09 August 2015


Political pundits are shocked by Donald Trump, their so-called bombastic and narcissistic clown who is screwing up the Republican candidate process, threatening the establishment kingmakers’ power to fix elections with establishment candidates.  The same holds true with the Democrats.  No one is more establishment than Obama, selected by behind the scenes kingmakers like Edward Kennedy and the Chicago power politicians.

Watching the recent debates I was shocked to find how narrow were the rules of debate.  There was nothing about climate change, taxation, wealth imbalance, etc., but only about Iran, ISIS, NASA and spying, building the military, opposition to Obamacare and gay marriage, all carefully spoken within an even narrower universe of prescribed political correctness.

Even the leftist commentators judged the Republican candidates on how they “presidential” they “appeared,” in terms of apparent “maturity,” “youthfulness,” “speaking ability,” “aggressiveness,”  “balance,” “mental quickness,” etc.  Even the leftist commentators made no comment about the utter nonsense that came out of all of their mouths regarding the policies they backed, such as war with Iran, war as a solution to problems with China, no exceptions to abortion restrictions, denial of climate change, the usual Republican push for a regressive flat tax.

The Chris Matthews and other commentors on the left judged on how the candidate comported themselves within all the hidden rules of debate and policies.  Mathews was utterly blind about how Trump was blindsided by Kelley and the other moderators who confronted him with personal issues and whether he really was a fit for Republican narrowspeak.

On Facebook we find similar rules regarding comportment and also the size and terms of the universe of discourse about anything spiritual.

First, there are all the opinions about how an “enlightened being” would act or speak, and if a speaker does something outside of those limits, they are judged as not enlightened, or having imperfect understanding, or having too much ego.  Lots of the comportment rules as well as the limits of the rules of discourse seem to arise from how Ramana is perceived and understood, or even “How would Christ have acted?”

Here is my take.  Someone truly awake to who they are on all levels would be highly intolerant to the misuse of undefined terms in any universe of discourse.  That is, all terms used must in some ways rely on exterience.  Of course, each person has their own limited universe of experience, and we need to work at understanding the limits of experience of each speaker and whether speakers are talking about the same experience, similar experiences, of completely different experiences.

I watch Facebook speakers talking to each other and can often clearly apperceive which school of thought each comes from, which undefined abstract terms they use without defining their experiences that back their choices of terms, or whether they are merely parroting arguments of others.

One of my favorite bullshit terms many neo-advaitins use as an end-all term supposedly to end all arguments, is, ‘what is’.  This is supposedly the beginning and end of some persons’ discourse.  Start with what is.

But which aspect of what is are they talking about?  The world appearance? The all-pervading emptiness and Void of Zen and Buddhism? The sense of presence felt by people sensitive to energies?  The ‘light of consciousness’ experienced by advanced meditators?  The absolute witness standing behind all appearances, also experienced by meditators?  The Manifest Self of the divine within experienced by some mystics, by some lovers, by some Bhaktis?  One’s experience from within of one’s own body, its muscles, viscera, and movements?  Astral projection, energies, Chi, Kunalini of the Raja Yogis?  Demons, energy entities, animal spirits, alchemy of shamans, some Christians, some New Agers?

‘What is’ consists of many overlapping and interpenetrating worlds of experience, and therefore is really too broad to be meaningful.

For discourse to be meaningful, the terms need to be mutually defined, and well as the limits or purpose of the discourse.  That is, are we speaking so that others can experience what we experience, or so that I can experience what they apparently have which appears different from my own experience?

Isn’t this what spirituality is mostly about? What was Ramana’s inner world like?  What did he experience in terms of Conciousness, of bliss, or what did he mean by silence as the greatest teacher?  Ditto what was Buddha’s awakening experience like?  Who do we believe when they describe Buddha’s awakening?  What did Buddha himself say about his awakening or the nature of Nirvana?

Very rarely do we find discourse from anyone that always points you away  from the experience of past great teachers or even present gurus, what they meant, and what their experience is like, and instead always point you to investigate you, your experiences, your understanding based on your own experiences versus book learning from Tolle, Ramana, Sailor Bob, Masara, Pam Wilson, Papaji, Mooji, etc.

That is, all of your spirituality should be self-concern: who and what are you?  One must be pointedly narcissistic, self-centered, self-obsessed so that you can plumb the depths of everything you are, from mind, ego, body, to deeper areas of self, such as the Void, light of Consciousness, emotions, Subtle Body energies, one’s sense of presence, and finally the level of complete peace and rest where Consciousness does not move but is completely alive and “electric.”

Later, after you have discovered all levels of yourself, and feel the truth we all are the same spirit, the same life energy flowing from the same common clay, and from that realization of love for yourself that you discovered through self-investigation, then permanently flows your same love to every other sentient beings, because they are the same life force and sentience that you are.

How unpopular is the speaker like Trump who challengers people to look beyond comportment and get outside of political correctness and discuss real issues, such as who is in power, who controls the political process, which is not Trump, but it Bernie Sanders. And the political correct people are now also attacking Bernie, the Black Lives Matter people who attack him as a white progressive Supremicist  even after he spent decades in the civil rights movements in the 60s and 70s, but now does not speak their tune.

How unpopular is the spiritual teacher who does not comport him or herself as a quiet, thoughtful, measured, balanced, mature speaker which is the model Francis Bennett uses to measure depth of spirituality, and how unpopular Nityananda and Nisargadatta were when alive when they ripped the hearts of of some students in an effort to make them see through some illusion or another.  Robert Adams did not like Nisargadatta because Maharaj was not gentle and obviously loving, was critical and rude, especially of Balsekar.

A lot of you need a teacher who is gentle and loving because that is the environment you need. But others need a non-gentle truth-sayer who calls you on the imprecise or bullshit, meaningless words and ideas you use and have.


  1. If you want to be a neo-advaita guru in 2 minutes, i present you the slogans which will make you popular in one day with million followers:

    "what is - is"
    "You Are That Which Is"
    "be as you are"
    "Find what You Are when nothing is because That Which You Truly Are Now(TWYTAN) is what You Will Truly Be “then.” - what the fuck?

    1. Yes, and the Supreme Recognition that that is what you always were anyway, just didn't know it.