Forum member "spotless". Missing messages.

[freeform]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

That is totally uncalled for. How much do you know about Sai Baba anyway? 

 

Sorry - no offence intended - only used as an example. Happy to change the name if you'd like.

 

He's certainly been accused of everything from sexual assault to money laundering, fraud and even murder.

 

And I'm sorry but it's also the case that there are plenty of Indian gurus that have not just had alligations, but been convicted with sexual abuse and more.

 

I've met a number of Indians from wealthy families completely disillusioned with the whole guru scene in India, and instead came to Asia to find teachers.

 

The situation is not different in any other spiritual field though - plenty of immoral Neigong teachers, monks and so on. I think it's wrong to sweep this issue under the carpet. It's clearly a major problem in the 'spiritual' world.

[forestofclarity]

Part of it is a matter of expectations. People expect spiritual teachers to match a certain internal set of rules. The problem is, you as an unawakened student must judge a teacher. Damo Mitchell said that in Chinese medicine, you have two types of people: sages and unhealthy, deranged people. If we are deranged, how do we fairly judge another's sanity (or lack thereof)? We filter everything through our patterns of ignorance. Without total information, how does one measure what is harm? 

 

Not to say that we should not use what discrimination we have, because that is the other extreme. I think freeform is right about signs of progress, but the most important signs I would think (in my deranged, non-sage mind) should be self-applied. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

This is taking an interesting turn and direction, however it kind of sidesteps the point of spiritual leaders backsliding, and/or abusing their power and authority for personal gratification of base desires - regardless of potential harm to others.

 

 

 

[silent thunder]

8 hours ago, freeform said:

For example, the stage before the alchemical pill arises - the same stage as the 3rd Jhanna - there's a well known period of extreme misery. Not an emotional misery - but a kind of nihilistic depression. The bliss of the earlier stages is well and truly gone. Emotionality - any kind of emotional connection is gone. A deeply visceral realisation of the nature of transience arises. And normally the cultivator suffers in a pit of deep despair (until the next stage of the process).

Thanks for this description.

It was a helpful mirror.

[dwai]

 

 

 

 

2

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

Sorry - no offence intended - only used as an example. Happy to change the name if you'd like.

 

He's certainly been accused of everything from sexual assault to money laundering, fraud and even murder.

Yeah, and none of it has ever been proven. That is a poison chalice such people have to drink from in order to spread their light in a world full of darkness.

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

And I'm sorry but it's also the case that there are plenty of Indian gurus that have not just had alligations, but been convicted with sexual abuse and more.

It's not really that a lot of "Indian Gurus" have been allegedly involved or convicted, but in the public imagination, such a big deal has been made out of it. How much of these allegations are actually true, vs how much has been made up is something to ponder over. Otherwise, it is just knee-jerk reactionism.

 

That said,  I'm not denying that there have been genuine cases too. One such notorious one being Bikram Choudhury. Others such as Muktananda and Osho had genuine siddhis and attainment. 

 

The biggest turn off for me when it comes to the big Gurus, is the coterie of fawning sycophants that accompany them. Usually, up to a certain point, they aren't a hurdle anymore, because the Gurus are accessible. When their following becomes really big, the very close/inner circle of disciples gets diluted by more and more sycophants and then access to the teacher becomes a way to exert power and control (petty tyranny).  So I might go and visit Amma, or Sri Sri or Sadhguru, but I don't want to become their follower per se, as I know I'll never get a chance to directly interact with them in a meaningful manner to help me. I've taken courses from Sri Sri Ravishankar's Art of Living foundation and the Sudarshan Kriya is a very powerful technique. 

 

These teachers serve a very important purpose -- they make the spiritual knowledge accessible to the masses. They do outreach programs to uplift the poor, provide education via schools, colleges, heath-care via Hospitals and clinics, etc etc. Most of the work done is performed by volunteers. Usually an inner circle of their early students forms around them and this "inner circle" gets to benefit from their spiritual guidance very greatly. For the rest of their followers, it is a case of getting a taste of the medicine, so to speak. It is a planting of seeds that will sooner or later grow and eventually bear fruit if the individuals are sincere and work diligently towards the goal.

