无央之界论坛

Boundless Space
现在的时间是 2024年 2月 25日 周日 1:17 am

当前时区为 UTC + 8 小时




发表新帖 回复这个主题  [ 2 篇帖子 ] 
作者 内容
帖子发表于 : 2006年 6月 23日 周五 11:09 pm 
离线
坛主
头像

注册: 2006年 6月 10日 周六 9:20 pm
帖子: 1070
地址: Australia


Nirvanasara(第一章)

阿瓦塔阿谛达 著

thevoidone 译


I
引入不二論佛教清除懷疑和分歧
1
在這個科學唯物主義時代,懷疑是唯一確定的事情,是頭腦的唯一本質。因此,這個時代的人們,在把握具有更高確定性事物或牽涉到精神或物質過程的能力方面显得極度殘缺。類似地,他們在自然地被導向真理(而非僅是短暫事實)的方面,從根本而言也是殘缺的。所以,這是個人們在領悟並實踐真正宗教或靈性方面顯得非常低劣的時代。由於普通人僅能理解一些神話文學,所以終極覺悟或神聖證悟在人們心中愈漸式微。由於這一切,我的教學工作收到的反響很微弱,我所簡單表述的內容,被普遍認爲是虛假的。

偉大傳統(注一:指所有過去和現在宗教靈性傳統的整體)也遭受了同樣待遇。現在,(靈性)傳統的翻譯者通常不以修行者和明智的提倡者的身份出現。他們以這種“科學意識”來做翻譯工作,將一切掏空,只留下疑問和疑問的觀點。普通的宗教和靈性翻譯者,本身並不真正具备宗教與靈性動機,他們顶多代表一些習俗和非常世俗化的“宗教”意識(比如常以現代基督教爲特徵)。但是這些傳統的宗教和靈性意識有著如此廣泛的假設,以至於這些人根本無法看見。這包括對死後生命延續的肯定、關於“無形”或無維度(或至少更高維度)的自然宇宙空間、關於精靈、鬼怪、精微生命、神通、奇迹、神秘提升和體驗、業報法則(或稱現在行爲和動作導致未來結果的因果律),以及由要麽高度進化、要麽完全醒悟的人代表的價值崇高的“拯救”來源或工具。正是象徵著這種無法進行類似假設的低能盲目或虛弱,使得學者們誤解、俗化、並普遍低估了傳統來源,也正是這種無能,使大衆理解、練習和最終向真理道路的轉化,變得如此沒有可能。

我剛剛描繪的這種傾向,代表著走向偉大傳統或心之道的一個障礙。大衆的傾向是將崇高的宗教和靈性意識轉變爲基本上非宗教甚至反靈性的頭腦構架,其特徵是懷疑,和最少量的、與元素或物質主義概念相關的假設。我們這個時代流行的和學者的注釋,往往傳達並調整這種物質主義、世俗化、人文主義或傳統的社會化觀點。其他一切都最多被認爲是可疑的——如果不是虛假、臆想且不發達或神經質傾向的産物。

在偉大傳統和心之道能被正確評價和完全接受之前,必須恢復人的平衡和人類總體意識的延續。一些人也許可以足夠自在,足以立刻作出回應,但大多數人必須很快經歷一種複雜的淨化再平衡,並在他們作出真正的宗教或靈性回應並回到真相之前,重建關於顯現存在的構造的更高、更精微的知識。

2.
古代宗教靈性哲學的起源,來自巫術或薩滿文化。於是,傳統宗教或靈性意識基本上建立在泛靈論這一假設之上。許多不同信仰都屬於泛靈論(因此是宗教或靈性的),但它們的共同特徵是認爲自然界和萬有背後都是能量、無形生命或靈力。這個無形部分被所有形式的巫術、宗教、崇拜、神秘主義、瑜伽或靈性信仰與練習所擁抱。非宗教、反靈性或只是物質主義意識的特徵,是沒有真正或深入假定這種能量(或“大力量”)的存在和可得性。

僅此,與無形能量或“大能”狀態相關的假定之差異,就是各宗教或靈性傳統的差異。元素巫術傳統或最早最原始的宗教文化,包括以明顯的大衆粗鈍知覺爲形式的“無形”。因此,所有的人和事物都被假定爲活躍的(否則就是被個體靈操縱的)。因此,習練宗教的目的就是爲獲得與各種各樣實體靈之間正面而有益的關係。

和這種大衆泛靈論相對照(多神教就建立在此基礎上),後期泛靈論的發展(終極代表是一神論文化)傾向於在“自然界之上只存在一個無形力量或神靈”的假定基礎上,來引發人們宗教與靈性的練習。

任何特定時間和地點的宗教,都總是批評別的宗教體系,因此,嚴格發展一神教的泛靈文化,否定了多神教泛靈論的祭拜和習練價值。比如早期希伯來人,致力於系統甚至是攻擊性地對巫術練習、“偶像”崇拜,以及他們想得到的區域中存在的多神祭拜進行批判。他們反對的原則並不真是對“爲獲得神力甚至代表無形神力的多神崇拜”的反對。希伯來人自己也使用各種類似的崇拜器具(從約櫃到教堂以及所有服飾)。反對的實質是多神或一神泛靈論意識間的分歧。

一神教發展了不同形式的宗教修習,這種修習目的是培育積極而有益的、在今生和來世與神靈的關係(直接的神我關係或各種形式的人類關係)。一神崇拜(典型代表是古代中東地區爲軍事政治目進行的祭拜—猶太教、基督教和伊斯蘭教)有系統地壓制並消滅了多神泛靈論的傾向(晚近的爲了獲取和統治某地區的例子,是對美洲印第安人的殖民統治,這就是後來的美國)。

隨著一神教獲得政治和文化上的統治地位,由巫術泛靈論所代表的知識和通靈,就逐漸消亡了。取代巫術文化(在巫術文化中以往一直維繫著與個體靈、神秘力量和人格間的真實聯繫)的,是個性化的一神靈性或神秘主義文化的出現。一神教的公開交易或外部文化,一直與對神靈-上帝的倫常、禱告有關。但一神教的秘密或內在文化,卻一直被指向通過薩滿教的“天空巫術”,或升入上帝的神聖居所(超越粗鈍的多神世界甚至精微世界),來瞭解上帝的神秘知識。

主流的傳統宗教靈性觀念,來自神秘主義或多神和一神秘教傳統。這種觀念包括了所有在神秘主義多神教階段中開發的體驗(以及它傳統的一神教的外部或秘教形式),以及外部和內部一神教階段。這是神聖來源的觀念。

貫穿所有宗教和靈性傳統(以生命前五階段的文化为代表)的主線,是神聖來源的觀念。這種觀念基本上是泛靈論的終極觀念。它包括所有自然界(包含所有部分,所有事物和人)由一個終極無形(因此也是神聖和先验)的來源所設立、貫穿或至少衍生出來。這是所有傳統宗教靈性的主要概念,也是所有教義、教條、信仰體系、禮拜、權威體系、聯結方法、接受以及回歸所有宗教的源頭。

