will deal with later on, this 'I' which sees really existing is in fact the
center of the seeing and the table out there, which 'I' see also really exist.

Let us take another example. We say the lighting ashed, this is similar in structure to I see.
This grammatical structure implies that there is a lighting that ashed. The lighting is the
subject (like the 'I which sees), which does the action of ashing (verb). This act is di erent
from the lighting. But, and a big but is that is there really a lighting separate from ashing,
or is ashing itself lighting? Can we really separate ashing or take away ashing and say -
here is lighting that had ashed, which is separate thing from ashing? Can we really do
that? If we removed ashing, would lightening really remain per se? But just a few minute
ago we thought and felt and experience (or seem to experience) that there is a lighting that
had done the action of ashing, didn't we?

Now, let us take this analysis back to 'I see the table'. Some people may say the mind sees
the table just to be clever, but really we aren't changing the structure of the language and
thus the structure of the experience. We have just substituted the word 'mind' for 'I' and the
rest of the implications are still the same. There is a mind which is the subject, which exists
independently and it is thus independent and separate mind which does that action of
seeing the table, which is the object and which too is independent out there (like the
lighting that ashes, the mind or I see). If we look at the seeing out, would there still
remain a mind which sees or is the act of seeing itself the.........

Thus, language structure is so much a part of our programming samskara that we do not
question the situation out there or the real experience or reality/actuality or fact. It has
become so much a part of the way we experience things, a program that was downloaded
from the time prenatal/pre-conceptual moment onward or even earlier downloaded in the
mother's cellular memory itself. Perhaps that it does not occur to us easily that our
experience is molded by this grammatical structure itself.

17 5
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
ff
What we tend to forget is that there is a certain experience going on which the sentence 'I
see the table' or 'I see the sound' etc, is trying to point at. It is however never questioned
whether the implications evoked from the structure of the sentences is really out there or
not, or whether this grammatical structure is coloring and distorting the experience,
changing the 'pure experience' into a shape that this grammatical structure demands. Even
to question this seems so odd that most people would never even think of it and if
somebody raises such a question he/she would be ridiculed by saying 'Are you crazy?' Have
you gone o the rocks? But didn't Galileo face the same taunts when he questioned whether
the sun really went around earth?

Let us go on a little journey for a short while into the world of Alice in Wonderland, for that
is now it would look like to the programmed thinking of most people.

Suppose you have a grown up with a di erent grammatical structure. We have already said
that the sentence 'I see the table' is pointing at a certain experiential act. But the
grammatical structure here demands thing are there in the experience. We'll continue with
this in the next article.

UNCHANGING 'I' OR IS IT

The grammatical structure demands that there is an 'I' or mind that is the subject or the
seer, watcher, knower, that this 'I' sees or goes through the action of seeing, which is an
action verb, which is di erent from the 'I' which is a pronoun and there is a di erent noun,
separate from both the verb (seeing) and the pronoun 'I' which is the table. The 'table' is the
object, a noun and distinctly separate and independent from the subject and the verb. And
this unquestioned programming is so deeply ingrained into our subconscious mind that we
can safely say that, that is how everybody experiences the experience of what the sentence 'I
see the table' is trying to point at.

Now suppose you had grown up in another grammatical structure. Remember that language
is meant to point at an experience. So if an Alice in Wonderland language also pointed
equally well at that experience it would ful ll the purpose of language. So we all know that
an experience is a process and not really a thing - entity per se. So seeing a table is a process,

176
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
 a verb, and not an entity, a noun. So suppose you had grown up with a grammatical
structure which says 'tabling is going on' to point at the same experience which the sentence
'I see the table' is also trying to point at. We can certainly say that the sentence 'tabling is
going on' can equally well point at the same experience which the sentence 'I am seeing the
table' points at.

Infact, since it is actually a process (this experience), tabling is going on is a more accurate
nger to point at it. Now, if you had grown up with this grammtical sturcture, would the
experience (and the grammatical structure) imply that there is a separate table (noun-
object) from the act of seeing the table (verb)? And would the structure impose an 'I' upon
the experience like imposing a separate lightning di erent from the ashing of the light? Is
there a lightning separate from the ashing which does the asing or is the ashing itself
the lightning? But ashing is an action a verb, the lightning is a noun, an object. Or is the
'Light' distinct from the asing created merely by the langauge? Likewise, is there an 'I' that
sees or is the act of seeing speci ed by the Alice in Wonderland language 'Tabling' itself the
'I' the seer? But I is a pronoun, seer a noun and seeing/tabling are verbs. When I say 'I see',
this is a seeing I. This 'I' is de ned by the 'seeing'. Now there are two questions here.

The rst questions is: Is not this 'I' that sees dependent upon the seeing of the table? Can
we really say that the I/seer/watcher/knower that sees will continue to exist even when the
seeing stops? If so, we will have a so-called seer who does not see? Can there be a seer that
does not see? Is not the seer-I de ned by seeing process. Can we really speak of a seer when
it is not seeing/tabling? The word Seer would be meaningless without the seeing, wouldn't
it? We cannot call the seer a seer if there is no seeing going. If that is true than when seeing
stops the seer also stops or ceases to exist.

The second question is that is there is a seer separate from the act of seeing or is it only an
illusion created by the language structure, like the lightning and its ashes? Can there be a
seer remaining [a noun] which does not see but was the one that did the seeing? Can we
really separate the verb of seeing from the seer the noun or is the seer (and therefore the 'I')
merely an illusion imposed up the experience?

17 7
fi
fi
fl
fl
fi
fi
fi
fl
ff
fl
fl
fl
fl
I AS 'SEER', 'WATC HER,' 'KN OWER'

If you had grown up with the sentence structure 'Table is going on' to point at the same
experience, would you be straddled with an 'I-seer' that sees and a table that is seen? Tabling
is a process, and actually there is process going on which the sentence 'I see the table' is
trying to point at; however like a pair of coloured glasses it imposes a lot of things on the
experience which is not really out there even according to quantum physics.

Now we can see that the 'I' is not really such a central gure in our experience, nor is it so
stable or permanently unchanging as it seems to be, and secondly, it is more a process, a
verb, which is continuously changing than an unchanging noun, which is supposedly the
central guy or doll in the experience.

Now let us look at the unchanging 'I' from another angle. When we say this 'I' is unchanging,
it also implies that it is the same 'I' always. Unchanging as de ned in the Hindu-Buddhist
systems of the Indian Subcontinent meant 'remaining the same in all the three times'. As
Sankaracharya has de ned it 'Kala traya tisthatiti', which means that which remains
unchanged in the three times - in all the three times - viz - past, present and future.

Now with this in the background, let us try to see if this 'I', watcher, seer or knower really
remains unchanged in the three times. First of all, if we look at the 'I', 'I' continually changes
its identity. When I'm in the o ce I am a manager or an executive at home, I'm a son in
front of my father or mother, even if I may be sixty years old. I'm also a brother to my
brothers and sisters. Now a wife is not the same as the executive in the o ce, nor is a son
the same as a husband. As we can see this, 'I' is continuously changing and becoming
something else according to the situation - or more technically according to the causes or
conditions.

Now the question arises which one of them is the real 'I'? We normally have hundreds of 'I'
which are normally changing frequently as per the situations, and none of them is the real 'I'
in the sense of being the unchanging, permanent 'I'. If this husband 'I' did not change and
become a father 'I' in front of his daughter or an executive 'I' in the o ce, not only would
there be trouble (big time trouble to say the least) but we would have to call that person
neurotically unbalanced, and normal social or human functions would become tipsy turvy.

17 8
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
Yet our experience seems to point at an 'I' that is the same in all three times and therefore
real and unchanging. So which of this 'I' is the real one?

Now, let us take this 'I' as the seer, watcher, knower as posited in the Vendantic system and
therefore virtually all non-dualist system within Hinduism. They are called watcher (drasta),
witness (sakchi), knower (gyata) because this 'I' watches or sees, knows and witnesses. So
let us analyze this watcher, seer. It is called a watcher or seer because it sees. If it didn't see
or watch something it would not be called a watcher, seer. We cannot have a seer which
does not see. If it does not or cannot see anything, it cannot possible be called seer or
watcher can we really? We need to distinguish ve points we have before we get confused. A
seer can see nothing - ie - the absence of things. It still sees the absence (alohara) and that is
really not seeing per se. We'll continue this discussion in the next article.

CHANGING OR UNCHANGING 'I'

Continuing with the discussion of absence of seeing - for example, if you are in a pitch dark
room and I asked you - do you see anything? You would normally say 'I do not see anything'.
But this expression is the result of the limitation of language itself, rather than the fact that
you do not see. You do continue to see the pitch darkness or the absence of all things or
objects. The absence or pitch darkness is also a 'thing' to see, so to say.

Once we have understood this, let us go another step further. We have already said that a
seer is de ned by its seeing something, even if it is an absence. There is still an absence to
see and it is the seer of that absence of the pitch darkness, as the case maybe. So let us take
this up. When I say 'I see the table' I am the seer of the table. At that moment, this 'I-seer' is
the seer of the table and is de ned by the 'table'. If there were no table to see I would not be
the seer of the table, that is, I would not see the table and in e ect I would not and could
not say 'I see the table'. And if I did not see the table I would not be the seer of the table.
Now, if this seer of the table or the 'I' was really existing (sat in Sanskrit) and therefore the
same and unchanging in all three time, I would in e ect be eternally be seeing the table as I
or the seer would not change. But no one experiences that. We do not eternally continue to
see the table unchangingly and in actuality we as the seer see something else immediately,
for instance, the blue sky or the green mountain.

17 9
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
Again, if the seer of the table was unchanging and permanent, it could not stop seeing the
table and seeing the blue sky would be a change. But in real life the objects seen by the seer
is continually changing and thus also the seer of those objects. However, in the language we
continuously use the same word 'I' or the same word seer-watcher-knower for the seer of all
those various objects. And that gives us the feeling of the same 'I-seer-watch-knower' being
there while the so called seen objects are changing like a table now, a blue sky after that, a
home now, etc. etc. As before, the language structure creates an illusion of something which
does not really exist out there.

Here again, our memory of I seeing the table etc. also furthers the illusion with 'I' which is
based on the memory of the 'I' which had seen the table. Because of this memory, it looks
like the same 'I' is seeing the blue sky which had seen the table a while ago. But actually, it is
an illusion created by our memory supported by our language structure, thus creating an
experience that is not out there as it appears to be. So in e ect there seems to be no seer/
knower/watcher which remains unchanging as the Vedanta or for that matter what
Sankaracharya says in his texts like Discriminating the Watcher And the Watched (Drig
Driksya Viveka). Understanding this is the key point in knowing the di erence between
Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is not a matter of just a di erence in words but a matter of seeing two diametrically
opposed experiences. One is an experience of validating that this 'I' is not related to this
ephemeral world but is an unchanging permanent really existing Self called an Atman in all
forms of Hinduism. However, it must be said that only the Atman of Vedantic Hinduism and
all those related to the non-dual system of Vedanta (directly or indirectly) is a coherent
Atman.

18 0
ff
ff
ff
 ATMAN - ANATMAN DEBATE

While Vedanta and all those related to the non-dual system of Vedanta (directly or
indirectly) purports a coherent Atman, most other forms of Hinduism uses the word Atman
in a rather loose way that is not consistent. Thus, we have the concept like Atman in the one
born again and again, and at the same time, the Atman is unchanging and permanent
(Aparivartanshila and Nitya). If a thing is born and dies, it changes. So how can an
unchanging and permanent thing born and die and be reborn? At least the Hindu Vedanta
itself does not agree to such an absurd concept.

This itself answers the common layman Hindu question posed to Buddhists. Actually, the
majority of Hindus ask this question to Buddhists: 'If there is no Atman, who is it that dies
and is reborn (re-incarnation) and who attains enlightenment?'

This question itself points clearly to the fact that the majority of the Hindus (who pose such
a question) do not really realize that they do not know what is meant by the Atman in the
Upanishads, Bhagvat Gita and Brahman Sutra (called the tree pillars - prasthan trayi). To
validate this point, I would like to state that no less than Prof. Ram Niwas Pandey, who was
the head of Department of Culture, under which the Department of Buddhism was based in
Tribhuvan University, had asked this very question in one of the rst classes held on
Buddhism in Tribhuvan Univeristy. Prof. Pandey is also a learned Hindu scholar. This is the
extent of knowledge that most people coming from a Hindu cultural background have on
Atman-Anatman issue. With that kind of knowledge even amongst scholars, it is not
surprising why vast majority of Hindus completely miss out on the concept of Anatman in
Buddhism and then muddle everything up into one system - ie - the Hindu system. This
means all systems, including the Buddhist systems, are just talking about the same Atman
but only using a di erent language.

Vinoba Bhave even called it Via Positiva (positive way) for Hinduism and the Via Negativa
(the negative way) for Buddhism to understanding/reaching the same goal. And what is the
goal for Vinoba Bhave or the Hindus (even those who have no technical knowledge of the
Atman)? - it is the Atman. In short, the Anatman of the Buddhist is merely a negative way of

181
ff
fi
 speaking of Atman or self of the Hindus. This is subtle inability to see or accept that there
can be other points of view than my own.

Now let us see if this is really true. Is Hinduism and Buddhism actually talking about the
same thing when are they use the word Atman or Anatman respectively? But before we do
this, we need to de ne clearly according to the Hindu Vedanta what is meant by Atman.
Although we have already done that above in a loose way, let us now de ne it clearly so that
we know what the Hindus mean by Atman and what the Buddhist are refuting when they
use the word Anatman. Now if any Hindu feels that I've distorted the de nition of Atman to
t in a Buddhist thesis, I challenge them to refute me using scriptural quotations. Their or
my personal ideas, beliefs, predilections and concepts are invalid in such a debate.

Now, Sankaracharya himself has done the work for us and I actually need not quibble over
words. In his Tatvabodha (Knowing the Essence/tatva), Sankaracharya de nes Atman by
asking the question what is the Atman (inverse 26 of Atman Tarih kim?) and replies: the
essence of Atman is really existing, knowing, bliss (sacchidanana svarupa). Now what does
he mean by sacchidanana svarupa? He himself de nes these three words sat, chit and
ananda in verse 27. In that verse, he asks the question what is sat (The Really Existent), and
answers that, that which remains unchanged in all the three times is sat (really existing or
kala trayapsi tastatiti sat). What does this mean? We'll explore more in the next article.

UNDERSTANDING VEDANTIC ATMAN

The unchanging sat (really existing or kala trayapsi tastatit sat) as Sankaracharya has said is
the same in all the three times (past, present and future) or sat is really existing or truly
existing, etc. Then, Sankara himself ask Chit Kim - or what is chit or consciousness,
awareness, etc.? He answers Gyan Swarupa - ie - of the nature of knowing. In short, the
knower aspect is an aspect of Atman. Or the knower, watcher or witness is the Atman.

We shall pick up the thread about witness, knower, watcher later on and go on to see how
the Vedanta goes about to prove this witness, watcher, knower is sat or really existing - ie -
remains the same or unchanging in the three times. But for now, let us go into ananda
(bliss) aspect of the Atman. Sankarcharya writes what is ananda /bliss? ( ananda ka)? He

18 2
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
answers - sukha swarupah (of the nature of sukha or bliss or joy). Then, he goes on to say
evam sacchidananda swarupam svatmanam vijaniyat - which means this is how one should
know that one's own Atman is of the nature of satchit ananda swarupa.

So the Atman of Hinduism, and Jainism for that matter in general, and of the Vedantic form
of Hinduism speci cally, is the Watcher, Knower, Witness, Consciousness (awareness),
which is unchanging in all three times or remains the same in all three times, and which is
free from su ering by nature because its nature is bliss (ananda swarupa).

Now, let us study this Watcher, Knower, Witness, Awareness (Watcher - drasta, Knower -
gyata, Witness - sakchi, Awareness - chaitanya). What does Vedanta in general and Sankara
in speci c mean by this Watcher, Witness, Awareness? The Kaivalyopanishad says: 'it is that
which brings to light or knows the three worlds of awaking, dream and deep sleep (jaagrat
swapna susuptyadi yat prapancha prakaashate).

Now, let us simplify this. To do that, we need to see in detail how Vedanta goes about
proving that this Awareness, Watcher, Witness exists in the rst place, how it is
independent and nally how it remains unchanged in the three times. The methodology
used by the Vedanta to do this is called 'Analysis of the three states (avasthaa traya
vivechana)'. This methodology is mentioned in the Brihadaranyak Upanishad, in
Kaivalyopanishad and elaborated in detail by Sankaracharya in many of his writings like
Drig-driskya Viveka (Discriminating the Watcher and the Watcher), Vakya Vritti
(commentary on the words of the Vedas) etc. etc. Here, I shall just explain the purport of
these writings without quoting them as it would become too heavily scholastic if I quoted
each and every one of them here.

I see/know the world of my waking state - this is irrefutable. I see the world of the waking
state, thus I am the watcher (drasta), knower (gyata), and witness ( sakchi) of all that I
experience in my waking state. But when I fall asleep and start dreaming, I see, know,
witness the world of my dream too; and when I wake up I can tell you that I saw such and
such dream. That means I watched (was the watcher) or witnessed (was the witness) that
dreamt last night and that is why I can tell you about it. If I had not witnessed it how could I
tell you about it? It is irrefutable that I saw it. That word witness (sakchi) has been used in
Vedantic literature because it witnesses the world just as a witness who saw the accident or
the murder stands witness later on as proof in the court. It is the same witness which saw or

18 3
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
watched the events that stands in the court as the witness to the scene (drasta). This will be
continued in the next article.

U N D E R S T A N D I N G M AYA A N D M AYA W A T

When I go into deep dreamless sleep, I don't seem to be watching it or witnessing it;
however, when I wake up, I know that I was in a deep dreamless sleep. Nobody has to tell
me you went into deep dreamless sleep. I know it the moment I wake up that I was in
dream, dreamless sleep (susupti). How do I know it? How can I remember that I was in a
deep, dreamless sleep without anybody telling me about it if I didn't experience it or if I
didn't witness it myself? I myself can tell you the very moment I wake up that I went into or
had a deep dreamless sleep.

So I watched (Watcher) or witnessed (Witness) or was aware of (Knower) of all the three
worlds of waking, dream and dreamless states. Thus, I am the Watcher, Knower, Witness,
Awareness of all three worlds of waking, dream and dreamless.

It is not only Buddhism but Hinduism also that says that all the world events/things etc, of
the three states (avasthan traya) of waking, dream and dreamless are ever changing and thus
impermanent, as they are all quite obvious. It is an irrefutable truth that the worlds of all
the three states are ever changing, and if they are ever changing, they are impermanent. And
if they are impermanent, they cannot really exist (sat). And that would mean that the entire
world of our experience is like an illusion (mayavat). This brings us to another topic related
to what we just said. So let us deal with it before moving on.

First, we need to distinguish between Hinduism and Buddhism here. Hinduism of Sankara
Vedanta calls the world (jagat/sansara) of our experience a mere illusion. Sankara says jagan
mithya - this world is false, illusion or untrue. However, Buddhism, especially Mahayana,
does not call this world an illusion (maya or mithya) but rather like an illusion (mayavat).
This is a major di erentiation between the Sankara Vedanta of Hinduism (or for that matter
most form of Hindu non-dualism - advaita) and Buddhism. To say the world is an illusion is
not the same as to say the world is like an illusion.

18 4
ff
Secondly, some Theravadin writers think that because Mahayana declares that the world is
like an illusion, it is a non-Buddhist concept derived from Hinduism. To such Theravadins, I
would like to point them to Phenopindupama Sutta of Samyutta Nikaya of their own school,
which says that Rupa Vedana Chitta etc., are all like a bubble, like a maya (illusion), like the
stem of a bamboo tree( kadali samaa), etc. Also, if you agree that all phenomena (dharma)
are impermanent (anitya) then you have already agreed that all phenomena are like an
illusion.

Now, let us go back to how Vedantic Hinduism goes about proving that the Watcher, Seer,
Knower, Witness is permanent, unchanging and true. Using the methodology called Avastha
Traya Vivechana - analysis of the three states - ie - waking, dream and dreamless state,
Vedanta has tried to posit that the Watcher is eternal, unchanging, truly existing and real;
whereas the watched is changing, impermanent, false and not existing. As I mentioned
before, this method has been laid out clearly in the Upanishads, like Brihadaranyak
Upanishad, etc., and has been elaborated in more detail by Sankaracharaya in his Drig
Drishya Viveka (discriminating the Watcher and the watched). So let us go into the core of
Vedantic thought.

It is the Watcher who sees/watches/witnesses that is aware of various events in waking

state. I know (saw/watched/was aware of)that I had breakfast in the morning and the very
same 'I-watcher' not only knows that I'm going to sleep or am feeling sleepy but also this
very same 'I-watcher' who is aware of feeling sleepy also remembers that it had breakfast
this morning.

VEDANTA EXPL ANATION OF ‘I’

It is the same 'I-watcher' who was there during breakfast that is present now during
bedtime. The breakfast situation has gone and thus it is impermanent, not really existing,
etc. as it has been fully replaced by bedtime experience, which to will pass. But the 'I-
watcher' who experienced both is the same as the 'I' who remembers in bedtime that 'I' (the
same I that is feeling sleepy) had the breakfast. If the 'I' that is feeling sleepy now was not
there experiencing, watching or witnessing the breakfast, how could the present 'I-watcher'
who is feeling sleepy right now remember the breakfast?

18 5
 Then, when I go to sleep and see a dream and wake up, I can tell you 'I' had such and such
dream. This itself is proof that 'I-watcher' who is telling you about the dream right now was
present in the dream, watching, witnessing, being aware of the dream. If 'I' was not
watching the dream in the dream, how could I possibly know or remember it and be able to
tell you 'I saw such and such dream'? So de nitely the Watcher that watched the dream is
the same Watcher that is watching you and the narrator of the dream right now. The point is
that if I wasn't watching the dream how could I remember it? One can remember only what
one has experience. One cannot possible remember what one has not experienced.

So we have seen that it appears that the same Awareness, Watcher or Witness, etc. who saw
the dream remembers it and is able to tell you about the dream. The 'I-awareness' that saw
the dream is the one relating it to you now and also is the I-Knower/Witness/Watcher you
are listening to or experiencing you now. It is the very same 'I-Awareness', the very same
Watcher, the very same Witness, the very same 'I-I' that saw the dream last night, which
remembers it after it wakes up. After all how could this 'I-Awareness' remember the dream it
saw last night if it was not present in the dream watching it, seeing it, experiencing it? How
could I possibly narrate my dream to you now if I (who is narrating it now) was not present
in the dream?

Then the next step is the dreamless sleep (shushupti). Usually people think we blank out in
the dreamless sleep and are not aware of anything then. But this actually is more like saying
we do not see anything in the pitch darkness when in reality seeing has not stopped and in
e ect we are seeing the pitch darkness itself.

Now the question that arises is - how do we know that this very same 'I-Awareness' that is
witnessing the waking world was also witnessing the world of deep sleep? The logic
presented by Vedanta is that when I wake up, this very same 'I' that is awake knows very
clearly without anybody having to tell me that I was in deep sleep last night. The point is
nobody else has to tell me this. The moment I wake up 'I' the Knower/Watcher/Witness of
this waking world myself know that I had a dreamless sleep. I remember it myself, that is
why nobody else has to tell me. Now, the question is how could I possibly remember
something that I myself had not experienced?

No one can remember something that s/he has not previously experienced. We can imagine
something that we have not previously experienced but we cannot possibly remember

18 6
ff
fi
something we have not previously experienced. This is simple conventional logic. So this
same 'I-Awareness' that saw the dream last night is telling you about the dream right now
and is thus present now and also saw the dreamless world and is capable of telling you that I
had a dreamless sleep. Since the Vedantic logic is not so obvious to most people I have
belaboured to make it clear by repeating the same point from as many angles as possible.

U N D E R S T A N D I N G A T M A N & L I B E R A T I O N C O R R E C T LY

The very same 'I-Awareness/Watcher/Witness' is present at all three states (avastha traya).
So even though the world of waking changes into the world of dream, and that into the
world of deep dreamless sleep, and back again into the world of waking, and thus this world
is ever changing, the 'Watcher/ Witness/Knower/Awareness/I-I' of these three ever changing
worlds is the same unchanging 'I-Awareness/Watcher/Witness/Knower/ I-I'. So this
Watcher is' sat' - really existing, existing as the same unchanged entity in the past, present
and future. And this is the Atman of the Vedantic tradition of the Upanishads, Bhagvat Gita
and Brahman Sutra (all three of which are called the Prasthana trayi/ The three pillars of the
Vedantic tradition. And the realization or recognition of this unchanging Atman is what is
called Self Realization (Atman Gyan), and this is enlightenment in the Vedantic tradition,
especially of Sankaracharya.

In the Panchikarana, it very clearly says: Aham Sakchiti, I am the Witness; and he who
analyses this again and again becomes truly liberated (sa eva mukta); and such a person is
the wise one (sa eva vidwan), so says the drum of Vedanta (Vedanta dim dima).

In the Aparoshyaanubhuti, verse 2, Sankarcharya writes: aham drastritayaa or I am the

drastaa/ Watcher and sidhi deho drishyatayaa stheta. And the body is the seen/scene
(drishya) and this is self established (siddho). There is no way that any Hindu system,
especially Vedantic system, could call this Watcher or Self (drastaa - atman) as empty. In
fact, in Aparoshyaanubhuti ( The Direct Experience), Sankaracharya makes it very clear that
that is not and can never be the Vedantic view when he questions in verse 27: Why do fools
think this Atman is empty/sunya and not in the body - kim murkhan sunyamatmanam
dehaatitam karoshi bho)?

187
 Sankaracharya also makes it very clear that the word 'I' designate this very Watcher-Atman
and nothing else. That is why later Indian Gurus like Raman Maharshi also called it 'I-I'. In
verse 31 of Aparoshyaanubhuti, Sankaracharya makes it very clear that this word 'I'
designate the Watcher-Atman by saying aham sabdera vikhyata ek eva sthita para - or by the
word 'I' is known only that atman.

Now let us analyze this Watcher - Self. First of all, as it is unchanging and remains the same
in all the three times, it cannot be born and cannot die. Therefore, contrary to what most
Hindu lay people think, it is de nitely not the Watcher, Self (Atman) that re-incarnates
again and again until it becomes liberated. If the Atman was to be reborn and die and again
be reborn, that would mean the Atman is going through changes. Also, if the Atman were
bound and then became enlightened or liberated, again the Atman will change as an
unenlightened, un-liberated Atman cannot be the same as the enlightened, liberated Atman.

Becoming enlightened and liberate from the unenlightened, un-liberated state would
amount to change but the Atman is supposed to be unchanging. Also, there would be many
absurdities that would arise if we say that the Atman is under ignorance and un-liberated.
Because the Atman is supposed to be unchanging and eternal, an un-liberated Atman under
the in uence of ignorance (avidya) would be eternally un-liberated and under the in uence
of ignorance.

So it cannot be the Atman which dies and is reborn, nor can it be the Atman which is
unenlightened and later becomes enlightened. In fact, the Bhagvat Gita says it very clearly
when it says - maneva manushyaanam kaaranam bhanda mokchayo - it is the mind which is
the cause of bondage and liberation of men. So it is the mind that is born and dies and it is
the mind that is the cause of bondage and liberation. So it is not necessary to have an Atman
to reincarnate, be in bondage and liberated. So this question asked by Hindu laymen (and
sometimes even scholars, as we have seen) is a non-question based on misconception of
both Buddhist and Hindu view.

18 8
fl
fi
fl
U N D E R S T A N D I N G S A N K A R A C H A R YA M O R E D E E P LY

The Vedantic texts also make it clear that this Witness/Watcher is the Seer/Knower of what
is called the p ancha koshas (the ves sheaths/body that cover it). Sankarcharya writers in
this Tatvabodha verse 10: Atman Kah? - what is the Atman?

And he answers:

Sthula sukchma kaarana shariraad vyatirikta - separate from the gross, subtle and causal
body

Pancha koshaatita - beyond the ve sheaths

Avastha traya saakchi - the witness of the three states

Sadchidaananda swaruparu san - that which is of the nature of real existence, awareness and
bliss

Yastisthati sa atman - that which remains like this is the atman

Now what are the pancha kosha? Again, Sri Sankaracharya himself says in this Tatvabod
verse 20: Panchakosha ke? - what are the ve sheaths?

And answers:

Annamaya - the body of food;

pranamaya - the body prana or energy-winds;

manomaya - the mental body;

vigyanmana - the body of consciousness;

anandamaya - the body of bliss.

Now, with this in the background, we can easily see that enlightenment or liberation
according to the Vedanta and thus most of Hinduism is recognizing that my true nature is
the Watcher-Atman, which is eternal, unchanging and really existing, and the one who

18 9
fi
fi
fi
knows this experience becomes free from su ering - Tarati shokamaatmavid - the knower of
the atman become free from su ering. Thus, from this we can easily say that Avidhya
(ignorance, nescience) according to the Vedantic system is basically not knowing that you
are the Atman, the Watcher/Witness/Knower of the ve sheaths, three states and three
bodies.

Now, Sri Sankaracharya makes it very clear in his Aporkchyaanubhuti verse 11 that
enlightenment does not arise without enquiry into the truth - notpadhya te binna gyanam
vicharena anya sadhanai. This verse makes it clear that Sankaracharya is very clear about that
fact that mere repetition of mantra or practice of any other kind of yogic meditation does not
produce enlightenment without proper Vedantic enquiry into what is the Atman. The very
next verse (verse 12), he elucidates what he means by enquiry ( vichara) - koham? - or who
am I; kathanidam jaatam - or how is this world created, who is the creator of what material is
in this world made. This is the way of enquiry - or vichara marga.

Now, this ies in the face of almost all prevalent Hindu systems which claim that this secret
meditation or that secret mantra when practiced or chanted leads to enlightenment or
liberation. In this point, Sri Sankaracharya is closer to the Buddhist view than to any other
Hindu systems. It is indeed the mark of the confused times that the majority of the Hindu
practice either just repetition of mantras based on the concept: japaad siddhi japaad siddhi
japaad siddhina sanksaya - ( one attains enlightenment/liberation by merely repeating the
mantra (japa) again and again there is no doubt about this) or practice of all kinds of secret
yogic meditation believing that once you attain Samadhi in the yogic meditation, one will be
enlightened or liberated, and at the same time with the same breath declare that they are
the followers of Sankaracharya.

Sankara does not believe that any japa of no matter what God or Goddess or any form of
meditation alone can liberate a person, as verse 11 of Aporkchyaanubhut makes it amply
clear. The word anya sadhanai - means other sadhanas or practice along without enquiring -
bina vicharena - will not and cannot liberate.

If anybody meditates regularly according to any system of authentic, genuine meditation or

practices with consistency the chanting of any mantra, the energetic system within the
person becomes harmonized and thus the person tends to look brighter, more calmer, and

19 0
fl
ff
ff
fi
relaxed than the average person. But this can only be a support to the main practice
of vichar marga for Sankara.

SANKARA AND OTHER HINDU THOUGHTS

A calm and composed mind is certainly a great aid but does not lead automatically to
enlightenment even according to the hindu Sankaracharya himself. When the mind is calm
and composed, the person begins to automatically emanate an aura around him felt by many
as a kind of brightness in his face etc. However, no matter how bright the person may
become or look, it does not automatically lead to liberation or enlightenment, nor is it
tantamount to enlightenment according to Sankaracharya.

Now with this in the background, let us compare Sankara (who is considered to be the
cream of Hinduism by the majority of Indian scholars past and present) with the Buddhist
view of enlightenment, ignorance, liberation, etc. But before we compare the two and
distinguish the similarity and di erences, I would like to take up another school of
Hinduism which claims to be di erent from Sankaracharya's school of vedanta but in
essence appears to be just repeating Sankaracharya's teaching in another form with changes
in the minor nity grities. This is the Advaita Shaivagama group of Kashmir which includes
schools like the Trika sampradaya, kaula Sampradaya, Cchoma sampradaya and many others.
I do not meant there are absolutely no di erences between the Kashmir Shaivadvaita
(Shaiva - non-dual) school and the Sankara school, but the essential view or principal is the
same and the di erences are only in minor details.

