>The Dangers of Pseudo-advaita >by Aziz >on the proliferation of "unqualified" Satsang Service Providers >(Similar material from Aziz, annotated and linked, can be found at >The Wanderling's site, but without the additional material at the bottom) >We would like to express our concern regarding the recent phenomenon of >"satsang- >culture" which in our opinion has impoverished seriously the Original Spirit of >Advaita. >These days many individuals, who have very little or no knowledge at all about >the Process >of Awakening,
What does that mean 'little or no knowledge at all about the Process of Awakening'? Does it mean they can't be awakened, or does it mean they may be awakened, but know nothing about 'the process'. Here the author is already presuming that a path or method is required, which is against the original Advaita doctrine, that there can be no means, no 'doing' to deliver you at the 'goal' > feel qualified to give satsang and lead other souls on the Path. >Enlightenment has become very cheap these days. Nobody actually really knows >what is >the meaning of this term as it virtually means everything and nothing. >Nowadays, it is >sufficient to say "I am awakened" in order to give satsang. Sure, but that has always been like this in India. There has never been a general council to approve if someone is awakened or not. Awakening can just 'happen' for somebody completely illiterate, and, as the Avadhut Gita describes in its 2nd Chapter, this can be the teacher, on simply the acount of having realized. >Because of the unverifiable nature of Enlightenment, this term has been much >manipulated. Satsang has been Americanised. I'm sure if a German instead of a polish would have said this he would be accused of racism. And actual 'real' Advaita discounts any idea of national identity. Should we conclude from this that the author does not represent real advaita? >In an average satsang-gathering >everybody >is laughing, showing signs of euphoric and unauthentic joy, Does this mean that laughing is forbidden in Advaita? Is showing signs of euphory a sign that somebody cannot be in bliss, or is bliss disregarded in original Advaita? the answer is a simple No. And how you know that joy is 'unauthentic'? > while the teacher >tries to look >like he or she is in bliss. Just like a TV show. Again the unfounded assumption that everything is just a makeup or show >Very few actually meditate. So what? Shankara never said that one should meditate. Even though nididhyasana is part of the Advaita scheme, Shankara himself never set it up as a separate practise. >Why meditate if >we are already all awakened? Well yes, meditation is alright if it is not taken to be a *condition* to enlightenment. This the 'Ajata' POV, there is no birth, so there is no happening. The moment you see Enlightenment as caused it is conditioned and not eternal. That IS the advaitic teaching. Shankara himself said that no action, no meditation, and no Mantra can set you free. >But is this really Advaita? Like it or not, it is. You, Aziz, are falling back to a retrogate view. You maybe a yogi, a tantric, but you are certainly not an Advaitin. > Is Advaita a poor repetition of a several slogans >like "There is >nobody there," "You are That," "You are already awakened" or "There is no >Path," etc? Advaita certainly is 'You are That' That's in the Upanishads. Its not a slogan, but the realization of the truth behind it. >Has >this anything to do with teaching of great masters like N. Maharaj or R. >Maharshi? Ramana >sat in caves for 20 years before he could be really complete. But he never adviced others to do so as well. He actually discouraged to take himself as a role-model. When people asked him if they should take sannyas to realize, he said it is not necessary. >In his presence >disciples had >to meditate for months and years before they could receive from him the glimpse >of the >Self. Thats simply not true. There are innumerable accounts of people who at first sight of him had such a glimpse, which didn't mean that they were enlightened right away. Ramanas first approach was always immediate enlightenment, that is to realize that you are That already. If this did not work, as a second approach he had self-enquiry - Who am I?, and as a third approach he had traditional mantra-japa. Now the Advaita retrogates seem to want to reverse the order. This is even more clear with the example of Nisargadatta, who disallowed people to stay any time long around him. He simply advised people to understand 'I AM' and remember it and go away. >It is true that New Millennium is a time of global awakening. But this >awakening is mostly >partial and relative to the level of most people's unconsciousness. Of course awakening is relative to the peoples consciousness (or uncounsciousnes). What a useless sentence! > It was >Jesus who said >that there would be a time when many false teachers will teach in the name of >Light. Gosh, now he invokes Jesus, is he a Christian fundamentalist? >It >seems to be happening now. Many of these teachers are not necessarily "bad >people" but >simply unqualified and lost, in truth. Oh, here we have it. They aren't 'bad', but 'lost' and thereby dangerous I suppose. False teachers. While the realization of Aziz is of course authentic, but just how would we know? >They have believed too quickly in the >thought "I am >now ready to teach!" Yes, and what about Aziz? Why does he thinkhe is ready to teach? >It seems that the pauperisation of satsang culture began after the death of >Poonjaji. Wrong! It already began during Poonjajis lifetime. He declared many people 'enlightened' and advised them to actively hold