FWD from NDP - Realization / PGS.

[Guest guest]

NonDualPhil , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming wrote:

>

> NonDualPhil , " adithya_comming "

> <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> >

> > [...]

> >

[snip]

 

> >>Specifically, it's this: if you (or more accurately, a bunch of

> people agree that they) feel, upon being in the presence of

someone,

> clear, light, enthused, and most importantly that you can " do it

> yourself " , WITHOUT the guru's presence, then that's about as close

> as you can get to being sure that they are realized.

>

>

> Will guys Osho, Adi Da or women like Nirmala Devi fit

> That criteria? I hear that they have/had quite and dedicated

> Following.

>

> I wonder about Adi Da's dependence on alcohol, pain killers

> And psychedelic drugs though. I wonder why a guy who is

> 'always happy' would need such things.

>

> Ok. Frankly speaking, based on all the news I have heard,

> I don't believe Adi Da is realized or

> is 'always happy'. Though, he did have a very strong

> following.

>

 

>>I think you are correct. Going by my criteria Adi Da is NOT

realized (although it's possible he may once have had samadhi). As

I said in a post elsewhere recently, he is now a psychic vampire

who hypnotizes his followers and makes them DEPENDENT on him, and I

would advise people to stay well clear of him. Same goes for Nirmala

Devi.

 

 

Is there anything like 'mass hypnosis'?

I don't know, I am just asking.

 

Adi Da's behavior [as I have read them] does

look quite immoral and like coming from a

man who is deeply unhappy, dissatisfied

and obsessed.

 

It doesn't seem to be coming from a man

who is content, happy and peaceful.

 

However, I have heard that people experienced

great 'shakti' around him. Do you think it

is hypnosis or something else?

 

Further, do you think that perhaps, there are

two distinct kind of spiritual achievements,

one where a human becomes a great

source of " spiritual' " or " psychic " energy and

another which is perhaps, inner clarity, peace and

contentment but not much at the external level

of shakti?

 

 

I attended a Nirmala Devi's 'satsang' few years back

and I didn't like all that we doing there. However, I

definitely felt greatly relaxed and extremely peaceful

sitting in her presence.

 

I don't know what was that?

 

Do you have an explanation?

 

I had gone there with a friend and he strongly felt

he had got some strong vibrations from her that

he had never felt before. He was so convinced about

it that he discussed it with his parents [he was 23 years old]

, friends and others.

 

I didn't feel that and I don't know what that was.

 

Nirmala Devi talks about some kind of 'cool breeze'

and I definitely felt very 'cool' when she was in

the satsang hall. I don't whether it was AC or

something else but hands an fingers were naturally

slightly bent as they get in extremely relaxed

position.

 

For that hour, as if I was without any worries

and also without much thought.

 

i.e. when I don't think Niramala Devi is a " good "

'guru'.

 

 

 

 

>>Wherever you get that atmosphere of intellectual mush and

over-sweet devotion with a slightly sinister edge, let your instinct

guide you - it is indeed bollocks. The people who aren't letting

their instinct guide them are letting their desire to feel special

overcome their common sense (or they are so psychologically damaged

they just want to belong to something, anything).

 

>>There can be no doubt that Osho was the genuine article in the

early

days, but something went badly wrong somewhere along the line. It

can be argued that the Oregon business wasn't his fault, but I would

argue that he was at fault in appointing the people who caused all

the trouble.

 

I am not sure about Osho. I think he was extremely

intelligent, had a great mind, was a great planner,

great leader, speaker and motivator and a great

reader of human mind.

 

He too was credited with great 'shakti' and I think

he stayed quite dedicated to 'awakening' both

at the personal level as well as in spreading it.

 

However, by reading his account, I think he

greatly overestimated its " power " and 'uniqueness'.

 

 

 

[snip]

> >

> > How do I know that Nisargadatta was " realized " ?

> >

> >>At this stage, purely from whether his speaking or writing

resonates

> with your own experience of realization.

>

>

> Some of hat you speak too " sometimes " resonate with me.

>

> Some of what Greg, Joyce, Pete, Werner, Bill, Michael speak

> too sometimes resonate with me and some doesn't.

>

> It is same for Niz. Some of his resonates, some doesn't.

>

 

>>That's the way it's going to be, for sure. Until you meet

your " Karana Guru " , or stumble into realization by yourself,

everybody is just going to give you hints and flashes, like seeing a

cloud overcast lightening here and there, suggesting there's a light-

source behind it.

 

 

I see that I am the Sky that sees...

 

 

yet, I am also the " cloud " that forms. I further

see that clouds sometimes form without me

wanting them to be there.

 

 

> > My experience is that I don't know that. I can't

> > know that and thus there is no real way to answer

> > the question as the basic premise itself is not

> > established.

> >

>

>

> >>If you don't know, then you haven't " been there " ,

>

> Been " where " ???

> I have been to many, many " places " and found

> out that there is no place that is 'permanent'.

