|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
 Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:11:55 AM
|
Christi said:
Don't forget, if I tell someone not to tell anyone that I am a Great Guru, but just to tell others about the Love that they feel in my presence, what else am I doing other than promoting myself? I gave up doing that weeks ago.
Glad you gave it up Christi.  You were doing what I call repudiation-cultivation -- actively cultivating your mythical status in the very act of apparently (and humbly) repudiating it.  It's an age-old trick. The human mind is an expert at unconsciously coming up with it as a strategy; and other human minds are experts at falling for it like suckers -- the irony is often completely invisible to both parties involved.
|
 |
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:22:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
I've got to say, something in me deeply recoils when watching those videotapes, whenever he says something the least bit cute, the audience erupts in greasy giggles and applause. It reminds me of Bob Hope getting laughs without being the least bit funny just 'cuz he's Bob Hope.
Oh good, then it's not just me. It made my skin crawl. I could barely sit through it. |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:27:26 AM
|
| ...but I think you'll agree, Meg, that what he's SAYING is terrific. And the unfortunate problem, from his standpoint, is that people tend to be all or nothing. He could very very easily find a crowd (i.e. 99.9% of the human race) who'd smirk and shrug at him. The people willing to listen to this sort of material tend to be latchers-on. So i can't blame him at all. I guess what I'd ideally like to see is a bit more furrowed brow at the adulation. But he can't keep his brow permanently furrowed. And, shoot, he's enlightened, so I guess he's just rolling with it. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:37:11 AM
|
Meg, I understand what you and Jim are saying. Adyashanti has become something of a celebrity. That is what it is, whether it's good or bad or his fault or not or anyone's fault or not.
One disadvantage of it is that some of the students will get caught up in the 'celebrity' energy of the whole thing. The whole spiritual celebrity thing can eventually run on its own steam -- ** come on everybody, it's the Adya Show!!! ** Students should just keep in mind that, to whatever extent they are glomming off the Spiritual Celebrity, in that, they are not looking at Reality, and not necessarily getting any real feel for enlightenment, or Presence. Rather, they are basking in presence of a celebrity-hero.
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:37:25 AM
|
Thanks, Kirtanman (if you're still talking to me after my last posts...and I sincerely hope you are!) for the great post.
I was about to whip off a reply to you as soon as I got to the part about how more opening intensifies the energy. Yup, you see, as I do, that that's the problem. As we open to What Is, we find that What Is is quite intense. It's weird, 'cuz I'm not a girl, but I can't help likening it to violent rubbing on a clitoris. That image keeps coming up for me. Freud would have a field day.
And you probably see the lie - that we're not "increasing our energy"...we're just dropping our screens (and no longer drawing such a dramatic - and utterly fictional - line between me-in-here and everything-out-there), and the result is an experience of the energy in which we were already awash to begin with (in fact, we ARE that energy!). Yet the body buckles.
The entire practice of AYP is about carefully and gradually increasing the system's tolerance of energy on the fly as you learn to cultivate it. So many people who've done it all in one gulp have gotten fried to a cinder, so Yogani's created a practice designed to prevent that outcome. And he notes that some people are naturally (for whatever reason....spiritual work in previous lives, who knows?) able to just blaze through it all with the accelerator floored and come out ok. But we can't count on that. I know I can't.
Adya seems to be one of those people. And, as such, he counsels the Big Gulp. But first he saw problems with the shaktipat effect, and now people at his seminars are getting blown up. At some point, he's going to be forced to acknlowedge that opening is good (in fact, it's everything), but most people can't safely open all the way all at once.
But that still leaves me (and, apparently, you) in a chinese finger trap. Yogani has warned me that it's important to leave headroom. I think that's great advice. But even just meditation alone brings the Big Energy. Yogani also stresses that more silence is critical. But my silence is blooming very fast...just not fast enough. And the silence opens me. And opening brings energy...and thus the loop continues. But, hey, this entire pathway is about handling problems with a resourceful do-it-yourself attitude. So onward I go.
