There often is an ecstatic
resonance between some gurus and some students. The Shakti takes different
forms with each. Each guru/student coupling is unique. For some it is constant
ecstasies. For some, an always abiding Love. For some, constant orgasms in the heart or genitals. For some it is
felt as deep peace. For some it is forgetfulness. For some, emptiness. For some
it is grace, forgiveness, or energetic beingness. But when you get near YOUR
teacher, something flows in you so that you know you are at home.
The manifestations of the
Shakti are always changing. No one can tell you how it will be for you, even
the teacher. Each day God, Guru and Self are experienced in different
ways by That which lies beyond experience and non-experience. Those who would
deny the Guru/Chela relationship as stupid or quaint or outdated religiosity do
so because they have not yet found their teacher, and maybe never will.
Nisargadatta said there are many who resist teachers, and for them it is
best for all not to have any.
Yes. Clearly there are only two ways to awaken. Either surrender completely to your teacher and love him more than your own self or forget the teacher and do it all by yourself. It is rare to find a student who can love the Guru more than himself but it is even more rare to go all the way just by himself/herself. That is why the scriptures have declared again and again that awakening is rarest of the rare (unless it is the "nothing needs to be done" neo-advaita way to awaken).
ReplyDeletei stumbled upon few people from 'deny'-ism 'sect' :D, i think mostly come from J.Krishnamurti listeners, but somehow J.K himself had several gurus, and even those who follow him and say "there is no need for guru" are themselves following J.K, so this is kinda astonishingly a ridiculous situation...
ReplyDeleteEd, Rajiv, what you shared here is really helpful.
ReplyDeleteIt confirms my experience which may be entirely different than someone else's.
Love,
D.C.
Many from the Krishnamurty ''camp'' deny the need of a personal teacher/ guru relationship. K. himself speak of a relationship between two friends. Personaly I like this two friends idea. In my experience the strongest relation with a teacher is when we become equeal. This was also happening over a month ago when visiting Rajivji in Mombai. I do not like to touch his feet and prostrate in front of him. I told Rajiv that I feel like a friend. He seems to accept and slowly Something happend. I feel comfort and at home in his presence and my mind was naturaly surrender to the teachings. I do feel agree with K. that there is no authority outside of me. Remarkable that K. also had his 'inner circle' and who was not willing to be part of that? I am in Kathmandu being nobody anonymous here. Just watching live that pass by. Killing time writing this stupid comment somehow gives me a feeling of being a part
ReplyDeleteof edji's shakti friendship sanga. That is enough for me. Earnestness and determination will unravell the Self, no doubt. With or without a guru. The final guru is I am. Om sadguru parabrahman.
Love, dennis
Some of this smacks of bliss-ninny romanticized idealism. It's hard for me not to cringe when I start hitting phrases such as "ecstatic resonance" and "constant orgasms". I'm pretty sure Adam's never talked this way. At least he never did with me, or in any of the recordings I've watched.
ReplyDeleteI have found myself thinking about my walks with him lately, actually, and his tendency to exclaim, "It's not real! None of it's real!" Having spent considerable time studying various philosophies from throughout history, and also influenced by my reading of the Path of Purification (slow process since I read each page three or four times carefully), it suddenly dawned on me that maybe Adams was referring to impermanence. It's like exclaiming, "It's not going to last! None of it's going to last!" Real as in lasting.
Language is actually sadly inadequate to express such understandings, so one has a tendency to pull the first and closest word one knows from out the air when the understanding just suddenly hits. There is almost an urgency, "I need to name this!" Considering Adam's background, "real" vs "not real" actually makes sense. Nothing is permanent. Nothing is real.
My bit of comparative understanding for the day. Actually, for me, when one talks about unreality and illusion I tend to become a bit confused by it all, like I'm being told that everything I perceive and understand about reality is just smoke and mirrors (which technically it is since quarks--those little things that make atoms--are popping into and out of "existence" all the time) and that there's a little due behind a curtain somewhere operating levers and pulleys. Instinctively, I've always sensed that my understanding of this "illusion--not real" talk was fundamentally flawed and that I was reading too much into it all. But it has never occurred that I had some other way of grasping it--until now.
