Aziz (Anadi) Kristof

"(Here's another lurching-out moment: I was involved with/a serious student of [in a wallflower-ish sort of way, which kept me fairly 'safe' in that dangerous environment] Bubba/Da Free John/Adi Da from 1975-1981.) So I have a much more extensive analysis of his 'school' than can possibly be useful."-roomy

Thanks for the eye-witness account, Kate. Fascinating! We're fortunate to have both you and Gozen to shed some light on the Adi Da enigma.

Kenneth

Kate: Thanks so much for the first hand info! This is an important topic. I'd love to hear more from you and Gozen about this. I am indebted to Adi Da's writings for making some things clear to me (and for what I've taken to be a powerful transmission) but even without having read any of the gossip I see problems with his teaching.
Specifically I think the leading edge of post-Axial spirituality is pointing towards a (stage)7 + rather than Adi Da's 7 - with its emphasis on "outshining". Honestly that just seems like another "cosmic suicide club" trip. What I want to know is what the hell's wrong with mystery! Why can't non-dual awakening really embrace the full limits of ordinary human body, speech and mind? We really need a teaching that's free of these dualistic cosmologies, coercive institutions (redundant phrase actually), and fall/redemption soteriology. It seems just as likely to me that we primordial buddhas leapt into this dimension as fell into it. Why did we do that? There's no mystery in the Dharmakaya or Sambogakhaya, nor compassion-at least as we'd understand it. It's one thing to be a Buddha in a dimension of completely transparent openness or perfectly translucent mandalic bliss and another to be one down here in the mysterious world of communication, learning and error amidst seemingly opaque phenomena.
Do (any of) you have any experience or familiarity with Saniel Bonder's Waking Down in Mutuality teaching? He is an Adi Da exile whose awakening didn't fit with that community. I haven't heard much real-world stuff about him but his teaching as I've read it is perhaps the closest thing to what I have in mind by "post-Axial" spirituality. Specifically his analysis of hyperfeminine (pre-Axial) and hypermasculine (Axial) dharma seems really important.

Kenneth:
Nice commentary. I know that people use words differently but I must say, when they go and change the way a word is used they should say that and why they're doing so. When this happens haphazardly I have to squint and stroke my non-existent beard thoughtfully.
There's actually a tradition in the West of doing this purposefully with words; it's called Philosophy. When Plato, for example, used the word Idea to point to an intelligible essence of a thing, the word in common usage meant the perceptible appearance-- i.e., the exact opposite! Likewise at the beginning of modernity with Subject and Object, phrases we take so for granted in our thinking about everything, including Enlightenment. In pre-modern usage a "subject" was a thing or topic and an "object" was a fantasy. Why those meanings became inverted was absolutely not an accident. Not understanding the transformation that occurred there makes especially difficult these sorts of conversations since the subtle conceptual framework of all modern languages is programmed with these patterns, just as medievals were forced to conceptualize in terms of the creator/created schema.
How is this relevant to our discussion? Well, I know that Philosophy is frowned upon in spiritual circles. Many of us started out reading "philosophy" and went from there to "eastern philosophy", perhaps via "existentialism", before landing in an actual contemplative practice. We found western philosophy to be dry, hyperintellectual, and very dualistic. We found the existentialists more grounded in actual experience, perhaps, but somewhat nihilistic. And finally, the actual living traditions of Eastern spirituality offered a first hand path to greater peace, well being and compassion.

But the fact that this movement seems to occur in nearly every case in a profoundly superficial way with regard to the Western tradition and its meaning for modernity, regardless of the depth of one's eventual practice, means that most practitioners like most regular folks have no idea what's going on in Philosophy and thus no idea what's going on in the act of translating Dharma for modern and post-modern Westerners!
My conviction daily grows that without a deep understanding of how we've come to this point in our history as Westerners our attempts to translate Dharma in a comprehensively approachable way will be severely hampered.
In other words, it's not just how western teachers mis-use eastern words. It's also how they approach their modern languages as such. They're trying to transmit medieval eastern Dharmas to increasingly post-modern "Westerners" (of all continents and ethnic groups) via languages that are programmed with modern metaphysics. That's three metaphysical schemas with their attendant institutional structures and psycho-developmental norms in subliminal conflict! Of course the whole thing is confusing.

