Posts
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/10065267753514564/?__cft__[0]=AZW6bfVOzRXbifQe-p425-2OS-iUbXzVXGg7yExwVJfH01SX7r5BXdgOktx_KxockJScvraJYlvlkycue1u57dL4Uh4VZOkWJ7CqPbNxTxI9THThqGU_QgTqxZ8S9kgCbS_Z-kSqtYD1eBRlcm_I9K0BYgWEuqlDuWHZQ3_TdY1hk98LwOD09p1Yv4bSLRL74Do&__cft__[1]=AZW6bfVOzRXbifQe-p425-2OS-iUbXzVXGg7yExwVJfH01SX7r5BXdgOktx_KxockJScvraJYlvlkycue1u57dL4Uh4VZOkWJ7CqPbNxTxI9THThqGU_QgTqxZ8S9kgCbS_Z-kSqtYD1eBRlcm_I9K0BYgWEuqlDuWHZQ3_TdY1hk98LwOD09p1Yv4bSLRL74Do&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R]-R
Mr./Ms. DM
An interesting conversation to observe for sure! Rupert consistently defining enlightenment as I am, pure being. I think you could tell Adya disagreed, but tried to find points of agreement instead. Rupert is absolutely non compromising on substantialist non duality.It’s something I ponder often since I have close friends (loving, caring compassionate friends) that are strict advaita. Trying to find the balance between disagreement and unity. I know a lot of people are absolutely non compromising in certain insights just like Rupert is, but how do you approach talking with, being friends with and loving people of other traditions? I don’t think there’s anyone here but certainly on Reddit and places there is a lot of people both Buddhist and Advaita who fight each other as if it was catholic vs Protestant, dogma vs dogma.For me I love my advaita friends and can talk and hang around with them all day. How do you approach situations like this? And how do you think you would behave if you were sitting in that roundtable discussion with Adya and Rupert?Comments
- Reply
- Edited
- Reply
- Reply
- Edited
- Reply
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- Reply
- Edited
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Edited
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Edited
- Reply
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
I
cannot agree with Advaita views on ultimate reality nor that it leads
to Nirvana/liberation, but I accept that it can lead people to better
insights into consciousness, which is precious in itself and so is a
positive thing. Even vehicles of samsara are the vehicles of
Samantabhadra, as Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith said.
“Indeed,
Samantabhadra claims that all vehicles are his vehicles, he then sets
out which of those vehicles view keep one trapped in samsara (60), and
he then presents the nine vehicles which lead one out of it.
though my vehicles are inconceivable,
they are included in two categories:
samsara and nirvana.
Further, samsara includes: [53/b]
the false view and the eternalist view.
The false vehicle
is held to be 360 beliefs in a self.
The nine vehicles of course, are the vehicles of nirvana.”
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
“Ok,
first of all. If you were never a Christian, or a Hindu, or never took
teachings from such a master, for example, Hatha Yoga, Ayurveda, etc.,
then there is no need. But if you have taken teachings from such people,
then you can carry this into your Ati Guru Yoga.
When
we do refuge in the DC -- we generally do not do an elaborate refuge
tree visualization, we do the One Jewel Unifies All system, so the
principle is still the same.
It
is not about including Jesus, Mohammed and so on in some imaginary
refuge tree; it is about honoring the sources of all of our spritual
knowledge, so the idea is completely different. It is about honoring all
of our teachers, no matter what Dharma tradition they come from in the
nine yānas. All Yānas belong to Samantabhadra, including the so called
samsaric ones. This is the principle that is in play here. The Rigpa
Rangshar states:
Though my yānas are inconceivable, when summarized,
they are included in two, samsara and nirvana
This
means that all Dharma systems, "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist" are
vehicles of Samantabhadra. If you have a connection with any of them,
you unify them through the principle of Guru Yoga and go beyond
limitations.
M”
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Then
as for how to behave, that depends. Personally I do not try to
condition people unless they express interest. If people are here in
AtR, I assume they have an interest. But outside, maybe not. For friends
and family, sometimes I may not even pass them Buddhist books or AtR
material, I pass them The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle, which is
decidedly non-Buddhist and close to the Advaitic variety of insights.
