Forget about Enlightenment

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

divine focus wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Shardrol wrote:You can test your skills at snap judgments through appearance here, where you are asked to sort inventors of programming languages from serial killers by looking at their faces.
Watching video footage of Adya - for example, here - hasn't changed my opinion of him. He is clearly a small-time crook making easy money by bewitching mindless, gullible people.

What I find interesting is that most of his followers would have undoubtedly heard the same material thousands of times before - either from Adya himself, or from the many other gurus in the industry who also purvey the same old cliched material. How many times does one have to hear it? Once should be enough. It is as though his followers have no memory at all, or at least no ability to internally trigger the same thought-processes of their own accord.

Adya actually encourages this passiveness by deliberately speaking in a hypnotic manner and by emphasizing the need for his followers to "do nothing" and "let go". A symbiotic relationship is thereby formed where Adya needs a passive audience for his spells to work and the passive audience needs Adya to stimulate them out of their slumber. It really is a revolting spectacle to behold.

-
I'm curious, David, as to how you come to such critical views of Adya and maybe others. You say he's rehashing old material, but is it any less valuable now as whenever it was "first" given eons ago? Also, don't you think the "passivity" of doing nothing is the same or similar to what you espouse--letting nature take it's course?
The key difference is that of rooting the ego out in its entirety, as opposed to ignoring the deeper parts of the ego and papering over the rest. Adya's teachings, such as they are, are narrow and one-dimensional and don't address the core issues of ego and attachment. This is because his own understanding is narrow and one-dimensional and borrows heavily from the thousands of b-grade gurus before him.

His teachings are "safe" in that he delivers what his audience expects to hear. The audience all know the ritual. They all know how "spiritual teachings" are supposed to be delivered. Adya treads the same old pathways and picks up easy money by giving the audience what it wants.

Even the original teachings that he mimics are very unsatisfactory. It is all about putting people in a mild trance and stimulating them into altered states of consciousness. If members of the audience are successfully transported into these altered states, then the guru knows that he has done his job. He knows how powerfully altered states can affect a person and how easily they can lend credibility to his teachings in the listener's eyes.

There is never any talk about confronting the deeper egotistical attachments to family, love, women, the feminine, emotion, humour, etc. That kind of thing is always ignored. Instead, a kind of performance art is enacted on stage which is primarily designed to titilate and amuse the audience. This is what passes for "spirituality" these days.

-
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

David,
As I say, one should utilize all the resources at one's disposal before making a firm judgment. The reading of a face is just one piece of the puzzle. If Adya's mind was of the quality of a Kierkegaard or a Chuang Tzu, while his face retained the aura of a criminal, then yes, it would give me pause for thought. I would have to find a way to reconcile these two conflicting perceptions. But since Adya's mind is that of a b-grade hack, there is no conflict to resolve.
Well, the evidence of his mind being subpar is simply your opinion. Others have a different opinion. All you are really saying is you don't like Adya. Fine. You don't like him. But it is the attempt to couch this dislike into science that I find so appalling. I'm sure you believe what you are saying but the pure delusion of it is embarrassingly obvious.
The key difference is that of rooting the ego out in its entirety, as opposed to ignoring the deeper parts of the ego and papering over the rest. Adya's teachings, such as they are, are narrow and one-dimensional and don't address the core issues of ego and attachment. This is because his own understanding is narrow and one-dimensional and borrows heavily from the thousands of b-grade gurus before him.
Your generalization is a cheap shot since you have no experience of him other than a ten-minute video you linked to. In fact, your friend Dan was quite impressed with this talk ( http://p104.ezboard.com/ffuturefrm34.sh ... =185.topic 10/26/06 4:02 pm) and said so. You have no idea of the breath of his teachings yet speak as if you know him intimately. That is being dishonest.
His teachings are "safe" in that he delivers what his audience expects to hear. The audience all know the ritual. They all know how "spiritual teachings" are supposed to be delivered. Adya treads the same old pathways and picks up easy money by giving the audience what it wants.
How do you know what his audience wants? I have been in his audience dozens of times. What impresses me is that he is always saying something unexpected. What seems to be going on in your comment is that you object to his style which is non-confrontational and you want to make that his problem. Your fundamentalist approach to teaching, your way or the highway, is sorely in need of some reconsideration.
Even the original teachings that he mimics are very unsatisfactory. It is all about putting people in a mild trance and stimulating them into altered states of consciousness. If members of the audience are successfully transported into these altered states, then the guru knows that he has done his job. He knows how powerfully altered states can affect a person and how easily they can lend credibility to his teachings in the listener's eyes.
Again you are speaking from ignorance. No altered states are induced. No one has ever mentioned experiencing an altered state simply by listening to him.
There is never any talk about confronting the deeper egotistical attachments to family, love, women, the feminine, emotion, humour, etc. That kind of thing is always ignored. Instead, a kind of performance art is enacted on stage which is primarily designed to titilate and amuse the audience. This is what passes for "spirituality" these days.
Women and the feminine is your kick and something for you to deal with. And again, confrontation is not his approach, it is yours. He is not about struggle, struggling is not the key to anything other than more struggle. Only when you stop struggling can you see what is already present. That doesn't happen to be your teaching and for some reason it pisses you off that it's his. He doesn't teach that you can know it all, just the opposite in fact. I guess that pisses you off too.