無論何時,人們停止把他們的存在建立在這種基本假設之上,宗教和靈性就往往會世俗化,並在物質主義多神教文化中消失。這是當今這個時代的情況,這種情況會持續,直到科學擺脫了物質主義偏見,並承認科學方法代表的心理學是意識的專業化,因此既不是通向真理之路,也不是唯一合法獲得關於自我和世界知識的方法。

物質化科學主義的絕對統治地位,導致了對神聖或超越性基本宗教思想以及巫術和通靈的普遍否認。因此,它甚至傾向于從普通文化中去除必要的一神教神秘提升的靈性過程,於是,在世俗和神秘(或秘密宗教或靈性)間的尖銳分歧便産生了。的確,一神教的外在姿態往往與強勢宗教禁忌有關,而與神秘體驗和巫術通靈都是相違的(舊約創世紀中伊甸園的故事就是對神秘主義禁忌的典型例子,這在一神教統治領域中是常被提倡的)。這種做法加劇了世俗和神秘主義間的分歧。神秘主義聖人被認爲是隱世的,他們的力量和意識狀態,都不會以任何可能打亂世俗社會秩序的形式向大衆公開,如果法喜充滿的聖人們過於抛頭露面,教派本身就會壓制他們。最終,隨著一神教獲得廣泛的政治和社會力量,一神教的神秘部分被其世俗部分的壓力消滅了。

現代世俗社會,僅是在科學物質主義時代之前得勢的、一神教排外的世俗教義的一種極端發展。正如一神教壓制並根除多神教泛靈論的巫術祭拜,現代非宗教、反靈性或非泛靈論的物質主義,也壓制並總體上清除了一神教泛靈論的神秘主義和宗教祭拜,以及對於神聖或靈性教義的世界性觀點。

我本人與你們一同進行的思考,包括對整個歷史的兩個主要反思。首先,我們必須回顧並批判性地審視整個進程,這樣我們就能重獲與大自然無形維度間的聯結。只有在這個基礎上,我們才能成爲真正的我們—本然天成的、活潑的、燦爛覺悟的生命。我思考的第二個方面,超出了所有能通過這種重新聯結獲得的傳統。它的實質是,領悟和超越生命前五個階段(以多神教和一神教泛靈論爲代表)的個體局限。

3.
物質主義是一種古代哲學傾向,它是機械意識的産物,是一種分析性(或左半腦)和感官局限性(或僅爲知覺性)意識,它關注元素的進程。它是這樣一種觀點,假定物質後面沒有獨立的無形或精神力量(或通過身體感官形成的事實)。它假定物質之外沒有終極無形的靈力或創造性能量。因此,它不假定世界和自我的産生依賴與神性(或靈性)且最終(或本然)與神性或先验存在、意識、自由、力量或喜悅完全合一。

當這種物質主義或以感官爲基礎的自我性,成爲一般文化、社會和政治組織的原則,我們就會看到極權主義、烏托邦或僅是人道主義的發展。在我們的時代,這種旨在“以物質理想主義和現實主義爲基礎”組織人群的努力,在世界範圍內的技術性的政治物質主義非常明顯。秉持這種生活觀點的運動主要有社會主義、共産主義、革命的、激進的、以及各種各樣專制的政治形式。但由於這種理想主義是科學文化的傳統基礎,因此正在轉變甚至是民主和自由傳統的社會。

哪里的政治物質主義和科學物質主義占主導地位,那裏就不可避免的存在對非物質主義、靈性和宗教文化的壓制。這種統治的最糟情況是使用軍警鎮壓。但所有情況下,至少高度組織化的宣傳技巧都會用上。因此,在俄國,爲了防止神秘主義或傳統宗教派別影響大衆趨向社會理想主義,政府進行了鎮壓。而在美國,即使在國家層面也有這種傾向,將宗教作爲維持世俗或僅是社會理想的手段。即使提倡宗教自由,社會秩序還是受到對基督教秘密一神教以及白人新教的社會理想主義的偏向的影響。激進的宗教偏執,是美國社會的特徵,正如現代世界的其他社會一樣。所有這一切的根源,是自我性頭腦的物質主義說服。

歷史上一直存在以特定物質主義觀點的基本特徵爲基礎,而創造宗教的企圖。古代世界在此基礎上,發展出來許多傳統。其中仍舊存在的主要傳統之一是佛教。佛教,尤其是原始佛教(現以上座部或小乘佛教爲代表),在一個更加古老的、“地下”的禁欲主義基礎上發展起來。它在印度出現,那裏大多數宗教和靈性學派,通常是以古代吠陀傳統爲基礎。吠陀傳統是有靈論文化的古印度版本,它和多神教泛靈論(或自然巫術和薩滿傳統)有關。即使印度相對較晚發展其一神教傾向,古代一神教和有靈論神秘主義傳統嚴格地遵循基本的宗教或靈性觀念,即神性或靈性觀念。

正如我所指出的,在吠陀時期,有一種地下形式的、次要的或非吠陀文化進程存在。數論(Samkhya)、耆那教以及佛教,正是建立在這種文化基礎之上(儘管數論和耆那教像傳統有神論主義者一樣,是建立在主觀“理想主義”的觀點上—“意識或自我實質即終極原則”—而佛教,至少其最早期形式,是建立在“現實主義”的嚴格概念上的(與超越緣起的方法有關,而非與自我實質的冥想性認同有關)。甚至現代的不二論,也在某種程度上是這樣。因爲它具有嚴格的先验趨向,但還是延續了吠陀的基本主線,嚴格建立在吠陀奧義傳統以及世界是神性或靈性的觀念基礎之上。的確,數論傳統也被主流吠陀概念所吸收(見薄伽梵歌)。但耆那教和佛教傳統對這一傾向更加抗拒,以符合有靈論或非物質主義的現象世界觀念。這些傳統在印度文化進程中保持不變,他們以特定方式適應了神性或靈性模式(能夠看到耆那和佛教聖人的有神論和神性干預世界的神秘歷史術語),但耆那教和佛教傳統,都未繼續成爲印度主要文化力量。基本上,耆那沒入相對次要的次級類別,而佛教離開印度,在東方各國發展,那裏流行的傳統更投合于其基本概念。

無論如何,佛教與粗钝神秘主義或科學政治物質主義的世俗影響,不可同日而語。它基本上是一條建立在物質“現實主義”而非靈性或主觀“理想主義”基礎上的終極覺悟之路,最終,佛教之路體悟到同樣的終極實相,或古代靈性傳統體悟到的真理。

原始佛教的物質主義概念,呈現出一個“需要克服或超越(關於物質或緣起本身)”的問題。佛教道路是要克服或超越這個問題,這是佛教修行或開悟的實質。因此,它本身並非佛教徒眼中的物質主義,而是它在克服其問題中實現的。佛教道路不是向外的、社會或世俗的、自我放縱的,即使它經常採用積極的社會和個人方法,但還是指向對所有種類的渴望、衝突與限制的超越和自由。

