Sam Harris and Rupert Spira

[Daemon]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I found it amusing that someone would venture to analyze my character and draw such ridiculous conclusions as you did. My emoji reaction doesn't imply that I condone your action, or that it should be construed as tacit approval of similar action (by anyone). 

 

Thanks for the clarification Dwai. I’m glad that you found at least some degree of light relief although, as I said, you misread my intent as my post was merely an opinion about the dynamic and it was intended to assist the member to whom my post was addressed (forestofemptiness). It certainly wasn’t intended to be seen as a character analysis, especially as an accurate personality assessment requires several personal interviews in addition to some written written tests such as the ones that can be found here. Furthermore, the resultant report would run to at least 5,000 words, rather than the two dozen or so that seem to have been the cause of this problem.
 
In any case, please accept my sincere apologies for the personal distress that my ill-considered throw-away remark seems to have caused both to you and to several other members of this forum. I am very much a beginner as far as social media is concerned and it’s clear that I still have a great deal to learn about the  vagaries of cyberspace.

Thank you to @ilumairen for drawing this mistake to my attention. Please rest assured that it certainly won’t happen again.
 
 ☮
 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Daemon

[dwai]

7 minutes ago, Daemon said:

you misread my intent as my post was merely an opinion about the dynamic and it was intended to assist the member to whom my post was addressed (forestofemptiness)

Just as an FYI, forestofemptiness and I go way back in "real life" (a good 15 years or so)...we shared a teacher at one point and even pushed hands with each other on a somewhat regular basis for a period of time, and he knows me far better than you do  

 

[Daemon]

24 minutes ago, dwai said:

Just as an FYI, forestofemptiness and I go way back in "real life" (a good 15 years or so)...we shared a teacher at one point and even pushed hands with each other on a somewhat regular basis for a period of time, and he knows me far better than you do  

 

 

Thanks again. That's a useful piece of information in terms of time management, as I’d just started to write him a PM in order to address all his outstanding questions in a way that would have ensured that I didn’t inadvertently cause any more personal upset. That invaluable snippet gifted me with at least a couple of hours this evening to catch up on an outstanding TV series that I’m now free watch instead.

Funny how the universe conspires to help out when your heart's in the right place. 🙂

 

☮

 

[Creation]

On 2/10/2021 at 9:34 AM, ilumairen said:

Daemon, if the above is indeed a character analysis of another member of this forum (as it is presently reading to me), it is unwelcome here. Please refrain from posting such character assessments and dismissals in the future.

Is Daemon being threatened with moderator action for opining someone is clinging to a contradictory set of beliefs?  Did someone request a moderator issue this warning, or are you doing so without such a request?  Is character analysis a moderatable offense?

[liminal_luke]

17 minutes ago, Creation said:

Is character analysis a moderatable offense?

 

Moderation, alas, is often a matter of distinguishing between shades of gray rather than an easy black-or-white sorting process, so I´m not sure there´s a one-size-fits-all answer to your question. What I can say is that few of us truly welcome negative apprisals of our character.  Many people imagine that they´re "helping" a fellow spiritual traveler by pointing out things that are wrong with them but this rarely works.  This is very different from arguing, even quite passionately, about an issue.  Saying "I disagree with you and here´s why..." is never a moderatable offense.  Saying "you´re stupid/ a poor reader / entrenched in a set of contradictory beliefs and holding on to them for dear life as a sort of security blanket"  is, in my opinion, a moderatable offense.  Even if true, it´s not likely to be useful.  Why go there?

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daemon said:

 

Thanks again. That's a useful piece of information in terms of time management, as I’d just started to write him a PM in order to address all his outstanding questions in a way that would have ensured that I didn’t inadvertently cause any more personal upset. That invaluable snippet gifted me with at least a couple of hours this evening to catch up on an outstanding TV series that I’m now free watch instead.

Funny how the universe conspires to help out when your heart's in the right place. 🙂

 

☮

 

 I shouldn't be speaking on behalf of forestofemptiness, but I suspect that he's playing the "Devil's Advocate" with his line of questioning on this discussion. He is an advanced practitioner IMHO and has a solid understanding of Jnana traditions.

 

@forestofemptiness can correct me if he thinks I'm wrong in my assessment of his motivation.