For
Rupert Spira, if I meet him in person, I might possibly bring up the
topic of anatman if it is a topic of discussion or he expresses interest
after I brought it up. I suspect not, due to how steeped he is in his
tradition and worldview. If he is not interested, we can discuss other
things, just not on ultimate reality.
John
Tan has another student which he told me years ago. He said half
jokingly that he has a few different types of disciples - a computer
programming student - someone else, that he passed his essence to him.
He has a disciple on yoga, and he passed all his knowledge and essence
to him (their yoga and yogic asanas are way too expert for my level to
catch up). I am his “anatta disciple”. And of course he has many
business students, many people and multimillionaires he made rich.
I
asked him has he discussed anatta with his yoga student? He said no,
not at all. That person is spiritual but of the new age variety. He did
guide him to deeper levels, very deep levels of I AMness. Different
gradations of nirvikalpa samadhi, probably. That is the scope and extent
of that student’s interest and view, probably.
Mr./Ms. DM
Author
Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu Yeah great answer! Have you ever seen anyone like Rupert who is very
Steeped in advaita realise Annata? I can think of Greg Goode
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Mr./Ms. DM yes there are a number of people i know. But maybe not as well known as greg.
You
can also check out soto zen teacher alex weith (he is in this group but
quiet) and archaya mahayogi shridhar rana rinpoche. Both have
realization authenticated by advaita masters as profound and asked to
teach. Both later progressed to buddhist realisations.
See
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta
Mr. MP
Top contributor
Mr./Ms. DM
I just came across the quote below in Daniel Ingram's book, thought it
was relevant to this discussion. I've heard Shinzen Young say something
very similar.
"At
their very skillful best, true self and no-self teachings are talking
about the same thing, just from different perspectives. In short, when
the artificial boundaries and misperceptions fall away, there is just
what is happening. You could say in some strange way that all this was
“you”, or you could equally state that the whole field was “not you”."
From this chapter:
Obv a matter of hot debate around these parts, just sharing his perspective for fun (not trying to irritate Soh, I pinky swear).
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Misleading.
Excerpts:
4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta
I
have just casually gone through some of your forum discussions. Very
enlightening discussions and well presentation of my
7-phases-of-insights but try not to over-emphasize it as a model; it
should not be taken as a definite model of enlightenment nor should you
use it as a framework to validate others' experiences and insights.
Simply take it as a guide along your spiritual journey.
You
are right to differentiate non-dual experience from non-dual
realization and non-dual realization from the insight of anatta. We have
discussed this umpteem times. Non-dual experience in the context we are
using refers to the experience of no-subject-object division. The
experience is much like putting two candle flames together where the
boundary between the flames becomes indistinguishable. It is not a
realization but simply a stage, an experience of unity between the
observer and the observed where the conceptual layer that divides is
temporarily suspended in a meditative state. This you have experienced.
Non-dual
realization on the other hand is a deep understanding that comes from
seeing through the illusionary nature of subject-object division. It is a
natural non-dual state that resulted from an insight that arises after
rigorous investigation, challenge and a prolonged period of practice
that is specially focused on ‘No-Self’. Somehow focusing on “No-Self”
will spark a sense of sacredness towards the transient and fleeting
phenomena. The sense of sacredness that is once the monopoly of the
Absolute is now also found in the Relative. The term ‘No-Self’ like
Zen-Koan may appear cryptic, senseless or illogical but when realized,
it is actually obviously clear, direct and simple. The realization is
accompanied with the experience that everything is being dissolved into
either:
1. An ultimate Subject or
2. As mere ‘flow of phenomenality’
In
whatever the case, both spells the end of separateness; experientially
there is no sense of two-ness and the experience of unity can be quite
overwhelming initially but eventually it will lose its grandeur and
things turn quite ordinary. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the
sense of Oneness is derived from the experience of ‘All as Self’ or ‘as
simply just manifestation’, it is the beginning insight of “No-Self”.
The former is known as One-Mind and the later, No-Mind.
In
Case 1 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify
and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost
unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization,
understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on
subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and
practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of
‘No-Self based on Self’.
For
Case 2 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the
doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences
become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing
through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so
that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in
actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that
experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a
base, a ground, a source has always been assumed.
