--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2006, at 3:40 PM, t3rinity wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Apr 9, 2006, at 4:59 AM, t3rinity wrote:
> > >
> > > > From what I know, and what I have seen
> > > > in the Satsang movement, this is exactly what is being done
> > there: The
> > > > truth of non-duality is being pointed out and explained in
> > terms of
> > > > his own everyday experience, it is being discussed, and quite
> > often
> > > > people are guided towards self-inquiry ('who am I'.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes this is what is happening in some cases IMO. Pointing out.
>
> >
> > It is ALWAYS happening. Its the core of the teaching: that anybodies
> > ultimate identity is Brahman, the Self whatever you like to say.
> > Should I give you quotes of the Ribhu Gita (highly recommended by
> > Ramana), or Avadhuta Gita?
>
> No thank you, I'm familiar with the traditional POV.
But obviously, you don't believe it, as you say 'No, thank you'
> > > However at the same time after some are "introduced" they go on
> > > rather quickly to claim Buddhahood, Unity Consciousness (brahma-
> > > chetana), Cosmic Consciousness (turiyatita) or in the case of TMO
> > > people, they go on to claim what "Maharishi said".
> >
> > I don't know about that. In the Satsangs that I observered, nobody
> > stands there saying: 'I am enlightened and you are not' I indeed have
> > never heard of this.
>
> Well it's hard for me to comment not knowing what you're referring
> to--a traditional satsang or a neo-satsang.
Neo-satsang. I just clarified it specifically in a post I just wrote
to Judy.
> > You may here something like: 'Enlightenment is a
> > concept, get rid of it' or, ' you are already what you are seeking'
> > etc. All these claims can be perfectly substantiated by scriptures. I
> > am happy to cite, if you don't believe me.
>
> No that's fine, this is nothing new.
It doesn't have to be new. In fact it was my point that it wasn't new,
thereby relativating the 'Neo' in Neo-Advaita
> > So, the point for me is
> > not, is there anybody invalidly claiming enlightenment, or even
> > different levels (equating them with completely different terminology
> > like CC or UC, something I have never heard in the Satsang scene), but
> > rather, does this format of interaction in modern Satsang conform to
> > something valid, as described in the ancient scriptures, and yes it
> > does. There are so many Shankaracharyas, giving discourses on Advaita,
> > and they make no secret that they aren't enlightened. So, really
> > speaking, and also I know this from my interactions with traditional
> > Swamis of the Dasanami order, the main stress has always been on the
> > correct teaching, the message of unity of Atman and Brahman (soul and
> > God), the message that we are not the localized ego, rather than on
> > the messanger. Also the scriptures of Shankara state this clearly.
> > They point out, that whoever tells the (advaitic) truth, he is the
> > teacher.
> >
> >
> > > In every case I am
> > > aware of, none of these people would fit the definition of those
> > > states or the experience. There's a strong element of grandiosity in
> > > it all.
> >
> > To you. I haven't oserved it.
>
> I had not before either. In traditional settings I have experienced
> it was certainly not the case. It's a growing thing here though.
The ones I observed never made a fuss about themselves being special.
They would put questions about themselves down, and refer back to the
questioner, like 'Who says this' or 'What do you want enlightenment to
achieve for you'(in order to expose wrong notions about it)
> > To the opposite, the Satsang movement
> > plays down enlightenment as an 'attainment'. It rather makes it
> > accessable, just always referring you to the next step. (Like: who is
> > asking this question?)
>
> Yes, this a popular theme, among others.
Of course. Its the teaching that matters
> > > It's interesting, I was reading some prophecies from the 8th century
> > > regarding when non-dual teaching would start coming to the cities of
> > > the west and they describe this very phenomenon and what will happen
> > > very precisely. One of the comments is 'if it were so easy to reach
> > > perfect Buddhahood, the ocean of samsara would already have been
> > > drained long ago.'
> >
> > Surely you must be kidding. When we talk of Advaita - Non-duality - we
> > are indeed referring to the school of Shankara. Buddhism is basically
> > dualistic in outlook, and Shankara never taught to attain 'Buddhahood'
> > Very funny how you mix things indeed.
>
> The non-dual schools of Buddhism and the non-dual schools of Hinduism
> share much in common. They share some differences as well.
Sure. But to refer to a buddhist prophecy and apply it to a modern
form of a competeing treaching (as the truths may be similar, if not
identic, the methdology is certainly different), strikes me as daring.
> > > "Masters of old lashed out at those who claimed to be
> > > enlightened yet refused to be tested, calling them
> > > "earthworms living in the slime of self-validated
> > > satori"."
> > > -Philip Kapleau Roshi
> > >
> > > How many were tested by their teachers? would be my
> > > question--but I already know the answer.
> >
> > I was investigating the Satsang movement in the context of its
> > historic origin, while you mix it with Zen Buddhism and Tibetan
> > Vajrayana. Now that is weird.
>
> The non-dual state is really not a brand name thing. Non-dual is non-
> dual.
No, sorry. The satsang movement specifically refers to the Ramana
line. There is a specific path of Jnana Yoga, of which the modern
Satsang movement is an outgrowth. There is also a metholgy associated
with it. The system of Shankara is specifically called 'Adavaita
Vedanta'. For example Ramana himself translated several works of
Shankara into Tamil.
> That is not meant to mean there are no differences, but the
> state is essentially the same. Different "schools" will emphasize
> different aspects. Although I will admit it was odd to me that
> satsangers were claiming buddhahood.
Sure.
> Many point out that Shankara is actually a reaction to Buddhism's non-
> dualism. In fact it's a common critique of him, that he's essentially
> a Buddhist.
I know that this is being said. But, at the time of Shankara, Buddhism
was basically dualist, with the Sankhya philosophy as its basis.
Shankara was constantly ranting against the theory of Anatta.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
