Cultivating and Uncovering Love.

[Joe Mc]

Listening recently to some 'neo advaitin' teachers, who say that meditation is not needed and in fact it is a hindrance to awakening. It feels to me like a partial truth which they never fully explain. Like for example there is one teacher who speaks alot about 'Huangpo' who was a Chinese Zen Master, who's writings they say are very direct and very close or accurate to what he actually said as they were written down on the day by a scribe.

What the Neo advaitin teacher never says is that Huangpo probably had meditated for over 30 years or more by the time he gave these inspirational talks ? Then he always goes on to say that meditation is not going to help etc. Also, with someone like the great Advaitin Master Ramana Maharshi who had a spontaneous awakening when he was 16 years of age and left home soon after. He sat in caves etc. for years on end, cross legged as if he was absorbing or integrating the awakening..he didn't just go on the teaching circuit as lots of 'Neo Advaitin' teachers do. It might even be said that he was refining his initial awakening through meditation, so again this question about meditation arises, if it is useful or if it is not in relation to Advaita Vedanta.

Without being disrespectful, I have to say that i get the feeling now, that some of the many 'Neo Advaitin Teachers' have only a philosophical viewpoint on Non-duality which is usually is very appealing at least to a curious seeker and one's own intellect but lacks the dynamic of 'Love' which a meditation like the Metta Bhavana encourages and cultivates ? Perhaps the new Advaitic movement mostly just gets a philosophical understanding of emptiness or non duality which however comforting and peaceful, is in my experience so far, only partial ? The dynamic of embracing life on a vibrant emotional level with a knowledge of emptiness doesn't come across alot with these teachers ?

So perhaps they forget to return to the market place ?The market place being the symbol for life itself as depicted in the sequence of paintings called the 'Ox Herding' paintings we find in Zen ? As the Zen saying also says, at the outset ..Rivers are Rivers, then they become something else, and in the end they become Rivers again, meaning that life goes on too and we are encouraged to engage with it dynamically not in some loose philosophical way.

For example we hear a child's cry for help, we spontaneous go to their aid through instinctual caring or compassion, does it matter that the act of love in this case is empty of inherent existence ? That nobody is crying and nobody is saving the child ? That may be the case philosophically that nobody is really there and that is were I'm feeling some of these guys are, they are trapped inside a philosophy more than an awakened reality ? Thanks for listening.

[jimrich]

Joe Mc: Listening recently to some 'neo advaitin' teachers, who say that meditation is not needed and in fact it is a hindrance to awakening. It feels to me like a partial truth which they never fully explain.
Jim: I don't know if it is a hindrance but, IMO, it is not necessary since you already are that or the reality but you may not know it for now. I think they mean that so long as a seeker BELIEVES that they are not the real deal and still believe that they are a separate person or self, which is a wrong identity, they may use meditation and lots of other techniques to get to or become what the seeker already is.

Joe Mc:Then he always goes on to say that meditation is not going to help etc.
Jim: I'd now say that, if you want to meditate, do it. If not, don't bother - you are still you either way.

Joe Mc: For example we hear a child's cry for help, we spontaneous go to their aid through instinctual caring or compassion, does it matter that the act of love in this case is empty of inherent existence ? That nobody is crying and nobody is saving the child ? That may be the case philosophically that nobody is really there and that is were I'm feeling some of these guys are, they are trapped inside a philosophy more than an awakened reality ? Thanks for listening.

Jim: I don't know where these ideas about nobody and nothing come from but I am the Source and as the source, I, the source (in the form of a baby), am crying and then I, the source (in the form of jim), am hearing it and I, the source, am responding in whatever way I, the source, sees fit. If the source becomes a house fire, the source (as a victim) calls for help, then the source (as a fireman) responds and saves itself (the victim) from itself (the fire)! The Source wanted a new president so the source (as Trump) ran for the office. The source (as the people) voted Trump in and then the source (as some other people) became enraged and made a fuss. The source (as Trump and his people) laughed it all off while the Source (as the unhappy folks) continues to fight WITH ITSELF (as the Trump folks!) Get it? There is only Source or Self in all that there is and all that ever happens or doesn't happen. If a cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket which makes me angry, its the source giving itself a ticket and then getting upset with itself for getting a ticket from itself!
It is, was and always will be the Self or source doing and being everything that happens or doesn't happen in the play of life. There is no "separate person/me" doing anything because it's the source or Self that is apparently happening everywhere. IMO, much of the terminology of current teachings is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading due to semantic issues.
Ramana's entire teaching was about: who am I? and he often pointed to the fact that there is only the Source or Self and nothing else so, while many of us may take our selves to be limited persons/egos/'me's, etc. out doing stuff, the overlooked fact is that we are the Self, Source or whatever name/label fits it.
"I am That" is a summation of this fact that is easily overlooked once we are programmed to BELIEVE that we are simply temporary animals that are born and will die. Not much in our human lives ever invites us to seriously LOOK to see who and what we really are and some non-dual teachings can make us get lost in concepts and practices that fail to help us stop and see/know who we really are - we are not a separate 'me' or self-identity struggling against other separate entities.
If you want to get passed all the practices and methods such as meditation and chanting, I'd recommend looking for John Wheeler, Jim Newman or Tony Parsons on line. There are a lot of spokespersons out there who can show you how to know and accept who you are RIGHT NOW - just as you are - WITHOUT practices and techniques. This is it and you are it - RIGHT NOW! Nothing is wrong and nothing is missing!