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

I've met a number of Indians from wealthy families completely disillusioned with the whole guru scene in India, and instead came to Asia to find teachers.

 

The situation is not different in any other spiritual field though - plenty of immoral Neigong teachers, monks and so on. I think it's wrong to sweep this issue under the carpet. It's clearly a major problem in the 'spiritual' world.

There's far more Indians who are quite happy and successful in their spiritual path with "home-grown" Gurus.

The problem is when generalizations are made without sufficient empirical data. How many data points are required to make a reasonable generalization? 

 

I would venture to say, that scandals related to Catholic Priests and young boys are far more prevalent than with Indian Gurus or Buddhist monks etc. 

 

I guess these topics will remain unresolved for the skeptical, along the same lines as "should a teacher charge payment to impart spiritual knowledge". 

[anshino23]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

Part of it is a matter of expectations. People expect spiritual teachers to match a certain internal set of rules. The problem is, you as an unawakened student must judge a teacher. Damo Mitchell said that in Chinese medicine, you have two types of people: sages and unhealthy, deranged people. If we are deranged, how do we fairly judge another's sanity (or lack thereof)? We filter everything through our patterns of ignorance. Without total information, how does one measure what is harm? 

 

Not to say that we should not use what discrimination we have, because that is the other extreme. I think freeform is right about signs of progress, but the most important signs I would think (in my deranged, non-sage mind) should be self-applied. 

 

The teachings of Master Nan and his students' subsequent similar relay of his teachings have always given me the impression that prajna is something closely related to merit - and there's a prajna eye - that can only be cultivated through lifetimes of effort on the Path. It is something like a radar - or a frequency you tune into. It's what allows you to see when something is genuine or authentic or not. But it's not fully "developed"/"uncovered" until you're completely enlightened. At least the way I understand it. 

 

It is the same type of Prajna that allows you to understand why you feel immediate resonance with something like the Diamond Sutra, as explained in chapter 6 of the Sutra: 

 

Subhuti respectfully asked the lord Buddha, “Most Honored One! In the future, if a person hears this teaching, even if it is only a phrase or sentence, is it possible for that person to have a true faith and knowledge of Enlightenment awaken in their mind?”

 

“Without a doubt, Subhuti. Even 500 years after the Enlightenment of this Buddha there will be some who are virtuous and wise, and while practicing compassion and charity, will believe in the words and phrases of this Sutra and will awaken their minds purely. After they come to hear these teachings, they will be inspired with belief. This is because when some people hear these words, they will have understood intuitively that these words are the truth.”

 

“But you must also remember, Subhuti, that such persons have long ago planted the seeds of goodness and merit that lead to this realization. They have planted the seeds of good deeds and charity not simply before one Buddhist temple, or two temples, or five, but before hundreds of thousands of Buddhas and temples. So when a person who hears the words and phrases of this Sutra is ready for it to happen, a pure faith and clarity can awaken within their minds.”

 

A beautiful part of The Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Nan Huai Chin (a book I highly recommend - it is a masterpiece IMHO) comes to mind that explains the prajna wisdom part a bit more: 

 

Quote

Prajna wisdom is not ordinary wisdom. The word wisdom in Chinese (zhe hui) often gets linked up conceptually with intelligence. If one has intelligence one then also, of course, must have wisdom. But, in actuality, there are many kinds of wisdom. Prajna wisdom indicates that which is able to understand Tao, realize Tao, cultivate the self, release one from the bondage of birth and death and leap over the mundane. This is not common intelligence. It is the wisdom which is the root and origin of the body of Tao. The "so-called" original, or primal, wisdom is merely a name. To use contemporary understanding, it's that which goes above and beyond average intelligence and common wisdom, that which can understand the essence and origin of life, the original nature.

This cannot be the result of cognition. Rather, it's the great wisdom achieved through complete engagement in the cultivation of one's body and mind. It is this level of wisdom which is prajna. The word wisdom, which we commonly use, cannot express the full extent of the meaning of the word prajna. Therefore, it is not translated.

