Three Kinds of Spiritual Teachings.

[Seth Ananda]

Here are some Ideas I have been toying with.

 

These musings are in part because I love the Interfaith movement, and believe that understanding the base stances of the different traditions can lead us towards understanding the nature, the strengths and weaknesses of each tradition. These musings are towards the Mystical aspects of traditions, not the exoteric seat warmers who have words and belief only.

 

I am hoping to develop a 'Meta Paradigm' that is capable of respecting, including and understanding all the paradigms within it, giving practitioners of a particular tradition a door way to Interact with people of other, seemingly antagonistic or diametrically opposed traditions, in a healthy way.

 

What do you all think?

 

Now before I start, It should be fairly obvious that while some traditions may just have one kind of teaching, Others may have elements of two or even all three within its body of knowledge.

Also I am not commenting on the conclusions different traditions reach about their experiences but on the actual experiences themselves which are 'Real' for the mystic.

 

 

So here goes. Object, Subject, and Beyond.

 

'Object' Teachings:

These are any teachings about 'actual' things or any internal or external phenomenal experience. Energetics, Intent and Magick, Most Shamanism, Most Theistic traditions.

Any teaching that approaches the Divine as a 'Force' that can be felt or related with, followed, intuited.

For Instance in Theistic Paths, one practices Intuiting the light and presence of God, and attempts to constantly be connected to that energetic presence. Through constant prayer and surrender ones nature becomes more and more transformed into what one is focusing on. The Theistic mystics are often Powerful healers who can tangibly channel the light and perform 'miracles' on a regular basis. Master Choi Cok Sui was a great recent example of this path.

This Intense focus also brings around a Oneness experience that is Non Dual in nature and Extremely powerful [fire works wise] compared to the gentler Nondual states brought round by the 'Subject' teachings.

Shamanism, also has a grand tradition of entering into a deeply connected, reciprocal relationship with the 'Felt' forces of Nature, and also a powerful Devotion to the creative spirit/Light, behind everything.

 

I Find it Interesting that these paths often actively encourage 'grasping' as a successful sadhana for attaining the union they seek.

 

Also, for people who view through the lense of the 'Object' teachings, divinity is nearly always seen/experienced as Interactive or communicative or Intelligent in some way.

 

Any teachings about a Soul or Spirit as things that can be experienced also fit in here.

These too are real experiences. Across many traditions, you find detailed sets of teaching on the soul, as a minute point of golden light/awareness that lives in the Heart center, in the right ventricle of our actual heart, and is the 'Root' of our being. Many years ago I had the privileged to spend 3 whole days as this point. This experience made it very hard for me to accept 'No self' initially, but It all fit together in the end.

 

Astral projection, soul retrieval, and any similar phenomena obviously fit here as well.

 

'Subject' Teachings:

Here we have a bunch of the Non Dual schools, and a bunch of meditation systems.

These Traditions usually aim to Free the subjective element, Often labeled 'Awareness'

from identification with all the 'Objects' or the content of experience. One spends hours and hours looking for Awareness, until one realizes that It can not be caught, experienced or observed in any way. The only real thing we can say about it is that it 'experiences' things. So Awareness often gets labeled 'the Self'.

 

Some of these traditions go a bit further and look to see that even though awareness can not be pinned down, It also can not be separated from what it is experiencing. Where is the line? Where does awareness stop and the observed 'object' begin? This again leads to oneness experiences, or Nonduality of subject and object, Nonduality of Seer and seen.

Thus everything becomes the Self or Awareness.

 

This gives rise to a gentle but potent sense of Being and peace as the foundation of everything.

 

An Interesting point to me, is that as these path's do not usually treat Divinity or awareness as an 'object' within space and time, they only usually experience Divinity as an Incredibly vast Beingness and presence, without any Interactive element.

 

To me this suggests that the filters we view Divinity through, seriously Impact the way we experience mystical states. I think it is probably Impossible to prove that one View is more correct or more right than any other view. Traditions have spent thousands of years trying and still have not convinced each other.

 

What is true, is that each of these varying experiences is real to the experiencer, and has profound life changing results, Not to mention the Inner psychological revolution that they bring about.

 

 

'Beyond' Teachings:

 

Now we get to the 'Beyond' part.

As far as I understand, Buddhism is the only tradition that has most of its emphasis here. Buddha objected outright to any teaching that makes a 'self' or 'Consciousness' into a permanent source or unchanging core to our experience of our selves or our world.

