Tradition and the resistance to change.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Nope I don't want you to agree with me (I couldn't care less, really)...I was only trying to get you to be a little more open minded in regards to ALL that is, not to just what you THINK that is...but you kept on going round and round in circles which told me "nope, leave him in the oven to stew for longer...he ain't done with his whole 'poor me' act yet".

Ok. I hoped we could simply describe the differences between TA/NA from your knowledge which I value even though it is not for me. So that seekers may be able to see which suits them if any.

But if your are really into all that other stuff you just posted, it wont be possible.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes one would be in the difficult position you describe if one believed they had discovered truth. Because there may be something hidden that may come to light that contradicts it.

As I have said elsewhere, requiring that the solution to the search MUST be the truth is an impossible barrier for the seeker to overcome for the reasons you describe.

Once the idea that one can know the truth is left behind (transcended) by the seeker then the problem you raise disappears and yet another barrier in the way of the seeker is removed. For a graphic example of this see Soren Kierkegaarde "The parable of the Highwayman"

The whole point I was trying to make, is that once the truth has been discovered or experientially realised, there's nothing which can come to light that can ever, in any way, contradict it - it will all be seen as being unnecessarily superfluous, but for those who don't understand this, they will just follow the teachings blindly.

I posted something in your 'agreement' thread, but maybe it was the wrong thread in which to post it, but seeing as how all the threads you start are necessarily about exactly the same thing, I shall transpose it here and I would like to get your take on it.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Due to my recent forays in the Non-Duality Forum and elsewhere...discussing Neo Advaita among other things...everybody saying "you don't need to do anything because you are already that"...I sit and wonder...just how many people are totally complacent with the knowledge "okay, so I am that...fair enough...is that all this spirituality thing IS? no big deal...I am that, you are that, everything is that...cool beans...and now, I can say and do what I want, even get angry, criticise others, not care about anything because I am that...and all that I am doing and saying is just a part of the 'that' which 'I am"...and how many of them have actually felt it deep inside? actually experienced this Oneness with the universe first-hand?...felt the awesome bliss?...the peace? the outpouring and inpouring of love?...danced around in ecstatic rapture?...had their brains and hearts expanded?...experienced a greater clarity of mind?...had their whole consciousness blown and ripped apart by this realisation?...never the same again? etc etc and how many just say "I am that" as they would say "I am *insert name*?"

Of course I am also beginning to understand the differences between Traditional Advaita and Advaita Vedanta myself...and with me belonging to the latter school of thought, you are totally correct. The differences or similarities between AV and NA are too diverse, they share absolutely no tenets in common, so it's like comparing apples with oranges by saying they are both 'fruit' and that's as far as it will ever go.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

The whole point I was trying to make, is that once the truth has been discovered or experientially realised, there's nothing which can come to light that can ever, in any way, contradict it - it will all be seen as being unnecessarily superfluous, but for those who don't understand this, they will just follow the teachings blindly.

I posted something in your 'agreement' thread, but maybe it was the wrong thread in which to post it, but seeing as how all the threads you start are necessarily about exactly the same thing, I shall transpose it here and I would like to get your take on it.



Of course I am also beginning to understand the differences between Traditional Advaita and Advaita Vedanta myself...and with me belonging to the latter school of thought, you are totally correct. The differences or similarities between AV and NA are too diverse, they share absolutely no tenets in common, so it's like comparing apples with oranges by saying they are both 'fruit' and that's as far as it will ever go.

Those for whom NA resonates are of course different people with different responses to that resonance. After the resonance some go through a difficult period of including all as Oneness/Brahman manifest, particularly suffering, thier own and the suffering of others. There are various ideas about why suffering arises and I have asked you a question about this which I would welcome your response. But if we are to compare TA to NA you will need to desist from personal comments because I will not engage with that stuff, and focus on the descriptions necessary for seekers to have a clear and fair comparison so they can see what may or may not resonate with them.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Iamit

But if we are to compare TA to NA you will need to desist from personal comments because I will not engage with that stuff, and focus on the descriptions necessary for seekers to have a clear and fair comparison so they can see what may or may not resonate with them.

Except that any valid first hand experience, discussion, objection or challenge of the Neo-Advaita ethos is met by you with the retort "I will not discuss that - Goodbye and Goodluck", "Do not talk at me personally" recently escalated to "I am being abused and we should all rise up in arms to this abuse" to this softer deflection to Shivani Devi: "you will need to desist from personal comments"!

In other words, only say what I want you to say, accept that all I say is complete and true (regardless of the errors of logic or truth) and be prepared to be converted to my way.

We have many first hand accounts of people familiar with Tony Parsons and other Neo-Advaita teachers. http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...=118554&page=3

Many of your opening arguments in other threads e.g. don't trust a Guru because they will disappoint you and you will enrich them is obviously, if not more, applicable to the likes of Parsons and the Neo-Advaita ilk (where books, workshops, sound recordings and much more is yours for a price). Furthermore, they then seem to offer a somewhat weak copy of the more fulsome and genuine traditions - sort of like an imitation Gucci T-shirt, which undoubtedly has its buyers (and fans ) I do personally believe that it is somewhat psychologically manipulative to try to put down all other teachers whilst elevating yourself (because wink wink trust me, All is One after all, duality arises in perfect balance, and just so we are Perfect, This is Perfect, Trust me and you are free - it is so easy, do you see?). And in a similar vein what Parsons does by saying that Advaita-Vedanta, Buddhism, Christianity and the like all miss the mark because again only he/It is the arbiter of truth (wink, wink, trust me, All is One after all - there is no need to seek because you are already perfect, everyone and everything is born in perfect perfection, in fact there is no-one there is just this!).

