Akilesh Ayyar interviewed by Souljourns

[siftingtothetruth]

Ted Henry of Souljourns interviews me on the spiritual path.

[Reefs]

Nov 28, 2021 22:59:37 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Ted Henry of Souljourns interviews me on the spiritual path.

Ted is a really good interviewer. He reminds me a bit of Laughter interviewing you.

While I have a rather low opinion of psychotherapy, I do agree with your point here that some people would be better off cleaning up some of their psychological issues first before they get busy on the spiritual path or else they will just keep (unconsciously) sabotaging themselves.

Sifty, have you done a video on traditional advaita vs. neo advaita? I would be interested in your perspective.

[siftingtothetruth]

Nov 30, 2021 8:44:20 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Nov 28, 2021 22:59:37 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Ted Henry of Souljourns interviews me on the spiritual path.

Ted is a really good interviewer. He reminds me a bit of Laughter interviewing you.

A high compliment

While I have a rather low opinion of psychotherapy, I do agree with your point here that some people would be better off cleaning up some of their psychological issues first before they get busy on the spiritual path or else they will just keep (unconsciously) sabotaging themselves.

Sifty, have you done a video on traditional advaita vs. neo advaita? I would be interested in your perspective.

I have, yes:

[Reefs]

Thanks!

So to summarize:

Traditional Advaita: right understanding is laid out in the scriptures --> systematic practice and scripture study, focus mostly on conceptual aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 1.0: right understanding comes from self-inquiry --> quieting/purifying the mind as main practice, focus mostly on experiential aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 2.0: the SELF is all there is, you are already IT --> no practice necessary or even possible, focus exclusively on conceptual aspects of understanding

[zendancer]

Dec 1, 2021 12:38:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Thanks!

So to summarize:

Traditional Advaita: right understanding is laid out in the scriptures --> systematic practice and scripture study, focus mostly on conceptual aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 1.0: right understanding comes from self-inquiry --> quieting/purifying the mind as main practice, focus mostly on experiential aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 2.0: the SELF is all there is, you are already IT --> no practice necessary or even possible, focus exclusively on conceptual aspects of understanding

Interesting! Zen, by contrast, has no interest in scriptures or anything intellectual or reliance of any kind on words. The Zen path might be described as one that points beyond the mind (intellect) to direct experience of the actual, which is very much down-to-earth and "in your face." Zen, in essence, helps people (1) see that they can trust what we might call "body-knowledge," and (2) see that by contemplation/meditation, alone, any existential question or problem can be resolved.

In the Rinzai tradition of Zen they use koans whereas the Soto tradition is mainly interested only in silent sitting and the ultimate illumination that can occur as a result of that. I liked the koan approach because it can show someone very quickly how they have been indoctrinated by their culture to see a meta-reality rather than reality. I can remember being amazed during my first two or three Zen retreats at how blind I was to the actual.

The well-known Advaita teachers, as well as the Neo-Advaita teachers, are all pointing to the same kinds of realizations, but without a fair degree of internal silence and various different non-conceptual realizations I don't see how a student of a Neo-Advaita teacher could listen to such a teacher and have a single realization that would result in a total sense of freedom, peace of mind, and oneness with "what is" that is so obvious in people like Ramana, Niz, Bankei, and other extremely clear sages.

[Reefs]

Dec 1, 2021 13:59:53 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Dec 1, 2021 12:38:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Thanks!

So to summarize:

Traditional Advaita: right understanding is laid out in the scriptures --> systematic practice and scripture study, focus mostly on conceptual aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 1.0: right understanding comes from self-inquiry --> quieting/purifying the mind as main practice, focus mostly on experiential aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 2.0: the SELF is all there is, you are already IT --> no practice necessary or even possible, focus exclusively on conceptual aspects of understanding

Interesting! Zen, by contrast, has no interest in scriptures or anything intellectual or reliance of any kind on words. The Zen path might be described as one that points beyond the mind (intellect) to direct experience of the actual, which is very much down-to-earth and "in your face." Zen, in essence, helps people (1) see that they can trust what we might call "body-knowledge," and (2) see that by contemplation/meditation, alone, any existential question or problem can be resolved.