To
mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an
agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm
shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the
idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and
understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a
source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and
rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
Therefore
this phase of insight is not about singing eloquently the non-dual
nature of an Ultimate Reality; contrary it is deeming this Ultimate
Reality as irrelevant. Ultimate Reality appears relevant only to a mind
that is bond to seeing things inherently, once this tendency dissolves,
the idea of a source will be seen as flawed and erroneous. Therefore to
fully experience the breadth and depth of no-self, practitioners must be
prepared and willing to give up the entire subject-object framework and
be open to eliminate the entire idea of a ‘source’. Rob expressed very
skillfully this point in his talk:
One
time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not
to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there
being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and
disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s
actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very
interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end
it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
This
group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with
that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not
rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into
this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so
much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are
unbudgeable there.
What
then is the view that Buddhism is talking about without resorting to a
‘source’? I think the post by Vajrahridaya in the thread ‘What makes
Buddhism different’ of your forum succinctly and concisely expressed the
view, it is well written. That said, do remember to infinitely regress
back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising
thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form. 
Labels: Anatta, Non Dual |
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Are all religions' nonduality the same?
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Mr. MP Sep
01
Are all religions' nonduality the same?
John
tan commented on one of Adyashanti’s videos back in 2020, “ It is a
good video but a bit long. There is also genuine distinction between
All as Self which is Non-dual but substantialist and no-self that is
Non-dual and non-substantialist. One does not need to take side but
have to b objective and unbiased. Hence clearly discerning the
differences and implications r key to understanding how the mind reifies
and how confusions arise. Therefore on top of experiences which is
quite difficult to differentiate clearly the two in experience (all as
Self and No-Self) and authentication of pristine consciousness in real
time, clearly seeing how the layers obscures is part and parcel of
maturing our experiences and insights.”
Shared:
"They
point to different insights, and there are different insights even for
nondual, substantialist and nonsubstantialist. David loy isnt clear
about this point
His original nonduality book, he seems to confuse anatta with no mind state. Not clear about anatta as realization
He is conflating all is self with no self insight
The implications are huge [different view and realization]
(Soh:
Read this article on the two different types of nondual insight, one of
John Tan's 'must read' articles: 4) Realization and Experience and
Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives )
His latest book seems to be clear about anatta realization i think
I wrote back in 2011 April,
09 Apr `11, 9:39PM
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
This is why I said most masters are still at the phase of substantial non-dual.
As
for David Loy, he is a little unique. It could be that he has realized
Anatta... but his insight is shadowed by his attempt to link up the
religions (he was doing inter-religious comparison). Therefore he was
unable to differentiate substantial non-dualism from anatta. In his book
'Non-duality', this is clearly the case.
However it is also likely that he is still in substantial non-dual phase.
Thusness replied:
Wow...If
I am not wrong, David Loy is a qualified Zen Teacher and a Ph. D in
Philosophy. For you to make such a comment , you must be doubtless of
your realization.
I
am glad of your confidence and clarity of your realization. This is
the difference between having insights (clear seeing of the nature of
experiential reality) and having mere experiences of no-mind and
non-dual.
In
my opinion, even though the insight is clear, to be like what Ted has
remarked in the article Where There Is No Cold or Heat will still take
some time. Practice diligently and enter deeply into the 6 entires and
exits "where there is no cold or heat". This experience too can be as
natural as breathing in our moment to moment of experience if we embrace
the right view fully. Have no doubt about it.
But
not everyone that realises anatta are clear about the different phases
of insights, the impact of view experience realization etc.
The same for alan watts although his insights are clear
[12:16
AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: U have to understand Alan Watts equates
Taoism, Buddhism and Advaita as the same because he sees the beauty of
unity.
[12:16 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Also, he sees a state of no-mind in all the teachings
[12:16 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Sounds like david loy
[12:16 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Yes
[12:17 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: This is not that they do not have the insights
[12:17 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: But they see the beauty
[12:18 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: However they may not differentiate insight from experience and view
[12:18 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: And may not see the importance of that...
[12:18 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: So it depends
[12:19 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: All have different conditions, how one penetrates the teaching differs.
