PDA

View Full Version : Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita


jimrich
05-02-2017, 03:29 AM
I would offer this piece by Tony Parsons to explain the current difference between Neo-Advaita & Classical Advaita.
https://www.theopensecret.com/traditionalnottwo.html
My take on it is that I already am That but I was programmed, by other programmed folks, to believe that I am a limited, separate person in a world of other separate, limited persons/objects and so I LOST my original sense of Oneness or Unity (not-two) at a very early age. I've been "seeking" for a long time and now, thanks to the new teachers like Tony, I can see that I never lost anything and always was and always will be That or whatever it's called. This is it! :hug3:

awareness
05-02-2017, 03:55 AM
:hug3: Dear brother, we were not really programmed by "others," but rather we (as souls) agreed to the particular programming, the particular paradigm that we have been affected by. The soul is ultimately responsible for its own programming. Not our parents, teachers, society, etc. The soul.

The soul, prior to taking incarnation, fully agrees to experience the illusions of duality, limitation and separation. This has nothing to do with what "others" believe. (That is victim thinking, blaming others for our programming.)

The soul, prior to physical incarnation, already has an agreement with the two souls that are "to be" its Earth parents. They are already selected. The soul agrees to play the game of separation for awhile. This includes a basic agreement that yes, it will be affected by the programming of society, but in actuality the soul is really affected by its own programming, since the personal reality that it experiences is literally a projection of its own consciousness.

In pure Advaita terms, indeed all of this play of phenomenal existence is essentially a dream within Universal Consciousness.

Shivani Devi
05-02-2017, 03:57 AM
Good afternoon, Jim (well, it is in Sydney anyway).

Like I said in the other post, 'classical advaita" or advaita vedanta has stronger ties to Dharma and Hinduism than its modern counterpart.

You will find that the majority of those who follow the 'old ways' and 'old teachings' are pretty much Hindu by default - even if Shankaracharya said that labels mean nothing.

The human habit of making everything old 'new again' to fit in with the beliefs of current society is totally symptomatic of the age we live in...it is called Kali Yuga, where people will make up anything to suit themselves.

Here is the history behind this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Guru_Parampar%C4%81

I am part of this lineage.

jimrich
05-02-2017, 06:50 AM
:hug3: Dear brother, we
:hug3: Dear brother, who or what is this "we"?

we (as souls)
What are these "souls"?

The soul
Exactly what is "the soul"?

to taking incarnation,
Please explain: "incarnation".

the illusions of duality, limitation and separation.
Please define: "illusions, duality, limitation and separation."

The soul, prior to physical incarnation, already has an agreement with the two souls that are "to be" its Earth parents. They are already selected. The soul agrees to play the game of separation for awhile. This includes a basic agreement that yes, it will be affected by the programming of society, but in actuality the soul is really affected by its own programming, since the personal reality that it experiences is literally a projection of its own consciousness.
In pure Advaita terms, indeed all of this play of phenomenal existence is essentially a dream within Universal Consciousness.
Hmmmm, interesting set of opinions. :wink:

jimrich
05-02-2017, 07:18 AM
Hi gang:
I just spent little time researching what others with more skill and knowledge than I have to say about Advaita and Neo-Advaita. My best sources are Rupert Spira and Jeff Foster, who has some very comical things to say about Neo-Advaita - google him. Actually, there are a lot of others who might be considered Neo-Advaitins such as Lisa Cairns and Jim Newman (obviously students of Tony Parsons) and the list goes on and on so take a look for your self.
The one item I find common with all of them is Identity - who/what are you/we/I? It seems to me that, unless someone KNOWS that they are the Absolute, Self, Reality, Brahman, God, Totality, Source, etc., they are just floundering around in the muck and mire of personal, egoic dramas that are neatly placed between birth and death. So Traditional or Neo, it seems to me that locating or recognizing that THOU ART THAT is the bottom line for both forms of non-duality (Advaita) so I do not see any significant difference in Traditional vs. Neo accept in maybe some of the SILLY details and concepts as presented in this hysterical cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Or this from Jeff Foster at: http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/on-neo-advaita/
ON NEO-ADVAITA
There is a strange new club called ‘Neo-Advaita’. If you are a member of this club, apparently you will find yourself automatically regurgitating certain phrases at people when they are just trying to share their experiences with you – phrases such as “Who knows that? Who says that? There is no doer! There is no choice! That is just a concept! There is no me! You are in your story!”.

Jeff has some hilarious things to say about Neo-Advaita - check him out.

When I searched for Neo-Advaita on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=neo-advaita ...an interesting and often comical array of videos came up like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71L6B09vrg&list=PLMOQOtPdSMnBhfNl152KeV9ppGavXLNIX
What fun! Even Advaita can be fun! LOL.........

awareness
05-02-2017, 07:28 AM
:hug3: Dear brother, who or what is this "we"?


What are these "souls"?

[B]The soul
Exactly what is "the soul"?


Please explain: "incarnation".


Please define: "illusions, duality, limitation and separation."


Hmmmm, interesting set of opinions. :wink:

Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick. For example, I could ask you, from your original post,

"Who is this 'my' that you speak of? Who is this 'I' that speaks? Please define this 'I'?" In fact, anyone could use the very same clever wordplay that you just used on me, which Mr. Parsons also likes to use, and use it on him, and he wouldn't be very amused, especially with the heavy over-use of the word "apparent" that he uses.

I could very fairly ask you, "Who are these 'other programmed folks' that you mentioned, Jim? Why are you pointing to 'others' as being programmed, instead of focusing more purely on your own spiritual responsibility for creating your own beliefs?"

I could even ask you, "Why do you give 'Tony Parsons' credit for the fact that you can 'now see that you never lost anything?' How is Mr. Parsons responsible for your own openness to be illuminated? Who are these so-called 'new teachers like Tony' that you speak of?" And on and on, you see.

Here's a simple fact: All human language sounds dualistic, even the way Mr. Parsons speaks, which any clever person can point out, so playing intellectual games of pointing out duality in common language is an exercise in philosophical tail-chasing. It's a losing battle, as all battles are, for there is absolutely no way to hold a conversation with another using verbal language that is completely duality-free or illusion-free, or even opinion-free, for your opening words in this thread are EQUALLY an 'interesting set of opinions' as well, to be fair, bro.

jimrich
05-02-2017, 07:43 AM
Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick. For example, I could ask you,
I asked you first so, after you...........

I could very fairly ask you,
I asked you first and now I'm waiting for your answers!

I could even ask you,
I'm still waiting for your answers ....BRO!

It's a losing battle, as all battles are, for there is absolutely no way to hold a conversation with another using verbal language that is completely duality-free or illusion-free, or even opinion-free, for your opening words in this thread are EQUALLY an 'interesting set of opinions' as well, to be fair, bro.
Who hurt you, bro?

P.S Where's your Avatar?

Shivani Devi
05-02-2017, 07:49 AM
It's easy!

Have learned how to do this very well. Can apply it in any situation and all it takes is mindful awareness, like consciously choosing to omit any word from common usage, even a whole basket full of personal pronouns if/whenever the mood strikes. Just need to remember it for when replying to something which calls itself 'Jim' next time. See? not hard at all.

awareness
05-02-2017, 08:00 AM
I asked you first so, after you...........


I asked you first and now I'm waiting for your answers!


I'm still waiting for your answers ....BRO!


Who hurt you, bro?

Well, it's not a game of "Who Asked First," for my questions were given as examples of the kinds of questions that you asked me (and also examples of questions that I could ask), I was not really asking you those questions in hope of receiving specific answers to them.

I did answer you. I gave my response. Perhaps not the kind of specific answers that you wanted to those specific questions you asked me, but my response was a perfectly valid answer to your response.

You're my bro, my mate, and no one hurt me, Jim. Thank you for the interaction. HUGS. :hug3:

jimrich
05-02-2017, 08:25 AM
Thank you for the interaction. HUGS. :hug3:
:hug: :hug2: :hug3:

redstone
05-02-2017, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE=jimrich]Hi gang:
I just spent little time researching what others with more skill and knowledge than I have to say about Advaita and Neo-Advaita. My best sources are Rupert Spira and Jeff Foster, who has some very comical things to say about Neo-Advaita - google him. Actually, there are a lot of others who might be considered Neo-Advaitins such as Lisa Cairns and Jim Newman (obviously students of Tony Parsons) and the list goes on and on so take a look for your self.
The one item I find common with all of them is Identity - who/what are you/we/I? It seems to me that, unless someone KNOWS that they are the Absolute, Self, Reality, Brahman, God, Totality, Source, etc., they are just floundering around in the muck and mire of personal, egoic dramas that are neatly placed between birth and death. So Traditional or Neo, it seems to me that locating or recognizing that THOU ART THAT is the bottom line for both forms of non-duality (Advaita) so I do not see any significant difference in Traditional vs. Neo accept in maybe some of the SILLY details and concepts as presented in this hysterical cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Hi Jim
That is exactly the problem I (if you allow me to say that) have with Advaita, there is no direct path to it! Except through the death of the self!

I heard Tony Parsons refer to his identity or the structure of his self collapsing..and that there is only what is left! So all I can suggest about that is the energetic structure which was his own personal story before this happened has been de-energised previously through some insights gained from some discipline he was doing, the only way (I) know to do that is through analysis and insight in to what the limitations of the self are! It’s limited for sure….but it’s the insight that breaks the structure or the energetics of the self down, and he must have been a practioner of sorts, or of some kind of discipline before the story of who he once was collapsed!
I know Jim Newman (he still answers to that name) was an avid seeker before the story of who he once was collapsed…so he was obviously doing some sort of analysis of the self previously…wasn’t he a psychologist in his own story once? :D (he also used to go to Tony Parsons talks)

I can only liken the experience they went through of the self collapsing was as if it was a large building that was being planned for demolition, you would have to analise where to place the explosive charges to bring it down…some buildings don’t collapse in the way expected but do come down non the less!

So all I can say about Tony Parsons and Jim Newman as it’s the only two advaita guys I have come across, is they must have been chipping away at there own block for so long…(or de-energising the self gained through insights) that at some point there limited self was bound to come crashing in to the ground eventually.

jimrich
05-02-2017, 03:24 PM
Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick.Hmmm.....:wink:

For example, I could ask you, from your original post,

"Who is this 'my' that you speak of? Who is this 'I' that speaks? Please define this 'I'?"
I hear you.
In fact, anyone could use the very same clever wordplay that you just used on me, which Mr. Parsons also likes to use, and use it on him, and he wouldn't be very amused, especially with the heavy over-use of the word "apparent" that he uses.

OK.
I could very fairly ask you, "Who are these 'other programmed folks' that you mentioned, Jim?
My parents and a few inlaws.
Why are you pointing to 'others' as being programmed, instead of focusing more purely on your own spiritual responsibility for creating your own beliefs?"
Because I'm HONEST.
I could even ask you, "Why do you give 'Tony Parsons' credit for the fact that you can 'now see that you never lost anything?'
Because it's true.
How is Mr. Parsons responsible for your own openness to be illuminated?
He isn't, Source is responsible.
Who are these so-called 'new teachers like Tony' that you speak of?" And on and on, you see.
I see. :smile:

Here's a simple fact: All human language sounds dualistic, even the way Mr. Parsons speaks, which any clever person can point out, so playing intellectual games of pointing out duality in common language is an exercise in philosophical tail-chasing. It's a losing battle, as all battles are, for there is absolutely no way to hold a conversation with another using verbal language that is completely duality-free or illusion-free, or even opinion-free, for your opening words in this thread are EQUALLY an 'interesting set of opinions' as well, to be fair, bro.
Hmmm. :rolleyes:

jimrich
05-02-2017, 03:26 PM
It's easy!Hmmm.

Have learned how to do this very well.
Good. Can apply it in any situation and all it takes is mindful awareness, like consciously choosing to omit any word from common usage, even a whole basket full of personal pronouns if/whenever the mood strikes.
OK.
Just need to remember it for when replying to something which calls itself 'Jim' next time.
Yep.
See? not hard at all.
It's seen. :rolleyes:

jimrich
05-02-2017, 03:29 PM
Well, it's not a game of "Who Asked First," for my questions were given as examples of the kinds of questions that you asked me (and also examples of questions that I could ask), I was not really asking you those questions in hope of receiving specific answers to them.
Oh.

I did answer you. I gave my response. Perhaps not the kind of specific answers that you wanted to those specific questions you asked me, but my response was a perfectly valid answer to your response.
Could be.

You're my bro, my mate, and no one hurt me, Jim. Thank you for the interaction. HUGS. :hug3:
Thank you. :hug3:

jimrich
05-02-2017, 03:36 PM
Hi gang:
I just spent little time researching what others with more skill and knowledge than I have to say about Advaita and Neo-Advaita. My best sources are Rupert Spira and Jeff Foster, who has some very comical things to say about Neo-Advaita - google him. Actually, there are a lot of others who might be considered Neo-Advaitins such as Lisa Cairns and Jim Newman (obviously students of Tony Parsons) and the list goes on and on so take a look for your self.
The one item I find common with all of them is Identity - who/what are you/we/I? It seems to me that, unless someone KNOWS that they are the Absolute, Self, Reality, Brahman, God, Totality, Source, etc., they are just floundering around in the muck and mire of personal, egoic dramas that are neatly placed between birth and death. So Traditional or Neo, it seems to me that locating or recognizing that THOU ART THAT is the bottom line for both forms of non-duality (Advaita) so I do not see any significant difference in Traditional vs. Neo accept in maybe some of the SILLY details and concepts as presented in this hysterical cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Hi Jim
That is exactly the problem I (if you allow me to say that) have with Advaita, there is no direct path to it! Except through the death of the self!

I heard Tony Parsons refer to his identity or the structure of his self collapsing..and that there is only what is left! So all I can suggest about that is the energetic structure which was his own personal story before this happened has been de-energised previously through some insights gained from some discipline he was doing, the only way (I) know to do that is through analysis and insight in to what the limitations of the self are!
Hmmm, go on....
It’s limited for sure….but it’s the insight that breaks the structure or the energetics of the self down, and he must have been a practioner of sorts, or of some kind of discipline before the story of who he once was collapsed!
could be.

…wasn’t he a psychologist in his own story once? :D
I don't know.

I can only liken the experience they went through of the self collapsing was as if it was a large building that was being planned for demolition, you would have to analise where to place the explosive charges to bring it down…some buildings don’t collapse in the way expected but do come down non the less!
Really?

So all I can say about Tony Parsons and Jim Newman as it’s the only two advaita guys I have come across, is they must have been chipping away at there own block for so long…(or de-energising the self gained through insights) that at some point there limited self was bound to come crashing in to the ground eventually.
Yep. :rolleyes:

God-Like
05-02-2017, 06:42 PM
Think of it like .. I am that ..

I am being that and I am perceiving that .

The difference is within the perceiving .. which is limiting ..

Perceiving is rather like a reflection whereas 'being that' creates the reflection .



x daz x

shivatar
05-02-2017, 10:56 PM
I would offer this piece by Tony Parsons to explain the current difference between Neo-Advaita & Classical Advaita.
https://www.theopensecret.com/traditionalnottwo.html
My take on it is that I already am That but I was programmed, by other programmed folks, to believe that I am a limited, separate person in a world of other separate, limited persons/objects and so I LOST my original sense of Oneness or Unity (not-two) at a very early age. I've been "seeking" for a long time and now, thanks to the new teachers like Tony, I can see that I never lost anything and always was and always will be That or whatever it's called. This is it! :hug3:

Maybe you weren't programmed by other people. Maybe you choose the ignorance so you could experience the joy of discovery.

Jyotir
13-02-2017, 02:52 PM
Hi jimrich,

As far as I can see, the major difference between Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita, is that within the so-called ‘Neo-Advaita’ movement, both exponents and followers possess a predominantly or even exclusively conceptual and intellectual understanding of some principles, that are as often misunderstood in terms of both premise and application, as they are replicated and reinforced in clever dialogue.

These tenets appear to be based on numerous faulty and unquestioned assumptions - what amounts to a rigid doctrine, and self-proclaimed as “radical”, largely because they are without the direct knowing through actual realization, which, was always implied by ‘Classical’, e.g., a legitimate assumption, because realization was traditionally understood to be an absolute requirement of the yoga.

It is the facile modern dispensing of that requirement for direct knowing by identity - realisation - and replacing it with a superficial separative indirect conceptual re-orientation as the realisation itself, which appears to suffice in-and-of-itself and constituting the so-called ‘radical’ element, but which actually renders it ineffective as a practice by obviating real practice accordingly.

The actual ‘practice’ apparently then becomes the subsequent dependence on clever word-games and intellectual debate, convoluted defences, and invalidation and intellectual coercion of sorts (often by rotely citing the accepted doctrine), in order to promote and sustain the belief system. And they’ve evidently gotten much facility, popularity, and validation through abundant internet access in that regard, both in dissemination and assimilation, by attracting droves of disaffected intellectuals looking for (imo) ‘the big easy answer’. They have also received much deserved and valid criticism as a result, as well.

It appears to be much like so-called ‘born-again’ Christianity in this respect - although intellectual and not devotional - but structurally similar: “I preach” (that’s my practice), but “you practice” (what I preach). By virtue of my preaching, it means I have practiced and therefore implicitly understand, therefore I preach. But since you need to practice what I preach (because you evidently are misperceiving reality as indicated by your 'stories' about a 'person', with 'volition', etc....), that means you don’t yet understand - until you feel confident in preaching by understanding the doctrine! That seems to be the Neo-Advaitin’s ‘radical’ often misguided intellectual evangelical ‘revolution’.

Further, the understanding that any conceptual description can never be adequate to convey the actual realization - if in fact one has achieved it - was traditionally a caution regarding the systematic intellectual codification of these conceptual principles - what the Neo brand appears to be using as the very substance of their own facile self-serving defence, which is wholly dependent on the invalidation of others’ belief systems as ‘fatally flawed’, because not fundamentally the Neo-Advaita view, in which, as another conceit of doctrine, often proposes (or arrogantly assumes) itself as the exclusive arbiter of reality perception and spiritual achievement - all others not real, not effective, not attainable through other methods - simply because not following the (assumed superior) fundamental (Neo-Advaita) exclusively 'correct' approach to spirituality. That is frequently the message.

Any attempted discussion which points out the flaws of reasoning, the specious assumptions and the intellectually indulgent conceits, or significantly - other different but equivalent methods - is then summarily invalidated by the clever negation that, “your words are merely conceptual games and ‘stories’ that are illusions and can never capture or refute the ‘real’ reality represented by my Neo-Advaita words and principles which represent the true reality beyond the capacity of language to describe.” That’s a standard rebuttal.

Clever conceptual conceit (unquestioned assumptions), intellectually codified as self-defensive doctrine (theory), exclusive invalidating debate by intellectual negation - through a mistakenly objective 'neti-neti', not a subjective realization. Otherwise none of the previous would be necessary, and which are common attributes of Neo-Advaita.

This so-called ‘new’ form is simply a doctrinaire instant-mix-and-serve version, in the same way that contemporary so-called ‘born-again’ Christians, in completely mis-construing Christ‘s Teaching in toto as merely a superficial intellectual conceptual truth to be accepted as theory, but not utilized in practice towards a true realization, e.g., theoretically; theory as substance; not symbolic of deeper esoteric possibilities represented by it, and therefore necessarily incomplete, partial, and limiting to the very necessity of practice which it cleverly avoids. It’s a myopic conceptual/intellectual doctrine, like Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’ (although the inverse). This conceptual trap is the very caution traditionally emphasized by Buddhists, AND Classical Advaita, but apparently regarded as authentic substance in ‘Neo’-Advaita.

The entire premise is apparently based on a mere intellectual acceptance of conceptual theory as the entire realization. In other words, by virtue of a mental understanding one implicitly becomes a realized Advaitin, when really, that is the first baby-step of re-orientation towards a difficult and arduous ongoing practice which may lead to what the ‘Neo’ believes they have already achieved by virtue of a facile mental acceptance of a misconstrued principle.

In the suggested piece it is (imo) fairly shocking and abundantly clear that the numerous unexamined fallacious assumptions, followed by weak and faulty reasoning are the foundational premises for this modern ’school of thought’ - and it appears to be not much more - is evidenced by patently specious ideas. For instance:

That ‘social conditioning’ is the origin of ego and a sense of personal self. That is an utterly superficial modern (and incorrect) view entirely based on external social observation of metaphysical results - not causes - and the 19th &20th Century nascent objective clinical science of psychology, not the subjective experience and examination of consciousness through yoga as directly experienced and mastered by aspirants for hundreds or thousands of years.

Neo-Advaita hasn’t discovered anything new - they’ve simply avoided the essential by talking a good talk around it, and giving it a ‘namarupa’.


Just my .02 fwiw.


~ J

shiningstars
15-02-2017, 04:23 AM
This conceptual trap is the very caution traditionally emphasized by Buddhists, AND Classical Advaita, but apparently regarded as authentic substance in ‘Neo’-Advaita.

The entire premise is apparently based on a mere intellectual acceptance of conceptual theory as the entire realization. In other words, by virtue of a mental understanding one implicitly becomes a realized Advaitin, when really, that is the first baby-step of re-orientation towards a difficult and arduous ongoing practice which may lead to what the ‘Neo’ believes they have already achieved by virtue of a facile mental acceptance of a misconstrued principle.


Excellent exposition, Jyotir.

jimrich
15-02-2017, 06:19 AM
Awareness, in all fairness to you and your followers here, I will make one more attempt to respond to this post in a friendly and meaningful way............

[QUOTE]In pure Advaita terms, indeed all of this play of phenomenal existence is essentially a dream within Universal Consciousness.
If you are extra-terrestrial or spirit, there's not much that I can add here. I have 100s questions if and when you are willing to address any of them.
Respectfully yours,
jim :smile:

jimrich
15-02-2017, 06:30 AM
Hi jimrich,
As far as I can see, the major difference between Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita, is that within the so-called ‘Neo-Advaita’ movement, both exponents and followers possess a predominantly or even exclusively conceptual and intellectual understanding of some principles, that are as often misunderstood in terms of both premise and application, as they are replicated and reinforced in clever dialogue.
Yes, we really do need to watch out for "clever dialogues". LOL. :rolleyes:

jimrich
15-02-2017, 09:31 AM
At the risk of being banned from this forum for "talking back" and/or beating a dead horse, I'd like to make one more effort to have a reasonable and RESPECTFUL discussion with you .... a very special, spiritual or extra-terrestrial being from whatever high plane you live on or come from.
Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick.
I cannot speak for Tony Parsons but I assure you that I do not play "word games" of "play ego tricks" with you or anyone and it hurts my feelings for you to accuse me of this. I am as sincere as you or anybody else and, if asking you questions hurts or offends you or appears as "picking apart almost every little detail", just say you're hurt but without accusing me of anything or being RUDE. Many folks take simple questions as attacks and insults but I ask questions as RESPECTFULLY as I can and you are free to either answer them, not answer them or just ignore them. They are only questions - not put downs or attacks.
For example, I could ask you, from your original post,"Who is this 'my' that you speak of? Who is this 'I' that speaks? Please define this 'I'?"
OK, ask me. Or you could RESPECTFULLY answer my polite questions, like a gentleman, and then we could go from there! I am perfectly fine with sincere, respectful questions so ask and I will respectfully answer those I can and/or ignore those I refuse to answer. I will not come back at you with hostile accusations about word games or ego tricks. Just ask your questions. And also have the dignity to respectfully respond to mine.

In fact, anyone could use the very same clever wordplay that you just used on me,
I resent that hostile, disrespectful accusation! I have not once used any "clever word-plays" on you! My questions were all sincere and respectful. If not, quote the offensive item here and then we can examine it together.

which Mr. Parsons also likes to use, and use it on him, and he wouldn't be very amused, especially with the heavy over-use of the word "apparent" that he uses.
I don't know what your personal problem is with Mr. Parsons or the word "apparent" but I believe that he has enough self respect to deal with anything you want to throw at him. I'm amazed that a high level being such as you, is SO TOUCHY!

I could very fairly ask you, "Who are these 'other programmed folks' that you mentioned, Jim? Why are you pointing to 'others' as being programmed, instead of focusing more purely on your own spiritual responsibility for creating your own beliefs?"
Yes you could "fairly ask" so why don't you? Go ahead, ask me anything you like. Questions do not make me hostile and defensive! I can and will answer what I can with RESPECT and GOOD WILL. And when are you going to anwer any of my questions for you?

I could even ask you, "Why do you give 'Tony Parsons' credit for the fact that you can 'now see that you never lost anything?' How is Mr. Parsons responsible for your own openness to be illuminated? Who are these so-called 'new teachers like Tony' that you speak of?" And on and on, you see.
Yes you sure could ask any of them so go ahead and ask! And you "could" answer my questions so WHY DON'T YOU????

.. [from another post]..I did answer you. I gave my response. Perhaps not the kind of specific answers that you wanted to those specific questions you asked me, but my response was a perfectly valid answer to your response.
I don't see any of it as a "perfectly valid response" to my questions. It reads like a counter attack to a fight that never was.
You wroteOriginally Posted by awareness: Dear brother, we ...
then I wrote Dear brother, who or what is this "we"?
Then you wroteOriginally Posted by awareness: Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick.
At no time did you ever again address that one question nor any of the other questions that I asked you in that post [What are these "souls"?, Exactly what is "the soul"?, Please explain: "incarnation", Please define: "illusions, duality, limitation and separation."]
So please show me where and how you ever "gave your response" to any of my 1st sincere questions that are quoted above! Something is terribly WRONG with this discussion and I don't know where to go from here WITHOUT honesty and sincerity!

Here's a simple fact: All human language sounds dualistic, even the way Mr. Parsons speaks, which any clever person can point out, so playing intellectual games of pointing out duality in common language is an exercise in philosophical tail-chasing.
Maybe! Or maybe it's one of the ways that us humans use to arrive at knowledge, understanding and GOOD WILL with each other! Almost any concept or behavior can be condemned or praised by anyone and for any reason they choose. So what?

It's a losing battle, as all battles are, for there is absolutely no way to hold a conversation with another using verbal language that is completely duality-free or illusion-free, or even opinion-free, for your opening words in this thread are EQUALLY an 'interesting set of opinions' as well, to be fair, bro.
To be fair, bro, 99.99% of everything said in any forum is only someone's (limited) OPINION and what's left over might be a fact......SO WHAT? Humans often talk just to get some attention and have some fun but rarely just to have "duality-free" or "illusion-free" conversations or win battles. You may need to observe us humans a little more to understand us.

You wrote about questions that you "could have asked" but didn't and you did not answer even one of my questions so it looks like we are still at zero with each other EXCEPT that you have taken a very negative stance against me with your accusations and insults so I don't see that we have anything more to say to each other after this. I am a little surprised that what appears to be a more advanced or "higher being" such as you seems to be have expressed so much animosity towards us humans and your obvious jealousy of Tony Parsons in particular. Are you all this small and petty over in your "higher" domain? :rolleyes:

You're my bro, my mate,
Honestly, the bad way you have treated me does not encourage me to see you as my mate or brother. I think we will need to get a few unsatisfactory things straightened out before I can feel like your "mate or brother". So. let's talk or drop the whole thing. PM me if you wish.........

God-Like
15-02-2017, 10:28 AM
At the risk of being banned from this forum

I am as sincere as you or anybody else

You see Jim there is no-one here that can be banned .

There is no 'I that is sincere as anyone else .

There is nobody else ..

Do you see where I am going with this ..

Do you honestly believe that a neo teacher will let a police officer arrest them for murder when it is a case of mistaken identity .

It happens all the time doesn't it people getting blamed for something they didn't do .

