Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Another Teacher Like Cohen

by Daniel

There is another living guru just like Cohen. I recently left his fold and stumbled upon this website. You see after leaving my teacher I was strangely attracted to Cohen. Only to realize that Cohen is using the exact same tactics and circular logic of faulting everything to "EGO" as my own "crazy-wise" teacher.

If you haven't guessed already, my teacher was Adi Da. The men's and women's "consideration" groups, the endless "ego-war" and striving for perfection. The constant feeling of being an utter failure and never good enough for the guru. Ridiculously unfair criticisms from the guru. The questionable flow of many and huge donations made by people who can ill afford it. And on and on and on. It is all the same. The two men are incredibly similar in their method.

Andrew comes across at least in public as having all sorts of humility. Adi Da most certainly does not. But from what I read Andrew's humility is not sincere. Both men have had a falling out with their past teachers (although Adi Da still proclaims great love for Muktananda). Both men interestingly enough have zero support from their mothers. A devotee told me how occasionally Adi Da would have his (now deceased) mother visit the Ashram where she would be screaming at him "I don't care how many books you've written you are not God" to which he would just respond by laughing louder and louder at her. But a mother knows her son better than anyone else I think.

The power of belief in ones own "reality" is contagious and I sincerely think that both these men completely believe in their Divinity. So much so that it has convinced thousands around them of this same "reality". They are both great spiritual geniuses, of that I have no doubt. Adi Da also is a genius of meditation and transmission of spiritual energy. As I imagine is Andrew also. But I'm coming to realize you cannot equate intellectual and spiritual genius with the inability to ever become deluded.

Therefore I still have great love for Adi Da. Because he sincerely believes in his Mission and he struggles immensely in it. I am grateful for his teachings and all I have gained from being in his community. But I am very glad I did not become one of the "inner circle" or decide to completely drop my life outside of his Ashram (and it got very close to that-- I lived and served at his Ashram for a year). I am still fairly young (26) and will certainly continue on the Spiritual path, but with greater caution.

For all I know complete surrender to a Guru with double standards could still be beneficial. It isn't for me to say. "A fool who persists in his folly, becomes wise" a great poet once said. But myself I am a devotee of Happiness and I did not see that sufficiently in the longtime devotees of Adi Da or the master himself.. In Adi Da's own accounting, nobody had yet gained very much enlightenment at all after 32 years of his teaching! Peace of being and Happiness are for me the most important thing in life. And so I had to leave my guru because I did not find it there sufficiently. And also I could never trust Adi Da so completely as to surrender to Him completely and, in his dharma, anything less than complete (literally every second of the day and night) surrender of attention towards the guru was a barrier to God-realization. So if I cannot trust him completely (after 6 years) I cannot surrender completely and I am wasting my time. So I left.

I hope you will post this on your site for those who have left Andrew Cohen to see that there are others in similar situations with other teachers.

Daniel

43 Comments:

Blogger stillanego said...

Oh Danny-boy the conch the conch is calling. Im allowed to say that cos im Irish. If you can put Adi Da and Andrew Cohen in the same sentence then you are seriously ignorant. No offence intended. As you can guess i am a devotee of Adi Da. I have been for only 4 years but that is enough for me to know Who He is. Mens groups are about becoming a man. If you felt inadequate, well thats your own thing. The world is full of egos and Adidam is full of egos too. I am the epitome of an ego and a 'bad devotee' in that i do not do the daily form or the basic disciplines. I am a ragged asshole and i know it but i still love being me. I dont feel inferior. If devotees pull any righteous shit with me i tell em straight. I dont know anyone as funny as me, ok Adi Da is funnier but noone else. If you know the teaching then you know that the Guru is all offensive to narcissus. The world and a lot of the people in this site will congratulate you for firing another guru but that will not serve you one iota. It will delude you into thinking 'im ok', 'im back on the spiritual path and everything is groovey man'. Does this world of war and hunger look anything like a place where a groovey spiritual path exists? Horse shit. Dont make whimsical decisions about Adi Da. You are simply baulking at the call. Dont get me wrong here, im not being righteous or trying to save you or worried that you will go to hell or any crap like that, I am also doing it, all the time but I know Who Adi Da is and i know that my search is over. I keep on seeking all the while for pussy (no offence girls) and the delicious dinner i will eat when ive finished writing here and all the rest but the search for the True Guru is over. Check out Saniel Bonder when you get a chance if you want to taste real bullshit, 'Waking DOWN in MUTUALTY' oh my fucking god but where did he comeup with that one?
Another Adi Da plaguriser along with Ken Wilbur and the poor fool who is the topic of this site, At least Wilbur knows he is still an ego. Its a funny one, cos he also know's Who Adi Da is. Shit scared is what he is. Avoiding the enevitable confrontation with his Guru. "Philosophy is a stress based activity"- Adi Da
The purest Wisdom.
Listen my brother, everyone is trying to please Daddy (Adi Da) but that is not Who He is. Dont throw Adi Da away because you are pissed off with the community. I live in London, where do you live?
you can email me at brianflagman@yahoo.com if you want to tear strips off me,
ciao for now
love brian

Thursday, 27 October, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian/stillanego--
Haha!
But I'm wondering what you think Andrew Cohen plagiarized from Adi Da.
Do you have any specific examples in mind?

Thursday, 27 October, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Hi anonymous,
i went only once to an andrew cohen talk and i honestly tried to listen with an open mind, being aware of my own tendancy to criticize. I wrote down all the phrases that are distinctly Adi Da's and got to about 5 when my friend (not an Adi Da devotee) suggested we leave. He talked about the 'conscious process' and 'evolution at the level of Consciousness 'Itself'' which was the big give away. He does not understand even philosophically that 'consciousness Itself' does not evolve. The reason Adi Da terms it as 'Itself' is very specific. It is because He is not referring to mind in any form or to experiencial awareness of any kind. He is referring to That which is prior even to attention 'itself'-Consciousness 'Itself'.
Consciousness is the perfectly subjective. Perfect. Not evolving. I dont remember the other terms that were plagiarised but that was enough for me. The 'Conscious process' is specifically a term in Adi Da's Teaching. Do you know about that?
:)
B

