Anadi - Buddhism has flaws.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi,

I thought I'd post this here because in this video, Anadi claims that Buddhism misses the mark with regards to anatta. Anadi says that the soul has the potential for infinite realization and that enlightenment is just the first step of a very long journey.

 

Anadi's concept of the soul is at odds with anatta (no-self) for Anadi says that one must first develop and realize the 'me', attain maturity and stabilization in the "me" and make it mirror the soul's higher intentions and level of purity before one can realize enlightenment. But, once realizing enlightenment, the soul continues it's evolutionary path, beyond death. Anadi stresses the importance of realizing, developing and stabilizing the 'me' in order to align it with the soul, before one can use the soul as a vehicle to gain access to the portal of the "I AM" and continue on its journey.

 

Anadi says that Buddha and Ramana did not dissolve away (like they would if anatta were true) but still exist in higher forms of evolving beings. He also says that Buddha and Ramana were highly influenced by the culture of their times which resulted in some of the concepts and teachings that were presented, which were mainly oversimplified and deceptive.

 

This is a very interesting video. For example, Anadi says that there are very few sincere seekers in this modern world and that the West is more spiritual than the eastern cultures. He says that humanity is at a very low level of development (infancy), and justifies this by saying that if the 'security' of modern living were taken away, most all of humanity would revert to their baser instincts, as exemplified with modern wars, killings etc.

 

Anadi does not say that we are already enlightened, like the Buddhists say. Instead, he says that we have to develop ourselves, align ourselves with the soul and if we don't follow our life's purpose which is to develop ourselves and progress spiritually, there is also the possibility that we will dissolve back into nothingness. Sort of like rejects from the factory of God.

 

Other things that Anadi said that hit me hard is that spiritual leaders who initiate and teach thousands of people (internet transmissions?) are practically useless and that the only effective means of evolving spiritually with the help of teacher is in small personal groups, or one-on-one.

 

 

So, if you have an open mind and are willing to consider alternate points of view from the Buddhist dogma, grab the popcorn and put your headset on. You won't want to miss a single word.

 

http://batgap.com/anadi/

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbanOlqbH1Y

 

TI

Edited November 7, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[RongzomFan]

I listened to parts of the video. Not only is his level of knowledge about Buddhism nil, he is crappy even by neoadvaita standards. He is 1 of thousands of neoadvaitins, all of whom who attack each other.

Edited November 7, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

Anadi does not say that we are already enlightened, like the Buddhists say.

 

Who say that?

[yabyum24]

A bunch of speculative views backed up by hearsay and misinformation.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Hi, TI. Based on your summary of his positions, it seems he's really misunderstood and oversimplified some aspects of the Buddhist view. I will make a detailed response when I have time to see his interview.

[Anderson]

Who the fuck is Anadi ?

[Jeff]

Hi Ti,

 

Thanks for sharing the video. I took a look at Anadi's site and it would seem that his overall position is described in his words below...

 

 

the absolute state

The ultimate experience of being is the absolute state, in which the soul fully transcends the fluctuations of her abidance in the now and enters the unoriginated, unbecome, unmanifested ground of reality — the absolute. The absolute is the primordial void that contains totality, the foundation of the never-ending expansion of creation, the living depth of absence. Everything dwells upon the absolute; all manifests from it at the beginning of creation and all returns to it at the end of time. The absolute state is not the absolute itself, but the meeting between the soul and the absolute.

To be able to distinguish the absolute state from a deep experience of being we must understand that they represent entirely different dimensions of realization. Their difference cannot be measured by degrees of depth. The absolute state actually signifies a quantum leap in the depth of being, beyond depth itself. Prior to reaching the absolute state, being is experienced on the side of creation; after, on the side of the uncreated. The significance of this statement needs to be contemplated deeply.

