Adyashanti - Steven Gray

[GrandmasterP]

Adyashanti gets a nice living from what he does and good luck to the lad.

Nobody is compelled to pay for his merchandise but plenty of people do so he must be suiting his customer base.

'Transmission's' a sticky concept.

My mate Tony Parsons another ( but less expensive) woo-merchant deliberately tells his audiences that he has absolutely nothing to give them.

Yet still some come away saying that it was a satsang and that they 'received' something by 'transmission' simply from sitting listening to Tony.

Anyone needing a guru will find the guru that suits them.

[Jeff]

...

 

For example one day there was a Christian transmission called descent of the dove or the descent of grace, which was basically bringing attention to the downward flow of energy from above the head to the right of the heart, which is the downward flow of redemptive love. After this was done basically most of the hall was in tears it was that powerful. I tried to do it before the retreat with no success, but now it has been transmitted it is far easier for me to locate and meditate on that flow of grace, sure it was there before so Adyashanti hasn't given it to me, but now it is much easier to be aware of it. 

...

 

John 7:38

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

 

[3bob]

one can't really join traditional type teachings of "no-self" (Buddhist) and the Self, (Vedic) thus it comes down to choosing one  and letting go the other.

 

(Edit: even though there is some overlap in dharmas they are still 180 degrees apart in core teachings - "go figure" if you dare and if doing so expect complications)

Edited May 20, 2015 by 3bob

[lifeforce]

one can't really join traditional type teachings of "no-self" (Buddhist) and the Self, (Vedic) thus it comes down to choosing one and letting go the other.

 

(Edit: even though there is some overlap in dharmas they are still 180 degrees apart in core teachings - "go figure" if you dare and if doing so expect complications)

Fully agree with this.

[Jetsun]

one can't really join traditional type teachings of "no-self" (Buddhist) and the Self, (Vedic) thus it comes down to choosing one and letting go the other.

 

(Edit: even though there is some overlap in dharmas they are still 180 degrees apart in core teachings - "go figure" if you dare and if doing so expect complications)

In terms of Adyashanti's teachings all he does is combine self enquiry with silent meditation. So you could call it a yang and a yin approach. The results are experiential so if you experience a universal self or no self that is what is experienced. There is no conflict between combining self enquiry and meditation, unless you try to do both at the same time, in fact they both enhance and support each other.

 

In terms of the map he works with if you experience no-self that is considered an awakening on the level of mind, whereas if you experience a universal self that is considered an awakening on the level of the heart. An individual could experience both of these in succession or continually switch from either. But there is still somewhere deeper to go which is the awakening of the gut, which is neither no-self or self, it transcends both, which is where his teaching eventually leads.

 

Both Buddhism and Vedic teachings are rafts not destinations, so in the end there is no conflict. Self and no-self are both different sides of the same coin

[Nikolai1]

3bob - teachings of self and no-self are only apparently 180 degrees apart. It is not necessary to keep one and let go of the other. In fact, it is a powerful practice to at least attempt to understand how they might both mean the same thing.

 

As Jetsun says, it is always helpful to hold any teaching quite lightly, and Buddha gives us permission to do this by insisting that all teachings are but rafts to cross the river, to be abandoned at the right time.

[johndoe2012]

In terms of Adyashanti's teachings all he does is combine self enquiry with silent meditation. So you could call it a yang and a yin approach. The results are experiential so if you experience a universal self or no self that is what is experienced. There is no conflict between combining self enquiry and meditation, unless you try to do both at the same time, in fact they both enhance and support each other.

 

In terms of the map he works with if you experience no-self that is considered an awakening on the level of mind, whereas if you experience a universal self that is considered an awakening on the level of the heart. An individual could experience both of these in succession or continually switch from either. But there is still somewhere deeper to go which is the awakening of the gut, which is neither no-self or self, it transcends both, which is where his teaching eventually leads.

 

Both Buddhism and Vedic teachings are rafts not destinations, so in the end there is no conflict. Self and no-self are both different sides of the same coin

 

In my experience no-duality folks hold too tight onto the no-self thing and end up blocking themselves. I guess they are still stuck in the mind as you say.

 

Interesting with the awakening of the gut, is this the same as working with the lower dantian?

[3bob]

regardless of nice sounding and seemingly logical rationalizations Buddhist and Vedic core meanings and their truth are 180 degrees off from each other at the deepest levels... and or in conflict and will always be so even if held tightly or lightly.  Thus about the only rational and non-violent course to follow is to show some toleration for each other but still go your own way.  (without making the often western orientated error of trying to correlate and also mix water and oil - so to speak) 

[Jetsun]

In my experience no-duality folks hold too tight onto the no-self thing and end up blocking themselves. I guess they are still stuck in the mind as you say.

