Gangaji on Facing the Abyss

[justlikeyou]

[laughter]

esponja posted this on a different forum:



I found her to be as deft as she was uncompromising. What I love about this is that all she said about the narrative was, essentially "what is any of that without the narrative?". So, essentially, she said almost nothing about the narrative .. except, of course, for the title line. She even sort of gave permission for him to pursue his narrative, and her pointing could have applied to anyone, regardless of what narrative they have.

I like to play with narratives, to try to discern deliberate deception and self-deception, but it's all just the relative play, as any play with any narrative only gives rise, to another narrative.

[Reefs]

Feb 21, 2022 3:12:57 GMT -5 laughter said:

esponja posted this on a different forum:

video

I found her to be as deft as she was uncompromising. What I love about this is that all she said about the narrative was, essentially "what is any of that without the narrative?". So, essentially, she said almost nothing about the narrative .. except, of course, for the title line. She even sort of gave permission for him to pursue his narrative, and her pointing could have applied to anyone, regardless of what narrative they have.

I like to play with narratives, to try to discern deliberate deception and self-deception, but it's all just the relative play, as any play with any narrative only gives rise, to another narrative.

That was a good one. And it almost seems as if she had been talking to Esther lately.

There are some parallels that I recognize from A-H dialogs over the years (like in 2001, 2008, 2016...). People would say that they see the world in turmoil and great suffering everywhere. And that they get confused and exhausted trying to make sense of it all because it seems so random and also unfair. And then they would look at their own rather privileged situation and feel guilty, like: With all this suffering going on in the world, what right do I have to just care about my own happiness? Isn't that extremely selfish? Shouldn't I be suffering more, with all those others?

So what I see Gangaji doing there is pointing back to our default or natural perspective, i.e. how the world looks like when seen thru the eyes of Source.

[laughter]

Feb 21, 2022 13:00:55 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Feb 21, 2022 3:12:57 GMT -5 laughter said:

esponja posted this on a different forum:

video

I found her to be as deft as she was uncompromising. What I love about this is that all she said about the narrative was, essentially "what is any of that without the narrative?". So, essentially, she said almost nothing about the narrative .. except, of course, for the title line. She even sort of gave permission for him to pursue his narrative, and her pointing could have applied to anyone, regardless of what narrative they have.

I like to play with narratives, to try to discern deliberate deception and self-deception, but it's all just the relative play, as any play with any narrative only gives rise, to another narrative.

That was a good one. And it almost seems as if she had been talking to Esther lately.

There are some parallels that I recognize from A-H dialogs over the years (like in 2001, 2008, 2016...). People would say that they see the world in turmoil and great suffering everywhere. And that they get confused and exhausted trying to make sense of it all because it seems so random and also unfair. And then they would look at their own rather privileged situation and feel guilty, like: With all this suffering going on in the world, what right do I have to just care about my own happiness? Isn't that extremely selfish? Shouldn't I be suffering more, with all those others?

So what I see Gangaji doing there is pointing back to our default or natural perspective, i.e. how the world looks like when seen thru the eyes of Source.

Did you catch her fleeting pitch for a version of the grand, mass new awakening? I saw a glimmer of Cassandra's hope in that moment!

[Reefs]

Feb 21, 2022 19:13:57 GMT -5 laughter said:

Feb 21, 2022 13:00:55 GMT -5 Reefs said:

That was a good one. And it almost seems as if she had been talking to Esther lately.

There are some parallels that I recognize from A-H dialogs over the years (like in 2001, 2008, 2016...). People would say that they see the world in turmoil and great suffering everywhere. And that they get confused and exhausted trying to make sense of it all because it seems so random and also unfair. And then they would look at their own rather privileged situation and feel guilty, like: With all this suffering going on in the world, what right do I have to just care about my own happiness? Isn't that extremely selfish? Shouldn't I be suffering more, with all those others?

