Agreement

[Iamit]

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

A discussion about that difference might be of use to seekers if it can be conducted with respect, and without the desire to undermine and eliminate the other by reference to cults or similar abuse. If that sort of abuse continues in this thread, I suggest we do not give it the oxygen of a response and try to concentrate on the issues.

[blossomingtree]

These points have been covered in these threads you started:

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

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

Relevant articles:

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/neo_advaita_article.htm

https://liveanddare.com/neo-advaita/4/

http://anaditeaching.com/neo-adviata-deception-of-imaginary-awakening/

Showing references to it being called a cult is not abuse - if it's widely discussed, it deserves to be recognized in the space of discussion.

You cannot keep trying to shut down critique of Neo Advaita with mind games ("you are abusing me" "take him down, folks" "help! I am being attacked" "you are abusing discussion by daring to challenge" "how dare you speak poorly of Neo Advaita" etc.)

By the way, it's been 2am - 4:30am during your time here (in Wales), but I note it is mid afternoon in NZ.

Be well,

BT

[blossomingtree]

I think this quote from the above article (https://liveanddare.com/neo-advaita/4/) is quite balanced:

Even though these post-modern teachings have been inspired by those authentic sages, it is important to clarify that they are not in the lineage of any of them. Ramana, Papaji and Nisargadatta did not leave any official representatives or lineage-holders. As Papaji said, “When there is a lineage, impurity enters in the teaching.”

While neo-advaita shares with Advaita many of its theoretical teachings, the approach to practice is radically different in the former, if not totally absent. The modern “adaptation” of Advaita that happened in the 20th century got morphed into something else, and this watered-down version got greatly popularized in the West.

This brought both good and bad results.

- Good results: It opened the doors of nondual spirituality for people that would not otherwise be attracted to it, serving as a platform for further inquiry. It has benefited people in abandoning certain conditioned beliefs.
- Bad results: The distortions, disappointment, superficial realizations, spiritual stagnation, and even abuse of power and sex.

[Iamit]

Responses on previous threads have been littered with abuse, including the one above referring again to NA as a cult. I would welcome a new discussion on the issues raised in the initial post in this thread from anyone who would care to comment directly on the issues raised without the abuse.

[Jyotir]

Responses on previous threads have been littered with abuse, including the one above referring again to NA as a cult. I would welcome a new discussion on the issues raised in the initial post in this thread from anyone who would care to comment directly on the issues raised without the abuse

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

A discussion about that difference might be of use to seekers if it can be conducted with respect, and without the desire to undermine and eliminate the other by reference to cults or similar abuse. If that sort of abuse continues in this thread, I suggest we do not give it the oxygen of a response and try to concentrate on the issues.

Hello Iamit,

It seems neither fair, nor respectful to other members to refer to their sincere replies as "abuse" simply because they may disagree with your philosophy. I have now seen many of these accusations of "abuse", perhaps in at least a half dozen of your posts in other threads - not including the very OP of this, your own thread where "abuse" appears 4 times...so far), in which you make a plea for honest discussion and then make blanket innuendo/accusation of "abuse" in the next sentence. This obviously doesn't bode well for discussion of the topic from the outset.

This kind of preemptive evasion is even more craven and intellectually dishonest than the usual tactic of dismissal ("you are attacking me. Good bye and good luck" etc.) when people simply present ideas that are clarifying or contrary to the apparently standard tenets (or dogma depending on how one sees it) of Neo-Advaita philosophy so presented in your numerous threads.

I can sympathise how this may be frustrating to you but suggest that you try to engage people - for instance: it's disingenuous to say "I would welcome discussion" (when you demonstrate not to) - rather than dismiss them with personal disparagements and accusations of "abuse", which is really utter nonsense by both content and context. I for one, would invite you to get back to the real discussion (it's difficult to join in, when these kinds of hyper-defensive replies have become rote and predictable) - which includes taking responsibility for topics you yourself initiate.

As to this thread ironically entitled "Agreement"... is that actually what you demand from participants?

- - - - - - -

P.S. While the use of the term 'cult' is (imo) unfortunate as imbued with negative connotation - again ironically, it is supposedly cults that cannot tolerate disagreement - those contributions including the citing of various articles, were not simply 'name-calling', but rather did substantiate the philosophical points brought up. And (I believe) at least in some cases, it was the article itself, not the SF member who used the term.


~ J

[Moondance]

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

I’m neither TA nor NA. What is clear is that seekers wish to end their seeking. The end of seeking or awakening is otherwise known as realisation. Without realisation seeking continues. If there is contentment with seeking then that’s fine - Oneness presents as seeking (there’s a lot of it about.) In that scenario there is (as you put it) still connection to Oneness (since there’s nothing else available) but seeking continues.

The point is, you are either seeking or seeking has ended (realisation.)

[Iamit]

Hello Iamit,

It seems neither fair, nor respectful to other members to refer to their sincere replies as "abuse" simply because they may disagree with your philosophy. I have now seen many of these accusations of "abuse", perhaps in at least a half dozen of your posts in other threads - not including the very OP of this, your own thread where "abuse" appears 4 times...so far), in which you make a plea for honest discussion and then make blanket innuendo/accusation of "abuse" in the next sentence. This obviously doesn't bode well for discussion of the topic from the outset.

This kind of preemptive evasion is even more craven and intellectually dishonest than the usual tactic of dismissal ("you are attacking me. Good bye and good luck" etc.) when people simply present ideas that are clarifying or contrary to the apparently standard tenets (or dogma depending on how one sees it) of Neo-Advaita philosophy so presented in your numerous threads.

I can sympathise how this may be frustrating to you but suggest that you try to engage people - for instance: it's disingenuous to say "I would welcome discussion" (when you demonstrate not to) - rather than dismiss them with personal disparagements and accusations of "abuse", which is really utter nonsense by both content and context. I for one, would invite you to get back to the real discussion (it's difficult to join in, when these kinds of hyper-defensive replies have become rote and predictable) - which includes taking responsibility for topics you yourself initiate.

As to this thread ironically entitled "Agreement"... is that actually what you demand from participants?

- - - - - - -

P.S. While the use of the term 'cult' is (imo) unfortunate as imbued with negative connotation - again ironically, it is supposedly cults that cannot tolerate disagreement - those contributions including the citing of various articles, were not simply 'name-calling', but rather did substantiate the philosophical points brought up. And (I believe) at least in some cases, it was the article itself, not the SF member who used the term.


~ J

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.

[Iamit]

I’m neither TA nor NA. What is clear is that seekers wish to end their seeking. The end of seeking or awakening is otherwise known as realisation. Without realisation seeking continues. If there is contentment with seeking then that’s fine - Oneness presents as seeking (there’s a lot of it about.) In that scenario there is (as you put it) still connection to Oneness (since there’s nothing else available) but seeking continues.

The point is, you are either seeking or seeking has ended (realisation.)

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.

[Shivani Devi]

From reading all of these threads started by the OP and giving Neo-Advaita more of a reserved study, rather than just a casual 'look in' I have noticed a discrepancy between the practice and the advocate of it.

I'm all for 'losing the ego' and 'self inquiry' etc...however, it seems that the posts made by Iamit are totally incongruous with the very practice and philosophy of Neo-Advaita, or any school of Advaita for that matter.

I'm just being totally rational and logical, not meaning to criticise or condemn here...I am not a troll, merely trying to foster the awareness and realisation of Brahman or 'Oneness'. It just seems that Iamit has a very long way to go before 'losing the ego' or 'attaining Oneness' or even encapsulating the whole notion of 'non-duality' whether it be the modern or ancient version thereof.

My dear friend...just who is being 'abused'? who is being 'disrespected'? who is being 'trolled'? who is doing the 'seeking'? and isn't comparing one path of Advaita with another, duality within itself, defeating the whole purpose intended?

If you would like me to keep going on about how your own words and actions don't represent the path you follow, I shall...and like I said before, I am not being mean, rude or trolling in any way...if I could touch your hand and make you realise Brahman/Oneness for yourself, I would.

[Gem]

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

A discussion about that difference might be of use to seekers if it can be conducted with respect, and without the desire to undermine and eliminate the other by reference to cults or similar abuse. If that sort of abuse continues in this thread, I suggest we do not give it the oxygen of a response and try to concentrate on the issues.
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.

[Shivani Devi]

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. :biggrin:

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Iamit]

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.

Agreed but if the TA trolls here abuse people like Tony Parsons by associating them with the often criminal activity of cults, that wll end discussion of NA here which is of course thier objective. I'm not taking them on single handed when there is no moderation here against such abuse. If others are concerned about ending such abuse then maybe the differences between TA and NA can be clarified for the benefit of seekers, but not if that concern is not present here.

[Iamit]

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




Pleased to hear that Joytir. You will have difficulty finding quotes from Tony Parsons where he is abusive. He can be watched and read on line for anyone interested in finding that out. Lets hear the results of that exploration.

[Iamit]

Yes there is a big deal about the limitations of mind. It gets such a bad press, but it is mind that does the seeking, gathering data from here and there in the attempt to end the search. Why it has to be so shocking that it might therefore be mind that resonates is lost somewhere in the predjudice against mind. Afterall it knows the ego (character) it has created and what may be acceptable to it as a solution to the search.

And of course it must be said from a nondual perspective, both TA and NA, that it is not mind that is regarded as dodgy, but Oneness manifesting as mind:)

Oneness has such a sense of humour. I wonder what 'it' makes of the issue mind good or bad when each is the other in the nondual story (Both TA and NA).

Hilarious:)

[Moondance]

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.

Hello Sentient

Ha ha. Yes, I’m certainly drawn in enough to comment on the validity of the argument that I’m not keen to be drawn in on. Glad that this is of some help.

[iamthat]

Yes there is a big deal about the limitations of mind. It gets such a bad press, but it is mind that does the seeking, gathering data from here and there in the attempt to end the search. Why it has to be so shocking that it might therefore be mind that resonates is lost somewhere in the predjudice against mind. Afterall it knows the ego (character) it has created and what may be acceptable to it as a solution to the search.

It is not the mind which resonates with Oneness, it is consciousness. Identification with Oneness is not a mental state because mental states continually change, whereas identification is a permanent state. The mind is simply the tool of consciousness, and it is consciousness which drives the search.

Peace.

[blossomingtree]

Further, on the topic of Tony Parsons, then, some people with experience:

"Neo-Advaita:

The teaching style consists of a meeting where the “teacher” answers any random questions that the crowd comes up with. There is no structure nor any knowledge communicated in a logical manner, only specific slogans and insights given by reacting to the questions of the audience.

The teachers are good stand-up comedians and can entertain a crowd very well. It is really fun to spend time in those meetings. The apparent reality – such as the individual seeker and physical laws – is usually consistently denied and the focus is on the one and only message: “There is only Oneness”.

Here are some example statements from Tony Parsons from the many meetings I have attended:

“This is all there is”
“I do not see any people here. There are no people.”
“There is only Oneness”
“In this meetings there is a certain energy that creates an openness in which the Open Secret message can be heard”
“And do not worry about enlightenment, if you die from old age there will only be oneness”
“If I just repeat: All is oneness, all day long I would run out of a bloody audience, which is why I have to vary it …”

Conclusion

Neo-Advaita is a comfortable, spiritual, stand-up comedy. Seekers get high on positive group energy, have fun and usually enjoy themselves – and this may last up to a couple of days after the meeting. There is nothing to say against that. The chances, however, that this path will help a seeker to understand his true nature with confidence are as high as is finding a needle in a haystack. It is a gamble at the roulette table. There is nothing to say against some fun time in spiritual Las Vegas with Neo-Advaita.

Comparing “Neo-Advaita“ with Vedanta is like comparing a one-page cartoon with an Encyclopedia. The cartoon can be real fun and may help find some answers but it is very limited and has no depth. The Vedanta Encyclopedia has been tested for several thousand years and has set many thousands of people free. The only reason of existence (raison d’être) for the Vedanta teaching is to set people free. It is setting people free as we speak and will continue to do so successfully in the future. My conclusion is that if the student and the teacher are qualified; there is only one way out with Vedanta: Liberation.[/B].

https://www.advaita-vision.org/neo-advaita-versus-traditional-vedanta/

[blossomingtree]

"Neo Advaita is not Advaita Vedanta and it is not the teachings of Ramana Maharshi either. Ramana merely used the language of Vedanta to explain his experience of Truth and said Be As You Are. Vedanta stops at mentally affirming the existence of the Self whereas Ramana counselled to go beyond the mind for Self realisation.

Who are you? Well, you'll never find out if you listen to this bunch of morons! The Neo Advaita trademarks are: Anyone can be enlightened (Apparently!) ... The "I" is still there after enlightenment (You can say that again with this lot!) ... You don't need a guru, you can do it yourself (So why do we need any of these idiots then?) ... Nothing exists and there's no sadhana: Nothing To Do (Except attend all their satsangs and give them lots of adulation and cash for their multiple DVDs, books, photographs and meditation cushions!)

Just for the record, Ramana taught that realising the Self is predestined and a matter of Grace. He said the "I" is totally gone after enlightenment and that the presence of an enlightened being is essential, until the Self is attained. And Ramana endorsed all paths, stating that sadhana depends on the individual.

Neo Advaita has hijacked and emasculated Ramana's Self realisation, exploiting it for its own ends. It has taken his Do Nothing instruction, which Ramana said was only for the advanced and perverted it to mean that absolutely NO sadhana is necessary. Anyone can "have" enlightenment NOW! No hassle, no effort: realisation before you've even got there.

Tony Parsons is the ringmaster of this circus and its most cogent spokesman. He is the prime mover in the European New Wave along with Karl Renz - both with their respective brands of bull**** humour to flesh things out. Tony has made a career out of a mythical Walk in the Park, which he defines as his Awakening experience. This didn't stop him from hanging out for years with the original Rajneesh (not his counterfeit copy!) Tony's clique indulge in a game of partisan one-upmanship. They are all desperate to join the so-called Awakening Club and dissenting voices are condemned to the gulag of "You don't get it, you're so dualist!" In this world, everyone including Ramana is deemed guilty of dualist speech and action. The logic behind this resembles the Marxist mindset-gone-mad: paranoia and cries of revisionism are fine-tuned with asinine comments, in what amounts to a kangaroo-court of self-appointed Non Dual Word Police. Tony's mantra is: "Vasanas, what vasanas? There is only this!" A superfluous wave of the hands then illustrates this great mystery (NOT!) All we are left with is the vacuous nature of Tony's smug bonhomie and his tired old jokes ..."

Curse of Neo Advaita (http://chi-ting.blogspot.tw/2009/02/curse-of-neo-advaita.html)

[blossomingtree]

"On this point, the towering sage of nonduality, Ramana Mahārshi (1879-1950), has strongly critiqued this confused mixing of levels and "misplaced advaita" by saying that advaita should NOT be applied to action, in the sense of non-discrimination between proper and improper behavior. The great Advaita master Siddharāmeshvar Mahārāj (1888-1936) and his famous disciple, the sage Nisargadatta Mahārāj (1896-1981), always taught that one must realize the Self "and behave accordingly," staying clear of desires, selfish behavior and anything else that binds one to the dreamlike samsāra-cycle of egoic rebirths according to the law of karma.

Yet one Western neo-advaitin has written, in the type of remark echoed repeatedly by other neo-advaitins:

“Once awakening happens, it is seen that there is no such thing as right or wrong.... All concepts of good or bad, karma or debt of any kind are products of an unawakened mind that is locked into time and the maintenance and reinforcement of a sense of father, mother and self. (Tony Parsons)

To this we can only reply: Oh really? Then the Buddha, Nāgārjuna, the Chan-Zen-Son masters, Śaṅkara, Ramana Mahārshi, Siddharāmeshvar Mahārāj, Nisargadatta Mahārāj and many, many other great advaitins were all by this neo-advaitin definition quite unenlightened, because all of them taught that, on the conventional level, we must still be able to distinguish between wholesome and unwholesome actions, and be well aware of karmic consequences.

The Buddha, for one, often defined the disbelief in karmic consequences as that dangerous heresy of nihilism (uccheda-ditthi). Much of what is taught by neo-advaita (and postmodernist versions of Buddhism, for that matter) is clearly a form of the nihilist heresy, as defined by the Buddha. Ramana Mahārshi said, "It is true that we are not bound and that the real Self has no bondage. It is true that you will eventually go back to your Source. But meanwhile, if you commit sins, as you call them, you will have to face the consequences of such sins...."

Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita (http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html)

[blossomingtree]

"There seems to be a new form of advaita, a nihilistic form of advaita, which has nothing to do with the true advaita. It is called neo-advaita. There are even "teachers" ; they are merely liars repeating the same {!#%@} over and over (You don't exist, You are not a separated person, Separation is an illusion, You can't do nothing about it, you have no free-will, You are hopeless, You have no self, Your existence is meaningless, The world is meaningless, and that this is only a dream that happens to no one, and you're dreaming. But there is no "you" separated from the wave. It is all just "life happening", seeing happens, talking happens...etc , etc) , like a cult and a form of brainwashing. ("teachers" like Lisa Cairns, Tony Parsons, Rupert Spira, Paul Smith, and others) Are the ones behind this cult."

"There seems to be a new form of advaita, a nihilistic form of advaita, which has nothing to do with the true advaita. It is called neo-advaita. There are even "teachers" ; they are merely liars repeating the same {!#%@} over and over (You don't exist, You are not a separated person, Separation is an illusion, You can't do nothing about it, you have no free-will, You are hopeless, You have no self, Your existence is meaningless, The world is meaningless, and that this is only a dream that happens to no one, and you're dreaming. But there is no "you" separated from the wave. It is all just "life happening", seeing happens, talking happens...etc , etc) , like a cult and a form of brainwashing. ("teachers" like Lisa Cairns, Tony Parsons, Rupert Spira, Paul Smith, and others) Are the ones behind this cult.

Skeptic about Neo-Advaita (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26516)

[blossomingtree]

"AWAKENING FROM AWAKENING

I used to believe people like the UK spiritual teacher Tony Parsons who said that after awakening (which is seen as some kind of mysterious and rare non-event or shift in perspective), the personality won't change, and there won't necessarily be any more joy, intimacy or compassion in life. In fact, after awakening, you could still be suicidally depressed, or violent, or even a serial killer, they said!

