Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Gene Poole Adds Value

File under: Real True Gurus

Gene Poole is the undisputed alpha male at GuruRatings, despite our having won the silly poll someone created. While not as much of a guru to us as Bruceji, he is certainly a mack daddy of prodigious creative output and analysis, and we regard him as a hero and model nonetheless. Here he expands upon Bruceji's definition of ego:
Considering that 'mental activity' is more than thought, the 'patterns' are much more complex than we may suppose.

'Quasi-reiterave' means, that the pattern both draws upon new data for input, and also, uses it own conclusions as 'new data'. This welter of 'mental activity' is directly connected to the glandular and autonomic nervous systems; so, every 'iteration' (drawing out) includes not only the triggers for emotion, but also, recursively, tends to take emotion as reason for more emotion. The parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system is designed to put a clamp on emotional arisings, but when this 'kicks in' is variable and is dependent upon social conditioning. Vulcans are famous for conditioning which keeps this clamp in place continually.

The 'reiterative' aspect of ego (and 'mind') is most interesting. There is seldom a moment not filled with model- making and model-testing. Chief among those 'models', is the model of self.

The self-model is made to run through the various other models, to see how best to 'survive'. As Bruce mentions, this can include models for attainment of dominance. That such real-life attempts usually end in relative failure or even disaster, shows how sketchy such models for dominance tend to be; if they would be fully iterated, based on all available data, the failures would be predictable and thus would not be attempted... given that our modeler is rational, that is.

All of the above, occurs continually and so rapidly as to be unnoticable; virtually, in the blink of an eye.

The ratio of unexpressed/unconscious 'thought' compared to expressed/conscious, is about 97%/3%. In other words, most of the time, we have no idea what we are thinking. May the gods of nonduality gift us with the power to maintain in silence, long enough to see and appreciate our true nature.
We've never known Geneji to have his own website, but some of his older collected writing is here.

58 Comments:

At 3/08/2006 3:04 PM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

I'm waaaayyyy to stupid to understand all this gibberish you've written here!

What is this person trying to say?

:-))

 
At 3/08/2006 3:39 PM, Blogger jody said...

Basically, the sense of individual self is the mind's scanning its own activity, detecting what is remaining relatively unchanged, and then going with that as the basis of identity.

 
At 3/09/2006 6:13 AM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Jody,

Thanks for the translation!

Sounds correct to me. What interests me far more, though, is the sense of individual self becoming mostly "background" as opposed to "foreground". In the same way as Reality (which, yeah, we all know can't be described, discussed in words, etc. etc. etc.) is apparently always 'running' in the background, kind of like the big computer brain which goes unnoticed by most end-users, the sense of individual self can recede, so to speak, leaving a pronounced sense of well-being, calm alertness, and an occasional 'oh! this is more who I am than all that other BS!' Of course, once that thought occurs, it is something like an interruption or ripple which, in my experience, usually spreads until the ripple becomes predominant again, 'causing' the individual self to again take front and center stage.

Whenever this has happened to me, it has never been preceded by any particular observation of my mind or individual self or practice, or whatever. It just happened all of a sudden, apparently caused by nothing. That reversal (as I probably ineptly put it) is, however, what I live my life for.

When that reversal does happen, all this 'noise' and all the various happenings don't seem to matter. They become a delightful joke, sort of, yet my participation, to the outside eye, is probably more intense and more finely tuned to each and every detail. The individual self seems, at least to me, to be a distraction that prevents one from the best functioning in the world.

Perhaps all this sounds the opposite from what swamijis and matajis and babajis might tell us, but it is simply my sometimes experience. Experience is the key word here -- it comes and goes, so I'm not convinced this is the ultimate Reality, but merely some kind of flavour, which, one can hope, will eventually lead to the real thing!

 
At 3/09/2006 9:19 AM, Blogger jody said...

What interests me far more, though, is the sense of individual self becoming mostly "background" as opposed to "foreground".

I'd have to say that if you are noting a difference between background and foreground, that one noting the difference is the very same one that is in the background or foreground.

In other words, any being noting a foreground or background element to itself is itself, the idea of their being an individual.

Those I know who have come to realization don't make a distinction between their egos being in the background or foreground. Realization happens around ego, not over or under it. So, you can know who you are yet still be completely involved in your individual existence, on one level. A life lived in realization will change this and bring more detachment to a life, yet that ongoing navigational system will still be operating, albeit perhaps with a little less volume than before, and perhaps this is what you are referring to as background/foreground.

 
At 3/09/2006 10:40 AM, Blogger CHUCK said...

I have never been able to understand this kind of talk. Do you think it's important to be able to talk like this and understand it, to be enlightened?

 
At 3/09/2006 10:51 AM, Blogger jody said...

I have never been able to understand this kind of talk. Do you think it's important to be able to talk like this and understand it, to be enlightened?

Not at all, Chuck. It's just one man's rendering of how the mind generates its own illusory identity.

According to my guru, all you need to do to get enlightened is pay your bills and meditate. The conceptual explorations may work for some and not for others. I'd add it's good to know as much about how your mind works as possible, but that's probably not a requirement for everyone.

