Sudden awakening, also known as subitism, is a Buddhist idea which holds that practitioners can achieve an instantaneous insight into ultimate reality (Buddha-nature, or the nature of mind). This awakening is described as being attained "suddenly," "in one glance," "uncovered all together," or "together, completely, simultaneously," in contrast to "successively or being uncovered one after the other." It may be posited as opposite to gradualism, an approach which says that insight can be achieved only through a long gradual step by step process.
The application of the term "subitism" to Buddhism is derived from the French illumination subite (sudden awakening), contrasting with 'illumination graduelle' (gradual awakening). It gained currency in this use in English from the work of sinologist Paul Demiéville. His 1947 work 'Mirror of the Mind' was widely read in the U.S. It inaugurated a series by him on subitism and gradualism.[1]
The Chinese term dun 頓, as used in dunwu 頓悟, translated as "subite," sudden, has a broader meaning than "sudden." It is more apt translated as "in one glance," "uncovered all together," or "together, completely, simultaneously," in contrast to "successively or being uncovered one after the other." It means that all aspects of Buddhist practice are realized, or actualized, simultaneously, and not one after another as in a gradual or linear school curriculum. Specifically, the defilements are not erased gradually, by good works, but simultaneously.
Subitizing, also derived from the Latin adjective subitus, is the rapid, accurate, and confident judgments of numbers performed for small numbers of items.
The distinction between sudden awakening and gradual awakening has its roots in Indian Buddhism. It was first introduced in China at the beginning of the 5th century by Daosheng. The term became of central importance in Chan Buddhism, where it is used to denote the doctrinal position that awakening, the comprehension or realization of the Buddhist teachings, happens simultaneously, and is not the fruit of a gradual accretion or realisation.
In the 8th century the distinction became part of a struggle for influence at the Chinese court by Shenhui, a student of Huineng. Hereafter "sudden enlightenment" became one of the hallmarks of Chan Buddhism, though the sharp distinction was softened by subsequent generations of practitioners.
This softening is reflected in the Platform Sutra of Huineng.
While the socalled "Southern School" was said to place emphasis on sudden enlightenment, it also marked a shift in doctrinal basis from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to the prajnaparamita tradition, especially the Diamond Sutra. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which endorses the Buddha-nature, emphasized purity of mind, which can be attained in gradations. The Diamond Sutra emphasizes śūnyatā, which "must be realized totally or not at all".
Once this dichotomy was in place, it defined its own logic and rhetorics, which are also recognizable in the distinction between Caodong (Sōtō) and Linji (Rinzai) schools. But it also leads to a "sometimes bitter and always prolix sectarian controversy between later Ch'an and Hua-yen exegetes". In the Huayan classification of teachings, the sudden approach was regarded inferior to the Perfect Teaching of Huayan. Guifeng Zongmi, fifth patriarch of Huayan and Chan master, devised his own classification to counter this subordination. To establish the superiority of Chan, Jinul, the most important figure in the formation of Korean Seon, explained the sudden approach as not pointing to mere emptiness, but to suchness or the dharmadhatu.
Guifeng Zongmi, fifth-generation successor to Shenhui, also softened the edge between sudden and gradual. In his analysis, sudden awakening points to seeing into one's true nature, but is to be followed by a gradual cultivation to attain buddhahood.
This gradual cultivation is also recognized by Dongshan Liangjie, who described the Five Ranks of enlightenment.[2] Other example of depiction of stages on the path are the Ten Bulls, which detail the steps on the Path, The Three Mysterious Gates of Linji, and the Four Ways of Knowing of Hakuin Ekaku. This gradual cultivation is described by Chan Master Sheng Yen as follows:
In the Fivefold Classification of the Huayan and the Five Periods and Eight Teachings of the Tiantai, the sudden teaching was given a high place. However, it was still inferior to these schools' Complete or Perfect teachings.
Shandao clarified that Pure Land Dharma is sudden. Honen explained it as “the sudden of the sudden (頓中頓) teachings”.[3] Shinran classified it as Sudden Crosswise (vs. Lengthwise) Transcendence via Easy (vs. Difficult) Practice.[4]
Jinul (1158-1210), a Seon master, followed Zongmi and also emphasized that insight into our true nature is sudden but must be followed by practice to ripen it and attain full Buddhahood.