Impermanence. Boy that just works. It's not lasting. None of it is lasting. Right! Now we can get rid of the smoke and mirrors magical bliss-ninny stuff and just focus on hard evidence. Nothing actually lasts. Even the earth will one day be vaporized by the sun as it enters into its helium burning stage and blows off it's outer layers of plasma. Even the sun will come to an end. Even the galaxy. Even black holes seem to shrink over time, their mass somehow being ejected (projected?) back into space as pure energy. The self certainly is never the same from moment to moment, day to day. In fact, there is almost nothing more illusory in nature than the self. Whatever we think or believe about our experience is merely perceived, and never really grasped. Every tiny new experience completely reorganizes the matrix of selfdom within, creating a new being on the spot from the conditions that existed before. If not for the experience of memory, that seems to connect all these self-manifestations together into a single coherent "entity", we would have no concept of self because it changes so fast to environmental and conditional stimuli. It's not real. It's impermanent. It's illusion.
So, taking this into consideration, somehow I doubt that Adams was ever focused on the bliss-ninny orgasmic nonsense.
The teacher-student relationship is still valid without the bliss-ninny stuff. But I'm sure there are ways to approach it without indulging in such romanticism.
It is not real had several meanings for Robert,and a lot of people who followed him cling only to one or two.
ReplyDeleteThe most common interpretation of what he meant by "not real" is that no object is permanent. The Stuart teacher accepts this as his total meaning of not real.
However, another meaning is that when you encounter deeper aspects of your beingness, the Turiya state and beyond, you see your "Self" permeating through all the various other states of consciousness, such as waking, sleep and dream. In that sense, you see that those states "come to you unsought," meaning you are the witness of these unreal states that pass over you like clouds. This is the deeper meaning that Stuart misses.
Part of this latter interpretation is that the world does not exist separate from you. There is no separate "real" world outside of your consciousness. There is in this way, only One.
Robert used to tell me that consciousness itself did not exist.
Another way the world was not real is that the mind creates "stories," conditionings, and knowledge about an objective world, such as our theories about atoms, social relations, political correctness, the American dream, divine providence, democratic or republican values, such that we never see or deal with the world as it would be seen freshly without all the interpretation and thinking. This was Krishnamurti's emphasis.
On the contrary, Robert talked all the time about the value of hanging around the sage and practicing self-inquiry. He said one gradually feels happier and happier, knowing a happiness beyond anything you have know before. He also talked about increasing, unalloyed joy. He also talked about bliss. He talked about his feeling utter surrender around Ramana. He talked about feeling his hair all over his body standing up when he saw a photo of Ramana.
Besides I am not a parrot of Robert. It does not matter what he said to you. I have had my own experiences around teachers as well as around Robert, and I have heard students tell of what they experience around me or with Muktananda, Da Free John, Amma, etc. Don't close your mind based just on your experience with Robert.
Often I would feel physical burning with him, and after I left him, I'd go unconscious for the rest of the day.
Zahhar said, "somehow I doubt that Adams was ever focused on the bliss-ninny orgasmic nonsense."
ReplyDeleteMy response: And so what if he wasn't. Don't look to anyone else to tell you what it ought to be like for you.
Zahhar also said, "The teacher-student relationship is still valid without the bliss-ninny stuff. But I'm sure there are ways to approach it without indulging in such romanticism."
Zahhar, my guess is that you do not experience your skin burning, being drowned in rivers of love or the bliss of feeling like 100 tiny orgasms are happening throughout your body. There is no need to oppose these types of experiences just because you don't experience them or because you don't think Adams supported them.
Of course the teacher-student relationship is valid without this bliss-ninny stuff as you call it.
The experiences, regardless of their nature neither validate nor invalidate the relationship.
But this is not to deny that many students do have certain experiences with their teacher that they never have with others.
I don't need anybody to tell me this happens, I know it happens, but I don't put any stock in it.
The experiences could all go tomorrow and it would make no difference whatsoever in the quality of the relationship I share with the teacher.
I'm not looking for experiences, I'm looking for freedom, whatever that means. BUT, I do enjoy the experiences along the way, and yes, I even indulge in them from time to time.
Blessings,
D.C.
Dear Zahhar, thank you for your openes. You shared your heart and Edji is clear in his respons. Beautiful.