Satsangs. Gangaji is one such example. Cohen is another one (who terribly went wrong) > Many >of his followers started to claim that Poonjaji approved their "awakening." Which he undoubtly did. > It >seems that >they just took him too literally. So just how should one take a teacher? Literally, or should we interpret what we think he has meant, after consulting other Zen or Tibetan Masters (like Aziz) or putting Advaitic philosophy within the framework of theosophic thought or other hierarchical systems of evolution. If Advaita or immediate Enlightenment is one thing, it is NOT a hierarchical system of levels of attainment, to which another hierarchical system of steps of practise leads to. Immediate Enlightenment is simply an immediate sudden realization of the simple truth of our existence. There is no trace of attainment in it, and the more people speak of attainments, always implying they know what they talk about, the more it smells of ego and self-aggrandization. There is infinite attainment possible as long as the relative persists, but its on the basis of the ONE truth of ones identity with the Self. Thats the bottom line, and only this is PURE Advaita. It is people like Aziz who mix in many different ideas of hierarchical thinking into Advaita, and thereby delute its true message. These self-appointed guardians of the tradition actually know least about it, and are most quick to mix in their own conclusions on the basis of their 'attainments' labelling it as 'Advaita' without hesitation. >It is an Advaita custom to say "you are >already awakened." >This is however more a teaching device than a reflection of reality. Now this last sentence you have to slowly digets, what does it tell to us? Right, Advaita has 'teaching devises' which are not even a 'reflection of reality' This invites anybody to freely interpret what Advaita actually 'says' and what it 'means', which according to Aziz are obviously two completely different things. > And even >if some of his >disciples had a glimpse of awakening, Poonjaji knew very well that in most >cases it was >neither permanent nor the final state. If he knew it or not is a matter of dispute. If you read his biography by David Godman, he knew it only at the end. That is he gave the disciple a 'push' hoping that this was sufficient, and in some cases it was, in some the fell out as easily as they had slipped in. But he created the chance for it to happen. >An example was Andrew Cohen who was sent to give satsang in the west. He was >meant to >represent Poonjaji and attract more westerners to Lucknow. But he and others >thought >that Poonjaji actually confirmed his Enlightenment. He did confirm his enlightenment if you read 'My master is myself' or 'Autobiography of an Awakening' > For that reason, Cohen >became very >hurt when Poonjaji started to criticize him when he began to act as a master. >From this >wound came later the magazine "What is Enlightenment?" which more represents >Cohen's >own insecurity and an unsuccessful attempt to heal himself than a genuine >search for >clarity. By Azizs interpretation. Cohen still thinks he is enlightened, and Ken Wilbern thinks so too (which doesn't mean anything) > By the endless investigation into states of all possible masters, and >not being able >to come to any true conclusion, he has been just confusing his students. The >only thing >which at the end remains clear from his seemingly "sincere" efforts to find >clarity is that >nobody has the least idea "What Enlightenment Is!" So its just the same conclusion Aziz obviously came to. >It is not our intention to suggest that nobody reaches Enlightenment. We just >wish to make >it clear that Complete Enlightenment and Understanding of its nature is still >an extremely >rare phenomenon on the planet earth, which is a plane of low evolution. This has always been the Mantra of those who offered exclusive knowledge, to which Aziz is certainly hinting when he speaks of our planet earth as a 'plane of low evolution' Just for the record, Advaita disregards the notion of evolution totally, as it is clear to anyone who has read 'I AM THAT' by Nisargadatta. Evolution is a modern concept introduced by Darwin and implies the maximum adaptation to any given environment. It has been increasingly adopted by spiritualists and theosophs of the 19th and early 20th century. >And >equally >important, we wish to emphasize that a partial or premature experience of >awakening >does not qualify one at all to take a role of a Self-realised being. Can anyone explain what that means: taking the role of a Self-realized being? I thought Self-realization is not a role but a state. >Enlightenment is not so cheap. Actually it is cheap. It is the cheapest thing of all. It is your nature, not anything to be acquired or 'achieved', its only the ego that achieves things. >Many seekers seem to be unaware of a very simple >fact >that there are actually many levels of Self-realisation. There is an enormous >difference between initial awakening and the actual State of Enlightenment. It would be nice if Aziz could found that claim of something in the actual Advaita scriptures, (not the Yoga ones which are full of different Samadhis). There are maximum two states described by Advaita scriptures, one is Jivan Mukti the other one is Videha Mukti. Jivan mukti is usually liberation while alive, while Vedeha Mukti is the dissolution at death(which by some is described as a differnt level.) But never mind, Jivan Mukti is praised by all Advaita scriptures. >But who cares? Most seekers would not bother to study these matters, for in their case there >is really "nobody there" - just a collective seeker's