I wasn't looking for an answer from Adya. Just wanted to know how he conceives it. And i think I get it. He's someone whose body could do the big gulp without lots of drama.
Oh, and as for siddhis, you've described my feeling perfectly. I sometimes get the feeling there's stuff going on. But (another weird analogy) consider my cellphone. I've never really poked around to learn its more esoteric features. It can do lots of stuff I don't particularly need and I know nothing about. That's not where I put my attention, so there's really no issue there. The greatest siddhi is happiness and peace. I could repeat that a thousand times. Making trinkets appear or whatever seems incredibly puny and cheesy. |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 20 2007 10:54:17 AM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:51:14 AM
|
David, yeah, and that's what I meant by "If you see the Buddha, kill him." It's an essential attitude.
I see it in my music students. The ones who sit in the front row, hinging on my every word and trembling everytime I play a note will never be great musicians. The ones who sit in the back, cocking an eye when I say something stupid and who obstinately fail to take my advice are the ones with real potential. They're the ones who understand that it's not about me.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Meg, I understand what you and Jim are saying. Adyashanti has become something of a celebrity. That is what it is, whether it's good or bad or his fault or not or anyone's fault or not.
One disadvantage of it is that some of the students will get caught up in the 'celebrity' energy of the whole thing. The whole spiritual celebrity thing can eventually run on its own steam -- ** come on everybody, it's the Adya Show!!! ** Students should just keep in mind that, to whatever extent they are glomming off the Spiritual Celebrity, in that, they are not looking at Reality, and not necessarily getting any real feel for enlightenment, or Presence. Rather, they are basking in presence of a celebrity-hero.
|
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:52:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
It's weird, 'cuz I'm not a girl, but I can't help likening it to violent rubbing on a clitoris. That image keeps coming up for me. Freud would have a field day.
No, but you're a boy, so why not a violent rubbing on the penis  Must be a guy thing..
Yup, I do agree that what Adya is saying is awesome. He's touched me in a powerful way. If he can remain detached (seemingly) from the celebrity status that's quickly building up around him, he'll truly be one of the great teachers of our time.
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 10:56:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
why not a violent rubbing on the penis
Er...that's not so bad
[pausing for Adyashanti-follower type warm laughter and applause]
Mileage varies, but most women seem to be more sensitive there. |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 11:09:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
Question: Adya is a rare non-dualist who admits to energy being an issue (e.g. he says he's screwed up some people via something akin to shaktipat, and won't give energy now even if people "beg"). I find that interesting. Has he written or spoken on the issue of energy (I don't mean just shakti) anywhere that can be seen or downloaded? it's of acute interest to me, as every time I let go an iota more, I become much more awash in energy, and I'm always banging right up against the amount I can maximally handle. And not being interested in magic tricks and personal power, it's nothing but hindrance to me. But I do recognize that opening to What Is involves opening to flavors and intensities of energy we usually insulate ourselves against.
Anyway, I’d like to hear his take on it, because, again, it's so unusual to hear about a non-dualist talking about this (I think many advaitans open their minds but not their hearts and bodies - which is why they tend to be a bit cranky and arrogant - and stop there. But I'm digressing).
Hi Jim:
A great question that gets at the practical aspects of non-dualism versus dualism. Kirtanman gave a good answer, and in it we can see both the line and the overlap between non-dual and dual approaches.
Whereas Adyashanti (the non-dualist) says, "Open to it," AYP will say, "Open to it, self-pace, ground, and call me in the morning."
It is the same thing on both sides -- it is the same nervous system and same process of purification and opening going on. The difference is that in dual mode we take more specific actions to mitigate the effects for progress and safety. At the same time, we can agree with Adyashanti 100% in his saying, "Open to it." There is a big difference between opening to the essence of energy (which is stillness) versus projecting energy. This point comes out in the AYP Samyama book, where we are engaged in the paradox of "moving stillness" without projecting it. We allow it, which is exactly the same as opening to it. When we release a sutra in samyama (and, ultimately, all the intentions in our life), we are opening to IT.