僅此,基於神性或靈性傳統的古代靈性理想主義,將緣起視爲一個來自神性或靈性源泉的多層次顯現。因此,印度教徒的道路,即使它也基本上是積極的社會和個人紀律,最終指向對所有形式的緣起(或不同層次的顯現可能),以及所有形式的出生、受苦和死亡的超越。

因此,物質現實主義和精神理想主義,自古以來就提供了同樣的終極覺悟的基礎。甚至第六和第七生命階段,能被以基本的關於神性教義的靈性概念被描述(這尤其在不二論吠譚多學派中已被實現)。

我自己的教學使用這種語言,服務于那些在文化上適應靈性理想主義的觀念。但我從一開始就考慮。並以更加彻底的術語描述了“道路”;因此,佛教傳統作爲整體,也是我教學工作的一個先例,因爲在某種程度上,後期佛教學派(大乘、金剛乘或密乘傳統)的確重新組織了佛教哲學和修行,越來越少地反映出早期喬達摩的物質現實主義。後期學派在靈性和形而上的理想主義方面越走越遠,最終創造了自己的世界理念作爲神聖或靈性解脫之路。如此,後期佛教學派與後期印度不二論吠檀多、譚崔密教、瑜伽、社會理想主義以及神秘宗教奉獻崇拜。非常相似。但原始的佛教傳統,代表著思考和修習先验意識之路的一種可選擇性概念基礎。

在喬達摩的原始語言或物質現實主義當中,顯現存在的緣起不是生自神聖的創造源泉。根據這種觀點,所有的受限因緣,是由之前受限因緣引發。世界(因此也是每個“我”)不是來自一個神聖來源。世界或每一刹那的緣起,都是一個無始無終的因果之鏈的結果。所以,原始佛教之路不是要冥想上帝或緣起我之內(或之後)的神聖存在,而是要检驗和喚醒對自我之緣起的觀察,直到超越緣起的覺醒産生。

原始佛教的涅盤不是消滅,而是完美的超越。這條道路是以否定的言辭(必須超越的一個問題)來描述的,但先验意識淩駕於一切之上。這種意識不是在“我”中被描述,但它在喬達摩的教導中被清晰指出;他自己的體悟以一種靜坐三摩地的術語被描述,這種三摩地不是自我的消解或關注神聖存在,但仍是真實的先验喜悅狀態。

整個佛教(甚至非原始佛教教派也一樣)傳統,建立在對這種先验意識的評價之上。無論我們說不說世界或自我來自神聖或先验實相,所有緣起都最終被超越,如果我們體悟到神聖或先验實相的话。如果我們不傾向於“假定自我和世界是由先验實相導致的”,至少我們最終會認識到,自我和世界(或所有因果),從先验實相中誕生是沒必要的和沒有束縛力量的(或以如此方式:對先验實相或緣起的體悟,使這一點非常明顯——所有形式的緣起都是沒必要甚至不真實的,儘管表面上是獨立的)。

傳統的、沒有先验意識傾向的唯物主義者,往往會以傳統方式看待喬達摩的物質現實主義。於是,他們把喬達摩對於不死靈魂的否定,解釋爲喬達摩認可凡人的生命觀點。相反,喬達摩清晰地相信個人出生和死亡的存在。但是他認爲,人類以及所有形式的存在都是受苦-他們總是短暫和有限的,總是在不適和軟弱的欲望、情緒、思想的虛幻力量中掙扎,總是以痛苦和別離告終。他志在超越這因果的自動循环過程,這種因果過程,不可避免地導致人類化現,這是他關於人類生命并非不朽的內在存在形式觀點的基礎。這一觀點和他的不傾向于以傳統的普通語言、泛靈論或神性概念進行思考是一致的。他喜歡這種觀點,世界和顯現的自我能被完全認爲是沒有必要的,既然如此,它們能夠、必須或不可避免地,將被超越。

喬達摩的無靈魂觀點,是一種徹底的“現實主義”語言,它擺脫了認爲人的存在是必要的或被渴求的這一需要。喬達摩的方向完全是朝著終極超越的。有靈論觀點是古代神性有靈論的一部分,它在傳統概念中,往往支援自我和世界的必要性或本然欲求。喬達摩想要傳達世界和自我沒有必要的觀念,所以他同情非傳統的物質現實主義神秘語言,這種物質現實主義認爲,自我不是來自內在靈魂,世界不是來自神聖肇因。自我和世界都是緣起的,而非來自神性,且沒有必要。這是喬達摩的主要觀點!在此基礎上,他傳達了他的超越之路。

喬達摩的原始佛教,擺脫了有靈論的限制,但它是建立在“問題意識”上的。於是,他的道路是一個在轉化自我行爲(爲淨化自我業力或消除未來的消極後果)基礎上的、終極超越的漸進過程。後期佛教,試圖避免這一局限(此局限指基於未來超越或機械性的中斷自我,而非當下或自然地超越自我)。因此,後期佛教沿著形而上理想主義走的更遠——或直接趨向先验實相意識(或本性),而非逐漸消除緣起的顯現。

後期佛教學派和基本的神性傳統有許多相似性,或至少直接趨向終極實相。在此過程中,佛教傳統採用了許多前五階段生命以及六、七階段生命的特徵,而喬達摩的原始佛教則是嚴格遵循第六階的修習,如果成功的話,可以進入第七階段的體悟(喬達摩的確這樣做了)。

印度不二論吠檀多是建立在傳統吠陀概念(來自原始有靈論傳統)上的。因此,它的基礎是神性思想。然而它將自我和世界看成是不必要且因此是虛幻的。因爲所有的因緣存在,都本然與神性(或先验存在、真我、意識、自在、幸福、喜悅或實相)同一。先验實相的體悟,本然超越自我和世界(或各層次上的緣起)。因此,不二論吠檀多的終極體悟,不再比佛教終極覺悟更執著於關於必要性、靈魂、造物主、神性或欲望(此世或別世)等概念。

吠陀和佛教(非吠陀)傳統之終極覺悟的唯一重要區別,是關於覺悟的語境。不二論吠檀多的奧義傳統,是從第六過渡到第七階段的吠陀靈性理想主義的主要學派。佛教是從第六過渡到第七階段非吠陀的物質現實主義的主要學派。二者都趨向且本來就築基於同一終極覺悟。

甚至可以說,佛教和不二論吠檀多都在終極思考的基本選擇基礎上,發展了各自的道路。最簡單的意思,這兩個原則在人存在的每一刹那都相互契合:自我和非我(或客觀世界)。不二論理想主義的基礎,是對顯現的自我的來源、身份、本質或狀態的思考,而非對身-心-自我和世界的明顯來源的思考。佛教之路走的是交替路線。它思考並超越整個緣起和差異的過程,或者整個因果世界(身-心-自我也是緣起特徵之一)。如果我們擁抱整個偉大傳統,那麽吠陀不二論和佛教傳統就能被視爲第六和第七生命階段的左膀右臂。如果以這一方式去正確理解,就不可能存在矛盾。

