Tony Parsons Interview

[GrandmasterP]

Thought this deserved a wider airing than the sub thread it was first posted on.

Enjoy.

 

http://vimeo.com/25376402

[Nikolai1]

What a lovely lovely man

[gatito]

An interesting essay about neoadvaita here: -

 

www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/james_swartz/neoAdvaita.htm

 

And further information and discussion about advaita, neoadvaita and pseudoadvaita here: -

 

www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm

[Ish]

Ooh ill probably go to the meetup next month thanks for posting this

[Tibetan_Ice]

Thought this deserved a wider airing than the sub thread it was first posted on.

Enjoy.

 

 

Well, I watched this and became disgusted again. Neo_Advaita. Nothing to do.

 

It upsets me when someone like Tony Parsons claims that there is nothing to do, no practices to perform, no method to becoming enlightened. The claim is that there is nobody there in the first place.

 

Tony Parsons admits that he had been a seeker, but he says that the seeking was preventing him from realizing.

Well, just wait a minute. Maybe realization has to do with seeking as hard and long as you can and then stopping. It is the combination of events that causes the disolution, the seeking and then stopping. It is quite presumptuous to assume that no method can grant enlightenment. Further, what about reincarnation and the fact that someone may have been a yogi/practitioner for the last 36 previous lives?

 

I mean, even the Dalai Lama states that in order to become enlightened, one must first plant the seed of desire.

 

If it were true, as Tony Parsons claims, that people who don't practice anything are becoming enlightened (he makes it sound like a common event), then why are there greater numbers of rainbow bodies and adepts in Buddhist/Taoist practitioners than common people. And even then, how would Tony Parsons or anyone (including me) know who had attained enlightenment? It's not like all the enlightened people in the world (practitioners and non-practitioners) have a check-in station where they publicly post their non-acheivement..

 

To me, Tony Parsons sounds like all the rest of the neo-advaitans, John Wheeler, Sailor Bob, Rodney Stevens etc who think that dissociating from the mind and thoughts is enlightenment.

 

It sure is easy to declare one's self enlightened, write a book about it, yet have no abilities, siddhis, healing ability or magical powers, isn't it? Not even a pronounced aura or clearly detectable energy stream... I wonder how much the book costs? (not really -sarcasm)

 

Makes me wonder if somehow, most of the neo-advaitans did practices that burned out parts of their medulla and then adopted the common ideologies to justify their vacant states. Pretty good scam, I would say.

 

Don't worry. You don't have to respond to this. After all, you don't exist, I don't exist and the one life that is spewing out our thoughts is really running the show, regardless of what we think or do..

 

 

TI

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Birch]

All very fine Mr Lucky, but Mr Parsons did just say that 'it happened' to him and that no amount of anything anywhere near what he calls 'seeking' will do it. Just as much as this happens to ex-Mr Tony Parsons, just as much other things happen to Mr Lucky7, Mr T_I and (I suppose, because I'm still quite happy to believe in myself (an option BTW, but that too has been hard-won) happen to me.

 

Anyway, point being, you can look at Mr ex-Parsons and criticize Mr T_I with the same breath.

 

[Lucky7Strikes]

All very fine Mr Lucky, but Mr Parsons did just say that 'it happened' to him and that no amount of anything anywhere near what he calls 'seeking' will do it. Just as much as this happens to ex-Mr Tony Parsons, just as much other things happen to Mr Lucky7, Mr T_I and (I suppose, because I'm still quite happy to believe in myself (an option BTW, but that too has been hard-won) happen to me.

 

Anyway, point being, you can look at Mr ex-Parsons and criticize Mr T_I with the same breath.

 

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.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Jetsun]

If you seek harder and more intensely it brings more into consciousness how exactly you are seeking, so you can stop doing it. As far as I'm aware you can't stop doing something unless you are fully aware you are actually doing it, which is why you have all these methods and practices to illuminate what you are doing. Very few historical masters and teachers just say do nothing, if this is the same approach as "do nothing" Zen then according to the Zen master Hakuin this will send you straight to hell, he sought enlightenment so hard and practiced so intensely that he almost killed himself.

[GrandmasterP]

 

Tibetan Ice old chum I have no brief to defend anything Tony Parsons says. there's nothing to defend anyhoo. BUT do feel free to call Tony and discuss any concerns direct. Maybe best to read the disclaimer below first though.

Best Regards

GrandmasterP...............

 

Contact The Open Secret

By email:

[email protected]

 

please note: You can discuss this communication directly with Tony

on (+44 (0) 1747 828188) any weekday morning.

He will not enter into email discussions but you can email a question,

together with your telephone number, and he will try to contact you.

