Lucky7Strikes

What? I'm quite baffled by this response. 1. I insulted you with reason. I laid out clearly why the examples you chose to paint Sadhguru as some sort of murderer, con artist, and mind manipulator were in very poor taste. I refuted each chosen example. You began with all the insulting bullshit and then try to skip out on all the crap you laid out and now your feelings are hurt! Take accountability for your actions! 2. I don't care about your history. You do have a tendency to all the time go "bliss bliss bliss." And you admitted it yourself didn't you? So I was just writing on that basis. 3. What are you talking about? I never insulted Max. I love Max. In fact I'm gonna go see him tomorrow! 4. Every thesis there's an anti thesis! Ha! What? So if you call someone a murderer and this other person proves him innocent, I guess he is now both a murderer and a innocent man? What kind of logic is that? There are baseless claims and evidence, leading to what the actuality is. 5. Ohhhh you are interested in my personal experience! That's great! Because that thread on Sadhguru was exactly that! On my personal experience with Sadhguru! Until you came up with a very huge copy and paste list of ridiculous accusations against him. Thanks for caring so much about what I experienced! 6. I picked your post on that thread apart for a good reason, so that people don't take all the nonsense you copied and pasted with any sense of seriousness. 7. As for Dzogchen, the base, path, and fruit are one (I can quote this from Chogyal Namkai Norbu's book, but since you like quoting entire books, I'll just give you the name of it "The Crystal and the Way of Light"). Those methods you listed are so that the seeker gets introduced to the natural state. Only when you've been introduced to that state can you be considered a practitioner of Dzogchen. Dzogchen is known to be a non gradual path, where upon all experiences are seen as self liberating. Tony Parsons is much closer to that than whatever concentrative exercise you may be doing. Anyway, I wrote that because you mentioned natural state. Natural state isn't about concentrating, or fixating the mind on stillness...that wouldn't be so natural would it? P.S. Maybe you should stop smoking. Why are you so sensitive? Just reply reasonably on the topic instead of feeling oh so hurt. So I went back to the thread to see how it panned out. Well in reply to my original post this is what you wrote after finding problems with Sadhguru's exposition on healing: "I find the Sadhguru's precepts disturbing, and misplaced. He seems to be a good actor and have a handle on how to entertain and influence people. But he lacks the sincerity and respect for other traditions that I would expect from someone in his position." (And here you are all poo poo because you think I insulted you.) To which I replied with a very reasoned response on what Sadhguru means when telling healers not to meddle with life. To which you.... Oh, that's right...didn't reply, but put out that stupid list of accusations. To which I again replied with a reasoned criticism of why your sources are absolutely unreliable. To which you... Oh, that's right...didn't reply again. And now you are here saying you were upset because I insulted you. Ha! What nonsense!

What exactly is your complaint? At first you were talking about how Sadhguru sounds like a control freak. Then here you are talking about gaining 100% control according to the Tao (btw, who is this Tao anyway, I haven't heard of this guy which is surprising since you put him/her on par with the Buddha and Jesus), the Buddha, or Jesus. On what basis do you call the paths different? Are you aware of what Sadhguru teaches in order to attain this "mastery"? What if it is indeed to, as you put it, "lose control." Then wouldn't he be just saying the same thing as what you think the Buddha, Jesus, or this Tao guy said? You seem to very much like someone who only likes teachings if they are two thousand years old! What if there are true masters in this day and age! Whoa! Shocking! Does he/she have to be dead for 2000 years for you to see they are genuine? You're quite silly consistently going on about the Buddha/Lao Zi/Jesus as if you fully understand they're teachings or as if they were this exclusive "the only enlightened beings" club. That's like only liking pop songs. There are other good artists out there putting out great music!

