Advertisement
I've been hearing a lot about, and reading a few, of these 'guru-rating' websites -- where people who have (little or no?) credentials in spirituality other than they know some HTML or how to blog, and have a resentment or two about some guru or another post their silly ideas and recommendations and sound off their blowhard egoisms about spiritual teachers and masters, saints and avataras alike.
I've taken to calling them 'guru-bashing' sites because most of them focus on the negative about living saints, and have a few grudging crumbs to toss to a few living ones... and then glorify the dead ones.
it's natural, especially in Kali Yuga, this age, that people throw their own garbage on the saints and expect it to stick (of course it doesn't) -- since the holy people, if they're real holy saints, are merely reflecting back to people their own stuff....
but anyway, after I read one of these sites -- I had to share this with you guys.
this blogger guy is eviscerating some saint (I don't know who it is) based on a website where the would-be saint has, actually, some beautiful writings and some brilliant spiritual insights (and some pretty dorky photos... but he's trying to convey universalism, hey, give him a break). (the more I read, the more I heard resonant things in what this saint is saying.)
of course in the process of reviling the saint, the blogger guy is simply showing the teeth and fangs of his own unbelievable ignorance about spirituality in general, the Indian tradition in particular, especially Dattatreya saints and MOST especially about the Mother Divine in the form of Kali.
I'm posting his write-up first, and then my response to it. I noticed that the blog site, although it accepts comments, doesn't seem to actually HAVE any -- is it that no one reads the site, that no one comments, or that the blogger himself doesn't have the balls to print the comments he does get? 'curiouser and curiouser,' as Alice said -- I'm interested to see if he allows my comment to show up.
anyway, this should be fun. fire away, all!
Alx
here's the link: guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2005/...i.html
and here's the blog entry that made me gnash my teeth a few times:
File under: Wackadoo Gurus
Today we were directed to the website of Shri Datta Swami. You can add him to your list of psychotically grandiose gurus. Our first clue was the picture on the homepage that depicts the Swami as the founder of all the world's major religions. Then there are his claims of avatarhood, quite ordinary actually... for a loony tunes guru who happens to be Hindu:The highest human incarnation of God, the Paripurna Avatara, means that the Lord who has come down in human form, dwells in that human body from its birth to its end and also expresses His inseparable characteristic of the True, Infinite, and Divine Knowledge.
The Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, together is called as 'Dattatreya' or Lord Datta. Lord Datta has now come down as a Pari Purna Avatara, to impart the Divine Knowledge to us. He stands before us as Shri Datta Swami. Swamiji's mission in the world is to establish a Universal Spirituality based on the Divine knowledge.There isn't really much we can say about that. And yet it gets much better. Swami has "met" Kali. From the account of a "devotee":I tried to follow their conversation but could not understand much since they were speaking Sanskrit. Swami was speaking in an authoritative tone, while the lady was speaking very politely and submissively. After some time the lady disappeared. After she left, Swami still sat there with closed eyes. I closed the window and went back to bed.
Next morning, I asked Swami, who the divine lady was. Swami told me that she was the Divine Mother Kali. Kali is the ferocious and terrifying form of the Divine Mother. I asked about what the conversation was about.
Swami replied, "She wanted to destroy humanity through the dreaded disease, AIDS. I prevented her form doing so saying that the time had not come for it. I assured her that I will change humanity through My Divine Knowledge and that she should wait for some more time."It's one thing to say you are God Incarnate. But it's absolutely another to claim you have topped the Mistress of All Creation. This Swami is as ripe as any nut under a betel palm.
Anyone with a nanogram of sense knows Kali takes orders from no one. She's already bailed those hapless gods out a couple of times before. Poor Swami D. must have forgot that story when this vomitus came up out of his fractured imagination. Just another indication this guru is missing a couple of whole suits from his deck.
AND here's my response:
I must say, I'm stunned by your censure of this guy and especially based on the criteria you list, above.
to ridicule the idea of a saint, a divine soul, a holy person, who speaks openly about communicating with Kali (or the Divine Mother in any form) only reveals a kind of unlearnedness on the part of whoever posted this writing about the depth of spirituality in the Indian tradition.
many great saints of antiquity and modernity have talked directly with Kali. you should catch up on your reading -- especially starting with Sri Ramakrishna, whose life-long conversations and experiences of Maha Kali are fairly well known and well-documented.
Buddha worshipped "Mahamaya," the literature tells us. exactly who do you think that is? Mahamaya is more or less another name for Kali.
if you bother to research on Dattatreya saints, like Shirdi Sai Baba or a living one like Ganapathi Satchitananda (www.dattapeetham.com), you'll discover that a major attribute of Datta's relationship with the Divine has to do with Kali. or the Divine Mother in many forms -- but usually that means Kali.
even Yogananda spoke of some experiences he had with Kali, specifically. especially in his youth. (so you can draw your own conclusions about whether or not he also was a Datta saint.)
it's not a fiction, it's not a joke, it's not a fantasy, dealing with the Mother Divine -- all the great saints we can name have done it, whether they talked about it publicly or not.
including, oddly enough, Jesus Christ, during his training in India.
is it so far-fetched to imagine that when Christ is talking with god the night before the crucifixion is to happen, in the Garden at Gethsemane, asking for 'this cup' to be removed from him, that he was addressing Shiva and Kali, as his divine father and mother?
your sarcastic dismissal of this guy who's calling himself a Dattatreya saint, and rejection of his divinity on the ground that he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) talks with Kali is absurd. it's like suggesting that Jesus wasn't really divine because he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) was crucified, and everybody knows that a REAL saint wouldn't allow such an experience to happen to his own physical body!!!!
I can definitely see why most of the saints throughout history have chosen to conceal, rather than reveal, the whole story about their relationships with Kali -- it's too easily misunderstood by people in the world who don't have a clue about the depths of spiritual mechanisms.
finally, I should mention that in my studies in India, it's not at all unusual for people to have the darshan of, and communication with, forms of the Mother Divine (including, yes, of Kali). many of my colleagues (several hundred, in fact), have had this kind of experience as they've moved along in their spiritual progress in -- hey, whaddya know -- a Dattatreya lineage.
my point: do your research before you start dismissing anyone's divinity or spiritual statements. your ignorance is showing and it's not pretty.
sincerely,
Alx Uttermann
I've taken to calling them 'guru-bashing' sites because most of them focus on the negative about living saints, and have a few grudging crumbs to toss to a few living ones... and then glorify the dead ones.
it's natural, especially in Kali Yuga, this age, that people throw their own garbage on the saints and expect it to stick (of course it doesn't) -- since the holy people, if they're real holy saints, are merely reflecting back to people their own stuff....
but anyway, after I read one of these sites -- I had to share this with you guys.
this blogger guy is eviscerating some saint (I don't know who it is) based on a website where the would-be saint has, actually, some beautiful writings and some brilliant spiritual insights (and some pretty dorky photos... but he's trying to convey universalism, hey, give him a break). (the more I read, the more I heard resonant things in what this saint is saying.)
of course in the process of reviling the saint, the blogger guy is simply showing the teeth and fangs of his own unbelievable ignorance about spirituality in general, the Indian tradition in particular, especially Dattatreya saints and MOST especially about the Mother Divine in the form of Kali.
I'm posting his write-up first, and then my response to it. I noticed that the blog site, although it accepts comments, doesn't seem to actually HAVE any -- is it that no one reads the site, that no one comments, or that the blogger himself doesn't have the balls to print the comments he does get? 'curiouser and curiouser,' as Alice said -- I'm interested to see if he allows my comment to show up.
anyway, this should be fun. fire away, all!
Alx
here's the link: guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2005/...i.html
and here's the blog entry that made me gnash my teeth a few times:
File under: Wackadoo Gurus
Today we were directed to the website of Shri Datta Swami. You can add him to your list of psychotically grandiose gurus. Our first clue was the picture on the homepage that depicts the Swami as the founder of all the world's major religions. Then there are his claims of avatarhood, quite ordinary actually... for a loony tunes guru who happens to be Hindu:The highest human incarnation of God, the Paripurna Avatara, means that the Lord who has come down in human form, dwells in that human body from its birth to its end and also expresses His inseparable characteristic of the True, Infinite, and Divine Knowledge.
The Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, together is called as 'Dattatreya' or Lord Datta. Lord Datta has now come down as a Pari Purna Avatara, to impart the Divine Knowledge to us. He stands before us as Shri Datta Swami. Swamiji's mission in the world is to establish a Universal Spirituality based on the Divine knowledge.There isn't really much we can say about that. And yet it gets much better. Swami has "met" Kali. From the account of a "devotee":I tried to follow their conversation but could not understand much since they were speaking Sanskrit. Swami was speaking in an authoritative tone, while the lady was speaking very politely and submissively. After some time the lady disappeared. After she left, Swami still sat there with closed eyes. I closed the window and went back to bed.
Next morning, I asked Swami, who the divine lady was. Swami told me that she was the Divine Mother Kali. Kali is the ferocious and terrifying form of the Divine Mother. I asked about what the conversation was about.
Swami replied, "She wanted to destroy humanity through the dreaded disease, AIDS. I prevented her form doing so saying that the time had not come for it. I assured her that I will change humanity through My Divine Knowledge and that she should wait for some more time."It's one thing to say you are God Incarnate. But it's absolutely another to claim you have topped the Mistress of All Creation. This Swami is as ripe as any nut under a betel palm.
Anyone with a nanogram of sense knows Kali takes orders from no one. She's already bailed those hapless gods out a couple of times before. Poor Swami D. must have forgot that story when this vomitus came up out of his fractured imagination. Just another indication this guru is missing a couple of whole suits from his deck.
AND here's my response:
I must say, I'm stunned by your censure of this guy and especially based on the criteria you list, above.
to ridicule the idea of a saint, a divine soul, a holy person, who speaks openly about communicating with Kali (or the Divine Mother in any form) only reveals a kind of unlearnedness on the part of whoever posted this writing about the depth of spirituality in the Indian tradition.
many great saints of antiquity and modernity have talked directly with Kali. you should catch up on your reading -- especially starting with Sri Ramakrishna, whose life-long conversations and experiences of Maha Kali are fairly well known and well-documented.
Buddha worshipped "Mahamaya," the literature tells us. exactly who do you think that is? Mahamaya is more or less another name for Kali.
if you bother to research on Dattatreya saints, like Shirdi Sai Baba or a living one like Ganapathi Satchitananda (www.dattapeetham.com), you'll discover that a major attribute of Datta's relationship with the Divine has to do with Kali. or the Divine Mother in many forms -- but usually that means Kali.
even Yogananda spoke of some experiences he had with Kali, specifically. especially in his youth. (so you can draw your own conclusions about whether or not he also was a Datta saint.)
it's not a fiction, it's not a joke, it's not a fantasy, dealing with the Mother Divine -- all the great saints we can name have done it, whether they talked about it publicly or not.
including, oddly enough, Jesus Christ, during his training in India.
is it so far-fetched to imagine that when Christ is talking with god the night before the crucifixion is to happen, in the Garden at Gethsemane, asking for 'this cup' to be removed from him, that he was addressing Shiva and Kali, as his divine father and mother?
your sarcastic dismissal of this guy who's calling himself a Dattatreya saint, and rejection of his divinity on the ground that he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) talks with Kali is absurd. it's like suggesting that Jesus wasn't really divine because he (giggle, giggle, snort, snort) was crucified, and everybody knows that a REAL saint wouldn't allow such an experience to happen to his own physical body!!!!
I can definitely see why most of the saints throughout history have chosen to conceal, rather than reveal, the whole story about their relationships with Kali -- it's too easily misunderstood by people in the world who don't have a clue about the depths of spiritual mechanisms.
finally, I should mention that in my studies in India, it's not at all unusual for people to have the darshan of, and communication with, forms of the Mother Divine (including, yes, of Kali). many of my colleagues (several hundred, in fact), have had this kind of experience as they've moved along in their spiritual progress in -- hey, whaddya know -- a Dattatreya lineage.
my point: do your research before you start dismissing anyone's divinity or spiritual statements. your ignorance is showing and it's not pretty.
sincerely,
Alx Uttermann
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 8:59 AMHey Alx.
I put up a reply to your comments.
guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2005/...i.html
I understand why you would not at first see what I'm aiming at with my blog,
so I'll sum it up. Hindu superstition about self-realization becomes a block to
it's coming about in a life. Thus, I aim my verbal flamethrower at those gurus whose
ideas and presentation of themselves reinforce these ideas of special human divinity
and magical abilities.
I've been a Kali devotee for 20 years and am initiated in the Ramakrishna lineage,
so I'm not knocking Ma. However, these ideas of special human divinity and magic
powers associated with self-realization have to go.
A lot of folks, including yourself at the moment, don't like my blog. All I can say is that
what you believe about self-realization prevents self-realization, and that I will do
everything in my power as a geek with a computer to make that point known by using
anyone held up as being special and divine.
We're either all equally divine, or none of us are. This is the truth of the Upanishads
and the message of Swami Vivekananda.
--jody. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 12:33 PM>>ideas of special human divinity and magic powers associated with self-realization have to go.
why, if people have in fact attained Siddhi?
>>what you believe about self-realization prevents self-realization
don't you think that's a little presumptous?
>>This is the truth of the Upanishads and the message of Swami Vivekananda.
perhaps. but was Vedanta really the message of Ramakrishna? -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:17 PM> why, if people have in fact attained Siddhi?
I've been wandering in yoga culture for 20 years. I have never
seen evidence of anything that could be called a siddhi.
Therefore, I have concluded that most of what are called
siddhis are myths. Furthermore, these myths do more to
prevent realization than all the brothels in Thailand.
I realize there's 1000s of years of the myth of siddhis.