 

By phone:

01747-828188 (UK), +44-1747-828188 (international)

(There is no charge for calling Tony)

By mail:

Tony Parsons

P.O. Box 117, Shaftesbury

SP7 9WB - UK

FOR EVENT RESERVATIONS EMAIL:

 

[email protected]

 

01722-330111 (UK), +44 01722 330111 (International)

 

FOR WEBSITE COMMENTS EMAIL:

 

[email protected]

 

NOTICE

 

The ideas that are expressed under any Tony Parsons or Open Secret headings on this website, in books, CDs, DVDs, the spoken word or any other form of communication, do not constitute any kind of truth or authority. They are nothing more than particular and singular perceptions which are of no value or significance to any individual, and are devoid of any intention to influence. It is clear that they do not contain or imply any kind of teaching, prescription, recommendation or advice as to why or how any other individual should or should not live their lives. It is obviously apparent therefore that any participant's response or reaction to any of these communications is entirely and only a product of their own interpretation and therefore their own responsibility.

 

The Open Secret applies valid XHTML-1.0 and CSS

 

 

©2005 Tony Parsons All Rights Reserved

 

[GrandmasterP]

On a personal note though, the nonbeing formerly known as Tony Parsons and this one have previous. Many many moons ago we were Osho sannyasins at the first Brit Ashram ( medina) before it all went pear shaped and the movement decamped to a mad place in Oregon and most of us packed it in having sucked all the juice from that particular fruit ( it was very juicy)

and , sated; moved on. It took about two years before I stopped chuckling, such a good time was had by all ( she was called Ma Leela) .

Tony was a top chap then and he's an even nicer chap today. Like most of not-us he'd had a long long seeking walk in that metaphorical park before the nonevent described.

[Apech]

Surely this is a gradual vs. sudden path debate.

 

I reconcile this by saying that enlightenment is said to come of itself suddenly and (necessarily) without preconditions. i.e. it is not contrived or constructed by the mind >>> BUT there is a gradual path comprising a series of small steps (and a lot of work) ... each step being sudden.

 

You can't just sit in a room vacantly waiting for something to happen BUT on the other hand you can't make it happen by effort of will.

[GrandmasterP]

Yes indeedy.

Everyone should cultivate assiduously.

The more you do the closer you get to enlightenment so....

(Book my classes via website).

£3-00 members: £5-00 non members. (optional Tea and biccies 50p extra)

Can't guarantee enlightenment but the QiGong is good for what ails ya and the company's good.

 

 

The ideas that are expressed under any GrandmasterP headings on this website do not constitute any kind of truth or authority. They are nothing more than particular and singular perceptions which are of no value or significance to any individual, and are devoid of any intention to influence. It is clear that they do not contain or imply any kind of teaching, prescription, recommendation or advice as to why or how any other individual should or should not live their lives. It is obviously apparent therefore that any participant's response or reaction to any of these communications is entirely and only a product of their own interpretation and therefore their own responsibility.

Edited November 8, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Nikolai1]

I'm sure every teacher knows that they cannot teach the whole truth. If they want to be logical and consistent they must focus on one half of the story at any one time.

 

We all believe (or used to believe) that we exist as independent selves, and in a sense we are. But Spiritual teachers tend not to bother teaching us about this because we are convinced already. What we don't tend to realise is that we are also completely empty of independent existence, as is everything that appears to us. Because we don't understand this too well the spiritual teachers emphasise it because it's the biggest gap in our education.

 

Tony Parsons emphasises emptiness of the self alone. He is quite insistent that he and you and I are not really here. If people base an argument on independent selfhood he contradicts them. This consistent and disciplined contradiction of questions is his teaching. He teaches emptiness and impermanence like the Buddha did, but he seems not to remind us to reject the teachings. He does not teach the middle way between the extremes of existence of the self and non-existence.

 

We do not now what Tony Parsons' understanding is. If we we judge him by his words alone he seems to be very much 'trapped in emptiness'. But it is possible that his focus on emptiness of the self is strategic. We will not become enlightened unless we first 'see' the emptiness that he teaches so consistently. It is only later that emptiness must be reconciled with the former 'dream of individuality' rather then remain in contradistinction to it.

 

It is when this merging of form of emptiness occurs that the miraculous fruits of the spiritual like start to appear. Parsons has an acknowledged ability to communicate emptiness - sometimes miraculously. He also seems to be lovable, loving and charismatic. If we should 'beware of false prophets and judge a tree by its fruit' then I think we can trust him.

 

The Zen Buddhists talk about the three states of awareness:

 

First is the nornal state of independently existing objects and selves. Trees are trees.

 

Second is the realisation that things and selves can also be seen as empty. Trees are not trees.

 

Third is when these two views are harmonised into two sides of a coin. Trees are trees again.

