Thanks. Good responses.
--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anon_couscous_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > >> Some people here are just > > > pissed about the call of the Satsang givers, to give up seeking, to > > > rather look at the truth which is there right now. > > > > I don't recall people getting "pissed" at the call to give up seeking, > > to look at the truth which is there right now. > > I didn't really have you in mind with this. But I do think that many > have strong notions about enlightenment being a big achievement you > have to 'work' for. I remember at one Satsang at Aranuachala, when an > American teacher came there, there was quite an uproar and protest > among some of the very long-time Tiru residents, who spend decades in > Self-enquiry, and then there comes this lady who's just been shortly > to Poonja and claims 'enlightenment.' > > > Its rather a more rich > > matrix of views than a dichotomous satsangees and pissed-offers here > > on FFL. And as a broader point, not specific to your post, its crude > > polarization and compartmentalization of views into "this or that" > > that obstructs communication and understanding, IMO. > > Sure, but wasn't referring to you, but to people who have strong > traditional notions about how things have to be. > > > For example, for what its worth, if we include FFL as a type of > > satsang (you may disagree, point noted), > > Correct. You could call it Satsang in a broader leasurly way, but > Satsang the way I understand it, has a more unified format. For > example the modern Satsang scene is a specific type of Advaita, which > proposes the 'Ajata' view (Ajata= No birth, unborn. The Self is > immutable. Birth death and the world process are just appearances.) In > that sense no practises are recommended, as a practise would imply a > deviation from the truth (which is always there, you know.) There are > obviously people who disagree with this view, and are on a different > path. For example Ramana, while primilary holding the Ajata view, > still recommended practises to many, like Atma Vichara *when that view > didn't seem to work for them* and still advocated Bhakti/ Japa to > others, for whom Atma-Vichara didn't work. > > Most people here are or were TMers, and here the view is certainly NOT > Ajata, as practise is recommended, and enlightenment is seen as > conditional to those practises (theory of stress release.) Furthermore > it is a gradual approach, with 'levels' (CC,GC, UC). Levels are > discouraged in the sudden approach, because levels themselves imply a > gradual achievement. So, TMers, yogis, tantrics, Satsangis will not be > able to agree on fundamentals, which is okay of course. But in Satsang > the absorption, the internalization of certain fundamental insights is > essential, therefore there is more a sense of a direction in the > regular Satsangs, and the person who profits from it, can only do so, > if he has a strong resonance to the teaching. It is after all Jnana > Yoga. Remember what MMY ssays in the SBAL about Jnana Yoga? I don't > have the quote here anymore, but he essentially likens it to some form > of auto-suggestion. You should really strongly be convinced and > *believe* in the reality of Non-duality. This kind of absorption and > trust is essential. Nisargadatta said many times, that he was simply > lucky that he believed and trusted his master, and that he wasn't a > great intellect. He got it because he had trust, and accepted the > truth in the core of his heart, and that is the only way it can work > IMHO. > > > > I regularly raise questions > > and frame observations about possible contradictions in some posters > > statements who claim enlightenment, and some of whom champion local > > satsangs. [does that make me anti-satsang?] > > No, but it makes you conceptualizing. > > > I see value in > > questioning. And I see value in true satsang, which involves true > > questioning. [does that make me pro satsang?] > > I guess so. Satsang involves inetellect and questions that are there > should be raised. But do you deal with the questions on a purely > conceptual basis, or are you really trying to find the answer out of > an deep individual need? What is your approach in finding the answer, > what is your motivation in questioning? > > > And I am quite open to > > instant enlightenment -- which in my view can be triggered by the > > intellect, a "eureka experience", which transforms itself into a > > "state" not a "mere" intellectual understanding. [does that make me > > pro satsang?] > > Sure. > > > And I have experienced regularly instant > > "transmissions" (an odd term) / darshans from saints trough attention > > used in a particular way. For example, I been glowing and absorbed in > > the darshan of Mother Meera. > > Thats actually very nice to hear :-)) I am always amazed how many > people have an inner contact with her without having even seen her. I > think she is very accessable to 'distant Darshan'. But Satsang and > Darshan are two different things. Darshan in that sense is purely > energetically. It may lead to insight, but insight is not the focal > point. For example Mother Meera has more to do with Bhakti (thats why > she advocates Japa) While is more of a Jnana type (if it hasn't > degenerated into pure