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by jimrich

Joe Mc: Listening recently to some 'neo advaitin' teachers, who say that meditation is not needed and in fact it is a hindrance to awakening. It feels to me like a partial truth which they never fully explain.
Jim: I don't know if it is a hindrance but, IMO, it is not necessary since you already are that or the reality but you may not know it for now. I think they mean that so long as a seeker BELIEVES that they are not the real deal and still believe that they are a separate person or self, which is a wrong identity, they may use meditation and lots of other techniques to get to or become what the seeker already is.

Joe Mc:Then he always goes on to say that meditation is not going to help etc.
Jim: I'd now say that, if you want to meditate, do it. If not, don't bother - you are still you either way.

Joe Mc: For example we hear a child's cry for help, we spontaneous go to their aid through instinctual caring or compassion, does it matter that the act of love in this case is empty of inherent existence ? That nobody is crying and nobody is saving the child ? That may be the case philosophically that nobody is really there and that is were I'm feeling some of these guys are, they are trapped inside a philosophy more than an awakened reality ? Thanks for listening.

Jim: I don't know where these ideas about nobody and nothing come from but I am the Source and as the source, I, the source (in the form of a baby), am crying and then I, the source (in the form of jim), am hearing it and I, the source, am responding in whatever way I, the source, sees fit. If the source becomes a house fire, the source (as a victim) calls for help, then the source (as a fireman) responds and saves itself (the victim) from itself (the fire)! The Source wanted a new president so the source (as Trump) ran for the office. The source (as the people) voted Trump in and then the source (as some other people) became enraged and made a fuss. The source (as Trump and his people) laughed it all off while the Source (as the unhappy folks) continues to fight WITH ITSELF (as the Trump folks!) Get it? There is only Source or Self in all that there is and all that ever happens or doesn't happen. If a cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket which makes me angry, its the source giving itself a ticket and then getting upset with itself for getting a ticket from itself!
It is, was and always will be the Self or source doing and being everything that happens or doesn't happen in the play of life. There is no "separate person/me" doing anything because it's the source or Self that is apparently happening everywhere. IMO, much of the terminology of current teachings is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading due to semantic issues.
Ramana's entire teaching was about: who am I? and he often pointed to the fact that there is only the Source or Self and nothing else so, while many of us may take our selves to be limited persons/egos/'me's, etc. out doing stuff, the overlooked fact is that we are the Self, Source or whatever name/label fits it.
"I am That" is a summation of this fact that is easily overlooked once we are programmed to BELIEVE that we are simply temporary animals that are born and will die. Not much in our human lives ever invites us to seriously LOOK to see who and what we really are and some non-dual teachings can make us get lost in concepts and practices that fail to help us stop and see/know who we really are - we are not a separate 'me' or self-identity struggling against other separate entities.
If you want to get passed all the practices and methods such as meditation and chanting, I'd recommend looking for John Wheeler, Jim Newman or Tony Parsons on line. There are a lot of spokespersons out there who can show you how to know and accept who you are RIGHT NOW - just as you are - WITHOUT practices and techniques. This is it and you are it - RIGHT NOW! Nothing is wrong and nothing is missing!

Jim, thanks. I get what your saying but it seems to me, the danger with its 'All Source' is that it seems to deny relative values. So an empty stomach is the same as a full stomach, it's all Source and also where is the impetus, motivation, volition, I'm sure there are 100s of other terms, where is the impetus to move from bad to good, from hate to love, from negative to positive.

What would be the point if it's all Source, one position ie starvation would have equal validation with another ie. full stomach, hunger satiated. Surely hatred is part of an 'unawakened state' and to say it is Source or God seeking something is a bit of a cop out to me ? Replying to you however, has brought up a question in my mind this very moment.