Let us imagine an intermediate space that lies between the original void and the reality of creation. Such a space does indeed exist, for there must be a bridge between the radically polarized dimensions of absence and presence. This mysterious ‘in-between’ space can either be approached from the side of the source or from the side of manifested existence: the absolute pulls the soul from within, the soul surrenders to it from without. When the soul surrenders to the gravity of the original void, she is absorbed into being from the side of creation. Still, she has not yet moved to the abode of the absolute. To cross the invisible border that separates the dimensions of presence and absence is to experience death while living. Those who have crossed over to the abode of the unborn have the rare privilege of becoming immersed in that which is beyond both life and death — the supreme source.

In the absolute state, all relative instability of energy within the experience of being is transcended and we attain the ultimate experience of pure rest. Though empty and immobile, the absolute state has the extraordinary strength and power of the absolute itself. Just as pure awareness is the zero point of consciousness and the now is the zero point of pure awareness, the absolute is the zero point of the now. The absolute has no attributes but one — it is. The original isness of the absolute is the sacred container of all existence.

 

I did not listen to the whole video, but I would be interested in hearing what you think is new or different in his position. It seems pretty consistent with many traditions. He is just defining the ultimate state as "pure rest" or ceasing in the void.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[Seeker of Wisdom]

A post about this Buddha at the Gas Pump thing in general:

 

It's great that people do have these openings, some without much or any practice. But I'm cautious about the way the word 'Awakening' is thrown around to label any experience of higher consciousness.

It's impossible to confuse being awake with being asleep, but just as most of society has no idea that they are asleep and could be awake (so you can be asleep and think you are awake), it is easy for someone who has had experiences or reached a particular state to confuse their attainment for full awakening - not knowing that awakening is higher.

An awake person is not one who had a particular experience, and now looks back on that experience. They may remember what they learned in their gnosis, but it has become a matter of knowledge. Correct knowledge is different from liberating insight/perception. So, full awakening is a continual gnosis, not a memory of a peak experience of gnosis.

Also, even continual gnosis isn't being awake if it is only one layer on the way to full liberation. Someone who fully gnows that all beings are fundamentally enlightened isn't awake if they don't gnow emptiness, and certainly if they haven't realised Tao, which is the heart of the matter. One area of confusion for many these days is reifying consciousness as the ultimate - idealism, which, like materialism, can't explain the interaction between mind and body.

So, this Anadi guy... he makes some good points about 'opening' implying 'to something external', there being few sincere seekers, and humanity being at a low stage of development. But his ideas about annatman and the self are way off.

 

Anadi says that Buddha and Ramana did not dissolve away (like they would if anatta were true) but still exist in higher forms of evolving beings.

A complete misunderstanding of no-self. No-self doesn't say that we do not exist! Realising no-self doesn't imply dissolution into nothing or into something else, because nothing is being lost. It's just realising our real nature.

 

If you take away someone's form, sensations, conceptions, volitions and consciousness, no aspect of them is still there. There is no soul separate from these things.

 

So, 'self' at this point in my train of logic is a bundle of 5 aggregates. What is the relation between 'me' and my components?

 

I am not any one of them in isolation - form alone is just a corpse, consciousness needs stuff to be aware of so it exists in any meaningful sense, and sensation/conception/volition need consciousness to be aware of them because otherwise they aren't rendered into subjective experience.

 

So, no one of these aggregates is 'me'. At this point in my logic, I am something composed of a bunch of parts.

 

However, this doesn't make sense either. If I am composed of parts, there is no 'me' separate from the parts. Nor can we say that I am in the parts, or that the parts are in me. 'Seeker of Tao' is a useful label so isn't quite wrong, but it isn't really right either as it's just an interpretation of what really is there - aggregates.

 

So, what no-self states is that there is no independent essence of a person that is still them, regardless of the state of their aggregates. If you die and are reborn, that is not the same person.

 

Saying that there is a 'self' or 'soul' is akin to saying that, if you demolish house X and use the bricks to build a tower, the tower is house X. It is a continuity of some aspects of house X from the previous materials. That house existed, but calling it 'house X' was just labelling applied for the sake of understanding, not a real fact - 'house X' was just a word for bricks placed to produce particular features.

