Textual Anchors: Voices of the Upaniṣads
Advaita’s strength lies not only in Śaṅkara’s brilliant systematization but in its rootedness in the ancient Upaniṣads, the wellsprings of Indian metaphysics. Let us pause to hear a few of their seminal voices:
- Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.4.14):
“neti neti — not this, not this. For there is nothing higher than this ‘not this.’” Here we see the radical apophatic method: Brahman is not an object, not describable, not confined to attributes.
The “neti neti” echoes the Zen refusal to affirm conceptual categories, a stripping down of reality until nothing remains but the ungraspable ground.
- Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.8.7):
“tat tvam asi — Thou art That.”
One of the most direct proclamations of non-duality. The essence of the individual (ātman) is identical with the cosmic essence (Brahman).
Advaita’s claim rests on the authority of such declarations. Liberation is the recognition of this identity, already true but obscured by ignorance.
- Mandūkya Upaniṣad (verse 7):
“The Self is neither inwardly cognitive, nor outwardly cognitive, nor both. It is not a mass of cognition, nor cognition, nor non-cognition. It is unseen, beyond empirical dealings, ungraspable, featureless, unthinkable, indescribable. Its essence is the certitude of the Self. It is the cessation of the world. It is peace, auspiciousness, non-duality. This is the Self, and this is to be realized.”
This extraordinary passage edges toward what modern interpreters call Absolute Nothingness: a state beyond all categories of knowing, a radical silence where dualities collapse.
Śaṅkara’s genius was to weave these sometimes-cryptic pronouncements into a coherent vision: Brahman as the one reality, the substratum of all appearances, and the very essence of the Self.
Comparative Phenomenology: Advaitic Realization and Zen Satori
If we shift from metaphysics to the lived experience of awakening, the resonance between Advaita and Zen becomes palpable. Yet subtle distinctions remain.
Advaitic Realization:
*Often described as a quiet, irreversible recognition that one’s true Self is Brahman.
* The emphasis is on abidance: once ignorance is dispelled, one rests naturally as the witness.
* The liberated one (jīvanmukta) continues in the world but without attachment, radiating serenity.
Zen Satori:
* Often depicted as a sudden breakthrough, a shattering of conceptual frameworks, sometimes accompanied by intense emotional or bodily shifts.
* The emphasis is on direct immediacy: awakening is not a recognition of identity with something beyond but a collapse of subject-object duality right here.
* Post-satori practice emphasizes integration, with repeated deepening through zazen and koan study.
Both traditions agree that awakening reveals reality as it is, beyond conceptual overlays, and that this reality is simultaneously empty and full.
But while Advaita describes this as realization of Brahman — the plenitude of consciousness — Zen prefers to call it the Unborn, a term that sidesteps even the suggestion of a “Self.”
This difference is not merely semantic; it reflects distinct orientations:
* Advaita: a vertical movement of identity recognition (ātman = Brahman).
* Zen: a horizontal disclosure of suchness, where nothing is posited beyond the immediacy of experience.
Modern Reinterpretations
In the 20th and 21st centuries, Advaita has leapt across cultural boundaries, reinterpreted by teachers addressing modern seekers.
* Ramana Maharshi:
* Perhaps the purest modern exponent of Advaita. His method of ātma-vichāra (“Who am I?” inquiry) cuts through conceptual thought and directs attention to the source of awareness.
* Ramana rarely used elaborate metaphysics; he spoke of the Self as radiant presence, beyond words, yet utterly intimate.
* Nisargadatta Maharaj:
* In I Am That, Nisargadatta speaks a raw, uncompromising Advaita. He emphasized the sense of “I Am” as the doorway to the Absolute, but denied that the Absolute can be grasped or described. Later teachings emphasized the Parabrahman, or THAT which is Prior-to all phenomenalizations: nothing conceivable nor perceivable.
* His dialogues resonate with Zen in their directness, even abrasiveness, yet remain rooted in Vedāntic non-duality.
* Contemporary Global Philosophy:
* Thinkers such as Keiji Nishitani (of the Kyoto School) explicitly connected Advaita’s notion of Brahman with the Buddhist concept of Absolute Nothingness (*zettai mu*).
* Western philosophers have also been drawn to Advaita as a bridge between mystical theology and phenomenology: a way of naming the groundless ground of Being without reifying it.
Thus Advaita continues to live, not as a museum relic, but as a dynamic philosophy that still challenges and transforms those who encounter it.
Concluding Reflections for Chapter Two
As we conclude this deep dive into Brahman and Absolute Nothingness, a paradox crystallizes:
* For Advaita, Brahman is the fullness of Being, pure consciousness, sat–cit–ānanda.
* Yet from the standpoint of thought, it is utter nothingness, beyond categories, “neti neti.”
* Liberation is the recognition that the seeker is not other than this Absolute, and that bondage was never real to begin with.
Here the dialogue with Unborn Mind Zen waits on the horizon. Zen refuses to name the Absolute, lest it harden into a concept. Advaita names it Brahman, yet insists it transcends all naming. One side leans toward silence, the other toward identity. Both point beyond dualistic grasping.
This tension — between identity and emptiness, fullness and nothingness, silence and affirmation — will be the central axis of the comparative philosophy to follow.