At any rate, he isn't for everyone and doesn't claim to be. Your one size fits all approach is very myopic. And I think results speak for themselves as far as what people find to be helpful for them.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Kevin Solway »

Adya notices that having a direct experience of pure "awareness" - which he seems to think is enlightenment - often has virtually no effect on the ego whatsoever ("barely grazes the ego", he says).

This is a sign that such experiences are not enlightenment after all, but are merely altered states of consciousness.

In the case where such experiences do diminish the ego significantly, it is not clear that Adya knows why. Nor is it clear that Adya wants to entirely eliminate his ego.

There is a benefit to his teaching for those people who tend to get lost in thought, and forget to be directly aware. But that benefit is only marginal.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

mikiel wrote:David Quinn wrote:
"Only super-advanced souls on the brink of perfect Buddhahood have "no delusions to get rid of except a couple keeping them away from reality", and I have yet to meet one of those. "

How will you know when you meet one, David? And do you mean in person or including on these boards?
(note: Please define "perfect Buddhahood" as/if different from total transcendence of egocentric consciousness, i.e., realization of the illusion of self... conscious unity in/as One Omnipresent consciousness, ergo, selflessness.)
I mean anywhere, either in person or on-line. Perfection is such a lofty attainment and so difficult to succeed at that it is reasonable to assume no one in history has ever come anywhere near it. Yes, there have been some great sages in the past who have clearly understood the nature of Reality and gone a long way towards perfecting themselves in its light, but even these people still fell significantly short of the goal. I see flaws in all of these great sages of the past - Buddha, Jesus, Chuang Tzu, etc. This is not meant to be a slight on them, as I think they achieved marvellous things. I'm simply trying to convey the sheer scale of the project involved.

By perfect Buddhahood, I mean full consciousness of the nature of Reality in every waking moment, without interruption. In other words, being beyond all possibility of slipping back into delusion, even for a second. To my mind, the great sages of the past only managed to achieve partial success at this. While their intellectual understanding of the nature of Reality was immaculate, they were only able to experience this fundamental nature in a more direct sense, in full consciousness, on occasion. They were still in the grip of the more subtle, instinctual delusions imposed on us by evolution, which are very hard to overcome.

These kinds of delusions aren't intellectual in nature, but rather they centre around emotional reaction. For example, if a sage experiences a moment of fear, even if subtly, then it is a sign that he has lost full consciousness of Reality and fallen into the delusion that things really exist.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

samadhi wrote:David,
As I say, one should utilize all the resources at one's disposal before making a firm judgment. The reading of a face is just one piece of the puzzle. If Adya's mind was of the quality of a Kierkegaard or a Chuang Tzu, while his face retained the aura of a criminal, then yes, it would give me pause for thought. I would have to find a way to reconcile these two conflicting perceptions. But since Adya's mind is that of a b-grade hack, there is no conflict to resolve.
Well, the evidence of his mind being subpar is simply your opinion. Others have a different opinion. All you are really saying is you don't like Adya. Fine. You don't like him. But it is the attempt to couch this dislike into science that I find so appalling. I'm sure you believe what you are saying but the pure delusion of it is embarrassingly obvious.
It is not just a question of opinion or taste, but also one of expertise. Simply dismissing someone's view as a mere opinion doesn't take into account the possibility that the person involved might know what he is talking about. Everyone can have an opinion about quantum physics, for example, but it doesn't really mean anything if there is no expertise involved. A hairdresser's opinion of quantum theory doesn't carry the same weight as Einstein's or Bohr's opinion of it.

