T.R.V. Murti's Advayavada is the first hit on that search, I don't find his exposition to be all that clear.Wayfarer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:58 amThere is a Buddhist term for non-dual, which is ‘advaya’. It is similar, but different, to the Hindu ‘advaita’. They’re different forms of non-dualism. And in this thread I think the distinction is being blurred. Here are some sources on the distinction between ‘Buddhist Advaya’ and ‘Hindu Advaita’. They’re pretty academic, but then it’s a pretty academic question. (Actually the fourth ref is from DharmaWheel!)
I wrote this some time ago which goes over the difference:
Non-duality in Hinduism and sanatanadharma in general is a view that promulgates an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that non-duality in the sanatanadharma is a substantial and reductive non-duality.
Whereas one's (ultimate) nature in the buddhadharma is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's so-called "non-dual" nature in Buddhism is an insubstantial and non-reductive non-duality.
An ontological non-duality [sanatanadharma] is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.
On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality [buddhadharma] is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.
In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.
Malcolm also wrote:
Once again, here Advaita and Buddhadharma are absolutely incommensurate, and as I pointed out, it is only Hindus who imagine that Advaita and Buddhadharma are talking about the same thing, i.e., knowledge of Brahman.
The only resemblance between Advaita and Buddhadharma is that we both seek to solve the same problem — avidyā. What we understand vidyā to be is completely different.
First of all, the way the term ["non-dual"] is used in Buddhadharma and Advaita are very different.
For example, the Tarkajvakla, a famous commentary on Nagarjuna 's MMK states:
- Therefore, that which is the inner earth element, that is is the external earth element, that is the meaning of nondual.
- When that yogin dwells in the experience of nonconceptual discerning wisdom [prajñā] and experiences nonduality, at that time, ultimately, the entire reality of objects of knowledge are as follows, of the same characteristics, like space, appearing in the manner of a nonappearance since their characteristics are nonexistent, therefore, there isn't even the slightest thing that is not empty, so where could there be emptiness? Since there are no mental discriminations, there is no conceptual clinging of mutual dependence.
Or the Kaumudī, a famous Buddhist tantric commentary, states:
- Because of the absence of inherent existence, the nondual essence of all phenomena is emptiness.
It also is understood, as Dzogchungpa point outed, as a consciousness devoid of subject and object, as the Ḍākinīvajrapañjara[-mahā]tantrarājasya pañjikā[-prathamapaṭala-]mukhabandha-nāma:
These quotes are not exhaustive, but they show that "nondual" in Buddhadharma is really quite different than Advaita.
- One is a nondual consciousness. Two is an apprehending subject and an apprehended object.