|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2012 6:53:52 GMT -5
Thats the problem I see with T.P too....there is no practical strategy offered. As you are aware, I have no issue with contradiction, ambiguity and paradox, and to some degree thats because all of that is intellectual fun and games, but when it comes to practical strategies to bring about liberation, I like 'em to be clear and direct. Thats the part I see as a science really.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 17, 2012 7:07:20 GMT -5
Thats the problem I see with T.P too....there is no practical strategy offered. As you are aware, I have no issue with contradiction, ambiguity and paradox, and to some degree thats because all of that is intellectual fun and games, but when it comes to practical strategies to bring about liberation, I like 'em to be clear and direct. Thats the part I see as a science really. Well, he sorta kinda does offer something, but what he is offering is paradoxical. He is talking about there being no self no seeker etc. If you come to the stage and talk like there is a self then he is going to make fun of you in front of everyone, so you'd better agree with Parsons if you're gonna open your mounth in his satsangs. But at the same time he is saying that understanding is at best useless and that actually liberation takes place at an embodied energetic level. If his talking is useless, then why does he talk? If there are no selves and if understanding that there are no selves is useless, then why is he wasting so much time talking about the absence selves? Doesn't make any sense. If he thinks that the whole conflict is being played out at an energetic level then why doesn't he address it more? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2012 8:16:06 GMT -5
Thats the problem I see with T.P too....there is no practical strategy offered. As you are aware, I have no issue with contradiction, ambiguity and paradox, and to some degree thats because all of that is intellectual fun and games, but when it comes to practical strategies to bring about liberation, I like 'em to be clear and direct. Thats the part I see as a science really. Well, he sorta kinda does offer something, but what he is offering is paradoxical. He is talking about there being no self no seeker etc. If you come to the stage and talk like there is a self then he is going to make fun of you in front of everyone, so you'd better agree with Parsons if you're gonna open your mounth in his satsangs. But at the same time he is saying that understanding is at best useless and that actually liberation takes place at an embodied energetic level. If his talking is useless, then why does he talk? If there are no selves and if understanding that there are no selves is useless, then why is he wasting so much time talking about the absence selves? Doesn't make any sense. If he thinks that the whole conflict is being played out at an energetic level then why doesn't he address it more? I dont know really. I read one of his books a few years back and found it to be just more of the same non-dual high brow blah. It wasnt money well spent for me, but then again it was probably the last book I bought on the subject, so maybe it DID actually serve its purpose haha. I was happy to hear the other day that he is saying that liberation takes place at an embodied energetic level. I guess he thinks that this energetic shift can happen for people at a seminar or through his books, and to be fair, maybe subtle shifts do happen through these means, but I see the whole set up as being overly focused on understanding to be very effective. Interestingly, I read a few months ago that prior to his liberation he actually did meditate and attend counselling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2012 8:38:57 GMT -5
Like with Harding, your defense (why do you defend them anyways?) of Parsons supposes that they use language in a sort of poetic way and actually mean something different than what they say. I prefer to take them at face value. In general I think it's a bad habit to be overly poetic about it, there is enough confusion in this nonduality business as it is, why add even more confusion to it? Unfortunately too often nonduality teachers end up talking like politicians and soccer players, it's a bad habit not worthy of support imo. Well I take what I can get. I see a consistency in what he and other nonduality hucksters are saying. I don't really depend on these fellows for an accurate scientific description of the universe. I'm still trying to come to terms with nonconceptual anything. And the thing is, there are no terms that will make sense of that. Taking things at face value is useful for finding out how the heck they are pointing, but if you're looking for what they're pointing at it is all poetic. There is no face value. 'Contraction' as a concept certainly doesn't make sense when taken at face value. For me, I see TP like all others fumbling around trying to find the least confusing words and concepts to futilely express that which can not be expressed. So I imagine his use of 'contraction' to support a similar idea as 'illusion' or 'mirage' or 'belief.' He's preferring the energy idea because it impersonalizes the concept a bit. Your mileage may vary. [/quote] Could be. People pay to hear it. He's just surfing on the questions. Laughing his way to the bank. But it's not cynical. Why are you asking the question? Why am I asking that question? Please point me in the direction of the coherently told 'whole nonduality story'! I'm pondering your 'life still sucks' challenge... and contemplating these things helps, I'm guessing. The challenge is a great one. It's not really a defense so much as an exploration. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 17, 2012 8:41:31 GMT -5
I was happy to hear the other day that he is saying that liberation takes place at an embodied energetic level. Hm, I felt the opposite, because as far as energetics go, I'm completely untalented. If it's all about energy work then I might aswell quit right now. But here's the more important thing. The way Parsons sets up this energy shift thingy is that no matter how you spin it, it can only ever be about luck.. .either you get lucky or you don't. Because if you actively work toward it then actually, in his narrative, you're just perpetuating selfhood. If you don't work toward the shift, then you're also still hopelessly stuck in selfhood. No way out, get lucky or don't. Yes, apparently he had a big experience at the age of 21 and has been seeking since then. But he says he was a rather 'lazy' seeker. My impression is that he just got really lucky, like most other known teachers did. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 17, 2012 9:06:04 GMT -5
Parsons is advertising liberation to be the greatest thing under the sun and that's what we want. I don't want to miss out on it. It's as simple and ugly as that. That's from a perspective of someone who has never had an awakening experience. Now if you have had an awakening experience then your expectation is obviously much different.