Ok. No...this isn't an explanation of direct experience. This is mental masturbation. You haven't transcended anything but the poop mountain you built on spiritual philosophies in your head. Egoic life has no deep meaning or purpose. This is a big flag that tells me you are full of shit. Egoic life is a life of nonsense. Nonsense. It's a joke, a play to be laughed at, entirely fictional created on lies. It's a mechanism tied to bodily survival and nothing much more than that. You develop an ego to survive as a physical animal, but spirituality is breaking that down so that you are no longer living for survival purposes alone. Edit: "Ego is dealt a blow...becomes loose and airy." You clearly didn't go through what Parsons went through. This whole post is one giant flattery for yourself.

Hey! Tibetan Ice! Why don't you reply to any of my awesome replies to your posts? Like the post on this thread and the Sadhguru post? Come on! I spent a long time writing replies to you!

Hmm...That's a pretty roundabout answer. It's not that hard to share. Parsons speaks about his experience of walking in a park.

Can you share with us your personal experience of what Tony has gone through?

He did all his sadhana and met his guru in a past lifetime. It's quite fascinating. He was a businessman who on occasion practiced physical yoga and didn't have much interest in spirituality (more in motorcycles and cars). Apparently he was very skeptical of all the spirituality stuff and was quite successful in his business endeavors. Then when he was 25 when sitting on a particular hill he began experiencing transcendental levels of awareness. Subsequently, he remembered all his past lives, but not being able to believe it, travelled around India tracing the steps of his past identities. He met past disciples and acquaintances and that was the beginning of Isha. The whole purpose of his return here, since he was already enlightened in the past life, had been to consecrate the dhanyalinga temple at the request of his guru. He was going to just go after that, but by that point Isha had become so big and there were so many people dependent on him.... You can read about all this in the book Midnight with the Mystic. There's some crazy stuff in there. I recommend the audio book because you can hear him tell it. Here's a good TED talk he speaks about some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfAf39xo-Is

They're saying the same thing. Only in your philosophies there seems to be a contradiction. Wu Wei is choice. Non-action is the same as total action. When one is encumbered by ego, self, and personal habits, how can any choice one makes be considered free? To make unconditioned choices, pure creative choices in one moment then another, is true free will. The less you are, and your garbage of compulsions you carry, the freer you are to be and act.

This is all just nonsense pooping out of your head. You've read too much about emptiness and the middle way, but have no direct experience of what they mean. This is not about analysis, it's about beginning a process/transformation. Tony Parsons isn't teaching some doctrine. He is sharing a direct experience he went through. Spirituality, especially Buddhism, isn't a teaching in the sense that you learn it then use it like a tool. It's not a classroom exercise to add to your knowledge. It's supposed to be something that fundamentally shifts who you are and how you see the world. Arm chair Buddhism very much gets in the way of all this because so many people think they understand the philosophy but have no idea how it is supposed to be applied.

If these questions still arise in you, you still haven't seen through the "I." This is not about letting go. It's about realizing directly that there is nothing you can let go of because it isn't there at all.

I thought the video was pretty clear. It hit me deeply, because like Jetsun, I constantly fall back to my safety net and habits whenever I break through to greater dimensions of energy and awareness. Its a struggle whenever I sit down to do energy work. A part of my personality is always holding back because it knows it will be destroyed once my being gets to a certain point. I know the barriers are there, I've hit them many many times, overcome some, not so much with others. The futility of it all, the way Sadhguru puts is, is exactly how it is.

IMO, this is an example of taking what Parsons says in the wrong context. Yes, he says it just happened to him, because after his realization that's the only way he can look at it. But he also does say that one can allow the possibility of this realization to occur. He was once a spiritual seeker himself and only when he threw away the seeking, did the experience come to him. That's why the emphasis on no seeking. It's detrimental to look at Parson's experience and somehow rationalize or think up of the logical consequences of there being no self, such as choice, destiny, free will, etc. It has nothing to do with any of these ideas. It is an experiential realization, like knowing that you can move your hand. Don't worry about what happens after you realize you can move your hand this way and that. Just try to allow the possibility that you have a hand there. Then at once you will be able to move it, the questions will naturally dissolve. Allowing the possibility is a gigantic step itself. Whole religions, I feel, are just made to allow this. Now I don't believe Tony Parsons is some fully enlightened Buddha. I do however, believe his realization is genuine and that he is at least going towards the right direction.

