I think "the buddhist camp" is putting waaaaay too much into the words used as a headline to the experience described by advaitist and other yogis and too little on the other words describing the experience. That is too much emphasis on the word self as interperated by buddhists and too little emphasis on the other words describing the experience of enlightenment as being totaly empty etc.

I have read several times descriptions of enlightenement were it is absolutely clear that the person does not describe abiding in a seer or in the state of I AM but is clearly describing buddhist emptiness and no-self but still calling it self because that is what is done in their tradition. I have seen the same thing in the christian contemplative tradition and in others. For example a christian nun which I think is interviewed on thusness page is very clear that, to her suprise she arrived in the no-self state, not at a self or a mystical union as one could easily imagine those things to be. This expereince led her more into contact with buddhism but she still belives in God which according to the strictest interpretation shopuld be impossible.

The facty that she stubmled upon the non-self and did not conciously work towards it is also a rather typical expereince. Many seekers stumble upon the arising and passing away expereince, the I AM state or first path by accident and many stumble from the I AM state to the no-self state which is exactly what thusness did. He not so much conciously sought it as stumbled into it. At least he several times stumbled from one stage to another without realy expecting there to be more or having much of an idea what that more would be or the method to get there. Thinking that Thusness and this nun was somewhow very exceptional just is not plausible. This is in fact a very common occurence. That in turn makes it impossible for a large group of Advaitists to arrive at the witness state and abiding there without anyone stumbling further and then realising that advaita had it wrong. Actualy a large proportion of those that reach the witness state and think that it is the complete thing will eventualy get further without realy trying. It is impossible to imagine a rather large group of advaitists getting to a deeper state of enlightenment without speaking up against their tradition. So why don`t they? Because they interperate the expereince of No-self within their traditions use of the word self. If you actualy listen to what they say about the self you will find it is the same thing. Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman say that it is plain wrong to say that the yogic tradition does not contain a non-self teaching. He says that there has been aproaches that has had what the buddhists classicly think of as a self teaching but that the dominant aproach has been a non-self teaching under the heading of self.

That said I can easily see that the way advaita formulates things makes it easier to get stuck in the I AM state.

I would also like to add that the way buddhas break with the yogic tradition has almost always been presented to me by buddhists is that the yogis can only achieve high Jhanas, just concentration. They are arrogantly and ignorantly throwiong that around all the time while at the same time the Zen tradition often uses Who am I to get to first path which is enlightenment just not complete and yogic texts describe in detail various stages of enlightenment that has nothing to do with Jhanas. My point here is that the way buddhist ususaly treat this debate is so embarissingly poor that it should just be ignored and laughed at. Fortunately this thread is a rare exeption and treats the matter differently.

Interesetingly the buddhist teacher Konchok Ösel Dorje claims that after investigating Kashmiri shaivism he found that mahamdra,chulen of space and thogal actualy are imported from that tradition. These are the highest Tibetan teachings and they are actualy borrowed from yoga. So how can buddhism take you one step further when their highest teachings are imports from yoga? By the way Konchok Ösel Dorje also claims that it is much easier to get instructions in these teachings in the yogic tradition than in the Tibetan:

Respect to the Yogis and Yoginis. I know what chulen is, unless you find an exceptional Lama and go through a lot of stuff, you won't learn chulen. What I described is like chulen of space from the Kashmir Shivaite tradition. I found that they even have thogal and mahamudra. They have all the same techniques, just with somewhat different metaphysical philosophy, but still pretty much the same. This is where you can find techniques that the Tibetans won't share.

http://www.aypsite.o...amudra,shaivism

Interestingly my own meditation teacher says that he finds this to be likely and that his own reading of Kashmiri shaivism found ti to be completly comatible with Dzogchen and Mahamudra. Having been tought by the two most acclaimed Tibetan Dzogchen teachers he is very qualified to comment on that. He also says that atman can be interprated to contain the highest buddhist enlightenment and is certain that people who do frequently reach the no-self.

I would also add that Daniel Ingram which is an Arhat says that the truth is realy neither non-self nor true self but somewhere indiscribably in the middle. As I understand him Jack Kornfield says the same thing and as I understand Kornfields writing he claims so did Ajhan Cha. That should make it totaly clear that you do not have to conceive of the final state as a pure no-self state in order to be in it. One should not neccessarily put to much emphasis on the owrds used to describe that which clearly can not be described. Furthermore Ingram, and several others over at Dharam Overground that have everything from first to fourth path claim that the chirstian contemplative maps is very much in line with Vipassana and leads to the same place only uses the words slightly differently. That should be more than enough evidence that the language one uses does not have to rule out a no-self realisation even if it is not in line with classical buddhist language.

Thusness argues that Ramanas self inquiry only leads to the I AM state and can not get you further. I just think he should have gotten more instructions or did it wrong or not enough.