Dhamma and Non-duality

by Bhikkhu Bodhi

One of the most challenging issues facing Theravada Buddhism in recent years has been the encounter between classical Theravada vipassana meditation and the "non-dualistic" contemplative traditions best represented by Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. Responses to this encounter have spanned the extremes, ranging from vehement confrontation all the way to attempts at synthesis and hybridization. While the present essay cannot pretend to illuminate all the intricate and subtle problems involved in this sometimes volatile dialogue, I hope it may contribute a few sparks of light from a canonically oriented Theravada perspective.

My first preliminary remark would be to insist that a system of meditative practice does not constitute a self-contained discipline. Any authentic system of spiritual practice is always found embedded within a conceptual matrix that defines the problems the practice is intended to solve and the goal toward which it is directed. Hence the merging of techniques grounded in incompatible conceptual frameworks is fraught with risk. Although such mergers may appease a predilection for experimentation or eclecticism, it seems likely that their long-term effect will be to create a certain "cognitive dissonance" that will reverberate through the deeper levels of the psyche and stir up even greater confusion.

My second remark would be to point out simply that non-dualistic spiritual traditions are far from consistent with each other, but comprise, rather, a wide variety of views profoundly different and inevitably colored by the broader conceptual contours of the philosophies which encompass them.

For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world. From the standpoint of the highest realization, only one ultimate reality exists — which is simultaneously Atman and Brahman — and the aim of the spiritual quest is to know that one's own true self, the Atman, is the timeless reality which is Being, Awareness, Bliss. Since all schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of Vedanta. From the perspective of the Theravada tradition, any quest for the discovery of selfhood, whether as a permanent individual self or as an absolute universal self, would have to be dismissed as a delusion, a metaphysical blunder born from a failure to properly comprehend the nature of concrete experience. According to the Pali Suttas, the individual being is merely a complex unity of the five aggregates, which are all stamped with the three marks of impermanence, suffering, and selflessness. Any postulation of selfhood in regard to this compound of transient, conditioned phenomena is an instance of "personality view" (sakkayaditthi), the most basic fetter that binds beings to the round of rebirths. The attainment of liberation, for Buddhism, does not come to pass by the realization of a true self or absolute "I," but through the dissolution of even the subtlest sense of selfhood in relation to the five aggregates, "the abolition of all I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendencies to conceit."

The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses. At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.

When we investigate our experience exactly as it presents itself, we find that it is permeated by a number of critically important dualities with profound implications for the spiritual quest. The Buddha's teaching, as recorded in the Pali Suttas, fixes our attention unflinchingly upon these dualities and treats their acknowledgment as the indispensable basis for any honest search for liberating wisdom. It is precisely these antitheses — of good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance — that make the quest for enlightenment and deliverance such a vitally crucial concern.

At the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned: samsara as the round of repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject to change, and liable to suffering, and Nibbana as the state of final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Although Nibbana, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara. To the contrary, the Buddha's repeated lesson is that samsara is the realm of suffering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while Nibbana is irreversible release from samsara, to be attained by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relinquishing all conditioned existence.

Thus the Theravada makes the antithesis of samsara and Nibbana the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbana. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahayana schools, which also start with the duality of samsara and Nirvana, is in its refusal to regard this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality. From the standpoint of the Pali Suttas, even for the Buddha and the arahants suffering and its cessation, samsara and Nibbana, remain distinct.

Spiritual seekers still exploring the different contemplative traditions commonly assume that the highest spiritual teaching must be one which posits a metaphysical unity as the philosophical foundation and final goal of the quest for enlightenment. Taking this assumption to be axiomatic, they may then conclude that the Pali Buddhist teaching, with its insistence on the sober assessment of dualities, is deficient or provisional, requiring fulfillment by a nondualistic realization. For those of such a bent, the dissolution of dualities in a final unity will always appear more profound and complete.