At first, it felt like such a relief to hear this radical and shocking message - it made awakening sound so simple, so down to earth, so accessible, so... ordinary. "Before awakening I'm a jerk, after awakening I'm a jerk. And I'm allowed to be a jerk now because I'm liberated and nobody can touch me. Oh and by the way, there is no me and no choice. Jerkness just happens. So what. Who cares. Get over it, sad seeker." The ego celebrated - it now had carte blanche. No responsibility! No punishment! Free reign! Nobody here! Yippee! The search was over!

I've come to see that this "neo-Advaita" message, as it's now known, is very one-sided. It's partially true, exquisitely simple, but it's not by any means the full picture (nothing is!) and can be so damaging if mis-spoken or mis-heard or mis-used.

....

Once again, I return to Nisargadatta Maharaj's stunningly balanced and integrated formulation:

“Wisdom is knowing that I am nothing.
Love is knowing that I am everything.
Between the two my life flows.""

Awakening from Awakening (https://en-gb.facebook.com/LifeWithoutACentre/posts/436682189762728)

[blossomingtree]

"I spent many years looking into various teachers of Advaita, or Nonduality. (It's also been called "neo Advaita" by some, which is meant to be derogatory from what I can tell.)

It all started when I read a book by Gangaji, who claimed to be in the lineage of the apparently saintly Ramana Maharshi of India.

Conventiently, Ramana Maharshi has been dead since 1950, so he can't be questioned about any "lineage". But I've read in several places that he never designated one. (If only I had known this when I read the book by Gangaji.)

I feel lucky that I didn't go completely insane while attempting very diligently to follow the advice of Gangaji and other Advaita "teachers".

I am writing this post because I had a big AHA! moment the other day, shortly after reading a post by a member of this forum regarding one of the current neo Advaita "teachers": Tony Parsons.

The info on Tony Parsons was posted in the "Byron Katie" thread by a member known as "The Anticult". The post can be found here:

[Tony Parsons Critique (http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,12906,67354#msg-67354)]

The Anticult very quickly and easily saw right through Parsons' claims made on his website. I was in shock at how bogus Parsons' claims actually were when they were pointed out. I wondered why I hadn't been able to see it before."

Abuse in the name of Advaita (https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,67640)

[blossomingtree]

And finally, in Tony Parson's own words:

"so-called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment...

The teaching of “Traditional Advaita” has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception."


Looks like the this man is pretty clearly putting himself above all the other spiritual teachers like Jesus, Buddha, and the like. No wonder his followers appear to have been referenced as cult-ish.

I have to thank you, Iam(x) - without your exposition of his stance, I wouldn't have looked into this area as much as I have and now I have, I'm quite comfortable categorizing it as somewhat misguided. Based on the personal experiences of people who were indoctrinated into that, I would say it can also be dangerous for certain people (as referenced above - experiences) but most of all, a potential regression for a spiritual seeker with genuine aspirations for spiritual liberation and growth. Obviously, YMMV. :smile:

Thanks,

BT

[Shivani Devi]

And finally, in Tony Parson's own words:

"so-called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment...

The teaching of “Traditional Advaita” has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception."

Looks like the this man is pretty clearly putting himself above all the other spiritual teachers like Jesus, Buddha, and the like. No wonder his followers appear to have been referenced as cult-ish.BT

Not only Jesus and Buddha, but also, Valmiki, Sanatkumara, Yajnavalkya, Shankaracharya et al.

Now that I have read what Tony Parsons has said, I can understand all the backlash and it is well deserved imho.

Buddhism and TA are "indoctrinating" and "missing the mark"? oh my...oh dear...

One just has to read the Katha Upanishad...the discussion between Nachiketas and Lord Yama about the nature of reality.

https://kathupanishad.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-story-of-nachiketa-and-yama/

Read the Chhandogya Upanishad...the discussion between father and son - Uddalaka and Shvetaketu:

https://hindukids.org/old/grandpa/fatherandson.html

Read the Mandukya Upanishad and understand the very nature of liberation...according to the sacred vibration of the universe:

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/Mandukya_Upanishad.pdf

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which breaks down the 33 Hindu Gods into one all-encompassing reality called Brahman:

https://callofthevedas.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/how-many-gods-are-there/

The Isopanishad, which is basically a treatise on Dharma with the aim of realising the Absolute Consciousness...

I could go on...

To discredit all of this, calling it 'misleading' and 'indoctrinating' etc is totally snubbing the whole Vedas and Hinduism itself and that is something that gets under my skin just a bit.

All of these 'stories' and all of these examples given by all the great saints and sages of yore is what I was raised on, brought up with and they have served me very well....and still continue to do so.

From TA came the Mahavakyas (great utterances) "YOU ARE THAT" and "Brahman Alone Exists"...what is 'missing the mark' there?

I'm sorry, but after reading what you posted...what Iamit has posted...unfortunately I must dig my heels in now according to the "T" in TA...tradition....and 'changing' to NA is like eating a slice of bread after having a three-course meal.

"Promising eventual spiritual fullfilment"?...it promised nothing and yet, it delivered.

[Joe Mc]

I found in the past few days, reading this thread and other threads on Pseudo Advaita vs Traditional Advaita, that there may well also be parallels here between Born Again Christianity and more Liberal forms of Christianity if i can say such a thing. Perhaps the debate is about fundamentalism in all things which seems to always stand on the ground of I'm right your wrong, I'm Saved your not, I'm awake and your not.

This kind of very black and white categorical thinking is itself a symptom of egoic and intellectual monopoly in which the small mind becomes deluded and makes all sorts of claims which have a strange logic to them, which is very appealing not to mention convincing. The delusional powers of this type of approach, that is, the logical negation and logical verification of the intellect entrapping itself inside it's own prison are all to plain to see, as people have pointed out so rightly here.

It reminds me of an email i sent to one of sailor bob adamson's students who has recently set themselves up as an Advaita teacher about synchronicities, magic, supernatural interventions, the ground which is often hard to integrate into our personalities, let alone explain. Her reply was somewhat dismissive and blanket like ..she said something ..which didn't answer the question at all...so i'm going to retrieve that email and have a look again at what she said.

Thanks very much to Shivani Devi and Blossomtree for opening this debate up. I think its healthy. Also thanks to Iamit for making it possible.

[Gem]

I found in the past few days, reading this thread and other threads on Pseudo Advaita vs Traditional Advaita, that there may well also be parallels here between Born Again Christianity and more Liberal forms of Christianity if i can say such a thing. Perhaps the debate is about fundamentalism in all things which seems to always stand on the ground of I'm right your wrong, I'm Saved your not, I'm awake and your not.

This kind of very black and white categorical thinking is itself a symptom of egoic and intellectual monopoly in which the small mind becomes deluded and makes all sorts of claims which have a strange logic to them, which is very appealing not to mention convincing. The delusional powers of this type of approach, that is, the logical negation and logical verification of the intellect entrapping itself inside it's own prison are all to plain to see, as people have pointed out so rightly here.

It reminds me of an email i sent to one of sailor bob adamson's students who has recently set themselves up as an Advaita teacher about synchronicities, magic, supernatural interventions, the ground which is often hard to integrate into our personalities, let alone explain. Her reply was somewhat dismissive and blanket like ..she said something ..which didn't answer the question at all...so i'm going to retrieve that email and have a look again at what she said.

Thanks very much to Shivani Devi and Blossomtree for opening this debate up. I think its healthy. Also thanks to Iamit for making it possible.
Sounds to me like an inane barrage against Tony Parsons, and fair enough, if people don't like it, or if doesn't make any sense, then don't accept it - as we all have to discern for ourselves what seems valid or meritorious, but we go astray when we try to convince others to discern the same thing as we ourselves do.

I'm really a bit of a fan of the non dual teachers, including Sailor Bob, and I don't actually see too much contradiction in their 'message'. I think people start to get angsty, not because of what any of these so called teachers say per-se, but because of the influence they might wield - so it's ultimately about a power game.

It's inevitable as soon as a person purports the have knowledge, there is an accompanying power of influence, and within the exertion of power there has to be a resistance, and so we see this dynamic of attack and defense arising out of an underlying tension of exertion and resistance.

In the tradition I studied formally in, the initial teaching is not to believe what is said, so everyone is left to their own discernment, which is highly valued in the schools I am familiar with.

In my professional life I had to understand my position and the influence such positions have, as my qualification is supposed to make me 'the expert' (the one who knows) - and when I did social research and actually produced knowledge, that came with a very unusual responsibility that I had to be really careful with, so this powerful aspect of 'knowing' is something I'm quite familiar with, and one has to be extremely careful with their desires to influence other people (which is often misconstrued as 'help') and is easily seen as a desire to be right.

Just to mention, I like a ND channel on you tube called conscious TV (https://www.youtube.com/user/conscioustv/videos?disable_polymer=1). They interview many different people about their 'realised' perspective.

[Iamit]

Not only Jesus and Buddha, but also, Valmiki, Sanatkumara, Yajnavalkya, Shankaracharya et al.

Now that I have read what Tony Parsons has said, I can understand all the backlash and it is well deserved imho.

Buddhism and TA are "indoctrinating" and "missing the mark"? oh my...oh dear...

One just has to read the Katha Upanishad...the discussion between Nachiketas and Lord Yama about the nature of reality.

https://kathupanishad.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-story-of-nachiketa-and-yama/

Read the Chhandogya Upanishad...the discussion between father and son - Uddalaka and Shvetaketu:

https://hindukids.org/old/grandpa/fatherandson.html

Read the Mandukya Upanishad and understand the very nature of liberation...according to the sacred vibration of the universe:

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/Mandukya_Upanishad.pdf

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which breaks down the 33 Hindu Gods into one all-encompassing reality called Brahman:

https://callofthevedas.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/how-many-gods-are-there/

The Isopanishad, which is basically a treatise on Dharma with the aim of realising the Absolute Consciousness...

I could go on...

To discredit all of this, calling it 'misleading' and 'indoctrinating' etc is totally snubbing the whole Vedas and Hinduism itself and that is something that gets under my skin just a bit.

All of these 'stories' and all of these examples given by all the great saints and sages of yore is what I was raised on, brought up with and they have served me very well....and still continue to do so.

From TA came the Mahavakyas (great utterances) "YOU ARE THAT" and "Brahman Alone Exists"...what is 'missing the mark' there?

I'm sorry, but after reading what you posted...what Iamit has posted...unfortunately I must dig my heels in now according to the "T" in TA...tradition....and 'changing' to NA is like eating a slice of bread after having a three-course meal.

"Promising eventual spiritual fullfilment"?...it promised nothing and yet, it delivered.

You may disagree and of course so be it but for some, not you I hasten to add, to call Tony Parsons a criminal or insane for the quotes that offend you, is incorrect.

A discussion can be had about the differences between TA and NA and how each can be helpful to seekers depending on the character, and I look forward to that debate without abuse towards the participants in it.

[Iamit]

As you can see dear readers smearing NA by associating it with cults in general, some of which undertake criminal activity, persists with some.

[Shivani Devi]

Sounds to me like an inane barrage against Tony Parsons, and fair enough, if people don't like it, or if doesn't make any sense, then don't accept it - as we all have to discern for ourselves what seems valid or meritorious, but we go astray when we try to convince others to discern the same thing as we ourselves do.

I'm really a bit of a fan of the non dual teachers, including Sailor Bob, and I don't actually see too much contradiction in their 'message'. I think people start to get angsty, not because of what any of these so called teachers say per-se, but because of the influence they might wield- so it's ultimately about a power game.

It's inevitable as soon as a person purports the have knowledge, there is an accompanying power of influence, and within the exertion of power there has to be a resistance, and so we see this dynamic of attack and defense arising out of an underlying tension of exertion and resistance.

In the tradition I studied formally in, the initial teaching is not to believe what is said, so everyone is left to their own discernment, which is highly valued in the schools I am familiar with.

In my professional life I had to understand my position and the influence such positions have, as my qualification is supposed to make me 'the expert' (the one who knows) - and when I did social research and actually produced knowledge, that came with a very unusual responsibility that I had to be really careful with, so this powerful aspect of 'knowing' is something I'm quite familiar with, and one has to be extremely careful with their desires to influence other people - and that is easily seen as a desire to be right.

Just to mention, I like a ND channel on you tube called conscious TV (https://www.youtube.com/user/conscioustv/videos?disable_polymer=1). They interview many different people about their 'realised' perspective.
Not at all, Gem.

I am all for other paths and other teachings. I'm quite open and liberal in regards, but promoting one philosophy from the very one it arose from, by attacking and discrediting that whole philosophy just isn't cricket in my 'rule book'.

I'd like it for somebody to present an idea or a system based on it's own merits, not seek to garner support by saying that other teachings are misleading, indoctrinating and irrelevant compared to it.

I feel that if a person or people need to do that to get their message across, it doesn't say much for the actual content of the message, does it?

So, we are taught to be tolerant of other's beliefs...can we thus be tolerant of the intolerant?

People will say we should respect the philosophy of others (and I see how some are trying hard to do that because they know they should be doing it and for no other reason) but can we respect the disrespectful? can we agree with the disagreeable?

It's not so much the content of TA vs NA, but then again, I'd like to see where any of the philosophies of TA can be refuted in logical debate with the philosophies of NA...having said all that, who can even refute the Mahavakyas?

The only thing that both concepts have in common is the term "Advaita" or "non-duality" and am I the ONLY one who thinks (with all due reasoning aside) that the Non-dual can be made and MORE Non-dual by making it "new"? and that Brahman evolves and changes with the times? nope.

This is my whole reasoning in a nutshell.

[Iamit]

Sounds to me like an inane barrage against Tony Parsons, and fair enough, if people don't like it, or if doesn't make any sense, then don't accept it - as we all have to discern for ourselves what seems valid or meritorious, but we go astray when we try to convince others to discern the same thing as we ourselves do.

I'm really a bit of a fan of the non dual teachers, including Sailor Bob, and I don't actually see too much contradiction in their 'message'. I think people start to get angsty, not because of what any of these so called teachers say per-se, but because of the influence they might wield - so it's ultimately about a power game.

It's inevitable as soon as a person purports the have knowledge, there is an accompanying power of influence, and within the exertion of power there has to be a resistance, and so we see this dynamic of attack and defense arising out of an underlying tension of exertion and resistance.

In the tradition I studied formally in, the initial teaching is not to believe what is said, so everyone is left to their own discernment, which is highly valued in the schools I am familiar with.

In my professional life I had to understand my position and the influence such positions have, as my qualification is supposed to make me 'the expert' (the one who knows) - and when I did social research and actually produced knowledge, that came with a very unusual responsibility that I had to be really careful with, so this powerful aspect of 'knowing' is something I'm quite familiar with, and one has to be extremely careful with their desires to influence other people (which is often misconstrued as 'help') and is easily seen as a desire to be right.

Just to mention, I like a ND channel on you tube called conscious TV (https://www.youtube.com/user/conscioustv/videos?disable_polymer=1). They interview many different people about their 'realised' perspective.

Yes, including NA speakers.

[Shivani Devi]

You may disagree and of course so be it but for some, not you I hasten to add, to call Tony Parsons a criminal or insane for the quotes that offend you, is incorrect.

A discussion can be had about the differences between TA and NA and how each can be helpful to seekers depending on the character, and I look forward to that debate without abuse towards the participants in it.I wouldn't call anybody names...that makes me just as bad as the 'name caller' and it's not in my nature to do so. I present a logical argument based on my knowledge and my experience, even though I don't like the way he smears other beliefs, other religions, other traditions and those who follow them to make a point that I cannot even see. That is my main contention...I'm a very respectful person (or I try to be).

[iamthat]

"I spent many years looking into various teachers of Advaita, or Nonduality. (It's also been called "neo Advaita" by some, which is meant to be derogatory from what I can tell.)

It all started when I read a book by Gangaji, who claimed to be in the lineage of the apparently saintly Ramana Maharshi of India.

Conventiently, Ramana Maharshi has been dead since 1950, so he can't be questioned about any "lineage". But I've read in several places that he never designated one. (If only I had known this when I read the book by Gangaji.)

I feel lucky that I didn't go completely insane while attempting very diligently to follow the advice of Gangaji and other Advaita "teachers".

Thanks to blossomingtree for the various postings - I have always considered the Neo-Advaitists to be somewhat limited in their understanding, although I still enjoy reading some of their ideas.

Regarding Gangaji, she was obviously not a direct disciple of Ramana Maharshi, but instead came to HWL Poonjaji (who was a direct disciple of RM) in 1990, who gave her the name Gangaji and asked her to share what she had realised.

But one of the criticisms levelled at Poonjaji is that he was too ready to credit others as enlightened or fully realised. Or perhaps some of his students were over-eager to get out there and teach before they were ready to do so (eg Andrew Cohen).

No doubt this discussion will go on and on.

Peace.

[Shivani Devi]

A discussion can be had about the differences between TA and NA and how each can be helpful to seekers depending on the character, and I look forward to that debate without abuse towards the participants in it.Dear Iamit - would you like me to go into the whole philosophy of my character according to Advaita? I can assist you there.

Whether it be Traditional or Neo Advaita, there's ONE word missing...one word that makes ALL the difference here.....VEDANTA!

I am more of an Advaita Vedantin than a TA OR NA and why is that? simple...because I am a Hindu....a pure, dyed in the wool, Hindu.

I belong to the glorious religion of Sanatana Dharma...pretty much a scholar on it...and I have very deep beliefs and convictions relating TO it.

Even most people who are TA would not have even studied the Vedas and Upanishads...I spent 10 years DOING so.

I had to put down the Chhandogya Upanishad halfway through it because I became totally immersed in a bliss state and I realised; "now I UNDERSTAND why they call it Vedanta...I GET IT!"

Ved = Vedic Wisdom and Anta = the end OF!

Vedanta means the end of Vedic wisdom...and what happens when you can know NO more? when you cannot think any more? when you can't philosophise any more? argue any more? reason any more?...you realise Brahman for yourself!

So, if Vedanta means the 'End of the Vedas" then Advaita Vedanta means the totally non-dual ending of all that can be known...what could possibly come after that? a whole NEW non-duality? I don't think so.

...and THIS is my core reasoning...and THIS is why I take issue...and THIS is why I say everything I DO about it...even though, as you know, I'm not really saying it. ;)

[Gem]

Yes, including NA speakers.

I just bag ND NA all together, but to me, what it comes down to is, if I can see how what is said is true of myself, then I'm like, 'oh yea I can see that' - but if I can't see how it applies to myself, I try to keep an open mind anyway.

Personally, I don't have an attachment so much that it seems important, so I find it all OK, and you know, 'what me worry', as Alfred E Neuman would say.