 
At 3/09/2006 11:23 AM, Blogger CHUCK said...

Thanks! I am much relieved!

Who is your Guru?

 
At 3/09/2006 11:26 AM, Blogger jody said...

Just some low-key swami who'd rather not be noted.

 
At 3/09/2006 11:36 AM, Blogger facedog said...

Sounds like a good man in a conservative, ashram environment, who didn't do much drugs.

 
At 3/09/2006 11:43 AM, Blogger jody said...

Whaddya know! You're exactly right. There's one more for the ashram side.

However, it's a completely different situation for a Indian village boy to enter an ashram... as opposed to a suburban white adult dilettante.

 
At 3/09/2006 12:40 PM, Blogger facedog said...

Are you speaking of yourself or somebody else you know? Not that I don't agree.

 
At 3/09/2006 1:02 PM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Chuck,

I don't understand a word of it either. I was just trying to see if I could make believe I can :-)) Who the hell knows what I was saying? Personally? It's more fun to gossip about bad gurus imo.

Smiles dude.

 
At 3/09/2006 1:08 PM, Blogger CHUCK said...

Thanks otoh. Never been thought of as a dude unti now. By the way, what does "imo" mean?

 
At 3/09/2006 1:20 PM, Blogger falseguru said...

If I understand what my Guru has taught, he says that individuality is imaginary. The mind is made of thoughts, which form mental habbits that give the ego solidity. During meditation and I guess at other times too, vasanas rise up to be purified (let go of). If we simply watch these vasanas rising up in the form of thoughts and/ or sence imagery, and do not attach to them, claim them in some way as our own, then the vasanas are released. If we attach to them, they are reabsorbed into the mind, thus refueling the mind itself.

Like otoh, I do not know what I just said.

 
At 3/10/2006 2:15 AM, Blogger deewit said...

"Like otoh, I do not know what I just said.

12:20 PM"

Hi am new here!
Try this site quoted mid-way.
"Observed Problems:
Difficulty in recognizing faces (Prosopagnosia).
Difficulty in understanding spoken words (Wernicke's Aphasia).
Disturbance with selective attention to what we see and hear.
Difficulty with identification of, and verbalization about objects.
Short-term memory loss.
Interference with long-term memory
Increased or decreased interest in sexual behavior.
Inability to categorize objects (Categorization).
Right lobe damage can cause persistent talking.
Increased aggressive behavior."
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/abios/tbi/brain.asp#map

I suspect compulsive bloggers are touched by mild attacks of temporal lobe epilepsy. Every Guru-type IS.

I am copying from one of my 'cheat notes' on 'hypergraphia', an affliction of compulsive writing symptomatic with individuals exhibiting the following personality traits:

"Hypergraphia has in some – but not all – cases been associated with other neurological disorders. A percentage of people with temporal lobe epilepsy have a group of five personality traits called the Geschwind syndrome. The five traits are:

Hypergraphia
Hyperreligiosity4 - a heightened degree of concern with morality, philosophy and mysticism
'Clinginess' – characterised by a reluctance to end conversation
Altered or decreased interest in sex
Aggressiveness – usually transient and seldom leading to actual violence"

This is not to make fun of those who tend to interminally take themselves too seriously. Your exchanges are are interesting. Enlightening even for IGNORANUSES like me, but some of the smart-ass comments are frivolous.

 
At 3/10/2006 7:27 AM, Blogger CHUCK said...

My dear friend Deewit,

You have just hoisted yourself on your own petard. Nevertheless, you are welcome here among us. Live and be well.

Sincerely,

Chuck

 
At 3/15/2006 4:21 PM, Blogger RITA said...

Hey Jody,

I'm still trying to understand how you came up with your belief in occluding ideas. Ramana Maharishi said that the main reason that people don't wake up is that they don't believe they can. This is mostly due to the I am the body or I am the mind idea. It seems to me that no guru has the power to get into someone's mind and create beliefs there that come anywhere near the potency of these two ideas, I am the body, I am the mind.

Mostly these spiritual movements and organizations are places to feel somewhat relaxed and understood, while a slow growth takes place in consciousness. You keep justifying your harsh criticism of gurus based on this flimsy belief of yours. In spite of how I have been treated on your site, I have agreed with much of what you have said. All teachers should be held to the same standards of moral behavior as everybody else, something that dontbullme and chuck would find it hard to do. I am not saying this to anger you. I would really like to understand your occluding belief idea, which I find has some truth in it but there is no way that any belief about the nature of enlightenment taught by a guru could stand up to the I am the body idea when it comes to "eyeball lightening".

 
At 3/15/2006 5:27 PM, Blogger CHUCK said...

My god, Rita is still here! Can we pay you to leave, Rita? How much would it take to see your backside, so to speak?

 
At 3/15/2006 10:07 PM, Blogger facedog said...

Not to encourage Rita too much, Jody, I think she makes a good point here about your occluding ideas and deserves a reply.

 
At 3/16/2006 9:49 AM, Blogger jody said...

I'm still trying to understand how you came up with your belief in occluding ideas.