Before I've heard their advertising I had no desire whatsoever for enlightenment, I had no idea that there could be such a thing. I deeply regret my encounter with spiritual teachings. Inception is what they do.
There is only what is. What isn't isn't. What is is the sum/whole of all qualia present in this 'moment'. Enlightenment and non-enlightenment is simply how what is appears or doesn't appear in this moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2012 9:34:07 GMT -5
Before I've heard their advertising I had no desire whatsoever for enlightenment, I had no idea that there could be such a thing. I deeply regret my encounter with spiritual teachings. Inception is what they do. nah -- something made sense in what they were saying. I've wondered the same thing. But the fact is that this inception is not happening for most that hear the message. Somewhere along the line you became fertile soil for their seeds. commence flowering [/quote] and that includes 'THIS sucks!' |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2012 9:37:12 GMT -5
I was happy to hear the other day that he is saying that liberation takes place at an embodied energetic level. Hm, I felt the opposite, because as far as energetics go, I'm completely untalented. If it's all about energy work then I might aswell quit right now. But here's the more important thing. The way Parsons sets up this energy shift thingy is that no matter how you spin it, it can only ever be about luck.. .either you get lucky or you don't. Because if you actively work toward it then actually, in his narrative, you're just perpetuating selfhood. If you don't work toward the shift, then you're also still hopelessly stuck in selfhood. No way out, get lucky or don't. Yes, apparently he had a big experience at the age of 21 and has been seeking since then. But he says he was a rather 'lazy' seeker. My impression is that he just got really lucky, like most other known teachers did. Energy work isnt all about chakras and etheric bodies and woo woo stuff. Im pretty untalented at a lot of that stuff too. I see energy work as basically about releasing conditioning from the bodymind system as a whole. There are a ton of ways to do that. Meditation is one. I dont see the value in setting up a situation in which you are damned if you do the work and damned if you dont. In my opinion, we can increase the odds. I think its a case of following certain steps and in one sentence, it boils down to making the goal totally compelling. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 17, 2012 9:54:58 GMT -5
nah -- something made sense in what they were saying. I've wondered the same thing. But the fact is that this inception is not happening for most that hear the message. Somewhere along the line you became fertile soil for their seeds. commence flowering That inception isn't happening for most is not true. Most of world's population is religious. The big religions get a lot of media exposure, they have an extremely extensive infrastructure. Nonduality simply doesn't have as much infrastructure. Nonduality simply rides the wave of the big religions, they make a problem where none was and then they offer a solution. They never actually deliver the goods, except to the lucky ones, and their solution is to try harder and pay more. Same mechanism all over again. But it's really insidious, because they f*ck with your unconscious, you can't get rid of it anymore. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 17, 2012 9:58:24 GMT -5
Energy work isnt all about chakras and etheric bodies and woo woo stuff. Im pretty untalented at a lot of that stuff too. I see energy work as basically about releasing conditioning from the bodymind system as a whole. There are a ton of ways to do that. Meditation is one. I dont see the value in setting up a situation in which you are darned if you do the work and darned if you dont. In my opinion, we can increase the odds. I think its a case of following certain steps and in one sentence, it boils down to making the goal totally compelling. Well, the enlightened ones on this forum make fun of you all day long, so you're probably wrong and your strategy doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Feb 17, 2012 14:38:55 GMT -5
