File under: Final Samadhi
There is nothing so large
that it cannot be exaggerated,
no lily so perfect
that it cannot be gilded.
He emerged so suddenly,
so astonishingly gifted,
and died his own hagiographer.
Labels: Final Samadhi
posted by guruphiliac @ 12:46 AM
 |
 |
 |
Look Ma! We've made Boing Boing! Again! And again! Once again! Yet again! And once again!
.... I try to poop *in* the toilet, not *on* it.While we understand that gurus are held sacred by many, they are also public figures deserving of scrutiny. Our primary aim is to inject a little humor into what can be an excessively self-righteous enterprise, and to illustrate the primary truth that no matter how divine their devotees believe them to be, gurus poop on the same pot we do.
© 2005 - 2010
71 Comments:
do dah, do dah........ in this case the Guru did not look good, God rest his soul , oh wait he is God, was God ? Oh Whatever, God is Dead!
I asked my mule Da Free Jack if he had any feelins at this moment. The mule who has been quiet of late rolled his good left eye, hunkered down in his hips a bit, and strained, as if tryin to pass gas! Havin gone somewhat deaf of late and bein nose impaired from long hours in the mule shed, I can't truthfully say if the mule achieved his goal or failed!
My Zen teacher used to say, "A good situation is a bad situation; a bad situation is a good situation."
If you're attached to something, as long as the object of attachment remains, you're happy, feeling good. It's very difficult to examine and question the underlying attachment when it seems to be working out for you so well.
But when the object of attachment disappears, it's suffering and bad situation. That makes it a good situation; it gives strong inspiration for introspection, for questioning our own ideas and wants that are the true cause of the suffering.
For people who are attached to money, the financial crisis is the best time to look into that attachment itself. For people who are attached to following external authority moreso than their own just-now experience... the death of a guru is a great time to wake up and look into the effect of this very clinging.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
What about the synchronicity foundation using the death of two members in Mumbai to hold press conferences all over the place pitching their spiritual leader Master Charles and their line of hi-tech meditation audio and other products. While the lady was going on about products and such, a reporter asked her how the community was feeling. She asked, "About what?" "About the death of your two members." "Oh that, we're devastated," she replied, looking thrilled at the PR opportunity. I'm surprised Sunchronicity isn't having a 20% off Mumbai tragedy sale.
"it gives strong inspiration for introspection, for questioning our own ideas and wants that are the true cause of the suffering."
one would think , but the Adibots don't seem to have much of this going on, i guess because they believe in AdiDad's divinity , so that cancels out self reflection, self reliance, all of the things he screamed about , but never seemed to be able to get across, He was too attached to being God. I read that when George Harrison died he asked that people not be informed for a while so he could complete his death process without people praying for him to come back. George may have been a devotee type but at least he had the sense to know that when your numbers up it's time to go.
by the way apparently Da was working on his on "Divine Image" in the computer when maha samahdi came, can you picture Jesus or ghandi doing this? Even with the technology of their time I doubt they spent much time making pretty pictures of themselves! In a thousand years time(or sooner) will we see the God's working on their laptops as they watch the rasa lila?
Yo Yo mommy !!!! its gandhi and NOT ghandi as you spelled (which is a bad word in hindi). You are trying to be humorous but it sucks. Chucky is ok i feel.
this f****r is finally dead.:-D.
he sexually abuses 1 of my closes relatives years ago.i'll never forgive him.wish him an eternity in hell :-D
but I did make a point , misspelling or not, did great holy men of the past, work on their own divine images? , and how does the computer age change the way this stuff gets processed and decimated , It is much easier for fakers and crooks to thrive in this era where you can all too efficiently create your own PR, Images, propaganda , but no, you are to worried about spelling something that is at best a phonetic attempt to spell a Hindi name.
Yes, I know your blog/site is about taking the piss out of Gurus; still, I am a bit disappointed at your response to the passing of Adi Da. Adi Da was never your average phony guru (and I do not even like to use the word “phony”, as what is a guru is a personal matter). Even those who had doubts/reservations about him personally, never doubted that he was an authentic spiritual genius. Just what he accomplished in his life, in his literature and art, has never been remotely approached by any other spiritual teacher in history. Many of his books stand as the definitive treatments of certain subjects from the spiritual point of view: Easy Death, The Transmission of Doubt, even Love of the Two Armed Form. His first two books, his biography and the Method of the Siddhas are extraordinary masterpieces. And two, many of his books are taken verbatim from spontaneous talks he gave, even while a bit drunk, and yet they read like Shakespeare.
I remember how I first became aware of him. It was 1972 and I was 22 and had been practicing TM for four years. I had even met Maharishi personally. Maharashi in person was a radiant being with beautiful, magnetic eyes. He became my standard for a teacher, and in particular I was fascinated with eyes. I was walking past a row of books in a health food store and I looked at this book just in passing (It was the Knee of Listening). I was caught by the picture of the man on the cover and his eyes. Almost without volition I found myself saying to myself, “My God that man has extraordinary eyes.” I looked again and was just floored. They were the most stunning eyes I had ever seen or could imagine.
Later (after I had left the TM scene and also spent seven years in an ashram in New Mexico) I returned to studying him intensely. I read all of his books (at that time around forty volumes) some several times. I began to have dreams of him. To this day they are the most precious experiences of my life. In the dreams he was exactly as he described: Like your most intimate spiritual friend, and too, this friend was the very force of love bliss. I remember how I never wanted to be in any state but the state of communion with Adi Da I knew in my dreams.
At the time I was living with a lady who was one of the very first western devotees of Osho. She had known him in a hotel room in Bombay with only two other western students. She loved Osho so much. Her love for Osho always humbled me – because I am an opinionated fellow and this was the time of all of the Oregon ranch stuff, and I tended to get a button about it. But she would always disarm me by her simple and true love for Osho and what she had received from him. On her part, she thought my fascination with Adi Da a bit obsessive. She even asked me why I was always reading his books. I told her simply that if she ever had a dream of him she would know. One day in the morning she woke next to me with a sweet smile and told me that she’d dreamt of him. She said, “Now I know; you were right, to be with him is to be in heaven.”
I knew and was friends with many devotees of Osho at the time. One was a sort of aberrated film professional who had done almost all of the filming in the ashram in India. He too knew I was really into Adi Da. One day we were having lunch and he said, “You know, I remember one day someone showed Osho the book “Enlightenment of the Whole Body”. Osho examined it and the pictures of Adi Da and then said, “If you can be with this man, you are with a true Buddha.”
I guess, since your site is about taking the piss out of Gurus, and since Adi Da is especially easy to take the piss out of, since he was the most openly outrageous Guru ever; that I should make some comment on his personal behaviour. I will tell one story. It was told me in great confidence, a confidence I am probably braking by telling it publicly. I don’t care. The man is gone from this earth as the body/persona; and I just want to relate this one incident, which seems to say something about him and the way he taught.
In the early days when he was Bubba Free John, an incident occurred in his ashram where one of his devotees, who was an ex Green Beret, beat another devotee badly in a fight. Bubba had the ex-Green-Beret fellow brought to him and questioned him intensely about what had happened. He told him that the only way he could do such a thing was that he did not feel what he was doing, the pain he was inflicting. He asked him if he would like to fight his Spiritual Master – if he would like to fight him. The fellow was ashamed and said no, no. But Bubba wouldn’t let him off the hook and egged him on to the point they actually stepped outside and fought tooth and nail. Evidently Bubba got the worst of it and was rather smashed up afterwards. But then he had the fellow come into the house again and discuss it. He asked him if he could feel now what he was doing with his violent behaviour. The man confessed he could and that he was completely shattered by the realization.
You know, it is okay to be sceptics with cynical humour, and do your dharma by taking the piss out of Gurus, no problem. But if you are serious, I think that you can acknowledge that there is also Dharma with a capital D. That Dharma is almost always incarnated in the form of a Guru; at least traditionally that is where all of the great Dharmas have come from. The Guru may be a relatively benign character on the personal level, but he may not be; he may be a difficult man, crazy even to conventional points of view. But only his devotee knows the Guru in Truth. That devotee has the best, most accurate “point of view” of him. He knows. I was never fortunate enough to have been a true devotee of a Guru. I was closest to Adi Da. I was an appreciator of him, and occasionally let into his world by Grace to catch a glimpse of him in Truth. I will never forget him and am only grateful that I ever heard of him, that I could read his books, that I saw a picture of him, that I heard stories of him, that he touched my life and my dreams.
Hari Om
But if you are serious, I think that you can acknowledge that there is also Dharma with a capital D.
I acknowledge that Kali is a crazy Bitch and who knows what She is going to do next. As far as Da, regardless of his realization, or despite it, he was self-deluded about his own significance. That significance is a hindrance to realization, not an aid. Look at yourself, all tied-up in fanciful visions. They are no closer to spiritual truth than dog shit. I recommend remembering dog shit every time you find yourself having another quaint "spiritual" revere. And I don't mean any of this as derision. Seriously. Spiritual visions are no closer to nondual truth than dog shit.
"He told him that the only way he could do such a thing was that he did not feel what he was doing,"
I wonder if Da thought about or felt the pain he inflicted? Who whipped his ass when he needed it? Who was his Guru? ( I honestly don't know)
If you have a lot of time and energy invested in visions , obfuscating love and idol worship, it could be hard to give up. I've seen it to the point where people choose death rather than consider that they have made a bad choice, they needed so badly to believe in the greatness of a teacher or leader.
This whole thing of giving Da his props is kind of like saying Hitler was a damn good dictator, if you don't think about the gas chamber thing. maybe it's a bit over the top but something akin. Many people got totally high on Adolf and were sure he was some kind of messiah, and were willing to make some very disastrous choices.
I wouldn't consider someone a great teacher ( or God) because they appear to induce dreams in others and in other ways galvanize energy, that's all cool stuff, but i wouldn't want to get stuck there.
That devotee has the best, most accurate “point of view” of him. He knows.
Really????
It could be more readily and credibly argued that the above statement is downright Orwellian, i.e. the very opposite is true -- that in fact, the chela in the throes of unconditional bhakti is in the poorest position of all in regard to seeing the big picture of who his/her guru is, especially in the context of human relationship:
Improvisation on a Devotional Prayer
That said, there is no denying the erstwhile Bubba Free John's immense talent as a communicatior or his reportedly larger-than-life personal charisma -- but judging from the initial posthumous utterances of his intimates, it's in his energetic mastery of language that those of us not personally involved in his literally insular world have the best of this richly talented, but otherwise weirdly eccentric and ethically dubious character.
Much love -- Bruce
Da's popularity, as measured by the number of searches for "Adi Da" captured by Google Trends, has skyrocketed since his death. Search volume has more than doubled in recent days. Follow this link to a graph illustrating the magnitude of the upswing, showing how it leaves a competitor guru in the dust.
Da's post-mortem performance is particularly impressive, since the count includes searches for just one of his many names. To be fair, though, we must consider the possibilty that numbers for "Adi Da" are inflated by people who really wanted information about the "Adidas" sneaker company.