Perhaps the Seeker, me is not responsible for other people's suffering, or is unconcerned with it ? Perhaps acknowledging suffering in the world is part of a guilt trip created by such things as Christianity etc. or modern politics ?

I get that Liberation is not adequately describable with words. There is pointing with words and concepts and emotions and that is all. But why is there so much pointing going on ? Surely with so many people pointing someone is going to be poked in the eye ? lol. Very interesting Jim, thanks for your reply. I saw Tony Parsons a couple of times in London. His style as you know yourself is very non compromising and he expresses the fact that you cannot speak about it, such a paradox. There are other good teacher's too out there as you know. Joe.

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Jim, thanks. I get what your saying but it seems to me, the danger with its 'All Source' is that it seems to deny relative values.

It may "seem" so to the personal self but not to Source. Source INCLUDES the "relative". Nathan Gil says there is only Awareness (Source) and the contents of Awareness (the relative) which is ALSO Awareness! Reality in it's apparent two forms as Awareness and Contents - Absolute and Relative but NOT TWO! The mind finds this very difficult to grasp.

So an empty stomach is the same as a full stomach,

How does that work? How are they the "same"? They are both within and of Source but definitely NOT the "same". And empty stomach is an empty stomach and a full stomach is a full stomach. There may be one stomach but it's not full/empty simultaneously. When Source, in the apparent form of a stomach, is full - it's full and when empty - its empty!

it's all Source

True!

and also where is the impetus, motivation, volition,

Source IS the impetus, motivation and volition plus every other apparent thing and condition, etc. It's all Source. Source does NOT deprive any "apparent" person of motivations or volition, etc. Source, in the form of a 'me'/person can express: impetus,motivation and volition all that it likes.

I'm sure there are 100s of other terms, where is the impetus to move from bad to good, from hate to love, from negative to positive.

That all comes from and IS the Source but a separate person may not see that and may feel threatened or deprived of their own personal intentions, desires, motivations, rewards, goals, duties, etc. You, Source, move from bad to good, from hate to love and from negative to positive. It's all you, Source, doing these things.

What would be the point if it's all Source, one position ie starvation would have equal validation with another ie. full stomach, hunger satiated.

Do you, Source, really see everything as "equal"? If that were true, why do you, the Source, create all these different and not-equal things in your Cosmos such as: different fish, plants, animals, weather conditions, worlds, suns, etc.? Why not just make one: fish, plant, animal, weather, world, sun, etc.? Source is both one and many. Wouldn't you, Source, prefer to make a lot of different "stuff" since you are UNLIMITED?

Surely hatred is part of an 'unawakened state' and to say it is Source or God seeking something is a bit of a cop out to me ?

LOL, I am wondering why you put that "?" mark at the end of a statement that is not a question.
Source, in the form of Joe Mc, is expressing an opinion about: hatred, unawakened states, god, cop out, and the 'me', etc.

Replying to you however, has brought up a question in my mind this very moment. Perhaps the Seeker, me is not responsible for other people's suffering, or is unconcerned with it ? Perhaps acknowledging suffering in the world is part of a guilt trip created by such things as Christianity etc. or modern politics ?

I don't see a question there but all of that is Source thinking and speaking in the form of a person known as Joe Mc. I, jim, would guess that Source has its own, unique reasons and purposes for: suffering, responsibility, concern, guilt trips, Christianity and politics, etc. that I, jim, don't fully understand right now. All that I, jim, can say is that it just is and I am not going to question it at this time.

I get that Liberation is not adequately describable with words. There is pointing with words and concepts and emotions and that is all. But why is there so much pointing going on ?

Because there is Seeking going on. It's the "Play of Life". ~ Nathan Gil
Source appears as Seekers and also as Teachers/Spokes persons in the Play.

Surely with so many people pointing someone is going to be poked in the eye ? lol. Very interesting Jim, thanks for your reply. I saw Tony Parsons a couple of times in London. His style as you know yourself is very non compromising and he expresses the fact that you cannot speak about it, such a paradox. There are other good teacher's too out there as you know. Joe.

