Liberation Through Non-Clinging Across Buddhist Traditions

How approaches from different Buddhist traditions can complement and support each other on the path to awakening
By Joseph Goldstein

Part 1 of 3


When I first published the book One Dharma in 2003, I was grappling with a spiritual existential dilemma: what to do when great meditation masters in different traditions offer contradictory perspectives on the ultimate nature of reality. At the time, it felt as though the entire trajectory of my spiritual life hung in the balance. After months of inquiry, two simple notions resolved the issue—at least for the time being.

First, I realized that until I was fully enlightened (and perhaps not even then), I had no way of knowing which perspective was ultimately correct. I simply could not know what final liberation would reveal. Resting in this unknown proved to be a great relief. Rather than causing confusion, it allowed my mind to settle into an openness that fostered further inquiry and exploration of dharma understanding.

Second, I realized that one way to approach the diverse philosophical descriptions across traditions was to explore a common understanding of what frees the mind. My interest in this theme is spurred by the ongoing sectarian divides that persist to this day. Many traditions claim to be the best, quickest, or most authentic path to spiritual enlightenment. Bhikkhu Anālayo addresses this phenomena in his book Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions.

One modern expression of this sectarianism arises in conversations about dual and nondual awareness. Just as mindfulness has gained prominence as a tool for easing suffering, both in its broad secular applications and in the deepest aspects of meditative understanding, the framework of nondual awareness has become a popular way to describe both the method and, for some, the goal of practice. At times, there is a tendency to privilege the experience of the nondual as being deeper or more complete than what are deemed dualistic practices. Ironically, this creates its own duality.

What, then, do the terms dual and nondual refer to, and is this distinction important on the path to liberation? Each of these terms can refer to a variety of experiences, and confusion often arises when the same word or phrase carries different meanings in different contexts. As in many dharma discussions, clarity in defining terms is crucial.

There are different understandings of dualistic perception: One is the perception of distinctions between this and that, between existence and nonexistence, between samsara and nirvana; the other is the experience of an observer separate from the observed. Similarly, the term nondual awareness can refer to different levels of experience. It may point to the inseparability of knowing and known (not a vague “oneness” in which all distinctions dissolve). It can refer to the Dzogchen view of mind as the union of clarity and emptiness, with nondual wisdom being their inseparability. It can also refer to the nonseparation of observer and observed.

On the surface, dual and nondual may seem like fundamentally different understandings of reality and how we perceive it. Upon further investigation, however, we may arrive at a more holistic understanding of how these two perspectives complement and support our path of practice. By emphasizing a particular perspective on experience rather than the essential qualities of a liberated mind, we risk overlooking those essential qualities across traditions.

Despite differences in understanding, there are some fundamental commonalities that capture the essence of dharma. In the Pali canon, and perhaps in later traditions as well, when the Buddha was asked what he taught, his reply was often some variation of “suffering and the end of suffering.” This is the point of it all.