|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 20, 2019 12:42:52 GMT -5
There's just so much wrong with that. Wakeful awareness is already the case. It's a false idea that obscures it. Then it's not already the case. So you want to replace a false idea with a true idea?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 20, 2019 13:01:51 GMT -5
On the contrary I encourage such reflections, but the Srutis are not to be found in the forum. I do not chastise anyone for consulting the Upanishads, Samhitas or Brahmanas. Sravana and manana are not limited to the sruti. They also include the smrti, the words of masters, logic, and engaging in dialogue to resolve doubts.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2019 13:02:30 GMT -5
oh, well, fwiw, I didn't intend that implication, like, at all. Adya's talks have at least two different facets to them. In one, he's speaking from outside the dream, calling to the sleeper to awaken, and when he's speaking like that, I find him quite clear, and just as uncompromising as the most bottom-line nondualist. In another, he's speaking from within the dream, using associations that are meant to catch their attention in terms that they're familiar and comfortable with. Yeah, in the world of education, this concept is called the Zone of Proximal Development-ZPD (Vygotsky). The concept envisages the importance of attention and perception as key aspects of how learning or, in the context of this message board, unlearning/de-programming of conditioned "truth". Fascinating. I only read the definition that comes up on the front page of google, but it evokes for me is how, when I think back, there are these pivotal influences decades before conscious seeking began, and what they influenced, was a subconscious process of identity poker. If there's even the slightest bit of existential interest from someone, there's an opportunity to drop the payload of a mind-virus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 13:31:01 GMT -5
"No one will ever enter the kingdom of Heaven at my bidding, but only because you yourself are whole. Hearken to the Word, understand Knowledge, love Life. No one persecutes or oppresses you other than yourself!" ~ Jesus. That's apocrypha. In the canonical Bible Jesus says: ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I like my quote more, there is less entanglement in it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2019 13:32:57 GMT -5
Not in this talk, no, but my recollection is that he can sling the void as good as the next SRSuperpeep TM. I always enjoy listening to the guy, so you just gave me an excuse to fire him up on the couch. My impression is that Buddhism generally, and Zen as well - but perhaps less so - doesn't turn anyone away, and that not everyone is either looking for or really, all that suited to start consciously seeking the existential truth. I recall ZD writing something about how different koans are given to different people depending on their interests. And this is the culture Adya comes from.
You're definitely extending massive benefit of the doubt. Seems to me like Adya clearly purports to be talking about existential truth to seekers of such... he may estimate that they're at different levels of receptivity to that message, but that is the message he says he has. Heh. The Hindu story about that is that the Buddhists of the time in India preached what was commonly understood as no self... not "no-self" but simply no self. Sankara supposedly went around, having integrated the best Buddhist insights into a larger Vedantic understanding, debated the Buddhists, showed them they were wrong about the self -- they slunk away -- and that's why India is Hindu today. The bigger problem is not challenging those who've declared victory (genuine or not), but that with this sort of teaching, the entire setup for SR seems to be made into this series of staged experiences. That can be extremely misleading for genuine seekers. It can lead people to spend massive quantities of time trying to rack up the right categories of this or that kind of awakening, of this or that sort of integration rather than simply looking within with intense concentration. Oh yes, at core, his offering is transcendent, like this: As for his potential to mislead seekers, I understand your criticism and agree with it to some extent. The way I'd put it is that he's shifted the ongoing process from one of seeking to one of embodiment. While I do think he makes the Zen mistake of sort of projecting his path onto his potential listeners, I have to offer that criticism with a big 'ole grain of salt: .. because for one thing, in my opinion, that was quite clear. Also, as I've said before, he's actually got a heap of real-world experience working with people who are existentially curious, while, I don't. I think we all agree on the point that there is the potential for a singularly important realization. We also might agree on certain characteristics of that realization. I think one point where I'm with Adya, and where it seems to me that we disagree, is that there can be significant minor realizations that precede the final. Note, that while he talks about a final realization in terms of his own path, he deliberately de-emphasizes it in his public talks. I'd say that de-emphasis is fine in so far as that he's offering a message that can be heard and understood by anyone, regardless of what they've already realized, but I do agree with you that the potential for self-deception with respect to embodiment is an issue: some people should be encouraged to keep seeking, rather than to "start embodying". But, in my perception, unlike either you or Adya, I'm wide open as to the characteristics of the path that can lead to the end of the search. The final realization is acausal, as is, what I'd call "awakening", although the correlation of the latter with apparent cause seems to be a characteristic of many path stories. So ultimately, any criticism of Adya is as much dream noise as any potential for confusion he might create. There are influences which lead to a deeper trance: the machine that produces the existential delusion is a relative beast that can be described in terms of cause and effect. But grace .. not so much.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2019 13:50:09 GMT -5
My understanding of Zen is that "Satori" is about the closest thing to "self-realization" they have, but my impression is that they deliberately sort of institutionalize measures designed to keep people-peeps from getting attached to the potential of it. That was another topic Adya talked about in this video, which is, essentially: "incomplete awakening". The confusion coming from the Buddhists is exacerbated by a phenomenon that Jed Mckenna wrote about: many of the past sources on these topics were talking caterpillars. But to be fair, after 1000 years, can't we find some of the same from Advaita? Sorry, what's the talking caterpillar reference? Sounds hilarious. In his first book, Jed uses the metaphor of a butterfly for self-realization, and expresses the opinion that most of what has been written on the topic in the past few thousand years is "bullsh!t", because it was written by caterpillars.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 20, 2019 15:43:18 GMT -5
