Aaron Fortier

Buddhism

4/23/14

Dr. Sarah Mattice

Bodhidharma and the nature of nonduality

In the traditional sense of thinking there is this notion of there being a western

civilization and an eastern civilization. This typical frame of reference carries with it a very

specific line of thinking. For example, philosophies, religions, and languages are vastly different

from the cultures within the specific area. Eastern traditions differ vastly in their content

regarding a wide range of topics. I have even heard some say that they don’t think there is

“religion” in the east. Now when I say east in this context I am referring to China and the

surrounding countries of Asia. It is fairly common knowledge that the dominant religious

tradition in the Asian countries is Buddhism. Buddhism takes on two very distinct forms, as does

anything referred to as a religious tradition, which are the form of religion and the form of a

philosophy. The concept of things existing as twos is a concept known as duality. With regards

to speaking of a dualistic nature, there was a homegrown Buddha named Bodhidharma who

talked about a concept known as a “nonduality” but what exactly was meant when this concept

was talked about? This is the main question I am interested in exploring. In exploring this

question I will be analyzing, philosophically, the details outlined by Bodhidharma that can allow

one to understand this non-dualistic nature. It is through examining the four practices outlined by

Bodhidharma that a philosophical understanding of nonduality can be achieved.

Furthermore, there is a certain level of background knowledge that must be mentioned in

order to further understand how the four practices outlined by Bodhidharma affect our own
nature, as well as the nature of nonduality. We first must engage with one central Buddhist

doctrine, there is no permanent, everlasting, and unchanging self. Understanding how it is that

the Buddhist views a no-self oriented structure of the world is imperative in understanding how

Bodhidharma entails this idea of nonduality. In doing this it is essential to note that for the

purposes of this essay I am not engaging in any sort of critique of the Buddhist concept of no self

but rather engaging this idea in terms of the religious ideology that it carries. In doing so I will be

describing how it is that a Buddhist believes there is no self, and nothing more. Understanding

the concept of no self is essential to how Bodhidharma’s four practices can be understood

philosophically, even though they are creations surrounding a larger religious belief. For the

purposes of this paper I will also be briefly describing what is meant when describing the

category of religion vs. philosophy; albeit a short distinction, it is one that must be made.

To begin, the category of religion vs. philosophy must be made in order to further

understand the concepts that will be discussed further in this paper. For the relevance of this

paper I will be using a definition of religion, that does not necessarily encompass all aspects but

is relevant nonetheless, that deals a significant amount with accounting for a sacred cosmos.

According to Peter Berger, religion is a means by which a relationship to a sacred cosmos is

established.1 The way the humankind interacts with the way things are is an extremely important

part of Buddhism. One of the central parts of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering, and the

application of the theory of religion that Berger offers is fairly useful with regards to looking at

the way Buddhism functions in the world. This is relevant since Buddhism is concerned with the

way we interact with the world in attempt to end suffering and a sacred cosmos is established in

this process. The cosmos is the Ultimate Truth, or Nirvana. Buddhism places heavy emphasis on

1
Berger , Peter . The Sacred Canopy . Sociology of Religion. Edited by Susanne C. Monahan, William A. Mirola,
Michael O. Emerson. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall INC., 2001., 25
ritual practices that seek to lead one down the path to the cessation of suffering; this process

leads one to be in line with the sacred cosmos, which when seen as being in correctness it is in

line with being “protected against the nightmare of threats of chaos.”2 The threat of chaos in this

situation, with regards to Buddhism, is the suffering we experience in life, and correct Buddhist

practice will eventually seek to protect one from suffering, by ending suffering all together. This

is the way in which we can look at Buddhism as a religion, but describing it as a philosophy is a

little more difficult. The distinction between religion and philosophy is a relationship of what is

universal to a practice as a whole versus what is subject to interpretation amongst the tradition.

For example, something that will be discussed further in this paper is the concept of the Buddhist

doctrine of no self. This is what I call a religious belief, even though it can be looked at

philosophically, because it is universal to the entirety of Buddhism. On the contrary,

Bodhidharma’s concept of nonduality and the four practices can also be seen as a religious

belief, but it is not a universal concept throughout Buddhism, but is rather a Chan concept. So

through this we can see the difference, at least for the purpose of this essay, between the way

religious belief and philosophical concepts are differentiated; even though religious beliefs

function as philosophical concepts and philosophical concepts function as religious beliefs. In

this case the religious belief is the universal, i.e. the suffering due to belief in the self and

presence of suffering in this life, and the philosophical concept would be the way in which one

seeks to solve this problem of suffering, i.e. through meditations and different conceptual

practices.

