You’ve written: Ajata is a Sanskrit word; its English translation means “no origination.” You’ve also written: no origination is the same as the teaching “no beginning, no ending.” What is meant by no beginning?

The meaning of “no beginning” is the teaching that the ultimate truth of reality is that not any thing has ever been created, or originated, from the start.

How does the teaching “no beginning” in ajata differ from what advaita teaches?

A clear understanding, or realization, of the teachings of advaita is the best introduction to contemplating the nonconceptual viewpoint of ajata. In advaita, what is referred to as the “relative,” as contrasted to what is referred to as the “Absolute,” are the teaching tools used to bring the seeker to Self-realization. But from the standpoint of ajata, such ideas as relate to “relative,” “Absolute,” “Self-realization,” etc., are moot in a reality in which not anything has ever made an appearance from the start.

Your website is “ajatasunyata.com.” Are ajata and sunyata interconnected?

Sunyata, in Sanskrit, means “emptiness.” Where not anything has ever been created from the beginning, the condition is that of emptiness, so ajata is the same as emptiness.

Many of your monographs on the website refer to Buddhist writers on emptiness, or sunyata. The Second Century monk Nagarjuna called the point of view madhyamika [pron.: mod ya me ka]. This is still focused on sunjata, isn’t it?

Yes, madhyamika, sunyata, ajata have their focus on the “ultimate reality” of emptiness, or as it’s sometimes called “nothingness.”

You state that: “form is emptiness, emptiness is form,” in the Heart Sutra, is a six-word summary of sunyata. Does this phrase have a deeper meaning than appears on the surface?

Every form has a beginning and an ending. Emptiness cannot be said to have a beginning or an ending; it would be formless. According to the madhyamika writings, in particular: forms are emptiness because–never having been created in reality– they are empty of reality (or, existence in reality). So it isn’t as if forms and emptiness are standing on an equal footing. This is the implied meaning.

Although you write that Ramana–and several of his disciples–said that he taught ajata, there seems to be little of written material on it, aside from in earlier Vedic accounts.

That’s true. Ramana’s focus was on bringing seekers to Self-realization. He may have taught ajata privately to a small circle of Self-realized disciples; but there seems to be no way of knowing for sure.

You sometimes write about emptiness, and at other times you use the word nothingness. Are these the same thing?

Yes, what is empty would not be any thing: no thing, or nothing-ness. Nothingness and emptiness would be equivalent.

What is it that is empty, or is nothing?

Emptiness is empty of any condition; thus we could not speak in terms of its “opposite,” not empty. Emptiness is the “condition” of ultimate reality. What can be said about that which is without a state of “being” or “not being”? Reality is empty.

You often italicize the word “appearances” in your monographs. Why is this word significant?

Everything that a human being claims to see is one form or another–including oneself. All forms are empty of reality: to most humans, though, the forms appear to be real. “You” appear to your “self” to be real. The sutras speak of this as an illusion: the appearance of a man on stage sawing a woman in half is not a reality. What appears to be real, these teachings are saying, and what is real are different.

You’ve written that an unawakened person is a “dreamer” dreaming the “dream” of existence: the dreamer is not outside of the dream; he himself is also within the very same dream. As with nighttime dreams or daydreams, this dream is not real, nor is any thing within it. What am I to take as the meaning of this, to me?

As you described, almost everyone is “living”–in quotes–within the (big) Dream, with a capital D. One can come to understand, or realize, that this dream, and anything in it, has no reality (in an ultimate sense). This realization is what the sutras would call freedom, or liberation–within the Dream, or during one’s supposed “lifetime.”

When one wakes up from the Dream, what then does one do? How does it affect one’s life?

The point of recognizing the emptiness of life itself is that one need not concern oneself with whatever is done, or not done: it is all ultimately empty of reality. This is the freedom I referred to.

As a dreamer, living in the Dream, is there some purpose to the dream?

The dream is unreal. Any purpose would be equally unreal.

Does it make any difference whether a person awakens from the Dream, or not?

Any difference it makes could only be within the dream. But, as I said before, to the extent that one takes the Dream seriously, the difference–in awakening from the Dream–is freedom from taking this “life” seriously, for the rest of one’s “lifetime” within the dream. But whether one does this or not is not important, from the ultimate standpoint.

Some people say they believe in God; advaita speaks instead of the Absolute–or Ramana uses the word Self, with a capital S. Ajata, though, says “there’s nothing from the start.” What becomes of God, or even the Absolute or Self, in nothingness?

God, Absolute, Self–these are all within the Dream. In emptiness, there can not be any thing, even including the names we have given to things. What is there in nothingness? Nothing.

You’ve written that for the awakened “not anything that you feel, think, say or do has any ultimate meaning: it is all within the Dream, and the Dream itself is empty of reality. "

Yes. This is what I said before about the freedom which is the reality for the awakened. One sees through the illusion.

For me, your most puzzling statement is that for the awakened “not anything really matters.” Please explain.

Anything which maters to us can only have relevance, in any ultimate sense, while we think we are living this life. We come and go: once gone, not any thing remains anywhere; all is–as it has always been–empty. Emptiness is the ultimate condition. Where that is so, what could possibly have any importance or meaning: not anything really matters, in a final counting.

From the standpoint of no beginning, there can be no universe, world, beings, life, time, space, events, etc. Not anything has ever been created, from the start. What does this say about “emptiness” itself?

As I said before, all names and forms are empty of reality. Emptiness is not a form: we can neither say that it has a “beginning” nor an “ending”; it has not ever had an “existence” (nor a non-existence). The teachings of “no origination” and the teachings of “emptiness” are the same.

You’ve been a teacher of nonduality for 30 years. Why did you just recently create the ajatasunyata.com website?

There appear to be a growing number of seekers who are coming to a nondual realization. For those who contemplate the question “What exactly is the nature of what is referred to as the Absolute?,” this is the question which ajata proposes to answer: it is not a thing; nothing. This is the issue which has been addressed so directly in the Heart Sutra. The website is an attempt to bring together what can be said of emptiness, in this context. All of the questions I’ve answered briefly here are discussed in detail on the website.