Tibetan Ice! Nice to hear from you again! I think Tony Parsons is a great example of no-bullshit straight to the point guy. His stuff hits hard for practitioners with wrong mindsets (like you, who care more about siddhis, abilities, magical powers, auras...which all genuine teachers warn about latching onto. Especially Buddhism.) I first read Parsons' stuff four years ago, I spent, or rather my personality spent, hours refuting what I feared was right. That the mind made "I" and the dual actions of this agent were all fictional, a total joke. It's hilarious Tibetan Ice, that your signature is "rest the mind in the natural state..." blah blah, Dzogchen. Because Dzogchen is precisely the path of no practice, no method. One of the dharma seals is anatta, which means "no self," "no one there, " "one hand clapping." You don't get there by some intelligent reasoning. It feels like a dagger is being driven deep into you chest (at least that was my experience). It fucking hurts especially if you have all these fascinations about yourself and your "rainbow body," but when that dagger hits you deep enough, you realize nothing's been scarred. But the experience literally turns your path 180 degrees. Energy practitioners who seek to decorate themselves with attainments and accomplishments are going the very opposite of the right path. It's understandable. One enters spirituality because something is terribly lacking in their lives or with themselves or the material world. So these seemingly otherworldly accomplishments are a great boost. The occult arts (I guess I'm using this term broadly) are all about this. Spells, power over entities, abilities beyond the body, sexual prowess, turning oneself into a wolf, or something in those lines. It's all about power for the ego. I'm not saying power is bad, but this sort of power is all conditional (you should be seeking unconditional power!). Anything attained conditionally leads to stress because it's either not enough or you are always fearful of losing it. Attaining greater and greater ego-power is hence a great detriment since it becomes more and more difficult to see how conditional, impermanent and stressful all your attainments are (Annica!). You don't even have to think about this in spiritual terms. People who are successful in society, people who are rich, complacent, or have easy time getting what they want are the furthest people away from spiritual endeavors, right? Their lives are great, so why with all the enlightenment stuff? Unless you are a king of the material world and have had everything you've desired come true, will you seek something other than what the physical world has to offer. But who really ever reaches that point? Almost everyone grows old and dies in the middle of trying to get there. Spiritual seekers are usually people who have suffered and have seen through the delusions of putting your entire life's efforts into material wealth. So apply this to people who seek spiritual power. If you have broken into this new dimension of potential riches, now your greed has gone to depthless bounds. Suddenly you are able to summon spirits or control other people's minds. What do you naturally want to do then? You want more! Whoa! Now you are journeying into almost unreturnable territory because it will seem like your power is truly unshakable and the physical world will have less of an impact on you to teach you its lessens (this is where a Zen master comes in and slaps you in the face or you realize you are just a tiny tic on the Buddha's palm). Enlightenment is finding that which is unconditional, hence the word "truth" or "nature of reality" are often used to describe its goal. That's why there's no path there. It only appears that way to the illusion of a path. Your quote in the signature is not telling you to be without distraction or grasping or aversion as methods. It's saying that in the natural state, there are no such things as distraction, grasping or aversion. So if you are trying to be all these things, then you are not in the natural state. Tony Parsons can come off as this asshole telling you that all the effort you are putting in is totally meaningless. That he is the real shit. But really how humble he is! He is saying I'm a nobody! That he himself isn't there. Most teachers tell you this stuff after a bit of...coaxing so that it's easier to accept. It's decorated in many ways because your ego will just block it off as nonsense, like you did in the post above. But Tony is a bit cruel and what he says can be understood in a very wrong context if you just think its a philosophy. This man went through a deep transformation and it's hard to understand what it's like by rationalizing it. But the path of enlightenment, at its core, is about personal dissolution. It's about killing oneself (now, most people will tell you flowery stuff about what happens after. Like "re-birth," "enlightenment." But who cares, you are dead by that point). There are several levels that constitute an individual that needs to be liberated. If you liberate your physical body and the energy body, then you have the "rainbow body." But just look into the language of Buddhism, since you like Buddhism so much. It's "cessation" "illusory" "no-self"..basically telling you, that you don't exist. Same direction (at least more in line than whatever you think) as what Tony's saying here.

