Robin

I find there are two approaches to the formalities of Vedantic practice. One is very rigid and prescriptive, while the other is more about following your natural affinities - maybe something like the (metaphorical and approximate) 84,000 path to enlightenment described by the Buddha. I personally think natural affinity trumps orthodoxy. For example, if the Gayatri mantra comes into your mandala somehow, you may well have already chanted it many thousands or millions of times in a different lifetime. If in addition to it coming into your mandala, you also feel an affinity and a desire to chant it, then I consider this to be more than sufficient qualification. Om swami agrees: While I can see some value in practice guidelines etc., and of course ideally transmission from a living master, there is also a strong tendency, IMO, for unnecessary hierarchies to develop around spiritual knowledge, which can end up looking like medieval Christian priests selling pardons etc. The Quakers did not acknowledge the need for an intermediary between us and the Divine, and I think we can take the same position with Vedanta. Affinity is king, friendly guides are wonderful. Dogmatism has little value, IMO.

It has been a source of much confusion to me how rude and dismissive he can be when responding to people's questions. Doesn't seem to jibe well with his claims about his own spiritual development and how much he values compassion. Some people seem to think it's a kind of "crazy wisdom" and that he's just giving you something to work with in your meditation. Another explanation is that he's something of a bully, or maybe has Asperger's. Great material, and I'm grateful he shares it, but his "bedside manner" sometimes really sucks, IMO.