 

Anadi does not say that we are already enlightened, like the Buddhists say.

This is a misunderstanding of Buddha-nature. He is reifying enlightenment. Since the unenlightened state can be ended by the enlightened state and not vice versa, enlightenment can be considered to be the removal of temporary stains from our innately enlightened nature. This doesn't mean we actually have enlightenment somewhere inside now to uncover - it is a very nuanced flux.

[RongzomFan]

Vajrayana has precise systematic step by step methods. .

 

Neoadvaita has no direct introduction, let alone a precise direct introduction.

 

Its just a bunch of guys talking for 2+ hours on youtube.

[rex]

Its just a bunch of guys talking for 2+ hours on youtube.

 

Exactly. If one is already happy with one's path why waste the time?

[Jetsun]

There is a good chance the Buddhism we know today is heavily corrupted from the original source, there is even a sutra which showed that one of Buddha's main disciples corrupted the teachings within one generation of the Buddha's death and had to be corrected by the other disciples, so what chance is there that we have a pure message so many generations and translations later? There is even a law of nature which demonstrates how religious teachings get corrupted which Gurdjieff wrote about. I doubt this guy has any better understanding but it's worth keeping an open mind I think.

[RongzomFan]

There is a good chance the Buddhism we know today is heavily corrupted from the original source, there is even a sutra which showed that one of Buddha's main disciples corrupted the teachings within one generation of the Buddha's death and had to be corrected by the other disciples, so what chance is there that we have a pure message so many generations and translations later? There is even a law of nature which demonstrates how religious teachings get corrupted which Gurdjieff wrote about. I doubt this guy has any better understanding but it's worth keeping an open mind I think.

 

I follow Vajrayana, founded by the Indian Mahasiddhas.

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas are Buddhas in their own right.

 

And terma is an ongoing revelation that is not corrupted. See this thread:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32153-mystical-buddhist-readings/

Edited November 7, 2013 by RongzomFan

[yabyum24]

The source is still pure but has to be recognized. Some muddy it with reification and speculation thus:

 

X exists.

X does not exist.

X both exists and does not exist.

X neither exists nor does not exist.

 

Start going along this path and you have moved away from Buddha Dharma.

[Jetsun]

I follow Vajrayana, founded by the Indian Mahasiddhas.

 

The Indian Mahasiddhas are Buddhas in their own right.

 

And terma is an ongoing revelation that is not corrupted. See this thread:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32153-mystical-buddhist-readings/

 

You can argue that the way the Vajrayana teachings are being taught by many teachers today is a corruption, or at least a big experiment, in that traditionally in Tibet they were based around guru sadhana and guru devotion and without that it is difficult for you to get the level of renunciation and devotion for the teachings to sink into the heart. It is debatable whether seeing your teacher very periodically or over the internet is enough to create the personal connection. So I don't know whether Lamaism without the intimate connection to the Lama can succeed except by rare exceptional individuals.

[RongzomFan]

You can argue that the way the Vajrayana teachings are being taught by many teachers today is a corruption, or at least a big experiment, in that traditionally in Tibet they were based around guru sadhana and guru devotion and without that it is difficult for you to get the level of renunciation and devotion for the teachings to sink into the heart. It is debatable whether seeing your teacher very periodically or over the internet is enough to create the personal connection. So I don't know whether Lamaism without the intimate connection to the Lama can succeed except by rare exceptional individuals.

 

I really have zero idea what you are talking about.

 

Guru devotion is directly from Indian Vajrayana. How is that a corruption?

 

Secondly, a personal connection has nothing to do with viewing the guru as a dharmakaya Buddha.

 

Do you think the Dalai Lama knows everyone at those mass Kalachakra initiations?

Edited November 7, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Jetsun]

I really have zero idea what you are talking about.

 

Guru devotion is directly from Indian Vajrayana. How is that a corruption?