Thursday, 27 October, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Hi Daniel, i just re-read your post and then i re-read my own response to it and realised that i didnt serve you myself much because i didnt bring the force needed. You will make a perfect devotee of Andrew Cohen because he spouts nothing but deluded psycho babble and has no real understanding at all. And you have zero understanding of you own Master's Teaching. Six years you were with Him and you failed to see that the reason nobody is becoming enlightened is because nobody is doing what is required. That's like a big fat person complaining that they are not losing weight while they stuff their faces with crap all the time. Did you do what Adi Da recommended for your Enlightenment? I doubt it reading what you wrote. You wrote "The men's and women's "consideration" groups, the endless "ego-war" and striving for perfection. The constant feeling of being an utter failure and never good enough for the guru. Ridiculously unfair criticisms from the guru". You obviously imagine that Sadhana is meant to be like a playground with mammy holding your hand all the way. And His criticisms have always hit the nail on the head with me. To quote our Master "Sadhana hurts".
'Andrew comes across as being humble in public' you said, jesus are you blind? He was lapping up the applause when i saw him and didnt seem to care for it to end. Imagine people clapping if Adi Da walked into a room. Its inconcieveable.
I am an angry fucker today and you need some serious father force boy. Have you any idea what you are doing? turning your back on the greatest thing that ever happened to you or this universe???
And Adi Da did not 'fallout with Muktananda'. I have seen Adi Da sing Muktananda's praises and talk for hours about how great a Master He was. "both men interestingly enough have zero support from their mothers"
BULLSHIT Daniel. Adi Da's mother related to Him devotionally near the end of her life.
"But myself, I am a devotee of Happiness"
Flowery newage nonsense. Did the Teaching completely bypass your brain?!? You are seeking. Thats all. And, as He Teaches, it is the very seeking that is the barrier to "That which is Always Already the Case"
That fool Saniel Bonder wrote the same thing, that nobody was realizing, least of all himself and put that down to Adi Da's failure. Wrong Sanny, your own seeking obviously never ceased, hence the lack of realisation. Pretty straight forward to me. Anyway Adi Da warned you that you wanted to be Guru and now you are, so enjoy it while it lasts.
You still have "great love" for Adi Da? If this is your love what would your hate be like? He is feeling your betrayal absolutely.
You want quick fix, instant over the weekend enlightenment and utopia which you will not find in this world of death and suffering. Have you watched the news recently? Where are you gonna live and avoid the terrible possibilities. The closest you have ever been to paradise was on that island, i would imagine.
The last thing i will say to you is in reference to your last couple of paragraphs,-
" Peace of being and Happiness are for me the most important thing in life. And so I had to leave my guru because I did not find it there sufficiently. And also I could never trust Adi Da so completely as to surrender to Him completely and, in his dharma, anything less than complete (literally every second of the day and night) surrender of attention towards the guru was a barrier to God-realization. So if I cannot trust him completely (after 6 years) I cannot surrender completely and I am wasting my time. So I left."
By your own confession you are still seeking Happiness and let me remind you- "You cannot seek Happiness and as a result of that seeking, find It"
You gotta get this most fundamental point in the teaching.
The practise of the turning of attention to the Guru will culminate in Perfect Divine Self Realisation but you can only do it as much as you can do it, so why become frustrated that you are not becoming enlightened? Its a process that takes great time possibly, not necessarily but possibly and from the age of 20 to 26 is not enough time. You are barely an adult. Remember the story of the little red hen? Adi Da told that story very recently,(if you can see it you should) and it basically describes everyone of us. We want the bread but we dont want to do the work. We want enlightenment but we want it without having to work for it. And if you buy that nonsense 'talking-school' crap from the likes of Sandal Bonkers and his flock of sheep of instant enlightenment then you are extremely deluded. Forget that search for enlightenment, its an illusion. Its no different from the desire for power or recognition.
Anyway, ive said what ive said and if it makes any difference to you then great, if not, ah well.
You are young and foolish and have your own process to go through. You have die your death, nobody else can do it for you. My advice to you is, dont waste your energy with one of the worst of activities-guru bashing.
Its most unproductive. Better off eating everything, getting pissed drunk and screwing anything that moves for the next ten years and get some life experience than to be in some righteous non-practising/non-indulging limbo.
The best of luck
love Narcissus

Tuesday, 01 November, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Stillandego,

Reading your last post one can understand how righteous anger towards a non-believer can bring about a suicide bomber or a killer-for-a-cause of any sort for that matter. Nazis being te pinnacle of that type of approach in human history my friend. It is not Daniel's fault that you cannot find love in your heart for where he is at even if you believe (wrongly in my mind) that he is as bad as you portray him.

You seemed to have proven precisely the opposite of what you intended to - that Cohen and Jones are the same kind of misled god-men thriving on naive people who offer themselves to be rabbits in their equally misled experiments. But what if Daniel has actually realised that and maybe you are still waiting to hit that full level of disappointment with your guru's false promises. Or maybe your anger is right and proper too, maybe Daniel is being weak here. But throughout it all he just comes across as a much nicer and more human fellow which an average Cohen/Jones devotee simply cannot bear. That sort of 'weakness and niceness' coupled with any type of serious criticism of one's former guru has to be punished. Brutally. And Daniel obviously deserves it, doesn't he my friend?

Wishing you all the best,

Walter

Thursday, 03 November, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IB,
I think Walter completely got the point of Narciss/stillanego's tirade. With both gurus and their followers (Cohen and Adi Da), how similar the response of disparagement, undermining, insulting, and blaming of any student who dares to doubt, criticize or (even worse) has enough guts to free themselves from their misguided grandiosity!
Both N's and IB's demonstrations of anger, disrespect and superiority toward anyone with a different view --doubtlessly fueled by their follower's mind's own secret doubts-- make a valuable contribution to this blog's examination of spiritual slavery (and how to get free of it.) Thank you.

Friday, 04 November, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

these postings are so full of angst bitterness and harshness

may we all find peace of mind

may we all find within the ability to communicate with open-heart, dignity and tenderness

x

Saturday, 05 November, 2005  
Anonymous Now Following Adi Da said...

Thank you everyone especially stillanego from saving me from sickly sweet new-age christian spirituality.

I have gone to be with my new heart master Adi Da

Saturday, 05 November, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh-oh. The fascisti spammers from the demented evil twin blog are back.

They're like rats or cockroaches, very hard to get rid of once their infestation starts.

Telling that Cohen's group would sink to the level of blog stalkers.

Maybe it's better to turn comments back off, only accept by email again?

Sunday, 06 November, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes the fascisti are back but are we really surprised?

Cohen has his publishing empire and his 200 acre ashram in lovely Western Massachusetts - and to take his PR at face value all is going splendidly - so why does his camp get so worked up that it cannot tolerate a wiff of discent?

Personally İ feel that the re-appearance of fascisti though not pleasant at least provides some vivid evidence that the main thrust of this blog ıs onto something.

Perhaps as an alternative to turning off the comments we who respect reason and resent aggressive mind fuckers should disect each fascisti 'contribution' to reveal how sick it really is.

Or alternatively you can send an email to Cohen telling him what you think of his fascıstıs: info@EnlightenNext.org

Sunday, 06 November, 2005  
Anonymous Rollin John said...

Actually I like the hirly-birly of it all.

But you communisti or worse than the inquisition!

Rock on
John

Monday, 07 November, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Hey everyone, my goodness i thought no-one loved me enough to even respond to my posts. I dont have one ounce of personal anger towards Daniel. Not an ounce. But i will say it again, 6 years without actually grasping the basic principals of Adi Da Samraj's Teaching, is not Adi Da's fault. I dont have much energy this evening but i like this blog now that you guys have gotten off your arses to repond. My email is 'brianflagman@yahoo.co.uk' not '.com'
WALTER, are you seriously suggesting that i should be compared to a Nazi for bringing some loving force to someone who i feel needs it. I found it extremely offensive how Daniel spoke about my Heart Master and Beloved friend Adi Da. I actually love Adi Da. So when i hear someone insult him, it makes me angry. Especially someone who has been with Him and felt His Unconditional Love.
INNOCENT hi i am not sure what you wrote, sorry. Can you rewrite that please, cheers :)
I report my own experience. I dont read tabloid newspares for the reason that they do not report for the sake of telling how it actually is, they report what will be sensational and shit stirring. So if you have studied Adi Da's Unique Teaching to be able to speak about It or you know Adi Da personnally then I will repond but i have no time for shallow people who get all hyped by the hype.
I admit i can be like a bull in a chinashop sometimes but i hope you can see Daniel that i am on your side. I actually do wish the best for you and i actually do believe that you have been extremely whimsical and rash in your decision to leave Adi Da.
love brian who is stillanego

Monday, 07 November, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian

How come you know so much about Saniel Bonder?

Anon

Monday, 07 November, 2005  
Anonymous The Cohen Head said...

Yuk. These cowardly Cohen minions who are posting their stupid harassments here are vile and obnoxious little critters, aren't they? I, as their fearlesss supreme and perfect leader, completely and utterly disavow them.
And I order each and everyone of you miserable miscreants to never darken my multi-million dollar compound's gate until you prostrate to my picture 1 Million times and give me all your money (don't hide a cent, now)!
P.S. I only accept cashier's checks.