In the Rinzai tradition of Zen they use koans whereas the Soto tradition is mainly interested only in silent sitting and the ultimate illumination that can occur as a result of that. I liked the koan approach because it can show someone very quickly how they have been indoctrinated by their culture to see a meta-reality rather than reality. I can remember being amazed during my first two or three Zen retreats at how blind I was to the actual.

The well-known Advaita teachers, as well as the Neo-Advaita teachers, are all pointing to the same kinds of realizations, but without a fair degree of internal silence and various different non-conceptual realizations I don't see how a student of a Neo-Advaita teacher could listen to such a teacher and have a single realization that would result in a total sense of freedom, peace of mind, and oneness with "what is" that is so obvious in people like Ramana, Niz, Bankei, and other extremely clear sages.

This passage is from the Foreword in Waite's book Back to the Truth: 5000 Years of Advaita:

Is it really possible to formulate into words something which is ultimately indefinable, indescribable and utterly beyond all human comprehension? It is an interesting dilemma. And yet, the teaching of Advaita (“not two”) is essentially the philosophical framework that attempts to do just that – to make some sort of sense of the mysterious universe in which we live.

Advaita is no New Age set of platitudes, however; it is the timeless and eternal message that has been revealed to us ever since the beginning of recorded history through scripture, poetry and the voices of the great philosophers and mystics. And what is that message? It is the revelation that everything – you, me, the world around us and beyond – is a manifestation of the Self, God, the All and the One.

There has of late, somewhat ironically, been a great deal of confusion regarding the interpretation of Advaita. Indeed, the spectrum of delineations is becoming more and more dissipated, ranging from the purist theories of Traditional Advaita right through to the more radical approach of Neo-Advaita, with a number of other “schools” in between. Traditional Advaita essentially takes its authority from the Upanishads, as well as the great Indian teacher Shankara. It postulates that there is a “path” that we must follow, albeit an apparent one, which helps us come to know the essence of our true selves, to realize the Self within us. Practices are undertaken to aid this discovery, which may include study of the scriptures, meditation, surrender and self enquiry.

Neo-Advaita (of which Tony Parsons is its greatest exponent) says there is no path. You are already that which you seek. You are THAT.

So which is correct? The answer is it depends. Traditional Advaita is right in that it addresses the seeker, still caught up in the illusion of his or her own ego. Nevertheless, it can become bogged down with complicated Hindu theory, enmeshed in an antiquated guru hierarchy. Neo-Advaita is right in that it bypasses all of that by simply addressing the Self. However, no concession is made for the seeker, staggering through phenomenality, still believing that he or she is the doer.

A much more amenable approach, called the Direct Path, has been gaining ground recently. Distilled by the great teachers Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta and Atmananda Krishna Menon, it takes the recognition that we are already the Self as its point of departure and yet suggests simple “techniques”, such as the use of rigorous logic, to help deconstruct the ignorance that obscures our innate divinity. In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille. For many, the Direct Path has also become the most accessible means to self remembering and forms a midway balance between the Traditional and Neo-Advaita extremes.

Paula Marvelly

So, there is a distinction similar to Sifty's:

1) Traditional Advaita (Shankara)
2) Direct Path (Ramana, Niz)
3) Neo-Advaita (Parsons et al.)

In essence, they all point to the same, of course. But where they really differ a lot is probably the teaching method, especially in how far they go in making concessions to the seeker. Traditional Advaita seems to make the most concessions, Neo-Advaita basically none, and Direct Path is somewhere in the middle.

Now, to be fair, Zen does refer to scriptures now and then, even if it is just a handful of sutras or a story from one of their extensive (classical) koan collections. The main focus though is on directly apprehending the Infinite. So this would correspond nicely to the Direct Path school of Advaita (Sifty's Neo-Advaita 1.0).

And I agree with your last paragraph. Neo-Advaita doesn't seem to make any concessions to the seeker, and so as you say, just listening to Neo-Advaita teachers talk doesn't accomplish anything, it would be akin to priests preaching in Latin only in medieval times.

So, as Sifty already pointed out, the danger of Traditional Advaita is to get lost in formalities and mere concepts. And the dangers of Neo-Advaita, while having done away with the formalities entirely, still is - ironically! - to get lost in mere concepts. Which makes Direct Path some sort of middle way, i.e. main focus on direct apprehension of the ultimate truth, and scriptures as tools only when necessary, depending on each individual case.