In Buddhism, the entire scope of the meaning of prajna can be divided into five groups or kinds. These five kinds are just a form of categorization. The first is true form prajna; the second is visaya prajna; the third, the prajna of literature; the fourth, the prajna of expedient means and the fifth, the relatives of prajna. The collective substance of these five categories is the "prajna" of Diamond Prajnaparamita.

 

[dwai]

32 minutes ago, anshino23 said:

Prajna wisdom is not ordinary wisdom. The word wisdom in Chinese (zhe hui) often gets linked up conceptually with intelligence. If one has intelligence one then also, of course, must have wisdom. But, in actuality, there are many kinds of wisdom

There is a distinction between two kinds of Buddhi (intelligence) in the Hindu traditions. One is called "teekshna buddhi" (or sharp intelligence) - this is our everyday intelligence -- used for the transactional world. The other is called "sukshma buddhi" (or subtle intelligence) -- this is what enables us to grasp the spiritual truths (or the essence of the spiritual teachings). Just because one has the sharp intelligence, doesn't mean they have the subtle intelligence. 

 

Sharp intelligence is usually a result of genetics. Subtle intelligence is a combination of karma and how much effort has been put into the spiritual path by the individual. The more focused and purified the mind, the stronger the subtle intelligence. 

 

Something that many seekers don't realize (especially those who use "Ha-Tha" (or stubbornness) in their practices) is that the "self- knowledge" is very subtle. In the traditional Hindu systems, there is a term called "Arundhati Darshana Nyaya", and it is often employed in Self-knowledge teachings. 

 

Arundhati Darshana Nyaya literally means the Laws for Seeing Arundhati. In Indian Astronomy and classical literation, Arundhati is a sage and the wife of the Sage Vashishta. Arundhati and Vashishta are also names of stellar constellations, and Arundhati is not easily visible via the naked eye. So, often Arundhati constellation is pointed out in relation to something else. Like the teacher might point out to the student --

• Look at my index finger 
• Now look at the tree branch the index finger is pointing towards
• Now look to the left of that tree branch. Do you see that bright star?
• Now look right below that bright star. Do you see it? It is a faint star. That is Arundhati.

In the same way, the Self is pointed towards, via a series of indirections, precisely because directly pointing to it won't work for most people. 

[forestofclarity]

For me, prajna doesn't necessarily mean to he same thing in different traditions, or even the same thing in the same tradition. And of course, we students understand everything a little bit differently. In Theravada in my experience, prajna referred to insight that arose from properly applying sila and samadhi. Specifically, it related to insight into no self, impermanence, and the unsatisfactory nature of phenomenon. In some Mahayana contexts, it may refer to insight into emptiness. In Zen contexts, prajna may refer to spontaneous actions that arise when the acquired mind is set aside. Master Nan offers another definition. In some Dzogchen teachings, it may mean different things in Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen contexts. Who is right? By what standard is right established? Is it a strong feeling? How strong? 

 

In my mind, all conceptual views are partial. How can it be otherwise in a complex, interconnected, non-separate, ever changing universe? A word or a concept is necessarily partial and limited, an attempt to isolate what cannot be isolated and fix what cannot be fixed. And what is a word or concept anyway? How do we know Master Nan isn't lying to us, or giving a provisional teaching, or was mistranslated? 

 

And of course, if prajna is acquired, if it has causes and conditions, then the dissolution of the causes and conditions (which is inevitable in a constantly changing universe) will lead to the dissolution of prajna. Similarly, it is said that when merit is exhausted, even the gods die. What good is a million eons of pleasure once it vanishes without a trace?

 

4 hours ago, anshino23 said:

 

The teachings of Master Nan and his students' subsequent similar relay of his teachings have always given me the impression that prajna is something closely related to merit - and there's a prajna eye - that can only be cultivated through lifetimes of effort on the Path. It is something like a radar - or a frequency you tune into. It's what allows you to see when something is genuine or authentic or not. But it's not fully "developed"/"uncovered" until you're completely enlightened. At least the way I understand it. 

 

 

PS: Back in 2005-2006, Nan and Bodri were the talk of the Taobums. I played a night of poker and did something I never had before: I played sober. I cleaned up and won well over $100. I used it to buy How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization. Good times. 