 

42 minutes ago, Creation said:

s Daemon being threatened with moderator action for opining someone is clinging to a contradictory set of beliefs?  Did someone request a moderator issue this warning, or are you doing so without such a request?  Is character analysis a moderatable offense?

 It is perfectly okay to have differing perspectives, but that "clinging to a contradictory set of beliefs" seems to be an outright dismissal.

 

There are many on this forum who have their personal theories and conceptualizations based on their personal history and experiences. It's okay to say, "I think you are wrong in your view, because of x, y, and z", but if it is worded along the lines of "you are a lost cause because of your views" or worse, refer to someone in the third-person while simultaneously passing a pronouncement on their "capability to understand something because of their views", it comes across as passive-aggressive and condescending. 

 

Some of us older hands on the board have developed a rather thick skin (and by that I include myself). But what about many of our newer members? Or those who have a lower threshold of this kind of behavior? Why should they have to put up with it when there is no need for that. If you want to share something personal with someone, better to do it in a direct message. I think the mod team has been fair with their treatment of this kind of behavior -- other members were correctly censured for this, and one was banned on account of repeatedly doing similar things despite fair warning that this was not welcome.

 

P.S. BTW this is my opinion as a member

Edited February 11, 2021 by dwai

[Apech]

[Creation]

48 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Saying "you´re stupid/ a poor reader / entrenched in a set of contradictory beliefs and holding on to them for dear life as a sort of security blanket"  is, in my opinion, a moderatable offense.  Even if true, it´s not likely to be useful.  Why go there?

Thanks, I never know where the line is with this kind of thing.  IMO "stupid" and "poor reader" are direct insults, and the security blanket thing crosses a line, but "entrenched in a set of contradictory beliefs" is a perfectly valid thing to say on an open discussion forum, even if there are nicer or more productive ways to talk.

[Daemon]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

[He is]* entrenched in a set of contradictory beliefs and holding on to them for dear life as a sort of security blanket"  is, in my opinion, a moderatable offense.  Even if true, it´s not likely to be useful.  Why go there?

 

 

That's certainly one of the pertinent issues, in my opinion.

It's also a question that I'm prepared to answer personally, privately and confidentially if you want the answer.

 

☮

 

* I did not write [You are... etc].

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Daemon

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, Apech said:

Muy Bien

[Daemon]

12 minutes ago, Creation said:

Thanks I never know where the line is with this kind of thing.  IMO "stupid" and "poor reader" are direct insults, and the security blanket thing crosses a line, but "entrenched in a set of contradictory beliefs" is a perfectly valid thing to say on an open discussion forum, even if there are nicer or more productive ways to talk.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I could certainly have phrased it differently and better but I was multitasking at the time. In any case, a simple request from a moderator or a simple request from the OP would have resulted in an edit or a delete.

 

☮

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Daemon

[forestofclarity]

42 minutes ago, dwai said:

He is an advanced practitioner IMHO and has a solid understanding of Jnana traditions.

 

I certainly take issue with these statements. 

 

Rupert has always rubbed me the wrong way--- I think his approach is a bit simplistic and philosophically unfounded. Traditional AV has my deepest respect. 

[Daemon]

4 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I certainly take issue with these statements. 

 

Rupert has always rubbed me the wrong way--- I think his approach is a bit simplistic and philosophically unfounded. Traditional AV has my deepest respect. 

 

I've been on several of Rupert's retreats and enjoyed them immensely, mainly because I met some really unusual and interesting people, including Chris Hebbard.

I don't share your enthusiasm for trad. AV myself (despite - or perhaps because of - studying it under the  supervision of Dayananda Saraswati).

 

☮

 

[forestofclarity]

26 minutes ago, Daemon said:

I don't share your enthusiasm for trad. AV myself (despite - or perhaps because of - studying it under the  supervision of Dayananda Saraswati).

 

☮

 

 

The person who taught me the most (informally and experientially) was a student of Swami Satchidananda (among others). I prefer Swami Sarvapriyananda for listening to talks, although Carole Whitfield helped with a number of things. 

 

At any rate, I am too skeptical and contrary to be anything other than a Buddhist. 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

38 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I certainly take issue with these statements. 
 

Oops...I stand chastised Sir! Though I am hesitant to retract said statements 😜

Quote

 

Rupert has always rubbed me the wrong way--- I think his approach is a bit simplistic and philosophically unfounded. Traditional AV has my deepest respect. 