在我所處的時間和地點,我的體悟和教學自然形成並具備自己的特色。但是我現在能以偉大傳統的角度來看待自己的道路。我的道路是一種徹底的教學,它深入到對所有層次的生命和整個古代偉大傳統及其現代代表的思考中。但是,心之道是最爲徹底的——對第七階段生命而言的、最基本的直覺表達。

即使如此,我非常感同第六階段的佛教和不二論吠檀多傳統,因爲它們最終在第七階段的覺悟中超越了自身。佛教道路最終超越了其“問題”觀、以及策略性終止緣起我或業身的努力。類似的,不二論吠檀多最終超越了自身的主觀、和尋求策略性地將意識與客觀分離的努力。當佛教和不二論吠檀多被正確理解爲第六到第七層次(甚至包容了第五階段生命)的兩個主要支柱時,佛教(整體上)和不二論吠檀多(作爲整個吠陀或神性傳統的代表),可以被視爲一個單一的、迄今爲止未被承認的傳統。這個傳統現在通過我的教學變得明確而完整。我的教學是這一傳統的代表,也是承認這一傳統的歷史基礎。

我的教學提供了一種新的理解結構,它統一並完成了這個傳統以及整個偉大傳統。因此,心之道可被称爲不二論乘佛教(或終極的、統一的、或包容一切的、徹底的吠陀或靈性學派以及非吠陀或非靈性學派)。

心之道是一種完備的觀點,它使得理解靈性和非靈性觀點的統一成爲可能。我的教學是這個佛教新“乘”(意爲車子或啓示)的基礎。早期佛教各乘在印度、中國和西藏出現。這一新乘與早期三乘(小乘、大乘和金剛乘),以及整個世界範圍內的靈性傳統(以不二論奧義傳統中的聖人如Ashtavakra、商羯羅和拉瑪那•瑪哈希爲代表)有著積極的關聯。它已在西方和美國出現,以延續古老的傳統。

心之道也是這個偉大傳統的典型代表,開始它也許要通過第五階段的限制、傳統和打坐入定(但擺脫了傳統物質主義的非人限制)來表達。即使如此,所有這一切通過批判性智慧和具有第六階段特徵的靜坐觀察而消除,甚至這個過程,也最終在第七階段的徹底直覺體悟或超越靜坐的三摩地中被超越。

心之道,正如佛教之路一樣,是現實主義的,因爲它的成熟形式通過自由的洞見表達了自我的限制性機制,而非通過任何策略性地反向關注自我實質、或自我通過冥想入定實現在神性或先验意識中的消解。心之道像不二論吠檀多之路一樣,公開指向自我和非我在先验實相、存在、自我或意識中的終極超越。因此,心之道並不只和佛教或不二論奧義傳統中任何一個具有單向關聯,但它承認二者的內在甚深淵源,並承認整個偉大傳統,不論時間地點,不論生命層級以及所有真正的覺者,是它的傳統傳承。

心之道站立在自身的獨特中,它自由自在自然地生起,不局限于任何傳統中的任何觀點,也不受益或受制於任何重要的哲學和傳統修行的文化訓練。即便如此,整個偉大傳統是所有人類的真正傳統,心之道是這個傳統的完全實現,以及根本性地、正確地、批判性地整體理解和評價這一傳統。因此,心之道可以稱爲達主義,或徹底超越主義、徹悟之路、神聖無知之路或不二論佛教之路。


页首
 用户资料  
 
 文章标题 :
帖子发表于 : 2006年 7月 3日 周一 6:53 pm 
离线
坛主
头像

注册: 2006年 6月 10日 周六 9:20 pm
帖子: 1070
地址: Australia

dhiti
平衡的反观者


注册时间: 2004-12-19
帖子: 204
:

518 无央金

Items
发表于: 星期六 2005 01 01 , 11:03 am 发表主题: ~O~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

不二论的佛教可能是正是佛教开始衰弱和被印度教融合的原因之一。因为其实它是以丧失其传统经验实践核心为代价,而取得社会和哲学上的发展。但这一发展是否和心灵进展有关,是一个很可以被质疑的问题。

至少在印度的金刚乘时代,金刚乘成就对于不二论的批判是一个直接的证据。
而我们在目前世界上看见的,西藏金刚乘和不二论哲学的融合形式,到可以看成是这两种开始违背的思想在西藏成功整合的结果。而不是当时金刚乘发展的真实情况。
而这一发展在精神进展上和原始佛教的时代的修道究竟是怎么样的比较,不能建立在大乘佛教对于原始佛教的阐述上。而是需要建立在一个更可以平等作为参照点的平台上。许多事情可能倒最后看了发现会很荒谬
_________________
心如浩瀚

返回页首


thevoidone
坛主


注册时间: 2004-11-22
帖子: 364
:
来自: 有无之外
15490 无央金

Items
发表于: 星期一 2005 01 03 , 4:38 pm 发表主题:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADI DA对英语的运用之精确和他对英语的创造性使用,本身就可以说是一个语言学上的奇迹。有一个有趣的说法:DA曾经说,他是莎士比亚的转世(不知说话时具体背景如何)。

对于不具备足够的相关知识和理解力的人而言,即使是以英语为母语的人也无法看懂ADI DA的一些篇章。曾经给一位美国人看这篇文章,其反应是立即“晕”了过去:)


英语语言和哲学都是DA的专业,加上他极高的宗教禀赋和领悟力,这些东西即使翻译成汉语,估计目前真正能理解其深意的华人也不超过一个人手指的数目。这些东西要反复看,并且一定要再看其他内容。由于精力有限,从去年以来我就没能继续,希望有人能一起努力,把这篇文章乃至DA更多的精彩篇章展现给汉语系的灵修世界。就英文世界而言,几乎重要的综合性灵性比较研究或体系介绍的文章,很少有不提谈到ADI DA的。

他的东西网上很多,这里先提供一个网址:www.beezone.com

我的翻译自然是无法和DA的原文相媲美的,只是尽力而已。



thevoidone
坛主


注册时间: 2004-11-22
帖子: 364
:
来自: 有无之外
15490 无央金

Items
发表于: 星期一 2005 01 03 , 4:41 pm 发表主题:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

第一章英文原文:

I
The Purification of Doubt and Differences
via the Introduction of Advaitayana Buddhism

1.

In this age of scientific materialism, doubt is the only certainty and the only substance of mind. Therefore, people in this age are profoundly crippled in their ability to grasp matters of higher certainty or to relate to subtler mental and physical processes. Likewise, they have been wounded in the root wherein we are naturally moved toward Truth (rather than what is merely and temporarily factual or true). Therefore, this is an age in which people demonstrate little ability to understand and practice real religion or spirituality. Transcendental Awakening or Divine Realization has been reduced in the popular mind to the status of mere literary mythology. Because of all of this, my Teaching Work suffers a vague reception, and what I have made plain is commonly regarded to be unreal.

