Da Articles


Da Books
Da Audio




Chapter 24

The Four Yanas of Buddhism

AVATAR ADI DA SAMRAJ: The possibility of going deeper is
what the traditions of internal creativity and sacred
activity are about-all the traditions of internal processes,
the whole tradition of meditation and so forth, Samadhi,
religion (therefore), and Spirituality and culture
altogether. The positive cultural endeavor and social
endeavor of human beings is not only associated with the
three states (waking, dreaming and sleeping) but with modes
of endeavor with which, or in which, everyone basically
participates but some specialize in it, or do it more
profoundly or more consistently or whatever.

Some, like artists of various kinds, specialize in
associating with the waking and dreaming modes creatively.
There are all kinds of human creativity that are associated
with going deeper in the modes of mind and feeling and
psyche, combining it with their examination of waking
phenomena otherwise, and all the realism of mortality.

Some who are religious, of course, also go beyond the
exoteric and social modes and so forth, go deeper than that,
and enter into the domain of mysticism and such, and inner
perceptual phenomena, including visions, and so on, in the
modes of the fourth and fifth stages of life.

Others in the domain of religion, Spirituality,
philosophy applied, exercise themselves profoundly relative
to a depth greater than the planes of mind, or deeper than
the planes of mind. Their exercises in depth extend into the
domain of the sixth stage of life, the domain prior to mind
and perception. Some meditate on that as a kind of end in
itself. It is their taking of the in-depth position, as deep
as it gets, the deep-sleep degree, and using it as a means
to escape the waking and dreaming world of changes. They
enter into the objectless mode of egoity.

In the Buddhist tradition, there are those who are called
“arhats”-those who, as is usually said, pursue liberation
for themselves and then achieve it. It is the liberation
that is experienced by attending to the depth rather than
what is less than the depth, and essentially retiring there,
as the fulfillment of the self-effort, ego-effort, of
seeking for release. It is that liberation which is realized
upon entrance into the egoic domain of deep sleep-bare
attention without subtle or gross objects, but nonetheless
self-enclosed, self-aware, and excluding subtle and gross
phenomena, by an act of will, inner tension.

Beyond that, it is possible to enter into the domain that
is beyond deep sleep, beyond the unit of attention, the
self-contraction in its causal mode. And those who enter
into that greater depth may become firmly established thus,
and then, in association with the waking-state associations,
their expression, their Teaching (presuming they Teach) is
in the mode of sixth stage “Sahaj Samadhi”, or, otherwise,
as demonstrated in the various modes of Mahayana Buddhist




(7) RODNEY GRISSO: Beloved, You were talking about the
arhats. Is there a hierarchical relationship between them
and the bodhisattvas?




(8) AVATAR ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, “arhat” is a term
associated with what is called “Hinayana Buddhism”, or “the
Pali tradition”, or “Theravada Buddhism”. There the
individual follows instruction, based on a search to be free
from suffering, and eventually achieves that. There is no
criticism of that within the Hinayana (or Theravada)
Buddhist tradition.




(9) In the Mahayana tradition, so called, you get the
language of rivalry about this-a different kind of idealism,
more readily associated with social-personality purposes for
one thing, social religiosity and so on, more amenable to it
than the more “monkish” and “nunnish” Hinayana tradition. So
its associated with some idealistic presumptions and so
forth that were not emphasized perhaps as much in the
Hinayana (Theravada) tradition.




(10) Other modes of philosophy or modes of meditation and
Realization are also associated with the Mahayana tradition,
in which there are many schools, of course. There are three
yanas among the historical Buddhist traditions. There is
Hinayana (or Theravada), and there is Mahayana, and there is
Vajrayana (or Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, in which there are
many schools as well). And now there is Advaitayana
Buddhism, or Ruchira Buddhism-the Way that I have Revealed
and Given.




(11) The bodhisattva is the idealized Realizer in the
general Mahayana tradition. The arhat is, generally
speaking, the idealized Realizer in the Hinayana tradition.
So, from the point of the view of the Mahayana, of
course-speaking argumentatively-the arhat ideal is not good




(12) BEN FUGITT: Because he should do something social to
save people?




(13) AVATAR ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. The general popularity of
the bodhisattva is that he or she forestalls Enlightenment
in order to work for the salvation of all beings-an
altruistic point of view, as I said, more amenable to all
the modes also of popular religiosity and social
religiosity, more so than the more monastic tradition of the
Hinayana (although its not exclusively monastic, either-its
history has associated with the lay community as well).




(14) In the Mahayana tradition, a somewhat different
point of view, generally speaking, is found. The Zen
tradition, for instance, is within that Mahayana tradition.
The point of view of the philosophy associated with
meditation and Enlightenment is often, generally speaking,
quite different than that in the Hinayana tradition.
Buddhism, in general, is a tradition thats about the
transcendence of suffering, but there is in the Mahayana
tradition-philosophically, at any rate-less of an emphasis
on the examination of suffering and going beyond suffering,
and instead theres an examination of Reality Itself and a
“consideration” of the modes of mind and so forth that are
used as a basis for your presumptions about reality.




(15) Theres an expression in the Mahayana tradition,
“naive realism”, thats used to criticize the Hinayana
tradition, which is expressed, at any rate, in the very
ordinary daily-life realism sense: “Every thing is
unsatisfactory ultimately. There is no ultimate
satisfaction. Every thing is changing. Any thing that you
can call your self is a form of conditional arising. Its not
a separate entity. Its part of a flow of changes.” Its
looking deeply at “everyday” (so to speak) experience, or
experience as it is conventionally presumed to be being
experienced by a physically based human.