Is a neo teacher willing to spend a life in prison because they have a belief that no-one is here and what is happening is happening .

I say not .

I doubt very much you would let that happen to you either .


x daz x

django
15-02-2017, 11:27 AM
Very simply, neo-advaita can be an immediate and intellectual realisation that there is only Self, alongside a pleasant fantasy of having 'arrived', while advaita recognises the need to actually remove the many distortions and obscurations that exist in the long journey towards Self.

Jyotir
15-02-2017, 02:36 PM
Yes, we really do need to watch out for "clever dialogues". LOL. :rolleyes:

No argument on that from me, or 'we', jimrich.
Especially so regarding the unproductively evasive variety.
Agree wholeheartedly.


~ J

Vinayaka
15-02-2017, 08:58 PM
Very simply, neo-advaita can be an immediate and intellectual realisation that there is only Self, alongside a pleasant fantasy of having 'arrived', while advaita recognises the need to actually remove the many distortions and obscurations that exist in the long journey towards Self.

I agree with this. If by some strange or lucky chance, one's path does cross with a Self-Realised soul, (they are incredibly rare) there are two things to notice:
1) That soul will be emitting a tremendous perceivable energy
2) They will have to pause and 'come out' from that that they are in order to be aware in the ego/I. So if you refer to them during regular conversation, they won't actually immediately know who you're talking about.

jimrich
17-02-2017, 06:04 PM
ON NEO-ADVAITA ~ Jeff Foster

There is a strange new club called ‘Neo-Advaita’. If you are a member of this club, apparently you will find yourself automatically regurgitating certain phrases at people when they are just trying to share their experiences with you – phrases such as “Who knows that? Who says that? There is no doer! There is no choice! That is just a concept! There is no me! You are in your story!”.

You will believe that you have found the ultimate answers to life and you will stop listening deeply to your fellow humans. You may speak and act in cruel ways and then justify your behaviour with the words “There is no choice” or “compassion is just a concept”.

You may even claim to be ‘no-one’, ‘not identified’ or ‘not a person’, and then, to top it all off, you will say you do not believe anything at all, that you have no religion or identity and have gone beyond all stories, and that it is others – not you – who are trapped in their stories (er, even though there are no others to be trapped!)

If anyone disagrees with your preaching, you will fall back on seemingly irrefutable retorts such as “WHO says that?”, “You don’t get it yet!”, or “Everything is impersonal!” When you are really struggling to win an argument, you may even pull out the ultimate get-out clauses: “WHO cares?”… or “There’s still a ‘me’ there!”

You, and your fellow club members, will interpret your own lack of human care and kindness as a sign of how awakened and clear you are.

Oh, my friends, I do speak from experience. I was once a fully-paid-up member of this loveless cult. I left about six or seven years ago, sneaking off in the dead of night, ready and willing to be a living, breathing human being again with a beating heart, and ready and willing to listen deeply to my fellow humans, and the relief was so, so great. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Source: http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/on-neo-advaita/

God-Like
18-02-2017, 07:20 AM
ON NEO-ADVAITA ~ Jeff Foster

There is a strange new club called ‘Neo-Advaita’. If you are a member of this club, apparently you will find yourself automatically regurgitating certain phrases at people when they are just trying to share their experiences with you – phrases such as “Who knows that? Who says that? There is no doer! There is no choice! That is just a concept! There is no me! You are in your story!”.

You will believe that you have found the ultimate answers to life and you will stop listening deeply to your fellow humans. You may speak and act in cruel ways and then justify your behaviour with the words “There is no choice” or “compassion is just a concept”.

You may even claim to be ‘no-one’, ‘not identified’ or ‘not a person’, and then, to top it all off, you will say you do not believe anything at all, that you have no religion or identity and have gone beyond all stories, and that it is others – not you – who are trapped in their stories (er, even though there are no others to be trapped!)

If anyone disagrees with your preaching, you will fall back on seemingly irrefutable retorts such as “WHO says that?”, “You don’t get it yet!”, or “Everything is impersonal!” When you are really struggling to win an argument, you may even pull out the ultimate get-out clauses: “WHO cares?”… or “There’s still a ‘me’ there!”

You, and your fellow club members, will interpret your own lack of human care and kindness as a sign of how awakened and clear you are.

Oh, my friends, I do speak from experience. I was once a fully-paid-up member of this loveless cult. I left about six or seven years ago, sneaking off in the dead of night, ready and willing to be a living, breathing human being again with a beating heart, and ready and willing to listen deeply to my fellow humans, and the relief was so, so great. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Source: http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/on-neo-advaita/

I like J.F. I saw a clip of him once on a t.v. show for alternative views . Back in the day Jeff was a hard core non dualist and he carried on like one of the neo robots .

He eventually did a 180 degree u-turn and said he could no longer deny the unique jeffness .

I like a man that can stand up and make such a u-turn .

I have a few chats with individuals that are hardcore non dualists and they speak just like jeff once did ..

They just haven't owned up to their own jeffness yet and are living in a bubble of denial and intellectual claptrap .

They don't even live by example, they pick and choose a self identity when it suits . It's very odd .



x daz x

7luminaries
18-02-2017, 03:46 PM
Very simply, neo-advaita can be an immediate and intellectual realisation that there is only Self, alongside a pleasant fantasy of having 'arrived', while advaita recognises the need to actually remove the many distortions and obscurations that exist in the long journey towards Self.

LOL....:D And a boring one, too...hahaha :icon_eek:

Peace & blessings,
7L

7luminaries
18-02-2017, 04:04 PM
ON NEO-ADVAITA ~ Jeff Foster

There is a strange new club called ‘Neo-Advaita’. If you are a member of this club, apparently you will find yourself automatically regurgitating certain phrases at people when they are just trying to share their experiences with you – phrases such as “Who knows that? Who says that? There is no doer! There is no choice! That is just a concept! There is no me! You are in your story!”.

You will believe that you have found the ultimate answers to life and you will stop listening deeply to your fellow humans.

You may speak and act in cruel ways and then justify your behaviour with the words “There is no choice” or “compassion is just a concept”.

You may even claim to be ‘no-one’, ‘not identified’ or ‘not a person’, and then, to top it all off, you will say you do not believe anything at all, that you have no religion or identity and have gone beyond all stories, and that it is others – not you – who are trapped in their stories (er, even though there are no others to be trapped!)

If anyone disagrees with your preaching, you will fall back on seemingly irrefutable retorts such as “WHO says that?”, “You don’t get it yet!”, or “Everything is impersonal!” When you are really struggling to win an argument, you may even pull out the ultimate get-out clauses: “WHO cares?”… or “There’s still a ‘me’ there!”

You, and your fellow club members, will interpret your own lack of human care and kindness as a sign of how awakened and clear you are.

Oh, my friends, I do speak from experience. I was once a fully-paid-up member of this loveless cult. I left about six or seven years ago, sneaking off in the dead of night, ready and willing to be a living, breathing human being again with a beating heart, and ready and willing to listen deeply to my fellow humans, and the relief was so, so great. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Source: http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/on-neo-advaita/
Jim, I have to say I was moved when I read your story and I am so glad for you that you are away from that. And hopefully now have folks in your life who love and accept you as you are, and who seek & support your highest good equally to their own. After all, that is what it's all about :hug:

You have also performed a public service for many of us, and I don't mean just warning folks of the destructive and cult-like nature of this neo-advaita group. To say this is important, is an understatement of the highest magnitude. Because I also mean that there are many of us who have known and loved folks who clearly were influenced by this sort of thinking.

And I must say, as a form of misdirection or denial, it no doubt appeals strongly to some of the most emotionally & spiritually traumatised folks. Those who are most vulnerable emotionally and/or spiritually, and those who are least likely to benefit from its dubious benefits, whilst being most likely to do great harm to all those around them (to fam & friends, partners, spouses, or children). I.e., those around them whom they'd unwittingly but quite cruelly dehumanised as non-entities in order to fit into their strange belief system.

Thanks again,
and peace & blessings :hug3:
7L

7luminaries
18-02-2017, 04:12 PM
I like J.F. I saw a clip of him once on a t.v. show for alternative views . Back in the day Jeff was a hard core non dualist and he carried on like one of the neo robots .

He eventually did a 180 degree u-turn and said he could no longer deny the unique jeffness .

I like a man that can stand up and make such a u-turn .

I have a few chats with individuals that are hardcore non dualists and they speak just like jeff once did ..

They just haven't owned up to their own jeffness yet and are living in a bubble of denial and intellectual claptrap .

They don't even live by example, they pick and choose a self identity when it suits . It's very odd .



x daz x
Thanks for sharing this Daz...I can respect someone like that too.

It's always nice to know that while everyone's getting there at their own pace, some folks are really making clear strides like his Jeffness :smile:that can serve as inspiration for many others who may fear that next step and what it may bring.

As Jeff and others show, it's not so bad...it's doable, no need to fear. Even more, it feels right and good to be who he was and to live from his centre and he can speak to that as well. :hug3:

Peace & blessings,
7L

jimrich
18-02-2017, 05:35 PM
I we (whoever that is) look closely at Jeff's story, we can see a common thread throughout it - judgement, ill-will, animosity and fear. It's the very same thread that runs through most religions, clubs, organizations and groups where fearful/proud humans gather. Here's Jeff's story INCLUDING the common thread of judgement and ill-will - see if you can spot your own bad attitude here............

ON NEO-ADVAITA ~ Jeff Foster

There is a strange new [DISHONEST] club called ‘Neo-Advaita’ [which is very similar to many other dishonest, "religious" clubs]. If you are a member of this [phony] club, apparently you will find yourself automatically [and vainly] regurgitating certain phrases at [ignorant, unawakened] people when they are just trying to share their experiences with you – phrases [usually said with a "better than Thou" attitude] such as “Who knows that? Who says that? There is no doer! There is no choice! That is just a concept! There is no me! You are in your story!”.
You will believe that you have found the ultimate answers to life and you will stop listening deeply [and respectfully] to your [inferior] fellow humans. You may speak and act in cruel [& DISHONEST] ways [...common in forums!] and then justify your [DISHONEST] behaviour with the words “There is no choice” or “compassion is just a concept”. [or anything that makes you feel SUPERIOR and SAVED]

You [a completely DISHONEST being, channeled or otherwise] may even claim to be ‘no-one’, ‘not identified’ or ‘not a person’, and then, to top it all off, you will say you do not believe anything at all, that you have no religion or identity and have gone beyond all stories, and that it is others – not you – who are trapped in their stories (even though there are no others to be trapped!)

If anyone disagrees with your preaching [they will be BANNED!], you will fall back on seemingly irrefutable [& SMUG] retorts such as “WHO says that?”, “You don’t get it yet!”, or “Everything is impersonal!” When you are really struggling to [B]win an argument [it happens in ALL forums], you may even pull out the ultimate get-out [top your opponent] clauses: “WHO cares?”… or “There’s still a ‘me’ there!” [LOL, which usually works since most folks will become: confused, then ashamed, then afraid and finally ANGRY over being QUESTIONED this way.]

You, and your fellow [DISHONEST, mean-spirited] club members, will interpret your own lack of human care and kindness as a sign of how awakened and clear you are [and simply trying to "help" the blind and lost Rabble out there.]

Oh, my friends, I do [honestly] speak from experience. I was once a fully-paid-up member of this loveless, judgemental, superior & DISHONEST cult. I left about six or seven years ago, sneaking off in the dead of night, ready and willing to be a living, breathing [HONEST] human being again with a beating heart, and ready and willing to listen deeply to my fellow humans, [WITHOUT judgement, scorn and fake empathy] and the relief was so, so great. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid. [AND BE HONEST]
"All you need is love and HONESTY". ~ jim

jimrich
18-02-2017, 06:26 PM
They just haven't owned up to their own jeffness yet and are living ina bubble of denial and intellectual claptrap . They don't even live by example, they pick and choose a self identity when it suits . It's very odd .
x daz x
Hmmmm, interesting JUDGEMENTS there. Is this what Jeff was talking about - JUDGEMENT of others? :confused:

God-Like
18-02-2017, 07:04 PM
Thanks for sharing this Daz...I can respect someone like that too.

It's always nice to know that while everyone's getting there at their own pace, some folks are really making clear strides like his Jeffness :smile:that can serve as inspiration for many others who may fear that next step and what it may bring.

As Jeff and others show, it's not so bad...it's doable, no need to fear. Even more, it feels right and good to be who he was and to live from his centre and he can speak to that as well. :hug3:

Peace & blessings,
7L

One eventually faces where there at and the denial will eventually cease .

If one has realised what they are, they won't stand corrected further down the line .

Individuals that intellectually refer themselves to not being here, or there or is no-one per se will eventually correct themselves .

Some believe a theory so much that they almost buy it, butt the jeffness is the self aspect that believes the theory or not .

The realisation blows the theory either way .


x daz x

jimrich
18-02-2017, 07:05 PM
Jim, I have to say I was moved when I read your story and I am so glad for you that you are away from that.
Thanks 7, (I think?). I never was in "that".
....have folks in your life who love and accept you as you are, and who seek & support your highest good equally to their own. After all, that is what it's all about. :hug:
Yep. :hug3:

You have also performed a public service for many of us, and I don't mean just warning folks of the destructive and cult-like nature of this neo-advaita group.
Actually, I did it as a joke but, if folks are "warned" by Jeff's story, then I'm happy for them. I'd think that common sense would show folks just how wrong and bad mean-spirited judgement, criticism and arrogance can be - especially if you grew up with it.

To say this is important, is an understatement of the highest magnitude. Because I also mean that there are many of us who have known and loved folks who clearly were influenced by this sort of thinking.

Yes, judgement and criticism SUCKS and many of us were traumatized by it in our early childhood!

And I must say, as a form of misdirection or denial, it no doubt appeals strongly to some of the most emotionally & spiritually traumatised folks.
Trauma, of any kind, will often lead to defenses like: Judgement, criticism, blaming, ill-will, animosity, FEAR and the "holier than Thou" attitude/defense. The damaged ego ALWAYS need it's defenses.

Those who are most vulnerable emotionally and/or spiritually, and those who are least likely to benefit from its dubious benefits, whilst being most likely to do great harm to all those around them (to fam & friends, partners, spouses, or children). I.e., those around them whom they'd unwittingly but quite cruelly dehumanised as non-entities in order to fit into their strange belief system.
Very good! You must be a therapist of a counselor or perhaps a trauma Survivor. I'm impressed.

Thanks again,
and peace & blessings :hug3:
jim

God-Like
18-02-2017, 07:06 PM
Hmmmm, interesting JUDGEMENTS there. Is this what Jeff was talking about - JUDGEMENT of others? :confused:

I think they are . A non dualist needs to be more of a realist :biggrin: because a sense of self or the ego is what renounces that sense of what they are that is present .

Another interesting Judgement to ponder ..

I haven't listened to enough jeffness to know what he thinks of others . I was interested in his own u-turn .


x daz x

jimrich
18-02-2017, 08:11 PM
A non dualist needs to be more of a realist :biggrin:
A "non dualist", "dualist" and everyone needs to be more HONEST. :biggrin:

because a sense of self or the ego is what renounces that sense of what they are that is present .
Yes, the ego can really mess one up! :biggrin:

God-Like
19-02-2017, 08:56 AM
A "non dualist", "dualist" and everyone needs to be more HONEST. :biggrin:


Yes, the ego can really mess one up! :biggrin:

Yes I agree self honesty is the key . There is no fooling self .

So you know that the ego is what renounces aspects of self .

Self is unified, self ego can create a divide .

So if you understand that the non dualist's who renounce this and not that are only coming from ego .

The ego is a sense of self or what you are had .

To suggest no-one is here while in expression of being someone that experiences the ego, then they are in denial of their own self or are confused by the dogma that surrounds them or a bit of both .

x daz x

jimrich
19-02-2017, 05:46 PM
Yes I agree self honesty is the key .
There is no fooling self .
Is that true for you?
So you know that the ego is what renounces aspects of self . No, I don't know, do you?

Self is unified, self ego can create a divide .
Is this your own personal experience or just an assumption?

So if you understand that the non dualist's who renounce this and not that are only coming from ego .
Is this something you actually know or is it a guess?

The ego is a sense of self or what you are had .
Please explaln that sentence.

To suggest no-one is here while in expression of being someone that experiences the ego, then they are in denial of their own self or are confused by the dogma that surrounds them or a bit of both .
Can you prove that?
Do you ever speak for and about your own life, experiences and reality? I'd love to see how life is for you and read about your own, personal experiences and knowledge rather than these rambling, speeches, lectures and judgements from you. Do you ever honestly speak for your self? Are you a prisoner of shame and guilt? Are you afraid of the 'I'/'me'/'mine' words? :icon_eek:

shiningstars
19-02-2017, 05:46 PM
There is no fooling self .

Except, ironically, this whole thread, and recent ones from jimrich, speak to the opposite, God-Like.

God-Like
19-02-2017, 06:41 PM
Is that true for you?
No, I don't know, do you?

Is this your own personal experience or just an assumption?


Is this something you actually know or is it a guess?


Please explaln that sentence.


Can you prove that?
Do you ever speak for and about your own life, experiences and reality? I'd love to see how life is for you and read about your own, personal experiences and knowledge rather than these rambling, speeches, lectures and judgements from you. Do you ever honestly speak for your self? Are you a prisoner of shame and guilt? Are you afraid of the 'I'/'me'/'mine' words? :icon_eek:

When you said the ego can really mess one up I thought you were referring to the non dualists . My lines of thought went on from there .

You have asked a lot of questions which is fine and I will try and answer them .

In regards to not fooling self, I don't need the reflection as I am not denying or renouncing any self aspect of what I am .

I also know that there is a difference between realizing what you are and making an association to that . That is ego .

Self is unified as a realization . self is perceiving Self . There is no perceiving as Self beyond perception . This has been realization that pertains to no-one .

That's why it takes one to know one . The difference is in the point of perception known as the individual self that can reflect upon Self .

The non dualist who say they are not this .. are coming from the individual ego self . It is not Self beyond perception .

The ego as already stated is a sense or reflection of Self . All knowings, senses of what that is, is ego, beyond ego there are no senses, reflections, knowings .

They all relate to a mindful self .

In regards to my experiences / realizations, I used to roam the forums before you were here and went into great detail of the processes leading to Self realization and what transpires post realization .

I am not sure why you would pre judge that I can't actually back up from where i am coming from .. I haven't heard any of your realizations other than your love for the non dualists that write books to the non existent masses .

I have asked you how have you concluded that there is no-one here in a thread .. have you answered?


As an edit . I am wondering where half of the threads have gone lately . I think the moderators with all respect should give an explanation instead of just hitting the delete button . (just out of respect)


x daz x

God-Like
19-02-2017, 06:48 PM
Except, ironically, this whole thread, and recent ones from jimrich, speak to the opposite, God-Like.

It's difficult to take anyone seriously who proclaims they are not here to say it .

I am all ears and I am interested in individual experiences / realisations that bring about that conclusion .

As yet I haven't heard anything as to how the impression of being no-one comes about .

If an individual reckons they are no-one then that really is another form of identity / self association .

It's like someone saying I have no name . Well one has just named themselves that . lol .


x daz x

shiningstars
19-02-2017, 07:10 PM
It's difficult to take anyone seriously who proclaims they are not here to say it .

I am all ears and I am interested in individual experiences / realisations that bring about that conclusion .

As yet I haven't heard anything as to how the impression of being no-one comes about .

If an individual reckons they are no-one then that really is another form of identity / self association .

It's like someone saying I have no name . Well one has just named themselves that . lol .


x daz x

Yes, being nobody is being somebody, that much should have been obvious. An excellent point by you.

My only real question here is how much self-deception is involved in adhering to a belief like this. Realization through practice is a different beast altogether. Hence Buddhists talk about not mixing up the fruit with the practice, or the map with the outcome.

Jyotir's post bears repeating on this topic -

Hi jimrich,

As far as I can see, the major difference between Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita, is that within the so-called ‘Neo-Advaita’ movement, both exponents and followers possess a predominantly or even exclusively conceptual and intellectual understanding of some principles, that are as often misunderstood in terms of both premise and application, as they are replicated and reinforced in clever dialogue.

These tenets appear to be based on numerous faulty and unquestioned assumptions - what amounts to a rigid doctrine, and self-proclaimed as “radical”, largely because they are without the direct knowing through actual realization, which, was always implied by ‘Classical’, e.g., a legitimate assumption, because realization was traditionally understood to be an absolute requirement of the yoga.

It is the facile modern dispensing of that requirement for direct knowing by identity - realisation - and replacing it with a superficial separative indirect conceptual re-orientation as the realisation itself, which appears to suffice in-and-of-itself and constituting the so-called ‘radical’ element, but which actually renders it ineffective as a practice by obviating real practice accordingly.

The actual ‘practice’ apparently then becomes the subsequent dependence on clever word-games and intellectual debate, convoluted defences, and invalidation and intellectual coercion of sorts (often by rotely citing the accepted doctrine), in order to promote and sustain the belief system. And they’ve evidently gotten much facility, popularity, and validation through abundant internet access in that regard, both in dissemination and assimilation, by attracting droves of disaffected intellectuals looking for (imo) ‘the big easy answer’. They have also received much deserved and valid criticism as a result, as well.

It appears to be much like so-called ‘born-again’ Christianity in this respect - although intellectual and not devotional - but structurally similar: “I preach” (that’s my practice), but “you practice” (what I preach). By virtue of my preaching, it means I have practiced and therefore implicitly understand, therefore I preach. But since you need to practice what I preach (because you evidently are misperceiving reality as indicated by your 'stories' about a 'person', with 'volition', etc....), that means you don’t yet understand - until you feel confident in preaching by understanding the doctrine! That seems to be the Neo-Advaitin’s ‘radical’ often misguided intellectual evangelical ‘revolution’.

Further, the understanding that any conceptual description can never be adequate to convey the actual realization - if in fact one has achieved it - was traditionally a caution regarding the systematic intellectual codification of these conceptual principles - what the Neo brand appears to be using as the very substance of their own facile self-serving defence, which is wholly dependent on the invalidation of others’ belief systems as ‘fatally flawed’, because not fundamentally the Neo-Advaita view, in which, as another conceit of doctrine, often proposes (or arrogantly assumes) itself as the exclusive arbiter of reality perception and spiritual achievement - all others not real, not effective, not attainable through other methods - simply because not following the (assumed superior) fundamental (Neo-Advaita) exclusively 'correct' approach to spirituality. That is frequently the message.

Any attempted discussion which points out the flaws of reasoning, the specious assumptions and the intellectually indulgent conceits, or significantly - other different but equivalent methods - is then summarily invalidated by the clever negation that, “your words are merely conceptual games and ‘stories’ that are illusions and can never capture or refute the ‘real’ reality represented by my Neo-Advaita words and principles which represent the true reality beyond the capacity of language to describe.” That’s a standard rebuttal.

Clever conceptual conceit (unquestioned assumptions), intellectually codified as self-defensive doctrine (theory), exclusive invalidating debate by intellectual negation - through a mistakenly objective 'neti-neti', not a subjective realization. Otherwise none of the previous would be necessary, and which are common attributes of Neo-Advaita.

This so-called ‘new’ form is simply a doctrinaire instant-mix-and-serve version, in the same way that contemporary so-called ‘born-again’ Christians, in completely mis-construing Christ‘s Teaching in toto as merely a superficial intellectual conceptual truth to be accepted as theory, but not utilized in practice towards a true realization, e.g., theoretically; theory as substance; not symbolic of deeper esoteric possibilities represented by it, and therefore necessarily incomplete, partial, and limiting to the very necessity of practice which it cleverly avoids. It’s a myopic conceptual/intellectual doctrine, like Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’ (although the inverse). This conceptual trap is the very caution traditionally emphasized by Buddhists, AND Classical Advaita, but apparently regarded as authentic substance in ‘Neo’-Advaita.

The entire premise is apparently based on a mere intellectual acceptance of conceptual theory as the entire realization. In other words, by virtue of a mental understanding one implicitly becomes a realized Advaitin, when really, that is the first baby-step of re-orientation towards a difficult and arduous ongoing practice which may lead to what the ‘Neo’ believes they have already achieved by virtue of a facile mental acceptance of a misconstrued principle.

In the suggested piece it is (imo) fairly shocking and abundantly clear that the numerous unexamined fallacious assumptions, followed by weak and faulty reasoning are the foundational premises for this modern ’school of thought’ - and it appears to be not much more - is evidenced by patently specious ideas. For instance:

That ‘social conditioning’ is the origin of ego and a sense of personal self. That is an utterly superficial modern (and incorrect) view entirely based on external social observation of metaphysical results - not causes - and the 19th &20th Century nascent objective clinical science of psychology, not the subjective experience and examination of consciousness through yoga as directly experienced and mastered by aspirants for hundreds or thousands of years.

Neo-Advaita hasn’t discovered anything new - they’ve simply avoided the essential by talking a good talk around it, and giving it a ‘namarupa’.


Just my .02 fwiw.


~ J

shiningstars

shiningstars
19-02-2017, 07:11 PM
As an edit . I am wondering where half of the threads have gone lately . I think the moderators with all respect should give an explanation instead of just hitting the delete button . (just out of respect)


x daz x

Good point, God-Like, and maybe moderation of creating multiple new threads on what is essentially the same topic.

shiningstars

jimrich
19-02-2017, 07:14 PM
I also know that there is a difference between realizing what you are and making an association to that . That is ego .
So, what are you?

Self is unified as a realization . self is perceiving Self . There is no perceiving as Self beyond perception . This has been realization that pertains to no-one .Pertains to Nothingness, the Void or empty phenomena?

That's why it takes one to know one .
And are "one"?

The ego as already stated is a sense or reflection of Self . All knowings, senses of what that is, is ego, beyond ego there are no senses, reflections, knowings .
I assume you are speaking of the Void or Nothingness.

In regards to my experiences / realizations, I used to roam the forums before you were here and went into great detail of the processes leading to Self realization and what transpires post realization .
I wish that you would continue to say what is real and true for you rather than make speeches, give lectures and offer opinions. Just be honest and say what is TRUE for you.

I am not sure why you would pre judge that I can't actually back up from where i am coming from ..
I have no idea what that means............

I haven't heard any of your realizations other than your love for the non dualists that write books to the non existent masses .
I could write a few pages about my "realizations" or "awakenings" and then others would rip them to shreds with either jealous hatred or fearful contempt so, if you want to read about or COMPARE realization stories, PM me or email me and we can tell stories out in a safe and respectful place.

I have asked you how have you concluded that there is no-one here in a thread .. have you answered?
Because there is only "this" or "empty phenomena" BUT no independent, individual self or ego. It may seem and feel like there is a "self-entity" here but, upon investigation, there is no separate, imagined self/ego here at all - just: aware, alive, empty phenomena (plural). I am really nothing appearing as something and fell into believing that this false me is real. Well it isn't! I am real but this false me is NOT. I, empty phenomena, am completely real but the apparent, worldly me, is completely false and unreal. The ultimate joke is that everything is both real and unreal. It's a Paradox!

As an edit . I am wondering where half of the threads have gone lately . I think the moderators with all respect should give an explanation instead of just hitting the delete button . (just out of respect)
I asked the Admin. to remove several of my threads that may have violated copyright laws and/or caused a lot of trouble such as the No doer thread in the Buddha forum. I could not validate the Buddha quote I used there which really enraged a lot of die-hard Buddhists over there so it was removed at my request.
I appreciate the respectful and friendly "tone" of this post so, let's try to stay friendly and respectful as much as possible while discussing complicated and touchy subjects such as this.
Thank you,
jim :smile:

sky123
19-02-2017, 07:42 PM
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/good-news-science-buddha-agree-theres-no-you :icon_eek:

7luminaries
20-02-2017, 02:12 AM
Thanks 7, (I think?). I never was in "that".