The Shiva Sutra Verse 7 says: jagrat svapna susupta bhede turyaabhoga sambhava - the Fourth
(i.e. the Witness/watcher/Knower etc.) exists separate from the waking, dream and
dreamless states.

Now, if you have read what has gone before in these articles, you can easily recognize that
the Shaivadvaita School is again talking about the same thing. Only here it is called the
Fourth ( turiya) as opposed to the three (walking, dream and dreamless state).

191
ff
ff
ff
ff
 Furthermore, Khemraj, the famous commentator of the Shaivagam School in his
commentary of the Sutra 13 of the Pratyabhaigya Hridayam Sutra, which says: "when the
individual consciousness (the Watcher/Witness/Knower) by inward movement (recognizing
itself) becomes chiti, the universal consciousness"; comments - the chitta giving up the
limiting tendency of extroversion( that is looking out towards the world) becomes
introverted (that is looks at itself) and rises to the status of cetana -ie- to the status of the
knowing subject (the Watcher/Witness/Knower) becomes chiti (universal consciousness).
And this consciousness or the Fourth state or this Watcher/Witness/Knower is
called Sambhava or Siva or Parasamvrt, etc. etc.

The di erence between the Sankara Vedanta and this form of the Non-dualistic Shaivagama
(which means Shaiva tantra in general) is not in the nature of the Atman but in how the rest
of the world is taken. But we shan't go into it here as it is not relevant to our purpose.
Anyway, in both the systems the Watcher/Knower/Witness is called the Atman, albeit the
terminologies used are di erent. The words Watcher/witness/Knower/Seer are all Vedantic
terminologies but the same thing is called Parasamvit, Turya state (the Fourth State),Chiti,
Sambhava or sometimes Shiva etc in the Shaiva School.

The Malinivijaya Tantra quoted by the famous Khemraj calls this same Watcher
the Pramatat -ie- the Knower or the subject of the waking, dream and dreamless state, and
this Fourth state, which is the Knower of the 3 states -ie- the Turiya. And Khemraj in the
same Tantra states: Mokchyohinam naivaanyaha swarupa prathanamhitat - mokcha or liberation
is nothing else but the awareness of one's true nature.

In the Bhagwat Gita too, in the thirteenth chapter verse one, it says: ' Idam shariram kaunteya
ksetramityaa bhidhiyate' - this body, O son of Kunti, is called the Kshetra ( eld or object
known).

And further: ' Etadayo vetti tam prahuh Ksetragya iti tadvidah: him who knows this Kshetra, the
wise ones call the Kshetragya (Knower of the eld/body/object).

And the verse 22 of the same chapter 13 of the Bhagvat Gita, it is called upadrasta -
Spectator, which means of course the Watcher/Witness/ Knower /Seer. Sankaracharya, in
his Shariraka Bhaasya (The shariraka commentary) on the Brahman Sutra writes that
the upadrasta (the Spectator) means a bystander and a witness himself not acting.

19 2
ff
ff
fi
fi
MORE ON ATMAN FROM DIFFERENT HINDU
PHILOSOPHIES

The Avadhoot Gita of Dattatreya says in Chapter 1 verse 7: Aham evaavyago ananta: suddha
vigya vigvaha - I am the unchanging, unlimited pure awareness, watcher, witness. Again, we
can see that we are talking here about the same watcher, witness, knower, etc.

Then again the rst chapter, verse 3 of the famous Astavakva Gita says: Na prithivi najalam
naagnir na vaayur dhaur na va bhavaan eshaam sakchinaatmaanam chidrupam vidhi muktaye - you are
neither the element of earth, nor water, nor re, nor air, nor space. In order to attain
liberation, know the self ( atman) as the witness of all these and as awareness consciousness
itself.

It goes on to the next verse and says: yedi deham prithak kritya chiti vishraamya tishthasi
adhunaiva sukhi saanto banda mukto bhavishyas - which means if you detach yourself or separate
yourself from the body and rest in consciousness, awareness, witness, watcher (the word
chiti used here is also used as we have seen in the Shiva Sutra, etc.) - you will at once be
happy, peaceful and free from bondage.

And in verse 5 of the 1 st chapter of the Astavakra Gita, it says: you are viswa sakchi.. ie- the
witness of the world (the world of waking, dream and dreamless states). So again we have
the same concept clari ed in another later text. In verse 7 again Astavakra says: 'you are the
one watcher, seer - eko drashataasi sarvasya - you are the one seer, watcher of all.

This continues with: Ayam eva hi te bhandho - verily this alone is your bondage.
Furthermore: drashtaara pashyati taram - that you see yourself not as the seer, watcher,
witness but as something other. Then again, the Yogavasitha in verse 72, the tenth sarga
says the atman is called sakchi -witness - and chidakarh - the space of awareness.

It is very clear from all the above examples that within all forms of Hinduism, which
advocate Advaitism (non-dualism) - the watcher, witness, knower is the atman, and
ignorance is not recognizing it as ones true nature, and liberation of enlightenment is
attained by the experiential recognition of this watcher. Merely intellectual knowing or
understanding is not what was meant by vichar marga of Sankaracharya. The key point is to
recognize the watcher as your true self experientially.

19 3
fi
fi
fi
So in summary, the Vedantic School of Sankaracharya is speci c and all other schools of
Hinduism, which propounds non-dualism, the watcher, witness, knower, seer of the internal
and external (the three states of waking, dreaming and dreamless, and the ve sheaths or
pancha koshas which covers the watcher) is the true state. Not knowing that this very
watcher, witness, knower, seer that knows the world as ones true nature and thus
identifying with something else ( anatma) is nescience, ignorance ( avidhya, agyan). And
recognizing, knowing directly ( aparackchyanu bhuti) that this watcher, witness, knower, seer
is my true self ( atman) is enlightenment and liberation ( bodh and mukti). And it is this
knowledge ( gyan) of the true nature of my self ( atman) which is called self-realization
( atman-gyan). And it is this self-realization that frees me from su ering. With this in the
background, we shall now compare Buddhism and Hinduism to see how their premises,
their paradigm and their views about these things are not only di erent but at certain points
even diametrically opposed. We have already seen what Buddhism says about
enlightenment, liberation, etc. etc. Now, let us compare the two.

19 4
fi
ff
ff
fi
 C O M PA R I N G V E DA N T I C M A H AVA S T U
A N D B U D D H I S T V I GYA N S K A N D A

Now, let us compare the two systems. We have seen that the Vedantic Hinduism posits
an Atman, which is truly existing in the sense that it remains unchanging in all the three
times of past, present and future. And, again this Atman is the Watcher/Witness/Knower/
Seer of the world which consists of the three worlds of waking, dreaming and deep sleep,
and the ve sheathes/bodies. It has an ontological existence, which simply means it exists as
an entity a thing. In fact, the Vedanta uses the term Mahavastu, which could be loosely
translated as the Great Entity/Thing. We have also seen that the brunt of the proof that this
Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer is unchanging in the three times and thus really existing
ontologically is the experiential fact that this 'I-Watcher' clearly remembers himself/herself
having experienced all of the three states.

Now, we need to digress a little bit here to clarify a few points before we give the Buddhist
take on this. Epistemologically, Buddhism has been accused by Hindu philosophers of either
having no such thing as an Awareness and thus subscribing to a blank Unaware,
Unconscious state because it subscribes to Anatman or Sunyata (non-self or emptiness), and
thus calling liberation or enlightenment an unconscious blank state. Many Hindu scholars
believe and have written from ancient times until today that either Buddhism subscribes to
some kind of an Unaware, Unconscious state (like the Nayayikas of their own school to
whom liberation is an unconscious state) and that is what the Buddhists means
by Anatman (non-self) or Sunyata (emptiness), or the Buddhists are just writing the
negative words like Anantman and Sunyata to describe exactly the same Atman-Watcher.

Even as early as 300 AD, Vatsayana, the Hindu scholar, quoted the Bhaarahaara Sutra to try
to show that the Buddha actually taught the Atman but the Buddhist did not understand
him. This sutra is found in the Samyutta Nikaya of the Theravada School and the Samyukta
Agama of the Sarvastivada School. But needless to say Vatsayana (like later Hindu scholars)
totally misinterpreted the sutra and gave it his own interpretation. This is a tendency we
nd amongst Hindu scholars from the earliest times to the present time. Even
sankaracharya is not free from this fault when he talks about the buddhist sunyata and other
such related topics.

19 5
fi
fi
It is absolutely a mistaken interpretation of the Buddha's teachings to believe or interpret
that Anatman means no-awareness or unconsciousness. What the Vedantic system of
Hinduism calls the Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer/Awareness, the Buddhist call it
the Vigyan Skanda. Asanga in his Abdidharma Samuccaye, asks in the rst chapter
called Lakskyana Samuccaya (the compendium of characteristics) - "what is the characteristics
of Vigyan (awareness/consciousness)?"

He answers it as: "knowing is the characteristic of consciousness/awareness. It is conscious/

aware/knowing by virtue of which one knows visible form, sound, odor, taste, the tangible,
mental objects and various realms.

In short, Vigyana (awareness/knowing/consciousness) is the process of knowing the world."

Now, this is exactly what the Watcher/Witness/Awareness/Knower - Atman of the Vedanta

is, isn't it? But there are very subtle di erences here which need to be clari ed as they result
in very di erent realizations. First of all, the Hindu Watcher/Witness/Knower is an
ontological entity and within the Vedanta itself, it is called the Great Entity ( Mahavastu), to
distinguish it from other lower materialistic entities. Nevertheless, it is an entity/thing that
exists unchanged within the three times of past, present, and future.

Other so called materialistic entities change and do not remain the same in all the three
times (past, present, future). But this Watcher Self (Atman) never changes and this is why
even though it is still an entity, it is The Great Entity, or The Entity of all entity
( Mahavastu). We will continue this discussion in the next article.

Compare to the Mahavastu (or Atman), the Vigyana Skanda of Buddhism is more a process
that is ever changing moment to moment ( cchyana bhangura). We have already seen in quite
a detail how this knowing is continuously changing and is a continuum ( sanskrit-santaana)
rather than an unchanging entity per se. But as this point is rather subtle and tends to go
against the grain of what is considered normal, so let us look at it again.

The Vedantic system uses the fact of memory to prove that it is the same Knower-Self which
remains unchanged throught out the three times. We have seen this logic in quite a detail,
so we shall not reiterate it again. But Buddhism does not agree with this Vedantic logic. In
fact to Buddhism, it is a false logic and actually that fact of memory itself proves to the
contrary that the so-called Knower/Watcher/Witness changes and thus it is a process of

19 6
ff
ff
fi
fi
 knowing, watching, witnessing that is happening rather than there being an unchanging
Watcher/Knower/Witness.

How? Well, let us go into it now. If the mind experiences the grandeur of the Himalayan
Mountain that moment the mind ( Vigyana - or that Watcher/Witness/Knower/Seer/
Awarenesr) is de ned by that 'grand Himalayan Mountain' which it sees at that moment. Let
me use the Vedantic terminology to clarify the point - at that moment it is the Watcher/
Witness/Knower/Seer/awareness of that scenery of 'the grand Himalayan Mountain'. If it
was not seeing, watching, knowing, witnessing 'the grand Himalayan Mountain', it would
not be the Watcher/Seer/Knower/Witness of the Grand Himalayan Mountain but of
something else. Now here is the catch. If this Watcher of the Grand Himalayan Mountain
were to be' sat' (really existing) and thus remain unchanged in the past, present and future -
i.e. - remain eternally unchanging, then this Watcher/Knower/Witness/Seer would be
eternally knowing, seeing, watching, witnessing the grand Himalayan Mountain. But this is
not what happens in real time, does it?

If the Knower of the bird's chirping were to be eternally unchanging, you and I would be
locked in the knowing/hearing of the birds chirping forever and ever. Again, that does not
happen experientially in the real time world to anyone except perhaps to some rare
psychotics. With this in the background, let us take up the 'memory-logic' that the Vedantic
texts employ to prove the eternally unchanging Watcher-Self ( Atman).

When 'I' the Knower/Watcher/Seer/Witness knows the memory of the experience of the
Grand Himalayas that the 'I-Knower' had yesterday,the 'I-Knower' is no more knowing or
watching, seeing, witnessing the grand Himalayan Mountain but rather watching, knowing,
witnessing, seeing the memory of the experience that the 'I-knower' had yesterday. In simple
language, my experience of what I call the remembrance of the grand Himalayan Mountain
is not and cannot be the same as the actual experience I had yesterday of the grand
Himalayan Mountain. I don't think I need to debate this point too elaborately. No sane
women in her sense would or could possibly say that they are exactly the same experiences.

Now, if these two examples (one of the actual mountain and the other of the memory of
these mountains) are not exactly the same, then we have a problem here. A knower is
de ned by what it knows. There can be no knower who does not know something or the
other. If there is nothing known there can be no knower, because a knower implies

19 7
fi
fi
automatically something known even if that something is an absence ( abhava). If there is
nothing to know, how can there be a knower? A knower of what? We cannot possibly have a
not-knowing knower, a knower who does not, cannot, know/see/watch/witness, can we? So
every knower even the knower of absence ( abhava) is de ned by what it knows. Many
people think an absence (abhaava) is not a thing to be known but that's not accurate. We
can know the absence of an object equally as well as the object itself. Thus the famous
buddhist logician Dharmakirti who changed the face of the logic system (Pramana shastra)
in the Indian subcontinent says absence is also a 'thing' to be known like presence.

ATMAN CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS

If the Knower of the table or anything else is eternally unchanging, it would be eternally
knowing the table as that is what this Knower of the table is. If the so called Knower stops
seeing/knowing/watching/witnessing the table by that very act, it no more is the 'Knower of
the table' and thus has changed. A really existing, eternally unchanging knower by de nition
cannot and should not change, but the real 'Knower' of our experiences obviously changes
moment to moment to moment. In fact, not only that, the very logic of the memory - that
the 'Knower' is unchanging actually itself is a proof that the 'Knower' has changed. The
Knower of the mountain has changed to the Knower of the memory.

We cannot call the Knower of the mountain unchanging, eternal ( sat=really existing). If it
were sat (really existing), it would and could not possibly change. Thus, it would be seeing/
knowing the mountain eternally and when it comes to know/see something else, then it has
changed and thus cannot be called unchanging ( aparinaami), and thus cannot be
called sat (really existing).

Now to boycott this problem, the Vedanta claims that it is the mind that knows the
experiences, etc, and does change, but the Atman is beyond this mind and it does not
change in any way whatsoever. However, this concept to escape the problem pointed out by
the Buddhists brings in more problems than it solves. It actually opens up the Pandora's
Box.

19 8
fi
fi
 First of all, since it is this changing mind/awareness that knows, it would be necessary to
ask - does the Atman also know at all, is it aware, is it cognizant, or is it unconscious like a
lump of mud? This is perhaps the reason why the Nyaiyayikas (the logicians amongst
Hindus) actually claimed that their Atman was actually unconscious. Actually, this is a very
logical conclusion. We have to make it unconscious if we accept that the knowing mind is
changing and, however, there still is an unchanging Atman. Otherwise, there would be a
problem of two Knower-s. One Knower is supposed to be the mind or consciousness or
awareness that knows/sees/hears etc. all the knowable things, and the other knower is the
cognizant knowing Atman.

First of all, nobody ever experiences two Knower-s experiencing either the same thing or
two di erent things at the same time or moment. Simple epistemological experience tells us
that there is only one Knower ,or more accurately in the Buddhist sense,only one knowing
process going on here, unless the person was mentally sick or psychotic and even then it
would only be an illusion of two Knower-s, not actually two Knower-s etc. The epistemic
actuality is that no one can possibly even experience two Knower-s (or two knowing
process) at the same time/moment in terms of experience.

Secondly, even if we were to concede that there are actually two Knower-s -ie- one the
changing mind and the second the unchanging Non-dualistic Atman/Knower - that would
bring about a series of unwanted consequences. For one, what does this unchanging, Non-
dualistic Knower/Awareness/Cognizance know? I've used the world Non-dualistic ( advaita)
as that is the word used by the Vedantic system to describe this Atman.

The Chandogya Upanishad, which is supposed to have been dated anywhere from 800 BC to
1200 BC uses the phrase ' dritiyam Nasti', which means there is no second or other.
This Atman is non-dual. The world Non-dual is used in Buddhism too
through Nagarjunaspeci cally and this has confused many Hindu Panditas and we shall deal
with this later when the time comes.

So going back to the Knower-Atman - what does it know? This question's answer would
have to be unlike the Hindu Nyaiyayikas (logicians). The Vedanta does not agree that
the Atman is unconscious. And rightly too, because that would open up other consequences
from the Pandora's Box. More on this later.

19 9
ff
fi
 LIBERATION THROUGH CONSCIOUS ATMAN ,
UNCONSCIOUS ATMAN OR WITH C HANGING MIND

If the Atman is unconscious then what kind of liberation is this Unconscious liberation?
How can an unconscious state be even considered a form of enlightenment? The Sanskrit
word for gyan implies knowledge. The Tibetan word yeshe is a translation of gyan. Of
course, there are many kinds of gyan but in the context of the Vedanta Gyan it always means
knowing ones true self. We have already seen that Sankaracharya has de ned Atman as sad-
chit-ananda swarup - which is of the nature of really existing ( sad), knowing ( chit).
So Atmancan never be considered as an unconscious state. Also, if liberation could be
achieved by becoming unconscious then all one had to do is hammer ones head to become
liberated and enlightened. But this is absurd and that is why the Vedanta or for that matter
most of Hinduism cannot subscribe to that thesis.

But if the Atman is also a Knower besides the changing Knower-mind, the natural question
is what does it know? If it knows something else di erent from the knowing mind, then
there are two Knower-s who know two di erent things. Now, any sane person can easily see
that no such dual epistemic experience is happening here right now. In fact, there is and can
be only one knowing process going at any one moment. Of course, two Knower-s knowing
two di erent things at the same time would indeed create a lot of problems in our daily life.
Fortunately, for both Vedantins and Non-Vedantins alike, no such things happen.

Now, you could also say that this unchanging Atman Knower knows the knowing of the
changing Knower mind; that it knows that the mind is knowing. However, this attempt to
escape the situation is also awed and just creates more consequences, since the mind is
changing moment to moment in the sense that it knows di erent things moment to
moment, so if the unchanging Atman knows what this changing mind knows, it too would
be changing. Otherwise, the same problem of knowing only one moment of knowing of the
mind forever would be equally applicable here. In short, the same 'logic of
consequence' (prasanga) that we applied to the changing Knower mind to show that it had
to be changing would now be squarely applied to the so called second Knower, the Knower
of the mind. Again, we come with a second changing Knower.

200
ff
fl
ff
ff
ff
fi
Now, let us digress a bit here. Some Hindu laymen who have evidently not studied their
own scriptures well enough may be tempted to say 'so what'? Why can't we call the
Changing-knower my true self ( Atman) and rest the whole issue there? There are two faults
here. One is that it goes against their own scriptures and is thus an uneducated attempt by a
layman to save his Atman. No Hindu scripture agree to that. As we have seen very clearly
the word Atman by de nition is an Unchanging Self/Entity. This is what is meant
by Atman by all forms of Hindu Sutras and Shastras. There is not even one orthodox Hindu
scripture which de nes the Atman as the changing Knower. So you cannot claim yourself to
be a Hindu and buy that logic that why can't we call the changing knower mind the Atman.

In fact to claim that the changing Knower is what I mean by 'I' ( Atman) is a Buddhist thesis
and thus you agree that there is no unchanging 'I'/Self/ Atman. If you agree to that, you have
agreed with the Buddhist thesis and relinquished your old Hindu unchanging Atman view.
We'll continue this in the next article.

UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BET WEEN THE

CONCEPT ATMAN AND ANATMAN

If you agree that it is the Changing Knower mind by which you mean 'I' ( Atman), here you
also agree that there is no unchanging 'I', and thus you have made a somersault and landed
squarely on the grounds of the Buddhist Anatman, which means you have agreed that there
is no unchanging Knower Atman but only a changing process of knowing. If you would like
to call this changing process of knowing as the 'I' that's perfectly ne as long as you
understand it's implication.

First of all, you are agreeing that this 'I' is a process and not an entity/substance/thing.
Secondly, this 'I', being a process/function, is changing. Thus, in actuality, it is more an 'I-
ing' procedd than an 'I entity' as such. Thirdly, this 'I' is a separate changed 'I' every moment
and not the same 'I- Atman' which we all seem to believe exists due to the power of
nescience/ Avidya/Marigpa. There fore, as Buddhism says and implies, and I've mentioned
before, this 'I' is a verb (process/function) rather than a noun (entity). But if you want to
stick to the Hindu thesis, you cannot possibly agree to all of this. But if you do not agree to
all this then you have to answer the questions brought forward by all the consequences of
believing in an Unchanging, eternal, really existing 'I- Atman', which is the Hindu thesis.

2 01
fi
fi
fi
Now, let us go back to the Buddhist thesis of Anatman, which seems to have created a lot of
confusion in Hindu circles from the earliest times. In fact, even the most learned Hindu
Panditas and Siddhas have failed to understand what exactly did the Buddhist mean
by Anatman and why it is so important to understand this to attain the Buddhist
enlightenment, and last but not least, what are all the implications of Anatman.

First of all, it is paramount to make it clear here even though it has already been explained
again and again for the last couple of issues that Atman means an Unchanging, Eternal,
Really existing 'I' or 'Self'. It is in this context that the word Anatman is used in the Buddhist
sense. So in short Anatman means that there is no Unchanging, Eternal, Really Existing Self.
This does not mean that there is no 'I' or 'Self' of any kind at all, but rather that no
Unchangingly same, Eternal, Really Existing Self is to be found anywhere. We have already
said that the word ' sat', which is part of the de nition of Atman ( sat-chit-ananda), means
that which remains unchangingly the same in all the three times (past-present and future),
and this also is the de nition of something that really exists. The Atman or Braman (which
is the macrocosmic Atman) has what is called Paramartha Satta (ultimate existence) and is
therefore Paramartha Sat (Ultimately Really Existing, which means remaining unchangingly
the same in all three times). We have to understand the Buddhist concept of Anatman is this
context.

Now, we have already seen that there can be no 'unchangingly the same' Knower but rather a
process of knowing that is continuously changing. A process of knowing that is continually
changing moment to moment to moment cannot be called the same unchanging entity/
thing and thus this continuum of knowing (mental continuum - chitta Santana) cannot be
called the Atman. Also, from another logical angle an Unchanging Knower cannot function,
for to function means to change. Something that cannot and does not change at all (as the
word sat implies) cannot function in anyway whatsoever.

So again Buddhism does not deny a continuum of knowing/continum of awareness/mental

stream ( chitta Santana), but rejects that this mental stream ( chitta Santana) remains
unchangingly the same ( sat).

202
fi
fi
 BUDDHIST CONCEPT OF C HITTA
SANTANA

Buddhism does not deny that there is an epistemic process going on at all but does not
agree that this epistemic process (knowing process/mental stream) has any real ontological
existence (thing-ness/entity-ness). So the blame put upon the Buddhist by
some VedanticPanditas, like Sankaracharya himself and many of his followers, that the
Buddhist believe in an unconscious state as liberation, like their own Nyaiyayikas, is not
only totally o the mark but also a gross misinterpretation of the Buddhist word Anatman.

Whether it is dual or considered non-dual, an unchanging same Knower is non-functional

and therefore useless so terminologically (in terms of liberation). How can a dual or non-
dual Knower, which cannot function at all liberate us? This is the problem with the non-
dual Atman of the Vedantin.

This brings us to a couple of points like non-dual, eternal etc. used by both the Buddhist and
non-Buddhist like the Vedantins, which has caused a lot of confusion amongst Hindu
Panditas ancient and modern. So let us clarify this topic. But before clarifying this topic, we
need to fully understand the Buddhist of Santana (continuum or stream).

We have already used the word Chitta Santana. Whenever Buddhists use the word Chitta, it
must be remembered that it always means Chitta Santana, which means stream of knowing,
mental stream, or mental continuum. So what is a continuum? When we use the
word Chitta alone, the illusion of language seems to create a false sense or meaning that
there is an entity or thing called a ' Chitta', Mind, Consciousness, Awareness. Or in a more
philosophically technical language, the word chitta, mind, consciousness, awareness,
automatically seems to imply that there is an ontologically entity which is pointed at by
those nouns. But we have seen again and again that there is no such ontologically existing
entity anywhere to be found, but rather only a process. This is one of the reasons why words
have to be very clearly de ned if we are to understand Buddhism. Then the question arises
naturally, in that case, what is there? If we analyze the question 'then what is there?' we can
perceive that the question itself implied by the word 'is there' is begging you to answer by

203
ff
fi
 showing another ontological entity in lieu of the one just refuted. This is the problem with
the structure of language as we have seen before.

But the Buddhist answer to that question is not to point at another entity but to point at a
process - a process of know that is continuous like a stream. Now, these words continuing
like a stream needs to be explained. The word Santana in Sanskrit means continuum, which
is the Latin equivalent of Santaanum. If you pronounce the 'c' as 's' (which is not really
unheard of in English) the Latin word become Santinun, which is indeed very close to the
Sanskrit word Santana. These words mean a stream in English. If we look at a stream, which
is owing continuously, we get a good notion of what a Santana or continuum mean.

When we go to the Bagmati River and point at it and say 'this is the Bagmati River' and then
go next day and point at it and again say 'this is the Bagmati River', or even more
appropriately 'this is indeed the same Bagmati River that I pointed at yesterday', we get a
good idea here of all we have been discussing so far. 'This is the Bagmati River' imply that
there really is an unchangingly same Bagmati River -ie- sator really existing Bagmati River.
Most people do not think twice about this and just assume that what those words and
sentences imply are true, factual, actual or real. But is it?

EXPLAINING THE CONTINUUM

In a candle, the ame of one mini piece of wick and oil/wax droplet is being ignited by the
ame of another mini-piece of wick and mini oil/wax droplet. The only di erence in the case
of two separate candles is that the ame of candle 'A' continues to burn as long as the wick
or wax droplets last, even after it ignites another candle (another mini wick and droplet of
wax). Whereas in a continuous candle, since the wick A and droplet A is nished at the
moment it ignites wick B and droplet B, the ame of wick A and droplet dies out at the very
moment it ignites wick B and droplet B and thus produces ame B, which did not exist
when ame A existed.

When ame B is produced, ame A has gone but ame B comes immediately after ame A
and thus ame C, D and F, G, H until the wick and the wax droplets are nished. Flames A,
B, C, D... are not exactly the same unchanged ames however. One ows into another
unceasingly, and this is what is meant by a continuum. In the electric bulb too, it seems like

204
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fi
fi
ff
fl
the same unchanging light is lighting the room, but if you know science we know that
moment to moment to moment the electrons etc. are owing, changing. Thus, this a ects
the photon light, and again produces a continuum rather than the same unchanging light. A
continuos series of di erent photons create the illusion that a same unchanging photon
(light) is there. Actually, a lot of things we think/feel/see/assume as the same entity
remaining unchanged from the past to the present to the future are in reality
continuums/ santana, that are changing/ owing from moment to moment.

Take for example our body. We all feel/think/assume that this is the same body from cradle
to grave. Yet even a little enquiry exposes this assumption. A one foot 5-6 kg body cannot be
the same one as a looming six footer teenage weighing 80 or 90 kg, and that cannot by any
means be the same body as a doddering old senile man. And yet each and every one of us
seem to have a gut feeling that it is indeed the same body, from the cradle to the co n. The
example I just gave is quite obvious, in that the body is seen to change quite drastically from
the cradle to the co n, although we all still seem to feel it's the same body which by
implication would mean unchanged.

What is not so obvious is that this so called same body is actually changing moment to
moment like a continuum at the atomic/molecular/cellular/tissue level and thus the body is
more like a point in the river of the ow of atoms that we point at and say 'this is the
Bagmati River/this is Ram Lal'. Not only that but actually di erent parts of body like the
kidney, liver, stomach, etc. etc. all have their entire cells changed at various periods, like one
week, one month, one year, etc. So even the kidney that I was born with has completely
become a new set of kidneys (another di erent kidney) many times over by the time I'm
eighty, nay even the next second in some ways.

So what we have again is a continuum of atoms, called tissues rather than an unchanging
same body. However, to all appearance, it does seem to be the same body today which was
there yesterday - not very di erent from the Bagmati River. So this is the meaning of
continuum/ santanam, and Buddhism rmly believes in a mind continuum be it dualistic or
non-dualistic but not in an unchanging conscious entity.

205
ffi
ff
ff
fl
fi
fl
ff
fl
ff
ffi
ff
 CL ARIFIC ATION OF ‘ETERNAL UNC HANGING’ AND
‘ETERNAL CHANGING’ VIEWS

There are many words used both in Hinduism and Buddhism which can create confusion in
this context, like the Atman is eternal ( nitya) but it is an unchangingly eternal ( saswat nitya,
apannaminity), and the mind, consciousness or awareness is also eternal ( nitya) in Buddhism
but it is a changing eternal ( parinami nitya). What changing eternal ( parinami nitya) means is
that the continuum never ends, never ceases, but it is changing moment to moment to
moment. So it is not exactly the same from the past to the present to the future -i.e.- it is
not really existing ( sat).

Now the question may arise well if both the systems believe in an eternal awareness, what
di erence does it make if we consider it an unchanging eternal ( saswat eternal) as a
changing eternal ( parinami nitya)? Isn't a rose a rose by whatever name you may call it? That
is a good question, pertinent here, and we need to go into it in detail for this is not about
quibbling about words only.

To understand Buddhism, it is extremely important to understand why it believes that one

cannot become enlightened in the Buddhist sense unless you have what Buddhism calls the
correct view ( Samyag darshan/drishti). In the eight fold path ( Astangika marga) that the
Buddha laid out, the correct view is the rst of the eight aspects of the correct path. Within
Hinduism, the Sankara Vedanta is the only form of system which says you must have the
correct view. I'm using Buddhist terminology here(correct view) but Sankara is very clear
that you cannot become enlightened in the Vedantic sense without correctly knowing
the Atman according to the Vedanta, and merely mediating will not liberate you. Other
forms of meditations within Hinduism believe that one technique or other technique of
meditation will automatically help you become enlightened. Well this is a complete No! NO!
within all forms of Buddhism.

There are two parts to be made clear here. One is that it is a clear Buddhist point of view
that one cannot gain the Buddhist enlightenment without starting out and imprinting your
meditation with the correct view ( Samyag darshan or Tawa in Tibetan). Buddhism does not
agree that merely meditating using some super-duper secret method will shower down that
Buddhist enlightenment for you. Secondly, and this too needs to be cleared for a lot of non-

206
ff
fi
Buddhist Gurus, that no form of Buddhism agrees that the Vedantic view of the Atman
(which includes automatically the teachings of the Bhagwat Gita, Braman Sutra and
Upanishads) will or can ever give you the Buddhist enlightenment.

There are unfortunately a lot of non-Buddhist Gurus out there in the spiritual bazaar of the
Indian Subcontinent who go about falsely teaching and confusing a lot of genuine spiritual
seekers. They claim that the Bhagwat Gita, which teaches the realization of the Atman as
enlightenment or liberation, or some other Hindu spiritual text, which also claims that the
realization of the Atman (Atman Gyan) is the liberation or enlightenment; that these teach
exactly the same teachings as the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught Anatma as the acme of
enlightenment, liberation or realization. Needless to say such Gurus have not really studied
Buddhism from any authentic lineage Masters or read any authentic Sutras and Sastras of
Buddhism. And perhaps they haven't studied their own scriptures properly with any of the
Panditas too. I again challenge such gurus to prove me wrong by proving their part of the
view that the Bhagwat Gita, etc. etc. teaches what the Buddha taught, by using quotations
from actual Sutras and Sastras of both systems.

IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT VIEW IN MEDITATION

Going back to Buddhism, the correct view is paramount to Buddhism. Buddhism does not
agree to any system which claims that you don't need to get the correct view rst but rather
you can just meditate using any form or technique (or for that matter this or that super
duper secret method) and you will become enlightened, liberated or gain realisation.