 

[qofq]

9 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Part of it is a matter of expectations. People expect spiritual teachers to match a certain internal set of rules. The problem is, you as an unawakened student must judge a teacher. Damo Mitchell said that in Chinese medicine, you have two types of people: sages and unhealthy, deranged people. If we are deranged, how do we fairly judge another's sanity (or lack thereof)? We filter everything through our patterns of ignorance. Without total information, how does one measure what is harm? 

 

Not to say that we should not use what discrimination we have, because that is the other extreme. I think freeform is right about signs of progress, but the most important signs I would think (in my deranged, non-sage mind) should be self-applied. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this is why virtue is such a strong barometer.  You can only fake it for so long.  

[moment]

11 hours ago, dwai said:

It might seem that way, but it is a fact  (you and others are free to believe whatever you like of course). 
 

Usually people don’t believe it when they see it/hear it for the first time since it’s not on their radar, or affects them in any significant way. India has been on the receiving end of a cultural and religious onslaught for a long time now. 
 

"India has been on the receiving end of a cultural and religious onslaught for a long time now. "

 

What religious culture has not?

[anshino23]

6 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

For me, prajna doesn't necessarily mean to he same thing in different traditions, or even the same thing in the same tradition. And of course, we students understand everything a little bit differently. In Theravada in my experience, prajna referred to insight that arose from properly applying sila and samadhi. Specifically, it related to insight into no self, impermanence, and the unsatisfactory nature of phenomenon. In some Mahayana contexts, it may refer to insight into emptiness. In Zen contexts, prajna may refer to spontaneous actions that arise when the acquired mind is set aside. Master Nan offers another definition. In some Dzogchen teachings, it may mean different things in Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen contexts. Who is right? By what standard is right established? Is it a strong feeling? How strong? 

 

In my mind, all conceptual views are partial. How can it be otherwise in a complex, interconnected, non-separate, ever changing universe? A word or a concept is necessarily partial and limited, an attempt to isolate what cannot be isolated and fix what cannot be fixed. And what is a word or concept anyway? How do we know Master Nan isn't lying to us, or giving a provisional teaching, or was mistranslated? 

 

And of course, if prajna is acquired, if it has causes and conditions, then the dissolution of the causes and conditions (which is inevitable in a constantly changing universe) will lead to the dissolution of prajna. Similarly, it is said that when merit is exhausted, even the gods die. What good is a million eons of pleasure once it vanishes without a trace?

 

PS: Back in 2005-2006, Nan and Bodri were the talk of the Taobums. I played a night of poker and did something I never had before: I played sober. I cleaned up and won well over $100. I used it to buy How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization. Good times. 

 

Who is right? Who is wrong? How can I choose? So many doors - surely, they must all be right. This is the very reason it has been called the Dharma Ending Age - where the light of the Dharma hangs by a thread. You may argue ... "no, that surely cannot be the case! It obviously is not the case - look how many practice meditation, look how many traditions and paths are open and look how everything is shown and available to everyone". But if you trust (here it comes again) the words of the master's and feel within the depths of your bones and your heart - this is verily the case. 

 

The mind will continue to spin circles endlessly. I can only say follow the wisdom in your heart.  Some don't have this sort of connection and so will have to go through endless paths until they do find something genuine. It's not wasted time - it's just like calibrating a meter. Unfortunately everything is based on cause and effect - you cannot just simply undo causes from beginningless time. Even Milarepa didn't become fully enlightened due to the compassion of Dakmema leaving a slight trace of karma still to be extinquished. Cause and effect is unfathomable to those without enlightenment, so is merit. The Buddha and a gazillion other higher beings can foresee the exact time of your complete enlightenment. Some of the prajna-paramita sutras contain endless strings of numbers. Are they just deluded? Crazy? You be the judge. 

 

If you do not resonate with what the Diamond Sutra said above or what Master Nan is pointing toward, there's really not much to say as it is pointing to something beyond provisional teachings, beyond discrimination and beyond tradition and sect. It's not a comparative analysis of the different traditions - it's not a result of cognition. That was the very point I was trying to express. Why was Mahākāśyapa the only one that smiled when the Buddha raised the flower for all to see at the assembly? 

