Sankara Gets Back To Us (Sorta)
File under: The Siddhi of PR
A few posts back, we wondered aloud what this statement had to do with self-realization:
The sense of self, or identity, can expand to include all of humanity, regardless of nationality, beliefs, ethnicity, race, gender, or lifestyle.We also asked the moderator of the forum on Sankara's website. Today they got back to us:
Briefly, GWR distinguishes between an expansive sense of self, as described by the quote you gave below, and an infinite self, which is roughly synonymous with self-realization. With so much divisiveness looming in the human world, GWR points out the importance for human beings to emphasize the nurturance of the expansive sense of self. For those interested in realizing an infinite self, GWR points out that it is not possible to do so for those still mired in narrowness, exclusivity, or otherwise divisive ways of thinking.So the practice of expanding a person's sense of self leads to the abandonment of divisive ways of thinking, thereby bringing one closer to realizing the infinite self.
On first impression, we can't really argue with that. It's like a lot of approaches: psychological redefinition with compassion building. But it's unique in how the compassion comes by way of the redefinition.
The question is in the redefining. What does this "expanded" person look like in thought and belief. Are they just trading one set of occluding ideas for another, or does more clarity fill the space created by the expansion.
And then we begin to wonder about this "divisive" thinking. What exactly is the line between it and healthy debate. We can seem pretty divisive ourselves sometimes, right? By defining what is appropriate to think in the context of the practice, you control the content of people's minds. We aren't saying this is the case here, but we wonder how well-defined the ideas are about what is appropriate for the "expansive" self to think.
Perhaps Sankara deserves a closer look. He at least knows the difference between an expanded sense of self and what he's calling the "infinite self." Couple that with his ideas about God without religion, and you've got the kind of guru that we'd like to see more of... maybe.
We'll get back to you after we read his book.
posted by guruphiliac @ 6:42 PM
28 Comments:
what about having a presence that transforms whoever comes before it?
There is no such thing. At best, the circus of magical suggestion these gurus stew in allows for a faith healing/placebo effect to arise, thus affording those who are ready to have some kind of transformational experience they assume was caused by the guru.
some are like tuning forks for our own awareness.
Wholesale buy in to ridiculous Hindu mythology, noted.
I have had similar experiences in churches and with waterfalls. nothing hindu about it. I'm not a hindu.
Thanks for proving my point. It's not the guru or his/her energy, it's what you are bringing to the interaction. I'm not saying the experience is false, I'm saying the assumptions of causality are false. These assumptions of the power of the guru are built into Hindu mythology. People go to gurus believing in this mythology, and thus generate their own experience to match their expectations.
Conversely, some folks are just ready for some kind of experience–and entirely outside of the mythology–they have one, whether it be in the presence of a guru or a waterfall.
To say that there aren't people walking this Earth that can transform someone's consciousness is absurd at best. I agree that the 'seeker' must be at a point in his or her life where he or she is ready to meet this person who will open the doorway, or ignite the Kundalini, but to deny the existence of enlightened beings with the power to pass on the power of knowledge of the Self tells more about your limited mind than it does about the Gurus you trash on your site.
to deny the existence of enlightened beings with the power to pass on the power of knowledge of the Self tells more about your limited mind than it does about the Gurus you trash on your site.
I'm not denying the existence of enlightened people, I'm denying that they are magic because of it. I'm saying that any seemingly supernatural transformational experience is internally generated, triggered by various cues and suggestions, rather than being the result of some kind of superphysical shakti that the guru uses intentionally, or even unintentionally. Crazy stuff happens everywhere all the time, not just around gurus. People seem to notice it more around gurus, because they expect to see it more around gurus.
Crazy stuff happens everywhere all the time, not just around gurus. People seem to notice it more around gurus, because they expect to see it more around gurus.
Not true. I wasn't expecting to have shaktipat any more than I was expecting to read all about the hair on your dog's bum when I met my Guru.
When you need to find a place, you ask someone who's been there and they give you directions. That is the function of a true Guru. The Guru shows you yourself by becoming a mirror without blemish until your entire ego is cracked wide open and you realize that the Self is your true identity.
I don't understand why you claim to know everything about Gurus and what they can and can't do. Even as if a tiny seed, once planted, knows that it must grown into a large pine tree, so too are the wonders of the guru and the world.
The Truth of spirituality is beyond the mind, beyond the intellect. Reading your blog is like a 'how to' on NOT discovering the Self. It's too much 'mind' and not enough SILENCE.
