Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[RongzomFan]

D.O. is Stage 6

 

Stage 1~2: I AM/Eternal Witness

Stage 3: Entering Nothingness (like a samadhi of oblivion to dissolve self)

Stage 4: Non Dual, One Mind

Stage 5: Anatta & No Mind

Stage 6: Emptiness (Dependent Origination)

Stage 7: Spontaneous Perfection and Non-Meditation

 

 

Some people think they are at Stage 7 without going through the previous insights.

 

 

Except these stages are just another invention of another neo-Zen/Advaitin. Every neo-Zen/Advaitin, has his own schema.

 

If you look at the highest buddhist teachings, you are "simply" told to distinguigh between clarity and the conceptual mind.

[xabir2005]

Except these stages are just another invention of another neo-Zen/Advaitin. Every neo-Zen/Advaitin, has his own schema.

 

If you look at the highest buddhist teachings, you are "simply" told to distinguigh between clarity and the conceptual mind.

Mahamudra, considered on par with Dzogchen as another 'highest teachings', taught the four yogas/stages.

 

Furthermore: Mahayana and Vajrayana understands there are 10 bodhisattva bhumis.

 

Theravada, the most original/early Buddhist teachings, understands there are 4 stages to Arhatship.

 

Even the traditional Zen masters have the 5 Ranks of Tozan, 10 Ox Herding pictures, and more to map the stages of enlightenment.

 

Is that neo-Buddhist?

 

Also how is Thusness's writings about Advaita? If you say Stage 1 to 4 is Advaita that is understandable. But Stage 5 to 7 is Buddhist. If you think Advaita teaches Anatta and Inter-Dependent Origination instead of Atman (Self) - Brahman (The Ultimate Source/God), you probably don't know the difference between Advaita and Buddhism well enough.

Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Except these stages are just another invention of another neo-Zen/Advaitin. Every neo-Zen/Advaitin, has his own schema.

 

If you look at the highest buddhist teachings, you are "simply" told to distinguigh between clarity and the conceptual mind.

Btw Stage 1 (I AMness) is also about 'distinguish clarity and conceptual mind'.

 

If you experienced the I AM, it is non-conceptual, undeniable clarity, beyond conceptual thoughts, no intermediary.

 

But at this point, you do not understand Non Dual (oneness of Absolute and Relative), as well as Anatta, Emptiness, Dependent Origination.

 

Spiritual path is not as simple as you say Having an initial glimpse such as the I AM is not the end of the path.

Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

As I wrote to someone in my blog before:

 

"A 'You' flowing with the current is the cause of suffering. Although you see stages as useless jargon, others may find it appropriate. You hold onto an ultimate view, but what I see is a dependently originated view, simply skillful means. Lastly, awakeness is important, not concepts."

 

Thusness has always stressed that his map is a skillful means that can hopefully serve as a guide.

 

Though reality is already 'Spontaneously Perfected' as described in Stage 7, and as such strictly speaking there is no need to go through any steps or stages, but realistically speaking *almost nobody* has achieved full enlightenment in one day, except maybe beings like Padmasambhava who are 'Buddha emanations'. Most will go through the stages of realisations, even in Dzogchen*. As I warned earlier, don't think that you can skip stages to Non-Meditation straight away. One has to honestly ask if he is of the capacity to skip to 10th Bhumi (Non-Meditation) straight away and bypass all other stages?

 

The 7 Stages map has been of help to many - otherwise for example, you could be stuck at a certain stage (say the I AM) thinking you're fully enlightened. By the way the person to whom Thusness wrote his stages to, got enlightened to non-duality simply by reading one line of the Stage 5 description. He wrote this to him as he knew the conditions were present for it to 'work'. It may not work for everybody, but to some it might. This shows how skillful means work. The map was written solely to that person only, as Thusness knew the conditions were present for him to give rise to insight (and he doesn't speak to people unless he perceives that the conditions are there). However I felt it may be of benefit to others as well, that's why I posted to the blog.