 

Interesting with the awakening of the gut, is this the same as working with the lower dantian?

In the majority of cases I would say it is different than working with the lower Dan tien. As I understand it many Taoists work at developing or manipulating the energies there, whereas with Adyashanti's map he says the navel is where our most primal survival instincts are held, so to awaken there is to move through those instincts to release any sense of identity. The energies are left alone, it is more about identity.

[Jetsun]

regardless of nice sounding and seemingly logical rationalizations Buddhist and Vedic core meanings and their truth are 180 degrees off from each other at the deepest levels... and or in conflict and will always be so even if held tightly or lightly. Thus about the only rational and non-violent course to follow is to show some toleration for each other but still go your own way. (without making the often western orientated error of trying to correlate and also mix water and oil - so to speak)

Who is doing that?

[3bob]

Jetsun, I don't think we should be to sure about what so and so is saying... having said that (lol) it should be very obvious as to who at this site and elsewhere has tried to mix water and oil, including myself at times.

 

btw, I like and appreciate the analogy of letting go or getting off a "raft" yet even with that pointer there are many other pointers and further realizations that various and "enlightened" so and so's may have had and allude to with such still being 180 degrees off or 180 degrees different per their schools and per their (apparent) post enlightenment teachings.  Some examples: the historic Buddha and his "no-self teachings, the authors of the Vedas (with great detail in the Upanishads) and its "Self". 

Edited May 20, 2015 by 3bob

[Nikolai1]

Hi 3bob,

 

regardless of nice sounding and seemingly logical rationalizations Buddhist and Vedic core meanings and their truth are 180 degrees off from each other at the deepest levels... and or in conflict and will always be so even if held tightly or lightly. 

When teachings seem to contradict each other it is always at the logical level.  Some new faculty of understanding is required if one is to reconcile the seemingly obvious paradox of 'teachings of self and no-self are both true'.

 

Once this faculty is discovered then the paradox is transformed to the understanding, and paradoxical words become the clearest and most accurate way of describing the truth.

 

The Buddha's doctrine of anatman refers specifically to independent self-existence.  We all imagine things to exist independently of ourselves in this world.  Buddha's anatman teaching simple points out that the opposite is also true;: that nothing has independent self-existence.  The actual truth he wanted everyone to get is the truth of the Middle Way, where neither argument is adhered to and something ineffable is grasped.

 

What knows all this?  What knows not to adhere to either argument and to adhere to the Middle Way is what Buddha called Buddha-nature.  Buddha-nature is a pure synonym of the Vedic term Self.  Buddha therefore taught no-self (with small s) in order that we come to understand Self (with a big S)

 

All this is made very clear in the Mahayana-Mahaparinirvana-Sutra, where Buddha explains that those of lesser intelligence cannot see that the No-self argument obtains only at the level of samsara.  

 

The doctor in the parable told the mother to smear bile on her breasts to stop the child from feeding.  This action the Buddha compares to his no-self teaching, and is used to dissuade people from holding materialist views.  When the child is well the mother cleans the bile from her breasts and lets the milk flow.  Though the child may believe that the breast is bitter, he must be induced to take the milk.  Likewise, though the people may imagine the teaching of no-self to be the truth, they must be encouraged to go beyond and understand the superior truth of Buddha-Nature.

 

3bob, if intelligence is the only faculty of understanding you possess, you won't be able to help but see Self and No-Self teachings as contradictory.  The best remedy for intellectual fixation is time spent in pure sitting meditation, but the motivation must come from you.

[3bob]

Nikolai, 

I'm very familiar with everything you've said (including that sutra) both through study and direct experience - but the problem so to speak as I see it is that you are refuted by both the historic Buddha and by Vedic Sat Guru's since neither teach your hybrid summation from or per their "enlightenment" (nor in their schools unless they to are of some type of hybrid. (thus not following or practicing pure Buddhist or Vedic teachings)  Btw, I don't have a problem with such hybrids as long as they don't proclaim that really know better as to what either the Buddhist or Vedic teachings or enlightenment really mean per their hybridization... 

 

Another example: the Dalai Lama and I imagine most of the Buddhists under him who meditate often and deeply would never claim your hybrid summation to be where they are coming from per teaching or in meaning.

 

Good luck and thanks for your feedback, Bob

Edited May 21, 2015 by 3bob

[Nikolai1]

 but the problem so to speak as I see it is that you are refuted by both the historic Buddha and by Vedic Sat Guru's since neither teach your hybrid summation from or per their "enlightenment" 

 Refuted by their teachings was I? Refutation is the kind of thing the intellect believes in.  You need to somehow see beyond the teachings.  All I can do is tell you that you're not there yet.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Nikolai, I feel you're throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the intellect. What if two things actually are dualistically opposed? There cannot be a self and simultaneously not be a self, any more than you could be a bankrupt millionaire.