Read this.

 
At 3/16/2006 11:39 AM, Blogger facedog said...

I have read this piece and find agreement with it. Any belief about the truth would be an attempt to limit that and bring it within the grasp of the mind. Krishnamurti was saying the same thing. What Rita was suggesting and I am also interested in hearing about is about beliefs and concepts that dominate the mind far more than these guru tainted ideas. It seems to me that riding ourselves of these lesser occluding beliefs are like bailing out a boat with a teacup when there's a hole in the hull the size of an elephant.

I am not defending the excesses or hypocrisy of any teacher. But some of the best and most authentic teachers will use a thorn to remove a thorn. We peel away the layers of the mind until there is nothing there.

My own guru is a human being and I love and respect him for that. He is not without the obvious human frailties. He enjoys food, farts openly, and seems to get upset from time to time. But he is surrounded with people who give him shit and he accepts criticism with humility as long as it is given by someone who loves him.

Honoring ones guru is helpful up to a point. I should say that it has helped me. I treat my guru with traditional and heartfelt love and respect. I try to follow his instructions both spoken and unspoken. But I remain true to my own intuition. He has never asked me to do anything I feel is wrong. If he did I might do it but I would do it consciously.

No other belief comes close to these two: I am the body and I am the mind. Do you really believe that people like dontbullme, chuck and others will be more alert to the self because they enjoy tearing down traditional approaches to self knowledge? I'm just asking. I don't know.

 
At 3/16/2006 11:53 AM, Blogger jody said...

I am also interested in hearing about is about beliefs and concepts that dominate the mind far more than these guru tainted ideas.

Any idea or expectation about self-realization will occlude. There are millions of them. "I will read minds when realized. I will know everything when realized. I will be able to grant realization when realized. I will have no desires when realized..." ad nauseum.

My own guru is a human being and I love and respect him for that. He is not without the obvious human frailties. He enjoys food, farts openly, and seems to get upset from time to time. But he is surrounded with people who give him shit and he accepts criticism with humility as long as it is given by someone who loves him.

Sounds like you got a good one. I regular guy and human being who knows who he is. All gurus should be like this. How he comports himself does not appear to add to the occlusion in the same way a Sri Sri, Babaster or Kracki does.

No other belief comes close to these two: I am the body and I am the mind

These thoughts do not occlude. They are obvious, self-evident truths on the level of being an individual. To believe you won't identity as an individual when you are realized is another occluding belief.

We have to get past identification with the bodymind, not eliminate it.

Do you really believe that people like dontbullme, chuck and others will be more alert to the self because they enjoy tearing down traditional approaches to self knowledge?

I have no idea. It might... and it may not. These are folks who have shown up for their own reasons. They are acting on their own impulses. All I want to do is spread the word that realization does not make you any more God than you already are in all circumstances by way of making fun of gurus who claim to be more God than you and I. What people take from that is outside of my control. I hope they'll see the truth of their own being right now, but that's up to the Lord, not me.

 
At 3/16/2006 2:03 PM, Blogger dontbullme said...

Facedog,

It seems you are more concerned about people blogging here than the scum gurus. You are acting like a dog left on a street with no care taker. You are really confused and dont know whom to believe. I have a recommendation for you. Go and join the Satya Sai Baba organization. You will be into Moksha by the time u reach the gates of SSB. If u are not..u can take a bus to bangalore and join AOL. Still not Mokshated? Then take a flight to Amritaputi and fall into Amma's lap...Amma will not leave until u r mokshated. So finally come here and say thanks to Jody, OTOH, me and chuck.

Some people just want to learn the hard way...

 
At 3/16/2006 3:24 PM, Blogger facedog said...

dontbullme,

As Rita would say, BITE ME!

 
At 3/16/2006 3:25 PM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Dontbullme,

LOL! I thought you died. I was wrong. Still full of it!

Poor facedog! What did he do?

Btw, I like Amma quite a lot. Following her is not an option for me. But don't you like her partays? All those people in white dress with the beatific smiles (or accusing frowns if you don't volunteer to do something). All the music. It's a real zoo. And her hugs! You have to admit she is a great hugger! I haven't heard anything truly horrible about her (yet), except something like she works people to death (hence my avoidance -- basic laziness here.) As far as I can tell she is one of the great social workers of our time, at least, if not able to lead people spiritually. All I've ever heard her say is basically "do good, be good", etc. and so forth. That doesn't tell me much that my mom didn't tell me anyway.

Cheers.

 
At 3/16/2006 5:43 PM, Blogger RITA said...

Jody, you're just not getting it.

You said:

"These thoughts do not occlude. They are obvious, self-evident truths on the level of being an individual. To believe you won't identity as an individual when you are realized is another occluding belief."

Experiencing oneself as primarily a body/mind certainly does cover up Self awareness. Stick a pin in your leg and try to remember who you truly are at the same time. Neither I nor this asshole named facedog suggested that there would be no individual awareness after enlightenment. Some beliefs are simply more powerful and limiting than others. I am the body and I am the mind are far more potent than "My guru is perfect."

