|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2024 22:30:43 GMT -5
TBH, I’ve never heard of Shunyamurti before. Some of his videos just popped up one day in the suggestion column on youtube, so I watched a couple of those and found them to be exceptionally clear. And so I posted one video. Then ZD mentioned those rumors. I looked it up and there seem to be some folks dedicated to badmouthing Shunyamurti, they set up a website especially for that purpose. And you know what that reminds me of? Gab! Spiritual communities are tricky business. They attract of lot of needy, confused and also egomaniacal people, with lots of interpersonal dynamics. Consider this: imagine a newbie coming to ST and reading a couple of posts by ZD (or yours truly) and finding them to be of exceptional clarity, and thinking “Wow, awesome. Such clarity! I like that guy.” And then that newbie goes to gab and starts reading what’s written there about ZD (or yours truly). And not knowing anything about ST’s history, he’s probably going to think “Woah, I had no idea that guy was such a fraud and bully! Apparently he randomly bans members as soon as they dare to disagree with him, threatening his oversized but fragile spiritual ego! He seems to be running his own personal cult on that forum, like a dictator, having all opposition silenced or banned, surrounded by yes-men, who don’t have the balls to point out this blatant abuse of power... very much like society these days!” Now, what is fact and what is fiction here? How could the newbie ever tell without knowing the whole story, first hand? I think we are in a very similar situation with Shunyamurti and many other gurus who have been accused of questionable behavior, like Osho, Sadhguru, Mooji etc. Those allegations could be all true, or not. It could all be true and then it would be a bad case of supersized spiritual ego gone wild. Or it could be someone envying their popularity and success, one of their direct competitors in the spiritual circus, just trying to get some of their market share. Or it could be a former disgruntled follower of them, who had been rejected for whatever reason and his/her ego bruised and is now trying to get even from afar. The pointers are crystal clear though. And that’s why I posted the video and why we are still discussing these other gurus. So, while on the one hand, if the walk doesn’t match the talk is an indicator that clarity isn’t really that crystal, we can’t verify the walk of these people first hand, only based on hearsay, and so have to stick to the talk for the time being and take what we hear about the walk with several grains of salt. But as far as I can tell, having watched only a couple of videos, Shunyamurti’s talk is exceptionally clear and also very elegant, one of the best you can find these days. I agree, and without knowing firsthand what went down, it's impossible to know what's going on and whether S walks the talk or not. Rick Archer has run into the same thing. He posted one video of a guy who had what appeared to be a genuinely huge realization. The guy attracted a lot of followers, but subsequently many followers fell away and began describing actions that made everything far more problematic. Apparently there was an addiction and the guy borrowed lots of money from his followers that he didn't pay back. Rick took down his interview, and the guy posted a rebuttal explaining his side of the story. I read the claims from both sides of the aisle and concluded that the guy had some serious problems. For that reason I quit recommending that people listen to the guy. Rick told me that this has happened about 25 times which is not bad considering he's done 800 interviews. It does, however, bring up the issue of what it means to walk the talk. S is very clear concerning ND, but if the allegations are true, what does that imply? To me it implies that a human can discover the non-dual nature of reality but still have some deep--seated personality issues/flaws that would NOT make them good in-person teachers. It would be safer for a newbie to listen to the satsangs, but not get involved personally with the teacher. I suspect that this is more of a problem with independent teachers than ones who teach in traditional structures among people who have equal insight. Even then, there's no certainty because there are several well-known Tibetan figures of some renown whose high-ranking cohorts hid their bad behavior for years. It appears that there can be enlightened insight by both mature psychologically well-adjusted people and enlightened insight by immature psychologically-screwed up people. Perhaps this is why some Zen Masters distinguish between enlightenment and "Holy Buddhahood." Thoughts? Well, people are people. We should always keep that in mind. And I think many people, both followers and teachers, underestimate the power of social dynamics. Newbies are usually very needy people, they often look specifically for a personal connection with someone they can totally and blindly trust, like a father figure that they never had or had lost along the path. So the advice to just listen to the message and not hang around with the teacher would go against that very strong need or desire that is plaguing them. So there are usually huge expectations on the follower side that become huge projections onto the teacher. And you have to be a really strong and stable being to not get sucked into these dynamics, especially when you have hundreds or thousands of followers, including VIPs hanging on your lips. And it seems to me that that most gurus can't actually resist that pull at some point, in