[Moondance]

but to me, what it comes down to is, if I can see how what is said is true of myself, then I'm like, 'oh yea I can see that' - but if I can't see how it applies to myself, I try to keep an open mind anyway.

A wise approach, Gem.

NA doesn’t actually exist beyond a cartoon sketch… of a straw man. What is really going on here is that we have a traditional, gradualist, methodology (which I respect and have found illuminating over the past couple of decades) which exists alongside other schools and religions.

Then there are the various expressions that are on the outside of these systematized schools. These include the various and diverse satsang/nonduality expressions from Ramana Maharshi onward - including Nisargadatta, Balsekar, Alan Watts, J Krishnamurti, Jean Klein, UGK… etc. More recent satsang/nonduality speakers include the likes of Tony Parsons, Adyashanti, Toni Packer and Eckhart Tolle etc.

Alongside this we have the influence of Western philosophy: The Absolute Monism of Spinoza. Idealists such as Kant and Schopenhauer. Hume’s investigations of the absence of self etc. Then there are the poets, mystics and artists; Rumi, Hafiz, Lao Tzu, William Blake… and so on.

None of these present a true gradualist, systematic approach though many of them advocate self inquiry, meditation (my own particular bias), immersion in nature, solitude etc.

[Shivani Devi]

I also have the intuition that a LOT of it could/may be based upon past-life influence or karma as well.

For example, those who are new to the philosophy, the philosophy will be new to them and they would gravitate more towards the contemporary thinkers on the matter.

If one has studied the philosophy in a past life/lives, the traditional methods will feel like a comfortable old chair, whilst the new schools of thought tend to present themselves as a rather re-hashed and totally superficial version of all they are already familiar with.

However, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating...just don't choke on it.

Namaste

[Gem]

Not at all, Gem.

I am all for other paths and other teachings. I'm quite open and liberal in regards, but promoting one philosophy from the very one it arose from, by attacking and discrediting that whole philosophy just isn't cricket in my 'rule book'.

Indeed, it''s just not cricket hahaha.

I'd like it for somebody to present an idea or a system based on it's own merits, not seek to garner support by saying that other teachings are misleading, indoctrinating and irrelevant compared to it.

I think people take little snippets which can be fairly criticised, but don't actually make everything said invalid. So there's two problems innit. First, believing what is said on the authority of the teacher, or dismissing everything that is said on the invalidation of the teacher. I think it's easier to just listen to what is said and be happy.

I feel that if a person or people need to do that to get their message across, it doesn't say much for the actual content of the message, does it?

Well everything taken as knowledge has influence, so it's worth being aware of the power inherent to 'positions' such as 'experts' and 'teachers'.

So, we are taught to be tolerant of other's beliefs...can we thus be tolerant of the intolerant?

Well, to me beliefs aren't all that important, and when they do become important, they become dogmatic, which is the same as being convinced, and being convinced is influence, and then they get the compulsive desire to convince someone else, and we're back in the right wrong power trip... teehee.

People will say we should respect the philosophy of others (and I see how some are trying hard to do that because they know they should be doing it and for no other reason) but can we respect the disrespectful? can we agree with the disagreeable?

It's not so much the content of TA vs NA, but then again, I'd like to see where any of the philosophies of TA can be refuted in logical debate with the philosophies of NA...having said all that, who can even refute the Mahavakyas?

I hardly know anything about TA or NA and I've never even heard of Mahavakas. Any opinion I could have would be grossly uninformed. Maybe in regards to Buddhist teaching I could say something reasonable, because I'm fairly well grounded in that - hardly an expert, though.

The only thing that both concepts have in common is the term "Advaita" or "non-duality" and am I the ONLY one who thinks (with all due reasoning aside) that the Non-dual can be made and MORE Non-dual by making it "new"? and that Brahman evolves and changes with the times? nope.

This is my whole reasoning in a nutshell.

In reality all this is new, and the old stuff is in the past... so I really don;t care about any of 'the teachings'. I like them a lot, but I wouldn't lose a wink if they all suddenly were gone. I'd just get up and have breakfast like any other day... with a strong coffee of course.

[Shivani Devi]

Indeed, it''s just not cricket hahaha.



I think people take little snippets which can be fairly criticised, but don't actually make everything said invalid. So there's two problems innit. First, believing what is said on the authority of the teacher, or dismissing everything that is said on the invalidation of the teacher. I think it's easier to just listen to what is said and be happy.



Well everything taken as knowledge has influence, so it's worth being aware of the power inherent to 'positions' such as 'experts' and 'teachers'.



Well, to me beliefs aren't all that important, and when they do become important, they become dogmatic, which is the same as being convinced, and being convinced is influence, and then they get the compulsive desire to convince someone else, and we're back in the right wrong power trip... teehee.



I hardly know anything about TA or NA and I've never even heard of Mahavakas. Any opinion I could have would be grossly uninformed. Maybe in regards to Buddhist teaching I could say something reasonable, because I'm fairly well grounded in that - hardly an expert, though.



In reality all this is new, and the old stuff is in the past... so I really don;t care about any of 'the teachings'. I like them a lot, but I wouldn't lose a wink if they all suddenly were gone. I'd just get up and have breakfast like any other day... with a strong coffee of course.Thank you for all of that, Gem. :hug3:

I disagree that such teachings which can be seen as being 'perennial wisdom' could ever be 'in the past' and any 'new teachings' could take any precedence over them as there is no 'time' in the void. ;)

The 'mahavakyas' are great expressions of a 'realised truth' like "I AM' or "Consciousness alone exists" or "The universe is within" and once said, how many times can it be rehashed with personal bias attached?

Yes, there also comes a point where "I believe" gives rise to "I know" which gives rise to "I have experienced" which leads on to a state of pure unindividuised awareness of absolute perfection (Nirvana).

I say all these things for the benefit of others, as I'm pretty much beyond the whole power-trip myself, and I guess I allowed myself to get caught up in the whole discussion and posts started by somebody who is defending their beliefs by attacking others and then playing the 'victim role' when they do so in return...and yep, I should know better than that.

My problem is, Gem...it's not a power-trip, but I'm happy when I can get people to turn their own minds upon themselves and look inwards to find their own answers...but I'm the only one who's aware that I'm doing it...and I should have realised this by now, but I still persist, hoping that one day, another may reach a lovely awareness and get to the next level...not based upon what I know...but based upon what they do.

...and of course, I am aware that in another century or two, all of the 'traditions' will die out because they are 'too old'...even the timeless wisdom will run out of time because it is 'human nature' to BE that way and think that unless it is 'modern' it is irrelevant...however, like I said before, all the 'old scriptures' already foretold this was gonna happen anyway, so why am I surprised? We see it in the 'modernisation' of native peoples all over the world...science calls their beliefs and practices "superstitious" because they aren't modern...aren't 'scientific' and so, whole cultures and races of people get wiped off the map because it is the 'modern thing to do'...but I digress.

[sentient]

Perhaps every forum needs their trolls or tricksters and I suppose Kierkegaard with his two wigs story would agree:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=111693&highlight=highwayman

[Gem]

Thank you for all of that, Gem. :hug3:

I disagree that such teachings which can be seen as being 'perennial wisdom' could ever be 'in the past' and any 'new teachings' could take any precedence over them as there is no 'time' in the void. ;)
Like they say, Dhamma is universal, but Gotama the Buddha is long gone, and now monks repeat it like parrots, and the devotees repeat it again, and soon enough we're all convinced it is true because it's written down and can be double checked. This becomes affirmed over thousands of years, which is a very deeply ingrained condition.

The 'mahavakyas' are great expressions of a 'realised truth' like "I AM' or "Consciousness alone exists" or "The universe is within" and once said, how many times can it be rehashed with personal bias attached?

Yes, there also comes a point where "I believe" gives rise to "I know" which gives rise to "I have experienced" which leads on to a state of pure unindividuised awareness of absolute perfection (Nirvana).

I say all these things for the benefit of others, as I'm pretty much beyond the whole power-trip myself, and I guess I allowed myself to get caught up in the whole discussion and posts started by somebody who is defending their beliefs by attacking others and then playing the 'victim role' when they do so in return...and yep, I should know better than that.

My problem is, Gem...it's not a power-trip, but I'm happy when I can get people to turn their own minds upon themselves and look inwards to find their own answers...but I'm the only one who's aware that I'm doing it...and I should have realised this by now, but I still persist, hoping that one day, another may reach a lovely awareness and get to the next level...not based upon what I know...but based upon what they do.
Ok, I understand that because in my threads I often say that no one can understand the conversation unless they check in against themselves, but I don't really care if they do or not - it's just that it's necessary to understand the topic.

...and of course, I am aware that in another century or two, all of the 'traditions' will die out because they are 'too old'...even the timeless wisdom will run out of time because it is 'human nature' to BE that way and think that unless it is 'modern' it is irrelevant...however, like I said before, all the 'old scriptures' already foretold this was gonna happen anyway, so why am I surprised? We see it in the 'modernisation' of native peoples all over the world...science calls their beliefs and practices "superstitious" because they aren't modern...aren't 'scientific' and so, whole cultures and races of people get wiped off the map because it is the 'modern thing to do'...but I digress.
Now we have the scientific knowledge, but its essentially the same old power game. And of course we have to convince different cultural groups that we are right, more 'advanced' and so forth. Very similar in its operation as 'spiritual knowledge' is.

[Shivani Devi]

Yes, Gem. I understand this too.

In much the same way as Advaitins will repeat whatever their teachers or gurus will say by rote, without understanding any of the concepts involved either.

To be honest with you all, all of this is just 'mental stuff' and even mastering the mind, repeating mantras by rote, becoming aware of the nature of reality itself, won't lead to the full realisation of it.

You can parrot "I am that" or "I am oneness" as much as you like, but nothing will happen, because in the end, it is a heart thing. The heart is the door that leads to this understanding, to this realisation and not the mind.

So, what would happen if the Buddha did not exist...if Shankaracharya did not exist? If all those writers mentioned by Moondance did not exist? then it would be up to us to seek realisation (if we even knew about such a thing) through drinking coffee...caffeine would be 'God' to us.

However, I do understand the concept of the moving pen writing, and once having written, moves on and then it's up to others to deal with the fallout from it.

So yes, I am an Advaita Vedantin, but at the same time, I'm a Bhakti Yogi...I'm also a dualist in all splendour and glory until non-duality is attained through this duality...until the heart gets involved to totally bypass my 'conditioned mind' with all of this 'Advaita stuff'....because what we have witnessed happening here is the whole limitation of it.

True knowledge beyond the parroting of it (book knowledge) will die, Traditions will die, all cognitive dissonance will die...even Dharma (Dhamma) itself will die...but there's one thing that can never die...one thing that will remain no matter how many aeons pass...it is something that can never be 'in the past' or 'modernised'...something that cannot be added to...subtracted from...changed in any way...and no, it isn't Brahman...it isn't consciousness or the absolute 'one-ness'...it is unconditional love...pure and simple.

[Gem]

Yes, Gem. I understand this too.

In much the same way as Advaitins will repeat whatever their teachers or gurus will say by rote, without understanding any of the concepts involved either.

To be honest with you all, all of this is just 'mental stuff' and even mastering the mind, repeating mantras by rote, becoming aware of the nature of reality itself, won't lead to the full realisation of it.

You can parrot "I am that" or "I am oneness" as much as you like, but nothing will happen, because in the end, it is a heart thing. The heart is the door that leads to this understanding, to this realisation and not the mind.

Well said.

So, what would happen if the Buddha did not exist...if Shankaracharya did not exist? If all those writers mentioned by Moondance did not exist? then it would be up to us to seek realisation (if we even knew about such a thing) through drinking coffee...caffeine would be 'God' to us.

However, I do understand the concept of the moving pen writing, and once having written, moves on and then it's up to others to deal with the fallout from it.

So yes, I am an Advaita Vedantin, but at the same time, I'm a Bhakti Yogi...I'm also a dualist in all splendour and glory until non-duality is attained through this duality...until the heart gets involved to totally bypass my 'conditioned mind' with all of this 'Advaita stuff'....because what we have witnessed happening here is the whole limitation of it.

True knowledge beyond the parroting of it (book knowledge) will die, Traditions will die, all cognitive dissonance will die...even Dharma (Dhamma) itself will die...but there's one thing that can never die...one thing that will remain no matter how many aeons pass...it is something that can never be 'in the past' or 'modernised'...something that cannot be added to...subtracted from...changed in any way...and no, it isn't Brahman...it isn't consciousness or the absolute 'one-ness'...it is unconditional love...pure and simple.

I think it is all basically dead in contrast to what is really living, and there is an immediate vitality which is like 'true love' in nature. The teachers of old and new don't speak so we can learn new things, but to prompt us all and remind us of this essence of our being, the life of us.

[FallingLeaves]

Yes, Gem. I understand this too.
To be honest with you all, all of this is just 'mental stuff' and even mastering the mind, repeating mantras by rote, becoming aware of the nature of reality itself, won't lead to the full realisation of it.

You can parrot "I am that" or "I am oneness" as much as you like, but nothing will happen, because in the end, it is a heart thing. The heart is the door that leads to this understanding, to this realisation and not the mind.


I'm feeling especialy mean tonite so, how do you know that you aren't off on the same tangent only now you say the word 'heart' instead of the word 'head'?

[Shivani Devi]

Well said.



I think it is all basically dead in contrast to what is really living, and there is an immediate vitality which is like 'true love' in nature. The teachers of old and new don't speak so we can learn new things, but to prompt us all and remind us of this essence of our being, the life of us.Beautiful!

This essence of being, the vitality is not only the life of us as individuals, but it's also the whole construct of the universe and once experientially realised, the heart just implodes with a feeling one can only describe as being 'true love' but there's a lot more to it than that.

You'll also see that a lot of Advaita Vedantins, even Shankaracharya himself surrendered their whole mind and mental existence to it...leading them not only to expound the very crux of non-dual philosophy, but also compose the most beautiful hymns to the goddess ever known (Soundarya lahari).

The teacher of the ancients, the 'Adi Guru" or the 'first Guru"...Buddhists will call it Vairochana...Hindus will call it Dakshinamurthy, never spoke whatsoever and yet, all of the rishis...all of the sanat kumaras became enlightened...achieved Nirvana through grace and nothing more.

There's a limit to the saying "I am that" until one realises that everything is that...and that's the point at which they can say "I am that" no longer.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/59/3c/46/593c46e9cfeccd3a4ccc5bf8ade8170a.jpg

[Shivani Devi]

I'm feeling especialy mean tonite so, how do you know that you aren't off on the same tangent only now you say the word 'heart' instead of the word 'head'?It is because I don't know it, as 'knowing' something requires the function of mind and not the heart.

I mean, I could go into the many ways of how I love Lord Shiva...I'd really like to do that...but I look at the title of this forum, it's called "non-duality" and so I just shrug my shoulders and go "ah well".

[Shivani Devi]

You'll also find those who don't get 'what they need' will depart and go elsewhere until they find it and they'll spend their whole lives, like a bee flitting from one flower to the next.

So many people are just looking for somebody to agree with them and that's all they want to be happy...they will achieve nirvana as soon as another says 'yeah, you're totally right there'.

[Gem]

Beautiful!

This essence of being, the vitality is not only the life of us as individuals, but it's also the whole construct of the universe and once experientially realised, the heart just implodes with a feeling one can only describe as being 'true love' but there's a lot more to it than that.

You'll also see that a lot of Advaita Vedantins, even Shankaracharya himself surrendered their whole mind and mental existence to it...leading them not only to expound the very crux of non-dual philosophy, but also compose the most beautiful hymns to the goddess ever known (Soundarya lahari).

The teacher of the ancients, the 'Adi Guru" or the 'first Guru"...Buddhists will call it Vairochana...Hindus will call it Dakshinamurthy, never spoke whatsoever and yet, all of the rishis...all of the sanat kumaras became enlightened...achieved Nirvana through grace and nothing more.

There's a limit to the saying "I am that" until one realises that everything is that...and that's the point at which they can say "I am that" no longer.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/59/3c/46/593c46e9cfeccd3a4ccc5bf8ade8170a.jpg
I've always appreciated that saying because in all this discussion of ourselves I could never place myself as "that" exactly, and I don't know anything about it, so I'm not surprised adi guru has nothing to say.

The spiritual workings are in the metta vibes, the heart as you say, so I generally encourage us all to give a metta vibe as best we can.

P.S. I'm a big fan of the Nis

[Shivani Devi]

I've always appreciated that saying because in all this discussion of ourselves I could never place myself as "that" exactly, and I don't know anything about it, so I'm not surprised adi guru has nothing to say.

The spiritual workings are in the metta vibes, the heart as you say, so I generally encourage us all to give a metta vibe as best we can.

P.S. I'm a big fan of the NisHey, Gem...ever get the feeling that you don't know why you are on SF? I mean, it's not like it is for your benefit, or anybody else's benefit either and you couldn't care less one way or the other, don't care if people agree or disagree and you don't even care what people say even if they do/not respond to your posts or even read them and you can give out as many 'metta vibes' as you like, but if people are closed off to receiving them, all they do is bounce straight back atcha....

I often wonder why I am here...not only on SF but in the general sense, because my purpose seems purpose-less and so I try not to have any purpose whatsoever, I try to just "be" and I could spend my life just "be-ing" but apart from an aware person who is just 'be-ing' and existing in their own awareness, what's the use?

I get that feeling quite often.

[Gem]

Hey, Gem...ever get the feeling that you don't know why you are on SF? I mean, it's not like it is for your benefit, or anybody else's benefit either and you couldn't care less one way or the other, don't care if people agree or disagree and you don't even care what people say even if they do/not respond to your posts or even read them and you can give out as many 'metta vibes' as you like, but if people are closed off to receiving them, all they do is bounce straight back atcha....

I often wonder why I am here...not only on SF but in the general sense, because my purpose seems purpose-less and so I try not to have any purpose whatsoever, I try to just "be" and I could spend my life just "be-ing" but apart from an aware person who is just 'be-ing' and existing in their own awareness, what's the use?

I get that feeling quite often.

Well I care what people have say, so to me it's like a conversation over coffee, and the main reason I'm here is internet addiction.

For me, a metta vibe is just there anyway so it's always part of my listening and speaking, but there are times I am aware of some acrimony arising in me, but that's for my own self awareness and it's not somebody's fault, it's just the sorts of life issues that are particular to me, my own impurity, defilement, emotional problem, or whatever people call it. It's very rare I would project my own arising issues on someone as blame or anything like that, and if and when I do, that's my bad.

