Agreement

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Gem

You will find people want to take positions and do so by agreeing and disagreeing, which isn't ever going to address the subject. It will only escalate into right and wrong, because the position relies completely on being right. At the bottom of this is a power game where the one who is right is the knower who wants to influence others with knowledge. That is at the heart of all the contention. You're just getting sucked into the game, and just need a quick shot of dgaf. teehee.

...and of course you are aware that I am really tempted to post something by Kevin Bloody Wilson right about now.

Under this cold, hard exterior beats the heart of a pure Aussie yobbo.

Oh why not...this whole forum could do with a shot in the arm...and before I get into strife...

Disclaimer: The link below contains some foul language. Viewer discretion is advised:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a6EOyaMdqY

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit

To lump people like Tony Parsons and other speakers on Neo Advaita together with the sometimes criminal behavoiur of cults is indeed abusive.

No demands for agreement, just a preference for discussion of the issues without abuse, in the attempt to reach mutual understanding.

Hello Iamit,

I have to say once more that this now evident obsession with abuse seems a bit far fetched, and an unfortunate distraction from real discussion.
But ok...

I will concede that articles which associate Neo-Advaita proponents with cult behavior that is criminal as a matter of fact, may in some cases indicate poor reasoning, lame assumptions, confused thinking, intellectual dishonesty, or outright irresponsibility. However, by some of those very same criteria, Tony Parsons himself, by what I've read, could then be considered guilty of “abuse” of Traditional Advaita accordingly.

Therefore, I have now achieved “mutual understanding” with Tony Parsons (LOL).


~ J

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Iamit

We have been round this before Moondance. Yes seeking may continue but not disconnection for it is already Oneness seeking. So there must be something else TA is concerned about other than connection. Whatever that something else may be, it will always be Oneness so who knows what they are concerned about when TA and NA agree on this. I presume they resent that the need for pracise disappears conceptually. But thats just because the West is more inclined to resonate with concepts. Its not intended to wind them up.

I don’t want to get into the whole TA vs NA thing, I’d rather just consider the issue here.

It seems to be fairly straightforward. Realisation is the end of seeking. Most seekers come to spiritual teachings/satsang in order to see through delusion and come to the end of seeking.

A teaching which had no concern for the ending of seeking would be considered hollow and irrelevant by most seekers and spiritual types - including satsang/no-path (NA) speakers.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit

We have been round this before Moondance. Yes seeking may continue but not disconnection for it is already Oneness seeking. So there must be something else TA is concerned about other than connection. Whatever that something else may be, it will always be Oneness so who knows what they are concerned about when TA and NA agree on this. I presume they resent that the need for pracise disappears conceptually. But thats just because the West is more inclined to resonate with concepts. Its not intended to wind them up.

Originally Posted by Moondance

I don’t want to get into the whole TA vs NA thing, I’d rather just consider the issue here.

It seems to be fairly straightforward. Realisation is the end of seeking. Most seekers come to spiritual teachings/satsang in order to see through delusion and come to the end of seeking.

A teaching which had no concern for the ending of seeking would be considered hollow and irrelevant by most seekers and spiritual types - including satsang/no-path (NA) speakers.

Yes agreed Moondance, but the salient point here from a spiritual pov, from which yours is derived, is that it is mind "that is more inclined to resonate with concepts". This is not exclusive to geography, culture, race, or gender. But it does seem to be an adamant attachment as a central tenet of many NA proponents. Those who recognize this discrepancy, seem to understand your point, since realization in that case would not simply be the acquisition, preservation and perpetuation of a conceptual theory as the realization itself, thereby (falsely) indicating "the end of seeking".

It's like saying 'the end of hunger' is achieved by reading a menu (and in some cases by writing one!). Then the need for food "disappears conceptually".
This is a 'philosophy' those crazy backwards naïve waste-of-time traditionalists would never have considered, obviously, because they did not have restaurants in those ancient very un-modern and therefore un-Westernized times.

Why would anyone come to satsang, if per some proponents of NA: realization, enlightenment, truth, path, practice necessarily exclude one from 'Oneness'? They can stay home and read the NA menu, while repeating, " this is not a practice".


~ J

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Yes agreed Moondance, but the salient point here from a spiritual pov, from which yours is derived, is that it is mind "that is more inclined to resonate with concepts". This is not exclusive to geography, culture, race, or gender. But it does seem to be an adamant attachment as a central tenet of many NA proponents. Those who recognize this discrepancy, seem to understand your point, since realization in that case would not simply be the acquisition, preservation and perpetuation of a conceptual theory as the realization itself, thereby (falsely) indicating "the end of seeking".