 

If Tony Parsons is still at only the second stage he is still doing better than 99.99% of people. His message is definitely worth listening to.

[ragamor]

Letting "it" go is very potent, but only once "the seed" is planted (I quess). As I started my spiritual growth I mostly stopped cultivating and doing gi-gong, now whenever I just let go I receive so much energy and healing that it's almost crazy.

 

But I do have problems with the "I", if im a non-being, why become enlightened?

Isn't it counterproductive to "erase" the "I"? It's like unplugging yourself from the matrix by self deletion.

How come I experience things as real if "I" don't exist.

Why exist?

 

Or does embracing the "Non-me" expand the "Real-me"? Can both exist togheter like yin and yang?

[Nikolai1]

When Parsons is asked "Who become enlightened" he always says "Not me"

 

He could just as easily answer "I did", but he doesn't.

 

It must be a nightmare being a teacher because all you do is create confusion and distort the truth. But it can be no other way.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Letting "it" go is very potent, but only once "the seed" is planted (I quess). As I started my spiritual growth I mostly stopped cultivating and doing gi-gong, now whenever I just let go I receive so much energy and healing that it's almost crazy.

 

But I do have problems with the "I", if im a non-being, why become enlightened?

Isn't it counterproductive to "erase" the "I"? It's like unplugging yourself from the matrix by self deletion.

How come I experience things as real if "I" don't exist.

Why exist?

 

Or does embracing the "Non-me" expand the "Real-me"? Can both exist togheter like yin and yang?

 

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.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'm sure every teacher knows that they cannot teach the whole truth. If they want to be logical and consistent they must focus on one half of the story at any one time.

 

We all believe (or used to believe) that we exist as independent selves, and in a sense we are. But Spiritual teachers tend not to bother teaching us about this because we are convinced already. What we don't tend to realise is that we are also completely empty of independent existence, as is everything that appears to us. Because we don't understand this too well the spiritual teachers emphasise it because it's the biggest gap in our education.

 

Tony Parsons emphasises emptiness of the self alone. He is quite insistent that he and you and I are not really here. If people base an argument on independent selfhood he contradicts them. This consistent and disciplined contradiction of questions is his teaching. He teaches emptiness and impermanence like the Buddha did, but he seems not to remind us to reject the teachings. He does not teach the middle way between the extremes of existence of the self and non-existence.

 

We do not now what Tony Parsons' understanding is. If we we judge him by his words alone he seems to be very much 'trapped in emptiness'. But it is possible that his focus on emptiness of the self is strategic. We will not become enlightened unless we first 'see' the emptiness that he teaches so consistently. It is only later that emptiness must be reconciled with the former 'dream of individuality' rather then remain in contradistinction to it.

 

It is when this merging of form of emptiness occurs that the miraculous fruits of the spiritual like start to appear. Parsons has an acknowledged ability to communicate emptiness - sometimes miraculously. He also seems to be lovable, loving and charismatic. If we should 'beware of false prophets and judge a tree by its fruit' then I think we can trust him.

 

The Zen Buddhists talk about the three states of awareness:

 

First is the nornal state of independently existing objects and selves. Trees are trees.

 

Second is the realisation that things and selves can also be seen as empty. Trees are not trees.

 

Third is when these two views are harmonised into two sides of a coin. Trees are trees again.

 

If Tony Parsons is still at only the second stage he is still doing better than 99.99% of people. His message is definitely worth listening to.

 

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.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[ragamor]

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'm still in the prosess of spiritual growth so I still have a excuse to brawl with the idea of myself, hehe

I quess I do indeed "let go", but is not even 15% close to the real deal.

If all that energy is from me letting go just a tiny bit, then I wonder how much energy I get from complete acceptance of the nothing (void?).

[Nikolai1]

Tony Parsons isn't teaching some doctrine. He is sharing a direct experience he went through.

 

We can't share the experience directly, we must choose our words. The sharing will occur naturally, it may even feel involuntary, but still there are two different methods you follow.

 

Either, you present the truth as accurately as possible. You therefore acknowledge the fact that any given moment can be described in terms of both existence and non-existence. For anyone who hasn't even experienced the truth of non-existence this way is completely and utterly baffling, and actually makes people angry. It looks like blatant self-contradiction and paradox for paradox sake.

 

Or, you take a pragmatic approach and try to stay consistent. You present one half of the story only, usually the non-existence half because that it is the view that people are in most need of. Tony Parsons is certainly doing this.

 

I don't know if he is being pragmatic and withholding teachings, or whether he has, in his ignorance, completely substituted his former life of existence for a new life of non-existence. I would have to meet him to know. I would have to ask him the question. But it is only because I have been through exactly what he has that I understand that he has a predicament as a teacher, or that his understanding is incomplete .