the end even the most well-meaning gurus get sucked into these personal dynamics. Especially fame seems to get them all in the end. See Sadhguru as latest example. I've watched a bunch of videos recently about cults, how cults work and so on. And whenever you have someone needy and someone who seems to have the answers to all your problems, there's the potential for abuse. The common pattern I've noticed from these stories, whether it is religious, political or corporate cults, is that the people who enter these cults are usually in a state of great confusion at the beginning. The cult gives their life a structure again and a sense of direction and purpose. But the cult also always tries to break down and erase their individuality via numerous methods, for the sake of the mission, the greater good or even just for the sake of reaching a higher state of being or enlightenment. So in cults, the individual identity is slowly and very methodically (!) replaced by a group identity, so that in the end, the cult members totally ignore their inner guidance. Their inner guidance is replaced by the direction of the cult leader. There is also always a strong us vs. them attitude, so that it is impossible to reason with those cult members, they will actually go to great lengths to defend their abusive situation. So here you can see that non-duality groups can rather easily turn into a cult, because right from the start, ego and individuality are seen as the root of all evil and the scriptures all seem to confirm that as well. So it has the stamp of authority. And especially in the East, the disciple-guru relationship is one of total obedience to the guru. So it's not a far stretch of the imagination that someone very knowledgeable and charismatic and maybe with a strong desire to help and uplift humanity but also with a strong narcissistic streak might unconsciously or even consciously exploit that kind of traditional set up. As a seeker, I always found this traditional setup questionable. And even now, I still find it a bit strange when Westerners feel the need to take on Eastern names and put on foreign attire to teach. To me that indicates that they are dressed up for the spiritual circus, i.e. dog and pony show. However, most seekers expect a minimum of dog and pony show, so this may often just be a demand and supply issue, which these teachers willingly or begrudgingly accept. But my main point is this, in the satsang scene, especially with the traditional satsang setup, a structure that can potentially turn abusive is baked into the system. And both followers and teachers can, and often do, unknowingly get sucked into such dynamics, despite best intentions. Consider this: if you help someone at a critical point in their life when they were about to crash and burn and they are able to turn everything around again because they met you, and by interacting with you, either talking to you are just hanging around with you, they have a profound shift, they will usually be grateful to you for the rest of their lives and attribute their new found luck to you. Now imagine that not only happening once but many times, maybe even regularly. I don't think its a far stretch to imagine that for some counselors or gurus, that may have an inflating effect on their self-image, and there you have all the ingredients for a cult again. What I've also learned from these documentaries is that a cult is not necessarily some extremely weird belief system around an eccentric cult leader with gullible followers. Some families or companies are actually run like a cult, or political parties. So this is actually a much more common occurrence than most people might think. So that's the psychological and sociological perspective. Another, traditional perspective would be seeing it thru the lens of karma theory. According to karma theory, enlightenment means that no new karma is created but that the enlightened one still has to deal with past karma that will come due at some point until that karma is exhausted. It's similar to when you change your diet or do a detox or a water fast. The day you stop eating, you basically stop adding anything to your body in terms of substances, and so in that sense you are clean. However, there's still a lot in your body from your past bad habits of eating that your body still has to process and to eliminate. So in that sense, you are far from clean. It takes for example several days until your bowels are actually empty. And then there's a lot of other substances and toxins that are store in tissue all over your body that the body will slowly have to deal with. So this can be a very long process, depending on your individual body type, history and current situation. You can't really predict what's going to happen. Some people may actually go thru extreme detox experiences and sometimes get hospitalized, some others just have a bit of of low energy and spend more time in the bathroom than usual for a while and that's it. So, similarly, the post-SR informing of mind and integration process is equally unpredictable. So there are a lot of unknowns. But what we usually associate with Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is when that integration process has been completed. Very complex but fascinating topic.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2024 9:10:46 GMT -5