But then, we thought the world was flat for 1000s of
years as well.
> don't you think that's a little presumptous?
No sir, not one tiny bit.
> perhaps. but was Vedanta really the message of Ramakrishna?
It was. However, what we know of Ramakrishna today is
almost all hagiography. It's tainted by saint worship. Most of
the human truths about Ramakrishna has been scrubbed out
of his biography.
I take Ramakrishna's message to be: "As many faiths, so many
paths." Also, it's not what you believe, it's how you believe it.
In other words, it's ALL about sincerity. Ideology is irrelevant,
as long as nobody is getting hurt.
The whole "woman and gold" thing was kind of a smokescreen
for him. He enjoyed the good stuff, and his actual proclivities
were hidden for the most part. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:26 PMgood heavens, jody -- of course siddhis are real! now -- important, special, or worth revelling in -- certainly not, in my opinion. but real, and regularly occurring in the realities of many, many yogis -- without a doubt! -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:36 PM> good heavens, jody -- of course siddhis are real! now -- important, special,
> or worth revelling in -- certainly not, in my opinion. but real, and regularly
> occurring in the realities of many, many yogis -- without a doubt!
You believe so at the peril of your own self-realization, in my opinion. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:40 PM>>in my opinion.
thanks! my opinion differs, but such is the nature of human discourse.
ramakrishna.tribe.net/
feel free to join the discussions. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:51 PMRemember what Ramakrishna said about siddhis: that they
are like a street-walking prostitute covered in raw sewage.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:23 PMwell, amend that statement "siddhis are real", perhaps, to say "siddhis are as real as anything else in this world" -- ie, more illusion mechanisms but none the less manifestations of energy. nothing lost, nothing gained, just repurposed so suddenly ash is in someone's hand where it wasn't, before, etc.
I do agree, of course, that siddhic abilities don't at all necessarily accompany enlightenment. on the other hand, I've seen enough demonstration of them to know that something wildly beautiful and germane is at play.
my teacher in India, who does demonstrate miracles, calls them 'divine illusions.'
for instance, someone is born on this planet -- ah, illusion. they're developing an illness -- more illusion. a healer comes along -- another illusion. he heals that person through 'supernatural' means -- yet another illusion. the patient recovers -- more illusion.
so, to me, both are relevant and operational -- the pure divine nothingness behind all the somethingnesses, and the apparent existence of somethingnesses out of the nothingness.
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:33 PM> my teacher in India, who does demonstrate miracles, calls them 'divine illusions.'
I can't get on board with this at all, Alx.
Sai Baba has been debunked many times by many individuals for this "siddhis."
Amma Narayani claims to manifest ash as well. If a story sounds too fantastic to
be true, it probably is.
> the patient recovers -- more illusion.
Or, faith healing by way of the placebo effect.
> o, to me, both are relevant and operational -- the pure divine nothingness behind
> all the somethingnesses, and the apparent existence of somethingnesses out of
> the nothingness.
You can't deny Ms. Maya while living in Her, even when you know that you
never existed as anything other than Brahman. Shankara tried to deny Her
for years, but in the end all but gave up.
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:29 PMall of the biographies or just Nikhilinanda's english translation of the Kathamrita?
I'm curious as to the alleged discrepancies between the Bengali version and that which has reached us. I cannot as yet read Bengali, however....
I in fact think that you are entirely presumptous in stating your position categorically. I never trust anyone who claims to have THE truth, whether they be a Guru or one opposed to them. who are you to judge the level of self realization in others?
personally I think that Vivekananda used the legacy of Ramakrishna to his advantage while promoting a viewpoint that was much more his own than Ramakrishna's.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:45 PM> all of the biographies or just Nikhilinanda's english translation of the Kathamrita?
M's original Kathamrita has passages that were omitted or bowdlerized by
Nikhilananda.
> I'm curious as to the alleged discrepancies between the Bengali version and
> that which has reached us. I cannot as yet read Bengali, however....
www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi
www.amazon.com/gp/product...753-8260608
> I in fact think that you are entirely presumptous in stating your position categorically.
> I never trust anyone who claims to have THE truth,
I don't blame you. I'm claiming one truth, that ideas about self-realization
prevent self-realization. Shankara called this "doubt", although ideas about
realization are positive doubts rather than negative ones.
> whether they be a Guru or one opposed to them. who are you to judge the
> level of self realization in others?
Good question. I claim to be just another asshole with an opinion.
> personally I think that Vivekananda used the legacy of Ramakrishna to his
> advantage while promoting a viewpoint that was much more his own than
> Ramakrishna's.
I agree that Vivekananda developed his own agenda after RK maha'ed.
The legacy of RK is what got him off the ground, but he only mentions
RK a very few times while in the West. He built his own legacy (and got
trapped in it in the end.) -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:01 PMI've read Kali's Child - it was interesting, but not something I can verify myself without reading Bengali, which is why I say alleged. Really, I liked Ramakrishna more for having read that book - and not because I thought it was a "pack of lies" as is some people's reaction to it.
I'm an asshole with all kinds of opinions as well. My pet peeve is duality, but I don't subscribe to Shankaracharya's viewpoint, nonetheless. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:36 PM> Really, I liked Ramakrishna more for having read that book
Dude. You are the first person I've met since I read the book
in 1996 who felt that way about it. It's very gratifying to hear
you say that. Jeff Kripal will be very happy about it when I
tell him.
Duality. We are the Self even when we say we aren't. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:28 PMWell, his intentions were not slanderous. I agree with his aims, and have a feeling that most of his conclusions were correct. I don't think the lives of saints should be whitewashed for public consumption. people and the world are beautiful, warts and all. your earlier quote about excrement and prostitutes in regards to siddhi makes me think the same thing. all of that is beautiful and divine as well. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:04 PMOr ugly and divine.
You're liberal stance regarding Kripal is very encouraging.
I've been the only RK devotee I know besides Jeff who liked
that book.
Jai Ma!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 2:23 PMhi, Jody,
hey, what a surprise, I'm glad you're here.
sorry I got so testy writing you -- something about the tone you take rubbed me a really wrong way.
I was going to post another comment, in response to the one you put on the blogsite.
maybe I'll do that at length, line by line, there, and be concise here.
I think the Western mind has more traps than Maine lobsterers put in the ocean, and one of those traps is freaking out when someone identifies themselves as a divine being. case in point: Jesus. many dogmatic Christians seem to think that because he said he was a son of god, that he identified himself in that moment and for all eternity as the ONLY son of god. no WAY! nor was he suggesting, of course, that everyone is less than that. he was saying, everyone is a child of god, ie, divine, actually "I tell ye, ye are gods," where he quoted the psalms.
currently, my view is that people knee-jerk react when a person self-identifies as a divine being, thinking somehow that that person is saying they're the ONLY incarnation of that divine energy (usually they're not at all suggesting that, though of course there are some interesting exceptions to my point). that guy saying he's a Datta avatara doesn't negate EVERYONE being such, he's just speaking that way as it comes out -- or, my take on it, actually, is that the energy itself is speaking that way through him.
it's easy to misunderstand. it's more difficult to understand.
about the Mother and Her darshan -- I didn't realize until I read your rebuttal that you are a devotee of Kali. it makes some of your responses, then, even more confusing and interesting to me.
to wit, you were saying that Ramakrishna's visions of Mother would be considered psychiatric today -- no doubt, but I must make the point that if it's a choice between thousands of years of the Indian tradition and yogic science of understanding how the divine operates, or a few hundred years of Western psycho-analytic traditions... well, my money's on the divine.
the other thing that's interesting to me is that on one hand you're dismissing visions of Kali (or Ma in general, I'm guessing) as hallucinations or self-hypnosis, or psychiatric conditions and even superstition on the part of a few gazillion credulous Indians..... and at the same time, you consider yourself a Kali devotee.
so which is it, man? is She real or is She not?
are experiences of Her made-up wishful lies that credulous wide-eyed religious zealots convince themselves about based on a thousands-year-old tradition of 'mythos'? are the saints like Ramakrishna, then, not saints at all but hallucinating fools?
where do you fit into that mix?
and -- just as another comment about the tradition and experiences I've been studying in India -- to be clear about the terms, when I say 'darshan' of the Mother, I mean darshan. I mean, your eyes are open, and a human-like divine form in 3 dimensions is standing in front of a person, talking to them and interacting with that person.
not an eyes-closed, 'gee that was a nice meditation where I saw Kali' vision.
I think -- when we talk on the slippery slope of Illusion that is Mother's domain, we need to be as clear as we can about terms like 'visions' and 'darshan.'
finally, as far as objecting to a saint's contention that he had a conversation with Mother in which She acquisesced to his request for humanity -- your comment was that he 'topped her.' somehow implying a boastful, 'hey, I raised the bet on Mother and got Her to do what I wanted! I'm so cool, aren't I?' grandiosity.
again, I would say that's an entirely Western (and understandable, but not necessarily true) interpretation and projection of what was said in that exchange.
no Mother can resist the sincere plea of Her children, including the Divine Mother, as I understand Her. it means, in a sense, for a devotee (and Her avataras are still Her devotees, last time I checked) to come surrendered to Her, as a child with a request, and Her kind acquiescence to that request -- surrender DOES 'top Her' in the sense that She can and will change course based on the humble, serviceful requests of her children.
so, to me, that recounting of a conversation with Her is credible and makes sense -- not from a self-aggrandizing point of view but as an illustration of the play between Mother and avataras, in particular Datta avataras, who have a kind of peculiar relationship with Her.
She is so gracious, so powerful, so on top of it all, She has no need to assert Her dominance with the souls of this planet -- it's only human to assume how She would behave in any given situation. it's natural to project in this fashion, but it's not supernatural in understanding.
anyway, that's my feeling.
I hope you'll stick around and we can keep talking.
Alx
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 3:05 PM> sorry I got so testy writing you -- something about the tone you take rubbed me a really wrong way.
The tone is on purpose. I'm attacking the idea of special divinity with wit (what little of it I have),
sarcasm and irony in the style typical of modern blogging.
> one of those traps is freaking out when someone identifies themselves as a divine being.
A much more sinister trap is thinking you will become divine with self-realization.
We are always divine. Self-realization brings jnana to the awareness of
the person, but that doesn't make you God anymore than you already were.
> is that the energy itself is speaking that way through him.
I don't believe that energy speaks. I know for a fact that the Self is eternally wordless.
To put it another way, words can only come from the level of being identified as an
individual, which makes Swami Datta a wackjob. At the very least, he is a good example
of what I'm trying to critique in spiritual culture.
> if it's a choice between thousands of years of the Indian tradition and yogic science
> of understanding how the divine operates, or a few hundred years of Western psycho-
> analytic traditions... well, my money's on the divine.
I'd say it's a choice between 1000s of years of accreted legend and myth–bolstered the
whole time by superstition and split into a 1000 variations–or one succinct and consistent
model borne out by experiment and research.
Like it or not, "seeing" Kali as a being standing in front of you is pathological. This doesn't
mean you'll be ever crazy as a result, but were it to happen to me or anyone I know, I'd
recommend a PET scan and a visit to a therapist.
Many of the crazy bhakta saints, like Ramakrishna, may well have been psychiatric
patients today, with the majority being bi-polar.
I don't mean to demean their vision and legacy, but I do mean to contextualize Hindu
myth and superstition in terms of what we know today, to demonstrate that a lot of what
we accept as religious truth is just myth, legend and superstition handed down and
modified by folks along the way.
> so which is it, man? is She real or is She not?
She is real in that the Mahashakti is real. But she's not real in terms of being a crazy
Indian lady in Heaven, raising Hell.
RK said: "As many faiths, so many paths." If you are sincere, Ishvara will inhabit
whatever Ishta Devata you pick. I picked Kali because I liked the idea of being
devoted to a crazy, yet devastatingly sexy Goddess. I was sincere, so She came
to me and made me Her slave.
> are the saints like Ramakrishna, then, not saints at all but hallucinating fools?
Their "saintliness" is much more a function of their hagiographies. I'd say they
were spiritually inspired people who got blown up to mythic proportions after
their deaths.
> I mean darshan. I mean, your eyes are open, and a human-like divine form
> in 3 dimensions is standing in front of a person, talking to them and interacting
> with that person.
I would call that a projection of the subconscious as a way to fulfill a wish.
That's doesn't mean it isn't important or spiritual, but it also doesn't mean that
an actual Kali is making an appearance. In other words, Ma is appearing
by way of the subconscious of the devotee as an expression of the devotee's
love and desire.
> again, I would say that's an entirely Western (and understandable, but
> not necessarily true) interpretation and projection of what was said in that
> exchange.
Here is a bit of Datta's story:
)) the lady was speaking very politely and submissively
That ain't no Kali that I know. Plus, to claim that he saved the world by
admonishing Kali about AIDS? That's wackadoo country.
> surrender DOES 'top Her' in the sense that She can and will change
> course based on the humble, serviceful requests of her children.
I would never in a million years ask Ma for ANYTHING but surrender.
I have never, ever asked Her for anything else. That's what surrender
is to me. What isn't surrender is making requests for a child, or a lover
or money to pay the mortgage.
To myself, surrender is accepting life as it comes at you all as Ma's grace,
whether pleasant or painful. It's not about asking for personal happiness,
as far as I'm concerned.
> that recounting of a conversation with Her is credible and makes sense --
> not from a self-aggrandizing point of view but as an illustration of the play
> between Mother and avataras, in particular Datta avataras, who have a
> kind of peculiar relationship with Her.
To me the story reeks of spiritual hooey. To each his own, eh?
My blog opposes all concepts of Avatar. Most of those claiming the title
today are con men, in my opinion. We are all equally divine, rendering
the title moot.
> but it's not supernatural in understanding.