I have a powerful mind and I have a cute body. Knowing this would not prevent me from knowing the deepest truth of who I am. Knowing only these things would.

 
At 3/16/2006 5:51 PM, Blogger RITA said...

He didn't say anything about eliminating the identification with body/mind and neither did I, although this happens temporarily in samadhi and permanently after death.

You don't listen good when someone challenges your own precious beliefs that are occluding your own awareness of the Self.

 
At 3/16/2006 6:15 PM, Blogger jody said...

Experiencing oneself as primarily a body/mind certainly does cover up Self awareness.

And here you are wrong. Being the Self is always on, whether or not we know it. It's always there, closer than our own breath, as if it sits on the tips of our noses. When you are blessed with the grace of self-realization and see this, you never forget it again. It's not a glimpse but the ongoing revelation known as jnana in the Upanishads.

While body mortification has been an avenue utilized by the sadhus, it is completely unnecessary for one to come to self-realization.

However, the idea that one must completely forget they are individuals in the world will certainly prevent self-realization, as it is something that is with them at all times, when they are identifying as individuals as well as when they are not.

I have a powerful mind and I have a cute body.

Ah.... the sin of pride. AoL is doing wonders I can see.

 
At 3/17/2006 8:05 AM, Blogger RITA said...

Jody,

“Being the Self is always on, whether or not we know it.”

Knowing it is what we are talking about. If Bill Gates developed amnesia would he still be a billionaire? Sure! When being aware of it is still coming and going you are not self realized. When you are not fully content with the self you have not even experienced the self only imagine that you have. This goes for people like the 90 year old Ramesh and others. If they are not fully content and fulfilled in the self, they are not self realized. If they are still in the grip of their minds, still plagued by destructive desires they can’t control or let go of, they are not self realized. They know something but not enough and they shouldn’t be pretending that they are more than students on the path like you or I. Your blog is full of reports about people just like them. Yes, even Sri Sri.

“It's always there, closer than our own breath...”

These are nice scriptural quotes but don’t indicate that you know anything, Jody.

“While body mortification has been an avenue utilized by the sadhus, it is completely unnecessary for one to come to self-realization.”

Who said it was? I just suggested that if the body is 99.9% of what you are aware of, and thoughts take up .1%, you have no awareness of the totality of the self, even if it’s on the tip of your nose.

“However, the idea that one must completely forget they are individuals in the world will certainly prevent self-realization, as it is something that is with them at all times, when they are identifying as individuals as well as when they are not.”

I certainly did not suggest that you have to forget you are an individual. You are fixated on this idea of occlusion and it is preventing you from going to self realization.


“Ah.... the sin of pride.”

Look who’s talking. It’s quite clear that you are very proud of your mind. If you loose a few pounds you might even be cute. Regardless, your dog loves you just as you are.

 
At 3/17/2006 10:38 AM, Blogger jody said...

If they are not fully content and fulfilled in the self, they are not self realized.

More occluding nonsense. The fact is that the mind remains the mind, before and after realization. Sri Sri has been observed as being anything but content by OTOH, and many gurus have been known to get angry. Your definition of self-realization is pie-in-the-sky and has as much to with its truth as my dog's ass.

These are nice scriptural quotes but don’t indicate that you know anything, Jody.

These are all original quotes, Rita, although they may be in some scripture somewhere by coincidence.

It’s quite clear that you are very proud of your mind.

That's all your projection, Rita. If there's one thing I'm aware of, it's the limitations of my mind. While I love to write this blog and attempt to bring some humor to the discussion of gurus, I often find myself falling well short of those I emulate. I many have some funny, but not nearly as much as I'd like to have, and there's probably not much I can do to get anymore of it.

But I will admit to cracking myself up sometimes if I get the right material and a bit of inspiration.

I will say that I am somewhat proud of my ability to nagivate steep, snowy mountain terrain on boards attached to my feet. However, there's always someone better, especially at the places I go skiing, so even there I am aware of my limitations.

 
At 3/17/2006 11:02 AM, Blogger jacflash said...

Y'know, there's an interesting dissertation waiting to be written on why internet nonduality discussions always get overrun by dicksize contests. This thing really isn't all that complicated, but so many people get into the enlightenment game because they want a gold star to lord over their friends, and so they have to make it complicated. (Others, of course, get into being a perpetual "seeker" because they like the warm fuzzies and the peer differentiation, and get threatened by the tough stuff, but that's a separate discussion.) I don't doubt that you both have some insight, but here and now you look like two caterpillars arguing over what it means to be a butterfly. I suggest y'all go sit in the woods for awhile instead. Nothing to prove out there, and nobody to prove it to. Bring some Jed McKenna or Eckhart Tolle to read while you're sitting; this Sanskrit-in-iffy-translation stuff only gets you so far.

My guru? Walt Whitman. Check him out.

See ya around, guys.

 
At 3/17/2006 11:53 AM, Blogger RITA said...

More condescending,holier than thou, know it all crap from a guy who doesn't know jackflash from jackshit.

Don't runaway jackflash, you belong with Jody.

I take that back. I prefer a straight forward asshole like Jody to a milk toater like yourself. Get the hell out!