He really is trying to get the role grace (read: acausality) plays in this whole liberation game across. I'm halfway thru his Job book. I remember you mentioning the story of Job in the past, too. But I forgot in what context. What was, according to you, the point of that story again? Job never turns his heart against God. Instead, Job asks the question, repeatedly, "why?, why God, is this happening to me?". God rebukes the Pharisee's at the end, the one's who tried to explain to Job why he was suffering as it was happening, and rationalize away his misfortune. To me, that's the most significant element of the story. Satan's premise (the bet he made) was that Job's love of God was conditional. If we account for the personification of God as an allegory, it's a comment on the source and premise of unconditional peace. It's also rather child-like, as Job gets restored at the end. Hmm, weird. I remember I already replied but can't see my post anymore. Looks like I either didn't hit send or internet got interrupted when I hit send. So I'll join you in the dunce corner, I guess. RR's book really fascinating. I'll do an extra thread on this when I've finished it. Like you, RR points out that the answers Job gets from his friends, while from a theological perspective correct, have little or nothing to do with reality. And Job is the only one who actually wants to talk to God, everybody else is satisfied with merely talking about God.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2024 6:53:19 GMT -5
Joshu heard about a monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him sitting in meditation. Joshu walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" The monk never looked up. He remained in silence and simply raised his right fist in the air. Joshu replied, "The water is much too shallow to anchor here" (meaning that the monk was NOT enlightened). He then heard of another monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him also sitting in meditation. He walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" Like the other monk, he never looked up, remained in silence, and simply lifted his right fist in the air. Joshu said, "Ahh, you have the power over life and death." (meaning that the monk was indeed enlightened). A Zen student who reads this account is then asked, "How did Joshu know that the first monk was NOT enlightened whereas the second monk was?" That's a really good koan, haha.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2024 0:08:51 GMT -5
"The ego is a PDF file. PDF meaning, Projections, Decisions, and Fixations."
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 21, 2024 23:59:02 GMT -5
WWW made an interesting comment once about natural sounds being able to trigger satori, because the Zen literature is full of such stories. The 'further' of the pilgrim/tzu perspective is the still mind perspective (at best!), i.e. right in front of the gateless gate. So their idea of a 'further' is necessarily a great deal of speculation and probably mostly projection based on the road already traveled, their current spiritual milage. They imagine that 'further' from within the pre-SR context, and this is where it gets all wrong in the end. And it gets even wronger when they compare people in order to determine who got furtherest and who is still lagging behind. Competitive spirituality is basically an ego game. That's why those conversations were always so contentious with these guys, sometimes outright combative. In that context, notice how RR emphasizes grace, and calling it the ultimate slap in the face to the ego. Because grace puts an end to competitive spirituality, including behaviorism. That's why grace has such a bad rap here. The bottom line of all true spiritual teachings is that everyone has direct access to the Source, the Infinite, God... and so there is no need for any intermediary, dogma or ritual. Those may be helpful though for those who are totally lost, a necessary initial or intermediary step, similar to the myths JC talks about. Notice how RR also made that point when he talks about Christianity settling for the lowest common denominator, and therefore teaching religion at the lowest level. So my big takeaway from the RR material is that it's already all there, hidden in plain sight in the scriptures. But we can't see it, because we don't know how to decode it. And also because those who taught us tend to mix contexts in the worst possible way. RR is very clear about the distinction between the personal and impersonal context of the Christian message. Yes, he is, and if one were to bother to look back at my post dumpster they would find my own personal echo chamber on the subject expanding it's walls. . And what you say about that Universal message is of course as true as it gets. On one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who are lost, so there will always be a place for some sort of culture to generate hints and throw shadows on the wall. Always an opportunity to "enter Zen .. from there!" (of course, that's all relative, I'm not saying anything about some far far future I can't even imagine right now). On the other end of the spectrum you have sources of direct pointing to that truth. Some are more clear, than others. . As far as competitive spirituality goes, that's as slapstick as it gets. Funny how ego translates innocent observation of relative distinctions into more ego. That's the mind losing itself in the endless loop of the liar's paradox. And then, extending your point about which side of the gate, and the ability of mind to impersonate, there is the impetus for THIS to "test itself" .. too too funny! .. He really is trying to get the role grace (read: acausality) plays in this whole liberation game across. I'm halfway thru his Job book. I remember you mentioning the story of Job in the past, too. But I forgot in what context. What was, according to you, the point of that story again?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 21, 2024 23:48:39 GMT -5