As a proponent of Advaita Vedanta, I reject ALL supernatural understanding
as just more Maya. Neti, neti. Or as I like to say: it all has as much to with
our truth as the Self as my dog's ass.
I'm not saying supernatural understanding is invalid, I'm saying it's ALWAYS
entirely subjective. There is no "standard" of supernatural information. It has
value to the individual who is knowing it. For everyone else it's just one more
person's fantasy about God.
> I hope you'll stick around and we can keep talking.
Thanks for having me Alx.
--jody -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:26 PM<<I don't mean to demean their vision and legacy, but I do mean to contextualize Hindu
myth and superstition in terms of what we know today, to demonstrate that a lot of what
we accept as religious truth is just myth, legend and superstition handed down and
modified by folks along the way.>>
Jody,
from what you saying, it sounds like you are coming from a purely psychological background trying to scientifically disprove the validity of all spiritual and mystical experiences as purely manifestations of some sort of psychosis.
The myths are made to represent all of the spectrum of various factual, fictional, and symbolic tales, and they are not necessarily made to be taken at face value as truth, but *direct* spiritual experience with deity is simply not myth or legend either.
Discounting true mystical experience means that we will never except anything but physical so-called reality, or the most mundane of awareness as truth? Where is the mystical in that? Where is the self-realization?
<<Here is a bit of Datta's story:
the lady was speaking very politely and submissive>>
I agree that this sounds a bit absurd, from my own personal experience, Kali does not present Herself as submissive...ever. This sounds like some sort of male fantasy, but perhaps the story has been taken out of context, mistranslated or miscommunicated...who cares? I know of and have personally met a few so-called "Avatars" who are wacko and probably only have chosen to become so-called Guru-Avatar for the ego gratification and $$$. Yes, it happens, just as much as there are real Gurus with true spiritual knowledge and siddhas, there are those who just pose as Gurus. We are living in the Kali yuga, and as spiritual seekers we must have discernment and use our intuition wisely. But, i think that bashing the ones who aren't truly enlightened, handing them a label of psychosis, or focussing on their faults isn't necessarily the road to peace within ourselves either, or is it a path to self-realization...
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 4:50 PM> from what you saying, it sounds like you are coming from a purely psychological
> background trying to scientifically disprove the validity of all spiritual and mystical
> experiences as purely manifestations of some sort of psychosis.
My background is 20 years as a shakta with one year at an ashram, 17 years as
an initiate in the lineage of Ramakrishna and an aborted degree in transpersonal
psychology.
I'm not saying spiritual experiences are only psychotic, I'm saying that spiritual
experience is always subjective. Its value and meaning are limited only to the
individual who experienced them. I'm also saying this: spiritual experience has
as much to do with our truth as the Self as any other experience, whether it be
distributing food in a soup kitchen, or blowing cash at a hooker ranch outside
Vegas.
> The myths are made to represent all of the spectrum of various factual, fictional,
> and symbolic tales, and they are not necessarily made to be taken at face value
> as truth,
But they are, all the time, to the detriment of those seeking self-realization.
> but *direct* spiritual experience with deity is simply not myth or legend either.
However, it is completely and entirely subjective. Each has his/her own, none
is more valuable than the other, and none of it has anything to do with the Self.
> Discounting true mystical experience means that we will never except anything
> but physical so-called reality, or the most mundane of awareness as truth?
The truth of the Self is absolutely the most mundane thing you can think of.
> Where is the mystical in that?
Mostly limited to the subconscious projections of the experiencer.
> Where is the self-realization?
Right here, right now, closer than our own breath, in every moment of
our lives, regardless of what we are doing, as if it was sitting on the tips
of our noses.
> I agree that this sounds a bit absurd, from my own personal experience,
> Kali does not present Herself as submissive...ever.
Ho!
> This sounds like some sort of male fantasy, but perhaps the story has
> been taken out of context, mistranslated or miscommunicated...who cares?
I do, when it contributes to the reservoir of occluding expectations about
self-realization than flood spiritual culture like hurricane Katrina.
> I know of and have personally met a few so-called "Avatars" who are wacko
> and probably only have chosen to become so-called Guru-Avatar for the ego
> gratification and $$$. Yes, it happens, just as much as there are real Gurus with
> true spiritual knowledge and siddhas,
I'd love to see one demonstrated in a controlled environment.
> there are those who just pose as Gurus.
> We are living in the Kali yuga, and as spiritual seekers we must have discernment
> and use our intuition wisely. But, i think that bashing the ones who aren't truly
> enlightened, handing them a label of psychosis, or focussing on their faults
> isn't necessarily the road to peace within ourselves either,
Maybe some folks have been zapped by that peace and are trying to share
what they've come to understand about it in the best way they know how.
> or is it a path to self-realization...
Who knows? -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:43 PMMnemosyne wrote:
> I agree that this sounds a bit absurd, from my own personal experience,
> Kali does not present Herself as submissive...ever.
Jody triumphed: Ho!
my comment:
oh, jeepers, guys. sounds like more mythos to me.
<yawning>
Kali is Kali -- the supreme combination of all the saints, rishis, gods, goddesses, angels and other divine beings all rolled into one -- She can appear however She wants.
whether the form standing in front of you looks like a demon with skulls around Her neck or as calm as Laxmi, the ENERGY running through the form is still Kali.
appearances are so deceiving.
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 6:44 PM<<Kali is Kali -- the supreme combination of all the saints, rishis, gods, goddesses, angels and other divine beings all rolled into one -- She can appear however She wants.>>
yeah, Alx...you're right, but that wasn't my point...the word "submissive" caught my attention because it seems to be implying that She is under human control. Whether She appears "calm" or compassionate is not relevant and doesn't apply to Her being submissive, in my opinion...I honestly don't care what form She chooses, scary or benign or whatever, none of that matters...or if She has no form.
The story seems odd and ridiculous as it is presented, my gut tells me that it is way off... thou i didn't deny that it was probably taken out of context, misconstrued or mistranslated. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:08 PM> the word "submissive" caught my attention because it seems to be implying that
> She is under human control.
Under Datta's control. I think it renders him a fool at best. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:22 PMwell, if that is the case Jody, i have no doubts whatsoever, that *If* Datta is indeed invoking Kali, which is not just some part of his "subconscious" mind or a mental construct (as you suggested in another post), but is rather more real than anything in this mundane world, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about and no reason to write your blogs.
Kali will straighten him out, not to worry...
I must admit it would be rather funny to imagine a saint thinking that Kali is his sub and he the master....haa haaa haaa ...yeah right : ))
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:06 PM> She can appear however She wants.
Of course. Because we are imagining her in the way we want.
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:11 PMJody!
>A much more sinister trap is thinking you will become divine with self-realization.
well, DUH.
>We are always divine.
well, yeah, doubly DUHhed. that's what cracks me up about your assault on these guys. they're basically saying that, from some angle or another, and you're bashing them for it. what's UP with that?
(then I wrote: my feeling is that the energy itself is speaking that way through him.)
>I don't believe that energy speaks. I know for a fact that the Self is eternally wordless.
"for a fact" -- huh, strong statement.
"I KNOW the Self is.... " because someone taught it to you? you read it somewhere? you've had direct experience of the wordless Self? aren't we all projections of the Self? don't we sometimes resort to words to communicate?
>To put it another way, words can only come from the level of being identified as an
individual, which makes Swami Datta a wackjob.
I really disagree. if the divine can create universes, you think it can't translate Itself into words if It wants to communicate with us in the way we're used to communicating with one another???????????????????? we're divine yet we abrogate that truth every day and don't, for example, communicate with one another through the silence of meditative states or, I guess, telepathic vibrations.
we're kinda stupid that way. the divine, as I understand it, is super-accomodating of our utter stupidity and is more than willing to express itself through people, animals, indeed any and all elements of nature that exist can become agents for the divine's communication with people. but mostly we're dense and miss the signs, so we get words.
>(I wrote:) if it's a choice between thousands of years of the Indian tradition and yogic science
> of understanding how the divine operates, or a few hundred years of Western psycho-
> analytic traditions... well, my money's on the divine.
(you replied:) I'd say it's a choice between 1000s of years of accreted legend and myth–bolstered the
whole time by superstition and split into a 1000 variations–or one succinct and consistent
model borne out by experiment and research.
isn't Western psycho-analysis also a kind of superstition??????????? it's a 'succinct and consistent model borne out by experiment and research'? are you SERIOUS? they can't figure out what to do with most schizophrenics and bi-polars except medicate or institutionalize them and even then, the amount of actual healing of those conditions is practically nil.
I would heartfully argue that yoga, the science of self-realization, of meditation and siddhi and tantra, is a succinct and consistent model borne out from thousands of years of practical research and research. not only that but the results are, as per scientific method criteria, repeatable and demonstrable. ie, "if you do this mantra so many days in such a way, observing a diksha and pronunciation, you will attain x siddhi." people do it. it happens. it's not rocket science, it's not even religion or superstition -- it's like recipes for baking cakes. if you add this much sadhana and this particular austerity, you wind up with results.
how come India has such a history of producing enlightened masters, including Jesus and Buddha, Padmasambhava, Adi Shankara and all the rest of anonymous, unheard-of incredible ascetes and siddhas throughout thousands of years? these guys were hardly tooting their own horns -- they just followed certain prescribed formulas and practiced and researched as saints had before them, and they did the hard work and got the results.
what is superstitious about that?
to my way of thinking, modern psychology is an infancy-level of observation of how things work on this planet vis-a-vis the highly subjective (and individualized) realities of emotional states in people: psychology can catalogue the problems and in some basic ways, provide a kind of therapeutic relief, but mostly it can't fix what's broken in people.
it's -- primitive. <grinning>
then you wrote: Like it or not, "seeing" Kali as a being standing in front of you is pathological. This doesn't
mean you'll be ever crazy as a result, but were it to happen to me or anyone I know, I'd
recommend a PET scan and a visit to a therapist.
it's happened to plenty of people I know and they seem sane enough to me.
>Many of the crazy bhakta saints, like Ramakrishna, may well have been psychiatric
patients today, with the majority being bi-polar.
many of the crazy psychotherapists in the world today may well have been saints in other lifetimes.
>I don't mean to demean their vision and legacy,
actually, I think you do.
you can't have it both ways -- either they're onto something, or they're not, in which case your entire blog is a little suspect.
>but I do mean to contextualize Hindu
myth and superstition in terms of what we know today, to demonstrate that a lot of what
we accept as religious truth is just myth, legend and superstition handed down and
modified by folks along the way.
but what if -- I'm just asking -- what if a lot of 'what we know today' in our complacent Western 'scientific' (and I use the term with huge irony) rational thinking-based socieities, is based on certain myths and superstitions? like matter being real, for example. like emotions being 'real' -- ie, significant and worthy of delving into over and over and over again, looking for relief and solutions by re-experiencing trauma in the context of 'therapy'?
I'm not a fan of superstition, religious, scientific, or any other -- nor fanaticism.
but I have seen miracles, bonafide wild stuff accompanied by an influx of energy that is undeniable and unmistakeable. so to me, direct experience is incontravertible. I will fall back on my own experiences every time, versus someone's opinion or scholarly explanation of them.
each of us is on our own path, so in a sense, the spiritual life IS subjective. it IS broadly diverse. like snowflakes, no two exactly alike. why shouldn't the divine also reflect this?
>(I wrote:) are the saints like Ramakrishna, then, not saints at all but hallucinating fools?
you replied: Their "saintliness" is much more a function of their hagiographies. I'd say they
were spiritually inspired people who got blown up to mythic proportions after
their deaths.
so, why are you an initiate of Ramakrishna, then?????? why not become an initiate of your local dry-cleaner? what makes him worth knowing about, or researching on, or caring about?
I'm saying, you really can't have it both ways -- either what he experienced was true, in which case he was opening some pretty sublime doorways into the divine energies and living in this world as a beautiful vehicle for the divine energy pouring through him. or what he experienced was pure hallucination, in which case he's a marginal human being and unworthy of further comment.
I'm confused about why you want to straddle this particular fence, claiming relationship with Kali on one hand and then dissing one of Her most beautiful agents in the world with the other hand.
>I wrote: I mean darshan. I mean, your eyes are open, and a human-like divine form
> in 3 dimensions is standing in front of a person, talking to them and interacting
> with that person.
you responded: I would call that a projection of the subconscious as a way to fulfill a wish.
huh? what if (as often happens) that person didn't even have a conscious desire to SEE Her? or even had never heard of Her and had NO idea who She is or what She represents????????
>>
That's doesn't mean it isn't important or spiritual,
well, gee, that's magnanimous of you!
>>but it also doesn't mean that
an actual Kali is making an appearance.
why not?
okay, back to that Datta guy:
you wrote: (in his story) )) the lady was speaking very politely and submissively. That ain't no Kali that I know.
are you professing to claim that you know Kali intimately enough to account for ALL of Her faces and attitudes, Her bhavas and Her expressions?????????????????
I mean, so what, maybe Kali doesn't come to you as a Mother character, polite and kind -- doesn't mean She doesn't have it in Her!!!!!!!!!!!! how can you possibly claim to know what someone else's experience of Her can or 'should' be like. doesn't that smack of some kind of belief system (ie, superstition or mythos: "She's only this way, not that way.").
>Plus, to claim that he saved the world by
admonishing Kali about AIDS? That's wackadoo country.
why is that wackadoo country?