Yep. :hug3:


Actually, I did it as a joke but, if folks are "warned" by Jeff's story, then I'm happy for them. I'd think that common sense would show folks just how wrong and bad mean-spirited judgement, criticism and arrogance can be - especially if you grew up with it.


Yes, judgement and criticism SUCKS and many of us were traumatized by it in our early childhood!


Trauma, of any kind, will often lead to defenses like: Judgement, criticism, blaming, ill-will, animosity, FEAR and the "holier than Thou" attitude/defense. The damaged ego ALWAYS need it's defenses.


Very good! You must be a therapist of a counselor or perhaps a trauma Survivor. I'm impressed.

Thanks again,
and peace & blessings :hug3:
jim

Hey there Jim, yes, I agree with all you've said. I didn't realise that was the Jeffness and not yourself...but still, thanks very much for sharing those thoughts of his. As a result, I was able to recognise how this harmful "no one exists" sort of philosophy has impacted and harmed some of those I care about. Who were vulnerable and working through trauma of their own, of course...unfortunately.

I suppose I am a trauma survivor of sorts, LOL, just as so many are. And I suppose I have become a sort of counsellor too...in part for friends and fam, as so many women do. But also, I do a lot of energy work with a focus on the heart. In spirit, there are two aspects which cannot really be separated...the heart doctor and the spiritual healer. I am a heart doctor (expert) and counsellor (in training, you could say...as this part is much harder, LOL...of course). And that is exactly because of the experience and my life-long love of inner work...though I have an odd proclivity for the work that is not common, even with energy work. Suppose that is the counsellor/listener/facilitator part...which is still quite partial.

Hardly anyone is much good at facilitating true spiritual healing, it seems...hahaha...not whilst getting their hands dirty at the same time. It requires deep engagement, humility, energy, grounding, centreing, and true presence to the unique individual consciousness AND his/her lived experience as it is present in that person's physical and spiritual being. Cannot be "full staff" yet though without opening to grace and without a heart-led consciousness that has found its feet in any situation. But I'm really making quite decent progress :hug3:

Peace & blessings,
7L

7luminaries
20-02-2017, 02:34 AM
One eventually faces where there at and the denial will eventually cease .

If one has realised what they are, they won't stand corrected further down the line .

Individuals that intellectually refer themselves to not being here, or there or is no-one per se will eventually correct themselves .

Some believe a theory so much that they almost buy it, butt the jeffness is the self aspect that believes the theory or not .

The realisation blows the theory either way .


x daz x
Yes, agreed. I get what you're saying. You said it very well on the One, not Two thread also.

It's a bit like quantum reality versus the "large-scale" reality of classic physics that dealt with the visible universe, more or less. When you deal with classic physics, you speak of a larger scale, where humans exist, where physical objects exist, and where planets and stars exist. We have atoms and so forth, but they hang together in systems and subsystems to comprise our reality of concrete beings and things. Also there are (more of less) certain observable and concrete laws or rules we can use to describe relationships between things at this level.

But on the quantum level, there is none of that. And the laws, such as we have apprehended them, are so radically different that they have completely rewritten our understanding of reality. Though these quantum fundamentals typically speak more deeply to the mystic's sense of what is than the classical laws of the larger-scale reality do. For example, quantum entanglement and the reality of interbeing...and what interbeing really means. Point being, from our large-scale perspective as discrete human beings with individuated consciousness -- nothing exists in the same way at the quantum level as it does to our common understanding (large-scale level). Yet is also equally correct to say everything exists at both the quantum level and the large-scale level, even though we cannot yet make the connection. Even though it appears as though what exists at the large-scale level ceases to exist (in any recogniseable or quantifiable way) at the quantum level.

It all depends on both perspective (hahaha....right, LOL...as that's what quantum reality has been telling us, that we cannot ever be anything other than immersed in and co-creating our reality) and on wisdom, or a mystical, illuminated apprehension. There is always something, even if it seems like nothing or like nothing we know. If there is nothing, it is not only beyond mind, it is beyond interbeing and our individuated consciousness. It is beyond our physical universe, our quantum universe, and beyond even the dark matter and energy of the guides...the nonphysical universe (quantum or no, they say yes :D).

There is always something, and we are that :tongue: So much for non-being, LOL. I'll stick with interbeing :hug3:

Now to bed...LOL.
Peace & blessings, Dazzer,
7L

jimrich
20-02-2017, 04:30 AM
As a result, I was able to recognise how this harmful "no one exists" sort of philosophy has impacted and harmed some of those I care about.
7, I'd be very interested to know exactly how this "no one exists" philosophy has impacted or harmed anyone so please offer some more details on that. Re: Jeff Foster, I'd google him to see what all he has to say and offer those in need.

I suppose I am a trauma survivor of sorts, LOL, just as so many are.
I'd be interested in your story, if and when you are comfortable telling it.

And I suppose I have become a sort of counsellor too...in part for friends and fam, as so many women do.
I can agree that females may be more able to show empathy to a trauma survivor than us men. My mother was much kinder than her sadistic, brutal and INSANE husband ever was.

I am a heart doctor (expert) and counsellor (in training, you could say...as this part is much harder, LOL...of course).
I'd say that counseling can be harder since a good counselor needs to have done their own inner work to be able to understand and EMPATHIZE with a damaged, hurting trauma Survivor and IMO, many so-called counselors are NOT emotionally resolved them selves so they make for very bad and even dangerous counselors.

Hardly anyone is much good at facilitating true spiritual healing, it seems...hahaha...not whilst getting their hands dirty at the same time.
True healing can only be done when the Healer is also "healed" or resolved.
But I'm really making quite decent progress :hug3:

I applaud you. :hug3:

God-Like
20-02-2017, 07:29 AM
So, what are you?

Pertains to Nothingness, the Void or empty phenomena?


And are "one"?


I assume you are speaking of the Void or Nothingness.


I wish that you would continue to say what is real and true for you rather than make speeches, give lectures and offer opinions. Just be honest and say what is TRUE for you.


I have no idea what that means............


I could write a few pages about my "realizations" or "awakenings" and then others would rip them to shreds with either jealous hatred or fearful contempt so, if you want to read about or COMPARE realization stories, PM me or email me and we can tell stories out in a safe and respectful place.


Because there is only "this" or "empty phenomena" BUT no independent, individual self or ego. It may seem and feel like there is a "self-entity" here but, upon investigation, there is no separate, imagined self/ego here at all - just: aware, alive, empty phenomena (plural). I am really nothing appearing as something and fell into believing that this false me is real. Well it isn't! I am real but this false me is NOT. I, empty phenomena, am completely real but the apparent, worldly me, is completely false and unreal. The ultimate joke is that everything is both real and unreal. It's a Paradox!


I asked the Admin. to remove several of my threads that may have violated copyright laws and/or caused a lot of trouble such as the No doer thread in the Buddha forum. I could not validate the Buddha quote I used there which really enraged a lot of die-hard Buddhists over there so it was removed at my request.
I appreciate the respectful and friendly "tone" of this post so, let's try to stay friendly and respectful as much as possible while discussing complicated and touchy subjects such as this.
Thank you,
jim :smile:



What Am I . Well the realization itself doesn't flash anything up like I am this or that, there is only being what you are . I think your smart enough not to associate a name for that which we are .

You can from a mind perspective start to evaluate what is that which is being and attribute qualities like consciousness and awareness and spirit and whatnot if you like, but I don't .

What you are is what you are . What you are is aware of experiencing the mind of duality .

The void or nothingness for some relates to the mind still, the realization or being what you are without a thought of it is beyond the mind of duality .

When you ask me to say what is real or true in my eyes you do know you are making a dual suggestion that implies I am someone that has a belief in what is true or real . You see this is where the non-dualist fall down because if you really thought no-one was here, then one wouldn't ask the question to another . There is no other in the eyes of the non dualist . This is where living the perceived reality of non duality crumbles beneath one's non existent feet .

I understand that you don't want to share realizations on a public forums but you see you asked that of me to share ..

What investigation have you undertaken in regards to there not being anyone here? I mean seriously, there has to be a sense of what you are that is here in order to investigate .

The ego searches, the ego investigates . The ego is the sense of I am .

I understand about the deleted posts .



x daz x

God-Like
20-02-2017, 07:36 AM
Yes, being nobody is being somebody, that much should have been obvious. An excellent point by you.

My only real question here is how much self-deception is involved in adhering to a belief like this. Realization through practice is a different beast altogether. Hence Buddhists talk about not mixing up the fruit with the practice, or the map with the outcome.

Jyotir's post bears repeating on this topic -



shiningstars

Yes thats the golden ticket or the light that blinds the non dualists . I am nothing, I am no-one blah, blah, blah is self identifying .

One is simply swapping someone for no-one :D

If they really believed there is no-one here then they would not support the dream / illusory self .

They wouldn't hesitate to not eat, they would not hesitate to walk off a cliff .

The reason why they preserve life as they know it is because they believe on some level that they are someone that is in experience .

If I didn't believe truly that you were here I wouldn't sit here writing you a post .

Thanks for Jyotir's post link . I have known him for a while now and I resonate with much of what he says .



x daz x

7luminaries
20-02-2017, 04:59 PM
7, I'd be very interested to know exactly how this "no one exists" philosophy has impacted or harmed anyone so please offer some more details on that. Re: Jeff Foster, I'd google him to see what all he has to say and offer those in need.


I'd be interested in your story, if and when you are comfortable telling it.


I can agree that females may be more able to show empathy to a trauma survivor than us men. My mother was much kinder than her sadistic, brutal and INSANE husband ever was.


I'd say that counseling can be harder since a good counselor needs to have done their own inner work to be able to understand and EMPATHIZE with a damaged, hurting trauma Survivor and IMO, many so-called counselors are NOT emotionally resolved them selves so they make for very bad and even dangerous counselors.


True healing can only be done when the Healer is also "healed" or resolved.


I applaud you. :hug3:

Jim, thanks for your kind response. I suppose I meant that I and others I know, both, have got some very confusing and odd feedback over the yrs. from certain individuals who appeared to be avoidant and impersonal to the point of cruelty. Individuals for whom we cared deeply and loved as people. Even whilst my spiritual awareness clearly apprehends they were and are good and decent individuals at heart -- some of whom were earnestly trying to work through their stuff.

There is a cold, impersonal, utilitarian aspect to this philosophy, as Jeff has mentioned, and so it would be nearly impossible to hold to non-being and still view others as fully human. To say interaction with folks who hold or held to "everyone is no one" was heartbreaking at various times is a simple truth. Who do you think you are, and who cares what you think or feel...(particularly what you feel)? It's all transitory and meaningless anyway. It's that sort of thing. You know they're hurting but it's very difficult to truly reach or to connect deeply with anyone who cannot see your humanity. Plus, it's quite hurtful and as Jeff notes, they often simply mock you for caring or expecting simple kindness...or for being gobsmacked or hurt by their extreme apathy or cruelty words or deeds. My father was a master at this but we've all known others.

Many folks' personal traumas of one kind or another, often family-related but sometimes also involving borderline, narcissistic, &/or addicted ex-partners, have made them easy prey for a philosophy which appeared to point the way to transcending the heart and any relentless pain and suffering by cutting out or papering over the heart chakra altogether. By displaying either hostility and fear & loathing toward the heart or toward emotion (theirs or others)...or else by being coldly cruel or seemingly impersonal or apathetic, regarding deeper connections or even regarding simple, authentic kindness and engagement. Or all of the above, variously.

Stepping back, one can see that these folks are hurting, as you say. And of course, only love can overcome hate/fear/loathing, not more of the same. So the tragedy for they themselves is that a deeper awakening cannot progress or come to be, without an integrated heart-led consciousness...even aside from the pain they cause to those who love and care for them. Nor can many there fully benefit from the love that other give.

The non-being and belief in an impersonal reality is a cruel post-modern trick of sorts which in fact provided more misdirection than anything else. It provided a false answer to their pain, a deception. In lieu of a solid and loving way forward in truth. It will have pointed them toward the same odd path as the narcissist and the addict...where no one else matters because everything and everyone is illusory...except the unavoidable reality of pain (avoid) and pleasure (seek or avoid, your choosing).

Of course, this is a false paradigm. What is true? Interbeing? Existence and eternal consciousness, in all their infinite variation and splendour? OR that I am a universe of one and you don't exist? Because no one and nothing truly exists...as we are each trapped or housed in a false, temporal, illusory material reality (often controlled by an evil overlord called Source)? LOL...sorry couldn't resist. What is even the point of denying our ultimate being? Whether temporal or otherwise?

Many would and do choose to believe in a false reality and in non-being generally because it allows them to numb their pain with the belief in non-being. Because it (belief in non-being) allows them to dehumanise themselves and others, in order to numb the pain.

Even more tragically, belief in non-being encourages them not to take responsibility for their own spiritual journey, in all its wonder. Who cares if they do misaligned or "bad" stuff to themselves or others, if none of it is "real", eh? It turns them away from their humanity and from spirit...all of which are centred in the awakened or illuminated heart. Where mind is in service to heart, not leading it into a pit of emptiness or into the void.

They will find their way back, no doubt, as we all do. Some now, some soon, some in this lifetime, and some not for many lifetimes still. But it is a cruel misdirection nonetheless, on all counts. It's time that could have been simply spent in joy and right-alignment, being authentic and kind, and treating others with simple dignity and familial love and/or friendship.

C'est la vie, but that's alright. Good thing is, nothing stays the same forever and fundamental change and growth is always possible. I always try to leave a space for a new page to be written. Authentic love and forgiveness/true acceptance are true, they are freeing and expansive, and they are healing. I'm even making some real progress with my dad, as he's got a bit older but mainly since he's been sick...which is still saying something. The key is being open to where he is now, whilst keep awareness of dignity and boundaries as needed. It's only taken his entire lifetime and mine to date :D

Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L

jimrich
20-02-2017, 05:40 PM
What Am I . Well the realization itself doesn't flash anything up like I am this or that, there is only being what you are . I think your smart enough not to associate a name for that which we are .
Hmmm, "only being what YOU are". Why can't you say: Only being what I am. Are you really so AFRAID of the word 'I'? It won't BITE YOU! LOL, I am "smart enough" to know that I need not FEAR saying, "I am that" or "I am Noting" or "I just am" or............... They are only words and I am not ASHAMED to use any of them. Are you smart enough to just say what is true for you? Don't let fear and shame hold you down.

You can from a mind perspective start to evaluate what is that which is being and attribute qualities like consciousness and awareness and spirit and whatnot if you like, but I don't .
OK, if you don't then lets just drop that subject.

What you are is what you are . What you are is aware of experiencing the mind of duality .
Cool, and what is "that" that you are? And why are you still afraid to say what is true for you. How about = "What I am is what I am". "What I am is aware of..........." What are YOU?
Honestly, I'd respect you and what you say a lot more if you had the courage to speak for and about your self rather then about me and others. Are you really so ashamed of your self?

The void or nothingness for some relates to the mind still, the realization or being what you are without a thought of it is beyond the mind of duality .

And for some, the void or nothingness relates to what's real or eternal (empty phenomena) which is beyond and also is the so-called "mind". All that there is, is the empty phenomena or Nothingness!

When you ask me to say what is real or true in my eyes you do know you are making a dual suggestion that implies I am someone that has a belief in what is true or real .
I honestly do not care at all about what you "believe". I am interested in what you can or will say about your own, direct experiences rather than these lectures and speeches from you. I asked you to say what is real and true FOR YOU - personally.

You see this is where the non-dualist fall down because if you really thought no-one was here, then one wouldn't ask the question to another .
You are twisting both my words and the concept or teachings about no-one is here (Advaita). No separate, individual is here - there's just one or not-two, but, in the interests of communicating, I bow to the temporary notion that some egos are present, asking questions and talking with each other. There is only ONE thing here and that one thing is appearing in the forms of jim and daz to apparently have an apparent talk about NOTHING significant or important - just for the fun of it. The Absolute is here, having fun in and as jim and daz apparently discussing something. That's how I see it, for now.

There is no other in the eyes of the non dualist .
That's true. There is no separate, independent 'me' here and no separate, independent 'me' there - just This or Life appearing as two egos discussing things just for the fun of it.

This is where living the perceived reality of non duality crumbles beneath one's non existent feet .
LOL, if you say so. My feet do exist There is no 'me' here or anywhere but, so long as we (the Absolute) are talking together, let's use two 'mes' for the time being. the Absolute is having a ball appearing as two apparent 'me's playing at life.

I understand that you don't want to share realizations on a public forums but you see you asked that of me to share ..
LOL, I guess you forgot that you mentioned my "realizations" in this post: "I haven't heard any of your realizations other than your love for the non dualists that write books to the non existent masses . I have asked you how have you concluded that there is no-one here in a thread .. have you answered?"

Then i responded with:
I could write a few pages about my "realizations" or "awakenings" and then others would rip them to shreds with either jealous hatred or fearful contempt so, if you want to read about or COMPARE realization stories, PM me or email me and we can tell stories out in a safe and respectful place.
I am waiting for a PM or email from you on this "realiazation" matter..............

I honestly do not care at all about your "realizations" or mine. I found out long ago that the experiences or attainments of others can be a block in my path growth so it's best that I do NOT know about your "realizations" for now.

What investigation have you undertaken in regards to there not being anyone here?
I am satisfied that there is no separate self or 'me' here by studying the work of: Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, John Wheeler, Kenneth Madden, Richard Sylvester, Lisa Cairns, Mooji, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Natalie Gray, Robert Wolfe, Charlie Hayes and a huge array of non-dualist spokespersons and teachers but the guy who helped me just HAPPILY be here and now was and is John Wheeler who showed me that This is it and I am already it or there or good enough JUST AS I AM - without: practices, methods, systems, teachings, leaders, books, videos, ashrams, gurus, forums, etc. I am no longer WAITING AROUND to eventually "wake up", become something or get anything. This is it! I just am - and it's OK. Most of the "teachings" and methods encourage the ego or 'me' to go on and on FOREVER as a separate, limited and finite object, which is just fine so long as you like that kind of temporary, unsatisfactory life - most folks do. John Wheeler, Rupert Spira and Tony Parsons make it clear that there is NO separate, personal ego anywhere and that you are totally free right here and now - always were and always will be. I am no longer a Seeker or a student of some awakened guru. I just am and it's terrific! No more waiting around to be "saved", enlightened, woke up, fixed, corrected, taken to heaven, saved from hell, accomplish this or that, become this or that, get this or that, avoid this or that, do this or that.........I just am and it's good enough! Whatever I am or feel, in this very moment IS IT!
Now all of you Trolls can jump in here and TRASH what I just wrote!
I mean seriously, there has to be a sense of what you are that is here in order to investigate .
speak for your self!
The ego searches, the ego investigates . The ego is the sense of I am .
No it isn't. I am allows for the sense of an ego. The apparent ego exists within I am but the ego has no independent life of it's own because it does not even exist. It's a Paradox!
Your comments and points of view will have much more credence if you talk about what you personally know and understand so use 'I" more and 'you' less to be taken seriously. Giving lectures and speeches is a bore, IMO. Just say what is true for and about YOUR SELF by using 'I' statements mostly.
jim :smile:

jimrich
20-02-2017, 07:08 PM
Jim, thanks for your kind response. I suppose I meant that I and others I know, both, have got some very confusing and odd feedback over the yrs. from certain individuals who appeared to be avoidant and impersonal to the point of cruelty.
Yes, parents can be like that!:confused: Well, my dad was like that, anyway.

Individuals for whom we cared deeply and loved as people. Even whilst my spiritual awareness clearly apprehends they were and are good and decent individuals at heart -- some of whom were earnestly trying to work through their stuff.
Yep, that describes my parents, me and my 1st wife.

There is a cold, impersonal, utilitarian aspect to this philosophy, as Jeff has mentioned, and so it would be nearly impossible to hold to non-being and still view others as fully human.
IMO, the philosophy is not wrong but an emotionally damaged person can and will use the philosophy in destructive ways. A sick ego is compelled to misuse EVERYTHING!

To say interaction with folks who hold or held to "everyone is no one" was heartbreaking at various times is a simple truth. Who do you think you are, and who cares what you think or feel...(particularly what you feel)?
In psychotherapy, I was shown over and over how "Hurt people, hurt people!" since the damaged ego lives mostly behind a huge array of ego-defenses as represented in Jeff's story about "B" [http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/the-advaita-trap-a-one-act-play/] who hurts "A" again and again until A" finally walks away from the abuse. "B" never gets it that his ego defenses are ruining their friendship.

It's all transitory and meaningless anyway.
Yes, from the Absolute perspective but from "A"s perspective - I HURTS A LOT!

It's that sort of thing. You know they're hurting but it's very difficult to truly reach or to connect deeply with anyone who cannot see your humanity.
What "B" has lost touch with is his OWN HUMANITY. A Shame-based, [google it] damaged person is incapable of FEELING or seeing their own "humanity" or that of anybody else, as was seen by the Nazi atrocities during WWII. Alice Miller [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Miller_(psychologist)] describes how the Nazis were dehumanized in childhood with Toxic Shame [google it] and then grew up to become monsters just like Hitler.

Plus, it's quite hurtful and as Jeff notes, they often simply mock you for caring or expecting simple kindness...or for being gobsmacked or hurt by their extreme apathy or cruelty words or deeds. My father was a master at this but we've all known others.
That is the horror of Shame-based conditioning where the victim (B) of Toxic Shame is deprived of any empathy or love for others or them self and MUST use whatever ego defense they can (mocking) to stay on top and out of pain or remorse while hurting their victims. My dad was the master of mental and physical CRUELTY! And his spineless wife (our mother) never said a word!

Many folks' personal traumas of one kind or another, often family-related but sometimes also involving borderline, narcissistic, &/or addicted ex-partners, have made them easy prey for a philosophy which appeared to point the way to transcending the heart and any relentless pain and suffering by cutting out or papering over the heart chakra altogether. By displaying either hostility and fear & loathing toward the heart or toward emotion (theirs or others)...or else by being coldly cruel or seemingly impersonal or apathetic, regarding deeper connections or even regarding simple, authentic kindness and engagement. Or all of the above, variously.
We can see this kind of insane fanaticism in suicide bombers and terrorist willing to do anything for their "faith". I'd say that all personal/emotions trauma is family related and that will worsen any genetic or natural emotional flaws or disorders in an affected child who then grows up to be a problem for society. I am not sure it there are a lot of Advaitans who've become insane fanatics but it could happen to any emotionally damaged person, IMO.

Stepping back, one can see that these folks are hurting, as you say. And of course, only love can overcome hate/fear/loathing, not more of the same. So the tragedy for they themselves is that a deeper awakening cannot progress or come to be, without an integrated heart-led consciousness...even aside from the pain they cause to those who love and care for them.
Some say that "awakening" is not possible so long as someone (like I was) is struggling with deep and painful trauma so the ego needs to be repaired BEFORE a Survivor of early trauma can move on to higher consciousness and selflessness. My experience was that, although introduced to non-duality in my late teens, I finally had to stop and turn to psychotherapy to FIX my damage ego. It isn't completely fixed yet but good enough for now, LOL.

The non-being and belief in an impersonal reality is a cruel post-modern trick of sorts which in fact provided more misdirection than anything else. It provided a false answer to their pain, a deception. In lieu of a solid and loving way forward in truth. It will have pointed them toward the same odd path as the narcissist and the addict...where no one else matters because everything and everyone is illusory...except the unavoidable reality of pain (avoid) and pleasure (seek or avoid, your choosing).
That is the crisis of the Shame-based, damage ego or self which can and does distort everything to fit into it's needs for safety, control and SURVIVAL. I was and maybe still am a lot like "B", thanks to a very damaged, defensive ego/self, who's whole existence revolved around SAFETY and SECURITY.

Of course, this is a false paradigm. What is true? Interbeing? Existence and eternal consciousness, in all their infinite variation and splendour? OR that I am a universe of one and you don't exist? Because no one and nothing truly exists...as we are each trapped or housed in a false, temporal, illusory material reality (often controlled by an evil overlord called Source)? LOL...sorry couldn't resist. What is even the point of denying our ultimate being? Whether temporal or otherwise?
All concepts and teachings can and will be misunderstood and misused by a damaged, defensive and SHMED ego. We can see it all around us - road rage, shootings, murder, bombings, rape, white collar criminals, insane cops, cheaters, liars, arsonists, two-faced preachers and gurus and on and on. It's all Toxic Shame in action! LOL, or perhaps it's just Divinity playing a strange game with itself?

Many would and do choose to believe in a false reality and in non-being generally because it allows them to numb their pain with the belief in non-being. Because it (belief in non-being) allows them to dehumanise themselves and others, in order to numb the pain.
Non-being is a distortion of a truth or fact that the damaged ego has to make up. Non-being is about the non-existence of a separate, independent being or self. There is only ONE self or being - not two - not a self plus an ego. But the limited ego can't see that truth so it comes up with the idea that there is "non-being" or "no-self". In a way, it comes down to a game of semantics which the ego hopes to win.

They will find their way back, no doubt, as we all do. Some now, some soon, some in this lifetime, and some not for many lifetimes still. But it is a cruel misdirection nonetheless, on all counts. It's time that could have been simply spent in joy and right-alignment, being kind and courteous and treating others with simple dignity and familial love and/or friendship.

Finding the way back is one of the goals of therapy along with spirituality so, to each his own. I started out with spirituality (What am I?) but eventually had to turn around to therapy. I certainly wish that my life had been better and happier from day one BUT I picked the wrong set of parents! Fortunately, I am now finding teachings and pointers that help me feel a little better about life and just being OK - as I am - right now.

C'est la vie, but that's alright. Good thing is, nothing stays the same forever and fundamental change and growth is always possible. I always try to leave a space for a new page to be written. Authentic love and forgiveness/true acceptance are true, they are freeing and expansive, and they are healing. I'm even making some real progress with my dad, as he's got a bit older but mainly since he's been sick...which is still saying something. The key is being open to where he is now, whilst keep awareness of dignity and boundaries as needed. It's only taken his entire lifetime and mine to date :D
Both my parents died completely consumed by the Toxic Shame their parents gave them so I never had a chance to work anything out with them on this side of life. It's very sad for me to know that we could have had a much happier life IF ONLY they had ever woken up to the family related ugliness that had consumed them but, self awareness and introspection was TABOO back then so folks just did what they knew to do and NEVER questioned it. My sibling are both LOST in family beliefs and behaviors but they are happy so who am I to say that they need this or that.
My current attitude is: What will be, will be! The Absolute or "empty phenomenon" is running the show and I am currently satisfied that it knows what it's doing in it's tailor made Play of Life. This is it - and it's OK. If I was god or the Source, I'd probably leave all of this just as it is - the good and the bad, the ugly and pretty, right and wrong, pain and pleasure, hurt and healing, etc. WHAT A SHOW!

Peace & blessings :hug3:
jim :smile:

no1wakesup
21-02-2017, 12:47 AM
Even to define non duality conceptually, within the duality of this existence, leaves you with the opposite, which is no existence or reality at all. Its a question from a mind seeking an answer where no known experienced or reality is available to directly draw from. So its not a convenient or safe for maintaing what really wants to continue. You can't go into maintaining your individual fortitude because there is nothing in place to support it. There are no ceilings, walls or floors. If there is nothing to hold onto then there must be no one there needing to grasp at anything. The mind, in a grasping reality, seeks spiritually or otherwise, to secretly maintain its own sense of self. Ultimately, that's not what happems.