Monday, 07 November, 2005  
Anonymous RandomStu said...

stillanego said:
> The practise of the turning of
> attention to the Guru will
> culminate in Perfect Divine Self
> Realisation [snip]

> Forget that search for
> enlightenment, its an illusion.
> Its no different from the desire
> for power or recognition.

There are 2 quotes from stillanego above. I can relate to the 2nd one. If you want something, if you think you can get something, then you have a problem, have suffering. Whether this thing that you want is power or status or pleasure or "enlightenment" doesn't change the fact that it's still a want. The 2nd quote is suggesting this, right?

The thing is, the first quote seems to say the exact opposite! Can anyone seriously suggest that wanting enlightenment is bullshit, but wanting "Perfect Divine Self
Realisation" is something else entirely?!

What difference does it make what words you play with? If, say, practicing meditation with a desire for enlightenment is a mistake, surely it can't be less of a mistake to attend to a guru while holding ideas of perfection, divinity, realisation, yada yada.

We wake up to the truth of the moment (what are you doing right now?), or we chase after one thing or another. There's a perspective from which it's not necessary to argue that I'm chasing something better than you are, since the chasing itself is the key point.

Monday, 07 November, 2005  
Anonymous JuJu said...

Tsk Tsk ..

Some really angry and ugly comments coming in from ignoramuses who actually cannot tell who is a Cohen supporter from a non-partisan.

Tuesday, 08 November, 2005  
Anonymous Caution Cult Members On The Track said...

It's really interesting to look at the comments on this blog and observe the strategy the Cohen cult members use to try to discredit, distract and divert the discussion here. It is a method used by those who are too frightened to engage in direct discourse.

Because their direct attacks of the past--such as Craig Hamilton's angry letters-- back-fired so badly, now they adopt silly pseudonyms (like rollin john, dobbins, juju, snipers anon, etc.) and make snide remarks that simultaneously mask yet further their undermining agenda. Or they attempt to gain attention for their equally deceptive and diversionary "counter-blog."

These are the acts of frightened cowards. I think the only reasonable response is to follow the advicePoonjaji, Cohen's guru--who Cohen rejected when he dared to criticize him--once gave Cohen:

"Ignore the barking dogs who will follow you to the village edge and then return to their holes."

Tuesday, 08 November, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel begins his post by saying that "There is another living guru just like Cohen." Daniel goes on to say that "The two men are incredibly similar in their method."

Daniel expresses love for and gratitude toward Adi Da. At no point in his post does he express animosity toward Adi Da.

Stillanego (Brian) responds by launching an ad hominem attack on Daniel. Stillanego writes, "Mens groups are about becoming a man. If you felt inadequate, well thats your own thing."

Daniel didn't say that he felt inadequate, and to make a blanket statement about men's groups being about becoming a man is to deny the social reality: many men's groups that take place in spiritual communities are about the same kind of oneupsmanship we see everywhere else in society.

Then Stillanego displays the very circular logic that Daniel accurately identified in the first paragraph of his post. Stillanego says, "If you know the teaching then you know that the Guru is all offensive to narcissus."

This is an argument, and it is a fallacious argument. The underlying idea of this argument as Stillanego employs it is: If you are offended by Adi Da, it's because you are narcissus.

We could put this same argument in these terms: If you are offended by X, where X is a spiritual teacher, you are a sinner.

To imply that someone is narcissus or egocentric is to shame them. I remember how my wife and I laughed one time when her mother said, "Shame on you" to her dog. My wife's mother is more Catholic than the Pope, and guilt and shame play a big role in her life. We had to laugh when we saw that she even tried to shame her dog. (She's not that bad; she does Father Thomas Keating's Centering Prayer, which is akin to mindfulness meditation, and she seems to have mellowed out since getting into that.)

So we see Stillanego first implying that Daniel feels inadequate, even though Daniel never suggested any such thing, and then we see Stillanego using circular reasoning to argue that Daniel's decision to walk away from Adi Da -- who Daniel walks away from without denying his love and gratitude -- indicates that Daniel is narcissus. In other words, Stillanego attempts to shame Daniel into reconsidering his decision to leave Adi Da.

Then Stillanego predicts what Daniel will think in the future. Stillanego says: "The world and a lot of the people in this site will congratulate you for firing another guru but that will not serve you one iota. It will delude you into thinking 'im ok', 'im back on the spiritual path and everything is groovey man'. Does this world of war and hunger look anything like a place where a groovey spiritual path exists? Horse shit. Dont make whimsical decisions about Adi Da. You are simply baulking at the call."

I didn't see anything in Daniel's post that would give me the impression that he has or is inclined toward adopting the attitude that "everything is groovy man." I saw the reflections of a young man who seems quite intelligent and reflective, and who neither denies nor despises his present limitations.

But Stillanego attempts to shame and guilt trip Daniel into believing that he is "baulking at the call," or is narcissus, contracting away from the "call" to awaken.

It is as if Stillanego wants to persuade Daniel to not trust himself. Daniel must have followed a call in order to become involved with Adi Da in the first place. Daniel is now following a call to leave Adi Da. Leaving Adi Da is not leaving "the path," because Adi Da is not "the path." Devotion to Adi Da may be "a path" for Stillanego, but unless Stillanego is a fundamentalist, he must acknowledged that what is right for him at this time in his life as far as a spiritual path is concerned is not right for everyone. Devotion to Adi Da is "a path" or "a way" for some, but it is not "the path" or "the way."

A sure sign that someone is relating to a teacher and teaching in a way that is blind and "cultic" is when they believe the teacher and teaching is "the path" or "the way." People who leave "the path" or "the way" are threatening to those who believe they have found "the way." Teachers who implicitly or explicitly encourage students to think of their teachings and them in terms of exclusivity and as "the path" or "the way" are toxic, and wisdom and intelligence lies in the direction of moving away from such teachers.

Stillanego says, "I know Who Adi Da is and i know that my search is over."

Who is Adi Da? An exclusive teacher who cannot be left? Is this like being saved by the Lord? "I know who the Lord is, and I know my search is over."

Stillanego tells Daniel, "Dont get me wrong here, im not being righteous or trying to save you..."

But that is exactly what is going on. Stillanego is puffed up with the self-righteousness that is commonly seen in those who believe they have found "the way." And his post is all about trying to save Daniel from himself. He is trying to save Daniel from becoming "deluded," and from thinking that he's "ok" and that everything is "groovey" (sic), and he is trying to save Daniel from throwing away Adi Da "because you are pissed at the community."

With that remark, Stillanego attempts to redefine Daniel's reasons for walking away from Adi Da. It's as if someone has decided to leave an abusive relationship, and the party being left or someone speaking on their behalf says, "Don't leave so-and-so because you can't handle being in a committed relationship." They are not leaving the relationshipo because they can't handle being in a committed relationship, they are leaving the relationship because it's an abusive relationship and they have come to see that with clarity.

Daniel didn't say he was pissed at the community. He said that he left the community because he didn't trust Adi Da, and he gave reasons why. But Stillanego thinks he knows Daniel better than Daniel knows himself. Perhaps this is because Stillanego knows "Who Adi Da is."

Then, an a post further down, Stillanego tells Daniel, "I am an angry fucker today and you need some serious father force boy."

Stillanego starts off telling Daniel that Daniel felt "inadequate," and then tells him that he needs "some serious father force."

And Stillanego thinks he is capable of delivering it.

Stillanego says to Daniel, "Have you any idea what you are doing? turning your back on the greatest thing that ever happened to you or this universe???"

This is the same Stillanego who said, "Dont get me wrong here, im not being righteous or trying to save you..."

Tuesday, 08 November, 2005  
Blogger the Editors said...

This last post by "anonymous" does a really great job parsing stillanego's presumptions. Again, this is so interesting, because the presumptions and strategies used by stillanego to undermine anyone who would dare to voice any criticism of their guru, or leave the group, seem universal. This really seems to be something impersonal in operation here. Everyone familiar with Cohen's group and who left that group will recognize the same voice (although the vocabulary may be different) that they heard raised against them, and will appreciate the analysis in the previous post.