To counter these 'false' teachings he gave the Teachings on Emptiness and dependent origination, and Anatta, or No self.

 

Emptiness and Dependent Origination [E&DO] means that Nothing in phenomenal existence, or awareness itself, has an Inherent self existing nature.

In other words it is 'empty' of any form of ultimate reality. Obviously things exist still but only in a relative manner. Things exist only as a result of countless other conditions that pooled together bring about our present conditions.

The same goes for our 'self'. Buddha contended that there is no self, not in any ultimate fixed or eternally unchanging sense. Even awareness is seen as being tied within the cycle of suffering and is one of the aggregates. To counter Awareness teachings that claim Awareness is 'One' thing he pointed out that if one looks closely, one see's that there are 6 different awareness's. Visual, aural, touch, smell, taste, and mental {which includes emotions and psychic phenomena}

 

To Buddha, if you said 'I am awareness' [even if it was true] That would cause a deep subtle area within your mind to grasp or cling to that as a concept.

Grasping is never good In Buddhism. It is a subtle stress, and It causes us to start creating a false sense of self that needs to be protected and defended, and which then ties us back into the cycle of suffering.

 

So in Buddhism one slowly gives up all claims of being anything, and relinquishes all belief in anything being anything other than relatively real.

As all that attachment dissipates, One finds oneself absolutely Free and clear, no clinging, no grasping and the world holds Zero power over you any more.

Its kind of like a neat side step out of everything, into freedom. Amazing.

 

So the Buddhist Enlightenment is a realization about the nature of experience, and is not the Attainment of some 'existing' state, as is enlightenment in 'Object' and 'Subject' schools.

 

Non duality in Buddhism it should be noted, is also not the Oneness of 'seer and seen'

which gets called the Nonduality of extremes {the extremes being 'seer and seen'} but is actually better stated as a middle way {between the extremes of seer and seen} non duality where there is just arising experience.

Zen Master Dogen put it along the lines of "Seeing, no seer. Thinking, no thinker..."

 

Kabbalah has some 'Beyond' teachings and so do some Sufi sects, but I am not familiar enough to do them any justice here.

 

 

:lol:

 

So those are my three Divisions. They are obviously arbitrary, but does anyone find them useful? I actually think all these ways of viewing have merit, and have no particularly strong bias towards one over the others. I do also obviously Love the 'beyond' teachings, and have found that for myself they set a fantastic context for exploring 'Object' and 'subject' teachings. I have no problem for Instance entering deep communion with the universe in an Interactive manner [object style] through prayer and Intuitive focus, To allow the light to move through me, [this is deeply beneficial to me and my system] but I have no problem understanding that while spirit is always there it is also Dependently originated.

 

In the past I would experience the 'Self' or Oneness, and that would be fantastic, but some part of me would cling to it. Eventually the state would pass, the bliss would subside, and I would be left in depression wanting it back. Now Thanks to 'Beyond' teachings I do not hang on to such states or bliss. They are free to come and go, without me having a need to make them 'mine' {or Me lol}.

 

Seth Ananda.

[Pu-erh]

Maybe I am being thick-headed, but I'm not sure if I grasp the difference between 'Subject' and 'Beyond' teachings if they are both nondual. If a teaching is nondual, then there is no subject to identify with that is separate from everything else--not even pure awareness or rigpa, right?

 

Kind of reminds me of Ken Wilber's hierarchy of gross, subtle, causal, and nondual, except it doesn't seem like you're trying to "rank" anything.

[Vmarco]

Here are some Ideas I have been toying with.

 

These musings are in part because I love the Interfaith movement, and believe that understanding the base stances of the different traditions can lead us towards understanding the nature, the strengths and weaknesses of each tradition. Seth Ananda.

 

 

Interesting. I am intolerant of the Interfaith Movement,..and see it as a supreme obsticle for the liberation of sentient beings. My intolerance arises from how faith steps between people and their direct experience. I'm especially intolerant of Moderates and Appeasers who enable fundamentals, for example:

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-moderate-christians-enable.html

 

I'm also intolerant of how Christian's and Muslims treat Buddhists,...for example: "Fundamentalist Christianity poses a real threat to Buddhism, and while we can never hope to match the aggressiveness or organizational abilities of its proponents, we can very easily counter them by becoming familiar with Christianity's numerous doctrinal weaknesses"

http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/bsq/budchr8.htm

 

My personal view is this:

 

Such complete unity of separation

enfolded within a simple belief

A dissymphonic continuum

whose reflection of preference

serially esculate unremitting anguish

 

Belief obscures reality

entwines lifes learned patterns

a stupefying absurdity

manufactured from artificiality

exploitively seeking diversions.

