The spiritual supermarket

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Tony Parsons had his moment of realisation.

Be careful, Iamx !

Tony Parsons discussed on "Cult Education" websites:

http://forum.culteducation.com/read....7354#msg-67354

https://forum.culteducation.com/read...2,67640,page=1

[iamthat]

I take these cult education forums with a pinch of salt. I merely mention Tony Parsons because Iamit mentioned him, and Tony Parsons did have rather an interesting experience walking across the park. I would not directly compare TP to Ramana Maharshi.

Peace
Iamthat (who (on the level of form at least) is not the same as Iamit - in fact we seem to be on opposite sides of the planet)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by iamthat

I take these cult education forums with a pinch of salt. I merely mention Tony Parsons because Iamit mentioned him, and Tony Parsons did have rather an interesting experience walking across the park. I would not directly compare TP to Ramana Maharshi.

Peace
Iamthat (who (on the level of form at least) is not the same as Iamit - in fact we seem to be on opposite sides of the planet)

I have listened to Parsons on you tube a couple of times, and he's pretty cool, but as is the trend with ND speakers, the videos are long... What that means is, Parsons doesn's say the things others define in a single sentence, and that which he does say in a sentence is meaningful only as contextualised in the full hour his discourse.

The main thing I find is, coming to a conclusion as to what the message is saying is misreading the narrative entirely, because he speaks of a direct knowing and not a conceptual knowledge, and the point of his speaking is only to prompt listeners to notice of themselves that of which he speaks.

This means the essence of the satsang is different to the discourse of knowledge because it makes no argument validated by reason, and therefore it can't be concluded with an answer, but it can be revealing to those who listen holistically, being open to possibility, and checking of themselves the meaning of the narrative.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by iamthat

I take these cult education forums with a pinch of salt. I merely mention Tony Parsons because Iamit mentioned him, and Tony Parsons did have rather an interesting experience walking across the park. I would not directly compare TP to Ramana Maharshi.

They seem to make a lot of sense. I've seen the same psychological techniques used by your friend iamit

*Claiming there is no one true way - whilst selling the "do nothing" route as the one true way

*Trying to insinuate/cast fear and aspersions on traditional paths and teachers - "be careful you don't get disappointed" "why enrich them"

*Claiming no Gurus are required - whilst implicitly setting oneself up as a Guru and/or selling the wares of Parson/Kate and other non-duality "teachers"

*Selling cheap psychological tricks of ease "why work for it" as a genuine spiritual method

*Flip flopping positions

*Attacking people who criticize or point out the logical incongruencies of their posts "Goodbye and Good luck!" "You are attacking me - help!" "You have thinly held beliefs"

*Not responding to incongruence "Would you turn away a modern day Jesus or Buddha or say that they are not needed/add no value?" "Help! You are attacking the person and should be moderated!"

Seems fairly cult-like to me.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Iamthat (who (on the level of form at least) is not the same as Iamit - in fact we seem to be on opposite sides of the planet)

lol It would be a good time to admit you are One teehee

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Thanks to Iamit for the comments on the perceived differences between Traditional Advaita and what is commonly known as Neo Advaita, or the Open Secret as Iamit refers to it. I don't really want to disect it all sentence by sentence, but a few things stand out.

Iamit states:

Presuming that Dennis Waite accurately represents something he calls Traditional Advaita, he confirms his belief and experience in the reality of the constant existence of an individual with free will and the ability to choose and bring about consequence.

A very quick search finds the following comment by Dennis Waite:

The knowledge conveyed by Advaita is that there is only Consciousness – ever. Consciousness is non-dual, so there is nothing else; never has been, never will be. ‘I’ (who I really am) is Consciousness. There is no ‘world’. What we see as world is also really Consciousness. In our ignorance, we see forms as separate and give them names, and thus the whole appearance of duality is conjured into existence. Time does not really exist either; it is part of this imposed duality. Accordingly, no ‘experience’ could ever bring about or be relevant to enlightenment.

Iamit states:

Dennis Waite believes and recommends that, in order to resolve the real and constant sense of separation and become enlightened, the individual should choose to follow a progressive spiritual path. This path involves practice, meditation, self-enquiry and the eradication of ego and ignorance through a clear understanding of the scriptures and the guidance of a teacher.

Dennis Waite says:

Enlightenment is a term which is misunderstood and misused by very many teachers and most seekers. It has nothing to do with practice or experience, for example. The purpose of practice is to prepare the mind so that it is sufficiently still and disciplined to be able to receive and assimilate the teaching. Thus it is that Advaita happily uses techniques from Yoga philosophy to this end. But practice of any kind can never bring about enlightenment because practice is not opposed to ignorance.

Iamit goes on to say:

Dennis Waite confirms that enlightenment is something that can be described in words, and attained and known by the individual mind when it acquires the knowledge that there is only a non-dual reality.

Dennis Waite says:

One final point in this very brief article relates to the ‘subject matter’ of Advaita – the Self, Consciousness, reality. Because it is non-dual, it is pedantically impossible to say anything at all about this. Anything you do think or say is necessarily dualistic and therefore cannot be ‘true’.

Anyone who realises Oneness knows that it is not attained by the mind. It is not a mental knowledge, nor can it be conveyed in words. But words are all that we have to try to describe something (indeed, this forum is full of words).

In fact, the Neo-Advaitists (or what Iamit refers to as The Open Secret) also use words to try to describe the state of Non-Duality. Just go to Watkins in London and look at all the books by Tony Parsons and others. Not to mention the countless hours on Youtube of these same Neo-Advaitists sharing their perspectives on Non-Duality.