So what I see Gangaji doing there is pointing back to our default or natural perspective, i.e. how the world looks like when seen thru the eyes of Source.

Did you catch her fleeting pitch for a version of the grand, mass new awakening? I saw a glimmer of Cassandra's hope in that moment!

I didn't really pay much attention to her actual words. She did a great job of pointing right at the mental kungfu that causes all the trouble. I was mainly fascinated by her presence though. I used to have a rather low opinion of Gangaji because I only knew her in print and what I've read so far wasn't anything extraordinary. But this was really good and it changed my mind about her. Thanks for (re)posting.

I think a lot of people who at least theoretically understand what non-duality is pointing to struggle with the practical implications of it, what it means to be an individual, to be part of the collective and to be THIS. They can't make it all fit together intellectually. So in their day to day lives, they are still confused. For many, non-duality just functions as some kind of soothing meta story. That's always been the problem with followers of Advaita, it seems, and that's why, ultimately, I prefer Zen over Advaita.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2022 22:28:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Feb 21, 2022 19:13:57 GMT -5 laughter said:

Did you catch her fleeting pitch for a version of the grand, mass new awakening? I saw a glimmer of Cassandra's hope in that moment!

I didn't really pay much attention to her actual words. She did a great job of pointing right at the mental kungfu that causes all the trouble. I was mainly fascinated by her presence though. I used to have a rather low opinion of Gangaji because I only knew her in print and what I've read so far wasn't anything extraordinary. But this was really good and it changed my mind about her. Thanks for (re)posting.

I think a lot of people who at least theoretically understand what non-duality is pointing to struggle with the practical implications of it, what it means to be an individual, to be part of the collective and to be THIS. They can't make it all fit together intellectually. So in their day to day lives, they are still confused. For many, non-duality just functions as some kind of soothing meta story. That's always been the problem with followers of Advaita, it seems, and that's why, ultimately, I prefer Zen over Advaita.

It's worth pointing out that those views about individuality come from western style non-duality known as neo-advaita which originated from the followers of Papaji of whom Gangaji was one. But traditional Advaita doesn't speak in those terms. In fact it puts a great deal of emphasis on personal ethics and moral behavior. When was the last time you heard a Western nonduality teacher speak about that? You won't hear Vedanta saying don't practice meditation because how could you practice to be what you already are which is perfect or don't practice meditation because there is no one here to practice. Although Vedanta believes that all changing phenomena is merely an appearance and that includes the individual, Vedanta doesn't tell you that you're not an individual because the individual or jiva is no different to Brahman which is the one reality. The Self-Realized don't give a hoot about individuality. They are equally unconcerned about whether it appears or doesn't appear. So it's not surprising that a purely theoretical understanding of Western neo-advaita is going to cause a lot of confusion because if you're being told there is no such thing as an individual this is just happening on a mental level so you're trying to replace one concept with another concept that you are not an individual. That's a recipe for utter delusion. So we have the ridiculous situation of these non-duality discussion groups full of people vociferously defending the fact that they're not an individual. It's beyond parody.

I don't know much about Zen but it seems to takes a much more holistic approach to life as an individual. Your post has inspired me to look into it further. I found this document and I was struck by the very first sentence which would be an absolute afront to any neo advaitin.

"Zen aims at the perfection of personhood."

Japanese Zen

[zazeniac]

Apr 2, 2022 21:44:08 GMT -5 @satch said:

Feb 21, 2022 22:28:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

I didn't really pay much attention to her actual words. She did a great job of pointing right at the mental kungfu that causes all the trouble. I was mainly fascinated by her presence though. I used to have a rather low opinion of Gangaji because I only knew her in print and what I've read so far wasn't anything extraordinary. But this was really good and it changed my mind about her. Thanks for (re)posting.

I think a lot of people who at least theoretically understand what non-duality is pointing to struggle with the practical implications of it, what it means to be an individual, to be part of the collective and to be THIS. They can't make it all fit together intellectually. So in their day to day lives, they are still confused. For many, non-duality just functions as some kind of soothing meta story. That's always been the problem with followers of Advaita, it seems, and that's why, ultimately, I prefer Zen over Advaita.