 

Yet in a moment of unfeigned surrender

between com-pression and ex-pression

a reciprocal tremendum

resplendently springs its metanoia

dissolving repeated cycles of confusion.

 

Metmorphesized winged inner sense

true Compassion arising in the tranquility

as flowinging fractal waves delight

the blissful birthing of Beingness

in softly ecstatic nourishing Life.

 

V

 

 

"When people say 'I have faith', what they really mean is 'I don't want to know the truth'." Nietzsche

Edited July 25, 2011 by Vmarco

[Seth Ananda]

Maybe I am being thick-headed, but I'm not sure if I grasp the difference between 'Subject' and 'Beyond' teachings if they are both nondual. If a teaching is nondual, then there is no subject to identify with that is separate from everything else--not even pure awareness or rigpa, right?

 

Kind of reminds me of Ken Wilber's hierarchy of gross, subtle, causal, and nondual, except it doesn't seem like you're trying to "rank" anything.

'Subject' non duality is like Observer looks at Object and then realises it cant be separated from object.

There is still a sense of self there. You are Subject and object. Everything is the self.

That is called the Non duality of extremes. The extremes being the Subject and the Object.

 

'Beyond' non duality has no qualities of self in its nature. Seeing no seer. Thinking no thinker.... everything is including our Internal processes are just luminous appearances freely arising due to dependent conditions, free and unbounded.

[tragblack]

I like your post, Seth Ananda.

 

I am perched on strange fence... I am mostly in the Buddhist camp right now, but also very into going with the Dao. I also find that whenever I pray, I get my questions answered in an often direct way.

[Seth Ananda]

Interesting. I am intolerant of the Interfaith Movement,..

 

I'm also intolerant of how

 

 

So what you are really saying is that you are Intolerant. Hows that working out for you?

 

Now all religions have done dodgy stuff and some more than others, but my contention is that it is among the mystics that everything can be brought together.

 

The Interfaith movement was founded by Mystics as far as I know {sufi's who walk the path of Love}. Thats why I believe in promoting Mysticism, as It gives people direct experience them selves.

I believe that having experience of these states rather than just words is Important. Take a christian mystic for Instance, who one day reads a verse of Rumi, or Baal Shem Tov, and instantly understands what is being spoken of. Experience can bring us closer together, where words can be just divisive.

 

Also the particular experiences of Mystics in the Theistic traditions can't be just wiped aside because you have a problem with them.

Nor can they always be adequately explained away by Buddhist rhetoric.

 

These are amazing and Valuable experiences.

 

When we treat the universe or God 'as if' it is sentient and Interactive, then that is how it relates with us.

 

Some people say that is just some higher or deeper level of our own Intelligence Interacting with our primary mind but at least so far no one can prove that. If that is the case its pretty amazing that it can organize the physical world so effectively, as in what we generally call Miracles!

 

Others say that people who only approach divinity as some kind of still Beingness do not allow for the other amazing elements of divine experience to show itself.

That so far can not be proven either.

 

I like our own Filters as an explanation for how divinity does or does not relate to us. But that can not be proven either. lol Take that seth!

 

To me E&DO does not remove any experience available in the mystical realm. It just changes our relationship to said phenomena.

[Seth Ananda]

I like your post, Seth Ananda.

 

I am perched on strange fence... I am mostly in the Buddhist camp right now, but also very into going with the Dao. I also find that whenever I pray, I get my questions answered in an often direct way.

Hehe me to Trag

[Vmarco]

[Seth Ananda]

Christianity is not interested in Interfaith:

 

 

Islam is not interested in Interfaith:

 

 

Theists are not interested in honesty:

 

 

Wow you really showed all those Christians and Muslims and Theists who host or attend Interfaith events!

 

No, what you really showed is that you are not Interested in Interfaith, because you are close minded and Intolerant.

 

The absolutism of your statements is very funny.

How do I Interpret them? Is that every single Muslim? Is Christianity out of the picture 100% of the time every time?

