Advaita and Zen
A to Z of spirituality
Advaita (lit. non-duality in Sanskrit) is the realization that what appears as the manifold universe is only an apparent expression of an undivided consciousness. Along with being the most ancient revelation of the Vedic Rishis of India, Advaita is also very popular as a new age phenomenon due to its universal appeal as a system that is free of any need for beliefs.
Zen Buddhism is the other popular new age phenomenon that is also rooted in a very ancient tradition that went from India to Japan via China. And it too appeals to the modern mind, being again free of any need for beliefs or dogmas.
Both systems emphasize on the sacred within and therefore, unlike dualistic or belief based religions, they align perfectly well with recent advances in quantum physics, neuro science etc. And in a happy coincidence, these two ancient systems begin with the first and the last letters of the English alphabet thus representing the A to Z of spirituality literally.
Given all these similarities, what are the key distinctions between Advaita and Zen?
The main distinction that seems to set Zen Buddhism apart is the emphasis on the nothingness (shunya) as the substrate reality whereas Advaita emphasizes on the realization that pure consciousness (brahman) is the substrate reality. Upon close examination, they are not that different after all because pure consciousness is not a thing (being imperceptible to the senses and the mind and not capturable by words and concepts) and therefore it is “no-thing” which is the real meaning of the ‘nothing’ of Zen Buddhism. The other literal interpretation of ‘nothing’ as total void is not in alignment with the expression of the Zen monks along the ages or the Buddha himself.
This can be seen by this beautiful saying of the Buddha:
“If there were not the Unborn, Unformed, Unmanifested
There would be no escape from the world of the born, formed, manifested”.
Here, just as Mandukya Upanishad and many other Advaitic texts describe Brahman which is non-objectifiable only through negative terms and yet assert the Being-ness of Truth, the Buddha too clearly emphasizes the existence of the Unborn, Unformed and the Unmanifested.
Thus Zen (and Mahayana Buddhism of which it is based) acknowledges the unchanging reality beneath all impermanent forms without naming it, which is what Advaita explicitly calls Brahman or Atman, our true Self. So to summarize, the “nothing” of Zen is simply “no thing” or the Pure Awareness of Advaita.
So a key point to note is that Zen Buddhism is essentially the philosophical expression of Advaita and not distinct beneath the surface. But a more relevant distinction is that Zen is uprooted from the overall Vedic milieu in which Advaita and Buddhism evolved. It may seem logical to think that what matters is only the philosophical essence and not the context which brings a lot of baggage of tradition that can blind one to the core vision. And there’s some truth to this line of thinking. But it is also true that the Vedic context has kept the field of realization alive in India unlike any other region and resulted in so many genuine masters come up every century including most recently Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Krishnamurti etc. the likes of whom are not found in the Buddhist traditions.
In this regard, once a friend told me a story of his visit to the Kanchi Shankara Mutt that is rooted in the teachings of Adi Shankara, the great master of Advaita. And yet all that he found there was chanting, devotional worship, rituals etc. and absolutely no emphasis on non-dual teaching. He asked someone, “Isn’t this supposed to be an Advaitic mutt? I don’t see any Advaita (non-duality) here, only Dvaita (duality)!”. And he was told, “Our job is only to maintain the field that produces Advaita”. Again it is easy to rationally dismiss such argument, but there may be more than meets the eye.
All said, it is fair to say that Zen Buddhism is the export grade packaging of Advaita. What is different is only the packaging, not the essence.
The packaging of Zen happened two thousand years ago when, as mentioned earlier, it went from India to China and then Japan. And in the last century, it moved to the West. And coincidentally, Advaita came to the West in the last century as well through many Gurus from India and also mainly exposure to the direct teachings of Ramana, Nisargadatta etc.
In this context, here is an interesting article written by a Western Zen practitioner who found the Zen way too rigid and then went to Advaitic masters who offered the same teaching without any of the rigidity:
The irony underlying the author’s experience is that while Zen Buddhism freed itself from the Vedic context and all the tradition thereof, over the millennia it has created its own elaborate set of traditions and rituals that the Zen practitioners find too rigid. And they go to Advaita that is especially taught in the West as completely free of any tradition or rituals. It is important to note that the author’s point of view that the emphasis of purifying the mind is only in Zen is again not the way traditional Advaita is taught. It also places great emphasis on the discipline of purifying the mind through right action (karma yoga) for the awakening to happen.
Therefore to conclude, in essence, Advaita and Zen represent the same underlying reality with only a difference in naming and packaging. And which packaging appeals to who is entirely based on one’s disposition. But beyond all the packaging, traditions and the associated practices, what is most powerful is the direct pointer of a realized being, that can bypass all the rigid disciplines that seekers go through, to our innate nature as Pure Consciousness.