There are various reasons why such an idea that one can become enlightened without the
aid of any view but just doing one form or the other meditation is enough. First and
foremost, this means that meditation can produce enlightenment or liberation, etc. Now,
there is a problem with this, and it is a rather big problem that most non-Buddhist Gurus do
not realize when they claim (directly or indirectly) that a correct view is not necessary but
rather their particular brand of meditation will produce enlightenment automatically
(quickly or slowly as the case maybe). What that means is that enlightenment is produced
by the meditation and is thus a created thing ( sanskrita) or a conditioned thing, rather than
an unconditioned state or uncreated state. Now this opens up the Pandora's box.

207
fi
If enlightenment is a product of a certain type of meditation, it can always end as it is
created ( utpada) and all created things end and this is a point all systems of the Indian
subcontinent (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) agrees to as does any formal logic system.
If this enlightenment can end, then it is not the nal liberation from su ering of sansara.
Then such an enlightenment would at the best be only a temporary solution. This mistake I
call the fallacy of the technique is a fallacy many practitioners fall into.

By fallacy of the technique I mean the belief that any technique can give us enlightenment.
That is an absurd idea many Gurus subscribe to without realizing what pitfalls they have
fallen into. It is absurd because that is tantamount to saying that this special technique or
that super duper meditation technique can and will produce enlightenment and that would
automatically make enlightenment a product that can be produced by a special technique. If
enlightenment is a product then like all produced things, it would be impermanent and thus
a source of su ering itself.

The second reason why this concept is absurd and is not subscribed to by any form of
authentic Buddhism is that it should be understood that meditation of any kind, no matter
how super duper secret it may be or may have been, can only be a vehicle. Like all vehicles,
it can take you to a place but a vehicle by itself cannot have any direction on its own. For
example, a car can take you to a place but it cannot take you to that place without someone
or something giving it direction. Just jumping on a car and starting it cannot take you to
either Godavari (South Kathmandu) or Budanilkantha(North Kathmandu). The car can take
you to either of the opposite end but we cannot claim that reaching Godavari is the same as
reaching Budanilkantha. Whether you reach Godavari, which is in the south of the
Kathmandu Valley, or you reach Budanilkantha, which is in the north of the Kathmandu
Valley, depends on which direction the car is taken by the driver. This is where the view
comes in. The view is the direction the meditation goes or is taken to by the driver, which is
the mind in this car. If the driver takes the car to the direction of Godavari, the car will take
you to Godavari, but not to Budanilkantha, which is in the opposite direction. However, if
the driver drives the car in the direction of Budanilkantha, you cannot possibly expect to
arrive at Godavari, can you? In the same way, the view is a compass which gives the
direction the mediation will take you and this is where you will arrive.

208
ff
fi
ff
SAHAJA ATMAN GRAHA OR SPONTANEOUS GRASPING
TO NON-EXISTENCE ATMAN

The view is a compass which gives the direction the meditation will take you and that is
where you will arrive. So if you have the view of an Atman, consciously by studying the
Vedantic literature, or unconsciously as all people will have spontaneously due to Ignorance,
Avidya, then your vehicle (meditation) will take you to the realization of the Atman
(whatever that may mean to you consciously or unconsciously).

If you use your mediation to see through the fact that there is no Atman (Anatman) then
that is where your vehicle will take you. As long as we are under the in uence of Avidya of
ignorance, we will continue to have the view in one form or other that there is an Atman,
Self in one form or the other. So even if you have never studied or understood the Vedantic
Atman, you will automatically have deep down at a subconscious level the concept, belief or
view of an Atman in one form or another.

This is what is meant by Sahaja Atman Graha in Buddhism, which can be loosely translated
as spontaneous clinging or grasping to the concept of an Atman or Self/Soul. The
spontaneous clinging or grasping to the concept of an Atman, which here is more at an
unconsciou level but also includes a conscious concept as in the Vedantic system, are all
aspects of Ignorance, Nescience, Avidya, Agyan according to Buddhism.

Many Non-Buddhists Gurus that claim to teach Buddhism have also not understood this
point of Nescience. So even if you haven't studied the Vedanta, all sentient beings have an
innate concept of a Self, Atman and they grasp or cling to this concept of a Self, Atman
spontaneously or innately due to the very Ignorance, Nescience, Avidya. And that means
even those who think they do not have any view at all as they have neither studied Buddhist
or the Vedanta will automatically have Sahaja Atman Graha. Meditation with that view in
the background as the guiding principle will and can only take you further and further into
the mire of Sahaja Atman Graha, or innate grasping to the concept of a self.

Now what is this Sahaja Atman Graha, which according to Buddhism is the root cause of
Ignorance, Nescience or Avidya? Atman means self. This self includes both the sense of an 'I'
that seems so inherent in all sentient beings, and also what Buddhism would call a learned

209
fl
 Higher Self with the capital 'S'. We call this learned because it is learned through scriptural
sources like the Vedanta, etc. In the Vedantic tradition, this second self is called by various
names like 'I-I' by Raman Maharishi or Atman, Braman in the more orthodox schools.

The Vedantic tradition negates the rst sense of an 'I' and calls it Ahamkara (ego), but
a rms that there is a higher 'I' beyond the ego, and this higher 'I' is sat-chit-ananda, as we
have seen already in detail before. Buddhism says there is no such higher 'I' which is
unchangingly eternal. In fact, this concept of an Atman existing somewhere up there in the
ionosphere is Nescience and conducive to su ering. In the more orthodox lingua franca of
Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism, it is this very concept of an unchanging eternal Atman
over and above the little 'I', ego, Ahamkara that is the cause of the cycle of birth and death
and called Samsara.

ALL ‘I’ THE SOURCE OF EMOTIONAL DEFILEMENT

If you understand Ahamkara as the cause for the cycle of birth and death in Samsara, you
already understand that according to Buddhism any meditation system based on the view of
an Atman and geared towards the realization of the Atman will only fortify Nescience,
Avidya, and why according to Buddhism the only liberation is the liberation from the
Atman.

Now, let me go a little more into detail about this. First of all, all sentient beings have this
innate sense of an 'I' which is called Sahaja Atman in Buddhist terminology. This is so innate
that it continues to persist even in the dream state. It is unconscious and a person does not
have to be learned or educated in the Vedantic system to feel this at gut level. Every living
being experiences this whether s/he has heard of the word Atman or not. The Christian
word Soul could come close to the Hindu Atman, and many Western Mystics and New
Agers do use the word Over Soul or Higher Self. Now, this very sense of an 'I' when applied
to the changing ephemeral psycho-physical system is considered to be the ego, Ahamkara,
and where this very sense of an 'I' is applied to what Buddhism considers an imagined
unchanged Knower, Watcher, Witness, it is called the Atman, Over Soul or Higher Self or
the superconsciousness.

210
ffi
fi
ff
First of all we have seen clearly that there is no such Higher unchanging Knower, Witness,
Watcher, Self and it cannot be found. Secondly, it is the very sense of an 'I' whether
considered lower or higher which is the cause of being in the Samsara and thus su ering.
Why is this cause of the su ering then?

First of all, when there is an 'I' that really exists (sat), which also means which is eternally
the same unchanging entity, then this 'I' needs, wants, desires this or that entity out there.
This is what is called greed (lobha) or desire, want (kamacchanda), or attachment. This is
what is called Klesha, or emotional de lement as often translated in English. The English
word 'emotional de lement', however, does not do full justice to the Sanskrit (or Pali) word
Klesha or Kilesha. The Nepali word Klista which means complex di cult is derived from the
same root as the word Klesha. It means that which creates di culties, pain, su ering or we
could also use the word complex in the way modern psychotherapy uses the words
complexes and neurosis etc.

Greed, attachment, desires in the sense of strong attachment, etc. all cause su ering. They
all disturb the mind and so they are called Klesha. And when there is any sense of an 'I'
accepted as really existing, etc. it is natural for this really existing 'I' (whether this feeling is
conscious, or learned through systems like the Vedanta, or it is an unconsciously assumed
concept as found innately in all sentient beings) to want, desire or be greedy for things out
there. This means that this sense of an 'I' when accepted as real tends to produce the Klesha
called Lobha and Kamacchanda, which is one of the causes of su ering.

Then again I may desire, want or be greedy for this or that thing, but somebody else
(another 'real-I') may also want, desire, or be greedy for exactly the same thing. Then I begin
to dislike that other person (anger, dislike - dvesa, krodha) who seems to me to be trying to
deprive me of what I want. Again, this is another klesha, emotiomal de lement which can
only cause su ering and nothing else but su ering.

2 11
ff
fi
ff
fi
ff
ffi
ff
ffi
fi
ff
ff
ff
 D I F F E R E N T F O R M S O F E N L I G H T E N M E N T P R E VA L E N T I N
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

This 'I' may not like or want a thing (lobha) or dislike a thing (dvesha) or may remain in a
kind of dull, unclear state about things, a kind of stupor, hazy, unclear state and this is called
Moha (stupor or unclear state). Many people mistake this as equanimity (upeckchya) of the
enlightened state. But this is a state of un-clarity or of a dull stupor, where as the state of
enlightened is clarity. Therefore, Moha is close to Avidhya, Nescience but can be easily
mistaken for equanimity, contentment, enlightenment, etc. Many people in this culture
mistake such a state of Moha to be enlightenment. And they consider people who live in a
dull half-awake state lost to the world here and now as enlightened.

Well this is not Buddhist enlightenment. According to Buddhism, such a state is moha or
delusion or stupor, or is a state of Nescience, Avidhya. In fact, commentaries on the Yoga
Vasistha, a well known Hindu text of the Advaita genre, explains that as a person becomes
more and more enlightened he gradually loses contact with the outer world and eventually
cannot even eat or drink unless someone puts food, etc into his mouth. Many call such a
person an Avadhuta.

But, needless to say, such a state where the person is lost in his own inner world and is
oblivious of the here and now is by no means enlightened according to Buddhism. When we
look at a rose we like it and want it for ourselves or hold on to it, this is lobha/ kaama-
cchanda/raga (agreed/desire/attachment), when we see some shit or some person we don't
like we hate it, dislike it want to get rid of it, this is dwesha/krodha (hatred/ anger) and
when we see a simple pencil we neither like it nor dislike it, we remain neutral about it and
this is moha (dullness /stupor/lack of clarity). This moha is not a state free from emotional
de lement (klesha) but just another emotionally de led state but many practitioners
mistake this kind of state as some kind of an enlightened state/ a state of equanimity.

We have covered two di erent modes of enlightenment as found prevalent in the Indian
Subcontinent nowadays. One is what I call the 'Super Awareness Enlightenment' where the
Awareness by itself or the Knower, Watcher, Seer is called the enlightened state; and the
other is this total oblivion of the outer world, being lost in some Awareness, Super
Consciousness, etc. This second state is considered as the state of moha or stupor in
Buddhist culture while the rst is considered as being bogged down in a formless

212
fi
ff
fi
fi
meditation which will create the causes of rebirth in one of the four formless Bramalokas
(Brahma Realms) which for a Bodhisatva is worst than going to hell as kalpas are wasted in
some kind of a blissfully state before rebirth again usually in one of the lower realms
(durgati).

Therefore, it is very clear that no form of Hindu enlightenment, whether written in ancient
texts like the Upanishads or later texts like the Bhagavat Gita or even later texts like the
Yoga Vasistha can be equated with the Buddhist enlightenment, be it Shravak enlightenment
or Bodhisatvayana enlightenment. Those Gurus coming from Hindu background who claim
that what the Buddha taught is exactly what the Bhagavat Gita or some other Hindu text
teaches obviously have not read their own Sutras and Sastras (scriptures) properly, and
probably haven't read the rst sentence of any Buddhist Sutras or Sastras. Otherwise they
would not make such a confused claim.

213
fi
 RECAPPING FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS

We have spend a lot of time distinguishing the view of Hinduism from Buddhism, as the
view is not only of the utmost importance within Buddhism (which cannot be said of all
forms of Hinduism) but also in the Indian subcontinent, where Buddhism vanished for over
eight hundred years, and because of that this kind of idea that Buddhism is a branch of
Hinduism and the Buddha only taught the teaching in the Veda, and he only came to reform
it, etc. etc., has become a household view held by almost every Hindu commoner and
pandit. With such beliefs as the background it becomes paramount that these kinds of
myths be dispelled before we can continue to elucidate what Buddhism is.

This point about the view is of the utmost important to Buddhism as it is intimately related
to the second Noble Truth. We have already dealt with the First Noble Truth (Arya Satya),
which is the fact that there is su ering, tension, anxiety, angst. All these words only give an
aspect of the word Dukha, which is usually translated as su ering but this word does not
really give all the nuances, innuendos and connotations of the word Dukha. As that was
disused a very long time ago, perhaps we should go into it in a concise way again as a kind
of refresher.

We said that the Buddha taught the Dukha Satya (the truth of su ering) as the rst Noble
Truth (Arya Satya). We described that in great details. Then we started on the Second Noble
Truth which is the fact of Samudaya Satya or the truth of the root cause/origination of
su ering. Then we said that Avidhya, Ignorance, Nescience is the cause of this su ering. We
then said Nescience is the rst chain or link of the twelve interdependent chain or Dwadas
Nidan(twelve chains/links) or Dwadas Pratitya Samutpada( The twelve interdependendant
origination).

Then we spend a long time describing what is Avidhay, Nescience according to Buddhism,
until now. We have seen that what is considered Vidya or Knowledge (Gyan) by the Hindu
system -viz- Atman is considered as the root of Nescience, Avidya or Agyan, and is called
Sahaja Atman Graha. To explain this point we went into great details to clarify how the
Atman of all forms of Hinduism is untenable to Buddhism and gave reasons why it is
untenable. I have also invited any Hindu Panditas to refute what I have written so far. But

214
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
only refutation based on actual Hindu Sutras or Sastras are acceptable, not personal ideas
even if they are personal ideas of some former Gurus.

UNDERSTANDING SUFFERING OF SECOND NOBLE

TRUTH WITH PURE BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE

So we have de ned Avidhya as the innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). And
this is the rst cause of su ering in the chain of twelve causations (Dwadas Pratitya
Samutpad). Now, perhaps we should go a little more in details on the twelve chains of
causations and how it is also intimately related to Vipashyana/Vipassana. So we rst need to
enlist the full twelve chains of causations and then explain in a simple way before we go into
its implications. It is of paramount importance that we distinguish the two systems
(Hinduism and Buddhism) and show their di erences before we can really discuss
Buddhism. Otherwise it becomes very easy to read whatever you study about Buddhism
with the coloured goggles of the Hindu system. With that in the background now let us
enter full- edged into pure Buddhist idea, beliefs, practices and views.

So after nishing the rst Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the truth of su ering (Dukya
Satya), we now go into the second Noble Truth, the root or cause of su ering. Actually, we
had already started on the second Noble Truth, and had gone into great details about Avidya
(Nescience), which is the rst condition (pratyaya) of the twelve chains of interdependent
origination. While discussing Avidya (Nescience), we went into great details to distinguish
the two views (the view of Hinduism and the view of Buddhism regarding what is Nescience
(Avidhya/Agyan) and what is Wisdom/Knowledge (Gyana). And we have made it very clear
that the two systems do not coincide regarding the view.

The general Hindu view can be summed as this: Nescience is not knowing that one's true
nature is the Atman (Self), and Wisdom or Knowledge is recognizing one's true Self as
Atman or the Atman as ones true self or True Nature.That is why within the Hindu system
Enlightenment or Knowledge or wisdom is called Atman Gyan which means knowledge of
the Atman or Knowledge of ones True Self. And the Buddhist view as a whole no matter
what form of Buddhism one subscribes to is this: Nescience is believing that one has a True
Self (Atman) and holding on to that (Atman Graha), which means spontaneous or innate

215
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). Technically this is called Sahaja Atman Graha,
which means spontaneous or innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). Knowledge
or Wisdom(gyana) is recognizing or seeing through directly (non-conceptually) that there is
no such Atman anywhere to be found -ie- Anatman Gyan.

All forms of Buddhist practices and meditations are basically geared towards seeing directly
(Vipashyana) that there is no such Self. And all forms of Hindu practices, mediations etc. is
geared towards experiencing the very same Atman (Self). So to say that Hinduism or the
Bhagvat Gita or any of it's scriptures teach exactly the same thing as what the Buddha taught
is only to show how grossly ignorant one is regarding this matter.

With that in the background, we will now go into more detail about the twelve chain of
interdependent origination, one which we had touched upon earlier to explain the Second
Noble Truth, which is the truth of the origination, or cause of su ering (Dukha Samuchaya
Satya).

216
ff
 L AW OF INTERDEPENDENT
ORIGINATION KEY TO
UNDERSTANDING BUDDHISM

So we have de ned Avidhya as the innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). And
this is the rst cause of su ering in the chain of twelve causations (Dwadas Pratitya
Samutpad). Now, perhaps we should go a little more in details on the twelve chains of
causations and how it is also intimately related to Vipashyana/Vipassana. So we rst need to
enlist the full twelve chains of causations and then explain in a simple way before we go into
its implications. It is of paramount importance that we distinguish the two systems
(Hinduism and Buddhism) and show their di erences before we can really discuss
Buddhism. Otherwise it becomes very easy to read whatever you study about Buddhism
with the coloured goggles of the Hindu system. With that in the background now let us
enter full- edged into pure Buddhist idea, beliefs, practices and views.

So after nishing the rst Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the truth of su ering (Dukya
Satya), we now go into the second Noble Truth, the root or cause of su ering. Actually, we
had already started on the second Noble Truth, and had gone into great details about Avidya
(Nescience), which is the rst condition (pratyaya) of the twelve chains of interdependent
origination. While discussing Avidya (Nescience), we went into great details to distinguish
the two views (the view of Hinduism and the view of Buddhism regarding what is Nescience
(Avidhya/Agyan) and what is Wisdom/Knowledge (Gyana). And we have made it very clear
that the two systems do not coincide regarding the view.

The general Hindu view can be summed as this: Nescience is not knowing that one's true
nature is the Atman (Self), and Wisdom or Knowledge is recognizing one's true Self as
Atman or the Atman as ones true self or True Nature.That is why within the Hindu system
Enlightenment or Knowledge or wisdom is called Atman Gyan which means knowledge of
the Atman or Knowledge of ones True Self. And the Buddhist view as a whole no matter
what form of Buddhism one subscribes to is this: Nescience is believing that one has a True
Self (Atman) and holding on to that (Atman Graha), which means spontaneous or innate
grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). Technically this is called Sahaja Atman Graha,
which means spontaneous or innate grasping to the concept of a Self (Atman). Knowledge

217
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
or Wisdom(gyana) is recognizing or seeing through directly (non-conceptually) that there is
no such Atman anywhere to be found -ie- Anatman Gyan.

All forms of Buddhist practices and meditations are basically geared towards seeing directly
(Vipashyana) that there is no such Self. And all forms of Hindu practices, mediations etc. is
geared towards experiencing the very same Atman (Self). So to say that Hinduism or the
Bhagvat Gita or any of it's scriptures teach exactly the same thing as what the Buddha taught
is only to show how grossly ignorant one is regarding this matter.

With that in the background, we will now go into more detail about the twelve chain of
interdependent origination, one which we had touched upon earlier to explain the Second
Noble Truth, which is the truth of the origination, or cause of su ering (Dukha Samuchaya
Satya).

CONDITIONED EXISTENCE

Let us now look at a table. Before we can call anything a 'table' there must be wood or some
metallic material which is made into a table. But nobody calls just chunks of wood or metal
a 'table'. The legs of the table must be present without which there can be no four-legged
table. But again no one calls the our legs of a table a 'table'. There must all the other parts
of a table like the axis, the main top board, etc, all must be present before there can be a
table. However, no one calls all the pieces of wood (even in correct shape of legs, top etc)
lying on a oor a 'table'. Here, we have an interesting phenomenon.

Many people who already have the Sanskara (conditionings) memory of a table could
possible see a table in all the pieces of wood lying on the oor. But rst of all that is not a
table per se and it is only the Sanskara or conditioning which helps create a 'table' in the
minds-eyes of the person. But secondly, if the same pieces of wood (with the correct shapes
of all the parts of a table) were lying in the middle of the Kalahari Desert and a Bushman
came across it, he would certainly not see any kind of a 'table' in them at all because he will
have no such Sanskara memories of a table, which is non-existent in his socio-cultural
context. It is only when all the legs, top part, axis, etc all are put together does a table
appear to come into existence.

218
fl
fl
fl
ff
fi
 Now, we talked of two solid things, a tree and a table, but this is applicable to all Dharmas
(phenomena) as we will see. Let us take the concept of 'here and there'. When you sit you
say: I'm sitting 'here', and it seems to you that there is a 'here' here. Well how does this 'here'
come into existence? First of all, there has to be a place, a ground or oor or space, without
which there can be no 'here'. Then you need to be in that place for you to see, experience a
'here'. However, that same place which you call 'here' is a 'there' for me because the causes
and conditions have changed for me. Even though we may say that it is the same place per
se since because the conditions have changed even though it is a 'here' for you it is not a
'here' for me. For me, it is there. We will go more into this in the next article.

This very same moment when it is 8.36 am in Kathmandu, the very same moment is 10.53
am in Manila and 10.53 pm in Washington DC. But it is in e ect supposed to be this every
same moment, yet it is day time in Kathmandu and night time in Washington. The sun is
present at this moment in time up in the sky in Kathmandu, while the moon is present up
in the sky in Washington at this very moment. It is bright day light in Kathmandu at this
very moment, where as it is dark moon light in Washington at this very moment. So because
the causes and conditions are di erent even though it is supposed to be the very moment,
di erent moments are seen to appear in Kathmandu and Washington at the very same
'moment'. So what we call space and time arises/appears/comes into existence only when
there are its correct causes and conditions.

Now let us take up the concept like father, mother, son, husband and wife. A man is a father
only when he has a daughter or son. If he doesn't have any daughter or son (not even an
adopted one), there is no father per se. And even the father is a father to his children, at that
every instance when his children see him as a father, his wife certainly does not see him as a
father. Why? Because the hetu-pratyaya (causes and conditions) have changed.

Now, let us look at a person called Ram Lal. We all know Ram Lal is here because of his
father and mother. As the classical Buddhist saying goes 'sati idam asmin bhavati' (because
this is here that is there). However, there are a host of other causes and conditions before
Ram Lal can be here (or there if you like as we have seen). The Abdhidarma and the Milinda
panna says, the mother must be in a condition to conceive, the father too must be in a
condition to be able to help in conception. There must also be a Gandharva/gandabbha (a
mental continuum karmically ready to be born) etc, etc, before Ram Lal can be here.

219
ff
ff
ff
fl
However, there are many other causes and conditions that contribute to Ram Lal being here,
without which Ram Lal just would not be here. For instance, if Ram Lal's grandparents on
both sides had not met his parents would not be here and Ram Lal would not be here.
Obviously, if you understand the implication of this, the causes and conditions to Ram Lal
being here extends through time to all eternity. Then there are a host of other conditions for
Ram Lal being here. For instance, doctors and nurses hadn't brought him forth properly,
Ram Lal may not have been here. And of course, there is the mother's womb and its healthy
condition, etc. etc. More on this in next article.

I M P L I C A T I O N S O F P R A T I T YA S A M U T PA D A

So 'when this is here, that is here' (sati idam asmin bhavati). If these causes and conditions
are not here, this will not be here. For instance, if Ram Lal's parents weren't here (means
this did not exist at all) then Ram Lal is not here (meaning Ram Lal does not or cannot
come into existence). So let us make it clear that one of the key tenets of Buddhism is the
concept of Pratitya Samutpada, which means interdependent co-arising. And this means that
all phenomena (Dharmas in Buddhism) co-arise or appear to be produced when their causes
and conditions get together. The word Dharma here means phenomena and means
everything that we know, experience etc. It includes concepts and material and immaterial
things and phenomena. In fact, in simple laymen terminology it means the world and
everything within it that arise through causes and conditions (hetu - pratyaya).

If you really understand this point and all its implications, you understand Buddhism more
clearly. If everything arises from causes and conditions (hetu - pratyay), which is the
meaning of Pratitya Samutpada, and when translated means interdependent co-emergence -
then those causes and conditions themselves are phenomena (dharmas) that themselves
arise from other causes and conditions, which themselves arise from other causes and
conditions before them ad in nitum.

Now that means a few things or automatically implies a few things which need to be
understood. This means there is no beginning, because no matter how far in time we go,
whatever was there arose when causes and conditions before them were present and those

220
fi
arose when causes and conditions before them were there. So this world is beginning-less.
That then automatically implies that there was no start of creation in the beginning. And
that would automatically imply that there can be no Creator or God who created the world.
This is why Buddhism does not believe in a Creator-God. That would automatically also
negate any Revelations by God, the Supreme Almighty, Creator of the World et al. So any
scriptures that claims to be a revelation of God the Supreme Creator is suspected according
to Buddhist logic, Buddhist weltenschauung.

Buddhism does not deny Dieties or Goddesses and Gods, but these Gods and Goddesses are
not the Creator of the Universe. Buddhism also does not deny that these Gods and
Goddesses can reveal their personal teachings, etc. But these Gods and Goddesses are not
and cannot be the One and Only Creator of the Universe. In fact, there is no One Cause/
First Cause or One Creator of the Universe, but rather a continuum of causes and
conditions owing like a river unbroken from beginning-less time and will continue until
endless time. And within the Buddhist weltenscauung the Buddha doesn't replace the
Creator God / The First Principle/ Primordial Cause et al.

INTERDEPENDENT ORIGINATION

We can look at the world of our experience and we cannot nd a thing (dharma/
phenomena) that hasn't arisen interdependently. Light and darkness arise interdependently,
solid and liquid arise interdependently and abstract concepts like beauty and ugliness arise
interdependently. Our very moment to moment mind arises interdependently. Conceptions
arise interdependently, birth arises interdependently, infancy arises interdependently,
childhood arises interdependently, teenage arises interdependently, middle age arises
interdependently, old age arises interdependently, senility arises interdependently, death
arises interdependently and rebirth arises interdependently.

Interdependent co-arising ( pratitya samutpada) has many implications. For instance, in

the Avatansak Sutra,( The Flower Ornament Scripture) the world (sansara: sansara includes
much more than the physical realms of one's ordinary experience like the solar system et. al)
is metaphorically conceived as the net of Indra (Indarjaal), which could also be translated as

2 21
fl
fi
 the web of Indra. What is Indra's net? It is a net which has a perfect diamond at each of its
interstices. Now what is a perfect diamond? To understand this we need to take the aid of
Physics.

When we put two mirrors vis-a-vis they re ect each others and then some more in the sense
they re ect the re ections on each others back and forth a couple of time. However, the
re ection of the re ection of the re ection will automatically stop after a couple of re-
re ections. The repetition of re-re ections stop because the common mirrors we use are
awed and therefore not perfect. Although the perfect awless mirrors has not been created,
mathematically we can say that if we had two perfect mirrors vis-a-vis, the re ection and the
re-re ections of the re ection will go on and on ad in nitum. There will be no end to the
re ection of the re ections of the re ections - so to say.

So, likewise, a perfect diamond would re ect all the diamond in the net of Indra and there
re ection of itself and all the other diamond and so on ad in nitum. Now that means each
piece of diamond is not only linked with all the other diamonds 'through' the strings that
make the net, but also each diamond contains within itself the entire world in the limitless
in nite net of Indra. So what modern Quantum Physics wants to say is that the entire
universe is interdependent, interrelated, interlocked and entangled in a multi-tiered
fashion! Pratitya samputapda -ie- the concept of interdependent origination would include all
of the above concepts of Quantum Physics and the best example of the net of Indra as found
in one of the Mahayana Sutras called the Avatansaka Sutra. The extension of the principle
of pratitya samutpada is not found in the Theravada system; however, it doesn't contradict in
any way the simple concept of pratitya samutpadafound in the Theravada or Sarvastivada
Abhidharma.

The Mahayana Sutras have elucidated all the implication already ensconced within the
Abhidharmic concept of Pratitya Samutpada (interdependent co-origination or
interdependent co-arising). This is the meaning of the statement found in so many
Mahayana Sutras and in Zen Buddhism, which is a form of Mahayana, that one grain of sand
contains the entire universe (Trisahasra Mahasahara Loka Dhatus).

It is also important to understand that this interdependence is both vertical and horizontal.
We can envision an in nite unending series of layers of nets one on top and below each
other extending in nitely above and below vertically horizontally length and width wise,

222
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fi
fl
fl
fl
fi
fl
fl
fi
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fi
fl
fi
fl
while there is another series of in nite vertically held series of network one on each side
extending both side ad in nitum, and both the series of net (i.e. the horizontal series and
the vertical series) are also inter-latched to each other at all levels interdependently. This is
the vision the World, Universe and Cosmos in the Avatansak Sutra expressed through the
word Indra Jal (Indra’s net).

It is interesting that the world Indra Jal as used in Nepali means a magical display, which is
what the Cosmos is even according to the latest ideas of Quantum Physics. This is also close
to the concept the 'holoverse' -i.e. - the universe that is holographic, the concept brought
forth by the famous physicist David Bohm. A hologram is a system where every part of the
thing contains the totality. So if we had a holographic picture in a postcard of the Buddha
then if we divided the postcard into four parts, each of the four parts would contain the full
picture of the Buddha. And if we were to take that one fourth part of the postcard and cut
that one fourth part into four parts, each of the smaller one fourth parts would contain the
full picture of the Buddha and so on ad in nitum. Isn't this picture exactly what the concept
Indra Jal (net of Indra) was trying to portray thousands of years ago in Avantansak Sutra?
Each diamond in the interstices of the Net of Indra would re ect the entire net ad in nitum.
Or the entire Chiliocosm (Trisahasra Mahasahara Loka dhatu) would be inside (re ected
within) each of those diamonds.

So this is the concept of interdependent origination, which can also be translated as

interdependent co-origination, interdependent co-arising, etc, in Sanskrit known as Pratitya
Samutpada and Paticcha Samuppada in Pali. With this in the background, now let us go into
Dwadas Nidana or Dwadas Pratitya Samutpada (the twelve roots or links of interdependent
co-origination).

223
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
fi
DWADAS NIDAN

The twelve links or Dwadas Nidan are this:

1. when there is Avidya there is Sanskara (conditioning) conditioned by Avidhya;

2. when there is Sanskara (conditioning/volitional pulses) there is Vigyan (dualistic

consciousness) conditioned by Sanskara (conditioning/volitional pulses);

3. when there is Vigyan (dualistic consciousness) there is Nama-Rupa (mind-body)

conditioned by Vigyan (conditioning/volitional pulses);

4. when there is Nama-Rupa (mind-body) there is Sadayatana (the six senses)

conditioned by Nama-Rupa (mind-body);

5. when there is Sadayatana (the six senses) there is Sparsha (contact) conditioned by
Sadayatana (the six senses);

6. when there is Sparsha (contact) there is Vedana (feeling) conditioned by Sparsha;

7. when there is Vedana (feeling) there is Trishna (thrust/craving) conditioned by

Vedana;

8. when there is Trishna (thrust/craving) there is Upadana (gasping/clinging) conditioned

by Trishna (thrust/craving);

9. when there is Upadana (grasping/clinging) there is Bhava (becoming) condition by

Updana (grasping/clinging);

10. when this is Bhava (becoming) there is Jati (birth) conditioned by Bhava (becoming);

11. when there is Jati (birth) there is Jara Marana (old age and death), Soka (sorrow),
Parideva (lamentation), Dukha (pain), daurmanassyopayassa (grief and despair) -
these are the twelve factor.

In principle, 'Sati Idam Asmin Bhavati (when there is this that is , that is with the arising of
this that arises). The contrary is also equally true - when this is not, neither is that, with the
cessation of this, that ceases. This is the whole process.

224
This Pratitya Samputpada (interdependent co-origination) is extremely important to
understand the enlightenment of the Buddha. This is the one major issue that is missing in
all other forms of what other systems call 'enlightenment'. No non-Buddhist teachers have
ever mentioned Pratitya Samutpada as an integral part of their enlightenment experience.
And this is a major aspect of the Buddhist enlightenment. As PA Pautto, famous Thai
scholar says, 'the Principle of Dependant Origination' is one of Buddhism's most important
and unique teachings. In numerous passages of the Pali Tripitaka (canon), it was described
by the Buddha as a natural law, a fundamental truth which exists independently of the
arising of the Buddhas.'