 

Can you see how ridiculous the absolutism in your sentences makes you sound?

 

Now many of your quotes are good reflections towards the negative aspects of exoteric religion, but you really have no Idea about what Internal processes a Mystic is going through, or what degree of Honesty they hold themselves too.

 

Currently you are just a hateful Bigot, and you are just as bad as those you criticize.

Fortunately you still have time to change and maybe gain some of that wisdom you seem to believe you posses in bucket loads.

 

Blessings on your path

[C T]

 

Can you see how ridiculous the absolutism in your sentences makes you sound?

 

You need to understand, Seth, that Vmarco is advocating the Short Path - this i presume would involve punctuating posts with absolutist statements, for effect perhaps, and loads and loads and loads of wordings to justify why its a Short Path.

 

Thank god sages like Dogen, Bodhidharma et al were more to the point...

 

 

Another gem of a post, btw. Well done, friend. _/\_

Edited July 25, 2011 by CowTao

[Birch]

I like the idea of looking at each tradition to see where it leads and what conditions people acting under it bring to the world.

So far I haven't seen much of anything particularly "ecological" in any of the Abrahamic "faiths" but I haven't studied them cover to cover.

I suspect that people are less in need of "faith" than ever. Certainly IMO if they continue trying to hold onto any specific one in such an interconnected world then I can only see the shit hitting the fan harder and faster. So perhaps this interfaith thing is a brake pedal for these particular circumstances. I don't think it should be without an "out" for people who have a direct relationship with reality tho. Maybe include some space for those who are ready to drop faith rather than feed the intolerance back. It's also all highly political this stuff. We're no longer looking at frying small fish but huge whales of issues.

[Vmarco]

[Seth Ananda]

 

I suspect that people are less in need of "faith" than ever. Certainly IMO if they continue trying to hold onto any specific one in such an interconnected world then I can only see the shit hitting the fan harder and faster.

That's why I feel that promoting the Mysticism that is at the core of each tradition is very Important.

They have so much in common with each other, that its hard from that perspective to be denigrating of the other traditions.

 

There are so many wonderful dialogues between Christian monks, Sufi's, Zen abbots, Yogi's and Rabbi's that are happening now because of the deep similarities within their [mystical] paths.

They sometimes report being nervous before the gatherings due to seeming differences, but are amazed by the 'feel' of fellow spiritual Brothers and Sisters, and In general feel greatly enriched by meeting other traditions.

That is leading to good things in my book.

 

I used to be friends with a Jesuit Priest, who was given a seven year paid sabbatical to study eastern religions, and to look for ways to reinvigorate the Catholic faith with Wisdoms from other traditions. He lived in India and Nepal mostly for that period studying with Yogi's and Buddhists. He spent time with Bede Griffith, lived at Auraville, studied with the Himalaya Institute, and spent a bunch of time with the Gelugpa's.

How cool is that? Is that not a christian interest in interfaith?

[Vmarco]

So far I haven't seen much of anything particularly "ecological" in any of the Abrahamic "faiths" but I haven't studied them cover to cover.

 

Actually, I have studied the Abrahamic Faiths cover to cover,...in fact, in the 80's was considered an expert by members of the Westar Institute. Would be glad to respond to any historical questions.

 

Why do people engage in such an absurdity as present-day Christianity? It does not take a degree in religious studies to see how this Christianity got its deep grip on society. History is quite clear regarding the roots of this deception, which was firmly grounded by the end of the sixth century. Theodosian laws, for example, condemned all non-Christians, thus promoting ardent persecutions of freethinkers, deists, pantheists, polytheists, pagans, and others whose confiscated property enriched the new church. Then came the barbaric reign of Justinian, which barred anyone outside specific neo-Christian beliefs from civil service, and whose forced baptisms upon Arabs encouraged the way for the establishment of the insanity of Islam. Christianity was spread through violence and now propagates its faith through the fortune raised from that violence. In the United States that is a serious felony, and their propagators are nothing less than accessory felons.

 

V

[Seth Ananda]

Intolerance is not "closed-minded." Is one intolerant who tolerates a rape in progress, a pedaphile engaging a child, flagrant abuse, etc? I am not a hateful bigot,...I am a Righteous Bigot,...one who does not tolerate faith stepping between people and their direct experience. I don't criticize,...I critique,...with facts.

 

funny as my friend. You keep riding that horse.