Tuesday, 08 November, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Hi Anon (why not choose a name that way it is easier to respond to you directly, there are so many anons here). There is no doubting the fact that an object can be described in as many ways as there are points of view. I say this because from my point of view right now it is obvious to me that you saw nothing but a cultic enthusiast trying to use all sorts of wierd cult psychology to influence Daniel probably seeing me hunched over the keyboard with a twisted grinning face like a witch loving my power over an innocent like Daniel. Well i am not that. Do you have anything that you want to say to Daniel? I dont think i would be able to dissect your post in as detailed a fashion as you did my post so i wont try.
But one thing is obvious and that is that nothing i could have said would have been acceptable to you. I did acknowledge the process that Daniel is in which might include leaving Adi Da but can you not see that his hearing what i have to say would also be a part of that process. If you found out that Daniel was grateful to me for saying what i did and that he realised he was making a bad decision, what would you say? Would you suggest that Daniel was deluded now? I think that as far as you are concerned the best thing anyone can do is run from their Guru (because all Gurus are false) and then spend their time on blogs like this one having people pat their backs and say 'i understand',
'you are a victim like everyone else here, so you are welcome'. Do you think all Gurus are false?
Yes i will say it again, I know Who ADI DA is. He actually IS (impossible as it sounds to you) The Divine Incarnate.
Recognition of Adi Da is a heart matter. I cannot convince anyone of Who He is. I would humbly suggest that you consider His Teaching argument with an open heart and mind and after doing that write to me again.
Well the sun is shining brightly here in Ole London town and i intend to go out for a walk in park. I am not feeling anger towards anyone today and i wish peace to everyone reading this blog. Where are you anyway Daniel? Say hello. Thank you anon. You werent completely wrong about me. I can be Mr Righteous at times. But, "One day at a time, sweet Jesus, thats all im asking from you? Know that song?
Later all. :)

Monday, 14 November, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Dearest anonymous,
you seem to have all the answers but you dont really say anything. You dissect everything and explain in great detail how poor Daniel is the victim and i am the aggressor.
Have you any advice for Daniel, your protectee. You dont give one damn about Daniel or his spiritual well being. All you care about is having many others like you who are part of your cult.
Can you not find a worthwhile cause? Are you just defending Daniel for the sake of an argument? Did you actually read all of the post? Maybe what i said to Daniel is all true and exactly what he needs to hear. I will say it again, i have no hate or ill-will toward Daniel or even Andrew Cohen for that matter. I happened upon this site and the first thing i see is a letter that is actually about Adi Da so i reponded as i saw fit. Do you know anything about Adi Da or His Teaching? If you did you would know that 'narcissus' is His term for egoity or the ego-i. He Teaches that the ego-i is an activity, not an entity. Reality, Truth, Happiness or Real God is Always Already the case. But we are seeking. Our seeking is motivated by the self-contraction which is the activity of egoity and is experienced as the sense of being separate and the entire spectrum of suffering from the subtle tension in the solar plexus right through to abject terror. When we understand perfectly that we are doing this act and thereby transcend this activity we will Understand that there is nothing to seek for. That there is only God and no dilemma. In other words we will be Enlightened or Divinely Self Realised. So i am not name calling when i say to Daniel he is 'narcissus'. I am reminding him of the Teaching which is considered a service to others.
I dont know too much about Andrew Cohen other than having been to a seminar of his and i have a friend who was with him and she went through a 'nervous breakdown' and recieved no help and was abandoned by the community. I also know that he publicly criticized Adi Da and when he was challenged by a tearful person in the audience (a devotee of Adi Da's who was becoming very upset by Cohen's remarks) if he had met Adi Da or knew Him at all, Cohen had to say 'no'. Not a Master in other words.
Thats how much i know Andrew Cohen.
So when Daniel says they are very similar how can i sing dumb? It is the most ridiculous statement ever.
Where are you Daniel? Have you anything to say for yourself?

Tuesday, 15 November, 2005  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Stillanego wrote:
> Yes i will say it again, I know
> Who ADI DA is. He actually IS
> (impossible as it sounds to you)
> The Divine Incarnate.

Please note that ANYONE could make that claim. Or you could make that claim on behalf of anyone, without exception. "The Pope is The Divine Incarnate." "Mick Jagger is The Divine Incarnate." "George Bush is The Divine Incarnate."

So... since making that statement about someone so clearly means nothing at all, I wonder why you take the trouble to make it.

(Note that if I say, for instance, "Repeating a mantra can help quiet your thinking and give peaceful feelings," that's a different kind of statement. Not because it's right or wrong, but it's something practical, something you could try for yourself, something you could actually DO and then determine if the effect is or isn't there. I say this just as an example, to contrast with a statement like, "Adi Da is The Divine Incarnate," which has no connection to anything practical.)

> Recognition of Adi Da is a heart
> matter. I cannot convince anyone
> of Who He is.

No argument that life is filled with things that are beyond words, beginning with the great question "What am I?" If something is beyond words, then you keep your mouth shut. Isn't that most obvious? So if you say you can't convince anyone, why open your mouth at all?

Tuesday, 15 November, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Stuart, OF COURSE anyone could make that claim about anybody. I am not making a claim about Adi Da. This is His own confession and after years experiencing Him and recognising that His Teaching is absolutely all inclusive and unique, i affirm that His confession is Real. As far as I know the pope didnt claim that and neither did Mick Jagger or Bush.
You might be aware that in all the great religions and even in some of the smaller ones there is a prophecy of a final Incarnation!? The Messiah for the Jews, The Second Coming for the Christian, Maitreya Buddha, in the Hindu tradition the Kalki Avatar, the Soashyant in Zoroastrianism, so if you can put aside your presumptions and all your preconcieved ideas and using your discriminative intelligence, study, find out about and get to know Adi Da Samraj and His unique Teaching, i am pretty sure it will be obvious to you too that Adi Da is that very One. Just as obvious as it is that George W Bush is not the Living One Who exists as all beings and things. There has been Buddha and Christ and Krishna in the past when things were relatively shite, why is it inconcieveable that the Divine should incarnate now when things are totally and utterly shite in world social terms? I would not suggest that you believe what you hear from me or any other, not even Adi Da. If you did believe merely based on what someone told you then you are no different to someone who believes that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman. In other words unfounded, irrational, foolish, sheeplike. That is not to mock people who do believe the Adam and Eve story, just to challenge them a little :)
So Sturat, it is not useless that i tell you about Adi Da. Ken Wilbur said that no-one can afford to not be at least a student of the written word of Adi Da and i agree absolutely. You may not become His devotee in this life but you can be greatly freed from the inherited philosophical nonsense that has most 'seekers' deluded so in these times when everyone is an authority on what Enlightenment is just from reading a book or 2.
Asking the question 'What am I?' might be useful for something, i dont know what exactly because Realisation is not simply a philosophical matter. If it was then you would only have to sit in your room and keep asking yourself 'what am i?' for your whole life and whoosh, Enlightened. All the habits and fear, sorrow, anger, boredom, doubt and discomfort are not there simply because you havent been asking yourself what you are for long enough. They are an automaticity. A powerful force accumulating for aeons of lifetimes. That is why discipline, counter egoic practise is absolutely necessary. I can say from direct experience that one week of disciplining tendencies is worth 15 years of philosophising and asking 'great questions'. Asking those questions doesnt put you up against the reality of our life as a self deluded and self centered ego. Try not looking at a woman as a sexual object for just one day as an example. Think you can do it? And if you cant do it, a good question to ask then might be, 'what am i doing and why?'.
I tried it once as an experiment and my god was it difficult. I dont think i even got throught the whole day without checking out at least one arse and maybe a few pairs of tits. On that note its time for bacon and eggs. The diet for very spiritual people like myself yumyum. Later lads and lassies

Wednesday, 16 November, 2005  
Anonymous Stuart said...

