I get tired of it as well.
I think the divide between experience and philosophy can be very huge.
For Instance two Philosophies can 'talk' about a set of real world 'experiences' that are actually very close to each other, but with all the words can start to make them sound like they are worlds apart.
In terms of non-dual experience, may be similar. But the view of inherency is what causes clinging and this makes a major difference. It is not just 'intellectual views', but whether there is the true realization of right view (i.e. anatta and emptiness) in actual experience which dissolves all latent view of self and inherency and source. Therefore dissolving bond of duality does not mean dissolving bond of inherency... and bond of duality is just a subset of bond of inherency.
There cannot be liberation when there is still clinging, even to a Self or a Source. Therefore as Thusness said before, without the insights, all form of 'letting go' is another form of holding in disguise. Now your clinging gets subtler and subtler but still it's a clinging... whether as the Watcher, or a non-dual Source or Consciousness, or anything at all!
It is not just 'sound like they are worlds apart', but in actual fact they ARE worlds apart... even though as Thusness said, the experiential or phenomenological descriptions may sound 85% similar (say, non-dual vs anatta), yet that 15% is what makes a world of difference.
Some Buddhists here sometimes sound like they are saying that anyone In the I AM stage of consciousness is just a deluded Asshole.
I certainly wouldn't say they are 'deluded Asshole' - but anyone short of Buddhahood is still deluded to a smaller or larger degree - myself not spared since I am also not yet a full complete awakened one, i.e. Buddha (There are different degrees of awakening even on the paths, different bhumis, different paths in the four paths, etc).
Think about Nissargadatta's teachings for a minute.
He First has his students return over and over again to the root awareness, the experiencer or I AM state, The Beingness or Self...
"Stabilize the I AM first" he says.
Once they get this, then he has them take the very easy next step, of seeing that even consciousness itself is an experience, which Includes the 'Self' 'Beingness' and naturally the 'I AM'.
What is Left is not an experience, not an object, not a thing and not observable in any way. Observing is happening, but nothing can be said about it. You cant say it exists, because where is it? You cant say it does not exist, because observing is happening.
It is free from the extremes of Existence/Nonexistence and Nihilism/Eternalism.
This is Identical to the Buddhists recognizing that consciousness is one of the aggregate...
Yes I am familiar with Nisargadatta's teachings - have his book since a long long time ago. As I said before (maybe not here, not sure), he guides the person to I AM first, then tells them to go beyond it - leading to Thusness Stage 3 (dissolving into nothingness), but does not talk about Anatta realization or even non-dual realization. Still very stage-like. And he sees that nothingness as ultimate reality. I will not say he is free from the extremes - he still posits an eternal absolute reality and true self, though prior to I AM or consciousness, the 'nothingness' prior to everything or the manifest sense of self (but viewed as absolute and inherently existent). The steps are summarized in
http://www.prahlad.o...20AWARENESS.htm - as this disciple or student states, first the "I am that I am" (Thusness Stage 1) which comes along with the realization of his universality (Thusness Stage 2 - I Am Everything), then the transcendance of that into the nothingness/the absolute unaware of itsef, prior to that universal mind (Thusness Stage 3). Nisargadatta describes,
In that state one does not know that one is. This state is known as ‘Parabrahman’: ‘Brahman’ transcended. ‘Brahman’ is manifest; ‘Parabrahman’ is beyond that, prior to that; the Absolute.Then there are many Advaita and neo-Advaitins that talk about non-dual realization, which is beyond the 'I AM' and even a step further than the 'nothingness', but still it is substantialist viewpoint, i.e. Thusness Stage 4.
So considering how easy the step is, if you already have the I AM stabilized, who cares about Right View?
The proponents here talk as if it is some crucial thing that divides the Bodhisattva's from the deluded Idiots. That is just not True.
Some paths like Krishna Menon's direct path Advaita, use the horribly offensive word 'Self' [which reeks of delusion and eternalistic ignorance] to describe Enlightenment but when you analyze their descriptions of the Self, you see again, that they are describing something outside all categories, experiences and Samadhi states...
Some here may object that calling it the 'Self' will engender deep clinging, but when you actually take the time to read about they describe this 'Self' you find there is actually nothing to cling to in the description... 
The very view of a Self leads to clinging no matter how you deny it... No matter how non-conceptual the state is - I AM is non-conceptual, yet with latent dualistic and inherent view, it lends to reification, making a pure identity out of it, which one then tries to constantly abide as.
That said, I Love the Buddhist way of describing the path and Right View. It is very clever, and probably does put in a few safe guards for students who are more Interested in Bliss than in Truth. But any sharp and Inquiring Mind will easily pass the I AM stage with time as well, without the benefit of 'Right View'.
Seth.
With the right kind of contemplation they can get into non-dual... but without right view of anatta and emptiness, they will not go beyond that.
On the other hand, many simply get stuck in I AM for decades or the whole life without even getting beyond that... it is quite common actually. Therefore right pointers are necessary for progress usually.
Edited by SereneBlue, 14 February 2012 - 09:51 PM.