Tony (and many of his "students", such as Jim Newman and Richard Sylvester,) doesn't call himself a "teacher" which is what I love about him. They just point to what is and allow the "Seeker" to find the Source or Reality as best the Seeker can. I believe that Liberation can be adequately described with words, assuming one can find the words! I like stuff like: Source, Absolute, It, This, That, Real, Energy, Love, Peace, Essence, Presence, Awareness, Consciousness, Wholeness, Aliveness, Me, You, I and a whole bunch of other words that sometimes come from Source itself. I don't see myself as Liberated or Awake but I definitely see that Source is all that there REALLY is.
Source is sitting here typing this commentary. Source hears the cars gong by, the ringing in these ears, the tingling in these toes, the thoughts for the next word on this page, the feelings of generosity and love to be able and willing to write this stuff. Source is both doing all of this and IS this. I hope that doesn't seem arrogant but if it is, blame Source.
Re: "I saw Tony Parsons a couple of times in London."
I would love to attend his meetings but only get his Youtube videos over here. His messages hit me deeper and deeper as the reality of Source comes up stronger and clearer for me. I also follow Nathan Gil, Lisa Cairns and a lot of other "pure" non-dualists. They are all quite a threat to the personal 'me'/ego! Oh well..........

[Starman]

I think that every religion or spiritual path highlights a particular aspect of spirituality; it would be a welcome
if all of them had unconditional love at their core but that is not the case. Most encompass some sort of loving way,
but too often only for those who accept their doctrine.

Advaita seems to strongly relate to the Jnana yoga process, which is highly philosophical and more cognitive (head)
than it is affective (emotional). As stated earlier I think every religion highlight a particular aspect, while acknowledging
all the other aspects as being connected.

Buddhism for instance highlights compassion and impermanence, while Christianity highlights sacrifice and a new covenant.
Judaism is all about the law, etc., and they all encompass other aspects of spirituality but you can find a dominant theme
in most religions and spiritual groups.

The thing about non-duality is that it is highly subjective but it is universal and not personal. So there is this impersonal
existence which defies any and all parameters. But the experience of love does come when we hold a loving philosophy;
gnosis occurs in many different ways and many of those ways I would not necessarily embrace.

People choose what fits their personality and sometimes it seems as if the path chose you instead of you having chose a path.
Further a particular path may only be a temporary stepping stone to another more amiable path; it served a purpose once but
now maybe it is time to move on. In my opinion everything serves the One and I have no clue in which way, or how some certain
things can be considered service to an unconditional loving source. But my faith is strong.

[Shivani Devi]

Namaste.

Brahman is a totally intangible and unimaginable concept for any level of the mind, intellect or conscious awareness to grasp.

Self-inquiry and Jnana Yoga can only lead one to the door of the "I Am"...it may even open it to reveal what exists beyond, but it is up to the aspirant to traverse through it to reach the 'other side' of perception.

No book, no philosophy, no amount of knowledge can bring enlightenment and that is why 'advaita' is usually followed very closely by the word 'vedanta' which basically means 'after this, you're on your own'.

The way through that door is by doing yoga!

I'm not talking about physical postures here, but other paths which take over where the path of Jnana Yoga ends...for some, this is Raja Yoga (Meditation)...for others, it is Bhakti Yoga (love)...for others it is Kundalini Yoga or Tantra Yoga...whatever it takes the individual person to transcend the mind...transcend learning and knowledge about 'what is'.

Like Starman said, people will choose (or the path chooses them) whatever fits their personality and seeing as how everybody's personality is different, then every path will be different...even though this is all mithya as well.

However, a bit of background info about Adi Shankaracharya...the first 'Jnana Yogi':

https://vedanet.com/2012/06/13/the-f...hankaracharya/

[Shivani Devi]

For example we hear a child's cry for help, we spontaneous go to their aid through instinctual caring or compassion, does it matter that the act of love in this case is empty of inherent existence ? That nobody is crying and nobody is saving the child ?

Precisely. Everything is subjectively relative, so it can have no bearing on that which is beyond our mere experience of it, until there is no more experience.

[sky]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

Namaste.

Brahman is a totally intangible and unimaginable concept for any level of the mind, intellect or conscious awareness to grasp.

Self-inquiry and Jnana Yoga can only lead one to the door of the "I Am"...it may even open it to reveal what exists beyond, but it is up to the aspirant to traverse through it to reach the 'other side' of perception.

No book, no philosophy, no amount of knowledge can bring enlightenment and that is why 'advaita' is usually followed very closely by the word 'vedanta' which basically means 'after this, you're on your own'.

The way through that door is by doing yoga!

I'm not talking about physical postures here, but other paths which take over where the path of Jnana Yoga ends...for some, this is Raja Yoga (Meditation)...for others, it is Bhakti Yoga (love)...for others it is Kundalini Yoga or Tantra Yoga...whatever it takes the individual person to transcend the mind...transcend learning and knowledge about 'what is'.

Like Starman said, people will choose (or the path chooses them) whatever fits their personality and seeing as how everybody's personality is different, then every path will be different...even though this is all mithya as well.