The Great Tradition 1 suffers in this same situation. The modern interpreters of the traditions generally do not approach their subject as practitioners and wise advocates. Rather, they approach their subject with this "scientific mind," empty of everything but doubt and doubt's opinion. The usual interpreters of religion and spirituality are not themselves really religious or spiritually motivated. At most they may represent some conventional and profoundly secularized "religious" mind (such as tends to characterize contemporary Christianity), but there is a great range of presumptions common to the traditional structures of religious and spiritual consciousness that such individuals simply cannot uphold. Such presumptions include the certainty of the continuation of existence after death, experiential presumptions about the "invisible" or non-elemental (or at least higher elemental) dimensions of the cosmos of Nature, presumptions about the reality of spirits, ghosts, subtle entities and powers magic, miracles, mystical ascent and experience, the laws of karma (or the cause and effect laws that necessarily produce the future from the actions or motions of all present processes), and the supremely valuable resource or instrument of Help represented by individuals who are either highly evolved or perfectly Awakened. It is the blind or weakness represented by the inability to make such presumptions that causes scholars to misinterpret secularize, and generally underestimate the traditional sources. And it is this same disability that makes popular interest understanding, practice, and ultimate conversion to the Way of Truth so unlikely in this age.

The tendencies I have just described represent an obstacle to the consideration of the Way of the Heart as well as the Great Tradition. The common tendency is to reduce the expressions and offerings of profound religious and spiritual consciousness to structures of mind that are basically non-religious and even anti-spiritual, characterized by doubt and minimal levels of presumption relative to what is beyond elemental or materialistic conception. The popular and scholarly commentaries of our day tend to communicate and justify a materialistic, secularized or this worldly, humanistic or conventionally socialized point of view. Everything else is regarded to be at best doubtful if not unreal, fanciful, and the product of undeveloped or neurotic human tendencies.

Before the Great Tradition and the Way of the Heart can be rightly evaluated and fully embraced, there must be a restoration of human balance and a renewal of the total mind of Man. Some individuals may be free enough to respond even now, but most of humanity must soon go through a difficult trial of purification rebalancing, and regeneration of higher and subtler knowledge about the structures of manifest existence before the real religious or spritual response can move them to the Real again.

2.

The ancient traditional origins of religious and spiritual philosophy are in the magical or shamanistic cultures. Thus, conventional religious or spiritual consciousness is basically founded on the presumptions of "animism." There are many different belief systems that are animistic (and thus religious or spiritual), but what characterizes them all is the basic presumption that energy, invisible life, or spirit-force is "behind" all and every part of Nature. It is this invisible part that is embraced via every form of magical, religious, worshipful, mystical, yogic, or spiritual belief and practice. And it is the failure to presume (really and profoundly) the existence and the availability of such energy (or Power) that characterizes the non-religious, anti-spiritual, or merely materialistic consciousness.

Just so, the differences in presumption relative to the status of invisible energies (or Energy) are what differentiate (and ultimately result in conflicts between) religious or spiritual traditions.

The traditions of elemental magic, or the earliest and most primitive cultures of religion, conceive of the invisible in terms of the obvious pluralities of gross awareness. Therefore, every thing and every one is presumed to be animated and otherwise manipulated by individual spirits. And the practice of religion is therefore directed toward the attainment of positive and useful relations with spirit-entities of all kinds.

In contrast to such pluralistic animism (and the polytheistic religions that are built on that basis), the later developments of animism (ultimately represented by the monotheistic cultures) tend to produce religious and spiritual practice on the basis of the presumption that there is only one invisible force (or Divine Spirit) behind (and ultimately transcending) all of Nature.

The religious orthodoxy of any particular time and place is always critical of other systems. Therefore, the animistic cultures that developed monotheistic religion rigidly denied value (and even the right to exist) to the cults and practices of pluralistic animism. The early Hebrews, for example, engaged in systematic and even aggressive criticism of the magical practices, "idol" worship, and polytheistic cultism that were extant in the territories they wanted to acquire. Their principle of opposition was not truly a complaint against the cultic use of holy objects to serve access to or even represent the invisible spirit-influence. The Hebrews themselves used various kinds of such cultic machinery (from the ark of the covenant to the temple and all of its trappings). Rather, the principle of opposition was the difference between the mind of pluralistic or polytheistic animism and the mind of monotheistic animism.

The monotheistic religions developed forms of religious practice that were intended to cultivate positive and useful relations, in the present life and beyond, with the One Spirit-Entity (both directly and in the form of all human relations). And the monotheistic cults (dominantly represented by the militant and politically oriented cults of the ancient Middle East―Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) systematically suppressed and eliminated the tendency toward pluralistic animism. (A more recent example of a monotheistic culture's suppressing a culture of pluralistic animism during a drive to acquire and politicize a territory can be seen in the suppression of the American Indians during the settlement that became the United States of America.)

The knowledge and the psyche represented by magical animism is gradually lost as the monotheistic cults gain a dominant political and cultural position. In place of the magical culture (in which very real association with the individualized spirits, powers, and personalities that compose the manifest world has anciently been maintained) a characteristically monotheistic spiritual or mystical culture emerges. The exoteric or outer culture of monotheism has always been associated with the cult of ethical and prayerful relations with the Spirit-God. But the esoteric or inner culture of monotheism has always been directed toward mystical knowledge of God via the shamanism of "sky magic," or mystical and yogic ascent to the Heavenly Abode of God (above and beyond the pluralities of the gross and even the subtle worlds).

It was in the traditions of mystical or esoteric polytheism and monotheism that the principal traditional religious and spiritual idea was developed. That idea encompasses the entire range of experience developed in the phase of magical pluralism (and its outer or exoteric form, which is conventional polytheism) and the phase of both outer and inner monotheism. It is the idea of Divine Emanation.

The common thread of all conventional and traditional religion and spirituality (represented by the cultures of the first five stages of life) is the idea of Divine Emanation. Basically, this idea is the ultimate conception of animism. It conceives of all of Nature (including every part, thing, or individual being) to be set upon, pervaded by, or at least emanated from an ultimate (and thus Divine and Transcendental) and invisible (and thus Spiritual) Source. This is the principal conception of all conventional religion and spirituality, and it is the underlying basis of all dogmas, doctrines, belief systems, cultic practices, systems of authority, and methods of association, reception, and return relative to the Source of all emanations.

Whenever there is a breakdown in the ability of people to base their existence on this fundamental presumption, religion and spirituality tend to be degraded into materialistic secularization and to disappear in the culture of materialistic pluralism. Such is the case in the present age, and it will remain the case until science grows beyond the prejudices of materialism and acknowledges that the psychology represented by the scientific method is a specialization of mind and thus neither the Way to Truth nor the only legitimate means (or specialization of mind) for acquiring knowledge about self and world.