 

Secondly, a personal connection has nothing to do with viewing the guru as a dharmakaya Buddha.

 

Do you think the Dalai Lama knows everyone at those mass Kalachakra initiations?

 

What I am saying is quite simple, people now are trying to practice Vajrayana without guru devotion and a personal connection with the guru and it is debatable whether it works without it. So far I see little evidence that it does.

[RongzomFan]

What I am saying is quite simple, people now are trying to practice Vajrayana without guru devotion and a personal connection with the guru and it is debatable whether it works without it. So far I see little evidence that it does.

 

Teachings were given en masse even in pre-invansion Tibet.

 

And you don't need to have a personal connection with the guru (other than the teachings of course) to view the guru as the dharmakaya Buddha. You are mixing up 2 different things.

 

And if you are in everyday communication with your lama, how do you go away on long retreat like the Mahasiddhas, Milarepa, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, Togden Shakya Shri and numerous others!?

Edited November 9, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

There is a good chance the Buddhism we know today is heavily corrupted from the original source...

 

There actually isn't any canonical source from which all other canons were based off of: they were put down to writing at different time periods and locations, but the theme is consistent throughout early Buddhism and Mahayana. The exception to this is the later Tathagatagarbha sutras, but even within that class, the Lankavatara Sutra explicitly states that these were taught for beings who feared the teachings on selflessness.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

There is a good chance the Buddhism we know today is heavily corrupted from the original source

 

I guess you mean Shakyamuni. So forget about the Mahasiddhas, terma etc.

 

What is your reference for this claim? Book and page number please.

Edited November 7, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Edit: missed relevant part of OP, silly me. Carry on...

Edited November 9, 2013 by Seeker of Tao

[RongzomFan]

I propose that any debate about the purity of the lineage and issues with gurus goes into a spin-off thread, leaving this thread for discussing the Anadi video.

 

I apologize for discussing Buddhism on the Buddhism subforum.

[Jetsun]

I propose that any debate about the purity of the lineage and issues with gurus goes into a spin-off thread, leaving this thread for discussing the Anadi video.

 

One of the points Tibetan Ice made in the OP was

 

"Other things that Anadi said that hit me hard is that spiritual leaders who initiate and teach thousands of people (internet transmissions?) are practically useless and that the only effective means of evolving spiritually with the help of teacher is in small personal groups, or one-on-one."

 

Which was why I said what I did about the critical importance of the personal relationship with the Guru in Vajrayana.

[RongzomFan]

Which was why I said what I did about the critical importance of the personal relationship with the Guru in Vajrayana.

 

If you spend unnecessary time with the lama, there is danger of viewing the lama as an ordinary human.

[RongzomFan]

A mere instant of having considered the Lama to be a human being
is said to postpone spiritual attainment (siddhi) by years and months.

-Dudjom Rinpoche

 

seeing one’s teacher as an ordinary pandit, a sublime Arhat, a sublime Bodhisattva, a nirmanakaya Buddha, or even a sambhogakaya Buddha will not do: you have to see him as the dharmakaya Buddha. If you are able to do so and pray to him thus with unwavering devotion, the wisdom of realization can arise in your mind without your having to rely on any other factor as a path.

-Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang (He has multiple pages emphasizing the same point)

Edited November 9, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Tibetan_Ice]

Who say that?

Let's get with the program here, Alwaysoff.

Most all Buddhists (Bon) too say that we all have access to the natural state, the primordial ground etc and that if one clears the obscurations away one will realize it. Or, as in Bon, you just let everything be and you will come to realize your own true state.

 

The basic assumption is that we all have (including animals and sentient beings) the connection and the potential for realization. Anadi is saying that this is false. Anadi is saying that you have to recognize and develop the 'me' first. Then, you align it with the soul. It is the soul that then continues its evolution. But, Anadi also says, that not everyone is capable of evolving and some will fail and just dissolve back into nothingness. If all sentient beings are part of the Primordial Ground, it would be impossible to just dissolve back into nothingness.