Can someone help copy paste the first post in this topic:
http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19628-three-kinds-of-spiritual-teachings/
Seth ananda is one of those in ttb forums that I helped
pointed/guided to an experiential realization of anatta. He
recently had a breakthrough insight and I am glad for him.
Here are some Ideas I have been toying with.
These musings are in part because I love the Interfaith movement,
and believe that understanding the base stances of the different
traditions can lead us towards understanding the nature, the
strengths and weaknesses of each tradition. These musings are
towards the Mystical aspects of traditions, not the exoteric seat
warmers who have words and belief only.
I am hoping to develop a 'Meta Paradigm' that is capable of
respecting, including and understanding all the paradigms within
it, giving practitioners of a particular tradition a door way to
Interact with people of other, seemingly antagonistic or
diametrically opposed traditions, in a healthy way.
What do you all think?
Now before I start, It should be fairly obvious that while some
traditions may just have one kind of teaching, Others may have
elements of two or even all three within its body of
knowledge.
Also I am not commenting on the conclusions different traditions
reach about their experiences but on the actual experiences
themselves which are 'Real' for the mystic.
So here goes. Object, Subject, and
Beyond.
'Object' Teachings:
These are any teachings about 'actual' things or any internal or
external phenomenal experience. Energetics, Intent and Magick, Most
Shamanism, Most Theistic traditions.
Any teaching that approaches the Divine as a 'Force' that can be
felt or related with, followed, intuited.
For Instance in Theistic Paths, one practices Intuiting the light
and presence of God, and attempts to constantly be connected to
that energetic presence. Through constant prayer and surrender ones
nature becomes more and more transformed into what one is focusing
on. The Theistic mystics are often Powerful healers who can
tangibly channel the light and perform 'miracles' on a regular
basis. Master Choi Cok Sui was a great recent example of this
path.
This Intense focus also brings around a Oneness experience that is
Non Dual in nature and Extremely powerful [fire works wise]
compared to the gentler Nondual states brought round by the
'Subject' teachings.
Shamanism, also has a grand tradition of entering into a deeply
connected, reciprocal relationship with the 'Felt' forces of
Nature, and also a powerful Devotion to the creative spirit/Light,
behind everything.
I Find it Interesting that these paths often actively encourage
'grasping' as a successful sadhana for attaining the union they
seek.
Also, for people who view through the lense of the 'Object'
teachings, divinity is nearly always seen/experienced as
Interactive or communicative or Intelligent in some way.
Any teachings about a Soul or Spirit as things that can be
experienced also fit in here.
These too are real experiences. Across many traditions, you find
detailed sets of teaching on the soul, as a minute point of golden
light/awareness that lives in the Heart center, in the right
ventricle of our actual heart, and is the 'Root' of our being. Many
years ago I had the privileged to spend 3 whole days as this point.
This experience made it very hard for me to accept 'No self'
initially, but It all fit together in the end. 
Astral projection, soul retrieval, and any similar phenomena
obviously fit here as well.
'Subject' Teachings:
Here we have a bunch of the Non Dual schools, and a bunch of
meditation systems.
These Traditions usually aim to Free the subjective element, Often
labeled 'Awareness'
from identification with all the 'Objects' or the content of
experience. One spends hours and hours looking for Awareness, until
one realizes that It can not be caught, experienced or observed in
any way. The only real thing we can say about it is that it
'experiences' things. So Awareness often gets labeled 'the
Self'.
Some of these traditions go a bit further and look to see that even
though awareness can not be pinned down, It also can not be
separated from what it is experiencing. Where is the line? Where
does awareness stop and the observed 'object' begin? This again
leads to oneness experiences, or Nonduality of subject and object,
Nonduality of Seer and seen.
Thus everything becomes the Self or Awareness.
This gives rise to a gentle but potent sense of Being and peace as
the foundation of everything.
An Interesting point to me, is that as these path's do not usually
treat Divinity or awareness as an 'object' within space and time,
they only usually experience Divinity as an Incredibly vast
Beingness and presence, without any Interactive element.