Add to that the fact that physioenergetic development, recognition of the Witness and of Rigpa can all occur deeply without any understanding on the Yogi's part of these hidden dynamics and you have the problem in a nutshell.
Why does this matter? Because were these dynamics understood and addressed skillfully a lot more people would find Dharma approachable. Also, the formation of cutting edge communities would be greatly facilitated as well as the general relevance of Dharma to mainstream society.
So including all three modes of practice and realization really opens this up to people who are more receptive to one level than another, and teachers like Kenneth are doing that. If I had a dollar for every Q&A with Advaitin teachers I've heard where a sincere student is verbally bludgeoned with their own non-existence-- seriously! It's painful to listen to this kind of idiotic and unneccessary failure of compassion.
But the VAST majority of "normal" people will still not give us the time of day even if we talk about all three modes (and more!)-- and this is due to our not understanding the sociological and metaphysical problems pointed to above. People who are committed to the metaphysics of pre-modernity, post-modernity or modernity simply don't understand the other groups so if a teacher is committed to one of these systems (and remember, this commitment is inculcated sociologically; it is not addressed by psychological, physio-energetic or spiritual development) they are limiting their ability to communicate severely.
Because while transmitting the Dharma from realizer to realizer is essential, at this juncture in history we really need to forge a world in which the "mainstream", practitioners and realizers have real institutional connections and mutual respect. Without this overlap it looks like we'll all be pulled over the edge by the crowd! It's really that serious.

Clearly, I'm being coaxed out of the woodwork, will-I, nill-I. I feel woefully underqualified to participate in this erudite and penetrating consideration, except for the fluke fact that I have 'been there' in some of the obscure places that are being mentioned: e.g.-- Saniel Bonder.

I left Adidam 10+ years before he did; in that context, Saniel was a significant player; I was one of the 'crowd artistes'. When I saw his advert in the local freebie New Age rag, I dismissed it as 'Lord, Saniel has gone off and founded a schismatic sect!' But awhile later, I got curious enough to order his book and give it a look. Some of what he said addressed irksome parts of the Adi Da dharma; that seemed promising, so I went off to one of their meditations, weekend teachings, a greased-pig trajectory to "Awakening" on track to become a teacher of his process...

But I found myself troubled by an increasing number of things: that a lot of the small-group process engaged in was essentially unlicensed, unqualified and potentially disastrous psychotherapy. And Saniel and his wife founded an offshoot called 'Matter Magic" which seemed even more questionable to me. So I aborted the mission I'd been on for +/- two years, and started digging into selected classics. Largely (but not entirely) Buddhism, weighted toward Dzogchen, and then some Zen; most recently, that part of the Theravadin tradition that deals with Jnanas.

My excursion into Waking Down was useful in some ways, and even my own initial naivete helped move me out of stasis, so I don't regret the trip. But the level of discourse going on here is light years ahead of anything I heard there (8 years ago, so maybe things have developed, but be advised...)

Kate! Thank you!
I have really been looking forward to encountering someone with some first hand experience of Adi Da and Waking Down. One thing I find disturbing about institutions is their basically coercive nature. In other words, you've got to be context appropriate-- talk the talk, so to speak! It's annoying enough having full human uniqueness and mystery eclipsed and compartmentalized and controlled and regulated at work, school , and the DMV. But the astounding prevalence of these same factors in spiritual communities is just damn heartbreaking. The fact that institutions (of language, roles, rules, etc-- not just "organizations") *are* inherently coercive is no excuse. This is where a "transpersonal sociology" may do us far more good, in the 21st century, than TP Psych ever did for us in the 20th-- the affirmation that *socialization* can be emancipatory (as opposed to coercive) if it is inculcating the capacity for critical thinking, feeling, sensing, imagination and dialogue about group dynamics and social processes and the courage to enact holistic change. The fact that such emancipatory socialization must take place in the context of institutions (which are by definition perpetuated via coercive socialization-- i.e., adopt these norms or you're out!) is actually the source for the creativity of emancipatory socialization. I'm still open to the possibility that someone is really doing this out there, maybe even Saniel et. al., but I'm disappointed to hear of pseudo-therapeutic gobbldeygook. Perhaps it would hearten you to know that apparently now they recommend participants have a licensed therapist outside the community-- at least, that's my impression.
---Jake

Our exchange here suggests a related tangent thread-- what to look for/look out for in evaluating teachers and schools. As you can see, I have perforce had to do a lot of thinking about these things over the years. And I imagine there are others in this forum who have more experience and wisdom than I do... Anyone out there game?