The #1 city for "Adi Da" googling, by a huge margin, is Clearlake Oaks, CA, USA. I believe this is the location of Da's "Mountain of Attention" sanctuary. The #1 country is Turkey, and #1 language is Turkish. Turkey is followed by Slovenia, Brazil, and Romania, with USA coming in a disappointing 9th.
I can't say for sure what the deal is with Turkey. If in fact there's been recent news re the manufacture of Adidas sneakers in Turkey, it'd explain a few things.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
i'm d anon who posted the f****r's dead.
just wanna add 1 thing:true God will never f**k,period.God-human is de one who's already beyond any personal desires/gratifications of the body - note dat dis is different frm bodily needs such as ending of hunger,answering nature's call etc..
it really strikes and saddens my heart many who felt 2 such worthless gurus.
2 find a real spiritual guide is never easy.Ramana Maharshi is one such genuine example of true guru,sadly,he's gone.though he said the real guru is ultimately within,most of us r covered with very thick delusion/strong ego,it's hard 2 go on our own,so we'll rather put our trust on another we perceive much more enlightened dan us.all i can say here is dat the f****r adi da is never 1 of them(genuine guru i.e fully enlightened one).
here is one website i highly recommend for genuine seeker of truth:www.happinessofbeing.com
may those with sincerity and courage meet with real guides along their path..peace
anon said..just wanna add 1 thing:true God will never f**k,period.
How the in the f**k did you know that bimbo? Tell me how creation of this messy f**ked up world including yours was ever created without a god f**king around ?
God-human is de one who's already beyond any personal desires/gratifications of the body
You have an erroneous idea of what nondual realization entails. We are all "God-humans" right now, no matter what we are doing and who we are fucking or not. The problem with Da isn't that he fucked, it was that he thought he was special as God. We are never more God than anyone else at any time, regardless of how many people are willing to bow at our feet.
Eulogy for Adi Da
My friends, let us look on the best of Adi Da, and on the truth of our loss:
The Cosmos has lost one of the Phattest partiers Ever.
He might indeed squander your retirement account to fund the first five minutes of the party, he might diddle your wife in the next....
All this is true, but let us look on the best of Adi Da, and on the truth of our loss.
The Cosmos has lost one of the Phattest partiers Ever.
[sniff, sniff]
-The Blade
"You have an erroneous idea of what nondual realization entails. We are all "God-humans" right now, no matter what we are doing and who we are fucking or not."
comment : dat sounds like a neo-advaitist(u know,those worthless "talkers" who simply say "u r dat,there's no one,etc...etc..." when they haven't really realized dat truth by any SUSTAINED PRACTICE.
it's true,we r all that(tat tvam asi),but the problem is, we don't realized that.d important Q is how
are we going to realized that?(dis is the failure of neo-advaitism)
4 a fully realized person,their virtue(if u don't believe in ethics,nothing further can be said)is "perfected",i.e it flows naturally from them.ask urself,can an enlightened being resort to killing another human being?and the same goes with de f*****g business!
"The problem with Da isn't that he fucked, it was that he thought he was special as God. We are never more God than anyone else at any time, regardless of how many people are willing to bow at our feet."
comment : agreed,but not the f*** part,as made clear in d above comment on virtue.
dat sounds like a neo-advaitist(u know,those worthless "talkers" who simply say "u r dat,there's no one
The "neo-advaitists" are on to something, insofar as everyone is always the Atman at all times. And while realization appears to be something that happens to an individual, it still does not make that individual any more God or virtuous than anyone else. Realized or not, we are all God equally. Realization does not entail the acquisition of any special powers, supernatural or moral. We can see the truth or not, but we are always just as divine as any other person on this planet or elsewhere.
"And while realization appears to be something that happens to an individual,it still does not make that individual any more God or virtuous than anyone else."
comment : dats b4 realization.what i'm trying 2 point out all along is the "after effect" of the recognition 'iam God'. i wanna ask again: can an enlightened being resort to killing another human being?and can they f*** around like the just-dead adi da did?the latter is arguable perhaps,but the former is undeniable,don't u think?
the former is undeniable,d on't u think?
I have no idea. And outside of what you have chosen to believe about it, neither do you, or anyone else, enlightened or not.
It seems like all the true greats like Jesus, Buddha Gandhi, MLK, taught kindness and love,non harming, virtue if you will, so it is difficult to discount . that must be something they realized, the karmic reverberations of of violence and hate. obviously our work is cut out for us! Just because you are God now does'nt mean you can go on auto pilot and do whatever you want.
and one more thing... i wouldn't call what Adi Da did fucking,and I mean fucking in the life affirming, natural instinct way, I think he had more of a rapist mentality, and that is a travesty, an abuse of power, a crime etc...so fucking is just the means to and end not a life affirming act in this context. Lots of great teachers have and have had wives or partners and i think that is reassuring, this celibacy thing ain't always the way.
"Just because you are God now does'nt mean you can go on auto pilot and do whatever you want."
comment : frm my understanding so far,fully awakened one does continue to act according to past conditioning eg..if u like certain foods u will continue to choose it,if one is raise in English speaking environment one continues 2 speak English... if all conditioning stops one couldn't even speak!
but the conditioning steams frm a selfish desires,desires to protect and enhance the self etc.. ends.one resort to violence bcause one perceives one's self is being threatened in some way.when the self is 'gone',what's there to protect?can violence follows then?
but the conditioning steams frm a selfish desires,desires to protect and enhance the self etc.. ends
This assumes that there are different kinds of "conditioning" established in the brain. I'd contend that these "kinds" are artificially imposed by ideologies of mind based on the now proven to be completely erroneous idea of mind/body separation.
Neural circuits in the hidden layer are neural circuits in the hidden layer (where unconscious cognition occurs.) They aren't sorted in the mind according to self and/or selfless means. It's whatever works to get you through the night. Thus, one can come to self-realization and still find themselves laden with seemingly dysfunctional and perhaps even pathological behavior patterns. The world of gurudom is full of examples of this.
What's worse, believing self-realization is going to instantly render you a saint is only keeping nondual truth at arm's length rather than something that is perpetually revealed to you.
Thus, one can come to self-realization and still find themselves laden with seemingly dysfunctional and perhaps even pathological behavior patterns. The world of gurudom is full of examples of this.
well especially if you see a realization experience as the end of the road, you have arrived!! A culture sees the need and want for saints, and it becomes an institution, and all the games begin. the dais gets a little to comfy and the devotee wants it.
I think many Gurus realize this , that they are holding a space so to speak for the devotee, they aren't deluded about themselves, that's all the one's who don't claim or encourage divinity. Ananda Mai Ma would say I'm here because you want me to be.
This is a reply to points made by anonymous above (12/01/2008 9:27 PM).
Adi Da had hundreds of slaves to help in his accomplishments. Imagine how productive you would be with worshippers doing much of the work and taking care of your every whim.
How do you know his books are “definitive treatments of certain subjects”? Do you have the omniscience required to know such a thing? The Devil, for example, would be smart enough to deceive you into thinking his logic was perfect. How would you judge? By thrilling experiences?
No, Adi Da didn’t write like Shakespeare. I think he had a psychic ability or siddhi to weave an hallucinatory effect into his writing. I’ve experienced that from his writing. That’s the problem - people judge by experiences rather than by whether they are liberated or not. I was critiquing a guru once and he zapped me with his eyes so that I found myself saying, “I love you” against my will. It’s a mistake to judge by SFX or feelings. Judge by liberation outcomes.
Regarding Adi Da’s attractiveness: No doubt he had charisma. Cult leaders are attractive by definition. No one in their right mind would end up a cult member - it takes charisma and attractiveness to lure people. Besides, I prefer Jessica Alba’s eyes and beauty. Perhaps Adi Da should have used his charisma for Hollywood rather than enslaving people.
We should base our assessment of gurus on how many people they have liberated. By that measure, Adi Da is The Anti-Guru - people were and are enslaved by him, which is the opposite of liberation. You are enslaved by him if you are attached to memories of him and his attractiveness and his personality and his words.
Osho’s opinion is notoriously unreliable. Are you trying to get Osho followers to covert to Adi Da? My dad is bigger than your dad?
Yes, “he was the most openly outrageous Guru ever”. I’d love to see a complete list of his predictions about himself - I don’t think any of them came true. I have also heard that he said that his followers were the stupidest people. Also, one of his marketing guys said to me basically, “He’s so smart, we’re so dumb.” If Adi Da is so smart, then why are his followers so dumb? It shows that even the craziest fattest fruitcake of them all can find worshippers. It’s mathematics. In a population of 7 billion, you’ll find people who will follow to a Fiji island someone so delusional as to claim he is the promised God-Man.
Fighting the Green Beret was not the greatest Dharma teaching Adi Da could have given. Maybe Adi Da saw it as a win-win for himself. If he wins, he can say he beat a Green Beret either through personal power or divinity and so no one would attack him for anally raping their wives! If he lost, he can say he risked his life to save a soul! Again, how would you decide if it was great Dharma teaching? By your pleasant experiences of Adi Da?
You had some nice experiences of Adi Da. So have I. The spiritual Disneyland is exhilarating, isn’t it? But what about his appalling violence and enslavement of others? Which do you care about more - your pleasant experiences or others’ misery and enslavement?
Where is the liberation coming from Adi Da? We start the quest seeking liberation and end up serving at the feet of some fatso human being, devoutly believing him to be God - the opposite of liberation. It’s just a pity Adi Da didn’t liberate himself from his followers and his followers from himself before he died. He had years of free time and help to do it but he failed. He got too comfortable. They all do. They should invite criticism rather than adoration.
Essentially, I think Adi Da lovers, including Ken Wilber, mistook SFX and charisma for truth and mastery, when the real test is your own liberation.
REALITY CHECK:
Pre-liberation, your life looks like this: Illusion, SFX, theories, interpretations, conflicts, disciplehood, attachments, thrills, let-downs, seeking, ideals, hopes, suffering, gurus, techniques, etc.
Post-liberation, your life should look like this: Liberation and the fullness of life, plus knowledge about how you became free of illusion i.e. which guru or technique worked for you.
Question: In my view, th e guru is one who awakens me to truth, to reality. What is wrong in my taking to such a guru?
Krishnamurti : This question arises because I have said that gurus are an impediment to truth. Don't say you are wrong and I am right, or I am wrong and you are right, but let us examine the problem and find out. Let us enquire like mature, thoughtful people, without denying and without justifying.