Finally, Iamit states:

The Open Secret recognises that there is no such thing as enlightenment or liberation, or an individual that can become enlightened or liberated. These are all ideas that come and go within the individual story. When the assumed sense of being separate seems to collapse, already there is only the constant and unknowable wonder of being.

Surely this collapse of "the assumed sense of being separate" is the enlightenment or liberation of Traditional Advaitists. All idea of being a separate individual vanishes, there is only Being. It doesn't really matter whether we label this Traditional Advaitism or Neo-Advaitism or whatever. This is beyond all labels. Ramana Maharshi had his moment of realisation. Tony Parsons had his moment of realisation. All that is important is that we realise it for ourselves, not as an intellectual understanding but as our own collapse of the assumed sense of being separate. Until we have this realisation for ourselves, all we have are beliefs and ideas.

Peace.

Thanks Iamthat but I must quickly say that the quotes are from Tony Parsons not me. I simply posted his essay here.

Yes the point is raised again and again that Neo Advaita (NA) sees Advaita as a concept/idea that needs to be understood. But within that seeing there are variations of response. For example some say that in addition to that understanding, there needs to be a resonance with that concept for the feeling of disconnection to end. Some regard that ending as enlightenment, others do not.

As the word suggests, resonance is a vibration. The frequency may vary as do radio stations on the dial. If non duality resonates, there has been a connection between the vibration/frequency of the concept and the vibration/frequency of the seeker.

One needs to become aware of the concept and that may require a speaker or writing and maybe someone to discuss it with, but that person is not required to be a guru or seen as enlightened.The message is not the person delivering it. It stands alone in its own words to be accepted or rejected depending on the character of the seeker and its preferences.

If fact deciding whether someone is a gur/enlightened or not places an additional and burden on the seeker. Some may value that extra burden and so be it, but some may see is as completely unnecessary. To each her/his own.

[ocean breeze]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

lol It would be a good time to admit you are One teehee

Humorous thoughts of creating another username of iamthathot or iamtoosexy and making a serious reply here just to create more mischief.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Gem

I have listened to Parsons on you tube a couple of times, and he's pretty cool, but as is the trend with ND speakers, the videos are long... What that means is, Parsons doesn's say the things others define in a single sentence, and that which he does say in a sentence is meaningful only as contextualised in the full hour his discourse.

The main thing I find is, coming to a conclusion as to what the message is saying is misreading the narrative entirely, because he speaks of a direct knowing and not a conceptual knowledge, and the point of his speaking is only to prompt listeners to notice of themselves that of which he speaks.

This means the essence of the satsang is different to the discourse of knowledge because it makes no argument validated by reason, and therefore it can't be concluded with an answer, but it can be revealing to those who listen holistically, being open to possibility, and checking of themselves the meaning of the narrative.

Very insightful observation, Gem. It’s an important distinction.

He’s not a teacher of Advaita Vedanta methodology. And this type of direct pointing is not new. Neo Advaita is a complete misnomer.

I have heard the term sloppily applied to Ramana Maharshi, Alan Watts, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Nisargadatta, U G Krishnamurti, J Krishnamurti, Ramesh Balsekar, Wei Wu Wei… I could go on. This is not a movement. It’s a different approach - one of direct pointing, sharing, reporting. It often borrows from the traditions while stripping out that which is superstitious, archaic and superfluous.

If this approach is not effective then people will naturally drift away from it. In that sense the whole thing is self-regulating.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Very insightful observation, Gem. It’s an important distinction.

He’s not a teacher of Advaita Vedanta methodology. And this type of direct pointing is not new. Neo Advaita is a complete misnomer.

I have heard the term sloppily applied to Ramana Maharshi, Alan Watts, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Nisargadatta, U G Krishnamurti, J Krishnamurti, Ramesh Balsekar, Wei Wu Wei… I could go on. This is not a movement. It’s a different approach - one of direct pointing, sharing, reporting. It often borrows from the traditions while stripping out that which is superstitious, archaic and superfluous.

If this approach is not effective then people will naturally drift away from it. In that sense the whole thing is self-regulating.

Thing is though, who gets to say whether something is 'superstitious', 'archaic' or 'superfluous' and what is it that gives people the right or the 'authority' to basically cherry-pick a central tenet and then put their own spin and biases on it, totally irrespective of the context or origins for it?

Why is it that humans believe what is 'modern', 'present' or 'current' is somehow far better than what was said or believed in the past? as if our consciousness is more 'evolved' or something?...big news! It is not.

It is basically done with every 'holy book' out there though..."none of this applies to us anymore because the times have changed" and so they re-write the book...they re-write history...and then, in another thousand years, what will be packaged as Advaita Vedanta will bear no similarity to any original work on the subject whatsoever...and then, if a person studies the Vedas or Upanishads, they will be seen as reading 'false teachings'.

Yeah...Kali Yuga.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by ocean breeze

Humorous thoughts of creating another username of iamthathot or iamtoosexy and making a serious reply here just to create more mischief.

I suspect we'll see some different creativity soon

This reminds me! Did you ever hear that song "I'm too sexy"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5mtclwloEQ

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Moondance

If this approach is not effective then people will naturally drift away from it. In that sense the whole thing is self-regulating.

1. It's not a different approach - it's a convolution of genuine spiritual teachings
2. Would you point out this POTHOLE just before someone was about to step into it?
3. People may not understand what they do not yet know - if I joined a new knitting club, I admit I wouldn't know the wood for the trees and couldn't tell. The thing is, everyone has interests. If someone wants to knit upside down, I wouldn't mind but if someone goes shopping for teachings comparable to Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta, Krishnamurti, J Krishnamurti, Ramesh Balsekar, Sri Auribindo, then they are not getting the product they seek.

BT