Traditional Advaita would probably produce great scholars, Neo-Advaita great debaters, but only Direct Path would be suited to produce individuals with a direct understanding of and therefore solid grounding in the Infinite. So, IMO, all 3 schools have their place. It's just a matter of priority.

[zendancer]

Dec 1, 2021 21:34:56 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dec 1, 2021 13:59:53 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Interesting! Zen, by contrast, has no interest in scriptures or anything intellectual or reliance of any kind on words. The Zen path might be described as one that points beyond the mind (intellect) to direct experience of the actual, which is very much down-to-earth and "in your face." Zen, in essence, helps people (1) see that they can trust what we might call "body-knowledge," and (2) see that by contemplation/meditation, alone, any existential question or problem can be resolved.

In the Rinzai tradition of Zen they use koans whereas the Soto tradition is mainly interested only in silent sitting and the ultimate illumination that can occur as a result of that. I liked the koan approach because it can show someone very quickly how they have been indoctrinated by their culture to see a meta-reality rather than reality. I can remember being amazed during my first two or three Zen retreats at how blind I was to the actual.

The well-known Advaita teachers, as well as the Neo-Advaita teachers, are all pointing to the same kinds of realizations, but without a fair degree of internal silence and various different non-conceptual realizations I don't see how a student of a Neo-Advaita teacher could listen to such a teacher and have a single realization that would result in a total sense of freedom, peace of mind, and oneness with "what is" that is so obvious in people like Ramana, Niz, Bankei, and other extremely clear sages.

This passage is from the Foreword in Waite's book Back to the Truth: 5000 Years of Advaita:

Is it really possible to formulate into words something which is ultimately indefinable, indescribable and utterly beyond all human comprehension? It is an interesting dilemma. And yet, the teaching of Advaita (“not two”) is essentially the philosophical framework that attempts to do just that – to make some sort of sense of the mysterious universe in which we live.

Advaita is no New Age set of platitudes, however; it is the timeless and eternal message that has been revealed to us ever since the beginning of recorded history through scripture, poetry and the voices of the great philosophers and mystics. And what is that message? It is the revelation that everything – you, me, the world around us and beyond – is a manifestation of the Self, God, the All and the One.

There has of late, somewhat ironically, been a great deal of confusion regarding the interpretation of Advaita. Indeed, the spectrum of delineations is becoming more and more dissipated, ranging from the purist theories of Traditional Advaita right through to the more radical approach of Neo-Advaita, with a number of other “schools” in between. Traditional Advaita essentially takes its authority from the Upanishads, as well as the great Indian teacher Shankara. It postulates that there is a “path” that we must follow, albeit an apparent one, which helps us come to know the essence of our true selves, to realize the Self within us. Practices are undertaken to aid this discovery, which may include study of the scriptures, meditation, surrender and self enquiry.

Neo-Advaita (of which Tony Parsons is its greatest exponent) says there is no path. You are already that which you seek. You are THAT.

So which is correct? The answer is it depends. Traditional Advaita is right in that it addresses the seeker, still caught up in the illusion of his or her own ego. Nevertheless, it can become bogged down with complicated Hindu theory, enmeshed in an antiquated guru hierarchy. Neo-Advaita is right in that it bypasses all of that by simply addressing the Self. However, no concession is made for the seeker, staggering through phenomenality, still believing that he or she is the doer.

A much more amenable approach, called the Direct Path, has been gaining ground recently. Distilled by the great teachers Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta and Atmananda Krishna Menon, it takes the recognition that we are already the Self as its point of departure and yet suggests simple “techniques”, such as the use of rigorous logic, to help deconstruct the ignorance that obscures our innate divinity. In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille. For many, the Direct Path has also become the most accessible means to self remembering and forms a midway balance between the Traditional and Neo-Advaita extremes.

Paula Marvelly

So, there is a distinction similar to Sifty's:

1) Traditional Advaita (Shankara)
2) Direct Path (Ramana, Niz)
3) Neo-Advaita (Parsons et al.)