I mean, I'm thinking of the exchange in Autobiography of a Yogi where Babaji (who you also probably don't acknowledge as existing) comes to Lahiri Mahasaya, his student, and tells him: "I'm giving you this great gift of Kriya yoga, you can give it only to those people who seem ready for it, worthy of receiving this divine key to unlock their liberation." and Lahiri says, "But wouldn't it be better to give it to EVERYONE? Why keep it exclusive?" and Babaji changes his mind, based on Lahiri's questioning, telling him, okay, give it to anyone who's asking for it.
people in Indian traditional spirituality who 'served' gurus must have been pretty shocked by this account, of such an upstart student, 'questioning' the master and even having the master defer to his wishes.
to such people I'm sure Lahiri's request of his master seemed wackadoo. that he wanted to give a precious divine gift just to ANYBODY in the world, rather than a select few, must surely have violated brahminical codes or something.
I'm saying, my understanding is that the divine will BEND to accomodate people who are truly humble and asking boons of the divine for the greater benefit of humanity.
I know many similar stories, don't find them at all unusual or in any way proof that the person asking Mother heartfully to change something in the world is nutso.
on the contrary, I would say that's the mark of a highly realized soul -- someone who's able to stand their ground WITH Mother, be clearly thinking in the moment (not so easy!!!!) and asking humbly for something that will aid human beings at large, with basically no credit since most people have no idea things like this happen 'behind the scenes'.........
sounds reasonable to me.
> I wrote: surrender DOES 'top Her' in the sense that She can and will change
> course based on the humble, serviceful requests of her children.
you replied; I would never in a million years ask Ma for ANYTHING but surrender.
I have never, ever asked Her for anything else. That's what surrender
is to me. What isn't surrender is making requests for a child, or a lover
or money to pay the mortgage.
yes, but that guy didn't ask for ANYTHING selfish (unless he has HIV himself). he was asking Her to hold off on what She had planned, anyway, for a while, and give humanity a chance to grow in its understanding of the divine knowledge. it's a huge boon he got from Her -- and I'm sure it came at a huge price to himself, personally.
my other understanding of Maha Kali is that the only way to deal with Her is through negotiation. something for something. if a person wants a boon (and I think we're all sophisticated enough to understand we're not talking about simple, personal, selfish boons here) -- She'll grant it but She always exacts payment, too.
that you only ask Her for surrender is great -- of course, that's one way to approach Her. but ultimately She'll mow you down (in a beautiful way) and you'll be none the wiser about Her mechanisms. if you don't ask for stuff from Her, you're not treating Her (in my opinion) in a proper way -- She's here to help us help ourselves evolve. just enjoying a connection with Her and growing in surrender is fine but (to my way of thinking, only, so pardon me for sounding judgmental) ultimately selfish.
Sri Ramakrishna, for example, had quite a deal with Her and in exchange he gave Her offerings from his own body. that's why the cancer developed and never healed, on his shoulder and moving into his throat.
you won't read that in story books about him. it's a deep mechanism -- one that the saints usually reserve for their own understanding.
>>you wrote: To myself, surrender is accepting life as it comes at you all as Ma's grace,
whether pleasant or painful. It's not about asking for personal happiness,
as far as I'm concerned.
OF COURSE IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL HAPPINESS. EVER. that's not at all the point. that's not my point. definitely it's not that Datta guy's point.
but surrender is a tricky thing. learning how to navigate with Her is a tricky thing. reclaiming our own divinity, I mean a direct understanding of it, is tricky.
>My blog opposes all concepts of Avatar. Most of those claiming the title
today are con men, in my opinion. We are all equally divine, rendering
the title moot.
funny you should mention that. when people ask my teacher in India if he's an avatara, his response is: "isn't everyone?"
the difference is -- he knows it. not from an intellectual understanding, but from a (what I'd call) soul understanding. he knows what is life and what is death and how to traverse the distance between the two. to me, that's a master and someone worth studying with -- but he would never ever say he's the only avatara of this or that. on the contrary, he's trying to wake his students up to their own divinity so they can turn around and rekindle those recollections, that realization, in others and so on and so on and so on.
and yes, we're equally divine BUT we don't express it, do we!???????? so, there's a gap. how to bridge that gap?
> I wrote: but it's not supernatural in understanding.
you replied: As a proponent of Advaita Vedanta, I reject ALL supernatural understanding
as just more Maya. Neti, neti. Or as I like to say: it all has as much to with
our truth as the Self as my dog's ass.
but even having an idea of Maya, then, is rejectionable -- since that is, after all, a supernatural understanding. my point is, Advaita's all well and good but when you're hungry you're probably not eating The Void.
>I'm not saying supernatural understanding is invalid,
you're not? I must be remarkably dim-witted today, that's precisely how I understood your statement, above.
>I'm saying it's ALWAYS entirely subjective. There is no "standard" of supernatural information.
and you think modern science has real 'standards' by comparison?????? isn't there something in physics about the act of observing stuff changing the actual experience of the stuff???????
or how about 20-20 vision? you know how that got started? some optometrist in the 1800s (I think) needed to test his glasses' lenses and had an assistant who had 'pretty good vision.' he got that guy to walk 20 feet and read stuff on a sign, and then made that guy's vision the STANDARD for optometry.
I think there are mechanisms and rules and orders in the supernatural that are related to and also beyond the natural world orders and mechanisms and observable phenomenae. I think the yogis and rishis have done incredible research into THOSE supernatural mechanisms and tested and tried and experimented (and are still experimenting) with how it all works and they came up with some formulas that produce results. predictable, demonstrable results.
I don't think the supernatural is a woo-woo world of subjective hallucinatory experiences at all. I think it's a different level of knowledge and mechanisms that are obvious to people with a consciousness that's been trained to tune in on those levels.
kinda like a dog whistle. but the difference is, anyone -- ANYONE -- can learn to resonate at those frequencies and gain that knowledge if they're willing to do the hard work to get it.
>It has value to the individual who is knowing it. For everyone else it's just one more person's fantasy about God.
yes, unless the experience is communicable to another person. let's say (for the sake of argument) I have a darshan of Mother Kali. perhaps in a few years, as I continue my spiritual growth and researches, I learn how to GIVE that experience to other people.
is it still 'one person's fantasy' or is it now, something demystified, repeatable, demonstrable?
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:20 PMby the way, I wanna thank you, Jody -- if I hadn't stumbled on your blog and gotten fired up, this conversation wouldn't be happening. I have to say -- this is the most spiritual fun I've had in months!!!!!!!
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 5:51 PMI am enjoying the discussion as well. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 6:54 PMI'd love to chime in: me too. I really appreciate that this has stayed so *open*... it's so easy for discussions, especially spiritual ones to become personal diatribes... *smiles* makes me all the more glad I joined.
Thank you ladies.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:01 PMJody!
> well, yeah, doubly DUHhed. that's what cracks me up about your assault on these guys.
> they're basically saying that, from some angle or another, and you're bashing them for it.
> what's UP with that?
They (or their devotees, as it is crass to say such things yourself) are saying that because
they are self-realized, they have special powers and the ability to wield various "energies"
and make things happen supernaturally.
I'm saying we are always divine, EQUALLY, whether or not self-realization has come to
that life. Also, siddhis and supernatural powers have as much to do with it as my dog's
hiney.
> (then I wrote: my feeling is that the energy itself is speaking that way through him.)
> > I don't believe that energy speaks. I know for a fact that the Self is eternally wordless.
> "for a fact" -- huh, strong statement.
> "I KNOW the Self is.... " because someone taught it to you? you read it somewhere?
> you've had direct experience of the wordless Self?
It's not an experience. It's not a thought, idea, feeling, sensation or memory.
It's a direct and ongoing revelation that lives in the context of an individual's
life as jnana. Jnana is a special kind of knowledge, a sort of reflection of
the Self in memory, which is the direct and permanent understanding that we
are the Self. It's not something that is believed, it's something which is
inherently known.
> aren't we all projections of the
> Self? don't we sometimes resort to words to communicate?
We, meaning beings identified as individuals, are absolutely dependent
on words to communicate. That's part of the problem: expressing nondual
truth in words leads to conceptualizations about it, which lead to ideas and
concepts, which block self-realization.
> I really disagree. if the divine can create universes, you think it can't translate Itself into words
> if It wants to communicate with us in the way we're used to communicating with one another?
Talking to Ishvara. Let's consider that. It always and only happens in the context of your individual
mind. I can't hear Ishvara talking when you can. What makes you think that "your" version of
Ishvara's words would ever have anything to do with me?
Any wordy communication with the divine is suspect. I'm not saying that we don't have valuable
and meaningful spiritual experiences that involve talking to God, I'm saying that these experiences
always manifest by way of our own subconscious. That's where a lot of psychosis comes from as
well. The line is microns thin between the two.
> we're divine yet we abrogate that truth every day and don't, for example, communicate with one
> another through the silence of meditative states or, I guess, telepathic vibrations.
Our divinity is shared because we are all really Brahman. Brahman does nothing but be
Brahman. There is no one to say anything to.
> isn't Western psycho-analysis also a kind of superstition???????????
Well, sorta. However, it's tested and supported by neuropsychology,
which the Rishis didn't have, and which is telling us astounding things
about the nature of the mind and identity.
> they can't figure out what to do with most schizophrenics and bi-polars
> except medicate or institutionalize them and even then, the amount of
> actual healing of those conditions is practically nil.
Mental illness is a very serious problem, and the brain is a very complex
and murky place at the moment. That will change over time.
> I would heartfully argue that yoga, the science of self-realization, of meditation and siddhi
> and tantra, is a succinct and consistent model borne out from thousands of years of practical
> research and research.
It's HUNDREDS of models. Many share assumptions, but many don't. Then there's
everything outside of the Vedas. THOUSANDS more models.
I'm not saying these various sadhanas don't work. In fact, I'm saying ANY sadhana
works. So you lose the right to call it science as it's anything goes.
> not only that but the results are, as per scientific method criteria, repeatable and demonstrable.
> ie, "if you do this mantra so many days in such a way, observing a diksha and pronunciation,
> you will attain x siddhi." people do it. it happens.
Bring it on, girl! Show me one person who can demonstrate a siddhi
in a controlled environment. I don't care what it says in Patanjali.
> it's not rocket science, it's not even religion or superstition
It's myth, speculation and conjecture that has no footing outside of
those who practice it. That's not science, despite many gurus making
claims about their versions of yogic "science."
> how come India has such a history of producing enlightened masters,
Because the Rishis were the first ones to figure out Vedanta.
> including Jesus
That's speculation, not historical fact. Although it does make a lot of sense to me.
> and Buddha, Padmasambhava, Adi Shankara and all the rest of anonymous, unheard-of
> incredible ascetes and siddhas throughout thousands of years? these guys were hardly
> tooting their own horns -- they just followed certain prescribed formulas and practiced
> and researched as saints had before them, and they did the hard work and got the results.
You don't actually know that. What I mean is, maybe a large portion of them were
just winging it and got to the same understanding.
> then you wrote: Like it or not, "seeing" Kali as a being standing in front of you
> is pathological. This doesn't mean you'll be ever crazy as a result, but were it to
> happen to me or anyone I know, I'd recommend a PET scan and a visit to a therapist.
> it's happened to plenty of people I know and they seem sane enough to me.
Let me rephrase: seeing Kali standing in front of you talking could possibly
(notice how I didn't use the word likely?) be a manifestation of psychopathology.
> many of the crazy psychotherapists in the world today may well have been saints
> in other lifetimes.
Who knows? I know a lot more crazy psychotherapists than crazy saints.
> > I don't mean to demean their vision and legacy,
> actually, I think you do.
That's what you are putting there, girl. I'm only drawing attention to the fact
that enlightenment culture is full of occluding myth and superstition. It's not
my fault that people cherish these notions.
> you can't have it both ways -- either they're onto something, or they're not, in which c
> ase your entire blog is a little suspect.
They ARE on to something, but it's time for a major pruning.
> but what if -- I'm just asking -- what if a lot of 'what we know today' in our complacent
> Western 'scientific' (and I use the term with huge irony) rational thinking-based socieities,
> is based on certain myths and superstitions? like matter being real, for example.
In the realm of name and form, it is. If you jump off the bridge, the Peterbilt is gonna
get ya.
> emotions being 'real' -- ie, significant and worthy of delving into over and over and over
> again, looking for relief and solutions by re-experiencing trauma in the context of 'therapy'?
In the context of the network of samskaras in the mind of an individual, emotions
ARE as real as matter is in Maya.
> I have seen miracles, bonafide wild stuff accompanied by an influx of energy that is undeniable
> and unmistakeable. so to me, direct experience is incontravertible. I will fall back on my own
> experiences every time, versus someone's opinion or scholarly explanation of them.
I would never think to suggest otherwise. However, we can call into question how you
interpreted these experiences. They get filtered through what you believe. Seen by
a different person from a different perspective, they could turn out to be much different
from what you thought they were.
> each of us is on our own path, so in a sense, the spiritual life IS subjective. it IS broadly
> diverse. like snowflakes, no two exactly alike. why shouldn't the divine also reflect this?
But it does. I'm on board here all the way.
However, each unique path is a unique spiritual reality, and they don't ever really
overlap, despite our brother and sister sadhakas having the same guru.
> so, why are you an initiate of Ramakrishna, then?????? why not become an initiate
> of your local dry-cleaner? what makes him worth knowing about, or researching on,
> or caring about?
The idea that any path works with sincerity. The idea that we live entirely in the context
of Ma's love, no matter what is happening. The fact that my guru was initiated in the
tradition before me.
> I'm saying, you really can't have it both ways -- either what he experienced was true,
> in which case he was opening some pretty sublime doorways into the divine energies
> and living in this world as a beautiful vehicle for the divine energy pouring through him.
> or what he experienced was pure hallucination, in which case he's a marginal human
> being and unworthy of further comment.
That's all your dichotomy. And I'd say it's a false one.
Ramakrishna's spiritual experiences were culturally mediated. They happened
in the context of orthodox Hinduism. That informed the form that they took.
He may or may not have been crazy, or he may have been a little crazy, some
of the time. He may or may not have been homosexually inclined. None of that
matters. The line is microns thick.