ReplyDeleteMyself never expirienced genital orgasms near Edji. Sorry for that Ed :). love dennis
I feel like sharing this.Quarks came into prominence much later, even with ‘Pauli’s exclusion’ principle which i think came much earlier, we can understand that we can not pinpoint matter at quantum levels.So all matter is essentially empty. Science as we know it and in my opinion as it should be pursued,speaks in the language of tangibles,thats what makes it useful, or its just hypothesis,thats how Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for the big banf theory.Which ofcourse is not set in stone,something more promising comes along science will discard it but prove it,like Einsteins no particle can travel faster than speed of light is in danger right now,that is science. Science deals with phenomena, people who understand science well know this. In my opinion connecting science and spirituality is bullshit(no offence to anyone). Theres a method to science, which ‘can’ get corrupted or adultrated,and that is what is happening. Trained epigeneticists are going bonkers with DNA light mumbo jumbo,and then they try to validate it with science, ask them to show experimental proof or any evidence ,they don’t have anything to say.
ReplyDeletePeople have just jumped onto this science bandwagon,doing spirituality. Physicists for long have tried this, not for any other reason but because they are interested in doing physics.
Maxwell unified electrostatics and magnetism and we got electromagnetism. Since then unifying space and time has been the thing to accompolish in physics. This is the incentive for a serious quantum physicist,when they talk to Buddishts or Vendatists and ask them if such n such claim(s) are their in their scriptures, to know what is the basis of wave-particle duality and not to find whats their take on spirituality is.
Put this in perspective in the world: ppl are making money out of it,giving out false hopes:manifestation,adundance,match the frequency –the famous Einstein quote(i don’t know whos going to factor in entropy here as all manifestation finally would be appreciated at gross level-i want a house,a car etc)-really rubbish...quantum healing bullshit.....all is ok...but why claim validation through science when it is no science.
This thing is also quite prominent in some areas of spirituality-psychology...like the proponents of Integral inc. talk of ego-development and transpersonalies,thats flawed i think but atleast here anyone is free to do whatever,whatever works for an ‘individual’.
I find only the claims of Sir Roger Penrose whos a mathematician by training,making any sense.In answering the origin of universe,unifying space-time(he says not happening). He is honest enough to admit that it would not be any science as a lot of speculation is involved, and his hypotheis is totally in line with what the ancient vedantists said-creation-destruction-the cycle goes on. The sticking point with unifying space time or arriving at singularity with a quantum approach is gravity, just can not factor it in and at quantum levels talkin of gravity is absurd,so one way you are fucked for sure or there is no unification. Penrose’s speculation does exactly that,factors in gravity.
Phenomena is not real for me, science is the study of phenomena for me. I can see that eberything is changing, so i say its not real. What is real i don’t know because i haven’t seen a thing that never changes,including my personality.
PS:
Edji proving am not a robot am finding a lil difficult with the text
I want to share this.Quarks came into prominence much later, even with ‘Pauli’s exclusion’ principle which i think came much earlier, we can understand that we can not pinpoint matter at quantum levels.So all matter is essentially empty or unreal as some may call it. Science as we know it and in my opinion as it should be pursued,speaks in the language of tangibles,thats what makes it useful, or its just hypothesis,thats how Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for the big banf theory.Which ofcourse is not set in stone,something more promising comes along science will discard it but prove it,like Einsteins no particle can travel faster than speed of light is in danger right now,that is science. Science deals with phenomena, people who understand science well know this. In my opinion connecting science and spirituality is bullshit(no offence to anyone). Theres a method to science, which ‘can’ get corrupted or adultrated,and that is what is happening. Trained epigeneticists are going bonkers with DNA light mumbo jumbo,and then they try to validate it with science, ask them to show experimental proof or any evidence ,they don’t have anything to say.
ReplyDeletePeople have just jumped onto this science bandwagon,doing spirituality. Physicists for long have tried this, not for any other reason but because they are interested in doing physics.
Maxwell unified electrostatics and magnetism and we got electromagnetism. Since then unifying space and time has been the thing to accompolish in physics. This is the incentive for a serious quantum physicist,when they talk to Buddishts or Vendatists and ask them if such n such claim(s) are their in their scriptures, to know what is the basis of wave-particle duality and not to find whats their take on spirituality is.
Put this in perspective in the world: ppl are making money out of it,giving out false hopes:manifestation,adundance,match the frequency –the famous Einstein quote(i don’t know whos going to factor in entropy here as all manifestation finally would be appreciated at gross level-i want a house,a car etc)-really rubbish...quantum healing bullshit.....all is ok...but why claim validation through science when it is no science.