[12:20 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: I find Alan Watts very insightful though his life doesn't reflect that...lol
[12:20 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Lol
[12:21 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Actually I m still looking for texts that can differentiate them clearly
[12:21 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Or books
[12:22 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: On fact Malcolm is already very unique
[12:22 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Lol
[12:22 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Kyle also
[12:24
AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Dzogchen however seems to equate DO from only
the afflictive point of view unlike the gelug, they put lots of emphasis
on DO not from afflictive perspective.
[12:25 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: DO is the king of reasoning, it is the middle path and the essence of Buddhism.
[12:26 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: texts that can differentiate advaita from emptiness/D.O.?
[12:26 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Emptiness cannot b understood apart from DO.
[12:27
AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Texts or books that and differentiate
experience from insight and present the view in relation to anatta
experience.
[12:27 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic..
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
[12:28 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: The same experience when experienced from substantialist view will end up subsuming.
[12:30
AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: But we see buddhism many spoke of a state of
no mind but using DO and Emptiness not as the presentation of the right
view but as a path of disassociation towards an ultimate awareness.
[12:30 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Teacher cheb seems to b that approach too.
[12:30 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: yeah..
[12:30 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: In fact Theravada teaching is more anatta
[12:30 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: ven. hui lu seems different in that regard
[12:31
AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: in that video he criticised other religion
eternalism and said "permanence" is simply the emptiness and dependent
arising of impermanence
[12:31 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: However they r anatta in no-self but view isn't strong
[12:31 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Yes ven hui Lu is quite good
[12:31 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic..
[12:32 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: What I din see in hui Lu is it remains as wisdom teaching
[12:33 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Experience wise I prefer that 王洪亮?
[12:33 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: "What I din see in hui Lu is it remains as wisdom teaching" what do u mean
[12:34 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Although hui Lu comment is good and clear, anatta isn't clear.
[12:35 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: The experience no mind due to anatta insight then into DO and Emptiness is important.
[12:35 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: "
再来，第一，令诸众生获得十四种无畏功德，即【1、不自观音以观观者，】因为观世音菩萨修耳根圆通的。不自观音就是不会拿这个音声……以观观者，第一个“观”叫做能观，“观者”就是所观。他不会拿这个音声，来变作一个能观跟所观。意思就是：观世音菩萨已经证得金刚三昧，就是心境一如的意思。不自观音就是不拿这个外在的音声，化为一个能观，一个所观，因为音声就是清净自性的缘起相，没有二相，缘起相就是真如相。所以，不自观音以观观者，观世音菩萨不会拿外面的这个音声，化作一个能观、所观。众生都是这样，听到美好的音声，心都跑掉了，一个能听，一个所听，心就跑掉了，就迷迷茫茫了。观世音菩萨知道，音声是幻灭的，幻灭就是实相的显现，缘起就是实相。【使受苦众生即得解脱，】让受苦的众生就得到解脱，【是为无畏。】"
"
大
悟之人不见法。他没有任何东西，因为法法本空，法法不相到。也不见身。为什么？四大本空，五阴本来就没有“我”。所以，什么叫做照见五蕴皆空？色即是空，
受想行识即是空。为什么讲色即是空？色即是空，空就是佛性，色就是佛性的展现。所以，真正的悟道的人，他的心性流露在一切缘起法里面，即于生灭，即得不生
不灭的无为法，也没有所谓有为跟无为，刹那即见永恒，永恒就是刹那，平等不二。
因此我们要了解：不见法，也不见身。身，地水火风所构成的，四大本来就空，五蕴——色受想行识，本来就是不可得。一切法，智者了知一切法，本来就无我。这无我里面，当下就是佛性。所以，佛法讲否定的时候，凡所有相，皆是假相。讲肯定的时候，尘尘都是真心，每一个颗粒微尘都是真心的影现，一切法全部都是真。
当他破除无明烦恼、破除执着、破除分别的时候，完全都是真心展现的，尘尘尽是真，没有一法不是真心，这个是站在肯定的角度。站在否定的角度，是凡所有相不
可得。站在本体界的角度，凡所有相，都是本体界的展现，都是清净心的影现，没有一法不是真实。"
- ven hui lu
[12:36 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: this is still more like nondual, not anatta?