It's like all the things I experience, it all reminds me of self awareness, and it is as though it all moves in me, my peace of mind, my reactivity, my rising life issues, and as things I experience can be pleasurable of discomforting, it's all opportunity for me to practice that equanimity of the mind.

The metta flow is like a consequence of that, and it came after some degree of purification. It used to be blocked so much that I couldn't really feel it at all, but after some really determined meditations, things started to open up and the loving kindness radiated through.

The purification is incomplete and I have life issues just like anyone does, but the metta flow doesn't stop, and I don't try to 'aim it' at anyone... it's more like a 'space of metta', which is hard to articulate, but you may be familiar with that vibe in the empty temple, like an 'air of peace' or something.

So, the metta is here, I can't make it start or make it stop, though I could clear more space in a deliberate way, and I have visualisation technique which seems to amplify the radiance, but I rarely practice that, as I have found it is consequential to the healing purification process, which itself is basically a consequence to mindful equanimity.

Now I'm way off the ND subject, innit...

[Shivani Devi]

Yep, the main reason why I am here is due to an internet addiction as well. lol

Thanks for your comments though and I guess it's just something that can be fixed with some more meditation to refine the whole awareness process.

Then, of course there's always the surrender and the trust in a 'power greater than myself' to know what is best for me and leave it up to that to give my life some purpose and meaning, rather than thinking I have any purpose apart from it.

[Gem]

Yep, the main reason why I am here is due to an internet addiction as well. lol

Thanks for your comments though and I guess it's just something that can be fixed with some more meditation to refine the whole awareness process.

Then, of course there's always the surrender and the trust in a 'power greater than myself' to know what is best for me and leave it up to that to give my life some purpose and meaning, rather than thinking I have any purpose apart from it.

Yes, although the urge to fix comes from adverse reactivity, and reactivity disrupts mindful equanimity. The surrender sounds more to the point, as that is definitively the end of mental reactivity, meditation being the cessation such reactions, and surrender being the release of personal controls such as fixing everything. That is a great trust like you say. It probably defines trust itself.

[blossomingtree]

Not only Jesus and Buddha, but also, Valmiki, Sanatkumara, Yajnavalkya, Shankaracharya et al.

Yes, I didn't know all the Advaita Vedanta teachers - I am aware of and highly respect Ramana Maharsi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Sri Auribindo etc. but did not know them all, so left that out. His quote spoke for himself.

To discredit all of this, calling it 'misleading' and 'indoctrinating' etc is totally snubbing the whole Vedas and Hinduism itself

These people wish to ride on the coat-tails of Advaita {copying ethos, name, wording} but also and seek to elevate themselves above it at the same time. I am noticing more than ever the intense psychological games that these people play

aka:

"Don't trust Gurus - you don't need them. They will just disappoint and take your money" - elevates themselves to Guru and sells books/CDs/takes donations {believe me, I know and know the true way - put your trust in me aka Guru ship}

"Everything is so perfect and all is One, look at this Oneness - everything is manifest within the whole, it is wonderful" - whilst struggling with reality including typecasting oneself as an innocent victim and/or unable to engage in genuine discussion {agreement apparently means do not criticize me or else}

"No way is needed, it is already done. Buddha/Jesus etc. were all off the mark - they miss the fundamental way which is Oneness - Oneness permeates all. Do you see? Look closely? Are we separate? Perfection. Absolute perfection - You need not move when you are already within it - see how easy it is? Hallelujah!" {bases life on this logic, which to the novice eye apparently sounds logical but lacks the essence of the spiritual realizations which are borne of heart/mind and include fruits of clear essence, love, joy, wisdom, spiritual clarity and benevolence. Also naturally does not partake in the Gnosis that is less talked about, but distinctively existent in all the genuine spiritual paths {Jesus, Buddha, Rumi, Ramana Maharsi etc. all knew what is beyond consciousness and the logical, ordinary mind, hence their realizations were deep and grounded, compassionate and loving, wise and unyielding, genuine and whole}

I'm sorry, but after reading what you posted...what Iamit has posted...unfortunately I must dig my heels in now according to the "T" in TA...tradition....and 'changing' to NA is like eating a slice of bread after having a three-course meal.

Yes, but to me, it's not even a slice of bread. Perhaps I'm inclined to see this one like Jyotir mentioned in a separate post (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1668276&postcount=14):

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".

Be well, Shivani Devi.

BT

[Shivani Devi]

Yes, although the urge to fix comes from adverse reactivity, and reactivity disrupts mindful equanimity. The surrender sounds more to the point, as that is definitively the end of mental reactivity, meditation being the cessation such reactions, and surrender being the release of personal controls such as fixing everything. That is a great trust like you say. It probably defines trust itself.
Thanks for the satori.

Maybe 'fixing' was the first thing that came to my mind when 'attaining balance' would be a better fit, however if everything already is balanced, what is there to attain?

It is also a mental exercise, like a set of scales and we see that there are 2kg of oranges on one side, yet only 1kg on the other side, so we try and either remove 500gms from the 2kg side and put it on the 1kg side...or remove the whole 1kg of oranges from the 2kg side...or place an extra 1kg of oranges on the 1kg side...then we say "there we go...FIXED!" lol

We hardly ever remove ALL the oranges and say "FIXED" eh?

[Shivani Devi]

"Everything is so perfect and all is One, look at this Oneness - everything is manifest within the whole, it is wonderful" - whilst struggling with reality including typecasting oneself as an innocent victim and/or unable to engage in genuine discussion {agreement apparently means do not criticize me or else}

Be well, Shivani Devi.

BT...and it was due to this point alone that I involved myself in this conversation, or else I would not have.

You be well also.

[blossomingtree]

This kind of very black and white categorical thinking is itself a symptom of egoic and intellectual monopoly in which the small mind becomes deluded and makes all sorts of claims which have a strange logic to them, which is very appealing not to mention convincing. The delusional powers of this type of approach, that is, the logical negation and logical verification of the intellect entrapping itself inside it's own prison are all to plain to see, as people have pointed out so rightly here.


Hi JoeMc

There is nothing that logic cannot argue - no matter which way that argument falls. That is the very definition and by-product of samsara and hence conflicts. We can say the same about what we ourselves say. Therefore what is the fundamental difference? From my vantage point, to bloom in Buddhist or spiritual or Rumi terms is to transcend the ordinary mind/consciousness. It is said in an easy way but it is not a easy path {according to Bartholomew of these forums, it takes many lifetimes, but that is not an area I am learned in}. This is a transcendence of ordinary consciousness, and the human intellect - although of course the latter is still utilized.

To some extent, I understand and can sympathize with the appeal of a an apparently* simple message such as those from the so-called Neo-Advaita group. I sympathize with the wish for this to just be "the answer" - and if that is their wish, then may it be theirs... To be honest if it was not them, it would be another group selling something or perhaps a personality cult. Is there anything in this world that the human mind cannot and will not corrupt at some point? It is the same with Buddhism, it is the same with Christianity. There is no-one and nothing that is pristinely contained. In some ways, this lends itself to why genuine spiritual attainment is still so valuable. When Rumi spoke, well, don't we all just smile?

All this does not mean however, that we cannot point out misrepresentations where they occur, especially where they may cause error. For human beings whom like and seek out such a direction laid out by the so-called Neo-Advaitans, whom are content with the inherent fundamental shortfalls of genuine spiritual {i.e. inner} transformation, and find a "All is One" concept sufficiently satisfying for their inner lives and outer lives, I have no issue. There are significantly more harmful belief systems in this world.

However, it is a pity, in my opinion, to mislead a genuine aspirant. That said, a genuine aspirant would likely find themselves out of the mud pit at some stage, through Grace, God willing. As long as they are aware that the three course meal is available, as selling one's own spiritual growth short is never a good idea, in my opinion.

BT

*I say apparently because on the spiritual path continuum it would represent a drawback

[Shivani Devi]

Absolute logic and deductive reasoning cannot be argued against. 'Tis why I kill a lot of threads on here. lol

You try and argue with Mr. Spock...he'll just raise one eyebrow and say "intriguing".

People have 'their logic' but that isn't logic, they only think it is and that's why arguments happen; i.e "my logic is better than yours" when irrefutable logic is logic regardless.

True logic is able to refute that which is 'illogical' by using more logic and not more illogical arguments. ...and the very moment one starts with the Ad-hominem and Straw-Man arguments, it's over. =)

...and you know, the best way to make me 'see reason' is to appeal to my sense of it using reason - Gem knows this very well and that's why we have such nice discussions.

However, there's a point at which logic and reason breaks down...when we are wrapped up in the whole critique of it, just like Immanuel Kant and cannot see the forest for the trees...because a forest is just a whole heap of trees anyway.

In those situations, where I could give 'Robbie the Robot' a run for his circuits, one comes along and 'breaks the ice' by appealing to my heart...to my love of Shiva and then, Shivani becomes jellified and goes "mmmokay, you win...I concede".

Is there anything in this world that the human mind cannot and will not corrupt at some point?
Nope! NOTHING!!!

Grace is all...it is all that matters in the end.

[blossomingtree]

Sounds to me like an inane barrage against Tony Parsons, and fair enough, if people don't like it, or if doesn't make any sense, then don't accept it - as we all have to discern for ourselves what seems valid or meritorious, but we go astray when we try to convince others to discern the same thing as we ourselves do.

I'm really a bit of a fan of the non dual teachers, including Sailor Bob, and I don't actually see too much contradiction in their 'message'. I think people start to get angsty, not because of what any of these so called teachers say per-se, but because of the influence they might wield - so it's ultimately about a power game.


Hi Gem

Based on your contributions including "haters gonna hate" and this is a "power game" I'm glad to hear you continue to talk on these forums about your lack of attachment to (or just in general) lack of opinions and judgements. It's good to be good.

As to not seeing contradictions, on the one hand you say that you are not versed in it, and on the other you make this claim. I would suggest that the reason Neo-Advaitans are so heavily criticized, including by Advaita-Vedanta groups, is because they corrupt the insights and intentions of the original Advaita-Vedanta teachers.

As you were brought up in Buddhism, but perhaps lack faith completely in the Buddha's teachings (given that the traditional Buddha has passed although you may have heard before that Buddha transcends and encompasses Gautama Buddha), perhaps you could still understand why, if the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths - the last being, there is a way to end suffering. And someone interpreted this as "suffering is actually your cat, and all you have to do is end your relationship with your cat, and it is done. No more effort required"; it might also come under criticism from Buddhists. That criticism is not a power play, it is a legitimate care and concern over an area that is taken seriously. It is taken seriously not because it is an ego game, it is taken seriously because it is the very epitome and answer to the ego games of the world, and to the suffering that is real to many. It is loved therein.

In other words, it emanates from respect and care, compassion and responsibility.

Believe it or not, these are genuine Buddhist trademarks, and why Gautama Buddha and many after him, taught and continue to teach.

BT

[Gem]

Hi Gem

Based on your contributions including "haters gonna hate" and this is a "power game" I'm glad to hear you continue to talk on these forums about your lack of attachment to (or just in general) lack of opinions and judgements. It's good to be good.

Well, I really have no attachment to any NA TA at all. As I said before, if all teachings of all religions were suddenly gone, I wouldn't worry about it at all.

As to not seeing contradictions, on the one hand you say that you are not versed in it

Correct, I have heard a few speakers, and I generally like them, and what they say, but that said, any opinion I might have would be terribly uninformed.

on the other you make this claim. I would suggest that the reason Neo-Advaitans are so heavily criticized, including by Advaita-Vedanta groups, is because they corrupt the insights and intentions of the original Advaita-Vedanta teachers.

I can't remember saying that. I think it might be someone else.


As you were brought up in Buddhism, but perhaps lack faith completely in the Buddha's teachings (given that the traditional Buddha has passed although you may have heard before that Buddha transcends and encompasses Gautama Buddha), perhaps you could still understand why, if the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths - the last being, there is a way to end suffering. And someone interpreted this as "suffering is actually your cat, and all you have to do is end your relationship with your cat, and it is done. No more effort required"; it might also come under criticism from Buddhists. That criticism is not a power play, it is a legitimate care and concern over an area that is taken seriously. It is taken seriously not because it is an ego game, it is taken seriously because it is the very epitome and answer to the ego games of the world, and to the suffering that is real to many. It is loved therein.

Yes, I am far better versed in Buddhist teachings, but by no means an expert.

Buddhist teaching isn't really a faith, though there are many that take it as such, because the 'learning' is based in insight, which is like transformational realisation rather than acquired knowledge.

I suggest no one would say suffering is your cat, but Buddhist teaching is based in the truths, there is suffering, suffering is caused, and suffering can end. Everyone is aware of the first. The others are a little more obscure.

I pointed out the power dynamics associated with knowledge, after saying aspects of teachings can be fairly criticised. I did explain it pretty well. Parsons is 'the teacher who knows' and that gives him power of influence, this entails resistance, and hence the exert and resist dynamic.

In other words, it emanates from respect and care, compassion and responsibility.

I think I harbour such qualities and I quite like Parsons and what he says along with ND teachers in general.

Believe it or not, these are genuine Buddhist trademarks, and why Gautama Buddha and many after him, taught and continue to teach.

BT

Yes, I have immersed myself in sittings and sanghas, so am aware of the heartfelt nature of it.

[Gem]

Thanks for the satori.

Maybe 'fixing' was the first thing that came to my mind when 'attaining balance' would be a better fit, however if everything already is balanced, what is there to attain?

It is also a mental exercise, like a set of scales and we see that there are 2kg of oranges on one side, yet only 1kg on the other side, so we try and either remove 500gms from the 2kg side and put it on the 1kg side...or remove the whole 1kg of oranges from the 2kg side...or place an extra 1kg of oranges on the 1kg side...then we say "there we go...FIXED!" lol

We hardly ever remove ALL the oranges and say "FIXED" eh?

For me it is balance, awareness, equanimity. Nothing else.

[Joe Mc]

Hi JoeMc

There is nothing that logic cannot argue - no matter which way that argument falls. That is the very definition and by-product of samsara and hence conflicts. We can say the same about what we ourselves say. Therefore what is the fundamental difference? From my vantage point, to bloom in Buddhist or spiritual or Rumi terms is to transcend the ordinary mind/consciousness. It is said in an easy way but it is not a easy path {according to Bartholomew of these forums, it takes many lifetimes, but that is not an area I am learned in}. This is a transcendence of ordinary consciousness, and the human intellect - although of course the latter is still utilized.

To some extent, I understand and can sympathize with the appeal of a an apparently* simple message such as those from the so-called Neo-Advaita group. I sympathize with the wish for this to just be "the answer" - and if that is their wish, then may it be theirs... To be honest if it was not them, it would be another group selling something or perhaps a personality cult. Is there anything in this world that the human mind cannot and will not corrupt at some point? It is the same with Buddhism, it is the same with Christianity. There is no-one and nothing that is pristinely contained. In some ways, this lends itself to why genuine spiritual attainment is still so valuable. When Rumi spoke, well, don't we all just smile?

All this does not mean however, that we cannot point out misrepresentations where they occur, especially where they may cause error. For human beings whom like and seek out such a direction laid out by the so-called Neo-Advaitans, whom are content with the inherent fundamental shortfalls of genuine spiritual {i.e. inner} transformation, and find a "All is One" concept sufficiently satisfying for their inner lives and outer lives, I have no issue. There are significantly more harmful belief systems in this world.

However, it is a pity, in my opinion, to mislead a genuine aspirant. That said, a genuine aspirant would likely find themselves out of the mud pit at some stage, through Grace, God willing. As long as they are aware that the three course meal is available, as selling one's own spiritual growth short is never a good idea, in my opinion.

BT

*I say apparently because on the spiritual path continuum it would represent a drawback

I'm in congruence with what you say here and I have actually been to see the man himself, Tony the Parson on 2 occasions in London. I've also listened to several NA teachers whom I think are very genuine and clever people, clever in the sense that they have the tools and some understanding of a specific area like addiction to drink and drugs. Those 2 teachers being Sailor Bob Adamson and Paul Hedderman who both are in 'recovery' from substance abuse.

I felt a very great urge to shout about this stuff NA vs TA about 10 years ago when I first encountered it, it was very fresh to me and I could see the distinctions quite clearly, especially around practicing and the need for some kind of thing we call practice whether that be a formal meditation or a way of life containing ethics etc.

The message being at the time that you don't need any practices to awaken, in fact, they are a hindrance so that kinda infuriated me lol. So you have a teacher like Paul H. who always references Ramana Maharshi and the Great Chinese Chan Master Wang Po. Wang Po said "you can't use the Buddha to find the Buddha ", in other words you already are the Buddha but the irony perhaps being that Wang Po had been meditating all his life when he made that statement !? I know many teachers have addressed this issue of practice but my own mind is kinda tired of that debate to be honest, if they need to address the issue it kinda says alot to me about the issue in the first place lol sorry that makes alot of sense, my last statement.

One other issue I have is probably to do with the dynamic of writing which none of us claim to be much good at, Although I have noticed that Shivani Devi is a very good writer and that is always nice to come across. Yes, the writing, the writing, the writing. So you get someone like Iamit whom i hope doesnt mind me using his handle for arguments sake who is speaking writing lucidly and cogently about NT etc. Or better still you get someone like Joe Mc presenting NA ideas. Isn't it marvelous that we can do that here on Sf forum but the problem is I might only last 20 seconds in an interview with a good Zen master, he might even end up kicking the Ego out of me ! ? lol hahahaha so unfortunately the effectiveness of such an encounter between my good self and a good Zen master can not be replicated here on Sf typing school as valuable as the typing is. People try to bring forth such challenges and corrections to each other here all the time but its kinda limited i think.

Lastly I have some reservations about the whole NA phenomenon regarding its socio economic dynamics. I went along for a day to see Mooji. The event was for 3 days, and i calculated the takings for such an event were around 15000- 20,000 sterling at the time. Alot of money for a weekend. Obviously we all live in the real world and we have to live etc. but if those types of sums of money are becoming available to these teachers then it would be nice to know what they are doing with them, building ashrams etc. ? Anyways just something that always kinda bugs me a bit. Thanks blossomingtree for inspiring me to write a few thoughts down. Joe.

Ps. I was just about to meditate when this thought sprung to mind and bugged me to be written down. There was a time when my friend went to see mooji in his flat in Brixton London, I was invited too but couldn't make it. Within the space of a few short months a year or so, there was no longer room at Mooji's place, so the Satsangs were held in halls etc. Mooji has a very big following now i believe, thousands of followers I suspect. Alongside this, there is a Tibetan Buddhist centre I pop along to now and then, in fact im going there tomorrow to help with the lunch. I first attended that centre around 1996 and not much has change in those 20 years or so. The dynamics of the centre which are built around the teacher panchen rimpoche have more or less stayed the same..The same number of guests, same levels of activity etc. It just brings up a few questions in my own mind. Perhaps what is on offer with Mooji is cheap, cheerful and accessible hence the vast numbers or perhaps he is a fully enlightened being radiating shakti to all on sundry. Perhaps panchen rimpoche is a bad teacher lol..There was a line in a song in Paul Weller song, he was in a band called the Jam at the time and it said ..." The public gets what the public wants but i want nothing this society wants, im going underground.." Anyway more food for thought. thanks.

Zen Master : Show me your original face !
NA Student : No, I haven't got one
Zen Master : Yes you have !!!!!!!
NA Student : No I definitely haven't got one !
Zen Master : Bang !!!!
NA Student : Wobbles !

:) /\

[Shivani Devi]

but if those types of sums of money are becoming available to these teachers then it would be nice to know what they are doing with them, building ashrams etc. ? I saw a video of Mooji the other day in Rishikesh, giving satsanga there.

What struck me and stood out was he was wearing a very special mala (rosary).

It was comprised of 54 Gauri Shankar Rudrakshas (double, conjoined Rudrakshas), all gold-capped, with a huge eka mukhi rudraksha (single faced) at the end of it.

These types of rudraksha beads are extremely rare and on eBay, they can fetch between $800 - $900 each!

I was like "oh wow, I'm looking at a mala costing close on 100 grand here!" and it distracted me from the whole lecture. lol

[Shivani Devi]

I posted this elsewhere...on the "Is Reality Perfect" thread, but I feel it bears a mention here also:

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*?"

[Gem]

I saw a video of Mooji the other day in Rishikesh, giving satsanga there.

What struck me and stood out was he was wearing a very special mala (rosary).

It was comprised of 54 Gauri Shankar Rudrakshas (double, conjoined Rudrakshas), all gold-capped, with a huge eka mukhi rudraksha (single faced) at the end of it.

These types of rudraksha beads are extremely rare and on eBay, they can fetch between $800 - $900 each!

I was like "oh wow, I'm looking at a mala costing close on 100 grand here!" and it distracted me from the whole lecture. lolNow there's some serious bling bling

[Joe Mc]

I saw a video of Mooji the other day in Rishikesh, giving satsanga there.

What struck me and stood out was he was wearing a very special mala (rosary).

It was comprised of 54 Gauri Shankar Rudrakshas (double, conjoined Rudrakshas), all gold-capped, with a huge eka mukhi rudraksha (single faced) at the end of it.

These types of rudraksha beads are extremely rare and on eBay, they can fetch between $800 - $900 each!here

I was like "oh wow, I'm looking at a mala costing close on 100 grand here!" and it distracted me from the whole lecture. lol

Woww big bucks even if it were an imitation lol, I'm sure your looking at fairly big money. Not bad for community College Arts teacher, they must have increased the wages since I was working in a college in London. lol I've noticed Mooji likes the more traditional things, people touching his feet etc. and the robe and all of that ? Maybe when they introduce the minimum wage for New age and neo advaitin gurus he will have to sell it and buy a cheaper type. Maybe he could sell it to Adyashanti ?

[Shivani Devi]

Woww big bucks even if it were an imitation lol, I'm sure your looking at fairly big money. Not bad for community College Arts teacher, they must have increased the wages since I was working in a college in London. lol I've notice Mooji likes the more traditional things, people touching his feet etc. and the robe and all of that ? Not sure if there is alot wrong in that but hey the weekend i went to see him, there was at least 300-400 people there each day for 3 days at 10 quid sterling ahead, so yep that necklace would cost two big events for mooji ? :rolleyes:
Maybe it was a gift from a wealthy follower?, who knows how he got it.
It also could be an imitation, because you can't tell real gold from fake online either..but seeing as how I'd just like ONE Gauri Shankar but know I'll never be able to afford it...

[Shivani Devi]

Apart from Moojis wardrobe, any thoughts?

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*?"

[Shivani Devi]

...and I bet the post above will see no replies either. ;)

[blossomingtree]

Apart from Moojis wardrobe, any thoughts?

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*?"

Hi Shivani Devi, in the hope that you are still reading, I offer you this:

I used to believe people like .. Tony Parsons who said that after awakening .. the personality won't change, and there won't necessarily be any more joy, intimacy or compassion in life. In fact, after awakening, you could still be suicidally depressed, or violent, or even a serial killer, they said!

At first, it felt like such a relief to hear this radical and shocking message - it made awakening sound so simple, so down to earth, so accessible, so... ordinary. "Before awakening I'm a jerk, after awakening I'm a jerk. And I'm allowed to be a jerk now because I'm liberated and nobody can touch me. Oh and by the way, there is no me and no choice. Jerkness just happens. So what. Who cares. Get over it, sad seeker." The ego celebrated - it now had carte blanche. No responsibility! No punishment! Free reign! Nobody here! Yippee! The search was over!

I've come to see that this "neo-Advaita" message, as it's now known, is very one-sided. It's partially true, exquisitely simple, but it's not by any means the full picture (nothing is!) and can be so damaging if mis-spoken or mis-heard or mis-used.

- Jeff Foster

https://en-gb.facebook.com/LifeWithoutACentre/posts/436682189762728

It seems to speak to what you mention, and is also affirmed by another poster on these Boards who noted that he was tired of people telling him that he was not enough and hence he vigorously defends Neo-Advaita (as it is his lifeline).

As to spiritual experiences, I trust many have had them, but not all talk of them. For those that haven't, it is probably normal to be skeptical, suspicious, or uninterested. It doesn't really matter (to me) as I do believe that those whom sincerely and accurately (relatively speaking) apply themselves to spiritual practice, they will receive the appropriate spiritual feedback. What matters more, in my opinion, is that practice is furthered.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Parsons is 'the teacher who knows' and that gives him power of influence, this entails resistance, and hence the exert and resist dynamic.

Hardly. There are many cult leaders with influence, there are Presidents with influence, there are spiritual leaders who know, and some who don't, some talk, others do not.

Spiritual teachers, where they are benign, have genuine realization, and help their followers know the high spiritual truths -- well, there cannot be enough of them.

BT

[blossomingtree]

I'm in congruence with what you say here and I have actually been to see the man himself, Tony the Parson on 2 occasions in London. I've also listened to several NA teachers whom I think are very genuine and clever people, clever in the sense that they have the tools and some understanding of a specific area like addiction to drink and drugs. Those 2 teachers being Sailor Bob Adamson and Paul Hedderman who both are in 'recovery' from substance abuse.

I felt a very great urge to shout about this stuff NA vs TA about 10 years ago when I first encountered it, it was very fresh to me and I could see the distinctions quite clearly, especially around practicing and the need for some kind of thing we call practice whether that be a formal meditation or a way of life containing ethics etc.

The message being at the time that you don't need any practices to awaken, in fact, they are a hindrance so that kinda infuriated me lol. So you have a teacher like Paul H. who always references Ramana Maharshi and the Great Chinese Chan Master Wang Po. Wang Po said "you can't use the Buddha to find the Buddha ", in other words you already are the Buddha but the irony perhaps being that Wang Po had been meditating all his life when he made that statement !? I know many teachers have addressed this issue of practice but my own mind is kinda tired of that debate to be honest, if they need to address the issue it kinda says alot to me about the issue in the first place lol sorry that makes alot of sense, my last statement.

One other issue I have is probably to do with the dynamic of writing which none of us claim to be much good at, Although I have noticed that Shivani Devi is a very good writer and that is always nice to come across. Yes, the writing, the writing, the writing. So you get someone like Iamit whom i hope doesnt mind me using his handle for arguments sake who is speaking writing lucidly and cogently about NT etc. Or better still you get someone like Joe Mc presenting NA ideas. Isn't it marvelous that we can do that here on Sf forum but the problem is I might only last 20 seconds in an interview with a good Zen master, he might even end up kicking the Ego out of me ! ? lol hahahaha so unfortunately the effectiveness of such an encounter between my good self and a good Zen master can not be replicated here on Sf typing school as valuable as the typing is. People try to bring forth such challenges and corrections to each other here all the time but its kinda limited i think.

Lastly I have some reservations about the whole NA phenomenon regarding its socio economic dynamics. I went along for a day to see Mooji. The event was for 3 days, and i calculated the takings for such an event were around 15000- 20,000 sterling at the time. Alot of money for a weekend. Obviously we all live in the real world and we have to live etc. but if those types of sums of money are becoming available to these teachers then it would be nice to know what they are doing with them, building ashrams etc. ? Anyways just something that always kinda bugs me a bit. Thanks blossomingtree for inspiring me to write a few thoughts down. Joe.

Ps. I was just about to meditate when this thought sprung to mind and bugged me to be written down. There was a time when my friend went to see mooji in his flat in Brixton London, I was invited too but couldn't make it. Within the space of a few short months a year or so, there was no longer room at Mooji's place, so the Satsangs were held in halls etc. Mooji has a very big following now i believe, thousands of followers I suspect. Alongside this, there is a Tibetan Buddhist centre I pop along to now and then, in fact im going there tomorrow to help with the lunch. I first attended that centre around 1996 and not much has change in those 20 years or so. The dynamics of the centre which are built around the teacher panchen rimpoche have more or less stayed the same..The same number of guests, same levels of activity etc. It just brings up a few questions in my own mind. Perhaps what is on offer with Mooji is cheap, cheerful and accessible hence the vast numbers or perhaps he is a fully enlightened being radiating shakti to all on sundry. Perhaps panchen rimpoche is a bad teacher lol..There was a line in a song in Paul Weller song, he was in a band called the Jam at the time and it said ..." The public gets what the public wants but i want nothing this society wants, im going underground.." Anyway more food for thought. thanks.

Zen Master : Show me your original face !
NA Student : No, I haven't got one
Zen Master : Yes you have !!!!!!!
NA Student : No I definitely haven't got one !
Zen Master : Bang !!!!
NA Student : Wobbles !

:) /\

A Zen Master doesn't allow/accept intellectual responses, that's part of the test. Finding a real Zen Master is a boon but not impossible, I guess.

[Gem]

Hardly. There are many cult leaders with influence, there are Presidents with influence, there are spiritual leaders who know, and some who don't, some talk, others do not.

Spiritual teachers, where they are benign, have genuine realization, and help their followers know the high spiritual truths -- well, there cannot be enough of them.

BT

My point is, no one cares what he says, only about the influence he has. In the discrediting of what he says there is a resistance to said power of influence, by undermining the knowledge.

[blossomingtree]

My point is, no one cares what he says, only about the influence he has. In the discrediting of what he says there is a resistance to said power of influence, by undermining the knowledge.

Really? That's news to me. So according to your judgement(s), this has nothing to do with what is postulated, and everything to do with said power games, or "haters gonna hate". Interesting extrapolation and kind of comedic in its simplicity.

PS If someone said the Earth is flat for a fee, and it was pointed out that that is probably not quite kosher :wink: - can you see how even your assumption of "knowledge" falls short? Pointing that out is not undermining knowledge, because the postulation was a gimmick in the first place. I urge you not to work in any field of research :D

Be well.

BT

[Gem]

Really? That's news to me. So according to your judgement(s), this has nothing to do with what is postulated, and everything to do with said power games, or "haters gonna hate". Interesting extrapolation and kind of comedic in its simplicity.

I think I said "h8ers gun h8", and it was intentionally comedic.

My Blurb on knowledge, power and inherent resistance was more sublime and complex.

PS If someone said the Earth is flat for a fee, and it was pointed out that that is probably not quite kosher :wink: - can you see how even your assumption of "knowledge" falls short? Pointing that out is not undermining knowledge, because the postulation was a gimmick in the first place. I urge you not to work in any field of research :D

Be well.

BT

It was necessary for me to understand the operations of knowledge due to the consequences of the sort of knowledge I produced.

[blossomingtree]

My Blurb on knowledge, power and inherent resistance was more sublime and complex.

This is how you see it, I agree.

BT

[Gem]

This is how you see it, I agree.

BT

I see things as they are, and the above is an attempt to undermine what I say, innit.

[blossomingtree]

I see things as they are, and the above is an attempt to undermine what I say, innit.

Now it feels a bit more honest.

"I see things as they are"

Quite the authoritarian statement :D Feel free to keep seeing things as you see them, and judging them how you evaluate them - that's the beauty of free will, but it's not the truth of the matter. To think otherwise is tyrannical, but then again, I don't see how you've ever let information get in the way of your truths. :smile:

BT

[Shivani Devi]

I liked this, so I'm gonna drop it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

[Gem]

Now it feels a bit more honest.

"I see things as they are"

Quite the authoritarian statement :D Feel free to keep seeing things as you see them, and judging them how you evaluate them - that's the beauty of free will, but it's not the truth of the matter. To think otherwise is tyrannical, but then again, I don't see how you've ever let information get in the way of your truths. :smile:

BT

I know the game so it's practically impossible to play me.

[Gem]

I liked this, so I'm gonna drop it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Oh yea, I've seen that one before, nice parody.

[blossomingtree]

I know the game so it's practically impossible to play me.

I like how this more honest Gem is coming out. Game? lol - there is no game. In fact, so many of your sidesteps through these threads have been intentionally overlooked or only lightly parsed for fear of offending your sensibilities and beliefs. That you think it is a game is again one of your judgements, which again I do not agree with you on - but again will not pierce to the heart of your statements for fear of hurting your feelings and self.

Be well,

BT

[blossomingtree]

I liked this, so I'm gonna drop it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Cute.

I note that it's the dude from Post 30 of this thread (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118554&page=3) - Jeff Foster:

"AWAKENING FROM AWAKENING

I used to believe people like .. Tony Parsons who said that after awakening.., the personality won't change, and there won't necessarily be any more joy, intimacy or compassion in life. In fact, after awakening, you could still be suicidally depressed, or violent, or even a serial killer, they said!

At first, it felt like such a relief to hear this radical and shocking message - it made awakening sound so simple, so down to earth, so accessible, so... ordinary. "Before awakening I'm a jerk, after awakening I'm a jerk. And I'm allowed to be a jerk now because I'm liberated and nobody can touch me. Oh and by the way, there is no me and no choice. Jerkness just happens. So what. Who cares. Get over it, sad seeker." The ego celebrated - it now had carte blanche. No responsibility! No punishment! Free reign! Nobody here! Yippee! The search was over!

I've come to see that this "neo-Advaita" message, as it's now known, is very one-sided. It's partially true, exquisitely simple, but it's not by any means the full picture (nothing is!) and can be so damaging if mis-spoken or mis-heard or mis-used."

[Shivani Devi]

It appears as if these neo-advaitins wish to have their cake and eat it too, but the cake is a lie.

Having said that, in the true spirit of Adi Shankarachraya, my gloves are coming off and of course, there's no "my" and no "gloves" and no Shankaracharya, but if we are to talk the whole 'mind game scenario'...'Oneness' can play it brilliantly - observe.

[God-Like]

It appears as if these neo-advaitins wish to have their cake and eat it too, but the cake is a lie.

Having said that, in the true spirit of Adi Shankarachraya, my gloves are coming off and of course, there's no "my" and no "gloves" and no Shankaracharya, but if we are to talk the whole 'mind game scenario'...'Oneness' can play it brilliantly - observe.


I remember having chats with a chap who renounced his very self .

There is no you or me here what's happening is just happening .. to no-one blah blah blah ..

He spoke about neo teachers and I asked him, if such teachers are not here, why do they continue to preach and teach the masses that are 'not here' .

Why make money from those that are not here, and why make money for yourself that is not here also ..

It is like saying there is no cake, but that will be £5 a slice please .


x daz x

[Shivani Devi]

I remember having chats with a chap who renounced his very self .

There is no you or me here what's happening is just happening .. to no-one blah blah blah ..

He spoke about neo teachers and I asked him, if such teachers are not here, why do they continue to preach and teach the masses that are 'not here' .

Why make money from those that are not here, and why make money for yourself that is not here also ..

It is like saying there is no cake, but that will be £5 a slice please .


x daz xThere is no self and therefore there is no renunciation as there is nothing to 'renounce'. There is nothing that is 'happening' to anyone and there are no neo teachers preaching anything for there is no preaching, no 'masses' and there is no money...no cake...etc

[God-Like]

There is no self and therefore there is no renunciation as there is nothing to 'renounce'. There is nothing that is 'happening' to anyone and there are no neo teachers preaching anything for there is no preaching, no 'masses' and there is no money...no cake...etc

and yet cake is still for sale and cake is brought and eaten, books on Neo stuff is read and digested along with the cake .

Satsangs are held and feelings are felt, feelings are hurt, ego's are bolstered and bruised .. all that can be said is that it is happening, without due cause ...

No answers as to why one does anything, there's nothing do be done and yet here we are .. carrying on as if there is someone here ..

I wonder how many Neo's actually behave / live life as if there is no-one here ..

Where does the truth of what they say come from? Who are they preaching their truth's too?

No-one?

Why bother to speak one's truth's to no-one ..

To say it's just happening is denying their intent to do so .

Where there is intent, there is someone intending .



x daz x

[Shivani Devi]

and yet cake is still for sale and cake is brought and eaten, books on Neo stuff is read and digested along with the cake .

Satsangs are held and feelings are felt, feelings are hurt, ego's are bolstered and bruised .. all that can be said is that it is happening, without due cause ...

No answers as to why one does anything, there's nothing do be done and yet here we are .. carrying on as if there is someone here ..

I wonder how many Neo's actually behave / live life as if there is no-one here ..

Where does the truth of what they say come from? Who are they preaching their truth's too?

No-one?

Why bother to speak one's truth's to no-one ..

To say it's just happening is denying their intent to do so .

Where there is intent, there is someone intending .



x daz xIf the philosophy is taken that only 'Oneness' or 'Brahman' exists, then everything that is not 'that' will be seen as an 'illusion' or 'Maya'. However, it is not seen that way until it has been experientially realised and until that is achieved, it will be like "I do not exist" and "you do not exist" and yet, the 'teachings' exist and 'money' exists for the benefit of 'no-one' who will enjoy spending it all. It is all hypocritical rubbish.

To realise the true nature of 'Oneness/Brahman' is to do away with all concepts and even the concept of there being no concepts whatsoever. It means to totally drop the mind and not indulge it in speculative nonsensical permutations. One cannot go 'half-way' into Advaita, saying "this does not exist, but that does" because it defeats the whole point and purpose. They either go fully there....or not at all.