 

The highest merit is realizing the Dao - full and complete enlightenment. 

 

Quote

Where does this different kind of visaya come from? It comes from true form prajna, arising naturally from the dharmakaya. For those who have realized true emptiness, the development of great wisdom is boundless. In Buddhist terminology, it's called "untaught wisdom" or "natural wisdom." At the moment of enlightenment, one's own treasury of wisdom opens up. It's not transmitted by a teacher; rather, one's original wisdom bursts forth. Above and below the heavens, there is not a thing unknown. This highest visaya of prajna cannot be attained through mental effort. It comes forth naturally. One doesn't need to think about it; it flows out naturally. This is the visaya of prajna wisdom itself.

 

[Zork]

14 hours ago, dwai said:

It might seem that way, but it is a fact  (you and others are free to believe whatever you like of course). 
 

Usually people don’t believe it when they see it/hear it for the first time since it’s not on their radar, or affects them in any significant way. India has been on the receiving end of a cultural and religious onslaught for a long time now. 
 

Seriously???? What is special about India on that matter? This has happened almost everywhere in the world where old customs and religions were abandoned in favor of another. In some areas like Anatolia it has happened more than twice. Plus don't forget that at some point Buddhists (Ashoka) ruled the country (India)!

Edited May 22, 2020 by Zork

[freeform]

However one looks at things, the situation is shocking.

 

The spiritual circles - where by its very nature virtue should be overrepresented and abuse should be underrepresented - actually exhibit the opposite situation.

 

This is the case in India, as well as in any other culture.

 

I know this not from the Evangelical Christian propaganda, but from the years I've spent in 'spiritual' circles. I've met many gurus and masters and perhaps thousands of people doing the same as me. And it quickly becomes clear that there is a clear tendency towards abuse in spiritual circles. More than say in mathematics or engineering.

 

Why is this the case?

 

I'm sorry but the much applauded charity and philanthropy is not an indication of virtue. Just look at the 'clever' use of charity and philanthropy by the oil barons of America. Yes, they set up hospitals, universities, farming subsidies and all manner of charitable foundations - but all of them, without exception are designed to 'create new markets'.

 

 

[Piyadasi]

1 hour ago, freeform said:

.

 

I'm reminded of the prototypical Asuras of Buddhist cosmology, and how they often 'do good' or were reborn 'there' as a result of 'doing good' (ie. merit) but they do it with the wrong motivation, for example giving large donations to gain wealth from it or power in the future or supporting spiritual practitioners in the hope of gaining their supra-normal power for protection or to help impose their wills; or just simply mixing a lot of bad with whatever good they do... They could be associated with what we'd consider 'demonic' quality. It also seems that this 'demonic' quality (or similar terminology) is often associated with all sorts of errors in spiritual practice as described in Daoism (other Indian traditions?) as well.

 

It's also worth noting that even though they have greater power and majesty than humans, they are often ranked below the 'human quality' / realm, because of this tainting/mixing, they are thought, overall, to be in a more miserable state.

 

These 'Asuras in the flesh' would then have little trouble with dazzling others, be it with their power or some genuine goodness they might have, but looking at the larger picture, they might be headed in a worse direction than even the basic human state (although what the ancient texts mean by the human state doesn't exactly match how 99% of humanity is nowadays)...

[dwai]

3 hours ago, freeform said:

However one looks at things, the situation is shocking.

 

The spiritual circles - where by its very nature virtue should be overrepresented and abuse should be underrepresented - actually exhibit the opposite situation.

 

This is the case in India, as well as in any other culture.

 

I know this not from the Evangelical Christian propaganda, but from the years I've spent in 'spiritual' circles. I've met many gurus and masters and perhaps thousands of people doing the same as me. And it quickly becomes clear that there is a clear tendency towards abuse in spiritual circles. More than say in mathematics or engineering.

 

Why is this the case?

 

I'm sorry but the much applauded charity and philanthropy is not an indication of virtue. Just look at the 'clever' use of charity and philanthropy by the oil barons of America. Yes, they set up hospitals, universities, farming subsidies and all manner of charitable foundations - but all of them, without exception are designed to 'create new markets'.