It's worth pointing out that those views about individuality come from western style non-duality known as neo-advaita which originated from the followers of Papaji of whom Gangaji was one. But traditional Advaita doesn't speak in those terms. In fact it puts a great deal of emphasis on personal ethics and moral behavior. When was the last time you heard a Western nonduality teacher speak about that? You won't hear Vedanta saying don't practice meditation because how could you practice to be what you already are which is perfect or don't practice meditation because there is no one here to practice. Although Vedanta believes that all changing phenomena is merely an appearance and that includes the individual, Vedanta doesn't tell you that you're not an individual because the individual or jiva is no different to Brahman which is the one reality. The Self-Realized don't give a hoot about individuality. They are equally unconcerned about whether it appears or doesn't appear. So it's not surprising that a purely theoretical understanding of Western neo-advaita is going to cause a lot of confusion because if you're being told there is no such thing as an individual this is just happening on a mental level so you're trying to replace one concept with another concept that you are not an individual. That's a recipe for utter delusion. So we have the ridiculous situation of these non-duality discussion groups full of people vociferously defending the fact that they're not an individual. It's beyond parody.

I don't know much about Zen but it seems to takes a much more holistic approach to life as an individual. Your post has inspired me to look into it further. I found this document and I was struck by the very first sentence which would be an absolute afront to any neo advaitin.

"Zen aims at the perfection of personhood."

Japanese Zen

Ramana instructed seekers to hold the I-thought, the sense of "I". Zazen instruction encourages holding on to (focus on) the breath. Ramana considered the breath the gross form of the I-thought.

There's no explanation of why we should focus on the breath in Zen. It seems in Self Inquiry that Self/self model concept is a requirement. There was really no discussion or explaining at least in the Soto zendo I attended. Even a concept such as "personhood" would have been ridiculed. I often heard "if you can talk about it, it's not Zen."

[Reefs]

Apr 2, 2022 21:44:08 GMT -5 @satch said:

Feb 21, 2022 22:28:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

I didn't really pay much attention to her actual words. She did a great job of pointing right at the mental kungfu that causes all the trouble. I was mainly fascinated by her presence though. I used to have a rather low opinion of Gangaji because I only knew her in print and what I've read so far wasn't anything extraordinary. But this was really good and it changed my mind about her. Thanks for (re)posting.

I think a lot of people who at least theoretically understand what non-duality is pointing to struggle with the practical implications of it, what it means to be an individual, to be part of the collective and to be THIS. They can't make it all fit together intellectually. So in their day to day lives, they are still confused. For many, non-duality just functions as some kind of soothing meta story. That's always been the problem with followers of Advaita, it seems, and that's why, ultimately, I prefer Zen over Advaita.

It's worth pointing out that those views about individuality come from western style non-duality known as neo-advaita which originated from the followers of Papaji of whom Gangaji was one. But traditional Advaita doesn't speak in those terms. In fact it puts a great deal of emphasis on personal ethics and moral behavior. When was the last time you heard a Western nonduality teacher speak about that? You won't hear Vedanta saying don't practice meditation because how could you practice to be what you already are which is perfect or don't practice meditation because there is no one here to practice. Although Vedanta believes that all changing phenomena is merely an appearance and that includes the individual, Vedanta doesn't tell you that you're not an individual because the individual or jiva is no different to Brahman which is the one reality. The Self-Realized don't give a hoot about individuality. They are equally unconcerned about whether it appears or doesn't appear. So it's not surprising that a purely theoretical understanding of Western neo-advaita is going to cause a lot of confusion because if you're being told there is no such thing as an individual this is just happening on a mental level so you're trying to replace one concept with another concept that you are not an individual. That's a recipe for utter delusion. So we have the ridiculous situation of these non-duality discussion groups full of people vociferously defending the fact that they're not an individual. It's beyond parody.

