|
|
Post by Burnabyseeker on Jul 27, 2009 14:54:57 GMT -5
About Imre Vallyon...
Born in 1940 in Budapest, Hungary, Imre emigrated to New Zealand as a refugee at the age of sixteen. Since 1980 he has dedicated his life to teaching the Wisdom Science through his extensive writings and through workshops and retreats conducted around the world. In 1982 he established the Foundation for Higher Learning, an international Spiritual School designed to provide people with the opportunity to practise spiritual awakening in a group environment, with the ultimate goal of self-realization and planetary transformation.
Imre’s extraordinary knowledge of human spirituality is derived not from scholastic research, but issues forth from his own Interior Realization. He spans the full spectrum of human experience: reaching through time, illuminating the great Spiritual Teachings and Sacred Languages of our planetary history while pointing the way to the future.
In 2008, Imre Vallyon and Sounding-Light Publishing were awarded first place in the prestigious Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust awards for the four-volume spiritual treatise "Heavens and Hells of the Mind".
|
|
|
|
Post by valleyvintner on Aug 2, 2009 13:59:13 GMT -5
Imre Vallyon is not in my perception one of the great teachers of our time. He is entirely self taught. While self-education is not to be despised, the self-taught invariably overestimate their own knowledge and experience. Imre is however one of the great authorial talents of our time - a wonderful writer and provocative thinker.
It doesn't matter that his definitions of "Sacred Language" are often incomplete - and in some cases incorrect - or that he evinces no personal experience of the Tao. So long as the reader is aware of this writer's limitations the works themselves are immensely useful.
What a pity that Imre Vallyon was not able to learn from a genuine spiritual master, one who could have corrected his occasional misperceptions and kept him focused on needful realms of attention.!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Aug 2, 2009 15:10:37 GMT -5
Who would you have suggested to him, Valleyvintner?
Regards,
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by valleyvintner on Aug 2, 2009 16:21:14 GMT -5
In order of my own preference, Douglas Harding, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jiddu Krishnamurti and/or any Japanese roshi of authentic Zen lineage. But I don't think Imre Vallyon would have been willing to learn from anyone but himself.
His writing syncretizes the great mythic elements of the Wisdom Tradition but also includes the antic notions of the Theosophophists, Crowley et al. If he truly believes his own tale of Atlantis, for example, he is profoundly deluded.
Imre is really a conceptual mechanic rather than a "knower." As the old saying (approximately) goes, "He who truly knows does not speak. He who speaks does not truly know."
|
|
|
|
Post by astenny on Aug 20, 2009 1:46:19 GMT -5
I haven't read any of Vallyon's work, but I did want to add my two cents to this. I find it interesting how there are those who like to pounce on anyone who is "self taught," and I will admit I am somewhat biased as I am largely "self taught." To begin with, I just wanted to ask the question: who taught the first mystic?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think there is such a thing as truly self taught. I have read many books and studied the thoughts and theories they contained, and learned from those who wrote it. Yes, I could learn a bit more by actually talking to the author. However, I still learned from that person no matter how far I am technically removed from them. I have met with others and learned from them, either face to face or on the internet. Maybe I could be farther along spiritually if I had actually traveled to meet a spiritual teacher, but one can never say for sure what would have happened. Knowing myself as I do, I probably would have driven him/her batty and had been asked to leave and not come back until I was ready.
Then, there are the two teachers we all have: ourselves and the Divine. We learn from our own experiences, as well as the gentle prodding of the Divine.
|
|
|
|
Post by valleyvintner on Oct 3, 2009 14:59:04 GMT -5
Returning to the statement that I find incorrect and misleading, Illuminate wrote,
"The author of this book has more profound wisdom than any other living teacher I have come across."
No, Vallyon does not have all that much profound wisdom. He is self-deluded in much the same way that M. Blavatsky and the theosophists are deluded. His hierarchical scheme of assorted "levels" of enlightenment, for example, is pure twaddle, for all its entertainment value.
How can I presume to says such a thing? Anyone who pursues self-enquiry to its very end will discover that the Relative and the Absolute are not separate but one Unity. The Absolute has no attributes whatsoever, therefore any "degrees of attainment" are necessarily experienced in the Relative and are thus subjective in nature. For this reason Imre Vallyon's seven (I believe) levels of enlightenment are no more valid or true than your opinion or mine. He simply does not know. No one knows such things because there are no such things to know.