samadhi wrote:
The key difference is that of rooting the ego out in its entirety, as opposed to ignoring the deeper parts of the ego and papering over the rest. Adya's teachings, such as they are, are narrow and one-dimensional and don't address the core issues of ego and attachment. This is because his own understanding is narrow and one-dimensional and borrows heavily from the thousands of b-grade gurus before him.
Your generalization is a cheap shot since you have no experience of him other than a ten-minute video you linked to. In fact, your friend Dan was quite impressed with this talk ( http://p104.ezboard.com/ffuturefrm34.sh ... =185.topic 10/26/06 4:02 pm) and said so. You have no idea of the breath of his teachings yet speak as if you know him intimately. That is being dishonest.

That is what you want to assume. I've seen quite a number of vidoes and writings, enough to make a judgment. The writings that Dan enthused over sound hollow to me, given that Adya himself is fully involved in the spiritual candy industry.

samadhi wrote:
His teachings are "safe" in that he delivers what his audience expects to hear. The audience all know the ritual. They all know how "spiritual teachings" are supposed to be delivered. Adya treads the same old pathways and picks up easy money by giving the audience what it wants.
How do you know what his audience wants? I have been in his audience dozens of times. What impresses me is that he is always saying something unexpected. What seems to be going on in your comment is that you object to his style which is non-confrontational and you want to make that his problem. Your fundamentalist approach to teaching, your way or the highway, is sorely in need of some reconsideration.

His non-confrontational approach is indeed the problem. If a guru is not going to challenge the ego deeply, nor encourage his students to engage in this confrontation, then how and when is it ever going to happen?

Adya intuively knows that if he confronts his audiences in any serious manner, he will become unpopular and his pay checks will quickly dry up.

samadhi wrote:
Even the original teachings that he mimics are very unsatisfactory. It is all about putting people in a mild trance and stimulating them into altered states of consciousness. If members of the audience are successfully transported into these altered states, then the guru knows that he has done his job. He knows how powerfully altered states can affect a person and how easily they can lend credibility to his teachings in the listener's eyes.
Again you are speaking from ignorance. No altered states are induced. No one has ever mentioned experiencing an altered state simply by listening to him.

I find that very hard to believe. But if it is the case, then I put it down to a lack of memory and consciousness in his followers.

samadhi wrote:
There is never any talk about confronting the deeper egotistical attachments to family, love, women, the feminine, emotion, humour, etc. That kind of thing is always ignored. Instead, a kind of performance art is enacted on stage which is primarily designed to titilate and amuse the audience. This is what passes for "spirituality" these days.
Women and the feminine is your kick and something for you to deal with.

It is everyone's kick and something that everyone who is serious about giving up attachments and becoming wise has to deal with. But don't look to Adya and his ilk to help you in this. You will only draw a blank.

And again, confrontation is not his approach, it is yours. He is not about struggle, struggling is not the key to anything other than more struggle. Only when you stop struggling can you see what is already present.

As I've mentioned previously, it is impossible to put an end to struggle if you still have egotistical attachments and unresolved issues bubbling away inside you. The best that can be achieved by trying to stop struggling altogether, rather like trying to turn off a switch, are temporary experiences of altered states (e.g. "seeing what is present"). No real progress can be made in this way.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:Adya notices that having a direct experience of pure "awareness" - which he seems to think is enlightenment - often has virtually no effect on the ego whatsoever ("barely grazes the ego", he says).

This is a sign that such experiences are not enlightenment after all, but are merely altered states of consciousness.

In the case where such experiences do diminish the ego significantly, it is not clear that Adya knows why. Nor is it clear that Adya wants to entirely eliminate his ego.

There is a benefit to his teaching for those people who tend to get lost in thought, and forget to be directly aware. But that benefit is only marginal.
Yes, as a performance artist, I rate him quite highly. He is clearly skilled in the art of oration and manipulating a room. But is still just a case of scratching at the surface of spirituality. He caters for those who want to remain on that surface and not go any deeper.