 
At 3/17/2006 12:05 PM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Rita,

Looks like you finally found a place where you can swear at men and they can't do anything to you, insult them and get away with it, say and do anything you like, without any repercussions. Ain't the internet grand? Now you can order people to leave! You are really gaining power. Just goes to show you how much having a "cute body and powerful mind" can do for someone. (those, I believe, were your descriptions of yourself -- I'm sure you will brag about yourself even more now.)

 
At 3/17/2006 12:23 PM, Blogger RITA said...

Jody, your "original" quotes are not all that original. You always go for the most superficial understanding of what I and others are saying. Being content with the self doesn't mean becoming a plaster saint. Even Ramana Maharishi seemed to get angry. But I doubt very seriously if he tried to use his devotees sexually. These guys like Ramesh are pretenders, just as you say SS is.

I don't believe anyone who can't control his/her own mind as effectively as other human beings are expected to, is self realized. If you don't agree with me, bite me.

PS

OTOH, you talk like a girly boy. Am I not allowed to have the same kind of verbal fun you other assholes are? You are a weenie.

 
At 3/17/2006 1:02 PM, Blogger jody said...

there's an interesting dissertation waiting to be written on why internet nonduality discussions always get overrun by dicksize contests.

It's generally due to the fact that human beings with their attendant emotions are involved.

The other major factor is that nonduality is simply not discussable, despite the millions making the attempt. So, as people are discussing what cannot be said in words, they often come to loggerheads over their interpretations. Add the emotions into the mix and there is the genesis of the pissing match.

 
At 3/17/2006 1:16 PM, Blogger jody said...

You always go for the most superficial understanding of what I and others are saying.

I'd say it's more about your lack of understanding of what I'm saying.

Even Ramana Maharishi seemed to get angry.

There's another refutation of your expectations about self-realization.

But I doubt very seriously if he tried to use his devotees sexually.

Ramakrishna liked young teen boys. Was he a pretender too?

I don't believe anyone who can't control his/her own mind as effectively as other human beings are expected to, is self realized. If you don't agree with me, bite me.

Nah. I don't want to be left with the bitter aftertaste.

Whether or not you want to believe it, many who were and are purported to be self-realized got caught with their pants down. Ramakrishna and Muktanananda come to mind, let alone Sai Baba's famous escapades.

The fact of self-realization changes nothing except adding that special kind of knowledge called jnana to a life. All the mental functions continue, unabated, albeit in a new context of identity. That new context can and does produce additional transformation in the mind, yet that transformation happens over time as the prarabdha karma is extinguished. Plus, there's those pesky samskaras. Neural connections don't reconfigure themselves overnight. That can take years. Hence, you can have a realized person like Ramesh who still wants to get some and allows himself to do so outside the conventions of what is expected guru behavior.

 
At 3/17/2006 1:29 PM, Blogger RITA said...

Ramesh is not enlightened. Mukyananda was not enlightened. Ramakrishna may have been attracted to his boys but I doubt if he lured them into having sex with him, saying that it would enhance their spiritual growth. I'm not saying that truly enlightened people would not have the thought or impulse to hurt someone else. I'm saying that these impulses would not be strong enough to force them to act on the impulse. Only an extremely weak person will use someone who loves them sexually, knowing that it is likely to devastate so many others. A person that weak could not be enlightened. I'm saying that they would choose not to. I don't believe that Ramakrishna did. What does your guru say?

 
At 3/17/2006 1:30 PM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Rita,

You talk like a frustrated, divorced, 50's or 60's year old aunty who's scared to death no men look at her anymore. There. Now I'm at your level Rita. Happy?

But besides that, seriously, about who might be realized and who might not be.....

Why should anyone expect that a realized soul should inhabit a perfect body that doesn't have the kinds of behaviors we've seen in Ramesh, SSRS and others? I mean, they are just people with human bodies aren't they? I don't see any reason why a man (or WOMAN, okay?) couldn't be enlightened and at the same time exhibit some behaviors that are objectionable to some. My complaint is that these "gurus" are doing their level best to hide all their faults, trying to pretend that they are superior to all others, and that we should all bow down to their perfection. Ramesh was skulking around and now it's come back to bite him. SSRS has been skulking around, hiding what he is, for a long time, and eventually it will come back to bite him. But does that mean necessarily that both of them are not enlightened? I don't think so. I can only guess what their respective states of mind are, but from what I saw of SSRS, for different reasons from his nasty little secrets, I'd guess he is not enlightened. He's too frightened to be living in the eternal Truth, imo. Could be wrong, but who knows? I haven't spent enough time with Ramesh to form any opinion, not that my opinion matters anyway.

There now. A serious reply to your serious thread. If you respond with "bite me OTOH" or some other crap, you clearly just want to belittle people and fight, not discuss anything at all. In that case, don't complain when you are not taken seriously or are treated in a "sexist" way as you claim you have been here in this forum. (I personally think you've been treated very well, considering your nasty attitude to everyone present.)

 
At 3/17/2006 1:35 PM, Blogger RITA said...

