File under: Gurubusting and The Siddhi of PR
People should be aware of these kind of holy hookers exploiting the innocent and gullible masses.We couldn't have said it better ourselves.
Labels: Gurubusting, The Siddhi of PR
posted by guruphiliac @ 8:30 PM
 |
 |
 |
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
11 Comments:
Jody,
I understand your beef with these gurus which are specifically on the aspect of the Advaitic untruth that they promote. And you have many times pointed out the falseness of what these gurus teach with your explanations of Advatic teachings.
Everything is fine but what do have to say about volition? In Advaita no one really has any volition and the belief that one does is part of the illusion.
If that is the case then according to Advaita, these gurus are not responsible for what they do since everything is done and experienced by consciousness itself. Even what do you do through this blog is also not your volition. So can you really blame these gurus for what they do?
I am sure response will be interesting.
Adyashanti talks about this as well, the no volition thing, but at same time he says you need to examine things by your own authority, that you must be autonomous. His logic seems to be that if you inquire sincerely, in your own right , you will probably get better info than if you decide to invest in a spiritual corporation or projection, if this matters to you , otherwise i've got a guru who wants to sell you a Bridge in Brooklyn.
Also by way of analogy, one cell is not the entire organism, yet the organism only functions as well as each individual cell does, each part of the whole has it's own intelligence and life, maybe we just need to look at it from another view, rather than sheepish surrender to some preordained karma- dharma rule...any way it's a really interesting question , one i ponder myself
If you take the gist of vendanta, Gita, Upanishands, Vasistha and Buddhist teachings, it is that one is not the mind, one is not the body and one is not the doer. Yes, on a micro level it would seems that there is volition but its different at a macro level.
Yes Adyashanti would talk about relying on oneself for sincere enquiry. So did Ramana Maharishi and others. But I think the purpose behind that was to initiate self enquiry and then really seeing for oneself that one is not the mind, one is not the body and one is not the doer. It’s one thing when someone “tells” you this, but another when one sees and understands this for themselves.
Karma-Dharma rule implies volition and when the understanding is clear on non-volition then there is no Karma-Dharma to speak of. In fact when you are using the analogy of an organism it just shows the validity of non volition. When each cell is your body functions independently, then you as a body cannot say it has its own volition.
When you drill down its one thing but when span out things are different.
'When you drill down its one thing but when span out things are different.'
Most neurological research now points to a lack of volition on a cellular level in the brain. I don't see that as an excuse to exempt myself from the consequences of my actions as there is a process of constant choices, once the impulse has been generated, as to whether or not I act on the impulse and how I act on the impulse.
Some of the choices are made below the level of conscious awareness but at some point the process-and its consequences--become conscious and can be examined.
How I examine my choices, how honestly I hold myself to account for my behaviour, requires knowledge and awareness and the acceptance that I can choose differently at some point in the process--even though the original impulse is determined.
'So can you really blame these gurus for what they do?'
Yes. They are adult and therefore should be held accountable for their behaviour and actions, just as you and I are. "Forgive they for they know not what they do"
only really washes with very young children.
I get what you are saying, but the whole premise of this blog is to highlight the inconsistencies of the gurus when compared to what Advaita Vendanta states. Basically what I have been reading is pulling up specific points in Advaita to show the falseness of the gurus. The thing about Advaita is that it’s an all or nothing kind of deal. Just pulling out specific points from Advaita to invalidate the claims of the gurus is fine if ones approach is like in a card game where the best hand wins. That’s not what Advaita is about. It would not be possible to understand Advaita if one excludes certain points to suit ones purpose.
Awareness does not indicate discrimination of choice. So when one says that awareness can bring about choice to discriminate then the meaning of awareness is not the same. Awareness s just that something is. Judgment is not awareness but post awareness.
Basically, if one were to assume the role of victim then an object of blame will be required. This IMO is what is mostly expressed on this blog. It’s kind of like a surrogate for group therapy where the object of blame is shared and attacked.
Many of the people who are devotees of these gurus are very successful people. They make all the right decisions in their respective professions. One makes all the right moves on the stock market, another makes all the right decisions in evaluating projects. Everything is fine and admirable till they get into the role of the devotee. This is where their intelligence goes out the window. Ever wondered why they are making all the right moves in the professional front but not in the role of a devotee? Could it not be possible to acknowledge Non volition when you take into account such an example?
People have always been aware of what they were or are doing when following a guru. The awareness is still there when the leave and assume the role of a victim. What changed in between where a choice has been taken to leave which was still the same before they joined? I have seen many people who are basically very level headed and yet sometimes make the most silliest of decisions and later wonder just how the hell they took that particular choice. We all would have our share of such situations. I for one have been in situations where the words are coming out of my mouth but at the same time I know I should refrain from saying anything, but it just happens and then I move into damage control.
Its not about looking at things to refrain from blaming through "Forgive them for they know not what they do". This is again a choice being presented and not what non volition is about.
Whatever, the more i experience of guru culture the more i just see people who have an iron clad belief system dressed up as surrender. they know how you should dress, eat, what kind of hierarchy to follow, who can and cannot be questioned, it 's not real.
'Awareness s just that something is. Judgment is not awareness but post awareness.'
Awareness is always there, always on. When I judge, make distinctions, think nice thoughts, nasty thoughts, make choices or refuse to choose, awareness is there. There is no volition in that sense--if I'm alive there is awareness.
Human beings also have volition, the ability to make choices. Life for every one of us is a constant stream of choices.
We can acknowledge that and become consciously aware of the choices or we can pretend to ourselves and others that we are not making choices, that our actions come from some mysterious power and are therefore not subject to judgement by lesser mortals.
Neither option produces a saint or holy person.
The choice is yours to make.
Okay.......so tell me how would one choose to be thoughtless? Is it something you can choose to be?
We have no choice when we are born. We have no choice on what kind of parents we get. We have no choice on our genetic makeup. We have no choice on what experiences we have in the formative years that condition us. We have no choice on the day we die. In between all this where can you say we have a choice?
Non volition does not mean that we are under remote control of some outside entity. Neither does it mean it makes one holy or unholy.
"We have no choice when we are born. We have no choice on what kind of parents we get. We have no choice on our genetic makeup. We have no choice on what experiences we have in the formative years that condition us. We have no choice on the day we die. In between all this where can you say we have a choice?"
What you say above is completely true. In between all this, the formative years and the unknown day of death, we have choices if we look closely and carefully. Not limitless choice certainly but there are always options.
Arguing about volition and non volition is pointless when both you and I are choosing thoughts and words to type onto a screen.
Ultimately what Advaita is about is that there is no self…. just consciousness. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. If one has a choice then one is a separate entity. If one is a separate entity then one is separate from the non dual consciousness. In this Advaita has no place. So what then remains is that each person will have a separate perspective which to them is reality as they see it. This is fine according to Advaita since it is still all part of consciousness fragmenting to experience consciousness. Your experience of choice is still an expression of consciousness till it happens where another perspective is unfolded.
So you are right when you say that all this is pointless because all views expressed, opposed or denied are all still consciousness experiencing consciousness.
Thanks om247om that is fantastic video, keep it coming
Post a Comment
<< Home