...you are not a holy man. Or a murderer (or are you?). Just speak for yourself, no need to make these overarching statements.

No. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sadhguru/do-soul-mates-exist_b_901262.html

Hey Jeff, is that in the six yogas or naropa book? or do I need a special edition to get that?

WHERE IS TIBETAN ICE!!! I DEMAND A REPLY AFTER ALL THIS WORK I"VE DONE TO APPEASE HIS DOUBTS!!! SHOW YOURSELF!!

I don't think there is a "buddhist" approach to meditating. What does that mean? Buddhism isn't a meditation technique! What you are looking for is insight practice where you examine your thought and behavioral patterns and then investigate into their nature. Qi gong practice can be a great aid because your habits eventually affect your energy body and in sever cases the physical body as well. So releasing them through Qi Gong will bring forth things you will not want to see about yourself. What usually happens here though, is when you don't confront these issues, they just go back in because the basic root of them is no uprooted. So you are just going around in circles where your bring forth the clogged energy, but then just put it back in there despite all the energy work you've done! Insight practice at its core is examining your identity, after that the identity of the world. But don't worry about the latter. If you get one, the other will come naturally. And Buddhist meditation should NOT be some mild thing you do on a cushion to rest! Nooo. This is Westernized bullshit where people go to their weekly meditation class to calm themselves or something. Take a bath instead if you want to do that. It's much more efficient than focusing on the breath for an hour. Insight meditation should be a hundred times more intensive than Qi Gong. Why? Imagine Qi Gong as cutting off the branches off a tree so you can see the root. Insight meditation is taking the whole tree and uprooting it. You are there to destroy everything that you are NOT. lol, and we all know how silly we become when the smallest things we consider to belong to ourselves, like items of clothing, go missing.

You're not supposed to focus anywhere but once the sensation arises, you are to let go into the energy so it does its own thing. I was curious because focusing on the third eye immediately activates the same bliss shaking energy for me.

I might go to the Kunlun intermediate classes CA this november. Anyone planning on attending?

HA! I went to see ChNN live and it was pretty powerful but I didn't appreciate it as much. So you probably had a better experience. But your right it's not gonna just uplift your life. But Dzogchen depends very much on teacher student relationship.

LOL!! You are like Beetlejuice or something? A little mention of creator and source, and BOOM!! It's just language..I can say what I wrote above all in Buddhist terms. Buddhism just takes the personhood out of it, while Hindus put personhood to everything. Although in Dzogchen, the guru IS everything as embodiment of the natural state. And figures like Samnatabhadra or Vajrattva probably confuse the hell out of those who rely on the pali canon. It's probably impossible for westerners to really study Dzogchen the traditional way since not many are receptive to the transmission. Oh wait, I really shouldn't say these things, this will turn into a full blown religious war!

The guru isn't the body or mind. The true guru is the ultimate, the reality. The guru within you is the guru within Sadhguru, the buddha, jesus, or whoever we believe was enlightened. They embody it more purely so its easier to see. At a point you let Jaggi Vasudev go, and be with the true Guru. It's not the need of a guru. That path is the path of bhakti. It's true if you are talking about a human form to teach you, you don't need it. I can see how one can take a meditation technique and go there. But upon reaching towards the highest, the true guru, all pervading and the source of creation will be revealed within you. And all your mind, body, emotions can do is worship it. (uh oh! taobum buddhist now commence to tell me no source! no creator!)

Personal relationships of bodies don't hold much importance at a point. This is just romanticism fed down our throats by western media. All life becomes a part of who you are. All energies are your movements. It will always be your choice however, to love a certain human. But all the while being firmly established in the divine, even sadness is just another blissful expression of being alive. Ramana loved arunachala and was a complete devotee to it. I have no doubt Sadhguru loved his wife, but when you say broken down, you are speaking of the dimension of him as a body. When I say guru, that's not what i'm talking about.