OTOH said,
"...they can't do anything to you, insult them and get away with it, say and do anything you like, without any repercussions. Ain't the internet grand?"

Kind of like you and Sri Sri. You don't have the guts to go public with this stuff and get it into print where thousands will see it. You just want to wine on this semi private blog site. This way those who want to believe you will give you their shoulders to cry on. If what you are saying is true, have some guts and go public. I double dog dare you!

 
At 3/17/2006 1:45 PM, Blogger RITA said...

You keep putting words into my mouth. I'm not equating perfection and enlightenment. There is a huge difference between being "Perfect" and having sex with women in your bedroom while your old wife is crying in the kitchen. No enlightened person would do that to someone he/she loves. An asshole would. An asshole who thinks he's enlightened would.

 
At 3/17/2006 2:04 PM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Rita,

I have to say that I agree with you on the "old asshole" thing about Ramesh. But I still don't know that he is not enlightened. He's possibly an enlightened asshole? Anything is possible. Where do you draw the line? How good is good enough (in terms of behaviors) to be enlightened, in your view? Why can't a sexist asshole be enlightened?

I will never go public with what I know about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. It is dangerous. You don't know, so you can double dog dare me all you like. My anonymous postings here about him are far different from your taunts against non-famous people who are expressing opinions and facts about bogus gurus here. Contrary to what you have said, I don't just wish to whine about him, nor do I seek any personal sympathy (since what I'm posting about was observed around him, as opposed to being personally abused by him -- thank God. I didn't like the way he treated people.) I really wish that he'd get busted -- :-))) Bigtime. But as I've said in other posts, I don't have the same kinds of attorneys he has in his employ. Why don't you just spread the word in your Art of Living Cute Ladies Club or whatever it is, and let those thousands see it? I double dog dare you.

It would take far more courage than I have to cross that dictator and his nasty crew. Lots of people feel the same way that I do and just left quietly after seeing things that made them sick. This is a perfect place to bring him down -- anonymously. If it makes people question his authority and look more closely at what they are following, then good! If not, tough luck for them. Let them get thoroughly zombified by the little "man".

 
At 3/17/2006 2:06 PM, Blogger jody said...

There is a huge difference between being "Perfect" and having sex with women in your bedroom while your old wife is crying in the kitchen.

Um.... like, yeah.

No enlightened person would do that to someone he/she loves

Maybe he didn't love her. Maybe he did. Regardless, it's an expectation you have about self-realization. Here's another original quote for you: expectations about self-realization form the primary fetters to its coming about.

 
At 3/17/2006 2:11 PM, Blogger jody said...

Ramesh is not enlightened. Mukyananda was not enlightened.

You believe this at the peril of your own self-realization.

I don't believe that Ramakrishna did [have sex with teen boys]. What does your guru say?

My guru tows the party line, but he knows how I feel about this and leaves it at that. Look here for more information.

 
At 3/17/2006 2:59 PM, Blogger RITA said...

Jody said,
"expectations about self-realization form the primary fetters to its coming about."


"You believe this at the peril of your own self-realization."

These are occluding ideas in themselves, verging on hardline dogmas. I am not afraid to entertain an idea and let it go if desired. You are fixated on this idea of yours and it has become a bondage.

 
At 3/17/2006 3:06 PM, Blogger jody said...

You are fixated on this idea of yours and it has become a bondage.

I suppose that might be true were I bound.

 
At 3/17/2006 3:14 PM, Blogger RITA said...

So you're unbounded but I need to be worried if I don't understand as you do? That's freedom for you!
Drop some acid and try hard to believe what Jody does. Then I'll be as free and unbounded as Jody. I think you should listen to your guru a little more.

 
At 3/17/2006 4:33 PM, Blogger jody said...

I need to be worried if I don't understand as you do?

Don't worry, Rita.

Just know that any idea about self-realization is wrong. It exists entirely outside the realm of ideas, or entirely underneath or overhead if you'd like.

So, the idea that self-realization will always result in a person who cannot sleep behind his wife's back is wrong. Ramesh's self-realization doesn't get him off the hook for being a cheater, nor does his comment that "I am not the doer." However, his cheating ways is in no way an indication that he is not self-realized, your expectations to the contrary.

That said, I believe it to be perfectly correct and fair to say that you don't want a teacher who cheats on his wife, especially if you have a cute body.

 
At 3/17/2006 5:53 PM, Blogger RITA said...

I think it's also fair to say that these are your personal beliefs, as mine are. These convictions we both have are shaped by our own preferences. Consciousness exists and has nothing to do with anything. What you have said is just another way of thinking about consciousness and is in no way more true or valid than my own.

"expectations about self-realization form the primary fetters to its coming about."

This is a religious dogma.

That I believe that no truly enlightened being would fuck a young woman with his 80 year old wife 10 feet away, is no more or less a dogma than yours.

When I meditate, I have no such ideas and believe nothing.

But you are correct to say that I would have no guru who would molest a child, cheat on his wife, etc etc. I never claimed SS as a guru. Thanks to OTOH I never will. I think he is a pussy for not going public with what he knows.