Which is more important, the guru or you? And why do you go to a guru? You say, `To be awakened to truth'. Are you really going to a guru to be awakened to truth? Let us think this out very clearly. Surely, when you go to a guru you are actually seeking gratification. That is you have a problem and your life is a mess, it is in confusion; and because you want to escape from it, you go to somebody whom you call a guru to find consolation verbally, or to escape an ideation. That is the actual process, and that process you call seeking truth. That is, you want comfort, you want gratification, you want your confusion cleared away by somebody; and the person who helps you to find escapes you call a guru. Actually, not theoretically, you look to a guru who will assure you of what you want. You go guru-hunting as you go window-shopping: you see what suits you best, and then buy it. In India, that is the position: You go around hunting for gurus, and when you find one you hold on to his feet or neck or hand till he gratifies you. To touch a man's feet - that is one of the most extraordinary things. You touch the guru's feet and kick your servants, and thereby you destroy human beings, you lose human significance. So, you go to a guru to find gratification, not truth. The idea may be that he should awaken you to truth, but the actual fact is that you find comfort. Why? Because you say, `I can't solve my problem, somebody must help me'. Can anybody help you to solve the confusion which you have created? What is confusion? Confusion with regard to what, suffering with regard to what? Confusion and suffering exist in your relationship with things, people and ideas; and if you cannot understand that confusion which you have created, how can another help you? He can tell you what to do, but you have to do it for yourself, it is your own responsibility; and because you are unwilling to take that responsibility, you sneak off to the guru - that is the right expression to use, `sneak off' - and you think you have solved the problem. On the contrary, you have not solved it at all; you have escaped, but the problem is still there. And, strangely, you always choose a guru who will assure you of what you want; therefore you are not seeking truth, and therefore the guru is not important. You are actually seeking someone who will satisfy you in your desires; that is why you create a leader, religious or political, and give yourself over to him, and that is why you accept his authority. Authority is evil, whether religious or political, because it is the leader and his position that are all-important, and you are unimportant. You are a human being with sorrow, pain, suffering, joy, and when you deny yourself and give yourself over to somebody, you are denying reality; because it is only through yourself that you can find reality, not through somebody else.
Now, you say that you accept a guru as one who awakens you to reality. Let us find out if it is possible for another to awaken you to reality. I hope you are following all this, because it is your problem, not mine. Let us find out the truth about whether another can awaken you to reality. Can I, who have been talking for an hour and a half, awaken you to reality, to that which is real? The term `guru' implies, does it not?, a man who leads you to truth, to happiness, to bliss eternal. Is truth a static thing that someone can lead you to? Someone can direct you to the station. Is truth like that, static, something permanent to which you can be led? It is static only when you create it out of your desire for comfort. But truth is not static, nobody can lead you to truth. Beware of the person who says he can lead you to truth, because it is not true. Truth is something unknown from moment to moment, it cannot be captured by the mind, it cannot be formulated, it has no resting place. Therefore, no one can lead you to truth. You may ask me, `Why are you talking here?' All that I am doing is pointing out to you what is and how to understand what is as it is, not as it should be. I am not talking about the ideal, but about a thing that is actually right in front of you, and it is for you to look and see it. Therefore, you are more important than I, more important than any teacher, any saviour, any slogan, any belief; because you can find truth only through yourself, not through another. When you repeat the truth of another, it is a lie. Truth cannot be repeated. All that you can do is to see the problem as it is, and not escape. When you see the thing as it actually is, then you begin to awaken, but not when you are compelled by another. There is no saviour but yourself. When you have the intention and the attention to look directly at what is, then your very attention awakens you, because in attention everything is implied. To give attention, you must be devoted to what is, and to understand what is, you must have knowledge of it. Therefore, you must look, observe, give it your undivided attention, for all things are contained in that full attention you give to what is.
So, the guru cannot awaken you; all that he can do is to point out what is. Truth is not a thing that can be caught by the mind. The guru can give you words, he can give you an explanation, the symbols of the mind; but the symbol is not the real, and if you are caught in the symbol, you will never find the way. Therefore, that which is important is not the teacher, it is not the symbol, it is not the explanation, but it is you who are seeking truth. To seek rightly is to give attention, not to God, not to truth, because you don't know it, but attention to the problem of your relationship with your wife, your children, your neighbour. When you establish right relationship then you love truth; for truth is not a thing that can be bought, truth does not come into being through self-immolation or through the repetition of mantras. Truth comes into being only when there is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge brings understanding, and when there is understanding, there are no problems. When there are no problems, then the mind is quiet, it is no longer caught up in its own creations. When the mind is not creating problems, when it understands each problem immediately as it arises, then it is utterly still, not made still. This total process is awareness, and it brings about a state of undisturbed tranquillity which is not the outcome of any discipline, of any practice or control, but is the natural outcome of understanding every problem as it arises. Problems arise only in relationship; and when there is understanding of one's relationship with things, with people and with ideas, then there is no disturbance of any kind in the mind and the thought process is silent. In that state there is neither the thinker nor the thought, the observer nor the observed. Therefore, the thinker ceases, and then the mind is no longer caught in time; and when there is no time, the timeless comes into being. But the timeless cannot be thought of. The mind, which is the product of time, cannot think of that which is timeless. Thought cannot conceive or formulate that which is beyond thought. When it does, its formulation is still part of thought. Therefore, eternity is not a thing of the mind; eternity comes into being only when there is love, for love in itself is eternal.
To anonymous (from anonymous),
Yes, again someone brings up J. Krishnamurthi and his well known anti-guru treatise. He certainly sounds logical and coherent, doesn’t he?
When Ramana Maharshi was asked about this treatise, he answered simply, “How does he know? Let him talk when he is realized.”
In THE DAUGHTER OF FIRE the Sufi master was asked the same question (that is: “Krishnamurthi says one does not need a Guru.”) and responded with a hearty laugh: “Not in a hundred years.”
Nisargadatta in I AM THAT comments that there are two ways to realization. One is easy and relatively quick, but rare: to find a true Guru and live in his grace and do as he says; the other is tough and hard and usually of protracted length, but apparently more common: to deal with one’s obstructions until they are done away with and Truth revealed.
Papaji once had a conversation with UG Krishnamurthi. UG started to go on his anti-Guru rant and too, his anti-spiritual-experience rant. Papaji told him that the only reason he could be trashing spiritual experiences is that he had never had a real spiritual experience, that he was talking about something he knew nothing about. As for Gurus, Papaji said that he (Papaji) did not believe in “no Gurus,” that a Guru was essential.
Lakshmana Swami, an original living disciple of Ramana Maharshi and a great Realizer himself, now living in Tiruvannamalai, has said categorically that the spiritual aspirant can accomplish by his own efforts a great deal, but only up to the point of purifying the mind. The final step of puncturing the mind itself and the separate sense of “I” that is at its root, can only be accomplished with the help of a living jnani.
Since this part of the blog is about Adi Da, at least Adi Da walked the talk. He was so surrendered to Rudi that he was called crazy Frank by fellow studetns of Rudi because he would do literally anything Rudi said. One can read from his letters and diaries of his surrender and devotion to Muktananda. Of course, he received that remarkable letter from Muktananda and was the first Westerner given a spiritual name by Muktananda. And most interesting, is that Adi Da never ever disparaged his Gurus on a personal level. He often proclaimed his utter gratitude and love for them and all they had done for him. He did distinguish his teaching and realization from that of his Gurus, but he never pissed on them (as for example, Andrew Cohen continually goes out of his way to do about Papaji).
Nuff said
Even if a guru is essential to awakening,i would never,ever,in a trillian years,ever,recommend anyone,any living beings(!)to surrender to someone as notorious as adi da,a sexual predator!
This human being(is he? :-D) is worse than animals,to put that mildly.
A person who cannot controls his sexual appetite is just a beast,nothing more.
My sympathy to all who had been abused sexually,may you all recover soon.
>>"He was so surrendered to Rudi that he was called crazy Frank by fellow studetns of Rudi because he would do literally anything Rudi said. One can read from his letters and diaries of his surrender and devotion to Muktananda. Of course, he received that remarkable letter from Muktananda and was the first Westerner given a spiritual name by Muktananda."<<
Um, so: losing your discrimination to the point of "surrendering" completely to Bizarro Rudi and then being the "first" to receive a spiritual name and "certificate" from the notorious muktananda is some kind of proof of....???? If Bubba chose these two to "surrender" to, no wonder he exacted such a heavy price from his own "disciples". Ah, I remember Rudi from the old days on the Lower East Side...and, gee, I've seen alot of "certificates" passed out by muktananda through the years...but, so far, not too many realized beings coming from that particular "lineage" (and I use the word with heavy quotations here).
The other thing is this: every single great one you have quoted has also said just the opposite. It's never a particularly helpful idea to fix on one thing and not pick up on the opposite teaching given to a different person two days later. IMHO anyway.
best,
an old timer
>>anonymous said:
He was so surrendered to Rudi that he was called crazy Frank by fellow studetns of Rudi because he would do literally anything Rudi said.
So what? That means nothing, even if it is entirely true.
>> And most interesting, is that Adi Da never ever disparaged his Gurus on a personal level.
That is an interesting 'virtue' of Adi Da's. Generally he refrained from outright trashing of the competition.
Instead, though, he very explicitly placed them lower on the ladder of development than himself.
But is it even a virtue anyway? Is it not just politically self-interested restraint -- isn't it better for him if 'gurus' are mythologized?
There are even exceptions to this -- or at least shades of gray. He did call J. Krishnamurti's perspective 'spiritually adolescent'.
'The Blade'
He did call J. Krishnamurti's perspective 'spiritually adolescent'.
Ain't that the pot calling the kettle 'black'!
It's always nice to have you around, Blade.
More from Chris Anonymous to Anonymous on “Crazy Franks’s surrender.”
So now Rudi is reduced to “bizarro Rudi.” Is this infantile summation really necessary? Have you read John Mann’s RUDI FOURTEEN YEARS WITH MY TEACHER? I have read it several times and it always struck me as a true and believable account of a remarkable spiritual teacher. I have known one person who knew Rudi personally, and he commented with great respect for Rudi as he knew him. In fact, Rudi seems from all that we know of him to have been a “clean” fellow on a personal level. I am not aware of any shenanigans on his part, other than I did hear he liked to have people buy his art and would often give them an especially strong pitch to buy it (perhaps even with a little hypnotism involved). So what? Big deal.
I am intrigued about your comment about Realizers and the Muktananda lineage. Now let’s see, this implies that there have been Realizers out of all sorts of OTHER lineages. Is this true? Certainly there is no recorded Realizer ever coming from the teachings of Krishnamurthi (UG or J). Though there are lots of Papaji people running around claiming that they have “awoken,” I know from a very good source that Papaji said (in the last days of his life) that not even three people had realized his teaching. In fact, there is an even stronger quote in Godman’s biography where Papaji says that he never revealed his highest teaching to a single person period because he had never found anyone worthy of receiving it.
I live in Tiruvannamalai, for 10 years now, and have personally experienced all of the Papaji teachers who have come through here. They are an interesting crew, and normally I would not express any judgements on them. They all seem very sincere in their own ways. But I will say, that to imagine even one of them to be enlightened is a friggin joke.