However, a bit of background info about Adi Shankaracharya...the first 'Jnana Yogi':

https://vedanet.com/2012/06/13/the-f...hankaracharya/

' self-inquiry and Jnana Yoga can only lead one to the door of the "I Am"...it may even open it to reveal what exists beyond '


What existed before you realised ' I am ' ?
When do we start to be aware of this ' I am ' ?


*I am not actually the "I am" but rather THAT which is aware of the "I am , before I realised ' I am ' is pure awareness...

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by sky123

' self-inquiry and Jnana Yoga can only lead one to the door of the "I Am"...it may even open it to reveal what exists beyond '


What existed before you realised ' I am ' ?
When do we start to be aware of this ' I am ' ?


*I am not actually the "I am" but rather THAT which is aware of the "I am , before I realised ' I am ' is pure awareness...

I'll just let philosoraptor deal with this tonight..all hail the mighty philosoraptor!

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by jimrich

It may "seem" so to the personal self but not to Source. Source INCLUDES the "relative". Nathan Gil says there is only Awareness (Source) and the contents of Awareness (the relative) which is ALSO Awareness! Reality in it's apparent two forms as Awareness and Contents - Absolute and Relative but NOT TWO! The mind finds this very difficult to grasp.

How does that work? How are they the "same"? They are both within and of Source but definitely NOT the "same". And empty stomach is an empty stomach and a full stomach is a full stomach. There may be one stomach but it's not full/empty simultaneously. When Source, in the apparent form of a stomach, is full - it's full and when empty - its empty!


True!

Source IS the impetus, motivation and volition plus every other apparent thing and condition, etc. It's all Source. Source does NOT deprive any "apparent" person of motivations or volition, etc. Source, in the form of a 'me'/person can express: impetus,motivation and volition all that it likes.


That all comes from and IS the Source but a separate person may not see that and may feel threatened or deprived of their own personal intentions, desires, motivations, rewards, goals, duties, etc. You, Source, move from bad to good, from hate to love and from negative to positive. It's all you, Source, doing these things.


Do you, Source, really see everything as "equal"? If that were true, why do you, the Source, create all these different and not-equal things in your Cosmos such as: different fish, plants, animals, weather conditions, worlds, suns, etc.? Why not just make one: fish, plant, animal, weather, world, sun, etc.? Source is both one and many. Wouldn't you, Source, prefer to make a lot of different "stuff" since you are UNLIMITED?


LOL, I am wondering why you put that "?" mark at the end of a statement that is not a question.
Source, in the form of Joe Mc, is expressing an opinion about: hatred, unawakened states, god, cop out, and the 'me', etc.


I don't see a question there but all of that is Source thinking and speaking in the form of a person known as Joe Mc. I, jim, would guess that Source has its own, unique reasons and purposes for: suffering, responsibility, concern, guilt trips, Christianity and politics, etc. that I, jim, don't fully understand right now. All that I, jim, can say is that it just is and I am not going to question it at this time.


Because there is Seeking going on. It's the "Play of Life". ~ Nathan Gil
Source appears as Seekers and also as Teachers/Spokes persons in the Play.


Tony (and many of his "students", such as Jim Newman and Richard Sylvester,) doesn't call himself a "teacher" which is what I love about him. They just point to what is and allow the "Seeker" to find the Source or Reality as best the Seeker can. I believe that Liberation can be adequately described with words, assuming one can find the words! I like stuff like: Source, Absolute, It, This, That, Real, Energy, Love, Peace, Essence, Presence, Awareness, Consciousness, Wholeness, Aliveness, Me, You, I and a whole bunch of other words that sometimes come from Source itself. I don't see myself as Liberated or Awake but I definitely see that Source is all that there REALLY is.
Source is sitting here typing this commentary. Source hears the cars gong by, the ringing in these ears, the tingling in these toes, the thoughts for the next word on this page, the feelings of generosity and love to be able and willing to write this stuff. Source is both doing all of this and IS this. I hope that doesn't seem arrogant but if it is, blame Source.
Re: "I saw Tony Parsons a couple of times in London."
I would love to attend his meetings but only get his Youtube videos over here. His messages hit me deeper and deeper as the reality of Source comes up stronger and clearer for me. I also follow Nathan Gil, Lisa Cairns and a lot of other "pure" non-dualists. They are all quite a threat to the personal 'me'/ego! Oh well..........

Jim, many thanks for your insightful and detailed reply. I enjoyed reading it and thank you for taking the time. I don't have alot to say at the moment, but i hope you don't mind me replying, possiblely at some point in the future, to this truthful and 'rich' post , indeed. Many regards, Joe (Ireland).