I was thinking along similar lines! We just need to come up with a name and start it...

Just FYI, Anadi's teaching is not a synthesis of zen and advaita. While if one has to deconstruct (and objectify some of the common ground) the teaching, one could say it has elements of zen, advaita, and sufism, but it is an independent teaching in itself that is not an amalgamation of anything. The terminology is its own and the teaching is far more comprehensive than just the 3 states.

just a response to your writings on anadi's teachings. I find your teaching quite interesting. However, there is much to be said about the realization of the absolute, while nothing can be said about the absolute itself.
The absolute state is not just the cessation of consciousness. This is what anadi thought himself when he was in the state of presence. He was able to sensitively isolate the experience (non experience) that is before each instant that the energy of consciousness awakens. When the mind has shut down in meditative absorption, this experience just prior to each moment of presence is what he thought was the absolute.Then he later received guidance on shifting to the absolute. It is a very extreme state and not common in many paths, and not easy at all to reach - not even the karma of most to reach. You speak about the great death somewhere, that is probably talking about the absolute, however some of the things you write about could apply simply to deep attitudes of emptiness, or the recognition of the non-experience prior to each awakening of consciousness. The shift to the absolute and stabilization in it sucks all the energy out into the unmanifested. It is like there is a void in the hara that is pulling immensely all your life, energy, into itself. One attains unity with the source but cannot relate properly to the manifested. . the integrated experience of the absolute allows only the appropriate amount of life force or kundalini to function - and that is after it adjusts. It is not possible to have kundalini experiences and have energy experiences and relative experiences after the stabilization and integration. To stabilize means one's energy is fully beyond, only the minimal functioning lifeforce remains. This is why anadi says and I agree, masters such as ramana did not realize the absolute, they experienced alot of energy when abiding and such, which is impossible if one has integrated with the absolute.

Gosh, whenever I encounter comments that have so much jargon in them I start to wonder. In my limited experience the more realization that exists the simpler the communication. And please don't take offense. I can be wrong, I am wrong, on a regular basis. It's just that there is so much stuff in your comment (#35) that I just can't grok it. Is there a simpler explanation for limited minds like mine?

PRESENCE

To understand Anadi, one first needs to be familiar with Nisargadatta Maharaj.

It is in fact very simple. I can doubt anything, but I cannot doubt the fact that "I am". To doubt I need to be present and aware. Therefore, I exist. I am present. I am aware. This is my first experience. When we wake up every morning. Awareness is born from deep sleep. I AM is born.

The only method thought by Nisargadatta is to recognize this presence-awareness as our natural state. The fact that we are that and that everything is present within awareness. He calls that the I AM or the feeling of existence. Ramana Maharishi called it the "I-thought" or ahamvritti.

To be aware of our existence is the state of presence or witness state.

ABSOLUTE

Then what about the Absolute state. The absolute stands for Turyatitta, the Beyond, this pure knowing prior to consciousness. This pure being or pure knowing that we first identified with our the knowing of the fact that we are present and aware stands beyond the three states (deep sleep, dreaming, waking). Everything including the coming and going of consciousness is cognized by That.

And this is what we are right now. During deep sleep consciousness shuts down, but existence is still present. Did we experience thoughts during deep sleep? No. How do we know? Pure being-awareness was aware of the absence of thoughts (without memory and therefore without the feeling of the passing of time).

It is not a super special state to reach after years of intense work, it is what we are right now.
Every morning, if we pay attention to it, we can see how consciousness arises from the blankness of deep sleep. That which cognizes the birth of consciousness, That which cognizes the coming and going of consciousness is our true Self according to Advaita Vedanta. It is the Absolute (Parabrahma)

Anadi put it into a practice, diving it into stages based on his experience with Soen Sahn and Harada Roshi.

Nisargadatta pointed directly to it. Some got it on the spot, even if they too years to investigate the implications of these pointers to reach certainty.

"PRESENCE

To understand Anadi, one first needs to be familiar with Nisargadatta Maharaj.