Now, it does appear that a few people realized under the influence of Ramana Maharshi, and perhaps there are a few Realizers under the influence of Nisargadatta Maharaj. But how many true Realizers were there? One can get an idea from Ramana himself. In the court deposition of him that was taken in around the mid 1930’s (Oh, yes, did you know that even Ramana was accused of being a nefarious chap and had a formal lawsuit filed against him?), Ramana was asked about his state, specifically to what classic stream of spiritual life he belonged. He answered that he belonged to none of them, that he was a free jnani, that he had transcended all traditional spiritual classifications (something like that I do not remember his exact words.) He was then asked IF HE KNEW OF ANYONE ELSE IN THIS STATE. He said, NO. Interesting huh? This was before Papaji or Lakshmana Swami had come to him, and Annamalai Swami was still building buildings for him and was a long way from his realization; but Ramana had been on the mountain for a good thirty years with devotees and from the horse’s mouth no one had realized.
Papaji said that he had only met three Realizers in his entire life. Interesting huh? Just three, and this was a man who had wandered every nook and cranny of India and seen Ramana himself (Ramana was one of the three).
There are some other comments on this blog in response to what I wrote in my last email. Most of them seem to be taking the position that surrender is a sophomoric and risky thing to do because Gurus are mostly charlatans and fakes etc. And people did the same thing to Hitler etc. Yeah, maybe it is risky. So what? Life is full of risks. If you want something, you take a risk and throw yourself at it as intelligently and with as much effort as you can. In that respect, Rudi once asked John Mann that if he (Rudi) were an asshole and a tyrant what would John do? John replied after a long pause that he would stay as his student because Rudi had something he wanted. Rudi was pleased with the answer and then laughed and said that lucky for John he was not an asshole or a tyrant. But he also said Muktananda was more like an asshole and a tyrant, and that it was very difficult to be a student of Muktananda and that he had to go to extraordinary lengths to get what he needed from Muktananda.
Also, in that respect, it is good to look at what Adi Da said about his relation to his teachers. In the KNEE OF LISTENING Adi Da said that he gave himself up to his teachers as a man does to God. Adi Da also commented in a talk to his students that Muktananda was a very difficult man on a personal level. Adi Da said he never cared about that; he had come to Muktananda for God and as long as he thought that Muktananda represented a real possibility of receiving that, then he gave himself up to him totally. He just allowed Muktananda his personality quirks (as weird as they may or may not have been) and remained concentrated on the purpose that he had come to him for.
In I AM THAT in one chapter Nisargadatta is getting a lot of flak from a questioner who is saying that Gurus can be fakes etc, and Nisargadatta says flat out that the problem is with good devotees and not good Gurus. He says that a good devotee is extraordinarily rare to find, and that the questioner has his attention completely on the wrong party: it should be on himself and his own obstructions and not on doubts about Gurus etc.
It is sooooo easy to trash a Guru, but remember that everyone who is being trashed in these discussions WALKED THE TALK. Muktananda was an extraordinary devotee of Bhagavan Nityananda. Adi Da was an extraordinary devotee of Rudi and Muktananda. Papaji was an extraordinary devotee of Ramana. Nisargadatta was an extraordinary devotee of Siddhamaheshwar Maharaj. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was an extraordinary devotee of Brahmananda Saraswati.
I think Papaji has said it best. He was asked about how to find a true Guru and he responded that there were a few signs that could tell you that perhaps you had found the right person: Your mind should become calm in his presence etc. (Ramana also commented on these same signs and also said that they were indicators that PERHAPS you had found the right person). Papaji said however, that much more important was your own intention and desire for Truth. He said that if you wanted Truth as much as he had wanted Truth, then the problem was already solved, that the Guru would find you, and you need not worry about finding him. He commented on how Ramana had come and found him, literally knocked on his door in Lucknow. Papaji said “If you want Truth as much as I wanted it, the Guru will come and knock on your door, just like he did with me.”
Nuff said
"If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." - Matthew 15:14
Anon said - "Papaji said however, that much more important was your own intention and desire for Truth. He said that if you wanted Truth as much as he had wanted Truth, then the problem was already solved, that the Guru would find you, and you need not worry about finding him. He commented on how Ramana had come and found him, literally knocked on his door in Lucknow. Papaji said “If you want Truth as much as I wanted it, the Guru will come and knock on your door, just like he did with me.”
Different ppl are at different stages of (spiritual)maturity/perception (of TRUTH) ,my dear friend.
Some are SO BLIND as to let themselves sexually molested(being rape,literally!),and believing this is healthy for their spiritual progress!
And that's the whole problem with all the scandallious gurus eg. Osho,Adi Da etc.People are blind.Period.
u can desire the truth(whatever you word it,enlightenment,realization etc...) so intensely but if u think this can be achieve by eg. by fucking a horse :-D ,u r in deep trouble!
Bottom line: better to be blind one's way to the truth than being fucked up with some useless,worthless,beastly being.period.
Sometimes i cant help wondering what special "power" those gurus have to attract such a huge retarded slaves.This is certainly much more than charisma.There's something more to it,really.
Those 'retarded' ones,many are,sadly,quite intelligent!
In odd moments,i have this(God forgive me,amen :-D)wish to acquire this power myself as well.
Imagine,ppl serves u like a king,ur opportunity to fuck as u likes :-D,etc..
Anyone here,honestly,have this intention at least once?
From anonymous to anonymous
(Since there are so many anonymous’s floating around, in future entries I will be “Chris anonymous”)
“The other thing is this: every single great one you have quoted has also said just the opposite. It's never a particularly helpful idea to fix on one thing and not pick up on the opposite teaching given to a different person two days later.”
Just keep your facts straight and justify the above statement. The four people I mentioned: Ramana Maharshi, Lakshmana Swami, the Sufi Master in DAUGHTER OF FIRE, and Papaji, never wavered from the position that a Guru is absolutely essential. They were entirely unequivocal on the matter. I challenge you to produce a single quote from them to the contrary.
Nisargadatta Maharaj admitted of the possibility of enlightenment without a Guru; however, if you read I AM THAT it is obvious that his love for his own Guru was immeasurable, and that he was firmly of the opinion that devotion to a true Guru was the fast track to Realization.
I am starting to enjoy this site a little, now that a decent dialogue is developing; though the guy who writes it Jody Radzik seems like a mad Joseph Goebbels. Does he ever have anything positive or intelligent to say?
>>>"
So now Rudi is reduced to “bizarro Rudi.” Is this infantile summation really necessary? Have you read John Mann’s RUDI FOURTEEN YEARS WITH MY TEACHER? I have read it several times and it always struck me as a true and believable account of a remarkable spiritual teacher. I have known one person who knew Rudi personally, and he commented with great respect for Rudi as he knew him. In fact, Rudi seems from all that we know of him to have been a “clean” fellow on a personal level."<<
Sorry Chris,
My whole point was that I DID know Rudi back in the day...I knew him personally just like your friend. My experience of Rudi was that he was way beyond "bizarro" and, as naive and spiritually vulnerable as I was at the time, it was very obvious that "surrendering" to this guy would have been a serious mistake.I had friends who did...serious mistake! I also met muktananda during his first world tour and have personal experience of that "lineage" through the years, as have many, many of my friends. "Personal" meaning, intense involvment with the guru, the practices, the so-called "lineage", etc. Reading "Fourteen Years With My Teacher", "Spiritual Cannibalism", "Play of Consciousness" or any other hagiography or heavily edited book is not quite the same thing as an actual experience of the person. Making assumptions about these people based upon what you have read is very very dicey. Plus, I don't see how questioning muktananda's legacy has any implications about other teachers whatsoever. I think most of us here know the tradtional scriptures regarding surrender to the guru and many of us have experienced the "it's the diciple's lack of worthiness, not the guru's lack of integrity argument". In my experience, this is one of the most popular defenses that seems to arise when the sexual, financial or ethical abuses become so outrageous that even the devotees begin to notice.
Regarding gurus, I think Nisargadatta's advice is really very helpful, "you must be strong enough or mature enough to use your discrimination" (quote from "Prior to Consciousness"). The "12 year testing" period advocated in Tibetan Buddhism is also a good place to start but this brings up a real issue, especially for Western students since the guru tradition is not really part of the culture: how can one use discrimination if one is overly eager to "surrender" to a questionable guru because that's what is presented as the only way? or if he/she has been hit by a blast of powerful "experience-inducing" energy? or if one's personal identity is being shattered (which is part of the process but leaves one vulnerable to manipulation) rendering one NOT "strong enough" or "mature enough" to use the usual methods of evaluation?. EVERYBODY in a group will defend his/her guru as "authentic" and "real" and attack doubters as "deluded" or "unworthy".Part of the function of a group is to mirror the guru as "authentic". The reality is, however, that there is a long documented history of seriously damaging behavior by many teachers and a continued demonizing of the students who complain about it.
I think it's funny, Chris, how you say..."normally I wouldn't pass judgment" (on Papaji's crew) and, in the same sentence, refer to their attainment as a "friggen joke". Either judge or don't judge, it's all the same to me. It all comes from the mind anyway. I have no idea about these folks, never having met them, but I wonder how a teacher can claim to be realized and be teaching others based on that "attainment" and be called "sincere"?? I don't get it... are they "sincere" but deluded? or are they manipulating others knowing they are not fully awake? or what? And, if their students "surrender" to them ( not having your superior awareness regarding the qualifications of their teacher and believing them to be a real guru), should they have,somehow known? Should Andrew Cohen's students have "known"? How about gurumayi's students? So many people who have a sincere longing for the truth have been through hell with these teachers through the years..and, of course, what they hear is..."it was a teaching" or "you wanted that experience" or "if you are truly worthy, the right guru will come knocking on your door" or "it's just 'crazy wisdom'". And then there are the folks who think that this only happens to stupid people who deserve it.
this whole problems with spiritual teachers is a real one...deifying them or demonizing them (or the guru system) doesn't help all that much.
I can imagine you must have some interesting opinions considering what passes through Tiru these days.
best to you,
an old timer
Does he ever have anything positive or intelligent to say?
That depends on the reader and what he or she projects onto what I am saying.
From Chris anonymous to anonymous
What is this twelve year testing period of Tibetan Buddhism? I am not familiar with it.
I agree that my statement about the Papaji crew is not entirely logical, and I was aware of it when I said it. It bothered me. I will have to consider things a bit more. I know there was some truth in what I said, but it is something that normally would not pop out of my mouth. Normally I would keep it private, like who am I to judge? It is not my business anyway.
I guess I used it to say that I think realization is not a very common phenomenon, probably extremely rare. The Papaji crew were with a great Master in my opinion, but to whatever degree they woke up, when I meet them personally it just has a gut level certainty to me that they are not realized. Some, however, may be decent teachers to some degree. Like I said, it is not really my business, except that I am not interested in them as MY teacher.
Something like that.
I like what you were saying in your last email. It was like we were no longer beating around the bush, but actually getting to the meat of the matter, which as you described is tricky and not so amenable to categorical statements either way.