 

 

* http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/dzogchen/basic_points/introduction_dzogchen.html

 

Those Who Progress in Stages and Those for Whom It Happens All at Once

 

There are two types of dzogchen practitioners: those who progress in stages (lam-rim-pa) and those for whom it happens all at once (cig-car-ba). This differentiation regards the manner of proceeding to enlightenment for practitioners once they have realized essence rigpa. In other words, it regards those who have become aryas (‘ phags-pa, highly realized beings) with the attainment of a seeing pathway mind (mthong-lam, path of seeing) and the true stopping of the emotional obscurations.

 

Those who progress in stages proceed through the arya bodhisattva ten bhumi levels of minds (sa, Skt. bhumi), one by one, gradually removing the cognitive obscurations.

 

Those for whom it happens all at once achieve a true stopping of both sets of obscuration all at once with the first realization of essence rigpa. Thus, they become aryas and Buddhas simultaneously.

 

[see: Ridding Oneself of the Two Sets of Obscurations in Sutra and Anuttarayoga According to Nyingma and Sakya.]

 

Although dzogchen texts usually speak more of the second variety, only a tiny fraction of practitioners is of this type. Their elimination of both sets of obscuration with the first realization of essence rigpa is due to the enormous amount of positive force (merit) they have built up with bodhichitta and dzogchen practice in previous lives. That positive force may also enable them to proceed through the stages before achieving a seeing pathway mind more quickly than most. Nevertheless, no one asserts the attainment of enlightenment without the buildup of vast networks of positive force and deep awareness, from intense practice of preliminaries, meditation, and bodhisattva conduct – even if the majority of this has occurred in previous lifetimes.

 

Therefore, when dzogchen texts refer to the recognition of rigpa as the one that cuts off all for complete liberation (chig-chod kun-grol, the panacea for complete liberation), we need to understand this correctly. For those for whom it happens all at once, the first realization of essence rigpa is sufficient for cutting all obscurations for the complete attainment of enlightenment. This does not mean, however, that realization of rigpa is sufficient by itself for attaining enlightenment, without need for any preliminaries, such as bodhichitta or strengthening the two enlightenment-building networks, as the causes for achieving that realization.

Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

So, if somebody has a certain illness you're saying there isn't one best way to treat them? I'm sure singing in the rain and juggling oranges will cure someone somewhere of depression but that doesn't mean that is equally as good of a method as say self-inquiry, which is generally a great method of seeing through the self. I'm generalizing here. I'm sure some depressed fellow out there just needs a good juggle to feel happy.

 

 

No...but the same ailment might have different treatment modalities. And by reducing Spirituality to a phenomenal "thing" like Illness you are simply trying to apply reductio ad absurdum. But this particular situation you picked certainly doesn't apply. One can opt for Western Medicine, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, etc. The options and their efficacy are related to the invidivual's psycho-physiological make-up.

 

This is the problem with radical nondual teachings. You're so stuck on the absolute level that you can't see that the relative is extremely important. How can you really say that that general valuations are impossible to make? How can all religions possibly have the same valuation? I'm not doubting that each religion has had some highly realized beings but generally speaking Eastern traditions have produced SO MANY more realized beings.

 

As far as my being caught up in the absolute level is concerned, I think you assume that I am caught up in the absolute level. If one doesn't develop the ability to discern between the relative and the absolute, even the relative will seem absolute to him/her. It seems like YOU are caught up in absolute scales, even though you should have realized via DO that the scale is actually relative and "it depends". So by passing an absolute value judgment on two methodologies of practice, you are forcing them into an absolute scale. In reality (relatively speaking), they should be valued relative to the practitioner's psycho-somatic make-up. Now Mikaelz might be overwhelmed by too much Sanskrit jargon and Ralis might hate men in skirts telling him things...that just means in relation to their individual proclivities (call it Karma-phala induced Samskaras), the teaching/method has a lower value as compared to another teaching/method.

 

It's like saying all universities are the same because they all focus on education... Well, yeah that's true but I'd much rather get an education from Princeton or Chicago than Bumblefuck Community College. I'm sure some lucky fellow that goes to the latter will come out quite education but statistically speaking good institutions produce smart people. It's simple cause and effect which is something radical nondual traditions deny because how can you have change and differentiation when everything is One?