To me this suggests that the filters we view Divinity through,
seriously Impact the way we experience mystical states. I think it
is probably Impossible to prove that one View is more correct or
more right than any other view. Traditions have spent thousands of
years trying and still have not convinced each other.
What is true, is that each of these varying experiences is real to
the experiencer, and has profound life changing results, Not to
mention the Inner psychological revolution that they bring
about.
'Beyond' Teachings:
Now we get to the 'Beyond' part.
As far as I understand, Buddhism is the only tradition that has
most of its emphasis here. Buddha objected outright to any teaching
that makes a 'self' or 'Consciousness' into a permanent source or
unchanging core to our experience of our selves or our world.
To counter these 'false' teachings he gave the Teachings on
Emptiness and dependent origination, and Anatta, or No self.
Emptiness and Dependent Origination [E&DO] means that Nothing
in phenomenal existence, or awareness itself, has an Inherent self
existing nature.
In other words it is 'empty' of any form of ultimate reality.
Obviously things exist still but only in a relative manner. Things
exist only as a result of countless other conditions that pooled
together bring about our present conditions.
The same goes for our 'self'. Buddha contended that there is no
self, not in any ultimate fixed or eternally unchanging sense. Even
awareness is seen as being tied within the cycle of suffering and
is one of the aggregates. To counter Awareness teachings that claim
Awareness is 'One' thing he pointed out that if one looks closely,
one see's that there are 6 different awareness's. Visual, aural,
touch, smell, taste, and mental {which includes emotions and
psychic phenomena}
To Buddha, if you said 'I am awareness' [even if it was true] That
would cause a deep subtle area within your mind to grasp or cling
to that as a concept.
Grasping is never good In Buddhism. It is a subtle stress, and It
causes us to start creating a false sense of self that needs to be
protected and defended, and which then ties us back into the cycle
of suffering.
So in Buddhism one slowly gives up all claims of being anything,
and relinquishes all belief in anything being anything other than
relatively real.
As all that attachment dissipates, One finds oneself absolutely
Free and clear, no clinging, no grasping and the world holds Zero
power over you any more.
Its kind of like a neat side step out of everything, into freedom.
Amazing.
So the Buddhist Enlightenment is a realization about the nature of
experience, and is not the Attainment of some 'existing' state, as
is enlightenment in 'Object' and 'Subject' schools.
Non duality in Buddhism it should be noted, is also not the Oneness
of 'seer and seen'
which gets called the Nonduality of extremes {the extremes being
'seer and seen'} but is actually better stated as a middle way
{between the extremes of seer and seen} non duality where there is
just arising experience.
Zen Master Dogen put it along the lines of "Seeing, no seer.
Thinking, no thinker..."
Kabbalah has some 'Beyond' teachings and so do some Sufi sects, but
I am not familiar enough to do them any justice here.
So those are my three Divisions. They are obviously arbitrary, but
does anyone find them useful? I actually think all these ways of
viewing have merit, and have no particularly strong bias towards
one over the others. I do also obviously Love the 'beyond'
teachings, and have found that for myself they set a fantastic
context for exploring 'Object' and 'subject' teachings. I have no
problem for Instance entering deep communion with the universe in
an Interactive manner [object style] through prayer and Intuitive
focus, To allow the light to move through me, [this is deeply
beneficial to me and my system] but I have no problem understanding
that while spirit is always there it is also Dependently
originated.
In the past I would experience the 'Self' or Oneness, and that
would be fantastic, but some part of me would cling to it.
Eventually the state would pass, the bliss would subside, and I
would be left in depression wanting it back. Now Thanks to 'Beyond'
teachings I do not hang on to such states or bliss. They are free
to come and go, without me having a need to make them 'mine' {or Me
lol}.
Seth Ananda.
By the way, which specific
schools of thought or religions would fall under the heading of
'Subject Teaching’?