-
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by divine focus »

He does say that those altered states are like a foot in the door that you can't get back out again. Maybe that's all his goal really is for people: to get people started. Who says he has to do anything else? He's not under any contract as to what aspect of wisdom he can choose to talk about. It's all about what you can use in your day-to-day life. If you can stay more and more in that awareness he speaks of, you will notice more of your experience and learn in your own way.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Sapius »

David wrote;
Perfection is such a lofty attainment and so difficult to succeed at that it is reasonable to assume no one in history has ever come anywhere near it.
Wow! However, that just shows how difficult it is turning out for you particularly, that’s all, and I can understand that. But do you think it is wise to project your egocentrically self-imposed loftiness onto others and then judge them?

Isn’t it possible that one is projecting an egotistical desire of attaining such presumed perfection, including the projection of it being lofty to begin with? Doesn’t it begin with assuming that something is missing? And does it not end with realizing that nothing is really missing? For some it may take eons of diligent hard work (as it most probably is happening in your case), for some relatively less (take Average or Samadim for example), but the realization itself may take no more than a split second; and the fact that one could never ever know another’s realization in its entirety, proves that absolute certainty is not possible in that area, so the rest will always remain an opinion, personal ego projections that is, in your language.

You might have problems holding on to your realizations, but others may not, and you or I could never ever really know it either way. So, emphatically denying OR acknowledging someone else’s realization or enlightenment is not a wise thing to do, in my opinion.
Yes, there have been some great sages in the past who have clearly understood the nature of Reality and gone a long way towards perfecting themselves in its light, but even these people still fell significantly short of the goal.
Do they? Or are you just projecting your ego based reasoned opinions? You are deluded in thinking that one can perfect ones self, because it will always be short of the Totality you keep professing, but may be keep forgetting it time to time. May be it is you who desires some sort of perfect altered state from which you hope never to awake back into “delusions”. Think again! (A lofty advise from Discovery Channel)
I see flaws in all of these great sages of the past - Buddha, Jesus, Chuang Tzu, etc. This is not meant to be a slight on them, as I think they achieved marvellous things. I'm simply trying to convey the sheer scale of the project involved.
Sure, it could be a grand and lofty project since it seems so difficult to grasp, for one; that there is something to grasp is extremely difficult to be removed in the first place, and then, it might take ages for someone to grasp that there is nothing to really grasp, but then again, it might take a split second for someone else. The problem is, you judge other people by your own egocentrically biased standards, and your standard is not a universal one, because it will always remain short of Totality. So humility should definitely be a virtue, not a vice, if realization has settled in permanently.
By perfect Buddhahood, I mean full consciousness of the nature of Reality in every waking moment, without interruption.
I like the definition, but it seems you are deluded into thinking Reality is something other than what all is, hence you desire to experience something “beyond” what is. All the best.
In other words, being beyond all possibility of slipping back into delusion, even for a second.
That depends on you still trying to attain some non-delusional state as against a delusional one, not realizing that realization is all that there is to it; the realization that atainment itself is delusional in nature. Don't you know you are already there in the here? . (Now don’t go pointing fingers at the finger, look at the moon.)
To my mind, the great sages of the past only managed to achieve partial success at this.
May be, but you cannot be absolutely sure of that, and on top of that you are setting up an imaginary level of egocentrically defined ego-less perfection, and judging them according to that.