It is in fact very simple. I can doubt anything, but I cannot doubt the fact that "I am". To doubt I need to be present and aware. Therefore, I exist. I am present. I am aware. This is my first experience. When we wake up every morning. Awareness is born from deep sleep. I AM is born.

The only method thought by Nisargadatta is to recognize this presence-awareness as our natural state. The fact that we are that and that everything is present within awareness. He calls that the I AM or the feeling of existence. Ramana Maharishi called it the "I-thought" or ahamvritti.

To be aware of our existence is the state of presence or witness state.


"

ME is born, ME recognizes that it exists, the sense of self prior to psychological reality but identified with it in unconsciousness, wakes up every morning. It is the natural state of existence, before the consciousness that was identified with this limited, functional self recognizes itself - the transcendent consciousness, pure subjective self that is beyond function. This I AM needs to be born. consciousness needs to pull itself back from its mental reality and recognize that it exists as an alive consciousness prior to this limited consciousness. One can feels ones body and feel one exists, this is not the original consciousness. There is not just one I, but many, an I in the functional Me, the original I in the mind - pure consciousness, the I in the heart - the essence of the soul. To be aware of existence has many levels, to be aware of our physical existence - to be aware of phenomenal existence and reality is a function of the functional self, this is not the witness state, this is the observer - the functional self having a witnessing attitude.

"ABSOLUTE

Then what about the Absolute state. The absolute stands for Turyatitta, the Beyond, this pure knowing prior to consciousness. This pure being or pure knowing that we first identified with our the knowing of the fact that we are present and aware stands beyond the three states (deep sleep, dreaming, waking). Everything including the coming and going of consciousness is cognized by That.

And this is what we are right now. During deep sleep consciousness shuts down, but existence is still present. Did we experience thoughts during deep sleep? No. How do we know? Pure being-awareness was aware of the absence of thoughts (without memory and therefore without the feeling of the passing of time).

It is not a super special state to reach after years of intense work, it is what we are right now.
Every morning, if we pay attention to it, we can see how consciousness arises from the blankness of deep sleep. That which cognizes the birth of consciousness, That which cognizes the coming and going of consciousness is our true Self according to Advaita Vedanta. It is the Absolute (Parabrahma)

Anadi put it into a practice, diving it into stages based on his experience with Soen Sahn and Harada Roshi.

Nisargadatta pointed directly to it. Some got it on the spot, even if they too years to investigate the implications of these pointers to reach certainty.
"

if it is recognized by that, why is it not spontaneously recognized by that at all times, recognized by that in all beings? We know that we experience no dreams not by the recognition of no-dream but by the absence of the recollection of dreams. this is not the same. If it is what one is right now, how is it that beings are lost in something else? IF they were always THAT, how did they get lost in THIS? How could the original parabrahma get lost? That which recognizes the awakening is the consciousness that awakens in itself, in the brain.

Someone would like to write a book to try to answer all these questions. Yet, it is rather simple if we take the time to investigate these basic pointers.

The basic principle of Advaita is that THAT is not a thing nor an object, yet is it aware. It it pure knowing but cannot know itself as the absolute. It can only be the absolute. Like the sun in empty space cannot see its own light unless it is reflected by an object.

The know itself, it need to create a first ripple within itself that it can take as a object. This first object is being. Then consciousness arises. Within consciousness the body (and its brain) and the mind appear as objects in a world of objects.

THAT is now identified with body and mind. It knows itself (through its objects) and forgets itself. The mind gives birth to thoughts. Together with memory, feelings, perceptions, etc. they create the illusion of a separate self located within the brain or in the heart, like a consciousness locked within a brain of a material body located in a physical world. In Buddhist terms, we could say that the pure Citta gets identified with the 5 aggregates -> welcome in samsara.

Now the Advaita teachers say that we are THAT right know, but we are identified with body and mind and therefore live in ignorance of our true nature.

Of course these teachings are only pointers that are made to self destruct when the have done their job.

The core message is always that the seeker is the sought. It is not a matter of gaining new experiences, but only to see for ourselves that we have always been the unborn experiencer of deep sleep, dreams and wakfulness.

Let's say that this is their hypothesis. It can be false, but from the point of view of the natural state, we can clearly see that all arguments to deny the actuality of awareness are thoughts, namely vibrating awareness within awareness.