This thing is also quite prominent in some areas of spirituality-psychology...like the proponents of Integral inc. talk of ego-development and transpersonalies,thats flawed i think but atleast here anyone is free to do whatever,whatever works for an ‘individual’.
I find only the claims of Sir Roger Penrose whos a mathematician by training,making any sense.In answering the origin of universe,unifying space-time(he says not happening). He is honest enough to admit that it would not be any science as a lot of speculation is involved, and his hypotheis is totally in line with what the ancient vedantists said-creation-destruction-the cycle goes on. The sticking point with unifying space time or arriving at singularity with a quantum approach is gravity, just can not factor it in and at quantum levels talkin of gravity is absurd,so one way you are fucked for sure or there is no unification. Penrose’s speculation does exactly that,factors in gravity.
Phenomena is not real for me, science is the study of phenomena for me. I can see that eberything is changing, so i say its not real. What is real i don’t know because i haven’t seen a thing that never changes,including my personality.
PS:
Edji proving am not a robot am finding a lil difficult with the text
I want to share this.Quarks came into prominence much later, even with ‘Pauli’s exclusion’ principle which i think came much earlier, we can understand that we can not pinpoint matter at quantum levels.So all matter is essentially empty or unreal as some may call it. Science as we know it and in my opinion as it should be pursued,speaks in the language of tangibles,thats what makes it useful, or its just hypothesis,thats how Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for the big banf theory.Which ofcourse is not set in stone,something more promising comes along science will discard it but prove it,like Einsteins no particle can travel faster than speed of light is in danger right now,that is science. Science deals with phenomena, people who understand science well know this. In my opinion connecting science and spirituality is bullshit(no offence to anyone). Theres a method to science, which ‘can’ get corrupted or adultrated,and that is what is happening. Trained epigeneticists are going bonkers with DNA light mumbo jumbo,and then they try to validate it with science, ask them to show experimental proof or any evidence ,they don’t have anything to say.
ReplyDeletePeople have just jumped onto this science bandwagon,doing spirituality. Physicists for long have tried this, not for any other reason but because they are interested in doing physics.
Maxwell unified electrostatics and magnetism and we got electromagnetism. Since then unifying space and time has been the thing to accompolish in physics. This is the incentive for a serious quantum physicist,when they talk to Buddishts or Vendatists and ask them if such n such claim(s) are their in their scriptures, to know what is the basis of wave-particle duality and not to find whats their take on spirituality is.
Put this in perspective in the world: ppl are making money out of it,giving out false hopes:manifestation,adundance,match the frequency –the famous Einstein quote(i don’t know whos going to factor in entropy here as all manifestation finally would be appreciated at gross level-i want a house,a car etc)-really rubbish...quantum healing bullshit.....all is ok...but why claim validation through science when it is no science.
This thing is also quite prominent in some areas of spirituality-psychology...like the proponents of Integral inc. talk of ego-development and transpersonalies,thats flawed i think but atleast here anyone is free to do whatever,whatever works for an ‘individual’.
I find only the claims of Sir Roger Penrose whos a mathematician by training,making any sense.In answering the origin of universe,unifying space-time(he says not happening). He is honest enough to admit that it would not be any science as a lot of speculation is involved, and his hypotheis is totally in line with what the ancient vedantists said-creation-destruction-the cycle goes on. The sticking point with unifying space time or arriving at singularity with a quantum approach is gravity, just can not factor it in and at quantum levels talkin of gravity is absurd,so one way you are fucked for sure or there is no unification. Penrose’s speculation does exactly that,factors in gravity.
Phenomena is not real for me, science is the study of phenomena for me. I can see that eberything is changing, so i say its not real. What is real i don’t know because i haven’t seen a thing that never changes,including my personality.
PS:
Edji proving am not a robot am finding a lil difficult with the text
Rahul, thanks for taking the time to share what you did.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that spirituality is just as much mind stuff as science. It may or may not be more effective in dissloving illlusion, it depends on the state of one's mind.
What the mind buids the mind can destroy seems true enough in my experience. But what is its foundation...where and from what does it get its juice?
This is the question.
I agree that it is getting harder and harder to prove I am not a robot, or maybe I am just getting dumber and dumber.
D.C.
I just looked below to see how daunting this task would be this time around. What script are they using? Even a robot couldn't figure this one out. This may take a few tries.