However, it is just this assumption that I would challenge. I would assert, by reference to the Buddha's own original teaching, that profundity and completeness need not be bought at the price of distinctions, that they can be achieved at the highest level while preserving intact the dualities and diversity so strikingly evident to mature reflection on the world. I would add, moreover, that the teaching which insists on recognizing real dualities as they are is finally more satisfactory. The reason it is more satisfactory, despite its denial of the mind's yearning for a comprehensive unity, is because it takes account of another factor which overrides in importance the quest for unity. This "something else" is the need to remain grounded in actuality.

Where I think the teaching of the Buddha, as preserved in the Theravada tradition, surpasses all other attempts to resolve the spiritual dilemmas of humanity is in its persistent refusal to sacrifice actuality for unity. The Buddha's Dhamma does not point us toward an all-embracing absolute in which the tensions of daily existence dissolve in metaphysical oneness or inscrutable emptiness. It points us, rather, toward actuality as the final sphere of comprehension, toward things as they really are (yathabhuta). Above all, it points us toward the Four Noble Truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation as the liberating proclamation of things as they really are. These four truths, the Buddha declares, are noble truths, and what makes them noble truths is precisely that they are actual, undeviating, invariable (tatha, avitatha, anannatha). It is the failure to face the actuality of these truths that has caused us to wander for so long through the long course of samsara. It is by penetrating these truths exactly as they are that one can reach the true consummation of the spiritual quest: making an end to suffering.

In this sequel to the previous essay, I intend to discuss three major areas of difference between the Buddha's Teaching, which we may refer to here as "the Ariyan Dhamma," and the philosophies of non-duality. These areas correspond to the three divisions of the Buddhist path — virtue, concentration, and wisdom.

In regard to virtue the distinction between the two teachings is not immediately evident, as both generally affirm the importance of virtuous conduct at the start of training. The essential difference between them emerges, not at the outset, but only later, in the way they evaluate the role of morality in the advanced stages of the path. For the non-dual systems, all dualities are finally transcended in the realization of the non-dual reality, the Absolute or fundamental ground. As the Absolute encompasses and transcends all diversity, for one who has realized it the distinctions between good and evil, virtue and non-virtue, lose their ultimate validity. Such distinctions, it is said, are valid only at the conventional level, not at the level of final realization; they are binding on the trainee, not on the adept. Thus we find that in their historical forms (particularly in Hindu and Buddhist Tantra), philosophies of non-duality hold that the conduct of the enlightened sage cannot be circumscribed by moral rules. The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil. He acts spontaneously from his intuition of the Ultimate and therefore is no longer bound by the rules of morality valid for those still struggling toward the light. His behavior is an elusive, incomprehensible outflow of what has been called "crazy wisdom."

For the Ariyan Dhamma, the distinction between the two types of conduct, moral and immoral, is sharp and clear, and this distinction persists all the way through to the consummation of the path: "Bodily conduct is twofold, I say, to be cultivated and not to be cultivated, and such conduct is either the one or the other" (MN 114). The conduct of the ideal Buddhist sage, the arahant, necessarily embodies the highest standards of moral rectitude both in the spirit and in the letter, and for him conformity to the letter is spontaneous and natural. The Buddha says that the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults. He cannot intentionally commit any breach of the moral precepts, nor would he ever pursue any course of action motivated by desire, hatred, delusion, or fear.

In the sphere of meditation practice or concentration, we again find a striking difference in outlook between the non-dual systems and the Ariyan Dhamma. Since, for the non-dual systems, distinctions are ultimately unreal, meditation practice is not explicitly oriented toward the removal of mental defilements and the cultivation of virtuous states of mind. In these systems, it is often said that defilements are mere appearances devoid of intrinsic reality, even manifestations of the Absolute. Hence to engage in a programme of practice to overcome them is an exercise in futility, like fleeing from an apparitional demon: to seek to eliminate defilements is to reinforce the illusion of duality. The meditative themes that ripple through the non-dual currents of thought declare: "no defilement and no purity"; "the defilements are in essence the same as transcendent wisdom"; "it is by passion that passion is removed."