 

 

That’s just your opinion on the scenario. Don’t try to pass it off as a fact  

 

You using a classic logical fallacy to support your position — “I have seen this in the years I’ve spent in spiritual circles”. I too have spent decades in these circles. I’ve not experienced what you say. Who is right then? 
 

As far as I’m concerned you might have not even been to all these places you claim you have, and done all these things you claim to have done.   

 

Whereas what i presented is documented and investigated. It won’t be so hard to find with a few google searches  

 

As far as philanthropy goes, it is very easy to reject them by casting aspersions on their motive, but the proof is in the pudding. There are millions of poor people being helped everyday in selfless service by these organizations, mainly 

 by volunteers. It is not so hard to see the authenticity therein, should one stop using ‘jaundiced’ eyes...

Edited May 22, 2020 by dwai

[senseless virtue]

25 minutes ago, dwai said:

That’s just your opinion on the scenario. Don’t try to pass it off as a fact  

 

You using a classic logical fallacy to support your position — “I have seen this in the years I’ve spent in spiritual circles”. I too have spent decades in these circles. I’ve not experienced what you say. Who is right then? 
 

As far as I’m concerned you might have not even been to all these places you claim you have, and done all these things you claim to have done.   

 

Whereas what i presented is documented and investigated. It won’t be so hard to find with a few google searches  

 

As far as philanthropy goes, it is very easy to reject them by casting aspersions on their motive, but the proof is in the pudding. There are millions of poor people being helped everyday in selfless service by these organizations, mainly 

 by volunteers. It is not so hard to see the authenticity therein, should one stop using ‘jaundiced’ eyes...

 

I don't think you are reading what freeform wrote in good faith. He never claimed to provide anything but anecdotal insight.

 

If you consider these "easy google searches" and their results relevant for your point, then all means present them. The burden of proof is on you, not him. It's not very interesting to read statements that come across mixed with entitlement and belittlement.

 

Charity work is nice, but so far I personally haven't seen people with entirely selfless and wise motives. At least in the West philanthropy oriented people mainly seem to seek emotional satisfaction and not selfless wisdom in action.

[dwai]

1 minute ago, virtue said:

 

I don't think you are reading what freeform wrote in good faith. He never claimed to provide anything but anecdotal insight.

 

If you consider these "easy google searches" and their results relevant for your point, then all means present them. The burden of proof is on you, not him. It's not very interesting to read statements that come across mixed with entitlement and belittlement.

 

Charity work is nice, but so far I personally haven't seen people with entirely selfless and wise motives. At least in the West philanthropy oriented people mainly seem to seek emotional satisfaction and not selfless wisdom in action.

Maybe freeform should speak for himself  

 

Yeah philanthropy can be of many forms and kinds with varying motivations. But we were discussing philanthropic work of ‘those terrible Gurus’ and their organizations.  

I can see how many of you might be very besotted by the idea of “no Guru is needed”, but I can assure you, you won’t get very far without a good teacher. Whether you call that person “guru” or “teacher” or “Sifu” doesn’t really matter. Guru is the word used for a teacher in India. 
 

[Piyadasi]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

Maybe freeform should speak for himself  

 

Yeah philanthropy can be of many forms and kinds with varying motivations. But we were discussing philanthropic work of ‘those terrible Gurus’ and their organizations.  

I can see how many of you might be very besotted by the idea of “no Guru is needed”, but I can assure you, you won’t get very far without a good teacher. Whether you call that person “guru” or “teacher” or “Sifu” doesn’t really matter. Guru is the word used for a teacher in India. 
 

 

To be honest, I haven't followed this conversation too closely. For my sake would you mind telling us what point are you even defending? I feel like you guys might not even be disagreeing, could be good to re-iterate what one is on about exactly this deep into the conversation.

 

Just that you need a teacher to progress? Or what? Guru = good? If yes, do you honestly think all guru also = good?

[Zork]

16 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Yeah philanthropy can be of many forms and kinds with varying motivations. But we were discussing philanthropic work of ‘those terrible Gurus’ and their organizations.  