 
At 3/17/2006 6:10 PM, Blogger RITA said...

What in the world makes you think that Ramesh and Muktananda...are enlightened? Because they say so? Because they talk a good advaita line of bullshit no better or worse than any of the instant enlightened guys out giving satsang? Because they can talk foolish young women into their beds? What?

Others judge that by how much energy or presence can be felt when around them. Not Jody and not me either. I've seen several con men with impressive darshan energy, whatever that is. It seems to me you make these projections of who is or is not enlightened on a whim of your own.

I doubt very seriously if you are any better judge of that than I am, certainly not for me.

But there is something likable about you Jody. Maybe its the aura coming off your dog's ass.

 
At 3/17/2006 6:34 PM, Blogger jody said...

What in the world makes you think that Ramesh and Muktananda...are enlightened?

I've actually never met either of them, so it is speculation on my part. I have read Ramesh and find his prose to resonate with what I've come to see myself, but I suppose you could chalk that off to "because they talk a good advaita line." Muktananda left a rather large imprint on the yoga scene in the U.S., but based on that criteria, you'd have to call Sri Sri enlightened as well. He may very well be... despite his many faults. However, I wouldn't lay a bet on it.

But to tell you the truth, I've found self-realization to be a lot more prevalent than it's traditionally thought to be. I've met a number of individuals online and in real life who I consider to be self-realized, yet they aren't trying to pass themselves off as gurus. They probably wouldn't pass your test, but then you know what I think about any such test. I've found that there is a certain resonance in the prose and rhetoric of the self-realized, a certain je ne sais pas that leads me to believe they know what they are talking about from experience rather than mere speculation or repetition of scripture. Your mileage may vary, of course.

you make these projections of who is or is not enlightened on a whim of your own

Of course. What else is there to go on? As I said, there is a certain resonance I feel I detect in their communication. Nothing that I could explain, expect to say that it has nothing to do with the "energy" or "shakti" that has duped so many other satsangis.

But there is something likable about you Jody.

Thank you!

Maybe its the aura coming off your dog's ass.

I will go so far as to boast that we both have nice asses.

 
At 3/18/2006 8:54 AM, Blogger RITA said...

Jody said,
“I have read Ramesh and find his prose to resonate with what I've come to see myself, but I suppose you could chalk that off to ‘because they talk a good advaita line."

Based on this same criteria, I have known people who were convinced that Wordsworth, Tennyson, and jackflash’s Walt Whitman were self-realized. That is exactly the appeal of Deepthroat Chopra. He’s a grand wordsmith. Imagine if he had set his financial sights somewhat lower and decided to appeal to believers of advaita instead of movie stars. Then you might very well be saying that Deepthroat is self-realized. I love Walt Whitman and regardless what jackflash might think, he speaks to my heart. But I have read many poets who did the same.

Jody said,

“But to tell you the truth, I've found self-realization to be a lot more prevalent than it's traditionally thought to be. I've met a number of individuals online and in real life who I consider to be self-realized, yet they aren't trying to pass themselves off as gurus.”

To me this is the dumbing down of our understanding of self-realization, based on the western desire for instant gratification. Take a drug or read a Walt Whitman poem, get an intuition of the infinite, say you are enlightened, set up shop. You say that self-realization does not change a person. I would say that before self-realization is true, most vasanas and samskaras have been burned off, seen through, let go of, etc. The very fact that pretenders like Ramesh, Muktananda and god knows how many other half baked bullshitters are so dominated by left over adolescent desires for sex with multiple women, that they risk so much to act out these childish desires, is a proof that they don’t really know who they are. These guys are in bondage because they just can’t say no. They are dominated by their own egos. Like Moses they may have traveled far but are not allowed into the promised land, so to speak. Lots of people “know what they are talking about” but are still at the highschool level of inner knowing.

Jody said,

“Nothing that I could explain, expect to say that it has nothing to do with the "energy" or "shakti" that has duped so many other satsangis.”

I fully agree.


Jody said,

“I will go so far as to boast that we both have nice asses.”

That makes three of us!

Thanks for being so open and sincere with me on this issue, Jody. It sounds like you use a very similar technique for deciding who you are resonate with as the rest of us. This same criteria has led many to follow Sai Baba, Sri Sri, MMY, and Charlie Manson. I have done the same. Now thanks to otoh, I am free to love again! God help us all!

 
At 3/18/2006 8:10 PM, Blogger jody said...

That is exactly the appeal of Deepthroat Chopra. He’s a grand wordsmith.

I’m not talking about the writing skill. It’s more in how the truth is illustrated by the words. This can be accomplished many different ways, but the resonance I’m trying to describe is more about the subtleties of the description. What’s being described is indescribable, but the truth can shine through the way it is talked about by a person who is speaking from experience.

To me this is the dumbing down of our understanding of self-realization

To me it’s the emancipation of it.

There is self-realization and there is the understanding of self-realization. In other words, the understanding that self-realization results in, and the ideas we hold about self-realization.