I don't know much about Zen but it seems to takes a much more holistic approach to life as an individual. Your post has inspired me to look into it further. I found this document and I was struck by the very first sentence which would be an absolute afront to any neo advaitin.

"Zen aims at the perfection of personhood."

Japanese Zen

Check out this thread:

spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5814/akilesh-ayyar-interviewed-souljourns

[Reefs]

Apr 2, 2022 21:44:08 GMT -5 @satch said:

Feb 21, 2022 22:28:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

I didn't really pay much attention to her actual words. She did a great job of pointing right at the mental kungfu that causes all the trouble. I was mainly fascinated by her presence though. I used to have a rather low opinion of Gangaji because I only knew her in print and what I've read so far wasn't anything extraordinary. But this was really good and it changed my mind about her. Thanks for (re)posting.

I think a lot of people who at least theoretically understand what non-duality is pointing to struggle with the practical implications of it, what it means to be an individual, to be part of the collective and to be THIS. They can't make it all fit together intellectually. So in their day to day lives, they are still confused. For many, non-duality just functions as some kind of soothing meta story. That's always been the problem with followers of Advaita, it seems, and that's why, ultimately, I prefer Zen over Advaita.

It's worth pointing out that those views about individuality come from western style non-duality known as neo-advaita which originated from the followers of Papaji of whom Gangaji was one. But traditional Advaita doesn't speak in those terms. In fact it puts a great deal of emphasis on personal ethics and moral behavior. When was the last time you heard a Western nonduality teacher speak about that? You won't hear Vedanta saying don't practice meditation because how could you practice to be what you already are which is perfect or don't practice meditation because there is no one here to practice. Although Vedanta believes that all changing phenomena is merely an appearance and that includes the individual, Vedanta doesn't tell you that you're not an individual because the individual or jiva is no different to Brahman which is the one reality. The Self-Realized don't give a hoot about individuality. They are equally unconcerned about whether it appears or doesn't appear. So it's not surprising that a purely theoretical understanding of Western neo-advaita is going to cause a lot of confusion because if you're being told there is no such thing as an individual this is just happening on a mental level so you're trying to replace one concept with another concept that you are not an individual. That's a recipe for utter delusion. So we have the ridiculous situation of these non-duality discussion groups full of people vociferously defending the fact that they're not an individual. It's beyond parody.

I don't know much about Zen but it seems to takes a much more holistic approach to life as an individual. Your post has inspired me to look into it further. I found this document and I was struck by the very first sentence which would be an absolute afront to any neo advaitin.

"Zen aims at the perfection of personhood."

Japanese Zen

I don't remember having had any issues with what Papaji taught. Actually, I am not even sure if he really fits the neo-advaita label, especially when used in a derogatory way. In and of itself, what neo-advaita teaches isn't wrong. It's just that when the wrong people get hold of that kind of teaching, people that are still caught up with their own psychological baggage, it can get really weird.

You are getting the wrong idea about Zen, I think. The goal is rather to transcend personhood, not to perfect personhood. In that sense, the goal is similar to neo-advaita, but in Zen that doesn't mean that once personhood has been transcended that you then have a license to be a jerk or that anything goes. Keep in mind that Zen has its roots in Taoism. And in Taoism the goal is to perfectly blend with nature, to follow nature's way. In that sense, the goal in Zen is to produce a fully balanced individual, that always acts entirely naturally with no thought or concern about acting natural or unnatural, fully immersed in the here and now, as opposed to something artificial like a perfected person that follows an imaginary list of do's and dont's and only knows the here and now in relation to past and future.

