Yeah, agreed about this, and the money flow. I guess the question becomes does he entertain enough to earn the bucks he does? Maybe a question of unlocking his creative potential. Is he always entertaining his audience with cover tunes, or coming out with some greatest hits of his own, and jamming on the audience's live energy?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > I have no reason to challenge his sincerity. Making a buck doesn't always > mean a person is a shyster. But one definition of a guru that does hold up > is the the money flow is always one way. I think of him as an entertainer > and he is giving people something they value, so win win. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > "I Know You Don't Know You are Broke, > > That is Why The Universe Sent ME To Fix You." > > > > Ha-Ha! Funny, Curtis! Though Adyashanti doesn't strike me that way at all. > > He is there for folks who have legitimate questions, and answers them the > > best he can. The guy seems genuine enough for what he does. He is useless > > as a doctor for a healthy person, but so are all the other doctors. You are > > right that there are a lot of assumptions that have to be made to feel as > > if his teaching is helpful to us, but he doesn't seem like a shyster. I > > didn't get enough from his interview to listen to the whole thing. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. I already figured that despite your very kind > > > support for my post. I am giving Michael Shermer a chance to make his > > > point in The Believing Brain. He is an unabashed reductionist and I am > > > still making up my mind. But I know that I need to input his arguments > > > and the information about our neurology as a step in forming my own > > > opinion. I hope it will provide some good fodder for future discussions. > > > > > > There are two sets of issues. One is how can we approach our best > > > understanding of reality. And secondly, does it make any difference in > > > how we approach our lives. I do not believe that an understanding that > > > our brain activity IS our mind is going to change that much for how I > > > live. It is just an understanding of how our machinery of perception > > > works. And so far it have become clear to me that not accounting for the > > > specific way that our different brain parts communicate with one another > > > and the mechanics of our perceptual machinery, creates a hole you can > > > drive a bus through. With guys like Adyashanti at the wheel pointing our > > > all the high points of reality for us. "Ladies and gentlemen, if you > > > look out of the right side of the bus you may feel a tendency or desire > > > to collapse the contradictory nature of the non dual using the habitual > > > patterns of a life lived in duality, and if you just allow yourselves a > > > moment to connect inside again with that part of you that has always > > > known who you are inside beyond the activity of the mind and the > > > yearnings your individual hearts, into the reality that is behind that > > > activity, the being of all that is or could be imagined in this state of > > > our true natures unified with that same quality in everyone and > > > everything around us and it may give way to a feeling of coming home to > > > our center, to our true nature and once realized the infinite work can > > > begin as we find ourselves enjoying the growing levels of awakening and > > > the paradox that it has always been this way and that we have so much > > > more to grow beyond the infinite.... > > > > > > oops that's time....that does it for this session, please get your credit > > > cards out if you want to purchase any of my lecture series on your way > > > out, if you don't have any of them yet I can recommend "I Know You Don't > > > Know You are Broke, That is Why The Universe Sent ME To Fix You." > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardwillytexwilliams" > > > > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I am trying on another version of nondualism which > > > > > > > involves a bit of reductionism that labels the mind > > > > > > > body split as an illusion, an artifact of how our > > > > > > > brain operates... > > > > > > > > > > > > maskedzebra: > > > > > > Am I all alone in exclaiming how beautifully wise and > > > > > > sober and acute this analysis is? > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it hasn't been established that the world of the > > > > > senses is an "illusion" - that may be an assumption. > > > > > > > > > > If this world we experience is just a dream, an illusion, > > > > > then what is the constructed character of knowing? Are > > > > > we each dreaming the same dream - it would seem so, since > > > > > we all agree that a table is a table and a door is a door. > > > > > > > > > > There is a lot to be said about accepting the mind-body > > > > > duality as reality. It makes a lot more sense to accept > > > > > the duality rather than accept that events are an > > > > > illusion and therefore, not real. > > > > > > > > > > Who in their right mind would climb to the top of a red > > > > > ant hill on fire and shout "I don't exist - it's all > > > > > just an illusion!" > > > > > > > > > > Adyashanti: "Get rid of all of your illusions and what's > > > > > left is the truth. You don't find truth as much as you > > > > > stumble upon it when you have cast away your illusions." > > > > > > > > RESPONSE: I should have stipulated that my praise of Curtis's analysis > > > > of Adyashanti applies only to the videoand not to Curtis's recent > > > > assumption about "the mind body split as an illusion". I completely > > > > disagree with Curtis here; I am an orthodox dualist all the waythe > > > > physical and the metaphysical are not made of the same thing. But let > > > > me stop right here: I do think that the disposition in Curtis to go the > > > > reductionist neurological route is an appropriate and heuristic > > > > corrective to his submission to the Hindu mysticism he absorbed into > > > > his mind at MIU, and then in proselytizing on behalf of TM as > > > > chairperson of the TM Center in Washington. Of course he will deny that > > > > his present tendencies intellectually are in any way driven by his past > > > > association with the TM Movement (and its religious beliefs). But for > > > > me, his interest in, even his belief in, eliminative materialism (if he > > > > will accede to that description of his belief system) is the perhaps > > > > necessary antidote for clearing out all the mystical deceit lodged in > > > > his and bodyor just in his memoryfrom being a teacher of TM and a > > > > follower of Maharishi. I think he is doing all of us a favour by so > > > > scrupulously sticking to the scientific and naturalistic model of > > > > reality. It means HE CAN'T GET DECEIVED. So, even as I can't go there > > > > with him (and hold out for a much more complex and post-Catholic > > > > reading of the universe and the selfI think of myself as a Mysterian, > > > > with a difference), I nevertheless find his way of seeing reality the > > > > (as Wallace Stevens might say) "necessary angel" for seeing through > > > > someone like Adyashanti. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