Not true. I wasn't expecting to have shaktipat any more than I was expecting to read all about the hair on your dog's bum when I met my Guru.
You don't need to be consciously expecting it for it to occur. It's just that time, whether or not a guru is involved. My initial shaktipat happened while I was lying in bed, miles from any guru.
For whatever reason, there's a favorable set of circumstances which sets kundalini off. It's not something the guru does, it's something that spontaneously manifests. Often in the presence of a guru, yet often not as well.
When you need to find a place, you ask someone who's been there and they give you directions. That is the function of a true Guru. The Guru shows you yourself by becoming a mirror without blemish until your entire ego is cracked wide open and you realize that the Self is your true identity.
Hagiopoisoned bliss bunny fantasy noted.
All gurus have blemishes, because all gurus are as human as you and I. To idealize a guru this way is to set your mind full of occlusion about what perfection is and what that means for the devotee.
As the Self, we are all perfect, because the Self is perfect in its own context. But as individuals, whether devotees or gurus, we have all the foibles common to man. The guru has no advantage whatsoever in this regard, outside the mythology that has constellated in gurudom.
I don't understand why you claim to know everything about Gurus and what they can and can't do.
You are putting words into my mouth. I claim to have opinions about gurus based on my exposure to them, my survey of the culture of gurudom, and my own experiential reckoning of the phenomenon. That's a long way from knowing everything about gurus.
Even as if a tiny seed, once planted, knows that it must grown into a large pine tree, so too are the wonders of the guru and the world.
Quaint platitude which has as much to do with realization as my dog's ass, noted as well.
The Truth of spirituality is beyond the mind, beyond the intellect.
Absolutely. However, when realization comes to a life, it is expressed by the mind via the intellect. There is no other way to express it if you are interested in communicating about it.
Reading your blog is like a 'how to' on NOT discovering the Self. It's too much 'mind' and not enough SILENCE.
A silent blog is like a car without an engine. You aren't going to get very far with that.
Silence is a facsimile of the Self. Of all the ways one might attempt to communicate about the Self, the word silence probably comes the closest. However, the Self isn't silence any more than my dog's ass. It is what it is, and it's nothing save itself. So while you can be correct in a way to equate the Self with silence, you are also as far as if you equated the Self with anything else. It's just unlike anything and everything that can be thought, spoken, sensed or felt. So even the concept of silence will be occluding of the truth of self-realization.
There is a way to have a blog that is filled with silence. One need not be quiet to experience silence. Silence is the ultimate state of the Self. When one Witnesses the world, rather than getting caught up in the mumbo jumbo, one is in silence while in the world. I was intimating that your site is all about agression. I wonder how it must feel to always be on the defense.
Hagiopoisoned bliss bunny fantasy noted.
All gurus have blemishes, because all gurus are as human as you and I.
I was paraphrasing Swami Muktananda on the former.
With regards to the latter, I understand that my Guru is human. I was expressing my experience that She had the ability to perfectly reflect back to me the parts of my limited ego that were occluding me from the experience of my true Self.
I love my Guru; I know she's human. I also know that I found what I was looking for when I accidently met her. But then, accidents don't happen, do they.
when your psychological defense mechanisms are removed, you see the world as it really is, undistorted by your rationalizations.
Wrong. All sensation is filtered through the mind. So, the world is determined by that filtering. When realization comes, the filters remain in place. The only difference is that the essential thought of being exclusively individual is removed. The world remains the same, but your idea of who you are is irrevocably transformed.
if you are not ready for truth and reality, one can lapse into psychosis.
You have a brilliant example of that in Rasa.
we have learned from mistress rasa
I'm sorry to say this, but all you have learned from Rasa is what a psychotically grandiose person looks like.
There is a way to have a blog that is filled with silence.
Blank pages are usually kinda boring.
One need not be quiet to experience silence.
If one is having an experience of silence, that is not the Self. That's just an idea you have about the Self made into an experience which meets those expectations. Any expectation of the Self is dead, dog wrong.
Silence is the ultimate state of the Self.
The Self is not a thought, feeling, sensation or anything that can be called a state or experience.
When one Witnesses the world, rather than getting caught up in the mumbo jumbo, one is in silence while in the world.
What you are talking about is mere thought control. Beginner stuff.
I was intimating that your site is all about agression. I wonder how it must feel to always be on the defense.
I wouldn't know.
The Self is not a thought, feeling, sensation or anything that can be called a state or experience.
How would you know???