And please stop saying "my mind"! To me you sound like a lunatic. Next time say 'to David's mind', which you clearly assume not to be YOU, as in subconsciously assuming me AND "my" mind that is. What the hell is that which thinks MY mind? In my view this is the greatest delusion that one turns a blind eye towards, which gives rise to a false assumption that there must be something other than the "I" which already is.
While their intellectual understanding of the nature of Reality was immaculate, they were only able to experience this fundamental nature in a more direct sense, in full consciousness, on occasion.
Really? And you believe them? I think you hold an intimate desire of attaining a highly permanent altered state, just that you cannot accept the alternative becasue it seems soooooo un-lofty. It may be too simple for your standards, and that itself is the difficult part to get over with. “How could it be THAT simple?!”; is quite difficult to get rid of I guess.
They were still in the grip of the more subtle, instinctual delusions imposed on us by evolution, which are very hard to overcome.
No, that’s Reality too, and you cannot overcome Reality, unless I don’t understand what you mean by Reality. What do you really mean or understand by it?
These kinds of delusions aren't intellectual in nature, but rather they centre around emotional reaction. For example, if a sage experiences a moment of fear, even if subtly, then it is a sign that he has lost full consciousness of Reality and fallen into the delusion that things really exist.
Com’on David, do you really believe that such kind of fear is NOT Reality for some lofty reason? Once one realizes the nature of existence, (Totality in your books), what remains delusional? All that disappears are the superficial associations to any particular phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself. One realizes the nature of Reality, not become Reality itself, for the simple reason that one will always remain less than the Totality. It seems you are egocentrically trying to BECOME Totality.

However, one can always imaginatively believe that one IS Totality, Infinity; by fantasizing the “no beginning or end to a thing”, thing. Try getting rid of the real “I” that fantasizes, and then tell me when you have done that. Better yet, after all your lofty realizations, see if it is possible to feel or tell yourself, “I” am not.

This single post full of lofty desires has been most revealing to me than all others put together. I wish you good luck, mate.
---------
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

David,
David Quinn wrote:me: the evidence of his mind being subpar is simply your opinion. Others have a different opinion. All you are really saying is you don't like Adya. Fine. You don't like him. But it is the attempt to couch this dislike into science that I find so appalling. I'm sure you believe what you are saying but the pure delusion of it is embarrassingly obvious.

you: It is not just a question of opinion or taste, but also one of expertise. Simply dismissing someone's view as a mere opinion doesn't take into account the possibility that the person involved might know what he is talking about. Everyone can have an opinion about quantum physics, for example, but it doesn't really mean anything if there is no expertise involved. A hairdresser's opinion of quantum theory doesn't carry the same weight as Einstein's or Bohr's opinion of it.
Claiming expertise and demonstrating it are two different things.
me: You have no idea of the breath of his teachings yet speak as if you know him intimately. That is being dishonest.

you: That is what you want to assume. I've seen quite a number of vidoes and writings, enough to make a judgment. The writings that Dan enthused over sound hollow to me, given that Adya himself is fully involved in the spiritual candy industry.
All you seem capable of is a blanket dismissal. Your unwillingness to quote and critique, which might lend a semblance of credibility to your words, exemplifies a lazy, dismissive attitude that bristles with hostility when challenged. Like a dog, you piss on everyone around you to let them know they are impinging on your territory.
me: What seems to be going on in your comment is that you object to his style which is non-confrontational and you want to make that his problem. Your fundamentalist approach to teaching, your way or the highway, is sorely in need of some reconsideration.

you: His non-confrontational approach is indeed the problem. If a guru is not going to challenge the ego deeply, nor encourage his students to engage in this confrontation, then how and when is it ever going to happen?

Adya intuitively knows that if he confronts his audiences in any serious manner, he will become unpopular and his pay checks will quickly dry up.
Confrontation is not the only way to understanding, nor is it a very productive way, generally speaking. I’m not saying it can’t work, given the right temperament. But your idea that everyone must be confronted is simply that, your idea. It is a strategy, nothing more or less than any other strategy. Simply because it might have worked in your case does not justify you going around and beating everyone up. You cannot force anyone to give up anything anyway, what needs to be left behind must always be surrendered willingly. People are not stupid. They will see what needs to be surrendered in good time when they are ready and engaged. Someone who is not ready to surrender will not be any more ready no matter how much you confront them. You yourself are a good example of that.
me: No altered states are induced. No one has ever mentioned experiencing an altered state simply by listening to him.

you: I find that very hard to believe. But if it is the case, then I put it down to a lack of memory and consciousness in his followers.
Adya himself has said altering consciousness is just a trick. Maybe you missed that part.
me: Women and the feminine is your kick and something for you to deal with.

