Awakening to the Obvious (Adyashakti/Mark Canter)
Up from Adyashanti, Down from Adi Da
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Awakening to the Obvious†by Adyashakti/Mark Canter.]
Adyashakti, a.k.a. Mark Canter, is an accomplished fiction writer, editor, and academic. Moreover, he is Jewish; and this combined with his professional background assured me this wasn’t going to be another off-the-assembly-line neo-Advaita text.
Canter is very well-read, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he even “borrowed†a couple of things from my writings. When I saw the word “grokked†in his book, I guessed his book was published after my text “Beyond the Power of Now,†and it was. But it’s possible he used this Robert Heinlein term without seeing it in my book or Amazon reviews.
Interestingly enough, and perhaps more than coincidentally, Canter says the same thing about gurus that I do in “Beyond the Power of Now.†In my book, I write: “In fact, I have yet to meet a spiritual guru or practitioner who has managed to rid himself of his ego.â€
And in “Awakening to the Obvious,†Canter writes: “I spent time in the company of a number of famous gurus and not one of them was egoless.â€
Adyashakti’s text, which is a collection of essays on spiritual life, displays his considerable knowledge of Eastern mysticism—but the wisdom he dispenses derives mainly from the teachings of Adi Da. Adyashakti, however, never mentions Da, and I find this deplorable, especially since he refers to other teachers and traditions.
When Adyashakti veers from aping Da, his weaknesses as a mystic-philosopher become apparent. For example, he writes: “When you pay attention moment to moment, illusion naturally ceases.†This statement is neo-Advaita/pop-Zen level hogwash. Adyashakti is also sloppy with his terms. For example, he writes: “...a Godhead of Light infinitely above.†Unbeknownst to Adyashakti, the Godhead is the hypercosmic Divine, Siva-Shakti, not a Light infinitely above. Adyashakti writes, “The advent of ego death (nirvikalpa samadhi) is a conscious event.†Nirvikalpa samadhi simply means formless absorption, and does not pertain to ego death.
Adyashakti goes beyond most Advaita Vedanta texts, because he talks about Kundalini and the spiritual Heart—but he doesn’t dig deeply into these subjects, like Da and Ramana Maharshi. In other words, he’s topically, but not informationally, deep.
Adyashakti, a la Adi Da, repeatedly describes the separate [unenlightened ego-] self as an “activity of recoil and contraction.†But when he prescribes meditative inquiries to obviate this separative activity, he fails to provide the (by far) most important one. He recommends the following inquiries: “What is it?†“Who (or What) is aware of this?†“Who (or What) am I?†The inquiry he misses is the radical one that Da used (to become Enlightened), and which I use in my sadhana: “Avoiding relationship?†Despite the numerous times he refers to this contraction, Adyashakti fails to identify what, specifically, causes it: the avoidance of relationship.
In summary, this book is a solid but incomplete regurgitation of Adi Da’s teachings, peppered with some Zen and other mysticism. If you haven’t read Adi Da, you’ll likely find this book good and interesting, but if you’re familiar with his teachings, you’ll find next to nothing new or enlightening in this text. The question then becomes: Why even read this text when you can just read Adi Da’s teachings? Because I find it unconscionable that Adyashakti borrows so heavily from Adi Da without mentioning him, I can’t give this book more than three stars.
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Awakening to the Obvious†by Adyashakti/Mark Canter.]
Adyashakti, a.k.a. Mark Canter, is an accomplished fiction writer, editor, and academic. Moreover, he is Jewish; and this combined with his professional background assured me this wasn’t going to be another off-the-assembly-line neo-Advaita text.
Canter is very well-read, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he even “borrowed†a couple of things from my writings. When I saw the word “grokked†in his book, I guessed his book was published after my text “Beyond the Power of Now,†and it was. But it’s possible he used this Robert Heinlein term without seeing it in my book or Amazon reviews.
Interestingly enough, and perhaps more than coincidentally, Canter says the same thing about gurus that I do in “Beyond the Power of Now.†In my book, I write: “In fact, I have yet to meet a spiritual guru or practitioner who has managed to rid himself of his ego.â€
And in “Awakening to the Obvious,†Canter writes: “I spent time in the company of a number of famous gurus and not one of them was egoless.â€
Adyashakti’s text, which is a collection of essays on spiritual life, displays his considerable knowledge of Eastern mysticism—but the wisdom he dispenses derives mainly from the teachings of Adi Da. Adyashakti, however, never mentions Da, and I find this deplorable, especially since he refers to other teachers and traditions.
When Adyashakti veers from aping Da, his weaknesses as a mystic-philosopher become apparent. For example, he writes: “When you pay attention moment to moment, illusion naturally ceases.†This statement is neo-Advaita/pop-Zen level hogwash. Adyashakti is also sloppy with his terms. For example, he writes: “...a Godhead of Light infinitely above.†Unbeknownst to Adyashakti, the Godhead is the hypercosmic Divine, Siva-Shakti, not a Light infinitely above. Adyashakti writes, “The advent of ego death (nirvikalpa samadhi) is a conscious event.†Nirvikalpa samadhi simply means formless absorption, and does not pertain to ego death.
Adyashakti goes beyond most Advaita Vedanta texts, because he talks about Kundalini and the spiritual Heart—but he doesn’t dig deeply into these subjects, like Da and Ramana Maharshi. In other words, he’s topically, but not informationally, deep.
Adyashakti, a la Adi Da, repeatedly describes the separate [unenlightened ego-] self as an “activity of recoil and contraction.†But when he prescribes meditative inquiries to obviate this separative activity, he fails to provide the (by far) most important one. He recommends the following inquiries: “What is it?†“Who (or What) is aware of this?†“Who (or What) am I?†The inquiry he misses is the radical one that Da used (to become Enlightened), and which I use in my sadhana: “Avoiding relationship?†Despite the numerous times he refers to this contraction, Adyashakti fails to identify what, specifically, causes it: the avoidance of relationship.
In summary, this book is a solid but incomplete regurgitation of Adi Da’s teachings, peppered with some Zen and other mysticism. If you haven’t read Adi Da, you’ll likely find this book good and interesting, but if you’re familiar with his teachings, you’ll find next to nothing new or enlightening in this text. The question then becomes: Why even read this text when you can just read Adi Da’s teachings? Because I find it unconscionable that Adyashakti borrows so heavily from Adi Da without mentioning him, I can’t give this book more than three stars.