Actually Rupert spent a long time as a disciple of Swami Shantananda Saraswati - Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math — legit Advaita Vedanta credentials there. 

 

I used to feel similarly about Rupert too earlier, but with time, I found myself disagreeing less with him/his approach. For me, it used to be an irritation about neo-Advaita in general, and he seemed to be the figurehead (in my mind). If we are to go “full Advaita Vedanta”, nothing he says is incongruent with say the Ashtavakra Samhita. 
 

On a similar note, I know some who found Swami Sarvapriyananda unimpressive, until one day, they actually listened to what he was teaching!  

Edited February 11, 2021 by dwai

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Creation said:

 the security blanket thing crosses a line

 

As a fifty-something owner of multiple teddybears, I couldn´t agree more.

[Daemon]

Well, I’m glad that you and I seem to have established that there’s no intrinsic problem with anyone owning security blankets Luke.

Perhaps the only question that might be worth exploring further about teddy bears, etc. is, “Do you own them or do they own you?”

In any case, Creation is perfect as it is, including both attachment and aversion (unless, of course, it isn’t).  
 

☮

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Daemon

[Ursus mellifera]

16 minutes ago, Daemon said:

Perhaps the only question that might be worth exploring further about teddy bears, etc. is, “Do you own them or do they own you?”

 

It's probably more symbiotic than all that. 

[forestofclarity]

I had the opposite experience. I enjoyed Rupert at one time, but over time, I have soured. I wouldn't consider him a neo- (like Tony Parsons, Wayne Liquorman, Sailor Bob, et. al.). The aforementioned Greg Goode (who is also cited at various points by Swami S) classifies him as "Direct Path."

 

The problem I see is that the approach is a bit too simplistic. Watching many videos of Rupert, and having tuned into some live sessions (and even questioning him myself), I feel he has a prepared script, and if there is any deviation, he gets quite angry and defensive. He is also quite dismissive of all forms of knowledge other than his own (i.e. he said that he didn't want to tell his son there was basically no point to school). He appears less interested in understanding questions that are put to him than getting back to his "script." Overall, I find his presentation fairly rigid. Finally, I don't get the impression that he is really familiar with the basic landscape of meditation. This is hard to quantify, but it's like hearing some one else talk about a city they've read about, but you've actually been there, and it doesn't line up. Which is not to say that I am any sort of meditation expert, but I have done a little from time to time. 

 

For me, there is also a certain power (shakti)? of being connected to an authentic lineage. And when so connected, the very cosmos itself seems to come alive in an effort to further one's awakening. I don't get that with Rupert. 

 

Of course, these are all my own subjective impressions. But the epistemology/ontology thing is hard for me to let go of, because it feels to me like sophistry. 

 

35 minutes ago, dwai said:

I used to feel similarly about Rupert too earlier, but with time, I found myself disagreeing less with him/his approach. For me, it used to be an irritation about neo-Advaita in general, and he seemed to be the figurehead (in my mind). If we are to go “full Advaita Vedanta”, nothing he says is incongruent with say the Ashtavakra Samhita. 

 

[dwai]

47 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

I had the opposite experience. I enjoyed Rupert at one time, but over time, I have soured. I wouldn't consider him a neo- (like Tony Parsons, Wayne Liquorman, Sailor Bob, et. al.). The aforementioned Greg Goode (who is also cited at various points by Swami S) classifies him as "Direct Path."

I've not spent a lot of time on the neo-advaita gang tbh...I used to consider Rupert as Neo-Advaita and then warmed up to him in terms of both Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism (which he seems to have some knowledge of). But, I find his "pointing to" quite apropos...though he doesn't have the effect that Eckhart Tolle has on me -- Eckhart can take me into a very deep silence, just by listening to him.

 

Another thing about Rupert's talks is, I only started "hearing" him after I didn't need to listen to him anymore for "knowledge" per se. 