I see Ramakrishna as a crazy little man that was probably as God-realized as
it gets. I also see that God-realization is meditated by the subconscious, yet
self-realization has no mediation whatsoever. Ramakrishna became self-
realized in the context of his God-realization, but that doesn't mean that his
spiritual experience didn't manifested by way of his very human subconscious.
> I'm confused about why you want to straddle this particular fence, claiming
> relationship with Kali on one hand and then dissing one of Her most beautiful
> agents in the world with the other hand.
You paint my words as a dis. I'm just presenting the way I've come to
understand and love Ramakrishna.
> you responded: I would call that a projection of the subconscious as a way
> to fulfill a wish.
> huh? what if (as often happens) that person didn't even have a conscious desire to
> SEE Her? or even had never heard of Her and had NO idea who She is or what
> She represents????????
Good points. Rephrasing: I would call that a projection of the subconscious as
a manifestation of karma in those cases where they weren't gunning for it.
> > but it also doesn't mean that an actual Kali is making an appearance.
> why not?
Yeah. Kali as the Mahashakti manifests as Ishvara for individuals though
their subconscious content. I guess you can call Her the "actual" Kali.
> are you professing to claim that you know Kali intimately enough to account for ALL
> of Her faces and attitudes, Her bhavas and Her expressions?????????????????
Heh. You got me there.
It's not my Kali, but it might be his.
But that still makes my point. Any male (or female) who would purport to top Kali is
an egoist. I'd say Datta told the story to prove how mighty he is as an incarnation
of God. It's a male thing, I guess.
> > Plus, to claim that he saved the world by
> > admonishing Kali about AIDS? That's wackadoo country.
> why is that wackadoo country?
Because we still have it bad, yet we were never in danger of succumbing
completely. It's too hard to get to get us all. He didn't save the world from
AIDS, our knowledge of how you get AIDS is saving us from it.
> I mean, I'm thinking of the exchange in Autobiography of a Yogi where Babaji
> (who you also probably don't acknowledge as existing)
You're right. I don't buy into the Babaji thing personally. To each his own.
> I'm saying, my understanding is that the divine will BEND to accomodate
> people who are truly humble and asking boons of the divine for the greater
> benefit of humanity.
That's your picture of Ma. I can't argue with that.
But I can express my personal opinion that do demand submission
from Kali is the absolute height of folly and a plain manifestation of
a fascination with power. I wouldn't want a guru like that.
> on the contrary, I would say that's the mark of a highly realized soul -- someone who's
> able to stand their ground WITH Mother, be clearly thinking in the moment (not so easy!!!!)
> and asking humbly for something that will aid human beings at large, with basically no
> credit since most people have no idea things like this happen 'behind the scenes'.........
The sentiment was in the right place, but did Datta save us from AIDS? Nah.
> that guy didn't ask for ANYTHING selfish (unless he has HIV himself). he was asking Her
> to hold off on what She had planned,
Ma doesn't plan. The Mahashakti doesn't operate as a discreet intelligence who
plans. It's anything goes at all times everywhere and we'll see what we end up
with. At least, to my view.
> anyway, for a while, and give humanity a chance to grow in its understanding of the divine
> knowledge. it's a huge boon he got from Her -- and I'm sure it came at a huge price to himself,
> personally.
I see it all as Datta's personal myth-making, the attempt to get others to believe
in him as God. It needs to be addressed because it contributes to the occlusion,
in my opinion.
> my other understanding of Maha Kali is that the only way to deal with Her is through
> negotiation. something for something. if a person wants a boon (and I think we're all
> sophisticated enough to understand we're not talking about simple, personal, selfish
> boons here) -- She'll grant it but She always exacts payment, too.
That's all Hindu superstition to me.
> that you only ask Her for surrender is great -- of course, that's one way to approach Her. but ultimately
> She'll mow you down (in a beautiful way) and you'll be none the wiser about Her mechanisms.
I believe in no mechanism of Kali.
> if you don't ask for stuff from Her, you're not treating Her (in my opinion) in a proper way -- She's
> here to help us help ourselves evolve. just enjoying a connection with Her and growing in surrender
> is fine but (to my way of thinking, only, so pardon me for sounding judgmental) ultimately selfish.
To each his own. It was Ramakrishna's suggestion to ask Ma for nothing but more surrender.
> Sri Ramakrishna, for example, had quite a deal with Her and in exchange he gave Her offerings
> from his own body. that's why the cancer developed and never healed, on his shoulder and
> moving into his throat.
Myth and superstition.
> you won't read that in story books about him. it's a deep mechanism -- one that the saints
> usually reserve for their own understanding.
See above.
> but surrender is a tricky thing. learning how to navigate with Her is a tricky thing.
> reclaiming our own divinity, I mean a direct understanding of it, is tricky.
We ultimately discover that there was never anyone here to navigate
anything. Surrender is the absolute opposite of tricky. It's a mono-thematic.
Only surrender. Only surrender. Ramakrishna used to pray to Ma:
You are the operator, I am the machine.
> funny you should mention that. when people ask my teacher in India if he's an
> avatara, his response is: "isn't everyone?
No, insofar as we all aren't promoting ourselves by way of the title.
> the difference is -- he knows it. not from an intellectual understanding, but from
> a (what I'd call) soul understanding.
I'd call that an experiential understanding.
> he knows what is life and what is death and how to traverse the distance between the two.
He knows what HE knows about life and death, etc. It's still one man's view.
> twe're equally divine BUT we don't express it, do we!?
We are always expressing it, no matter what we are doing,
good or bad.
> but even having an idea of Maya, then, is rejectionable -- since that is, after all, a
> supernatural understanding.
Not at all. It's simply looking around at name and form and calling Her something.
> you think modern science has real 'standards' by comparison?
You can put it on a table and measure it with science. Things you can't measure
may exist, but they are probably only experienced subjectively.
> I think there are mechanisms and rules and orders in the supernatural that are related to and also
> beyond the natural world orders and mechanisms and observable phenomenae.
So do the Theosophists. I think that most of it is conjecture, myth, speculation, superstition...
and entirely subjective.
There are hundreds of sets of "mechanisms and rules and orders" for you to choose from.
Is every metaphysical system dead on? Are some more so than others?
They are all dead on, so none of them are. How's that for paradox?
> ANYONE -- can learn to resonate at those frequencies and gain that
> knowledge if they're willing to do the hard work to get it.
All within the system they've adopted. What about all those other systems
that they didn't adopt? Are those wrong? My point is that it's anything goes,
and it proves that there is no mechanism. That we *project* the mechanism
as much as we intuit it. It is always entirely subjective.
> I yes, unless the experience is communicable to another person. let's say (for the
> sake of argument) I have a darshan of Mother Kali. perhaps in a few years, as I
> continue my spiritual growth and researches, I learn how to GIVE that experience
> to other people.
I'd call that all occluding nonsense.
> is it still 'one person's fantasy' or is it now, something demystified, repeatable,
> demonstrable?
It's a shared fantasy, a la an Amma. It works, but only because people believe
in it, not because Amma is specially divine.
I wish tribe.net had a better email tool. It would be so nice to be able to quote
from the previous post. It's a pain in the butt to do it manually.
This is a blast. But let's try to keep the statements pruned so we won't
have to wade through it all every time.
--jody -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:31 PM(Alx wrote:> are you professing to claim that you know Kali intimately enough to account for ALL > of Her faces and attitudes, Her bhavas and Her expressions????????????????? )
(Jody wrote: Heh. You got me there.
It's not my Kali, but it might be his.)
I hope you two don't mind my interjection- but, Jody, your statement here implies that *your* Kali differs from *his* Kali, differs, potentially from mine, or any other's "Kali". That implies that, as you've previously stated, it's all subconscious psycho-Jungian processing and that basically, Ma Kali is a projection, nothing more. From my understandings of reading and re-reading this thread, it seems as though you feel a very strong, deep and *real* connection to *your* Kali. And quite the aversion to being caught up in the illusions, the Maya of projections... yet, isn't *your* Kali just a construct of your mind? For, if She were *more* than that, then at the very least, would be potential for Her to be widely experianced in similar ways. How is it so many people have similar visions and ideas of who or what Ma Kali is? Is it because we all psychologically carry that image deeply embedded in our subconscious, just as we supposedly house other images..? Or, is it because She is real, as real as One can be, and that *is* who and what She is: Kali.
(Jody wrote: But that still makes my point. Any male (or female) who would purport to top Kali is an egoist. I'd say Datta told the story to prove how mighty he is as an incarnation
of God. It's a male thing, I guess. )
Where did you first come across the notion that Ma Kali was "untoppable" and to "purport" so would be considered egoist? From the Hindu mythologies you claim to not believe in?
(Alx wrote: > I'm saying, my understanding is that the divine will BEND to accomodate
> people who are truly humble and asking boons of the divine for the greater
> benefit of humanity.)
(Jody wrote: That's your picture of Ma. I can't argue with that.
But I can express my personal opinion that do demand submission
from Kali is the absolute height of folly and a plain manifestation of
a fascination with power. I wouldn't want a guru like that. )
When did "pictures" and "personal opinions" ever have anything to do with Realty? And who ever said you get to "pick" your guru?
(Jody wrote: Ma doesn't plan. The Mahashakti doesn't operate as a discreet intelligence who plans. It's anything goes at all times everywhere and we'll see what we end up
with. At least, to my view. )
How do you know these things to be Truth? Just curious... ;) -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 8:00 PM> it seems as though you feel a very strong, deep and *real* connection to *your* Kali.
I experience the constant presence of Ma. Of course, that's only my
subjective interpretation of the contents of my awareness.
> And quite the aversion to being caught up in the illusions, the Maya of projections...
Maybe I'm not so much anymore.
> yet, isn't *your* Kali just a construct of your mind?
Yes and no. Yes in that as a person, I've taken a body of cultural expression
and employed it as a "portal" through which a relationship with Ishvara–as
I experience Her–has been established.
> How is it so many people have similar visions and ideas of who or what Ma Kali is?
Because they've all adopted a similar set of cultural artifacts.
> Where did you first come across the notion that Ma Kali was "untoppable" and
> to "purport" so would be considered egoist?
It's just an opinion I pulled out of my ass. ;)
> From the Hindu mythologies you claim to not believe in?
You can employ a mythology without accepting it as historical fact.
> When did "pictures" and "personal opinions" ever have anything to do
> with Realty?
If we're talking about Brahman, nothing has anything to do with it.
> And who ever said you get to "pick" your guru?
Who says there's a doer who does anything?
> (Jody wrote: Ma doesn't plan.
>
> How do you know these things to be Truth? Just curious... ;)
Again, it can only be my opinion, but I'm convinced it's all super-rational.
There is no plan because no plan is necessary. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 1:59 AM
I wrote (about my teacher in India) > he knows what is life and what is death and how to traverse the distance between the two.
Jody wrote: He knows what HE knows about life and death, etc. It's still one man's view.
my comment: he's sharing it, bit by bit, piece by piece, experience by experience. some things are universal and not subjective subconscious yada yada projections of the quasi-conscious psychotropic state of semi-conscious awareness in wishful thinking.....
<grinning>
Alx
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 2:26 PM
Alx: including Jesus
Jody: That's speculation, not historical fact. Although it does make a lot of sense to me.
Alx: not speculation. historical fact. there are written documents from about 2000 years ago with his name on them in India. I've seen them with my own eyes. that news is coming to the world, oh, soon.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Mon, March 27, 2006 - 7:40 PM> this is the most spiritual fun I've had in months!!!!!!!
I'm always glad to participate in things that are fun. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 1:57 AMJody wrote:
<<They (or their devotees, as it is crass to say such things yourself) are saying that because
they are self-realized, they have special powers and the ability to wield various "energies"
and make things happen supernaturally.
<<I'm saying we are always divine, EQUALLY, whether or not self-realization has come to
that life. Also, siddhis and supernatural powers have as much to do with it as my dog's
hiney.
and my response is:
jeez, your dog must have one unebelievably divine butt!
(do you even have a dog, really?)
Alx
ps -- the thing about the 'submissive' language -- wasn't that actually written in description by the DEVOTEE of the Datta guy? he witnessed the encounter and described it -- and the devotee's language (and English probably not his first or best language at that) was to describe the woman he saw as 'submissive'? seems like you're all hung up on the Western weirdly quasi-sexual connotation of that word rather than, possibly, a demure-looking woman who was listening attentively to the guy being described as such. it's awkward but not conclusive.
certainly I don't think it's 'evidence' that the Datta guy is some huge egoist.
re AIDS -- might've been a lot worse. who can say? furthermore, where do you suppose we all figured out how it's transmitted and how to prevent it? pure science? divine help? little of both?
finally, about everyone being an avatara -- fuck titles. it's not about titles. 'avatara' literally means 'the divine in descent', ie, divine incarnation on this planet.
aren't we all that?
(and if so -- why don't we ACT like it?????)
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 6:47 AM> (do you even have a dog, really?)
Really.
atman.net/guruphiliac/mda.jpg
> seems like you're all hung up on the Western weirdly
> quasi-sexual connotation of that word
I don't think so:
)) Swami was speaking in an authoritative tone, while the lady
)) was speaking very politely and submissively
That's clearly expressing an alpla/beta relationship with Datta
as alpha. It's not surprising given his antics in other discussions
I'm a part of. I'm sticking by my assertion it was more of his
bragging about his supposed special divinity.
But I understand why you might have a different opinion about it.
--jody.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 9:05 AMOOH!
Heated Debate! On the goddessence tribe! *clapping hands gleefully* What a treat! An anit-BS 20-year Kali devotee on a rampage! YOWZA! Prostitues covered in sewage and dog's asses! *whoo*.
