Tony Parsons Interview

[Tibetan_Ice]

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:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXt@XXXXXXXXXXX

 

<snip>

 

 

Hi GP,

Old chum? Isn't that a kind of fish?

 

Anyway, I thought I would mention, since I've seen you post a few email addresses directly on the forum.

 

Posting an email address inside a topic on a forum is setting that address up to receive tons of spam.

 

Spammers have programs, like spiders or bots and other search tools that they use to continually scan the net for email addresses. Once found, the email addresses are added to lists and the newfound address receives tons of spam.

 

If you really need to post an email address in a plain body of text, on a web page or in some document on the net, you can try to disguise the email address by putting in spaces or replacing the @ with something like "X" or '<at>' etc, and then indicate to the reader what to replace (change the X to an @) etc.. Sometimes you can even put the email address in a jpg (picture), but some scanners can even read clear text in pictures. It's a big problem.

 

Thought you should be aware of this, just for the halibut. I wouldn't want to see you flounder or get in a pickeral.

 

TI

Edited November 8, 2012 by Tibetan_Ice

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

 

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

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hi GP,

Old chum? Isn't that a kind of fish?

 

Anyway, I thought I would mention, since I've seen you post a few email addresses directly on the forum.

 

Posting an email address inside a topic on a forum is setting that address up to receive tons of spam.

 

Spammers have programs, like spiders or bots and other search tools that they use to continually scan the net for email addresses. Once found, the email addresses are added to lists and the newfound address receives tons of spam.

 

If you really need to post an email address in a plain body of text, on a web page or in some document on the net, you can try to disguise the email address by putting in spaces or replacing the @ with something like "X" or '<at>' etc, and then indicate to the reader what to replace (change the X to an @) etc.. Sometimes you can even put the email address in a jpg (picture), but some scanners can even read clear text in pictures. It's a big problem.

 

Thought you should be aware of this, just for the halibut. I wouldn't want to see you flounder or get in a pickeral.

 

TI

 

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!

[Brian]

I studied mathematics (in conjunction with physics) for a number of years, faithfully grinding through the mechanics of that practice. The hard work I put into my practice bore fruit one day in what could almost be called an epiphany, in which I suddenly "understood" the beauty, the power & the role of mathematics. I think it would be silly of me to say that my "mathematical enlightenment" was independent of my "math gungfu" but it is also clear to me that there is no magical pathway or course of studies that leads to that awareness.

 

Whether there's a parallel or not I'll leave to the individual reader...

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

 

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.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

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!

..............

Thank you for just about the best description of transmission I have ever read.

You genuinely can 'catch' something simply by sitting with these guys sometimes.

Old GM Chang could barely speak English but every now and again in his class you just 'got' something that even after all these years I can't put into words.

Other times the guy just whaled on us, but now and then.... WOW.

 

[gatito]

While I do have a bit of a soft-spot for Tony, I'd suggest that it would be a good idea to check-back to his official disclaimer if you're considering giving any weight to what he says.

 

Many people have a glimpse of the Truth, like Tony.

 

Unfortunately, many then start to teach without either having completed the post-glimpse sadhana to which Nikolai1 refers or having undertaken a teacher-training course. There also seem to be some who have taken on advaita as a religion and teach from belief, rather than Knowledge.

 

There is a three-stage "process"

 

1. Ignorance

2. A glimpse of the Truth - either full or partial (enlightenment). In the absence of a teacher, a full glimpse can lead to more problems than it solves, because stage 3 is omitted.

3. Post-glimpse sadhana leading to establishment in the Truth. (Happiness/Peace most of the time is a good benchmark).

[Tibetan_Ice]

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!

 

Hi Lucky7Strikes,

When I responded to your Sadhguru post, you insulted me, investigated my history, attacked Buddhism, attacked Max and was generally quite disrespectful.

 

I have no interest in being insulted, nor do I have any interest in spending hours and hours debating, destroying egos or supporting egos. You presented a guru, I examined him and gave my opinion and discoveries.

 

For every thesis there is an equal and opposite. Antithesis. These two combine to produce another thesis. It is endless. It's a mind game.

 

I am more interested in how the true guru you have found has turned your life around and changed your character.. Do you control your mind or does it control you? I'm really routing for you.