 

You are being facetious when you bring up this analogy and being reductionistic ad absurdum. Again, read my explanation about how values are actually dependently originated (no pun intended).

 

 

[RongzomFan]

Mahamudra, considered on par with Dzogchen as another 'highest teachings', taught the four yogas/stages.

 

Milarepa had Nyingma lamas. So Mahamudra is a derived teaching. I have a source for this information as well. But either way, Thusness is not a Mahamudra teacher.

 

Even the traditional Zen masters have the 5 Ranks of Tozan, 10 Ox Herding pictures, and more to map the stages of enlightenment.

 

Is that neo-Buddhist?

 

Did I miss something?

 

When did this internet fellow's teachings get elevated to the same level as Mahamudra and Zen?

 

 

Also how is Thusness's writings about Advaita? If you say Stage 1 to 4 is Advaita that is understandable. But Stage 5 to 7 is Buddhist. If you think Advaita teaches Anatta and Inter-Dependent Origination instead of Atman (Self) - Brahman (Source/God), you probably don't know the difference between Advaita and Buddhism well enough.

 

Neo-advaitin/zen is a label applied to all sorts of today's nondualists like Tolle, Adyashanti etc. Thats all I meant by it. I didn't invent the label. I am sure I read it somewhere in a book.

 

Vajrayana understands there are 10 bodhisattva bhumis.

 

The view of the highest teachings are SPECIFICALLY beyond bhumis. Yes, even for those who do not instantly become Buddhas.

 

 

Btw Stage 1 (I AMness) is also about 'distinguish clarity and conceptual mind'.

 

If you experienced the I AM, it is non-conceptual, undeniable clarity, beyond conceptual thoughts, no intermediary.

 

But at this point, you do not understand Non Dual (oneness of Absolute and Relative), as well as Anatta, Emptiness, Dependent Origination.

 

Spiritual path is not as simple as you say Having an initial glimpse such as the I AM is not the end of the path.

 

 

Ok, if you and Thusness say so, it must be true.

Edited May 17, 2010 by alwayson

[nac]

*facepalm*

 

Advaita is static Parmenides-type idealism, Buddhism is the explicit rejection of that idealism. But everything is One after all, huh?

[Apech]

Milarepa had Nyingma lamas. So Mahamudra is a derived teaching. I have a source for this information as well. But either way, Thusness is not a Mahamudra teacher.

 

 

Hi alwayson,

 

I thought that Milarepa's lama was Marpa the Translator (a hero of mine) ... can you reveal your source for Nyingma lamas?

 

Thanks

 

John

[dwai]

*facepalm*

 

Advaita is static Parmenides-type idealism, Buddhism is the explicit rejection of that idealism. But everything is One after all, huh?

 

Is it really? Are you sure?

[nac]

Is it really? Are you sure?

About what, that the supreme brahman is the unchanging, uncreated essence of the world?

[xabir2005]

Milarepa had Nyingma lamas. So Mahamudra is a derived teaching. I have a source for this information as well. But either way, Thusness is not a Mahamudra teacher.

 

 

 

Did I miss something?

 

When did this internet fellow's teachings get elevated to the same level as Mahamudra and Zen?

You are diverting the issue with claims I did not make.

 

First of all you are implying that 'having a schema' by which I take it that you're refering to the stages of realisations, is equivalent to 'neo-Zen/Advaita'.

 

I am simply pointing out that if this is the case, then ALL traditions of Buddhism will be classified under that, since Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana including even traditional Zen and Mahamudra talks about stages in their own unique ways.

Neo-advaitin/zen is a label applied to all sorts of today's nondualists like Tolle, Adyashanti etc. Thats all I meant by it. I didn't invent the label. I am sure I read it somewhere in a book.

Tolle and Adyashanti is Neo-Advaita because they are teaching about the Atman-Brahman, which is the Vedanta view.

 

As for Adyashanti: strictly speaking he is a qualified Zen teacher who is given permission to teach, he has no Advaita lineage. However having flipped through his book, it is quite clear that as of recent, he is at the Stage 4/Advaita Non Dual level of realisation. Nothing about Anatta or Emptiness. That is why I do agree he can be classified as 'Neo Advaitin' even though his lineage is of Zen.