> You might be aware that in all
> the great religions and even in
> some of the smaller ones there
> is a prophecy of a final
> Incarnation!?

If people want to follow this religion or that, believing in other people's words, that's OK. I prefer believing in my own experience, rather than the words of some long-dead prophet. And I think it's useful for everyone to at least be aware of the OPTION of staying with direct experience, rather than believing in a prophet or religion.

> why is it inconcieveable that
> the Divine should incarnate now
> when things are totally and
> utterly shite in world social
> terms?

Embedded in this question is the assumption of a difference between "Divine" and "not Divine." Like, "Adi Da is Divine, but George Bush and Mick Jagger aren't." With one's thinking, one can create this duality, as well as countless others. But why do that?

> If it was then you would only
> have to sit in your room and
> keep asking yourself 'what am
> i?' for your whole life and
> whoosh, Enlightened.

Likewise, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that "Enlightened" vs "Unenlightened" is a duality made by thinking. I'm not saying it's bad to create this or that duality, but why not be aware that you're doing it, and question why?

> All the habits and fear, sorrow,
> anger, boredom, doubt and
> discomfort are not there simply
> because you havent been asking
> yourself what you are for long
> enough. They are an
> automaticity.

As a speaker of English, I'm not familiar with jargon like "automaticity." I'll just mention that to be bored sometimes and excited sometimes is no problem, to be sorrowful sometimes and happy sometimes is no problem, etc etc.

> I can say from direct experience
> that one week of disciplining
> tendencies is worth 15 years of
> philosophising and asking 'great
> questions'.

I'll agree that actually practicing a discipline is a different realm from merely thinking about something. My start-off point for my prior posting was seeing that "Adi Da is the Divine Incarnate" ISN'T a discipline; it's nothing but an idea.

But when you say "... is worth 15 years ...", how is that measured? "Worth" in what sense? For instance, if you have the clearly defined goal of getting rich, you could say that this job is worth 15 times as much as that job (with respect to moving towards the goal of being rich).

But life isn't like that. We're not born with a goal. We're born with a blank slate, and we make our own goals for ourselves.

So whenever we think of what something is "worth," there's always an assumed idea about what we need to "get" in life. Very often, these ideas are unexamined, don't see the light of day.

For this reason, I like to look into these things: what's the direction of my life? why do I live? what am I trying to get? why?

My thought is that if we don't clarify life direction like this, we can get bamboozled. That is, we can read a book or hear a teacher that tells us our goal should be to get "enlightenment" (or WHATEVER), and we end up following someone elses direction, without looking into the matter for ourselves.

Wednesday, 16 November, 2005  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I forgot to add to my prior posting...

> Asking the question 'What am I?'
> might be useful for something, i
> dont know what exactly
> [snip]
> Asking those questions doesnt
> put you up against the reality
> of our life as a self deluded
> and self centered ego.

You speak here of "self" and "ego" as problems (and as "reality"). Maybe, could be. But if one is going to spend time and life-energy on dealing with the problem of ego, isn't it a good starting point to look into what this "self" or "ego" is?

For instance, if your goal is to kill the boogie-man, you SHOULDN'T start out by wondering which weapon to use. The first step is getting clear on what the boogie-man is. Because: who knows, you might see that the boogie-man has no reality, that he's just a creation of thinking, and that the whole concept of killing him is unnecessary.

Confronting the "self-deluded ego" is a similar matter, and that's the value in taking up the question "What am I?"

Wednesday, 16 November, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Stuart, hi, lets not be two people having an angry exchange just for once. You are probably right about the non-existence of 'the ego' but its kinda like the concept of god, ultimately incomprehensible and definately indefineable. The world is now full of this type of thinking which you are exhibiting right now. Ideas about ego being an illusion of the mind. How about taking it a little further, the ego IS the mind. And duality IS the mind. This particular subject is of great importance. Any person can read a book or hear a philosophy and really agree with its principals and become very familiar with it. Then what seems to happen as in your case, the mind regurgitates this philosophy and manages to delude the person into believing they have ACTUALLY REALISED the state from which this discription of the world came. For instance Adi Da's Realisation is that 'THERE IS ONLY GOD'.
Now me or you could repeat that and talk about it and even have a grasp of what that means but that does not change our ACTUAL state one iota. We have just parroted a statement. Just like your statement that 'ones thinking can create duality'. Stuart, your very state right now is duality. You call yourself Stuart right!?! So there is automatically Stuart and all the rest that is not Stuart-duality. These Teachings about non-duality are confessions from Realizers of that state of mindlessness. Great great discipline in relationship with Great spiritual Masters preceded these statements. Are you beginning to understand what i mean? Saying it is not Being it. Its just hot air vibrating on vocal chords. But people are jealous of gurus just as people are jealous of rich people. They dont like the fact that the Guru 'has' this Realisation and they dont. They see that they can get away with just being able to parrot unlike with money, you either live in the big mansion and drive the big Rolls or you dont. So in effect we, me and you, and most others too are yet only hopeful about one day Realising such a confession about non-duality. And therefore from our point of view, yes Adi Da IS Divine and George W Bush IS NOT. From Adi Da's 'point of view' there is only the Divine.
And another thing, smart arse, the English language is not finished in its evolution, not defined. I think you are intelligent enough to grasp the meaning of the new word 'automaticity'. It's fairly straight forward. People do it everyday. Where did the word jargon come from? Do you think it was always there? Do you know or are you just being a smart arse?
That type of sarcasm begets more sarcasm and then a perfectly good conversation gets ruined so dont do that anymore, (like a good little boy) :) Just kidding.
Going to a gig tonight. Gotta spruce myself up for the ladies.
'Relax, nothing is under control'
-Adi Da.

Monday, 21 November, 2005  
Anonymous Thomas said...

Ahh the old guru trick. Some quotes from the Seth Material:

It is trickery. It is the old guru trick and it works this way. Whenever you transfer to another those abilities and powers that are your own and he accepts them and says I have them and I will teach you to use them, you are both in trouble. He does not know who he is and you do not know who you are.
...
You can learn to enjoy, understand and accept your creature-hood. You can stop fighting your creature-hood. You can be and realize that your own state of being has its own meaning and that meaning will become yours in conscious terms when you realize that it is yours. You can do this by realizing there is nothing wrong with you. No great battle that need be fought, no great adversaries, either emotional inside or outside. Nothing that you must do to be better, but realize that in certain terms you are all gods couched in flesh, therefore the answers are to be found within your experience as creatures.You are gods couched in flesh experiencing creature-hood, encountering experience through flesh and through accepting and knowing that joyfully you find the divinity that you think you have lost because you look for that divinity in all the wrong places. It does not exist in places in those terms. You look for it in exotic terms outside somewhere else, whether it is in another city or another country or in another dimension of reality still better. But it is within you now.
...
Value your ego. Do not, all of you, be so willing to thrust it aside. It is a good and valuable friend. And forget the term! The ego is a portion of your inner self. It is you! It is simply the portion of you that surfaces at any given time, in your terms. The portion of which you, in your terms, are conscious. Other portions of the inner self surface at other times, and you call them the ego.The ego is a portion of your self—of the inner self. It is only because you have been taught that the ego is rigid that you have a rigid ego. It is only because you have been taught that the self that you know cannot look inward that you find it so difficult to study your own beliefs and to look inward.It is only because you believe that the truth cannot be public that you make secrets. It is only because you believe that the ego is a dirty word that it becomes one.The squirrel would be quite happy with your ego for a day, and quite pleased. He would say, "Oh, wow, and be glad not to chatter. And, he would listen to the squirrel and think, "my, what a blessed animal this is without an ego."The ego is as natural as a flower blossom or a squirrel, or a Rich, or a lady with purple hair upon a mountain side, or a secret that will not be told, and so outrages us even though secrets do not exist. And, as I have told you often and as you surely have heard, and as you know, the universe is good natured. And it smiles at you if you give it half a chance. And the vitality that you sense here tonight is your own. For you all have access to as much energy.In all these boots, are all these toes. And each toe automatically and beautifully uses its energy well. And, moreover, it is quite happy, each toe, and each atom and molecule within it. To be united with another kind of being, and, in certain terms, to be a part of an orgasm that can look out and walk upon the earth, your toes look out of your eyes— you simply do not know it.And now, I bid you all a fond good evening, and, I hope, a merry one.
...
The more you try to lose the ego, the more, of course, you find it!