So easy to write - maybe I have found a good spinner myself, if I could swallow it.

It has some amusement as well in its proposition and it is very psychologically appealing for many I guess. Just wanting to point out that not all of us are blind to these plays and if you are interested in a discussion it may be worthwhile talking - I am still looking forward to your answers from many other threads, Jim: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...33#post1664833

BT

[Iamit]

As you will know dear readers from my objections, it is not challenge to ideas that ends discussion but attacking the messenger personally. which you can see from the above persists. It is convenient for some here to confused the two for the purpose of ending discussion of NA which is of course their objective.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Iamit

It is convenient for some here to confused the two for the purpose of ending discussion of NA which is of course their objective.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...=118220&page=8

[Shivani Devi]

When I say that I am an Advaita Vedantin, that should really appear in the past tense.

Everything I say about it, everything I reveal is only remnants of a path I once walked with pride, but I moved on from there a very long time ago.

After years of studying the Vedas, the works of Shankaracharya, meditation, introspection, self-inquiry and all, I came to the realisation that "I am that" but that is all it was, just an intellectual awareness - a dry realisation of the non-dual reality and I remained spiritually unfulfilled.

I realised there must be more to it and yet, somehow, every time I looked up into the night sky, cast my gaze over a wide horizon, felt the earth beneath my feet, I didn't have the experience that none of it was real and didn't exist - I felt awe, humility, wonderment, excitement and I also felt love...a deep love for the process of creation and the unfolding of essence in every living moment.

There was a feeling of an intelligent energy, a consciousness behind it all and I remembered that I had experiences of it throughout my life with the realisation that this was none other than Shiva, which is both manifest and unmanifest...duality and non-duality and whatever 'relationship' I had with Shiva could also be dual or non-dual at any given moment.

Of course I tried to rationalise all of that unconditional love away by calling it 'maya/illusion' and dual, but do you think for one moment any of that worked? nope.

It wasn't until I gave myself into it, just surrendered to the love itself, stopped putting up a fight, stopped intellectualising and rationalising and just opened my heart to Shiva...to what I understood God to be in this whole dual manifesto, that I became totally fulfilled on every level...despite the fact that any notion of "I" was no longer there...but by the same token, neither was Shiva...there was just pure, unconditional love-bliss, joy, peace, satisfaction...but "I" wasn't experiencing ANY of it!

Of course, people say to me "you ARE Shiva, don't be silly' but Shiva isn't just confined to what I am...but what everything is! People who say "I am It" are still taking a rather ego-centric view, when everything is It!

I also still love Shiva as being an 'entity' who is separate from myself and of course, 'He' is also that too! because non-duality is inclusive of the duality and no matter what, there's something within me that loves something else far greater than what that is and it also cannot be helped or stopped by any action of the mind....and somehow, I wouldn't want that to happen anyway.

So, by me being here, in this non-duality forum and talking about Advaita Vedanta, it's like me taking a huge leap backwards in my natural progression because I have moved on from there after realising that the mind cannot transcend itself, thoughts cannot stop themselves and no matter how much one says of believes that 'they are it' until they have experienced it at a heart and soul level, they'll be just like a parrot repeating whatever it was taught to say. Thank you.

[jonesboy]

Here is a really great insightful thread between two friends of mine discussing Advaita Vedanta and Vedanta with regard to non duality.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/456...s-non-duality/

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Here is a really great insightful thread between two friends of mine discussing Advaita Vedanta and Vedanta with regard to non duality.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/456...s-non-duality/

I just read the first page, will read the rest later because it is a lot to digest all at once, but this quote by Jeff is what I have been driving at all along:

This is where I would have to disagree. “I am” is more like a step. I am is not “being” or “residing”. I Am is of the mind. To truly be, one must also realize “I am not”. This is why the Heart Sutra, has emptiness definitions of Form = Emptiness and Emptiness = Form.

I dropped Vedanta when I realised that it could lead you to the door, show you what was beyond it, but it was up to the heart to take you through it.

I wondered why I was going around in circles discussing this for the past few weeks, getting somewhat frustrated, when I realised it wasn't possible to step in the same flowing river twice.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I just read the first page, will read the rest later because it is a lot to digest all at once, but this quote by Jeff is what I have been driving at all along:



I dropped Vedanta when I realised that it could lead you to the door, show you what was beyond it, but it was up to the heart to take you through it.

I wondered why I was going around in circles discussing this for the past few weeks, getting somewhat frustrated, when I realised it wasn't possible to step in the same flowing river twice.

I am not a fan of Vedanta. I think it is a limited view.. just my take and I argue with Dwai all the time about it :)

Fun discussions like you see him having with Siva :)