In essence, they all point to the same, of course. But where they really differ a lot is probably the teaching method, especially in how far they go in making concessions to the seeker. Traditional Advaita seems to make the most concessions, Neo-Advaita basically none, and Direct Path is somewhere in the middle.

Now, to be fair, Zen does refer to scriptures now and then, even if it is just a handful of sutras or a story from one of their extensive (classical) koan collections. The main focus though is on directly apprehending the Infinite. So this would correspond nicely to the Direct Path school of Advaita (Sifty's Neo-Advaita 1.0).

And I agree with your last paragraph. Neo-Advaita doesn't seem to make any concessions to the seeker, and so as you say, just listening to Neo-Advaita teachers talk doesn't accomplish anything, it would be akin to priests preaching in Latin only in medieval times.

So, as Sifty already pointed out, the danger of Traditional Advaita is to get lost in formalities and mere concepts. And the dangers of Neo-Advaita, while having done away with the formalities entirely, still is - ironically! - to get lost in mere concepts. Which makes Direct Path some sort of middle way, i.e. main focus on direct apprehension of the ultimate truth, and scriptures as tools only when necessary, depending on each individual case.

Traditional Advaita would probably produce great scholars, Neo-Advaita great debaters, but only Direct Path would be suited to produce individuals with a direct understanding of and therefore solid grounding in the Infinite. So, IMO, all 3 schools have their place. It's just a matter of priority.

That's a good summation and I obviously agree.

[siftingtothetruth]

Dec 1, 2021 12:38:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Thanks!

So to summarize:

Traditional Advaita: right understanding is laid out in the scriptures --> systematic practice and scripture study, focus mostly on conceptual aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 1.0: right understanding comes from self-inquiry --> quieting/purifying the mind as main practice, focus mostly on experiential aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 2.0: the SELF is all there is, you are already IT --> no practice necessary or even possible, focus exclusively on conceptual aspects of understanding

Yeah, that's about right. I think traditional advaita understood properly really leads to "Neo-Advaita 1.0"... but in practice it tends to be concept-heavy.

[laughter]

Dec 1, 2021 21:34:56 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dec 1, 2021 13:59:53 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Interesting! Zen, by contrast, has no interest in scriptures or anything intellectual or reliance of any kind on words. The Zen path might be described as one that points beyond the mind (intellect) to direct experience of the actual, which is very much down-to-earth and "in your face." Zen, in essence, helps people (1) see that they can trust what we might call "body-knowledge," and (2) see that by contemplation/meditation, alone, any existential question or problem can be resolved.

In the Rinzai tradition of Zen they use koans whereas the Soto tradition is mainly interested only in silent sitting and the ultimate illumination that can occur as a result of that. I liked the koan approach because it can show someone very quickly how they have been indoctrinated by their culture to see a meta-reality rather than reality. I can remember being amazed during my first two or three Zen retreats at how blind I was to the actual.

The well-known Advaita teachers, as well as the Neo-Advaita teachers, are all pointing to the same kinds of realizations, but without a fair degree of internal silence and various different non-conceptual realizations I don't see how a student of a Neo-Advaita teacher could listen to such a teacher and have a single realization that would result in a total sense of freedom, peace of mind, and oneness with "what is" that is so obvious in people like Ramana, Niz, Bankei, and other extremely clear sages.

This passage is from the Foreword in Waite's book Back to the Truth: 5000 Years of Advaita:

Is it really possible to formulate into words something which is ultimately indefinable, indescribable and utterly beyond all human comprehension? It is an interesting dilemma. And yet, the teaching of Advaita (“not two”) is essentially the philosophical framework that attempts to do just that – to make some sort of sense of the mysterious universe in which we live.

Advaita is no New Age set of platitudes, however; it is the timeless and eternal message that has been revealed to us ever since the beginning of recorded history through scripture, poetry and the voices of the great philosophers and mystics. And what is that message? It is the revelation that everything – you, me, the world around us and beyond – is a manifestation of the Self, God, the All and the One.