[12:36 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: I got to read
[12:36 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: What is that Zen teacher name?
[12:36 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: 洪文亮？
[12:36 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Yes
[12:37 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: U see hui Lu is speaking from highest form of teaching
[12:38 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Actually very good
[12:38 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: U should pass your mom
[12:39 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: ok
[12:40
AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I also like 洪文亮。 i think these two, hong wen
liang and hui lu fa shi are the only chinese masters i really resonate
lol
[12:41 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Yeah only two that is really clear
[12:41 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: But u cannot read it from ur understanding
[12:41 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: It is not suitable for many ppl
[12:41 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: What do u mean
[12:42 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: This text is very good. But not suitable for many ppl.
[12:43 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: It involves anatta insight, emptiness and DO, clarity from anatta perspective.
[12:44 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic..
[12:46 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: He should say 尘尘假相都是真心
[12:48 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: The text that I wrote for u to teacher Chen, paste it here
[12:52 AM, 5/19/2020] Soh Wei Yu: 深入观行, 婆酰迦经。
了悟经旨, 直指无心。
无执能所, 忘却身心。
方知见性, 只需明相。
明相见性, 见色明心。
真心空性, 随缘显相。
迷时幻相, 悟时真心。
山河大地, 原是法身。
色声香味, 尽是妙心。
[12:52 AM, 5/19/2020] John Tan: Lol
-------
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Also, daniel ingram has realised anatta, but not shinzen young. The latter is more of I AM to one mind imo
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Daniel
true self no self article was also written very long ago. Even in mctb1
which was mostly written even before he achieved “4th path”. He never
really talks in these terms anymore, unless to a specific audience as
skillful means
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
On
the other hand, even John Tan said this, while not downplaying there is
vast difference between “All is Self” and No Self insights:
“
Likewise
John Tan said before, John Tan, 2007: “No-self does not need
observation. No-self is a form of realisation. To observe is to track
the 'self': where is it, what is it - that 'sense of self', who, where
and what... till we thoroughly understood it is an illusion, till we
know there is awareness, but there never was a 'Self/self'. Isn't
awareness 'self'? Well, you can say so if you insist...ehehhe
(1:59
PM) Thusness: if there is non-dual, no background, no mine and 'I',
impermanence, not a form of entity and yet we still want to call it
'Self', so be it. 
(1:59 PM) Thusness: its okie...
(1:59 PM) Thusness: lol”
John
Tan, 2020: “Brahman or not doesn't matter as long Brahman is not any
transpersonal being in a wonderland, but is the very relative phenomena
that we misunderstood.””
Mr. MP
Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu
That's kind of what I thought Daniel was saying. He says "You could say
in some strange way that all this was “you”, or you could equally state
that the whole field was “not you”.
Anyway - just thought to point that to David who seemed to be looking for common ground with his Advaita friends.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
The
difference is that Daniel did not emphasize enough the vast difference
between nondual understood from substantialist nondual vs anatta as
explained this excerpt. This can be misleading if not enough emphasis is
given on the difference. I also do not think Daniel thinks Advaita is
similar to Buddhism, especially not in his more recent videos and posts.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Mr. MP this part is crucial:
“Mr. MP
Misleading.
Excerpts:
4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta
I
have just casually gone through some of your forum discussions. Very
enlightening discussions and well presentation of my
7-phases-of-insights but try not to over-emphasize it as a model; it
should not be taken as a definite model of enlightenment nor should you
use it as a framework to validate others' experiences and insights.
Simply take it as a guide along your spiritual journey.
You
are right to differentiate non-dual experience from non-dual
realization and non-dual realization from the insight of anatta. We have
discussed this umpteem times. Non-dual experience in the context we are
using refers to the experience of no-subject-object division. The
experience is much like putting two candle flames together where the
boundary between the flames becomes indistinguishable. It is not a
realization but simply a stage, an experience of unity between the
observer and the observed where the conceptual layer that divides is
temporarily suspended in a meditative state. This you have experienced.