In contemporary Korean Seon, Seongcheol defended the stance of "sudden insight, sudden cultivation". Citing Taego Bou (1301-1382) as the true successor of the Linji Yixuan line of patriarchs rather than Jinul, he advocated Huineng's original stance of 'sudden enlightenment, sudden cultivation' as opposed to Jinul's stance of 'sudden enlightenment, gradual cultivation' .[5] Whereas Jinul had initially asserted that with enlightenment comes the need to further one's practice by gradually destroying the karmic vestiges attained through millions of rebirths, Huineng and Seongcheol maintained that with perfect enlightenment, all karmic remnants disappear and one becomes a Buddha immediately.[6] [7] [8] [9]
See also: Mystical experience.
When Zen was introduced in the west, the Rinzai stories of unconventional masters and sudden enlightenment caught the popular imagination. D. T. Suzuki was a seminal influence in this regard. It was Suzuki's contention that a Zen satori (awakening) was the goal of the tradition's training.[10] [11] As Suzuki portrayed it, Zen Buddhism was a highly practical religion whose emphasis on direct experience made it particularly comparable to forms of mystical experience that scholars such as William James had emphasized as the fountainhead of all religious sentiment.[12]
Dzogchen ("Great Perfection" or "Great Completion"), also known as atiyoga (utmost yoga), is a sudden-enlightenment tradition of teachings in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and Yungdrung Bon aimed at discovering and continuing in the ultimate ground of existence. The primordial ground (gzhi, "basis") is said to have the qualities of purity (i.e. emptiness), spontaneity (lhun grub, associated with luminous clarity) and compassion (thugs rje). The goal of Dzogchen is knowledge of this basis, this knowledge is called rigpa (Skt. vidyā). There are numerous spiritual practices taught in the various Dzogchen systems for awakening rigpa.
See main article: Advaita Vedanta and Adi Shankara.
The Advaita tradition emphasizes that, since Brahman is ever-present, Brahman-knowledge is immediate and requires no 'action', that is, striving and effort, as articulated by Shankara; yet, it also prescribes elaborate preparatory practice, including yogic samadhi and contemplation on the Mahāvākyas, posing a paradox which is also recognized in other spiritual disciplines and traditions.
Classical Advaita Vedānta regards the liberated state of being Atman-Brahman as one's true identity and inherent to being human. No human action can 'produce' this liberated state, as it is what one already is. As Swami Vivekananda stated:
Yet, it also emphasizes human effort, the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to realize one's true identity as Atman-Brahman and attain moksha. Whereas neo-Advaita emphasizes direct insight, traditional Advaita Vedanta entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one's real nature, but also includes self-restraint, textual studies and ethical perfection. It is described in classical Advaita books like Shankara's Upadesasahasri and the Vivekachudamani, which is also attributed to Shankara.
Sruti (scriptures), proper reasoning and meditation are the main sources of knowledge (vidya) for the Advaita Vedānta tradition. It teaches that correct knowledge of Atman and Brahman is achievable by svādhyāya, study of the self and of the Vedic texts, and three stages of practice: sravana (perception, hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation), a three-step methodology that is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.[13]
Shankara regarded the srutis as the means of knowledge of Brahman, and he was ambivalent about yogic practices and meditation, which at best may prepare one for Brahma-jnana. According to Rambacharan, criticising Vivekananda's presentation of yoga and samadhi as an Advaitic means of knowledge, Shankara states that the knowledge of Brahman can only be obtained from inquiry of the Shruti, and not by Yoga or samadhi, which at best can only silence the mind.[14]
See also: Neo-Advaita.
Ramana Maharshi made a distinction between akrama mukti, "sudden liberation", as opposed to the krama mukti, "gradual liberation" as in the Vedanta path of jnana yoga:
The teachings of Bhausaheb Maharaj, the founder of the Inchegeri Sampradaya, have been called "the Ant's way", the way of meditation,[15] while the teachings of Siddharameshwar Maharaj, his disciples Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ranjit Maharaj and Nisargadatta's disciple, Ramakant Maharaj have been called "the Bird's Way", the direct path to Self-discovery:
The terms appear in the Varaha Upanishad, Chapter IV: