Toward an understanding of non-dual mindfulness

by John D. Dunne

The aim of this article is to explore an approach to ‘mindfulness’ that lies outside of the usual Buddhist mainstream. This approach adopts a ‘non-dual’ stance to meditation practice, and based on my limited experience and training in Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, this non-dual notion of ‘mindfulness’ seems an especially appropriate point of comparison between Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction and Buddhism. That comparison itself will not be the focus here—given my own inexpertise and lack of clinical experience, it would be best to leave the comparison to others! Instead, the aim here will be to explore some features of ‘mindfulness’ in the context of non-dual styles of Buddhist practice. To begin, we will assess some difficulties that emerge when one attempts to speak of ‘mindfulness’ in Buddhism. Next, we will turn to the somewhat radical notion of ‘non-dual’ practice in relation to the more mainstream descriptions found in the Buddhist Abhidharma literature. We will then examine some crucial features of Buddhist non-dualism, including attitudes and theories about thoughts and judgments. A brief foray into specific practice instructions will help us to understand the role of ‘mindfulness’ in a specific non-dual tradition called, ‘Mahāmudrā’ (the ‘Great Seal’). Finally, after some reflection on ‘mindfulness’ in the non-dual practice of Mahāmudrā, I will conclude by considering a crucial issue: the context of practice.

19 pages, ebook

Published June 14, 2011

About the author

John D. Dunne, Ph.D. (Religion, Harvard University, 1999; A.M., Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard, 1988; A.B., English Literature, Amherst College, 1984) is the Distinguished Chair in Contemplative Humanities through the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He also holds a co-appointment in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literature. Until January 2016, he was Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and the Graduate Division of Religion at Emory University.

Reviews

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this article cited in the Skullward Leap book I was reading earlier this year. It compares secular Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) to Buddhist mindfulness practices and their underpinnings in Abhidharma, concluding with Kabat-Zinn that MBSR must be among the "non-dual" (advayajñāna) approaches to mindfulness, and thus more comparable to Indian Mahāmudrā than to the sutrayana teachings that use the same terminology. This contention is of particular importance when attempting to determine the proper approach to such practices, and in matters such as the conflict between Anālayo and Dan Ingram.

Dunne contends this necessary as early Abhidharma lacks "robust theoretical treatment" of the "reflexive awareness" (Sanskrit svasaṃvitti, Tibetan rang rig) characteristic of the non-dual approach, which did not develop until centuries later in the works of such as Dharmakīrti. Compare also the non-mindfulness (asmṛti) of Maitripa.

Working particularly from the Ocean of Definitive Meaning (Lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi zab khrid nges don rgya mtsho'i snying po phrin las 'od 'phro) by the Ninth Karmapa, Karma Wangchûg Dorjé, in comparison with the Phyag chen zla zer of Dakpo Tashi Namgyel, Dunne builts his case that "the meaning of śamatha and vipaśyanā as phases of meditation training must be clarified. These terms are drawn from the Abhidharma, and in that context they are understood to be strictly structured by subject–object duality. In Mahāmudrā training, however, one eventually must move beyond such structures, and even the earliest methods of training proceed quickly from a focus on a visual object, to focus on the breath, and on to a state without explicit focus. Thus, it would be a mistake to construe śamatha in the Mahāmudrā tradition as simply equivalent to the cultivation of mental stability on an object, as it is understood in Abhidharma contexts.”

So this is probably of marginal interest as a general matter, but I found it of particular interest for both my current interests and practice. That said, it does not go very deep in but 19 pages, nor does it appear to finally settle the questions it discusses once and for all, at least not for those who will jump through hoops to maintain their existing view.