So I'm loving this, obviously. As as I'm currently hip-deep in non-dualistic texts, would anyone mind if I test drive some of these non-dual ideas?
There are infinite worlds. Vasistha says, "Millions of universes appear in the infinite conciousness (cid akasa) like specks of dust in a beam of light..." And there are infinite possibilities within those worlds. "this universe exists in the infinite consciousness just as future waves exist in a calm sea".
The world 'we' exist in is entirely fictional, a projection of 'our' individual minds, the 'fruit' of a desire to desire. Vasistha says "Mind alone is this universe. Mind is the mountain-range. Mind is the space. Mind is god." Whatever we imagine to be true, IS. Could it not be argued that ALL our actions, thoughts, abilities, everything is siddhi? In Vasistha's Yoga, the SUN said, "One beholds with physical eyes only such objects as have been created by him in his own mind - naught else".
So (correct me if I'm wrong) presumably there is a world somewhere very similar to our own, where pink centaurs can walk on water and shoot lazers out their eyes, and this is not considered siddhi because, well, EVERYONE can do it. Conversely, the centaurs would be, dude, BLOWN AWAY by anyone who can do long division in their head! That's some serious shit, long division! Because "The mind is inert", answers to long division problems are really only being 'pulled' from the infinite consiousness. That makes it Siddhi, yes? But in 'OUR' version of creation, doing long division problems in your head is common, and therefore not classified as Siddhi?
It appears to me the problem is NOT siddhi per se, but UNUSUAL siddhi. Having, thinking you have, or WANTING superpowers that make you think/feel/appear superior. The danger (to paraphrase jody) is in wanting to appear more divine than anyone else, creating separation and thus getting yourself 'stuck' in duality.
On the other hand, if you're a "pathalogical" and "bi-polar" and imagine EVERYONE has these abilities, and you don't think yourself unusual, there's no 'danger', is there? You're just an amusing fool, hallucinating most of the time, living in a dream world...
just like the rest of us. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 9:31 AM> You're just an amusing fool, hallucinating most of the time, living in a dream world...
>
> just like the rest of us.
I'd say not quite. There is an additional layer of dream that causes the psychiatric
case to be confused about what is actually possible and happening in *this* dream.
In this dream, if I jump off a bridge over the freeway, I'll probably get hit by
a vehicle. In their additional layer of dream, they may believe they can fly.
They won't.
The world is relatively real while in it. We can deny it all day, but the
speeding Peterbilt is sure to end any such notion when encountered. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 10:18 AMHey, that was quick!
OK, so first off, I want to recognize your experience and expertise! I'm just a baby at all this! My comments are made in the spirit of fun and rousing debate!
My own practice has not included levitation, auras, embodied deities, ect. In fact, it's pretty dang mundane. A few coincidences here and there, but that's about it.
But I'm not dismissing siddhi. Either everything-as-siddhi OR super-power-type-siddhi.
You avoided several tough questions inside my post. Consider: From where you stand, the flying devotee is now asphault-burger. Because that's the universe you live in. That's how it manifests for you.
Who is to say the devotee didn't just cast off that gross body, and isn't flying around happily? Only to reincarnate in a different illusionary body a little later? OR maybe he/she on his/her flutter-way to some bliss-filled astrial relm?
When you say *this* dream, aren't you simply saying *MY* dream?
Consider: One might say the jungle explorer got possessed by a nasty forest entity who hates intruders and begins ripping the explorer's guts out. OR one could say the jungle explorer contracted Ebola. In both cases, the physical manifestation is a very nasty disease. They are simply different views, are they not? Different metaphors?
Science is just another way of describing the universe. In many cases, Science is as religious a practice as any other. I see it all the time, I'm married to a research biologist! In science, what we call law or reality is really a set of norms based on patterns. "Devotee becomes red smudge" is only the most likely scenario, not the ONLY scenario.
You could flip science on its own head. Vasistha: "These hallucinations become reality when experienced by many, even as a statement made by very many people is accepted as true. When these are incorporated in one's life, they aquire their own reality: after all, what is the truth concerning the things of the world, except how they are experienced in one's own consciousness?"
As any good scientist will tell you, science only sees what it looks for, and can only describe what happens repeatedly under 'controlled' conditions. Exceptions, even commonly occuring exceptions, do not make it into the text books. Again, quoting Vasistha, "There is no cause and effect relation between the supreme being and the universe". -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 10:33 AM> Who is to say the devotee didn't just cast off that gross body, and isn't flying around happily?
You could say that, but then we have no agreement about what is
really real, relatively real and unreal, making this discussion moot.
> When you say *this* dream, aren't you simply saying *MY* dream?
Jump off the bridge and then come back to tell me that again. ;)
> "There is no cause and effect relation between the supreme being and
> the universe".
That doesn't change the fact that we share an apparent reality that
seems to have certain characteristics we can all (usually) agree about.
But this is taking us way off my main point, that ideas held in the mind
about self-realization only serve to occlude jnana. That's what I and
the weblog are about. I happen to prefer science as a guide for helping
to unravel the mysteries of our apparently shared experience realm.
Your mileage obviously varies. -
-
Unsu...
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 11:42 AMBasically it's all your opinion. You beleive one way other people believe something else. I think what's a little scary about you is your absolute agenda to prove that others are wrong and you are right. I'm basically not as nice as other people are so i'll just say it. i find you tedious and feel people are paying way to much attention to you which is probably what you get off on. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 12:22 PMShankaracharya went around debating, trying to convert people to his position. I don't agree with either Jody or S. on a lot of points... but I don't actually think Jody here is simply grabbing for attention. I don't find this conversation tedious, I find it lively. if we never hear differing opinions it's just one big congratulatory circle jerk. hooray for contrast to throw ideas into relief. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 2:24 PMquoting Shakespeare in response to Saul:
amen, amen, to that fair prayer say I.
the Shankara reference, however, does bring me to a story I'd like to lob at Jody -- do you guys know this one?
Shankaracharya, among other things (after his argumentative rajas phase), was a great vedantist, pure monism, nothing exists, there is no form, there is no maya, there is no creation, etc., etc. silly wabbit.
at one point in his life, he was in the Himalayas by himself, and he fell ill. so ill, in fact, that he could pretty much only lay in the snow and contemplate his own (imminent) demise. as he was laying there, completely weakened, waiting to die, a young milkmaid came along and saw him there.
"sir, what's wrong with you?" she inquired.
Shankara replied: "I have no shakti (energy."
she laughed. oh, boy, did she ever laugh! then she said, "but I thought you didn't BELIEVE in Shakti!!!!"
and right away morphed into the Mother Divine as the Universal Mother.
gee, one can only imagine his shock.
plus She gave him the key to Her forms, the Sri Chakra.
needless to say, in addition to his devotion to Shiva, he also became a Mother-worshipper.
pretty funny.
just goes to show -- when you think you've got it all nailed down and 'understood' -- She will come along and not only crush your arrogance but throw you a beautiful divine curveball (which will lift humanity) at the same time.
Alx
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 3:45 PM<<when you think you've got it all nailed down and 'understood' -- She will come along and not only crush your arrogance but throw you a beautiful divine curveball (which will lift humanity) at the same time.>>
This reminds me of a story that i heard while at Ammachi's (Mata Amritanandamayi) ashram ... (btw-not my guru).
One of the orange robed Swamiji's gave a talk about his near death experience in which he was sent away by Amma, told to live as a beggar in a cave in the Himalayan mountains, and without any possessions ...
He said that he was sent away from Amma's divine grace...she told him to essentially get lost...he knew that it was a test to see if he could survive without her because he had become greatly attached to being in her presence for many years. He spoke of her as if she was his lover, and how he longed for her, prayed for her day after day and couldn't live without her. Soon he became too weak (loss of shakti) to beg for food, it was freezing in the snow covered mountains, and he had nothing to keep him warm. Then, he became so ill that he thought he would die; had a high temperature and was delusional. He described the feeling of death coming over him, he was breathing his last, and finally just gave in and accepted death with open arms.
Then, to his surprise, Amma appeared out of nowhere. He described her scent and her warmth surrounding him, like Divine Mother Tara offering Her breast to nurse him back to health, but he was so delusional that he was couldn't really see her clearly. When he woke up in the snow some days later her felt that he had been resurrected, regenerated, and the symptoms of his illness no longer existed; he was miraculously cured. He said that his mind did question what exactly had happened, it wanted a *rational* explanation. Was it just his mind playing tricks on him...more illusions? Then, he looked down and saw the beautiful blanket that was covering his body that smelled exactly like Amma and knew that it was not just maya, it was all real...and it then dawned on him that he had passed the test, and lived to tell about it.
Overjoyed with Bliss, no one in the room could deny the validity of his story and his love for his Amma. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 3:56 PM> Overjoyed with Bliss, no one in the room could deny the validity of
> his story and his love for his Amma.
Nobody in the room would have *dared* question the story.
It would have been like telling a room full of Yankees fans
that the Red Sox rule. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 4:07 PMI question everyone Jody, and everything to the point of being rather, you could say, a rabid BITCH, a name that i've gotten accustomed to and can wear, cause i don't give a fuck...i don't require anyone's permission...
and btw, i am not a devotee' of Amma's, i follow my own path, which is more left handed...
But i guess it's just one of those had to be there situations.
Rational scientific minds just couldn't grasp it, i guess huh? -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 4:55 PM> i follow my own path, which is more left handed...
Jai Ma! I'm taking a lot of heat for that myself, lately.
> But i guess it's just one of those had to be there situations.
I wasn't in the room as you were, but neither of us was in India
standing next to the guy when all this happened.
I'm not saying it didn't. I'm saying that it happened in a particular
phenomenological envelope: a person who was operating under
certain assumptions–charging his subconscious in such a way
as to allow for the events to transpire as they did.
Miracles do happen, subjectively. And I understand a lot of folks
draw inspiration from these kinds of stories. But to believe your
own self-realization is going to empower you to perform miracles
locks you into a particular idea about what self-realization is.
That idea then blocks the ALREADY existing awareness from
being recognized.
> Rational scientific minds just couldn't grasp it, i guess huh?
Not if they weren't on the scene recording the circumstances. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 5:32 PMgrrrrrr...this discussion seems like were swimming around in circles and going no where, and i'm not a Pisces...
<<I'm not saying it didn't. I'm saying that it happened in a particular
phenomenological envelope: a person who was operating under
certain assumptions–charging his subconscious in such a way
as to allow for the events to transpire as they did.>>
Again, like i said yesterday, and others have stated as well, this sounds like you are some sort of Jungian psychologist babbling on and on and on about subconscious archetypes, which separate the mind from the body and spirit. This mental fragmentation from the body and soul naturally cuts one off from all spiritual experiences. You do not sound like a person who claims to be a 20 year or so RK initiate.
So, thank you, it's been fun, but i'm not into swimming in circles...
B*B -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 5:45 PM> You do not sound like a person who claims to be a 20 year or so RK initiate.
In other words, "you don't meet my expectations of what such a person would
be saying."
It's those kind of expectations that are the whole problem. All I'm trying
to say is look at your expectations about self-realization... and then throw them
out. They aren't doing you any good in any way, in my opinion.
Thanks to you too for "swimming" with me. I'm sorry it was only in circles for you. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 1:05 AMI honestly don't have any expectations of self-realization.... imho, expectations of anything or anyone lead to attachments and/or aversions.
Maybe if it was warmer here, i wouldn't mind swimming with you, but spring still hasn't arrived, yet ...
Nonetheless, it was fun baby, while it lasted ; ))
namaste'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 2:13 PMRishi Charles (with some help from Vasistha) wrote:
You could flip science on its own head. Vasistha: "These hallucinations become reality when experienced by many, even as a statement made by very many people is accepted as true. When these are incorporated in one's life, they aquire their own reality: after all, what is the truth concerning the things of the world, except how they are experienced in one's own consciousness?"
my response:
ABSOLUTELY. to take this to its next logical conclusion -- what happens when we have more and more people openly coming up with siddhis and displaying them in 'controlled' environments and everywhere else -- ? the conventional perception of what's normal in this world will change. it's always changing, always in flux, anyway. a hundred years ago, the idea that human beings could fly around in the air in contraptions powered by wind or fossil fuels was outrageous. never mind the idea of sending a human being to walk on the moon.
btw -- to come back to Jody's thing about yogis demonstrating their abilities in 'controlled environments' (which makes me chuckle, in Kali's universe, is there really any such thing even literally possible? but let the irony pass!) -- I can think of at least one yogi who DID that, repeatedly, Jack Schwarz, my first spiritual teacher who had some interesting siddhis.
he used to do the thing where he shoved a sail needle (those graduated needles they use to sew sails on sailboats? huge suckers on one end) into his arm, sometimes managing to puncture blood vessels along the way in laboratories, like UCSD, UCSF Medical School and other fine institutions of Western learning. they monitored his brain waves the whole time, and he was in a permanently delta (deepest point of sleep) predominance while it was happening, which in itself is interesting. anyway, the needle would go in, his arm would bleed or not based on whatever people wanted (& his intention) and then after half an hour or so, he'd take it out and within about 45 minutes the wounds would heal up -- the smaller one would heal almost instantly, and the gash made by the larger end of the needle would be gone a little slower.
plus they captured this stunt on video.
just fyi.
Alx
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 9:29 AMOOOH! I almost forgot something!
"The mind by its nature is inert: it borrows intelligence from the consciousness wich it pursues in order to gain the ability to experience." I should have quoted that. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 9:36 AM> "The mind by its nature is inert: it borrows intelligence from the consciousness
> wich it pursues in order to gain the ability to experience." I should have quoted that.