Either nothing exists or everything does...and that is the true nature of non-duality, but to say that some things exist whilst other things do not, shows they are still totally mired in the dual paradigm. It is the whole reasoning behind my little exercise here...but of course, I'm not typing this and you're not reading it and there are no words appearing on your PC screen either. :tongue:

[Gem]

I like how this more honest Gem is coming out. Game? lol - there is no game. In fact, so many of your sidesteps through these threads have been intentionally overlooked or only lightly parsed for fear of offending your sensibilities and beliefs. That you think it is a game is again one of your judgements, which again I do not agree with you on - but again will not pierce to the heart of your statements for fear of hurting your feelings and self.

Be well,

BT

I'm sure the game is perfectly obvious now.

[Gem]

and yet cake is still for sale and cake is brought and eaten, books on Neo stuff is read and digested along with the cake .

Satsangs are held and feelings are felt, feelings are hurt, ego's are bolstered and bruised .. all that can be said is that it is happening, without due cause ...

No answers as to why one does anything, there's nothing do be done and yet here we are .. carrying on as if there is someone here ..

I wonder how many Neo's actually behave / live life as if there is no-one here ..

Where does the truth of what they say come from? Who are they preaching their truth's too?

No-one?

Why bother to speak one's truth's to no-one ..

To say it's just happening is denying their intent to do so .

Where there is intent, there is someone intending .



x daz x

Bolded bit makes sense in the Buddhist philosophical context, but not that there is someone intending per-se, but in the sense that intent is the 'urge to move the mind' - the 'cause' if you will. The Buddhist interpretation is, intent and kamma are the same thing, so myself being schooled a little in Buddhist philosophy, the bolded 'rings a bell'.

[Jyotir]

Hi Moondance,

Sorry I missed this a few pages back (your reply in this thread, #20?).

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.

The TA vs. NA thing is admittedly an artificial canard of comparison and binary/exclusionary choice. Use what works, but also understand what doesn’t, and why. That is wisdom. Experience shows this. Theory doesn’t.

The whole discussion boils down to the viability of theory - in practice - and what differentiates theory from practice, practice from experience, and experience from realization. This is what constitutes discrimination. And the proof is in the pudding as they say. In that sense, the NA vs. TA debate is missing the point, and that point is well taken, and no need to indulge. However, it also needs to be said, and why these discussions come up - is that in many ways NA often as promulgated is missing the greater most important point - that a mere conceptualizing of theory in a virtually closed loop is the actual practice, while claiming (falsely) that “practice has been obviated” by virtue of this incessant conceptualizing - and therein is the crux of the debate and why it arises in contemporary spiritual discussions.

That speaks to your next comment, e.g., the “extraordinary position”, which is taken as if by a metaphoric octopus of unquestioned assumptions which form the many tentacled theoretical basis of NA, and I’ve heard these repeatedly, dogmatically, and unqualified by evident understanding (or practical demonstration) of the implications in many spiritual discussions, for years: There is “no person“, “no truth“, “no goal“, “no volition“, “no practice“, “no enlightenment“, “no guru“, “no path“, and significantly, “no realization”, etc., as well as many false unquestioned assumptions as the basis of the previous litany, plus further rhetoric, i.e.: that “social conditioning’ is the basis of ego”; it is “not possible to know whether someone is enlightened or not”, or that “differentiation is the same as separation”, “there is ONLY oneness”, etc. - some of these directly from SF, - all of it constituting a facile 2 dimensional ‘neti-neti’ that is unfortunately an inch deep and a mile wide - and apparently spreading. In other words, you can only dip your toe into it - even the octopus will eventually expire.

The problematic nature of this, is that mentally polarized people with little experience find this so-called ‘philosophy’ very alluring as a complete ‘package’ in its superficial ease and promise of instant result - and of course you can have both, as long as you also enable a substantial naiveté, evasion, or denial, and become complacent in a mentally induced dogmatic stasis. Instant realization can be had, but of what quality? For instance, I'm sure that according to these heatedly discussed doctrines, all of the participants in the recent Victory's Secret show in Shanghai are definitely 'realized' (in some way!)!

Then again, even that is an experience like any other if warranted by the standard possessed of any given seeker. Eventually the spiritual hunger emergent as aspiration which originates in the truth of existence itself is the true impetus, and even a mentally induced straightjacket can hopefully be gotten out of and walked away from (or transformed) with the resolve to “never do that again”. But this is why time is a significant factor in the physical evolutionary scheme, and is related to ‘ripeness‘ as you suggest. That is a given. But some refuse-niks choose to renounce that possibility for guaranteed tenure in the philosopher's arm-chair. Oh well. To each his own and let a thousand flowers bloom!

Realization is a continuous journey, ever born out of experience which in the physical plane can only be regarded as truly viable if it is also practical according to the evolutionary requirement and context for any differentiated individual. But just because life/the universe is unfathomable doesn’t mean it is nonsensical - or unexperienceable. In that regard, mind is not sufficient as an expedient alone, because mind is not the whole reality or the entire available cognition of a human being. Unfortunately the operative principle in NA theory appears to be exclusively mental.

Even those so-called rare cases that appear to explode out of nowhere, like Ramana Maharshi, are often due to lifetimes of preparatory experience unseen in the present incarnation - we just don’t see that ‘wood chopping’ - only the current phenomenon which seems evidently like ‘spontaneous combustion’. Often it is a genuine guru who does light the match, and this too may not be seen on the surface as obvious or anecdotally available. But the superficial appearance suggests otherwise for those enamoured of the illusion and who want a facile “me too” instant fix. It is perhaps a cultural phenomenon, a by-product of industrial post-modern culture, where mind predominates, expectation for facility is high and dedication is low. Like pixels dancing on a screen as integral 'reality' - a temptation of the current milieu of sorts. There is a close parallel in Christianity with the so-called “born again” phenomenon of orientation, which is very similar structurally to NA in the actual application. Perhaps the origin of NA was 'realization envy' of some similarly misconstrued contemporary Christian religious doctrine. It does get a lot of fence-sitters 'in the door' though.




~ J

[Moondance]

Hi Moondance,

Sorry I missed this a few pages back (your reply in this thread, #20?).



The TA vs. NA thing is admittedly an artificial canard of comparison and binary/exclusionary choice. Use what works, but also understand what doesn’t, and why. That is wisdom. Experience shows this. Theory doesn’t.

The whole discussion boils down to the viability of theory - in practice - and what differentiates theory from practice, practice from experience, and experience from realization. This is what constitutes discrimination. And the proof is in the pudding as they say. In that sense, the NA vs. TA debate is missing the point, and that point is well taken, and no need to indulge. However, it also needs to be said, and why these discussions come up - is that in many ways NA often as promulgated is missing the greater most important point - that a mere conceptualizing of theory in a virtually closed loop is the actual practice, while claiming (falsely) that “practice has been obviated” by virtue of this incessant conceptualizing - and therein is the crux of the debate and why it arises in contemporary spiritual discussions.

That speaks to your next comment, e.g., the “extraordinary position”, which is taken as if by a metaphoric octopus of unquestioned assumptions which form the many tentacled theoretical basis of NA, and I’ve heard these repeatedly, dogmatically, and unqualified by evident understanding (or practical demonstration) of the implications in many spiritual discussions, for years: There is “no person“, “no truth“, “no goal“, “no volition“, “no practice“, “no enlightenment“, “no guru“, “no path“, and significantly, “no realization”, etc., as well as many false unquestioned assumptions as the basis of the previous litany, plus further rhetoric, i.e.: that “social conditioning’ is the basis of ego”; it is “not possible to know whether someone is enlightened or not”, or that “differentiation is the same as separation”, “there is ONLY oneness”, etc. - some of these directly from SF, - all of it constituting a facile 2 dimensional ‘neti-neti’ that is unfortunately an inch deep and a mile wide - and apparently spreading. In other words, you can only dip your toe into it - even the octopus will eventually expire.

The problematic nature of this, is that mentally polarized people with little experience find this so-called ‘philosophy’ very alluring as a complete ‘package’ in its superficial ease and promise of instant result - and of course you can have both, as long as you also enable a substantial naiveté, evasion, or denial, and become complacent in a mentally induced dogmatic stasis. Instant realization can be had, but of what quality? For instance, I'm sure that according to these heatedly discussed doctrines, all of the participants in the recent Victory's Secret show in Shanghai are definitely 'realized' (in some way!)!

Then again, even that is an experience like any other if warranted by the standard possessed of any given seeker. Eventually the spiritual hunger emergent as aspiration which originates in the truth of existence itself is the true impetus, and even a mentally induced straightjacket can hopefully be gotten out of and walked away from (or transformed) with the resolve to “never do that again”. But this is why time is a significant factor in the physical evolutionary scheme, and is related to ‘ripeness‘ as you suggest. That is a given. But some refuse-niks choose to renounce that possibility for guaranteed tenure in the philosopher's arm-chair. Oh well. To each his own and let a thousand flowers bloom!

Realization is a continuous journey, ever born out of experience which in the physical plane can only be regarded as truly viable if it is also practical according to the evolutionary requirement and context for any differentiated individual. But just because life/the universe is unfathomable doesn’t mean it is nonsensical - or unexperienceable. In that regard, mind is not sufficient as an expedient alone, because mind is not the whole reality or the entire available cognition of a human being. Unfortunately the operative principle in NA theory appears to be exclusively mental.

Even those so-called rare cases that appear to explode out of nowhere, like Ramana Maharshi, are often due to lifetimes of preparatory experience unseen in the present incarnation - we just don’t see that ‘wood chopping’ - only the current phenomenon which seems evidently like ‘spontaneous combustion’. Often it is a genuine guru who does light the match, and this too may not be seen on the surface as obvious or anecdotally available. But the superficial appearance suggests otherwise for those enamoured of the illusion and who want a facile “me too” instant fix. It is perhaps a cultural phenomenon, a by-product of industrial post-modern culture, where mind predominates, expectation for facility is high and dedication is low. Like pixels dancing on a screen as integral 'reality' - a temptation of the current milieu of sorts. There is a close parallel in Christianity with the so-called “born again” phenomenon of orientation, which is very similar structurally to NA in the actual application. Perhaps the origin of NA was 'realization envy' of some similarly misconstrued contemporary Christian religious doctrine. It does get a lot of fence-sitters 'in the door' though.




~ J

Thanks J. As usual, some sound and thoughtful points.

Firstly, let us be clear about something here. By NA do you mean (as many seem to) that handful of teachings/teachers from the Tony Parsons camp? That is, TP and his followers - which probably amounts to less than ten teachers (a teacher being someone who holds regular (actual) meetings and has had at least one book published - not self-styled YouTubers.) If so, my response is, really?! What’s all the fuss about? It’s hardly going to destabilise the establishment.

So surely that can’t be it. You must be including satsang teachers. If so, your argument holds far less weight. For a start, any critique of satsang as a means to liberation has to include Ramana Maharshi (also, Nisargadatta, Alan Watts, Balsekar, J. Krishnamurti etc. etc.) I have to insist that any argument against satsang that doesn’t include Ramana is without credibility (it’s obvious to me, having closely followed this debate for the last fifteen years or so [and I’ve had several conversations with Dennis Waite - the instigator of the NA meme] that the inclusion of Ramana into the TA fold is purely expedient due to his mass popularity.)

So why is your argument holding less weight in this case? Because the majority of satsang teachers (including the ones mentioned above) are advocates of practice of some kind. Not practice to become what you are, but practice in order to realise and assimilate your true nature. These teachers advocate meditation, self-inquiry, solitude etc. toward this end. And these teachers are very clear that ripeness (of the types I mentioned earlier) is essential.

Finally, do you honestly think that these ‘mentally polarized’ souls who are so content with a shallow intellectual gloss of a teaching would benefit from a traditional formal regime? Do you not think that they would simply coast along in a traditional setting dreaming up new narratives of spiritual depth and accomplishment? I’ve met some of these people. They’re now great at peppering their conversations with Sanskrit and they can quote sections of the Upanishads - but have they cut through the root of delusion? Realisation is rare, you know that. There are no formulas or guarantees of how this comes about - if there were this would be big news. Of course some teachings/approaches are worse than others - by all means, weed them out. I say, on a case by case basis.

[blossomingtree]

There is no self and therefore there is no renunciation as there is nothing to 'renounce'. There is nothing that is 'happening' to anyone and there are no neo teachers preaching anything for there is no preaching, no 'masses' and there is no money...no cake...etc

In many traditions, I would say those that I'm familiar with - Buddhism, Advaita-Vedanta and others - it is recognized that there is the Absolute/Ultimate view and the Relative.

I personally believe that it would be a mistake, not to mention a mind joke, to think that there is nothing and no-one and etc. - only.

Moreso when if we strip it all away, of course we are all needing words and concepts and operate subjectively - even the most enlightened recognize and utilize classifications, IMO, without necessarily giving in to those classifications.

Mistaking the Absolute for the Relative is a major mistake, not to mention it's just silly if we strip that all away. It would be like arriving at the truth of the Absolute through an intellectual cognition exercise - otherwise the Absolute and the Relative co-exist quite harmoniously and truly I would say (and this is the point of the practices IMO - to deeply realize this)

Gem (who keeps believing his own judgements despite saying he doesn't take heed), is an example of this pattern - claiming he doesn't exist, praising his mindfulness practice, and defending - what - probably his non-existent self!

There is Oneness and then there is inevitably distinction. It is my opinion that the Realized live in Oneness through the Soul and operate (realistically) and with discernment through Consciousness.

All Masters taught and taught virtue and loving kindness. They never said that they don't exist, as the principles of the Absolute and Relative co-exist very harmoniously in the Adepts. Of course I would suspect that they have the Absolute/Truth/Higher Self as their foremost guiding principle and soul - purpose - hence why they live in and as Soul.

Nagarjuna

“Those who do not understand the division of these two realities (Absolute and Relative) do not understand the profound true reality of the Buddha’s teaching. Without reliance on conventions, the ultimate cannot be taught. Without realization of the ultimate, Nirvana will not be attained.”

“Without love, and will inspired by love, nothing can be done. Merely talking about Reality without doing anything about it is self-defeating. There must be love in the relation between the person who says “I am” and the observer of that “I am.” As long as the observer, the inner self, the ‘higher’ self, considers himself apart from the observed, the ‘lower’ self, despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and, so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of ‘I’ and ‘this’ goes and in the identity of the outer and the inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself.

This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus.”

~Nisargadatta Maharaj


“When your realization of emptiness becomes as vast as the sky, you will gain an even greater conviction about the law of cause and effect, and you will see just how important your conduct really is. Relative truth functions inexorably within absolute truth.”

~Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche


My 2c.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Bolded bit makes sense in the Buddhist philosophical context, but not that there is someone intending per-se, but in the sense that intent is the 'urge to move the mind' - the 'cause' if you will. The Buddhist interpretation is, intent and kamma are the same thing, so myself being schooled a little in Buddhist philosophy, the bolded 'rings a bell'.

Here's what the Buddha taught -

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?

Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

[blossomingtree]

and yet cake is still for sale and cake is brought and eaten, books on Neo stuff is read and digested along with the cake .

Satsangs are held and feelings are felt, feelings are hurt, ego's are bolstered and bruised .. all that can be said is that it is happening, without due cause ...

No answers as to why one does anything, there's nothing do be done and yet here we are .. carrying on as if there is someone here ..

I wonder how many Neo's actually behave / live life as if there is no-one here ..

Where does the truth of what they say come from? Who are they preaching their truth's too?

No-one?

Why bother to speak one's truth's to no-one ..

To say it's just happening is denying their intent to do so .

Where there is intent, there is someone intending .

x daz x

Yes perfect people to fleece - you don't exist and neither does your $. Now give it all to this imaginary donor's box where I will spend it on nothing. :tongue:

More seriously, my suspicion is that there are three main ways people arrive at this place of "you don't exist":

1. Through mental cognition - translating the Truths spoken by the Adepts & Masters through the intellect - it is natural then that there is a divide here as the intellect (by itself) cannot cross that spiritual bridge and thus the individual unwittingly resorts to trying to rationalize (what would have been true) teachings. They then arrive at a belief system of trying to institute/implement the logic of Absolute Truth relatively, leading to an incomplete/misconstrued fruition of the essence.

Thanksgiving dinners are especially interesting when they eat the non-existent pumpkin pie :redface:

2. Suffering - unable to deal with and face one's own unhappiness, it is adopted as a welcome (although IMO misguided) tenure. "I" don't really exist, neither do my problems, and "you" don't exist either so I can try to play cool. "All is perfect and manifests in perfect balance within duality but falls into the Ultimate and Only Truth of Non-duality"

aka it sounds sorta smart in a convoluted way even if it is a bit of a mirage - but there are many worse ways one can deceive oneself IMO so if that is the course, so be it; hopefully no harm is done to anyone as a result

3. The idea appeals (may be due to a combo of 1 and 2) and/or seeker is simply sincere and tries this as an approach as they hear it and it appears to make sense so they give it a go...!?

BT

[Gem]

Here's what the Buddha taught -

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?

Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

Anatta is the general rule, but yes, Gotama typically avoided existential questions.

[Shivani Devi]

In many traditions, I would say those that I'm familiar with - Buddhism, Advaita-Vedanta and others - it is recognized that there is the Absolute/Ultimate view and the Relative.

I personally believe that it would be a mistake, not to mention a mind joke, to think that there is nothing and no-one and etc. - only.

Moreso when if we strip it all away, of course we are all needing words and concepts and operate subjectively - even the most enlightened recognize and utilize classifications, IMO, without necessarily giving in to those classifications.

Mistaking the Absolute for the Relative is a major mistake, not to mention it's just silly if we strip that all away. It would be like arriving at the truth of the Absolute through an intellectual cognition exercise - otherwise the Absolute and the Relative co-exist quite harmoniously and truly I would say (and this is the point of the practices IMO - to deeply realize this)

Gem (who keeps believing his own judgements despite saying he doesn't take heed), is an example of this pattern - claiming he doesn't exist, praising his mindfulness practice, and defending - what - probably his non-existent self!

There is Oneness and then there is inevitably distinction. It is my opinion that the Realized live in Oneness through the Soul and operate (realistically) and with discernment through Consciousness.

All Masters taught and taught virtue and loving kindness. They never said that they don't exist, as the principles of the Absolute and Relative co-exist very harmoniously in the Adepts. Of course I would suspect that they have the Absolute/Truth/Higher Self as their foremost guiding principle and soul - purpose - hence why they live in and as Soul.







