Western Advaita Teachers

[Guest guest]

---Dear Michael ,thank you so much for this eloquent posting .After listening

to many of the

Western itinerant Advaita Teachers for some years {London is on the circuit}I

have come to a

similar conclusion as you have .However , they do serve one function as a

'stepping stone' to the

Advaita Teaching and its basic concepts , such as non-doership etc. Moreover

some people are

then led to Ramana through them ,if they want to go deeper and find the source

of the Advaita

Renaissance ,the Maharshi , who taught by Silence , and arguably was the

greates Sage to appear

on this planet for a millenia.Robert Adams ,who was a Sage used to say that he

wouldn't ever

criticise these Teachers because every Teacher , has his or her place .They

serve a certain need

for certain people at a certain time .Eventually the aspirant must decide does

he want

Enlightenment or just comfortable intellectual satisfaction .Renewed thanks .all

love,in His Grace

, Alan

 

 

> I am replying again to this entire series of posts.

> There have been and are many persons who "trumpet" the

> fact that the SELF is consciousness and that nothing

> need be done to be what ONE is.

>

> Some of these persons do give/have given satsang and

> tell their devotees/students/listeners that there is

> nothing to be done. For certain souls this is true;

> but for most it is not true. Ultimately you can,

> should, and will decide for yourSELF what you need to

> do or not do. But the point I want to make is this:

> I have read many of the discourses of these satsangs.

> And I recently attended a satsang that was given by a

> relatively popular american person. This person,

> after charging $75, would expound upon the "you are

> consciousness" argument "ad nauseum". And he could,

> and would, thwart and berate anyones' "would be"

> desire to utilize a method to realize the truth. What

> is disturbing about it to me is that many people are

> suffering from their "seeming" separation from the

> SOURCE. It is extremely unfortunate because methods

> exist that would help everyone who has a sincere

> desire.

>

> It is really quite easy for highly intellectual people

> to grasp the idea that the little "i" doesn't exist

> and that we are really the BIG "I" and that therefore

> nothing needs to be done. Well great. But there are

> a lot of people who are not helped by this. These

> "gurus" are a lot like our modern day psychologists.

> The patient does most of the talking and the "doctor"

> mostly listens. Then the "doctor" talks some. And in

> the end nothing happens because you cannot talk the

> patient out of his/her insanity. You cannot

> rationalize your way out of suffering. Even if the

> patient's suffering is from imagined or delusional

> causes they usually can't be talked out of it.

> Rationalization is baloney. This is why Ramana said

> that his real teaching was conveyed in silence.

>

> And if I may say so, there is more to IT than just

> CHIT (consciousness). Consciousness arises from an

> eternal, unborn, undying, immortal, all-powerfull and

> supersensual BLISS (ANANDA). And once experienced, it

> leaves no doubt as to what the SOURCE of everything

> is. The "i" thought arises from this BLISS.

> Consciousness arises from this BLISS and it is the

> source of SAT (existence). This BLISS is the uncaused

> cause and is the source of everything.

>

> According to TALKS, 28 November, 1935 Ramana had the

> following dialog:

> "D.: So it is. How to get Bliss?

>

> M.: Bliss is not something to be got. On the other

> hand you are always Bliss. This desire is born of the

> sense of INCOMPLETENESS. To whom is this sense of

> incompleteness? Enquire. In deep sleep you were

> blissful. Now you are not so. Seek its source and

> find you are Bliss.

> "There is nothing new to get. You have, on the other

> hand, to get rid of your ignorance which makes you

> think that you are other than Bliss. For whom is

> this ignorance? It is to the ego. Trace the source

> of the ego. Then the ego is lost and BLISS remains

> over. It is eternal. You are That, here and

> now...That is the MASTER KEY FOR SOLVING ALL DOUBTS."

>

> SNIP

>

> Also, since I wrote the text above there had been

> another post on this group about suffering. The

> writer suggested that "Suffering is pain, unaccepted."

> I would suggest that SUFFERING is pain unabated. I

> suggest that SUFFERING is an opportunity to CHANGE. I

> suggest that SUFFERING, particularly

> emotional/psycho/spiritual suffering is an invitation

> from the SELF. A calling from the SELF if you will.

>

> Unfortunately people only progress when they are

> suffering/uncomfortable. When people are hungry

> should they accept their hunger? When people are

> oppressed is it wise to just accept that oppression?

> Most of the wonderful things that make our modern life

> easier are the product of someone who was suffering or

> uncomfortable. People were hot and they learned how

> to build homes and buildings that were cooler. People

> were cold and they learned how to make warmer

> dwellings and better clothes. They were sick and they

> learned medical procedures. And when persons longed

> for liberation some wise persons developed techniques

> that could lift the veil of MAYA.

>

> Love,

>

> michael

 

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

5/9/03 4:57 AM +0100 Alan Jacobs alanadamsjacobs (AT) (DOT) co.uk wrote:

> ---Dear Michael ,thank you so much for this eloquent posting .After

> listening to many of the Western itinerant Advaita Teachers for some

> years {London is on the circuit}I have come to a similar conclusion as

> you have .