I don't think you have a clue what you are actually talking about half the time.

 

You Ignore being called on your BS.

 

I pointed out the fatal errors in your lame Interpretation of the Gate mantra. Did you comment? No you just posted some long boring self righteous posts about other stuff.

 

I pointed out the hilarious and obviously false absolutism in your statements, and because I am right, you ignored them as well. And posted more blah blah.

 

I can see that you are the kind of person who will stick to their {misguided} guns no matter what, and will do almost anything to be right, Including completely Ignoring it when others show you that you are wrong.

That is a terrible affliction my friend, False pride, egotism and misguided certainty.

 

Its even sadder that you accuse others of being Dishonest [like Christians] yet your own conversations are full of your own Dishonesty.

 

Blessings and may you find a path out of delusion.

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

[Ya Mu]

I believe you are onto something here, Seth.

 

My personal belief is that most of the religions have truth embedded in just as most have distorted truth with desire for control. The Christian mystics, for instance, spoke of some of the same concepts as the Buddhist and Taoist teachings. I do think most of this is ignored in modern Christianity, but certainly not by ALL Christians. Most people are freaked when I tell them a Christian theologian was the editor of my book, as these same people think there is no common ground and what I say is absolutely not "Christian". The editor/theologian didn't think that as he allowed these were some of the same concepts that were realized by the Christian mystics.

 

Another example of universality in teachings is when a Cherokee medicine man showed me an exercise to do after a ceremonial healing. It was identical to a qigong exercise taught by Taoist teachings.

 

I personally believe we all need to come together with the universality and not be bogged down by the process as the process is just a tool. But we should realize tools can be very valuable.

[Seth Ananda]

[Simple_Jack]

I like your post, Seth Ananda.

 

I am perched on strange fence... I am mostly in the Buddhist camp right now, but also very into going with the Dao. I also find that whenever I pray, I get my questions answered in an often direct way.

Luckily for you, both these philosophies are highly compatible! As evidenced by thier interaction in China, since Buddhism was first introduced. Many Taoist's actually "converted" to Buddhism. In fact, at it's core they talk about a lot of the same stuff!

 

Though from my own experience: Buddhism, gives you a more systematic approach to cultivation; giving the individual the why and how to cultivation and being more extensive in the explaining of it's priniciples of D.O and inherant emptiness...It will actually help you understand the higher level teachings of both these philosophies on both an intellectual, but more importantly, an experiential level!

[Seth Ananda]

Yes, I more than adequately addressed the current book misinterpretations of Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!... more than a few times. Sorry you missed them.

 

one of the last went like this,....the most accurate meaning is, "to go, to come, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming, where enlightenment is welcomed"...to go, and come back in, simultaneously with the going out,...for that is the understanding of form and emptiness, and from which bodhi is welcome. Bodhi waits only on welcome.

 

You must have missed it so here it is again:

 

This Interpretation makes no sense. I am not a scholar but I have a loose grasp of some Sanskrit.

 

Gate is interpreted as 'to go' or 'gone' and it says this twice in a row.

 

That means 'gone, gone,' or 'to go, to go' if you prefer.

 

then it introduces the word Para to the next Gate.

 

Para means a variety of things along the lines of, greater, supreme, higher, or beyond... depending on the translations.

 

So now we have, 'Gone, gone, greater/higher/supreme/beyond gone, {your choice}

 

Then It introduces 'Sum' to the previous line. I am not sure exactly what sum means, but there is no way at all you can get your translation out of this.

 

Bodhi would often mean an awakened being and Svaha is always Praise or Hail!

 

So generally as it reads it is translated to:

 

Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone beyond the beyond, hail to the awakened ones!

 

 

 

There it is as logical as 1 + 1 = 2.

 

Gate Gate is two words saying {meaning} the same thing. So your 'to go, to come' is actually linguistically Impossible. A totally flawed translation.

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

Gate Gate is two words saying {meaning} the same thing. So your 'to go, to come' is actually linguistically Impossible. A totally flawed translation.

 

No,...Gate Gate when used together, does not convey the same meaning as gate alone,...except to the sciential minded. Look at the familiar sanskrit neti,...it means 'not this',....so what does neti neti mean? Does it mean "not this, not this?' No,...neti neti means 'Not This, Not That.'

 

Gate means to Go,...but gate gate means "to go, to come."