He may not be your cup of tea. This little interview is about all I know of him so I don’t know much about him. ZD seems to think he is an effective pointer. I'd love to hear how he responds to your ''yea, but life still sucks" question. Inherent contradictions can be distasteful yes. Less believable on the whole if there are contradictions. On the whole, though, it seems like his ‘open secret’ message is very simple and his schtick is just to keep focused on that. It’s inevitable, isn’t it, when talking about stuff that can’t really be adequately articulated, that there are going to be limits and if those limits are not respected, there will be contradictions? Maharshi pretty much had the least contradictory schtick, which is to just not say anything (at least, that's the schtick about his schtick). I think he has some proprietary claim over that term. Wild unbounded, unmeasurable energy. As opposed to This, conscious spirit, awareness, the natural state, intelligence, God….whatever. I don’t have a prob with the use of that term. Sounds like he used to use awareness and 'Divine Wholeness' but has abandoned them because they derail seekers too much. On the whole, I do think 'energy' is less problematic because it is less anthropomorphic than awareness, intelligence, God, etc. I dunno. I think he was just referring to this “energetic shift.” There’s a visceral change. He likes to wax on about how the seeker, self, sense of I-ness, etc. is just a contraction of energy. If there’s an ocean of energy, that sense of I-ness is a little whirlpool in that ocean, a swirl. So when that swirl dissipates it is none other than the whole. Apparently, that ‘energetic shift’ may be experienced. It’s the ‘glimpse,’ the ‘awakening’ or what others call the ‘realization’ --meaning it’s the point at which the sense of self dissolves or no longer appears; there’s a grokking that what is happening is all there is. There isn’t some layered foam on top about who I am and such. I don’t know, I’d think he’d dismiss that too – all stuff done which is dependent and reinforcing of a seeker, an energy worker. That's how I heard it. Archer asked him that. He basically said that there was no one talking about this stuff, obviously. It’s just more stuff happening. Well ‘immeasurably’ is sort of like saying ‘nonconceptual’ – it’s hard to compare that which can be measured to that which can not be measured. But he also admitted that his friends and family probably didn’t notice any change at all. I liked that. I've been to 2 of TP's open discussions, hence my interest in your conversation. Taking some of the various points made above, I can say with utter confidence that TP does not have/use/prescribe any system, and seems to have no uneasyness whatsoever about contradictions. He insists that the meetings with him hold absolutely no answers and nothing to chew on or walk away with for the seeker. He certainly does not make a case for spiritual practise, he likes to make the joke that spiritual progress is not difficult, it is impossible. He claims that there is no aim to his discourse, and there is no detectable concern about making sense or, quite the opposite in fact. I agree that taking him just at face value is probably a wise approach, if only because it is made amply clear that nothing is meant other than what is said. Yes! And yes to the inconsistency of the narrative. Yet he seems to enjoy do his thing, and there is no denying, I do enjoy the sharing of it, admitedly for no reason that I could explain or justify from I stand... Would that count as defending, dunno, just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Feb 17, 2012 16:40:41 GMT -5
Nonduality simply rides the wave of the big religions, they make a problem where none was and then they offer a solution. They never actually deliver the goods Very much agreed, but it must be investigated who "they" is. No, com'on, you know better. That's an angry jab and not generally applicable in this way. I can't help thinking that might be ok, what is it in the unconscious that I want to hide and am scared it would be f*cked with? The aces in my sleeve? Am I worried about my safety net in case it's really gonna be free-fall? A reasonable fear for sure, but one that's at the core of this err... venture, and somehow I remember it mentioned in "their" terms and conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by thenewdawn on Apr 10, 2012 17:57:27 GMT -5
Tony Parsons is just another goof acting like he is enlightened.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 9, 2015 18:43:00 GMT -5
another one
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Oct 20, 2015 10:26:12 GMT -5
from interview... There is no such thing as an object. Everything already is fulfillment. So in that sense when there I something looking for Freedom, Freedom seems to hide from that which is looking for it by being already everything. Not a something; it is everything. So as far as the seeker is concerned any idea that this can be taught, that somehow you can be taught to find everything, is ludicrous. This is not a teaching. So there’s no way to put an end to separation?
Of course not. …But separation is only an illusion anyway so when it suddenly is no more there is a recognition that it never was. It’s a joke, it’s a big joke. It’s not very funny for Me (haha). God is a comedian for an audience that never laughs. ... |
|