(16) The Mahayana tradition-speaking of its serious
philosophical dimension and so on-doesnt merely take that
daily point of view. It, in fact, examines that daily point
of view. Much of the process of the Teaching and the
meditation and practice and so forth is about just this
examination of presumptions about Reality. In that process
of philosophical “consideration”, the point of view that is
associated with Hinayana Buddhism is criticized, described
in such terms as “naive realism”-“naive” meaning “not very
profound”. Rather than emphasizing the nature of bodily
based human experience as being suffering and changing and
so forth, there is instead the practice of in-depth
techniques of abstraction, internalizing, internalized
abstraction or depth-inwardness, and so forth. There are
various kinds of practices you see in the Zen tradition as
an example, and so on.




(17) Then there is the Vajrayana (or Tantric) tradition
of (generally speaking) Tibet. And if the Hinayana is, in
some sense, associated with something of an ordinary realism
of the first three stages of life (while also being
ultimately impulsed to the sixth stage of life), and the
Mahayana is more associated with the sixth stage
“consideration”, the Vajrayana tradition adds to this the
kind of middle term of advanced fourth stage and fifth stage
processes. Mahayana also adds a certain fourth stage
dimension to the Buddhist tradition in its own fashion.




(18) Thus, if you look at all of the yanas within the
Buddhist tradition, the three historical yanas previous to
My Revelation of Advaitayana Buddhism cover the span of the
first six stages of life, generally speaking. I could point
you to the various elements of the Buddhist tradition
corresponding to different stages of life and so on, and you
could see it as an entire tradition. Not that it was
anywhere practiced as a whole, or everywhere practiced as a
whole, anyway-some places emphasized one or the other of the
three yanas and, therefore, the stages of life associated
with them and so on.




(19) Similarly, then, Advaitayana Buddhism, or the Way of
the Heart, or Ruchira Buddhism, is the single Way that
covers all of the stages of life, but not limited to the
first six. The Way of the Heart, rather, includes all seven
of the stages of life, the seventh being not merely a
progression on the first six but specifically being the
transcendence of each and all of the first six. This Way of
Advaitayana Buddhism is a practice, a Way, that transcends
the inherent limitations in each of the stages of life as
the sadhana continues, and, likewise and directly,
transcends the root-condition, or act, which is egoity
itself, or the very one that would otherwise “develop” or
“evolve”, so to speak, through the six stages of life.




(20) The process of the Way of the Heart is fundamentally
the process in depth. And, all throughout the Great
Tradition, that is the principle that is “taken advantage
of”, so to speak. It is the Law, the unique principle in the
midst of conditional experiencing-the fact that there is a
depth, and it is there in every present moment, to be
entered into as you like. You can live in such a fashion
that you cultivate that capability that is sadhana or the
religious and Spiritual life because there is this
depth-this whole vast domain, deeper than ordinary waking
awareness, which is there to be explored, or (otherwise)
examined and gone beyond, as in the Way of the Heart. And
this depth is always there, no matter what realm,
experience, condition, or whatever, of pain or pleasure or
any mode at all of experiencing, waking, or dreaming, or
(ultimately) even sleeping. There is a greater depth, and
that is the Way of the Heart. That is the Heart.




(21) To enter into the depth is always the option.
Mankind, as well as the non-humans, has been exploring this
for uncountable generations. There have always been people
and schools and ashrams, groups, whatever, wherever, in
whatever culture, who have persisted in this process. There
are many traditions for it. They seem to contradict one
another in various ways because theyre all local to some
then-known universe of associations. When any local
tradition gets in conjunction with some other tradition it
grew up without, that wasnt associated with it before, each
of them has an integrity as a body of wisdom-communications,
but they dont seem to fit, so they get into conflict and
struggle with one another, each claiming to be the one.
Neither one of them is the one-only the One is the one.




(22) Whatever you brought out of your jungle, somebody
else brought something else out of their bit of the jungle.
The traditions are reflections of the “considerations” of
people in the past. However reliably or unreliably
transmitted through time, thats what they reflect.




(23) In every generation there are many who examine this
capability and mystery that is depth . Now, the human
gathering of traditions going on for all so long has shown
itself as a pattern of six stages of life and Realization,
and I have proven this to you in The Basket of Tolerance by
gathering books reflecting all of those traditions and
showing you how it is so and what that is based on, what the
structure of the human being and of psycho-physical
experience is, and so on. And thats how come there are those
six stages. Theyre all based on the psycho-physical pattern
of progressively deepening experience, waking to dreaming to
sleeping, and then beyond.




(24) These experiences, experiments, reflected in the
history of human cultures, even separate from one another,
are still demonstrating the same fundamental categories of
“consideration” and development, because the structure, the
psycho-physical structure, of the human being is the same in
people, even though they do not associate with one another
historically (for a long period of time, at any rate), and
then come to meet somewhere down the line.




(25) Why are there the similarities? Because the same
structure is there.




(26) And why must the differences be overcome? Because
theres only one structure there.



<< Previous Section Next Section >>





© The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam Pty Ltd, as
trustee for The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam.

All rights reserved. Perpetual copyright claimed.