Any twisted desire and passion can fall within these parameters you have set here! And it can be logicaly deduced to be philanthropy according to your "highly original" definition of it!

Pedophile? No he was just cleaning your daughters' chakras....

Demanding a boatload of money to teach? It is to test sincerity plus it will be used to help poor people etc  

you get the drift.

[dwai]

43 minutes ago, Piyadasi said:

 

To be honest, I haven't followed this conversation too closely. For my sake would you mind telling us what point are you even defending? I feel like you guys might not even be disagreeing, could be good to re-iterate what one is on about exactly this deep into the conversation.

 

Just that you need a teacher to progress? Or what? Guru = good? If yes, do you honestly think all guru also = good?

 that’s a good question. I’m just pointing out that to claim that ‘Indian Gurus are bad’ based on alleged misconduct in a few cases is a broad generalization that needs to be challenged. I took exception to freeform slandering Sai Baba, and it snowballed from there. 
 

The original sub-sub-sub-discussion was about when someone has an “awakening” experience and then seems to “lose it”, is that inferior to something that is “full awakening”. 
 

In my experience, when someone has a genuine awakening and then seems to “lose it”, it is only a temporary phase during the awakening process, wherein the old habits of the mind (via acquired tendencies and karmic influences) arise and cloud the mind. Upon maturation, it becomes clear that awakening and veiling are both known in/by True Nature/Self/Clear Light of Awareness etc. 

To make a long story short, one who has “only had” an awakening experience is not really deluded about awakening (if one were giving medals for that stuff) but rather is in the process of waking up, just at a stage where the knowledge needs to mature.  

Edited May 22, 2020 by dwai

[Piyadasi]

6 minutes ago, dwai said:

 that’s a good question. I’m just pointing out that to claim that ‘Indian Gurus are bad’ based on alleged misconduct in a few cases is a broad generalization that needs to be challenged. I took exception to freeform slandering Sai Baba, and it snowballed from there. 
 

The original sub-sub-sub-discussion was about when someone has an “awakening” experience and then seems to “lose it”, is that inferior to something that is “full awakening”. 
 

In my experience, when someone has a genuine awakening and then seems to “lose it”, it is only a temporary phase during the awakening process, wherein the old habits of the mind (via acquired tendencies and karmic influences) arise and cloud the mind. Upon maturation, it becomes clear that awakening and veiling are both known in/by True Nature/Self/Clear Light of Awareness etc. 

To make a long story short, one who has “only had” an awakening experience is not really deluded about awakening (if one were giving medals for that stuff) but rather is in the process of waking up, just at a stage where the knowledge needs to mature.  

 

Cool, thanks, makes things a little clearer.

 

Based on my reading of the conversation, it seemed to me that no-one was saying "Indian Gurus are bad" - more like "Unfortunately quite a few Indian (and otherwise) Gurus are bad (more than is comfortable to believe)".

 

How does that sound to both parties?

[freeform]

1 hour ago, virtue said:

I don't think you are reading what freeform wrote in good faith.

 

Not a new development from Dwai

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

You using a classic logical fallacy to support your position — “I have seen this in the years I’ve spent in spiritual circles”. I too have spent decades in these circles. I’ve not experienced what you say. Who is right then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 hours ago, dwai said:

That said,  I'm not denying that there have been genuine cases too. One such notorious one being Bikram Choudhury. Others such as Muktananda and Osho had genuine siddhis and attainment.

 

Or maybe you're trying to win some weird strawman argument that I have no interest in...

 

Or - maybe something a little more emotionally reactive is going on.

 

Maybe Dwai just feels offended...

 

And to that - I'd like to repeat my apology - sorry - I didn't intend to offend.

 

I understand certain subjects can be emotionally triggering and I often forget to tread lightly around such things.

[anshino23]

I think everyone here can agree that we love genuine authentic Teachers - whether they be called Guru's, Sifu's or Master's or whether they come from Europe, China or India, it doesn't matter. An authentic Teacher/Guru/Master is priceless beyond imagining - I am forever grateful for all teachers and enlightened masters who help people on their Path - as teaching and guiding others on the path is a truly difficult task to undertake and has huge implications and karmic repercussions for all involved. 