We are just fkng with a notion of it here. Better for the mind to do this for ****s and giggles then to   see this as serious. One would provide provocative entertainment and self serving purpose (to become enlightened) while the ladder would produce deeper anxiety, depression and other mental disorders.

It's not a club you join. There are no members

jimrich
21-02-2017, 01:55 AM
Even to define non duality conceptually, within the duality of this existence, leaves you with the opposite, which is no existence or reality at all.
The separate self or apparent entity sees and feels it that way and so the ego becomes either fighting mad or hopelessly depressed because this "no existence or reality at all" is extremely threatening to an apparent entity that wants to go on and on forever as an apparent entity, ego or separate self. It's happening right here at this forum! All the ego hears is, "Your days are OVER!" so then it comes out FIGHTING.

Its a question from a mind seeking an answer where no known experienced or reality is available to directly draw from.
I say that there is a known experienced reality to directly draw from and Rupert Spira demonstrates it as "self inquiry" in his videos [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVdsVwiRTvI BUT, just as in the video, the Separate Self or ego, fights it and wants to ignore the amazing fact that there is NO Separate Self to stay on as the Separate Self NO MATTER WHAT! The ego simply ignores any "known experienced reality" (such as who am I?) and the "answers" it offers and pretends that it's own apparent existence is unquestionably true or real.

So its not a convenient or safe for maintaing what really wants to continue.
There's the answer - the ego wants to continue. The ego is not about to give up and die just because the mind is looking for the truth. In the video, the Seeker realizes that there is NO Separate Self BUT continues to argue for it's EXISTENCE!

You can't go into maintaining your individual fortitude because there is nothing in place to support it.
It/you don't even exist so nothing could support it other than one's imagination.

There are no ceilings, walls or floors.
Yes there are but there is no Separate Self present to occupy or touch them.

If there is nothing to hold onto then there must be no one there needing to grasp at anything.
There is plenty to hold on to just no Separate Self who could grasp anything. You are there, just not the imagined, false, non-existing Separate Self!

The mind, in a grasping reality, seeks spiritually or otherwise, to secretly maintain its own sense of self. Ultimately, that's not what happems.
It isn't the "mind" that seeks. It's the Separate Self that seeks to maintain its own sense of 'me' but it cannot do it because it isn't even there. It's a Paradox but, when seen in Rupert's video, it's absolutely obvious - there is NO Separate Self/ego/'me'.

We are just fkng with a notion of it here.
Playing with "notions" is how the Separate Self is maintained - it loves "word games" as Rupert's video shows.
Better for the mind to do this for ****s and giggles then to   see this as serious.
Sorry that much of your comment is messed up but, it's only serious to the frightened Separate Self as the video demonstrates. The moment the question: Who/what is this 'I'?, arises, it gets SERIOUS.
One would provide provocative entertainment and self serving purpose (to become enlightened) while the ladder would produce deeper anxiety, depression and other mental disorders.
Not sure what any of that means, but only the ego or Separate Self can ever experience anxiety, depression and mental disorders - not the underlying Awareness or True Self.

It's not a club you join. There are no members
You can join any club you like - it's all you and there are plenty of members - they're all you - just you - the infinite Reality or whatever you call your self these days. I like the Buddhist term: "empty phenomenon (singular) or phenomena (plural)" which comes back to Nothing or Nothingness. LOL, semantics can turn one inside out. It's a Paradox! :icon_eek:

shiningstars
21-02-2017, 03:12 AM
Yes thats the golden ticket or the light that blinds the non dualists . I am nothing, I am no-one blah, blah, blah is self identifying .

One is simply swapping someone for no-one :D

If they really believed there is no-one here then they would not support the dream / illusory self .

They wouldn't hesitate to not eat, they would not hesitate to walk off a cliff .

The reason why they preserve life as they know it is because they believe on some level that they are someone that is in experience .

If I didn't believe truly that you were here I wouldn't sit here writing you a post .

Thanks for Jyotir's post link . I have known him for a while now and I resonate with much of what he says .



x daz x

Welcome, I like his posts, seems like a good guy, excellent spiritual insights.

I suspect the "Neo-Advaita" group utilize this method like a cult - only believers need apply - well it's sure easier than doing the real work, but what honest fulfillment is that?

Arguing to the ego death whilst proclaiming no-one is there - such an empty, hollow offering to those around them.

In the famous words of the current President, [I]sad!

shiningstars

God-Like
21-02-2017, 07:53 AM
Hmmm, "only being what YOU are". Why can't you say: Only being what I am. Are you really so AFRAID of the word 'I'? It won't BITE YOU! LOL, I am "smart enough" to know that I need not FEAR saying, "I am that" or "I am Noting" or "I just am" or............... They are only words and I am not ASHAMED to use any of them. Are you smart enough to just say what is true for you? Don't let fear and shame hold you down.


OK, if you don't then lets just drop that subject.


Cool, and what is "that" that you are? And why are you still afraid to say what is true for you. How about = "What I am is what I am". "What I am is aware of..........." What are YOU?
Honestly, I'd respect you and what you say a lot more if you had the courage to speak for and about your self rather then about me and others. Are you really so ashamed of your self?


And for some, the void or nothingness relates to what's real or eternal (empty phenomena) which is beyond and also is the so-called "mind". All that there is, is the empty phenomena or Nothingness!


I honestly do not care at all about what you "believe". I am interested in what you can or will say about your own, direct experiences rather than these lectures and speeches from you. I asked you to say what is real and true FOR YOU - personally.


You are twisting both my words and the concept or teachings about no-one is here (Advaita). No separate, individual is here - there's just one or not-two, but, in the interests of communicating, I bow to the temporary notion that some egos are present, asking questions and talking with each other. There is only ONE thing here and that one thing is appearing in the forms of jim and daz to apparently have an apparent talk about NOTHING significant or important - just for the fun of it. The Absolute is here, having fun in and as jim and daz apparently discussing something. That's how I see it, for now.


That's true. There is no separate, independent 'me' here and no separate, independent 'me' there - just This or Life appearing as two egos discussing things just for the fun of it.


LOL, if you say so. My feet do exist There is no 'me' here or anywhere but, so long as we (the Absolute) are talking together, let's use two 'mes' for the time being. the Absolute is having a ball appearing as two apparent 'me's playing at life.


LOL, I guess you forgot that you mentioned my "realizations" in this post: "I haven't heard any of your realizations other than your love for the non dualists that write books to the non existent masses . I have asked you how have you concluded that there is no-one here in a thread .. have you answered?"

Then i responded with:

I am waiting for a PM or email from you on this "realiazation" matter..............

I honestly do not care at all about your "realizations" or mine. I found out long ago that the experiences or attainments of others can be a block in my path growth so it's best that I do NOT know about your "realizations" for now.


I am satisfied that there is no separate self or 'me' here by studying the work of: Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, John Wheeler, Kenneth Madden, Richard Sylvester, Lisa Cairns, Mooji, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Natalie Gray, Robert Wolfe, Charlie Hayes and a huge array of non-dualist spokespersons and teachers but the guy who helped me just HAPPILY be here and now was and is John Wheeler who showed me that This is it and I am already it or there or good enough JUST AS I AM - without: practices, methods, systems, teachings, leaders, books, videos, ashrams, gurus, forums, etc. I am no longer WAITING AROUND to eventually "wake up", become something or get anything. This is it! I just am - and it's OK. Most of the "teachings" and methods encourage the ego or 'me' to go on and on FOREVER as a separate, limited and finite object, which is just fine so long as you like that kind of temporary, unsatisfactory life - most folks do. John Wheeler, Rupert Spira and Tony Parsons make it clear that there is NO separate, personal ego anywhere and that you are totally free right here and now - always were and always will be. I am no longer a Seeker or a student of some awakened guru. I just am and it's terrific! No more waiting around to be "saved", enlightened, woke up, fixed, corrected, taken to heaven, saved from hell, accomplish this or that, become this or that, get this or that, avoid this or that, do this or that.........I just am and it's good enough! Whatever I am or feel, in this very moment IS IT!
Now all of you Trolls can jump in here and TRASH what I just wrote!

speak for your self!

No it isn't. I am allows for the sense of an ego. The apparent ego exists within I am but the ego has no independent life of it's own because it does not even exist. It's a Paradox!
Your comments and points of view will have much more credence if you talk about what you personally know and understand so use 'I" more and 'you' less to be taken seriously. Giving lectures and speeches is a bore, IMO. Just say what is true for and about YOUR SELF by using 'I' statements mostly.
jim :smile:

You reckon I am afraid of saying 'I' because I mentioned the 'you' word lol . That's kinda crazy to conclude that by what I said . My opening sentence started with what am 'I' . It's a figure of speech, don't take it too personally (excuse the pun) .

I am not afraid also to say what I am or what you are . It's just futile to suggest what it is that you are as an absolute when the realization of Self doesn't pertain to any thought of what that is .

I have put it before to those that say they are pure awareness or super duper consciousness 'have you realized that is what you are' have you realized what consciousness is, and there is no answer from them . The reason being is that all these Self references are after thoughts / post realization .

So you can potentially have many forum members arguing over what consciousness is, when no-one has realized that it's just a made up thought pertaining to what you are .

What I will debate however is being aware of what you are of the mind and the differences between that and no mindful awareness of self .

This is the aspect that the non-dualist seem to know very little about .

The void or nothingness or the emptiness can be different for some and it will depend on if there is a thought of 'I' experiencing nothingness or not .

There is either awareness of self or not, there is for myself no need to debate the word usage in that respect .

When you say you don't care what I believe well what I believe per se, stems from my direct experiences over a 26 year period of self enquiry / meditation / realiations .

Everything that I say stems from the realization or the being of what I am or what is beyond I am . (Are we clear now) .

In regards to your thoughts of no-one here, you speak of no doer, you speak of things just happening, you have said there is no-one here . The separateness or the oneness I have already explained in that oneness is just another concept of the mind . There is more to the non dualists than not believing in separation . There is a belief that no-one is here that is either one or separated from what they are .

If you wanted to simply discuss individuality being part of a collective or in essence being the same from a certain perspective then I would of entertained such notions . The bog standard snowflake analogy would of put to bed one's individuality as being unique but also the same as everything that is snow . The unique wave of jeffness, the unique wave that is 'I' that is all part of the same ocean, butt your expression goes way beyond simply that .

When you speak of there is no you, you are separating that which you are that is an expression of that . You are an advocate of oneness but you believe in separating and dividing . This is what I said before about the unified Self . You can't separate the weeds from the roses and that is what you are doing . You are renouncing aspects of Self when Self is all there is .
This is why non-dualist are blinded by what they renounce . Embrace the wave as the ocean, don't brush aside your very own unique expression as the wave .

In regards to p.m's and expalaining my 26 years of experiences, I think I'll take a rain check thanks, just take what I say with a pinch of salt or not . I think it's fair play to ask the question of where one's understandings come from but like I said I don't see other posters speaking openly about their Self realizations in reflection of every post made . Most can see where another is coming from if they have realized the same thing . You just have to pay attention to what they say, as if the walk their talk or not . This is the problem I see with certain hardcore non dualists . They say no-one is here and yet they carry on as if there is . If you truly believe there is no-one here then they would behave as if there isn't but they don't . It's a dead giveaway .

Your investigation into what others say be it 'Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, John Wheeler, Kenneth Madden, Richard Sylvester, Lisa Cairns, Mooji, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Natalie Gray, Robert Wolfe, Charlie Hayes' is just like breathing in second hand smoke . I haven't studied anyone . I have gone by what I have realized . I like what snippets I have heard from ramana that are quotes here and there posted on the internet and most would agree that there is only what I am or you are for they are the same .

What becomes apparent though is post realization there are many understandings of what the realization is or means to the individual . What is also apparent is that there are many views had that can only be experienced by what we are that is present, whether that is a unique wave or snowflake it matters not .

It is happening, but what is happening in your unique experience isn't necessarily happening in mine .

When you say speak for myself when I said 'there has to be a sense of what you are that is here in order to investigate' well you just nailed it on the head by saying that .

It proves my point exactly .


x daz x

God-Like
21-02-2017, 08:04 AM
Welcome, I like his posts, seems like a good guy, excellent spiritual insights.

I suspect the "Neo-Advaita" group utilize this method like a cult - only believers need apply - well it's sure easier than doing the real work, but what honest fulfillment is that?

Arguing to the ego death whilst proclaiming no-one is there - such an empty, hollow offering to those around them.

In the famous words of the current President, [I]sad!

shiningstars


It is kinda bonkers :D

I have recently had a chat with a hardcore non dualist and he makes jim look like a puppy dog :D .

He would say exactly the same things as jim almost word for word, just like the flat earther's and the jehovah's it's like they are all reading from the same script .

If they don't live by example in reflection of their beliefs then all they have is their beliefs .


x daz x

jimrich
21-02-2017, 09:02 AM
just take what I say with a pinch of salt or not
OK. :laughing6:

"I'll allow you the last word" ~ awareness

7luminaries
21-02-2017, 02:23 PM
Jim, your insights into human nature and trauma are good, and solid. And I appreciate the affirmation and understanding. It has helped me make better sense of those outside my family, who had no reason to be so harsh or angry or cruel with me for just for being born (like dear old dad). Slowly, I am gaining better understanding from a variety of sources...but ultimately the true explanations are spiritual, else we would have to classify them as irrational and misplaced. The spiritual perspective provides insight but not justification...as of course, everyone still has to own what they do (even if they're fighting that too in their daily reality). The main thing is, it's never really about you when they could never really see you or know you as you are. But there's the rub, that they may never have bothered nor really cared...rather, they may have just skipped over at some point to the blame, resentment, and hostility or loathing. Or to a place where they felt comfortable in relation to you.

It's like so many things in society...how about I don't bother extending a hand, or giving an word, or doing anything at all, and we just skip to the part where you beat on me, or abuse me verbally, or shun me with loathing and hostility? Right? And that's the part that hurts and that you patch over -- that they'd rather skip over your humanity past simple recognition, kindness and dignity, so that they can vent on you for weeks, days, or years for whatever you've been designated or blamed for.

Borne of experience and investigation. I agree on all points. It's tragic that society offers so many seemingly normative, approved, or even "spiritual" ways to undercut one's own humanity as well as the humanity of others. Simple kindness, compassion, respect, honour, and dignity...these things acknowledge the humanity of others. They really do matter. And so do others.

Now...when it comes to neo-advaita and any extreme or fundamentalist interpretation of advaita...they lend themselves to grave misdirection by many, as you say.

We are all One in interbeing and we are all the infinite extension of Source, true, but since we come into being as individuated consciousness (or "souls", loosely) for a reason, we are not "the same as" the unindividuated One which is beyond all existence and emanation. We are of Source, we are self-aware (true, we have far to go there and in our development of a self-aware collective consciousness)...and yes the fractal nature of existence applies, but still we and all that is are emanations. And we exist as individuated consciousness for a reason, that being simply to explore the infinite multiplicity of what is. Everything is equally important or of value...which means everything matters equally, just as much as nothing matters more than any other.

Advaita has much to offer regarding the understanding of interbeing and collective consciousness and conceptual Unity...BUT whenever taken to the extreme of non-being, or when the individuated consciousness and its periodic incarnation into temporal material reality (all of which are also real, also true, and also worthy and by design, no less)...when these are seen as false or unworthy, then I find its utility ceases and its misdirection increases.

I do realise this is not the fault of advaita itself (per se), but rather of anyone who pushes non-being as spiritual escapism, or to underwrite an avoidant, impersonal, utilitarian mode of living -- or who asserts that unity is the only reality, when in fact interbeing and unity are both integral aspects of reality. And these extreme positions are the logical conclusion of the unawakened mind...that is the danger. In that, I completely agree with you.


There is a cold, impersonal, utilitarian aspect to this philosophy, as Jeff has mentioned, and so it would be nearly impossible to hold to non-being and still view others as fully human.
IMO, the philosophy is not wrong but an emotionally damaged person can and will use the philosophy in destructive ways. A sick ego is compelled to misuse EVERYTHING!


Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L

jimrich
21-02-2017, 06:19 PM
Jim, your insights into human nature and trauma are good, and solid. And I appreciate the affirmation and understanding. It has helped me make better sense of those outside my family, who had no reason to be so harsh or angry or cruel with me for just for being born (like dear old dad).
If you study the elements and dynamics of Toxic Shame, you will see exactly why some folks are so abusive, cruel, ignorant, hostile, stupid, wrong and just plain BAD, while often looking good and right. Shame MAKES us be and do horrible things while believing that we are RIGHT. Another thing that might help you to understand why things are as they are in the world would be to study some spiritual philosophies that attempt to explain EVERYTHING that goes on in terms of what the Divine, empty phenomenon, god, creator, Source wants and why. I won't comment on what Source wants and why becaues Source's intentions are way beyond my limited abiltiy to grasp so I just have to trust that Source knows what she is doing and live with it.

Slowly, I am gaining better understanding from a variety of sources...but ultimately the true explanations are spiritual, else we would have to classify them as irrational and misplaced. The spiritual perspective provides insight but not justification...as of course, everyone still has to own what they do (even if they're fighting that too in their daily reality).
For me, the spiritual answer, such as - "What will be, will be" and "Thy will be done" and "Things just happen" - is the only one that actually works even if I don't know why Spirit does what it does and is what it is. As for everyone owning what they do, you cannot expect an INSANE person or animal to own what they do (i.e.: "...For they know not what they do." ~ Jesus) As much as I want to PUNISH them, I guess insane people (like my brilliant dad) have to be excused from blame and responsibility - for now at least. :icon_eek:

The main thing is, it's never really about you when they could never really see you or know you as you are. But there's the rub, that they may never have bothered nor really cared...rather, they may have just skipped over at some point to the blame, resentment, and hostility or loathing. Or to a place where they felt comfortable in relation to you.
When a person is infected with Toxic Shame, they simply cannot behave right or sanely. Shame forces them to defend their egos to the max and treat everyone as either the enemy or something to FULFILL their desperate NEEDS. Google: Toxic Shame or search for it at Youtube.

It's like so many things in society...how about I don't bother extending a hand, or giving an word, or doing anything at all, and we just skip to the part where you beat on me, or abuse me verbally, or shun me with loathing and hostility? Right? And that's the part that hurts and that you patch over -- that they'd rather skip over your humanity past simple recognition, kindness and dignity, so that they can vent on you for weeks, days, or years for whatever you've been designated or blamed for.
That's all about Shame.

Borne of experience and investigation. I agree on all points. It's tragic that society offers so many seemingly normative, approved, or even "spiritual" ways to undercut one's own humanity as well as the humanity of others. Simple kindness, compassion, respect, honour, and dignity...these things acknowledge the humanity of others. They really do matter. And so do others.
They matter to me. :hug3:

Now...when it comes to neo-advaita and any extreme or fundamentalist interpretation of advaita...they lend themselves to grave misdirection by many, as you say.
We are all One in interbeing and we are all the infinite extension of Source,
This is where folks get stuck. Source is all that there is and Source manifests or appears AS all of "us" or as everything there is. What you are calling "we" is Source appearing as a we. You are Source but you have forgotten that fact. "We" is an illusion! You, Source, seem to be a someone doing your own thing and living your own individual life, along with or against others BUT it's an illusion that you Source, create or manifest for whatever reason you have to be manifesting this incredible cosmic drama. The separate self or ego is NOT capable of grasping this which is why the sages often spoke of "mystical intuitions" or "visions", which can take someone into expanded mental states but I believe that our ordinary, everyday, common, simple awareness is good enough to KNOW that Source just is and that it's OK. I'd like to be up there with Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Rupert Spira, etc. but I'm must little old, plain and simple jim - which is Source appearing in and AS this ordinary guy RIGHT NOW.

Source IS ME and it doesn't scare my little ego at all now that I know my little ego doesn't even exist! Source alone is. But that obvious and knowable fact scares the hell out of most egocentric human so they either fight it or run away.

true, but since we come into being as individuated consciousness (or "souls", loosely) for a reason, we are not "the same as" the unindividuated One which is beyond all existence and emanation.
This "unindividuated One" or Source is all that there is! And it appears AS all the other stuff you mentioned. We are not "the same" because the One needs to have some fun so it appears in unique and different forms and conditions for its own pleasures or reasons (I believe). I imagine that science can say why there are so many different and unique creations in the cosmos from the current perspective of physics.

We are of Source, we are self-aware (true, we have far to go there and in our development of a self-aware collective consciousness)...and yes the fractal nature of existence applies, but still we and all that is are emanations.
We are NOT emanations of Source, we ARE Source itself appearing to be "emanations" or manifested objects and conditions. So long as the cosmos is seen as an emanation, the underlying Source will be veiled from the persons view. If seen as it really is .... Source PRETENDING TO BE a lot of separate stuff, then Advaita will make sense and it will be obvious that YOU ARE SOURCE ITSELF. Not two, just One reality.

And we exist as individuated consciousness for a reason, that being simply to explore the infinite multiplicity of what is. Everything is equally important or of value...which means everything matters equally, just as much as nothing matters more than any other.
It probably "matters" to Source but I can't say what would be.

Advaita has much to offer regarding the understanding of interbeing and collective consciousness and conceptual Unity...BUT whenever taken to the extreme of non-being, or when the individuated consciousness and its periodic incarnation into temporal material reality (all of which are also real, also true, and also worthy and by design, no less)...when these are seen as false or unworthy, then I find its utility ceases and its misdirection increases.

I do realise this is not the fault of advaita itself (per se), but rather of anyone who pushes non-being as spiritual escapism, or to underwrite an avoidant, impersonal, utilitarian mode of living -- or who asserts that unity is the only reality, when in fact interbeing and unity are both integral aspects of reality. And these extreme positions are the logical conclusion of the unawakened mind...that is the danger. In that, I completely agree with you.
It has been shown over and over throughout history that Shame-based, sick and insane individuals can and do completely distort and twist ALL teachings, philosophies and knowledge to meet the personal needs and desires of these SICK individuals such as the Egyptian Kings, Roman emperors, the early Catholics, Caesars, the Nazis, the Wall Street super rich, the Ku Klux Klan, Adolf Hitler, Charlie Manson, the CIA, the FBI, the UFO cover up and on and on and the most viciously maligned entity of all will be EVERY religion, faith and spiritual institution that exists or ever existed. And even those institutions will quite often be at the forefront of HATE wars upon each other. Source has a strange sense of humor, IMO.
So all I have to say about Advaita is - most folks have no clue what Advaita teaches or points to and are terribly AFRAID of it.

Peace & blessings :hug3:
jim

7luminaries
22-02-2017, 02:17 PM
Jim, I don't disagree in the main with any of what you say. Only that, since we are directed by Buddha et al to strive to know the emptiness but not to strive to dwell there...I think that's exactly what I'm trying to say. The concept illuminates and growth in spirit will expand our individuated consciousness. But in our incarnate existence -- which I do believe is just as real and valid as it is illusory from the perspective of Source -- we do not and cannot fully live directly as Oneness at all times, because we are of that and thus yes we are that...but we are also of that and are that as individuated beings with individuated consciousness which exist in interbeing with all else.

We can say all is subsumed in the oneness and so therefore all is just oneness...and we can also say that individuated consciousness and interbeing equally exist as the infinite individual expressions of oneness. And both are "right" or true. One perspective focuses more on the emptiness, with a nod to interbeing...and the other focuses more on interbeing, with a nod to emptiness. The latter is where we live, no matter how much we expand our consciousness and so forth...because we are tethered to the body, until we move on. Even then, at least until we reach a certain point in spirit (and who knows for certain?), it seems individuated consciousness, like all other consciousness, simply remains...overlapping and connected with all other individuated consciousness, within the One.

Thank source for our (limited) awareness of both interbeing and Oneness -- the truth can only both enrich us and set us free. But as far as we can tell (and no one knows all), if we inter-are in Oneness...and consciousness is eternal, all that is (including us as individuated consciousness) is sticky and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

So I suppose my focus is a bit more on the interbeing in Oneness. Otherwise, I feel that so many try to skip from the illusory isolated self (illusory because we are NEVER isolated and ALWAYS interconnected) to the emptiness of One, skipping over the interbeing in oneness which is where we actually live :D With all its infinite variation in expression and all its infinite opportunities for life, growth, and authentic being :hug3:

Peace & blessings,
7L

jimrich
22-02-2017, 04:42 PM
Jim, I don't disagree in the main with any of what you say.
I don't see us "disagreeing" - just holding our own, individual veiws of things. We can disagree without being DISAGREEABLE ~ G.W. Bush
Only that, since we are directed by Buddha et al to strive to know the emptiness but not to strive to dwell there...I think that's exactly what I'm trying to say.
I've learned that we are always this "emptiness" or the Ocean and cannot ever be otherwise or dwell anywhere else since all that there is, is emptiness or Ocean. What happened is that we (whatever that is) have been programmed from day one to BELIEVE that we are NOT emptiness but that we are ONLY limited, egoic, personal, little creatures who are struggling to exist in a place where other deluded individual egos are also struggling to exist. We can be separate, individuals and also KNOW, as most sages do, that we are emptiness or Ocean while temporarily occupying a temporary form amongst other temporary forms living on a temporary form. Once seen that we ARE Ocean and not just waves (temporary forms) ONLY, a great peace and relaxation might occur for the apparent individual so, ultimately it comes down to the issue of are you happy being a temporary, vulnerable form (person) or would you rather be Ocean - or both? If both, would you rather live with the wisdom, love and power of Ocean or with the limited and sometimes troubled problems of a little, separate form/(person? Just before my late wife crossed over, I am pretty sure she was fed up with the pain, misery, disappointment and
hopelessness of a life about to end and wanted very much to get out of her temporary sick and dying form and I don't blamed her for wanting to leave here and go back to Ocean. She LOVES IT over there!
The concept illuminates and growth in spirit will expand our individuated consciousness.
...and perhaps help us remember that we are (infinite) emptiness appearing to be limited individuals.

But in our incarnate existence -- which I do believe is just as real and valid as it is illusory from the perspective of Source -- we do not and cannot fully live directly as Oneness at all times, because we are of that and thus yes we are that...but we are also of that and are that as individuated beings with individuated consciousness which exist in interbeing with all else.
Most folks believe and live as if they are limited, unhappy or needy individuals ONLY and that emptiness is just a pipe dream. Even some, who claim to be religious and "trust" in god (emptiness), still sometimes act like they are ONLY limited, isolated individuals.

We can say all is subsumed in the oneness and so therefore all is just oneness...and we can also say that individuated consciousness and interbeing equally exist as the infinite individual expressions of oneness. And both are "right" or true.
Yes, all of that is true, IMO. Now, can we live that truth or do we crumble when challenged by life because we still believe that we are NOT emptiness but are ONLY isolated, vulnerable individuals?

One perspective focuses more on the emptiness, with a nod to interbeing...and the other focuses more on interbeing, with a nod to emptiness. The latter is where we live, no matter how much we expand our consciousness and so forth...because we are tethered to the body, until we move on. Even then, at least until we reach a certain point in spirit (and who knows for certain?), it seems individuated consciousness, like all other consciousness, simply remains...overlapping and connected with all other individuated consciousness, within the One.
I agree that we will remain stuck in and as the ego UNTIL we wake up which is why there are Buddhas, Christs, Dali Lamas, preachers, saints, sages, teachers and witnesses manifested by emptiness to help itself remember that it is infinite Being just pretending to be a herd of egos.

Thank source for our (limited) awareness of both interbeing and Oneness -- the truth can only both enrich us and set us free. But as far as we can tell (and no one knows all), if we inter-are in Oneness...and consciousness is eternal, all that is (including us as individuated consciousness) is sticky and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
LOL, well I don't know about you but I am not going to wait around for something to go somewhere any time soon. I'm going to be FREE right now, thanks to the wise messages from a few other Liberated folks who are "there" right now and tell me that I am also "there" right now - and there's no need to WAIT any longer.