>

> I had heard 'stories' that there was some 'event'

> after which the man always remained 'happy',

> remained always in 'nirvana'.

>

> After a close read of past/present gurus and the

> stories I read about them, I think nothing like

> that had happened in their own life.

>

 

>>There are two things at work here. On the one hand, you can get a

glimpse of your true nature, either in a trance (blanked out) state

or in a waking (perceptually normal) state. (These are called

samadhi, satori, kensho, etc., etc., of various kinds and grades).

This sort of thing is not uncommon (I've had it myself). Having it

enables you to understand what all this stuff is about, to some

extent.

 

 

Yes.

 

>> It can also release a kind of charisma that enables you to

collect followers (who resonate with the fact that you know what you

are talking about). But it's not a permanent state.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

>>On the other hand there's something that people usually reserve the

honorific " enlightenment " for - not just a glimpse of one's true

identity, but a shift in one's identity (or rather, the

identification of what one is) that's irreversible, permanent.

 

I am not sure if " total irreversible, permanent

transformation " of " human " is anything more

than a belief. And, I am not even sure if it

is " healthy " either. IMO... it specifically means

'end' to some 'potentials' that every healthy human

is born with. These potentials include 'ability'

to have an 'ego', ability to form an 'attachment',

ability to have 'passion' [read 'Vassanas'] and might

have good " social values " . IMO... even " suffering " has a

great " social value " and this is what enables

'punishment and reward' system to work.

 

I find it accurate to say that if the 'potential'

for 'suffering', 'attachment', 'identification',

'vassanas', 'ego' is dead in a " human " - he/she

is no longer a 'normal healthy human'. I further

think it would be quite difficult for the society

to " accommodate " and " assimilate " such human.

Such humans might seem distinctly 'out of place'

in a society.

 

 

 

>>In some traditions (like Advaita and Dzogchen) the enlightenment

experience or glimpse is seen as either a sideline to this permanent

shift (if it's the trance version), or as just the beginining of the

real work to be done (i.e. one's task is to stabilise oneself in the

waking type of samadhi 24/7 and not deviate from it.)

 

 

I agree with the " beginning " part. In my opinion too,

it is the real beginning to shifting into new way

of 'living'.

 

 

>>This permanent shift seems to be much rarer, and the trouble is

that it

seems to be part of Hindu tradition (though not so much in the

Buddhist) to claim that one has this even when one doesn't. On

this, cf. Agehananda Bharati, the Light at the Centre and his other

books. Bharati (a German who speaks several native lingos) once

interviewed Ramana who confided that samadhi wasn't a permanent

condition for him, although he felt he had to make it seem so

otherwise his students would be disappointed.

 

 

This is the first time I have heard of this. But, is

there any reason to trust his account of Ramana

any more than many other accounts?

 

 

>>One thing Bharati said that's relevant here: " if you're a stinker

before enlightenment, you'll be a stinker after it " .

 

I will question the 'validity' and 'significance'

of such an 'enlightenment'. It is like saying

that if you are miser you will remain a miser

even after winning a 100 million lottery. I am

not saying that it can't happen - I am merely

questioning the significance of such happening

if it doesn't changes anything in one's life.

 

 

>>IOW, there is no necessary connection between these insight

experiences and one's

moral behaviour. There _may_ be a connection between the permanent

thing (which Bharati doubts exists, but I think does) and a shift in

moral behaviour, but even that isn't guaranteed.

 

 

>>Where it gets really complicated is this: I think a lot of people

who are claiming the " permanent " kind of enlightenment in modern

Advaita have merely had a philosophical epiphany.

 

That is my view too.

 

 

>> That is to say, they merely understand philosophical Idealism

properly, and are

looking at the world through philosophically Idealist spectacles.

 

Sure. I think that will include majority

of " western " " realizers " . I make a

distinction between western and eastern

here because as I have seen there is

more focus on 'intellect' and 'intellectual

knowledge' in west than in east. In east,

that I have grown in, it was more about the

'contentment', 'peace' and then, about being

able to bring that contentment and peace in

other lives. It didn't matter that much if you

were not able to explain it intellectually.

 

People used to flock to 'mahatmas', 'saints' and

'sadhus', 'sages' even when that man/woman

was illiterate, spoke different language or

didn't speak at all. Disciples were primarily

looking for 'peace' and not intellectual understanding

of 'how the world formed', 'who created the

universe' and whether the reality was one,

two, three on none. In east, an intellectual explanation

was nice but never a must. Whereas in west, I

find the situation quite opposite - demand for

the intellectual knowledge seems greater than

the demand for peace and underlying these seems

to be that intellectual knowledge would automatically

bring all else including Ultimate Enlightenment!

 

 

I am not saying that one is better than the other

but, merely commenting on the differences that

I observed. And, I further observe that now cultures

are merging quite close together where east is

becoming increasingly like west and west is taking

some attributes of east.

 

 

 

 

 

[...]