I also like what is said here by michael, E.g.

>> Also, since I wrote the text above there had been

>> another post on this group about suffering. The

>> writer suggested that "Suffering is pain, unaccepted."

>> I would suggest that SUFFERING is pain unabated. I

>> suggest that SUFFERING is an opportunity to CHANGE. I

>> suggest that SUFFERING, particularly

>> emotional/psycho/spiritual suffering is an invitation

>> from the SELF. A calling from the SELF if you will.

>>

JUMP TO...

And when persons longed

>> for liberation some wise persons developed techniques

>> that could lift the veil of MAYA.

5/9/03 4:57 AM +0100 Alan Jacobs alanadamsjacobs (AT) (DOT) co.uk wrote:

However , they do serve one function as a 'stepping stone' to

> the Advaita Teaching and its basic concepts , such as non-doership etc.

> Moreover some people are then led to Ramana through them ,if they want

> to go deeper and find the source of the Advaita Renaissance ,the

> Maharshi , who taught by Silence , and arguably was the greates Sage to

> appear on this planet for a millenia.Robert Adams ,who was a Sage used to

> say that he wouldn't ever criticise these Teachers because every

> Teacher , has his or her place .They serve a certain need for certain

> people at a certain time .

While this sounds true enough to me, do we know anything else about such teachings and teachers?

I think that IF there self-deception in such teachings, a kind of corruption of

teaching of dharma out of smugness, and self-elevation, instead of humbleness,

and deepening knowledge. Why would a teacher want to teach from such a point of

view, I wonder? Followers fall away from paths, true paths require skill to

teach to fickle followers, it is easier in the short term to stick to

self-reinforcing paths, I suspect. A real human guide needs to have insight

into their people, and their needs.

There is an Intellectual delight in such teachings of non-doership, which

appeals to people. Is it real moksha? Can it be non-deceptive spiritual

delight, when the mind of a deluded or suffering person is deceptive, and needs

to be purified in truth? I love to know all can be forgiven, but can I really

forgive myself? Will I not continue to suffer, immersed in materialism. So who

do I act for , if a person cant live without engagement either engaged in

transcendental service or sense gratification. It is as if such teaching is

from an ultimate point of view, which we can though barely understand, let

alone accept as a course of action, yajna or service. It like saying I am god.

Perhaps the result of such teachings can be a disturbing influence, when a

wholesome influence is better, just like prayer. Therefore, how should we

receive such teachings, even when understanding that in the end all is well?

Public teachings eventually can propogate themselves and become the

conventional point if view, without any challenge. Should they not be

challenged with feelingconcerning their practicality, rather than received with

an intellectual understanding of their ultimate position?

Regards,

John Plum

[Guest guest]

--- chueewowee <chueewowee wrote: >

 

 

 

> I think that IF there is self-deception in such teachings, a kind of

> corruption of teaching of dharma out of smugness, and self-elevation,

> instead of humbleness, and deepening knowledge. Why would a teacher want to

> teach from such a point of view, I wonder? Followers fall away from paths,

> true paths require skill to teach to fickle followers, it is easier in the

> short term to stick to self-reinforcing paths, I suspect. A real human

> guide needs to have insight into their people, and their needs.

 

 

I think the problem is that the 'Teachers'are not aware themselves that their

experience is only a

first stage of awakening with vasanas still active[it is a form of maya].The

desire to teach

prematurely is itself a vasana .Their best course would be to proceed with the

Mighty Sadhana of

Atma Vichara until they Realised the Self of Absolute Consciousness and not just

experiencing a

change in perspective about 'doership'from reflected Consciousness .They feel

they are doing good

by therapeutically helping people feel better .They do however introduce people

to the Advaita

concepts in an unsystematic way .

>

> There is an Intellectual delight in such teachings of non-doership, which

> appeals to people. Is it real moksha? Can it be non-deceptive spiritual

> delight, when the mind of a deluded or suffering person is deceptive, and

> needs to be purified in truth? I love to know all can be forgiven, but can

> I really forgive myself? Will I not continue to suffer, immersed in

> materialism. So who do I act for , if a person cant live without

> engagement either engaged in transcendental service or sense gratification.

> It is as if such teaching is from an ultimate point of view, which we can

> though barely understand, let alone accept as a course of action, yajna or

> service. It like saying I am god.

 

This may be a valid point of view .

>

> Perhaps the result of such teachings can be a disturbing influence, when a

> wholesome influence is better, just like prayer. Therefore, how should we

> receive such teachings, even when understanding that in the end all is

> well? Public teachings eventually can propogate themselves and become the

> conventional point if view, without any challenge. Should they not be

> challenged with feelingconcerning their practicality, rather than received

> with an intellectual understanding of their ultimate position?

 

One has to accept that these teachers have their place as stepping stones that

does lead seekers

on to the higher teaching of Ramana Maharshi in a significant number of cases

,and may be a

necessary step in preparing them for Self Enquiry .

>

>

> Regards,

>

>Alan

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk