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/