So I'd say there's good neo-advaita and neo-advaita gone bad. The good neo-advaita teachers like Papaji will always talk about the NOW, about being fully present, and bring their students back to the present moment, but the bad neo-advaita teachers are usually so occupied with their talks about appearances and what they are not that they forget what they are and hardly ever mention the NOW - because they most likely have no actual reference for what it means to be fully present in the NOW nor have they realized who they really are. And that's where it all becomes just mental kungfu, where the words are just words with nothing actual behind it. As Ramana said, both the jnani and the ajnani say "I am the body" - but they mean something very different when they say it, because one says it from the perspective of the absolute, the other says it from the perspective of the relative. In the same way, both the good (neo)advaitin and the bad (neo)advaitin say personhood is an illusion. But one also knows that, as you say, jiva is also Brahaman, the other doesn't. IMO, that's at the root of the parody you've been witnessing.

[Deleted]

Check your notions and intentions by inquiring
"What is the movement of the mind?"
People confuse inquiry with yoga and meditation.
Yoga is union with the subject within.
Meditation is concentration on an object outside.
Inquiry does not keep any relation
with anything within or without.
Inquiry is finding out who you are.

Then, when 'knowing' drops away,
have no doubt in what remains.
"I do not know," is the Knowledge.
Who is the 'I' which does not know?

It is very important to remember:
dormant tendencies rise as manifest thoughts.
Even gods will tempt you and only Buddha survives.
So reject pleasures of heaven and earth;
what is not Here will never be Freedom.

Give up all doubts.

~ Sri H. W. L. Poonja.

[zendancer]

Apr 5, 2022 10:32:21 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Apr 2, 2022 21:44:08 GMT -5 @satch said:

It's worth pointing out that those views about individuality come from western style non-duality known as neo-advaita which originated from the followers of Papaji of whom Gangaji was one. But traditional Advaita doesn't speak in those terms. In fact it puts a great deal of emphasis on personal ethics and moral behavior. When was the last time you heard a Western nonduality teacher speak about that? You won't hear Vedanta saying don't practice meditation because how could you practice to be what you already are which is perfect or don't practice meditation because there is no one here to practice. Although Vedanta believes that all changing phenomena is merely an appearance and that includes the individual, Vedanta doesn't tell you that you're not an individual because the individual or jiva is no different to Brahman which is the one reality. The Self-Realized don't give a hoot about individuality. They are equally unconcerned about whether it appears or doesn't appear. So it's not surprising that a purely theoretical understanding of Western neo-advaita is going to cause a lot of confusion because if you're being told there is no such thing as an individual this is just happening on a mental level so you're trying to replace one concept with another concept that you are not an individual. That's a recipe for utter delusion. So we have the ridiculous situation of these non-duality discussion groups full of people vociferously defending the fact that they're not an individual. It's beyond parody.

I don't know much about Zen but it seems to takes a much more holistic approach to life as an individual. Your post has inspired me to look into it further. I found this document and I was struck by the very first sentence which would be an absolute afront to any neo advaitin.

"Zen aims at the perfection of personhood."

Japanese Zen

I don't remember having had any issues with what Papaji taught. Actually, I am not even sure if he really fits the neo-advaita label, especially when used in a derogatory way. In and of itself, what neo-advaita teaches isn't wrong. It's just that when the wrong people get hold of that kind of teaching, people that are still caught up with their own psychological baggage, it can get really weird.

You are getting the wrong idea about Zen, I think. The goal is rather to transcend personhood, not to perfect personhood. In that sense, the goal is similar to neo-advaita, but in Zen that doesn't mean that once personhood has been transcended that you then have a license to be a jerk or that anything goes. Keep in mind that Zen has its roots in Taoism. And in Taoism the goal is to perfectly blend with nature, to follow nature's way. In that sense, the goal in Zen is to produce a fully balanced individual, that always acts entirely naturally with no thought or concern about acting natural or unnatural, fully immersed in the here and now, as opposed to something artificial like a perfected person that follows an imaginary list of do's and dont's and only knows the here and now in relation to past and future.