 

TI

 

PS. You said "Because Dzogchen is precisely the path of no practice, no method."

 

Perhaps you'd like to learn more about the practice of Dzogchen:

link: http://www.berzinarc...itation_02.html

Being Helped by Our Dzogchen Masters to Recognize Rigpa

As the above meditation methods may still not enable us to recognize the alaya for habits, let alone rigpa, we need further help. Our dzogchen masters may help us to recognize it by introducing us directly (ngo-sprod).

There are two major methods for introducing us to rigpa:

1.without relying on key points (gnad) - namely, simply through the outer circumstance of inspiration from the dzogchen master and the inner circumstance of basis rigpa as Buddha-nature,

2.in addition to these outer and inner circumstances, relying on one of six key points that use a method that fits the disciple's meditation practice:

1.holding the mind's attention,

2.having the mind be at rest, i.e. remaining stable in its own place,

3.getting to the root of the matter,

4.getting rid of a sense of substantiality, so that after having made a thorough examination, mind no longer follows out an object (like a thought) and then has nowhere to go,

5.using the interval between awareness and its objects,

6.causing distraction, such as by shouting "phat."

The sixth method is the most common. When distracted or startled, we stop thinking.

 

The book Stilling the Mind is also quite good:

http://www.amazon.com/Stilling-Mind-Shamatha-Teachings-Lingpas/dp/0861716906#_

 

And this is what the Dalai Lama says:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=4HqLxJRN6MUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited November 9, 2012 by Tibetan_Ice

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hi Lucky7Strikes,

When I responded to your Sadhguru post, you insulted me, investigated my history, attacked Buddhism, attacked Max and was generally quite disrespectful.

 

I have no interest in being insulted, nor do I have any interest in spending hours and hours debating, destroying egos or supporting egos. You presented a guru, I examined him and gave my opinion and discoveries.

 

For every thesis there is an equal and opposite. Antithesis. These two combine to produce another thesis. It is endless. It's a mind game.

 

I am more interested in how the true guru you have found has turned your life around and changed your character.. Do you control your mind or does it control you? I'm really routing for you.

 

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!

Edited November 9, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Boy]

...

Edited November 21, 2012 by Boy

[gatito]

Lol. I like Tony Parsons. And it's no mystery why people would complain about his "method". I can only attest to everything he says. Perhaps with some minor quibbles here and there. I've never been much for mystical experiences and such, but I once (before) was flung into samadhi while looking at one of his interviews.

 

However, unfortunately, as he states clearly in his disclaimer, he is not a teacher. It therefore baffles me why anyone continues to pay him to attend his meetings and retreats, which have more in common with a one-man stand up comedy show than with satsang.

 

There are infinitely clearer alternatives to Tony.

[Nikolai1]

The student can only accept teachings that he is ready for and at some level already understands. Most people will never understand what Parsons has to offer because they aren't ready. But a seeker who has worked and thought hard has a great deal to learn from him. Such seekers know what they need and so they defend him fiercely. He is the best possible teacher for the place they are at and, metaphorically speaking, will sit attentively at his feet.

 

If you find yourself liking TP, enjoying his style, laughing wryly at his insights these are all signs that you appreciate who he is but probably don't have that much to learn. You recognise how special he is, but you actually know that you have the same greatness in yourself. You view him more as a respected peer than a teacher.

 

This is not in any way rejecting him - why would you reject the wisdom that has arisen in you. But it is the recognition that there is more work to be done, and reconciling yourself to your own ego is the first thing in your in-tray.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who can simultaneously love Tony Parsons and still see the limitations in his teaching.

[gatito]

The student can only accept teachings that he is ready for and at some level already understands. Most people will never understand what Parsons has to offer because they aren't ready. But a seeker who has worked and thought hard has a great deal to learn from him. Such seekers know what they need and so they defend him fiercely. He is the best possible teacher for the place they are at and, metaphorically speaking, will sit attentively at his feet.

 

If you find yourself liking TP, enjoying his style, laughing wryly at his insights these are all signs that you appreciate who he is but probably don't have that much to learn. You recognise how special he is, but you actually know that you have the same greatness in yourself. You view him more as a respected peer than a teacher.

