I really hope this can be talked about, but I doubt it:

Something that has made me sceptical about the idea that all/most mystical traditions have the same goal is how the fundamental nature/goal/nibbana/God is described. The yogic/hindu, western esoteric and sometimes tibetan traditions usually describe the absolute as being aware of something/everything/itself, and thus the term True Self fits pretty well. The pali canon usually describes the Unborn as completely different and beyond what we would call awareness. At some places though, something called "eternal conciousness" is mentioned, but scholars (yeah, we can always trust those haha ;) ) disagree about whether that equates the Unborn.

Adyashanti seems to be describing the Absolute in a way that kind of seemed to fit with both sides until he started talking about the Unborn as aware, which made my inner sutta-head sceptical:
http://youtu.be/K7338uCzyQk

Maybe the absolute of original buddhism is an "unselfier" version of the same realisation in vedanta and the like? What do you think, are the different traditions talking about the same realisation? Maybe trying to grasp these things intellectualy is a waste if time though..

howdy Pal,
i just listened to his talk and it didn't seem to jibe very well with the title of your topic.  i remember some tibetan teachings on "that little indescribable something" which is aware in emptiness.  as i recall there were three distinc states , each with its own properties.  i will try to find that if that goes more to your question.

tom

Oh I mean "consciousness without feature" of course, sorry. You can find it in the Kevatta sutta and also in the one where the Buddha convinces a Brahma that he is more enlightened than him through doing magical tricks, can't remember it's name. Still, if that consciousness means nibbana, which in the context it appears seems likely, than that implies that the Unborn is aware of something, just like Adyashanti, yoga people and western esoterists usually put it. 

hello Tom,
Why didn't it? 
What I mean by posting that video is that I wonder if the Unborn he describes that is aware of something is the same as what the Buddha meant with Nibbana and the like. Do all mystical traditions really have the same goal? 
If you can find that tibetan teaching, I'd like to see it! but it sounds like a sign of tibetan buddhists having come to the same conclusion as Adyashanti. I wonder if this view fits into the teachings in the pali canon, or if it isn't "unselfie" enough. 

hi Pal,
ok, gotcha.  i will look for those.  imo there are a million ways and a thousand traditions using hundreds of languages trying to describe the indescribable.  they all have human birth as a common factor and none of them have an exclusive patent on the truth.

reality, as adyashanti calls full awakening, is as good a take as any other methinks.  one interesting recollection i have of the tibetan take is that emptiness and compassion are the two aspects of the awakened mind.  compassion seems a more congnitive, personal, human aspect than the empty nature.  so can compassion be there if there is no human aspect? apparently so.

also, the tibetan masters say that mahayana and vajrayana are in full accord with all of the suttas.

peace

Thanks!
That sounds familiar.