Besides, I live in the Witness state, and I can guarantee you that it is filled with 'silence'. You yourself said that we use the mind to express--as best we can--the experience of the Self. The Self is indescribable, yet the closest thing I can relate to the Self is 'nothingness', which to me is silence.
If one is having an experience of silence, that is not the Self.
See above for my rebutle.
What you are talking about is mere thought control. Beginner stuff.
This statement is completely inaccurate, and only shows me that you have not acieved the state of Self-realization.
I wouldn't know.
Oh, but I think you do.
It's actually quite amusing to visit this blog that pretends to know the ins and outs of Self-realization. Simply KNOWING that God exists everywhere, and knowing that the only thing that exists is consciousness is not enough. One must have the experience of this state in order to be taken serious as a knower of the Truth.
The terrific thing is that you are so interested in these Gurus (why else would you spend your time writing about them) so I am sure one day you will experience the beauty of Oneness.
It's okay if you call me a 'beginner'; ultimately there is no knowing, as the Truth lies beyond the intellect. If you intimate that I know nothing of which I speak, I would take that as a compliment.
I look forward to your testy rebutle comments. It only proves my point that you are not living beyond the drama of it all.
In peace,
Marcy P.
then there is UNION WITH THE ENTIRETY
As far as I'm concerned, you've just described a descent into psychosis.
The only way one can have an experience of union with the entirety is by generating it in the brain. Any experience, no matter how fantastic or glorious, is just certain neural nets firing. It's not the truth of your being. That goes beyond all experience.
Any experience at all has as much to do with the Self as my dog's ass. Seeing God or believing you are God, included.
How would you know???
That's hard to say.
You yourself said that we use the mind to express--as best we can--the experience of the Self.
No I did not. I said if we want to talk about the nondual, we're stuck using words via the mind.
The Self is indescribable, yet the closest thing I can relate to the Self is 'nothingness', which to me is silence.
Right. I'm totally on board. However, it's not nothingness or silence. It's only itself. Every description is way wrong.
> What you are talking about is mere
> thought control. Beginner stuff.
This statement is completely inaccurate, and only shows me that you have not achieved the state of Self-realization.
Why, because I'm saying that witnessing is no big deal? Who we are is in the space between thoughts. It's not hard to find in meditation.
I'm not saying achieving the control is easy, but conceptually, it's just about mental focus. It's not self-realization, although it would appear to be associated with it.
It's actually quite amusing to visit this blog that pretends to know the ins and outs of Self-realization.
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
Simply KNOWING that God exists everywhere, and knowing that the only thing that exists is consciousness is not enough. One must have the experience of this state in order to be taken serious as a knower of the Truth.
And I'm telling you that it's not a state. There is a recognition that occurs, but all it brings is the truth. It doesn't change perception in any way. Jnana is its own kind of knowing. It's like NOTHING in the entire universe, but it's been with us the whole time, so it's no big deal, either.
The terrific thing is that you are so interested in these Gurus (why else would you spend your time writing about them) so I am sure one day you will experience the beauty of Oneness.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not beautiful, either.
It's okay if you call me a 'beginner';
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, if I did. Sorry.
ultimately there is no knowing, as the Truth lies beyond the intellect.
But it can be known as an ongoing, experiential recognition. The intellect doesn't "know" it, it knows itself, and the intellect is there to recording the knowing of it.
If you intimate that I know nothing of which I speak, I would take that as a compliment.
Not at all. You obviously know what you are talking about. But you are talking from within a paradigm of spiritual culture that I am critiquing.
I look forward to your testy rebuttal comments. It only proves my point that you are not living beyond the drama of it all.
Of course not. Nobody does, guru or devotee. It's built into the fact that we're people.
I'm not saying achieving the control is easy, but conceptually, it's just about mental focus.
For someone who hasn't experienced complete non-duality, this would appear to be the case. However, your statement is false. Witnessing is not mental focus, as it is beyond the mind.
And I'm telling you that it's not a state.
The only reason that I called it a 'state' is because it is beyond description, therefore, how could I possibly find a word that would accurately describe the experience of the Self?? It's impossible. I called it a 'state' for lack of a better word.
And you say that experiencing Oneness is not beautiful. It is much more beautiful than experiencing duality and not living in awareness. It is much more beautiful that being attached to everything, everywhere. In my experience, it is beautiful. To be aware of anger, rather than experiencing it with attachment, is in and of itself, beautiful. Again, semantics?
Of course not. Nobody does, guru or devotee. It's built into the fact that we're people.