The mind is also a bioelectrical entity whose function is mediated
by chemicals and electrical impulses. When these are disrupted
by various pathologies, the intelligence cannot be employed
properly, rendering it useless as a tool of discrimation, effectively
crippling the buddhi.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 9:36 AMFolks seem to be debating what is true and not true, what is real and not real. That's a sticky wicket! Isn't it true, that by defending such rules, by expressing PREFERENCES, we are locking ourselves into duality?
I mean, desire is one thing. Desires can seriously mess you up. "He who runs after the objects created by his own mind surely comes to grief".
They say unfufilled desires get you reincarnated. Yikes! Or reincarnated as a Hungry Ghost! Zowie! Or stuck in the Bardos! If you're on your death-bed, thinking like Homer Simpson, "mmmmm, donuts..." and kick the bucket? It's a whole lotta sorrow, sister!
But PREFERENCES? Right and wrong? Real and unreal? That shit is ego-crack! -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 9:48 AM> by defending such rules, by expressing PREFERENCES, we are
> locking ourselves into duality?
Duality isn't something you escape, it's something you see around.
When you do, it's still there.
Ramakrishna was full of preferences. Any being in a body is.
The preferences aren't the problem. It's the attachment to the
idea that you are *only* the person *having* the preferences.
You can know yourself as the Self in the ongoing revelation
known as jnana while remaining a person who prefers this
and that. -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 2:17 PM<<The preferences aren't the problem. It's the attachment to the
idea that you are *only* the person *having* the preferences.
not to mention -- the attachment TO the preferences. they'll bite you in the butt every time.
(and yer little dawg's, too!)
Alx (confessing an unholy obsession with the divine butt of Jody's mind-created canine.) -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 2:40 PM> (confessing an unholy obsession with the divine butt of Jody's mind-created canine.)
Cisco is really not mind-created. He is an authentic 50 lb., 8-year-old male Australian
Shepherd who has been on top of every 13,000 ft. + peak in the state of New Mexico and
on most of those over 12,000 ft..
atman.net/guruphiliac/mda.jpg -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 10:12 PMMind alone is the Cisco. Mind is an authentic 50 lb., 8-year-old male Australian
Shepherd. Mind is every 13,000 ft. + peak in the state of New Mexico and
on most of those over 12,000 ft. Mind is atman.net/guruphiliac/mda.jpg -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 11:56 PMthat was my point, ta-dah, Chaz grokked the subtlety.
what's got me reeling, though, is that Jody (who until recently I thought was some kinda villainous character and turns out to be a total hoot and interesting fellow as well) has a dog with the same name as my childhood (and only) (and highly beloved) dog, Cisco. I've never heard of another dog named Cisco before. (mine was named for the Cisco Kid. was yours named for a high-tech company or is there more whimsy in your soul than any of us guessed?)
could it be our karma? (grinning outrageously)
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 12:29 AMAll I can say is, this has been a great thread! Thanks for all of the interesting dialog. As a babe to the ways of Mother Divine, I found it all very enlightening.
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 7:36 AM> I've never heard of another dog named Cisco before.
I've heard of two other dogs named Cisco out here (Santa Fe, NM).
> (mine was named for the Cisco Kid. was yours named for a high-tech
> company or is there more whimsy in your soul than any of us guessed?)
Mine was named for the router (good guess) and the fact that I had recently
moved from San Francisco, where I still enjoy many more friends than I have
out here.
I'd say it's coincidence more than karma (there goes my whimsy.)
I know I sound like a pedant. It's the Aries in me. I could probably soften
my presentation and not put so many folks off. However, the ideas I'm
seeking to oppose are intractably established as a part of spiritual culture
in the West. It takes some very hard hammering to knock them loose.
I realize most here don't believe they need to be loosened. Maybe they
don't. But the Quixotic campaign of the Guruphiliac will carry on until
Ma gives me something better to do.
Thanks all for tolerating my presence here. I've been having a blast.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 10:06 PMjody (and everyone else following this debate)--
--May i recommend a wonderful little book?
"Dragon's Play" by Charles Belyea and Steven Tainer.
--Though it is from a Taoist tradition, the general principals are remarkably similar to a teaching given by one of my principal teachers (a Tantrik yogin of a non-dual Kasmir Shivist lineage), something he calles the 12-Stage View. It is meant to be an overview of the development of "the complete experience of human life" specifically in regards in their relationship to Self/Nature/Divine. It is a wonderful teaching shared (in various guises) by many different traditions.
--It appears to me what we have here is a debate between people entrenched in different stages. Even when the general ideas and principles (and goal!) are the same, no resolution can be reached because the view from each stage is so different. When this is the case, it will be as if we are speaking different languages using the same words.
over and out.
-
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 2:15 PMChaz, again:
They say unfufilled desires get you reincarnated. Yikes! Or reincarnated as a Hungry Ghost! Zowie! Or stuck in the Bardos! If you're on your death-bed, thinking like Homer Simpson, "mmmmm, donuts..." and kick the bucket? It's a whole lotta sorrow, sister!
Alx:
or a WHOLE lotta donuts, man!!!!! probably you reincarnate as someone working at Dunkin' Donuts........... where 'glazed' takes on a whole new meaning........
Alx -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 4:08 PMThere's a new HBO drama coming out this fall, "Siddhi in the City"....should prove interesting....
seems to me from the other threads that we have a few cynics, skeptics, and non-believers.....
sounds like people are trying to find a place where you can buy a ticket to see someone fly.....in order to believe in these powers....
i think as americans, the materialists of today's world, it's harder for us to find meaning in spirituality of other folks.....i'm running with this theory for now that it stems from the fact that we believe in "ownership" of everything......from cars, houses....to land, and even the spirit.....
is there such a thing as a spirit that you own? a soul?
when you are feeling energy, is it yours?
-------
in fact, there are Saddhu's everywhere, with extreme magical powers......open up your eyes.....personally, i think the american equivalent of Saddhu's are some of the homeless folks.....
a few folks have already gone so far as to say that anyone who claims to have or have seen examples of these manifestations are crazy.....
personally, i think we work entirely too much..... we spend most of our time trying to accumulate money and material gains, and by the time we get to the spiritual aspects of our lives, there's not much energy left for truely seeing what's out there.....
i would suggest looking into the buddhist sense of right livelihood if you want to open your mind's eye enough to be able to see some of these supernatural mystic powers.... when we work every day after day, it's impossible for us to have right view......i'm not saying we shouldn't work, i'm just saying maybe
if we want to see more of the energy around us, the supernatural forces.....maybe we should study some einstein , and you know.....shed some of our materialistic mass.....
love & light!!!
bradley in boulder -
-
Re: uh, duh.... this pisses me off --
Tue, March 28, 2006 - 4:09 PMsorry, it's
love and light-squared
:)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 2:35 PMHere is an interesting link about Jody Radzik and the Guruphiliac blog:
www.saisathyasai.com/baba/gu...-radzik/
I sense a wee bit of hypocrisy in Jody's Anti-Guru posturing. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 2:46 PMHouse Music and Ecstacy, oh noooooooo!!
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 2:48 PMHeh.
As I am attacking cherished notions that folks are identified very
strongly with, I have acquired a "fan" club of sorts.
This "fan" club is led by Rasa Von Werder and Gerald Moreno.
I imagine "Silver", the person who just posted this, is either one
of these two or a confederate of theirs.
These folks will stop at nothing to discredit me, including
making up lies about me and even criminally libeling my guru,
who they don't even know.
If folks are interested, I invite them to go to this "stalklog", and
then question me with anything they find there.
However, I don't want this ugly stalking to come to this list.
I've apparently been followed here, so I will discontinue my
posting in the interests of the comfort of the other list
members.
Thanks to all for the really good time. I wish you all well.
--jody. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 2:51 PMJody, can you cite the lies on the following page by Moreno?
www.saisathyasai.com/baba/gu...-radzik/
And who is your "Guru"? I thought you were Anti-Guru? How can you bash Gurus, yet profess to have one? -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 3:05 PMI'm sorry everyone.
Two of my stalkers have followed me on to your forum.
Rather than sully it with their obsessive need to exact
revenge upon me, I'm dropping out of the discussion.
Those members who wish to contact me can to so through
my tribe account or at tips@guruphiliac.org.
Thanks to all and take care.
--jody. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 3:17 PMJody, since you claim to converse with the Supreme Goddess, Kali, she should have forewarned you. And what about your obsessive need to exact revenge on gurus? What about your lies and your "criminally libelous" comments about other's gurus? The fact is you are a liar, whining about other's lies. You are a libeler whining about other's libel. And where is the "stalklog" you referred to? I can't find it. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 5:09 PMoh, wow. one kali was exciting enough, now we have two! whoo! -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 11:07 PM(grinning at Charles) yeah, and let's hope the duelling Kalis don't EACH have multiple arms with weapons! otherwise, could get ugly!
Alx
-
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Wed, March 29, 2006 - 11:01 PMKali Das,
please desist from personal attacks on anyone in the goddessence tribe. we're here to discuss, not to attack. Jody and his views, whether I agree with them are not, are welcome in my tribe. your finger-pointing accusations and multiple link-pastings are not.
one link is enough, thanks, we can all read and prob'ly even use Google ourselves if we were that curious about this character to want to find out more about him.
if you're interested in discussing philosophy, spirituality, the Indian system, gurus, divine truth, ANY subject like this and adding something of value to the on-going discussions in Goddessence, you're welcome to it.
anything further in this flaming and blaming vein, however, I won't tolerate and I will simply delete. this tribe has never devolved into flame wars and ridiculous attacks -- all are welcome, all are tolerated, all are equally at liberty to express their views on serious matters here.
I hope you'll understand.
thanks,
Alx -
-
Unsu...
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Thu, March 30, 2006 - 6:34 AMShe has the right to express her opinion Alx. I didn't find this to be a discussion at all. it was basically Jody putting down anything and everything anyone else beleives in. I don't care what a person believes or doesn't believe as long as they present it as their own beliefs. Jody was condescending and smug. To have a discussion requires a certain amount of openess which didn't seem to be exhibited except by the other Godessence members.. It's a two way street. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Thu, March 30, 2006 - 11:06 AMI see a clear distinction between the two. One is impassioned opinion. The other is trolling. We are free to disagree with each other, vehemently even. Personal attacks are another matter. We were discussing Jody's site and he showed up. I think he has every right to put forth his position. Anonymous alts with the sole intent of defamation are another matter. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Thu, March 30, 2006 - 2:58 PMman...this is a very long thread;-))) a great debate until some haters had to ruin the spirit of things...i hate it when people follow other people around tryin' to dump on them..honestly children..all are welcome to their opinions...
i have soooo much to read now.Thank you all for the very interesting lists of books i must read...also for the mind bending conversation i'm STILL picking through,all these links are setting me back a bit;-) i feel so simple compared to everyone here,perhaps when i'm done hacking through all this info..i will post what a simple person thinks about all this higher learning:-)cheers~R
-
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Thu, March 30, 2006 - 8:19 PMhi, Prabuddh --
everyone has the right to express their opinion here, I'm completely all for opinions. I'm not for personal attacks of any kind. regardless of whether you agree with Jody or not, or his style or not, (if he's condescending and smug, okay, he's condescending and smug) he hasn't launched personal attacks on anybody here. he hasn't flamed anyone. he hasn't posted crappy links dissing anyone else (grinning -- except his own blog, which pretty much disses every guru known to man and woman and doggies) -- he's not personally going after anyone's jugular.
I'm not here to enforce that discussions only happen -- I can't monitor everyone's motives or reproach their way of expressing themselves. if prosyletizing were a criminal offense in this tribe, most of Goddessence's members would be guilty of it -- including me. we all sound off from time to time, or at least, have that option.
there's been a lot of heated conversation over the last year in this tribe, I've never deleted a word of it even though some of the things said were offensive to people, and to me, personally. we're grown-ups, (grinning again!) more or less, and I believe that we can work things out here in a beautiful & adult way.
but hitting below the belt, like that Kali Das character did, in my opinion, is bullshit. lobbing a few grenades to discredit anyone is just downright ungentlemanly or unladylike, as the case may be. I don't want to be played like that, and think it would seriously uproot the dynamic of this tribe if anyone gets away with that kind of malice.
whatever you may say or feel about Jody, I don't think 'malicious' comes to mind. I have many other colorful adjectives floating around in my fertile little brain, (!!!!!!) but I don't feel that he's evil-intentioned, or mean-spirited, or out to hurt people.
hope this helps make sense of my position. I do understand that Jody's comments here are inflammatory and potentially offensive to people.
Alx -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Thu, March 30, 2006 - 9:07 PM> (grinning -- except his own blog, which pretty much disses every guru known to man and woman and doggies)
No, no, noooooo. Tsk, tsk.
My blog disses those people who are thought of as more divine than you and I. I believe this is an enforcement of the truth of the Upanishads. Many gurus set crappy examples for their devotees, whether by their all too human behaviors or by the ridiculous ideas people come to have about self-realization by way of what they believe about their gurus.
I wrote about this a few years back if anyone is interested: nondualogicality.blogspot.com/200...7010
I'm not here to condescend and I promise you that I'm not smug. What I am is experienced in this kind of discussion, having been involved in many email discussion lists on this and similar subjects over the last 10 years.
Speaking of smug, South Park is on right now. It's about smug clouds coming from San Francisco because everyone there likes smelling their own farts. I've got to go watch it. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 3:04 AM>>My blog disses those people who are thought of as more divine than you and I. I believe this is an enforcement of the truth of the Upanishads.
as my beloved guru likes to say -- "if it doesn't shatter ALL your belief systems, it's not real spirituality."
maybe the Upanishads also are, uh, belief systems..............