Moving on from the distinction of religious belief versus philosophical belief, the concept

of no self is a central belief found in Buddhism. This concept is fairly difficult for a traditionally

2
Ibid, 25
western raised mind to grasp hold of. The doctrine of no self comes from one of the Buddha’s

main teaching which was that the self was an imaginary concept.3 The idea of a self, according to

the teaching of the Buddha is the source of all evil in this world, it gives rise to attachment,

selfish desires, egoistic pride, cravings, and hatred.4 If the concept of a self gives rise to all these

things classified as suffering, then the assumed opposite conclusion is that no self leads to no

suffering. While we can see why the concept of no souls is important to Buddhism, how exactly

does the tradition account for the absence of a soul? The answer to this question begins to show

by realizing that there are two ideas that have been constructed within humankind; the idea of

self-protection and self-preservation.5 Self-protection is the creation of God by man and self-

preservation is the creation of a self that will live on in eternity.6 The concept of the self is a

“false belief and a mental projection.”7 We can see how Buddhism denies the concept of self but

in order to further understand the doctrine of no self we must explore what exactly it is that exists

within us since there is no self. A good example of how there is no self is offered by Rahula,

imagining a perspective where we see a young child, then several years later we see the same

child as an adult, and several more years later we see the man as an elderly man. The man of

elderly age is not the same man that we saw as an adult and likewise the man now is not the child

from the past; he is also not another person, but still the same person.8 Another example of this is

with regards to a flame on a candle, Rahula states that the flame of five minutes past is not the

same flame as in the present.9 As we can see, things change, but they still stay the same in some

essence. This may seem a little confusing at first but after understanding how death works we

3
Rahula, Walpola. What the Buddha Taught . New York, NY: Grove Weidenfeld, 1959., 51
4
Ibid, 51
5
Ibid, 51
6
Ibid, 51
7
Ibid, 54
8
Ibid, 34
9
Ibid, 34
can begin to bridge the gap to understanding the concept of no self in Buddhism. When we refer

to death we talk about the complete nonfunctioning of the physical body, but there is still a

certain series of forces that continue to thrive; the will to exist and continue, become more and

more, karma, and desires are the things that keep us in this cycle of samsara, or the cycle of death

and rebirth.10 The process of death does not stop, it continues even in the wake of non-physicality

and manifests itself into different forms, which is where rebirth comes from.11 The concept of

life, that replaces the concept of self, is the five aggregates, which are: form, sensation,

perception, mental formations, and consciousness.12 These five aggregates make up the perceived

self, even though they do not make up the self, and are not permanent or unchanging. Every

moment there is change, this is to say that a moment is born, it has its time, and it goes away, or

dies.13 This is true for every moment in our lifetime. Every moment we are born, and every

moment we die, but we still continue on in this life.14 What we can gather from this is that there

is no permanent unchanging self, because we are born and die each moment, we are constantly

changing. The combination of the five aggregates and the fact that we are constantly changing

make up the doctrine of no self. This is the universal belief amongst all Buddhist practitioners,

no matter the camp (Theravada, Mahayana, Chan, etc.).

Now that we have looked at the value of approaching the doctrine of no self as a

universal belief among all practicing Buddhists we can now begin to approach philosophical

concepts with regards to a specific camp within Buddhism, Chan. Within Chan Buddhism four

different homegrown Buddhas are found, but one of the most important homegrown Buddhas is

Bodhidharma.
10
Ibid, 33
11
Ibid, 33
12
Ibid, 20
13
Ibid, 33
14
Ibid, 33
 Bodhidharma is an exemplar of Chan Buddhism; Chan is a type of Buddhism that

abandons text centered focus’ for a more personal and spiritual guidance.15 Bodhidharma is such

an important figure within the Chan tradition because he is said to be directly linked back to the

Buddha.16 As was discussed earlier, the main subject at hand regarding Bodhidharma is the

principle or concept of nonduality. The principle of nonduality is aimed at ending the “conflict

and compartmentalization” of things rather than focusing on their differences; there is emphasis

on abstaining from clinging as well as denying the meanings or differences of things, all things.17

So essentially what this means is that the principle of nonduality focuses on both separation of

things and the comingling of things, or in summation “nonduality means closing the wound of

existence,” we remove our naturally dualistic nature.18 The reason why this begins to show

philosophical beliefs rather than religious beliefs is because this principle is not a universal

phenomenon practiced by all Buddhists, but rather is specific to Chan practice because according

to what Bodhidharma stresses is “the entrance of principle cannot be experienced secondhand,

even through the most sacred scriptures.”19 In order to further understand how the principle of

nonduality seeks to end our suffering Bodhidharma sets out to explain the different levels of

practice required in order to experience this principle that is nonduality.