In the Ariyan Dhamma, the practice of meditation unfolds from start to finish as a process of mental purification. The process begins with the recognition of the dangers in unwholesome states: they are real pollutants of our being that need to be restrained and eliminated. The consummation is reached in the complete destruction of the defilements through the cultivation of their wholesome antidotes. The entire course of practice demands a recognition of the differences between the dark and bright qualities of the mind, and devolves on effort and diligence: "One does not tolerate an arisen unwholesome thought, one abandons it, dispels it, abolishes it, nullifies it" (MN 2). The hindrances are "causes of blindness, causes of ignorance, destructive to wisdom, not conducive to Nibbana" (SN 46:40). The practice of meditation purges the mind of its corruptions, preparing the way for the destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaya).

Finally, in the domain of wisdom the Ariyan Dhamma and the non-dual systems once again move in contrary directions. In the non-dual systems the task of wisdom is to break through the diversified appearances (or the appearance of diversity) in order to discover the unifying reality that underlies them. Concrete phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere appearance, while true reality is the One: either a substantial Absolute (the Atman, Brahman, the Godhead, etc.), or a metaphysical zero (Sunyata, the Void Nature of Mind, etc.). For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew.

In the Ariyan Dhamma wisdom aims at seeing and knowing things as they really are (yathabhutananadassana). Hence, to know things as they are, wisdom must respect phenomena in their precise particularity. Wisdom leaves diversity and plurality untouched. It instead seeks to uncover the characteristics of phenomena, to gain insight into their qualities and structures. It moves, not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All. The cultivation of wisdom in no way "undermines" concrete phenomena by reducing them to appearances, nor does it treat them as windows opening to some fundamental ground. Instead it investigates and discerns, in order to understand things as they are: "And what does one understand as it really is? One understands: Such is form, such its arising and passing away. Such is feeling... perception... formations... consciousness, such its arising and passing away." "When one sees, 'All formations are impermanent, all are suffering, everything is not self,' one turns away from suffering: this is the path to purity."

Spiritual systems are colored as much by their favorite similes as by their formulated tenets. For the non-dual systems, two similes stand out as predominant. One is space, which simultaneously encompasses all and permeates all yet is nothing concrete in itself; the other is the ocean, which remains self-identical beneath the changing multitude of its waves. The similes used within the Ariyan Dhamma are highly diverse, but one theme that unites many of them is acuity of vision — vision which discerns the panorama of visible forms clearly and precisely, each in its own individuality: "It is just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, limpid, undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. He might think: 'There is this lake, clear, limpid, undisturbed, and there are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.' So too a monk understands as it actually is: 'This is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.' When he knows and sees thus his mind is liberated from the cankers, and with the mind's liberation he knows that he is liberated" (MN 39).

法与非二元性

作者：比丘菩提（Bhikkhu Bodhi）

翻译：葛南

来源： BPS Newsletter 封面文章，第27期（1994年第2次邮寄）及第29期（1995年第1次邮寄）。 版权 © 1994-95 佛教出版协会 Access to Insight 版本 © 1998

可自由流通。 本文可被再版、重排、印刷及以任何媒介再传播。作者希望任何此类再版与传播皆以免费且无限制的方式提供给公众，并清楚标明翻译及其他衍生作品。

近年来，上座部佛教面临的最具挑战性的议题之一，是古典上座部内观禅修与“非二元性”观照传统之间的相遇，而后者以不二论吠檀多（Advaita Vedanta）和大乘佛教为主要代表。对这一相遇的回应呈现出两极分化，从激烈的对抗一直到试图融合与杂交。本文无法自称能照亮这场有时颇为激烈的对话中所有复杂而微妙的问题，但我希望能从以经藏为导向的上座部视角，提供几点启发之光。

