Serpent Inclosing Water

I would like to try to elucidate the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, which I very briefly touched upon earlier. First off, I should say that I am very happy for those of you who have had such deep meditations into ultimate Thusness. However, you have not been the only ones who has realized Thusness with deep and penetrating insight. It is from my own insight of Thusness, through my own realizations that I come to write this.

My insight into thusness has shown me that it is unknowable, empty, that which is beyond definition. And while I do not care for the term “consciousness”, I do acknowledge that “awareness” (or that which we would take to be such) is present.

And I have found, that if one looks deep into the constitution of personality (specifically one’s own personality), one does find “awareness” present at its most basic level. I have seen this: awarenesses aware of awarenesses, and that which is beyond awarenesses. And, this is at the very depths of ones personality.

And, free from predetermined conceptualizations, in deepest insight of this most basic “level” of personality, I have realized that as awarenesses are aware of awarenesses, some awarenesses harmonize with other awarenesses. And, in a manner, that harmonizing gives rise to a sort of association amongst them.

However, since all is interconnected to everything, awarenesses are “continuously” aware of further awarenesses. They are in a dynamic process, always connecting with more awarenesses, as awareness leads to more awareness. (Their “connections” are also unlimited, because there is no end to awareness being further and further aware.)

This association, which has emerged as the harmony developing amongst awarenesses, is also dynamic and unlimited. Here again, since all is interconnected to everything, and awareness is “continuously” aware of further awarenesses, the association is always changing as awareness leads to more awareness. (And, it too is unlimited, because there is no end to awareness being further and further aware.)

This association is not the same as the awarenesses from which it springs. And, it is not independent from those awarenesses, because it relies on those awarenesses as its innermost beingness. And, this association is not separate from the awarenesses, for the same reasons.

This association, or harmony, can grow and develop into more complex associations. And with the appropriate complexity, this association can become what we would call a human being. And yet, at its bases it is still the interacting awarenesses from which the harmony of association has emerged. And so, personality is also dynamic and unlimited.

In some ways, I would say that the association that springs from these awarenesses interacting is like a pattern. It can then be recognized. And, because this association is made of awareness, it can be aware of the association, itself.


So, present are both the underlying awarenesses (that are aware of awarenesses), and the association that arose (amongst these awarenesses). So then, where does the true self of the human personality lie?

The true self is not the underlying awarenesses. While the personality has arisen as an association of them, it is not the same as them. However, the true self is not that (arisen) association either.

The true self is actually the realization that occurs when the association, which is aware, realizes its own self. That realization is the true self, recognized in the harmonies of the association from which it has arisen. That realization continues as its own self-recognition. And, it is that self realization, self recognition, that is the true self.

That realization transcends the association itself, and yet it is not independent of it. And, while it is well beyond the underlying awarenesses, it is not disconnected from those same awarenesses. Still, because it is self-realized, it is not dependent upon the association either.

This true self is not established in any way, as it is beyond that which makes up the reality of either side of the one great truth. And yet this same self is not without the participation in either of these two realities, as it realizes itself in the context of the reality that it finds itself within.


It is easy to see that it is the underlying reality that gives rise to the associations that grow to make up that which we call samsara. And, while I have emphasized the awareness of the underlying truth, this is not to say that it is not empty. As for those who would like to call this underlying truth Brahman, or Big Kahuna, or great consciousness, etc, I have no problem with that.

But, I hope it is obvious from my exposition that Buddha nature, the middle way, is neither this underlying thusness, or that which arises from it, nor is it separate from the two. When the true self is realized, then it is realized as neither dependent upon either of these two “extremes”, nor separate from them. Thus self-identity is neither established as existent, as all is empty, nor as non-self, as it is evident.

And, this is where I find that the Buddha Way distinguishes itself from Hinduism. As some have pointed out, Hinduism is concerned with a path that leads to the realization of the one side, Brahman. While Buddhism, as I elaborate it here, is the middle way, where the truth of self-realization leads to refuge in neither one side nor the other; that which we call liberation.