"Whether a Tathagata (another name for a Buddha) appears or not, this condition exits and
is a natural fact, a natural law, that is, this principle of conditionality". Conditionality here
means all things arise because of causes and conditions or in relation to some other
phenomena.Thus it is sometimes called the principle of relativity( saapekshyataa). The
Tathagata enlightened to and awakened to that principle, teaches it, shows it, formulates,
declares it, reveals it, makes it known, clari es it and points it out "see here conditioned by
Avidya (nescience) are Sanskara, conditioned by Sanskara (volitional impulses or
conditioning) are Vigyana (consciousness) -- all the remaining twelve linlks as speci ed
above.

IMPORTANCE OF THE TEAC HINGS OF

P R A T I T YA S A M U T PA D A

It is made very clear that this (Pratityasamutpada) is what a Buddha awakens to. It means
his enlightenment (Bodhi) consists of mainly awakening to the fact of interdependent
origination. All the stories of the Buddha, be it in Theravada or Mahayana, make it very clear
that on the morning of Vaisakh Purnima (full moon), when he saw the morning
star(Venus), this principle of interdependent origination awakened upon him. He saw the
principle directly. That is why it is said a Tathagata who awakens to it is enlightened to it.

It is this principle that only a Tathagata reveals. No one else can even reveal it - no Rishi or
erstwhile enlightened Gurus, who do not practice according to what the Buddha revealed
can possible reveal it.

225
fi
fi
That is why it is the Tathagat who rst teaches it. The Buddha also said "This suchness
(yathabhutata), Bhikchus, this invincibility, this irreversibility, that is to say this Law of
Conditionality (relativity), I call the principle of interdependent co-arising." The Buddha
gave great importance to the principle of Pratityasamutpada (interdependent co-
origination). This importance can be seen by his statement in the Majjhima Nikaya -
"Whoever sees interdependent origination (Pratityasamutpada) sees the Dharma. Whoever
sees the Dharma sees the interdependent co-origination (Pratityasamputpda).

When an Arya (a Noble disciple, which also means an enlightened disciple) sees fully the
arising and cessation (udaya, vyaya) of the world (through Pratityasamutpada), as it is
(yathabhuta), he is said to be endowed with the prefect view, with prefect vision, and to
have attained the true Dharma, one who is at the door of deathlessness (amritata). And
again whichever recluse (Sraman) or Bramin knows these conditions, knows the cause of
these conditions, knows the cessation of these conditions, and knows the way leading to the
cessation of these conditions, that Sraman or Bramin is worthy of the name Sraman
amongst Sramans, or Brahim amongst Bramins, and of him it can be said, "He has attained
the goal of the Sraman's life and the goal of the Bramin's life due to his own higher wisdom."

The Buddha has also said that these teachings are extremely profound and hard to
understand. When after the Buddha had explained it, Ananda had said, "How amazing!
Never before has it occurred to me, Lord, this principle of interdependent co-origination,
although so profound and hard to see, yet appears to me to be so simple."

The Buddha replied, "Do not say so Ananda, do not say so! This principle of interdependent
co-origination (Pratityasamutpada) is a profound teaching, hard to see. It is through not
knowing, not understanding and not thoroughly realizing this teaching that beings are
confused like a tangled thread, thrown together like bundles of thread, caught in a net and
cannot escape the wheel of samsara."

It is even said that after his enlightenment, the Buddha even despaired that many could not
understand this profound principle of Pratityasamutpada.

226
fi
 UNDERSTANDIN G DWADAS NIDAN WITH
P R A T I T YA S A M U T PA D A

Now going back to Pratityasamutpada, there are two categories of Pratityasamutpada. The
rst category is what we have described in details so far, that is the fact that all Dharmas are
Pratityasamputpanna, meaning all phenomena arise from causes and conditions. Nagarjuna
explained this succinctly by the phrase's ati idam asmin bhavati'. This means when this is (or
arise) that arises. In the Pali Suttas it is explained as ' imasmin sati, idam hoti, imassupada idam
upujjhati' - which also means the opposite - if this is not there, that will not be there; or in
the Pali words: ' imasmim asati, idam no hoti, imassa nirodha idam nirujhati'. In very simple
language, it means if there is no seed there is no tree. If the seed is destroyed the tree does
not arise.

As we have seen before that this Pratityasamutpada means arising, originating, coming into
existence when certain causes and conditions (hetu-pratitya) are present. A more accurate
view of Mahayana would be appearing to arise, originate, come into existence or just
appears when certain causes and conditions are present. For instance, a table appears when
all its four legs, axis, top platform etc, are present in the right format. And in the same way,
a table ceases to appear when its causes and conditions cease to appear. Needless to say, as
we have elaborated before, those causes and conditions also appear or cease to appear
depending upon their causes and conditions appearing or ceasing to appear ad in nitum.

Now this principle is applied to the twelve links of interdependent origination in relation to
sentient beings and their journey in samsara. Whereas Pratityasamutpada principle is
applicable to all phenomena (dharma), the twelve links of interdependent co-origination is
using that principle of Pratityasamutpada (interdependent co-origination) to real life to
birth to death and rebirth to bondage of the mind and freedom of the mind. It is this
principle that de nes not only the cause of su ering as per Buddhism but also presents the
way out of that su ering. This is the de ning mark of Buddhism that distinguishes
Buddhism from all other systems. All other systems also speak directly in some cases or
indirectly in most cases of su ering and the way out of that su ering. But as we have seen
before what they consider root cause of su ering is totally di erent from what Buddhism
calls the root cause of su ering, therefore automatically what they prescribe as the method

227
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
 or way or path out of the su ering will naturally be very di erent from what Buddhism
prescribes.

UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BET WEEN FOUR NOBLE

TRUTH AND DWADAS NIDAN

The twelve links of interdependent origination is intimately linked with two of the four
Noble Truths (Chatwan Arya Satjani). We went into great details about the rst Noble
Truth, which is the Noble Truth (1) of su ering (Dukha Arya Satya), then the second Noble
Truth is (2) Dukha Samudaya, the root cause of su ering. We mentioned in short that
Trishna, Tanha (Pali), or carving is considered within Buddhism as the root cause of
su ering (Dukha).

The twelve chain or link of Pratityasamutpada (the Dwadas Nidan) explains in detail and in
a systematic logical way on how the whole chain of su ering arises. We will go into it in
detail shortly using the twelve chain of interdependent co-origination to understand the
what and how of su ering that the Buddhism unravels. This is a point no non-linage Master,
even those self-claimed Buddhas, etc, have even been able to touch upon to date, let alone
elaborate on it, what to say about their understanding what this twelve links of
interdependent co-origination has to do with the Buddha’s enlightenment. And once the
twelve chain (Dwadas Nidan) of interdependent co-origination is understood, one can also
understand its cessation, which is the third Noble Truth, Dukha Nirodha Satya or the Noble
Truth of the cessation of Dukha, su ering, or the fact that su ering can cease.

And this itself leads to the fourth Noble Truth, which is the Truth of how this su ering can
cease, the Path, called Marga Satya. This means the Noble Truth of the Path or Way. Any
Way or Path that claims to be Buddhist most rst and foremost be related to the twelve
chains of interdependent origination.

There are many fantastic paths in the world of men and Gods but if the Path has no
relations to the cessation of su ering as per the principle of the twelve links of
interdependent co-origination, then it is not the Path of the Buddha and will not help in

228
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
attaining the Buddha’s enlightenment, irrespective of whether in the Path a lot of bliss or
thoughtlessness states or awareness can be experienced.

These are very subtle parts which so called Non-Buddhist Gurus who claim to teach the
Buddhist Path etc, have no idea about and tend to miss it completely. Now, before we go
into the details of Dwadas Nidan (the twelve chain) we need to also understand another
basic point. That what we explained here is what is called the external Dwadas Nidan (the
twelve chain). We will explain about internal Dwadas Nidan in the next article.

229
 CREATION IN BUDDHISM

Only when a person penetrates into the enlightened state, which is called Darshan Marg
(the Path of Seeing) in the Mahayana system and some Sravaka systems, and called
Srotapanna (entering the stream that leads to full enlightenment) in many Sravaka system
like the Theravadins, the Sarvastivadins, etc., that the real meaning of the twelve links of
interdependent co-origination called the inner twelve links of interdependent is seen
through; or according to the Theravadin and other Sravaka tradition the real meaning of the
Four Noble Truth (Chatwan Arya Satyam) is really understood. Since the four Arya Satya are
based on the twelve links (Dwadas Nidan), in reality the two systems are talking the same
thing - they are two sides of the same coin.

With that in the background, let us go into the Dwadas Nidan (the twelve chains of
interdependent co-origination). The Dwadas Nidan (the twelve chains of interdependent co-
origination) has been traditionally described in two main ways, which can be broadly
described:

1. As a demonstration of (a) life and (b) as the description of the world evolution.

2. As a demonstration of (a) the process of life-death-rebirth in a very long cyclic time and
(b) as a description of each moment of life or each Chitta-Kshyan (mind moment).

This point number two (b) is a demonstration of the arising and cessation of su ering
within that individual life and also the demonstration of the arising and ceasing of su ering
within that individual life. Description number one is a broader view and gives an idea of
the broader Weltenschauung of Buddhism. It explains the Buddhist view of the 'so called
creation' from the point of view of the twelve links of interdependent co-origination.

I have used the word 'so called creation' in quotes because from the point of view of
Buddhism there is/was no the First Cause or Primordial Causes or Creator or God who
created the universe (Samsara) in the beginning. First of all there can be no beginning. And
if there is no beginning (Aadikaala), there is no Beginner, or Creator who created the world
in the beginning. A beginning is a childish notion based on an immature mind of those who
cannot conceive of eternity, in nity and beginning-lessness (Anaadi). But even a little

230
fi
ff
ff
 cogitations of or questioning the notion of a beginning breaks down any idea of a beginning
time (Aadikaala) as rather childish.

Let us explain this point as it is crucial to understand this to understand the Buddhist view
as a whole. A day can begin and end, but there can be no beginning of all days. No matter
how far back you go as long as the sun and moon continues, there will be days. However,
the beginning of a day is not the beginning of time, for a day or an hour or a minute or a
second are only conventional units of time and so are aeons (kalpa).

CREATION VERSUS COMING INTO BEING

No matter how many billion trillion zillion years ago we go there will ways be time before
that. That there was no time beyond a certain inconceivable time in the past is itself
mathematically an impossibility and therefore inconceivable. Suns come and go, galaxies can
come and go, even the Big Bangs can come and go but there will always be the second,
minute, hour, day, week, year, aeons before the Big Bang. This Big Bang is not the beginning
of creation but can only be the beginning of some galaxy etc that will come and go.

So the Big Bang (the latest in scienti c theory) began with the help of causes and
conditions, which were present before that. These causes and conditions for the Big Bang
were in turn caused by other causes and conditions before that and so on ad in nitum. Since
the Big Bang can be only one in a beginning-less series of Big Bangs, and therefore a
Creator-God is super uous in such a world system (Samsara). Actually we had already
touched upon this concept a long time back, but here we are repeating it as an immediate
back drop to the twelve links of interdependent co-origination.

So what is the Buddhist answer to how did this universe begin? First and foremost, it did
not begin at anytime in the distant past, as there can be no beginning to it at all and
secondly the question itself is wrong, because it is not really di erent from the question that
a child asks her parents when did everything begin, or how did all this happen. An over
simpli ed solution to satisfy the child is that, 'All this was created by God'. It can satisfy a
child whose mind cannot possibly grasp the concept of time and its beginning-less-ness and
to whose simple mind everything seems to be made by someone. A potter makes a pot. Who

2 31
fi
fl
fi
ff
fi
made the pot? The potter. Who made the table? The carpenter. Who created the world? The
'Worlder' or Creator.

How can such an over simplistic answer satisfy a thinking mature mind unless the mind has
been shut down to all queries by simply accepting answers as the Truth since childhood?
That is why Nagarjuna says that the concept of God is the result of a childish mind
(Balabuddhi). Just this point alone puts Buddhism aside from all other religious systems
except Jainism, which too does not posit a God as the Creator of the universe too.

232
 KARMA IN DIFFERENT SYSTEMS

According to the Abhidharma or Abhidhamma in Pali, the physical cosmos that science
studies (so far) is not the whole of the cosmos. This world of human and all its galaxies etc,
physically seen so far is only one plane of existence, but it certainly is not the one and only
plane of existence. There are many realms of existence. All other religious systems too
believe in other realms of existence besides this physical realm available to the human
experience directly or through extensions of re ned machines. This is the meaning of
heavens and hells and other realms. It is important to understand that Karma and continuity
of the mind in the various realms of existence is very important aspect of the Buddhist
tenets.

Although Karma and rebirth in other realms of existence are also very important tenets of
Hinduism as a whole, the exact de nition of Karma and all its implication and the way 're'-
birth happens is quite di erent in the two systems. By the way, Jainism also believes in
Karma and rebirth. Even though the words are the same, they do not mean or imply exactly
the same in the three systems.

In fact, even when both Mahavir, the pro-pounder of Jainism, was alive there was an
incident that made it very clear that Karma as meant by Mahavir and Jainism, and Karma as
meant by the Buddha and Buddhism was quite di erent. In the story, Mahavir, who was
older than the Buddha, send one of his closest disciples to debate with the Buddha himself
on what is Karma. Mahavir's contention was that the physical action called 'kaya danda' was
the main aspect of the Karma and it was more powerful. What this means is that the real
meaning of Karma, ie, what we do physically is more powerful. It was the Buddha's
contention that the mental action (mental Karma) is not only far more powerful than mere
physical action but also was the forerunner and a necessary beginner for all physical Karmas.

Thus Karma means basically rst and foremost 'chetana', or mental intention or mental
Karma. So Mahavir's closest disciple met the Buddha in a huge forest while the Buddha was
coming back from his alms begging. They sat together and the subject was broached. To cut
the long conservation short, the Buddha asked Mahavir's disciple - do you know that where
we are sitting right now was once a huge city in ancient time? Mahavir's disciple replied yes.

233
ff
fi
fi
fi
ff
Then the Buddha asked - do you know that the whole city was destroyed by the curse of an
ancient Rishi? And Mahavira's disciple replied yes.

We are continuing from last week's story on the discussion between the Buddha and
Mahavir's disciple.

The Buddha asked the disciple of Mahavir - now tell me could a man using his physical body
destroy this city to dust in a matter of minutes so that it becomes a huge forest ?

The disciple replied, "No, thatss not possible."

The Buddha asked again, "So then which is more powerful, the mental Karma or physical
Karma?"

It is said that Mahavir's disciple became the Buddha's disciple there and then but the
Buddha accepted him as his disciple only under the condition that he continue to support
Mahavir in any way he had been doing nancially .

Likewise, what is meant by Karma in Hinduism is not exactly the same as Karma in
Buddhism. Since Hinduism believes in a Creator (God) or Ishwar, and Ishwar would not be
a Creator-God if he did not create the World and everything in it, including all beings in all
the planes of existence, the concept of Karma in Hinduism would have to be highly modi ed
by the Ishwar concept. If God creates everything and is the cause of everything that happens
or exists, Karma as a system would have to be redundant and highly compromised, to say
the least. Thus even though the same words are used in all the three Indo-Aryan Dharmas
their meanings are very di erent.

The Semitic religious systems (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) do not seem to have any
concept like Karma in their systems. Although even in these systems it is said good deeds
are rewarded by good things, and bad deeds punished. It is not Karma that does it but very
clearly understood that God does the rewarding or punishment.

In Buddhism, Karma is the cause and Karma is the result. Both are called Karma because
both are actions, etc. This di erence in the meaning of the same word Karma within
Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism shows very clearly how three systems di er from each
other even when often the same words are used. Thus rebirth (punarjanma), Karma

234
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
Mukti(liberation), Gyan (enlightenment), etc, are all used in all the three systems. This has
caused a lot of confusion in those who think the meaning of these words must be the same
as they are the same words. And these confused personalities include many supposedly
enlightened or well studied Hindu scholars and pundits. But in reality only the words are
the same and the actual meaning of the words are di erent, sometimes drastically opposing
in the three systems (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism).

SHARED CULTURE OF THREE SANTANA DHARMAS

DISTORTING INTERPRETATIONS OF KEY CONCEPTS

We saw the di erent meanings of the word Karma in the three Arya Dharmas (also called
Sanatana Dharmas) in the previous article. All the three Dharmas call themselves Sanatana
or Arya Dharma not because they are talking about the same thing in three di erent ways
but because they share the same culture - the culture of Bharat Varsha (Greater India) which
used to extended from Afghanistan to Burma and from the Himalayas to Kanya Kumari
(Cape Comorin). Because the same literature and mythological stories and cultural elements
are shared, they tend to use the same words.

For example, Sanskrit and Sanskritic languages are shared by this bigger culture, all three
systems share a common heritage and mythos and history. Some Hindu Pandits like to call
this common heritage and history the Hindu Culture. But it is not historically correct to call
it solely a Hindu culture. These cultural elements existed in the Indian subcontinent even
before Buddhism and Jainism and Vedic Bramanism and later forms of Vedic- Bramanism
which came to be called Hinduism later on.

Even in the time of Alexander we nd di erent rites and rituals and festivals and living
styles amongst the various Janapadas (rudimentary form of Republics) which are mentioned
even by the Buddha about two or three centuries earlier. We nd Chanakya trying to unite
all the various Janapadas against Alexander under the banner of the unity of the culture or
of the sameness of the culture (Sanskriti). Chanakya did not mean only Vedic Bramanism!

It is because they shared a common history and culture we nd that often the same words
were used in their philosophies and Dharma terminologies. We took the concept of Karma.

235
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
 Now let us take the concept of punarjanma (re-incarnation or rebirth). In the Hindu system,
there is an entity which is the same person which is reborn again and again until liberation
(mukti) is attained.

As we said a long time back, the Hindu system as a whole is not so homogenous as it
appears to be at the outset. Therefore, what I've just said is a rather loose description of
rebirth within the Hindu system. Many laymen believe that the Atman takes birth again and
again as is often implied when such people ask the Buddhists- if there is no Atman what is it
that takes birth again and again. However, not all systems of Hinduism agree to the notion
that the Atman takes birth again and again. There is a fallacy implied in this concept of an
Atman being reborn again and again. If the Atman is Sat (really existing) them by de nition
the Atman cannot change. More on this in the next article.

P U N A R A B H AVA O R P U N A R A JA N M A C O N T I N U E D

Punarbhava means becoming again or new becoming. The new becoming as opposed to
being born is crucial inunderstanding the weltenschaaung of Buddhism as a whole. There is
no Being as such but only a process of becoming; we are not a NOUN an entity, a being but
rather a verb, a ow, a process of becoming. If you understand this then you can also clearly
understand that there is no entity, being or person or personality that is reborn again and
again.

No One or NO Thing is reborn again. It is more like a continuum of a river or a burning

ame. The ame continues on and on into the next moment and again into the next
moment, but it is not the same ame or ames, etc., that continues on into the next
moment. Although it does appear exactly like the same ame is burning moment to
moment. In fact this is an illusion.

In reality every millisecond or so a new ame comes into existence while the old ame goes
out of existence. We have already explained this point of the ame and the continuum a
long time ago. We just brought it up here in the context of Punarbhava, or becoming again
or re-becoming. As we have already said a long time ago, Buddhism believes that the Chitta

236
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fi
 Sanatana (mind continuum) continues from this life to the next but since this Chitta
Sanatana (mind continuum) is changing every moment (Kschana), the possibility of the
same entity continuing even to the next moment, let alone the next life is out of the
Buddhist question.

Every moment the Chitta Sanatana (mind continuum) is re-becoming again and again
(Punarbhava). Just as the causes and conditions (hetu pratyay) of the new ame will come
into being out of the ashes of the older ames, so to say, in the same way, as long as the
causes and conditions of the Chitta Sanatana (mental stream) continues the Chitta Sanatana
will continue to continue. But we must understand that the 'Chitta Santana' (mental
continuum) is not an entity or thing that will continue but rather a process (a verb) that
continues. So it is this Chitta Santana (mental continuum) which continues into new form
of existence depending upon the Karma- Sanskara, which we call re-birth or reincarnation,
being born again when in reality there is No One Entity being born again. So the word
Punarajanma (reborn) is inaccurate when applying it to Buddhism.

P U N A R A B H AVA T O AV I D H YA - T H E D I F F E R E N C E
BET WEEN T WO SYSTEMS

In the same way like Punarabhava, Avidhya means a di erent thing within Buddhism and
Hinduism. Sanakaracharya has clearly de ned Avidhya (ignorance or nescience) as not
knowing or recognizing that one's true self is the eternally unchanging Atma (self). Or
simply put, not knowing or recognizing the Atman. So Agyan (another word for Avidhyaor
nescience) in he Sankara Vedantic system is not recognizing that one is the Atman, and
instead identifying oneself with the body or mind or in a more technical language the
Pancha Kosha (the ve sheaths) as Atman, or ones true self which is what one truly is.

Although we have already gone in great details about the Atman, for the sake of new comers
who are reading this article for the rst time, let us talk little bit about this. Sankaracharya
de nes the Atman's nature as Sat-Chit-Ananda. The word has become very famous amongst
Hindus, almost a household word, but the vast majority of those laymen who use this
phrase or word (Sat-Chit-Ananda), do not actually know properly how Sankara himself has
de ned it. As we had actually quoted the actual Sanskrit verses used by Sankaracharya

237
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
ff
fl
himself for explanation, we will not repeat them here again but a short explanation is
required.

Sat is a Sanskrit word which is means really existing, as opposed to Maya (illusion). In the
Indian Subcontinent, all the systems that grew within it have all accepted the fact that what
really exists must not and cannot and should not change. Now this needs to be clari ed as
those not well versed in the logical systems (Pramana Sastra or Naya Sastra) of the Indian
Subcontinent and educated in the Western education system, are bound to ask - why should
something that really exist be unchanging? To an untrained bystander it is a valid question,
even though such a question is a contradiction in itself. This brings us to the question of
change and a changing thing. And the word changing thing brings us back to the word
continuum, which we discussed at great length already. But let us revisit it in this context.

A changing thing or entity is a contradiction if by the word thing/entity we mean an

unchanging same entity/thing. If by 'thing/entity' we mean an unchanging entity/thing, then
when we are saying a changing entity/thing that remains the same and does not change.
This is a preposterous statement to say the least. How can we call a changing entity
unchanging? More on this in the next article.

Then there are those who give commentaries on Buddhism without having ever received any
teachings on Buddhism from any authentic Masters of unbroken lineages. Needless to say,
all of these types of Masters interpret Buddhist concepts and ideas as if Buddhism was a
form of Hinduism. Most of their knowledge of Buddhism are based on English translations
of Buddhist texts etc., and they have never ever read the Pali or Sanskrit or Chinese or
Tibetan texts directly or listened to the explanation of Masters.

Amongst these types of are those who claim that the Bhagavat Gita and Buddhism teach the
same thing. Again, needless to say they fail to quote the Bhagavat Gita or any authentic
Buddhist Sutras or Sastras to prove their point - as there are no such proofs. Many of them
are completely unaware of any Buddhist Sutras or Suttas and know only what their Master
taught about Buddhism - a Master again falls into this same category.

I would to challenge all such types of Masters or their disciples who claim that:

1. Buddhism teaches the same thing as Hinduism only in a di erent way

238
ff
fi
 2. Who give Hindu explanations of Buddhist texts

3. Who say that Buddhism believes in an empty vacant unconscious state devoid of any
awareness

4. Who teach No-Mind (Achitta) of Buddhism as just a non-conceptual awareness without

any thoughts

5. Who teach that the Vedantic 'Brahman-Atman' is the same as the Buddhist Anatma (Non
Self)

I would like to challenge all such Hindu (or otherwise) Masters to prove their point using
authentic Buddhist or Hindu scriptural quotes or commentaries by authentic Masters of
both Hindu and Buddhist systems; they of course must show how Buddhism and Hinduism
are teaching exactly about the same thing.

Now let us continue with Avidya. We have seen that Avidya means not cognizing ones
Atman, which is of the nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda as ones true Self, according to the Sankara
Vedantic system. As Hinduism is a pot pouri of many heterogeneous ideas not all Hindu
systems agree to this Sankara Vedantic de nition of Avidya/Nescience. Some would say
Avidya is not realizing God more than not realizing Atman-Brahman. And there are some
who try to integrate the two disparate ideas into one saying self-realization is God
realization etc. etc. Needless to say, Avidya within the Buddhist systems of any
denomination has nothing to do with Atman Gyan, self-realization or Braman Gyan
(realization of the Macrocosmic Self), or God-realization of any kind.

AV I DYA - N E S C I E N C E O F B U D D H I S M

In the Abdhidharma Sammuccaya, Asanga, the famous scholar-siddha of Gandhara (present

day Afghanistan) de nes Avidya as:

What is Avidya (nescience)? It is the absence of knowledge (Agyan) with regards to the
three realms of existence (Traidhatuka). Its function is to give a basis to the appearance of
de lement (Klesha), mistaken decisions and doubts concerning the dharma (Buddhism).

239
fi
fi
fi
 So here in the Abhidharma Samuccaya, Asanga (a Bramin of ancient Gandhara, and the
brother of Vasubhandhu, the famous writer of Abhidharma Kosha), says that Avidya is the
absence of knowledge (Agyan) as regards to the three realms of existence. This needs a little
bit of explanation. What is the meaning of absence of knowledge related to the three realms
of existence?

Tridhatu (similar to the Hindu Tri Bhuvan but not exactly the same) means the three realms
of existence. Now, what are the three realms of existence? They are called the Kama Dhatu
(the desire realm), the Rupa Dhatu (the realm of subtle form) and the Arupa Dhatu (the
formless realm).

The rst Kama Dhatu is called the Desire realm because the Kleshas play a major role in
these realms. The realms with Kama Dhatu include the human realm, the hell and the
heaven. There are many levels of Deva Lokas (heavens) which belong to the realm of desire.
The Gods and Goddesses (Devas) of these realms are not free from Kleshas, although they
enjoy more pleasure than in the human realms or realms below them. The realms above the
Deva Lokhas (heavenly realms) of the Kama Dhatu are the heavenly realms of Rupa Dhatu.
The Rupa Dhatu (realm of subtle form/form realm) is also called the Bramah Lokas, because
the Bramahs stay here. But there are many levels of Bramahs and their realms. And then
there is the Arupa Dhatu (formless realm), also called Arupa Bramah Lokas. When we use
the word Tridhatu (the three realms of existence), it also includes all beings in there.

Now, what do we mean by the absence of knowledge (Agyan) about the Tridhatu (the three
realms of existence)? It means not knowing their mode of existence, the way they exist. Not
knowing that these three realms are Dukha (su ering), not knowing how these three realms
are su ering, not know why these three realms are su ering, not know the way(Marga/
Path) out of these three realms of su ering, not knowing the Four Noble truths is Avidya or
Nescience.

Here, knowing does not mean a conceptual knowing of the Four Noble Truth but to see
through Vipashayana/Vipassana the facts of these Four Noble Truth. So Avidhya is not
knowing what the Tridhatu/the three realms of existence is or in another way not knowing
the four Noble Truth.

240
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
K L E S H A D I R E C T P R O D U C T O F AV I DYA

The Theravada Abhidhamma de nes Avidya/Nescience exactly as not knowing the Four
Noble Truths. The Tridhatu (the three realms of existence) can be called the 'world' in
layman language. This world includes the Sadhakas (practitioners). The Tridhatu is included
in the Pancha Skandha (the ve aggregates), which compose what we can call the individual
(Pudgala in classical terminology). The Pudgala is a label given to the collection of the ve
aggregates (Pancha Skanda) and is not an entity as the English word individual would imply.
A Pudgala/individual is only imputed upon the ve aggregates (Pancha Skandha). The word
used for imputation in the Theravada Abhidhamma is 'Pragyapti'. A clear and correct
Vipashyana/Vipassana shows very clearly that these are not and cannot belong to a Pudgala
entity per se, but only the streams/continuua of the ve aggregates.

Now, let us see what is meant by Asanga when he de ned Avidhya as the absence of
knowledge (Agyan) as regards to the three realms of existence (Tridhatu). Asanga says, 'and
its function is to give the basis to the appearance of de lement.' We just in a rather skimpy
way explained what the Tridhatu means but what does Asanga mean when he says Avidya is
the 'Absence of Knowledge (Agyan)', as regards to the Tridhatu?

First of all, it means not knowing (absence of knowledge) that the entire Tridhatu (the three
realms of existence) is impermanent (anitya), su ering (dukha), non-self (anatma) and
empty (sunya). It is because we do not have knowledge of this mode of existence of the
Tridhatu (the three realms of existence) that it becomes Avidya, and that this Tridhatu
because of this becomes the basis for the appearance of de lements/emotional de lements
or called Klesha in the technical language of Buddhism.

It is this Klesha which is the major cause of su ering (dukha). Klesha is so ingrained in our
system because of Avidya/nescience that every minute action and reaction in an average
person's life is infused by Klesha. All the Klesha can be subsumed into three main Kleshas 1.
Kama (attachment like desire) also called Kamacchanda/Raga or Ragacchanda, etc, 2.
Krodha (anger, hatred, dislike) or also called Dvesha and would include jealousy, etc., and 3.
Moha or stupidity, confusion, torpor, dullness, inability to distinguish good and bad,
delusion, etc.

2 41
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 In the Adhidharma Samucchaya, Asanga de nes these thus: What is craving (Raga)? It is
attachment to the three realms (Tridhatu) of existence. Its function consists of engendering
su ering (Dukha). The Theravada Abhidhamma Sanghako de nes Kammacchanda like this:
the greed (Lobha) and craving (Trishna) creates attachment (or weakness) towards the
things and one's desires (Kama Vishaya) is called Kamacchanda.

EXPLANINING KLESHA (DEFILEMENT)

According to the Abhidharma Kosha of Vasuvandhu, there are two types of Raga
(attachment). One is the attachment to sensual pleasures like called Kama Raga, and then
attachment to existence called Bhava Raga.

Then concerning Dvesha or Pratigha (hatred etc), the Abhidharma Samuccaya of Asanga
de nes it thus: What is Pratigha (repugnance, hatred, dislike)? It is malevolence (aghata)
with regards to living beings, su ering and conditions of su ering. Its functions consist of
supplying a basis to wretched state (unpleasant life or existence). In the same way, the
explanation of the Theravadin Abidhammatha Sanghaho says that Dvesa is the strong
reaction of the mind to what it dislikes, just like when a black snake who is out shows its
nature. This is a very rough translation of the Pali de nition but the meaning comes out
clearly.

And Moha (delusion, confusion) is de ned like this in the Abhidharm Samuccaya of Asanga,
as having the characteristics of not knowing (Agyan). And the explanation of the Theravadin
Abhidhammatha Sanghaho also says the same thing - Eso Ayyaanalakhano (this has the
characteristics of Agyan). And Theravadin text goes on to beautifully de ne Moha as that
which hypnotizes or mesmerizes towards its objects so that it does not know its object for
what it is. It is not just lack of awareness but rather the opposite of proper knowledge of
things. Just as Wisdom, Knowledge (Gyan) gives the correct knowledge of things as it is
(Yathabuta), Moha gives the wrong knowledge of things as they are not really. It contradicts
wisdom, knowledge (Gyan). Its characteristics is to blind the mind so that it does not see
the facts as it is (Yathabhuta).