Go a little deeper into the Rudi thing if you would, since you met him and knew him to some degree. You seem to be saying that he was a negative force, period. I find this hard to believe. And too, I do not think John Mann's book is just hagiography and heavily edited. I mean, who edited it except John? Okay, he personally could have slanted the thing, but maybe Rudi was the benevolent force to him that he described. The book is very well written and does not have a mythological feel to it.
Nuff said.
PS: To Jody. So say something intelligent why don't you. So far all Iget is a bad Rush Limbaugh impersonation.
So say something intelligent why don't you.
If you aren't seeing anything intelligent in what I'm saying here, I've got nothing for you, except to say that any more comparisons to Rush will get you canned from the discussion.
Dear Chris anon.,
There has been alot of discussion in Western Buddhist groups about the "teacher/student" relationship. The Dalai Lama's suggestion came (I believe) during a conference in Dharamsala on dharma when Westerners (women for the most part)brought up the financial, sexual and power abuses in the West. Apparently, the Dalai Lama was very angry about it and expressed himself in no uncertain terms about the need to test the teacher for a long time before "surrendering". Most of this "testing" would normally occur during the years a student did "spiritual prerequisites"..something that doesn't really exist in our very impatient culture. There is an interesting book,"Relating to a Spiritual Teacher" (Alexander Berzin). In it, Berzin discusses both cultural and foundational "misunderstandings" in the Eastern/Western Buddhist encounters and what can be done about them. George Feuerstein also has an interesting book on the crazy wisdom tradition entitled, "Holy Madness". There is quite a bit of information about Adi Da, Osho and others. Read Osho's quotes on "surrender"; it's enough to make your hair stand on end.
maybe Rudi truly was a"benevolent force" for John Mann and maybe Adi Da is still "god" to some of those folks who were with him.Who am I to say? But holding these guys up as some kind of example of good teachers is problematic. As you say in another post, "realization" within the Hindu tradition (and both of these guys used the tradition to justify their actions) appears to be very very rare so perhaps a little ethics and honesty on the part of the gurus is in order. I mean, muktananda "guaranteed" liberation in 12 years max! That's what prompted my original question about where all the liberated beings were/ 12 Must be a "magic number" or something.
old timer
jody,just one simple and direct question to you.why are you so OBSESSED with exposing those so-called gurus?
what's inside your soul,really?not superficial coverage like helping ppl etc..da..da..da..
have u personally been abused by such teachers?kind like some mentally deranged murderers who goes to kill others because of their childhood traumas.
anyway,i didn't expect this comment will be publish :-)
jody,just one simple and direct question to you.why are you so OBSESSED with exposing those so-called gurus?
I am determined to make clear the fact that self-realization doesn't add anything to a life in the way of divinity. I mock gurus who use the idea they are more divine to promote their business.
what's inside your soul,really?
Patterns of neural connection, just like everybody else.
not superficial coverage like helping ppl etc..da..da..da..
I am trying to help people understand that self-realization doesn't make you any different than you are right now.
have u personally been abused by such teachers?
Only insofar as I once accepted the superstitious nonsense I now object to.
kind like some mentally deranged murderers who goes to kill others because of their childhood traumas.
How cute to compare me with a murderer!
anyway,i didn't expect this comment will be publish :-)
If that's your attempt at psych-ops, it had nothing to do with the fact that I did publish it.
'I am trying to help people understand that self-realization doesn't make you any different than you are right now.'
Now here is where your 'demon' lies.Saying and promoting this shit is no different than saying you are already enlightened,you are already perfect etc....
For me,this is one of the worst kind of teaching in the planet.At best it simply leads to self-acceptance,feels good etc..
But it leads to 'paralysis and stagnation'(i hope reader will inquire into this article : http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/humanism_moller.htm)
Also this is worth read:http://www.interactivebuddha.com/bullshit.shtml
If you are unbiased in your view, jody,just publish this comment :-)
(this is my 2nd psy-op :-D)
Now here is where your 'demon' lies.
No, that's your demon. All I have are brain cells.
Saying and promoting this shit is no different than saying you are already enlightened,you are already perfect etc....
Actually, it is, despite your lack of clarity about it.
I am saying that when one comes to enlightenment, they see that they are no different than they were before enlightenment. As the Self, there is nothing but perfection. And as seeming individuals who believe they are less than perfect, we only have to recognize that our "individuality" is nothing more than a trick of perception. I'm not saying we are already enlightened. I'm saying that being enlightened doesn't make any difference to our truth as the Atman.
For me,this is one of the worst kind of teaching in the planet.
And for me, the worst teaching is that enlightenment makes a person more special or more divine.
At best it simply leads to self-acceptance,feels good etc..
Those are worthwhile goals in my book.
[snipped link to boring diatribe]
But it leads to 'paralysis and stagnation
Your belief is noted. Too bad it has little to do with what I'm actually saying.
[snipped link to boring diatribe]
If you are unbiased in your view, jody,just publish this comment :-)
I am very biased in my view.
(this is my 2nd psy-op :-D)
Poorly attempted psych-op.
the earlier link is incomplete,sorry
This link should work :http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/humanism_moller.htm
thanks jode,i appreciate u!sincerely.
my point is,there is really A DIFFERENT between a realized being and those in ignorance(if we are truthful with ourselves and not blind deluded,99.99% of ppl are still ignorant).
simply saying otherwise will never change that fact.what requires is sustain practice of some sort -intense meditation,totally surrender to guru (as i keep trying to make clear in my above posts,true surrender is not about giving one's "intellect" to another human being i.e losing one's discrimination )etc..
peace
my point is,there is really A DIFFERENT between a realized being and those in ignorance
Only to those who don't see themselves as realized.
(if we are truthful with ourselves and not blind deluded,99.99% of ppl are still ignorant).
I don't know if your number is correct, but I do know there's a lot more undercover realizers out there than most folk realize.
simply saying otherwise will never change that fact.
Your "fact" has nothing to do with what I am saying.
what requires is sustain practice of some sort -intense meditation,totally surrender to guru
What is required is honest seeking.
(as i keep trying to make clear in my above posts,true surrender is not about giving one's "intellect" to another human being i.e losing one's discrimination )etc..
Surrender is the key to the whole thing, but one can surrender to whatever symbol of divinity they choose. Gurus are no better than chunks of rock in this regard.
peace
'Gurus are no better than chunks of rock in this regard.'
I like this last one :-D
final comment : thanx 4 making things clear
Thanks for this blog. I was researching Da today, writing a paper on Wilber, and just now I find what I have been looking for.
Anderson
for-the-turnstiles.blogspot.com
It’s all circular reasoning and rationalisation and attachment...
My guru is great… But he can be difficult to deal with... But you have to deal with him. I am certain that his evil behaviour is really for your own good… Even though he has only produced a few other enlightened people… maybe. But that’s because the seekers didn’t seek hard enough… Even though they often gave EVERYTHING they had and their WHOLE LIFETIMES to him. They had to utterly SURRENDER EVEN MORE… to him… Even though they had nothing left to surrender. But you have to be STRONG AND DISCERNING too. But you must TRUST totally that he will enlighten you… Even though he has only enlightened a few others (maybe) in his whole 50 year career. And his teaching about surrender is perfect because he’s such a great guru…
Can I get a guarantee first? Ah, but that wouldn’t be surrender.
It’s absolute rubbish! It’s the classic double bind that psychologists warn as being so damaging (the opposite of healing).
How far away from reality are we? Zero distance.
How far from ourselves are we? Zero distance.
So why do we have to surrender to gurus with who have a mere 1/10,000 success rate (if that) in order to get to Reality? It’s an invisible gift, so there can never be any proof. Yet it’s all that exists!
Instead of complaining about disciples, I think we should demand refunds from these incompetent frauds.
Why don’t the gurus simply admit that they are not very good at their jobs? The evidence is overwhelming - they openly confess their abysmal success rate! (Yet the disciples continue believing in their circular logic and supposed perfection.) If I were a guru, I wouldn’t even call myself a guru unless over 80% got liberated as a consequence of my efforts. I’d establish a contract - if you’re not enlightened in 2 months, you get your money back. Can you imagine going to a mechanic who has a 1/10,000 success rate? Only if he was the last mechanic on Earth! And even then you would expect failure based on the evidence. You wouldn’t go around saying he’s the greatest. A mechanic with a 1/10,000 success rate wouldn’t keep saying he’s the greatest.
Why does anyone glorify a guru? Is the guru enlightened because he’s wonderful, or did the event of enlightenment make him wonderful? It’s enlightenment that is supposed to do the trick, not the wonderfulness of the person.
Andrew Cohen says he’s better than Papaji.
Adi Da says he’s better than everyone.
Then where are all their successful disciples?
DGA, if you're researching Adi Da, the best resource I know of on the web is http://lightmind.com/daism/
" OK, so last night a friend of mine needed a ride to meet a friend of hers. Let's call the first friend Sally and the second friend Tabitha. Tabitha had invited Sally to a Network Marketing thing out in Silverlake. Silverlake is a hipster area of Los Angeles.
This was my first chance to see a Network Marketing event. Network Marketing is like Amway or Herbalife or maybe Avon. There are these companies that don't do advertising. They just throw fake parties where they try to get you to buy their stuff. But they don't just want you to buy the stuff. They want you to beocme a salesperson for their stuff.
The atmosphere was pretty much like what you get at a religious cult gathering. A number of people are planted throughout the audience who are already converts. Their job is to yell, "Woo-hooo!" at certain scripted points in the presentation. Or sometimes they get more subtle and just say things like, "Wow!" or, "Unbelievable!" on cue as if they just happen to be there and are impressed with the Power Point presentation.
At the end of the presentation converts walk around and ask newbies, "What did you like?" I got asked this three times by people who apparently didn't realize how fucking obvious they were being. I said, "It's a nice house." Because it was. That left every one of them stupified. Get a little more creative people!! At least say, "Yes and this house was bought by money earned from being a member." Shit. Even I could've done that. Don't just stand there slack jawed because I didn't say something about the stupid presentation. Dipshits.
ANYWAY this particular scam -- er, scheme -- was some kind of cheap vacation deal. The idea was they form a big group who can buy bulk and reduce the prices of vacations for their members (oops! I wasn't supposed to say that, they told us so at the end of the presentation). Nice, I guess, if you want to go on generic vacations with a bunch of zombies from their group.
As I watched this thing unfold I realized I'd seen exactly the same thing twice before. Once was on the video of The Secret and the other was on the You Tube clips of Gempo Roshi's Big Mind® seminars. As I said, it's a religious cult type atmosphere at these marketing events. All the folks from The Secret and Big Mind® have done is apply the network marketing philosophy and techniques to so-called "spiritual" practices. Which, in itself, were reverse engineered by profit seekers from religious cult techniques. Clever, really. But in the end valueless.
This is why Genpo Roshi ought to be kicked in the ass very, very hard. In the case of The Secret, the whole thing is a load of horseshit right to its core. There's not a smidge of value to be had in it at all. It's not even as useful as Herbalife or cheap zombie vacations. But Genpo is trying the same bullshit with Zen which, at its core is the most practical and useful philosophy and practice to be found. Like I've said before, if you wanna go attend one of Genpo's idiot conventions, be my guest. But that is not Buddhism and anyone who says it is ought to have his butt thoroughly booted.
