Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other mystic source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it gives is dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. NO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other mystic > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it gives is > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. > NO? > It is sometimes said that all is light. It is sometimes said that all is vibration. Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* it is all of, but that it is all of something. What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is right " . This is not like science. What was being said in different terms might be like saying life is a great ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other mystic > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it gives is > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. > > NO? > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > it is all of, but that it is all of something. > > What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. > seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create > a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is > right " . This is not like science. What was being said > in different terms might be like saying life is a great > ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense > of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it > becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really > an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. > > > Bill >I appreciate you comment. It is ture that something like that was afoot. But it seems to me that most of the advaita teachers I have run into on the web are talking to people with not much background in meditation and they are saying things to them that are too deep for the ordinary mind to get itself around.Nis is an exception. He says: Grab hold of " I Am " and HANG ON FOR DEAR LIFE. Tony P. however says: Who is going to do the grabbing? This is a good question but it doesn't solve the dilemma: My mind is too scattered, too available to every distraction to even see clearly that decisions are automatic phenomena. And I am being told that such a mind is just fine and is as much divine as the mind of Buddha.haha.It may be true but it will be cold comfort when the winds of real trouble start to blow. I guess what Parsons is trying to do is get people to just see that there is nothing they can do and then maybe the mind relaxes and gets still enough to really see something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other mystic > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it gives is > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. > NO? > A mystical experience has to be experienced by something separate from that experience....It has to be stored within the memory of a psycho-soma. " All there is is consciousness " comes up over and over in mystical literature. Actually it is a meaningless concept. If everything is one thing.....nothing could exist. The phrase is a conceptual pointing. It is futile to search within the conceptual overlay for the source of that overlay. Even the word " consciousness " is part of the overlay and therefore meaningless. There a consciousnesing out of which the world dream emerges......but it can only see its products.......It can never see itself......... It is what's seeing. Ain't that a kick in the ass? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: > If > > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the > sense > > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other > mystic > > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical > experience? If > > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it > gives is > > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent > upon. > > > NO? > > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, > > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > > it is all of, but that it is all of something. > > > > What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. > > seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create > > a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is > > right " . This is not like science. What was being said > > in different terms might be like saying life is a great > > ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense > > of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it > > becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really > > an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. > > > > > > Bill > >I appreciate you comment. It is ture that something like that was > afoot. But it seems to me that most of the advaita teachers I have > run into on the web are talking to people with not much background > in meditation and they are saying things to them that are too deep > for the ordinary mind to get itself around.Nis is an exception. He > says: Grab hold of " I Am " and HANG ON FOR DEAR LIFE. Tony P. however > says: Who is going to do the grabbing? This is a good question but > it doesn't solve the dilemma: My mind is too scattered, too > available to every distraction to even see clearly that decisions > are automatic phenomena. And I am being told that such a mind is > just fine and is as much divine as the mind of Buddha.haha.It may be > true but it will be cold comfort when the winds of real trouble > start to blow. I guess what Parsons is trying to do is get people > to just see that there is nothing they can do and then maybe the > mind relaxes and gets still enough to really see something. > Conceptual mind is the obstruction and the cause of the imagined confusion....It not the solution. All questions are about concepts. There are no ultimate answers within the conceptual milieu. When it looks inside.....mind sees nothing but a great void. That is the purpose of the " Who Am I " query and should tell one all that it need to understand. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other mystic > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it gives is > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. > > NO? > > > > > A mystical experience has to be experienced by something separate from > that experience....It has to be stored within the memory of a psycho-soma. > > " All there is is consciousness " comes up over and over in mystical > literature. > > Actually it is a meaningless concept. > > If everything is one thing.....nothing could exist. > > The phrase is a conceptual pointing. > > It is futile to search within the conceptual overlay for the source of > that overlay. > > Even the word " consciousness " is part of the overlay and therefore > meaningless. > > There a consciousnesing out of which the world dream emerges......but > it can only see its products.......It can never see itself......... > > > It is what's seeing. > > > > Ain't that a kick in the ass? > > > > > toombaru no... it's just meaningless... because there is no such thing as meaning. and saying that has no meaning either. the seeing doesn't give a crap about 'meaningful things'. and there is nothing that can be said about it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If > > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense > > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other > mystic > > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If > > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it > gives is > > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. > > > NO? > > > > > > > > > A mystical experience has to be experienced by something separate from > > that experience....It has to be stored within the memory of a > psycho-soma. > > > > " All there is is consciousness " comes up over and over in mystical > > literature. > > > > Actually it is a meaningless concept. > > > > If everything is one thing.....nothing could exist. > > > > The phrase is a conceptual pointing. > > > > It is futile to search within the conceptual overlay for the source of > > that overlay. > > > > Even the word " consciousness " is part of the overlay and therefore > > meaningless. > > > > There a consciousnesing out of which the world dream emerges......but > > it can only see its products.......It can never see itself......... > > > > > > It is what's seeing. > > > > > > > > Ain't that a kick in the ass? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > no... > > it's just meaningless... > > because there is no such thing as meaning. > > and saying that has no meaning either. > > the seeing doesn't give a crap about 'meaningful things'. > > and there is nothing that can be said about it. > > .b b.b. > :-) t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: > If > > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the > sense > > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other > mystic > > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical > experience? If > > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it > gives is > > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent > upon. > > > NO? > > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, > > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > > it is all of, but that it is all of something. > > > > What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. > > seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create > > a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is > > right " . This is not like science. What was being said > > in different terms might be like saying life is a great > > ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense > > of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it > > becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really > > an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. > > > > > > Bill > >I appreciate you comment. It is ture that something like that was > afoot. But it seems to me that most of the advaita teachers I have > run into on the web are talking to people with not much background > in meditation and they are saying things to them that are too deep > for the ordinary mind to get itself around.Nis is an exception. He > says: Grab hold of " I Am " and HANG ON FOR DEAR LIFE. Tony P. however > says: Who is going to do the grabbing? This is a good question but > it doesn't solve the dilemma: My mind is too scattered, too > available to every distraction to even see clearly that decisions > are automatic phenomena. And I am being told that such a mind is > just fine and is as much divine as the mind of Buddha.haha.It may be > true but it will be cold comfort when the winds of real trouble > start to blow. I guess what Parsons is trying to do is get people > to just see that there is nothing they can do and then maybe the > mind relaxes and gets still enough to really see something. I'm not especially familiar with Tony Parsons. But from what you say he sounds like of the neo-advaita ilk. And if so your assessment is consistent with a common criticism of neo-advaita. I found this link that talks about traditional advaita vs. neo-advaita, and includes comments by Tony Parsons on the topic: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm In particular note the essay: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neoadvaita_jacobs.htm where he says: " Stated briefly, what has happened is that an advanced teaching pointer, normally given to the Sadhak by a fully Self Realised Guru, Jivan Mukta or Jnani has been taken over as the preliminary step and is now given 'piecemeal' to any new adept. The suggestion that no further effort is necessary is only stated when the Sadhak has reached the point where effort is no longer possible. The mark of the true Guru is that peace, Love and Silence are palpably felt in his presence. What Neo Advaita gives in fact boils down to the seductive formula that 'there is nothing you can do or need to do, all you have to know is that there is no one there.' " That echoes your comments above, seems to me. But if you do appreciate Nisargadatta's approach, then perhaps just stick with him. As he says, it is not the approach that matters so much as the earnestness with which whatever approach is taken up. His recommendations are very solid and will not let you down. Another great teacher is Krishnamurti. He basically says to not worry about thoughts and such, just observe their arising attentively. To worry about one's mind is a pointless venture that reaps nothing but confusion and distress. Never mind what your mind is doing! The mind is such a small player anyway. Awareness is the real heart of the matter. Returning again and again to awareness and heart, the mind comes to be seen as just so much whistling in the wind. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: > > If > > > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the > > sense > > > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other > > mystic > > > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical > > experience? If > > > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it > > gives is > > > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent > > upon. > > > > NO? > > > > > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > > > > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > > > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > > > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, > > > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > > > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > > > it is all of, but that it is all of something. > > > > > > What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. > > > seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create > > > a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is > > > right " . This is not like science. What was being said > > > in different terms might be like saying life is a great > > > ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense > > > of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it > > > becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really > > > an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. > > >I appreciate you comment. It is ture that something like that was > > afoot. But it seems to me that most of the advaita teachers I have > > run into on the web are talking to people with not much background > > in meditation and they are saying things to them that are too deep > > for the ordinary mind to get itself around.Nis is an exception. He > > says: Grab hold of " I Am " and HANG ON FOR DEAR LIFE. Tony P. however > > says: Who is going to do the grabbing? This is a good question but > > it doesn't solve the dilemma: My mind is too scattered, too > > available to every distraction to even see clearly that decisions > > are automatic phenomena. And I am being told that such a mind is > > just fine and is as much divine as the mind of Buddha.haha.It may be > > true but it will be cold comfort when the winds of real trouble > > start to blow. I guess what Parsons is trying to do is get people > > to just see that there is nothing they can do and then maybe the > > mind relaxes and gets still enough to really see something. > > I'm not especially familiar with Tony Parsons. But from what you > say he sounds like of the neo-advaita ilk. And if so your assessment > is consistent with a common criticism of neo-advaita. > > I found this link that talks about traditional advaita vs. > neo-advaita, and includes comments by Tony Parsons on the topic: > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm > > In particular note the essay: > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neoadvaita_jacobs.htm > where he says: > " Stated briefly, what has happened is that an advanced teaching > pointer, normally given to the Sadhak by a fully Self Realised Guru, > Jivan Mukta or Jnani has been taken over as the preliminary step and > is now given 'piecemeal' to any new adept. The suggestion that no > further effort is necessary is only stated when the Sadhak has reached > the point where effort is no longer possible. The mark of the true > Guru is that peace, Love and Silence are palpably felt in his > presence. What Neo Advaita gives in fact boils down to the seductive > formula that 'there is nothing you can do or need to do, all you have > to know is that there is no one there.' " > > That echoes your comments above, seems to me. > > But if you do appreciate Nisargadatta's approach, then perhaps > just stick with him. As he says, it is not the approach that > matters so much as the earnestness with which whatever approach > is taken up. His recommendations are very solid and will not > let you down. > > Another great teacher is Krishnamurti. He basically says to not > worry about thoughts and such, just observe their arising > attentively. > > To worry about one's mind is a pointless venture that reaps > nothing but confusion and distress. Never mind what your > mind is doing! The mind is such a small player anyway. > Awareness is the real heart of the matter. Returning again > and again to awareness and heart, the mind comes to be seen > as just so much whistling in the wind. if all of theses stupid opinions were dropped... then and only then... can some sense and sensibility of truth shine. till that time... children crying for their mommy in darkness like the above.. there is no mommy kids! so sorry..but this crap is not advaita..'neo' or any other type. (advaita means non-dual..not neo types and old types and +++) it's just silly 'self' love..wanting to impress 'itself' and 'others'. heeee! ho ho ho hahahhhaaaaaa!.... it's so funny reading fools' and their ilk's ideas on wisdom. well..it's a poor tune they whistle..in a piss poor wind. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other mystic > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it gives is > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. > > NO? > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > it is all of, but that it is all of something. some experience, for real.....this your mentionned light.... some experience, for real....this " vibration " .... some " see " It, for real....as " consciousness " .... yes....indeed.... whatever is seen & experienced....are different levels of One Being..... imagine an onion.....the center is envelopped with different kind of " levels " .... non-dualists tell.....that, in reality......every appearing single part or entity.....is Not a part of the whole...... but Is the whole Itself... it maybe sound confusing that " every single part....is at same time.....whole of It " .... but, depending the level of " understanding/experience/evolution/delusion/love/knowledge... " it's possible to feel free, for real.....means, no more in need......of something " missing " means also....that there is absolute acceptance/freedom/peace.....with whatever appearences.... the nature of such state of (real) Being.......is extrem peace/liberation/happiness/joy...... such nature don't risc anymore......to get in deep troubles...... because It know....the real reasons....of evtl. troubles..... yes....it's not about the " life of an ocean " ....but to flow freely.....like a single wave on the ocean..... envelopped.....all around.....in & out..... with Being > Marc > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: > > If > > > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the > > sense > > > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other > > mystic > > > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical > > experience? If > > > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it > > gives is > > > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent > > upon. > > > > NO? > > > > > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > > > > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > > > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > > > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, > > > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > > > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > > > it is all of, but that it is all of something. > > > > > > What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. > > > seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create > > > a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is > > > right " . This is not like science. What was being said > > > in different terms might be like saying life is a great > > > ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense > > > of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it > > > becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really > > > an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > >I appreciate you comment. It is ture that something like that was > > afoot. But it seems to me that most of the advaita teachers I have > > run into on the web are talking to people with not much background > > in meditation and they are saying things to them that are too deep > > for the ordinary mind to get itself around.Nis is an exception. He > > says: Grab hold of " I Am " and HANG ON FOR DEAR LIFE. Tony P. however > > says: Who is going to do the grabbing? This is a good question but > > it doesn't solve the dilemma: My mind is too scattered, too > > available to every distraction to even see clearly that decisions > > are automatic phenomena. And I am being told that such a mind is > > just fine and is as much divine as the mind of Buddha.haha.It may be > > true but it will be cold comfort when the winds of real trouble > > start to blow. I guess what Parsons is trying to do is get people > > to just see that there is nothing they can do and then maybe the > > mind relaxes and gets still enough to really see something. > > I'm not especially familiar with Tony Parsons. But from what you > say he sounds like of the neo-advaita ilk. And if so your assessment > is consistent with a common criticism of neo-advaita. > > I found this link that talks about traditional advaita vs. > neo-advaita, and includes comments by Tony Parsons on the topic: > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm > > In particular note the essay: > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neoadvaita_jacobs.htm > where he says: > " Stated briefly, what has happened is that an advanced teaching > pointer, normally given to the Sadhak by a fully Self Realised Guru, > Jivan Mukta or Jnani has been taken over as the preliminary step and > is now given 'piecemeal' to any new adept. The suggestion that no > further effort is necessary is only stated when the Sadhak has reached > the point where effort is no longer possible. The mark of the true > Guru is that peace, Love and Silence are palpably felt in his > presence. What Neo Advaita gives in fact boils down to the seductive > formula that 'there is nothing you can do or need to do, all you have > to know is that there is no one there.' " > > That echoes your comments above, seems to me. > > But if you do appreciate Nisargadatta's approach, then perhaps > just stick with him. As he says, it is not the approach that > matters so much as the earnestness with which whatever approach > is taken up. His recommendations are very solid and will not > let you down. > > Another great teacher is Krishnamurti. He basically says to not > worry about thoughts and such, just observe their arising > attentively. > > To worry about one's mind is a pointless venture that reaps > nothing but confusion and distress. Never mind what your > mind is doing! The mind is such a small player anyway. > Awareness is the real heart of the matter. Returning again > and again to awareness and heart, the mind comes to be seen > as just so much whistling in the wind. > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: > > If > > > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the > > sense > > > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > > > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > > > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other > > mystic > > > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical > > experience? If > > > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it > > gives is > > > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent > > upon. > > > > NO? > > > > > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > > > > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > > > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > > > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, consciousness, > > > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > > > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > > > it is all of, but that it is all of something. > > > > > > What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. > > > seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create > > > a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is > > > right " . This is not like science. What was being said > > > in different terms might be like saying life is a great > > > ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense > > > of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it > > > becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really > > > an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > >I appreciate you comment. It is ture that something like that was > > afoot. But it seems to me that most of the advaita teachers I have > > run into on the web are talking to people with not much background > > in meditation and they are saying things to them that are too deep > > for the ordinary mind to get itself around.Nis is an exception. He > > says: Grab hold of " I Am " and HANG ON FOR DEAR LIFE. Tony P. however > > says: Who is going to do the grabbing? This is a good question