My 2c.

BT
Of course. I was just giving an example of reductio ad absurdum.

It goes to illustrate what would happen to a Neo Advaitin who is only 'half way into it' if they would go up against a fully fledged Advaita Vedantin who was taught in the art of debate by Adi Shankaracharya himself.

I've also gone up against the best of the Advaita Philosophers...you know, for everything you say, they go "who are you?" "who is asking?" "where are you?", "why do you only think you are doing?" and "who is doing the thinking?" "who is observing the thought?" and on and on and on this would go...almost impossible to have a normal conversation with them...and I tell you right now, these Neo Advaitins have got nothing on those old Advaita Vedanta adepts with regards to ego negation....I'm just showing this.

The whole point is to ask questions which have no answers, to arrive to a point in the seeker where no more questions can be asked, no more thoughts can arise in their mind and they automatically go into meditative silence to realise the truth for themselves, seeking it internally instead of externally, in the world of name and form...Advaita Vedanta is an internal, silent path and not a loud, external one.

When an adept in Advaita is saying "who are you?" they are being like a Zen master who gives a koan - "show me your original face". It is meant as a meditation prompt.

This is what I was trying to illustrate, but people took it literally...as usual. :redface:

[blossomingtree]

Ahhh I see - gotcha and my bad. Thank you for that illustration, Shivani Devi. :smile:

BT

[Gem]

Of course. I was just giving an example of reductio ad absurdum.

It goes to illustrate what would happen to a Neo Advaitin who is only 'half way into it' if they would go up against a fully fledged Advaita Vedantin who was taught in the art of debate by Adi Shankaracharya himself.

I've also gone up against the best of the Advaita Philosophers...you know, for everything you say, they go "who are you?" "who is asking?" "where are you?", "why do you only think you are doing?" and "who is doing the thinking?" "who is observing the thought?" and on and on and on this would go...almost impossible to have a normal conversation with them...and I tell you right now, these Neo Advaitins have got nothing on those old Advaita Vedanta adepts with regards to ego negation....I'm just showing this.

The whole point is to ask questions which have no answers, to arrive to a point in the seeker where no more questions can be asked, no more thoughts can arise in their mind and they automatically go into meditative silence to realise the truth for themselves, seeking it internally instead of externally, in the world of name and form...Advaita Vedanta is an internal, silent path and not a loud, external one.

When an adept in Advaita is saying "who are you?" they are being like a Zen master who gives a koan - "show me your original face". It is meant as a meditation prompt.

That makes some sense!

This is what I was trying to illustrate, but people took it literally...as usual. :redface:

[God-Like]

Yes perfect people to fleece - you don't exist and neither does your $. Now give it all to this imaginary donor's box where I will spend it on nothing. :tongue:

More seriously, my suspicion is that there are three main ways people arrive at this place of "you don't exist":

1. Through mental cognition - translating the Truths spoken by the Adepts & Masters through the intellect - it is natural then that there is a divide here as the intellect (by itself) cannot cross that spiritual bridge and thus the individual unwittingly resorts to trying to rationalize (what would have been true) teachings. They then arrive at a belief system of trying to institute/implement the logic of Absolute Truth relatively, leading to an incomplete/misconstrued fruition of the essence.

Thanksgiving dinners are especially interesting when they eat the non-existent pumpkin pie :redface:

2. Suffering - unable to deal with and face one's own unhappiness, it is adopted as a welcome (although IMO misguided) tenure. "I" don't really exist, neither do my problems, and "you" don't exist either so I can try to play cool. "All is perfect and manifests in perfect balance within duality but falls into the Ultimate and Only Truth of Non-duality"

aka it sounds sorta smart in a convoluted way even if it is a bit of a mirage - but there are many worse ways one can deceive oneself IMO so if that is the course, so be it; hopefully no harm is done to anyone as a result

3. The idea appeals (may be due to a combo of 1 and 2) and/or seeker is simply sincere and tries this as an approach as they hear it and it appears to make sense so they give it a go...!?

BT

This is the main sticky point for me and what lies at the heart of the matter .

It is to do with their intent to teach / preach, write books, make money .

It's fine to do anything in this respect but to wash over their prime objective even if it's a deep longing to do God's work is something that can only be done through a willing channel / conduit / person / individual .

Any understanding had why one does anything is saturated with self identity and self references / associations .
If they believe all those things are illusions and nothing is real then why carry on an illusory experience .

Why continue to make money off the back of an illusion, why bother to teach? Why would an illusory person teach another illusory person about their illusory appearance / existence .

It makes no sense whatsoever, why would an illusory peep need help or why would a non existent person need to hear the truth of another illusory / conceptual story based upon their non existence .

What happens for some is that they continue the charade and continue to address the illusory masses, feed their ego to maintain status and wealth and brush it off as part of the illusion / story ..


x daz x

[God-Like]

Bolded bit makes sense in the Buddhist philosophical context, but not that there is someone intending per-se, but in the sense that intent is the 'urge to move the mind' - the 'cause' if you will. The Buddhist interpretation is, intent and kamma are the same thing, so myself being schooled a little in Buddhist philosophy, the bolded 'rings a bell'.

This intent / urge to move the mind must be acknowledged by an individual .

Some say there is no-one doing, there is only doing happening ..

It's quite convenient to leave out the middle man ..

Butt the middle man has to pick up the phone, it doesn't answer itself ..

Even an answering machine message is left by a peep :D


x daz x

[Gem]

This intent / urge to move the mind must be acknowledged by an individual .

Yes, so the individual is post rather than prior.

Some say there is no-one doing, there is only doing happening ..

It's quite convenient to leave out the middle man ..

Butt the middle man has to pick up the phone, it doesn't answer itself ..

Even an answering machine message is left by a peep :D


x daz x

[blossomingtree]

This is the main sticky point for me and what lies at the heart of the matter .

It is to do with their intent to teach / preach, write books, make money .

It's fine to do anything in this respect but to wash over their prime objective even if it's a deep longing to do God's work is something that can only be done through a willing channel / conduit / person / individual .

Any understanding had why one does anything is saturated with self identity and self references / associations .
If they believe all those things are illusions and nothing is real then why carry on an illusory experience .

Why continue to make money off the back of an illusion, why bother to teach? Why would an illusory person teach another illusory person about their illusory appearance / existence .

It makes no sense whatsoever, why would an illusory peep need help or why would a non existent person need to hear the truth of another illusory / conceptual story based upon their non existence .

What happens for some is that they continue the charade and continue to address the illusory masses, feed their ego to maintain status and wealth and brush it off as part of the illusion / story ..


x daz x

Yes, agreed. The money and fame are probably enticing, especially when these people (e.g. Tony Parsons (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=118554&page=3), whom I researched after discussions with Iamx on this forum) - have very limited spiritual depth, only imitation goods and somewhat convoluted logic, sold as wares. The material, as far as what I have seen, is also intellectually quite low-brow IMO and from what I see Iamx say, it's also manipulative (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1665778#post1665778) in many ways (from my perspective).

I do believe however that for some people, they genuinely "buy into" this belief system. i.e. It's something that they have intellectually computed as "believable" for them so the intellect does a bit of mental gymnastics to support their belief system/preferences. As I said in another thread also, the reason why it seems to have some credibility is because NA piggybacks off/copies many of the terms and some of the spiritual insights of the genuine Adepts (link (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1672306&postcount=6))

I also sense that some of the followers are actually suffering (deep down) and this is their way to deal with it - and this is also why they fight it so much, so in that way, I guess that part deserves our compassion.

People can, as you probably know, believe anything. Some people for example believe what the Church of Scientology tells them - and it's definitely far away from my belief system, but when faced with people whom believe - sometimes it's a hard nut to crack. I would say often. This is why cults are so effective.

Actually, what I believe is, you cannot actually debate with people like this {and this goes for not only the Neo-Advaita folk, it goes for any rigid belief system or cult like context}. Their mental cognition will continue to fight it. For example, in the case of some people here on this forum, they will continue to tell you that they don't exist, all the whole defending themselves and their beliefs - and this is understandable and sanguine, par for the course so to speak.

The only reason these threads are responded to are for the benefit of sincere seekers, those who do not just have an ax to grind and are interested in the pursuit of Truth (genuine wisdom and release from samsara) as opposed to cheap parlor tricks offered by the dishonest or simply unaware.

BT

[blossomingtree]

This intent / urge to move the mind must be acknowledged by an individual .

Some say there is no-one doing, there is only doing happening ..

It's quite convenient to leave out the middle man ..

Butt the middle man has to pick up the phone, it doesn't answer itself ..

Even an answering machine message is left by a peep :D


x daz x

Just for your awareness, what Gem says is not the Buddhist teaching or philosophy

The Buddha taught it in this way:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1672297&postcount=101

[Gem]

Just for your awareness, what Gem says is not the Buddhist teaching or philosophy

The Buddha taught it in this way:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1672297&postcount=101

The main issue for me is restraining myself from elaborate explanations and trying to keep it all 'twitter sized'. I would like to be elaborate and intricate on the subject, but no one is particularly interested.

[Jyotir]

Thanks J. As usual, some sound and thoughtful points.

Firstly, let us be clear about something here. By NA do you mean (as many seem to) that handful of teachings/teachers from the Tony Parsons camp? That is, TP and his followers - which probably amounts to less than ten teachers (a teacher being someone who holds regular (actual) meetings and has had at least one book published - not self-styled YouTubers.) If so, my response is, really?! What’s all the fuss about? It’s hardly going to destabilise the establishment.

So surely that can’t be it. You must be including satsang teachers. If so, your argument holds far less weight. For a start, any critique of satsang as a means to liberation has to include Ramana Maharshi (also, Nisargadatta, Alan Watts, Balsekar, J. Krishnamurti etc. etc.) I have to insist that any argument against satsang that doesn’t include Ramana is without credibility (it’s obvious to me, having closely followed this debate for the last fifteen years or so [and I’ve had several conversations with Dennis Waite - the instigator of the NA meme] that the inclusion of Ramana into the TA fold is purely expedient due to his mass popularity.)

So why is your argument holding less weight in this case? Because the majority of satsang teachers (including the ones mentioned above) are advocates of practice of some kind. Not practice to become what you are, but practice in order to realise and assimilate your true nature. These teachers advocate meditation, self-inquiry, solitude etc. toward this end. And these teachers are very clear that ripeness (of the types I mentioned earlier) is essential.

Finally, do you honestly think that these ‘mentally polarized’ souls who are so content with a shallow intellectual gloss of a teaching would benefit from a traditional formal regime? Do you not think that they would simply coast along in a traditional setting dreaming up new narratives of spiritual depth and accomplishment? I’ve met some of these people. They’re now great at peppering their conversations with Sanskrit and they can quote sections of the Upanishads - but have they cut through the root of delusion? Realisation is rare, you know that. There are no formulas or guarantees of how this comes about - if there were this would be big news. Of course some teachings/approaches are worse than others - by all means, weed them out. I say, on a case by case basis.

Hi Moondance,

Agreed, 100%.
Incidentally, I never heard of Dennis Waite until these posts - but have heard the NA rhetoric in countless discussions on other sites for years as a recognized phenomenon/trend, but not really paying much attention or knowing the probable sources, except for where infrequently referenced to the ‘usual suspects’, including Parsons (maybe once a few years ago until again here) or the self-styled (derivative) YouTubers you mention. Like so many ‘evangelicals’ ringing my doorbell!

It is obviously growing in popularity and that is not necessarily a ‘bad’ thing, since it does indicate some movement out of conventional materialism. People have to start somewhere as conscious seekers and progress from whatever their current standard is by an ever-available and emerging aspiration. That’s the ‘game’, and that the ‘proof is in the pudding’ is fairly unavoidable. Which leads to…
There are no formulas or guarantees of how this comes about - if there were this would be big news. Yes, and many NA proponents assume their so-called ‘radical’ departure is that very ‘Good News’, to borrow an old and similarly re-constituted meme from the Christian ‘tradition’. Again, good for them. One only need be responsible for their own sadhana, as compassionately provided for within the ‘illusion’ of differentiation. But that may also include service, satsang, and encouragement amongst fellow seekers. In that regard...

Of course some teachings/approaches are worse than others - by all means, weed them out. I say, on a case by case basis. I think that some of this is exactly what is transpiring and being revealed through these discussions - on a post-by-post basis within a more decentralized ‘satsang’ in a globalizing electronically connected world … the utility of which may benefit participants whether actively or passively participating, who may have interest, questions, and internal necessity for discriminating what is, and is not useful for their own emerging path, for sticking a fork in that pudding so to speak, and why these discussions have value.

So there really is no ‘fuss’ - or there is, but that apparent destabilization is impetus for further practice, work, etc.. Therefore, I am no more concerned about any NA ‘invasion’, than for 100’s of millions of ‘Born Agains’ (from whatever tradition). Those ships have sailed and will always be leaving the harbor. "Bon Voyage!"

~ J

[Molearner]

The main issue for me is restraining myself from elaborate explanations and trying to keep it all 'twitter sized'. I would like to be elaborate and intricate on the subject, but no one is particularly interested.

Gem,

This is refreshing. I share your sentiments. What we might regard as salient points in our postings have a way of being lost and/or passed unnoticed if they appear in lengthy and verbose postings. In a small personal attempt to keep grounded I have a current framed picture of myself that I walk by every day. In the corner of that frame I have also placed a wallet sized first grade picture of myself showing my innocence and openness. Sometimes when I see that I ask myself...."What happened?". My hope is that I have not allowed myself to become a pompous know-it-all....:) Your screen name of 'Gem' is well chosen and appropriate with your conscious decision to be judicious in your postings.....:)

[Gem]

Gem,

This is refreshing. I share your sentiments. What we might regard as salient points in our postings have a way of being lost and/or passed unnoticed if they appear in lengthy and verbose postings. In a small personal attempt to keep grounded I have a current framed picture of myself that I walk by every day. In the corner of that frame I have also placed a wallet sized first grade picture of myself showing my innocence and openness. Sometimes when I see that I ask myself...."What happened?". My hope is that I have not allowed myself to become a pompous know-it-all....:) Your screen name of 'Gem' is well chosen and appropriate with your conscious decision to be judicious in your postings.....:)

My user name Gem is taken from the Buddhist 'Triple Gem', and my mother used to call me Gem when I was a child - so in its own way, it does bear some essential similarities to your use of photos.

As far as the knowledge game is concerned, In my case, I only know some few things, maybe a bit of Buddhist philosophy for example, but it's just a lay interest which not necessarily interesting to anyone else, so I resist being a bore if I can, which is really hard teehee.

[Mr Interesting]

I've just read a very quick overview of Neo Advaita, twas easier than reading all these pages (I'm lazy!) and I must admit I've seen the repercussions in quite a few people who've read, for instance, Eckhart Tolle, and taken on board an understanding, they think is valid, yet the shallowness of it is wonderous in the sense of how strong it makes their denial of real physical proofs they are not as enlightened as they think they are.

This is a pity as I do belief Mr Tolle is in fact enlightened except he got there, and admits, by way of madness and this, obviously, comes without the requisite ability to properly define how one might become enlightened by 'conventional means; ie hard work. Yes by being in close proximity to Mr Tolle and being of a vibrational nearness, as it were, could be beneficial and even if quite lower I'm sure some of his higher frequency might rub off... for a while.

But the layers of illusion are many, and very thin, and need careful unfurling... otherwise they spring back more resilient, so a deft hand is needed and such a touch doesn't come easily or by will alone. And we can know when our hard word is being watched and encouraged. The universe is full of enlightenment, and almost enlightened souls to aid the transformation up through what is also layered somewhat... So, I would say, of this Neo Advaita set of strategies, that they cannot do much damage, and alike evangelism in the Christian sense, are a holding pattern of sorts until such time as the befuddlements between soul and the intellect are cleared enough for the real work to begin.

[blossomingtree]

I've just read a very quick overview of Neo Advaita, twas easier than reading all these pages (I'm lazy!) and I must admit I've seen the repercussions in quite a few people who've read, for instance, Eckhart Tolle, and taken on board an understanding, they think is valid, yet the shallowness of it is wonderous in the sense of how strong it makes their denial of real physical proofs they are not as enlightened as they think they are.

This is a pity as I do belief Mr Tolle is in fact enlightened except he got there, and admits, by way of madness and this, obviously, comes without the requisite ability to properly define how one might become enlightened by 'conventional means; ie hard work. Yes by being in close proximity to Mr Tolle and being of a vibrational nearness, as it were, could be beneficial and even if quite lower I'm sure some of his higher frequency might rub off... for a while.

But the layers of illusion are many, and very thin, and need careful unfurling... otherwise they spring back more resilient, so a deft hand is needed and such a touch doesn't come easily or by will alone. And we can know when our hard word is being watched and encouraged. The universe is full of enlightenment, and almost enlightened souls to aid the transformation up through what is also layered somewhat... So, I would say, of this Neo Advaita set of strategies, that they cannot do much damage, and alike evangelism in the Christian sense, are a holding pattern of sorts until such time as the befuddlements between soul and the intellect are cleared enough for the real work to begin.

Mr Interesting -

You and your beautiful, extraordinary, wondrous and magical wisdom and eagle sense are absolutely missed!

Re: "much damage" - agreed, except perhaps in attracting others who might otherwise have taken a more 'direct' route (?) and in reading some of the stuff on NA, it seems that some suicidal/delusional {"I don't really exist and neither do you"} people might take to it, but I guess .. that goes for anything.

BT

[Iamit]

Watch out guys! you are now suicidal as well as a criminal, mad, and delusional
should you dare to make a choice these totalitarians disagree with.

[blossomingtree]

Watch out guys! you are now suicidal as well as a criminal, mad, and delusional
should you dare to make a choice these totalitarians disagree with.

Here's some references:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1669551&postcount=30

https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,67640

On a very serious note...

This is an excerpt from a transcribed talk given by neo Advaita guy Wayne Liquorman, mentioning suicide in connection with his "teaching":

(excerpt from link removed due to content)

:icon_frown:

Be careful.

BT

[blossomingtree]

The main issue for me is restraining myself from elaborate explanations and trying to keep it all 'twitter sized'. I would like to be elaborate and intricate on the subject, but no one is particularly interested.

The issue was not length of posting, but was just the accuracy in representation.