"Anadi put it into a practice, diving it into stages based on his experience with Soen Sahn and Harada Roshi."

Would that be Shodo Harada Roshi?

indeed, but what is that point as which it recognizes itself from its personalized manifestation, to experience its impersonal truth? That point is YOU! not your egoic self, but your soul, the essence of your individuality, felt clearly as pure consciousness combined with the essence in the heart. further, this model does not explain why if it awakens to itself in one body, why it doesn't awaken to itself in all bodies simultaneously. and who is it that develops through all these stages, to recognize the self after lifetimes of ignorance? It is something individual, not just an illusion - an illusion cannot work towards awakening, and the impersonal allness cannot do 'work' or it implies individuation. it is YOU, the soul. Of course there is the natural state of consciousness - natural in that it is not something outside of ones true nature and is not something special, but the state is not already present. It has to be awoken - the state is eternal and knows itself the minute it awakens - recollects itself - it is a primordial state not something we cultivate in terms of its immediate perfection, but the the state is an energy phenomenon in the brain that needs to keep being recollected to be present all the time. It is not present prior to awakening, and when present, it is an already natural state. Certainly, the seeker is the sought, all experiences are in the world of illusions, but pure consciousness is not an experience outside of the experiencer - it is the only experience where the experience is the experiencer. And certainly, it is not something new in its essence - it is primordial and already perfect and natural - but within the individual existence, it has to be awoken, it is not present prior to its self recognition.

Call me a curmudgeon, but this is just too much for me. Too many words with too many meanings. Sorry.

Peace.

"
Call me a curmudgeon, but this is just too much for me. Too many words with too many meanings. Sorry.

Peace.

"

yes, there would be much fewer words if an evolved of awakening was the only understanding in the human dimension, but there are too many now, and so many different concepts in different traditions, that when discussing them and comparing them there is just so much jargon. The essence of truth remains wordless, but there are words to point - for the seeker that is mature enough to use the words to get where he needs to then drop them as he enters the gate - and many other words to contrast, compare with other words from other traditions.

Words are not a problem if one is mature enough to retain the essence beyond words. theyre only an issue if one keeps getting caught up in them and not what they are pointing to.

As I said, I'm sure the problem is mine.

@Nitaant,
Exactly, words are only pointers, but the menu is not the meal.
BTW, Advaita Vedanta and Yogachara do answer these complicated issues (why we wake up in the same body). It is just that my intention is not to preach Advaita but to explain that what Anadi calls the Beyond is a translation of Turyatitta, namely the absolute state that transcends deep sleep, dreaming and waking. This state is prior to consciousness. Consciousness comes and goes within IT. It is very difficult to reach it at will through meditation, but Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj consider that we can see it briefly during the quick transition between deep sleep and waking. They are right as far as I can tell.

Now the state of presence is to realize that we are present and aware right now and that all thoughts and appearances take place within awareness. This is very simple and easy. Sure their might be a real world behind appearances, but we cannot know it as such. Everything that we feel or experience takes place within our awareness. Kant explained is very well. Centuries earlier Asanga and Vasubandhu said the same thing, pushing Abhidhamma epistemology to its natural conclusion.

"Would that be Shodo Harada Roshi?"

@Jackson

Yes, from Anadi's autobiography in "Human Buddha", he established the state of presence in Korea with Soen Sahn. Then in Japan he practiced in Soto temples (Antaiji) as well as with Hara Roshi, the student of the famous Yamada Roshi (Rinzai, Myoshinji branch). Harada's main method is to concentrate on the Hara which lead Anadi to the state of Being and then to the Absolute or the Beyond.

The state pf presence is pretty much what Kenneth calls the witness. Suddenly, the sense of a separate self might vanish, leading to non-dual awareness. This is what Anadi calls awakening to awareness. What Anadi calls the Beyond is much closer to cessation, but a seed of awareness is still present. As mentioned in the above post, Advaita Vedanta teachers state that we experience it briefly every morning during the transition between deep sleep and waking consciousness. This is also what the Tibetans call the mother Clearlight.

That is why Kenneth is so valuable to me. Kenneth has repaced then thousand words with a hundred words, or maybe ten.

Edited for spelling.