TBH, I’ve never heard of Shunyamurti before. Some of his videos just popped up one day in the suggestion column on youtube, so I watched a couple of those and found them to be exceptionally clear. And so I posted one video. Then ZD mentioned those rumors. I looked it up and there seem to be some folks dedicated to badmouthing Shunyamurti, they set up a website especially for that purpose. And you know what that reminds me of? Gab! Spiritual communities are tricky business. They attract of lot of needy, confused and also egomaniacal people, with lots of interpersonal dynamics. Consider this: imagine a newbie coming to ST and reading a couple of posts by ZD (or yours truly) and finding them to be of exceptional clarity, and thinking “Wow, awesome. Such clarity! I like that guy.” And then that newbie goes to gab and starts reading what’s written there about ZD (or yours truly). And not knowing anything about ST’s history, he’s probably going to think “Woah, I had no idea that guy was such a fraud and bully! Apparently he randomly bans members as soon as they dare to disagree with him, threatening his oversized but fragile spiritual ego! He seems to be running his own personal cult on that forum, like a dictator, having all opposition silenced or banned, surrounded by yes-men, who don’t have the balls to point out this blatant abuse of power... very much like society these days!” Now, what is fact and what is fiction here? How could the newbie ever tell without knowing the whole story, first hand? I think we are in a very similar situation with Shunyamurti and many other gurus who have been accused of questionable behavior, like Osho, Sadhguru, Mooji etc. Those allegations could be all true, or not. It could all be true and then it would be a bad case of supersized spiritual ego gone wild. Or it could be someone envying their popularity and success, one of their direct competitors in the spiritual circus, just trying to get some of their market share. Or it could be a former disgruntled follower of them, who had been rejected for whatever reason and his/her ego bruised and is now trying to get even from afar. The pointers are crystal clear though. And that’s why I posted the video and why we are still discussing these other gurus. So, while on the one hand, if the walk doesn’t match the talk is an indicator that clarity isn’t really that crystal, we can’t verify the walk of these people first hand, only based on hearsay, and so have to stick to the talk for the time being and take what we hear about the walk with several grains of salt. But as far as I can tell, having watched only a couple of videos, Shunyamurti’s talk is exceptionally clear and also very elegant, one of the best you can find these days.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2024 9:50:52 GMT -5
Bingo cherry! Spoken like a true Abrahamster.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2024 7:29:07 GMT -5
Samadhi (Ramana's version) (3)
RM: In samadhi itself there is only perfect peace. Ecstasy comes when the mind revives at the end of samadhi, with the remembrance of the peace of samadhi. In devotion the ecstasy comes first. It is manifested by tears of joy, hair standing on end and vocal stumbling. When the ego finally dies and the sahaja is won, these symptoms and the ecstasies cease.
It makes no difference whether you call it meditation or austerities or absorption, or anything else. That which is steady, continuous like the flow of oil, is austerity, meditation and absorption. To be one's own Self is samadhi.
But it is true samadhi only if you know your Self. What is the use of sitting still for some time like a lifeless object. Suppose you get a boil on your hand and have it operated on under anaesthetic. You don't feel any pain at the time, but does that mean that you were in samadhi? It is the same with this too. One has to know what samadhi is. And how can you know it without knowing your Self? If the Self is known, samadhi will be known automatically.
Samadhi is one's natural state. It is the undercurrent in all the three states of waking, dreaming and sleeping. The Self is not in these states, but these states are in the Self. If we get samadhi in our waking state, that will persist in deep sleep also. The distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness belongs to the realm of mind, which is transcended by the state of the real Self.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 15, 2024 20:33:16 GMT -5
Samadhi (Ramana's version) (2)
RM: One who accustoms himself naturally to meditation and enjoys the bliss of meditation will not lose his samadhi state whatever external work he does, whatever thoughts may come to him. That is sahaja nirvikalpa.
Sahaja nirvikalpa is nasa [total destruction of the mind] whereas kevala nirvikalpa is laya [temporary abeyance of the mind].
Those who are in the laya samadhi state will have to bring the mind back under control from time to time. If the mind is destroyed, as it is in sahaja samadhi, it will never sprout again. Whatever is done by such people is just incidental, they will never slide down from their high state.
Those that are in the kevala nirvikalpa state are not realised, they are still seekers. Those who are in the sahaja nirvikalpa state are like a light in a windless place, or the ocean without waves; that is, there is no movement in them. They cannot find anything which is different from themselves. For those who do not reach that state, everything appears to be different from themselves.