So I suppose my focus is a bit more on the interbeing in Oneness.
My focus is on and as Oneness with an apparent "interbeing" appearing in me and not the other way around. I, Oneness or emptiness, manifest interbeing and everything else but I am NOT limited to that or them.

Otherwise, I feel that so many try to skip from the illusory isolated self (illusory because we are NEVER isolated and ALWAYS interconnected) to the emptiness of One, skipping over the interbeing in oneness which is where we actually live :D With all its infinite variation in expression and all its infinite opportunities for life, growth, and authentic being :hug3:
IMO, a wise person can and will incorporate Oneness along with individuality but with Oneness at the forefront or in charge so their ego becomes a friendly companion instead of the master of their life as is the case for most humans. The few sages and wizards I know or have known are governed by Oneness or emptiness MORE THAN their limited egos. They all have/had egos BUT not overbearing, dominating and controlling egos like most humans struggle with. But, what is, is! and what will be will be! Emptiness manifests everything!
So, for me, the point to enlightenment or awakening is to somehow get comfortable within my own skin and remembering that I am emptiness or Ocean feels a lot more comfortable to me than ONLY being a limited, frightened, troubled, ego - and nothing else.

Peace & blessings,:smile:
jim

7luminaries
23-02-2017, 03:55 PM
Jim, that's a big mouthful of a response...
I'll just say I largely agree. But I agree that if we do disagree, it should ideally always be civil and respectful.

Once again, I think the danger stems from the commonly-held idea (in the West) of an isolated self...which is illusory not because individuated consciousness doesn't exist. As it does. Hence our conversation. But it is illusory because separation is an illusion, whilst interbeing and unity are the reality. Not just unity and not even primarily unity....hahaha :wink: But equally interbeing and unity are the reality, not the illusory "isolated self" who acts on behalf of his or her "own" so-called self interests. Which is not exactly the engaged and grounded middle way (of equanimity and lovingkindness) of the heart-led consciousness, as the masters have advised, LOL. :D

I think we are in agreement that this fallacy of the isolated self is a fundamental source of most of the problems we see in human society. But to skip from this fallacy directly to one of "only unity is real" without the ying/yang of unity/interbeing will -- for all but perhaps the highest masters -- equally tend to lead to escapism, narcissism, and/or a generally dehumanised detachment...as is seen in the neo-advaita perspective AND the extreme advaita perspective held by a quite a fair number who put forth that all is illusory except that which is beyond all that is. It's not that it's not true...rather, it's more that it's not the ONLY truth. Hence the spectrum and the yin/yang concepts. Interbeing is equally true...equally and simultaneously. IMO, it is only the isolate self concept which is inherently false, rather than simultaneously true.

Nice to agree to disagree...or more, to agree with a difference in emphasis ...as always with respect and civility!
Peace & blessings :smile:
7L

jimrich
23-02-2017, 06:01 PM
But I agree that if we do disagree, it should ideally always be civil and respectful.LOL,something rarely seen at forums!

Once again, I think the danger stems from the commonly-held idea (in the West) of an isolated self.
I see this as an ego or separate self defense.

..which is illusory not because individuated consciousness doesn't exist.
It "exists" as a feature of the ego or separate self (to use Rupert Spira's terminology) or the 'me" (as Tony Parsons says).

As it does. Hence our conversation.
IMO, our conversation is occuring between two 'me's or egos but I don't see it as a problem to innocently discuss things AS TWO FRIENDS. The 'me' or ego can quite often become upset, frightened or angry and then the conversation becomes nasty. Two conscious beings would most likely NOT have this talk because they are completely fulfilled and have better things to do. For the time being, I, the ego or 'me', am happy to sit here and talk with you, another 'me'. When we "awaken", we most likely will not come to forums again but, for now, this is OK and I, the ego, am enjoying it and learning quite a lot here.

But it is illusory because separation is an illusion, whilst interbeing and unity are the reality.
In a way, everything is both real and unreal or an illusion. The question might be: Is it bearable? Is this illusion OK? Am I happy in this illusion" Would I rather be somewhere else or doing something else? Most folks are HAPPY with the illusion of self in another illusion called life and so do not bother to seek answers or solutions while others are NOT very happy with this illusion and go looking for answers and solutions - to India or at forums, etc. The separate self may or may not be happy while the Real me is ALWAYS happy.

Not just unity and not even primarily unity....hahaha :wink:
There's just ONE unity or Isness. Unity is all that there is, but the 'me' cannot see that nor does it even need to. What is, is!

But equally interbeing and unity are the reality, not the illusory "isolated self" who acts on behalf of his or her "own" so-called self interests.
The isolated self or 'me' HAS TO act on it's own interests since it only knows itself and it's interests in having what it wants and SURVIVING.

Which is not exactly the engaged and grounded middle way (of equanimity and lovingkindness) of the heart-led consciousness, as the masters have advised, LOL. :D
The ego or isolated self (nice term) simply cannot go the "middle way" nor express "loving kindness" whilst engaging in ego defenses or offenses to get what it wants and needs.

I think we are in agreement that this fallacy of the isolated self is a fundamental source of most of the problems we see in human society. But to skip from this fallacy directly to one of "only unity is real" without the ying/yang of unity/interbeing will -- for all but perhaps the highest masters -- equally tend to lead to escapism, narcissism, and/or a generally dehumanised detachment.
I see: escapism, narcissism, dehumanization, detachment and societal problems as basically ego defenses or offenses that are all designed to enhance or protect the non-existent ego or isolated 'me' which is why masters have long warned about the dangers and problems surrounding the ego or false self.

..as is seen in the neo-advaita perspective AND the extreme advaita perspective held by a quite a fair number who put forth that all is illusory except that which is beyond all that is.
Which demonstrates more ego defenses held by ego-bound neo-advaitans and others who NEED to defend their separate selves with such foolishness. An aware being would never recommend such stuff.

It's not that it's not true...rather, it's more that it's not the ONLY truth. Hence the spectrum and the yin/yang concepts.

The defensive ego doesn't care if its true or not and a master doesn't NEED it to be true or not.

Interbeing is equally true...equally and simultaneously. IMO, it is only the isolate self concept which is inherently false, rather than simultaneously true.

Nice to agree to disagree...or more, to agree with a difference in emphasis ...as always with respect and civility!
Peace & blessings :smile:
7L

At the risk of violating the rules, I am including a link to two videos which I believe demonstrate both the nature of the separate self or "disturbed ego" and it's non-existence as experienced by two "bothered" Seekers. .......enjoy.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVdsVwiRTvI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq248KMOh8I&t=104s

P.S.Please notice how relieved and happy the Seekers become once they discover that the bothered 'me' does not even exist and they are then left simply as HAPPINESS. :smile:

jimrich
23-02-2017, 06:58 PM
I replied to this post before but I feel an urge to come back to it for another go.......
:hug3:
In pure Advaita terms, indeed all of this play of phenomenal existence is essentially a dream within Universal Consciousness.
Yes this is true so no need to go into the insignificant details in the rest of your post here since Universal Consciousness is all that there is in this "dream play". I would have started with this fact rather than leave it to the end.

Oh what the heck, why not.........
Dear brother, we were not really programmed by "others," but rather we (as souls) agreed to the particular programming, the particular paradigm that we have been affected by. The soul is ultimately responsible for its own programming. Not our parents, teachers, society, etc. The soul.
Dear brother, since all of this is Universal Consciousness and this is just a dream play, it must be obvious that the "soul" and all the rest of the phenomenal existence is not very significant and need not be taken very seriously''.... including the apparent programming of defenseless children by ignorant parents or genetic influences and other unwelcome stuff. Everything is within Universal Consciousness appearing as all of the forms in your dream. So, yes, we, Universal Consciousness, are responsible for our own programming and all that appears to happen in the dream play since we are Universal Consciousness itself and nothing else.

The soul, prior to taking incarnation, fully agrees to experience the illusions of duality, limitation and separation. This has nothing to do with what "others" believe. (That is victim thinking, blaming others for our programming.)
All of that can simply be summed up as Universal Consciousness appearing as this dream play of phenomenal existence.

The soul, prior to physical incarnation, already has an agreement with the two souls that are "to be" its Earth parents. They are already selected. The soul agrees to play the game of separation for awhile. This includes a basic agreement that yes, it will be affected by the programming of society, but in actuality the soul is really affected by its own programming, since the personal reality that it experiences is literally a projection of its own consciousness.
And all of that is a projection or manifestation of you, Universal Consciousness, pretending to be all these forms and conditions in your amazing dream for whatever reasons or needs that you have. You are eternal and infinite so there is absolutely nothing that is beyond your boundless, being to apparently manifest or apparently have.
It all makes sense if we start with the fact of Universal Consciousness and then go from there. Nathan Gil would say that all there is is Awareness plus the apparent objects of Awareness, such as "souls", which are also Awareness.
You, Tony Parsons, Rupert Spira and Nathan Gil (to mention only a few) all KNOW the same universal truths but use different terminology to describe the TRUTH.
It's easy to to see the truth by starting from the fact of Universal Consciousness first rather than trying to understand things from the Relative perspective alone. :cool:

jimrich
23-02-2017, 07:16 PM
Good afternoon, Jim (well, it is in Sydney anyway).

Like I said in the other post, 'classical advaita" or advaita vedanta has stronger ties to Dharma and Hinduism than its modern counterpart.

You will find that the majority of those who follow the 'old ways' and 'old teachings' are pretty much Hindu by default - even if Shankaracharya said that labels mean nothing.

The human habit of making everything old 'new again' to fit in with the beliefs of current society is totally symptomatic of the age we live in...it is called Kali Yuga, where people will make up anything to suit themselves.

Here is the history behind this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Guru_Parampar%C4%81

I am part of this lineage.
As awareness had pointed out, it's all just the dream play of Universal Consciousness pretending to be everything. Awareness knows the very same truths that Shankaracharya discovered so long ago.

jimrich
23-02-2017, 07:22 PM
It's easy!

Have learned how to do this very well. Can apply it in any situation and all it takes is mindful awareness, like consciously choosing to omit any word from common usage, even a whole basket full of personal pronouns if/whenever the mood strikes. Just need to remember it for when replying to something which calls itself 'Jim' next time. See? not hard at all.
LOL, you, universal consciousness, can do and be anything, including something which you call 'Jim' or Necromancer = a person who practices necromancy; a wizard or magician.
synonyms: sorcerer, sorceress, (black) magician, wizard, warlock, witch, enchantress, occultist, diviner. [from an online dictionary]

jimrich
23-02-2017, 07:36 PM
[QUOTE=jimrich]Hi gang:
I just spent little time researching what others with more skill and knowledge than I have to say about Advaita and Neo-Advaita. My best sources are Rupert Spira and Jeff Foster, who has some very comical things to say about Neo-Advaita - google him. Actually, there are a lot of others who might be considered Neo-Advaitins such as Lisa Cairns and Jim Newman (obviously students of Tony Parsons) and the list goes on and on so take a look for your self.
The one item I find common with all of them is Identity - who/what are you/we/I? It seems to me that, unless someone KNOWS that they are the Absolute, Self, Reality, Brahman, God, Totality, Source, etc., they are just floundering around in the muck and mire of personal, egoic dramas that are neatly placed between birth and death. So Traditional or Neo, it seems to me that locating or recognizing that THOU ART THAT is the bottom line for both forms of non-duality (Advaita) so I do not see any significant difference in Traditional vs. Neo accept in maybe some of the SILLY details and concepts as presented in this hysterical cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Hi Jim
That is exactly the problem I (if you allow me to say that) have with Advaita,
there is no direct path to it! Except through the death of the self.
Redstone, there is no self and there is no death. There is only Universal Consciousness which is infinite, eternal life or being.

I heard Tony Parsons refer to his identity or the structure of his self collapsing..and that there is only what is left!
Yes, in Tony's terms, all there is is boundlessness. He and awareness know and speak of the same ultimate truth.

So all I can suggest about that is the energetic structure which was his own personal story before this happened has been de-energised previously through some insights gained from some discipline he was doing, the only way (I) know to do that is through analysis and insight in to what the limitations of the self are!
That seems like a lot of work to arrive at what you, Universal Consciousness, already are.

It’s limited for sure….but it’s the insight that breaks the structure or the energetics of the self down, and he must have been a practioner of sorts, or of some kind of discipline before the story of who he once was collapsed!
I'd guess that his 'story", like yours, is unique within the dream play of Universal Consciousness.
I know Jim Newman (he still answers to that name) was an avid seeker before the story of who he once was collapsed…so he was obviously doing some sort of analysis of the self previously…wasn’t he a psychologist in his own story once? :D (he also used to go to Tony Parsons talks)
I have only seen a few Jim Newman videos, such as: [www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHRGC18Bb8] and he definitely knows about Universal Consciousness and how things happen.

I can only liken the experience they went through of the self collapsing was as if it was a large building that was being planned for demolition, you would have to analise where to place the explosive charges to bring it down…some buildings don’t collapse in the way expected but do come down non the less!

So all I can say about Tony Parsons and Jim Newman as it’s the only two advaita guys I have come across, is they must have been chipping away at there own block for so long…(or de-energising the self gained through insights) that at some point there limited self was bound to come crashing in to the ground eventually.
Yes the dream play of Universal Consciousness is quite interesting and amazing - for no one. :smile:

jimrich
23-02-2017, 07:38 PM
Think of it like .. I am that ..
...Universal Consciousness and then everything makes sense. :icon_eek:

jimrich
23-02-2017, 07:39 PM
Maybe you weren't programmed by other people. Maybe you choose the ignorance so you could experience the joy of discovery.
Yes, Universal Consciousness, works like that in the dream play of existence. :hug2:

jimrich
23-02-2017, 07:57 PM
Hi jimrich,

As far as I can see, the major difference between Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita, is that within the so-called ‘Neo-Advaita’ movement, both exponents and followers possess a predominantly or even exclusively conceptual and intellectual understanding of some principles, that are as often misunderstood in terms of both premise and application, as they are replicated and reinforced in clever dialogue.
In the dream play of Universal Consciousness, anything is possible or can happen including all that you, Universal Consciousness, just mentioned.

These tenets appear to be based on numerous faulty and unquestioned assumptions - what amounts to a rigid doctrine, and self-proclaimed as “radical”, largely because they are without the direct knowing through actual realization, which, was always implied by ‘Classical’, e.g., a legitimate assumption, because realization was traditionally understood to be an absolute requirement of the yoga.

That's how you, Universal Consciousness, set it all up in your dream play.

It is the facile modern dispensing of that requirement for direct knowing by identity - realisation - and replacing it with a superficial separative indirect conceptual re-orientation as the realisation itself, which appears to suffice in-and-of-itself and constituting the so-called ‘radical’ element, but which actually renders it ineffective as a practice by obviating real practice accordingly.
Your dream play gets pretty intricate at times.

The actual ‘practice’ apparently then becomes the subsequent dependence on clever word-games and intellectual debate, convoluted defences, and invalidation and intellectual coercion of sorts (often by rotely citing the accepted doctrine), in order to promote and sustain the belief system. And they’ve evidently gotten much facility, popularity, and validation through abundant internet access in that regard, both in dissemination and assimilation, by attracting droves of disaffected intellectuals looking for (imo) ‘the big easy answer’. They have also received much deserved and valid criticism as a result, as well.
You, Universal Consciousness, can get pretty far when you want to.

“I preach” (that’s my practice), but “you practice” (what I preach). By virtue of my preaching, it means I have practiced and therefore implicitly understand, therefore I preach.
Universal Consciousness quite often "preaches" to and judges itself in it's dream play. You, Universal Consciousness, is all that there is!

That is frequently the message.
...That you, Universal Consciousness, apparently manifest.
Just my .02 fwiw.
~ J
Universal Consciousness has spoken! Let the dream play continue.....
"empty phenomena roll on" ~ Buddha

jimrich
23-02-2017, 08:01 PM
in the long journey towards Self.
There is no "long journey" - you already are Self or Universal Consciousness even now. There is only Universal Consciousness or Self here and now!:hug:

jimrich
23-02-2017, 08:05 PM
I agree with this. If by some strange or lucky chance, one's path does cross with a Self-Realised soul, (they are incredibly rare) LOL, look in a mirror to find one!

there are two things to notice:
1) That soul will be emitting a tremendous perceivable energy
2) They will have to pause and 'come out' from that that they are in order to be aware in the ego/I. So if you refer to them during regular conversation, they won't actually immediately know who you're talking about.
Seems to me that all of this is about the separate self or ego when the entire drama is simply you, Universal Consciousness, having some fun within your apparent dream play of existence or life. There is only you, Universal Consciousness. :hug:

jimrich
23-02-2017, 08:58 PM
Even to define non duality conceptually, within the duality of this existence, leaves you with the opposite, which is no existence or reality at all.
You, Universal Consciousness, are all that there is and can never NOT exist.

Its a question from a mind seeking an answer where no known experienced or reality is available to directly draw from.
You, Universal Consciousness, are way more than just a "mind".

So its not a convenient or safe for maintaing what really wants to continue. You can't go into maintaining your individual fortitude because there is nothing in place to support it.
You, Universal Consciousness, can do and be anything that you want in your dram play here.

There are no ceilings, walls or floors. If there is nothing to hold onto then there must be no one there needing to grasp at anything. The mind, in a grasping reality, seeks spiritually or otherwise, to secretly maintain its own sense of self. Ultimately, that's not what happems.
All that is happening is you, Universal Consciousness, are pretending to be all these apparent forms and conditions in the dream play of existence [as member: awareness has stated].

We are just fkng with a notion of it here. Better for the mind to do this for ****s and giggles then to   see this as serious. One would provide provocative entertainment and self serving purpose (to become enlightened) while the ladder would produce deeper anxiety, depression and other mental disorders.
Which is all just happening in your apparent play as Universal Consciousness.

It's not a club you join.
It's a club that you have apparently manifested
There are no members
Just you, Universal Consciousness. Have a ball...........:smile:

7luminaries
24-02-2017, 04:35 PM
LOL,something rarely seen at forums!


I see this as an ego or separate self defense.


It "exists" as a feature of the ego or separate self (to use Rupert Spira's terminology) or the 'me" (as Tony Parsons says).


IMO, our conversation is occuring between two 'me's or egos but I don't see it as a problem to innocently discuss things AS TWO FRIENDS. The 'me' or ego can quite often become upset, frightened or angry and then the conversation becomes nasty. Two conscious beings would most likely NOT have this talk because they are completely fulfilled and have better things to do. For the time being, I, the ego or 'me', am happy to sit here and talk with you, another 'me'. When we "awaken", we most likely will not come to forums again but, for now, this is OK and I, the ego, am enjoying it and learning quite a lot here.


In a way, everything is both real and unreal or an illusion. The question might be: Is it bearable? Is this illusion OK? Am I happy in this illusion" Would I rather be somewhere else or doing something else? Most folks are HAPPY with the illusion of self in another illusion called life and so do not bother to seek answers or solutions while others are NOT very happy with this illusion and go looking for answers and solutions - to India or at forums, etc. The separate self may or may not be happy while the Real me is ALWAYS happy.


There's just ONE unity or Isness. Unity is all that there is, but the 'me' cannot see that nor does it even need to. What is, is!


The isolated self or 'me' HAS TO act on it's own interests since it only knows itself and it's interests in having what it wants and SURVIVING.


The ego or isolated self (nice term) simply cannot go the "middle way" nor express "loving kindness" whilst engaging in ego defenses or offenses to get what it wants and needs.


I see: escapism, narcissism, dehumanization, detachment and societal problems as basically ego defenses or offenses that are all designed to enhance or protect the non-existent ego or isolated 'me' which is why masters have long warned about the dangers and problems surrounding the ego or false self.


Which demonstrates more ego defenses held by ego-bound neo-advaitans and others who NEED to defend their separate selves with such foolishness. An aware being would never recommend such stuff.



The defensive ego doesn't care if its true or not and a master doesn't NEED it to be true or not.



At the risk of violating the rules, I am including a link to two videos which I believe demonstrate both the nature of the separate self or "disturbed ego" and it's non-existence as experienced by two "bothered" Seekers. .......enjoy.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVdsVwiRTvI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq248KMOh8I&t=104s

P.S.Please notice how relieved and happy the Seekers become once they discover that the bothered 'me' does not even exist and they are then left simply as HAPPINESS. :smile:

Jim, thanks for your response :smile:
I can't usually make time for the line by line response so I just have to do it all together. But here are my thoughts....

Agreed. The "isolated self" is a false and extremely damaging construct...the ultimate divide and conquer tool for those operating at the top out of fear, greed, and a lust for power and control.

The individuated consciousness exists and is equally "real"...consciousness is eternal and presumably continues to exist and co-exists as One AND within One as many. Consciousness is the ultimate fractal and the ultimate mystery.

Yet whatever One actually comprises, it is no doubt far beyond consciousness, emptiness (the field of being or ground of emanation), interbeing, and/or anything else we could ever apprehend. We look to consciousness because it is the primary or only eternal emanation we can grasp.

Given that grand limitation, I feel too much focus on the unknowable One quickly becomes a bit facile, aside from acknowledging that the ultimate reality of one surely exists but its apprehension is utterly unknowable from the place of mental consciousness. Only the mystics, with a heart-led consciousness, can speak beyond this point...and it is only via illumination, poetry, might and awe, and lovingkindness...as approximations or representations.

Given that all consciousness is real within the fractal spectrum of our existence and perception...and is either consciousness with or without its varying emanations of consciousness (matter, time)...then I speak equally of emptiness and interbeing as aspects of One or Unity. We cannot know that these comprise the totality of One, but they comprise aspects of our known reality or apprehension of oneness or unity. To the extent that consciousness is eternal and the ultimate arbiter of reality (or illusion) for us, then all consciousness is equally real (or illusory) for us, albeit not equally aware or awakened.

We are directly equal to One in our fractal consciousness, which defines our reality but does not limit that of One in totality. We too are still real...but we cannot equate our reality (consciousness) to the totality of One, except in the infinitely fractal sense of One consciousness. To which the entirety of our emanated reality is tied. But there is more, beyond consciousness, emptiness, and interbeing. There is always more. It is simply beyond our perception to apprehend, even as awakened beings, and even for the gurus.

The other main thing I want to say about what you've posted is that within our known realm (that of consciousness), there is more than just the problematic "isolated self" and emptiness. Within our reality or realm, there is an infinity of interbeing within the emptiness -- and an infinity of emptiness within the interbeing. It is not just "isolated self" (false, misdirected) or emptiness. I perceive our reality of consciousness and its emanations as being equally of interbeing and emptiness. Another way to look at this, is as an infinity of fractal Oneness in interbeing (we are that) in co-creation with all that is (That Which we can know).

The mystics would say after all initial awakening, the real awakening is always through the heart-led consciousness, where the mind of the isolated self has died to awareness of both interbeing and unity...and then has awakened in service to the heart-led, awakened consciousness. And they have also said, for millennia, that only through the transformation of the heart-led consciousness can we ever (at least more truly) know What is. In the end, it's all about going through this transformation. Whatever leads away from centre, from our humanity in interbeing, and from the heart-led consciousness is most likely misdirection...and whatever leads one into these, is spot on :hug3:

I've quite enjoyed discussing this courteously as friends, very important, that...:smile:

Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L

jimrich
24-02-2017, 07:39 PM
Agreed. The "isolated self" is a false and extremely damaging construct...the ultimate divide and conquer tool for those operating at the top out of fear, greed, and a lust for power and control. And the joke is that this false 'me' doesn't even exist EXCEPT within our minds and fixed belief systems. It's like Santa Claus. Do you still believe in Santa Clause? Santa seems REAL to children but not real to adults yet we all FIRMLY believe in a total phantom called 'me'. There is a me here - just not a false one!

The individuated consciousness exists and is equally "real"
Not for me! It's like Santa. It's a completely imaginary being that I no longer take for "real".

...consciousness is eternal and presumably continues to exist and co-exists as One AND within One as many.
Consciousness is infinite and only appears to manifest as "many" but it is never anything other than ONE. What looks like lot of separate, individual "stuff" is just Infinite Consciousness APPEARING as (in) all that "stuff" - including this thing sitting here typing these words. Consciousness or Awareness alone is.

Consciousness is the ultimate fractal and the ultimate mystery. Yep! (said by no one to no one)

Yet whatever One actually comprises, it is no doubt far beyond consciousness, emptiness (the field of being or ground of emanation), interbeing, and/or anything else we could ever apprehend. We look to consciousness because it is the primary or only eternal emanation we can grasp.LOL, maybe you can grasp it but I can't!

Given that grand limitation, I feel too much focus on the unknowable One quickly becomes a bit facile, aside from acknowledging that the ultimate reality of one surely exists but its apprehension is utterly unknowable from the place of mental consciousness.
That's true for my imagined ego. But I, pure Awareness, don't need to know anything nor do I even care. What is simply is.

Only the mystics, with a heart-led consciousness, can speak beyond this point...and it is only via illumination, poetry, might and awe, and lovingkindness...as approximations or representations.
That's because "mystics" are in touch with Reality or pure Knowing.

Given that all consciousness is real within the fractal spectrum of our existence and perception...and is either consciousness with or without its varying emanations of consciousness (matter, time)...then I speak equally of emptiness and interbeing as aspects of One or Unity.
They are not simply "aspects of" - they ARE "matter, time"... and all else. There is ONLY the nameless IT.

We cannot know that these comprise the totality of One, but they comprise aspects of our known reality or apprehension of oneness or unity.
I don't know who/what this "we" is but I, the ego, don't know and yet I, Reality, simply don't care. All I, Awareness, "know" is ____________.

To the extent that consciousness is eternal and the ultimate arbiter of reality (or illusion) for us, then all consciousness is equally real (or illusory) for us, albeit not equally aware or awakened.
Yes, that is how the isolated ego sees it. LOL, Consciousness IS US!

We are directly equal to One in our fractal consciousness, which defines our reality but does not limit that of One in totality.
There is no "we", "our" or any separate individual anywhere. There is ONLY the One appearing as all those Santa's or egos. This One cannot be "limited" in any way other than to PRETEND to be limited as an ego or person in the dream play of life.

We too are still real
There is NO "we" (or group of Santa's) there is only you, the One or Absolute appearing as a group of Santa's or egos. Bodies, minds, emotions, etc. are relatively "real" but egos are completely false.

...but we cannot equate our reality (consciousness) to the totality of One, except in the infinitely fractal sense of One consciousness.
Only the One can appear to equate anything as an apparent someone apparently doing something. It's all a cosmic dream staged by you, the One.

To which the entirety of our emanated reality is tied. But there is more, beyond consciousness, emptiness, and interbeing. There is always more. It is simply beyond our perception to apprehend, even as awakened beings, and even for the gurus.
I guess that can be true - from a relative perspective. The One is laughing out loud over this because none of it matters in the cosmic dream play.

The other main thing I want to say about what you've posted is that within our known realm (that of consciousness), there is more than just the problematic "isolated self" and emptiness.
Of course not. There is not two....nonduality. There is ONLY One....emptiness "appearing" as both emptiness AND objects such as an "isolated self" or ego. (I love the word ego - it's so much fun!) It's Nothing and Everything - a Paradox!

Within our reality or realm, there is an infinity of interbeing within the emptiness Apparently. And yet all there is is the One, you, appearing as an infinity of interbeingness (or whatever). -- and an infinity of emptiness within the interbeing.
Sorry but there is no "interbeing" within anything. There is ONLY emptiness or the nameless All appearing as stuff like: "interbeing". It's quite easy to get caught up in believing that stuff like "interbeing" and "isolated self" are real but, upon close examination, they are all manifestations or projections from and OF the One or Source or whatever you call your self these days.