mind. Well, what is one supposed to study? Only the Self can know that the Self is realized. The scriptures themselves admit that they are contradictory, and that their study does not lead anywhere. >And most teachers would refuse to enquire into >the true nature of Enlightenment because they already have a hidden doubt and >deep fear concerning the validity of their own attainment. Which is thought reading on Aziz part. Maybe they just don't inquire into their state, because they are happy with whatever is, and are not bend anymore on 'achieving' something. They may simply lack Aziz's ambition to be the most realized on planet earth (despite the fact that this is just of lower evolution) >We would like to suggest not to rush too fast with announcing oneself >"awakened," and to >rush even less with the idea of giving satsang. In Zen tradition one had to >wait 10 to 20 years after Enlightenment before one could guide others. These days we hear >about individuals who give satsang the next day after their uncertain awakening! But Advaita is not Zen tradition. If Shankara himself had waited 20 years from enlightenment to teaching, there would be no Advaita, he only was 30 years old! >We would like to clarify, for the sake of general knowledge, that there are >actually several >levels of expansion beyond the mind. There are three basic types of Inner >Expansion: >1) Awakening to Pure Awareness (the State of Presence behind the mind). >2) Awakening to the Absolute State (unity with the unmanifested). >3) Awakening of the Heart (expansion into the Divine). > >In each of these levels there are three stages: Shift into a state, >Stabilisation and >Integration. Nice classification, but it would be nice to cite the source for it in Vedantic scriptures, or should we assume this as the result of Aziz's personal investigations? >For instance, many satsang-teachers do not experience the same >state >outside of teaching. This is because they are not established permanently in >the state they >have attained. For that reason, they can have a deep state during satasng, but >when they >leave the satsang-room, they return back to ordinary consciousness. In such a >case only >conscious cultivation of the particular state can allow one to establish it >permanently. Just Advaita nowhere talks about 'cultivation' of enlightenment. According to all Advaita scriptures, when you are realized, that is it. >However, if one does not believe in actual process of awakening, how can one >consciously >cultivate anything? One does not even know that one is in a State. Here we see >the >importance of correct understanding. If one just follows in a dogmatic and >unimaginative >way the Advaita idea that "I am already That," how can one cultivate anything? It becomes increasingly clear that Aziz, as opposed to the initial impression he tried to give is actually expounding his own bend of Advaita. Its clear by the ideas he gives, the classification of states, and is finally highlighted by the suggestion, that we should not follow Advaita in an 'unimaginative' way. That means, if I am correct, we should be 'imaginative' about Advaita, which we have to be, I admit, if you compare what Aziz says to the traditional texts. >We recommend to all students and teachers of Advaita to be more critical. >Follow Advaita >if you wish but know that Reality is simply much more rich than any linear >philosophy, >Advaita included. Here Aziz openly departs from Advaita. >The Practical Advaita and the Theoretical Advaita are very >different. And here he declares all Advaita philosophy as trash. The practise, I suppose is something you have to learn from him, while the theory obviously is only there to mislead the ignorant. How nice. >In >the Theoretical Advaita, the Self is the only reality, there is no Path and we >are all already >awakened. But Practical Advaita knows that there is a long way to go before the >truth of >these statements can become our living truth. So theoretical and practical Advaita are opposed to each other: they come to opposite conclusions. I prefer a viewpoint that sees both as complementing each other instead, the one informing the other. The theoretical part being validated by the practical part - in its totallity. The practise actually has only one goal: to make the aspirant completely convinced without the shadow of a doubt about the Vedantic docrtrine (the unity of the Soul with God). Once ther is total acceptance of this, any practise maybe abandoned. >We would like also to create a few practical anti-pseudo-advaita statements: >"You are not >awakened unless you awaken!" "You are not That, unless you reach unity with >Universal I >AM!" "There is no Path but only for those who Completed it!" "There is nobody >here, but >only when somebody has dissolved!" All these pseudostatements are of course opposite to Advaita. So maybe Aziz is really teaching dvaita, and his advaita is the highest heaven somewhere beyond our earthly plane of evolution. >Until that time you are simply a suffering >somebody >who only tries to believe in being no one or entertains oneself by giving >"satsang." Somehow I dedect a christian influence here: We are here to suffer, and don't have fun or laugh, because you are misleading yourself otherwise >We have request to all those who experience any type of awakening: PLEASE, >THINK TWICE >BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO GIVE SATSANG and HONESTLY COMTEMPLATE WHAT ARE YOUR >TRUE MOTIVES BEHIND THE DESIRE TO TEACH. Perhaps giving Satsang is not really >necessary? Perhaps circulating such treatises is not really necessary either. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