Not completely true. To Witness the drama is much different than getting caught up in it. I'm not insinuating that one who Witnesses is numb to everything that goes on; in other words that the person is non-reactionary. I'm saying that the person who is the Witness (the Self is the Witness, of course) is aware of the drama and takes it for what it is without attaching themselves to it.
Why, because I'm saying that witnessing is no big deal? Who we are is in the space between thoughts. It's not hard to find in meditation.
No. Because the Witness that I am talking about is the same as the Knower. The Knower is the Self. It's all semantics. The Witness is the Self. Who is looking through your eyes at the computer screen? Not Jody. Jody's mind is computing what the eyes see, however, it is ultimately the Self who is doing all of the seeing, all of the thinking, all of the knowing, all of the creating; yet, at the same time, the Self is beyond all of the things I just mentioned.
Not at all. You obviously know what you are talking about. But you are talking from within a paradigm of spiritual culture that I am critiquing.
Marcy_Peanut is not affiliated with any particular spiritual culture. Marcy_Peanut is beyond any spiritual culture.Marcy_Peanut doesn't buy into 'spritual culture' as a means of identity, she merely enjoys exploring her own spirituality through the reading of books about others spirituality.
What culture is it that you think I am a part of? Jesus is my beloved, yet I don't go to church.
It's okay if you call me a 'beginner';
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, if I did. Sorry.
Not possible. We're merely having a discussion here.
What would hurt my feelings is if I ran into Mariska Hargitay and offered to buy her a drink and she said no. That wouldn't only hurt my feelings, that would crush me for life.
I find it quite amusing that we agree that the Self is beyond description, beyond words, yet we are writing lots of words here. This exchange is fun. But no matter how many words we write, we will always come back to the truth that what we are both speaking of is beyond words.
Much love to you, Jody.
Good Night.
Marcy_P.
youre psychologizing.
All experience is psychological.
so, youre saying that truth has nothing to do with experience or knowledge?
I'm saying that the truth of the Self has nothing to do with anything except itself. And I'm saying that anything you call an experience is purely psychological, including the delusion that you are the entire universe.
Witnessing is not mental focus, as it is beyond the mind.
No it is not. To witness requires the subject/object distinction. It is the person playing at detached observation.
And you say that experiencing Oneness is not beautiful.
I'm saying that the Self is not beautiful. It has no attributes at all, except itself. It is its own attribute.
It is much more beautiful than experiencing duality and not living in awareness. It is much more beautiful that being attached to everything, everywhere. In my experience, it is beautiful.
Opinions noted.
To be aware of anger, rather than experiencing it with attachment, is in and of itself, beautiful. Again, semantics?
Anger is a natural emotion. Human beings are animals with language skills, realized or not. The spectrum of emotion is part and parcel with that.
To Witness the drama is much different than getting caught up in it.
I find that a pose. One may practice non-attachment, but it's still by the agency of being a person. It's the person–who is ultimately illusory–who does the witnessing.
the Witness that I am talking about is the same as the Knower. The Knower is the Self. It's all semantics. The Witness is the Self.
Nope. The witness is an individual making detached observations.
Who is looking through your eyes at the computer screen? Not Jody.
Yes, Jody.
Jody's mind is computing what the eyes see, however, it is ultimately the Self who is doing all of the seeing, all of the thinking, all of the knowing, all of the creating; yet, at the same time, the Self is beyond all of the things I just mentioned.
Nope. The Self does nothing. The Self is not the doer.
all experience is from a FIRST PERSON perspective
Which is why all experience is psychological.
unless you are experiencing sun-yata
That would be experiencing psychosis, which is also psychological.
re: Witnessing
No it is not. To witness requires the subject/object distinction. It is the person playing at detached observation.
If you think your statement is true, you obviously are the beginner, not me.
I'm saying that the Self is not beautiful. It has no attributes at all, except itself. It is its own attribute.
Knowledge acquired from book reading noted.
Nope. The witness is an individual making detached observations.
You have never experienced Witness consciousness. If you had, you wouldn't write such ridiculous rebutles.
Nope. The Self does nothing. The Self is not the doer.
The Self is pure Consciousness. If you believe in non-duality, you would know that the Self is the creator and the created.
Your theories are falling apart at the seams. Better go back and reread Viveka Chudamani.
Thank you for your lovely comments with regards to my comments. You have now PROVEN to me that your knowledge is not based on first-hand experience. Your intellectual prowess is noted.
> No it is not. To witness requires
> the subject/object distinction.
> It is the person playing at
> detached observation.
If you think your statement is true, you obviously are the beginner, not me.