It is not just "isolated self" (false, misdirected) or emptiness.
That's right! It's JUST emptiness sometimes appearing as fullness. Nothing/Everything. Real/un-Real, Santa/not-Santa. LOL the cosmic game or dream play!

I perceive our reality of consciousness and its emanations as being equally of interbeing and emptiness.
I don't. It's all the One appearing to be lots of separate "stuff" like this keyboard, desk, computer, hands typing, cars going by outside, clock ticking, foot soaking in hot water, etc. All just happening as emptiness wishes.

Another way to look at this, is as an infinity of fractal Oneness in interbeing (we are that) in co-creation with all that is (That Which we can know).
I no longer believe in separation or separate "things". Santa is no longer real to me and life is just one whole experience or happening appearing to be lots of separate stuff but emptiness or wholeness is there the whole time "appearing as" lots of separate stuff. Its a dream. A play put on by you, infinite being.

The mystics would say after all initial awakening, the real awakening is always through the heart-led consciousness, where the mind of the isolated self has died to awareness of both interbeing and unity...and then has awakened in service to the heart-led, awakened consciousness.
Hmmm, so, what do you say?

And they have also said, for millennia, that only through the transformation of the heart-led consciousness can we ever (at least more truly) know What is.
Well, it's pretty simple to "know". Sitting there typing those words to jim is WHAT IS. Just that. You, in your room of space, typing words and breathing air - THAT'S IT....THAT'S WHAT IS!

In the end, it's all about going through this transformation. Whatever leads away from centre, from our humanity in interbeing, and from the heart-led consciousness is most likely misdirection...and whatever leads one into these, is spot on :hug3:
For me the only "transformation" needed is to be OK with who/what I am right here and right now - just as I am and happy with and as what already is...... just this! This is all that there is and it's good enough.

I've quite enjoyed discussing this courteously as friends, very important, that...:smile:

Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L
I enjoy these friendly, respectful talks and wish you all the best,
jim
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/67/8a/32/678a32988ba49668094dce165d10a832.jpg

7luminaries
24-02-2017, 09:55 PM
Jim...hello! Broadly, agreed with what you've said.

Just keeping in mind that since even our concept of One, whether "limited" to consciousness or not, is limited and thus not One, except as fractal consciousness. Which is cool and totally fine with me :D But since we don't know what is beyond our conceptual understanding of eternal consciousness that encompasses all that is.

And when I discuss aspects, this is to simply give the idea of the infinity of variety That Is... not that It Is not what -- the oneness -- that it surely Is, hahaha. More only to point to the realisation that whatever we can possible imagine, there is more to What Is. There is always more :D


Given that grand limitation, I feel too much focus on the unknowable One quickly becomes a bit facile, aside from acknowledging that the ultimate
reality of one surely exists but its apprehension is utterly unknowable from the place of mental consciousness.
That's true for my imagined ego. But I, pure Awareness, don't need to know anything nor do I even care. What is simply is.

For example...regarding how there is always more...
Usually, this pure awareness refers to emptiness, or the ground of being or emanation. But there is more beyond pure awareness or interbeing. Beyond eternal consciousness itself. And beyond this, we lack knowledge or wisdom or awareness of anything regarding what "we" or "I" (big I? LOL) would or would not do or know or care about. All of this is out of scope...so we simply use the limits of what we know is possible and infinite to describe What Is and refer to What Is, whilst not ever truly apprehending the fullness of What Is...which (we can realise) is far beyond all that we point to as possible and infinite. That's the great mystery, isn't it?

Einstein and Tagore touched on this same sort of conversation years ago. Einstein said I know there is more (ultimately a mystical belief), that there is Source (in so many words) and Tagore said (in so many words) even if there is (Something, which lies even beyond "all That Is according to us"), it is only real to us to the degree that we can apprehend or conceive of it in some way. That is, we cannot truly conceive of What Is, but what we are able do is conceive of a Source which is pure consciousness and therefore infinite and suitably "beyond us" -- but which is still apprehensible by our human consciousness. And so that is what we do.

Tagore's subtle implication is that, at some point, we will limit ourselves spiritually by trying to apprehend and to some extent even discuss What Is with words and mental constructs, with what we can understand via mental consciousness and intellect. Ultimately, (as I understood it) Tagore pointed Einstein past science and philosophy and intellectual understanding to the way of the mystic, of the heart-led consciousness. Because he perceived that Einstein was finaly ready to go there, having spent a lifetime in the realm of ideas and logical discourse and theory and measurements and mathematical relationships.

The mystics would say after all initial awakening, the real awakening is always through the heart-led consciousness, where the mind of the isolated self has died to awareness of both interbeing and unity...and then has awakened in service to the heart-led, awakened consciousness.
Hmmm, so, what do you say?

I say that broadly, I agree with the mystics...:hug3:

Peace & blessings,
7L

jimrich
25-02-2017, 02:15 AM
Jim...hello! Broadly, agreed with what you've said. Cool!

Just keeping in mind that since even our concept of One, whether "limited" to consciousness or not, is limited and thus not One, except as fractal consciousness. Which is cool and totally fine with me :D
In psychotherapy and also in Self Esteem work, the point was made over and over that we or I need to speak of my own, personal, direct experiences and knowledge but not so much from theories or 2nd hand info out of books, videos, meetings, lectures, shop-talk or anything that I cannot personally attest to, so, much of what is said herein will have to come from what I currently know or have experiences with. My 'concept of the One" comes from a few experiences of being One or not-two. Those 'magical" experiences were very brief and did not last long but left an indescribable impression of Oneness or Unity so I am willing to speak of and from such experiences but NOT from theories or speculations regarding others or any book knowledge of which I have tons.

But since we don't know what is beyond our conceptual understanding of eternal consciousness that encompasses all that is.
I don't now who this "we" is that doesn't know such and such but I certainly can speak for what I currently know and I know what is here, right now and am not at all concerned with what is "beyond" just this. My little ego worries about what's "beyond" it but I, Awareness, couldn't care less. What has been your own, personal experience with "not knowing what is beyond such and such"?

And when I discuss aspects, this is to simply give the idea of the infinity of variety That Is... not that It Is not what -- the oneness -- that it surely Is, hahaha.
Is this about your own, personal experiences of "aspects' and "the oneness"? I'd be very interested to discover what you personally know or have experienced with any of this.

More only to point to the realisation that whatever we can possible imagine, there is more to What Is. There is always more :D
Is this what you currently know for certain and are experiencing? I guess there is "always more" but, SO WHAT? What is here & now is good enough for me since I live here and now. Let the "more" happen when it happens - assuming there even is such a thing.

is utterly unknowable from the place of mental consciousness.
Is this your experience? I'd say from the "place of" the limited ego or separate self.
For me, it is "knowable" - just not describable. I.e., I KNOW I am but I cannot describe it with conventional language. I can only say that I "feel" this "wordlessness" or "what is". I'd be curious to know what you feel or experience.
For example...regarding how there is always more...
Usually, this pure awareness refers to emptiness, or the ground of being or emanation.
None of that works for me. How about you? What's your direct experience of: emptiness, ground of being, emanation and pure awareness? What have you personally experience with any of that? For me, it's just this or just what is - and I like it! "Isness" might come the closest to describing the ineffable. Buddha called it "empty phenomena".

But there is more beyond pure awareness or interbeing. Beyond eternal consciousness itself.
I haven't found any, have you? Tell us about your own, personal experiences with what's beyond those.
And beyond this, we lack knowledge or wisdom or awareness of anything regarding what "we" or "I" (big I? LOL) would or would not do or know or care about.
Well, I'm not a "we" so you'll have to speak for your self about all of that. I only (currently) know that this is it and it's good enough for me. I don't need to know about what's beyond, bigger, more, knowledge, wisdom, do or care about It seems to me that only the limited ego cares about or needs any of that.

All of this is out of scope...so we simply use the limits of what we know is possible and infinite to describe What Is and refer to What Is, whilst not ever truly apprehending the fullness of What Is...which (we can realise) is far beyond all that we point to as possible and infinite. That's the great mystery, isn't it?
I have no idea what "we" can or cannot do, be, have, know, etc. but I find that most of what is here, right now, starting with my own identity, is a great mystery - especially for my limited ego. As for me, namelessness, there are no mysteries, no questions and no answers - just what's happening right now - as these words are being typed.

Einstein and Tagore touched on this same sort of conversation years ago. Einstein said I know there is more (ultimately a mystical belief), that there is Source (in so many words) and Tagore said (in so many words) even if there is (Something, which lies even beyond "all That Is according to us"), it is only real to us to the degree that we can apprehend or conceive of it in some way.
LOL, two (brilliant) egos making wild GUESSES! I wonder if either of them ever figured out what simply is?

That is, we cannot truly conceive of What Is, but what we are able do is conceive of a Source which is pure consciousness and therefore infinite and suitably "beyond us" -- but which is still apprehensible by our human consciousness. And so that is what we do.
I have no idea who or what this "we" is that does all those things but I, jim, can "conceive" of "what is" - I just can't describe or explain it. If you can do any of that please tell me how you, personally, do it.

Tagore's subtle implication is that, at some point, we will limit ourselves spiritually by trying to apprehend and to some extent even discuss What Is with words and mental constructs, with what we can understand via mental consciousness and intellect.
LOL, my only suggestion would be for Tagore to drop the "we" bit and speak for and about hm/her self. I don't see myself fitting into Tagore's or anyone else's version of this "we". Plenty of "mental constructs" already exist to understand "what is" but understanding may not BEING it and the mind-made ego cannot go there because we/you already ARE it. About all there is to "understand" is that this IS it. Search for Charlie Hayes at Youtube www.youtube.com/watch?v=-saYGxU98FE and he can and will tell you what "it" is.

Ultimately, (as I understood it) Tagore pointed Einstein past science and philosophy and intellectual understanding to the way of the mystic, of the heart-led consciousness. Because he perceived that Einstein was finaly ready to go there, having spent a lifetime in the realm of ideas and logical discourse and theory and measurements and mathematical relationships.
OK, I just looked up Tagore and Einstein here: www.brainpickings.org/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/
Haven't read much but can see that it's significant. I'll look them over.
One thing I love about most modern sages is how they are willing to say what they know and experience FOR THEM SELF along with some speculation and lectures about: you, we, them, us, they, those, others, etc. There is nothing as powerful as a personal testimony, IMO. Even Ramana Maharshi occasionally said, "That's been my experience, anyway."

I say that broadly, I agree with the mystics...:hug3:
OK - so what is your own, personal, direct experience with any of this stuff????

Peace & blessings,
jim

no1wakesup
25-02-2017, 02:02 PM
You, Universal Consciousness, are all that there is and can never NOT exist.


You, Universal Consciousness, are way more than just a "mind".


You, Universal Consciousness, can do and be anything that you want in your dram play here.


All that is happening is you, Universal Consciousness, are pretending to be all these apparent forms and conditions in the dream play of existence [as member: awareness has stated].


Which is all just happening in your apparent play as Universal Consciousness.


It's a club that you have apparently manifested

Just you, Universal Consciousness. Have a ball...........:smile:

Yes, you are stating the obvious. The one experiencing the manny and so on. I think most here have read that, as you have and added that knowledge to their arsenal of spirituality. It's great for the new identity the ego takes on

Realizing that is quite different from conceptualizing it.

Ultimately, there is no "you" in it...at all. Any perception of that is simply an expression which is usually unconscious.

jimrich
25-02-2017, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by jimrich
You, Universal Consciousness, are all that there is and can never NOT exist.
You, Universal Consciousness, are way more than just a "mind".
You, Universal Consciousness, can do and be anything that you want in your dram play here.
All that is happening is you, Universal Consciousness, are pretending to be all these apparent forms and conditions in the dream play of existence [as member: awareness has stated].
Which is all just happening in your apparent play as Universal Consciousness.
It's a club that you have apparently manifested
Just you, Universal Consciousness. Have a ball...........:smile:


Yes, you are stating the obvious.
Obvious to you, perhaps, but not a lot of people get it that we are the nameless Source or whatever it's called. Once seen or known, then it's obvious - to the "awakened" one.

It's great for the new identity the ego takes on
The "SPIRITUALIZED" ego! ..... LOL.

Realizing that is quite different from conceptualizing it.
How is that for you? Have you "realized" that?

Ultimately, there is no "you" in it...at all.
I'd say that there is a "you" in "it" - just not a personal, egoic one, plus there is no need for any communication in "it" since there's only one consciousness, hence no 'you', 'me', 'I', 'us', 'we', etc. or even thoughts as in ordinary communications between apparent individuals. But out here, words are apparently needed (unless we read minds, LOL).
Any perception of that is simply an expression which is usually unconscious.
Is this your own, personal experience or something you heard about?
jim :smile:

Still_Waters
25-02-2017, 04:12 PM
Yes, you are stating the obvious. The one experiencing the manny and so on. I think most here have read that, as you have and added that knowledge to their arsenal of spirituality. It's great for the new identity the ego takes on

Realizing that is quite different from conceptualizing it.

Ultimately, there is no "you" in it...at all. Any perception of that is simply an expression which is usually unconscious.


There is indeed a very big difference between realizing and conceptualizing.

It would be interesting to hear what people here have to say about what triggered their realization(s) on whatever level(s) they choose to share.

:smile:

7luminaries
25-02-2017, 08:00 PM
Hey there Jim and thanks for your reply. Not much else to say other than agreed that in my experience, the experiences I've had point to the truth of all things. There is no hierarchy of what is. there is one. there are many as one. there is one as many. .there is interbeing in unity. there is Unity in interbeing. there are all those things... All are equally real and all are equally What Is. All is that and all are that. Except the isolated self. There is no one truth that overrides any or all other truths. Except that the "truth" of the isolated self is false.

And the only other thing I would add to this is that there is not much more to be gained from intellectual exploration once you have realised the awareness and meaning of these concepts within your own life. The deepest truth... Whether of interbeing in unity, of unity in interbeing, of interbeing, of unity, and all other truth ...however we recognise or apprehend all that is... is found within, via the awakened heart-led consciousness. So when I say I agree with the mystics, it's because that is the truth that I've known. Meaning, apprehended through experience.
Peace and blessings,
7L

jimrich
25-02-2017, 08:10 PM
Not much else to say...
7L
We agree....:hug3:

Still_Waters
25-02-2017, 08:29 PM
Hey there Jim and thanks for your reply. Not much else to say other than agreed that in my experience, the experiences I've had point to the truth of all things. There is no hierarchy of what is. there is one. there are many as one. there is one as many. .there is interbeing in unity. there is Unity in interbeing. there are all those things... All are equally real and all are equally What Is. All is that and all are that. Except the isolated self. There is no one truth that overrides any or all other truths. Except that the "truth" of the isolated self is false.

And the only other thing I would add to this is that there is not much more to be gained from intellectual exploration once you have realised the awareness and meaning of these concepts within your own life. The deepest truth... Whether of interbeing in unity, of unity in interbeing, of interbeing, of unity, and all other truth ...however we recognise or apprehend all that is... is found within, via the awakened heart-led consciousness. So when I say I agree with the mystics, it's because that is the truth that I've known. Meaning, apprehended through experience.
Peace and blessings,
7L

"...there is not much more to be gained from intellectual exploration once you have realised the awareness and meaning of these concepts within your own life. The deepest truth... Whether of interbeing in unity, of unity in interbeing, of interbeing, of unity, and all other truth ...however we recognise or apprehend all that is... is found within..."

That is wonderfully said and I was wondering if you could share with us some of the breakthrough happenings/experiences that triggered your realization. (After reading what you wrote, I did go back to read some of your previous posts but could not find what I was looking for though I may have just missed it.)

I agree completely with your conclusion, but I'm wondering exactly HOW you became convinced of it ---- not intellectually but experientially as you indicated.

shiningstars
26-02-2017, 01:26 AM
There is indeed a very big difference between realizing and conceptualizing.

It would be interesting to hear what people here have to say about what triggered their realization(s) on whatever level(s) they choose to share.

:smile:

Still_Waters

Reading these forums and questions like "What are the symptoms of awakening" etc. leads me to be grateful that when I started I was not taught to have expectations or even knowledge. Growing a flower bed is a practical matter, soil, sun, water, care. The outcome and "symptoms" is what will come if the flower bed is well looked after. Information overload sometimes is a hindrance.

shiningstars

sky123
26-02-2017, 08:19 AM
I read many posts on here from individuals explaining what it felt like for them when they had their ' Awakening '
My understanding of awakening/enlightenment is when you realize there is no you/I to become awakened/enlightened.

Look for the clouds in a piece of paper.
See the sunshine in the homeless man sleeping on the street.
Look at the rain in an arid desert.
Are we not all part of Universal consciouness.

Just my little feelings :smile:

redstone
26-02-2017, 01:13 PM
I read many posts on here from individuals explaining what it felt like for them when they had their ' Awakening '
My understanding of awakening/enlightenment is when you realize there is no you/I to become awakened/enlightened.

Look for the clouds in a piece of paper.
See the sunshine in the homeless man sleeping on the street.
Look at the rain in an arid desert.
Are we not all part of Universal consciouness.

Just my little feelings :smile:

It's my eye on it as well Sky!

any attempt to try and grasp and hold on to the source or ground just can't be done, so practically looking at it the self must let go and yeild to a meditative practice at some point, which is the only way a connection with the source can be experienced...without the experiencer of course.

the other thing with the intellectual understanding of this is it has to be tracked in to the meditative technique your using as well, I say this because your still left with your own historical energy which is your "SELF" intellectually understanding that you are the source still does not de-energise this historical energy that you are, so I find it improbable that without that meditative technique to access the experience of that source, then it's just another map of where to go but not making the journey there...I'm not saying a maps a bad thing if it's an accurate map :D it does help.

I know the self does not exist inherently from it's own side and all the descriptions that go with it, it's the application of the meditative technique that will make the difference, looking at a few of those guys talking about advaita on youtube, they were all heavily involved in some way or another in a spiritual quest of some kind, so they obviously applied the meditative techique enough for there self to de-energise and collapse as Tony Parsons puts it.

Right...I'm going to slip in to myself and go shopping now! :D

7luminaries
26-02-2017, 03:05 PM
"...there is not much more to be gained from intellectual exploration once you have realised the awareness and meaning of these concepts within your own life. The deepest truth... Whether of interbeing in unity, of unity in interbeing, of interbeing, of unity, and all other truth ...however we recognise or apprehend all that is... is found within..."

That is wonderfully said and I was wondering if you could share with us some of the breakthrough happenings/experiences that triggered your realization. (After reading what you wrote, I did go back to read some of your previous posts but could not find what I was looking for though I may have just missed it.)

I agree completely with your conclusion, but I'm wondering exactly HOW you became convinced of it ---- not intellectually but experientially as you indicated.
I've posted on SF since 2010 at least...and I've meditated and consciously walked my journey almost from birth. I've always been interested in energy work and healing...in the mediation and handling of the marriage of the less dense and the more dense (physical, temporal) aspects of What Is. I've always seen and known of the direct manifestation of spirit as temporal reality, that there is no distance...all distance and all separation are illusory. I can't tell you why I know...I've always known whilst always having sought to know more deeply and more truly. But uncovering the permutations of this truth in our manifest existence have taken a lifetime of ever deeper and more fearless engagement, not only with myself/Spirit but also with all others/Spirit and with all that is/Spirit.

Why did I seek to know more truly and more deeply? Same as most who walk their path, I would guess. To deal with the context of my life, to understand the nature of our manifest social reality and the larger truth of What Is. There is no hierarchy of truth. There is no hierarchy of the real. The One and the emptiness and the interbeing and the manifest reality are all the same...all equally "true" or "real". It matters not some aspects are unchanging and some are changing, or that some are unmanifest and foundational whilst some are emanated and temporal. All are equally of What Is. This is the truth I know, the way of the heart-led consciousness. The path of the awakened heart-led consciousness is the way of ever deeper engagement with all that is, in this (equally timeless and yet temporal and changing) moment and place.

There was no one moment of awakening over a lifetime, only a deepening and an expanding. There was only one spot in time...which felt rather long (LOL)...where I consciously felt I was unmoored from reality and even sanity. This is the crucible, the point of conscious and subtle metamorphosis, where all you are is consciously-heart led and where the rational ways, cultural artifacts and propaganda, and personal justifications, arguments and propositions of the ego and the mental realm become ever more all aligned with the truth of What Is...or else they simply fall away. My core experience has been that if you consciously walk your path over many years, it typically includes a conscious discipline in lovingkindness, radical forgiveness, discipline, and restraint in one's personal life (toward all but also with regard to sexuality), one which honours the highest good of others equally to the self and is free of exploitation and touch that does not include an authentic love for and commitment to the other's highest good on all levels. I have seen that this simple practice of love and service is widely embraced at deeper levels of awareness, but is rejected by many until that point, as its truth in love is so deeply grounded, holistic, and integrative. It is exactly that Be. Love. Now. manifest in our daily ways of intent, thought, word, and deed. In the being and the doing. This has lived meaning not only for self and others, but also in our relationships with our environment, i.e., the world around us and all other life on the planet -- and beyond.

Additionally, my experience has been that over years of meditation, particularly focused meditation, lucid yoga nidra, and energy work for growth and healing, you engage directly in interbeing with the consciousness of one or several or many others as a way of being...and there is only utter transparency, authenticity, serenity, and the deepest love and acceptance of all in spirit. It is where the highest good of all is always the point of origin. These too are other paths to realisation of the truth of Be. Love. Now., but I will say without reservation that they will only take you so far if you are not also on the path of love and service to others equally to self (discussed in prior paragraph).

To put a fine point on it, with the experiences routinely had as we walk our paths, in my experience it becomes self-evident (whilst in the crucible, if not sooner) that we can no longer hide from or "shelve" or "contain" the love you are, the truth you are, and the love and the truth that others are...and likewise for all that is. You must directly apprehend and embrace it, in all its terrifying and immense splendour. You are that. And so is everyone else. (of course...you can choose to deny all that is, even to consciously deny it...so "must" here is simply standing for the revelation that you are that).

All that we see around us, the exploitation, the domination and control, the hierarchies of power and greed...all that I rejected in simple love and solidarity, all that I rejected intellectually and on the basis of a passion for social justice and inherent human dignity and equality of worth...all those things are substantiated beyond all reckoning, reaffirmed in the unyielding light and love of What Is. And all the rest is meaningless and illusory, the props of the violent, the fearful, and the desperate -- and of their fear and loathing of What Is. That is what we meet in love and forgiveness, with great compassion but also with unyielding discipline, courage, strength, and a simple truth which cannot be other than What it Is.

And this is what my understanding of One and emptiness, of individuated consciousness in interbeing and unity has shown me -- this truth of What Is. Be love now, as Ram Dass says. Be. Love. Now. This is the middle way of radical lovingkindness and radical equanimity in being and doing. The truth is, the way of authentic love in our individuated temporal reality of interbeing and unity, of yin and yang, is the same core truth of What Is. There is no higher or deeper truth. There is only soaring higher and immersing more deeply into this one truth.

Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L

Still_Waters
26-02-2017, 10:57 PM
I've posted on SF since 2010 at least...and I've meditated and consciously walked my journey almost from birth. I've always been interested in energy work and healing...in the mediation and handling of the marriage of the less dense and the more dense (physical, temporal) aspects of What Is. I've always seen and known of the direct manifestation of spirit as temporal reality, that there is no distance...all distance and all separation are illusory. I can't tell you why I know...I've always known whilst always having sought to know more deeply and more truly. But uncovering the permutations of this truth in our manifest existence have taken a lifetime of ever deeper and more fearless engagement, not only with myself/Spirit but also with all others/Spirit and with all that is/Spirit.

Why did I seek to know more truly and more deeply? Same as most who walk their path, I would guess. To deal with the context of my life, to understand the nature of our manifest social reality and the larger truth of What Is. There is no hierarchy of truth. There is no hierarchy of the real. The One and the emptiness and the interbeing and the manifest reality are all the same...all equally "true" or "real". It matters not some aspects are unchanging and some are changing, or that some are unmanifest and foundational whilst some are emanated and temporal. All are equally of What Is. This is the truth I know, the way of the heart-led consciousness. The path of the awakened heart-led consciousness is the way of ever deeper engagement with all that is, in this (equally timeless and yet temporal and changing) moment and place.

There was no one moment of awakening over a lifetime, only a deepening and an expanding. There was only one spot in time...which felt rather long (LOL)...where I consciously felt I was unmoored from reality and even sanity. This is the crucible, the point of conscious and subtle metamorphosis, where all you are is consciously-heart led and where the rational ways, cultural artifacts and propaganda, and personal justifications, arguments and propositions of the ego and the mental realm become ever more all aligned with the truth of What Is...or else they simply fall away. My core experience has been that if you consciously walk your path over many years, it typically includes a conscious discipline in lovingkindness, radical forgiveness, discipline, and restraint in one's personal life (toward all but also with regard to sexuality), one which honours the highest good of others equally to the self and is free of exploitation and touch that does not include an authentic love for and commitment to the other's highest good on all levels. I have seen that this simple practice of love and service is widely embraced at deeper levels of awareness, but is rejected by many until that point, as its truth in love is so deeply grounded, holistic, and integrative. It is exactly that Be. Love. Now. manifest in our daily ways of intent, thought, word, and deed. In the being and the doing. This has lived meaning not only for self and others, but also in our relationships with our environment, i.e., the world around us and all other life on the planet -- and beyond.

Additionally, my experience has been that over years of meditation, particularly focused meditation, lucid yoga nidra, and energy work for growth and healing, you engage directly in interbeing with the consciousness of one or several or many others as a way of being...and there is only utter transparency, authenticity, serenity, and the deepest love and acceptance of all in spirit. It is where the highest good of all is always the point of origin. These too are other paths to realisation of the truth of Be. Love. Now., but I will say without reservation that they will only take you so far if you are not also on the path of love and service to others equally to self (discussed in prior paragraph).

To put a fine point on it, with the experiences routinely had as we walk our paths, in my experience it becomes self-evident (whilst in the crucible, if not sooner) that we can no longer hide from or "shelve" or "contain" the love you are, the truth you are, and the love and the truth that others are...and likewise for all that is. You must directly apprehend and embrace it, in all its terrifying and immense splendour. You are that. And so is everyone else. (of course...you can choose to deny all that is, even to consciously deny it...so "must" here is simply standing for the revelation that you are that).

All that we see around us, the exploitation, the domination and control, the hierarchies of power and greed...all that I rejected in simple love and solidarity, all that I rejected intellectually and on the basis of a passion for social justice and inherent human dignity and equality of worth...all those things are substantiated beyond all reckoning, reaffirmed in the unyielding light and love of What Is. And all the rest is meaningless and illusory, the props of the violent, the fearful, and the desperate -- and of their fear and loathing of What Is. That is what we meet in love and forgiveness, with great compassion but also with unyielding discipline, courage, strength, and a simple truth which cannot be other than What it Is.

And this is what my understanding of One and emptiness, of individuated consciousness in interbeing and unity has shown me -- this truth of What Is. Be love now, as Ram Dass says. Be. Love. Now. This is the middle way of radical lovingkindness and radical equanimity in being and doing. The truth is, the way of authentic love in our individuated temporal reality of interbeing and unity, of yin and yang, is the same core truth of What Is. There is no higher or deeper truth. There is only soaring higher and immersing more deeply into this one truth.

Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L

Thanks for taking the time to share all that. Breakthroughs happen in different ways for different people, and it always interests me to hear the HOW.

Thanks again for sharing.