 

It's like the flower,...you can brake it down scientifically, or emotionally,..or sensually,...but they do not describe to the essence of the flower.

 

Same with faith,...all faith is a predisposition on the nature of the flow. To be in the authentic flow, the flow that proceeds from Unborn Awareness, the Awareness without condition, one must be actively honest,...faith must be let go.

 

Faith and honesty are in direct opposition.

 

V

Edited July 25, 2011 by Vmarco

[3bob]

Here are some Ideas I have been toying with.

 

These musings are in part because I love the Interfaith movement, and believe that understanding the base stances of the different traditions can lead us towards understanding the nature, the strengths and weaknesses of each tradition. These musings are towards the Mystical aspects of traditions, not the exoteric seat warmers who have words and belief only.

 

I am hoping to develop a 'Meta Paradigm' that is capable of respecting, including and understanding all the paradigms within it, giving practitioners of a particular tradition a door way to Interact with people of other, seemingly antagonistic or diametrically opposed traditions, in a healthy way.

 

What do you all think?

 

Now before I start, It should be fairly obvious that while some traditions may just have one kind of teaching, Others may have elements of two or even all three within its body of knowledge.

Also I am not commenting on the conclusions different traditions reach about their experiences but on the actual experiences themselves which are 'Real' for the mystic.

 

So here goes. Object, Subject, and Beyond.

 

'Object' Teachings:

These are any teachings about 'actual' things or any internal or external phenomenal experience. Energetics, Intent and Magick, Most Shamanism, Most Theistic traditions.

Any teaching that approaches the Divine as a 'Force' that can be felt or related with, followed, intuited.

For Instance in Theistic Paths, one practices Intuiting the light and presence of God, and attempts to constantly be connected to that energetic presence. Through constant prayer and surrender ones nature becomes more and more transformed into what one is focusing on. The Theistic mystics are often Powerful healers who can tangibly channel the light and perform 'miracles' on a regular basis. Master Choi Cok Sui was a great recent example of this path.

This Intense focus also brings around a Oneness experience that is Non Dual in nature and Extremely powerful [fire works wise] compared to the gentler Nondual states brought round by the 'Subject' teachings.

Shamanism, also has a grand tradition of entering into a deeply connected, reciprocal relationship with the 'Felt' forces of Nature, and also a powerful Devotion to the creative spirit/Light, behind everything.

 

I Find it Interesting that these paths often actively encourage 'grasping' as a successful sadhana for attaining the union they seek.

 

Also, for people who view through the lense of the 'Object' teachings, divinity is nearly always seen/experienced as Interactive or communicative or Intelligent in some way.

 

Any teachings about a Soul or Spirit as things that can be experienced also fit in here.

These too are real experiences. Across many traditions, you find detailed sets of teaching on the soul, as a minute point of golden light/awareness that lives in the Heart center, in the right ventricle of our actual heart, and is the 'Root' of our being. Many years ago I had the privileged to spend 3 whole days as this point. This experience made it very hard for me to accept 'No self' initially, but It all fit together in the end.

 

Astral projection, soul retrieval, and any similar phenomena obviously fit here as well.

 

'Subject' Teachings:

Here we have a bunch of the Non Dual schools, and a bunch of meditation systems.

These Traditions usually aim to Free the subjective element, Often labeled 'Awareness'

from identification with all the 'Objects' or the content of experience. One spends hours and hours looking for Awareness, until one realizes that It can not be caught, experienced or observed in any way. The only real thing we can say about it is that it 'experiences' things. So Awareness often gets labeled 'the Self'.

 

Some of these traditions go a bit further and look to see that even though awareness can not be pinned down, It also can not be separated from what it is experiencing. Where is the line? Where does awareness stop and the observed 'object' begin? This again leads to oneness experiences, or Nonduality of subject and object, Nonduality of Seer and seen.

Thus everything becomes the Self or Awareness.

 

This gives rise to a gentle but potent sense of Being and peace as the foundation of everything.

 

An Interesting point to me, is that as these path's do not usually treat Divinity or awareness as an 'object' within space and time, they only usually experience Divinity as an Incredibly vast Beingness and presence, without any Interactive element.

 

To me this suggests that the filters we view Divinity through, seriously Impact the way we experience mystical states. I think it is probably Impossible to prove that one View is more correct or more right than any other view. Traditions have spent thousands of years trying and still have not convinced each other.