 

This is not in any way rejecting him - why would you reject the wisdom that has arisen in you. But it is the recognition that there is more work to be done, and reconciling yourself to your own ego is the first thing in your in-tray.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who can simultaneously love Tony Parsons and still see the limitations in his teaching.

 

Tony parsons is not a teacher and he what he says does not constitute any kind of truth - on that he is absolutely clear.

 

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.

 

From The Open Secret website

Edited November 9, 2012 by gatito

[Nikolai1]

Hi Lucky7strikes,

 

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.

 

With the insight into emptiness comes the insight that the ego is and always was empty. There was no physical animal, no surviving and no notion of living. Your spirituality does not break it down because there is and never was anything to break down.

 

The ego is an emptiness that must be accepted along with all empty things. You can't reject it because its one of the many empty things that come your way. It is the same as what was once conceived as the 'spiritual self'. The self and the Self are 100% identical. They are both of the same nature - empty.

 

Your sense of an embodied personality still arises...and then passes. It is 100% REAL while it is with you but you know that it will also pass because it also empty. Is the ego then real or empty? Both? Neither? actually the very notions of existence and non-existence are inadequate here. All you can do is take what comes. If it is NOW it is real but shall instantly pass into emptiness.

 

If you get this then you are ready to accept the ego when it makes an appearance. It doesn't trouble you because you know and feel that it will pass. Your whole being is in a relaxed uninvolved state. You no longer believe in the ego's independent reality, but you accept its reality when, and only when, it is your reality. You can love it and understand it, but you don't have to anxiously worry about it's welfare, or it's negative effect on your spiritual self.

 

I don't wish to make you angry because I've really enjoyed what you write while I was a lurker. But I thought I'd better at least attempt an explanation of what I mean.

 

Nikolai

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hi Lucky7strikes,

 

 

 

With the insight into emptiness comes the insight that the ego is and always was empty. There was no physical animal, no surviving and no notion of living. Your spirituality does not break it down because there is and never was anything to break down.

 

The ego is an emptiness that must be accepted along with all empty things. You can't reject it because its one of the many empty things that come your way. It is the same as what was once conceived as the 'spiritual self'. The self and the Self are 100% identical. They are both of the same nature - empty.

 

Your sense of an embodied personality still arises...and then passes. It is 100% REAL while it is with you but you know that it will also pass because it also empty. Is the ego then real or empty? Both? Neither? actually the very notions of existence and non-existence are inadequate here. All you can do is take what comes. If it is NOW it is real but shall instantly pass into emptiness.

 

If you get this then you are ready to accept the ego when it makes an appearance. It doesn't trouble you because you know and feel that it will pass. Your whole being is in a relaxed uninvolved state. You no longer believe in the ego's independent reality, but you accept its reality when, and only when, it is your reality. You can love it and understand it, but you don't have to anxiously worry about it's welfare, or it's negative effect on your spiritual self.

 

I don't wish to make you angry because I've really enjoyed what you write while I was a lurker. But I thought I'd better at least attempt an explanation of what I mean.

 

Nikolai

 

Yes Niklai! I'm very angry!

 

Lol. We're just having a spirited discussion here.

 

Now as for this statement: "There was no physical animal, no surviving and no notion of living."...so do you not experience the physical body anymore? Doesn't your body have survival needs? The body as long as it is present as a separate existence in your experience has its survival mechanisms. If its hungry, it will need to eat for itself no matter how much your mind goes "no ego!" If someone cuts you, the body will tell you that it is in pain so to preserve itself.

 

It seems like you have misunderstood Buddhist emptiness as a method or sorts, or things "passing into emptiness," isn't how emptiness is used in Buddhism. Rising and falling are only at the initial states of observation, and is not a realization of non-self or emptiness. For more about this visit Xabir's site: awakeningtoreality at blogspot (google it!).

 

You understand the philosophies but don't know how to apply it correctly. Just going "everything is empty" and perceiving reality in that light is not realization. You shouldn't be in a relaxed and uninvolved state. That is a sign that you've misunderstood the teachings. You should be in a fully involved state instead.

 

Anyway I think all that you wrote above is just needless mind analysis. It's poopy poop. Not a direct understanding of someone like Parsons.