So, I see no disagreement between the non-dual and dual approaches here. It is only a matter of "finesse," an idea that an aspiring/fledgling non-dualist might pooh pooh. But I suspect a real non-dualist (as in one experiencing IT) would not argue with any sort of finesse which brings on the "opening to IT." Non-dualists have plenty of finesse of their own. They talk about the experience of non-dualism a lot, going to great lengths to convince incarnated consciousness of its true nature. Non-dual teachers are valued not only for their perceived condition, but also for their ability to convey to others how to unfold it. That is finesse, yes?
For all concerned, it is a matter of "crossing over" from the dual experience of life to fully and naturally live our inherent non-dual nature (oneness/unity), which most agree is "enlightenment." Inevitably this will involve dealing with the kundalini (ecstatic energy) experience as well, because it is a phase (or bridge) everyone must pass through, and that brings us back to your question again, Jim. How to do that?
I think it will depend on the person, and their bhakti especially. Bhakti in this case means devotion to our highest ideal. Successful jnanis (non-dualists) are great bhaktis, because they have placed (chosen) their ideal above all else, and opened completely to it. It is the essence of devotion, which is a condition of constant (active) surrender to our ideal. Enlightened people are constantly engaged in disengaging in this way, and it does not matter by which route they have come -- non-dual or dual. It is pure bhakti they have in common -- the constant flow of self awareness back into IT, always "Open to IT."
Katrine has been an interesting case of crossing over, documented right here in the forums over the past year. As I recall, she came here with energy overload after years of practice and personal trials, seeking to make some sense of it. She learned self-pacing, and the energy continued to expand in a classical kundalini way. Then she moved into a non-dual/bhakti mode, favoring what she calls "staying home." This seems analogous to "Opening to IT." Perhaps she can clarity that. So here is a case of deep meditation and severe traumas in life leading to rising inner silence accompanied by an extreme ecstatic energy awakening, and then to huge bhakti and what is now essentially a non-dual approach. It covers the gamut -- an instructive straddle of dual and non-dual approaches, including a crossover occurring right before our eyes.
Note: It should be mentioned that all who are engaged in effective practices are in crossover from dual to non-dual, with steadily progressing degrees of experience of the transformation. Katrine happens to be one who has gone on the record with a fairly broad view of it, so we can use her experience as a data point. I am sure over time we will see many vivid descriptions of the crossover phenomenon from many more practitioners. Indeed, there are similar accounts from others here in the forums already.
It is bhakti that enables the crossover -- an ascension of our ideal from dual to non-dual, based on real inner experience -- the joining of inner silence (IT) with our inner ecstatic energy flow (kundalini).
In other words, it is we who will choose to "Open to IT" when we are ready with the requisite inner condition cultivated through our own intention. What could be more perfect than that?
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 11:22:06 AM
|
Lots of people are online live...so I just want to note that 1. I've been frantically editing my most recent posts (so you may want to scan them again), and 2. I'm done now (so it's safe to do so).
Sorry. Maybe after another two years of practice I'll lose the editing neurosis. But I doubt it....
[and even THIS was edited...sigh...] |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 20 2007 11:22:35 AM |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 11:46:49 AM
|
Hi Christi,
Yes my satguru is involved in giving shaktipat which drains the body so requiring recharging.Apart from this anyone of his students can connect to him and tap into his energies to further their progress so draining him further.His purpose is simply to give and guide which is I believe the traditional role of a guru? But don't think that once you reach enlightenment that there is nothing further to do.Your questions raise valid points and if I rememember I will question him on them next time I see him.
I'm not too sure about nothing required to maintain enlightenment though at least at certain levels.If one expereinces daily life which throws up problems and issues then surely we need to have a method to release them and heal ourselves?Just a thought.