It's like saying 'the end of hunger' is achieved by reading a menu (and in some cases by writing one!). Then the need for food "disappears conceptually".
This is a 'philosophy' those crazy backwards naïve waste-of-time traditionalists would never have considered, obviously, because they did not have restaurants in those ancient very un-modern and therefore un-Westernized times.

Why would anyone come to satsang, if per some proponents of NA: realization, enlightenment, truth, path, practice necessarily exclude one from 'Oneness'? They can stay home and read the NA menu, while repeating, " this is not a practice".


~ J

The comment and presumption about the West’s inclination towards conceptualisation (which I don’t actually agree with) was in the context of this whole TA/NA business so I was happy to sidestep it.

For me, the pertinent point is this extraordinary position where there’s not even agreement that the end of seeking/realisation is the goal for the seeker. I specifically chose the phrase ‘end of seeking’ because if this is refuted as a goal for seekers then the whole thing is shown up as a nonsense. Seeking… is for the end of seeking.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Moondance

The comment and presumption about the West’s inclination towards conceptualisation (which I don’t actually agree with) was in the context of this whole TA/NA business so I was happy to sidestep it.

For me, the pertinent point is this extraordinary position where there’s not even agreement that the end of seeking/realisation is the goal for the seeker. I specifically chose the phrase ‘end of seeking’ because if this is refuted as a goal for seekers then the whole thing is shown up as a nonsense. Seeking… is for the end of seeking.

Yes, you seek in order to find, and if you find it you call off the search, and if you don't find it you give up the search eventually and maybe it'll just turn up.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes, you seek in order to find, and if you find it you call off the search, and if you don't find it you give up the search eventually and maybe it'll just turn up.

Yes. And the end of seeking is the felt-sense revelation that there is no finder - only the natural play of Wholeness - giving rise to all that manifests moment by moment. But seeking will prevail until the delusion of separation subsides.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Moondance

The comment and presumption about the West’s inclination towards conceptualisation (which I don’t actually agree with) was in the context of this whole TA/NA business so I was happy to sidestep it.

For me, the pertinent point is this extraordinary position where there’s not even agreement that the end of seeking/realisation is the goal for the seeker. I specifically chose the phrase ‘end of seeking’ because if this is refuted as a goal for seekers then the whole thing is shown up as a nonsense. Seeking… is for the end of seeking.

Yes. And the end of seeking is the felt-sense revelation that there is no finder - only the natural play of Wholeness - giving rise to all that manifests moment by moment. But seeking will prevail until the delusion of separation subsides.

Hi Moondance,

It is ironic indeed - and nonsense - that a path, such as specifically delineated by some Neo-Advaita proponents, which focusses solely on Oneness as the only possible and EXCLUSIVE attribute of an infinite all-conscious Being (thereby imposing by that intellectual conceit, a limitation on it) - yet denies/divides by that same artificial structural requirement, that even Oneness as a permanent status of the Divine all-consciousness - whether sought or unsought - is still insufficient to arise as available, accessible to be recognized (also by virtue of oneness), and significantly - utilized - as aspect of that self-same Oneness inseparably within the seeker as the dynamic form of what is sought - which is the operative principle behind what 'seeking' is....e.g., the realizing of what IS, e.g., the becoming of Being.

Were this not so, everyone would already be realized; human beings would not be desire-bound, suffering, ignorant, etc., etc., etc., which is clearly not the case as evidenced by those phenomena arising as well within Oneness! Really, the "extraordinary position" you cite, is simply a clever rhetorical "story" that some NA proponents like to tell; understandably the mind tempts this attraction and attachment by its predominant inclination - - regardless of the truth content of it. In other words, an unexamined theory, or rather, the story theoretically assumes the posture of realization - conceptually (and therefore speciously/falsely) - as the realization itself, which is the rank pretense some aspirants rightly take issue with.

(And of course this 'debate' only has real value and utility in terms of what any seeker wants to employ (or walk away from) as part of a practical consecration, i.e., yoga, that they want to deliberately concentrate and accelerate. That is a given.)

This is not an issue of 'diversity of means' as some NA proponents erroneously opine (as yet another predictable feature of their often wrongly assumed and therefore misconstrued rhetorical house of cards*) - as in, "Truth is one paths are many", as what leads to truth, is truth itself - not falsehood. Granted, this particular element of so-called NA philosophy can be an aid in conceptualizing/'visualizing' and re-orienting as opposed to conventional material worldview, but only as a first step.