Quote

 

The problem I see is that the approach is a bit too simplistic. Watching many videos of Rupert, and having tuned into some live sessions (and even questioning him myself), I feel he has a prepared script, and if there is any deviation, he gets quite angry and defensive. He is also quite dismissive of all forms of knowledge other than his own (i.e. he said that he didn't want to tell his son there was basically no point to school). He appears less interested in understanding questions that are put to him than getting back to his "script." Overall, I find his presentation fairly rigid. Finally, I don't get the impression that he is really familiar with the basic landscape of meditation. This is hard to quantify, but it's like hearing some one else talk about a city they've read about, but you've actually been there, and it doesn't line up. Which is not to say that I am any sort of meditation expert, but I have done a little from time to time. 

I don't feel that way about it. When he is pointing, he is pointing experientially (as much as realization is an "experience" in that sense). But I've not really spent too much time on him, and am not invested in his teachings/or him in any way.  

 

Quote

 

For me, there is also a certain power (shakti)? of being connected to an authentic lineage. And when so connected, the very cosmos itself seems to come alive in an effort to further one's awakening. I don't get that with Rupert. 

I know what you mean. That's the way I am in Master Jose's presence -- just being in his vicinity puts me into a deep alive stillness. The power of a lineage is very real...a mentor of mine, who has been a direct disciple of Sifu Sheng Yen, Sri Abhinava Vidya Teertha, the previous Shankaracharya of the Sringeri Math (among other powerful masters) tells me the reason why one must maintain the purity of lineage is that lineages have power, and whichever lineage one belongs it, its power will manifest in their life. One has to taste the fruits of one's lineage. Now, whether it is a fruit one wants to taste or not, ultimately is a matter of decision. For me specifically, he said so in the context of the Daoist lineage, as he considered my Vedantic nidhidhyasana to be quite deep already. 

Quote

 

Of course, these are all my own subjective impressions. But the epistemology/ontology thing is hard for me to let go of, because it feels to me like sophistry. 

Every tradition has epistemology and ontology (even non-being/non-Self is effectively ontology, isn't it?).  The "real" deal is simple. Sophistry is a result of communication -- so do we enjoy the moon or the finger that points to the moon?

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by dwai

[Daemon]

18 hours ago, Ursus mellifera said:

 

It's probably more symbiotic than all that. 

 

 

Almost certainly Ursus, but only if the bear is sentient.

 

☮

 

[forestofclarity]

18 hours ago, dwai said:

Every tradition has epistemology and ontology (even non-being/non-Self is effectively ontology, isn't it?).  The "real" deal is simple. Sophistry is a result of communication -- so do we enjoy the moon or the finger that points to the moon?

 

It is not about having an epistemology, it is about using epistemological limits as a basis for inferring ontological absence. In this case, when knowledge is limited, the actual answer should be "I don't know," not "no." It is like covering one's eyes and stating that the entire world has disappeared. Absence of knowledge does not mean absence of "being" so to speak. In some ways, it is the same error materialists make: all I can see are physical, material things, so they deny the immaterial, such as consciousness, or attempt to reduce consciousness to the brain. This is of course very short-sighted as the appearance of so-called physical things are merely appearances in the mind. 

 

Certain strands of Buddhism avoid this by stating, "Well, it doesn't matter what is or isn't the case, what matters is experience, so let's focus on that." 

 

 

[dwai]

48 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

It is not about having an epistemology, it is about using epistemological limits as a basis for inferring ontological absence. In this case, when knowledge is limited, the actual answer should be "I don't know," not "no." It is like covering one's eyes and stating that the entire world has disappeared. Absence of knowledge does not mean absence of "being" so to speak. In some ways, it is the same error materialists make: all I can see are physical, material things, so they deny the immaterial, such as consciousness, or attempt to reduce consciousness to the brain. This is of course very short-sighted as the appearance of so-called physical things are merely appearances in the mind. 

I've not come across any serious Advaita Vedantin who says "no"  

The very basis of Advaita Vedanta is that there is Being/existence (Awareness/Brahman/Atman) from which all phenomena arise, and into which all phenomena dissipate. 

Quote

 

Certain strands of Buddhism avoid this by stating, "Well, it doesn't matter what is or isn't the case, what matters is experience, so let's focus on that." 

 

 

I think the AV position on this is also based on experience. But from the experience, especially, and more importantly, mundane, everyday experience, the underlying existence itself (Being) is to be recognized (not as an object, but as that which illuminates the experience). That's why many who've had this recognition state that the "truth" (so to speak) is very simple, direct, and readily available all the time.

Edited February 12, 2021 by dwai