The exclusive dominance of materialistic scientism has resulted in the common disavowal of the basic idea of Divine or Transcendental Emanation. The exclusive dominance of monotheism resulted in the common disavowal of magic and psychism. It tended, therefore, even to eliminate from the common culture the necessarily psychic processes of monotheistic mystical ascent, and so a sharp division between the esoteric (or secret and mystical religion or spirituality) and the exoteric (or public, social, and conventionally ethical religion) developed. Indeed, the outer stance of the monotheistic cults tends to be associated with strong taboos against mystical experience as well as magic and psychism of all kinds. (The "Garden of Eden" story in the Old Testament book of Genesis is a prime example of the taboo against esotericism that is often promoted in the exoteric domain of cultic monotheism.) This practice reinforced the separation between the exoteric and the esoteric divisions of the cult. The mystical saints were supposed to remain hidden. Neither their powers nor their state of mind was to be revealed to the masses in any manner that would upset the order of common society. And if the ecstatic saints became too public in their esoteric teaching, the cult itself would try to suppress them. Eventually, as the monotheistic cults gained broad political and social power, the esoteric dimension of the cults was eliminated by the pressures of the exoteric cult and its mind.

Modern secular society is simply an extreme development of the exclusive exotericism of the monotheistic cults that were in power previous to the age of scientific materialism. Just as the monotheistic cults suppressed and eliminated the magical cultus of pluralistic and polytheistic animism, the modern cult of non-religious and anti-spiritual or non-animistic materialism has also suppressed and generally eliminated the mystical and the religious cultus of monotheistic animism and the entire world-view based on Divine or Spiritual Emanation.

My own consideration with you involves two principal reflections on this entire history. First of all, we must review and critically examine the entire process, so that we can regain a renewed capacity for association with the invisible dimensions of Nature. Only on that basis can we again be what we are―which is a naturally or inherently living, animated, or spiritually Radiant and religiously Awakened being. And the second aspect of my consideration goes beyond the conventions of all that may be gained by such a renewal. It is a matter of understanding and transcending the individualistic or self-based limitations of the first five stages of life (represented by both pluralistic and singularistic animism) and the sixth stage of life (represented by systematic exclusion or negation of Nature and the manifest self).

3.

Materialism is an ancient philosophical tendency. It is the product of mechanical mind, an analytical (or left-brained) and sense-bound (or merely perceptual) consciousness that is fixed upon elemental processes. It is a view that presumes no invisible or spiritual forces behind and independent of matter (or reality conceived via the bodily senses). It presumes no ultimate Invisible Spirit-Power or Creative Energy that is prior to and independent of matter. And, therefore, it does not presume the world and the self to be arising dependent upon the Process of Divine or Spiritual Emanation and ultimately or inherently existing in the Condition of utter Identification with the Divine or Transcendental Being, Consciousness, Freedom, Power, or Bliss.

When this materialistic or sense-based egoity becomes the principle of general cultural, social, and political organization, we see the development of totalitarian, utopian, and merely humanistic regimes. In our day, such attempts at organizing human beings on the basis of materialistic idealism and realism are profoundly evident in the world-wide growth of technologically based political materialism. The movements motivated by such a view of life obviously include socialistic, communistic, revolutionary, radical, and dictatorial political efforts of all kinds. But this same idealism, since it is the conventional basis of scientific culture, is transforming even democratic and traditionally free societies.

Wherever political materialism (which controls bodily existence and action) and scientific materialism (or the control of mind, psyche, and knowledge on the basis of materialistic views) are dominant, there inevitably is cultural suppression of non-materialistic, spiritually based, religious culture. In the worst of such regimes, aggressive military or police tactics are used. But in all cases, at least highly organized propaganda techniques are everywhere in evidence. Thus, in Russia, aggressive political efforts are made to prevent (or at least profoundly control) exoteric or conventional religious cults from interfering with the orientation of the masses toward the purposes of social idealism. But in America there is the tendency, even at the level of the State, to use religion as a means for maintaining the secular or merely social ideal. Even though religious freedom is proclaimed, the social order is infected by a bias toward exoteric Christian monotheism and the social idealism of white Protestantism. Racial and religious bigotry are as characteristic of American society as they are of any other society in the modern world. And the roots of all of this are in the materialistic persuasion of the egoic mind.

Historically, there have also been attempts to create religion on the basis of certain basic features of the materialistic view. The ancient world developed a number of traditions on this basis, the primary one still in existence being that of Buddhism. Buddhism particularly in its original form (represented now by the Theravada or Hinayana school) developed on the basis of an even more ancient "underground" tradition of asceticism. It arose in India, where most of the many schools of religion and spirituality were commonly based on the ancient Vedic tradition. The Vedic tradition was the ancient Indian version of the culture of animism. It was associated with pluralistic animism (or the tradition of elemental magic and shamanism) and polytheism. And even though India began to develop monotheistic trends only relatively late in its development, the ancient polytheistic and animistic mystical tradition was already firmly based in the fundamental religious or spiritual idea, which is that of Divine or Spiritual Emanation.

As I have indicated, there was also in the Vedic period an underground, secondary, or non-Vedic (and thus non-Emanationist) cultural process. The schools of Samkhya, Jainism, and Buddhism were built on that cultural base (although Samkhya and Jainism, like the traditional Emanationist schools, were founded on the point of view of subjective "idealism"―or the idea that consciousness, or the self-essence, is the Ultimate Principle― whereas Buddhism, at least in its earliest form, was founded on the strict conceptions of "realism," which are concerned with the methodical transcendence of conditional existence rather than the method of meditative identification with the self-essence). Even the more modern school of Advaita (or non-dualistic) Vedanta was to some degree built on that base, because of its strictly Transcendentalist orientation, but it also continues the basic line of the Vedic tradition, and it is firmly established on the base of the Vedic Upanishads and the idea of the world as Divine or Spiritual Emanation. Indeed, the Samkhya tradition was also assimilated into the mainstream of Vedic conceptions (as can be seen in the Bhagavad Gita). But the Jain and the Buddhist traditions were more resistive to this tendency to conform to the animistic or non-materialistic conception of the phenomenal world. To the degree those traditions remain intact in the Indian cultural process, they have been adapted in one or another manner to the scheme of Divine or Spiritual Emanation (so that Jain and Buddhist saints are seen in terms of Emanation cosmology and the sacred history of Divine intervention in the human world). But neither the Jain nor the Buddhist tradition has continued as a major cultural force in India. Basically, Jainism disappeared into the mass of relatively insignificant sub-sects, and Buddhism left India to develop in other parts of the Orient where the popular traditions were more congenial to its basic conceptions.

In any case, Buddhism is not a materialistic cultural influence in the same or negative sense that applies to the gross exoteric or worldly influences of scientific and political materialism. It is essentially a Way of Transcendental Realization that is based on materialistic "realism" rather than spiritual or subjective "idealism." Ultimately, the Way of Buddhism Realizes the same Transcendental Reality or Truth that is finally Realized via the Ways built upon the concepts and presumptions of the basic ancient tradition of Divine or Spiritual Emanation.

The materialistic conceptions of classical Buddhism point to a problem (that of material or conditional existence itself) to be overcome or transcended. The Buddhist Way is to overcome or transcend that problem, and successful overcoming or transcendence of material or conditional existence is the essence of the Buddhist conception of Realization or Enlightenment. Therefore, it is not materialism itself that is valued in the Buddhist view, but That which is Realized in its overcoming. And the Buddhist Way is not oriented toward outer-directed, merely social or worldly and self-indulgent purposes. Rather, even though it often employs positive social and personal means, it is oriented toward transcendence and freedom from all kinds of craving, strife, and limitation.