242
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
So if you were to see a lump of shit or anything that you dislike like your enemy you will
dislike what you see. This is Dvesha or Pratigha (hatred, dislike or anger). If you were to see
a beautiful ower or beautiful scenery or a freind you really love you would like it. This is
Kamacchanda or Raga or attachment, greed, liking or desire. If you were to see an ordinary
fountain pen you would feel neither a liking nor a disliking for it, you would remain neutral
to it. Many systems which are unclear about enlightenment imply that such a state of
neither liking nor disliking is the enlightened state. Many Gurus in the Indian Subcontinent
teach directly or imply that an Awareness, which remains neutral, just watching with no like
or dislike, no attachment nor hatred but remains detached, as the state of enlightenment.
Many go even so far as to label such a state as the Buddhist No-Mind (Achitta). But
unfortunately to authentic Buddhist system such a neutral awareness with no like or dislike,
no attachment or hatred is Moha (delusion). This a point that I have not seen any Indian
Gurus and their disciple who claim to give Buddhist teachings (even though they themselves
are not Buddhist or have not studied under any Buddhist Masters) elucidate clearly. Most of
them are hopelessly confused about this point and go on to confuse millions of other
people.

I N T E R P R E T I N G T H E M E A N I N G O F GYA N I N D I F F E R E N T
SYSTEMS

So we have seen very clearly how even though exactly the same words like Avidya, Gyan,
Karma, Mukti etc. etc. are used in all the three systems that developed within the Indian
Subcontinent, they do not necessarily mean the same thing. In fact, sometimes they mean
almost the opposite. A very good example is the word Gyan.

Gyan of course means knowing, however what is meant by Gyan in the sense of
enlightenment is quite drastically di erent within Hinduism and Buddhism. In the Hindu
system, there are two broad schools related to Gyan. One is Atman Gyan school, which
would mean self realization or gaining knowledge of the True Self (Atman), which is one's
true nature and this would amount to Braman Gyan (knowledge of the Cosmic Self, or
Super Self or Super Consciousness). After all this very Atman (my True Self) is the Braman

243
fl
ff
 as the Vedic Maha Vakya (great words of the Veda) says Ayam Atman Brahman, which
means this Atman is Braman itself.

Another group of Hindus would interpret the word Gyan as Ishwor Gyan, which means God
realization or knowledge of God. Of course in the Hindu system this knowledge is not
supposed to be some intellectual knowledge or conceptual knowledge of the Atman (Self) or
Braman (Seer Cosmic Self) or God realization (Ishwor Sachyaatkaar) but more a direct non-
conceptual knowledge.

Within Buddhism, such knowledge would be just further continuation of Agyan or Avidhya.
Let us explain the Buddhist perspective here. We all have a tendency to feel that there is an
ultimate really existing I or 'I-I' if you like, which is the word used by the famous Hindu
saint Raman Maharshi. We tend to feel this as the center of our experience and we tend to
feel that it does not change but rather remains the same unchanging always. This is what is
meant by the Atman. Most of Vedantic Hinduism and Jainism use this label (Atman) for an
unchanging, eternally the same 'I-I' that is the centre of all our experiences or the core
Awareness that experiences (or Witnesses) or knows all that is as the Knower/Witness/
Watcher/Seer. So within most forms of Hinduism and within Jainism, basically
Enlightenment or Gyan means realizing that one is not the body or any of the Pancha Kosha
( ve sheaths) but the eternally unchanging and the one and only really existing thing
(Mahavastu). This Mahavastu is Witness, Knower or Seer of all. The Vedantic system
distinguishes between the thinking mind (manas) and the deciding mind (Buddhi) and this
Witness, Knower or Seer who knows the thinking mind and the deciding or discriminating
Buddhi.

CLARIFYING BUDDHI AND MANAS AND BUDDHIST

TERMINOLOGIES

The Buddhi and Manas are Vigyanamaya Kosha (consciousness sheath), which sheaths the
Eternal Witness, Knower, etc. It is based on Hindu categories and the names are used by
many Hindu Gurus, who should have known better, but they have confused themselves and
millions of their disciples about Buddhism. Because according to them, the Sachi - Atman

244
fi
(Witness, Self) is beyond the Buddhi (desciminative faculty) and the word Buddhi used by
the Hindu systems seems to be close to Buddha and Bodhi. They just assumed that the
Buddha actually reached only up to the level of the Buddhi and could not go beyond the
Buddhi to the level of the eternal Atman, which is beyond the Buddhi.

They just seem to assume that the whole world and all the other cultures just use the same
words to mean the same thing, after all the world religions just branched out from the
Hindu Vedas directly or indirectly, and therefore, there are no other paradigms than the
Vedic paradigm. And since the Buddhi and Manas etc, are all within the Vigyanamaya Kosh
(sheath of consciousness) and the Buddhist too use the word Vigyana; they did not go
beyond the Vedantic Vigyanamaya Kosha (sheath of consciousness). Therefore, many Hindu
Gurus like the famous and very interesting Shiva Puri Baba claimed that the Buddha never
went beyond their Vigyanamaya Kosha and stopped at the Buddhi level; but he and other
Hindu Masters went beyond into the Atman and even beyond into God Realization. I cannot
but comment 'how nave.'

First of all, this is a clear cut confusion in terminologies and the confusion is based on a very
Hindu attitude or belief that there are no other paradigms than the Vedic Hindu paradigms
and whatever, whoever talks about is just a variety or branch or another way of saying what
Vedic Hinduism has already said a long time ago. If they had even made the slightest e ort
to study Buddhism according to what the Buddhists and their sutras/suttas and their
commenteries say, it would have been very easy for them to see that the Vigyana of the
Buddhist is not the Buddhi (the discriminative faculty) or Manas (the decider) but the
Knower, Witness of the other two, and the other two are called Sangya Skandha, Sanskar
Sandha etc and are not Chitta (Knower) but Chaitta or Chaitasik, the Known.

The Buddha knew the Witness, Knower very well but his investigation was not burdened by
the pre supposedly accepted formula already accepted as the truth; so he investigated
(Vipashayana) free of all preconceived assumptions and saw that this so called Knower,
Witness was ever changing. All though it never ended, it was not Sat (Unchangingly
Eternal) but rather Changing Eternal (Parinami Nitya).

245
ff
 IMPORTANCE OF UNBIASED
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
ULTIMATE REALIT Y

The Buddha was not bound by the chains of some ancient texts so that he had to make his
nding con rm to those texts that existed during his time. He was free to investigate
(Vipashyana) and see thing as they really are (Yathabhuta). Even modern Quantum Physics
agrees to the fact that the assumptions of the investigating mind in uences what we see.
Assumptions are Sanskaras and if you work with those assumptions and Sanksaras that is
what you will see. That is why the Buddha himself said in the Kalam Suttat not to believe in
what is handed down in tradition but to investigate and nd out for oneself if that is true or
not in the sense of whether it will free you from Kleshas and Sanskaras.

Vipashyana is not about trying to see what the Buddha and Buddhist texts said but to see
for oneself whether it is how it is (Yathabhuta). Now, is the Kalam Sutta about eschewing all
traditions and advocating re-inventing the wheel in each generation - as some modernist
Buddhist intellectuals believe? To eschew all the rich lore and knowledge accumulated
through the centuries after the Buddha is one thing, to see for one's own self whether what
these lore's say is true or not is quite another thing. It is extreme idiocy to say each
generation has to throw away all the texts and technology of how to create the wheel and re-
discover the whole thing all over again for themselves, without accepting any of those texts
on how to create a wheel. Then every generation should burn all the discovery on science
and technology, and go back to the stone age to start anew each generation. This is stark
idiocy in the name of independent and free thinking.

However, in the eld of Dharma (as in science), it is paramount not to assume (be
conditioned/sanskaras) that what the traditions say is the one and only truth, because this
produces a biased experience based on an assumption, and to test yourself whether what is
said is true to not, you need unbiased investigation.

But to test, we need to use proper techniques just as in science. The proper technique is
Vipashayana. We must test through proper Vipashayan whether the conclusion made by the
Buddha are valid or not. If we do not use the proper microscope of Vipashayana, we will

246
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
only see the rough outside and what we see in such a case may not tally with the Buddha's
teachings but rather more likely tally only with our own sanskaras/conditionings. To see
that the Witness, Watcher, Knower is ever changing moment by moment, we need the
correct method to see it. Otherwise, our ignorance, nescience or Avidya and sanskaras/
conditionings will not allow us to see this fact, and it will be easy to fall into the trap to see,
experience and believe that this Seer, Watcher, Witness, Knower remains unchanging and
eternal - which is what the Vedanta says and is con rmed by our sanskaras/conditionings
and habitual thinking patterns.

We can also understand that the Kalam Sutta is not telling us not to depend at all in any
tradition and nd out for yourself what the truth is. In that case, to think - we have to
eschew Vipashyana because that is tradition handed down and accepted by learned people
etc. etc. - that kind of interpretation of the Kalam Sutta made by some Nepali modernistic
new fangled Theravidins is totally idiocy. In such a case, Buddhism also would have to be
reinvented in every generation from the ground level. That is complete stupidity.

What the Buddha meant in the Kalam Sutta is not that we should throw out all traditions,
never take the advices of the Wise and Experienced, never to follow any tradition at all. The
Buddha said not to accept these things blindly just because it is tradition, just because it is
logical, just because the learned say it; but also (also is the key word here) to check for
yourself whether that is the truth or not. But to check whether anything is bene cial to you
or not you again need methods, and an ordinary person riddled with Sanksaras cannot be
trusted to come out with the correct method because his Kleshas and Sanskaras will not
allow him to see the proper methods. In that case, we have to depend upon tradition where
people who have freed themselves to a greater degree than us from Kleshas, Sanskaras, etc.
Otherwise every man will come up with his own ideas, beliefs and systems entirely based on
her/his own sanskaras/conditionings.

However, this dependency should not be blind. We should never be blinded even with any
Buddhist system so much that we are even afraid to listen to other systems or even other
Buddhist systems di erent from that one you are following for fear of losing one's faith. It is
exactly this kind of faith that the Kalam sutta speaks out against. If this is the case, we have
just increased our Sanskara instead of freeing ourselves from Sankaras. It is idiotic to throw
out all the scienti c research and scientists that has been handed down through the

247
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
centuries in the name of free, independent thinking and say each man has to rediscover
science for himself because each person is an island to himself. That is de nitely not what
the Buddha meant. What the Buddha meant was closer to saying that each generation
should use the traditional tests to see for themselves whether what science has said is
correct or not and not just believe it blindly.

We have now dealt with Avidya (Nescience), we will go into the second chain in the twelve
links of interdependent origination, which is Sanskara, in the next article.

248
fi
 UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE
OF SANSKARA

We that have now dealt with Avidya (Nescience) we will go into the second chain in the
twelve links of interdependent origination, which is Sanskara. It is due to Avidhya that
Sanskaras develop and nally become stronger, and these very Sanskaras make Avidya
stronger so they are interdependent upon each other.

Sanskaras basically mean that which condition (Abhisanskaroti). Sanskaras can be good in
the sense they can liberate or open the mind, and bad in the sense they can limit or close the
mind. Karma and Sanskaras are very closely related, and sometimes the second factor called
Sanskara in the twelve chain of interdependence is also called Karma Sanskaras. These
conditions or Sanskaras condition the way we experience the world of our experience. Then,
further condition the way we interpret our world of experience. For example, if I have had a
ti with somebody and I'm angry with her, the next time I meet or see her, the way I react,
the way I think about her, the way I interpret her behavior, are all conditioned by my past
experience, which conditions my mind (Abhisanskaroti). The same is true when I meet an
old friend I'm fond of and with whom I've had good experiences. Sanskaras are often
translated as volitional impulses.

The Abhidharmakosha of Vasubhandu de nes Sanskaras as Sanskarah Purvakarmana -

which means Sanskara is the state brought about by the former karmas. Now, this means
the former mental continuum does good and bad actions (karma) and this state of our
collection of good or bad karmas is called Sanskara. In the Theravada tradition, the
Vibhabini, which is a Tika (commentary) on the famous Abhidhammatha Sangaho of
Anurudachariya, it de nes Sanskara as: Pubba Payoga Sambhuto Viseso Chittasambhavi -
which means the special energy found in the mind resulting from the former actions of
mind, body and speech is Sanskara. The Paramatha Dipani also de nes Sanskara in the same
way.

What this means in simple non-technical language is that Sanskaras are those which
conditions the mind, and they are based on the habitual patterns of the mind, body and
speech. What we repeat again and again creates a special energy accordingly. A dancer

249
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
conditions her body to be able to dance in a certain way by practicing again and again until a
habitual pattern (Sanskara) are formed in her mind. And because of this Sanskara her body
is easily capable of making certain movements which would be very di cult for those who
have not developed that Sanskara or those who have not conditioned themselves through
repeated practice to be able to do it. More in the next article.

A skilled classical singer is able to produce sounds which would be either very di cult or
impossible for an average man to produce because through continuous repetition and
practice the singer has conditioned his mind (subconscious) to be able to produce such
sounds through his vocal cord. And in the same way, repeated mental acting (Manaskarma)
conditions the mind to act or react in a certain way and this is what is meant by Sanskara.
The Abhidharma classi es the mental Sanskara into great details of categories but we shall
not go into it here as this is not really necessary in an article like this. However, Sanskara is
a very important concept because all the Kleshas are Sanskaras and a major part of
Buddhism is about dealing with these Kleshas (emotional de lements).

We need to go a little in-depth with Sanskara. Whatever we are capable of seeing or not
seeing, understanding or not capable of understanding, whatever we see as nice or not nice,
whatever we like or dislike, as good or bad, as correct or wrong, they are all based in our
Sanskara in the case of an ordinary person. In fact, all our actions and reactions are based on
our Sanskaras. Most people believe that when they look at the world of their experience,
they see an objective world that is really like the way they see it. But modern brain science
and Quantum Physics does not agree with this overly naive concept of our experience.
Actually, we do not see as it is (Yathabhuta) the world out there, but what is constructed by
our Sanskara out of the energy patterns out there. According to Quantum Physics, there is
no world out there the way we perceive it but only an interplay of energy, which we do not
perceive.

So what is it that constructs the world the way we perceive it? This is what is meant by
Sanskara. In this case, these Sanskaras are more accurately called Karma Sanskaras.
According to Buddhism, when a sh looks at what we call water, it sees a home and not
what we perceive as water. When humans look at water they perceive and experience what
the word 'water' signify. But to a sh that very same 'so called water' is not experienced as
what we mean by water. And when a Preta looks at that same glass of water, the Preta

250
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
perceives what we call pus or an empty dry glass and the Preta does not perceive what we
call water. But the Preta is looking at the same glass of 'so called water as we humans are.

KARMA SANSKARA ACCORDING TO BUDDHISM

Let us continue with the talk of how we construct the world the way we perceive it. We
were talking about how a Preta and a human perceive water very di erently. A hell being
sees burning re and brimstone and molten lava and not what we call water. And again
when the Devas (celestial beings, Gods) look at the same glass of water, they perceive
ambrosia and not water as we think, believe, see and experience it. This is what is meant by
Karma Sanskara, which conditions the mind or consciousness to experience a world out
there which does not really exist the way we see it or experience it.

This is the Sanskara, the second link after Avidhya or Nescience in the twelve links of
interdependent origination. The Sanskara conditions the mind or consciousness (Vigyan, the
third link in the chain of interdependent origination), which then begins to experience the
world based on its Karma Sanskara. This is Karma Sanskara (Karma conditioning) that make
the mindset, which creates the world of our experience.

Another meaning of Sanskara is what is called conditioning, which conditions our reactions
to the world that we experience. This Pavlov re ex action is a conditioned re ex action
where the dog begins to salivate the moment it hears the bell after giving it food over and
over again every time the bell is rung. In a similar way, Sanskaras learned in this life and
according to Buddhism in former lives conditions our reactions to the world we experience.

There are many ways we get conditioned. Conditioning already starts in the mother's womb.
The child's neural wirings are being conditioned by the emotions and experiences of the
mother. A depressed mother's world creates chemicals that will in uence the child's neural
wirings etc.. A happy and relaxed and positive mother likewise conditions her child
accordingly. In many cases birth would itself condition the neural wirings of the child to a
lesser and greater extent, which would in uences the child the rest of her life if not dealt
with properly. Then the child's upbringing would condition the mind and brain of the child.
According to transactional psycho therapy, family injunctions are handed down through

2 51
fi
fl
fl
fl
ff
fl
generations. Thus we have families that have winner's scripts and families that have loser's
script. There are families who have a culture of being paranoid about anything new and
there are families who are open and encourage innovations, creativity and new ideas.

H O W S A N S K A R A I N F L U E N C E S U S E V E RY D AY

Scripts, games and life positions like I'm ok, I'm not ok, are handed down generation after
generation as family injunctions. There are families with what is called loser scripts and
families with winner scripts. A child who grows up with loser scripts tends to lose out in life
except those who are lucky enough to shake out of this Sanskara either through proper
therapy or sometimes through life experiences. And people who grow up with the winner
script end up successful in life.

All these are various kinds of Sanskaras. In fact, in an ordinary person, her whole life tone is
set by the kind of Sanskara that has been downloaded into her mind-brain computer since
her childhood, and of course from carry over back logs from her former lives too. The same
person can be seen as a wonderful person by Ram Lal, while Hari Lal can perceive the same
as horrible. How can the same person be perceived as both wonderful and horrible?

An overly simpli ed answer would be Sanskara. To Ram Lal, his Sanskaras make him see the
person as wonderful while to Hari Lal, his Sanskaras make him see that very same person as
horrible. We all know that we all like di erent types of food and dislike other foods; we all
like certain type of clothing and dislike other types of clothing. All these are again based on
Sanskara (conditionings). Some people just seem to have a very positive outlook towards
life. They are full of spirit and oomph most of the time. They are adventurous and are keen
to learn and experience new things in life. They even seem to infuse the same kind of open-
minded, happy spirit to those who are around them. This is due to the Sanskaras
downloaded in their mind-brain complex. And again there are those who seem always to be
down in the dumps. Everything is gloomy, boring and unexciting. They are very close-
minded. They do not like new things coming into their life. They feel insecure with
everything. They cannot trust others, life or even their own selves. Again this is Sanskara.

252
fi
ff
 Of course we can also say that some people are disposed genetically to be down in the
dumps where others are more disposed to be celebrating life continuously. But genetic
research by Dr. Bruce Lipton shows that even the genes are mere potential possibilities and
that it is the state of the mind how she thinks, feels, believes (mostly believes) that triggers
which gene is activated or deactivated. But our beliefs are heavily colored by our Sanskaras.

An average Nepali may not feel he had a good lunch or dinner unless he's had dal bhat (rice
and lentil soup). In fact, I've had many Nepalis say they don't feel lled unless they take dal
bhat. But many Americans cannot feel lled, like they've had a good lunch or dinner, unless
they had their steak. This is Sanskara.

Most Nepalis folks in the villages do not even feel they've had a good cup of tea unless it is
thick with a hefty amount of sugar and creamy milk. Some even prefer burnt milk. But most
health conscious Westerners would balk at having such a tea. Most Nepalis cannot think of
a tea without sugar. In fact, tea without sugar is not a tea at all but some mistake. But most
Westerners and nowadays perhaps many health conscious Nepali folks have tea without
sugar.

The famous Zen Master Soen Shaku, who was amongst the rst Zen Masters to take Zen to
America, had a very interesting way of taking his co ee with every breakfast. Every morning
when he would sit down for a breakfast he would rst take black co ee without sugar or
milk. After few sips, he would add sugar to the co ee and have few more sips. After that he
would add milk to his co ee and have few more sips. Then eventually he would add cream
to top the co ee and drink it. His American students noticed him doing this at every
breakfast, and they asked him why he was drinking his co ee that way. He replied like this:
"I'm training myself not to expect anything."

What did 'not to expect anything' mean? Here we are talking about Sanskara. It is our
Sanskaras of believing that co ee should be with cream and sugar that makes us expect
co ee with cream and sugar. This expectation is craving (Trishna), the eighth links in the
twelve chains, which is considered the root cause of Dukha, or more correctly the
proliferation of Dukha. So when I don't get my cream and sugar co ee, I get irritated and
feel o ended. If I get it I feel satis ed and happy temporarily. But this short lived 'co ee
happiness' is not the real happiness. However, the average person does not know any other
kind of happiness but this 'co ee happiness'. For her, life is not worth living without her

253
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
 'co ee happiness'. This is not to say that a good cup of co ee the way you like it should not
be enjoyed. This is to say that you should also be able to enjoy sugar free co ee equally.

Our expectations build from your Sanskaras will not normally allow us to enjoy a co ee that
is sugar free, like the way famous Zen Master Soen Shaku enjoyed. So your happiness or
enjoyment or celebration is limited to 'the sugar milk co ee' happiness. And when there is
no sugar and milk co ee we are incapable of celebrating life. This co ee happiness is a limit
of the life of the average person riddled with Sanksaras and expectations. Expectations make
us grasp or cling to our 'milk sugar co ee' happiness. This grasping, clinging is the ninth
chain in the twelve links. Just for refreshing the memories of those who do not know the
twelve link of interdependent origination (Dwadas Nidan or Dwadas Pratitya Samputpada),
we will reiterate them again.

They are:

1. Avidya

2. Sanskara

3. Vigyana

4. Nam-Rupa

5. Sadayatana

6. Sparsha

7. Vedana

8. Trishna

9. Upadana

10. Karma Bhava

11. Jati

12. Jara-Maran-Soka-Parideva-Dukha-Daurmanashya-Upayasya.

254
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
 It is because we expect certain things we are happier when we get what we expect and are
unhappy when we do not get what we expect. Thus, we limit our happiness to 'milk sugar
co ee', which in life may not be always available. Thus, our expectations, which in life are
usually not ful lled, makes us unhappy, dissatis ed and unful lled most of the time. But
these expectations are also created by our Sanskaras. Because we are slaves to our own
Sanskaras, we limit our happiness. But Sanskaras are learned, not innate. No one is born
with the innate love for black co ee and dislike for milk co ee. We train ourselves or are
trained to like co ee or milk co ee by our family, culture (Sanskriti), schooling and the
general weltanschauung of the period.

So later on, when I don't get my black co ee with the right amount of sugar for my morning
co ee I lose my cool and I blow o or I get irritated and in some cases I may even throw a
tantrum and ruin my relationship with my wife or husband, as the case maybe. I expect
something because Sanskaras or conditionings propel me to expect it. The most famous
example of conditioning or Sanskara in the twentieth century was the Pavlov Dog
conditioning.

Pavlov rang the bell in front of the experimental dog and then gave him good food that he
liked. He did this over and over again until whenever Pavlov rang the bell, the dog
automatically began salivating. This is Sanskara or conditioning. We humans would like to
believe that we are better o than that poor dog who was more like an automaton. But is
that really true?

Look at your own life and it is not very di cult to notice that you yourself, with all your
pride of being a superior, intelligent human are not so di erent than Pavlog's dog. Your
family and societies and culture have merely replaced Pavlov, and your family culture, class
culture, societal culture, education, ideologies have merely replaced Pavlov in ingraining you
with all kinds of Sanskaras (conditioning) so that you react like an automaton just like the
dog and salivate your ideas, beliefs, reactions, actions in your day to day life.

For instance, most Nepalis who are morning bed tea drinkers cannot stomach the idea of
having a cup of co ee in the morning bed. Some may even get angry or disgusted or
dissatis ed or become unhappy if a cup of co ee was handed over to them in their morning
bed. And on the other hand, they would feel very contended if a good hefty glass of tea with
the right mix of sugar and milk was o ered to them when they wake up in the morning.

255
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ffi
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
They have been trained to drinking 'chiya' (the Nepali style tea) as soon as they wake up.
Now, what is the di erence between this reaction to 'chiya' and to Pavlov’s bell?

Most people do not even realize that they spend their whole life in a haze created by their
Sanskara. What they see as true or false, or as right and wrong as what should be done or
should not be done, what they believe is possible or impossible, what they like and dislike,
the type of dress they prefer and the type of dress they believe is either incorrect or
inappropriate or even impossible for them to wear, the type of food they prefer, the type of
people they like or dislike, the type of people they get along very well with easily or the type
of people they just cannot stand; are all results of their Sanskrars and they have no more
truth to them than the belief many so called educated Nepalis have that if you touch your
neck with your ngers you must blow your ngers otherwise you are bound to get goiter.

Time and again I have seen so-called educated Nepalis blow their ngers dedicatedly every
time their ngers manage to touch their neck, so dedicatedly that one would almost believe
that they really believed in this non-sense. When we ask them, their intellectual
understanding makes them laugh at it but yet the very moment when and if their hands
touch their neck they ever so dedicatedly blow on their hands unconsciously as if their life
depends on it. This is what Sanskaras are.

LEARNING THE RIGHT SANSKARAS

Not all Sanskaras are useless or valueless. Some Sanskaras were developed at times when
such a Sanskara was useful for the smooth running of society; but many of them became
outdated and lost their value as time went by. However, members of the society stick to
things as if a curse will fall upon them if they abandoned it. Very often they continue in the
name of Sanskriti (culture). After all Sanskriti (culture) is derived from the word Sanskara.
And often a Sanskara subscribed by a Sanskriti (culture) a hundred years ago or even
thousand years ago when that Sanskara had some value in that ancient context is adhered to
as if it was their religion and Dharma, when not only is it merely an outmoded Sanskara but
also it is not Dharma per se.

256
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
 Some Sanskara as part of cultures are downright obstructive to growth and ful llment of
life, but because they are old Sanskriti (culture) people are reluctant or in some cases even
afraid to relinquish them for better Sanskaras, which are more suitable to the time. There
are Sanskaras which help in growth and psychological development, etc. For instance, the
only di erent between a really educated person and country lout who has had no education
are their sets of Sanskaras.

Most people think that education is a collection of information. Then a B.A. has (or is
supposed to have) more information that a ten plus two and a Masters is supposed to have
more information than a Baccalaureate. But this kind of education (the mere collection of
more and more information) is useless and valueless. It doesn't help the MAs to live life
better than the BAs. And actually if a ten plus twoer made e orts he could collect more
information than a Master level student. In such a case BAs and MAs become just
formalized institutionalized forces with little meaning. When Einstein was once asked what
is education, he replied that education is what remains after everything that has been learnt
at school and college has been forgotten. So what remains?

It is the way the person sees life and himself and others. It is the way she acts and reacts to
the circumstances of life. It is the way she acts and reacts to the circumstances of life. It is
the way she lives life. All these are based on good Sanskaras (Su-Sanskaras). When she
meets another human being, she smiles and does Namaskar or says good morning etc. etc.
That is Su-Sanskaras (good conditioning). She doesn't eat with a loud slurp that irritates
those around her or disturbs them, that is Su-Sanskara. She helps others when they need
help. That is Su-Sanskaras. She does not steal from others, cheat others, kill others, lie to
others, etc. etc. All these are Su-Sanskaras, which helps in the smooth running of society
and human relationships and helps in her own continuous happiness.

257
ff
ff
fi
SANSKARAS AND INFORMATION LEARNED IN
SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

Sanskaras are what remains after everything that we have learnt at school or college (maths,
algebra, trigonometry, et al.) has been forgotten. The twelfth century Egyptian Su Master,
El Ghazali, whose thoughts in uenced Western thinking a lot, but was not given much
credence by Western civilization, knew about Sanksaras (conditioning) long before Pavlov.
He says very clearly that education is not the collection of information but rather a change
in consciousness. Just collecting more and more information does not necessarily change
consciousness. In fact, you can collect more and more information but your consciousness
may not change or transform or broaden. What did El Ghazali mean by change of
consciousness?

He himself gives an apt example. He says a small child of four or ve does not and cannot
possibly know or understand what goes on in the mind of an adult, in the same way an
uneducated adult, a country bumpkin with no education at all cannot and does not know
what goes on in the mind of an educated adult. Likewise, an educated man does not and
cannot know what goes on in the mind of a learned man (liked Einstein or Stephan
Hawkins), and in the same way a learned man cannot and does not know what goes on in
the mind (consciousness) of a sage (like the Buddha, Lao Tsu or Ghazali, Sankaracharya,
Christ etc. etc.). Why? Because of the change of consciousness that distinguishes these
levels of people.

For instance, due to experiences etc., the mind of an adult changes (hopefully!) from that of
a former ve-year-old child. This change in consciousness brought about by exposure to life
and its experiences is what distinguishes the mind of an adult from that of a ve year old
child. And this change in consciousness is what remains after everything learned at school
and college (information gathering mostly) has been forgotten. So El Ghazali and Einstein
are saying the same thing in di erent words.

Now going back to Sanskaras. There are two types of changes in consciousness. One change
in consciousness is basically change in Sanskaras. But if we are talking about evolutionary
change in consciousness, i.e. change in consciousness in terms of growth and development
of the mind (consciousness), we are talking about change of more and more re ned

258
fi
fl
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Sanskaras. This is the di erence in consciousness between a civilized educated person and
an uneducated jungle man; and also between a four years old kid and a mature man. This is
not necessarily an addition of more and more information.

REAL FREEDOM FROM SANSKARAS

A person can accumulate more and more information and yet Sanskaras can worsen more
and more in terms of his consciousness/mind. But there is another type of change of
consciousness which is not related to making the Sanskaras (conditioning) more and more
re ned, but rather freeing the mind of all Sanskaras (Sarva Sanskarachaya). This is the
change of consciousness that produces a sage. I need to emphasize that there are degrees of
freedom from Sanskaras (conditioning) and these degrees are what are termed called sage-
hood. This is the measuring rod to evaluate di erent systems to sage-hood. Which system
has a way or path to really free us from all Sanskaras, which system actually add some
Sanskaras, while cutting some Sanskaras only in the name of cutting all Sankaras, and which
system actually add more Sanskaras to the ones already existing in the name of Dharma
(religion or freedom)? Here it is necessary to understand what exactly freedom from
Sanskaras mean.

Freedom from Sanskaras means the person is not bound by Sanskaras but that does not
mean that the person is incapable of using useful Sanskaras even when circumstances
demand it. Freedom means ability to use or let go Sanskaras for the bene t of others and
oneself. Many people who believe they are free from Sanskaras are merely grasping to the
opposite type of Sanskaras or the dislike for the sanskaras etc.

Any kind of grasping is Trishna/Upadana. If I hold on to the opposite Sanskaras, ideas,

beliefs, this is not true freedom from Sanskaras. For instance, I can hold on to one end of a
stick. Let us take that as a metaphor to grasping to holding on to Sanskaras. Now, the stick
represents the Sanskara or sanskaras and I am grasping on to it because I believe I want it
this is craving and grasping (Trishna and Upadana). Now, I'm holding on to one end of the
stick and some one tells me that this grasping is what causes my su ering. If I stop grasping
on to the stick at the end and hold on to the stick by holding on to the opposite end of the
stick, then I have not really let go of the stick or Sanskara/sanskaras/conditionings. I've just

259
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
changed my position of grasping on to the other end of the stick, the opposite Sanskara.
This is a very subtle part that most people and systems miss out.

If I like a certain sweet that is grasping, craving or clinging to the sweet. If I hate that sweet
that is not really freedom from the sweet but just holding on to the sweet or Sanskara from
the negative angle, i.e. the other end of the stick. When I do not hold on to/ grasp /crave /
cling on to either end of the stick, I am free to use the stick as the situation demands.

USING THE SANSKARAS WITHOUT BEING CHAINED TO

THEM

When I do not hold on to/ grasp /crave /cling on to either end of the stick, I am free to use
the stick as the situation demands. This is freedom from Sanskaras.

There is a beautiful story in the Jataka told by the Buddha himself. Many of the stories of the
Jataka told by the Buddha have made their way into the Pancha Tantra stories, the Aesop
fables and many stories are used by Hindu swamis today in their teachings.

In this story, there was a venomous and very angry snake/naga living near a eld where
children of the village would come to play. One day a renunciant (a former incarnation of
the Buddha when he was still a Bodhisattva on the path of the Buddhhood (Buddhata)) was
passing by that place. This snake had killed many people in his anger. There was an
encounter between the two, and the snake seeing the peaceful state of the renunciant asked
him for some teaching. The renunciant taught him compassion and non-violence. The snake
was convinced by the renunciant teaching and made a rm resolve to let go of all forms of
violence.

So the next day, the snake came out of its pit and was peacefully basking in the sun. Some
kids came along to play in the eld nearby. At rst, when they saw the infamous snake, they
all became frightened. But then some of the kids noticed that the snake did not attack them
as usual, as the snake did not respond in the usual way. So he pelted the snake hesitatingly
with some stones but the naga didn’t show any signs of being perturbed .Then another kid
threw more stones at the naga and yet another boy threw stones and the snake’s bones were
broken and it was wounded very badly. But still the snake did not get angry and attack the

260
fi
fi
fi
fi
 kids. A few days later, the renunciant, who had taught the snake non-violence and
compassion, came by to see how the snake was faring.