If you think so.
> I'm saying that the Self is not
> beautiful. It has no attributes
> at all, except itself. It is its
> own attribute.
Knowledge acquired from book reading noted.
That's what you have decided to believe about what I know.
> Nope. The witness is an individual
> making detached observations.
You have never experienced Witness consciousness. If you had, you wouldn't write such ridiculous rebutles.
More of your belief about what I know.
> Nope. The Self does nothing. The
> Self is not the doer.
The Self is pure Consciousness.
You could say that. However, that doesn't mean it does anything.
If you believe in non-duality, you would know that the Self is the creator and the created.
That doesn't mean the Self is doing anything, either. I like the metaphor of Ma Kali Dakshineswari. She stands on Shiva, who is in nirvakalpa samadhi. He represents Brahman, or the Self to us. Kali is crazy, just like the universe, which She represents. Ramakrishna used to say, "Shiva and Shakti (Kali) are like fire and its power to burn." They are one, but they are not one. Just as the Self supports the existence of the entire manifest universe (Shakti standing on Shiva), it also has nothing to do with it, at all. Shiva is out cold, so to speak, to all the happenings of the world of name and form.
So, it is more accurate to say the Self–the Atman as it exists in our consciousness–has as much to do with anything in the universe as Cisco's furry little hiney.
thank you for your lovely comments with regards to my comments. You have now PROVEN to me that your knowledge is not based on first-hand experience. Your intellectual prowess is noted.
I'll take the latter as a complement and the former as another declaration of what you believe.
That's ok, Marcy. I would never expect anyone to believe I know what I'm talking about.
That doesn't mean the Self is doing anything, either. I like the metaphor of Ma Kali Dakshineswari. She stands on Shiva, who is in nirvakalpa samadhi. He represents Brahman, or the Self to us. Kali is crazy, just like the universe, which She represents. Ramakrishna used to say, "Shiva and Shakti (Kali) are like fire and its power to burn." They are one, but they are not one. Just as the Self supports the existence of the entire manifest universe (Shakti standing on Shiva), it also has nothing to do with it, at all. Shiva is out cold, so to speak, to all the happenings of the world of name and form.
Thnak you for this discertation. Your conceit in intimating that I don't already know about the Atman, Brahman, Shiva/Shakti, etc. etc. etc. is noted.
My comments are based on what you write in your blog. It seems to me that you don't know Cisco's furry butt from a hole in the ground. But, that's okay.
You talk about the Atman and Brahman; Shiva and Shakti; all of these dualist themes, when in actuality, they are ALL nothing but manifestations of God/the SELF, pure consciousness. They are the many aspects of this consciousness. The one has become many, and the many have become one.
We could go back and forth forever, it all comes down to personal experience (I already KNOW that the Self is not an 'experience'; we've already agreed that it is beyond words).
So, go pet the hairs on your dog's butt and have a good day. (and don't forget to treat those hairs with a little more dignity, as they, too, are manifestations of God.
:)
Jody IS Facedog. Any idiot could figure that out.
again, educate yourself. scientists themselves are moving the paradigm towards first person methods.
I'm working from my own paradigm. If that's not good enough for you, I suggest you go somewhere else.
Jody IS Facedog. Any idiot could figure that out.
Absolutely not, Marcy. I only post from one identity, here and elsewhere. I never use multiple identities to support my contentions.
I would like to know the names of the gurus who have personally hurt you Jody, by feeding you false ideas, or whatever.
No guru has personally hurt me. Many gurus feed their devotees false ideas. It's what keeps them on top of the guru/devotee dyad, the ideas of divinity that they exploit for their own gain.
Yeah, well, the great thing to remember before logging off of the blogosphere is that ALL of this is just a play of consciousness*. It's drama, nothing more, nothing less.
Sweet Dreams, people, where ever you are!!
* Swami Muktananda Paramahansa
p.s. If everything is made of the same consciousness, then Jody is Facedog. Not on a practical level, but on an over intellectualized, 'hair of Jody's dog's ass' kind of way. Agree?
If everything is made of the same consciousness, then Jody is Facedog.
No. Jody and Facedog share the foundation of their being, but the Self is not the doer. So what Jody does and what Facedog does are two separate cases when viewed within the context of name and form.
So what Jody does and what Facedog does are two separate cases when viewed within the context of name and form.
I agree with you on this 100%. :)
your 'paradigm' is not logically coherent.
Logic, an entirely human enterprise, has as much to do with the truth of the Self as my dog's ass.
Post a Comment
<< Home