 

The following posts explain anatta and Buddha-nature: http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry573689, http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry578123 and http://thedaobums.com/topic/35341-lessons-in-buddhism/page-2#entry622578 

[Nikolai1]

There cannot be a self and simultaneously not be a self, any more than you could be a bankrupt millionaire.

 

It helps enormously if you imagine one of the two selves to have a capital S.  Self and self.

 

The transcendent Self state is totally and utterly ineffable.  Indeed, each attempt to describe it, is itself, part of the transcendent.  Words happen within it, they cannot refer to it.

 

But, the flow of reality has us using one word or other.  God, Tao, Self, Buddha-nature are all synonymous.  Buddha taught no-self, but he did not teach no-Self.

 

Why is the confusing word Self used to describe that which is transcendent of the ego?  Because when we realise the transcendent we see that it still has the fundamental feeling of being, of identity, of selfhood.  This does not go away. And this aspect is entirely shared with the feeling of small egoic selfhood.  When we self-realise, we realise that we always were self-realised.  Or to use another synonym.  When we gain Buddha-nature, we realise that we already were Buddha-nature.

 

It is incredibly confusing to the mind, but becomes crystal clear once we have discovered a faculty of understanding that replaces the intellect.  If you do not have this new capacity, it will be literally impossible to grasp.  The intellect can not deal with a statement like 'there is a self and simultaneously not a self'.  But to the self-realised this becomes overwhelmingly the most accurate, comprehensive, and satisfying truth statement that can be made.

 

If you want a good technique for discovering this new faculty, then pure shikantaza style meditation is it. This alone has the power to disable the intellect.  All other practices rely heavily on the intellect and so inadvertently strengthen it.  the aim is to experience pure unalloyed being, pure awareness.  This gives us all the perspective we need in order to understand.

[Jeff]

It helps enormously if you imagine one of the two selves to have a capital S.  Self and self.

 

The transcendent Self state is totally and utterly ineffable.  Indeed, each attempt to describe it, is itself, part of the transcendent.  Words happen within it, they cannot refer to it.

 

But, the flow of reality has us using one word or other.  God, Tao, Self, Buddha-nature are all synonymous.  Buddha taught no-self, but he did not teach no-Self.

 

Why is the confusing word Self used to describe that which is transcendent of the ego?  Because when we realise the transcendent we see that it still has the fundamental feeling of being, of identity, of selfhood.  This does not go away. And this aspect is entirely shared with the feeling of small egoic selfhood.  When we self-realise, we realise that we always were self-realised.  Or to use another synonym.  When we gain Buddha-nature, we realise that we already were Buddha-nature.

 

It is incredibly confusing to the mind, but becomes crystal clear once we have discovered a faculty of understanding that replaces the intellect.  If you do not have this new capacity, it will be literally impossible to grasp.  The intellect can not deal with a statement like 'there is a self and simultaneously not a self'.  But to the self-realised this becomes overwhelmingly the most accurate, comprehensive, and satisfying truth statement that can be made.

 

If you want a good technique for discovering this new faculty, then pure shikantaza style meditation is it. This alone has the power to disable the intellect.  All other practices rely heavily on the intellect and so inadvertently strengthen it.  the aim is to experience pure unalloyed being, pure awareness.  This gives us all the perspective we need in order to understand.

 

In deeper aspects of consciousness (beyond "local" mind), it does appear that the two are the same, but such is not the realization of sunyata (emptiness). The difference between the two positions can be found in the words of the Heart sutra. The two positions only appear to be the same in the void = form aspect of the emptiness, not with the "full" realization (or full meaning of the sutra).

[Nikolai1]

The full realisation is simply not thinking about it anymore. The teaching Is no longer needed once self and no-self are understood as the same.

[Jeff]

The full realisation is simply not thinking about it anymore. The teaching Is no longer needed once self and no-self are understood as the same.

 

What you are describing is quieting the (local) mind, not the realization of emptiness.  In particular, Buddha's warning of such a perspective is found in the Lankavatara sutra...

 

The exalted state of self-realisation as it relates to an earnest disciple is a state of mental concentration in which he seeks to indentify himself with Noble Wisdom. In that effort he must seek to annihilate all vagrant thoughts and notions belonging to the externality of things, and all ideas of individuality and generality, of suffering and impermanence, and cultivate the noblest ideas of egolessness and emptiness and imagelessness; thus will he attain a realisation of truth that is free from passion and is ever serene. When this active effort at mental concentration is succesful it is followed by a more passive, receptive state of Samadhi in which the earnest disciple will enter into the blissful abode of Noble Wisdom and experience its consumations in the transformations of Samapatti. This is an earnest disciple's first experience of the exalted state of realisation, but as yet there is no discarding of habit-energy nor escaping from the transformation of death.