 

But I can tell that the guy is 100% genuine when it comes to explaining his experience and as far as most people are concerned, just to see the non-existence of the self is an extraordinarily rare and previous insight.

[Lucky7Strikes]

We can't share the experience directly, we must choose our words. The sharing will occur naturally, it may even feel involuntary, but still there are two different methods you follow.

 

Either, you present the truth as accurately as possible. You therefore acknowledge the fact that any given moment can be described in terms of both existence and non-existence. For anyone who hasn't even experienced the truth of non-existence this way is completely and utterly baffling, and actually makes people angry. It looks like blatant self-contradiction and paradox for paradox sake.

 

Or, you take a pragmatic approach and try to stay consistent. You present one half of the story only, usually the non-existence half because that it is the view that people are in most need of. Tony Parsons is certainly doing this.

 

I don't know if he is being pragmatic and withholding teachings, or whether he has, in his ignorance, completely substituted his former life of existence for a new life of non-existence. I would have to meet him to know. I would have to ask him the question. But it is only because I have been through exactly what he has that I understand that he has a predicament as a teacher, or that his understanding is incomplete .

 

But I can tell that the guy is 100% genuine when it comes to explaining his experience and as far as most people are concerned, just to see the non-existence of the self is an extraordinarily rare and previous insight.

 

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

[Clarity]

We can't share the experience directly, we must choose our words. The sharing will occur naturally, it may even feel involuntary, but still there are two different methods you follow.

 

My teacher was able to share the experience of being in emptiness with total illumination quite easily. It's not really about words at all, it's about presence. All you had to do was sit with him in the same room and there it was. We don't get to the experience through words. And mind you, this was from a man that LOVED to talk and tell stories.

 

I don't know Tony but I enjoyed the video. I am not Buddhist either, but I could be!

[Nikolai1]

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

 

Emptiness isn't experienced by anyone, which is why it can't vary according to perspective. But when a person explains 'it' they do so as individuals, The telling is itself the individuation and so can't be the emptiness. Only I know that what I went through is what Mr Parsons went through. I can tell by the way he talks, and the way he explains it.

[Nikolai1]

My teacher was able to share the experience of being in emptiness with total illumination quite easily. It's not really about words at all, it's about presence.

 

This is actually what I alluded to in the post a few back. Once you have been through emptiness and been able to reconcile it with your life as an individual the two states start to merge together. The ego is still very much in existence but it has been dealt such a blow that it becomes all loose and airy. Emptiness doesn't kill the ego but it does transform it. The ego then becomes an incredibly effective vehicle for the expression of emptiness. Almost any words will work as teachings for a person who has seen the truth, in fcat he wouldn't have to speak at all.

 

The irony is, Tony Parsons acknowledges that all this happens. He says that the personality becomes richer and more rounded through the lifting of energetic constriction. He is speaking honestly, from experience - and good for him.. But he hasn't found a way of accounting for it in his 'self is an illusion' doctrine, and so in other contexts he finds himself saying that the self is an illusion and to talk of transformation makes no sense.

 

For me, when my insight into emptiness and form really started to merge I realised that the ego is and always was a fruit of spiritual development - in a way the first fruit. I realised that all my traits as an ego were just preparations for ways of being beyond the ego. The ego is a triumph of spiritual development. The laws of time, space and individuality aren't entirely real, but they are magnificent metaphors for what comes later. Very simple skills and understanding that we take no notice of are actually identical in essence to the huge stuff that comes later.

 

When we wish to transcend the ego, when we are seekers, we have a tendency to demonise it. This is all necessary and well, but when we finally have transcended it we can look back and recognise that all the sufferings of the egoic life had deep meaning and purpose. We love and respect our ego and we acknowledge and endorse the traces of it that are still with us

 

Once you have transcended the ego you haven't left it behind .Your life in time and space is still available to you as and when you choose - but all the neurosis and the suffering is gone because it has served its purpose.

 

I do understand why Tony Parsons calls the ego an illusion. To see emptiness is to realise that the ego isn't true how we once thought. But at the same time, I wouldn't want anyone to deny the ego outright. The ego is a beautiful achievement that shall develop with you infintely if you let it and stop trying to deny it.

 

The peace and tranquility that you saw in your teacher were a direct consequence of his former sufferings as an ego. There is a link between then and now, that is why.

[ragamor]

Nice post Nikolai1, your far better with words then "I".

 

You opinion on the ego is also something I to share.

The ego is a "filthy" word that everyone loves to kick, but the ills from the ego is often that the ego is underdeveloped (narrow and heavy). A underdeveloped self-awareness is also "filthy", but as you work on it the self-awareness it becomes a great strenght.

Edited November 8, 2012 by ragamor