psychological counselling) > > > > And I have for years, at least > > periodically, cautioned against "seeking enlightenemnt" -- for reasons > > I posted earlier this morning (essentially "seeking" is part of the > > snare that keeps one bound. Drop the seeking). [does that make me pro > > satsang?] > > That makes you really pro-Satsang. > > > > And I have little use for the term enlightnement -- as > > often used it means many different things to many people, we are no > > longer in TMland with a common terinology. [does that make me anti > > satsang?] > > No, it makes you pro Satsang. Enlightenment is a concept which has its > validity, but after all its just a concept > > > Yet, in contrast, one of proclamants to enlightenment, and a > > friend of satsangees, is strong on the value of intense seeking [does > > that make him anti satsang?]. > > Anti Satsang in the Ajata sense, there maybe other Satsangs, and other > paths. > > > None of this appears to fit your > > "model". (which I know was not proposed as a model, but I have used as > > a take-off point to explore the non-productivity of pigeon holing or > > stereotyping people by one or two characteristics. (which I am not > > saying you (trinity) have done. I am simply making a general point > > about a common practice on FFL. > > > > > > In this there IS a definite difference to Buddhism and also to other > > > Hindu teachings like Tantra, which get rather mixed up with Vaj. > > > Shankara himself wrote volumes against the Buddhists, so when Vaj > > > gives old 'prophecies' from Buddhism, and applies it to the modern > > > outgrowth of a competing tradition, it is just odd. > > > > Which schools of Buddhism did Shankara rally against. Did that include > > Tibetian Buddism? > > I don't think he spoke about Tibetan Buddhism at the time. His main > ciritic as always the theory of the Non-Self. > > > And are you saying SBS, a S.,had no tantric > > influence of practice? How do you classify Sri Vidya? > > Of course he had. Sri Vidya became part of the Shankara tradition > especially in Karnataka. But please understand one thing: Shankara had > a twofold approach: there is higher Knowledge and lower Knowledge. > Only the higehr Knowledge is Vedanta. But as Shankara conceived that > most people weren't ready for the pure truth of Ajata, he proposed > that they had first to undergo a purification process by studying the > Vedas, the lower knowledge. But as you know, only higher castes could > study the Vedas, so reforms in the middle Ages lead to Tantra as a > substitute practise, and later Bhakti, for the very same purpose. If > you have been to Kanchi math, you must have noticed how heavily they > are into Pujas yagyas etc, as these are purificatory processes. The > Shankaracharyas are actually pontifs who teach to the masses, who > appear regularely in TV. So they teach more Dharma than Atma. TM is > such a purifying process derived from Tantra, and Maharishi didn't set > out to teach Ajata. Ramana and Nisargadatta did, while Ramana was > compromising slightly, out of compassion. > > > > > > For example, he always speaks of 'tests of enlightenment' but in > > > traditional Advaita there are no such tests. The whole point of the > > > Shankara's (higher) teaching is the truth of non-duality itself, and > > > that is to be affirmed at any cost. The question of realization is not > > > in the forefront, that is the teaching which leads to it. Thats my > > > whole point. I am not here to declare all Satsang-givers to be > > > perfectly or ultimately enlightened, but they provide a context with > > > which to contemplate the ultimate Truth. > > > > And I have not heard anyone counter that. What I have heard is that in > > that environment, large speculative leaps have been observed, where > > gradiosity seems to flourish, where Consciousness is conscious of > > itself (CICI) appears to soon be "Brahamn Consciousness" or parallel > > such things. > > Now here: As I said above, the sudden path is opposed to states. That > doesn't mean there couldn't be stages, but its not usefull in a sudden > approach to teach them. After all it is a concept (CC>GC>UC) which is > aquired in a relative ignorant state and binds you. I think the mind > has to become completely free of these categorizations, one has to > completely have to let go of it, as it simply means trying to control > ones own path, and control has to be given away. MMY himself said that > one has to forget all the teachings when one wants to realize. You > will not realize the first step when you think of the second or third. > Mr Reddy told me the same thing: the more you learn, the more you have > to unlearn. If you look at Atma/Brahman as ONE, it doesn't make sense > to speak of steps, but one should nevertheless be open to endless > learning, in a *continuum*. Thats my opinion about it. So I don't need > to judge who is where. All I need to know is resonance - where is > resonance and where is insight. I cannot judge the examples you gave - > I have simply not followed them up here, and I would have to see them > in context to comment. > > > So perhaps providing a context with > > which to contemplate the ultimate Truth is a good thing, but not the > > Complete thing. > > Who said its complete? ;-) > > > 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/