Non-dual
realization on the other hand is a deep understanding that comes from
seeing through the illusionary nature of subject-object division. It is a
natural non-dual state that resulted from an insight that arises after
rigorous investigation, challenge and a prolonged period of practice
that is specially focused on ‘No-Self’. Somehow focusing on “No-Self”
will spark a sense of sacredness towards the transient and fleeting
phenomena. The sense of sacredness that is once the monopoly of the
Absolute is now also found in the Relative. The term ‘No-Self’ like
Zen-Koan may appear cryptic, senseless or illogical but when realized,
it is actually obviously clear, direct and simple. The realization is
accompanied with the experience that everything is being dissolved into
either:
1. An ultimate Subject or
2. As mere ‘flow of phenomenality’
In
whatever the case, both spells the end of separateness; experientially
there is no sense of two-ness and the experience of unity can be quite
overwhelming initially but eventually it will lose its grandeur and
things turn quite ordinary. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the
sense of Oneness is derived from the experience of ‘All as Self’ or ‘as
simply just manifestation’, it is the beginning insight of “No-Self”.
The former is known as One-Mind and the later, No-Mind.
In
Case 1 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify
and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost
unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization,
understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on
subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and
practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of
‘No-Self based on Self’.
For
Case 2 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the
doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences
become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing
through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so
that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in
actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that
experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a
base, a ground, a source has always been assumed.
To
mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an
agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm
shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the
idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and
understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a
source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and
rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
Therefore
this phase of insight is not about singing eloquently the non-dual
nature of an Ultimate Reality; contrary it is deeming this Ultimate
Reality as irrelevant. Ultimate Reality appears relevant only to a mind
that is bond to seeing things inherently, once this tendency dissolves,
the idea of a source will be seen as flawed and erroneous. Therefore to
fully experience the breadth and depth of no-self, practitioners must be
prepared and willing to give up the entire subject-object framework and
be open to eliminate the entire idea of a ‘source’. Rob expressed very
skillfully this point in his talk:
One
time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not
to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there
being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and
disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s
actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very
interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end
it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
This
group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with
that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not
rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into
this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so
much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are
unbudgeable there.
What
then is the view that Buddhism is talking about without resorting to a
‘source’? I think the post by Vajrahridaya in the thread ‘What makes
Buddhism different’ of your forum succinctly and concisely expressed the
view, it is well written. That said, do remember to infinitely regress
back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising
thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form.
Labels: Anatta, Non Dual |”
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Are all religions' nonduality the same?
Mr. MP
Top contributor
Sure, totally
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
This is a also a nice excerpt from the link above
John
tan commented on one of Adyashanti’s videos back in 2020, “ It is a
good video but a bit long. There is also genuine distinction between
All as Self which is Non-dual but substantialist and no-self that is
Non-dual and non-substantialist. One does not need to take side but
have to b objective and unbiased. Hence clearly discerning the
differences and implications r key to understanding how the mind reifies
and how confusions arise. Therefore on top of experiences which is
quite difficult to differentiate clearly the two in experience (all as
Self and No-Self) and authentication of pristine consciousness in real
time, clearly seeing how the layers obscures is part and parcel of
maturing our experiences and insights.”
Mr. MP
Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu Nice. I think Adya is really good at being inclusive and diplomatic while still pointing very clearly.
Sometimes
it doesn't hurt to give benefit of doubt and look for common ground,
which is how I took what Daniel was doing there. Sort of like Adyashanti
in the discussion with Rupert.
Thought maybe it was relevant to David's question. I understand your concerns with it, noted.
(also
to ultra mega clarify - I am not taking that position myself! No self
has really helped to cut through residual stuff around an ultimate
essence, and brought much clarity)
Mr. MP
Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu Man you are totally seek and destroy with anything substantialist 
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Need to be clear thats all.
Not an issue of semantics.
Excerpt based on john tan:
“You'.
A
true and genuine practitioner must give rise to all these insights, and
understand the causes and conditions that give rise to the experiences
and not get mixed up. Many people get mixed up over different 'types' of
'no self'.
For
example, no-self of non-dual, no-self of anatta, non-inherent existence
and impersonality, are all not refering to the same experience - but
rather they are different results of dissolving certain aspect of the
tendencies.