Anyone enlightened? ;-)

Tuesday, 29 November, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

would that be 'Doubting Thomas' by any chance? :)

Tuesday, 29 November, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Thomas, hi, I would like to respond to a few things that you said here. You start by doing something that always surprises and disheartens me, guru-bashing. As far as i am concerned the great Gurus of history are the most sacred and most valuable of all humanity. Whether you know it or not just gave a discourse. You gave a teaching. The teaching that you believe people should hear in order for them to grow and understand life better. In other words you acted like a teacher or guru. Would you advise people to not listen to a word that you yourself say? Would you advise people to not trust you? Or to not listen to their hearts when it comes to an encounter with another human being. Are you intending to decieve people when you give your teaching? I dont think you are. And i dont think that true Gurus are intending to do that either. Buddha was a Guru. Jesus was a Guru. Muhammed was a Guru. Krishna was a Guru. The body of philosophy and spiritual wisdom that we have inherited came from men and women who had realised a higher knowledge through whatever experiences they may have had. Would you say that all the realisers/gurus of the past were dishonest and loveless. I would not. I would even say that if it werent for their sacrifice we would be in an even darker place.
One other thing you misunderstand is this term 'ego'. The 'ego' is an activity not an entity. It is not that their is any 'your ego' about it. The ego is all the pain and suffering and confusion that we feel and experience. The ego is not a moral issue. I am not with Adi Da because i think i am a bad boy and inferior to others or Him. I am with Adi Da because i have realised that I am suffering profoundly and so is everyone else, even the rich and famous and I know that the relationship to Him is Liberating by it's very nature. And it is also not a matter of being saved either. I have come to understand by the grace of my Guru Adi Da Samraj that this activity which is the cause of all my suffering is something i am doing. All the time. He is not judging me. He cares about nothing other than my freedom from the cramp of this activity that i am unconsciously involved in.
I am not intending to be disrespectful to you but your discription of the universe as being 'good natured' is bordering on delusional. What universe are you living in? I am living in the one where happy families can be holidaying on a beach and in the blink of an eye their worlds are destroyed by a beautiful wave. The same universe where a group of people will take a sharp butchers knife and publicly and slowly cut a mans head off while he screams and begs in absolute fear for his life. The list of such things is very very long. Is it possible that you have missed these things? I dont think it is. This universe and the flesh body we live in have one plan for you and me and us and that is death without warning. You may have religious beliefs that ease the anxiety about that fact but that is what they are 'beliefs' only. The Spiritual Masters are recommending a different life to the life of the typical search for bodily fulfillment and utopia and that is the religious life. The life of Understanding ourselves and the terrible nature of this world but resorting to the Divine Consciousness which is our own true identity and which is untouched by and prior to this world. I would recommend the book 'The ego-I is the illusion of relatedness' by Adi Da.
Lots of love
brian

Wednesday, 30 November, 2005  
Anonymous Stuart said...

stillanego wrote:
> You start by doing something
> that always surprises and
> disheartens me, guru-bashing. As
> far as i am concerned the great
> Gurus of history are the most
> sacred and most valuable of all
> humanity.

Every day you must encounter hundreds of different people. In the course of ordinary life, you interact with family, with friends, with people you do business with or do entertainment with, or strangers you encounter by chance.

One way you COULD treat these relationships would be to consider them as 100% important as they occur. You could devote your energy & attention to the person in front of you this moment, & then when that's over, move on to whoever appears in the next moment.

But this isn't possible if you're holding ideas that there are "great gurus of history" who are more "sacred" and "valuable" than the people you actually encounter moment to moment. You're in effect bashing EVERYONE (except for those handful of beings you've decided to make sacred and valuable).

Disheartening!

Monday, 05 December, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Stuart, I am not bashing everyone except those i honour. If you love someone, does that mean you hate everyone else??? Thats what you are saying and it is nonsense. Have you seen that animated film The Incredibles? There is a seen in it where the boy wants to use his powers of high-speed running but his mom wont let him. He reckons that his powers are a special gift and his mother says to him, "everyone is special" and he says to her "thats just a way of saying that no-one is special".
This is what you are saying Stuart.
You sound like you would get along very well with Thomas who thinks that the universe is 'good natured'. Yes, the obligation to love everyone is there but to imagine that all people are equally spiritually evolved or enlightened is totally idealistic and naive.
I dont mean to be too harsh but ive seen this game before. You want to appear as if you love everyone but you do not. You are full of shit. Am i close to something here or just ranting and tirading again. Full of new-age pseudo-christian nonsense. But thats ok right if i think you are an asshole? Because you want to encounter that in everyday life and you are not feeling anger toward me now because you are considering this criticism of your crap as 100% important. Can we get a little real in this fucking world soon please.
Lots of love and flowers and happiness and sunshine to everybody (including Saddam's group of torturers)
Everything is wonderful.
Yea like fuck.
:)

Wednesday, 07 December, 2005  
Anonymous Stuart said...

stillanego wrote:
> Stuart, I am not bashing
> everyone except those i honour.
> If you love someone, does that
> mean you hate everyone else???

Yeah, it's kind of like that. If you say that Texas has hot weather, you're saying that other places are less hot. When you say that gurus are sacred and valuable, you're saying that the rest of humanity, the people you're actually with, are less sacred and less valuable.

> his mother says to
> him, "everyone is special" and
> he says to her "thats just a way
> of saying that no-one is
> special".

Right, no one is special. So why not relate to the people right in front of you, rather than some guru who is long dead, or miles away, or exists only in your thinking?

> but to imagine that all people
> are equally spiritually evolved
> or enlightened is totally
> idealistic and naive.

You're the one who's making ideas about "spiritual evolution" and "enlightenment," so for YOU there's the issue of people being equal or unequal this way. Since you're the one imagining "spiritual evolution," that's for you to deal with, not me.

> You are full of shit. Am i
> close to something here or just
> ranting and tirading again.

You're just ranting and tirading again. On the one hand, you hold ideas about sacred and valuable gurus; then on the other hand, you're nasty to everyone else. It's a perfect example: you honor these special gurus, then you dishonor others with a "you're full of shit" attitude.

> Everything is wonderful.
> Yea like fuck.

It's possible, at least for a moment, to put down your personal opinions (this is wonderful, that's fucked-up), and see things with a clarity that you otherwise miss.