By itself, this purely conceptual artifice is not sufficient to lead from ignorance, but only go around itself in circles.

- - - - - - -

* no wonder they often talk about "collapsing".

~ J

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Moondance,

It is ironic indeed - and nonsense - that a path, such as specifically delineated by some Neo-Advaita proponents, which focusses solely on Oneness as the only possible and EXCLUSIVE attribute of an infinite all-conscious Being (thereby imposing by that intellectual conceit, a limitation on it) - yet denies/divides by that same artificial structural requirement, that even Oneness as a permanent status of the Divine all-consciousness - whether sought or unsought - is still insufficient to arise as available, accessible to be recognized (also by virtue of oneness), and significantly - utilized - as aspect of that self-same Oneness inseparably within the seeker as the dynamic form of what is sought - which is the operative principle behind what 'seeking' is....e.g., the realizing of what IS, e.g., the becoming of Being.

Were this not so, everyone would already be realized; human beings would not be desire-bound, suffering, ignorant, etc., etc., etc., which is clearly not the case as evidenced by those phenomena arising as well within Oneness! Really, the "extraordinary position" you cite, is simply a clever rhetorical "story" that some NA proponents like to tell; understandably the mind tempts this attraction and attachment by its predominant inclination - - regardless of the truth content of it. In other words, an unexamined theory, or rather, the story theoretically assumes the posture of realization - conceptually (and therefore speciously/falsely) - as the realization itself, which is the rank pretense some aspirants rightly take issue with.

(And of course this 'debate' only has real value and utility in terms of what any seeker wants to employ (or walk away from) as part of a practical consecration, i.e., yoga, that they want to deliberately concentrate and accelerate. That is a given.)

This is not an issue of 'diversity of means' as some NA proponents erroneously opine (as yet another predictable feature of their often wrongly assumed and therefore misconstrued rhetorical house of cards*) - as in, "Truth is one paths are many", as what leads to truth, is truth itself - not falsehood. Granted, this particular element of so-called NA philosophy can be an aid in conceptualizing/'visualizing' and re-orienting as opposed to conventional material worldview, but only as a first step.

By itself, this purely conceptual artifice is not sufficient to lead from ignorance, but only go around itself in circles.

- - - - - - -

* no wonder they often talk about "collapsing".

~ J

Yes, I agree with much of this but I’m still not keen to be drawn into this TA vs NA situation. The NA that I keep hearing about, for me, resembles a cartoon. The real story is that the satsang/direct pointing approach is (or can be) rich and varied. Yes, it’s not traditional Advaita Vedanta - but it doesn’t pretend to be (though many of these speakers are highly respectful of TA and other traditions.)

The ‘extraordinary position’ as mentioned above was, for me, unheard of until visiting this site. Even the most radically ‘pure’ nondualists reference ‘the end of seeking’, liberation, energetic shift to boundlessness etc. Most satsangers (and in this group I include Sri Nisargadatta, J Krishnamurti, Alan Watts and Ramesh Balsekar ) make the case for an aspirant being ripe. Ripe through spiritual associations and teachings. Or ripe through life experiences, challenges and setbacks. Or any mixture of those - and only in rare cases, none of those.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Yes, I agree with much of this but I’m still not keen to be drawn into this TA vs NA situation. The NA that I keep hearing about, for me, resembles a cartoon. The real story is that the satsang/direct pointing approach is (or can be) rich and varied. Yes, it’s not traditional Advaita Vedanta - but it doesn’t pretend to be (though many of these speakers are highly respectful of TA and other traditions.)

The ‘extraordinary position’ as mentioned above was, for me, unheard of until visiting this site. Even the most radically ‘pure’ nondualists reference ‘the end of seeking’, liberation, energetic shift to boundlessness etc. Most satsangers (and in this group I include Sri Nisargadatta, J Krishnamurti, Alan Watts and Ramesh Balsekar ) make the case for an aspirant being ripe. Ripe through spiritual associations and teachings. Or ripe through life experiences, challenges and setbacks. Or any mixture of those - and only in rare cases, none of those.

I am glad you got drawn into this TA vs NA situation.
Not wanting to put you into a box or a mold or ice with my expectations, but the way you explain, clarify things as you go along is so valuable for me, a complete novice to many terms used on these threads.