 

Having attained this exalted and blissful state of realisation as far as it can be attained by disciples, the Bodhisattva must not give himself up to the enjoyment of its bliss, for that would mean cessation, but should think compassionately of other beings and keep ever fresh his original vows; he should never let himself rest nor exert himself in the bliss of the Samadhis. 

 

But, Mahamati, as earnest disciples go on trying to advance on the path that leads to full realisation.

 

In buddhism, the concept of the vow becomes critical to move beyond the perspective that you describe. As 3bob has stated many times, they are just two different views and as such lead to two different places.

[Nikolai1]

When you understand truth, you naturally pass it on. No vow is necessary, in reality.

 

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying about 3bob?

[noonespecial]

It's hard to speak to westerners looking for answers, looking for quantifiacation and justification; when there are no answers beyond the silence of nothingness. Adyashanti seems ok at doing the above.

[Jeff]

When you understand truth, you naturally pass it on. No vow is necessary, in reality. Sorry I don't understand what you are saying about 3bob?

 

All truth is relative. Such sharing is always dependent on one's relative clarity and the perception that goes with it.

 

On 3bob, I was referencing and agreeing with his comments earlier in this thread.

[3bob]

 Refuted by their teachings was I? Refutation is the kind of thing the intellect believes in.  You need to somehow see beyond the teachings.  All I can do is tell you that you're not there yet.

 

I can play a sort of "devils advocate" along these or both lines...  which is partly what I'm doing and I believe or at least hoped was somewhat obvious?   Also where I'm at or not at per your projected judgement is at least debatable besides not being my or the point, although it does sound like you mean well but are still insisting on your hybrid?  (which btw I'm not against out of hand excepting when it is used to assume a transcendent one-up-man-ship over established traditions that already and also include transcendent like teachings.

[3bob]

further what I was getting at is that your interpretation of Buddhism and Vedic teachings is in effect refuting various established schools and or teachers that have a different interpretation from yours regarding key matters and in doing so you or anyone else would then be setting up a counter-refutation from them....  (now whether that includes the founder of Buddhism or the eternal transmission of Sanatana Dharma remains to be seen by same and ones self; also if someone wants to set up their own hybrid like school without stepping on proven and established toes then such should be called by a name variation that honestly fits, but neither you, I or anyone else can then make the claim that such represents what thousands of years of other established traditions really mean - since we would then be outside of such lineages.

Edited May 23, 2015 by 3bob

[Nikolai1]

Ho 3bob,

 

which btw I'm not against out of hand excepting when it is used to assume a transcendent one-up-man-ship over established traditions that already and also include transcendent like teachings.

No established tradition has at any time included the transcendent teaching.  All teachings are nothing other than preparatory.  They are alike in their impotence before the transcendent, and therefore alike in their inaccuracy.  If two falsehoods both miss the truth, then they are the same, however different the words may sound.  Please don't think I'm being irreverent.  The Buddha himself insisted that we take his teachings lightly.  Jesus made sure that his tecahings were understood as mere parables - neither more nor less.

 

My main objection to what you wrote was this statement:

 

one can't really join traditional type teachings of "no-self" (Buddhist) and the Self, (Vedic) thus it comes down to choosing one  and letting go the other.

To choose one and let go the other is to elevate one, or if not elevate, then simply ignore the second.  This is very dangerous and unskillful practice. Unless you hold them both together you will miss the full picture.  And I promise you, if you have any serious spiritual aspiration, you will not attain it unless you accept the sheer ineffability of the transcendent and the utter uselessness of the teachings.

 

further what I was getting at is that your interpretation of Buddhism and Vedic teachings is in effect refuting various established schools 

If you believe that a teaching can be refuted by me.  If you believe that is possible, then you do not understand the teaching.  Most likely you are under the impression that the teachings are of some worth as statements of truth.  They are not!  And the sooner you realise this, the sooner you'll be able to move on.

 

Even though a tradition may seem to have a coherent, consistent teaching, as you spiritually develop the very meanings of the words transform.  You never read the same scripture twice.  Your subjective resonance with the words changes with maturity.  And yes, ultimately, we reach a point where Self and No-self mean subjectively the same thing - both just provisional tropes for conceptualising the unconceptualisable.

 

It is a sure sign of spiritual immaturity to find yourself quarreling of matters of exegesis.  It is a sad fact that so often those who get respected as religious scholars are very far from actual religious understanding.