So I'd say there's good neo-advaita and neo-advaita gone bad. The good neo-advaita teachers like Papaji will always talk about the NOW, about being fully present, and bring their students back to the present moment, but the bad neo-advaita teachers are usually so occupied with their talks about appearances and what they are not that they forget what they are and hardly ever mention the NOW - because they most likely have no actual reference for what it means to be fully present in the NOW nor have they realized who they really are. And that's where it all becomes just mental kungfu, where the words are just words with nothing actual behind it. As Ramana said, both the jnani and the ajnani say "I am the body" - but they mean something very different when they say it, because one says it from the perspective of the absolute, the other says it from the perspective of the relative. In the same way, both the good (neo)advaitin and the bad (neo)advaitin say personhood is an illusion. But one also knows that, as you say, jiva is also Brahaman, the other doesn't. IMO, that's at the root of the parody you've been witnessing.

Amen. This is why it helps to keep an open mind and not get too judgmental about alternative paths (alternative to what one is familiar with) that lead to realization. Many times Zen people, who have no reference for Advaita, discount both Advaita as well as Neo-Advaita. ITSW, many Advaita people discount Zen because the, have no reference for that path. I recently re-read "Everyday Enlightenment" which contains stories about seven people who woke up as a result of interacting with Tony Parsons. The author is a film maker who got interested in everyday people who had escaped the consensus paradigm and discovered THIS. Shortly after re-reading that book, I watched a video about two practitioners of Qi-Gong who woke up. The problem that's been discussed here many times in the past is that people who wake up who are only familiar with one tradition often think that there is only one path to realization--the one that they think they followed--, and that's far from the truth. People who think that a meditation practice is necessary for realization would be well advised to consider what happened to Paul Morgan-Somers. He had no interest in existential issues, did not practice meditation, and did not pursue self-enquiry, yet he spontaneously woke up at the age of sixteen. His story, alone, challenges the idea that any particular practice or pathway is necessary for realization. There are literally dozens of stories that illustrate the mysterious nature of waking up. Tolle, for example, apparently woke up as a result of having one strange thought. Byron Katie woke up when a roach crawled across her foot. One Zen monk woke up when his master slammed a door against his leg. Another Zen monk woke up when he swept a pebble against a bamboo fence and he heard the sound that resulted. Terry Stephens woke up after sitting and watching clouds. One size does not fit all.

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2022 9:38:51 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Apr 5, 2022 10:32:21 GMT -5 Reefs said:

I don't remember having had any issues with what Papaji taught. Actually, I am not even sure if he really fits the neo-advaita label, especially when used in a derogatory way. In and of itself, what neo-advaita teaches isn't wrong. It's just that when the wrong people get hold of that kind of teaching, people that are still caught up with their own psychological baggage, it can get really weird.

You are getting the wrong idea about Zen, I think. The goal is rather to transcend personhood, not to perfect personhood. In that sense, the goal is similar to neo-advaita, but in Zen that doesn't mean that once personhood has been transcended that you then have a license to be a jerk or that anything goes. Keep in mind that Zen has its roots in Taoism. And in Taoism the goal is to perfectly blend with nature, to follow nature's way. In that sense, the goal in Zen is to produce a fully balanced individual, that always acts entirely naturally with no thought or concern about acting natural or unnatural, fully immersed in the here and now, as opposed to something artificial like a perfected person that follows an imaginary list of do's and dont's and only knows the here and now in relation to past and future.

So I'd say there's good neo-advaita and neo-advaita gone bad. The good neo-advaita teachers like Papaji will always talk about the NOW, about being fully present, and bring their students back to the present moment, but the bad neo-advaita teachers are usually so occupied with their talks about appearances and what they are not that they forget what they are and hardly ever mention the NOW - because they most likely have no actual reference for what it means to be fully present in the NOW nor have they realized who they really are. And that's where it all becomes just mental kungfu, where the words are just words with nothing actual behind it. As Ramana said, both the jnani and the ajnani say "I am the body" - but they mean something very different when they say it, because one says it from the perspective of the absolute, the other says it from the perspective of the relative. In the same way, both the good (neo)advaitin and the bad (neo)advaitin say personhood is an illusion. But one also knows that, as you say, jiva is also Brahaman, the other doesn't. IMO, that's at the root of the parody you've been witnessing.