There has of late, somewhat ironically, been a great deal of confusion regarding the interpretation of Advaita. Indeed, the spectrum of delineations is becoming more and more dissipated, ranging from the purist theories of Traditional Advaita right through to the more radical approach of Neo-Advaita, with a number of other “schools” in between. Traditional Advaita essentially takes its authority from the Upanishads, as well as the great Indian teacher Shankara. It postulates that there is a “path” that we must follow, albeit an apparent one, which helps us come to know the essence of our true selves, to realize the Self within us. Practices are undertaken to aid this discovery, which may include study of the scriptures, meditation, surrender and self enquiry.

Neo-Advaita (of which Tony Parsons is its greatest exponent) says there is no path. You are already that which you seek. You are THAT.

So which is correct? The answer is it depends. Traditional Advaita is right in that it addresses the seeker, still caught up in the illusion of his or her own ego. Nevertheless, it can become bogged down with complicated Hindu theory, enmeshed in an antiquated guru hierarchy. Neo-Advaita is right in that it bypasses all of that by simply addressing the Self. However, no concession is made for the seeker, staggering through phenomenality, still believing that he or she is the doer.

A much more amenable approach, called the Direct Path, has been gaining ground recently. Distilled by the great teachers Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta and Atmananda Krishna Menon, it takes the recognition that we are already the Self as its point of departure and yet suggests simple “techniques”, such as the use of rigorous logic, to help deconstruct the ignorance that obscures our innate divinity. In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille. For many, the Direct Path has also become the most accessible means to self remembering and forms a midway balance between the Traditional and Neo-Advaita extremes.

Paula Marvelly

So, there is a distinction similar to Sifty's:

1) Traditional Advaita (Shankara)
2) Direct Path (Ramana, Niz)
3) Neo-Advaita (Parsons et al.)

In essence, they all point to the same, of course. But where they really differ a lot is probably the teaching method, especially in how far they go in making concessions to the seeker. Traditional Advaita seems to make the most concessions, Neo-Advaita basically none, and Direct Path is somewhere in the middle.

Now, to be fair, Zen does refer to scriptures now and then, even if it is just a handful of sutras or a story from one of their extensive (classical) koan collections. The main focus though is on directly apprehending the Infinite. So this would correspond nicely to the Direct Path school of Advaita (Sifty's Neo-Advaita 1.0).

And I agree with your last paragraph. Neo-Advaita doesn't seem to make any concessions to the seeker, and so as you say, just listening to Neo-Advaita teachers talk doesn't accomplish anything, it would be akin to priests preaching in Latin only in medieval times.

So, as Sifty already pointed out, the danger of Traditional Advaita is to get lost in formalities and mere concepts. And the dangers of Neo-Advaita, while having done away with the formalities entirely, still is - ironically! - to get lost in mere concepts. Which makes Direct Path some sort of middle way, i.e. main focus on direct apprehension of the ultimate truth, and scriptures as tools only when necessary, depending on each individual case.

Traditional Advaita would probably produce great scholars, Neo-Advaita great debaters, but only Direct Path would be suited to produce individuals with a direct understanding of and therefore solid grounding in the Infinite. So, IMO, all 3 schools have their place. It's just a matter of priority.

The significance and meaning of paths is perhaps the ultimate koan, and noone can answer that for anyone else. None of these would-be leaders (the spiritual teachers) are really completely wrong, but they can only be right situationally, one-on-one, on an individual basis. Each offers something that just might be exactly what is necessary in the moment for any given individual (seeker) interested in the existential truth, at the time the individual's interest intersects with what the leader is offering. Even to refer to those individuals as "seekers", and to the leader's as "teachers" contains a potential mind hook for the listener/reader. This is the way culture works. It is fluid and changeable, like a stream of water, and eddy's and currents within it sometimes crystalize, like the larger rocks in the bed of the stream.

A mind hook like this can either be an opportunity or a hindrance to someone who encounters it. So, personally, I don't have a problem with the teacher/seeker nomenclature. I see both the value in it, as well as the potential pitfalls.

[laughter]

Dec 1, 2021 23:13:15 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Dec 1, 2021 12:38:59 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Thanks!

So to summarize:

Traditional Advaita: right understanding is laid out in the scriptures --> systematic practice and scripture study, focus mostly on conceptual aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 1.0: right understanding comes from self-inquiry --> quieting/purifying the mind as main practice, focus mostly on experiential aspects of understanding

Neo-Advaita 2.0: the SELF is all there is, you are already IT --> no practice necessary or even possible, focus exclusively on conceptual aspects of understanding

Yeah, that's about right. I think traditional advaita understood properly really leads to "Neo-Advaita 1.0"... but in practice it tends to be concept-heavy.