Nevertheless Vallyon is a wonderfully talented writer and thinker whom we should all read - with the above-noted caveat - for his scholarship and eloquence. His survey of the various wisdom traditions, although not always deeply well informed, is a good introduction to all of them. At that level he is an excellent author.
However I can't recommend Vallyon as a teacher. Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jiddu Krishnamurti and Douglas Harding exemplify the level of wisdom one needs in order to teach others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hello on Oct 10, 2009 15:52:16 GMT -5
Just try to read, once the "Heaven and Hells of the mind" with an open heart and not with an intellectual idea of what Spirituality should be...
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by valleyvintner on Oct 21, 2009 17:38:11 GMT -5
Not to disparage your advice, I have indeed read "Heavens and Hells of the Mind" and found it both immensely entertaining and fraught with error and misdirection. The book is, as I've said before, akin to the teachings of the Theosophists - imaginative, ambitious and often perilously deluded.
And I do read the book with an open heart. But remember that an open heart without a discriminating mind is, as the saying goes, the devil's playground.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 22, 2009 12:04:32 GMT -5
Astenny & Valleyvintner: Both of you made great points in these last posts. Like Astenny, I see no problem, or diminished lack of attainment, involving people who discover the truth without direct access to teachers. The Buddha apparently woke up without a teacher, as did Ramana, Tolle, and countless others. Yes, teachers can help, as can books, but, Like VV says, you have to maintain a discriminating intellect and some healthy skepticism.
Many people have big insight experiences, but later they wander off into the mind again and spread nonsensical ideas. I met a guy a few years ago who had had a huge kensho experience. He wrote some books and became quite well-known. From reading his books it appeared that he was wide awake. A few years later I learned that he had moved to an adjacent state from where I live, so I went to join him for a three-day meditation retreat he was offering. As soon as he opened his mouth, I realized that he had fallen back into the mind and gotten attached to a bunch of nutty ideas. He thought that he could rate people's spiritual attainment (on a scale from 0 to 1000) even if he had never met them, and regardless of whether they were dead or alive! It was all I could do to keep from bursting out into laughter. He was a really nice guy, and I have no doubt that he had had some big insight experiences, but somewhere along the way, he took a wrong turn. After I came home from the retreat, I sent him a copy of my spiritual autobiography, because I thought he would find it extremely humorous. A week later he called me and told me that the book cracked him up. He then told me that he had rated ZM Seung Sahn (mentioned in my book) at 880 and me at 920 (which struck me as hysterically funny). The underlying implication, I suppose, was that I should come study with him and raise my level even higher (I'm sure he considered himself a 990 or higher). Again, it was all I could do to keep from exploding with laughter. I told him I was glad he liked the book, but that I was amazed he could rate people so accurately, especially people that he had never met (LOL). He assured me that it was easy after one gets to a sufficiently high level (LOL and double LOL). I never spoke to him again, but I still get a chuckle every time I remember our last conversation. I also feel a bit sad that someone who had such a big breakthrough got sucked back into the mind. S**t happens.
As for "levels of enlightenment," several thoughts come to mind. A lot depends upon how we choose to define enlightenment. The definition that I like is, "An embodied and continuing realization of oneness." It is possible to intellectually "know" (episteme) that oneness is all there is, but to bodily "know" (gnossis) this truth is something far more liberating.
Having met numerous enlightened individuals, myself, it seems obvious that some of them had greater clarity than others, and some were much better teachers than others. Even after one (no pun intended) has realized oneness (gnossis), and totally seen through the fiction of personal selfhood, one can still learn more and more (Reality has no bottom). Many Zen Masters travel around and engage other masters in dharma combat in an effort to refine their understanding and test their own clarity.
