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.We've never known Geneji to have his own website, but some of his older collected writing is here.
'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.
posted by guruphiliac @ 12:54 PM
24 Comments:
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.
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.
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?
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.
Thanks! I am much relieved!
Who is your Guru?
Just some low-key swami who'd rather not be noted.
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.
Thanks otoh. Never been thought of as a dude unti now. By the way, what does "imo" mean?
"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.
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
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?
I'm still trying to understand how you came up with your belief in occluding ideas.
Read this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are fixated on this idea of yours and it has become a bondage.
I suppose that might be true were I bound.
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.
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.
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!
Good-bye and thanks again to you, Jody
Come back anytime, Rita.
Post a Comment
<< Home