But doesn't that reflect your experience with the culture, in particular? For instance, what happens with someone who offers no debate to the traditional Advaita teacher? (asking for a friend ... )

[siftingtothetruth]

Dec 2, 2021 9:35:11 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 1, 2021 23:13:15 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Yeah, that's about right. I think traditional advaita understood properly really leads to "Neo-Advaita 1.0"... but in practice it tends to be concept-heavy.

But doesn't that reflect your experience with the culture, in particular? For instance, what happens with someone who offers no debate to the traditional Advaita teacher? (asking for a friend ... )

It's true that I was an extra-cantankerous sort and quite the irreverent, informal student. But from what I can tell from various Internet fora where traditional advaita types hang out, and from interacting with family and others of that ilk, people who do not debate and question in the same way that I did, they are indeed concept-heavy.

[laughter]

Dec 2, 2021 11:21:35 GMT -5 siftingtothetruth said:

Dec 2, 2021 9:35:11 GMT -5 laughter said:

But doesn't that reflect your experience with the culture, in particular? For instance, what happens with someone who offers no debate to the traditional Advaita teacher? (asking for a friend ... )

It's true that I was an extra-cantankerous sort and quite the irreverent, informal student. But from what I can tell from various Internet fora where traditional advaita types hang out, and from interacting with family and others of that ilk, people who do not debate and question in the same way that I did, they are indeed concept-heavy.

we're doomed I tells ya'!

[Reefs]

Dec 2, 2021 9:31:21 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 1, 2021 21:34:56 GMT -5 Reefs said:

This passage is from the Foreword in Waite's book Back to the Truth: 5000 Years of Advaita:

So, there is a distinction similar to Sifty's:

1) Traditional Advaita (Shankara)
2) Direct Path (Ramana, Niz)
3) Neo-Advaita (Parsons et al.)

In essence, they all point to the same, of course. But where they really differ a lot is probably the teaching method, especially in how far they go in making concessions to the seeker. Traditional Advaita seems to make the most concessions, Neo-Advaita basically none, and Direct Path is somewhere in the middle.

Now, to be fair, Zen does refer to scriptures now and then, even if it is just a handful of sutras or a story from one of their extensive (classical) koan collections. The main focus though is on directly apprehending the Infinite. So this would correspond nicely to the Direct Path school of Advaita (Sifty's Neo-Advaita 1.0).

And I agree with your last paragraph. Neo-Advaita doesn't seem to make any concessions to the seeker, and so as you say, just listening to Neo-Advaita teachers talk doesn't accomplish anything, it would be akin to priests preaching in Latin only in medieval times.

So, as Sifty already pointed out, the danger of Traditional Advaita is to get lost in formalities and mere concepts. And the dangers of Neo-Advaita, while having done away with the formalities entirely, still is - ironically! - to get lost in mere concepts. Which makes Direct Path some sort of middle way, i.e. main focus on direct apprehension of the ultimate truth, and scriptures as tools only when necessary, depending on each individual case.

Traditional Advaita would probably produce great scholars, Neo-Advaita great debaters, but only Direct Path would be suited to produce individuals with a direct understanding of and therefore solid grounding in the Infinite. So, IMO, all 3 schools have their place. It's just a matter of priority.

The significance and meaning of paths is perhaps the ultimate koan, and noone can answer that for anyone else. None of these wouldt-be leaders (the spiritual teachers) are really completely wrong, but they can only be right situationally, one-on-one, on an individual basis. Each offers something that just might be exactly what is necessary in the moment for any given individual (seeker) interested in the existential truth, at the time the individual's interest intersects with what the leader is offering. Even to refer to those individuals as "seekers", and to the leader's as "teachers" contains a potential mind hook for the listener/reader. This is the way culture works. It is fluid and changeable, like a stream of water, and eddy's and currents within it sometimes crystalize, like the larger rocks in the bed of the stream.

