Agreement

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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}

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Gem

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]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

"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]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

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]

Originally Posted by Gem

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]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

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]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

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]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

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