L&L
Dave |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 1:38:54 PM
|
Hi Yogani,
Thanks for the great post! it sheds a lot of light and helps clarify the marriage between duality and non-duality which I perceive as taking place here, right inside of our bodies (hearts)and then in abundance is expressed outwardly as an overflow of joy and love to those and for the life around us.
I think we were all very fortunate that Katrine shared so openly that we could watch her expansion right before our eyes as you point out, it has been a great gift, like witnessing a shooting star or better yet maybe a lunar eclipse!
All the talk of Adya has me wondering why bother being so concerned? Adya will have to look after his end or will find pain that will eventually lead him to looking after his end. For those who want to worship him, it could be a great boon to their bhakti at this point in their spiritual evolution, who knows? I am certain that at some point they will eventually transcend this too.
I have found Adya's teachings very helpful along the way and am grateful for them.
I have been wondering lately if these "teachers" eventually stop doing big public gatherings for the very concerns that have been talked about in this thread. I notice that Eckhart Tolle no longer does public retreats anymore, I wonder if he found it easier to stay with his "Self" by not doing them? I guess one can only speculate.
In any event I am glad to see Byron Katie is still at it, maybe it's worth catching her live before she gives it up? I wonder if she will, my guess is that if anyone will continue, it will be her.
A
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 1:53:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
cultivating your mythical status in the very act of apparently (and humbly) repudiating it. It's an age-old trick. The human mind is an expert at unconsciously coming up with it as a strategy; and other human minds are experts at falling for it like suckers -- the irony is often completely invisible to both parties involved.
And an even hipper trick is to repudiate your own repudiation....i.e. demonstrate your cognizance of that irony as you repudiate your mythical status, thereby demonstrating that you REALLY mean to repudiate your mythical status, which means that you really truly ARE mythic.
That one gets 'em every time. |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 2:01:25 PM
|
quote:
I have been wondering lately if these "teachers" eventually stop doing big public gatherings for the very concerns that have been talked about in this thread. I notice that Eckhart Tolle no longer does public retreats anymore, I wonder if he found it easier to stay with his "Self" by not doing them? I guess one can only speculate.
Well in this case my friend speculation is not required - he's doing a world-tour this year
I am not so familiar with the yogic tradition and its use of the enlightenment concept... but in Buddhism there is a clear line between having had a "taste" of Nirvana (and becoming a stream-entrant) and having 'fully-Nirvana-ed' (after which one *cannot* again act out out of fear/greed/delusion as those elements have been permanently destroyed). Adya before he went off piste did a lot of Zen where they have the 'satori' concept (which seems like more diluted experiences (never that clear esp as Zen philosophy is kind of a Taoism/Buddhism mix in many ways).
Anyway I would be interested in understanding more how yoga views the attainment levels and when a ratchet clicks in (ie no longer possible to slip back down the slope).
rgds
Mike |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 2:37:20 PM
|
Jim said:
And an even hipper trick is to repudiate your own repudiation....i.e. demonstrate your cognizance of that irony as you repudiate your mythical status, thereby demonstrating that you REALLY mean to repudiate your mythical status, which means that you really truly ARE mythic.
That one gets 'em every time.
Yes. If you really want to inhibit your mythical status, you have to get cleverer and subtler still. My own system for reducing my mythical status works very well, but unfortunately I cannot share it because I am afraid that if I do, people will know it and see my spiritual attainment through the smokescreen of relative-ordinariness that I put up, and start mythologizing me.
My smokescreen technique does work very well though. Before I started using it, people used to get these extremely warm and loving feelings whenever I appeared in person or print; dogs would stop fighting in the street when I passed; people would burst out crying without knowing why; and all would see all manner of lights and angels and wonders.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 20 2007 3:29:57 PM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 2:50:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike 'fully-Nirvana-ed' (after which one *cannot* again act out out of fear/greed/delusion as those elements have been permanently destroyed)
I'm real sympathetic to most things Buddhist, but I have much trouble with the notion that there's any possibility of the 100% perfection of the human being.