A mind hook like this can either be an opportunity or a hindrance to someone who encounters it. So, personally, I don't have a problem with the teacher/seeker nomenclature. I see both the value in it, as well as the potential pitfalls.

Seekers (and also some teachers!) are all too eager to establish a causal link between right practice and SR. Which is why we usually say SR is acausal and play practice curmudgeons. But that's also just a pointer, or counter point to the practice mania and result orientation that is so common in spiritual circles. In reality, neither causal nor acausal really explain anything. So in the end, we just have to stick with 'grace' or 'God's ways are mysterious'... which isn't a very satisfying prospect for a seeker, of course. And this is also where an intellect-driven approach fails spectacularly. It's like with statistics. If you use statistics as guidance, you'll live forever in uncertainty and can't tell up from down. Strawberries can kill. Fact. But in the statistical average, that risk becomes almost nonexistent. Strawberries are declared safe. So, how do you know on which side of the statistics you are?  Similarly to right practice. Ramakrishna got there by prayer. Ramana by introspection. Niz essentially by ATA. So, how do you know how it will unfold for you? Should you follow Ramakrishna's advice and worship Kali? Or should you follow Ramana's advice and contemplate "Who am I?" Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I AM'? Or maybe do a bit of everything just to be on the safe side? 

This is where Niz' point about sincerity is insightful, when he says that there will be a point in the search, when essentially the Absolute takes over and the seeker's will is cast aside, he finds himself just driven to do a certain practice for no other reason than doing that practice. And that's, ironically (or not), when practice suddenly shows results and the pathless path isn't pathless anymore. After all, post-SR, looking back at what had been done, usually a clear path emerges, a story of how we got here, i.e. this action led to these results. But what we usually forget is that millions of others followed the exact same instructions and this same course of action, but didn't get any results. So then, it's not really about doing or not doing this or that, is it? And if we look at all the people who meditate these days or have meditated in the past in order to get enlightened and compare that number to the number of people who actually got enlightened, we may realize that meditation does have such a low success rate, that looking at this entirely rationally, one would wonder why people still keep recommending mediation. 

[zendancer]

Dec 4, 2021 12:39:04 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dec 2, 2021 9:31:21 GMT -5 laughter said:

The significance and meaning of paths is perhaps the ultimate koan, and noone can answer that for anyone else. None of these wouldt-be leaders (the spiritual teachers) are really completely wrong, but they can only be right situationally, one-on-one, on an individual basis. Each offers something that just might be exactly what is necessary in the moment for any given individual (seeker) interested in the existential truth, at the time the individual's interest intersects with what the leader is offering. Even to refer to those individuals as "seekers", and to the leader's as "teachers" contains a potential mind hook for the listener/reader. This is the way culture works. It is fluid and changeable, like a stream of water, and eddy's and currents within it sometimes crystalize, like the larger rocks in the bed of the stream.

A mind hook like this can either be an opportunity or a hindrance to someone who encounters it. So, personally, I don't have a problem with the teacher/seeker nomenclature. I see both the value in it, as well as the potential pitfalls.

Seekers (and also some teachers!) are all too eager to establish a causal link between right practice and SR. Which is why we usually say SR is acausal and play practice curmudgeons. But that's also just a pointer, or counter point to the practice mania and result orientation that is so common in spiritual circles. In reality, neither causal nor acausal really explain anything. So in the end, we just have to stick with 'grace' or 'God's ways are mysterious'... which isn't a very satisfying prospect for a seeker, of course. And this is also where an intellect-driven approach fails spectacularly. It's like with statistics. If you use statistics as guidance, you'll live forever in uncertainty and can't tell up from down. Strawberries can kill. Fact. But in the statistical average, that risk becomes almost nonexistent. Strawberries are declared safe. So, how do you know on which side of the statistics you are?  Similarly to right practice. Ramakrishna got there by prayer. Ramana by introspection. Niz essentially by ATA. So, how do you know how it will unfold for you? Should you follow Ramakrishna's advice and worship Kali? Or should you follow Ramana's advice and contemplate "Who am I?" Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I AM'? Or maybe do a bit of everything just to be on the safe side? 