 

What is true, is that each of these varying experiences is real to the experiencer, and has profound life changing results, Not to mention the Inner psychological revolution that they bring about.

 

'Beyond' Teachings:

 

Now we get to the 'Beyond' part.

As far as I understand, Buddhism is the only tradition that has most of its emphasis here. Buddha objected outright to any teaching that makes a 'self' or 'Consciousness' into a permanent source or unchanging core to our experience of our selves or our world.

To counter these 'false' teachings he gave the Teachings on Emptiness and dependent origination, and Anatta, or No self.

 

Emptiness and Dependent Origination [E&DO] means that Nothing in phenomenal existence, or awareness itself, has an Inherent self existing nature.

In other words it is 'empty' of any form of ultimate reality. Obviously things exist still but only in a relative manner. Things exist only as a result of countless other conditions that pooled together bring about our present conditions.

The same goes for our 'self'. Buddha contended that there is no self, not in any ultimate fixed or eternally unchanging sense. Even awareness is seen as being tied within the cycle of suffering and is one of the aggregates. To counter Awareness teachings that claim Awareness is 'One' thing he pointed out that if one looks closely, one see's that there are 6 different awareness's. Visual, aural, touch, smell, taste, and mental {which includes emotions and psychic phenomena}

 

To Buddha, if you said 'I am awareness' [even if it was true] That would cause a deep subtle area within your mind to grasp or cling to that as a concept.

Grasping is never good In Buddhism. It is a subtle stress, and It causes us to start creating a false sense of self that needs to be protected and defended, and which then ties us back into the cycle of suffering.

 

So in Buddhism one slowly gives up all claims of being anything, and relinquishes all belief in anything being anything other than relatively real.

As all that attachment dissipates, One finds oneself absolutely Free and clear, no clinging, no grasping and the world holds Zero power over you any more.

Its kind of like a neat side step out of everything, into freedom. Amazing.

 

So the Buddhist Enlightenment is a realization about the nature of experience, and is not the Attainment of some 'existing' state, as is enlightenment in 'Object' and 'Subject' schools.

 

Non duality in Buddhism it should be noted, is also not the Oneness of 'seer and seen'

which gets called the Nonduality of extremes {the extremes being 'seer and seen'} but is actually better stated as a middle way {between the extremes of seer and seen} non duality where there is just arising experience.

Zen Master Dogen put it along the lines of "Seeing, no seer. Thinking, no thinker..."

 

Kabbalah has some 'Beyond' teachings and so do some Sufi sects, but I am not familiar enough to do them any justice here.

 

:lol:

 

So those are my three Divisions. They are obviously arbitrary, but does anyone find them useful? I actually think all these ways of viewing have merit, and have no particularly strong bias towards one over the others. I do also obviously Love the 'beyond' teachings, and have found that for myself they set a fantastic context for exploring 'Object' and 'subject' teachings. I have no problem for Instance entering deep communion with the universe in an Interactive manner [object style] through prayer and Intuitive focus, To allow the light to move through me, [this is deeply beneficial to me and my system] but I have no problem understanding that while spirit is always there it is also Dependently originated.

 

In the past I would experience the 'Self' or Oneness, and that would be fantastic, but some part of me would cling to it. Eventually the state would pass, the bliss would subside, and I would be left in depression wanting it back. Now Thanks to 'Beyond' teachings I do not hang on to such states or bliss. They are free to come and go, without me having a need to make them 'mine' {or Me lol}.

 

Seth Ananda.

 

How broad minded of you,

Sounds like gentler and kinder self-justifications and spin doctoring for various kinds of put downs, and obviously more insidious and hypnotically persuasive than the in your face non-ego, ego trips of some the "Buddhists" who post here.

 

Om

Edited July 25, 2011 by 3bob

[lifeforce]

These dialogues between Christian monks, Sufi's, Zen abbots, Yogi's and Rabbi's have a hidden agenda,...each, in his/her sly way, is attempting to convert each other to their faith-based view. I've seen it no less than a hundred times at Faith-based seminars. The real discussions occur during the lunches or dinners at these events,...when one can see beyond the prepared notes.

 

Obviously, with all your interfaith knowledge, you would have come across the works of Thomas Merton.

He, in no way whatsover tries to convert anyone to what he believes. He encourages us to look within, as do most open-minded spiritual seekers.

It seems to me that it is YOU who has a hidden agenda. Very disturbing.