The entire network marketing thing -- of which Big Mind® and The Secret are examples -- is based on two ideas. One is that what you really want out of life is OVER THERE somewhere. Not here. The other is that the dude running the show has what you need and can sell it to you. It's pure confusion created and sustained by collective thought.
Also, interestingly, both the network marketing scams and Big Mind® espouse the same idea that this stuff used to take a lot of time, effort and energy, but now a new technique has been developed that'll give you the same effect right away without all the muss and fuss. In the case of the network marketers the goal getting rich, in the case of Genpo and all the rest of them it's getting enlightenment. Believe whatever you want, suckers.
Listen. I'm just telling you what I can see. I don't give a shit if you believe it or not. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. But I do think there's some value in expressing this point of view even if nobody pays much attention. So there. "
what?!!
the master still haven't resurrected?i thought all this is just a gimmick!
however,let's wait until tomorrow,Christmas for the resurrection of this century!i bet everyone here,esp,jody :-D,with a banana,that tomorrow all da's devotees will be saved!
im still waiting 4 de resurrection.....
On one of later comments, someone referred to Georg Feurstein's book, 'Holy Madness.' Feurstein was once closely involved with Da Free John.
Interested persons should be aware there are two editions of Georg F's book, Holy Madness.
The first edition was published in the early 1990s by Paragon House with a paperback edition by Arkana Press.
There is a new edition (2007 or 2008)of Holy Madness published on guru Lee Lozowick's Hohm Press.
Given that Georg mentioned Lozowick in the first edition and quoted some comments from former Lozowick devotees who did not seem very happy with the guy, it is interesting, verry interesting that George is now publishing stuff off of LL's press.
So interested persons need to read BOTH editions of Holy Madness and note whether there are any changes.
And...this reader notes that Georg went to very great lengths to rationalize abusive and horrid guru behavior by giving a sophisticated rationale that crazy wise teachers are beyond the normal standards of right and wrong and that their behavior is paradoxical.
My term for this is eating shit and claiming that in the realm of nondual realization shit is actually sugar.
But..if the shit is full of germs and makes you sick from salmonella, shigella, Hep A, typhoid, or cholera, your body will be good and sick in this realm.
And the mental degradation that comes from eating shit and calling it sugar will play out in your own relationships.
Power abuse is still power abuse and some will thought crime themselves into moral insanity rather than admit this is the case.
It is high time the crazy wise teacher alibi was put out to pasture.
Some quotes from Georg rationalizing abuse: He said disciples are 'free to leave.' Professor Zimbardo did a famous prison simulation experiment at Stanford in which all participants were free to leave at any time. The student participants were randomly assigned to be prisoners and guards.
The chilling finding was, as the days passed, the participants regressed, became identified with thier roles and **forgot that they were free to leave**. One of Zimbardos graduate students was so alarmed at the deterioration in peoples psychological state that she persuaded Zimbardo to end that experiment early, before things deteriorated further.
The Zimbardo experiment is willfully ignored by those who invoke the 'abuse is good for you' argument.
The Lightgate forum is a mine of information and should be researched by those interested in both Da and Ken Wilber.
http://www.lightgate.net/boards/viewtopic.php?t=6649&highlight=feurstein
(quote from a discussion on Lightmind forum.) In a similar vein, Georg Feuerstein: responding to David Lane’s Paradox of Da Free John wrote: Although the Crazy Wisdom Adept constantly deals with the conventional mind of those who aspire to spiritual practice in his company, he NEVER pushes anyone beyond the point where he or she ceases to relate to the test with real understanding or self-insight, true surrender to God, actual reception of the Spirit-Current, etc. Besides, the disciple is always free to NOT participate, even in a verbal confrontation. The mark of the true Adept is that he will set his disciples free, not bind them. But it is a mistaken popular notion that spiritual life is all sweetness and delight. It is a profoundly difficult struggle, an ordeal of constant self-transcendence. The other mark of any Adept worth his salt is that he will always provoke a spiritual crisis in his disciples or devotees. That hasn't changed in a thousand years!"
If frank or andrew never push their devotees beyond their threshold, then why were there the court cases, (and I’m sure many others that would have wished they could have done the same, but who didn’t) And why are there so many critics in both cases from ex students and, especially in frank’s case, why have more than 90% of those ever getting involved with adidam not stayed on?
And does frank really set his devotees free? Bull. Not without a lot of curses placed on them. Like Cohen's disciples, frank's people slip away in the dark of night to escape.
And how true is it that the disciple is free not too participate in this process? I think that has been shown to be false here several times. There’s too much pressure for that. Once pitbull frank clamps his jaws on someone he’s not going to let go till the slug is crushed. Sweetness and light is a huge distance from the kind of treatment these guys have inflicted. And in the end, what’s it all for really?
Anonymous quoted Georg Feuerstein as saying:
"...he NEVER pushes anyone beyond the point where he or she ceases to relate to the test with real understanding or self-insight, true surrender to God..."
Why does "true surrender to God" look suspiciously like forced surrender to the "guru" e.g. Adi Da, Andrew Cohen, etc?
Both of them critiqued their gurus. Is that a failure to truly "surrender to God"?
The common denominator of these gurus is that they create a situation where they are supported and protected by many adoring disciples and filtering walls, thereby insulating themselves from "true surrender to God."
Anonymous said...
how true is it that the disciple is free not too participate in this process?
Consider the number of people who have been dedicated followers of Adi Da. How many of them stopped being followers within 5 or 10 years? It's well over 90%.
Every study I've seen of groups like Da's (or the Hare Krishnas, Muktananda, etc) shows that the vast majority of followers eventually leave.
So clearly, the disciple is free not to participate in the process. Each of us can decide for ourselves whether or not we find value in the process.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
from Chris anonymous:
You know, the responses on this blog remind me very much of current news about Gaza. That is, it is nigh on impossible to find an even-handed account of this subject , just as it is nigh on impossible to find an even-handed commentary on what is happening in Gaza. Just about everyone is so polarized that only the most extreme positions are being espoused. I ask the obvious question: Is such an extreme position reasonable? I mean, just prima facie is it reasonable?
I don’t think any intelligent (really intelligent) person would take an extreme position (one way or the other) on what is happening Gaza. The situation is simply not amenable to “The Israelis are categorically right and Hamas is categorically wrong” or vice versa. Rather, an intelligent approach at the very least demands a “Yes, but....” approach. Just so, I would propose that everyone who responds on the subject of this blog take a breath, relax and consider the alternative before they bang of their next torrid email.
This blog might only be serving the purpose of letting readers pour forth stored-up venom on the subject, nothing more. As I mentioned previously (please don’t throw me off the blog, Jody), I am struck that the readers of this blog often seem a collection of spiritual Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs. However, this is not entirely true, as there did develop the beginnings of a dialogue on the subject with myself and another anonymous contributor (the guy who had once met Rudi).
One thing that might help the discussion is to settle on a few “top guys” in the spiritual pantheon, whose opinions we’d agree carry significant weight and should not be discounted cavalierly. In that vein, I suggest that we can rely on Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and Papaji. Anyone got a problem with this?
In any subject (my background is in physics and math) if you aspire to mastery, then necessarily you are going to be considering the accepted authorities in the field. In physics I didn’t consult the first guy who hung out his shingle and said he was the local rocket scientist. I had to study (really study) Newton, Maxwell, Schrödinger, Einstein and the rest. It seems ridiculous that on the subject of Realization (historically, the most difficult and most rarely mastered field) that the converse is true, and that one can become realized by spouting off the ego’s favorite beliefs, or by quoting some of the “local rocket scientists.”
Now, the particular subject here is Adi Da. I have made it plain that I found a lot from Adi Da, both in his teachings and his spiritual transmission. The chief complaint seems to be that any guy with the problematic behavior (to put it kindly?) Adi Da displayed, cannot have been a Realizer. Is this so? How do we know? I mean know.
I haven’t contributed to this blog for a while because there was a particular quote in I Am That (by Nisargadatta Maharaj) that I wanted to find. This morning, while sitting on the toilet (God works in mysterious ways), I found it. The following is provocative on the subject of Gurus and their behavior:
Q: Must I not examine the teacher before I put myself entirely into his hands?
M: By all means examine! But what can you find out? Only as he appears to you on your own level.
Q: I shall watch whether he is consistent, whether there is harmony between his life and his teachings.
M: You may find plenty of disharmony – so what? It proves nothing. Only motives matter. How will you know his motives?
Q: I should at least expect him to be a man of self-control who lives a righteous life.
M: You will find many such – and of no use to you. A Guru can show the way back home to your real self. What has this to do with character and temperament of the person he appears to be? Does he not clearly tell you that he is not the person? The only way you can judge is by the change in yourself when you are in his company. If you feel more peaceful and happy, if you understand yourself with more than the usual clarity and depth, it means you have met the right person. Take your time, but once you have made up your mind to trust him, trust him absolutely and follow every instruction fully and faithfully. It does not matter much if you do not accept him as your Guru and are satisfied with his company only. Satsang alone can also take you to your goal, provided it is unmixed and undisturbed. But once you accept somebody as your Guru, listen, remember and obey. Half-heartedness is a serious drawback and the cause of much self-created sorrow. The mistake is never the Guru’s; it is always the obtuseness and cussedness of the disciple that is at fault.
I am looking forward to the responses about Maharaj’s quote.
The chief complaint seems to be that any guy with the problematic behavior (to put it kindly?) Adi Da displayed, cannot have been a Realizer
For the record, that's not my complaint. I'm sure there has been plenty of creepy realizers over the ages. The bigger problem is presenting self-knowledge as something that makes you different from others. Da wanted us to think it made him the latest model of Jesus Christ. That's what I'm complaining about.
"But once you accept somebody as your Guru, listen, remember and obey."
The problem comes when "obey" is considered to mean following the surface meaning of what the Guru says to do. So if Adi Da said, "kneel down and give me a blow job", he could have really been saying, "Tell me to go fuck myself." Only a fool follows a guru to his/her own destruction. Someone might get a lot of benefit from reading the words of a sick mind but "obey" would have to mean something deeper.
Chris anonymous wrote:
…it is nigh on impossible to find an even-handed account of this subject, just as it is nigh on impossible to find an even-handed commentary on what is happening in Gaza.
That’s generally a fair comment. But it depends on your view of what these people are doing. My view is that seekers seek liberation but get trapped by these guys for the rest of their lives in weird double binds and guilt trips - a kind of mental slavery. To me, that is worse than kidnapping because they take the person’s entire life. And to me, that is obvious. But it’s quite a distance for readers to jump from “guru as personal saviour” to “guru as kidnapper”, and so I probably should explain those steps. But this is a blog - we can’t sit down and write 10 page arguments. And it's hard to be reasonable about what I see as kidnapping.