People have all sorts of notions about nirvikalpa… Some yogis by breathing exercises allow themselves to fall into a cataleptic state far deeper than dreamless sleep, in which they are aware of nothing, absolutely nothing, and they glorify it as nirvikalpa. Some others think that once you dip into nirvikalpa you become an altogether different being. Still others take nirvikalpa to be attainable only through a trance in which the world-consciousness is totally obliterated, as in a fainting fit. All this is due to their viewing it intellectually.
Mere non-perception of the differences [vikalpas] outside is not the real nature of firm nirvikalpa. Know that the non-rising of differences [vikalpas] in the dead mind alone is the true nirvikalpa.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 15, 2024 12:34:00 GMT -5
Samadhi (Ramana's version) (1)
RM: Holding on to the supreme state is samadhi. When it is with effort due to mental disturbances, it is savikalpa. When these disturbances are absent, it is nirvikalpa. Remaining permanently in the primal state without effort is sahaja.
Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikalpa, is sahaja [the natural state].
What does it then matter whether the body-consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme.
In yoga the term samadhi refers to some kind of trance and there are various kinds of samadhi. But the samadhi I speak of is different. It is sahaja samadhi. From here you have samadhana [steadiness] and you remain calm and composed even while you are active. You realise that you are moved by the deeper real Self within. You have no worries, no anxieties, no cares, for you come to realise that there is nothing belonging to you. You know that everything is done by something with which you are in conscious union.
The nirvikalpa samadhi of raja yoga may have its use. But in jnana yoga this sahaja sthiti [natural state] or sahaja nishtha [abidance in the natural state] itself is the nirvikalpa state. In this natural state the mind is free from doubts. It has no need to swing between alternatives of possibilities and probabilities. It sees no vikalpas [differences] of any kind. It is sure of the truth because it feels the presence of the real. Even when it is active, it knows it is active in the reality, the Self, the supreme being.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 15, 2024 11:47:08 GMT -5
Samadhi (David Godman's version)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 13, 2024 23:45:10 GMT -5
This is interesting... Who knew?!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 13, 2024 22:57:54 GMT -5
"Kensho eyes!" About the spectrum, I'd say it depends on from what side of the gateless gate you look at it, hehe. And as you mention in the other post, one of the trickiest traps is when someone thinks they're done when they're not. That story of Hakuin, "the devil in the hole". So guys like 'pilgrim and tzu' have a point. But Hakuin's final kensho was the sound of the snowflake, so even that point - seeking lasts a lifetime - can be its own trap. Hakuin benefited from a culture that led him through those traps, but it was specific to a time and a place. Past performance seems to indicate that formalized cultures are going to be hit or miss as far as precipitating realization. But maybe that's a limiting belief, and one that it seems to me definitely shaped the past institutions of Christianity. WWW made an interesting comment once about natural sounds being able to trigger satori, because the Zen literature is full of such stories. The 'further' of the pilgrim/tzu perspective is the still mind perspective (at best!), i.e. right in front of the gateless gate. So their idea of a 'further' is necessarily a great deal of speculation and probably mostly projection based on the road already traveled, their current spiritual milage. They imagine that 'further' from within the pre-SR context, and this is where it gets all wrong in the end. And it gets even wronger when they compare people in order to determine who got furtherest and who is still lagging behind. Competitive spirituality is basically an ego game. That's why those conversations were always so contentious with these guys, sometimes outright combative. In that context, notice how RR emphasizes grace, and calling it the ultimate slap in the face to the ego. Because grace puts an end to competitive spirituality, including behaviorism. That's why grace has such a bad rap here. The bottom line of all true spiritual teachings is that everyone has direct access to the Source, the Infinite, God... and so there is no need for any intermediary, dogma or ritual. Those may be helpful though for those who are totally lost, a necessary initial or intermediary step, similar to the myths JC talks about. Notice how RR also made that point when he talks about Christianity settling for the lowest common denominator, and therefore teaching religion at the lowest level. So my big takeaway from the RR material is that it's already all there, hidden in plain sight in the scriptures. But we can't see it, because we don't know how to decode it. And also because those who taught us tend to mix contexts in the worst possible way. RR is very clear about the distinction between the personal and impersonal context of the Christian message.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 12, 2024 23:19:47 GMT -5
This is really good. I think he explains it quite well why some of us say that you cannot practice your way to SR and yet recommend to continue practice at the same time.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 12, 2024 22:22:05 GMT -5
Transcript:
|
|