On Apr 9, 2006, at 3:40 PM, t3rinity wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 9, 2006, at 4:59 AM, t3rinity wrote: > > > > > From what I know, and what I have seen > > > in the Satsang movement, this is exactly what is being done > there: The > > > truth of non-duality is being pointed out and explained in > terms of > > > his own everyday experience, it is being discussed, and quite > often > > > people are guided towards self-inquiry ('who am I'.) > > > > > > Yes this is what is happening in some cases IMO. Pointing out.
> > It is ALWAYS happening. Its the core of the teaching: that anybodies > ultimate identity is Brahman, the Self whatever you like to say. > Should I give you quotes of the Ribhu Gita (highly recommended by > Ramana), or Avadhuta Gita? No thank you, I'm familiar with the traditional POV. > > > However at the same time after some are "introduced" they go on > > rather quickly to claim Buddhahood, Unity Consciousness (brahma- > > chetana), Cosmic Consciousness (turiyatita) or in the case of TMO > > people, they go on to claim what "Maharishi said". > > I don't know about that. In the Satsangs that I observered, nobody > stands there saying: 'I am enlightened and you are not' I indeed have > never heard of this. Well it's hard for me to comment not knowing what you're referring to--a traditional satsang or a neo-satsang. > You may here something like: 'Enlightenment is a > concept, get rid of it' or, ' you are already what you are seeking' > etc. All these claims can be perfectly substantiated by scriptures. I > am happy to cite, if you don't believe me. No that's fine, this is nothing new. > So, the point for me is > not, is there anybody invalidly claiming enlightenment, or even > different levels (equating them with completely different terminology > like CC or UC, something I have never heard in the Satsang scene), but > rather, does this format of interaction in modern Satsang conform to > something valid, as described in the ancient scriptures, and yes it > does. There are so many Shankaracharyas, giving discourses on Advaita, > and they make no secret that they aren't enlightened. So, really > speaking, and also I know this from my interactions with traditional > Swamis of the Dasanami order, the main stress has always been on the > correct teaching, the message of unity of Atman and Brahman (soul and > God), the message that we are not the localized ego, rather than on > the messanger. Also the scriptures of Shankara state this clearly. > They point out, that whoever tells the (advaitic) truth, he is the > teacher. > > > > In every case I am > > aware of, none of these people would fit the definition of those > > states or the experience. There's a strong element of grandiosity in > > it all. > > To you. I haven't oserved it. I had not before either. In traditional settings I have experienced it was certainly not the case. It's a growing thing here though. > To the opposite, the Satsang movement > plays down enlightenment as an 'attainment'. It rather makes it > accessable, just always referring you to the next step. (Like: who is > asking this question?) Yes, this a popular theme, among others. > > > It's interesting, I was reading some prophecies from the 8th century > > regarding when non-dual teaching would start coming to the cities of > > the west and they describe this very phenomenon and what will happen > > very precisely. One of the comments is 'if it were so easy to reach > > perfect Buddhahood, the ocean of samsara would already have been > > drained long ago.' > > Surely you must be kidding. When we talk of Advaita - Non-duality - we > are indeed referring to the school of Shankara. Buddhism is basically > dualistic in outlook, and Shankara never taught to attain 'Buddhahood' > Very funny how you mix things indeed. The non-dual schools of Buddhism and the non-dual schools of Hinduism share much in common. They share some differences as well. > > > > > "Masters of old lashed out at those who claimed to be > > enlightened yet refused to be tested, calling them > > "earthworms living in the slime of self-validated > > satori"." > > -Philip Kapleau Roshi > > > > How many were tested by their teachers? would be my > > question--but I already know the answer. > > I was investigating the Satsang movement in the context of its > historic origin, while you mix it with Zen Buddhism and Tibetan > Vajrayana. Now that is weird. The non-dual state is really not a brand name thing. Non-dual is non- dual. That is not meant to mean there are no differences, but the state is essentially the same. Different "schools" will emphasize different aspects. Although I will admit it was odd to me that satsangers were claiming buddhahood. Many point out that Shankara is actually a reaction to Buddhism's non- dualism. In fact it's a common critique of him, that he's essentially a Buddhist. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/