The four practices outlined by Bodhidharma seek to get the Buddhist practitioner in line

with the principle of nonduality and the first of these four practices is keeping in line with the

overall Buddhist concept of no self. There is often a reliance on escaping problems by describing

them as being codependent, which is to say that the actions of others is going to alleviate the pain

15
Hershock, Peter D., Chan Buddhism, Honolulu, HI, University of Hawai’i Press, 2005., 81
16
Ibid, 82
17
Ibid, 85
18
Ibid, 85
19
Ibid, 85
and suffering one experiences.20 This arises because in these situations we tend to see ourselves

as victims rather than responsible.21 This is all because we see an individual self, the problem is

cast because we have this perceived self that is able to feel this attachment, so the concept of self

actually causes this problem to begin with. The second practice that Bodhidharma outlines is

accepting ones current situation and not refusing to accept the circumstances that we are placed

in.22 What this does in the long run, according to Bodhidharma, is allows one to be aware and

actually change their current situation, even if “the totality of its facts lie beyond ones immediate

control.”23 The moments that we receive, the ones in which we simultaneously are born and then

die, are never placed upon us by others, no matter the others classification, it is a reaction of “our

own intentions and values.”24 What this means is that we are ultimately responsible for every

moment in our lives, we create our situations, they are not purely random chance. Alternatively,

when we realize this we also must accept that the good moments we experience, no matter how

much we want to hold on to them, must never be an attachment.25 The moment this is done we

are thrown back into the cycle of suffering. This is a result of seeing things karmically, we don’t

reject, nor cling.26 The third practice that Bodhidharma frames is about a process of wanting. To

want something is to categorize ones essence as “being in want or lacking something,” which is

to say that one is not yet complete or satisfied.27 Bodhidharma has a great way of alluding to our

constant thirst for want, he says that we “are in a whirling pattern of delusion” and that we are

always wanting for something or seeking something.28 Based on this we should not want, nor

20
Ibid, 87
21
Ibid, 87
22
Ibid, 87
23
Ibid, 88
24
Ibid, 88
25
Ibid, 88
26
Ibid, 88
27
Ibid, 89
28
Ibid, 89
seek, because this will then in turn allow us to participate freely with the emptiness of all

things.29 The fourth practice that is outlined by Bodhidharma is “invoking and tallying with the

teaching that generative pattern of all natures is pure and purifying.”30 What this means is that,

according to Buddhist doctrine, all things are inherently empty, there is no intrinsic existence,

and the moment we realize this and rid our minds of the concept of self and begin to accept and

not stress our current situations we can begin to experience true enlightenment. We rid ourselves

from seeking or wanting things, and thusly allow ourselves to engage in this process of

offerings.31

As we can see, looking at the Buddhist doctrine of no self as a religious belief versus a

philosophical belief allows us to engage in the four practices that seek to place one into the realm

of nonduality actually lets us critically engage the ideas presented by Bodhidharma. The four

practices he outlines are specific to Chan rather than the whole of the Buddhist tradition.

Nonetheless, the four practices of Bodhidharma in Chan, or the esoteric teachings of Tibetan

Buddhists, or the monastic life of Theravadans all seek to end suffering and achieve

enlightenment, so this is a universal ideal. For Bodhidharma, the idea of enlightenment is not

“somewhere far away in time or space, something attained by others under circumstances not our

own.”32 So it is through the looking at Bodhidharma’s four practices as philosophical teachings

that a philosophical understanding of nonduality can be achieved.

29
Ibid, 90
30
Ibid, 90
31
Ibid, 91
32
Ibid, 92
 Bibliography

Berger , Peter . The Sacred Canopy . Sociology of Religion. Edited by Susanne C. Monahan,

William A. Mirola, Michael O. Emerson. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall INC.,

2001.

Hershock, Peter D., Chan Buddhism, Honolulu, HI, University of Hawai’i Press, 2005.

Rahula, Walpola. What the Buddha Taught . New York, NY: Grove Weidenfeld, 1959.