首先，我想强调：任何禅修实践体系都不是一个自足的学科。任何真正的灵修体系，总是嵌入在一个概念框架之中，该框架界定了实践旨在解决的问题以及它所指向的目标。因此，将基于不相容概念框架的技巧加以合并，是充满风险的。虽然这种合并可能满足人们对实验或折衷的偏好，但长远来看，很可能在心灵深处制造某种“认知失调”，进而引发更大的混乱。

其次，我想简单指出，非二元性的灵修传统彼此之间远非一致，而是包含了多种深刻不同的观点，这些观点不可避免地受到其所处哲学整体轮廓的着色。

对吠檀多而言，非二元性（advaita）意味着阿特曼（Atman，最内在的自我）与梵（Brahman，神圣实相、世界的基础）之间不存在最终的区分。从最高证悟的立场来看，只存在一个终极实相——它同时是阿特曼和梵——而灵修追求的目标，就是认识到自己真正的自我（阿特曼）即是永恒的实相：存在、觉知、喜乐。由于所有佛教宗派都拒绝阿特曼的概念，因此没有一个能接受吠檀多的非二元论。从上座部传统的视角来看，任何寻求发现自我的努力——无论是作为永恒的个体自我，还是作为绝对的普遍自我——都必须被视为一种妄想，一种形而上学的错误，其根源在于未能正确理解具体经验的性质。根据巴利经藏，个体存在只是五蕴的复合体，而五蕴皆具无常、苦、无我的三相。任何对这一由无常、有为现象所构成的复合体赋予自我的假设，都是“有身见”（sakkayaditthi）的实例，这是束缚众生于轮回的最基本系缚。对佛教而言，解脱的达成并非通过证悟一个真实的自我或绝对的“我”，而是通过甚至连最细微的自我感相对于五蕴的消解，即“彻底根除所有我作、我所作以及我慢的潜在倾向”。

大乘各派尽管存在巨大差异，但都一致主张一个在上座部看来近乎惊人的论点：轮回与涅槃、染污与清净、无明与觉悟之间不存在终极差异。对大乘而言，佛教道途旨在唤醒的觉悟，正是对这种非二元视角的证悟。常规二元性的有效性被否定，因为一切现象的究竟本质是空性，即缺乏任何实体性或内在实相，因此在空性中，所有主流佛教教义所设定的看似对立的多样现象最终都归于一致：“一切法皆一性，即无性。”

巴利经藏中所呈现的佛陀教导，并不认可任何形式的非二元哲学；我还要补充说，在佛陀的开示中也找不到隐含的非二元视角。然而，我也不会主张巴利经藏提出二元论——即将二元性作为形而上学假设以求理智认同。我会将佛陀在经藏中的意图描述为主要是实用性的而非思辨性的，尽管我也必须说明，这种实用主义并非在哲学真空之中运作，而是奠基于佛陀在觉悟中所洞察到的实相本质。与非二元体系相反，佛陀的方法并不旨在发现我们世界经验背后或底层的统一原理。相反，它以活生生的具体经验为起点和框架——带着其中纷繁复杂的对比与张力——并试图在其中诊断人类存在核心的根本问题，并提供解决之道。因此，佛教道途的北极星不是最终的统一，而是苦的熄灭，这在最根本的层面上解决了存在的困境。

当我们如实审视自己的经验时，会发现它充满了一些对灵修追求具有深远意义的关键二元性。巴利经藏中所记录的佛陀教导，将我们的注意力毫不妥协地固定在这些二元性上，并将承认它们视为任何诚实寻求解脱智慧的不可或缺的基础。正是这些对立——善与恶、苦与乐、智慧与无明——使得对觉悟与解脱的追求成为如此至关重要的事业。

在对立的两极顶端，矗立着有为与无为的二元性：轮回是反复的生与死之流转，其中一切皆无常、会变、易受苦；而涅槃则是最终的解脱状态，不生、不老、不死。虽然即使在早期经典中，涅槃也被明确描绘为终极实相，而不仅仅是伦理或心理状态，但其中丝毫没有暗示这个实相在某个深刻层面与它明显的对立面——轮回——在形而上学上是不可区分的。相反，佛陀反复教导的是：轮回是受贪、嗔、痴支配的苦界，我们在此流下的泪水多于大海之水；而涅槃则是从轮回中不可逆转的解脱，要通过摧毁贪、嗔、痴，并舍弃一切有为存在才能证得。