We're reincarnated in this body to experience what it is to be human, and so long as we're in this body, we are subject, to varying degrees, to all the follies the flesh is heir to. We have a divine streak, and we can favor that and go surprisingly far. But we're always human beings; we're always in these bodies. In fact, a Zen teacher would say that we're ONLY human beings after awakening!
The accounts of so many supposedly pure beings turning out to be addicts, rapists, and other horror stories corroborates this. The Buddhist response that they weren't really all-the-way realized strikes me as tautological. Dig deep enough, and you can say that about anyone. But as Yogani and others say: what's the diff? If there's wisdom and inspiration there, that's all that matters. Only sheltered children need everything to be 100%. Real life is sloppier.
The only way I'd buy the notion of permanent perfection is via the classical view that such people only show up every few milennium. With that infrequency, i suppose ANYTHING's possible. And human nature being what it is, lots of people (some of whom have experienced genuine openings, but misjudge the extent and permanence) will convince themselves (and perhaps others) that they are that dude. |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 20 2007 2:53:15 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 3:32:22 PM
|
Hi Jim
Well what you say is all quite self-consistent... the Buddha made it clear that Nirvana is the permanenent eradication of the fetters... so (whether right or wrong that is clearly stated as his understanding). Equally as you say how often do such folks show up?
I asked a well-know UK professor of Buddhism how many people he thought had been enlightened in the 20th century on this strict definition - first he declined to say and then on pressing he said 'one handful'... On which basis again we are talking about some kind of high jump competition  - many can jump 4feet... some 5feet... less 6 feet... Non-allegorically the unqualified use of the word enlightenment it seems to me leads only to the opposite ... ie in the absence of a definition its kind of meaningless... apples and oranges.
Also depends what you refer to as 'perfection' - do you mean thoughts or actions... My understanding is that desire etc continue to arise in the mind (and that a large part of "enlightened states" is just acceptance rather than resistance to '"what is") but that the human doesnt act on them [primarily IMHO as he has reprogrammed his instinctual identification with self to be identification with 'something else stable and dependable' (eg "silence")].
The other thing which really hampers an analysis in the Buddhist traditions is that there is kind of a taboo on declaring yourself enlightened (which is why Adyashanti is controversial amongst some Zen-tribe people). Its also interesting to note that there is a taboo (maybe even monastic rule) against displays of siddhi. One side-effect of such policies is that it really stops any kind of cultism. Vice versa saying I am "enlightened" (whether true or not/however defined) of course is almost guaranteed to lead to many problems that have been mentioned above.
I think the other Buddhist angle that might be of relevance is from Luang Por Sumedho - possibly the longest serving western monk, the senior student of Ajahn Chah (who many consider to have probably been enlightened), now some 72 years old [and if I had to plump for one person alive today who was enlightened on the very strict criterion of the Buddha I would guess at him]. In some talk he said "and people say is Ajahn Sumedho enlightened (big laugh), was Ajahn Chah enlightened (laugh)"... "the person is never enlightened"... by which he means the 'person' is just a conditioned thing arising in consciousness... the 'awakenedness' is always enlightened and never not. Of course from the strong Buddhist perspective of anatta (lets not get into that but its the kind of opposite of the Brahmin view of Atman) then there is no permanent unchanging 'person' in the first place...
Hmm going in circles here.. must have got one wheel stuck in the mud 
Anyway net net - undefined or multiply defined concepts of enlightenment keep threads going forever  and from the Buddhist tradition we get a strong sense that there are good reasons not to go round proclaiming siddhis and enlightenment.
For me the likes of Sumedho or Yogani strike the right note... I never see any claims of attainment... only descriptions of useful tools and techniques.
BUT with all folks - take what is useful and leave what is not... -whether its Jim or Kirtanman or Yogani or Chah or Adya everyone has something to usefully teach one (sure some of them have more than others but hey its not a numbers game lol).