Hence
a practitioner must be sincere in his practice to clearly see, and not
pretend that one knows. Otherwise practice is simply more mix-up,
confusion, and nonsense. It is not that it cannot be known, it is just
that the mind isn't clear enough to see the causes and conditions of
arising.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
The Tendency to Extrapolate a Universal Consciousness
Mr. MP
Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu
Actually one of the best pieces of advice I got from Advaita teacher
was something like "If you are going to use words you have to define
them precisely." (when talking about matters of insight)
It's
very easy to take ideas and run with them and assume you know what's
being said. I know I'm guilty of that sometimes. So clarity and
precision are incredibly important. Cheers for your efforts.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Typo: *discussed anatta with his yoga student
- Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
“I do not try to condition”
Im
guilty of sending 7 stages to a lot of reddit people who i thought may
possibly benefit though. John tan didnt like that, of course 
But some did progress from I AM or one mind to anatta after my sharing haha
But i dont push further if they did not resonate.
- Reply
- Edited
Mr./Ms. DM
Author
Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu I’m one of those who benefited hugely! Don’t stop what you’re doing!
- Reply
Mr. CS
Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu and for that I am very grateful! 
- Reply
Aditya Prasad
Top contributor
Mr./Ms. DM I recently posted to this group a piece that I hope helps accomplish something like that. It's still quite clunky though.
- Reply
Mr./Ms. JHg
When I try to watch, it shows
This video is private
How can I access it..?
- Reply
Mr. MP
Top contributor
It's
interesting because I enjoyed some of Rupert's stuff a few years ago,
but felt he kept really leaning on his 'awareness first' model
(basically subjective idealism), and ultimately didn't find it was going
anywhere. I think his teacher, Francis Lucille, and HIS teacher, Jean
Klein are at least a little more balanced and no so much in that subject
only camp. But still very much substantialist.
Adya
is obv on a different level, but is a very gracious guy and very good
at meeting people where they are and looking for common ground. That's
why he's such an incredible teacher.
For
me, anyone on the path of awakening is a potential friend, because
ultimately even first awakening is a rare and special thing in this
world. I will have much more in common with that person than the average
normie, even if we don't agree on finer points.
But
being 'uncompromising' can mean different things. If it means rigid,
dogmatic, and unwilling to meet people where they are, then I don't find
it too useful to be around. As Angelo said of people in the Tony
Parsons camp (something like) 'I don't think that's uncompromising, I
think it's unskillful'.
If
you are trying to communicate something, and the person is not
agreeing, you are not going to get any farther by repeating it louder.
Meeting people where they are and trying understand how they think is
the path forward if you are genuinely trying share something with
someone.
I put experience first and conceptual frameworks second.
- Reply
- Reply
Mr./Ms. JT
There are many kinds of people, conditions, temperaments, so many kinds of teachings are needed...
whatabout in that one star system and that one planet there where ET:s have totally different kind of nervous systems 
teachings here on planet earth seem to be like kindergarten level teachings in its best for them 
teachings here on planet earth seem to be like kindergarten level teachings in its best for them still this is all Mystery and it is unfolding its own without any individual wills and whatever we think about it.
For
sure there could arise experience what is good teaching or not for
oneself and for others... put hard positioning oneself on the top seems
to be attachment to structures or more subtle of states realization...
in me arises feeling that it is distasteful...
Just my two cents...
- Reply
- Edited
Mr./Ms. JT
PS.
I felt that that roundtable conversation was beautiful unfolding of
different kinds of insights and in the end they were many giving value
to Meister Eckhart. Then I was feeling into Eckhart and he seem to have
great love transmission. I like how Adya is talking about love/heart
awakening in his teachings.
- Reply
Mr./Ms. JH
Off
topic but where does one, as a young adult, find IRL friends interested
in awakening/the path? 99% of my friends haven't even heard of the pop
spiritual big timers of Eckart Tolle, Chopra etc..
- Reply
Mr./Ms. DM
Author
Top contributor
Mr./Ms. JH
I personally only have 1 friend (who is advaita) who lives around me.
Most friends are people just online from all around the world. It’s hard
because this isn’t a popular topic really.
Going to retreats, even online can help!
- Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
I recommend finding a sangha.
Which city do you live in?
- Reply
Mr./Ms. JH
Soh Wei YuWashington D.C. area
- Reply
- Reply
- Remove Preview