It’s these ideas that I’m attacking. They’ve been held in the white-knuckle grip of Hindu myth and superstition for way too long. It’s the same old story. Only the purest of the pure get realized. They are rendered instant saints by it, and as a result acquire all kinds of supernatural abilities.

Those I’ve met who are self-realized are all normal people who came to their understanding by their own, unique life path. Some of these had a psychedelic component, some did not. These folks are chopping wood and carrying water now. They work to pay their bills, not strive to become the most famous guru in the world.

These folks don’t have magic powers, but they do have normal lives in the same spectrum of life that everyone else experiences. They live in the revelatory knowledge of jnana, but you wouldn’t know it necessarily from looking at their lives.

That’s the example of self-realization that needs to come out. That will help to counter the oppression of myth and superstition that plagues spiritual culture.

It’s really very simple: You are that. Everyone is. Not the just the gurus. Seeing who you are is just a recognition of an ever-existing truth that everyone is always knowing. It’s the knowing that you’re knowing that’s the trick, one that will not occur outside of grace. This is usually where the guru comes in. But grace can happen anywhere to anyone. I know of cases of guruless self-realization.

I would say that before self-realization is true, most vasanas and samskaras have been burned off, seen through, let go of, etc.

And I say that’s an occluding thought. But more importantly, it points to the difference between self-realization and enlightenment.

Enlightenment is the result of a life lived in self-realization. When you come to know who you are in that very real way known as jnana, you’ll still be the same person you were just before that jnana dawned.

A lifetime of knowing who you are is going to change this, but the vasanas, etc. don’t have to go away for self-realization to occur. We can see ourselves as the Self around ourselves as individuals, which are just the patterns of neural connection in the brain. These will be transformed by the conditioning of jnana. But that usually takes years.

that they risk so much to act out these childish desires, is a proof that they don’t really know who they are.

Or, proof of psychiatric pathology.

Your critique here is understandable. But this comes up over and over again with very successful gurus throughout history. A guru knows who s/he is, but they still have a mind and that mind can break. I’d say in the case of Muktananda and Ramesh, it did.

Lots of people “know what they are talking about” but are still at the highschool level of inner knowing.

That isn’t the “knowing what they are talking about” that I’m talking about.

the same criteria has led many to follow Sai Baba, Sri Sri, MMY, and Charlie Manson.

A bad guru can still work “magic” in the lives of their devotees, but that’s all on the devotee, not on the guru.

Now thanks to otoh, I am free to love again! God help us all!

Jai Ma!

 
At 3/19/2006 9:43 AM, Blogger RITA said...

It seems that the primary difference between our understanding is just terminology. Even I “experience” myself as simple awareness, when I put my attention on it. But in sleep, in intense activity, if you stick a pin in my leg, my attention goes to the foreground. When I am quiet, my personality, even my body and the world around me are like thoughts that can be allowed to co-exist but not trouble me. Just don’t stick a pin in me. Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jody.

I know there are gurus who teach as a service not to self aggrandize. You may have been 100% correct so far in your assessment of the ones in the hot seat here. I would just ask you to be careful not to condemn too quickly. People do lie about other people, especially when there is no visible cost for that. People also misunderstand, get their feelings hurt, get disappointed and bitter. Talk to anyone who has been involved in a divorce. Even though both people are essentially good, they come off looking like devils.

You cautioned me about the “peril” of false beliefs. There also may be perils involved in sitting in judgement. I now don’t believe you have made any mistakes about Sri Sri, Sai Baba....Just be careful.

Good-bye and thanks again to you, Jody and also to OTOH.

PS

Bite me, dontbullme!

 
At 3/19/2006 8:54 PM, Blogger jody said...

Good-bye and thanks again to you, Jody

Come back anytime, Rita.

 
At 3/20/2006 7:18 AM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Rita,

You're an old wind-bag aunty with so many insecurities and such a trashy mouth you should have to attend school again, even at your advanced age! You envy people with money, and hate yourself. Your posts sound like some schizophrenic, or multiple personality type, who found the internet as an outlet.

There. Now we'll find out if she really left. I'll bet I get a "bite me OTOH" out of that one! I don't believe you'd leave just when you became civil, Rita!

Please beat me some more!

:-))

 
At 3/20/2006 7:19 AM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Oh, and I forgot! Rita, everyone knows that women can't form a coherent thought, much less write one into a sentence. Powerful mind? Oh please.

Now I KNOW you'll come back!

:-))

 
At 3/20/2006 8:15 AM, Blogger RITA said...

Dear Omtheotherhand,

Thanks for your help in this matter. You're not as brave as you could be but you're brave enough. I wish you happiness and good fortune. Same to dontpoopme.

Rita

 
At 3/21/2006 6:50 AM, Blogger ontheotherhand said...

Rita,

Seriously, if I have gotten even one person to look coldly and cooly at SSRS before diving into his pool of "Bliss", then I'm satisfied. There will always be more supporters of him than detractors simply because most people don't get close to him and find out all this trash.

I'm happy you were saved from the Art Of Living Ladies Sewing Circle. Go and tell them to read this blogspot (all the posts) and maybe you can help them too!

Good luck to you too. I hope you find the real thing in your search.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home