Mike
ps I could have a good deconstruction of this 'kill the buddha' shock-jock buddhism (its such a popular quote these shock-jock soundbite-y days) but I gotta go [re-edit to avoid going off topic (and me wasting my life typing the same things twice lol) i recently wrote about this elsewhere: http://www.ttem.org/forum/index.php...4214#msg4214 ] |
Edited by - Mike on Mar 20 2007 3:41:16 PM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 3:49:38 PM
|
I could dig down into answering on all points, but, shoot....discussion of how enduring is 100% enduring, how awakened is awakened all the way, and how many people reach what point is sort of like discussing angels dancing on pins (which doesn't make it uninteresting, of course!).
Let me try to boil down four points of easy agreement:
100% pure, never-faltering, un-temptable people who've thoroughly and completely transcended their humanness are either vanishingly rare or non-existent.
People who've had awakening experiences of lesser or greater depth and durability are relatively plentiful, and there are indications it's growing.
Picking away at those claimed to be the former - i.e. to determine whether they are actually the latter - is 1. likely effective, and 2. ultimately pointless :)
Anyone with even a glimmer of insight who's able to inspire others is welcome indeed, even if wretchedly imperfect.
Make sense? |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 20 2007 3:50:33 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 3:57:07 PM
|
quote:
Make sense?
Makes sense to me buddy ... and I will an interested watcher over the next decade to see if proclamations of onself being enlightened are good or bad karma [they're certainly good publicity  ]
Mike (the unenlightened person but always enlightened buddha-nature/non-conceptual-awareness within if the former could only reside in the latter for more than 3milliseconds in a row ) |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 4:31:32 PM
|
A lot of these problems are caused by inconsistent or indefinite language. The 'enlightened' that most people 'think' of is binary -- you either are or you are not.
Insofar as enlightenment can be binary (of which I doubt), I don't know if anyone is.
As far as I can see, there are always levels of it. It's always relative.
If this is true that it is always relative, people like Adyashanti should be considered, say, quite enlightened, or significantly enlightened -- not just "enlightened", except insofar as we understand "enlightened" to mean nothing more than "quite enlightened".
If we understand it to only mean "quite enlightened", that's OK, but generally people don't. I didn't like hearing some Adya people recently talking about someone who went on a retreat a few weeks ago and is 'now awakened', as if it is a binary and permanent thing. I think that's silly talk. I don't know how often in my life I became 'now awakened' -- quite genuinely -- relative to what I was before.
Jim said:
The only way I'd buy the notion of permanent perfection is via the classical view that such people only show up every few milennium. With that infrequency, i suppose ANYTHING's possible. And human nature being what it is, lots of people (some of whom have experienced genuine openings, but misjudge the extent and permanence) will convince themselves (and perhaps others) that they are that dude.
I'd have to agree -- if there does happen to be a true binary enlightenment (and I'm not sure there is), only that extremely rare thing could be it. But for every one such being, there would be a million deluded into believing that they are it, with a hundred million followers deluded into believing that their master is it.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 20 2007 4:32:39 PM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 5:07:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike
Mike (the unenlightened person but always enlightened buddha-nature/non-conceptual-awareness within if the former could only reside in the latter for more than 3milliseconds in a row )
Nice sig. |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 5:13:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Yes. If you really want to inhibit your mythical status, you have to get cleverer and subtler still. My own system for reducing my mythical status works very well, but unfortunately I cannot share it because I am afraid that if I do, people will know it and see my spiritual attainment through the smokescreen of relative-ordinariness that I put up, and start mythologizing me.
My smokescreen technique does work very well though. Before I started using it, people used to get these extremely warm and loving feelings whenever I appeared in person or print; dogs would stop fighting in the street when I passed; people would burst out crying without knowing why; and all would see all manner of lights and angels and wonders.
Edited by - david_obsidian on Mar 20 2007 3:29:57 PM
Ah, but if all that were true, you wouldn't need to edit.
But, still, I'll declare you the Escher of grandly humble aggrandizing humility. |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 20 2007 5:14:20 PM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 5:19:51 PM
|
My last two posts were intentionally flip, but this is completely serious. The true experience of Non-Duality is utterly binary.