>>Many gurus set crappy examples for their devotees, whether by their all too human behaviors or by the ridiculous ideas people come to have about self-realization by way of what they believe about their gurus.
yes, ABSOLUTELY. and the really great gurus, the ones who're worth their weight in salt or gold or angels or whatever we measure weight in, in spiritual terms, are the ones who're CONSTANTLY trying to show people (including the silly people around them, the ones who're all caught up in their own illusions about who or what 'guru' is -- usually caught in the belief that it's only external, not internal, and somehow 'better than' the average person) the people's own divinity.
but it's a messy business and even these great gurus are easily minsunderstood because of the illusions and misunderstandings that result when people blocked (in their minds, hearts, souls) by karmas and untrue beliefs (and the attachments to their beliefs and desires) simply can't see what the guru is really doing, how much the guru is helping them see the clear reflection of 'guru' in themselves.
at least, that's my experience.
the really great ones want EVERYONE to remember they're also really great. it's pretty simple, from that level, really.
Alx -
-
Unsu...
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 6:36 AMIf you read the articles in his blog he has no problem making broad generalizations about guru devotees, stereotyping, name calling and general put downs. He then goes into psychobabling the mental constructs of the devotees as if he actually knows what they are feeling, thinking,or what motivates them and as if one devotee is indistinguishable from the next. If he was to make the same kind of derogatory remarks about people based on ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference etc, people would go apeshit and it would be totally unacceptable but somehoe it's okay to do it when it's guru devotees? I don't get that. why is it okay to bash some groups but not others? and yes his posts on his site ARE mean spirited. What makes his calling to disabuse us poor ignorant people who believe in the unseen and the miraculous and who don't think science (the brain is blah blah blah) necessarily is the ultimate authority any differnt than some born again Christian who thinks his way is the only way and therefore he needs to go out and save the world? Faith is stated in the Bible as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". it can't be measured in a lab and it's not logical. So since I beleive that maybe i should start a website which is strictly devoted to putting down science and non beleivers which will be mostly read by people who already feel the same way i do and then we can all post more put downs . -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 8:44 AM> why is it okay to bash some groups but not others?
Because some groups are laden with myth and superstition which confuse and occlude rather than acknowledge the simple truths of self-realization.
> What makes his calling to disabuse us poor ignorant people who believe in the unseen and the miraculous and who don't think science (the brain is blah blah blah) necessarily is the ultimate authority any differnt than some born again Christian who thinks his way is the only way and therefore he needs to go out and save the world?
If you believe in an ultimately nondual truth, which most ALL of Hindu-based spirituality claims as their foundational assumption of identity, then you've got to look to the Upanishads as the source of understanding about this nondual truth. Ammachi's org borrows heavily from the Upanishads for the bulk of their spiritual ideology. The problem is that they then apply layer after layer of Hindu superstition on top of that. Folks get caught up in the superstition rather than understanding the exceedingly simple truths which underlie them. The problem with these simple truths is that they don't sell. They aren't exotic or glamorous. So folks go for the magic because it gives them something to believe in, thus creating a blockade in their own minds to the actual understanding which sits right there in their heart, closer to their own breath, at all times no matter what they are doing.
But of course I realize this is all just my opinion. The blog is an expression of my opinion. I'm seeking to bring recognition to the idea of occluding expectation. I expect that many will not allow that I'm qualified to have these kinds of opinions. That's fine. You've expressed this view, which is fine. Now that we've got that over with, perhaps you'd like to go into specifics rather than making sweeping characterizations of what I'm doing... and actually try deal with some of the things I'm saying directly. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 9:12 AMwho is truely qualified to say anything about religion? or for that matter who are "you" to judge anyone's beliefs and expressions? can we not agree to disagree and discuss topics accordingly? so you don't enjoy Jody..move on..you are only dragging your energy through the dirt,tryin' to dig up dirt and recruit people to your "cause"...no one is interested in your hate...
Alx you are a great lady...have no fear i get what you are saying,let's hope others can lay their troubles down at the door and truely use this forum as intended...
Jody don't let these folks drive you off discussing topics..by doing this you allow them to "win"....i have been where you are...ask me about tribal wars some time:-)boy..that was a mistake...
so hopefully we can bury this thread and create a new one free of personal attacks~peace~Red -
-
Unsu...
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 9:17 AMI'm not trying to recruit anyone and I have no cause. nor am i trying to dig up dirt. i'm simply responding to his writing and his website. if you can think of any dirt i've dug up please post it. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 9:41 AMThe "dirt" is out there for all to see.
How about some specifics. Go find something I've said that you don't like and post that. I'll do my best to explain why I said it. Maybe you can show me where I'm wrong. I've been shown to be wrong before. I like it. I learn the most when I'm shown what I don't know rather than being confirmed in what I think I know.
-
-
-
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 11:57 AMhi, Prabuddh --
his posts on his blog are his business, there. we have the choice to read them and react or not read them. or not react. or whatever.
his posts in my tribe are my business, and all of ours. in here, I haven't seen him abuse anyone except some beliefs.
to me, that's the distinction.
taking it personally just adds fuel to our own fires.
Alx
-
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 12:05 PMand about beliefs, then, I would call Jody's stance "challenging," not abusing. but I can see why people get upset.
Prabuddh, I don't at all agree with or condone or endorse Jody's blogsite -- if you read the subject of this (now very long thread), I think you'll get that point.
what I appreciate, though, is his willingness to jump in and defend his rascally positions and speak up for himself and his ideas, and admit he's just another person with opinions, under it all.
(sorry, Jody, for talking about you when you're 'in the room.')
Alx
-
-
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 9:05 AM> as my beloved guru likes to say -- "if it doesn't shatter ALL your belief systems, it's not real spirituality."
That's a good quote.
> maybe the Upanishads also are, uh, belief systems..............
Actually, they aren't, in the opinion of Vedanta. The bulk of Hindu-based spirituality finds its base in the nondual truths of Vedanta found in the Upanishads. Unfortunately, many only pay the slightest lip service to these truths and instead rely on myth and superstition to provide the bulk of their ideology. The Upanishads were written by folks who lived in the understanding known as self-realization. They then attempted to communicate this by way of the written word, which is a battle you lose even before you start. Folks then read these attempts to communicate that which can never be communicated, and only THEN do they become beliefs. However, if folks relied on the Upanishads for their source of belief about spirituality, they'd find a much simpler and more elegant system of thought as opposed to the anything goes magical thinking that most Hindu-based spirituality seems to be mired in.
> the really great gurus... are the ones who're CONSTANTLY trying to show people... the people's own divinity.
Yes. This is what a guru should do, by example as much as rhetoric. This is why a good guru isn't trying to pull people up to the level of "divinity" they supposedly inhabit. This is simply because there are no such things as levels of divinity, just ideas about levels of divinity for folks to get caught up in.
> the really great ones want EVERYONE to remember they're also really great.
I'd say the really great ones want everyone to remember what they've never really lost, whether that means they are great or not. The problem with "great" is that it's value-based. Great is better than good, which is better than ok, which is better than not ok. The thing about the truth of the Self is that it always exists in us, whether we are great, good, ok or sucky. Rather than associate self-realization with the application of value, it's even better to associate it with an ongoing truth that is always in play, regardless of the mental states of those looking for it. In other words, rather than being an acme of existence, it's the bottom line of existence. Rather than look up for it, we should be looking down and around, at ourselves in whatever condition we find ourselves in. Rather than expecting we'll be in a great place when we find it, we should understand that it is always in any place and state we find ourselves. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 10:45 AMI decided it was best that I wait a while before posting. I really do not wish to engage in further debates and express my disagreements with Alx. Apparently, Jody is perfectly entitled to call others "liars" and "libelers" (with impunity) and I am not. However, there is a deeper issue here that many fail to recognize. Jody is withholding crucial information from this group. Perhaps the most significant piece of information that he withholds is that he claims he is Fully Self Realized, joining the ranks of Saints, Siddhas and Mahatmas! Of course, I would post the link to the google group where Jody made this claim, but then I will condemned as a "troller" who is spamming with links, etc. I guess freedom of information is not so free after all. It is also apparent that the comment "everyone has the right to express their opinion here" is bound and shackled under authority and approval. Jody, as a self-proclaimed Realized Soul should be subject to scrutiny, just as any other Guru, Saint, Siddha or Mahatma who makes that claim. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 11:05 AM> the most significant piece of information that he withholds is that he claims he is Fully Self Realized
When one comes to a significant development in their spiritual understanding, there is a lag between its appearance and its integration into the life and thinking of that person.
There is no such thing as somewhat realized, as there is no such thing as "fully realized," in my opinion. You either know yourself as the Self in the ongoing revelation known as self-realization, or you believe that you do not.
I've made the mistake in the past of making claims for my own understanding. In the time that has passed since, I've come to realize that such claims are of no use to me or those I'm conversing with. It is clear to me that only those who live in realization are able to recognize such in others. Those who are waiting to come to realization are stuck with their beliefs about it. I've already stated a number of times what I think about any belief about self-realization.
Regardless of our status of awareness, any words that we put forth will always be contained in the realm of opinion. What I'm offering here are only opinions, and the only claim I make for myself now is that I'm an asshole with these opinions. Their worth and utility is entirely in the eye of the beholder, rather than enforced by any claims I've mistakenly made in the past.
I invite all readers to consider these opinions on their own merit, based on the reader's personal intuition. Take 'em and use 'em if you like 'em, or throw them over the fence with the dog dirt if you don't. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 11:54 AMthe only people who aren't allowed to make mistakes are those who claim to be infallible.
-
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 12:17 PMsee, Kali Das --
this is my problem with your way of communicating -- you keep wanting to attack Jody and expose him for the hypocrite and jerk you find him to be. okay, point taken. stop hammering.
frankly, if everyone brought up the stupid stuff I've put in writing or verbalized in the past -- well, yikes. everyone says stupid stuff at one time or another in their lives, or does grandiose things, or has a different self-identity from what they've developed into now. we're all changing and morphing. to hold that against someone, in my view, sucks.
to use someone's past statements or claims as a way to discredit their opinions presently isn't, to me, useful in the least. I tend to operate on the 'benefit of the doubt' principle. (mostly because I'd appreciate ALSO being treated with the benefit of the doubt at every turn.)
if you want to jump in and challenge, and engage on the level of IDEAS that are going around in here, I'm all for it, in fact I'm curious and all ears -- for example, what do you think of the Upandishads? what about belief systems? what about gurus? what's your position on 'Hindu superstition' versus realization and practice? what about enlightenment?
Alx
-
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 3:34 PMGee Alx, this thread was specifically started about a posting made on the Guruphiliac blog. My comments were 100% relevant to the discussion and shed light on the person who goes around "Guru Bashing" (your words) others. Jody calls his opponents "liars" and "libelers" and you say absolutely nothing about his comments. However, when I say it, your self-righteousness asserts itself and you start harping on "personal attacks".
I can't help if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Unfortunately, I am not a brainless automaton with a computer chip for a brain that you can program to blurt out comments that suit your personal tastes. So when you start asking questions like: "What do you think of the Upandishads? what about belief systems? what about gurus? what's your position on 'Hindu superstition' versus realization and practice? what about enlightenment?".................how do you expect me to read your mind and start making off-topic comments about discussions irrelevant to Jody Radzik and the Guruphiliac blog?
I can tell that I will not be able to confine my behavior and comments to suit your narrow ideas on how I should express myself and my opinions. So i will respectfully bring this discussion to a close (from my end). Peace. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 3:53 PMyou ARE making personal attacks - on a member here.
we are here to discuss IDEAS. not the relative merits of our members as people. despite our differences, we are able to have interesting conversations and kick around our ideas without engaging in smears. clearly, (a brief glance at just this thread will show you) we are not all of one opinion on everything or mindless automatons. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Fri, March 31, 2006 - 7:41 PMSaul, it is not my fault that Jody happens to be the topic for this thread and a member of tribe.net. I am addressing Jody in relation to this thread. Not as a member. Go back to the beginning of this thread and read Alx's comments about the Guruphiliac blog and the "Guru Basher" who happens to be Jody. And I suggest you re-read my comments about "automatons". Read it in context. It does not apply to you or anyone else in this room. -
-
Re: About the Guruphiliac Blog and Jody Radzik
Sat, April 1, 2006 - 11:59 AMlet's look at the difference here - I am criticizing your actions. you are criticizing Jody's person.
Alx started the thread in response to his views; not his value as a person. If you take a look at Jody's friends you'll see that some of us who reacted badly at first have in fact friended him. Funny how that works with people who don't agree but can communicate, don't you think?
And if you think that personal attacks are acceptable, why not open yourself up to criticism instead of being anonymous, with a clear intention only to shoot someone down instead of engaging in discussion?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
should this be in the windowshoppers thread?
Mon, April 10, 2006 - 6:27 AMI ran across this and immediatly my mind sprang to the guruphilic thread-----this may be a totally good reference, but just the way it's presented took my mind here.
Guide to GURUStopic posted Thu, January 26, 2006 - 4:30 AM by Bman
Advertisement
www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/RatingsB.htm
and also www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Map.htm
This is a list that I respect. One of my gurus appears on this list. This is the type of list that takes Buddhism in the West to the next level. So many of us are willing to take advice from just anyone these days, without taking note of their background. Giving spiritual advice is a big responsibility, indeed, since it can damage somebody.
Mostly everyone ultimately needs a guru, to help reach enlightenment. It is my firm belief that finding your guru, whether it be your own higher self (my main guru), a living person, etc. -- is essential on the path to freedom. Giving up and surrendering involves surrendering to something larger than your own ego, which is where your guru comes in.
If your teacher is not on this list, and your teacher is a recognized guru, you may consider contacting the list owner.
Please share this information with other Buddhist web sites and Tribes since I no longer participate in random Buddhist forums outside of my own sangha (it hurts my practice to do so, I find).
Namaste,
Bman