I suggest that we can rely on Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and Papaji. Anyone got a problem with this?
Well, they are Indians, and it fits their tradition, environment, lifestyle, and worldview. In their view, we seek for millions of lives and the point of life on earth is to get out of it! As westerners we want liberation from suffering caused by illusion. We don’t want to dismiss this Earthly life. Anyway, my view is that a guru who fails to liberate someone after, say, 2 months, should send them off to the next guru who might do better. Ramana had many long-termers. Nisargadatta didn’t as far as I know. Papaji didn’t either. Actually, when Papaji “liberated” Andrew Cohen, he said, “Take it.” In other words, “Get lost!”
As for Nisargadatta’s quote, he was referring to himself and the gurus he knew, not to these dodgy westerners. In practice, he often booted people out, and he admitted his faults. He didn’t glorify himself in the slightest. Instead, his entire focus was on doing whatever he could to liberate the seeker. And when he failed… I’m sure I read him telling someone to find someone else. Compare that to the Western ones who seem to get a kick out of using up a person’s whole life for their own prestige, comfort, and self-aggrandisement, and even telling their disciples flatly that they must stay, even after liberation!
The chief complaint seems to be that any guy with the problematic behaviour… Adi Da displayed, cannot have been a Realizer. Is this so? How do we know?
My problem with Adi Da is that he trapped people in his Fiji hideaway, used them sexually, financially, and labor-wise, and after all that, he failed to liberate them, which was his only task. As a guru, liberating people was his job description. I can tell his disciples aren’t liberated by their quotes and emails, which are regurgitations about Adi Da’s self-glorifying statements about himself. Instead of “Adi Da liberated me from illusion, and for that I am grateful” it was, “I feel his divine presence everywhere,” etc., which is illusion.
To Jody from Chris anonymous,
I also had a problem with Adi Da setting himself up as something unique. I never did resolve this problem. Now that he has passed on, it doesn’t concern me so much. I mean, there is no urgency anymore to actually become his formal devotee and bite the whole banana, so to speak.
I do note that he was never a public man. He was never out there on the “Satsang circuit.” He made serious conditions to approach him. His group (unlike many others – and I was in one for seven years) was difficult to get into and very easy to get kicked out of. A refreshing change from the modern norm perhaps.
Also, you could see a change in his teaching over the years. He was more egalitarian in the beginning. Though from the beginning he stressed very strongly the necessity of a Guru, he tried different approaches to Realization that on the surface seemed more amenable to a personal method: The Way of Understanding and the Way of Divine Ignorance. Later it became much more about Guru Bhakti. His teaching existed over a span of 35 years and evolved. I became sympathetic over time with his later approach. Why? Because I noticed my own disappointing spiritual progress doing it alone.
What always humbled me about Adi Da was that even when I was bugged the most about his proclamations about himself, he seemingly had the ability to break through and reach me in my dreams. Whenever I had a dream about him, it was so powerful and beautiful, that I just had to give up all my complaints, and remain mind-boggled and in wonder about the guy.
You know, in a previous response to an email of mine, you complained that I was all wrapped up in consoling spiritual experiences; you even said that spiritual experiences are dogshit in the field of non-dual reality. Would you care to reconsider or explain your categorical statement? After all, I did mention Papaji’s interesting comment to UG Krishanmurthi when he took a similar stance to yours. I think a statement like yours is not supportable historically. Or at least it is too categorical on what is a tricky subject.
Would you care to reconsider or explain your categorical statement?
Yes. I am one of those idiots who makes categorical statements.
I think I would have liked Da. I know I would have if he wouldn't have minded me giving him shit about being so grandiose. Your dreams, as beautiful as they may have been, are not necessarily the result of any decisions he made, other than the one where he decided to suggest that he teaches in dreams. At that point neurology takes over. Da was able to designate himself the official symbol representative of personal transformation, but that still could be a function of your unconscious receptivity rather than anything amazing that Da was doing.
From Chris anonymous to Martin Gifford:
You talk about a Guru’s job being to liberate his students. Very true. Then you say, however, that the Guru should be given 2 months to do his job or else admit defeat and send the student off to another Guru. You also quote Papaji and his experience with Andrew Cohen.
I think a fact check is helpful at this point. I happen to be close friends with many former students of Papaji. I live in Tiruvannamalai; one of my close friends was his personal servant in his house for 5 years. I did almost all of the editing and collating for the book AMAZING GRACE (a job of over 700 hours). I have read every book done on Papaji, some several times. I am a casual friend of David Godman.
From all I have been able to glean, Papaji often said that one of his students was liberated and then told them they should hit the road Jack. HOWEVER, these proclamations were paradoxical. They seem to have been just the way Papaji spoke to those who had awakening experiences in his presence. He loved when these experiences happened and was profuse in his praise of them. He was also a VERY loving man (the great part of his life previous to liberation was as an extraordinary Krishna Bhakti). His love naturally informed his speech and he didn’t care to put any brakes on his love when it arose. BUT, when push came to shove, he invariably renounced every single claim that anyone had become realized (with the POSSIBLE exception of a couple of his Indian devotees). I know of no exception for any Westerner.
Papaji completely renounced any claim as to Andrew Cohen, and apparently was very disappointed with Andrew, to the point that he became profuse in his criticism of Andrew.
The most definitive take on this subject goes to your statement about 2 months. Papaji was questioned (I believe in a magazine article in some European magazine) about those who were giving Satsang in his name. He said categorically that he did not authorize any of them to teach, and how could they teach when they had never even been with their Guru for the classically minimal required period of 12 continuous years.
The MINIMAL period of 12 YEARS.
Another way to get a handle on what it actually takes to do the job as a Guru can be found in David Godman’s excellent three-volume set on Ramana Maharshi and some of his devotees: THE POWER OF THE PRESENCE. I have read this set of books several times, and the thing that struck me was that almost without exception these devotees of Ramana (and they were all Indian, except for one Dutchman) were unbelievably “pure souls.” My God, when I compare them with myself I am really humbled. These men (and women), had totally non-complicated personas, with great attributes of devotion and intention to be realized. Yet, they all had to undergo long, continuous (and sometimes difficult) years with Ramana before Realization began to bear fruit in them.
Now, there were two devotees (that we know of) who did become realized quickly in Ramana’s presence: Lakhsmana Swami and Papaji. Their accounts are well documented in Godman’s biographies of both of them. These men were NOT normal men! Have you read their biographies? If not, I would encourage you to. These men were super extraordinary individuals. I mean, almost completely unfathomable to a Westerner. I have never met any Westerner even remotely comparable to them (Interestingly, the closest I have ever heard of is Adi Da, as recounted in his biography).
Again, the Guru can do his job IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE STATE OF MATURITY OF HIS DEVOTEE. I just cannot see any way around this basic law of spiritual life.
Thus, I think that your statements on the subject are not well supported historically.
From Martin Gifford to Chris anonymous:
Your close friendships are very interesting. Have you thought of writing a book? I am interested in reading non-biased insider discussions of the spiritual world, and you seem to have the contacts and the knowledge.
Searching “Amazing Grace” at Amazon brings up 515 titles! Who are the authors?
Yes, I know Papaji was a Krishna Bhakti. He even dressed up as a woman to attract Krishna! Then Ramana Maharshi appeared to him in a vision and said, “Go to Tiruvannamalai.”
But how does Papaji account for only 0 to 2 successful seekers under his guidance? He wrote books like “Call off the Search”, which basically said you are already “That”. So he seemed to be teaching in the way that his followers currently teach. There hundreds of pages of him teaching like that and those are his only books on his teaching.
Also, I have read the letters from Papaji to Andrew Cohen, and Papaji seems to be saying, “You are enlightened.” He says, “Take it. It’s yours.” Even though he was also indirectly telling Cohen to get lost, when you tell someone they are enlightened repeatedly in writing, that’s a pretty strong affirmation. I can understand a guru speaking off-handedly about enlightenment in the moment, but when it’s in writing, that seems to be a firm position. Also Papaji’s rejection of Cohen’s enlightenment could be because of Cohen’s anti-Papaji book. That book would explain why Papaji was “profuse in his criticism” of Cohen.
But if I find a copy of Cohen’s first book about his enlightenment with Papaji, I’ll read it again to see if I can see Papaji implying that Cohen is not enlightened. It’s called “My Master is My Self.”
If Papaji only had 0 to 2 successful seekers, then does that mean Papaji is not a skilled guru, or does it mean that enlightenment is hard to get? My response is:
- How far away from reality are you?
- How far away from being yourself are you?
The answer seems to be “No distance. No time.” In other words, liberation should be easy.
Papaji was with his guru, Ramana Maharshi, for one day. Ramana Maharshi had no guru. So why does Papaji say it takes 12 years? I am willing to accept your assertion that the people you mention are “super extraordinary individuals”. But if they are super extraordinary at getting enlightenment, why aren’t they super extraordinary at transmitting enlightenment?
What is this extraordinary accomplishment of enlightenment? It is normally presented as attaining “God realisation.” Doesn’t God realisation mean some kind of increase in abilities? If they started off extraordinary then got God realisation, shouldn’t they be able to enlighten many people? Shouldn’t their extraordinariness intensify? But they don’t seem to be profoundly more capable in life than they were before. Papaji went back to working down the mine. Ramana went to a cave. Adi Da became a cult guru. Nothing extraordinary there! But I have heard stories of some gurus being miracle workers etc, so I’ll keep an open mind about our extraordinary potential.
My view is that enlightenment is a relatively new thing in the evolution of humankind and that we have yet to discover how to produce it easily in others. But one day we will be able to easily produce it. I’m working on issue myself. I had a big breakthrough in 2002 (amrita nadi) and I’m trying to figure out the key to it. There’s a woman in America who reckons she can touch a pressure point that produces it!
A key to finding a faster way is if the gurus would talk to each other and really work on making the process faster. They could even gather together in groups. Instead of one guru working on a crowd of hundreds of seekers, they could have a hundred gurus working on one seeker! Blast them with the light! Saying that liberation is so hard pushes it into the distance.
Could it be that gurus take pleasure in being seen as rare and special, and so they use the “no one else got enlightened” statement to prove their own uniqueness?
To Martin Gifford from Chris Anonymous:
Nope, I don’t have any intention to write a book about spiritual life and the “insiders” I have met. Though I try to keep a lid on it in this blog, I am by tendency a very judgmental person, and I tend to judge every seeker I meet in a negative way. Been this way all my life. It is a discipline not to open my mouth most of the time.
The author of the book AMAZING GRACE is Premananda (or John David as he used to be called). He was with Papaji for a number of years and is now on the Satsang Circuit. He is here in Tiruvannamalai now.
The questions you ask are really good, classical questions. I think they arise for almost everyone at some point or another on the spiritual path.
I do not claim to have any answers. From what I have written in this blog, it is obvious that I take the position that enlightenment is not any easy attainment, historically very rare (and by the way, I use “attainment” just in its common connotation; obviously the highest formulations of spirituality state that there is in fact no attainment, nothing to attain).