Thursday, 08 December, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Idealistic, philosophical, new-age buddhist nonsense. If everyone is equal what is your big problem with gurus? What you are actually saying when you say that we are all equal and its a very subtle thing is that "no body is greater than me". 'I am equal to all the great Masters' is what you are saying and that is the common view. In other words there is no great wisdom in it. One of the aspects of greatest wisdom is the fact that it is owned by so few. It is not everyday common knowledge. The masses of humanity are wisdom-less as the state of the world proves beyond any doubt. Ask 1000 people from lots of different cultures if they understand that the True Spiritual Master is sacred and 999 will laugh at you and ask you what a spiritual master is. They will say that no man should submit to any other. They will say that they are as great as any guru and they will have no respect for what the Real Gurus represent and are. And even the idea of prostrating in front of a mortal man is repulsive to them as it probably is to you. They will have a very similar opinion to yours. In other words the common opinion of the wisdomless masses. If you will study the traditions you will see that the Guru-devotee relationship is sacred. "None shall get to the father except through me"- Jesus (supposedly),
Read the Autobiography of a Yogi, to begin with. That is the definition of esoteric. Secret. Hidden from the masses. Not deliberately but simply because the masses are not ready or able to understand. A person cannot be argued into loving a Guru no more than they can be argued into loving any other person. It is a matter of Grace. You sound like the kind of person who would not have much time for the term grace. Am i right?
By the way i am not trying to dishonor you by saying you are full of shit. Its just my way of saying that i think what you are saying is a load of old bollocks, thats all. Be honest can you imagine bowing or prostrating in front of a Guru? And if the answer is no then tell us why.

Sunday, 11 December, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Thomas are you there? And Daniel too. Where is Daniel? He/you started all of this. I think it is time for you so say hi. Does anyone agree with me? Can i get a show of hands for Daniel's return. If enough of us ask him he might feel the love and have a word or two.
'Christmas is coming and the goose is gettin fat
please put a penny in the old man's hat
if you havent got a penny then a ha'penny will do and if you havent got a ha'penny
well god bless you'

Friday, 16 December, 2005  
Anonymous Iconosostacles. said...

1. I assume that many people interested in, or connected to, Andrew Cohen are familiar with the colour-coded value Memes of Clare Grave's Spiral Dynamics. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about the expression of different vMemes (a) in Andrew's behaviour (b) in the opinions posted on this blog?

2. I recall that Adi Da was asked something like: "Are all enlightened people Gurus?" And his answer: "No. Guru isn't some kind of status. It's a special function that awakens in certain individuals." One of the untapped extensions of this idea is that one needn't necessarily be Enlightened to be a Guru. For some people the guru-function might never activate even if they reach vastly trans-human heights of conscous perfection. Some fisherman of the coast of Borneo who transmit dharma in his very being but just gets grumpy or coy when anyone asks about that "shiny thing" in his soul. For others, a guru-function might activate with no profound realization at all. And for still others, the group Andrew appears to fall into, the guru-function activates very readily in response to the first stable access into the consciousness of Pure Being.

This function has certain characteristics, particulary in association with mystics. The ability to evoke temporary illuminations in others. An endlessly creative exposition of dharma which piggy-backs the specific character traits of the Realizer. Proneness to seemingly irrational behaviour, demands for surrender and devotional resonance, and a natural tendency toward absolutism. All three things are ordinary and expected in someone whose 'unit' is a mouthpiece for higher-natural powers such as Consciousness, Evolution, Being, Inhuman Love, etc. Of necessity this person is delighted only when he or she acts unthinkingly in conformity with the urgent voice of the guru-function or when he or she observes malleable response to this energy from other people, the world, etc.

I think a lot of people might be available to a higher clarity if they could make great leaps of distinction. Illumination IS NOT the guru-function IS NOT deeply compassionate human-maturity and complexity. Often these things are in conjunction. We hope for the greatest possible conjunctions -- but there is no necessary connexion.

Illumination is best hinted at by what the Master did before his/her illumination. The guru-function is a unique and powerful factor in the evolutionary becoming of the universe. And both can function whether the Master is a saint or a despot. Every has these conflicting tendencies, but when we get into the historically rare situation of critiquing spiritual teachers (as this blog evironment is devoted to) we should strive for increasing precision and accuracy.

Can we, for example, try to assess the Master's personal strengths and weaknesses without confusing them for the ceaseless urging of the guru-function? And can we keep our assessments of a wo'man's illumination apart from both of these? Very difficult but perhaps necessary... especially for people still trying to "digest" their experience in a spiritual community with a charismatic leader.

3. It is wonderful to have places for people to energetically express their insights. One of the difficulties this raises, however, is that fervert, almost "fun" haze of self-assertion that comes upon us when we try to describe our emotional experiences with other people -- AND doubly when we spot structural flaws in their responses to our confessions.

My own eyes catches continually upon a certain... weirdness. People expressing themselves both for and against Andrew have this bizarre tendency to dumb down the alternative position. Usually someone wants to reveal what another person "is really saying." Are their words a mere mask for their zealous obedience to a brain-washing cult leader? Are their sentences mere subterfuge for narcissitic, reality-reinterpreting ego-indulgence which lashes out at the wise and well-intentioned? These come in at the same level of discussion. How is it that we discover what someone else is "really" saying? It makes them simpler. Easier targets. More justifiable reactions.

4. After all - is a spiritual teacher responsible for the life and energy dynamics of their community? We'd like to think so. We have to have human accountability, don't we? Or...?

Not sure if this fits your blog or not,

but thank you either way.

Iconosostacles.

Friday, 16 December, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Hi there Iconoclostaciacitis, what is your name about? forgive my sarcasm i have had a couple of Xmas drinks. But in all seriousnes though, what the blazes did you just say? I didnt follow one whole point through. it bamboozled me. imn not trying to be funny. Really i didnt get what you were saying at all. so i cant say that i agree or disagree.
Id like to make a comment about the entire affair of guru devotion. In this world where you are extremely, extremely lucky to exist from birth until death without experiencing a terrible disease or injury or loss why are people so scared of gurus? what is the worst that could happen? Some fake takes some of your money or he dupes you into having sex with him or her or you become disillusioned about your beliefs or something like that. so what!!
Big deal!! The fact that you find yourself in a position that allows you to make decisions about following a guru or not means you are luckier or more fortunate than most others. big deal if you get bitten a few times. It's all part of the journey. With a little Grace you will find the Real Spiritual Master soon. If you feel you got screwed by Andrew Cohen then shut up and leave him behind. If you feel similarly about Adi Da or any other guru then, same again shut up and continue on your journey, which might actually bring you back to the people you have met before and thought you were finished with. The universe is infinitely large and the possibilities are equally many so i have a funny feeling the spiritual process will also be that size and complexity. you have to dive in to know how deep the water is. It might be shallow and you will bang your head but it might be deeper than you can imagine.
So Iconoclasticitis, what are you saying again???
:)

Monday, 19 December, 2005  
Anonymous Stuart said...

stillanego wrote:
> If everyone is equal what is
> your big problem with gurus?
> What you are actually saying
> when you say that we are all
> equal and its a very subtle
> thing is that "no body is
> greater than me".

One interesting thing is how you hallucinate that I said "We are all equal." Since I never said that, it's curious how you imagined this idea, then projected it out onto me (so you wouldn't have to take responisibility for it).

YOU are the one who likes to compare people to each other. Since you're hooked on making comparisons, then for YOU there's this problem: are people equal or unequal? It's not my problem, you're the one who's making it.

You say that people are unequal, and I say that's bullshit. You hallucinate that I'm saying people are equal, since in the world you've created, people must either be equal or unequal. But what I'm really saying, the thing that you're missing completely, is why are you so interested in comparing people? Each moment, you encouter particular people or things. Why not just respond to the reality of what's in front of you? What do you gain by comparing real people to the imaginings of your mind? (Specifically, in your case, comparing real people to some imagined holy guru.)

Please remember that this whole conversation started because you wrote:

> As
> far as i am concerned the great
> Gurus of history are the most
> sacred and most valuable of all
> humanity.

From the get-go, I'm asking why you make this "great Gurus" more sacred and more valuable than the ordinary everyday people you meet? After all, the only thing that identifies a "great Guru" is that you've imagined them so in your mind, and YOU decided to compare them to the rest of humanity in your post. Why do you do that? What's there to gain?

