Contemplative Comparison: ACIM Reviews & Advaita Vedanta's Path to Realization

Contemplative Comparison: ACIM Reviews & Advaita Vedanta's Path to Realization

For students of A Course in Miracles, the Review sections are vital. They're not just about rote memorisation; they're an invitation to deepen our understanding and experience. This process bears a striking resemblance to the ancient Advaita Vedanta tradition's three-fold path to self-realization: Sravana, Manana, and Nididhyasana (commonly used in Shankara-based traditions).

Sravana (Listening/Hearing): In Advaita, this is the initial exposure to the sacred texts and teachings from a qualified teacher. In ACIM's Review Section 1, we are asked to review the previously learned ideas, often doing so slowly and thoughtfully. This is our "hearing" of the truth, often for the first time in a way that truly resonates.

Manana (Reflection/Contemplation): After hearing, Advaita emphasizes deep reflection and intellectual assimilation to remove doubts. Similarly, ACIM's Review encourages us to "think about" each idea, allowing it to "sink in" and challenging any resistance or confusion that may arise. It's about letting the mind wrestle with the concept until clarity emerges and intellectual conviction takes root.

Nididhyasana (Meditation/Abiding): This is the experiential phase in Advaita, where one meditates deeply on the truths, transcending intellectual understanding to direct realization. ACIM mirrors this perfectly by instructing us to "close your eyes and practice" the ideas, allowing them to settle into our experience. It's not enough to simply understand; we are invited to be with the truth, to abide in it, allowing it to transform our perception and ultimately, our reality.

Both traditions, though culturally distinct, point to the same fundamental process: a systematic journey from initial exposure to profound, liberating realization. The ACIM Review, like Sravana, Manana, and Nididhyasana, is designed to move us beyond mere intellectual assent to an experience of the truth, guiding us home to the peace that is our natural inheritance.

📖👂⛅

Does a 'perennial philosophy' actually exist?

Some comments by Michael James on the existence of a 'perennial philosophy':


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




2. The view that all views are one is due to lack of vivēka

F: I think my outlook is fundamentally Zen, but I still worship Bhagavan. I’m more open to a perennial philosophy, so I see it basically everywhere, despite the (apparently) diverse iterations. I think it’s everywhere.

M: Perennial philosophy of the type that Aldous Huxley wrote about is a huge generalisation, in which most non-materialist metaphysics can find a place, particularly (but not only) the more monistic or non-dualistic ones. Viewed superficially, there are many similarities [between the religious, spiritual and philosophical traditions of various cultures], as found by Huxley, but if one goes deeper there are also many significant differences.

Take vēdānta, for example, which Huxley considered to be the archetype of perennial philosophy. It is considered to be one view (darśana), but there are so many interpretations of it, dvaita, viśiṣṭādvaita and advaita, among which there are so many fundamental points of disagreement.

Even advaita is not a single view, because there are so many interpretations of it. Many professed advaitins, for example, do not accept dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda [the contention that perception is causally antecedent to creation (in other words, that creation is a consequence of perception), though they actually occur simultaneously, as in a dream], which according to what Bhagavan taught us is the cornerstone of advaita philosophy.

[My friend later suggested I was mistaken in writing this, because ‘Bhagavan’s teaching is ajata’, to which I replied: Though Bhagavan said that the ultimate truth is ajāta, he clarified that his actual teaching is only dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda (also known as vivarta vāda, the contention that everything [both the perceiver and the perceived] is just a false appearance), as you can see from verses 83 and 100 of Guru Vācaka Kōvai. Ajāta is not suitable for teaching, because in the state of ajāta there is no one in need of any teaching or to put any teaching into practice. Teaching is necessary only because we have risen as this ego (the perceiver) and consequently perceive the world (the phenomena perceived), so the most beneficial teaching is to say that all this is just a false appearance, which appears only in the view of the ego, so we should investigate the ego in order to see that it does not actually exist. Only by applying dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda in practice can we arrive at ajāta.]

Even among Bhagavan’s followers there are so many interpretations of his teachings.

If we want to see uniformity we cannot go deep into anything. If we want to go deep, we have to give up the idea that all views are one. In order to go deep in any spiritual path, particularly the path of jñāna [knowledge or awareness], vivēka (distinguishing differences and judging what is true or real) is absolutely essential.

When you say your outlook is fundamentally Zen, what do you mean by ‘Zen’? I do not know much about Zen, but I expect there are many different interpretations or understandings of it, as there are of advaita.