Ramana often gave the analogy of the spiritual seeker as belonging to one of three classes: gunpowder, dry wood, or wet wood. He said that those in the first class could become enlightened immediately upon hearing the Truth, as for example just hearing the Mahavakyas: “All is the Self,” “You are the Self.” Just like gunpowder would explode with the slightest match. The next class of seeker had to be with the Guru for some time, to be kindled in the fire, so to speak. The seeker in the last class had to be with the Guru for a long time, he had to go through a long period of just hearing the Truth, becoming sympathetic with the proposition that there was in fact Freedom, and that he was not free and was obstructed in many ways, that he was an ego for all practical purposes. With this period of preparation such a seeker would dry out, so to speak, and become ready to be burned in the fire.
On David Godman’s website there is a wonderful interview he gave where he describes his time with Nisargadatta Maharaj. He describes how Nisargadatta gave a very similar analogy to Ramana about three classes of seekers. Nisargadatta stated that the vast majority of humanity is in the last class.
After Ramakrishna became enlightened and began to attract devotees, there was a period where he yearned for REAL devotees. He would go on the rooftop at night and cry out to the Divine Mother to bring him some real devotees who yearned for the Truth. It was only after this that Vivekananda and Brahmananda and the other small group of real devotees arrived. He taught this group completely separately from his other devotees.
A very good account of the relation between a mature devotee and the Guru is David Godman’s book NO MIND, I AM THE SELF, which recounts the story of Sarada Devi and her relation with Lakshmana Swami. Sarada was a young girl form a traditional Indian family. She showed certain signs of being an advanced spiritual practitioner, and Lakshmana recognized this. He approached her family and asked that she be given to him as his devotee. The family agreed and Sarada eventually lived with him continuously from the time of her adolescence. Even though she was in fact an advanced spiritual aspirant, she still had to go through years of intense tapas with Lakshmana before she awoke as the Self.
I give the above just as a background to your questions. I think it is important that we keep the “nuts and bolts” history of spiritual attainment in mind.
The essence of your question is “How far away from reality are you? How far away from being yourself are you? The answer seems to be “No distance. No time.” In other words, liberation should be easy.”
On the DVD, CALL OFF THE SEARCH, Papaji is asked about your very question. He agrees with you entirely that Truth is already absolutely intimate with the seeker; that theoretically it is the easiest of all “attainments.” He then explains that, in spite of this intimacy, it is not easily attained. Why? Because the seeker is wedded to his mind and desires. In other words, there are practical obstructions that cannot just be ignored or talked away.
In the same DVD Papaji also makes an interesting comment on Guru Bhakti. He is asked if he allows anyone to worship him as the Murti of the Self (this is basically what he is asked; I cannot remember the exact words). He responds affirmatively, but then says ONLY WITH INDIANS, NOT WITH WESTERNERS. He is asked why this is so, and he responds in a beautiful way. He says that “The unsmelled flower is given to God.” He says, like that, only one who has never given himself to another can give himself to true worship of the Guru. He says that westerners have already given their flower away in the myriad exploration of life through conventional desires.
When I read NOTHING EVER HAPPENED, the biography of Papaji, which is one of my favorite books, I often break into huge smiles with Papaji’s humor. He had a wonderful, exploratory way with life. For example when he was in Rishikesh in the early hippy days, he delighted in hearing stories of westerners’ acid trips. He was fascinated with what they were saying, and initially believed that they had found perhaps a genuine way to Realization. He immediately recognized that some of their stories were legitimate accounts of advanced spiritual experiences. He had no prejudices on the subject. Only after a while did he conclude that, in spite of their experiences, these westerners did not make steady progress, that acid was at best a good way to break out of the nutshell of conventional life.
Papaji also delighted in exploring his ability to awaken others. He recognized that he had a power to induce awakening experiences in others, especially if he spotted someone with a pure heart. There was one night in Berlin where he spotted a young girl and recognized her purity. He never even talked to her or approached her, but instead concentrated on her from a distance. This girl began to laugh and dance ecstatically. Papaji was very happy watching this, but then was shocked when the police came and took her away. He was astounded that this type of behavior was simply not tolerated in western society.
It was only after years of this type of humorous exploration of the possibilities of awakening, that Papaji became more sober in his assessment of things. In the later part of his life he no longer exercised his muscular power to induce spiritual experiences. It seems that he instead waited for those who were “prepared” to approach him. If someone like that appeared, then the awakening occurred naturally in his presence without him having to put much attention on it at all.
To get back to Adi Da, I am of the firm opinion, that he explored your question better than any other Guru who has delved into the subject. In his book NIRVANASARA he goes into depth about this question of immediate enlightenment. He makes some very convincing arguments that the Mahavakyas are properly the property of a Realizer. He argues that they are not the property of the seeker. That when the seeker makes these statements, he is basically reducing them to talk and the verbal mind only. He also goes into the misinterpretation of the way of Vedanta. The way of Vedanta is manana, sravana, and nidyidasana. These are translated as “hearing the teaching,” “deep consideration of the teaching,” and “meditation.” He argues forcefully that the final step “meditation” is not mediation on the Mahavakyas, but rather reception of the transmission of consciousness given by the Jnani Guru. In other words, the initial two steps are preparation not for more verbal mind stuff, but for that which they point to: consciousness. Meditation is to keep attention in that well of consciousness until it becomes utter and conclusive and realized as your self nature.
Being in Tirvuvannamalai, and occasionally attending some of the Satasangs given by the western teachers who come through here, I am continually amused that it is apparent that none of them are actually familiar with consciousness. Certainly none of them have the ability to transmit consciousness. Rather, they talk a lot about it. They are what Adi Da calls the “talking school.” Adi Da points out that almost any minimally intelligent person can have sympathy with a statement like “there is only consciousness.” But to have real familiarity with consciousness is another matter entirely. He is very strong in differentiating the talking school from those real Jnani Gurus like Ramana and Nisargadatta, who had awoken utterly to the truth of consciousness and also had the power to transmit it.
There are two local characters here (no names mentioned) who are sort of the local authorities on classical Vedanta. They have written books on the subject and have websites. Both are westerners and friends of mind. I occasionally question them on the subject of nidyidasana and what it is. Their answers are completely sophomoric. I might as well as be talking to an encyclopedia instead of a human being. It is all a bunch of verbal blah blah.
Adi Da in some ways paralleled Papaji in his assessment of students and the possibilities of enlightenment. When Adi Da began to teach, he generally taught only the most radical Truth: Awakening as consciousness. He also had a fairly strict and conservative ashram, with the usual restraints as to diet and sexuality etc. He said that he expected that there would be people who approached him who were prepared and ready to enter what he calls “The Seventh Stage of Life.” However, this is not what happened, and he encountered a lot of difficulty communicating the Radical Truth. Like Papaji, he then began to experiment in his approach, though he was much more “outrageous” in his approach. He decided he would just actively engage the tendencies and obstructions of his students wherever they existed. Thus followed the well-documented periods of partying, and wild experiments with every aspect of life. Throughout this period, there were also the many well-documented muscular transmissions of his spiritual energy and consciousness.
Adi eventually concluded that “The requirements for spiritual life are what they have always been.” He saw no way around real preparation, real service, real consideration of the teaching, and the corresponding real maturation the devotee. The mature devotee could then receive his transmission and practice in the highest stage of spiritual life. Apparently the number of his devotees who attained the necessary maturity was few, but they did in fact exist.
I’ll end this spiel by recounting a recent encounter I had here with a western lady. This lady is 34 years of age and somewhat new to spiritual life. But she has good karma and real permeability to spiritual experiences. Even though I do not consider myself any authority on the subject, still it is obvious that some of the experiences she recounts are experiences of consciousness. Some are also experiences of aspects of consciousness (or perhaps better called “super consciousness”), such as luminous light, joy, and deep peace. She came to me one day in a state of frustration, because some of the local talking heads were discounting her experiences as a bunch of spiritual pornography sidetracking her from realization. The “authorities” were immediately throwing out to her the question “who is it that is having these experiences?” Though she could see that prima facie there was some validity to the question, she also sensed something untrue in the way it was presented to her.
This lady and I spent a morning going into this. She was really confused and worked up. I was already her friend, and mostly allowed her to express her frustration, get some of the kinetic energy out of her system. Then I went into this subject of the talking school versus the real jnani. Eventually I gave her THE LION SUTRA by Adi Da. I told her that the book might better illustrate the subject of consciousness and its importance beyond the verbal mind. I told her that the author had a real ability to communicate the subject.
I saw this lady two days later in a chai shop. I got to admit it was a bit of a thrill to receive abundant thanks for what I had told her that morning. Then she described reading THE LION SUTRA. She told me that it was something of a revolution to her. She now could see what a real Master of the subject was. She said that the book was like a magnetic and every word was a perfect communication to her.
Nuff said.
She came to me one day in a state of frustration, because some of the local talking heads were discounting her experiences as a bunch of spiritual pornography sidetracking her from realization. The “authorities” were immediately throwing out to her the question “who is it that is having these experiences?” Though she could see that prima facie there was some validity to the question, she also sensed something untrue in the way it was presented to her.
Regardless of the fact that the presenters were perhaps speaking speculatively rather than with actual insight, they were still speaking a truth. Those experiences ARE spiritual pornography. They are the phenomena which accompany the process of transformation, but have little value in and of themselves as pointers to nondual truth, just as most dreams really don't do all that much for us in waking life; although exalting one's "spiritual" experience does lead to massive amounts of hubris and a more or less complete cessation of ongoing transformation.
She said that the book was like a magnetic and every word was a perfect communication to her.
Yes, to enable her to exalt her own experience. That's how Da got his folks on board. He exalted their experience and convinced them he was the cause. The wonderful/terrible fact of spiritual praxis is that if you decide to believe something, you are likely to get results by the very milestones and standards of that belief.
Chris Anonymous wrote: "...the seeker is wedded to his mind and desires. In other words, there are practical obstructions that cannot just be ignored or talked away."
I agree. However, part of the problem is that after material desires fail, we promptly move onto the spiritual quest. But spiritual desires are desires too. And making it sound like liberation is so fantastic and that the gurus are awesome individuals increases the desire or turns us off because it seems too hard.
Here's a quote from Ramana: "There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now."
The effort is that we objectify fulfilment. We say a Ferrari is fulfilment or some exotic enlightenment is fulfilment. Then we must seek it. But if we see the pattern of objectification followed by seeking then we can interrupt the habit.
My own small experiences were all easy. They happened just by being around an advanced person or by surrendering all my rules and goals. Nothing could be easier!
I know liberation has taken a long time for people in the past, but I don't believe it has to be that way. I think we can use our evolving intellects to find easier ways. Well, that's what I'm working on, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Roach
adi da's twin? :-)
I have been reading Adi Da's books since 1983, along with listening to audio talks. Nothing touches his genius. The Man is brilliant beyond compare.
Post a Comment
<< Home