因此，上座部将轮回与涅槃的对立作为整个解脱追求的起点。更进一步，它将这种对立视为最终目标的决定因素——即超越轮回并在涅槃中证得解脱。上座部与大乘各派的重要区别在于（大乘也从轮回与涅槃的二元性开始），上座部拒绝将这一极性视为仅仅是为根器粗钝者准备的预备课程，最终要被某种更高的非二元证悟所超越。从巴利经藏的立场来看，即使对佛陀和阿罗汉而言，苦及其止息、轮回与涅槃仍然是截然不同的。

仍在探索不同观照传统的灵修寻求者，通常假设最高的灵修教导必须是那种以形而上学统一为哲学基础和最终目标的教导。把这一假设当作公理后，他们可能得出结论：坚持清醒评估二元性的巴利佛教教导是有所欠缺或暂时的，需要由非二元证悟来圆满。对于持此观点的人而言，在最终统一中消解二元性，总是显得更深刻、更完满。

然而，正是这个假设，我要提出挑战。我要依据佛陀本人的原始教导主张：深刻性与完满性不必以牺牲区分来换取，它们可以在最高层面达成，同时完整保留成熟反思世界时所明显见到的那些二元性与多样性。我还要补充，坚持如实承认真实二元性的教导，最终更为令人满意。它之所以更令人满意，尽管否定了心灵对全面统一的渴望，是因为它考虑到了另一个比追求统一更重要的因素。这个“别的因素”就是保持立足于实相的需要。

我认为，保存在上座部传统中的佛陀教导，之所以超越其他所有试图解决人类灵性困境的尝试，就在于它始终拒绝为了统一而牺牲实相。佛陀的法并不指向一个包罗万象的绝对，在其中日常存在的张力消解于形而上学的合一或不可思议的空性。它指向的毋宁是作为最终理解领域的实相，指向诸法如实（yathabhuta）。最重要的是，它指向苦、苦集、苦灭、灭苦之道的四圣谛，作为诸法如实的解脱宣说。佛陀宣称，这四圣谛是“圣谛”，而使它们成为圣谛的，正是它们是真实的、不变的、不可移易的（tatha, avitatha, anannatha）。正是未能面对这些谛的实相，才使我们在漫长的轮回中长期流转。唯有如实洞穿这些谛，才能达到灵修追求的真正圆满：苦的止息。

在上一篇论文的续篇中，我打算讨论佛陀教导（在此可称为“圣法”）与非二元哲学之间的三个主要差异领域。这些领域对应佛教道途的三个部分——戒、定、慧。

关于戒：两种教导的区别并非一目了然，因为两者通常都肯定 virtuous conduct（善行）在训练开始时的重要性。但本质差异并非出现在起点，而是出现在后来，即它们如何评估道德在道途高级阶段的作用。对非二元体系而言，一切二元性最终都在非二元实相（绝对者或根本基础）的证悟中被超越。由于绝对者包容并超越一切多样性，对已证悟者而言，善与恶、德行与非德行之间的区分失去了终极有效性。据说这些区分仅在世俗层面有效，而非最终证悟层面；它们对修行者有约束力，对已成就者则无。因此我们看到，在其历史形式中（尤其是印度教和佛教密宗），非二元哲学认为已觉悟圣者的行为不能被道德规则所限制。圣者已超越善恶的一切世俗区分。他从对究竟者的直观中自然而然地行动，因此不再受那些仍在追求光明者的道德规则约束。他的行为是一种难以捉摸、不可思议的“狂慧”流露。