 

Thusness is not teaching about Atman-Brahman, so 'neo-Advaita' is inaccurate.

 

Neo-Zen? How did you get that idea? He did not claim to be teaching Zen. He did not claim to be teaching anything. In fact he did not claim to be a teacher.

 

Just because you write some articles on Anatta and Emptiness doesn't mean you must be classified as Neo something. Anatta and Emptiness is universal in Buddhism.

 

Lastly, what does 'nondualist' mean to you? If by that you mean realising the union of atman and brahman, obviously Thusness is not a 'nondualist'.

The view of the highest teachings are SPECIFICALLY beyond bhumis. Yes, even for those who do not instantly become Buddhas.

You are talking about the *View*. I do agree that the View is beyond bhumis, because it is not a thing, it is simply the insight of the union of luminosity and emptiness, with the emptiness specifically the twofold emptiness of self and phenomena which corresponds to the description of 'stage 5' and 'stage 6', not some 'void'. The union of luminosity and emptiness is already spontaneously perfected from the beginning, as described in Stage 7. It is not a stage, it is what is already always the case, but only out of 'skillful means' that it is being listed that way.

 

But in terms of *path*, there is a long way to go (for most people) to realising fully the View, the Spontaneous Perfection.

 

By the way, even in the most basic Theravada teachings, emptiness is understood not as a stage but as 'spontaneously perfected'. I am not interested in arguing whether this is the same as Dzogchen, but my point here is: Anatta is already always anatta. It is not that you enter a stage where you annihilate the self, rather it is a *Dharma Seal*, something which you must realise Anatta fully as *always already the case* in order to realise Arhatship. So this understanding/view of *always already the case* is present right in the early teachings of Theravada. Yet, people still go through four stages to Arhatship.

Ok, if you and Thusness say so, it must be true.

So, you're saying it isn't true?

 

Initial non-conceptual glimpse of Atman = Buddhahood?

Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

About what, that the supreme brahman is the unchanging, uncreated essence of the world?

 

 

Take for instance your statement that Buddhism is a total rejection of an Absolute. The Buddha doesn't really reject it, he simply refuses to comment on it...

[nac]

Take for instance your statement that Buddhism is a total rejection of an Absolute. The Buddha doesn't really reject it, he simply refuses to comment on it...

He denied that any existent is everlasting. Now the question is, does this argument (ie. Shankaracarya vs Buddha metaphysical showdown) qualify as a single existent?

Edited May 17, 2010 by nac

[RongzomFan]

First of all you are implying that 'having a schema' by which I take it that you're refering to the stages of realisations, is equivalent to 'neo-Zen/Advaita'.

 

 

Yes this guy on the internet who MAKES UP HIS OWN TEACHINGS is neo-Advaitin/Zen.

 

Neo-Advaita/Zen is just a term for modern clueless nondualists like Adyashanti. Don't take the label literally.

 

 

Initial non-conceptual glimpse of Atman = Buddhahood?

 

 

I can't even address this, because I don't subscribe to the idiotic internet teachings of Thusness.

 

My friend, don't you realize you have been duped?

Edited May 17, 2010 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

Yes this guy on the internet who MAKES UP HIS OWN TEACHINGS is neo-Advaitin/Zen.

What part of the "teaching"* is made up?

 

Anatta?

 

Emptiness?

 

Told you this is universal in Buddhism.

 

*I put teaching in quotes because as I said, Thusness does not consider himself a teacher.

Again neo-Zen/Advaita is just my term for modern clueless nondualists.

You did not reply me what you mean by 'nondualist'.

 

I already told you that Thusness's view is completely different from Advaitins who teach nonduality as realising the union of Atman and Brahman.

Just to be clear. With this question are you again arguing from the viewpoint of Thusness' stages, which I clearly do not accept?

I said that non-conceptual experience of Atman/I AM is not the end of the path. Simple. Then I asked you whether you think that that experience is the end of the path/Buddhahood.

 

If you don't, then you agree with me.

xabir2005, don't you realize you have been duped?