you: It is everyone's kick and something that everyone who is serious about giving up attachments and becoming wise has to deal with. But don't look to Adya and his ilk to help you in this. You will only draw a blank.
The feminine is part of human nature. You don’t give up human nature to remember who you are. In fact, you don’t become less human, you become MORE human. Of course I know that will sound like anathema to you. You don’t want more humanity, you want less. Enlightenment for you is a ticket out of here, not your ticket into the present. Now that I think about it, it’s obvious why you revile Adya like you do.
me: confrontation is not his approach, it is yours. He is not about struggle, struggling is not the key to anything other than more struggle. Only when you stop struggling can you see what is already present.

you: As I've mentioned previously, it is impossible to put an end to struggle if you still have egotistical attachments and unresolved issues bubbling away inside you. The best that can be achieved by trying to stop struggling altogether, rather like trying to turn off a switch, are temporary experiences of altered states (e.g. "seeing what is present"). No real progress can be made in this way.
I’m not saying he teaches trying not to struggle, or even not struggling. Struggling and not struggling is the duality which humans find themselves in. They think if it’s not one, it must be the other. That is the turning of the wheel itself, chasing answers within a duality. There is no “the way” to it. There is “your way” to it. He doesn’t encourage you to struggle or to not struggle, only to do what you do without the idea of getting something in return. Enlightenment isn’t a bargain, it is not a prize you get for following some rule someone tells you. Struggle is more obviously about getting something. What do you think you’re getting that isn’t already here?

Someone once asked him, if I meditate more, will I get there sooner? He said, do what you’re inclined to do. Just do it wholeheartedly.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by mikiel »

David Quinn wrote:
mikiel wrote:David Quinn wrote:
"Only super-advanced souls on the brink of perfect Buddhahood have "no delusions to get rid of except a couple keeping them away from reality", and I have yet to meet one of those. "

How will you know when you meet one, David? And do you mean in person or including on these boards?
(note: Please define "perfect Buddhahood" as/if different from total transcendence of egocentric consciousness, i.e., realization of the illusion of self... conscious unity in/as One Omnipresent consciousness, ergo, selflessness.)
I mean anywhere, either in person or on-line. Perfection is such a lofty attainment and so difficult to succeed at that it is reasonable to assume no one in history has ever come anywhere near it. Yes, there have been some great sages in the past who have clearly understood the nature of Reality and gone a long way towards perfecting themselves in its light, but even these people still fell significantly short of the goal. I see flaws in all of these great sages of the past - Buddha, Jesus, Chuang Tzu, etc. This is not meant to be a slight on them, as I think they achieved marvellous things. I'm simply trying to convey the sheer scale of the project involved.

By perfect Buddhahood, I mean full consciousness of the nature of Reality in every waking moment, without interruption. In other words, being beyond all possibility of slipping back into delusion, even for a second. To my mind, the great sages of the past only managed to achieve partial success at this. While their intellectual understanding of the nature of Reality was immaculate, they were only able to experience this fundamental nature in a more direct sense, in full consciousness, on occasion. They were still in the grip of the more subtle, instinctual delusions imposed on us by evolution, which are very hard to overcome.

These kinds of delusions aren't intellectual in nature, but rather they centre around emotional reaction. For example, if a sage experiences a moment of fear, even if subtly, then it is a sign that he has lost full consciousness of Reality and fallen into the delusion that things really exist.

-
With all due respect, it is apparent that you do not know (personally, directly) what enlightenment is and associate it with a concept of perfection based on your worship of the Buddha.

Please read, or re-read my "Liberation" thread opener and then visit the website of the teacher who facilitated my awakening (Joel Morwood) at Center for Sacred Sciences.
Here is the address of the page which introduces him:

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#teachers

Joel, The other teachers mentioned on the above page (his "graduates") and myself, no longer a member of His center, as I founded the Center for Conscious Unity in '94 after my awakening
(http://www.consciousunity.org) all fulfill (truly) the criteria you present as:
"full consciousness of the nature of Reality in every waking moment, without interruption. In other words, being beyond all possibility of slipping back into delusion, even for a second."
Given your bias, I do not expect you to believe the above, but it is true, never the less.
I Am Consciousness, not the content of "my consciousness." "I" am the Witness of the "movie" called "my life." My last fear was that I would be eaten alive by sharks as I floated (just kicking on my back) in the ocean for hours before the current brought me back in on the day of my awakening. I have not experienced anger since. I weep with compassion at movies and "watching my own movie" and I am passionate about Liberation and correcting misconceptions about it... and "radical honesty" is my primary principle in confronting egocentricity, as on these boards.