[Nikolai1]

Doesn't your body have survival needs?

 

No, not actually. Although you can explain the body's behaviour in that way.

 

Actually this is another problem with Parsons that we haven't discussed yet. He has a tendency to be materialisitc, that is, he roots his explanations for, say, the sense of separation in brain processes that started in infancy.

 

And yet wisdom is seeing that the body too is empty and that there is no way that you can suggest that separation (or oneness) are things happening in the brain. Actually you don't need to meditate to understand this - a course in Kantian philosophy will deconstruct such notions until you are at least sceptical! Wisdom will later supply you with the truth!

[gatito]

........and people fiercely defend belief systems not what they Know from first-hand experience.

 

For example; you exist and you Know that you exist. If someone challenged your own existence, you'd just laugh - right? You wouldn't feel the need to quote teachers or Taoist, Buddhist, Advaitan, Christian, Islamic, Judaic etc. texts would you?

 

If, however you ran into someone who doubted their own existence and their own first-hand experience that would be their belief system perhaps ................?

[GrandmasterP]

It costs £10 on the door to see Tony Parsons. The guy is not exactly charging the earth, the Quaker Meeting House hall he uses costs quite a bit to hire. Those Quakers do like money.

[Clarity]

..............

Thank you for just about the best description of transmission I have ever read.

You genuinely can 'catch' something simply by sitting with these guys sometimes.

Old GM Chang could barely speak English but every now and again in his class you just 'got' something that even after all these years I can't put into words.

Other times the guy just whaled on us, but now and then.... WOW.

 

Yeah, he was like a giant Sun in the room when he wasn't deliberately dimming the light.

 

Also, there were many things he talked about where I didn't have a clue what he meant at the time. I could understand it intellectually but not at a deeper level. Later after I had certain life experiences, the wordless understanding came to me as a series of sudden realizations.

 

This is probably why I relate to Tony's experiences and his 'teaching' if you want to call it that.

[hydrogen]

On a hot day, A zen master brought his three students into a cave near a desert. They sat down quietly. The master produced a cup with water filled half way. He asked his students "what do you see?"

 

The first student quickly replied "a cup half full of water."

 

Natrually the second student answered "a cup half empty."

 

The third answered "there is no cup, no water." and beaming from his cleverness.

 

The master didn't say anything. He just waited in silence for hours. It became very hot and dry. The students became very uncomfortable.

 

Finally, the first student broke down and ask the master if he could have a sip of water.

 

The master said "sure you can."

 

The second student asked for water.

 

The master replied "It's empty."

 

The thired student also asked if he could drink the water.

 

The master said "there is no cup, no water."

 

After a while, the students notice that the master also didn't drink any water and not effected by the heat. The third student ask the master why he didn't need water.

 

The master said "you think there is no cup, no water. I KNOW there is no cup, no water. So I don't get thirsty."

 

The moral of the story: knowing the path is not walking the path.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, not actually. Although you can explain the body's behaviour in that way.

 

Actually this is another problem with Parsons that we haven't discussed yet. He has a tendency to be materialisitc, that is, he roots his explanations for, say, the sense of separation in brain processes that started in infancy.

 

And yet wisdom is seeing that the body too is empty and that there is no way that you can suggest that separation (or oneness) are things happening in the brain. Actually you don't need to meditate to understand this - a course in Kantian philosophy will deconstruct such notions until you are at least sceptical! Wisdom will later supply you with the truth!

 

No survival needs! Ok. Go about two days without water and see if telling yourself the body is empty quenches your thirst. Or how about a week fast? Or let me take a knife and cut you up a bit see how you react!

 

Empty empty empty! Ok, so cross the road with your eyes closed now since the road, the car, you are all empty! Ooooo, but wait a second, you still look left and right!

 

You are exactly like that student who came up to the master's saying "I see now! Everything is empty!" and the master just threw an ashtray at his head. Pooping out of the head is what your doing, just seeing things and observing their emptiness is far from what Parsons is talking about here.

[GrandmasterP]

Kant was well named.

[gatito]

Kant was well named.

 

Typical British humour. Crude and abusive.

[GrandmasterP]

One tries.

:-)

[gatito]

One tries.

:-)

 

That much is obvious - and trying is not doing - is it?