but > > it doesn't solve the dilemma: My mind is too scattered, too > > available to every distraction to even see clearly that decisions > > are automatic phenomena. And I am being told that such a mind is > > just fine and is as much divine as the mind of Buddha.haha.It may be > > true but it will be cold comfort when the winds of real trouble > > start to blow. I guess what Parsons is trying to do is get people > > to just see that there is nothing they can do and then maybe the > > mind relaxes and gets still enough to really see something. > > I'm not especially familiar with Tony Parsons. But from what you > say he sounds like of the neo-advaita ilk. And if so your assessment > is consistent with a common criticism of neo-advaita. > > I found this link that talks about traditional advaita vs. > neo-advaita, and includes comments by Tony Parsons on the topic: > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm > > In particular note the essay: > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neoadvaita_jacobs.htm > where he says: > " Stated briefly, what has happened is that an advanced teaching > pointer, normally given to the Sadhak by a fully Self Realised Guru, > Jivan Mukta or Jnani has been taken over as the preliminary step and > is now given 'piecemeal' to any new adept. The suggestion that no > further effort is necessary is only stated when the Sadhak has reached > the point where effort is no longer possible. The mark of the true > Guru is that peace, Love and Silence are palpably felt in his > presence. What Neo Advaita gives in fact boils down to the seductive > formula that 'there is nothing you can do or need to do, all you have > to know is that there is no one there.' " > > That echoes your comments above, seems to me. > > But if you do appreciate Nisargadatta's approach, then perhaps > just stick with him. As he says, it is not the approach that > matters so much as the earnestness with which whatever approach > is taken up. His recommendations are very solid and will not > let you down. > > Another great teacher is Krishnamurti. He basically says to not > worry about thoughts and such, just observe their arising > attentively. > > To worry about one's mind is a pointless venture that reaps > nothing but confusion and distress. Never mind what your > mind is doing! The mind is such a small player anyway. > Awareness is the real heart of the matter. Returning again > and again to awareness and heart, the mind comes to be seen > as just so much whistling in the wind. > > > Bill >I like Krishnamurti well enough. and Nis. And I like Tony too.But let's face it:We are already doing what we can in this matter.Blessed is he who realizes this at least once in a while during the live long day. How to make God laugh:Go to Barnes and Noble and ignoring every other of the 300 departments head for the shelf marked :ADVAITA. If you want to have him rolling in the elysian aisles buy one of the books. If you want to have him roll off the edge of the world and fall bent double and screaming try one of the practices. If you want to see him weep: bring out your check book--unless it is made of rubber--and write a big check to somebody's organisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He > say s: > > > If > > > > > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and > the > > > sense > > > > > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I > am > > > > > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng > is > > > > > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some > other > > > mystic > > > > > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical > > > experience? If > > > > > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that > it > > > gives is > > > > > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be > dependent > > > upon. > > > > > NO? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is light. > > > > > > > > It is sometimes said that all is vibration. > > > > > > > > Does it ever seem as if all is a vast weaving of something, > > > > a vast fluid dream? If so, perhaps it doesn't matter much > > > > what that " something " is, be it light, vibration, > consciousness, > > > > etc. What is consciousness anyway? Is it a substance? > > > > So perhaps the significance of that statement is not *what* > > > > it is all of, but that it is all of something. > > > > > > > > What was being said about " the sense of separation " etc. > > > > seems to me more a attempt to reframe things to create > > > > a new perspective. None of this stuff is about " what is > > > > right " . This is not like science. What was being said > > > > in different terms might be like saying life is a great > > > > ocean, and that any part of that, including any sense > > > > of separation etc., just waves in the ocean. But then it > > > > becomes clear that it is not about whether life is really > > > > an ocean... it is just to jostle a change in perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > >I appreciate you comment. It is ture that something like that > was > > > afoot. But it seems to me that most of the advaita teachers I > have > > > run into on the web are talking to people with not much > background > > > in meditation and they are saying things to them that are too > deep > > > for the ordinary mind to get itself around.Nis is an exception. > He > > > says: Grab hold of " I Am " and HANG ON FOR DEAR LIFE. Tony P. > however > > > says: Who is going to do the grabbing? This is a good question > but > > > it doesn't solve the dilemma: My mind is too scattered, too > > > available to every distraction to even see clearly that > decisions > > > are automatic phenomena. And I am being told that such a mind is > > > just fine and is as much divine as the mind of Buddha.haha.It > may be > > > true but it will be cold comfort when the winds of real trouble > > > start to blow. I guess what Parsons is trying to do is get > people > > > to just see that there is nothing they can do and then maybe the > > > mind relaxes and gets still enough to really see something. > > > > I'm not especially familiar with Tony Parsons. But from what you > > say he sounds like of the neo-advaita ilk. And if so your > assessment > > is consistent with a common criticism of neo-advaita. > > > > I found this link that talks about traditional advaita vs. > > neo-advaita, and includes comments by Tony Parsons on the topic: > > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm > > > > In particular note the essay: > > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neoadvaita_jacobs.htm > > where he says: > > " Stated briefly, what has happened is that an advanced teaching > > pointer, normally given to the Sadhak by a fully Self Realised > Guru, > > Jivan Mukta or Jnani has been taken over as the preliminary step > and > > is now given 'piecemeal' to any new adept. The suggestion that no > > further effort is necessary is only stated when the Sadhak has > reached > > the point where effort is no longer possible. The mark of the true > > Guru is that peace, Love and Silence are palpably felt in his > > presence. What Neo Advaita gives in fact boils down to the > seductive > > formula that 'there is nothing you can do or need to do, all you > have > > to know is that there is no one there.' " > > > > That echoes your comments above, seems to me. > > > > But if you do appreciate Nisargadatta's approach, then perhaps > > just stick with him. As he says, it is not the approach that > > matters so much as the earnestness with which whatever approach > > is taken up. His recommendations are very solid and will not > > let you down. > > > > Another great teacher is Krishnamurti. He basically says to not > > worry about thoughts and such, just observe their arising > > attentively. > > > > To worry about one's mind is a pointless venture that reaps > > nothing but confusion and distress. Never mind what your > > mind is doing! The mind is such a small player anyway. > > Awareness is the real heart of the matter. Returning again > > and again to awareness and heart, the mind comes to be seen > > as just so much whistling in the wind. > > > > > >I like Krishnamurti well enough. and Nis. And I like Tony too.But > let's face it:We are already doing what we can in this > matter.Blessed is he who realizes this at least once in a while > during the live long day. How to make God laugh:Go to Barnes and > Noble and ignoring every other of the 300 departments head for the > shelf marked :ADVAITA. If you want to have him rolling in the > elysian aisles buy one of the books. If you want to have him roll > off the edge of the world and fall bent double and screaming try one > of the practices. If you want to see him weep: bring out your check > book--unless it is made of rubber--and write a big check to > somebody's organisation. :-) now that's the ticket. Good Stuff! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 > > > >I like Krishnamurti well enough. and Nis. And I like Tony too.But > > let's face it:We are already doing what we can in this > > matter.Blessed is he who realizes this at least once in a while > > during the live long day. How to make God laugh:Go to Barnes and > > Noble and ignoring every other of the 300 departments head for the > > shelf marked :ADVAITA. If you want to have him rolling in the > > elysian aisles buy one of the books. If you want to have him roll > > off the edge of the world and fall bent double and screaming try one > > of the practices. If you want to see him weep: bring out your check > > book--unless it is made of rubber--and write a big check to > > somebody's organisation. > > You are the one who writes the check.......and the one who laughs. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > >I like Krishnamurti well enough. and Nis. And I like too.But > > > let's face it:We are already doing what we can in this > > > matter.Blessed is he who realizes this at least once in a while > > > during the live long day. How to make God laugh:Go to Barnes and > > > Noble and ignoring every other of the 300 departments head for the > > > shelf marked :ADVAITA. If you want to have him rolling in the > > > elysian aisles buy one of the books. If you want to have him roll > > > off the edge of the world and fall bent double and screaming try one > > > of the practices. If you want to see him weep: bring out your check > > > book--unless it is made of rubber--and write a big check to > > > somebody's organisation. > > > > > > > You are the one who writes the check.......and the one who laughs. > > > > toombaru this deserve ....again the Fishing & Friends Satsang * Marc *nothing excluded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >I like Krishnamurti well enough. and Nis. And I like > too.But > > > > let's face it:We are already doing what we can in this > > > > matter.Blessed is he who realizes this at least once in a while > > > > during the live long day. How to make God laugh:Go to Barnes > and > > > > Noble and ignoring every other of the 300 departments head for > the > > > > shelf marked :ADVAITA. If you want to have him rolling in the > > > > elysian aisles buy one of the books. If you want to have him > roll > > > > off the edge of the world and fall bent double and screaming > try one > > > > of the practices. If you want to see him weep: bring out your > check > > > > book--unless it is made of rubber--and write a big check to > > > > somebody's organisation. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the one who writes the check.......and the one who laughs. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > this deserve ....again > > the Fishing & Friends Satsang * > > Marc > > > *nothing excluded > The quiescence of a river.......flowing into itself. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 yes, it is clear that the dictum " everything is consciousness " has been taken as a concept...it is clear from the fact that he begins with saying: " IF everything is consciousness... " . now, the case is that everything IS consciousness...playing its game... if there is the desire for clarity, then you will listen to somebody who states this firmly, with no if...listen to the Master, not to the disciple... otherwise, guess what Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Reading some guy tonight--a disciple of Tony Parsons. He say s: If > everything is conscousness then the sense of inqdequacy and the sense > of separation etc. are all nothing but consciousness. What I am > wondering is from where did he get the dictum that everythng is > conscoiousness? From scripture or from Tony or from some other mystic > source? How does one prove this other than by mystical experience? If > it is proven by argument then this sense of the truth that it gives is > dependendent on thought and that is a weak reed to be dependent upon. > NO? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.