You also hallucinate that I have a problem with "gurus." I don't make "gurus," so there's no problem there. I don't have a problem with how you make "gurus" either. I'm just noting that it's something you make with your thinking, then pretend it's not your responsibility.

People who like to make comparisons, in order to glorify these "special" gurus, so often end up treating other "ordinary" people like shit. I'm sure that you notice yourself doing this in your own life. It's not a problem, I'm just pointing out a perspective that you don't seem to be seeing.

http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm

Tuesday, 20 December, 2005  
Anonymous Stuart said...

stillanego wrote:
> One of the aspects of greatest
> wisdom is the fact that it is
> owned by so few. It is not
> everyday common knowledge.

I can see why you'd WANT to believe this. If there's really this "greatest wisdom" that's owned by so few, and clearly you believe that you have some access to this ultra-special wisdom, then that makes you damn special.

But WANTING it to be that way isn't much of an argument. It's exactly the same as if I said that I've seen the "greatest movie," and I'm super-special because so few people have seen it. Reasonable people would understand that "greatest" is just a matter of opinion. It's made by thinking, exactly like your "greatest wisdom" is nothing but a creating of your thinking, designed to make you special.

Even beyond that, if I were to claim that I've seen the greatest movie, one would expect that I'd offer at least a BIT of evidence of why it's so great. Notice that you offer nothing to indicate why this "greatest wisdom" of yours is anything so special.

Tuesday, 20 December, 2005  
Blogger iconasostacles said...

The idea "there are Great Gurus" is not more intensely "just an idea" than the idea "there are no Great Gurus."

The idea "people are not equal in the their transmission of the Divine" is not more intensely a mere idea than "people are equal in their transmission of the Divine."

The idea "some have special wisdom - and I know it" is not more biased by personal desire than the idea "some are biased in favor of special wisdom -- and i know it".

Thursday, 22 December, 2005  
Blogger stillanego said...

Thursday, 22 December, 2005

Is saying "no one is special" not the same as "we are all equal"?
what is the difference? Its this kind of ambiguous shit that bogs down a good blog. You said " no one is special" to me that means that we are all 'not un-equal' therefore "we are all equal".
Am i over-reacting here?
There comes a point in some conversations when it ceases to be a conversation and becomes interupted monologues. We are getting to that point in this conversation. Stuart thinks that "if you love someone you hate everyone else" and that puts us so far out of synch that i feel we are in different universes and it is almost impossible for us to communicate.
I believe that people are morally and spiritually unequal because i can see the evidence in history.
My father was and maybe still is very wary of the whole idea of Gurus and was not over the moon about me becoming a devotee of a Guru. And was even more sceptical when he heard Adi Da's confession of being the Promised God-man. But one day he said something that struck me as a major shift in his mind-set. After watching some documentary about war he made a comment. He said "if pure evil can manifest in human form why cant the Divine do the same".
So that is how i think about it too. People like Pol Pot and Hitler and all his buddies and many many others around the world in every time have been extremely evil or a better word 'dark' or UN-en-light-ened. So in that sense we are not all equal. STUART, DO YOU AGREE?????
If you cannot see that same logic then it boils down to a complete difference of opinion and we shall have to agree to disagree.
ICOCASOSTACLES
Ok something needs to be addressed here before we can go any further.
Is there anything that is not an idea for you? Is reality only an idea and therefore an illusion and not to be taken seriously. What is real and not an idea? Somewhere along the line you had an idea or in your years of reading you encountered the teaching of one or another realiser who said something like 'all of this is your mind and the mind creates duality which is false' or something like that and now you are able to dissacociate yourself from the world around you by using a psychological trick,- reminding yourself of this philosophy.
'Duality is only an idea in your mind'. Is this your actual state? Are we are back at 'talking school' again? Yes they say that duality is a trick of the mind and it is useful and interesting to discuss it, but that is TRUTH only for someone who has REALISED it.
If that is your realization then you should be able to confess the absolute transcendence of fear also because they must be one in the same thing. And if that is your point of view please tell us how you got to that realisation. Tell us the details of that process. I am very interested.
I think you are philosophising merely. If a waitress poured boiling coffee on your nuts, i dont think you would be saying "hot? cold? who cares? its all the same to me". I think even you might jump up and scream "fuuuuuckkk shhiiiitt watch what you're doing woman" Am i wrong?
So the same can be said of other evaluations hot/cold, near/far, good/evil, spiritually evolved/spiritually unevolved. Do you get what i am saying?
But its not that any person is less valuable in the eyes of god or something. No. All beings require the same love and are perfect from the perfect Divine 'point of view'.

Friday, 23 December, 2005  
Blogger iconasostacles said...

Wow. Feisty. We may have some different feelings about what constitutes a good blog.

Ambiguity is not dead air, but it does require that we go more slowly, more delicately -- allowing the full range of complexity and paradox to enter as deeply as possible into each of our viewpoints so that we don't need to be so energetically "balanced out" by the next counter-ejaculation.

I don't think Stuart thinks "if you love someone you hate everyone else" -- but I DO think his replies were odd in a special way. As I said, the argument that, say, your assessment of the place of Gurus is just an idea that you want to believe... well, that implies that your view is being weighed up against some solid reality and found to be mere self-serving belief. Yet that solid reality is just a counter belief in which he wants to believe.

And, no, I'm not trying to put forward some amateur philosophy which invalidates Reality into the category of mere belief. Quite the opposite actually. I meant to suggest that criticizing someone's expression as being an idea held for emotional reasons is not a criticism at all -- because it applies equally to the criticizer. It cancels itself out, just as the notion that "all is illusion" cancels itself out.

(Not that there isn't a realizable truth which is pointed at by such a verbal formulation...)

Still, a forum isn't much more than the egoic venting of isolated, apparentely contradictory, emotionally charged viewpoints UNLESS we actively try to conduct our "charge" through the body-mind rather than channelling an eruption into our blog-posts. The only way for this mutual expression to be alive as a processor of the blog-topic is to attempt to... grow into each other.

(Not that non-separation doesn't already exist inbetween and everywhere--)

Friday, 23 December, 2005  
Blogger fidocancan said...

hmmmm.....

i like the rawness of soul
or ego
or whatever the complexity of dynamic which is ellicited through wordplay
hehe

i have a friend who believes in
and is a follower of
adi da
and what a gentle soul he is

here's my contribution:
while the mainstream is heading for the brink of cataclysm
the few enlightened-enough consciousnesses
are caught up in their own eddies

can't we set aside guru-talk and enlightenment
for a little while?
and get on with the job of transforming the world?
because it sure as hell needs
well-motivated people
who are unafraid of confrontation
like those on this blog

you are heartfully welcome to contribute to:
http://2020worldpeace.org

peace and love
d

Friday, 20 January, 2006  
Anonymous I_know_Frankie_too_well said...

Franklin (Adi Da, AKA Bubba Da Hutt) is not enlightened or anything like it. He is psychotic and a sociopath. That's his secret. He is lying, but he does it so completely, and so totally without conscience, that people buy it.

Sociopaths are charming. They are charming because they are wired differently. But this one is also quite insane with amazing delusions.

No, he is not enlightened, nor anything like it. Franklin shines his "grace" until he sees you have something he wants. Then he takes what he wants. But the "grace" is just an emasculating game of competition with, and hate for, other men. He is a coward, you will see. His "samadhi" is bullshit. He cannot function without tranquilizers. He takes viagra and watches porn.

This is the god-man? Brother, that fat old fucker's game has worn thin. He can't even "maintain" for very long which IS WHY YOU RARELY SEE HIM! He has utter contempt for you Mr. "Stillanego". Utter, complete contempt. You may see it one day. You can sometimes see it on his face when he is walking in the room if you look up as he is walking through the door. Since he's partially blind now, he won't catch you at it. One of his attendants might, but most of them are much too busy.

Monday, 18 September, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home