Starting at the beginning, what is advaita , Robert?

Advaita (Sankrit) means “not two”; it is the teaching we call nonduality. We all know what duality is—the idea that there are two or more things that exist, such as me and you. Nonduality is the realization, which occurs to some people, that beyond the appearance of separation all things are actually unified in an overarching actuality. This wholeness is called the Absolute, a condition which is infinite and eternal. All supposed separate things arise within it, because all things—not being eternal or infinite—are instead impermanent. So, the primal identity of both me and you is that our source is recognized to be the Absolute. When this realization is clearly held, our sense of being a separate individual dissolves into a deeper identity of Absolute wholeness.

Getting to ajata, you’ve said that a person who’s had the realization of their identity as the Absolute is best in a position to understand ajata. What is ajata?

Ajata (again Sanskrit) means “no origination,” or no creation. When something is said to have had no beginning (and thus no ending), we are getting into ajata. It is pointed to in a poem by Hui Neng: “When there is nothing from the start, where can dust alight?”

It is a deeper look into advaita. In advaita, as a teaching tool, we speak of the relative (me and you) and the Absolute. Everyone knows what the relative is—me and you—but what exactly do we mean when we speak of the Absolute? Whatever we say about it boils down to concepts. These are appropriate for teaching Self-realization: but what actually goes beyond the concepts?

Is this where sunyata comes in?

Sunyata is another Sanskrit word; it means “emptiness.” Buddha’s teachings, over his lifetime, progressed from simple to sublime: the so-called wisdom teachings are principally the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra. In the Heart Sutra are the six words, form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

Emptiness is what ajata is talking about when it says that not anything has ever actually been created—or had existence—from the start. If not any thing has ever had actual existence, what do you have? Nothingness, or emptiness (though there would not be any thing to be empty of ).

This is where ajata (there have been no real forms at all, from the beginning) and sunyata (emptiness is the only true or final condition, and even it does not “exist”) come together. In other words, as Nagarjuna has said, “Things do not arise, at any place, at any time.” Not even emptiness—which, being empty, is not a thing—exists alternative to forms: forms are emptiness; where there are no forms, emptiness is not something that “waits around.”

Do forms arise in, or come from, emptiness?

Forms generally are easy to understand. We are said to be forms. Because forms appear everywhere, our tendency is to think of emptiness as a form—another thing. Where the true condition is that emptiness is all there is, not anything exists as something called emptiness. In fact, since existence—“abiding” in some way—is not even in the equation, neither would the term nonexistence apply either.

These—or any—designations are concepts about emptiness. But what is completely, utterly, totally empty is not the subject of description of any type. To emphasize the complete emptiness of emptiness, the writings on the subject point out that where emptiness is all that is, even emptiness would have to be empty of emptiness. So you must initially get that straight: emptiness is even empty of emptiness.

Now, out of such a condition what could possibly come, or be arisen? Not anything can be generated by, or out of, 100% emptiness. Since emptiness is the “ultimate” condition, from the beginning, this is why it is said that there never has been origination or creation.

So, the short answer is: forms are not forms, in reality: forms are emptiness. Forms do not exist, in truth.

You said “we are forms.”

Yes, to us creatures, forms do appear to exist. So, in the writings, forms are said to appear to exist, and in this case “exist” has a provisional meaning (emptiness does not appear to exist, because in truth it doesn’t). But every form is impermanent: every form is dependent on something—even forces such as “life” or “death”—for its existence. Not anything is a stand-alone, self-sufficient entity. If such a thing could come into existence, it would be permanent. It would not be subject to change: it would be immortal. So, in this sense, forms do not exist in any long-lasting, non-provisional way.

This brings us to what appears: what appears to be real, or existent, is not the same as what is real or existent. A mirage appears to be real; a real source of quenching your thirst it is not.

We appear (at least to ourselves) to be real. We are not: we are provisional—as are all other things—as mentioned previously. Our “existence” is in quotation marks: temporarily “real.” In fact, our true nature is emptiness—as are all things.

When we as forms are not real, how real are any of the forms we perceive to be as real as we are?

The world that we see only appears to be real?

That is the point. In the writings, our existence, our world, is likened to a dream. You—whoever you think you are—are the dreamer of the dream. You are not outside of the dream, but within the dream. When the dream ends for you—when what you think of as “death” is present—the dream ends. “You” (which actually never was) disappear; everything you have thought existed disappears—the entire “universe,” with all its causes and forces. All forms are now purely emptiness, which they and the dreamer—despite appearances to the dreamer—have always been.

Is it possible to awaken from, or to awaken to, the dream while still alive?

Yes. That is what ajata and sunyata are telling us. When you recognize that this dream of life is your dream, and that dream and its dreamer have the same reality—that is, the lack of it—the “spell” has essentially been broken.

What actually changes then?

It’s simply a relaxed perspective on what’s apparently going on. In essence, we know that not anything is actually happening, in any unremedial or unredemptive sense. Life, suffering, joy and death appear to be happening (as the Bhagavad Gita says), cause and effect appear to be universal phenomena. But just as one does not wake up from a sleeping dream and take any of its events seriously, one no longer takes the supposed events of life as if they had any everlasting meaning.

What about any meaning in understanding emptiness?

That too does not matter. Whether one actually wakes up from the dream or not, the final ending of the dream for each of us will always be the same: the “presence” of sheer emptiness. None of us can ever make any “serious mistakes”: we, and all that we do or don’t do, are the same: empty of true reality or existence.

I have only outlined some of the general points. If you believe that you exist and therefore have a mind, that mind will be bubbling with questions.

Thank you!