I think you are duped by your own misunderstandings and narrowmindedness. Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

What part of the "teaching"* is made up?

 

Anatta?

 

Emptiness?

 

Told you this is universal in Buddhism.

I think you are duped by your own misunderstandings and narrowmindedness.

 

 

The problem is I could address this, but not on the open forum. I'll send you a PM.

[xabir2005]

Let me ask you this:

 

Do you consider Advaita and Buddhism enlightenment and experience to be the same?

 

If you do, then you're in agreement with me. Then we can start discussing why it is diffferent.

 

If you don't, then I have nothing much more to discuss with you. In fact I have already explained why they are different earlier in this thread.

[xabir2005]

The problem is I could address this, but not on the open forum. I'll send you a PM.

OK.

[ralis]

These arguments have been going on ad infinitum for several thousand years. If the Buddha was absolutely clear on all points, then there would be no further discussion. His devotees would accept it and live their lives accordingly. Obviously, he was not! Even the Tibetans and their various schools have myriad disagreements on many points. Especially who or what is the real primordial Buddha. Tibetans even claim that the Buddha prophesied his return in the form of Padmasambhava. Perhaps a bit of revisionism? Furthermore the Tibetans claim the historical Buddha only taught to a certain level and left the rest to the Tibetan monastic system. A little too convenient in my opinion.

 

The various levels that were created from Theraveda to Dzogchen are just another way to create an authoritarian hierarchy that does nothing but enslave people to confusing philosophical ideologies , with the promise that if one keeps certain vows, usually to some Buddha sky god, then one will be enlightened in several lifetimes or even eons.

 

Another problem I have trouble with is that the Tulku's that die in the U.S. are somehow found reborn in some lonely village in Tibet, even though they may have been born in India. If these guys are so universal, then why would not be reborn in the U.S.? Seems to me there is an attitude that Tibetans are somehow superior.

 

ralis

[nac]

These arguments have been going on ad infinitum for several thousand years. If the Buddha was absolutely clear on all points, then there would be no further discussion. His devotees would accept it and live their lives accordingly. Obviously, he was not! Even the Tibetans and their various schools have myriad disagreements on many points. Especially who or what is the real primordial Buddha. Tibetans even claim that the Buddha prophesied his return in the form of Padmasambhava. Perhaps a bit of revisionism? Furthermore the Tibetans claim the historical Buddha only taught to a certain level and left the rest to the Tibetan monastic system. A little too convenient in my opinion.

You see, the Buddhism was never meant to be conservative. As Buddhas, we're all supposed to improve the teachings where we can, not keep them pure and correct and traditional. Even Theravada has this parable: Two men wander into an ancient, ruined city. After searching the place, they discover a length of rope each. While heading back to their village, they chance upon two sacks of spice. The first man puts down his rope and picks up one of the sacks, but the other says "this is good enough for me". Then they run across two bags of gold. The first man throws away the spice and picks up the gold, but the second man again says "this is good enough for me". When they get back to the village, the first man becomes a millionaire, but the second remains poor due to his lack of ambition. That's supposed to be the Buddhist attitude towards religion and elements of philosophy. As a result, Buddhist traditions often carry two differing accounts: one true history and one mythical hagiography.

 

Buddhist traditions basically continue the Buddha's tradition and stick to the Four Seals the same way Neoplatonists consider themselves part of Plato's philosophical tradition.

 

The problem is I could address this, but not on the open forum. I'll send you a PM.

Me too please.

Edited May 17, 2010 by nac

[RongzomFan]

I said that non-conceptual experience of Atman/I AM is not the end of the path. Simple.

 

It is not simple, because you are using Thusness' vocabulary, which I am not familiar with.

 

You have been Thusness' lackey for so long, that you have convinced yourself you are using common terminology.

 

Thusness' vocabulary, such as "I AM", does seem to be a hodgepodge of Michael Landford "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to Eternal Bliss" and some other neo-Advaitin/Zen stuff.

 

I sent you a PM, but I got an error message, so let me know if you got it.

Edited May 17, 2010 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

It is not simple, because you are using Thusness' vocabulary, which I am not familiar with.