对圣法而言，道德与非道德两种行为的区分是鲜明而清晰的，这种区分会一直持续到道途的圆满：“我说，身业有两种，应修与不应修，而身业非此即彼。”（MN 114）理想佛教圣者——阿罗汉——的行为，必然在精神与文字上都体现最高标准的道德正直，而且对他而言，符合文字规定是自然而然的。佛陀说，解脱者受毗尼规则所摄护，见微小过失亦生怖畏。他不会故意违犯任何道德戒条，也不会因贪、嗔、痴或恐惧而采取任何行动。

在禅修实践或定的领域，我们再次发现非二元体系与圣法之间观点的显著差异。由于对非二元体系而言，区分最终是不真实的，禅修实践并非明确导向去除心理染污和培养善心状态。在这些体系中，常说染污只是缺乏内在实相的表象，甚至是绝对者的显现。因此，致力于克服它们的修行计划是徒劳的，就像逃避幻影中的恶魔：试图消除染污反而强化了二元性的幻觉。流淌于非二元思潮中的禅修主题宣称：“无染亦无净”；“染污本质上与出世间智慧相同”；“以贪除贪”。

在圣法中，禅修实践从始至终都是一个心理净化的过程。这一过程始于认识到不善状态的危险：它们是真实污染我们存在的污染物，必须被抑制和消除。圆满则在于通过培养其善对治法而彻底摧毁染污。整个修行过程要求认识到心之暗黑与光明品质的差异，并依赖努力与精进：“已生起的不善心念，不容忍之，舍弃之、驱除之、灭尽之、令其不再生起。”（MN 2）诸盖是“盲目的因、无明的因、破坏智慧的、不导向涅槃的”（SN 46:40）。禅修实践清除心的污染，为诸漏的摧毁（asavakkhaya）铺平道路。

最后，在慧的领域，圣法与非二元体系再次朝相反方向行进。在非二元体系中，慧的任务是穿透多样化的表象（或多样性的表象），以发现其底层的统一实相。具体现象在其区分与多元性中只是表象，而真实实相是“一”：要么是实体性的绝对者（阿特曼、梵、神性等），要么是形而上学的零（空性、心之空性等）。对这些体系而言，解脱随着到达对立面融合、区分如露水蒸发的根本统一而到来。

在圣法中，慧旨在如实知见诸法（yathabhutananadassana）。因此，要如实知诸法，慧必须尊重现象在其精确特殊性中的样貌。慧不触动多样性与多元性，而是寻求揭示现象的特征，洞察其性质与结构。它并非朝向与“一切”的全面同一，而是朝向解脱与 detachment（离执），从“一切”中解脱。慧的培养绝不通过将现象贬低为表象来“破坏”具体现象，也不把它们当作通往某个根本基础的窗户。相反，它审察与辨别，以便理解诸法如实：“何谓如实理解？理解：此是色，此是色之生起与灭去；此是受……想……行……识，此是识之生起与灭去。”“当见‘一切行无常，一切行是苦，一切法无我’时，即对苦生厌离：此是清净之道。”

灵修体系既被其喜爱的譬喻所着色，也被其表述的教义所着色。对非二元体系而言，有两个譬喻最为突出。一是虚空，它同时包容一切、渗透一切，却自身并非任何具体之物；二是大海，它在波涛万千的变化之下保持自身同一。圣法中所使用的譬喻非常多样，但 unifying 许多譬喻的一个主题是视觉的敏锐——这种视觉清晰而精确地辨别可见形式的 panorama（全景），每个形式各具其个体性：“犹如山谷中的一池湖水，清澈、澄净、不动，一个视力良好的人站在岸边，能看见贝壳、砂砾、卵石，以及成群的鱼在游动或停歇。他可能会想：‘这池湖水清澈、澄净、不动，这里有这些贝壳、砂砾、卵石，以及这些成群的鱼在游动或停歇。’同样地，比丘如实理解：‘此是苦，此是苦集，此是苦灭，此是导向苦灭之道。’当他如是知、如是见时，其心从诸漏中解脱；以心的解脱，他知道自己已得解脱。”（MN 39）