Amen. This is why it helps to keep an open mind and not get too judgmental about alternative paths (alternative to what one is familiar with) that lead to realization. Many times Zen people, who have no reference for Advaita, discount both Advaita as well as Neo-Advaita. ITSW, many Advaita people discount Zen because the, have no reference for that path. I recently re-read "Everyday Enlightenment" which contains stories about seven people who woke up as a result of interacting with Tony Parsons. The author is a film maker who got interested in everyday people who had escaped the consensus paradigm and discovered THIS. Shortly after re-reading that book, I watched a video about two practitioners of Qi-Gong who woke up. The problem that's been discussed here many times in the past is that people who wake up who are only familiar with one tradition often think that there is only one path to realization--the one that they think they followed--, and that's far from the truth. People who think that a meditation practice is necessary for realization would be well advised to consider what happened to Paul Morgan-Somers. He had no interest in existential issues, did not practice meditation, and did not pursue self-enquiry, yet he spontaneously woke up at the age of sixteen. His story, alone, challenges the idea that any particular practice or pathway is necessary for realization. There are literally dozens of stories that illustrate the mysterious nature of waking up. Tolle, for example, apparently woke up as a result of having one strange thought. Byron Katie woke up when a roach crawled across her foot. One Zen monk woke up when his master slammed a door against his leg. Another Zen monk woke up when he swept a pebble against a bamboo fence and he heard the sound that resulted. Terry Stephens woke up after sitting and watching clouds. One size does not fit all.

It is certainly possible to wake up spontaneously without any prior practice. One well known example is that of Ramana Maharshi. But I would say this is very rare. What is notable is that because Ramana woke up without practice or indeed without any interest in spirituality beyond a book he had about Indian saints, he didn't then go on to say that practice is unnecessary. On the contrary, he advocated self inquiry. He was in a very good position to be able to reverse engineer his experience. He knew what was required as a practice to reach his state. And he knew that the main obstacle to self-realization was mind itself. It is an obstacle to that deep silence that is the essence of true nature and he was always in that deep silence. I'm not advocating one particular path because I think that finally it all comes down to one thing which is letting go of everything. Many paths lead to silence but you cannot say that silence is any kind of path. Anything will do that gets you there. But does the neo-advaita approach do that?  Maybe, if someone is very ripe. If they already know what it is to be quiet. Papaji said all you need to do is to keep quiet. But when I look at a lot of the western style neo advaita nonduality teachers I don't see much opportunity to get quiet because the mind is being given a lot of contradictory and paradoxical concepts to grapple with about identity, separation, being told there is really no me etc. The mind loves that. It also hates it because it doesn't become satisfied by these paradoxical concepts. The mind is far from quiet. And then very often there is an unequivocal message that practice is unnecessary because there is no one to practice. You know what I mean. You've heard it all before.


Zen is at the opposite extreme of just sitting without the concepts but maybe sometimes that gets too rigid. Traditional advaita Vedanta and also yoga doesn't sound at all like neo advaita. Nor does Buddhism. If you take away all the spirituality from neo-advaita what's left? It sounds like counseling or therapy to me. It's psychology.. That aspect is completely lacking from the other traditions. Sure they will talk about the nature of human suffering, but it doesn't dwell on it. These traditions are very specific about there being a path. The funny thing is that although neo advaita keeps talking about the impersonal what it actually addresses sounds very personal. It's difficult to avoid the fact that when you listen to neo-advaita it seems to be about using the mind to talk yourself into realization. It's using the mind to try and kill the mind but the mind doesn't want to die. So many words. Too many words.