Therefore rather than just giving our view a label, we need to consider each point of difference and judge for ourself what is correct in each case. And we each have to consider whether our views on various points are consistent and coherent, which is something that is lacking in most people’s views, because they haven’t considered their views deeply or critically enough.

Habit & insight. Nididhyasana.

Post by James Swartz (according to Vedanta) on the notion of why insights into nonduality tend to be short-lived (due to habitual ignorance)- 

"NIDIDHYASANA:

Because the ideas that reality is dualistic, the manifest universe (i.e., apparent reality) is real, and that one is the limited person one appears to be are so deeply ingrained in one’s psyche, it takes time and effort to remove its stain. For this reason, one has to continuously dwell on the teachings of Vedanta and apply them to each and every thought, circumstance, encounter, interaction, event, and experience of one’s life. While self-realization may be a “one-off” in that there is a moment when you “see” who you really are, self-actualization (i.e., the full assimilation of that knowledge, which allows one to live as the limitless self within the context of the limited body-mind-sense complex inhabiting an apparent reality characterized by limitation) takes time to establish. This is the third phase known as nididhyasana." (ShiningWorld)

Points on Direct Path practice (self-inquiry)

• When you ask "what sees/feels this," as in "who am I?" or "who is the author of this experience?" you are practicing the quintessential "direct path" exercise. That question points to the direct apprehension that the knowing and that which is known are "not two." This is advaita, which is a Sanskrit word meaning..."not two." This is not vipassana, but a complete practice unto itself. You can become fully enlightened, as did Ramana Maharshi, by continued inquiry into "who am I?" Ramana insisted that no other technique was required. Of all the practices I have done, including a great deal of vipassana, "Who am I?" self-inquiry, as taught by Ramana is my favorite practice. I recommend doing it in conjunction with your other practices, as it has the power to completely disabuse you of the notion of a separate self. With this kind of practice, "the path is the goal." In other words, you are able to see what it is like to be enlightened, long before your development catches up with your momentary insight. (KF)

• The confusion arises when we try to evaluate one technology through the lens of another. Developmental technologies like vipassana begin with the assumption that you can strip away layers of delusion over a period of time, eventually arriving at the simplest thing. At that point you see clearly and are said to be enlightened. Interestingly, those who have mastered this approach point out that what they "found" was there all along but was obscured by delusion. The other major approach, the "realization" school, begins with that very understanding. If the simplest thing is already here, we can see it now. Their techniques are designed to cut through delusion in this moment, allowing even beginning yogis to see what is true. "What is true," or "the simplest thing" is prior to the arising of time. For that reason, development through time is either not emphasized in realization teachings or is explicitly refuted. It is thought that if you are obsessing about how enlightened you will be in the future you will be unable to see what is already true. (KF)

• Chinul called the developmental approach the "gradual awakening, gradual cultivation school," and the realization approach the "sudden awakening, gradual cultivation school." In both cases, he pointed out, cultivation is necessary. I know of very few people who teach that you can wake up in one moment and remain forever awake. If you listen carefully, even realization teachers are telling you to cultivate your realization through time. Instructions like "dwell as the watcher," "remain stable in the awareness," etc., are all ways of saying that there is still something to be done even after realization. Ramana Maharshi spent years meditating silently after his awakening. Eckhard Tolle sat on a park bench. Adyashanti had already meditated for years before his realization and continued to meditate afterward. (KF)

• Notice that both schools are present within Buddhism. The Tibetans, for example value and teach both systems side by side. There is no reason why any of us should feel attached to one school over the other. That would be just more dogmatic thinking. To understand the two schools, we must approach each through its own lens and stop trying to understand the timeless through the lens of time. (KF)

• The direct approach is not a subset of Hinayana. It has exactly nothing to do with vipassana or the three characteristics. It is the direct apprehension of reality, prior to the arising of your identity. Stop trying to shoehorn it into a concept that is comfortable for you. And, by all means, don't make a boogie man out of it. Just try it. (KF)

Self and Not-Self in both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

Excellent thoughts on the differences and similarities between Buddhist and Advaita doctrines of self, and not-self. Written by Colin Drake.

Links below:

advaita-academy.org - Articles - Atman and Anatta (1 of 3)
advaita-academy.org - Articles - Atman and Anatta (2 of 3)
advaita-academy.org - Articles - Atman and Anatta (3 of 3)