Hi e-Bill:
On Jun 16, 2007, at 11:08 PM, emptybill wrote:
Vaj,
Namaste, you rascal. After your post about sourcing errors, I
finally realized how you play your role here in the forum. I know
my profound insight is true `cause the symptoms of my of my
realization are on G-Spot's kundalini list. Vaj, you are indeed a
contrarian dissenting from the party line but you are also a bomb
thrower – a type of Buddhist Newt Gingrich in this FFL congress of
democrats. I may find you amusing, but some of the others find you
highly exaggerated.
If I exaggerate I do it for a reason (i.e. comedic value), but not to
divert from an underlying point. I've been accused of being a
traditionalist which I can understand, but I guess it would depend on
which party line you're referring to if I am a "dissenter".
Who's the one dropping bombs here?
Vajra Naught:
I'm not getting that at all e-Bill. My take on where Swami G is
coming from is that she's followed the practices of the tradition
to their completion.
Empty:
The fact that G was invested as a Swami says nothing about what she
practiced. It says even less about some kind of completion
finalized as the result of following a particular path. Swami-hood
is a title of renunciation and that is all. It is like someone
becoming a Buddhist monk. It doesn't tell you anything about what
practices they shall do, actually now do, or will do. Other than
that, swami-hood is a way to garner some respect in India and now
even in American too.
What's she's accomplished has little to do with her title but what
she claims to have accomplished, which is realization via a tantric
path. This has been a common approach in the Shankaracharya tradition
since the beginning. It works, therefore it's a tradition that's
still followed.
Consider the title of "Lama". Lama doesn't mean someone is a Khempo
or Geshe, (much less a twenty-year cave dwelling yogin or a tulku
either). However at least we would expect a Lama to have the
customary three year and three month retreat. How else would they
seize the clear appearance of a Yidam and become identified with it
enough to enact the four karmas on behalf of self and others.
Exactly. And in her tradition she has done her equivalent training,
from what's been said. Different traditions have their own training.
In contrast, swami-hood does not include any specific practices
like kyerim/dzogrim from common transmission lineages that anyone
would recognize or know. Swami-s might engage in any or all kinds
of path practices. So if she had a tantric guru then those Tantric
rites should be her practices. Investiture is completely different,
it's just formalized sannyasa.
Again, you're getting tied up in the title. The title, in the context
we're talking of here simply means she had experiential access to a
broader swath of her tradition. That's the point. That is not to say
that sannyasi-hood grants some magical realization, although celibacy
is said to be helpful in a kundalini based path for obvious reasons.
Vajra Naught:
Some of her students are ex-TMers who claim to come from her
tradition. There are problems with some people having very negative
reactions to TM/TMSP (from suicide to kundalini disorders) and so
she's trying to help from the POV of someone who's tread the path
to it's logical conclusion: realization.
Empty:
If that were the whole story then I'd be for it too. However her
specific claims are many:
She is a swami, MMY is only a Brahmachari secretary who wouldn't
take sannyasa.
Again, the point in this case, is that she simply had fuller access
to the teaching--and then allegedly realized those teachings--and so
therefore has something complete to teach.
Empty:
This is her investiture claim. Monastics don't think this way. They
look to see the types and qualities of practice that someone does.
Yes, I agree. Even better if they realize the goal of those practices
so they can teach others based on their own direct experience.
MMY gives out mere bija mantras – just a part of real mantras.
Empty:
Come on Vaj, not even you could believe this one. So you would have
distain for A-khrid because it is not polysyllabic enough and is
too simple?
Not the point really. The point was more about full tradition vs.
selling a piece.
She possesses the secret signs and language of her akhaad to
distinguish real sadhu-s from fake. She's the real thing.
Empty:
Secret signs and speech mean nothing about someone's spiritual
status. Trappist monks observe silence in their daily routines.
However their monasteries are well known for having the fastest
gossip network of any Cistercian order. Silence of the mouth
actually assists the disgorging of the mind. Swami G-spot's so-
called secrets are fluff for naïve and innocent westerners.
Not according to what her students say. I am not a student of hers so
I am relying on the veracity of their claims. If she completed
realization of a kundalini/tantric path as an approach to the advaita
View and was successful that is a completely different thing from
someone selling dharani fragments and samyama. She has had access to
the swath or the tradition and is passing on that direct experience.
Vajra Naught:
So I don't see it as an investiture that gives her status, but the
POV of someone who's tread the full path of the Shankaracharya
tradition.
Empty:
And what is this full path of the Shankaracharya tradition?
Is Kundalini yoga Shankara's path? – No, even though she claims to
follow it. Rather it is realization of Brahman, the vast expanse -
the transcendent dimension which is the already-present ground of
all experience and literally unattainable because it is immediately
at hand.
Tantric approaches have been an integral part of Shankara's tradition
since his time.
Is Shaktipat diksha Shankara's path? – No, even though she claims
to exercise it. Rather it is the contemplation of the self-
revealing shrutis or maha-vakyas, which are the very calling out of
Brahman in the midst of human consciousness.
Few are ready for this, so a tantric approach is the common means to
attain the advaita View.
Is Patanjali's ashtanga yoga Shankara's path? – No, even though she
claims to have completed it. Yoga is for purification and clarity.
Brahman is already immediate to us through its own self-shining -
just as in the self-presentation of things to us, like a clock on
the table in front of us or like our own self'-presentation to
ourselves while sitting here now in front of the monitor.
Yes, of course it is. To alleviate your confusion I suggest you take
a look at the jivanmuktiviveka, still the standard text on the
Shankaracharya tradition style realizations, and see how it utilizes
the YS of Patanjali. Even better, so meet the sannyasis of one of the
Maths and see what practices they are doing and why.
You might also want to consider that many in that tradition also rely
on Shankara's (alleged) Saudaryalahari, a work on kundalini yoga.
Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, for example, was an expert in it's
practices.
In a similar vein, one might approach Mahasandhi/Dzogchen by first
mastering practices of the inner tantras, kundalini practices like
chandali/tummo and tsa-lung or the Unification of the Sun and Moon
tantra.
Vajra Naught:
If this is true of course, we should all be delighted that a
westerner has had such experience and is willing to help.
Empty:
I wish it were true. I'd kiss her feet and rub her hand and say:
"Ma, please save me from myself."
Then I wouldn't need Obewan.
:-)