[Reefs]

Apr 6, 2022 9:38:51 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Apr 5, 2022 10:32:21 GMT -5 Reefs said:

I don't remember having had any issues with what Papaji taught. Actually, I am not even sure if he really fits the neo-advaita label, especially when used in a derogatory way. In and of itself, what neo-advaita teaches isn't wrong. It's just that when the wrong people get hold of that kind of teaching, people that are still caught up with their own psychological baggage, it can get really weird.

You are getting the wrong idea about Zen, I think. The goal is rather to transcend personhood, not to perfect personhood. In that sense, the goal is similar to neo-advaita, but in Zen that doesn't mean that once personhood has been transcended that you then have a license to be a jerk or that anything goes. Keep in mind that Zen has its roots in Taoism. And in Taoism the goal is to perfectly blend with nature, to follow nature's way. In that sense, the goal in Zen is to produce a fully balanced individual, that always acts entirely naturally with no thought or concern about acting natural or unnatural, fully immersed in the here and now, as opposed to something artificial like a perfected person that follows an imaginary list of do's and dont's and only knows the here and now in relation to past and future.

So I'd say there's good neo-advaita and neo-advaita gone bad. The good neo-advaita teachers like Papaji will always talk about the NOW, about being fully present, and bring their students back to the present moment, but the bad neo-advaita teachers are usually so occupied with their talks about appearances and what they are not that they forget what they are and hardly ever mention the NOW - because they most likely have no actual reference for what it means to be fully present in the NOW nor have they realized who they really are. And that's where it all becomes just mental kungfu, where the words are just words with nothing actual behind it. As Ramana said, both the jnani and the ajnani say "I am the body" - but they mean something very different when they say it, because one says it from the perspective of the absolute, the other says it from the perspective of the relative. In the same way, both the good (neo)advaitin and the bad (neo)advaitin say personhood is an illusion. But one also knows that, as you say, jiva is also Brahaman, the other doesn't. IMO, that's at the root of the parody you've been witnessing.

Amen. This is why it helps to keep an open mind and not get too judgmental about alternative paths (alternative to what one is familiar with) that lead to realization. Many times Zen people, who have no reference for Advaita, discount both Advaita as well as Neo-Advaita. ITSW, many Advaita people discount Zen because the, have no reference for that path. I recently re-read "Everyday Enlightenment" which contains stories about seven people who woke up as a result of interacting with Tony Parsons. The author is a film maker who got interested in everyday people who had escaped the consensus paradigm and discovered THIS. Shortly after re-reading that book, I watched a video about two practitioners of Qi-Gong who woke up. The problem that's been discussed here many times in the past is that people who wake up who are only familiar with one tradition often think that there is only one path to realization--the one that they think they followed--, and that's far from the truth. People who think that a meditation practice is necessary for realization would be well advised to consider what happened to Paul Morgan-Somers. He had no interest in existential issues, did not practice meditation, and did not pursue self-enquiry, yet he spontaneously woke up at the age of sixteen. His story, alone, challenges the idea that any particular practice or pathway is necessary for realization. There are literally dozens of stories that illustrate the mysterious nature of waking up. Tolle, for example, apparently woke up as a result of having one strange thought. Byron Katie woke up when a roach crawled across her foot. One Zen monk woke up when his master slammed a door against his leg. Another Zen monk woke up when he swept a pebble against a bamboo fence and he heard the sound that resulted. Terry Stephens woke up after sitting and watching clouds. One size does not fit all.

Yes, God's ways are mysterious. Although in the case of Tolle and Katie, there was a period of intense mental anguish and the strong desire to escape that kind of suffering before their realization. Not sure how that went down with Morgan-Somers, but a common theme among those who wake up seems to be that there's at least some awareness that something isn't quite right or missing with the way one currently experiences life. Most may not even be able to become fully conscious of that because they live very busy lives with endless distractions. But more often than not, people may actually get interested in existential questions or even pursue a spiritual practice before they wake up. But there's a reason why we call SR acausal.