BT

[Shivani Devi]

Watch out guys! you are now suicidal as well as a criminal, mad, and delusional
should you dare to make a choice these totalitarians disagree with.
My love, why can't you just let them be? If you know better than they do, why not just rest in that awareness, in Oneness itself? What do you have to prove to anyone? With all due respect, isn't the perception of this 'name calling' (whether it is true or not) and your reaction to it, just show how insecure and unsatisfied with what it is you honestly believe within yourself? and all it will do is give NA a 'bad name' for those who are interested in the path. This is not a criticism, I'm not 'smearing' anything (you seem to like that word lately)...there seems to be just so much hate, negativity and self-righteousness in your heart that you can't let go of.

Why not extol the virtues of your path, maybe explain why you feel it is better than TA and give a logical summation for the benefit of others, instead of adopting this combatant stance in the name of 'free-thought'?

My friend, if you want to know something...not that it matters, but I am an Aghori.

There are not many of us...we are not 'traditional Hindus' but our class has roots in the traditions of Hinduism itself ...yet, we do things that most other Hindus find abhorrent, like Tantrik rituals, worshiping demons, cremating the deceased and the like...I don't do the latter, as I don't have the means...but in India, we are seen as being the lowest of the low...the unholiest of the unholy...we are totally dishonoured, called all those names you mentioned...feared...hated...but does it bother us at all? nah!

We just laugh! we say 'okay, whatever' and go on fulfilling our role in society...because you know, once every three years, ALL the Aghori, the Nag Babas, the Tantrikas and wandering ascetics gather from all over India to meet in one place...it's called Kumbh Mela...and they are all worshiped and adored as the sons and daughters of Shiva by the whole population...despite what goes on until the next Kumbh Mela. lol

We know it...we know it's all only temporary...it's an illusion and we don't seek to try and turn others to our ways...we don't think we are 'right' and they are 'wrong' we don't call our Aghori brothers and sisters to arms to fight against the orthodoxy...we are just happy being Aghori and loving it.

Food for thought.

[blossomingtree]

But the layers of illusion are many, and very thin, and need careful unfurling... otherwise they spring back more resilient, so a deft hand is needed and such a touch doesn't come easily or by will alone. And we can know when our hard word is being watched and encouraged. The universe is full of enlightenment, and almost enlightened souls to aid the transformation up through what is also layered somewhat... So, I would say, of this Neo Advaita set of strategies, that they cannot do much damage, and alike evangelism in the Christian sense, are a holding pattern of sorts until such time as the befuddlements between soul and the intellect are cleared enough for the real work to begin.

Mr Interesting,

Can you elaborate a bit more on these two parts please? :hug3:


1 But the layers of illusion are many, and very thin, and need careful unfurling... otherwise they spring back more resilient, so a deft hand is needed and such a touch doesn't come easily or by will alone.

Q: Have you - or can you relate to e.g. anger gone completely - wisp seen gone wisp gone even before arising - not even that. And then re-created? Or am I off-track?

2. And we can know when our hard word is being watched and encouraged.

Q: How? :tongue:

Thanks,

BT

[Iamit]

Yes be careful of these totaltarians who would elimate your choice to believe differently from them if they could :)

[Iamit]

My love, why can't you just let them be? If you know better than they do, why not just rest in that awareness, in Oneness itself? What do you have to prove to anyone? With all due respect, isn't the perception of this 'name calling' (whether it is true or not) and your reaction to it, just show how insecure and unsatisfied with what it is you honestly believe within yourself? and all it will do is give NA a 'bad name' for those who are interested in the path. This is not a criticism, I'm not 'smearing' anything (you seem to like that word lately)...there seems to be just so much hate, negativity and self-righteousness in your heart that you can't let go of.

Why not extol the virtues of your path, maybe explain why you feel it is better than TA and give a logical summation for the benefit of others, instead of adopting this combatant stance in the name of 'free-thought'?

My friend, if you want to know something...not that it matters, I am an Aghori. There are not many of us...we are not 'traditional Hindus' but our class has roots in the tradition of Hinduism itself...and yet, we do things that most Hindus find abhorrent, like Tantrik rituals, worshiping demons, cremating the deceased and the like...I don't do the latter, as I don't have the means...In India, we are seen as being the lowest of the low...the unholiest of the unholy...we are dishonoured, called all those names you mention...feared...hated...but does it bother us at all? nah! we laugh! we say 'okay, whatever' and go on fulfilling our role in society...because you know, once every three years, ALL the Aghori, the Nag Babas, the Tantrikas and wandering ascetics gather from all over India to meet in one place...it's called Kumbh Mela...and they are all worshiped and adored as the sons and daughters of Shiva...despite what goes on until the next Kumbh Mela. lol We know it...we know it's only temporary...it's all an illusion and we don't seek to try and turn others to our ways...we don't think we are 'right' and they are 'wrong' we don't call our Aghori brothers and sisters to arms to fight the orthodoxy...we are just happy being Aghori and loving it.

Food for thought.

Look at history and will see why totaltarians should be resisted.

[Mr Interesting]

Blossomingtree, I don't think it matters - people wandering off towards the Neo Advaita - except possibly, if it isn't madness, and it is as things usually go the unburdening of traumas not dealt with compassionately... can be rough.

I watched recently a small video on the Aboriginal, Australian, importance of the gut as another brain, or intelligence being more apt possibly, and it's importance instinctually as regards being part of the whole communicative responding processes, gut, heart and brain (in the head) and that each has important role... and it is all, of course, an illusion, how could it be otherwise? But such must be mastered, understood and got beyond, another layer of the construct revealed and disappeared, it's vibratory reality nulled as it were.

Simply because those higher vibratory planes need getting used to, their realities acclimatised to... otherwise, and this is only my reckoning (subject to change) that higher 'love' is hot, or encountered as hot simply as it burns away that which is of a vibration too dense.

[blossomingtree]

Look at history and will see why totaltarians should be resisted.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1673655&postcount=101

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1673648&postcount=99

[Shivani Devi]

Look at history and will see why totaltarians should be resisted....and yet, you appear to be taking a knife into a gun fight.

[Iamit]

We shall see whether the suppression of difference succeeds.

[blossomingtree]

Blossomingtree, I don't think it matters - people wandering off towards the Neo Advaita - except possibly, if it isn't madness, and it is as things usually go the unburdening of traumas not dealt with compassionately... can be rough.

I watched recently a small video on the Aboriginal, Australian, importance of the gut as another brain, or intelligence being more apt possibly, and it's importance instinctually as regards being part of the whole communicative responding processes, gut, heart and brain (in the head) and that each has important role... and it is all, of course, an illusion, how could it be otherwise? But such must be mastered, understood and got beyond, another layer of the construct revealed and disappeared, it's vibratory reality nulled as it were.

Simply because those higher vibratory planes need getting used to, their realities acclimatised to... otherwise, and this is only my reckoning (subject to change) that higher 'love' is hot, or encountered as hot simply as it burns away that which is of a vibration too dense.

Thank you Mr Interesting, that is what I still haven't worked on, or have forgotten, or got lazy, I don't know. Thanks for the encouragement and reminders. Sometimes in bed after a busy day and evening, I can sense it all much better and play a bit with it all - anyway I've had a long few days and my head is not working so well so hard to articulate - suffice to say that whatever I sense is still too sporadically applied to be speak worthy (within "this") :smile:

Great to see you man :hug2:

PS Unburdening can be rough, you are right, I am very grateful to have found the Way of Light...you too eh.

[Iamit]

My love, why can't you just let them be? If you know better than they do, why not just rest in that awareness, in Oneness itself? What do you have to prove to anyone? With all due respect, isn't the perception of this 'name calling' (whether it is true or not) and your reaction to it, just show how insecure and unsatisfied with what it is you honestly believe within yourself? and all it will do is give NA a 'bad name' for those who are interested in the path. This is not a criticism, I'm not 'smearing' anything (you seem to like that word lately)...there seems to be just so much hate, negativity and self-righteousness in your heart that you can't let go of.

Why not extol the virtues of your path, maybe explain why you feel it is better than TA and give a logical summation for the benefit of others, instead of adopting this combatant stance in the name of 'free-thought'?http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1673660

My friend, if you want to know something...not that it matters, but I am an Aghori.

There are not many of us...we are not 'traditional Hindus' but our class has roots in the traditions of Hinduism itself ...yet, we do things that most other Hindus find abhorrent, like Tantrik rituals, worshiping demons, cremating the deceased and the like...I don't do the latter, as I don't have the means...but in India, we are seen as being the lowest of the low...the unholiest of the unholy...we are totally dishonoured, called all those names you mentioned...feared...hated...but does it bother us at all? nah!

We just laugh! we say 'okay, whatever' and go on fulfilling our role in society...because you know, once every three years, ALL the Aghori, the Nag Babas, the Tantrikas and wandering ascetics gather from all over India to meet in one place...it's called Kumbh Mela...and they are all worshiped and adored as the sons and daughters of Shiva by the whole population...despite what goes on until the next Kumbh Mela. lol

We know it...we know it's all only temporary...it's an illusion and we don't seek to try and turn others to our ways...we don't think we are 'right' and they are 'wrong' we don't call our Aghori brothers and sisters to arms to fight against the orthodoxy...we are just happy being Aghori and loving it.

Food for thought.

Not if you attempt to suppress those who think differently. You should be resisted and will be I hope. We have had enough of that stuff historically.

[Shivani Devi]

Not if you attempt to suppress those who think differently. You should be resisted and will be I hope. We have had enough of that stuff historically.Maybe, but that is 'historical' and 'traditional' and doesn't apply to the current concepts you speak of, does it?

[Iamit]

Maybe, but that is 'historical' and 'traditional' and doesn't apply to the current concepts you speak of, does it?

It applies to the smears against those who have found NA suitable.

[Shivani Devi]

It applies to the smears against those who have found NA suitable....or does it just apply to you that has found NA suitable?

[Iamit]

...or does it just apply to you that has found NA suitable?

It applies to me if I am smeared for the audacity of prefering NA to TA.

[Shivani Devi]

It applies to me if I am smeared for the audacity of prefering NA to TA.
However, there also may be those in NA who will say 'let them have their way for it is not ours'...let Iamit say what he does because it doesn't reflect our teachings...what makes you, personally believe it applies to all:
those who have found NA suitable.

[Gem]

The issue was not length of posting, but was just the accuracy in representation.

BT
I have a reasonably well rounded understanding of Buddhist philosophy, but the way of it is, if you don't gel with what I say, it doesn't make sense to you, then don't accept it. Your discerning ability requires truth in yourself, which is far more important than my 'twitter sized' quip.

[Gem]

Blossomingtree, I don't think it matters - people wandering off towards the Neo Advaita - except possibly, if it isn't madness, and it is as things usually go the unburdening of traumas not dealt with compassionately... can be rough.

I watched recently a small video on the Aboriginal, Australian, importance of the gut as another brain, or intelligence being more apt possibly, and it's importance instinctually as regards being part of the whole communicative responding processes, gut, heart and brain (in the head) and that each has important role... and it is all, of course, an illusion, how could it be otherwise? But such must be mastered, understood and got beyond, another layer of the construct revealed and disappeared, it's vibratory reality nulled as it were.

Simply because those higher vibratory planes need getting used to, their realities acclimatised to... otherwise, and this is only my reckoning (subject to change) that higher 'love' is hot, or encountered as hot simply as it burns away that which is of a vibration too dense.

Hello Mr I.

Just popped up to say g'day.

[Iamit]

However, there also may be those in NA who will say 'let them have their way for it is not ours'...let Iamit say what he does because it doesn't reflect our teachings...what makes you, personally believe it applies to all:

Yes let seekers select TA if they feel it suits them and may TA not smear those that select NA if it suits them.

[blossomingtree]

I have a reasonably well rounded understanding of Buddhist philosophy, but the way of it is, if you don't gel with what I say, it doesn't make sense to you, then don't accept it. Your discerning ability requires truth in yourself, which is far more important than my 'twitter sized' quip.

Anatta is the general rule, but yes, Gotama typically avoided existential questions.

Anatta is one of the three Dhamma seals (http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals.htm) in Buddhism which characterize all Buddhist teachings, it's not a "general rule."

Ajahn Sumedho:
"(Ajahn Sumedho (https://www.amaravati.org/dhamma-books/the-way-it-is/)) maintains anatta to be the Buddha’s way of pointing to the experience of Ultimate Reality that is the goal of many religions."

Further, and more to the point, which you have continued to side step post after post:

There is no you.

Buddha taught (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html) that to hold that there is a self or there is no self are both wrong views. Buddha did not teach anyone that they and other people did not exist. You mistake mindfulness for robotism and keep promulgating this view as Buddhist, when it is not. I understand it is a subtle error and an easy one to make.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

Where there is intent, there is someone intending

Bolded bit makes sense in the Buddhist philosophical context, but not that there is someone intending per-se, but in the sense that intent is the 'urge to move the mind' - the 'cause' if you will. The Buddhist interpretation is, intent and kamma are the same thing, so myself being schooled a little in Buddhist philosophy, the bolded 'rings a bell'.

This intent / urge to move the mind must be acknowledged by an individual .

Yes, so the individual is post rather than prior.


'There is no you' is the basic tenet of non-duality. I think it means to say that there isn't a personal/individual awareness, only an individualised experience - no one is here to experience it

As there is no 'me' in the past or the future, there is no time in which I exist. That is an illusion created by reactions to avoid the pain and pursue the pleasure. That brings about the illusion of a 'me' who comes from the past and goes into the future.

I see the ridiculous character, 'Gem', who does all these things flailing about in desperation at having been 'caught out'. That's the imminent end of the thing called 'Gem'.

This is why I said it's not the length of your quips that was responded to, it's the accuracy, and it has nothing to do with accepting it. It's a very easy mistake for a self practicing Buddhist to make, especially when you've read some.

BT

[Mr Interesting]

Mr Interesting,

Can you elaborate a bit more on these two parts please? :hug3:


1 But the layers of illusion are many, and very thin, and need careful unfurling... otherwise they spring back more resilient, so a deft hand is needed and such a touch doesn't come easily or by will alone.

For me it is that ego, having attained some going forward, is very proficient at having a sense of pride and superiority 'subtly' come in to 'own', 'attach' to this shift. The point, as it were, of unfurling the layers of conceptualisms is to sit with them unfurled and feel, observe, be quiet with what then is possibly the next layer, the next shift which is less pronounced, more ephemeral, and let these ideas, formulations reach deeper into us whilst also widening, as it were, the not us without having ego play too big a part in owning, clarifying and making concrete these shifts... except even that has a part as translation within ego and formlessness being of a tension helps to manifest the sense more readily for those coming on to be with.

Q: Have you - or can you relate to e.g. anger gone completely - wisp seen gone wisp gone even before arising - not even that. And then re-created? Or am I off-track?

Yes, somewhat. Anger was a biggie for me as a youth and suppressing it became, now I look back, part of the trauma swirling within me that held me to learning of myself. Anger I see as a type of vent to frustration, which could be complexities not given time and patience, and all these practices of sitting, observing etc go well with being able to just let complexity be and have the time it needs to resolve. Then if this set of complex is given long enough to settle then possibly aspects of it might contain roots of what we might need to deal with and so maybe mini 'vents' appear as energies that we can then isolate for working with. I am making this up as I go along... just letting what I hope is intuition have its sense with what you are asking...

2. And we can know when our hard word is being watched and encouraged.

Q: How? :tongue:
A Freudian slip on my part, it was supposed to be hard work... but hard 'word' kinda works well anyway. Basically, spirit guides, higher self, source whatever you want to call it, that and us is essentially part of a continuum, we, the part we see as not us, is still us and the communication is always there. But, and I am too, as separation, an idea, hold less sway on us we start to sense, acclimatise to and regard deeper as a sort of trueism, this not only going to but already arriving at alike waves bouncing off the island we are going to... Therein whatever perceptual framework suits us, we are comfortable with, is a message to us that the work we do has merit.

Thanks,

BT

And herein, because I filled in just within the quotes, I have to put letters so the algorithm knows I have existed.

[Mr Interesting]

Hello Mr I.

Just popped up to say g'day.

Chur Bro! The pussy cats and me say hi too!

[Mr Interesting]

And Howdy lamit! I appreciate you giving these lovely questions for us to play with.

Keep having fun! S.

[Iamit]

And Howdy lamit! I appreciate you giving these lovely questions for us to play with.

Keep having fun! S.

Yes here's a question.

Why is it that you are so patronising about those who choose NA? Is it not possible to see that seekers vary and that should they find NA suits them, it is not some state they need to recover from once they discover and take on some TA practise that they currently regard as unecessary:)

[Gem]

Anatta is one of the three Dhamma seals (http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals.htm) in Buddhism which characterize all Buddhist teachings, it's not a "general rule."

Ajahn Sumedho:


Further, and more to the point, which you have continued to side step post after post:



Buddha taught (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html) that to hold that there is a self or there is no self are both wrong views. Buddha did not teach anyone that they and other people did not exist. You mistake mindfulness for robotism and keep promulgating this view as Buddhist, when it is not. I understand it is a subtle error and an easy one to make.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
















This is why I said it's not the length of your quips that was responded to, it's the accuracy, and it has nothing to do with accepting it. It's a very easy mistake for a self practicing Buddhist to make, especially when you've read some.

BT
Ok, accept that which you find more suitable.

[Mr Interesting]

Yes here's a question.

Why is it that you are so patronising about those who choose NA? Is it not possible to see that seekers vary and that should they find NA suits them, it is not some state they need to recover from once they discover and take on some TA practise that they currently regard as unecessary:)

Oops. am I? (patronising) I wouldn't have thought so... I am critical, I found Eckhart Tolle exceedingly useful but, of the people I've known who've read him... it didn't seem to help them much. NA is kinda, in my view, the icing on the cake... not cake, in that you do somewhat need to have some progress made already, and if as you suggest they then discover TA, no problem, thats good. Recover from? Back track a little maybe.

[Iamit]

Oops. am I? (patronising) I wouldn't have thought so... I am critical, I found Eckhart Tolle exceedingly useful but, of the people I've known who've read him... it didn't seem to help them much. NA is kinda, in my view, the icing on the cake... not cake, in that you do somewhat need to have some progress made already, and if as you suggest they then discover TA, no problem, thats good. Recover from? Back track a little maybe.

Patronising nonsense typical of some TA supporters. Not all thankfully. Some realize that One size does not fit all and accept that they do not know, cannot know, the characters that select a solution different to their own, and that all solutions are acceptable and valid for those that select them.

[Gem]

Chur Bro! The pussy cats and me say hi too!
Ba'cat'cha, from the Shihtzu and the Retriever.

[Shivani Devi]

I miss my little Shihtzu who died about a year ago. =/