This is where Niz' point about sincerity is insightful, when he says that there will be a point in the search, when essentially the Absolute takes over and the seeker's will is cast aside, he finds himself just driven to do a certain practice for no other reason than doing that practice. And that's, ironically (or not), when practice suddenly shows results and the pathless path isn't pathless anymore. After all, post-SR, looking back at what had been done, usually a clear path emerges, a story of how we got here, i.e. this action led to these results. But what we usually forget is that millions of others followed the exact same instructions and this same course of action, but didn't get any results. So then, it's not really about doing or not doing this or that, is it? And if we look at all the people who meditate these days or have meditated in the past in order to get enlightened and compare that number to the number of people who actually got enlightened, we may realize that meditation does have such a low success rate, that looking at this entirely rationally, one would wonder why people still keep recommending mediation. 

So true!

[stardustpilgrim]

Dec 4, 2021 12:39:04 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dec 2, 2021 9:31:21 GMT -5 laughter said:

The significance and meaning of paths is perhaps the ultimate koan, and noone can answer that for anyone else. None of these wouldt-be leaders (the spiritual teachers) are really completely wrong, but they can only be right situationally, one-on-one, on an individual basis. Each offers something that just might be exactly what is necessary in the moment for any given individual (seeker) interested in the existential truth, at the time the individual's interest intersects with what the leader is offering. Even to refer to those individuals as "seekers", and to the leader's as "teachers" contains a potential mind hook for the listener/reader. This is the way culture works. It is fluid and changeable, like a stream of water, and eddy's and currents within it sometimes crystalize, like the larger rocks in the bed of the stream.

A mind hook like this can either be an opportunity or a hindrance to someone who encounters it. So, personally, I don't have a problem with the teacher/seeker nomenclature. I see both the value in it, as well as the potential pitfalls.

Seekers (and also some teachers!) are all too eager to establish a causal link between right practice and SR. Which is why we usually say SR is acausal and play practice curmudgeons. But that's also just a pointer, or counter point to the practice mania and result orientation that is so common in spiritual circles. In reality, neither causal nor acausal really explain anything. So in the end, we just have to stick with 'grace' or 'God's ways are mysterious'... which isn't a very satisfying prospect for a seeker, of course. And this is also where an intellect-driven approach fails spectacularly. It's like with statistics. If you use statistics as guidance, you'll live forever in uncertainty and can't tell up from down. Strawberries can kill. Fact. But in the statistical average, that risk becomes almost nonexistent. Strawberries are declared safe. So, how do you know on which side of the statistics you are?  Similarly to right practice. Ramakrishna got there by prayer. Ramana by introspection. Niz essentially by ATA. So, how do you know how it will unfold for you? Should you follow Ramakrishna's advice and worship Kali? Or should you follow Ramana's advice and contemplate "Who am I?" Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I AM'? Or maybe do a bit of everything just to be on the safe side? 

This is where Niz' point about sincerity is insightful, when he says that there will be a point in the search, when essentially the Absolute takes over and the seeker's will is cast aside, he finds himself just driven to do a certain practice for no other reason than doing that practice. And that's, ironically (or not), when practice suddenly shows results and the pathless path isn't pathless anymore. After all, post-SR, looking back at what had been done, usually a clear path emerges, a story of how we got here, i.e. this action led to these results. But what we usually forget is that millions of others followed the exact same instructions and this same course of action, but didn't get any results. So then, it's not really about doing or not doing this or that, is it? And if we look at all the people who meditate these days or have meditated in the past in order to get enlightened and compare that number to the number of people who actually got enlightened, we may realize that meditation does have such a low success rate, that looking at this entirely rationally, one would wonder why people still keep recommending mediation. 

Niz essentially by ATA(-T) and Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I Am'?, quoting, are not the same thing, that is, cannot be interchanged as being equal. In ATA-T, as usually defined by zd, attention is focused on something other-than the locality of one's self, that is, usually some visual or auditory sensation (but not necessarily limited so). What Niz meant by staying in the 'I Am' is expressly to ~remain in~ the "locality" of his own being, we could also say, to be present. To be present to Self, and to not-be present to the chattering small s self, cannot be equated (which you seem to be doing). What might eventually result from either practice is a different story. And they can be practiced simultaneously, but to do so needs to be expressly explained, or understood, and one is always more significant than the other.