You're definitely extending massive benefit of the doubt. Seems to me like Adya clearly purports to be talking about existential truth to seekers of such... he may estimate that they're at different levels of receptivity to that message, but that is the message he says he has. Heh. The Hindu story about that is that the Buddhists of the time in India preached what was commonly understood as no self... not "no-self" but simply no self. Sankara supposedly went around, having integrated the best Buddhist insights into a larger Vedantic understanding, debated the Buddhists, showed them they were wrong about the self -- they slunk away -- and that's why India is Hindu today. The bigger problem is not challenging those who've declared victory (genuine or not), but that with this sort of teaching, the entire setup for SR seems to be made into this series of staged experiences. That can be extremely misleading for genuine seekers. It can lead people to spend massive quantities of time trying to rack up the right categories of this or that kind of awakening, of this or that sort of integration rather than simply looking within with intense concentration. Oh yes, at core, his offering is transcendent, like this: As for his potential to mislead seekers, I understand your criticism and agree with it to some extent. The way I'd put it is that he's shifted the ongoing process from one of seeking to one of embodiment. While I do think he makes the Zen mistake of sort of projecting his path onto his potential listeners, I have to offer that criticism with a big 'ole grain of salt: .. because for one thing, in my opinion, that was quite clear. Also, as I've said before, he's actually got a heap of real-world experience working with people who are existentially curious, while, I don't. Yes, those two videos seem reasonably clear. But the second, at least, is from 11 years ago. I wonder if he has changed his emphasis in the meanwhile. Actually, I don't dispute this at all -- I believe in the importance for almost everyone of glimpses of the truth. But these are not multiple different truths. They're just the same truth, but the mind is pulled back from it. Yes, THIS is the big issue, as you pointed out above. And it's not just for people who think they've awakened. Even for those who believe they haven't yet awakened, the 'integrative aspect' of spirituality can be a wild goose chase to do all these things that are required to "build up" to the supreme awakening or whatever. It makes it seem as if the search is like trying to put the mind, body, soul, and world all together in some harmonious way instead of clearing away the metric tons of nonsense. Well taking dream noise theory to its limits, grace and acausality must also be part of the dream...
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 20, 2019 15:47:08 GMT -5
Sorry, what's the talking caterpillar reference? Sounds hilarious. In his first book, Jed uses the metaphor of a butterfly for self-realization, and expresses the opinion that most of what has been written on the topic in the past few thousand years is "bullsh!t", because it was written by caterpillars. Hrmmmmmmmmmm.... I'm sorry, I have to put my bets on the ancient seers and sages over Jed McKenna
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 20, 2019 20:01:13 GMT -5
Sorry, what's the talking caterpillar reference? Sounds hilarious. In his first book, Jed uses the metaphor of a butterfly for self-realization, and expresses the opinion that most of what has been written on the topic in the past few thousand years is "bullsh!t", because it was written by caterpillars. I dont agree that statement has any veracity regarding the knowledge contained within the Upanishads, Rig Veda etc but it is certainly true if applied to the current crop of Western neo-advaita satsang teachers.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 21, 2019 6:55:15 GMT -5
why do you chastise sravana, manana, and Nididhyāsana on a message board that basically requires written forms of such esteemed jnana yoga PRACTICES? On the contrary I encourage such reflections, but the Srutis are not to be found in the forum. I do not chastise anyone for consulting the Upanishads, Samhitas or Brahmanas. I guess you can't see the similarities and parallels between what the great books say and what is (sometimes) conveyed or pointed to on the forum. You don't condone discussion on or the expression of how one has interpreted the books. So, would you prefer people just citing the great books from memory?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 21, 2019 7:54:24 GMT -5
On the contrary I encourage such reflections, but the Srutis are not to be found in the forum. I do not chastise anyone for consulting the Upanishads, Samhitas or Brahmanas. I guess you can't see the similarities and parallels between what the great books say and what is (sometimes) conveyed or pointed to on the forum. You don't condone discussion on or the expression of how one has interpreted the books. So, would you prefer people just citing the great books from memory? I don't chastise anyone for anything. I am all for free expression. I don't know why you would think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 21, 2019 8:27:55 GMT -5
I guess you can't see the similarities and parallels between what the great books say and what is (sometimes) conveyed or pointed to on the forum. You don't condone discussion on or the expression of how one has interpreted the books. So, would you prefer people just citing the great books from memory? I don't chastise anyone for anything. I am all for free expression. I don't know why you would think otherwise. My mistake. It appeared that you alluded to there being little value in interacting on the forum or that one should just consult and trust the great books. Maybe I saw snape or a roke.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 21, 2019 8:32:04 GMT -5
I don't chastise anyone for anything. I am all for free expression. I don't know why you would think otherwise. My mistake. It appeared that you alluded to there being little value in interacting on the forum or that one should just consult and trust the great books. Maybe I saw snape or a roke. Glad we cleared that up. I think it was possibly the point I often make that sticking with concepts alone are insufficient whether they originate from a forum or the great books.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 21, 2019 8:33:40 GMT -5
My mistake. It appeared that you alluded to there being little value in interacting on the forum or that one should just consult and trust the great books. Maybe I saw snape or a roke. Glad we cleared that up. I think it was possibly the point I often make that sticking with concepts alone are insufficient whether they originate from a forum or the great books. I'd agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 21, 2019 8:35:51 GMT -5
Glad we cleared that up. I think it was possibly the point I often make that sticking with concepts alone are insufficient whether they originate from a forum or the great books. I'd agree with that. I'm reminded of a comment from Sri Ramakrishna who said that all philosophical and religious scripture is a mixture of sugar and sand and you have to pick out the sugar and discard the sand.
|
|