Still_Waters
26-02-2017, 11:09 PM
Still_Waters

Reading these forums and questions like "What are the symptoms of awakening" etc. leads me to be grateful that when I started I was not taught to have expectations or even knowledge. Growing a flower bed is a practical matter, soil, sun, water, care. The outcome and "symptoms" is what will come if the flower bed is well looked after. Information overload sometimes is a hindrance.

shiningstars

That is a very wise point you are making.

My spiritual mentor never taught disciples to have expectations. She only recommended practices that were best suited to our individual temperaments. When revelations just happened that seemed incredulous at first, that was the point at which the deeper teachings started.

jimrich
27-02-2017, 03:38 AM
My spiritual mentor never taught disciples to have expectations. She only recommended practices that were best suited to our individual temperaments. When revelations just happened that seemed incredulous at first, that was the point at which the deeper teachings started.
Still,
I'd be interested in reading more about your "spiritual mentor" and the process that you engaged in on the way to awakening or whatever happened.
Thanks, :smile:
jim

shiningstars
27-02-2017, 04:48 AM
That is a very wise point you are making.

My spiritual mentor never taught disciples to have expectations. She only recommended practices that were best suited to our individual temperaments. When revelations just happened that seemed incredulous at first, that was the point at which the deeper teachings started.

Yes, it was how I was brought up too and I appreciated it ultimately.

shiningstars

7luminaries
27-02-2017, 04:21 PM
Thanks for taking the time to share all that. Breakthroughs happen in different ways for different people, and it always interests me to hear the HOW.

Thanks again for sharing.

You're very welcome SW.

For me, it depends...I don't find I necessarily get anything out of anyone's intellectual revelations until they awaken to the heart led consciousness.
Of course, I normally will get a lot out of it at that point though :wink:

Also, normally, the day-to-day experiences and grounded perspectives others as they go about their living and being are very informative and interesting. These may or may not be presented as "spiritual" but nonetheless they are the most central to a person's spiritual journey. That is, they align most closely with a person's centre/spirit/higher self. Even if that person has not yet fully awakened to that centre.

If a person is kind and disciplined, etc., and then also consciously and intellectually supports perspectives and causes that align with the balance of lovingkindness and principled, authentically loving discipline that they are, then for myself, I know I am dealing with a fellow traveller.
And that likely what they say then will have particular resonance :hug3:

Peace & blessings,
7L

no1wakesup
02-03-2017, 01:34 AM
OurJimrich,

"I'd say that there is a "you" in "it" - just not a personal, egoic one, plus there is no need for any communication in "it" since there's only one consciousness, hence no 'you', 'me', 'I', 'us', 'we', etc. or even thoughts as in ordinary communications between apparent individuals. But out here, words are apparently needed (unless we read minds, LOL). "

The only kind of you there is is personal, is egoic, is separate and linear (time). The very idea that there is a "one" can only be there in perspective to a "two" in place. Beyond those points... or any variation thereof, is not "oneness" anymore. There is no point or perspective of awareness, unless of course, expressed wakefully or unconsciously (which it is always doing). Before that final boundary, between an apparent "me" and "other", is dissolved, separation will still be there. There is no you which blends in with anything you can call your own either. Your anchor of a solid separate self is gone.

Even when we practice being "aware", being "present" or in the "now", in that instantaneous gap between thoughts, even then the observer is still holding on to something to maintain awareness. Although the filter is much less burdensome in those gaps, there is still a pull to maintain a relationship with something else. Even this awareness, at all costs it seems, remains fundamentally concerned with maintaining an "in here" and "out there", subject and object, perceiver and perceived relationship. If that core relationship collapses, then liberation is there. Not in any way that can be claimed. It's more like a falling off or collapse of only an assumed primary reality. Whats left, (and what has always been) is a measureless quality (void) without any relationship

Normal reality is a dream, the irony is the one who wakes up to the dream is no longer their either. Dreamer and dream collapse

jimrich
02-03-2017, 03:19 AM
Normal reality is a dream, the irony is the one who wakes up to the dream is no longer their either. Dreamer and dream collapse
There is not and never has been a "Dreamer or a dream". There is only "void" or "Empty phenomena" ~ Buddha
:smileinbox:

jimrich
02-03-2017, 03:36 AM
OurJimrich,
"I'd say that there is a "you" in "it" - just not a personal, egoic one, plus there is no need for any communication in "it" since there's only one consciousness, hence no 'you', 'me', 'I', 'us', 'we', etc. or even thoughts as in ordinary communications between apparent individuals. But out here, words are apparently needed (unless we read minds, LOL). "

no1wakesup Whats left, (and what has always been) is a measureless quality (void) without any relationship
:notworthy:

7luminaries
02-03-2017, 02:55 PM
OurJimrich,

"I'd say that there is a "you" in "it" - just not a personal, egoic one, plus there is no need for any communication in "it" since there's only one consciousness, hence no 'you', 'me', 'I', 'us', 'we', etc. or even thoughts as in ordinary communications between apparent individuals. But out here, words are apparently needed (unless we read minds, LOL). "

The only kind of you there is is personal, is egoic, is separate and linear (time). The very idea that there is a "one" can only be there in perspective to a "two" in place. Beyond those points... or any variation thereof, is not "oneness" anymore. There is no point or perspective of awareness, unless of course, expressed wakefully or unconsciously (which it is always doing). Before that final boundary, between an apparent "me" and "other", is dissolved, separation will still be there. There is no you which blends in with anything you can call your own either. Your anchor of a solid separate self is gone.

Even when we practice being "aware", being "present" or in the "now", in that instantaneous gap between thoughts, even then the observer is still holding on to something to maintain awareness. Although the filter is much less burdensome in those gaps, there is still a pull to maintain a relationship with something else. Even this awareness, at all costs it seems, remains fundamentally concerned with maintaining an "in here" and "out there", subject and object, perceiver and perceived relationship. If that core relationship collapses, then liberation is there. Not in any way that can be claimed. It's more like a falling off or collapse of only an assumed primary reality. Whats left, (and what has always been) is a measureless quality (void) without any relationship

Normal reality is a dream, the irony is the one who wakes up to the dream is no longer their either. Dreamer and dream collapse

There is not and never has been a "Dreamer or a dream". There is only "void" or "Empty phenomena" ~ Buddha

The emptiness is the timeless ground of being from which all that is momentary arises. All are equally real...some (void) are timeless and formless...some are temporal forms.

There is more...there is always more. There is what is beyond emptiness and form. There is more beyond consciousness which rests in emptiness or agitates and seeks in individuated temporal form. But that is largely beyond our knowing. And so we contemplate what can be seen as a spectrum of polarity, from emptiness to emanation. From emanation to emptiness.

Meanwhile, the heart knows a deeper truth. Be love now :hug3: And know that you are that. In emptiness and in form, and in the relationship and movement of emanation and returning that exists between them. So to speak.

Peace & blessings, :hug3:
7L

no1wakesup
03-03-2017, 12:30 AM
The emptiness is the timeless ground of being from which all that is momentary arises. All are equally real...some (void) are timeless and formless...some are temporal forms.

There is more...there is always more. There is what is beyond emptiness and form. There is more beyond consciousness which rests in emptiness or agitates and seeks in individuated temporal form. But that is largely beyond our knowing. And so we contemplate what can be seen as a spectrum of polarity, from emptiness to emanation. From emanation to emptiness.

Meanwhile, the heart knows a deeper truth. Be love now :hug3: And know that you are that. In emptiness and in form, and in the relationship and movement of emanation and returning that exists between them. So to speak.

Peace & blessings, :hug3:
7L

Nothing, not even from the vaguest point in perception, which persistently believes itself on the search or path to enlightenment, is left when liberation is there. The need to maintain somethingness comes from our egos refusal and ultimate denile to face what it interprets as anialation.

Imagine you where this ground of being and you where holding a mask in your hand. Then suddenly you would put that mask on, playing which ever role imaginable. At times you would not know you had the mask on and other times you would. There would be times you would suddenly realize you had the mask on and discard it forever and other occasions you would notice it on but some how conviniently determine for yourself that the mask is part of God too!!. However, since it is the mask which reconciles that fact, liberation seems to be put off.

Now this is the best part, the great F U moment for that lingering somethingness which needs to remain in the picture at all cost...

...that part you thought was the ground of being is actually still dual. There is still someone and a mask. Still perceiver and percieved, subject and object. It is this awareness which has the potential to realize itself as primary.

Once the light in the projector is seen as the primary source from which the film of experience can play out, then the entire projector collapses. Light is a quality of the ground of being and so is the film it illuminates.

There is nothing beyond that actual ground of being which remains because there is nothing in place before it. All that comes from this is wakeful or unconscious expression. Its a point from which everything imminates yet there is no location where that point is grounded.

This is not understood or realized conceptually. It is a shift which observes every fabric of duality by first exposing the core and deepest attatcment of all..the anchored believe that you are separate

markings
04-03-2017, 04:02 AM
I
My take on it is that I already am That but I was programmed, by other programmed folks, to believe that I am a limited, separate person in a world of other separate, limited persons/objects and so I LOST my original sense of Oneness or Unity (not-two) at a very early age. I've been "seeking" for a long time and now, thanks to the new teachers like Tony, I can see that I never lost anything and always was and always will be That or whatever it's called. This is it! :hug3:
And for you, what are the practical, real life implications and results of this insight?

Still_Waters
04-03-2017, 02:28 PM
Still,
I'd be interested in reading more about your "spiritual mentor" and the process that you engaged in on the way to awakening or whatever happened.
Thanks, :smile:
jim

My teacher avoided publicity and there is very little written about her. However, Linda Johnson was able to interview her sufficiently to include her in the book, Living Women Saints of India.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ACdgNlL-q3cC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=ma+yoga+shakti&source=bl&ots=OdkrqP1eqM&sig=ynQriv4csDux4MWZyYYiTMG8mMI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3rUAVbz0GtLlsASQhoDQBg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=ma%20yoga%20shakti&f=false

Iamit
20-03-2017, 12:01 PM
Maybe all versions are useful when the different character of seekers is taken into account. The different versions become an issue when they have to be defended by believers who hold their particular version to be the true one and the others false. The more vehement the allegation of falseness, the more insecure the belief.

Why seekers resonate with one version rather than another may depend on the character. For example a mind that is used to successfully solving problems may prefer a version that offers something to do, a practice, while minds that fail to find solutions may select a version that requires nothing as some Neo Advaita versions would have it.

Horses for courses as they say racing.

blossomingtree
21-11-2017, 05:08 AM
Cross referencing relevant threads:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118220

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118552

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118415

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118554

Shivani Devi
21-11-2017, 06:17 AM
Maybe all versions are useful when the different character of seekers is taken into account. The different versions become an issue when they have to be defended by believers who hold their particular version to be the true one and the others false. The more vehement the allegation of falseness, the more insecure the belief.

Why seekers resonate with one version rather than another may depend on the character. For example a mind that is used to successfully solving problems may prefer a version that offers something to do, a practice, while minds that fail to find solutions may select a version that requires nothing as some Neo Advaita versions would have it.

Horses for courses as they say racing.So much of THIS! :biggrin:

Of course you all know by now that I am a traditional Advaitin and for the past week I have been busy saying how everything that could be said about the subject already HAS been, some 2,000 years ago.

That being said, if people come to the direct realisation of Brahman studying 'Winnie-The-Poo' that's also fine. It's the realisation that matters, not the method. Who cares if you travel to Arunachala using a taxi or a bullock-cart?...as long as it doesn't break down and you arrive there is the main thing.

Moondance
22-11-2017, 11:00 AM
if people come to the direct realisation of Brahman studying 'Winnie-The-Poo' that's also fine. It's the realisation that matters, not the method.

(Applause emoticon)

Jyotir
22-11-2017, 02:59 PM
Since this thread has been revived, a previous contribution here:


http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1554551&postcount=18


~ J

Iamit
23-11-2017, 04:43 AM
So much of THIS! :biggrin:

Of course you all know by now that I am a traditional Advaitin and for the past week I have been busy saying how everything that could be said about the subject already HAS been, some 2,000 years ago.

That being said, if people come to the direct realisation of Brahman studying 'Winnie-The-Poo' that's also fine. It's the realisation that matters, not the method. Who cares if you travel to Arunachala using a taxi or a bullock-cart?...as long as it doesn't break down and you arrive there is the main thing.

Yes but it is also worth noting that not all seekers describe the destination of the search in the same way. Realization of what? For some it is the end of feeling disconnected. That will not be enough for others. Each can be respected.

Shivani Devi
23-11-2017, 05:13 AM
Yes but it is also worth noting that not all seekers describe the destination of the search in the same way. Realization of what? For some it is the end of feeling disconnected. That will not be enough for others. Each can be respected.For some, it is also 'Satchitananda'...existence/truth, consciousness and bliss. The destination is beyond description anyway, so even if anybody tries to describe it, it will be 'nope, that ain't it'...and yet, that's the only thing that everybody can agree upon despite their methodology of attainment.

Iamit
23-11-2017, 06:03 AM
For some, it is also 'Satchitananda'...existence/truth, consciousness and bliss. The destination is beyond description anyway, so even if anybody tries to describe it, it will be 'nope, that ain't it'...and yet, that's the only thing that everybody can agree upon despite their methodology of attainment.

Yes and no doubt there are many more descriptions of the destination. So be I say and lets respect all.

Moondance
23-11-2017, 10:33 AM
Yes and no doubt there are many more descriptions of the destination. So be I say and lets respect all.

Good to see you’re still around, Iamit. I don’t always agree with you (especially on a particular sticking point) but I appreciate your contribution to the forum.

Iamit
25-11-2017, 10:28 AM
Hi jimrich,

As far as I can see, the major difference between Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita, is that within the so-called ‘Neo-Advaita’ movement, both exponents and followers possess a predominantly or even exclusively conceptual and intellectual understanding of some principles, that are as often misunderstood in terms of both premise and application, as they are replicated and reinforced in clever dialogue.

These tenets appear to be based on numerous faulty and unquestioned assumptions - what amounts to a rigid doctrine, and self-proclaimed as “radical”, largely because they are without the direct knowing through actual realization, which, was always implied by ‘Classical’, e.g., a legitimate assumption, because realization was traditionally understood to be an absolute requirement of the yoga.

It is the facile modern dispensing of that requirement for direct knowing by identity - realisation - and replacing it with a superficial separative indirect conceptual re-orientation as the realisation itself, which appears to suffice in-and-of-itself and constituting the so-called ‘radical’ element, but which actually renders it ineffective as a practice by obviating real practice accordingly.

The actual ‘practice’ apparently then becomes the subsequent dependence on clever word-games and intellectual debate, convoluted defences, and invalidation and intellectual coercion of sorts (often by rotely citing the accepted doctrine), in order to promote and sustain the belief system. And they’ve evidently gotten much facility, popularity, and validation through abundant internet access in that regard, both in dissemination and assimilation, by attracting droves of disaffected intellectuals looking for (imo) ‘the big easy answer’. They have also received much deserved and valid criticism as a result, as well.

It appears to be much like so-called ‘born-again’ Christianity in this respect - although intellectual and not devotional - but structurally similar: “I preach” (that’s my practice), but “you practice” (what I preach). By virtue of my preaching, it means I have practiced and therefore implicitly understand, therefore I preach. But since you need to practice what I preach (because you evidently are misperceiving reality as indicated by your 'stories' about a 'person', with 'volition', etc....), that means you don’t yet understand - until you feel confident in preaching by understanding the doctrine! That seems to be the Neo-Advaitin’s ‘radical’ often misguided intellectual evangelical ‘revolution’.

Further, the understanding that any conceptual description can never be adequate to convey the actual realization - if in fact one has achieved it - was traditionally a caution regarding the systematic intellectual codification of these conceptual principles - what the Neo brand appears to be using as the very substance of their own facile self-serving defence, which is wholly dependent on the invalidation of others’ belief systems as ‘fatally flawed’, because not fundamentally the Neo-Advaita view, in which, as another conceit of doctrine, often proposes (or arrogantly assumes) itself as the exclusive arbiter of reality perception and spiritual achievement - all others not real, not effective, not attainable through other methods - simply because not following the (assumed superior) fundamental (Neo-Advaita) exclusively 'correct' approach to spirituality. That is frequently the message.

Any attempted discussion which points out the flaws of reasoning, the specious assumptions and the intellectually indulgent conceits, or significantly - other different but equivalent methods - is then summarily invalidated by the clever negation that, “your words are merely conceptual games and ‘stories’ that are illusions and can never capture or refute the ‘real’ reality represented by my Neo-Advaita words and principles which represent the true reality beyond the capacity of language to describe.” That’s a standard rebuttal.

Clever conceptual conceit (unquestioned assumptions), intellectually codified as self-defensive doctrine (theory), exclusive invalidating debate by intellectual negation - through a mistakenly objective 'neti-neti', not a subjective realization. Otherwise none of the previous would be necessary, and which are common attributes of Neo-Advaita.

This so-called ‘new’ form is simply a doctrinaire instant-mix-and-serve version, in the same way that contemporary so-called ‘born-again’ Christians, in completely mis-construing Christ‘s Teaching in toto as merely a superficial intellectual conceptual truth to be accepted as theory, but not utilized in practice towards a true realization, e.g., theoretically; theory as substance; not symbolic of deeper esoteric possibilities represented by it, and therefore necessarily incomplete, partial, and limiting to the very necessity of practice which it cleverly avoids. It’s a myopic conceptual/intellectual doctrine, like Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’ (although the inverse). This conceptual trap is the very caution traditionally emphasized by Buddhists, AND Classical Advaita, but apparently regarded as authentic substance in ‘Neo’-Advaita.

The entire premise is apparently based on a mere intellectual acceptance of conceptual theory as the entire realization. In other words, by virtue of a mental understanding one implicitly becomes a realized Advaitin, when really, that is the first baby-step of re-orientation towards a difficult and arduous ongoing practice which may lead to what the ‘Neo’ believes they have already achieved by virtue of a facile mental acceptance of a misconstrued principle.

In the suggested piece it is (imo) fairly shocking and abundantly clear that the numerous unexamined fallacious assumptions, followed by weak and faulty reasoning are the foundational premises for this modern ’school of thought’ - and it appears to be not much more - is evidenced by patently specious ideas. For instance:

That ‘social conditioning’ is the origin of ego and a sense of personal self. That is an utterly superficial modern (and incorrect) view entirely based on external social observation of metaphysical results - not causes - and the 19th &20th Century nascent objective clinical science of psychology, not the subjective experience and examination of consciousness through yoga as directly experienced and mastered by aspirants for hundreds or thousands of years.

Neo-Advaita hasn’t discovered anything new - they’ve simply avoided the essential by talking a good talk around it, and giving it a ‘namarupa’.


Just my .02 fwiw.


~ J

Yes that is probably a clear description of TA and the attitude of its devotees (of which you are no doubt one). But not a clear description of NA, no doubt due to your opposition to it. You have clearly described your reasons for your opposition.

What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are.

blossomingtree
27-11-2017, 04:32 AM
What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are.

This seems to be a very honest comment, iamx. I definitely sympathize with the desire to be at home and no longer seek anything else. To that end, I apologize to you for any hurt caused, it is not my wish to hurt your feelings; at the same time, as this is a spiritual forum, I will not desist from valid discussions of Neo-Advaita, especially for the sake of other seekers. I am glad for you that you have found what you wanted however and wish you well in that journey.

Namaste.

BT

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1671163&postcount=77

Iamit
27-11-2017, 09:36 AM
Good to see you’re still around, Iamit. I don’t always agree with you (especially on a particular sticking point) but I appreciate your contribution to the forum.

Yes thanks. Frustrating to have personal remarks disrupt discussion but while there are those, like you, willing to compare points of view to reach mutual understanding then I will engage with that so that seekers can have some fair comparisons to consider.

Iamit
27-11-2017, 09:44 AM
This seems to be a very honest comment, iamx. I definitely sympathize with the desire to be at home and no longer seek anything else. To that end, I apologize to you for any hurt caused, it is not my wish to hurt your feelings; at the same time, as this is a spiritual forum, I will not desist from valid discussions of Neo-Advaita, especially for the sake of other seekers. I am glad for you that you have found what you wanted however and wish you well in that journey.

Namaste.

BT

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1671163&postcount=77

My feelings are fine but thanks anyway. Before our Hindu friend departed, (I will miss him), I asked him a question about balance in the manifestation. You have also studied extensively so would welcome comments from TA perspective.

blossomingtree
27-11-2017, 09:40 PM
My feelings are fine but thanks anyway. Before our Hindu friend departed, (I will miss him), I asked him a question about balance in the manifestation. You have also studied extensively so would welcome comments from TA perspective.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118552&page=6

Jyotir
28-11-2017, 03:20 PM
. . . . . . . . . .

Jyotir
28-11-2017, 03:25 PM
Yes that is probably a clear description of TA and the attitude of its devotees (of which you are no doubt one). But not a clear description of NA, no doubt due to your opposition to it. You have clearly described your reasons for your opposition.

What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are.

Hello Iamit,

First, I need to say that I am not opposed to 'NA', but rather, simply find little utility in its (imo) misleading restrictions, as I also find the same prohibiting restrictions in so-called 'Traditional' Advaita. So much for "no doubt". Humility also has Oneness as its basis, but we often ironically see a deficiency in that regard within the doctrinal effrontery of NA rhetoric. To wit...
Who's feeding and who is fed-up?

What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are This point seems to arise quite frequently in NA rhetoric and it is a rank misattribution; a ‘red herring’ foisted onto the public discussion - and the tradition - by proponents (such as Tony Parsons) of the crypto-dualist rhetoric known as Neo-Advaita. The source of the misattribution comes from a specious and apparently unquestioned assumption (among many evident and prevalent in NA) that traditional non-dual teaching creates or demands the necessity of “lack” or “unworthiness” as a programme requirement, e.g., as a feature of the yoga, as a necessity and impulsive basis of practice, which is entirely specious, which NA supposedly then cleverly rejects as a ‘radical’ departure.

Really, and even a casual due diligence (vs. a conveniently clever intellectual complacency) would reveal that: this dubious imposition of what is usually either a formally codified or culturally informal attribute of many distracted or distorted RELIGIOUS doctrines, is not and has never been part of any legitimate yoga, the basis of which in whatever form, has been the core principle of an inalienable equality due to the fact (again, ironic in this case) of the oneness of all being, which is therefore universally available, accessible, and importantly - realizable - by the conscious deliberate acceleration and concentration of the general Cosmic evolution of consciousness, in and through the practice of yoga by any individual ‘awakened’ to the opportunity of that potential as a possibility.

The self-reflected recognition of that potential, while that so-called ’awakening’ could be described as a kind of minor intellectual realization in-and-of itself, which does mark a significant departure, at the same time does not in-and-of-itself constitute the full realization of what that emergent conceptual theory suggests or represents to the inherent limitations of the reasoning mind. Mind is not the whole of being - except maybe (ironically) in the dualistic conception of Neo-Advaitins! This is the traditional caution and here it is evident why. Neo-Advaitins evidently have read (and written) travel brochures, but yet have wishfully imagined themselves by virtue of that practice (and it is indeed a practice, simply disavowed in another wishful self-hypnosis of denial) - that they have actually arrived in Paris just by reading the brochure!

This important principle is not a deficiency (again ironic) of traditional yoga e.g. Advaita/Jnana, but (again), a misattribution ascribed to the yoga, when in truth it is an attribute of the fundamental conditions of physical reality itself, a Cosmic Ignorance (of Self) which the yoga seeks to transform utilizing the UNCONDITIONAL which although veiled, is inseparably part and parcel of those conditions! What is frequently demonstrated in the circularly rationalized notion that conceptual theory - which is intrinsically CONDITIONAL - not only constitutes the practice (or conveniently - it’s circumvention) or worse - it constitutes the actual realization, is that according to mind/mental cognition, mind is the whole of reality which is implied by the inherently limiting circularly reasoned tenets of so-called Neo-Advaita, that reality/Oneness may be realized in and through the mind.

It is precisely that hazard of ignorant cognition - especially of mind in predominantly mental human beings - which is regarded as a/the major caution in numerous traditions due to the inherent self-deception of mind and mental activity. Unfortunately in naively rejecting this caution, so-called NA has unwittingly adopted the very duplicity of mental process and made it the central feature of its ‘philosophy’ which is therefore why it is really one of crypto-dualism, and not truly non-dual.

It’s an intellectual trap, stuck in its own mental reasoning, and why it appeals to those of intellectual temperament, perhaps “…why NA may work for some characters…” Yes indeed, the “Walts” (Walter Mittys) of spiritually aspiring humanity…we need them too!


~ J

Shivani Devi
28-11-2017, 03:41 PM
I totally agree, Jyotir 100% and something so true and amazing just needs to be said twice!

Well, before the first one was deleted anyway. lol :D

blossomingtree
28-11-2017, 09:43 PM
Hello Iamit,

First, I need to say that I am not opposed to 'NA', but rather, simply find little utility in its (imo) misleading restrictions, as I also find the same prohibiting restrictions in so-called 'Traditional' Advaita. So much for "no doubt". Humility also has Oneness as its basis, but we often ironically see a deficiency in that regard within the doctrinal effrontery of NA rhetoric. To wit...
Who's feeding and who is fed-up?

...

Really, and even a casual due diligence (vs. a conveniently clever intellectual complacency) would reveal that: this dubious imposition of what is usually either a formally codified or culturally informal attribute of many distracted or distorted RELIGIOUS doctrines, is not and has never been part of any legitimate yoga, the basis of which in whatever form, has been the core principle of an inalienable equality due to the fact (again, ironic in this case) of the oneness of all being, which is therefore universally available, accessible, and importantly - realizable - by the conscious deliberate acceleration and concentration of the general Cosmic evolution of consciousness, in and through the practice of yoga by any individual ‘awakened’ to the opportunity of that potential as a possibility.

..

It is precisely that hazard of ignorant cognition - especially of mind in predominantly mental human beings - which is regarded as a/the major caution in numerous traditions due to the inherent self-deception of mind and mental activity. Unfortunately in naively rejecting this caution, so-called NA has unwittingly adopted the very duplicity of mental process and made it the central feature of its ‘philosophy’ which is therefore why it is really one of crypto-dualism, and not truly non-dual.

It’s an intellectual trap, stuck in its own mental reasoning, and why it appeals to those of intellectual temperament, perhaps Yes indeed, the “Walts” (Walter Mittys) of spiritually aspiring humanity…we need them too!


~ J





Thank you Jyotir, for an articulate, insightful post based in (IMO) spiritual truths; it is also my assessment {although mine lacks the skills of articulate explanation and patience (hehe)}

BT

Iamit
30-11-2017, 12:52 AM
Hello Iamit,

First, I need to say that I am not opposed to 'NA', but rather, simply find little utility in its (imo) misleading restrictions, as I also find the same prohibiting restrictions in so-called 'Traditional' Advaita. So much for "no doubt". Humility also has Oneness as its basis, but we often ironically see a deficiency in that regard within the doctrinal effrontery of NA rhetoric. To wit...
Who's feeding and who is fed-up?
This point seems to arise quite frequently in NA rhetoric and it is a rank misattribution; a ‘red herring’ foisted onto the public discussion - and the tradition - by proponents (such as Tony Parsons) of the crypto-dualist rhetoric known as Neo-Advaita. The source of the misattribution comes from a specious and apparently unquestioned assumption (among many evident and prevalent in NA) that traditional non-dual teaching creates or demands the necessity of “lack” or “unworthiness” as a programme requirement, e.g., as a feature of the yoga, as a necessity and impulsive basis of practice, which is entirely specious, which NA supposedly then cleverly rejects as a ‘radical’ departure.