 

You have been Thusness' lackey for so long, that you have convinced yourself you are using common terminology.

 

Thusness' vocabulary does seem to be a hodgepodge of Michael Landford "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to Eternal Bliss" and some other neo-Advaitin/Zen stuff.

Let me put it this way based on my own experience:

 

I AM is defined as the pure sense of existence, presence, awareness, that exists prior to thought. It is the sense that I AM, even without using thoughts - an undeniable sense of Being, an undeniable sense of Existence. It is a vivid self-existing clarity that is simply 'there' by default as your true essence, it is not constructed. Once you recognise/realise this, there is a natural certainty of just Being. You will not doubt Who You Are. You cannot doubt that. There is no room for doubt - or rather, even if so called 'doubts' arise, that sense of thoughtless certainty of being is still present even as the thought arises within that clarity. That clarity just IS. With or without thoughts, YOU ARE (not in labeling - but the undeniable sense of existing). No thought or person, even the Buddha, can shake one off this Certainty of Being when the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of this - not that Buddha would, anyway - the luminosity is not to be denied, just that the views needs to be continuously refined. Furthermore: The I AM does not have a tangible shape or form, but is clearly present/experienced as the Witness of all arisings. It is like an unmoving context, like a screen in which the entire display of life is shown in. The Witness is not experienced as personal, but as impersonal and universal in the way space is not owned by any person or object, but everything arises from that. The I AM is timeless and spaceless. IT is all-pervading. This I AMness has four subaspects and phases that can be matured, but I shall not discuss in the details. (it is not mentioned in my blog, but I have discussed it in my forum)

 

This is not only in Michael Langford's book (which you correctly pointed out is actually pointing to the same experience as Thusness Stage 1). It is also taught by all Advaitins as the goal, whether they want to call it I AM, Self, Pure Consciousness, whatever. Different terms pointing to the same thing. Their goal is Self-Knowledge. However, some Advaitins do point out further insights into non-duality, which are similar to Thusness Stage 4. In Michael Langford's book however, it only talks about Stage 1. Thusness's Stages of Experience is written (2006) way before he heard of Michael Langford (which I told him in 2008), but he has *not* read his book even until now. I don't think he will be that interested to.

 

You must see beyond the vocabularies and grasp what is it talking about. Because if you do, you will be able to see how the stages actually applies universally regardless of what vocabularies one uses (I am not saying everyone has to go through each stage, but rather how the realisations of people around the world can be mapped one way another to those stages). The vocabulary isn't really important, i.e. whether you want to call Emptiness as Emptiness, or Shunyata, or whatever. Or whether you want to call I AM as I AM, or Self, or Consciousness, etc. For example: there are some teachers who refer the I AM as 'No-Dog' (it is talking about the transpersonal Self that has 'no dog in the fight' and isn't affected by whether the body-mind lives or dies). People who do not know the term will not recognise it, but when I saw the description I can instantly recognise that yes, No-Dog is equivalent to I AM - whatever you want to call it, the meaning is the same. If you grasp the essence, you will recognise it in others even if the terminologies are different.

 

However as I mentioned, Stage 1 to 4 are not 'Buddhist insights'. It does not mean that all Buddhists do not go through them, but rather, they are not the 'criteria' for Buddhist enlightenment.

 

Stage 5 onwards are 'Buddhist insights'. Stage 5 is the Emptiness of Self, Stage 6 is the Emptiness of Dharmas, and together they form the twofold emptiness.

I sent you a PM, but I got an error message, so let me know if you got it.

Yes, I got it.

PM removed

Will look up on it when I visit a Buddhist bookstore next time. But what 'error of the view' are you exactly pointing to?

But above all, I am surprised you are not aware the crucial DEFINING point of Dzogchen, from which essence Mahamudra was derived, is .....

Hmm can you elaborate? Is this the part that is supposed to be secret? Edited May 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

I sent you another PM.

Edited May 17, 2010 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

LOL

 

If I wanted my IM open, I would have typed it open.

 

Some of that info is supposed to be secret.

Removed. I also misread your PM. Re-edited.

[RongzomFan]

I sent yet another PM

Edited May 17, 2010 by alwayson