But he saw the Naga was deeply wounded and all his back bones broke and asked the Naga/
snake what had happened. The Naga replied, I followed your instruction to the word and did
not attack the children even when they pelted me with sticks and stones. I didn’t get angry
with them. But look what happened to me when I followed your teachings.

Then the renunciant told the Naga that he was sad for what happened to the Naga, however,
he said, I taught you not to lose your temper and kill the children. I didn’t teach you to not
pretend to be angry or not to frighten the children away. If you had just pretended to be
angry and fanned your hood as if you were really angry with them, the kids would all have
run o and left you alone and you wouldn’t have had to go through this.

So this is letting go of anger and being able to use it when necessary.

To continue with the story of the Naga. The Naga was holding on to the concept of the
opposite of anger so it was afraid to even pretend that he was angry for fear that he might
really lose his cool completely and revert back to his old anger. So this is what freedom from
Sanskaras means.

Most people do not understand this point. They think being free from anger and other
Sanskaras mean being like the snake, not being able to even pretend that he has lost his
cool. People are afraid to even pretend because psychologically if people are not really free
from the Sanskaras then they know it subconsciously and they subconsciously know that if
they even try to pretend, the hidden Sanskaras might raise its head again. So they are afraid
even to pretend. But a person is really free from the Sanskara if s/he can use that Sanskara
as the situation demands without fear of the Sanskara raising its head again as it's hold on
the mind has been completely destroyed. If a person is really free from a Sanskara then the
person is free to use and or use the Sanskara as the situation demands.

This brings us to a point about an enlightened person about which most people of the
Indian Subcontinent are confused about because of the vague lay person's cultural concepts
about how an enlightened being should or must behave. These concepts are based on vague
notions which are in turn based on misunderstanding of improperly understood technical

2 61
ff
words imbibed through the activities of the culture at large. There is also the di erence
between the behavior of an enlightened being as understood within Hinduism, Buddhism
and Jainism.

Most people in the Indian Subcontinent (after Buddhism vanished from the Indian
Subcontinent and Hinduism, which is an o shoot of the interaction between Vedic
Bramanism and Buddhism, began to rise) have a vague concept that an enlightened being is
like a stone, without feelings and not sensitive to the outer world, almost like a stone statue
which is feeling-dead. A feeling-dead person is not an enlightened person according to
Mahayan Buddhism. According to some commentaries of the Hindu text Yoga Vasistha, it is
very clear that as the person climbs up the ladder of Hindu-Vedantic enlightment, he
becomes more and more withdrawn from the world which is here and now. He nally
arrives at a state where he is so absorbed in the inner Braman/Atman that he virtually
cannot perform even the basic needs. Thus, it is said if people put food in his mouth he will
eat, otherwise he will be incapable of eating. More on this later.

Stories of Poonja Swami of South India also con rms to this kind of state, which in modern
psychology is called dissociative and considered a state of mental dis-balance, where the
person is no more in proper contact with the real world of here and now, and more and
more absorbed in his own mental world. This is the antithesis of the Buddhist
enlightenment, and especially the enlightenment of the Mahayana/Bodhisatvayana. Even in
the Theravada Suttas, we never nd the Buddha so withdrawn into his enlightened mind
that his disciples had to put food into his mouth. In his entire life, except when he was in
deep meditation, we never nd the Buddha in a state oblivious to this world of here and
now (Drishtadharma). In fact, in his entire life he was a very here and now person who lived
fully in the here and now, sensitive to the world here and now.

In the Bodhisattva way, also called Mahayana, which consists of two Highways called the
Paramitayana and the Vajrayana, the deeper one travels the path of enlightenment, the more
sensitive the person becomes to the rich display of all the hues of life and the world here
and now, and becomes more richly aware of the world here and now and less and less lost in
her own mental world. It can be seen that this is the antithesis of what the Yoga Vasistha
commentaries describe. If one does not become more and more sensitive to the world here
and now, there is no possibility of Karuna (compassion) to develop, as compassion is based
on seeing and feeling the su ering of the world (self and others).

262
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
 If we become dissociative or lost in our own mental world (no matter what name you give it
- Atman, Brahma or God - we cannot even feel or see the gnawing su ering (Dukha) of the
world as we are not present there. In such a case, such a person cannot empathize or
sympathize with the su erings of others. In such a case, we cannot possibly have
compassion (Karuna) towards the su ering of the world with whom we cannot even
empathize or sympathize as we will have lost contact with that world of su ering. As
Karuna is one of the very foundational corner stone of the way of Mahayana, there can be no
Mahayana practice without it. And practice of Karuna makes one more and more sensitive to
the ne innuendoes and connotations of su ering other beings are going through.

According to the Bodhisatvayana (Mahayana), an enlightened being is not someone that has
a mind that is neutral and without feeling, like a piece of a stone statue. An enlightened
being is a living dynamic being living in the here and now fully. If she is living fully in the
here and now, she is also fully aware of sensitive to feels the pain and su ering of the world
(Sansara).

If she cannot feel the pain and su ering of the world, she cannot have Karuna (compassion).
Either she is in the world or she is dissociated from the world and there are degrees to these
to states. To the degree, she (the enlightened being) is in the world, she also feels its pain
and su ering; she is sensitive to its travails. But it is also a natural result that to the degree
she's sensitive to and of the world she forgets herself. This is the meaning of Karuna
(compassion). And to the degree, she forgets herself, which depends upon the degree she's
in here and now, which means the degree she's sensitive of the real world, is the degree that
she herself becomes free from su ering thereby by forgetting herself and along with it her
personal pains, neurosis, su ering. This is the meaning of Anatma in Buddhism.

Dogen, the eleventh century founder of Japanese Soto Zen Buddhism, said, 'To study
Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to FORGET The Self, to forget the self is
to be enlightened by the hundred thousand things'. The phrase 'hundred thousand things' is
an expression in the far eastern cultures like Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., for all the
experiences of life which is in e ect the Sansara. To be enlightened by the hundred thousand
things one needs to forget the self. To forget the self is the meaning of Anatma. There is to
no more feeling experientially that "I" am the center of my world from where I experience
the world separate from me. This is weltenschauung, which is the Zeitgeist of the average
man of today and that has many implications.

263
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
If the world is out there separate from a real Me who exist in here, 'I' take precedence to the
'World out there'. Thus, the world becomes a consumer good out there to be used for my
exploitation, but there are others who may want it too for their consumption and
exploitation. Thus, I begin to hate or dislike that other 'I' who is the world for 'Me' anyway
and thus can easily be another consumer item to be exploited for consumption.

PERPETUATING MOHA IS NOT ENLIGHTENMENT

So 'I' get angry with that other 'I' who too wants to consume the same thing that 'I' want.
That angry 'I' may be extremely attached to the world out there which 'I' want to consume as
my own. This is attachment, desire or greed.

Or I may feel this world is too much for me. It burns me, either way. So I withdraw from
this world into my own 'I' or self and become dissociated from this 'terrible' world. To the
degree 'I' withdraw into my own world and become less and less sensitive to the world
(Samsara). I seem to become more and more free from natural su ering entangled by anger,
hatred, dislike of the world or attachment, like, greed of the world. However, this is a false
freedom. This is just moving from one prison, the prison of Kama and Krodha (attachment
and hatred) into the prison of Moha (insensitive stupidity). That is why the Buddha rejected
all such methods where the self is withdrawn from the outer world of here and now into an
inner self, while the su ering (Dukha) of Kama (desire, attachment) and Krodha (anger and
hatred) seems more pronounced.

It is not correct to think that Moha is not su ering (Dukha). If Moha, delusion, stupidity
means freedom from Dukha, the all drug addicts are free from su ering. If you are shown
something that you dislike, like your enemy or a piece of shit, your reaction is to become
angry, irritated, etc. This is what is called Krodha/ Dvesha (anger, hatred). If I show you a
beautiful rose or somebody you like, you will like it. This is called Kamacchanda/kamaraga/
kamavasana/lobha (attachment, greed, desire). If I show you an ordinary pencil, your
reaction is neutral, you neither like it or dislike it. This is called Moha, which can be
translated into English as dullness, stupidity, confusion or inability to be sensitive.

264
ff
ff
ff
ff
 STATE OF MOHA OPPOSITE OF HERE AND NOW

Staying in a neutral, dull state with no attachment, hatred or dislike towards anything is
Moha and this is not the Buddhist enlightenment state. Nor was the Buddha in that state.
Moha is also a Sanskara and remaining in the state of Moha which appear to be neutral
(tatastha) is not really freedom from all Sanskaras. To be truly free from Sanskaras, one
needs to be free from Moha also. If one is free from Moha, one is alert to the world here and
now, not lost in some inner world, imagined or real.

In the Indian Subcontinent, after Buddhism vanished due to the Islamic invasion, which
literally destroyed Buddhism and all its support, etc., it has become the culture to believe
that enlightened beings are like stones, who are neutral and feeling-dead to the world of
here and now. But such a state is retrogressive going backwards towards the animal and
mineral kingdom, rather than progressing towards growth which should even with simple
logic become more aware, more sensitive to your surroundings.

As long as this 'I' is considered as the centre of your world, the only way I can be free from
su ering which appears to be coming from the world out there, is to withdraw from that
insu erable world into oneself. This result is the same whether one capitalize it as Oneself
or calls it oneself. This is at best only a temporary solution which only blocks the su ering
temporarily as the root cause of that su ering has not been destroyed but only blocked o .

Secondly, in such a modus operandi there may not appear to be su ering as it is temporarily
blocked o but the downside is that there is no authentic joy too. But it is just a dull state
like a desert-wasteland. This is Moha. However, this is not a state free from su ering and joy
but a state so dull that one does not feel either the su ering or the joy. This is not really
di erent from an alcoholic who gets fully inebriated so as not to feel the su ering of his/her
personal life. Well, the guzzler will not feel any su ering as long as she remains drowned in
alcohol but neither will she feel any joy too - a joy that is the result of real freedom from
su ering. So freedom from all Sanksaras would have to include freedom from the Sanskara
called Moha too. The second method of freeing oneself from Sanskaras is to see that 'I' am
not the centre of the world but am just a Sanskara like all the Sanskaras and am not really
di erent.

265
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
V I PA S S A N A I N PA L I O R V I PA S H YA N A I N S A N S K R I T
FOUND IN DIFFERENT BUDDHIST SYSTEMS

The method of freeing oneself from Sanskaras is to see that 'I' am not the centre of the world
but am just a Sanskara like all the other Sanskaras and am not really di erent which appears
to be out there separate from me (due to Sanskara). This is the true meaning of
Vipashayana. The now famous word Vipassana is only the Pali word for the Sanskrit
Vipashyana and both the Pali and Sanskrit traditions de ne Vipashyana as Visheshena
passati as seeing, especially seeing holistically (Vividena). And Vipashayana is found in all
forms of Buddhism as its main meditation practice and is not the special property of the
Theravada tradition. Nor is there only one method of Vipashyana which is taught in the
centre in Budhanilkanta in Kathmandu as taught by Sri Goenka ji. Even the Theravada texts
do not validate such historically misleading notion.

There are many other methods of Vipassana of the Theravada traditions still being taught by
authentic teachers in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia, and Burma certainly is not the only
Theravada country where somehow the so called pure Vipassana/Vipashyana methods of the
Buddha survived. Another such misleading notion, which is rampant amongst these
Acharyas (who should know better) is that they spread the quaint notion that Vipassana
doesn't exist in Mahayana Vajrayana. Needless to say that these Theravada Acharyas have
made such concepts based solely on their ten days or more retreats and without studying
their own Pali literature what to say of any study of Mahayana systems and texts.

Well, the Pali texts themselves contradict the quaint notion that only what Sri Goenka ji
teaches is the so called pure and true Vipassana. Even the Buddha himself taught many
forms of Vipassana and the many Ajhans(Acharyas) of Thailand and Laos are living proofs of
that fact. They all teach Vipassana according to the Theravada methods and none of them
are even closely like the method of Goenka ji, but actually quite di erent from his methods.
And what is more interesting is that even the Pali Suttas and their Burmese commentaries
and the Athakathas (which are older commentaries) validate the method of Vipashayana as
found in all forms of Mahayana and Vajrayana.

266
fi
ff
ff
 We shall go into greater details into them when we come to the Marga Satya (the truth of
the Path of the Noble Truths Chatvari Arya Satyani). Right now, we are dealing with the
second Noble Truth (Arya Satya), which is the Samudya Satya or the cause of su ering.

V I PA S H YA N A F O R R E C O G N I Z I N G A N D E L I M I N A T I N G
SANSKARAS

In the process of understanding the root cause of su ering we began to see into the twelve
links of interdependent origination (Dwadas Nidan). And of the twelve links, we have
nished Avidya (nescience or ignorance), we are currently analyzing Sanskara
(conditioning). Without Vipashyana, one cannot dislodge the Sanskara, which posits the 'I'
as the centre of our world. That is why Vipashyana is the one and only way (Ekayana
Magyo). But we must be careful here to fully understand that we are talking about
Vipashyana as the Ekayan Maggo (the one and only way or the only way leading to freedom
or Mukti from all the Sanskaras) and that Ekayano Maggo does not by any means the one
and only special "special" meditation methos taught by any one particular Master. There are
many ways and methods that Vipashyana can be done and has historically been done since
the time of the Buddha himself.

Vipashyana is not a name of one particular method of doing Vipashyana but a generic term
for many methods. A couple of years ago we went into great details to de ne Vipashyana
according to both Theravada and Mahayana traditions and we shall go into them again when
we come to the Marga Satya (the Noble Truth of the Path). Su ce to say in a very simpli ed
and short way that Vipashyana is any method that helps in seeing (Pashyana or Passati)
specially (vi) that all Dharmas (phenomena) are not really the way we see them but rather
Anitya/Amicca (impermanent), Dukha (su ering), not me not my (Anatma/Anatta
Anatmiya) and Sunya/Suyya (Empty).

It is through mindfulness and discerning awareness called Smriti Samprajanya that we

become aware of our own Sanskaras. Without Smriti Samprajanya (mindfulness and
discerning awareness) which is a key element in Vipashyana/Vipassana meditations, no one
can possibly become aware of our hidden Sanskaras lodged so deep in our unconscious.
Normally, our Sanskaras are very powerful because they are lodged very deeply in our

267
fi
ff
ff
ffi
fi
ff
fi
unconscious mind. Because they are so entrenched rather strongly in our unconscious mind
we tend not to be aware of them. Because we are not even aware of them they are very
powerful.

Actually, most of them are more unconscious than subconscious in the sense we do not even
know about them and are not aware of them and they are not brought into awareness easily.
But exactly because they are in our unconscious mind, they are more powerful in controlling
us. Even in modern psychotherapy, one of the main objectives of psychotherapists is to bring
up ones unconscious material (Sanskaras) up to the conscious mind, i.e. to help patient
become aware of them.

AWARENESS KEY TO ELIMINATIN G SANSKARAS

The founder of Gestalt therapy, Fritz Perls, says, "Awareness is Curative". So even just to
become aware of what Sanskara we have and how it has in uenced my behavior, how it is
controlling us, how it de nes what I can see and what I want to see or sometimes cannot
see, how I perceive the world out there, how I interpret the world of my experience, etc. etc.
can in itself be curative. That is why the practice of Smriti Samprajanya (mindfulness and
discerning awareness) is so crucial to becoming free from our Sanskaras.

Meditation systems not based on Smriti Samprajanya cannot help us become aware of our
Sanskaras. If the meditation is not about remaining mindful with discerning awareness
(watching what comes up neutrally with mindfulness or Smriti, and discern (not thinking)),
the fact that whatever arises is impermanent (anitya) and therefore not some permanent,
real thing that I cannot be free from, that it is su ering or the cause of my su ering
(Dukha), which is what we were never told to realize and thus continue to propagate as if
that Sanskara was dear and near to me, and that it is neither me or mine (Anatma
Anatmiya), therefore I can gently let it go even though until now I thought that that
Sanskara or these constellation of Sanskaras were what made 'ME'; then such a mediation
can help us free ourselves from those Sanskaras which are one of the major cause and
conditions of our su ering.

268
ff
fi
ff
fl
ff
Such meditations are called Vipashyana/Vipassana. Other meditations like concentration on
some light on the third eye or some object (no matter what the object is) do not and will not
necessarily make us aware of our unconscious Sanskaras etc.. And thus they will not help
free us from those Sanskaras. Even in various methods of psychotherapies, one of the major
elements used is to help us become aware of our unconscious elements, which are causing
us problems. It is very important to understand that if we cannot become aware of our
Sanskaras and their workings, we cannot possibly become free from them in anyway
whatsoever, even according to modern forms of psychotherapy.

The more we are unaware of these Sanskara constellations, the more powerful they become
in controlling us and our life, the more powerful they become in making our lives
dysfunctional. If we want to free ourselves from these Sanskaras, which are making our life
dysfunctional, the rst and foremost step is to bring up into our awareness what or which
set of Sanskara are causing these dysfunctional behaviors in us.

RECOGNIZING AND ELIMINATING SANSKARAS

In modern psychotherapeutic language, they (Sanskaras) may be called complexes, traumas,

etc., but all such catagories are subsumed under Sanskaras. If we are not even fully aware of
what Sanskaras control us, there is no way we can become free from them.

The more aware we are of any of our Sanskara/conditionings, the weaker they become in
controlling us. It is those Sanskaras of which we are so totally unaware that we tend to even
deny the fact that they are in us; that are the most powerful in controlling us like puppets on
strings. These Sanksaras which are in the unconscious mind have more power in controlling
us from inside than those Sanskaras that we are aware of. Therefore, from this point of view
which is also the point of view of modern psychotherapy, Sanskaras that we are not aware of
and thus may think we do not have them, or may even deny we have them when somebody
else points it out to us, are the strongest, most powerful and most dangerous in the way it
controls our behavior, our views, our beliefs and the way we experience our world and how
we interpret our world. But because it is in the unconscious mind, we are not only totally
unaware of them and how they can control us but also it is not so easy to be aware of them
even if we wanted to become aware of them. However, their in uence in us is seen by those

269
fi
fl
around us and those who are trained to see it, as they raise their heads up in our daily
behaviors and activities, actions and reactions to the situations of life.

They usually tend to show their heads above the deep in times of stress and problems when
our controlled, learned, trained balance tends to go out of wack. But if you train yourself
systematically in Srimit-Samprajanay (mindfulness and discerning awareness) then to the
degree you have trained yourself; you can become more and more aware of their presence.
And as Fritz Per, the founder of Gestalt therapy says, "Awareness itself is curative";
becoming aware of these Sanskaras and the role they play in our lives is the rst step
towards becoming free from them. However, to be truly free from these Sanskaras, it is not
enough to be vaguely aware of them through some mindfulness meditation learned from
books, although even that has some bene ts, but one needs to learn the practices of Smriti-
Samprajanay systematically in a proper way.

C ATEGORIZATION OF SANSKARAS

This is the true meaning and purpose of Vipashyana/Vipassana excerpt last week's article:

To be truly free from Sanskaras, it is not enough to be vaguely aware of them through some
mindfulness meditation learned from books, although even that has some bene ts, but one
needs to learn the practices of Smriti-Samprajanay systematically in a proper way.

It is Sanskaras based on and fed by Avidhya (nescience), which produces Trishna (craving),
the seventh link, and then grasping, the eighth link of the chain of interdependent
origination/causation(Pratitya Samayutpad) triggered by a series of other factors in the
chain. And this seventh link, which is Trishna (craving) of which we will discuss later, which
is the independent cause of all our su ering, of which too we will touch upon although we
have already gone into greater details about it when we took on the rst Noble Truth (Arya
Satya), which is the truth of su ering (Dukha Satya).

Right now, we are discussing the second Noble Truth, which is the truth of
origination(Samudaya Satya). In the Abhidharma of Sarvastivada and the Abhidharma of the
Theravada, we nd various categorizations of the Sanskaras but in an article like this, we

270
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
need not go into such details. Su ce it to say that the Abhidharma categorizes 46 Sanskaras
called 46 Chaittas or Chaitasikas (mental factors), while the Theravada Abhidharma
categorizes 54 Chetasiks in Kamavachara (the realm of desire). But all of these can be
subsumed into the three major Sanskaras. They are: Kama (attachment, desire, like, greed),
Krodha or Dvesha (anger, hatred, irritation, dislike) and Moha(dullness, stupidity, non
clarity).

Their opposites are also Sanskaras in a way, however, we do not eliminate them or pacify
them, which is the correct meaning of prashamana. Actually the purpose is not to
completely eliminate all Sanskaras as that would make humans into total unfeeling stones or
perhaps a more appropriate analogy in the modern world would be a cyborg or a robot with
no feelings at all. It is not the objective of Buddhism to produce the borgs like those found
in Star Trek, who are more like mechanical computer beings with no feelings at all. The
Buddha or an arhat or high level bodhisattvas who are bodhisattvas above the eighth Bhumi
are not like the Queen Borg in star trek who is more like some sort of a rational computer
machine who is emotion-dead. Such borg-like beings could not possibly have any
compassion at all. Without compassion there is no Mahayana Enlightenment of the lowest
level, what to speak of a Buddha.

SANSKARAS' LINK TO KARMA

It is not the objective of Buddhism to produce Borgs like those found in Star Treks, who are
mechanical computer beings with no feelings. A Buddha or an Arhat is not like the Queen
Borg in Star Trek, who is some sort of a rational semi-machine but emotionally dead. Such a
state of mind with no compassion (Karuna), no empathy, no sympathy or in the language of
Star Trek, where compassion empathy sympathy becomes irrelevant is a monstrosity still
immersed in Moha (mental confusion).

A person can be very sharp in linear thinking but still be in Moha, where his own mental
activity only confuses him more and more. Such beings that are emotionally dead, neutral to
all feeling or incapable of feeling like love, compassion, empathy, sympathy but have
immense intellectual rational acuity are monstrosities rather than enlightened beings.

271
ffi
 In Mahayana, the purpose of all practice is to pacify all the negative Sanskaras, which is
what the word prashamana means normally, and develop all the good qualities already
inherent within our true nature, which is called Buddha Nature. Our Buddha Nature has
in nite positive qualities, which should be developed if a person is to be enlightened. If a
practitioner practices types of meditation or paths which fosters remaining in the neutral
feeling- dead state of Moha, such a method is certainly not going to develop the inherent
qualities already present in our Buddha nature. Without their full development, one does
not move in the direction of the Buddhist enlightenment. However, an integral part of the
path of the Buddhist enlightenment is dealing with the Sanskaras, which are contributing
factors to our su ering (Dukha).

Klesha (emotional de lement) is very closely related to Karma because all our Sanskaras are
related to Karma. We shall go into greater details about Karma when we come to the tenth
link of the chain of interdependent origination (Pratithya Samputpada) but before that, let it
be said here that Karma does not mean fate or some programme handed down by some God
out there, but your own mental, physical etc., actions that you perform yourself and their
results. It is your own actions which conditions you. Even when two people go through the
same experiences they would/could interpret that very same experience in two di erent
ways. It is that interpretation of that experience which conditions (Sanskara) the two
persons in two di erent ways. That interpretation is one's own individual mental action or
Karma and it is this interpretation which contribute to creating our Sanksaras.

WORLD OF WORDS

It is Karma and Klesha which bind us to Dukha (su ering). It is Karma and Klesha
(emotional de lements) which causes craving, the eighth link in the chain of interdependent
origination. That is why Nagarjuna says Karma Klesha Chayaan Moksha which means
liberation from su ering is attained when Karma and Klesha are paci ed. He goes on to say
Karma Klesha Vikalpita, which means Karma Klesha arise from Vikalpa. Now what is
Vikalpa?

The word Vikalpa is usually translated as concepts or conceptual thinking in English. In the
Abhidharma, it is de ned as Vishaya (object), Kalpana (imagination); from Vishaya Kalpana

272
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
 we have Vikalpa. So technically de ned Vikalpa means the imagination or imagined ideas of
the objects (Vishaya) of our sensory experiences, experienced by the six senses. So Vikalpa
is the imagination or fantasies we have about the objects of our experiences, which believe
in as true.

These imaginations or thoughts or concepts are heavily based on verbal thinking; that is
why Vikalpa can also be de ned as verbal thinking. Man has created words and language
which makes him more sophisticated than his other animal brothers. But it is this very
language and verbal thinking based on the language which takes him away from reality and
this initiates su ering. It is as if man created the motorbike to ride on it to facilitate his
transportation but somehow the motorbike begins to ride on him.

Man created language and words to communicate but these words and verbal thinking based
on those words to communicate began to de ne his world. Our words, language, language
structure de nes what we can see and what we fail to see, what we experience and how we
experience it and how we interpret it. A scienti c research has been done to see the e ect of
di erent languages in the brain and it was found that di erent cells in the brain red when
di erent languages were spoken. Although the full implication of this is yet to be evaluated,
we can safely say that our language structures do de ne the world of our experiences.

The Eskimos have around fty or so words for snow whereas the English or Nepali language
have just a few words. Now, as a Nepali, it is easy to see that because of our language we
cannot even imagine let alone experience fty types of snow. Therefore, when an average
Nepali goes to Alaska, s/he would fail to see more than what s/he calls 'hiu/snow'. We can
guarantee that s/he will not experience/see more than one (or two kinds of snow). But an
Eskimo would see and distinguish and experience fty or so di erent types of snow.

THE REAL SEEING

An Eskimo can see, distinguish and experience fty or so di erent types of snow. But that's
not all. Even your Weltenschauung/world view i.e. the way you think, feel, experience and
interpret your world, the world of your experience is heavily colored by your language.

273
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
Then Nagarjuna says Karma and Klesha (emotional de lement) arise from Vikalpa (verbal
and conceptual thinking). Conceptual and verbal thinking relies heavily on words and
languages. We cannot possibly have thoughts and concepts without words and language.
Now what is Vikalpa, verbal thinking or concepts?

The Pragyapradip of Bhavavivek says, 'Dukhaadukha sakala kalpana vikalpebhya'. This

means, - all imaginations like happiness and su ering etc. etc. arise from Vikalpa
(conceptual thinking). And Vikalpa (verbal-conceptual thinking) itself is, as we have said,
the imagination of the objects of our experience (the Kalpana/imagination of vishaya/
objects of the six senses). This imagination is heavily colored by our Sanskaras
(conditionings). Thus, when I 'see' Ram Lal, I may see him as a horrible man, a cut throat, a
crook, an enemy or someone I hate, but when Anita looks at or sees the same Ram Lal, she
may see a handsome, smart, intelligent, adorable, lovable young man.

Now that raises two questions. First of all, how can the same Ram Lal be both lovable and
hated, and secondly, who or what or which one is the Real Ram Lal?

Obviously, Anita and I see Ram Lal according to our Sanskaras, which label him as either
loveable or a cut-throat. But then, it is our Sanskaras- colored reading of Ram Lal and not
the real Ram Lal as he really is (Yathabhuta). Ram Lal is just a unit of our world but Ram
Lal is our world. That is how we experience the world and we never see, experience, know
the world as it is (Yathabhut or Tathata).

When I see a lump of shit, I dislike it, I nd it disgusting, and that is based on my
conceptual thinking (vikalpa), the imagination of the object (lump of shit here) acquired
(sanskaras/conditioning) through familial and socio-cultural training. I've been taught by
my parents, society and my language that a lump of shit is disgusting, yucky et al. but how
many mothers have seen their little infant gleefully play around with their own lump of shit
and enjoying it too as if it were a lump of clay, until she shrieks sky high to the infant's total
surprise?

2 74
fi
ff
fi
 ALL SANSKARAS ARE LEARNT

When I see a lump of shit, I dislike it. This is based on my conceptual thinking. I have been
taught by my parents, society and my language that a lump of shit are disgusting. It has
become such a strong part of my conditioning (Sanskara) that I take it as a fact, without
even questioning that a lump of shit is disgusting, it is yuck. But how many mothers have
seen their small infant play around with their own lump of shit as if it was a lump of clay
and enjoying it too before she shrieked to the infant's surprised.

If a lump of shit was really, really yucky as we feel it now, then the infant too should have
felt it without the mother shrieking to the infant to stop it. So we can see that the yucky-
ness of the lump is a conceptual process learnt by us (as infants) and acquired rather than
innate. This example is a very good example of how concepts can be so strong that they
overwhelmingly override facts and create their own facts. Even after intellectually
understanding the actual fact a lump of shit will still be so strongly yucky to many people
that even the thought of it can make them puke.

Now, in the same way, if I showed you a bouquet of roses you would smile and be attracted
towards it. But if I showed you some weed owers, you would not react in the same way
even though if we were to waive aside our conditioned conceptual re ex towards what we
have been taught as beautiful roses and dirty weeds, we can see that some of the weed
owers are as beautiful if not even more beautiful than the rose.

Related to this, below is a very famous Haiku by a famous Zen Master and haiku poet of
Japan, Basho {1644-1694}:

Yoku mireba

Nazuna hana saku

Kakine kana; which means When I look carefully/nazuna is blooming/beneath the hedge.

Nobody notices a Nazuna (a weed ower which lies full bloom under the hedge. Why?
Conditioning (Sanskara) is the answer and that is reinforced by our conceptual, habitual
patterns learned by us through training within our family-culture-constellation. So the roses
is a "wow" to us while a Nazuna is to be trampled on or weeded out and not even noticed. If

275
fl
fl
fl
fl
 you put a Nazuna ower (weed) and a rose in front of an infant, she would not see the
di erence we see between them because she has not been adulterated by her socio-cultural
norms.

C ATEGORIZING SANSKARAS

A rose is not really a rose but what the word rose charged with all my socio-cultural-
linguistic Sanskaras make it out to be. A Nazuna from Basho's haiku in the previous article)
is not a Nazuna and we do not 'see' it as it is (Yathabhutha). The object rose or nazuna or a
lump of shit are not experienced as they really are or as it is (Yathabhuta). But they (the
Vishaya or object) are coloured by our imagination (Kalpana) and so we experience the
imagination of the object or Vikalpa(the Vishaya Kalpana). So we do not per se experience
the world as it really is per se but more through our own conceptual goggles. So the lump of
shit is yucky, Ram Lal is cute handsome or cut-throat as the case maybe.

So now going back to the more classical category, when I see a lump of shit, I dislike it and
that is hate, anger, etc. called dvesha, krodha, etc. When I am shown a beautiful bouquet of
roses I like it for the same kind of reasons I dislike the lump shit. I reach out for it, I nd it
attractive etc. etc. and this is greed, desire and attachment, etc. etc. called Lobha, Kama and
Raga, etc. etc. If someone were to show me or you an ordinary pencil, I would neither like it
nor dislike it but react neutrally to it. Now, this Moha, often translated into English as
stupidity, dullness, insensitiveness or confusion. It's a kind of mental state where one is
incapable of being aesthetically sensitive to the ne aesthetical qualities (called rasa in
Sanskrit) of our experiences, like as if we were in a very subtle unrecognizable stupor, as if
our mind were dulled or mesmerized.

When we are feeling drowsy, tipsy, drugged, it is easy to see that the mind is in a state of
Moha but in normal states, we do not easily notice it, but normally when we are in a so-
called neutral state like when we experience an ordinary pencil, we are in a state of Moha.
Many spiritual systems mistake this neutrality as some kind of an enlightened state. But
that kind of neutrality comes at the expense of loss or clarity or by dulling one's awareness.
If awareness is keen, sharp and sensitive, it cannot also be insensitive to feelings. Neutrality
comes only when awareness becomes insensitive. Any loss of sensitivity is a marker for loss

2 76
ff
fl
fi
fi
 of awareness is called Moha, which is confusion-stupidity-dullness-unclearness are all rolled
in one.