Unfortunately, people who get attached to the idea of "levels of attainment" are just that--attached to an idea. When people start talking about levels as if such things really exist, that is pretty good evidence that they are still stuck in the mind to some degree. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Oct 22, 2009 13:17:04 GMT -5
It is possible to intellectually "know" (episteme) that oneness is all there is, but to bodily "know" (gnossis) this truth is something far more liberating. ... Even after one (no pun intended) has realized oneness (gnossis), and totally seen through the fiction of personal selfhood, one can still learn more and more (Reality has no bottom). Many Zen Masters travel around and engage other masters in dharma combat in an effort to refine their understanding and test their own clarity. Is gnossis always better than episteme? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 22, 2009 15:40:02 GMT -5
Porto: It all depends upon whether we're designing a rocket or a sewer system or searching for existential answers (LOL). The difference between tasting chocolate cake and thinking about tasting chocolate cake is the difference between gnossis and episteme. In all existential issues gnossis is always most important.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Oct 23, 2009 10:23:58 GMT -5
Well said. What could be better than dharma combat with someone clearer than you? Astenny & Valleyvintner: Both of you made great points in these last posts. Like Astenny, I see no problem, or diminished lack of attainment, involving people who discover the truth without direct access to teachers. The Buddha apparently woke up without a teacher, as did Ramana, Tolle, and countless others. Yes, teachers can help, as can books, but, Like VV says, you have to maintain a discriminating intellect and some healthy skepticism. Many people have big insight experiences, but later they wander off into the mind again and spread nonsensical ideas. I met a guy a few years ago who had had a huge kensho experience. He wrote some books and became quite well-known. From reading his books it appeared that he was wide awake. A few years later I learned that he had moved to an adjacent state from where I live, so I went to join him for a three-day meditation retreat he was offering. As soon as he opened his mouth, I realized that he had fallen back into the mind and gotten attached to a bunch of nutty ideas. He thought that he could rate people's spiritual attainment (on a scale from 0 to 1000) even if he had never met them, and regardless of whether they were dead or alive! It was all I could do to keep from bursting out into laughter. He was a really nice guy, and I have no doubt that he had had some big insight experiences, but somewhere along the way, he took a wrong turn. After I came home from the retreat, I sent him a copy of my spiritual autobiography, because I thought he would find it extremely humorous. A week later he called me and told me that the book cracked him up. He then told me that he had rated ZM Seung Sahn (mentioned in my book) at 880 and me at 920 (which struck me as hysterically funny). The underlying implication, I suppose, was that I should come study with him and raise my level even higher (I'm sure he considered himself a 990 or higher). Again, it was all I could do to keep from exploding with laughter. I told him I was glad he liked the book, but that I was amazed he could rate people so accurately, especially people that he had never met (LOL). He assured me that it was easy after one gets to a sufficiently high level (LOL and double LOL). I never spoke to him again, but I still get a chuckle every time I remember our last conversation. I also feel a bit sad that someone who had such a big breakthrough got sucked back into the mind. S**t happens. As for "levels of enlightenment," several thoughts come to mind. A lot depends upon how we choose to define enlightenment. The definition that I like is, "An embodied and continuing realization of oneness." It is possible to intellectually "know" (episteme) that oneness is all there is, but to bodily "know" (gnossis) this truth is something far more liberating. Having met numerous enlightened individuals, myself, it seems obvious that some of them had greater clarity than others, and some were much better teachers than others. Even after one (no pun intended) has realized oneness (gnossis), and totally seen through the fiction of personal selfhood, one can still learn more and more (Reality has no bottom). Many Zen Masters travel around and engage other masters in dharma combat in an effort to refine their understanding and test their own clarity. Unfortunately, people who get attached to the idea of "levels of attainment" are just that--attached to an idea. When people start talking about levels as if such things really exist, that is pretty good evidence that they are still stuck in the mind to some degree. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Oct 23, 2009 10:45:56 GMT -5
Well said. What could be better than dharma combat with someone clearer than you? Is dharma combat gnossis or episteme? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 23, 2009 14:40:52 GMT -5
Porto: Who is asking the question? (this is dharma combat)
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Oct 23, 2009 15:01:48 GMT -5
Gnossis, in one of it's most direct forms. The weapons can appear to look like episteme, but may or may not. The nice thing about gnossis, is that the experience changes when the understanding changes. It's literally like walking around with a stick in the rain, and then someone points out to you that what you thought was a stick was actually an umbrella. A duel of wits ensue where you attempt to prove it's a stick by showing the long pointy end then the other points to the button on the "stick." "Well, that's funny" you think, "I've never noticed that before" and you push the button. Suddenly the stick flings open to a full fledged umbrella. "Oh, I guess it WAS an umbrella the whole time." You lost the dharma combat, but now know you have an umbrella, which means you can finally use it as an umbrella and don't have to be rained on all the time. It's the same level of usefulness with dharma combat, but more about spiritual knowing than sticks and umbrellas (generally speaking - it COULD be about sticks and umbrellas sometimes I suppose).  Well said. What could be better than dharma combat with someone clearer than you? Is dharma combat gnossis or episteme? |
|