 

I think the main point was simply that the Path is beset with obstacles - and that every part of the way is filled with pitfalls - and those very pitfalls can entice you to become a "Guru" or take the role of a Teacher and consider yourself enlightened before you've even gotten your foot in the doorstep so to speak.  

Edited May 22, 2020 by anshino23

[forestofclarity]

I think we generally start off with some sort of provisional faith, but over time, that provisional faith is replaced by direct experience. Once you have the experience, you no longer need the provisional faith. In ancient India, it was said there were three things that pointed to truth, and you need all three: the scriptures, the teachings of your teacher, and your own personal experience. Having one or two but not all three is not enough. When you have all three, even a glimpse, then the teachings spring into your mind stream and come alive. 

 

It is like learning to find dragons. At first, you read about dragons, maybe buy some paintings and so on. Maybe you even look around and see some dragon tracks and old scales. One day, you find some one to teach you. They show you how to track dragons, where to look for dragons, and what signs to look for when you've seen one. Perhaps you see a dragon's tail. For some people, they will say this isn't a dragon, it is a snake. But it isn't, it is the dragon. Over time, you begin to see more and more of the dragon. Some people, who are really dedicated, may even be able to tame and train the dragon. Some might even fly. People stop at various points: some with books, some with the tail, some before they can fly. Some people say if you can't fly, you don't really have a dragon. Many points of view. 

 

It may be the case that Bodri/Nan didn't resonate, because at the time I had very little experience. I went looking through his website looking for this quote for you, and I can see much of what I missed. Here is the quote for the way beyond cause and effect: 

 

Quote

Back to the Zen way to cultivate. As to Zen, the Diamond Sutra of Buddhism opens with Subhuti asking Buddha how to achieve enlightenment. The passage is usually translated incorrectly because the translators don’t know the Zen method themselves, but in a loose translation it has Buddha saying that that very moment anyone wants the Tao it’s already there (THIS moment is IT!)– the true mind is already calm, open, clean, it’s there. (Why? Because we are always using this clean omnipresent perception, we are always in it but just misuse it. You are using it this very instant but don’t realize it.) Subhuti responds that he understands this, but ordinary people do not, so please Buddha do speak more. And then the Buddha goes into a long lecture on cultivation and performing merit to get the Tao because people don’t understand the quick Zen way of directly achieving the Tao in one moment, this very moment. That’s the Zen way of no method, no effort.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, anshino23 said:

 

[snip]

 

Unfortunately everything is based on cause and effect - you cannot just simply undo causes from beginningless time. Even Milarepa didn't become fully enlightened due to the compassion of Dakmema leaving a slight trace of karma still to be extinquished. Cause and effect is unfathomable to those without enlightenment, so is merit. The Buddha and a gazillion other higher beings can foresee the exact time of your complete enlightenment. Some of the prajna-paramita sutras contain endless strings of numbers. Are they just deluded? Crazy? You be the judge. 

[snip]

 

[freeform]

1 minute ago, Piyadasi said:

Based on my reading of the conversation, it seemed to me that no-one was saying "Indian Gurus are bad" - more like "Unfortunately quite a few Indian (and otherwise) Gurus are bad (more than is comfortable to believe)".

 

How does that sound to both parties?

 

Of course. I thought it's pretty clear that that's what I said and meant.

[Creation]

13 minutes ago, freeform said:

Or - maybe something a little more emotionally reactive is going on.

I know you are being rhetorical, but just for fun let's look at the evidence.  You brought up Trungpa Rinpoche's abuses.  Now, Trungpa was Tibetan, and Tibetans have been targeted by the Chinese for cultural genocide.  Dwai was silent.

 

Then you brought up Sai Baba, and Dwai went off on a rant about how anytime someone criticiszes an Indian Guru, it is because they have been brainwashed by Evangelical Christians who want to destroy Indian culture, and he had the nerve to say this to a person who has spent years traveling Asia training seeking teachers, some of them Hindu, often being the only Westerner in the group!

 

How appropriate that this comes up in a thread about how a person who has had profound experiences of transcendence can still be reactive.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Creation