You say, "To my mind, the great sages of the past only managed to achieve partial success at this (your above quote.)

I submit that this is only your "intellectual understanding" as you clearly have not experienced the transformation which liberates one totally from egocentricity into selflessness.
Regards,
mikiel
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Dan Rowden »

samadhi wrote:Your generalization is a cheap shot since you have no experience of him other than a ten-minute video you linked to. In fact, your friend Dan was quite impressed with this talk ( http://p104.ezboard.com/ffuturefrm34.sh ... =185.topic 10/26/06 4:02 pm) and said so.
I think you're misrepresenting me a touch there, Sam. These are some of the remarks I made in that thread:
Well, holy crap! Adya said some things I actually agree with:
Note my surprise that Adya said something I could agree with. I didn't say I was "impressed". I then said:
Of course, the above would mean a little more if Adya didn't go on and on about love and compassion and "innate goodness" and similar seductive pap.
And later:
They [compassion and 'innate goodness'] are pap unless understood wisely. The way Adya employs them in his talks is clearly designed to appeal to the women in his audience and their particular attachment to - identification with - such qualities. "Innate goodness" is particularly bad because it is just total nonsense. It's a term that doesn't have any actual meaning or referent; it's just a term gurus like to toss out there to make people feel good, keep them interested and keep their credit cards ticking over.

It's a disturbing and counterproductive trend in Adya's talks. If he kept it contexual and real it wouldn't be so bad, but instead he tosses such terms out like confetti throughout practically every talk he gives.
That's a more accurate picture of my opinion of Adya as a teacher. Since he's working with good material there's bound to be some good stuff in his teachings, but in the end that doesn't really matter.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

Dan,
Dan Rowden wrote:me: Your generalization is a cheap shot since you have no experience of him other than a ten-minute video you linked to. In fact, your friend Dan was quite impressed with this talk ( http://p104.ezboard.com/ffuturefrm34.sh ... =185.topic 10/26/06 4:02 pm) and said so.

you: I think you're misrepresenting me a touch there, Sam. These are some of the remarks I made in that thread:
Well, holy crap! Adya said some things I actually agree with:
Note my surprise that Adya said something I could agree with. I didn't say I was "impressed". I then said:
Of course, the above would mean a little more if Adya didn't go on and on about love and compassion and "innate goodness" and similar seductive pap.
That quote was from the beginning of the thread. This is what you said specifically about the talk I was referring to:
On my first read I also think it is very good. I'll have to go back and relook at things that made me go "hmmm" on that first read but they may turn out to be relatively minor quibbles. I also agree with Nat that it would nice if Adya spoke at this level all the time. Though, it's not too hard to see why he doesn't.
I know you are no fan of Adya's but you seem to recognize quality when it is present without a blithe dismissal. You are open to an investigation at least where I see David being closed from the get-go.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Dan Rowden »

I imagine David is making a broad judgement about Adya as a teacher. Quality individual teachings don't amount to much if there's no consistency. Indeed, without that consistency the seeming quality of those individual teachings becomes entirely dubious. Adya often undoes an entire satsang that might otherwise have been good with a single false statement - often in the form of an emotional pitch to his audience. This tends to indicate that either he's not aware of this and therefore not really operating from a solid basis of understanding, or he is aware and he's a fake on the make.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

mikiel,

Thanks for those links. Your teacher Joel seems to have put it all out there. I look forward to investigating more closely. Your own site has quite a lot including some interesting prophecies. You certainly have my attention! Thank you.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by samadhi »

Dan,
Dan Rowden wrote:... Adya often undoes an entire satsang that might otherwise have been good with a single false statement - often in the form of an emotional pitch to his audience. This tends to indicate that either he's not aware of this and therefore not really operating from a solid basis of understanding, or he is aware and he's a fake on the make.
I'm not sure what you mean by "an emotional pitch;" you would have to give an example.

QRS does have a thing about emotion (the feminine, etc.) and the "need" to get rid of it that, as far as I can tell, has no basis in enlightenment teaching. I don't know where it came from. But certainly, as long as you continue to view what anyone says through that particular prism, you will continue to find "problems" that are essentially of your own making.
tooyi
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:25 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by tooyi »

I would like to know your opinion on which is more cruel here, cause I am now weighing it again.