SANSKARAS ARE LEARNED

We nd that most spiritual systems seem to be trying to decrease the attraction or greed as
well as repulsion, hatred, dislike towards things (Dharmas), but simply arriving at a state
which is neutral to these two only lands us squarely into Moha. But most spiritual traditions
are not even aware of this and thus instruct people to cultivate this neutral state
(Tathasthata), which in e ect is Moha. That is why simply remaining in awareness in a
neutral state, no matter what name you give that awareness like Choice-less Awareness,
Sakchi (witness), Drasta (Watcher), Gyata (Knower), Pure Awareness by itself (Chin
matra), Atman (Self), etc. etc. does not free one from the neutral state of Moha. This is so
even if that so called Awareness is without thoughts and concepts and non-dual.

Going back to Nagarjuna, we have already mentioned that he has said Karma Klesha
Cchayaan Mokcha or liberation is attained when Karma and Klesha (emotional de lements)
are paci ed etc. He goes on to say in his Magnum Opus, the Mula Madhyamicakarika (Tsa
Uma) that Karma Klesha Vikalpata or Karma and Klesha (emotional de lement ) arises from
Vikalpa (Vikalpa as we have seen is verbal conceptual thinking). So what this means is that
it is our conceptual thinking pattern which create our Karma and our Kleshas (emotional
de lements).

Let's analyze this a little more on the basis of all that we have covered so far. When I see a
rose, emotions of my liking it, etc. etc. are stirred up in me, which is Kama Cchanda or
desire, attraction, liking. Now, this is heavily based on my conceptual thinking acquired
through my upbringing etc. that that is a rose and a rose is 'beautiful', a rose is nice, a rose is
a rose is a rose by whatever name you call it, etc. etc. Well, to an untrained un-sanskarita,
not yet conditioned child, a rose and a lump of shit are the same. All this is not to say that
Buddhism vouscha es for the state of mind when a rose and lump of shit are the same as
that is what we have been explaining as Moha (confusion or dullness). However, the point
here is that those conceptual frameworks in us that tells us that the rose is beautiful and the
lump of shit is yuck also binds us to the fact that they arise merely from learned concepts to

277
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
such an extent that we are ready to murder strike or even go to war for those concepts
forgetting that they are acquired conceptual frameworks through which we are supposed to
experience the world aesthetically.

278
 CONCEPTS AND MEDITATION
TECHNIQUES
Conceptual frameworks in us that tell us that the rose is beautiful and the lump of shit is
yucky (example from previous article) and that bind us to the fact that they arise merely
from learned concepts to such an extent that we are ready to murder, strike or even go to
war for those concepts, forgetting that they are acquired conceptual frameworks through
which we are supposed to experience the world aesthetically.

Therefore, merely stopping conceptual thinking by stopping thoughts through various

methods is not enough. As rst of all, these concepts remain latent and come out with a
vengeance once allowed to appear. Even if they are suppressed through various kinds of
methods like Nirvikalpa Samadhi for many Kalpas, they would just remain latent and remain
ready to pop their heads up as soon as the Samadhi ends. That is why going into various
Samatha-style Samadhis or just remaining thoughtless or non-conceptual does not really
free us from Karma and Kleshas (emotional de lements) which bind us. We do not become
liberated or free from Karma and Klesha (emotional de lements) by just practicing
remaining in some kind of a thoughtless or concept-less state.

Within Buddhism, there are two major categories of meditations. One is the group of
meditational techniques which help calm down the mind by decreasing thoughts and
concepts. There are many kinds of meditations which can achieve this and Buddhism by no
means is the only repository of this kind of meditation which helps to calm down the mind
of thoughts and concepts. Various meditation techniques from within Hinduism or even
Su sm or Christianity or Jainism all belong to this category. In Buddhist technical language
this form of meditation is called Samatha. 'Sama' means to remain in the 'same or
unchanged' state, which means quiet without changing with new thoughts etc. every
second, and 'stha' means to remain. So Samatha means to remain the same or quietened or
tranquil or paci ed free from thoughts and concepts. All the various types of meditation
found within the Indian subcontinent today followed by various schools of Hinduism and
Jainism and even new schools of thoughts like Rajneeshism or Krishnamurtiism all fall
within this category of meditation called Samatha.

279
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 True, it is that Krisnamurti claimed he had no method as all methods are conditioned
wrong, etc. etc. but in spite of his claim of a pathless path and following no methods, he did
advocate remaining choice-lessly aware moment to moment. Well, that is a method and it is
a type of meditation which comes under the category of Samatha meditation.

SAMATHA MEDITATION IN DETAIL

Krisnamurti claimed he had no method as all methods are conditioned wrong, etc. etc. but
in spite of his claim of a pathless path and following no methods, he did advocate remaining
choice-lessly aware moment to moment. Well, that is a method and it is a type of meditation
which comes under the category of Samatha meditation and has been used by both
Buddhism and Kashmiri Shaivism for thousands of years. It is de nitely not new as
Krishnamurti seems to imply, and within Buddhism just remaining choice-lessly aware of
whatever happens is only a kind of mindful mediation and in itself does not automatically
liberate us from Karma and Klesha, and thus does not liberate us from the conditioned mind
(to put it in Krisnamurti's own words).

No Samatha type meditational methods will liberate us and remaining merely in awareness
certainly is not a new, fresh method discovered by Krisnamurti. Various methods of
dropping thought so that only a kind of pure awareness by itself remains (chin-matra or
Awareness only or Drasta-matra, watcher alone etc. etc.) no matter what method is used
and no matter what name is given to that method like Kundalini yoga, Dynamic meditation,
etc. etc. are all plain and simple Samatha methods. And as we have said often and again it is
a very basic tenet of Buddhism that there is no freedom from Karma and Klesha emotional
de lement, which means there is no liberation (Mokcha, Mukti, Tharpa in Tibetan) and thus
no enlightenments by practicing only Samatha types of meditation.

Why? Very Simple. All such types of meditation only stop thoughts and concepts
temporarily by blocking them (Viskhambana) or suppressing them. But even while they are
blocked, they continue to remain latent in the mind ready to pop their head up as soon as
the person comes out of the Samatha or Samadhi. Samatha or Samadhi only push or block
the emotional de lements temporarily, like suppressing them into the unconscious. When
the person is in the Samatha-Samadhi, all such Kleshas or emotional de lements are

280
fi
fi
fi
fi
 blocked, so the person appears to be free from them but since nothing has been done to cut
their roots and thus really destroy them, they will pop their head up as soon as the person
comes out of their Samatha and the causes and conditions for them to appear arise. Thus,
we have stories of ancient cities being destroyed by Rishis or Seers in spite or in anger even
though they had the capacity to remain in Samadhi for long periods.

Let me make it clear that every type of meditational practice found within all non-Buddhist
systems can all be subsumed under Samatha type meditation, no matter what their name
and how exotic they may appear. Let us again try to understand Samatha. Samatha is an
important aspect of the Buddhist meditation. It is mainly about cultivating the capacity to
remain one-pointed on any object. As the classical de nition goes: Samadhir Upaparichaya
Vastuni Chittasaik Agrata.

Samadhi is the one-pointed concentration of the mind on the object of its investigation. Of
course, there are many levels of one-pointed concentration on the object of its investigation
and only one pointed concentration beyond a certain level can be called Samadhi. There are
many levels of Samadhi. In the Buddhist categorization, there are four or ve levels of
Samadhi depending on the categorizing method used. These four are called: First Dhyana,
Second Dhyana, Third Dhyana and Fourth Dhayan respectively as one achieves higher and
higher levels of Samadhis.

Samadhis create various Siddhis such as abilities to read others' mind and future and past,
etc. etc., but such abilities have nothing to do with enlightenment or liberation (Mukti/
Moksha). Such abilities are developed through the practice of Samatha type of meditation
and we have already said that such types of meditations only block Kleshas (emotional
de lements) temporarily and do not really uproot them. As the Kleshas (emotional
de lements) are not uprooted, they cannot be free us from Dukha/su ering as Karma and
Klesha are the root causes of Dukha. As practitioners of samatha type samadhis are not
liberated or freed from Dukha/su ering yet, they cannot be called liberated (Mukta) even
though they seem to posses all sorts of fantastic super normal powers called Siddhi-Riddhi.

In the Indian Subcontinent (Bharat Vasha), there are two meanings of the word Siddha,
which is often not distinguished by the average layman. The word means 'achieved' or
'attained'. So the person who has achieved or attained liberation is called a Siddha or
Mahasiddha as the famous eighty four Mahasiddhas are called. However, there are many

2 81
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
 Yogis who have achieved super normal powers through rigorous practice of Samtha type of
Samadhis and since such super normal powers are called Siddhi-Riddhi, such people are also
called Siddhas. However, such people have not attained liberation (Mokcha/mukti) and thus
are not Siddhas in that sense. Very often these two meanings are hopelessly mixed up in the
psyche of the people of the Indian subcontinent. So this has to be cleared up. The Buddha
was very emphatic that the two types are not the same.

USE OF MIRACULOUS POWERS IN BUDDHISM

Just because a person has miraculous powers (Siddhi Riddhis) does not guarantee that the
person's also liberated (Mukta) or enlightened (Bodha Prapta), but an enlightened person
will have some extraordinary powers. However, many enlightened persons normally do not
display them throughout their life except in exceptional cases. This is a rule of law by
Buddhist Masters as it was the command of the Buddha himself not to display one's
miraculous powers (Siddha Riddhia) in the public.

There is a story of Bharadwaj Pindola, a bhikchu and a disciple of the Buddha himself who
had miraculous powers. One day while returning from his alms taking round, he saw a
competition being held in a public arena. Atop a tall poll was a sh and it was announced
that whoever could bring that sh down without touching it,it would prove that his Master
was the greatest Master alive. Many people tried all sorts of tricks but failed to bring the sh
down. When Pindola Bharadwaj heard this, he felt I could easily y up and bring the sh
down. Why not use my power to prove to the world that my Master is the greatest living
Master right now?

So he ew up to the top of the pole and picked the sh up and came down. He was of course
applauded and his Master Gautama, the Buddha, was declared the greatest Master. Pindola
Bharadwaj was very happy that he had helped declare the Buddha as the greatest Master
with the help of his miraculous powers. He was sure the Buddha would pat him on the back
and appreciate it. However, when the Buddha heard this episode, he called Pindola
Bharadwaj and chastised him in front of all the monks and said - let it be known that
whoever displays miracles (Siddhis) like this, that this is a sign that, that person is not my
follower.

282
fl
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
 Although Maudgalayayana, Aniruddha and Sagatha, many other disciples and the Buddha
himself did continue to use miracles, they were always in a very speci c context, always as
part of the Dharma and never as an ego display. And in later centuries too in India, Tibet,
China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Burma, etc. etc., great Masters continued to use miracles when
appropriate but never as some sort of display or ego play. In Buddhism, the Dharma
(teaching) is more important than the personality of the Guru. It is the Dharma (teaching)
that is primary, not the person and his siddhis for quite often people with siddhis do not
have any liberating teachings to give to their disciples. The patanjala sutra of the Hindus
says "Janma ausadha mantra tapa Samadhi ja siddhayor" ie- siddhis are born from birth
(some have it at birth itself), medicinal drugs, mantras, austerities and from samadhis (here
it means samatha-samadhis as explained before). And many Buddhist text say to the same
e ect. So a person can have siddhis-riddhis (miraculous powers and not be enlightened and
not have authentic teachings that can help liberate others through her/his teachings.

In Buddhism, it is the Dharma (teaching) that is primary, not the person. Miracles are
displayed to attract people to the charismatic personality and miracles are also displayed to
attract people to the liberating teaching which will help them. There is a ne dividing line
between these two which is sometimes muddled up by the average layman but to
distinguish between the two is paramount to Buddhist culture.

Whereas one develops a personality cult which always in the long run leaves the followers
empty handed once the personality is gone, except perhaps with fond memories of the
charismatic person. In the second, besides the charismatic personality who is always
secondary to the teaching (Dharma), the followers have a liberating Dharma to help them
continue their way to liberation after the charismatic personality is gone, in the form of the
lineage which has other enlightened beings or advanced beings who will continue to
propagate the Dharma, and in the form of the Sad Dharma (authentic Dharma) on which
people can rely (with the help of the enlightened lineage Masters of course) to continue
their path to liberation and enlightenment. In the case of the personality culture, there is
only the fond memory of the personality to worship and no Dharma or enlightenment
lineage to continue the practices.

This is why in Buddhism the greatest miracle that the Buddha performed is considered the
miracle of the Dharma because for over two thousand ve hundred years, this Dharma
(teaching) has liberated people from generation to generation. The Dharma includes the

283
ff
fi
fi
fi
theoretical aspects related to the practice and the practical aspects. What is normally
considered as miraculous powers are not really miraculous after all the best it does is make
the people become interested in the entertainment it provides. They do not per se
contribute to the alleviation of su ering (Dukha) of sentient beings. But the Sad Dharma
contributes to helping sentient beings free themselves from the su ering if applied. And
through that Sad Dharma contributes to societies as a whole.

If a Dharma (teaching) does not produce enlightened, liberated persons from generation to
generation who can pass on the knowledge to the next generation the knowledge of the
possibility of liberation and the knowledge of the technology through teachings and
example, then it is not a Sad Dharma (authentic Dharma). If in the name of Dharma, man is
made into only a blind slave to some ideologies or Sanskaras (conditioning) for which s/he
is even willing to blindly kill others or die for it with no sight of any genuine authentic
means to free oneself from the oppression of deep-rooted su ering in the here and now (and
not merely a promise of happy future in some heaven after death, etc.), then according to
Buddhism that is not a Sad Dharma, or an authentic, genuine and true Dharma as it does
not alleviate my su ering in the here and now.

284
ff
ff
ff
ff
 IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING FROM
AN AUTHENTIC MASTER

It can be said without contradiction that the only true miracle is the miracle of the Sad
Dharma, which liberates you in the here and now or helps us liberate or helps start the
process of liberation in the here and now which by the way are and should be experiential,
not merely intellectual. Mere intellectual-conceptual understanding of the Dharma is very
important as it provides the road map or compass but such knowledge of the Dharma
doesn't in itself liberate. However, it is part of the process of liberation. If there is no proper
compass or road map, the person doesn't even know where s/he is headed. It is like a blind
man walking down a road without knowing where he is going and why he is going. That is
why just sitting down to do this or that meditation without any road map at all is not
conducive to liberation. Such meditation can relieve stress and relax the person if done
properly but such experiences do not automatically produce liberation automatically. One
does not need to be a Pandit but one does need a road map or compass before starting out
on the journey. That is why such methods are not the Buddhist ways.

Within Buddhism itself, there are many ways a Master or a lineage provides you the road
map. The most common and well known throughout the Buddhist world is to study under a
quali ed Master until at least the development of Srutamayi Pragya/Wisdom arisen from
listening.

Srutamayi Pragya means wisdom developed through listening to the Master by hearing his
teachings, etc. In ancient times, books were not so easily available as it is today. However, it
must be said that books do not and cannot replace a living Master's teaching. Books are not
primary but rather can be at the most only secondary sources of developing the Srutamaya
Pragya for many reasons.

These reasons are, rst and foremost, books do not have the energetic connection that you
get when you are sitting at the foot of any authentic Master. The energetic connection
(called blessing) is an integral part of the process of understanding the liberating Dharma at
this beginner's level. Books can never provide that. That's why many seekers have found that
di cult part becomes easy to understand when in the presence of an authentic Master. And

285
ffi
fi
fi
 I'm not talking about the skill in teaching the Dharma which comes naturally to a Master
who by virtue of having travelled the path herself can easily understand where you are at or
where you come from, from your very questions. All these will be missing in books of
course.

D E V E L O P M E N T O F S H R U T A M AYA P R A GYA W I T H
AUTHENTIC MASTER

The second problem with trying to develop Srutamaya Pragya from mere books alone is that
you cannot ask questions to con rm if your personal interpretation or understanding is
correct and in accordance with the unbroken, enlightened lineages. That is why a so-called
self-acclaimed Master who has not really studied and practiced under at least one lineage
Master belonging to an unbroken, enlightened lineage cannot be considered an authentic
Master (Sad- Guru) within the Buddhist culture.

And nally, the idea that you can get everything out of a book and you do not really need a
living Master to help you is only a form of intellectual hubris which is highly detrimental to
the spiritual path. After all, this is the display of an ego that due to her own psychological
insecurity is afraid to surrender her ego to somebody else. As the whole purpose of all forms
of spiritualism in general and speci cally Buddhism is to let go of the ego, insisting on only
truly understanding solely through the help of books and avoiding commitments to a living
Master (Guru) is counterproductive to any spiritual endeavour, to say the least. And by
living Master, we have to exclude so called visionary Masters based solely on their own
visions or those who base themselves only on one's own intuitive ideas or channels or media
etc. etc., as until one is fully puri ed or at least puri ed to a great extent through proper
methods learnt from a living Master which in the Buddhist context includes a living linage,
all such methods are only stooges of one's own ego therefore still counterproductive
especially to Buddhist spirituality.

Then there is what is called the "Pith Instruction" from a living Master which can boycott
long periods of study. However, that still requires continuous and long periods of validating
with the Master over and over again as all such short path instruction by virtue of being
skeletal- bare and short are more prone to misunderstanding or misinterpretations than not.

286
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
In the case of untrained people, they can veer o at a tangent and land in places
(interpretations) which can be quite contradictory to what the Master of the pith
instructions means or intends. Words are not as simple as most people believe. Words are
charged with intellectual and emotional connotations and innuendos and thus the more
pithy the instructions are, the more liable to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. This
automatically demands easy access to the Master to verify and validate and con rm one's
understanding again and again from various angles and such a thing cannot be done merely
through books. So this is the development of what is traditionally called Srutamaya Pragya/
wisdom developed through listening, the rst step in Buddhism.

IMPORTAN CE OF INVESTIGATIN G THE PATH FOR

YO U R S E L F

Even in the system of Pith instruction, the Pragya (wisdom) is not eschewed but rather the
bare essentials are presented by the Master. The disciple still has to listen to the Master's
Pith instructions, etc. In the Burmese and many Thai traditions, it is considered that one
must study the Abhidhamma before embarking on the practice of Vipassana/Vipashayana.
However, just listening to a Master (Guru) is not enough to complete the Path.

Buddhism does not believe in blind faith, just acceptance, or what the Buddha said or what
the Master (Guru) said. It is paramount to investigate whether what he taught is true or
correct or valid. Buddhism does not believe in accepting whatever the Buddha said. That is
not the teaching of the Buddha and it is certainly not the Buddhist culture. One must
investigate, analyze and nd out for oneself whether those teachings are true, correct or
valid. And this is done not only conceptually or intellectually but more importantly through
experience, where it is applicable. This in the Buddhist technical language is called
Chintamaya Pragya or wisdom arising from deliberation of what was taught. It is very
important to con rm for oneself that what was taught is valid, authentic and correct. That is
why it is called Chintamaya Pragya, i.e. Pragya (wisdom) based on cognition and
contemplation. This is where you put the teachings to the test, where you investigate
through various means to conclude nally for oneself that the teachings (Dharma) are true,
authentic, correct, valid, etc. etc. Once one has understood, at least intellectually rst, and

287
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
 then experimentally the concepts, views and ideas of the teachings (Dharma), then one
needs to see for oneself if they are valid, correct or true.

Many people believe that if you can experience it, it is true; but one can experience a snake
in a rope but that is false, so just experience alone is not enough. One needs to validate
whether that experience is true or false, whether that experience is in accordance with the
Dharma or not, where the experience helps liberate us or binds us more into the chains of
Samsara. That is why there are right views and wrong views, right Samadis and wrong
Samadhis correct paths and false paths. Most laymen believe that if a person can go into
Samadhi that's the litmus test he/she is a Yogi worth the salt, and we can learn from him
how to liberate oneself. That is simply an over simpli ed and rather naive idea according to
Buddhism.

INVESTIGATIN G THE PATH TO MOVE FORWARD

The Buddha himself warned that there are Mithya Samadhis (false Samadhis). If a person
can go into any Samadhi, even a false Samadhi, it is an experience. Therefore, just
experiences are not enough and are not a litmus test for the teachings. It is the
contemplative wisdom (Chintamaya Pragya) that distinguishes all these ne points and gets
us on the right track. But just thinking alone too is not enough as there are straight, correct
thinking and distorted and wrong thinking. Even in straight correct thinking, there are many
kinds of thinking, like linear thinking, like analytical mathematical thinking, like non-linear,
circular thinking, and metaphorical thinking. And one may not be trained properly to think
in sophisticated ways. That is why we need a Master who can help us by answering our
questions. That is why at this stage, it is necessary to ask questions, even challenge the
concept of the Dharma to make one's own view sharp and correct. Just blindly accepting
what the Master says is detrimental to the development of Chintamaya Pragya, even if the
Master is a Great Master. This is where Buddhism encourages each person to nd out for
themselves whether what the Buddha taught is valid or not.

And this can be done only be investigating, analyzing and asking questions. It is very
important to clarify any doubt one has by asking questions to the Master or whoever is
quali ed and not politely accepting whatever is said as that will not help clarify one's

288
fi
fi
fi
fi
 confusions about the views etc., although one has to go beyond doubts and should not
remain a Doubting Tom forever, otherwise there is no progress. This also does not mean
that these doubts should be suppressed or waived aside or politely swallowed but rather
clari ed by asking questions. At this stage, it is very important to doubt and ask questions
to clarify the doubts and not accept things simply because the Buddha said it or the Master
(Guru) said it or it is written in the texts or it is helped by the lineage (Parampara) etc.

In Kalam Sutta, the Buddha has said very clearly that: "Don't go by reports, by legends, by
logical conjecture, by probabilities, by tradition, etc. etc., but nd out for yourself (with the
help of wise ones, meaning quali ed Masters) whether that is true or not, especially nd out
from your own and the wise ones' experiences" (extracted from Thanissaro Bhikhu’s
translation).

IMPORTAN CE OF INVESTIGATIN G THE PATH WITH A

MASTER

In Kalam Sutta, the Buddha has said very clearly that: "Don't go by reports, by legends, by
logical conjecture, by probabilities, by tradition, etc. etc., but nd out for yourself (with the
help of wise ones, meaning quali ed Masters) whether that is true or not, especially nd out
from your own and the wise ones experiences"(extracted from Thanissaro Bhikhus
translation). And among the list in the Kalama Sutta, which the Buddha told to the Kalamas
was, "Do not accept it simple because it was said by person who happen to be your Guru but
Kalama when you yourself know, these things are good (conducive to my progress) these
things are blamable, these things are praised by the wise, understood and observed; these
things lead to bene t and happiness, enter on and abide in them."

So we need to nd out for oneself with the help of the wise ones (Master or Masters)
whether or not these things are valid. One needs to be convinced fully rst and then accept
them and move on (enter and abide in them, as the Sutta or Sutra says). Sutta in Pali is
Sutra in Sanskrit are the words of the Buddha himself.

This Kalama Sutra is found in both Pali and Sanskrit literatures and not only in the Pali
Theravadin literature as some Nepalese Theravadin's new fangled followers imagine. Some

289
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
new Modernist interpreters interpret it as if the Buddha himself taught not to believe in
anybody but to nd out solely by oneself (somewhat similar to J. Krisnamurti's ideas), but
this kind of interpretation would contradict what is said in the Sutra itself and many other
Suttras like Majjihima Nikaya 961,95; Anguttara Nikaya 7.79 and 8.53, Majjihima Nikaya
110, Anguttara Nikaya 4.192 and 8.54.

So it is not correct in Buddhism to believe blindly or accept simply on faith to anything

within Buddhism and you are required to vigorously think, contemplate and ask questions,
verify, clarify for yourself whatever has been taught until you yourself see for yourself, at
least conceptually if not experimentally that what has been taught is valid, true, correct,
fruitful, factual, etc. etc.. However, such thinking, cogitating, contemplating, analyzing, etc.
etc., does not mean to not depend on anybody else, just nd out for yourself. This is not
possible. It would be like saying do not depend on any scientists but to nd out for yourself
if whether, whatever science says is true, fact, real and correct or not. Such an idea is absurd,
yet many self-styled modern Theravadins of Sri Lanka and their followers in Nepal stricken
by out-dated Modernism go around parading this quaint nonsensical thinking as the
Buddha's teachings in spite of the fact that the Buddha himself has in many other Suttas
said very clearly to the contrary.

INVESTIGATIN G THE PATH DOES N OT MEAN N OT

T R U S T I N G A N YO N E

Many self-styled modern Theravadins of Sri Lanka and their followers in Nepal stricken by
out-dated Modernism go around parading this quaint nonsense thinking they are being
Modern and scienti c, whereas such a notion not only contradicts the scienti c mode of
thinking but also is outmoded and not modern at all in this post-modern age. And
furthermore, the Anguttara Nikaya, Kalama Sutta does not say do not trust or accept or
depend on tradition, wise ones, logic at all. It says very clearly, it intends very clearly do not
accept merely on the basis of the fact that it is tradition, or it is in our Pitaka (Dharma texts)
etc. etc., but nd out for yourself. Here the intention is very clearly not to eschew all
traditions, Masters, Dharma texts and try to re-invent the wheel on one's own self in every
generation; but rather not to accept any of them blindly but to see for oneself whether what

290
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
they say is true or not, in short as the Buddha himself said "Ehi Passiko"-ie- come and see
for yourself. To see for yourself here does not mean do not take any help from anybody else
but rather see in one's own experience whether it is true or not, valid or not. This point is
made very clearly in the commentary called the Atthakatha. If the meaning was simply not
to accept anybody else and to nd out only by oneself alone as some Modernistic
Theravadins have tried to interpret, then we would come to the absurd conclusion to not
accept this Kalam Sutta also as it is 'our Dharma text' too. This is where Chintamayi Pragya
comes in. It is an integral part of the process and means wisdom arisen from the
contemplation process of liberation. That is why it is said by most Theravadin Masters of
Vipassana that you cannot really practice Vipassana without rst studying the Abhidharma/
Abhidhamma. And many Theravadin Vipassana Masters say the Vipassana without rst
thoroughly studying the Abhidharma is not so fruitful. Even according to the Tibetan
system, the Abhidharma is considered as the top of the mountain from where you can see
and observe and understand Buddhism as a whole and get the correct Buddhist view/
samyag drishti. Without the Abhidharma, one does not really understand Buddhism. It is
only after the foregone rst two steps viz-

1. Srutamyi Pragya, which we have said is wisdom arisen through listening to an authentic
lineage Master and we can add now-a-days through studying and reading etc.also,

2. Chintamayi Pragya, which is wisdom arisen from investigating, analyzing, reasoning,

seeing for oneself whether what was said is valid or not, that the third type of Pragya
called Bhavanmayi Pragya, which could be translated as wisdom arisen from meditation
has any meaning.

So vipassana/Vipashyana cannot really be called authentic vipassana/Vipashyana if a person

without the correct view just sits and watches his mind or sensation or body etc etc. That
would be a kind of samatha, not vipassana/vipashyana by correct Buddhist standards. It
would contradict the Buddha's own teachings in the Theravadin suttas themselves, let alone
Mahayana sutras.

2 91
fi
fi
fi
fi
V I PA S H YA N A P R A C T I C E S I N D I F F E R E N T S C H O O L S O F
BUDDHISM

This last stage of development of Pragya or Wisdom (Bhavanmayi Pragya) is what is meant
by Vipashyana is Sanksrit and Vipassana in the Theravada in Pali tradition. Vipashayana is
by no means the sole property of the Theravadin school of Buddhism as is often claimed by
half baked Theravadin practitioners and Assistant Acharyas (Assistant Masters) of Nepal.
Vipashayana or Vipassana has always been the main practice, the central practice of all
forms of schools of Buddhism, be it the di erent types of Pramitayana practiced all over
China, Korea, Japana, Vietnam, etc, etc., or Vajrayana practiced in Tibet, Mongolia, the entire
Himalayan belt and many parts of Central Asia and to some extent in China, Japan, Korea
and Vietnam too.

The Tibetan word 'Lhag Thong' is the accurate translation of Vipashyana. Lhag means 'Vi;
which means special, total, holistic, etc. etc, and Thong means 'pashyana', which is rooted in
the word "seeing" in Sanskrit. The word Vi Passana is just a Pali version of the Sanskrit
Buddhist word. In a similar way, the Chinese word Kuan and its derivatives like Kan in
Japanese, Kwan in Korean, etc. etc., all are translations of the word Vipashayana. So it is
historically a completely false concept to believe that somehow Vipassana exists only in the
Theravadin systems or even that somehow Vipassana survived only in the Theravadin
tradition of Burma.

Vipashayana not only survived but also exists fully active in the Vajrayana tradition of Tibet
and in the various traditions of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. And even the Theravadin
Vipassana tradition not only survived but also is alive and healthy in Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia as is witnessed by great Masters like Ajhan Jha, Ajhan Mun and many, many
others, some of whom like Ajhan Jha were even considered as Arhats, etc. etc.. There is
another point that needs to be clari ed in the context of Nepal or Nepalese Vipassana
history.

1. The form of Vipassana taught by the Venerable Sri Goenkaji is neither the one and only
form of Vipassana taught by the Buddha, as can been seen clearly by anybody who reads and
studies the Theravadin Nikayas and Suttas.

292
fi
ff
2. Nor is that speci c form of Vipassana anymore pure or correct than any other forms of
Vipassana taught in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, etc. etc.

3. Nor is the Satipatthana type of Vipassana the only type or form of Vipassana that the
Buddha taught even according to the Theravadin Suttas themselves.

R E F U T I N G T H E E X I S T E N C E O F V I PA S H YA N A O N LY I N
V E N . G O E N K A J I ' S T H E R AVA DA P R AC T I C E

There are many other kinds of Vipashayana that the Buddha taught and one good example is
the Anguttara Nikaya, Unuttariya Vagga, Udayai Sutta of the Theravada itself, where the
Buddha himself enlists a series of various methods through which 'yana dassan labhaya ti ti',
as the Buddha himself mentions. By the way, even though all the methods like Diwa Sangya
Ratri Sangya Pabhassar Chitta, etc., are mentioned in this Theravadin Sutta itself as ways to
'yana dassana/Gyana darshana', meaning enlightenment in laymen's terminology, and
therefore automatically are various modes of Vipashyana as taught by the Buddha himself,
many of them are not found within any Therevadin lineages so far, unless available in the
hidden caves of Laos and Thai monasteries. But they are still available fully and practiced
fully in the Tibetan Vajrayana traditions.

Devanussati or Devanusmriti is only mentioned in the Theravadin text but no one uses it
and how Devanussati can be used for both Samatha and Vipashyana is not available in the
Theravadin tradition (as far as I know). But a detailed method and practice not only exists in
texts but is fully alive and fully practiced in the Tibetan Vajrayana traditions.

The reason why I have mentioned all these is not to criticize the methods of Venerable Sri
Goenka but to refute the false idea propagated by the Acharyas of Sri Goenkaji in Nepal that
his and only his method of Vipashyana is the one and only true and pure teaching of the
Buddha and all other methods(even Theravadin methods) are either impure, or created by
later acharyas or methods not taught by the Buddha. And that there is no Vipahsyana in
Mahayana which the Ven. Sri Goenkaji himself seems to have propagated by having falsely
said so much, as reported by many who heard him say it to vipassana groups in which they

293
fi
were present. Well, in that case an Acharya of the Mahayana tradition has every right to
clarify or refute this false statement.

It is also very important to understand that refutation is not the same thing as criticism.
Refutation is part of the Dharmic culture of Buddhism speci cally, and the Indian Dharma
culture generally. It began with the Buddha himself who has said very clearly in the
Anguttara Nikaya that one should refute what should be refuted and praise what should be
praised. And the Tathagata (the Buddha) himself went to debate with mendicants and
famous Gurus of the time when he found out they had come to the city where he was or
were staying in a nearby forest.