It's like an optical illusion that can be convex or concave, but not both. Either you're deluded or you're free of the delusion. Why would we ever revert to delusion once free? Habit. Fear. Attachments. Desires. Aversions. Karma.
We're talking about people who don't EVER revert anymore. As far as I can tell, I'm gonna need death to achieve that ultimate liberation.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
A lot of these problems are caused by inconsistent or indefinite language. The 'enlightened' that most people 'think' of is binary -- you either are or you are not.
Insofar as enlightenment can be binary (of which I doubt), I don't know if anyone is.
As far as I can see, there are always levels of it. It's always relative.
If this is true that it is always relative, people like Adyashanti should be considered, say, quite enlightened, or significantly enlightened -- not just "enlightened", except insofar as we understand "enlightened" to mean nothing more than "quite enlightened".
If we understand it to only mean "quite enlightened", that's OK, but generally people don't. I didn't like hearing some Adya people recently talking about someone who went on a retreat a few weeks ago and is 'now awakened', as if it is a binary and permanent thing. I think that's silly talk. I don't know how often in my life I became 'now awakened' -- quite genuinely -- relative to what I was before.
Jim said:
The only way I'd buy the notion of permanent perfection is via the classical view that such people only show up every few milennium. With that infrequency, i suppose ANYTHING's possible. And human nature being what it is, lots of people (some of whom have experienced genuine openings, but misjudge the extent and permanence) will convince themselves (and perhaps others) that they are that dude.
I'd have to agree -- if there does happen to be a true binary enlightenment (and I'm not sure there is), only that extremely rare thing could be it. But for every one such being, there would be a million deluded into believing that they are it, with a hundred million followers deluded into believing that their master is it.
|
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 6:05:42 PM
|
Actually there's an interesting gap in my knowledge here... is there anyone seen as the ultimate 'source' of Yogic or Vedantan knowledge? For dharma one can of course reference the Buddha (and so have one clear definition of states ...whether anyone here agrees with them or not his position (if not the multiple strands of Buddhisms) was quite clear)... But in these conversations here I see no scriptural quotations just folks giving their 'personal opinions' on 'enlightenment'...
...and with no disrespect one can safely assume that most people here wouldnt class themselves as 'enlightened' (certainly in any strict sense)... in which case reading personal opinions is a bit like reading a thread on sex written by virgins
Again without a clear definition of a word/concept and a clear way of knowing when to appropriately use that word (aka is "X enlightened") its all wild speculation... and ergo a fairly useless practical framework...?!
Far more useful surely are concepts such as progressive cleaning of the windscreen... purification of the 'nervous system'... increasing amounts of stillness etc. As Jim said its of little practical value to most to discuss angels on the head of a pin (or can windscreens ever be 100.00% clean or only ever 99.99% clean).
As to the absolute 100.00% gold standard then my feeling is that with Vedanta (rather like Taoism) - there are plenty of schools and competing explanations but concensus never was historically reached and certainly wont be at this rate ...
...on the other hand I guess in AYP then (unless I have yet to come across it) its up to Yogani to (at some point) define what the Gold Standard is (ie perfection of result of application of AYP techniques)?? Or maybe as such a finely focused practical set of tools such as AYP will ultimately just kind of imply an asymptotic approach to 'the speed of light'...?
More questions than answers.
yrs curiously
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Mar 20 2007 6:08:25 PM |
|
|
|
snake
United Kingdom
279 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 7:23:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
It's weird, 'cuz I'm not a girl, but I can't help likening it to violent rubbing on a clitoris. That image keeps coming up for me. Freud would have a field day.
No, but you're a boy, so why not a violent rubbing on the penis Must be a guy thing..
That reminds me of what Michio Kushi once said about people who spend a lot of time meditating is just like self masturbation
|
Edited by - snake on Mar 20 2007 7:35:19 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
American Guru Tradition, Non-Guru - Adyashanti