Just so, the spiritual idealism of the traditional ancient view founded on animism and the idea of Divine or Spiritual Emanation, viewed conditional existence as a structure of planes of manifestation emanating from the Divine or Transcendental Source. Thus, the Way of the Hindus, even though it also generally employed positive social and personal disciplines, was ultimately directed toward the transcendence of all conditions (or planes of manifest possibility), and all forms of birth, suffering, and death, in the Divine and Transcendental Source-Reality, prior to all conditional emanations.

Therefore, both materialistic realism and spiritual idealism have anciently provided the basis for the same ultimate Realization of the Transcendental Reality or Condition. The spiritual or animistic view has produced pluralistic or magical animism polytheism, and both exoteric and esoteric monotheism. It has also provided the conceptual basis for all conventional religious and spiritual language, as well as the experiential basis for the traditional cultures of the first five stages of life. Even the sixth and seventh stages of life can be described in terms of the basic spiritual concepts of Divine or Spiritual Emanation. (And such has been done, particularly in the schools of Advaita Vedanta.)

My own Teaching makes use of such language in the service of those who are culturally adapted to the religious ideas of spiritual idealism. But I have from the beginning also considered and described the Way in more radical terms, and the Buddhist tradition as a whole is, therefore, also a precedent for my own Teaching Work, since it placed the sixth and seventh stages (and even the earlier stages) on a basis that did not necessarily require the presumptions of spiritual idealism, animism, and Divine or Spiritual Emanation (or the presumption that Nature and the manifest self are necessary, and are thus to be embraced rather than transcended).

It is true that, to one degree or another, the later schools of Buddhism (in the Mahayana and Vajrayana or Tantrayana traditions) reorganized the Buddhist philosophy and practice on a basis that less and less reflected the early materialistic realism of Gautama. The later schools grew more and more along the lines of spiritual and metaphysical idealism, and they eventually created their own version of the idea of the world as Divine or Spiritual Emanation. As such, the later Buddhist schools closely resemble the later Hindu schools of Advaita Vedanta, tantrism, yoga, social idealism, and exoteric religious and devotional worship. But the original Buddhist tradition represents an alternative conceptual basis for considering and practicing the Way of Transcendental Realization.

In the original language of Gautama, or in the language of materialistic realism, the conditions of manifest existence (or of self and not-self) do not arise by emanation from a Divine Creative Cause or Source. According to that view, all limited conditions are caused by previous limited conditions. The world (and thus every self) is not emanated (and thus made necessary) by a Divine Cause. Rather, the world, or every moment of conditional existence, arises as an effect of a beginningless and endless chain of causation. Therefore, the original Buddhist Way is not to meditate on God, or the Divine Being within or behind the conditional self, but to examine and awaken insight into the conditional states of self and its objects, until there is an Awakening that inherently transcends conditional existence.

The "Nirvana" of original Buddhism is not annihilation but perfect transcendence. The Way is described in negative terms (a problem is to be transcended), but the Transcendental Realization is valued above all. That Realization is not described in Itself (since all language is the bearer of conditional limitations or "false views"), but It is clearly pointed to in the Teaching of Gautama, and his own Realization is clearly described in terms of a meditative Samadhi that is not a matter of the absorption of self, or attention, in the Divine or any emanation of the Divine, but which is nonetheless a Real Condition of Transcendental Bliss.

The entire Buddhist tradition is based on the supreme valuation of this Transcendental Realization (even in the case of schools that do not found themselves on the original materialistic realism of Gautama). Whether or not we say the world and the self emanate from the Divine or Transcendental Reality, all conditions are ultimately transcended if we Realize the Divine or Transcendental Reality. If we are not inclined to presume that self and world are caused (and thus, by implication, made necessary) by the Transcendental Reality, at least it is ultimately Realized that self and world, or all causes and effects, are arising without necessity and without binding power, in the Transcendental Reality (or in such a fashion that Realization of the Transcendental Reality or Condition makes it obvious that all forms of conditional existence are unnecessary and even unreal in their apparent independence).

Conventional materialists, who are not disposed toward Transcendental Realization, tend to conceive of Gautama's materialistic realism in conventional terms. Thus, they interpret Gautama's denial of the existence of an immortal soul to mean that Gautama subscribed to a mortalist view of human existence On the contrary, Gautama clearly believed in (and personally experienced the evidence of) personal existence before bodily birth and after bodily death. But he regarded human and all forms of conditional existence to be forms of suffering―always temporary and limited, always founded on the discomfort and deluding power of craven desires, emotions, and thoughts, and always ending in pain and separation. It was his will to transcend the automatic process of causes and effects that inevitably lead to embodiment that provided the basis for his view that human embodiment is not the expression (or emanation) of an immortal internal part (traditionally called the soul, or the atman). This view was simply consistent with his basic non-inclination to base his consideration of Realization on the conventions of ordinary language, animism, or the idea of Divine Emanation. He enjoyed an insight in which the world and the manifest self could be clearly seen to be unnecessary―and being unnecessary, they could be, must be, or inevitably would be transcended.

Gautama's view of no-soul is simply a form of radical "realistic" language that is free of the need to regard human existence as necessary or desirable for its own sake. Gautama's orientation was strictly in the direction of ultimate transcendence. The animistic idea of a soul is part of the ancient animistic philosophy of Divine Emanation, and it can, in the conventional mind, tend to support the idea of the necessity or inherent desirability of self and world. Gautama wanted to communicate the non-necessity of self and world, and so he was sympathetic to the unconventional language of the esoteric underground of materialistic realism, according to which the manifest self is not emanating from an internal soul and the world is not emanating from a Divine Cause. Both self and world are conditional, not Divinely Emanated, but unnecessary. This is the principal idea of Gautama. And on this basis he communicated his version of the Transcendental Way.

The original Buddhism of Gautama was free of the limitations of animism and Emanationism, but it was based on a problem-consciousness. Thus, his version of the Way is a progressive strategy of ultimate transcendence based on transforming the actions of the manifest self (in order to purify the self of bad karma, or negative future effects), until the desire to create more effects utterly ceases. Later versions of the Buddhist Way were attempts to avoid this limitation (which was based on the future transcendence or mechanical discontinuation of self rather than the present or inherent transcendence of self). Therefore later versions of the Buddhist Way developed more along the lines of metaphysical idealism―or a direct appeal to Realization of the Transcendental Reality (or the Inherent Condition) rather than to the progressive elimination of manifest conditional existence.

The later schools of Buddhism tended in a direction that bears many similarities to the basic tradition of Divine Emanation, or at least the idealism of direct appeal to the Transcendental Reality. In the process, the tradition of Buddhism adopted many features of culture and practice that characterize the first five stages of life as well as the sixth and the seventh stages of hfe, whereas the original formulation of Gautama was a strictly sixth stage practice that could, if successful, lead ultimately to the seventh stage disposition of Realized Enlightenment (which indeed it did in the case of Gautama).

The Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta is based upon the traditional Vedic concepts derived from the original animistic tradition. It is, therefore, founded on the basic idea of Divine Emanation. However, it views self and world to be unnecessary hence illusory, since all conditions are inherently Identical to (and, therefore, not separate from) the Divine or Transcendental Being, Self, Consciousness, Freedom, Happiness, Bliss, or Reality. The tradition of Advaita (or non-dualistic) Vedanta springs from the ancient Vedic culture and the schools of the Vedic Upanishads. But it is founded on an Intuition not at all different from that ultimately Realized by Gautama. It is the Realization of the Transcendental Reality, inherently transcending self and world (or conditional existence, in all its planes). Therefore, the ultimate Realization of Advaita Vedanta is no more attached to conceptions of necessity, soul, Creator God, Divine Emanation, or desire for this or any other world than is the ultimate Realization of Buddhism.

The only significant difference between the basic traditions of ultimate Realization according to the Vedic and the Buddhist (or non-Vedic) traditions is in the language of the Way toward Realization. The Upanishadic schools of Advaita Vedanta are the principal sixth to seventh stage schools of Vedic spiritual idealism. And the schools of Buddhism are the principal sixth to seventh stage schools of non-Vedic materialistic realism. But both traditions are oriented toward and originally based upon the same ultimate Transcendentalism.

It could even be said that both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta develop their Ways based on one of the two basic options of ultimate consideration. In the simplest sense, two principles coincide in every moment of human existence: the self and the not-self (or the world of objects). The Way of Advaitic idealism is based on the consideration of the Source, Identity, Nature, or Condition of the manifest self, prior to the apparent emanation of the conditional body-mind-self and the world. The Way of Buddhism takes the alternate route. It is disposed to consider and transcend the whole process of conditions, differences, or the total cause and effect world (which includes the body-mind-self as only one of its conditional features). If we embrace the Great Tradition as a whole, then the Vedic Advaitism and the tradition of Buddhism can be understood simply to be the two principal traditional limbs of the sixth and seventh stages of life. There is no possible conflict between them once they are rightly understood in this manner.

In my own time and place, my own Realization and Teaching have appeared spontaneously and with characteristic and unique features. But I can now see my own Way in the perspective of the Great Tradition. My Way is a radical Teaching that enters into consideration of all the stages of life and the entire Great Tradition of the ancients and their modern representatives. But the Way of the Heart is ultimately most radical―an expression of the Intuition that is fundamental to the seventh stage of life itself. Even so, I enjoy great sympathy with the sixth stage traditions of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, since they ultimately transcended themselves in the seventh stage Enlightenment. The Buddhist Way ultimately goes beyond its problem-based views and its search to strategically bring an end to the conditional or karmic self. Likewise, the Way of Advaita Vedanta ultimately goes beyond its subjectivism and its search to strategically dissociate consciousness from conditional objects. When rightly understood and embraced as the two primary limbs of the sixth to seventh stage schools (and even accommodating the schools of the first five stages of life) of one Great Tradition, Buddhism (as a whole) and Advaita Vedanta (as the epitome of the entire Vedic or Emanationist tradition) may be described as a single and heretofore unacknowledged tradition. That tradition is now made evident and whole by my own Teaching. My own Teaching is the epitome of and the historical basis for the acknowledgment of this tradition, and my own Teaching provides a new structure of understanding which unifies and fulfills that tradition as well as the total Great Tradition. Therefore, the Way of the Heart may be called "Advaitayana Buddhism" (or the ultimate, unified or all-inclusive, but also radical tradition of both the Vedic, or Emanationist, and the non-Vedic, or non-Emanationist, schools).

That Way of the Heart is a complete view that makes it possible to understand the unity of the Emanationist and non-Emanationist views. My own Teaching is the basis for the proclamation of this new "yana" (vehicle or Revelation) of Buddhism. Earlier Buddhist yanas have arisen in India, China, and Tibet. This new yana stands in positive relation to each of the earlier three yanas―Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana―as well as to the world-wide Emanationist tradition, epitomized in the Upanishadic Advaitism of such sages as Ashtavakra, Shankara, and Ramana Maharshi, and it has arisen in the West, in America, thus fulfilling many long-standing prophecies that a Dharma-Bearer would arise in the West to renew the ancient Way.

The Way of the Heart is also the epitome of the entire Great Tradition. The consideration of the Way of the Heart may at first be expressed via disciplines that encounter the limits, conventions, and absorptive meditations of the first five stages of life (but free of the subhuman limitations of conventional materialism). Even so, all of that is eventually gone beyond via the critical intelligence and insightful meditations that consider the characteristics of the sixth stage of life, and even that process is ultimately transcended in the radically intuitive Realization or meditation-transcending Samadhi of the seventh stage of life.

The Way of the Heart is, like the Buddhist Way, realistic, since it is, in its mature form, expressed via free insight into the limiting mechanics of the self rather than via any process of strategic inversion of attention upon the self-essence or of contemplative absorption of the attention of the egoic self in the Divine Spirit or the Transcendental Other. But the Way of the Heart is also, like the Way of Advaita Vedanta, openly oriented toward ultimate transcendence of self and not-self in the Transcendental Reality, Being, Self, or Consciousness. Therefore, the Way of the Heart does not bear an exclusive affinity to either Buddhism or Upanishadic Advaitism (or non-dualism), but it acknowledges both as its most congenial ancient likenesses, and it acknowledges the entire Great Tradition, in all times and places, in all of the stages of life, and in the person of all true Adepts, to be its inherited Tradition.

The Way of the Heart stands on its own merits, and it has arisen freely and spontaneously, without fixed deference to the point of view of any part of the traditions, and without the benefit or the hindrance represented by a significant previous cultural training in the philosophies and practices of the traditions. Even so, the total Great Tradition is the true tradition of all of mankind, and the Way of the Heart is a complete fulfillment of that Tradition as well as a radical point of view that rightly and critically understands and values that Tradition as a whole. Therefore, the Way of the Heart can be called Daist, or Radical Transcendentalism, or the Way of Radical Understanding, or the Way of Divine Ignorance, or the Way of Advaitayana Buddhism.


1. This term refers to the totality of mankind's religio-spiritual traditions, past and present.




[ NEXT ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya Pty Ltd., as trustee for The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya,
claims perpetual copyright to all photographs and the entire Written (and otherwise recorded)
Wisdom-Teaching of Avatar Adi Da Samraj and the Way of the Heart.
©1999 The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya Pty Ltd., as trustee for The Da Love-Ananda Samrajya.
All rights reserved.
Used in DAbase by permission.
note to the reader


页首
 用户资料  
 
显示帖子 :  排序  
发表新帖 回复这个主题  [ 2 篇帖子 ] 

当前时区为 UTC + 8 小时


在线用户

正在浏览此版面的用户:没有注册用户 和 1 位游客


不能 在这个版面发表主题
不能 在这个版面回复主题
不能 在这个版面编辑帖子
不能 在这个版面删除帖子
不能 在这个版面提交附件

查找:
前往 :  
cron
POWERED_BY
简体中文语系由 PHPBB中文翻译小组 维护制作