IMPORTANCE OF REFUTING IN ALL BUDDHIST

TRADITIONS

It was customary for the Tathagata himself to go to meet mendicants and famous Gurus of
the time of other traditions and discuss with them. In fact, most of the Buddha's disciples
were such Gurus and mendicants who were defeated in such discussions and realized their
mistakes as was the cultural tradition of India in those days of very open and authentic
search for the truth. They often immediately took refuge in the Buddha. It is historically
incorrect to claim that:

1. Vipashayana exists only in the Theravada tradition

2. That Mahayana does not have Vipashayana

3. That Vedanasmriti or Vedanannssati is the one and only form of true Buddhist
Vipashayana

4. That the pure Buddhist mediation called Vipashayana or Vipassana survived somehow
only in Burma

5. That the Buddha spoke in Pali, therefore, Pali Suttas only are the words that came straight
out of the Buddha's mouth and all others are late inventions of later Acharyas

294
fi
These are all false premises that I have refuted. I have given historical, linguistic and in-text
proof from the Pali Suttas themselves to prove my point. If any scholar can refute my points,
I welcome them to try to refute using historical, linguistic and in-text sources not just
through their own personal ideas and interpretations. However, I want to make it very clear
once and for all that refuting the points mentioned above is not a criticism of any form of
Vipashyana including Burmese Sukhaa Vipassana styles or a criticism of any Theravada
Acharyas, including Sri Goenkaji as a whole.

I personally believe that the Theravada school is a genuine Sravakayana school as taught by
the Buddha himself, but it is not the one and only school that the Buddha taught nor is it
more pure than other forms of Buddhism,in spite of the claims of Theravadins, and thus I
have immense respect for it, as I have for all things related to the Buddha. I have great
respect for Theravada Vipassana Teachers like Achan Jha and Achan Dhamadharo and
Acham Naeb (all of them from Thailand) as teachers who have transcended the narrow
bounds of one school. To loosely claim such things like Mahayana has no vipashyana, that all
the things found in Mahayana were created by later Acharyas and really not the words of the
Buddha is not only unfair but also slandering the teachings of the Buddha himself because
there is no such proofs that the teachings of the Mahayana are not the teachings of the
Buddha. To the contrary it can be proven using Theravada Suttas themselves that every
principle and practice taught within the Mahayana is in accordance with the teachings of the
Buddha and specially the Abhidharmic teachings of the Buddha. Therefore I challenge those
Acharyas and Asst Acharyas who go around mouthing that Mahayana doesn't have
Vipashyana and that the teachings of the Mahayana are not the teachings of the Buddha
himself but rather the distortions of later Acharyas to prove it using Pali and Mahayana
Sutras- not their own personal ideas and beliefs.

295
WHAT ARE BUDDHIST SUTRAS AND SASTRAS

So with that said and done, let us turn back to our main topic. We were talking about
Samatha and Vipashyana (Vipassana), and we said that according to the teachings of the
Buddha himself, he has clearly laid out three clear steps in the development of Vipashayana.
They are:

i) Srutamayi Pragya

ii) Chintamayi Pragya

iii) Bhavanamayi Prgaya

It is this step by step development of Pragya that is called Vipashyana (Vipassana). Just
sitting down to meditate to watch the Vedana (feeling, sensation), Kaya (body) and chitta
(mind) without any background study, etc., to build the Samyag Dristi (correct view) at all
is not correct in Vipashyana (Vipassana) even according to the Buddha's own words. That is
why in almost all Buddhist traditions, including Theravda traditions of Thailand, Sri Lanka,
Burma, Laos, Cambodia, it is often said you cannot do proper Vipashyana without rst
studying the Abhidharma (Abhidamma). This is also the general idea in Tibetan Buddhism.

Some half-baked people may think that Zen Buddhism does not require the study of
scriptures. That is simply not true. It is a clear misunderstanding of the Zen style. First of
all, the Koan system (called Kung an in Chinese and Kong an in Korean) itself introduces
you to the deep philosophical contexts of the Sutras in its own unique way. But in most
schools that use Koans, there are speci c Koans that ask questions related to quotes from
Sutras, etc., too. It is also good for those of you who think that you can practice genuine
authentic Buddhist meditation without having the correct view (Samyag Dristi), which
needless to say require thorough study of the scriptures) and who use Zen as an excuse - to
know that amongst all the Buddhist Masters of the far east, the Zen Masters are renowned
to be the most well studied and well versed in the Sutras and Sastras and the Abhidharmas.

For those of you who are only used to the Hindu meaning of Sutras and Sastras, that within
Buddhism, Sutras (Suttas in Pali) mean always and only the words of the Buddha himself,
and the Sastras mean the commentaries on the Buddha's words by later Masters or
independent writings of the later Masters (Acharyas). Sastra in the Buddhist context does-

296
fi
fi
not mean all Dharma texts, as within the Hindu context, but commentaries and writings of
the Buddhist Acharyas like Nagarjuna, Asanga, etc. etc.. Besides the Sutras (and the Sastras
which are intimately related to the Sutras), we have the Abhidharma (Abhidhamma), which
is the special philosophical analytical teachings of the Buddha.

B U D D H I S T P U R E T R A D I T I O N S O F M A H AYA N A A N D
T H E R AVA DA

The Abhidharma (Abhidhamma) is the special philosophical analytical teachings of the

Buddha, and without studying the Abhidharma, no Vipashyana can be called authentic. And
as I have said before studying can mean pith instructions from a quali ed Master.

The Vinaya are the rules or codes of conducts laid down by the Buddha himself to the
monks and nuns. Of the Vinaya for the nuns, the unbroken lineage in all but one school in
Taiwan has been broken. There seems to be some confusion amongst the Theravada Bhantes
of Nepal that the Vinaya vows taken by Mahayana monks are the special Vinaya of the
Bodhisatvayana. But all Vianayas are Sravakayana vows like Mahasangikas,
Mulasarvastivadins, etc. etc., which are all Sravakayana Nikayas like the Theravada itself.
And Huen Tsang, the Great Chinese Guru, who came to India to study Buddhism, has
mentioned in his travelogue that there were many monasteries in India where the monks
took the Theravada Bhikchu Upasampada and were practicing Mahayanist practices. And
even today, there are Theravadin Theras and Bhikhus of Laos and Thailand who are studying
and practicing Mahayana and Vajrayana with me.

It seems to be the special over zealousness of Nepali Theravadins, be they Bhikus or

Vipasssana practitioners, who falsely think that only their Nikya or Vipassana is specially
pure and that Mahayana in all its forms are distortions and therefore should not be even
looked at etc.. This is somewhat like the extremist style of Catholics in the Philippines
whose priests tell their followers to close their ears when passing by Protestant churches.
Such views and style and such methods of being faithful to Theravada is totally non-
Buddhist to say the least.

297
fi
We Mahayanist encourage our practitioners to study Sravakaya (from ancient times) and
meet Sravakayana teachers like Sravaka Bhantes because we are con dent that Mahayana
does not contradict any Theravada teachings. So I challenge all those Acharyas and assistant
Acharyas of Sri Goenkaji in Nepal and all neo-Theravadin enthusiasts to prove that what
they go around saying all over Nepal to either prove their statements or stop saying such
utterly false and incorrect notions, and just teach their own teachings as per orthodox
Theravada. Not to lie is one of the ve Shila that the Theravadins also take like all
Buddhists. To go around saying things about Mahayana which they do not know because
they have not studied and which they themselves know very well that they have not studied
properly is to lie.

If I go around saying something which I do not really know and I myself know that I do not
really know much about that point, but nevertheless go around saying it even when I myself
know that what I'm saying is not fully validated, but nevertheless I continue to say it
because it serves my own purpose, ideas or beliefs, then such statements are plain and
simple lies and is a breakage of the Shila of not to lie(mrishavada). And this would amount
to those very people who go around mouthing that Mayananist do not keep their Shilas,
breaking their own Shilas without the slightest hesitation. So they should either prove their
statements historically, scripturally using Suttas (Sutras) etc., or stop lying to innocent
Nepalese public who have no knowledge about these issues or stop calling yourselves the
followers of the Buddha.

These kinds of statements coming out of neo-Theravadins of Nepal are no di erent than
statements made by Hindus who have not studied the facts but nevertheless go around
saying Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism etc etc.I have not refuted Theravada per se which
I consider true Buddhism as much as Sarvastivada or Mahayana/Vajrayana. I want to make it
clear that I'm refuting those Neo-Theravadins of Nepal, who go around preaching that only
Theravada is pure Buddhism and that Mahayana is a distorted version of Buddhism created
by latter day Acharyas and that only Theravada has Vipasssana/Vipashyana and Mahayana
doesn't have Vipassana/Vipashyana and that Mahayanists do not have shila but only
Theravadins have shila that Mahayana doesn't have the Dwadas nidana/the twelve link of
interdependent origination and many more such blatant lies and stu that have been spread
by educated Theravadins directly or indirectly through gossip,talks, lecture or books written
in Nepali certi ed by Theravadin Theras and Mahatheras who should have known better,

298
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
 since the last fty or so years to Nepalese public, who do not know the details, all over
Nepal. I do not believe Theravada is purer than Mahayana and Vajrayana as there is no
historical or scriptural or hermenuetical proof of such a statement. Some Theravadins think
I'm critical of Sri Goenkaji or Theravada. But I'm just refuting what they themselves have
said. If Theravadin Acharyas and Theras and their disciple spread wrong views about
Mahayana, these same people have no right to say I'm critical of them when I refute their
ideas and lectures. Either they should accept what I say or be able to properly refute what I
say, if they claim to be true Buddhists.

All the basics of Buddhism that the Theravada boasts of like the Five shila, The Bikshu
Upasampada, the pancha skandha, the dwadas ayatana, the astadasha dhatu, the 37
Bodipakshika Dharmas, the sapta bodhyanga, the dwadas nidana, the Four Arya Satya,
samatha and vipshyana and their details like kama dhatu/mahadgat dhatu/arupa dhatu and
the various levels of samadhis like rst dhyana, second dhyana, third dhyana, fourth dhyana
or fth dhyana and their instructions and the kartsnyas/kasinas related to them, the
smritypasthana sutras, the four smrityupasthana/four sattipathan like kayagatanusmriti/
kayagatanussati, and vedananusmriti/ vedananussati and chittanusmriti/chittanussati and
dharmanusmriti/dhammanussati and all the instructions related to them and the manifold
ways of doing them, the lokadhatus, the principle of karma-phala and all that is related to it,
punarbhava, dukha-anitya-anatma,sunyata/dukha, anicca, anatta, sunyato, the tripitaka, the
abhidharma/abhidhamma, udaya-vyaya,the principle of pratityasmutpada/
paticcasammuppada, the principle of hetu-pratya/causes and conditions, nirvana or
nibbandhatu/chittadhatu/dharmadhatu, sadgati and everything related to it, and everything
else that the Theravada boasts of are clearly found in Mahayana and are still being taught by
authentic Mahayana/Vajrayana Masters/Acharyas.

So how is Theravada a purer form of Buddhism than Mahayana? All those neo-Theravadins
and their disciples of Nepal who have spread these lies for the last forty or so years about
Mahayana/Vajrayana need to justify their position by using Sutta/Sutra, abhidhamma/
Abhidharma and the later commenteries of Theravadin and Mahayana Acharyas and critical
analysis/pramana-yukti to prove their points and not use their own personal ideas and
beliefs as such nonsense do not count in a debate. And if they cannot do it then they should
stop slandering Mahyana directly or indirectly, if they are true Buddhists.

299
fi
fi
fi
 C ONTINUIN G WITH DWADAS NIDAN
Now, with that (how Mahayana is equally as pure as Theravada tradition) in the
background, let us continue with the Dwadas Nidana (the twelve links of chains of
interdependent origination), which is indeed one of the most important tenets within
Buddhism. We had already said that there are two di erent meanings to this or two di erent
ways this is understood within Buddhism, although the two di erent ways are aspects of the
same point. One way of looking at it is the twelve links or chains which is what the Buddha
saw clearly (another meaning of Vipashyana/seeing clearly) on the morning of his full
enlightenment. And this is what we have been explaining and will continue to do so, a little
later. And the second meaning of Pratithaya Samutpad (Paticca Sammuppad) is the fact that
all Dharmas are Partitatya Samutpanna, or interdependently arisen, which means they arise
through causes and conditions (Hetu Pratya). This second meaning is the more profound
meaning which literally colors the whole of Buddhism and we shall deal with it later after
we nish the twelve chains (Dwadas Nidan).

Now in the Dwadas Nidan, we nished Avidhya, which conditions Sanskaras and we were
talking about Sanskaras (conditionings), which conditions Vigyan (consciousness). Since it
has been a long time we mentioned the twelve chains for those who are new and do not
have the twelve chains at the ngertips, here are the twelve chains (Dwadas Nidana) again.

1. Avidhya Pratyaya or conditions

2. Sanskara Pratyaya or conditions

3. Vigyan Prataya or conditions

4. Nama Rupa (mind and form) Pratyaya or conditions

5. Sadayatana (six senses) Pratyaya or conditions

6. Sparsha (contact) Pratyaya or conditions

7. Vedana (sensation) Pratyaya or conditions

8. Trishna (craving) Pratyaya or conditions

300
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
9. Upadana (grasping) Pratyaya or conditions

10. Bhava (becoming) Pratyaya or conditions

11. Jati (birth) Pratyaya or conditions

12. Jaramarana (aging and death) Pratyaya or conditions Soka (sorrow), Parideva
(lamentation), Dukha (pain), Darumanassya (grief) and Upayas (grief), which can all be
summed up in Dukka (su ering).

The word Dukha can vary in both the meaning as su ering which includes Soka, Parideva,
Dukha in the sense of pain, Daurmanassya and Upayas and also can mean pain depending
upon the context and that is how it is used in Nepali and other Indic languages too. This
chain is also known as the wheel of Becoming (Bhava Chakra) or the Wheel of Samsara.
This is how Samsara (the ow of the world system) continue like a wheel with no beginning
in sight (meaning no beginning) and no end without being created by One Universal First
Cause or God (Ishwar).

If you understand the principle of how Samsara (the ow of the world system) continues
like a wheel with no beginning in sight (meaning no beginning) and no end without being
created by One Universal First Cause or God (Ishwar), it is easy to understand why
Buddhism does not believe in a First Principle or a First Cause or a Creator God called
Ishwor in Hinduism, even though it does believe in the existence of gods and goddesses or
Dieties, who live in the heavenly realms called Deva Lokas or Swargas. But the concept of
Devi-Devatas in Buddhism has an important di erence from Hinduism. Within Hinduism,
gods and goddesses are more or less eternal beings who live up there and are always gods.
But like all things within Hinduism which is normally a conglomeration of millions of
elements, even the concept of gods and goddesses are not homogeneous but manifold and
sometimes even contradictory. Nonetheless, we can safely say that as a whole the average
concept of gods and goddesses within Hinduism is that they are eternally existing powerful
beings who will always remain as gods and goddesses who are manifestations of the One
and only God. They are not beings(pranis/satvas) like us who too will die and be reborn like
us). But it must be said that in some places within Hinduism, the idea that these gods and
goddesses come and go does exist; however, that notion is not the common understanding
of gods and goddesses within Hinduism. So there is one Brahma, one Vishnu and one Shiva

3 01
ff
fl
ff
ff
fl
called Mahadeva nowadays although many other deities are called Mahadevas in the Vedic
system. These three are the Creator, the Sustainer and the Destroyer of the world and are
three aspects of the eternal God, therefore they themselves are eternal. I would like to repeat
that this is what has been commonly accepted as the Hindu view of gods and goddesses for
the last century or so, but like all concepts within Hinduism, they are by no means the only
notions about gods and goddesses found within all forms of Hinduism.

There are texts which will contradict this notion and texts which will validate this notion
and many more as, after all Hinduism is a mixture of every kind of religious notion that
grew within the Indian Subcontinent (Bharat Varsha), which extended beyond Afganistan to
Burma, once upon a time. And this includes Buddhist and other Shramanic concepts too
taken in by Hinduism through the century besides the Brahmanis-Vedic concepts and later
additions and transformations of the Brahmanic-Vedic systems called puranas and Tantras.
So it is not so surprising that many contradictory concepts about gods and goddesses are
found within what is called Hinduism today. We can observe in the famous 19th century
debate between the famous founder of the Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda versus two
hundred or so pundits of Benaras that even the concept of Allah being a Vedic concept had
already been integrated within the Hindu system and there was already an Allopanishad
extant to validate it. If Swami Dayananda had not refuted that as a non-vedic concept, by
today we can safely assume Hindus would have included Allah as one of their gods, and the
average layman would proudly announce that Islam is a branch of Hinduism. Exactly the
same type of logic is used by Hindus today to prove that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism.
It is also interesting to note that according to Swami Dayananda in that debate, there are no
gods and goddesses existing up the true purport of the Vedas. Now this concept is exactly
the antithesis of what popular Hinduism holds today regarding gods and goddesses/ devi-
devatas. So whenever we compare Hinduism, we need to understand this variegation within
Hinduism, and can only discuss what is the most popularly held notions at that point in
history.

Now taking that as a backdrop for comparison, let us go into the Buddhist notion of gods
and goddesses. Like the accepted form of Hinduism, Buddhism accepts that there are gods
and goddesses living in the heavenly realms and the majority of the deities found within
Buddhism are the same as those found in the Vedic systems- Indra, Yama, Varuna, Vishnu,
Brahma, Rudra etc etc. However, they are just pranis/satvas who have accumulated a lot of

302
 punya/virtuous merits and their karma has propelled them to be reborn in one of the higher
realms especially the Devalokas/heavenly realms often called Swargas. Humans or pranis/
satvas/sentient beings who have accumulated a vast amount of punya/virtuous merit will
die as humans or even in the lower realms like the hungry-ghost realms/Pretaloka or hell
realms/Niraya gati or Natraka; and also can be reborn as devas/gods- even as an Indra a
Vishnu or a Shiva. These Shivas and Vishnus live their life in their respective Devalokas, as
per their punya/virtuous merit, and even though during that period they are very powerful
beings by virtue of their punya/virtuous merits, their life too will end, albeit compared to
human lives they are unimaginably long-lived, and when they ultimately die, they could be
reborn anywhere in the various realms of existence, in accordance with their karmic
accumulation. And there are thousands of Indras, Shivas, Vishnus not just one of them. Of
course this concept of thousands of Shivas and Vishnus are also found within nooks and
crannies of Hinduism too, if one were to search for it; however, that is not the normally
accepted concepts of Vishnu and Shiva and Brahma. These gods and goddesses when
propitiated can help to some extent but unlike the present day Hindu concept, they are not
Omnipotent as they too are not free from their karmas and thus cannot help us free from
su ering/dukha ultimately.

Then within Buddhism, many of these Brahmas and Shivas and Indras and Vishnus took
refuge with the Buddha himself or with later day Arhats and Mahasiddhas and so today they
are accepted as Dharmapalas/Protectors of the Dharma and propitiated thus. Some of them
are still worldly gods/deities/devas and some having practiced the Dharma have become
Aryas at various levels of the bodhisattva Bhumis and are highly revered within Buddhism
as bodhisattvas. In these groups of Dharmapalas are also local deities of whatever place
Buddhism spread who also took refuge with the then Mahasiddhas or Gurus at that time.
Thus we have many local Tibetan gods included in the list of Dharmapalas. There probably
were many local dharmapalas of Central Asia, the silk route etc etc who had also promised
the various Gurus to protect the Dharma but since these areas were all Islamized, they are
lost to history. Then within Buddhism especially Mahayana- there are the bodhisattvas like
Manjusri, Tara (again here is a good example of how Hindu Tantra has appropriated Tara and
made her their goddess in a theistic sense), Vajrapani, Samantabhadra, Avalokiteshwara,
Akashgarbha, Kshitigarbha, Nivaranavikshambhi etc. who are often mistaken as gods by
non-Buddhists, as the Buddhists worship them somewhat in a similar manner as the theistic
systems like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism worship their God or gods. However, it

303
ff
is a rather gross misunderstanding to imagine that they are gods in the theistic sense or
even representative of some God or aspect of some single God. They are bodhisattvas, which
means again they are sentient beings just like us who have achieved very high levels of
spiritual achievements on the Bodhisatva path- not some other path, to be sure.

304
 CONCEPT OF CREATOR IN
HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM PART II

In the Indian subcontinent, Buddhist and other Shramanic concepts too was taken in by
Hinduism throughout the centuries besides the Brahmanis-Vedic concepts, and later
additions and transformations of the Brahmanic-Vedic systems called Puranas and Tantras.
So it is not so surprising that many contradictory concepts about Gods and Goddesses are
found within what is called Hinduism today.

We can observe in the famous 19th century debate between the famous founder of the Arya
Samaj, Swami Dayananda verses two hundred or so pundits of Benaras, that even the
concept of Allah being a Vedic concept had already been integrated within the Hindu system
and there was already an Allopanishad extant to validate it. If Swami Dayananda had not
refuted that as a non Vedic concept, by today we can safely assume Hindus would have
included Allah as one of their Gods, and the average layman would proudly announce that
Islam is a branch of Hinduism. Exactly the same type of logic is used by Hindus today to
prove that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. It is also interesting to note that according to
Swami Dayananda in that debate, there are no Gods and Goddesses existing up the true
purport of the Vedas. Now, this concept is exactly the antithesis of what popular Hinduism
holds today regarding Gods and Goddesses (Devi Devatas). So whenever we compare
Hinduism, we need to understand this variegation within Hinduism, and can only discuss
what are the most popularly held notions at that point in history.

Now, taking that as a backdrop for comparison, let us go into the Buddhist notion of Gods
and Goddesses. Like the accepted form of Hinduism, Buddhism accepts that there are Gods
and Goddesses living in the heavenly realms and the majority of the Deities found within
Buddhism are the same as those found in the Vedic systems- Indra, Yama, Varuna, Vishnu,
Brahma, Rudra etc. etc.. However, they are just Pranis of Satvas, who have accumulated a lot
of Punya (virtuous merits) and their Karma has propelled them to be reborn in one of the
higher realms especially the Devalokas (heavenly realms) often called Swargas.

Humans or Pranis of Satvas (sentient beings) who have accumulated a vast amount of Punya
(virtuous merit) will die to be reborn as humans or even in the lower realms like the

305
hungry-ghost realms (Pretaloka) or hell realms (Niraya gati or Natraka); and also can be
reborn as Devas (Gods) - even as an Indra, a Vishnu or a Shiva.

According to Buddhism, the Shivas and Vishnus in heavenly realms live their lives in their
respective Devalokas as per their Punya (virtuous merit), and even though during this
period they are very powerful beings by virtue of their Punya (virtuous merits). But their life
too will end, albeit compared with human lives they are unimaginably long-lived. When they
ultimately die, they could be reborn anywhere in the various realms of existence, in
accordance with their karmic accumulation. There are thousands of Indras, Shivas, Vishnus
not just one of them.

This concept of thousands of Shivas and Vishnus are also found within nooks and crannies
of Hinduism too, if one were to search for it. However, that is not the normally accepted
concepts of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma. These Gods and Goddesses when propitiated can
help to some extant but unlike the present day Hindu concept, they are not Omnipotent, as
they too are not free from their Karmas and thus cannot help us free from su ering (Dukha)
ultimately.

Then within Buddhism, many of these Brahmas, Shivas, Indras and Vishnus took refuge
with the Buddha himself or with later day Arhats and Mahasiddhas. So today they are
accepted as Dharmapala (Protectors) of the Dharma and propitiated thus. Some of them are
still worldly Gods (Deities or Devas) and some having practiced the Dharma have become
Aryas at various levels of the Bodhisattva Bhumis and they are highly revered within
Buddhism as Bodhisattvas. These groups of Dharmapalas also include local Deities whatever
Buddhism spread as these local Deities also took refuge with the then Mahasiddhas or
Gurus of that time. Thus, we have many local Tibetan Gods included in the list of
Dharmapalas. There probably were many local Dharmapalas in Central Asia, the silk routes
etc. etc., who had also promised the various Gurus to protect the Dharma but since these
areas were all Islamized, they are lost to history.

Then within Buddhism especially Mahayana- there are the Bodhisattvas like Manjusri, Tara
(again here is a good example of how Hindu Tantra has appropriated Tara and made her
their Goddess in a theistic sense), Vajrapani , Samantabhadra, Avalokiteshwara,
Akashgarbha, Kshitigarbha, Nivaranavikshambhi etc., who are often mistaken as Gods by
non-Buddhists, as the Buddhists worship them somewhat in a similar manner as the theistic

306
ff
 systems like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism worship their Gods. However, it is a
rather gross misunderstanding to imagine that they are Gods in the theistic sense or even
representative of some God or aspect of some single God. They are Bodhisattvas, which
mean again they are sentient beings just like us who have achieved very high levels of
spiritual achievements on the Bodhisatva path - not some other path, to be sure.

W O R S H I P O F B O D H I S AT T VA S A N D G U R U S I N
BUDDHISM VIS- A -VIS WORSHIP OF GODS IN OTHER
RELIGIONS

We said that non-Buddhists often mistake the Bodhisattvas like Manjushri, Tara, Vajrapani
etc. etc., as something like their Gods, as the Buddhists seem to worship them somewhat in
a similar manner as the theistic systems like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism
worship their Gods. This needs to be clari ed.

When we humans worship or pay respect to or venerate anybody, the format used all over
the world is archetypal. Therefore, they can appear to be very similar in many ways than
one. We can respect the CEO of a big company and we can respect a father or a mother and
we can respect a God or as a Buddhist we can have deep respect for a Bodhisattva or a Guru.
In Sanskrit, the word 'puja' is used interchangeably for both respect and worship. And the
way we respect can appear very similar all over the world, meaning the rituals can appear to
be very similar since as humans we tend to have the same kind of or similar archetypal
patterns in our unconscious mind. However, the attitude which is the essence of all
worship/respect can be worlds apart.

There is a saying found also in the Hindu Tantra which clari es very beautifully this point. It
goes: 'Bhaavohi chumbitaa kaantaa bhaavohi duhitaananam'- which means that we kiss our
wives and we kiss our daughters and the ritual of kissing is the same but there is a great
di erence between the two due to the inner feeling attitude/emotional tone which is an
integral part of the kissing. It is this emotional tone that is the essence of the kissing and
de nes the meaning of the kissing and not the mere physical ritual alone.

307
ff
fi
fi
fi
 One might add here one kisses one's dog as much in the same way but no one ever equates
the kissing of his dog with the kissing of his wife even though the modus operandi isn't
really di erent. Therefore, it is wrong to equate the worship done by Buddhists to their
Bodhisattvas and even their Dharmapalas (Protector Deities), who are in e ect Gods and
Goddesses (Devi & Devatas) simply because the modus operandi appears to be similar. Of
course, they will be similar just as the act of kissing a dog, a lover and a daughter is similar
too. But nobody would be so confused that they would proclaim that those three acts of
kissing have exactly the same meaning and thus are they same even though they are all
related to love.

WORSHIP IN DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS

As we mentioned before, there is a great di erence between the forms of worship in

di erent religions even though they are all related to some form of respect. Let me elaborate
the di erences and the feeling tone/emotional tones related to Buddhist worship of what
appears to be substitutes for the Gods and Goddesses or the One and only God of the
theistic systems.

First of all, the God is some all mighty eternal being up there who created the universe and
us and thus. I'm just a slave eternally and it is not my choice that I'm his/her slave and I
shall remain his/her slave (Daas) forever, for all eternity. Some systems have Gods and
Goddesses but in the more sophisticated systems these Gods and Goddesses are all aspects
of or incarnations of the same One and only God. And the rest of the attitude, emotional-
feeling tone towards those particular Gods is the same as towards the one and only God.

In some theistic mystical systems, we often begin with the attitude of I am the slave
(Daasoham) and as the mystical experience deepens, we begin to experience oneness with
that omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God until we merge completely with him and
that is called 'I'm-one-with him' stage (Soham). Finally, I dissolve so completely with Him,
the omnipotent-omnipresent-omniscient one that there is only Him and no more this little
me/No-me stage (Naaham). Worship of Him/Her changes with these stages but the feeling
tone towards Him being the Almighty One is still the same even if He and I are one or only
He remains.

308
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
These levels are found one way or the other in all theistic mystical systems. For example,
within the Hindu system we have as mentioned earlier on:

1. Dasoham: which means I am the slave of that particular God/Goddess and I meditate/
pray to that Almighty God who is my Master/Lord etc. If I practice properly according to
proper methods with deep devotion to my Master, gradually I will begin to feel one with that
Master (some systems do not allow this and call this heresy). However, in proper theistic
mystical schools, one is encouraged to be one with the Master and this is called:

2. Soham: which means I am that. There are also Shivoham/I am Shiva (which has
deteriorated to BOM BOM which is common with many Sadhus), Bhairovoham/I am
Bhairava, Saham/I am her in the case of Mother goddess worshippers like Kali/Tara/Sundari
etc.. Finally, if the meditator continues on the path s/he will start vanishing into the Master,
and this stage is:

3. Naham/ No I Am: which means there is no me anymore and only the Supreme Master/
Lord/God.

The same stages, more or less, can be found in the Vedantic system even if it is not a
devotional system. Pragyanam Brahman (This awareness) is Brahman, and Ayam Atman
Brahman (This Self) is Brahman are closer to the Dasoham stage, where the little self is
identifying itself with Brahman but there is the sense of the little self trying to identify itself
with the Brahman, although there is no sense of being a slave here.

Then, Tat Tvam Asi (that thou art) is akin to Soham, which also means I am that and Aham
brahmasmi (I am the Brahman), which again is not very di erent from saying Shivoham (I
am Shiva). And nally, Sarvam Khalva idam Brahman (All this is verily Brahman) which
would imply there is only Brahman and no me. The only di erence here between these two
is that there is no personal God and Goddess like Shiva or Vishnu but rather an impersonal
abstract God- The Brahman. This kind of experience seems universal to all theistic systems
as we have more or less the same kind of format in other theistic systems too.

Although, not as well categorized in the Christian Mystical system as within Hinduism, the
Christian-mystical system does begin with surrender to The Christ who is the Lord and
Master (Dasoham - I am the slave). The famous nineteenth century Christian Mystic says
the more I know Christ the more I become Christ, which could be counted as the Soham (I

309
fi
ff
ff
 am him) stage very easily. And nally, the twelfth century Christian Mystic Meister Eckhart
says when there is no me there is no Christ meaning there is only that One God and no me.
This could easily be categorized close to the Naham (no me stage). But these have to be read
and are not as clear cut as the three stages of 1) Dasoham, 2) Soham, 3) Naham within the
Hindu system. However, it must also be said that, by no means, all forms of Hinduism
subscribe to the idea that such a grading to the higher levels is the truth.

Like orthodox Christianity, many forms of Hinduism like the Madvacharya school, prescribe
to Dasoham (I am the slave) stage as the only true and correct form and the other two are
aberrances. Then again we have a very similar categorization within Su sm of Islam.

In Su sm of Islam, Hu al Haque (I am the slave of Truth) is the beginning stage and

obviously akin to Dasoham (I am the slave of that God), then once the Su meditates on
that Haque (truth), which is another name for Allah, gradually he begins to feel one with
that Haque/truth/Allah. We can easily see that this is not really di erent from the Soham (I
am that God) or Shivoham (I am Shiva) or Aham Brahmasm (I am Brahman), or the more I
know Christ the more I become Christ.

It is in essence the same type of mystical experience with only the object of meditation/
devotion di erent. And nally in Su sm, we have Haque (The truth) alone, which would
mean I have vanished and there is no me anymore but only the Haque (Truth), and this can
easily be seen as equivalent to Naham (No Me) stage. Again, like some forms of Hinduism
and orthodox Christianity, orthodox Islam doesn't agree fully to these levels and experiences
and say that Allah is always the Master and we are always the Slaves.

What we have seen above are the similarities and universality of the experiences within
theistic types of meditational systems. What is important to understand is that the Buddhist
meditational system does not have equivalent to the above three stages of the theistic
mystical meditational systems as the Buddhist system is a paradigmatic shift from any kind
of Theistic system- personal Deity or impersonal abstract Deity like the Brahman. This is
what most scholars in uenced by theistic cultures, including Hindu scholars from the very
ancient times till today seem to completely miss out and constantly attempt to categorize
Buddhism within theistic Hindu concepts.

310
fi
ff
fl
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
Let us take some examples. Buddhist Vajrayana has Tara while Hindu Tantra has Tara. Now
this becomes a rich eld for misunderstanding and seeing the two as the same with a few
minor di erences. But let us check and see if they are essentially the same with only some
minor outer trappings di erent or are they essentially di erent with some minor outer
trappings similar

3 11
ff
.­­
fi
ff
ff