Last time, regarding Adyashanti, I said that if the idea is to kill a frog, to murder it, boiling it is just plain cruel.

Now, last time I managed to whack myself in the head and - thankfully - nobody stopped me. This time I'm aiming.

But, which is more cruel way? To bash it crushed or to boil it?
Let him who has ears hear.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Jason »

tooyi wrote:I would like to know your opinion on which is more cruel here, cause I am now weighing it again.

Last time, regarding Adyashanti, I said that if the idea is to kill a frog, to murder it, boiling it is just plain cruel.

Now, last time I managed to whack myself in the head and - thankfully - nobody stopped me. This time I'm aiming.

But, which is more cruel way? To bash it crushed or to boil it?
What are you talking about? Actually killing a frog? Killing yourself? Or are you speaking metaphorically? I can't make any sense out of what you've written.
tooyi
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:25 am

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by tooyi »

Jason wrote:What are you talking about? Actually killing a frog? Killing yourself? Or are you speaking metaphorically? I can't make any sense out of what you've written.
The day will come when you do make sense.

I just don't have the heart tonight. My hand is quivering by the weight of the bash. The frog may go, for now.
Let him who has ears hear.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Dan Rowden »

samadhi wrote:Dan,
Dan Rowden wrote:... Adya often undoes an entire satsang that might otherwise have been good with a single false statement - often in the form of an emotional pitch to his audience. This tends to indicate that either he's not aware of this and therefore not really operating from a solid basis of understanding, or he is aware and he's a fake on the make.
I'm not sure what you mean by "an emotional pitch;" you would have to give an example.
That's probably a somewhat pointless exercise since you wouldn't accept them as being that even when shown to you - not so much out of denial as out of the philosophical difference you state below.
QRS does have a thing about emotion (the feminine, etc.) and the "need" to get rid of it that, as far as I can tell, has no basis in enlightenment teaching.
That's because you don't see the relationship between ego and emotion.
I don't know where it came from. But certainly, as long as you continue to view what anyone says through that particular prism, you will continue to find "problems" that are essentially of your own making.
It's only of our "making" in the sense that our understanding is of our making.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Dan Rowden »

tooyi wrote:
Jason wrote:What are you talking about? Actually killing a frog? Killing yourself? Or are you speaking metaphorically? I can't make any sense out of what you've written.
The day will come when you do make sense.

I just don't have the heart tonight. My hand is quivering by the weight of the bash. The frog may go, for now.
I hope that clears everything up for you, Jason.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Shahrazad »

Dan,
That's because you don't see the relationship between ego and emotion.
Oh, so emotions are only undesirable when they are related to the ego? You should've told me that two years ago and saved me a lot of trouble.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by brokenhead »

tooyi wrote:I would like to know your opinion on which is more cruel here, cause I am now weighing it again.

Last time, regarding Adyashanti, I said that if the idea is to kill a frog, to murder it, boiling it is just plain cruel.

Now, last time I managed to whack myself in the head and - thankfully - nobody stopped me. This time I'm aiming.

But, which is more cruel way? To bash it crushed or to boil it?
Ah, little grasshopper, much better to boil frog. Twenty minute. On Low. Keep lid on. Taste like chicken.
Steven Coyle

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Steven Coyle »

Frog's legs?

Too adeu.

Break stick.

Poke them to poke self.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Shahrazad »

Sam,

I missed this the first time around:
If it were that easy, the police wouldn't need to do any investigation, would they? And courts of law would hardly be needed either. People would just be thrown in jail based on their looks.
I was thinking the same exact thing. If only proving someone is a criminal were that easy.

-
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Forget about Enlightenment

Post by Sapius »

Shahrazad wrote:Sam,

I missed this the first time around:
If it were that easy, the police wouldn't need to do any investigation, would they? And courts of law would hardly be needed either. People would just be thrown in jail based on their looks.
I was thinking the same exact thing. If only proving someone is a criminal were that easy.

-
Well, that’s quite easy for some, Shahrazad, and it is not just the facial features really.

The real issue is… 'if one does not fall within my/our defined circle of morality/reality, then…' you know what.

That applies to all of us.
---------
Locked