Really, and even a casual due diligence (vs. a conveniently clever intellectual complacency) would reveal that: this dubious imposition of what is usually either a formally codified or culturally informal attribute of many distracted or distorted RELIGIOUS doctrines, is not and has never been part of any legitimate yoga, the basis of which in whatever form, has been the core principle of an inalienable equality due to the fact (again, ironic in this case) of the oneness of all being, which is therefore universally available, accessible, and importantly - realizable - by the conscious deliberate acceleration and concentration of the general Cosmic evolution of consciousness, in and through the practice of yoga by any individual ‘awakened’ to the opportunity of that potential as a possibility.

The self-reflected recognition of that potential, while that so-called ’awakening’ could be described as a kind of minor intellectual realization in-and-of itself, which does mark a significant departure, at the same time does not in-and-of-itself constitute the full realization of what that emergent conceptual theory suggests or represents to the inherent limitations of the reasoning mind. Mind is not the whole of being - except maybe (ironically) in the dualistic conception of Neo-Advaitins! This is the traditional caution and here it is evident why. Neo-Advaitins evidently have read (and written) travel brochures, but yet have wishfully imagined themselves by virtue of that practice (and it is indeed a practice, simply disavowed in another wishful self-hypnosis of denial) - that they have actually arrived in Paris just by reading the brochure!

This important principle is not a deficiency (again ironic) of traditional yoga e.g. Advaita/Jnana, but (again), a misattribution ascribed to the yoga, when in truth it is an attribute of the fundamental conditions of physical reality itself, a Cosmic Ignorance (of Self) which the yoga seeks to transform utilizing the UNCONDITIONAL which although veiled, is inseparably part and parcel of those conditions! What is frequently demonstrated in the circularly rationalized notion that conceptual theory - which is intrinsically CONDITIONAL - not only constitutes the practice (or conveniently - it’s circumvention) or worse - it constitutes the actual realization, is that according to mind/mental cognition, mind is the whole of reality which is implied by the inherently limiting circularly reasoned tenets of so-called Neo-Advaita, that reality/Oneness may be realized in and through the mind.

It is precisely that hazard of ignorant cognition - especially of mind in predominantly mental human beings - which is regarded as a/the major caution in numerous traditions due to the inherent self-deception of mind and mental activity. Unfortunately in naively rejecting this caution, so-called NA has unwittingly adopted the very duplicity of mental process and made it the central feature of its ‘philosophy’ which is therefore why it is really one of crypto-dualism, and not truly non-dual.

It’s an intellectual trap, stuck in its own mental reasoning, and why it appeals to those of intellectual temperament, perhaps Yes indeed, the “Walts” (Walter Mittys) of spiritually aspiring humanity…we need them too!


~ J





Yes not everyone finds utility in NA or TA come to that. It varies as characters vary.

We can drop the reference to "lacking" if you find it problematic and call it something to be done rather than nothing to be done. Not all NA describes the objective in the same way. I would describe it as the end of the feeling of disconnection from Oneness. NA is said to end that feeling by a resonance with the concept All is One. For me its a vibration between two frequencies which happen to be on the same wavelenth at the time of the resonance. The frequency/vibration of the mind looking for the solution on behalf of the seeker, and the frequency/vibration of the concept.

Assuming the vibration/frequency of the concept remains constant, for me the issue is then about whether the frequency/vibration of the mind of the seeker can only be in tune with it, and resonate with it, after it has followed a path or practise. For me, to determine where the mind of another might be at in terms of its frequency/vibration would be a very difficult determination to make. So I am prepared to take the assertion of the seeker that such a resonance has occurred and the feeling of disconnection has ended. Others may not be prepared to take that and condemn the experience because it does not conform to their idea about that experience. But of course they have no idea about what that experience is/was like for the other because they are not that other having the experience.

Shivani Devi
30-11-2017, 12:54 AM
But of course they have no idea about what that experience was like for the other because they are not that other.That's strange, because I was taught they were.

Iamit
30-11-2017, 01:34 AM
That's strange, because I was taught they were.

Do you know what the experience of another is like for them?:)

blossomingtree
30-11-2017, 03:29 AM
Yes not everyone finds utility in NA or TA come to that. It varies as characters vary.

We can drop the reference to "lacking" if you find it problematic and call it something to be done rather than nothing to be done. Not all NA describes the objective in the same way. I would describe it as the end of the feeling of disconnection from Oneness. NA is said to end that feeling by a resonance with the concept All is One. For me its a vibration between two frequencies which happen to be on the same wavelenth at the time of the resonance. The frequency/vibration of the mind looking for the solution on behalf of the seeker, and the frequency/vibration of the concept.

Assuming the vibration/frequency of the concept remains constant, for me the issue is then about whether the frequency/vibration of the mind of the seeker can only be in tune with it, and resonate with it, after it has followed a path or practise. For me, to determine where the mind of another might be at in terms of its frequency/vibration would be a very difficult determination to make. So I am prepared to take the assertion of the seeker that such a resonance has occurred and the feeling of disconnection has ended. Others may not be prepared to take that and condemn the experience because it does not conform to their idea about that experience. But of course they have no idea about what that experience is/was like for the other because they are not that other having the experience.

*Links underlined*

There is a lot to parse in this - many psychological tricks embedded in this - which is perhaps not surprising (unfortunately) (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1665778#post1665778): .. but for the record, I think you are again trying to subvert discussion by using smoke and mirrors - casting it as an issue of competition or disposition - when it is not - it is a misappropriation in its essence (see below)

I do understand why so called "NA" tries to frame the context as - either: it's because TA is jealous of us! (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1671989&postcount=68) - or it's West v East (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1672103#post1672103) - or it just depends on your personality (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1672391#post1672391) to the probably most honest answer I have seen in my viewpoint: NA suits people who are tired of being told they are not good enough and want self assurance that they have, without any work on their part, "arrived" (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1670289#post1670289))

Because that gives them, like e.g. a Church of Scientology, an assumption of legitimacy and equivalence. There is no equivalence, however in my opinion (rationale below), and why it should be seen at best as a dabbling exercise. Furthermore, its utility is diminished not only through its stature as a relative imposter, in my opinion, but in the rare admission that its followers have fundamentally not found true joy, compassion or Gnosis evident in so many other traditions. (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1670699&postcount=53) This is only to be expected in such a course.

Here's a prior post of mine which encapsulates how I see this topic (below). I hope you find it useful to understand my perspective (and hopefully this time you will not try to again incite (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118554) the Board (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1669215&postcount=38) and forum participants (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1669431&postcount=43)to try to cast me as an abuser (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1664755&postcount=110) - quite a dishonest and unkind tactic IMO (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118554) - in your desperate attempts to shut down discussion and review.

Be well :smile:

BT


I think to imagine that it is a West v East or TA v NA issue or Traditionalist v Modern context is incorrect, and merely takes the bait {sort of like the #fakenews #alternativefacts context - there are no alternative facts, period, to discuss it is to acknowledge that which isn't accurate in the first place, a clever play}

This is certainly not an issue of West or East or Traditional Advaita-Vedanta v Neo-Advaita or popularity more v less.

To imagine it is is to have taken that particular bait, in my opinion. The key, fundamental difference is really are the teachings as promulgated genuine and fulsome spiritual teachings or not? i.e. Do they advance the highest teachings/Truths found in a number of religions: Buddhism, Sufism, Advaita-Vedanta, mystical Christianity, Daoism etc.

There is no mindset of popularity, culture or religion here, IMO. You have to remember that Advaita-Vedanta and many other religions co-exist very peacefully and harmoniously; some would say co-operatively too - you help him and I will help her and we will meet at the same place out there, beyond these categories - high five!

The only reason that this so called Neo-Advaita issue is being responded to is because it is simply a shallow imitation of any genuine spiritual tradition, and it is baited to attract the simple minded, ignorant, or those that just don't know, and yet are {sincerely} looking for some spiritual guidance. Unfortunately its effects range from long term ignorance (given that it does not actually generate meaningful deep insights) to more corruption (such as when some people think that they don't, or perhaps other people, don't 'really' exist, and/or All is One anyway so 'whatever' I do is fine) i.e. the mental cognition of the insight of genuine teachers cannot help but be nigh inevitably corrupted in its original intention.

You see, what is so tricky and pseudo-smart about the so-called NA writings is that they utilize some "truths" discovered in (let's use for this example) Advaita-Vedanta, and also piggy back off the same terminology. So, to the untrained eye and heart, it has semblances of truth in it.

To piggy back off Jyotir's example of Paris (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1671739#post1671739), they describe the sights of the Eiffel Tower (having piggy backed off of the travellers' actual journey) using similar words, they can describe the bridges, the people, the vibrant taste of its cuisine {mmm croissants!!} and so parts of it could be true {if it were really true}.

But this remains very different to the actual reaching of said destination, which is what the original Adepts did reach and used words to "hint at" and best {within the capacity of words, which is inherently limited} provide a flavor of the possible.

Furthermore, it goes beyond a trip in that the transformation and journey cannot help but change the individual - sort of like the characteristics of a genuine pilgrim, who is forged in and through the fires of Truth/Search - there is a distinctively different taste and flavor in such people experientially and also through their insights and spiritual development.

As you know the spiritual tradition is nothing but a journey back to Source (which no-one has left, but which still requires some effort to deeply realize and manifest).

Neo-Advaita is nothing but a forgery in that regard, stunting the very people it could have helped, by promulgating views such as there is nothing to do, nothing to realize. By short-circuiting the very search, journey and practice that leads people to these inner realizations and experiences, it belies the very intention, depth and authenticity of the original Adepts/Masters' sharings.

In Zen there is a saying: "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters."

No-one in Zen graduates without years of intensive practice, lifelong practice and yet the destination is inevitably sweet because the realizations are the fruition of the work that was put in.

Finally, Iamit's own discourse shows another level of conceit in that it attracts people who are "tired of being told they are not good enough". It suits personalities who are perhaps tired and older and want to feel that things are enough. I definitely sympathize with that, and wish such people well. There is no need for anyone to feel unworthy and I also have never seen that message in any other tradition - but people obviously interpret messages differently. Iamit also mentioned suffering still exists - well, compare that to the Adepts :smile:

So anyway, in conclusion, the classification and context of discussion is not a "versus" - whether that's people, culture, modernity, or religion, as Iamx would like to put it, it's a simple case of fraudulent activity masking as the real deal. That is the pertinent point and pivot of discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but at least people deserve to know - hey this ain't Europe!

BT

no1wakesup
30-11-2017, 12:19 PM
"The relentless need to set right against wrong very successfully demonstrates the incomprehension of a message that points to that which is beyond both."

Jyotir
30-11-2017, 01:08 PM
.
"The relentless need to set right against wrong very successfully demonstrates the incomprehension of a message that points to that which is beyond both."

Hi no1wakesup,

That the bolded portions can be seen as equivalents demonstrates that the entire unattributed quotation is substantially intended as a moral recrimination in its own 'right'.

How about this reformation?:

The relentless message that points, demonstrates the need to very successfully set right against wrong comprehension of that which is beyond both.

~ J

Jyotir
30-11-2017, 01:30 PM
Yes not everyone finds utility in NA or TA come to that. It varies as characters vary.

We can drop the reference to "lacking" if you find it problematic and call it something to be done rather than nothing to be done. Not all NA describes the objective in the same way. I would describe it as the end of the feeling of disconnection from Oneness. NA is said to end that feeling by a resonance with the concept All is One. For me its a vibration between two frequencies which happen to be on the same wavelenth at the time of the resonance. The frequency/vibration of the mind looking for the solution on behalf of the seeker, and the frequency/vibration of the concept.

Assuming the vibration/frequency of the concept remains constant, for me the issue is then about whether the frequency/vibration of the mind of the seeker can only be in tune with it, and resonate with it, after it has followed a path or practise. For me, to determine where the mind of another might be at in terms of its frequency/vibration would be a very difficult determination to make. So I am prepared to take the assertion of the seeker that such a resonance has occurred and the feeling of disconnection has ended. Others may not be prepared to take that and condemn the experience because it does not conform to their idea about that experience. But of course they have no idea about what that experience is/was like for the other because they are not that other having the experience.


Hello Iamit,

I beg to differ with your (qualified) dualist conception of reality posing as non-dual. Shame!

I contend that if you intend to be a spokesperson you’d behoove yourself to consider the following:

1) “Resonance” (as applied in your usage) implies differentiation.

2) Oneness implies direct subjective identity. (iow, there is no 'objectivity' if all is One)

Therefore, IT IS POSSIBLE - and possibly inevitable - to be conscious of ‘another person’s’ ‘resonance of consciousness/conscious focus’ in and through 'resonance' with “them”, since, by virtue of that oneness…one IS that ‘person’ as a direct identity of self....regardless of how differentiated.

This (btw) is the operative basis of intuition, and as well, the efficacy of satsang -
- especially in the case of the guru who has integrally and permanently realized that oneness.

~ J

Iamit
30-11-2017, 04:53 PM
Hello Iamit,

I beg to differ with your (qualified) dualist conception of reality posing as non-dual. Shame!

I contend that if you intend to be a spokesperson you’d behoove yourself to consider the following:

1) “Resonance” (as applied in your usage) implies differentiation.

2) Oneness implies direct subjective identity. (iow, there is no 'objectivity' if all is One)

Therefore, IT IS POSSIBLE - and possibly inevitable - to be conscious of ‘another person’s’ ‘resonance of consciousness/conscious focus’ in and through 'resonance' with “them”, since, by virtue of that oneness…one IS that ‘person’ as a direct identity of self....regardless of how differentiated.

This (btw) is the operative basis of intuition, and as well, the efficacy of satsang -
- especially in the case of the guru who has integrally and permanently realized that oneness.

~ J


From what you say do you regard your intuition as trustworthy enough (free from the distortion of conditioning that you may not be aware of) to know what the experience of another feels like for them? Are you sure that there are not aspects of your conditioning that remain hidden (repressed, too painful to remember) that may distort your intuition?

For example characteristics that were punished (rejection/ condemnation) which you now find unacceptable in yourself, and as a consequence critisise in others. This is known as projection.

:)

no1wakesup
01-12-2017, 11:39 AM
Hi no1wakesup,

That the bolded portions can be seen as equivalents demonstrates that the entire unattributed quotation is substantially intended as a moral recrimination in its own 'right'.

How about this reformation?:


The relentless message that points, demonstrates the need to very successfully set right against wrong comprehension of that which is beyond both.

~ J

Either will suffice as everything said on this forum is unknowingly unattributed anyway. Yet again, hearing that from a mind still identified with a centered someone/self can only agree or disagree with this path or that path. Which is why its difficult for this mind to engaged with life in this moment and so almost impossible to remain detatched from the idea of enlightenment.

The one who is ignorant to its connection, the one requiring the feeling to be connected and the one believing its already connected all come from the same conditioning/illusion/assumtion that there is one there to connect with IT in the first place. It's this solid point of perception thats only holding on to another version (and of course a more evolved or awakened version at that) of itself.

Gardeners in the act of truly gardening are not so concerned with the harvest.

Jyotir
01-12-2017, 03:21 PM
From what you say do you regard your intuition as trustworthy enough (free from the distortion of conditioning that you may not be aware of) to know what the experience of another feels like for them? Are you sure that there are not aspects of your conditioning that remain hidden (repressed, too painful to remember) that may distort your intuition?

For example characteristics that were punished (rejection/ condemnation) which you now find unacceptable in yourself, and as a consequence critisise in others. This is known as projection.


Hi Iamit,

It is well established that intuition in its native status is infinitely and inherently more reliable than the de facto dominant concrete and rational mental (even vital) processes - reasoning, doubt, prejudices, aversions, etc., which can, and certainly do often taint, overwhelm, or distort those intuitions in the untransformed being, as they descend into waking consciousness. Who hasn’t experienced this (especially in retrospect)?

But that doesn’t invalidate the more substantial point conveniently sidestepped - that the reliability of intuition when in its purer manifestations, comes from a direct subjective identification which is accessible by, to, from, in, and through oneness, which is an intimate and immediate knowing from identity of self, regardless of how differentiated. (the leaf knowing it is the tree also knows the roots)

The practice and benefit of meditation is that it can clarify cognition by tranquilizing the grosser mental attachments/movements allowing for increasingly consistent experience in the subjective self, and therefore provide normalization of intuitive insight, thus surpassing the conditional limitations of objective cognition.

Projection in a way, is the inverse of intuition. It is an externalized attribution of that (cognition) which is internally untransformed in the projector; an (unconsciously) objectified self-identification which is usually not reliable except in its falseness, e.g., maya/appearance. It’s why animals, in another version of projection endemic to that 'kingdom', attack and devour those other animals that demonstrate the quality of animation/vital energy, with commensurate consequences. The residuals of this aggression/defensive dynamic are still very much present in human beings even if substantially combined with mind as desire-mind and can manifest as aggression and acquisitiveness unless and until transformed into a more benign dynamism and self-giving.

Contrary to popular conception, this ‘conditioning’ often spoken of in contemporary psychological terms is borrowed by spiritual aspirants who seem to rely on these metaphors (physics, social science, etc.) to explain metaphysics and spirituality, since those meta-forms are the most available and familiar. However this conditioning so-called is not really a social phenomenon, although ‘obvious’ and tempting as a naďve conclusion. The real conditional aspect of ‘conditioning’ in the spiritual context is profoundly fundamental to physical existence itself, and precedes and subsumes any social dynamics (i.e., punishment, rejection, etc.) as manifestations superficially perceived.

~ J

Iamit
01-12-2017, 03:46 PM
Hi Iamit,

It is well established that intuition in its native status is infinitely and inherently more reliable than the de facto dominant concrete and rational mental (even vital) processes - reasoning, doubt, prejudices, aversions, etc., which can, and certainly do often taint, overwhelm, or distort those intuitions in the untransformed being, as they descend into waking consciousness. Who hasn’t experienced this (especially in retrospect)?

But that doesn’t invalidate the more substantial point conveniently sidestepped - that the reliability of intuition when in its purer manifestations, comes from a direct subjective identification which is accessible by, to, from, in, and through oneness, which is an intimate and immediate knowing from identity of self, regardless of how differentiated. (the leaf knowing it is the tree also knows the roots)

The practice and benefit of meditation is that it can clarify cognition by tranquilizing the grosser mental attachments/movements allowing for increasingly consistent experience in the subjective self, and therefore provide normalization of intuitive insight, thus surpassing the conditional limitations of objective cognition.

Projection in a way, is the inverse of intuition. It is an externalized attribution of that (cognition) which is internally untransformed in the projector; an (unconsciously) objectified self-identification which is usually not reliable except in its falseness, e.g., maya/appearance. It’s why animals, in another version of projection endemic to that 'kingdom', attack and devour those other animals that demonstrate the quality of animation/vital energy, with commensurate consequences. The residuals of this aggression/defensive dynamic are still very much present in human beings even if substantially combined with mind as desire-mind and can manifest as aggression and acquisitiveness unless and until transformed into a more benign dynamism and self-giving.

Contrary to popular conception, this ‘conditioning’ often spoken of in contemporary psychological terms is borrowed by spiritual aspirants who seem to rely on these metaphors (physics, social science, etc.) to explain metaphysics and spirituality, since those meta-forms are the most available and familiar. However this conditioning so-called is not really a social phenomenon, although ‘obvious’ and tempting as a naďve conclusion. The real conditional aspect of ‘conditioning’ in the spiritual context is profoundly fundamental to physical existence itself, and precedes and subsumes any social dynamics (i.e., punishment, rejection, etc.) as manifestations superficially perceived.

~ J


Well I am glad you feel confident that your character is clear of conditioning you may have repressed:) to judge with what you think is your intuition clear of distortion, what an experience is like for another. I would not trust that particularly in such a sensitve matter as sitting in judgment of another about whether thier experience was genuine or not concerning the end of the spiritual search. But that is typical of the arrogance of TA when considering NA.

Shivani Devi
01-12-2017, 10:46 PM
Hi Iamit,

It is well established that intuition in its native status is infinitely and inherently more reliable than the de facto dominant concrete and rational mental (even vital) processes - reasoning, doubt, prejudices, aversions, etc., which can, and certainly do often taint, overwhelm, or distort those intuitions in the untransformed being, as they descend into waking consciousness. Who hasn’t experienced this (especially in retrospect)?

But that doesn’t invalidate the more substantial point conveniently sidestepped - that the reliability of intuition when in its purer manifestations, comes from a direct subjective identification which is accessible by, to, from, in, and through oneness, which is an intimate and immediate knowing from identity of self, regardless of how differentiated. (the leaf knowing it is the tree also knows the roots)

The practice and benefit of meditation is that it can clarify cognition by tranquilizing the grosser mental attachments/movements allowing for increasingly consistent experience in the subjective self, and therefore provide normalization of intuitive insight, thus surpassing the conditional limitations of objective cognition.

Projection in a way, is the inverse of intuition. It is an externalized attribution of that (cognition) which is internally untransformed in the projector; an (unconsciously) objectified self-identification which is usually not reliable except in its falseness, e.g., maya/appearance. It’s why animals, in another version of projection endemic to that 'kingdom', attack and devour those other animals that demonstrate the quality of animation/vital energy, with commensurate consequences. The residuals of this aggression/defensive dynamic are still very much present in human beings even if substantially combined with mind as desire-mind and can manifest as aggression and acquisitiveness unless and until transformed into a more benign dynamism and self-giving.

Contrary to popular conception, this ‘conditioning’ often spoken of in contemporary psychological terms is borrowed by spiritual aspirants who seem to rely on these metaphors (physics, social science, etc.) to explain metaphysics and spirituality, since those meta-forms are the most available and familiar. However this conditioning so-called is not really a social phenomenon, although ‘obvious’ and tempting as a naďve conclusion. The real conditional aspect of ‘conditioning’ in the spiritual context is profoundly fundamental to physical existence itself, and precedes and subsumes any social dynamics (i.e., punishment, rejection, etc.) as manifestations superficially perceived.

~ J
Very nicely said, as usual.

It always brings a smile to my lips whenever logic is defended by the illogical, as we can plainly see from the post above this one.

Your summation reminds me of the story from the Chhandogya Upanishad:

Uddaalak said - "Svetaketu, Have you ever asked your teacher for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?
Shwetketu said - "What is that instruction, Sir?"

The father replied - "My dear, just as by a single lump of clay, all that is made of clay is known, all modifications being only a name based upon words, (the difference being only a name arising from speech) but the truth being that all is clay thus, my dear, is that instruction."
"Please Sir, explain this to me further." said Shwetketu.

Uddalaka - "Bring me a fruit of that Nyagrodh tree (banyan tree)."
Shwetketu - "Here is one, Sir."
Uddalaka - "Break it."
Shwetketu - "It is broken, Sir."
Uddaalak - "What do you see there?"
Shwetketu - "Those extremely small seeds, Sir."
Uddaalak - "Break one of them, my dear."
Shwetketu - "It is broken, Sir."
Uddaalak - "What do you see there?"
Shwetketu - "Nothing, Sir."

The father said - "My son, that subtle essence which you do not perceive there, of that very essence this great Nyagrodha tree, grows (exists). Believe me, my son. Now, that which is the subtle essence (the root of all) in That all that exists has its Self; that is the Self; That is the Truth; That thou art, O Shwetketu!"
Shwetketu said - "Please, Sir, explain to me further."
"Be it so, my child," replied the father.

Uddaalak - "Place this salt in the water and come to me in the morning."
Shwetketu, the son, did as he was commanded.
Next day the father said to him - "Bring the salt, my dear, which you put in the water last night." The son looked for it and did not find it, for it had become dissolved.

The father said - "My child, taste it from the surface of the water. How is it?"
The son replied - "It is salt."
Uddaalak - "Taste it from the middle. How is it?"
The son replied - "It is salt."
Uddalak - "Taste it from the bottom. How is it?"
The son replied - "It is salt."
The father said - "Throw it away and come to me."
The son did so; It exists for ever.
Then the father said to him - "Here also in this body, forsooth, you do not perceive the Truth (Sat or Pure Being), my son, but there it is indeed."
The father said - "Now that which is the subtle essence (the root of all), in That all that exists has its Self: That is the Self; that is the Truth; That thou art; O Shwetketu.


http://www.oocities.org/hindupuraan/spiritual-stories/8-uddaalak-shwetketu.htm

Gem
05-12-2017, 01:13 AM
.........................

Jyotir
05-12-2017, 01:26 PM
Either will suffice as everything said on this forum is unknowingly unattributed anyway. Yet again, hearing that from a mind still identified with a centered someone/self can only agree or disagree with this path or that path. Which is why its difficult for this mind to engaged with life in this moment and so almost impossible to remain detatched from the idea of enlightenment.

The one who is ignorant to its connection, the one requiring the feeling to be connected and the one believing its already connected all come from the same conditioning/illusion/assumtion that there is one there to connect with IT in the first place. It's this solid point of perception thats only holding on to another version (and of course a more evolved or awakened version at that) of itself.

Gardeners in the act of truly gardening are not so concerned with the harvest.


Hi no1wakesup,

The garden, the gardener, and the gardening are all one and the same.
The harvest in that metaphor is the realization of this in the physical.

Of course the gardener is concerned!
Otherwise there would be no garden, no gardening, no harvest.
This is why Krishna said, “ If I stopped working, the whole Universe would cease to exist.” In other words, the universe was created out of God's Compassion.

The ‘idea’ of enlightenment comes from the ideal of enlightenment which comes from the Light itself - the infinite consciousness which is emergent in the physical as the physical, and significantly for self-conscious human beings, as the spiritual aspiration which is nothing other than that same light in the form of concern and compassion recognized and effectuated in and through yoga - which is precisely why seekers are discussing spiritual matters on a website devoted to spiritual matters. Of course, this can be arbitrarily and conveniently denied and arbitrarily dismissed as 'stories' as participants see fit according to the dominant preference of the non-dual forum. However...

An arid intellectual asceticism that accepts a static undifferentiated whole as Being (neti-neti), but rejects oneness in its dynamic multiplicity of becoming (iti-iti) as the one-same whole Identity, is not Advaita, but a qualified dualism. Holding on to ‘this’ or detaching from ‘that’ yields the same result: “agree or disagree with this path or that path”; “holding on to another version”. It’s a preference that separates and divides.

~ J

Shivani Devi
05-12-2017, 01:48 PM
An arid intellectual asceticism that accepts a static undifferentiated whole as Being (neti-neti), but rejects oneness in its dynamic multiplicity of becoming (iti-iti) as the one-same whole Identity, is not Advaita, but a qualified dualism. Holding on to ‘this’ or detaching from ‘that’ yields the same result: “agree or disagree with this path or that path”; “holding on to another version”. It’s a preference that separates and divides.

~ J


Yes...yes...YES! :hug2:

I shall again quote Nisargadatta Maharaj in regards:

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-wisdom-is-knowing-i-am-nothing-love-is-knowing-i-am-everything-and-between-the-two-my-sri-nisargadatta-maharaj-36-60-10.jpg

revolver
05-12-2017, 11:32 PM
I would offer this piece by Tony Parsons to explain the current difference between Neo-Advaita & Classical Advaita.
https://www.theopensecret.com/traditionalnottwo.html
My take on it is that I already am That but I was programmed, by other programmed folks, to believe that I am a limited, separate person in a world of other separate, limited persons/objects and so I LOST my original sense of Oneness or Unity (not-two) at a very early age. I've been "seeking" for a long time and now, thanks to the new teachers like Tony, I can see that I never lost anything and always was and always will be That or whatever it's called. This is it! :hug3:
Actually you haven't lost anything, its there within you, it has never left you.:smile: