In which way do Jim Newman/Tony Parsons and Rupert Spira talk about the same thing?

[Ellenier]

Hey guys,

again, I am in doubt of what the hack I'm actually doing and as usual, this is the perfect moment to seek confirmation on this forum  

So my question is: In which way do Jim Newman/Tony Parsons/Andreas Müller vs. "conventional teachers" such as Rupert Spira even talk about the same thing? Personally, I resonate more with the neo-advaita claims, since I feel sooooo sick of this "progression towards enlightenment thing" that always makes me feel like getting better and better but never reaching an end of the search. As a daily practice, I do self-inquiry. And these neo-advaita people confirm my doubts, like Tony Parsons makes fun of "conventional" teachers: "If you haven't found it yet, try harder/meditate even more/etc.) or Jim Newman laughing about even doing self-inquiry. Of course, these critique points have come to my mind, too and it is always like the neo-advaita people take the words right out of my mouth, when they criticize "conventional teachings" or trying to do anything to one day attain enlightenment. And because both parties seem to have so many problems with each other, I am again confused. Do they actually talk about the same thing? I mean, I miss kind of an acknowledgement for the other point of view on both sides. If they talked about the same thing, wouldn't they say "Yes, you can look at it, as if you can do nothing to bring about enlightenment OR you can somehow use your resources and if an apparent 'I' with free will appears, then talk to it, as if it could do anything about it. Both points are equally valid." But they don't do that. They rather criticize each other, as if the other approach didn't work out.  Has one party had a specific realization that the other didn't?

 

Hope you can clarify that for me

Thanks very much

[Dodo]

@Ellenier I think I can help out with the slight confusion you experience.

The way you measure enlightenment is by the peace and happiness you experience on a continuous basis, and this is achieved by Jnana ( true knowledge of the Self) - 

If your mind needs quieting, then you need to apply a mind quieting practice such as self- inquiry or another form of meditation. Then the teacher tells you - you must do - however eventually you understand what real meditation and self inquiry are and that they are not a doing - its not something you can seek or do - meditation is what is always the case - true meditation is allowing what is to be there with no judgement - even if there is a judgement there to have no judgement about the judgement. Basically not to add anything extra to what is.  Well damn, this is always our experience. That's when the mind really quiets down, because it is no longer seeking for some special enlightened state or experience and can actually calm dufuq down. As you allow the ordinary to be without needing for it to be otherwise, you are now enlightened. 

For me Neo-Advaita is completely true, but misunderstood. Self inquiry practice, formal meditation practice do not in any way contradict Neo-advaita. Because when you realise you are the space in which all appearances happen, you realise you never did anything. You are not the meditator and you are not the doer.

Just like you are not the dream character inside your dreams at night. And the same way while the dream lasts you act as that character, so you always appear to be doing something as this waking character. You can never escape the doing - the body will always do, that's its nature. Neo advaita is just from the perspective of the empty enlightened Self, not from the point of view of the character. 

 

Rupert Spira gives a new model of reality where we begin with consciousness rather than matter. He himself has stated that this is just a model and it makes more sense than the conventional model when you look at it open-mindedly and really contemplate it - it is in line with experience. But he said someone might come tomorrow and argue all he likes with his model, but no one can argue with the peace and the happiness. You can argue with concepts and ideas, you cannot argue with happiness and peace.  

What is important from Rupert's teachings is that after investigating awareness and what it is/what its being is like, we can integrate it as dream characters into our lives and live in alignment with the truth of our Being. This brings the peace and happiness from earlier.

BTW to help you skip to the front of the line (but verify whether these are true with self inquiry practice), awareness allows everything within it with no judgement - things appear as clouds passing - Judgements also might appear as clouds passing, they are not something that the awareness is applying to get rid of other clouds, they are just another cloud!! So if we want to live in alignment with awareness, we need to try as human beings to become a channel for this pure allowing stillness and be without resistance to what is. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Dodo

[Ellenier]

Thanks for your explanations

41 minutes ago, Dodo said:

true meditation is allowing what is to be there with no judgement

Yeah, that's what I oftentimes think: That is already the case. The things I that dont like already appear in this space without judgement. My resistance against them is already appearing in this space without judgement. The fact that everything appears means that it has already been accepted without judgement. But somehow it isn't understood or embodied by this person.

51 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Self inquiry practice, formal meditation practice do not in any way contradict Neo-advaita.

But then, why does Jim Newman for example deny that meditation/self-inquiry in any way contributes to an awakening or the final realization? Why doesn't he tell his audience that "yup, you are not the doer but if this "you" feels like doing self-inquiry, it will help, even if nobody does it and your feeling of having chosen to do it is illusory"?

 

[arlin]

i am confused as well because there ase soo many teachers.

What do they think about what happends after death? is it the same thing?

[arlin]

4 minutes ago, Ellenier said:

But then, why does Jim Newman for example deny that meditation/self-inquiry in any way contributes to an awakening or the final realization? Why doesn't he tell his audience that "yup, you are not the doer but if this "you" feels like doing self-inquiry, it will help, even if nobody does it and your feeling of having chosen to do it is illusory"?

Because i think he thinks that the realization just happends. and many others like adyashanti think this way, but, saying not to do anything because nothing can be done is like saying to do something. see? so jim newman is wrong in this regard i think.

If you do spiritual practices, you will have a realization more so if you don't, statistically speaking.

Most people who realize those things do spiritual practices. Even if it's true that you can do them for a lifetime and not have any awakening, it's more likely that would happen if you actually practice. 

If you seek and seek for years and get tired then some to a teaching like jim newman, that would be enough to suddenlty have a realization. But if you are a beginner doing nothing will not help you at all. it's more wise to go for self inquiry etc...

got it?

[Dodo]

18 minutes ago, Ellenier said:

Thanks for your explanations

Yeah, that's what I oftentimes think: That is already the case. The things I that dont like already appear in this space without judgement. My resistance against them is already appearing in this space without judgement. The fact that everything appears means that it has already been accepted without judgement. But somehow it isn't understood or embodied by this person.

But then, why does Jim Newman for example deny that meditation/self-inquiry in any way contributes to an awakening or the final realization? Why doesn't he tell his audience that "yup, you are not the doer but if this "you" feels like doing self-inquiry, it will help, even if nobody does it and your feeling of having chosen to do it is illusory"?

 

I don't follow Jim Newman and cant really speak much about him, but I would guess that he is saying these things to point to the already enlightened self of awareness and that no practice is needed for that noself to be enlightened. 

However if he is being fanatical about this, then he does not understand that while the waking is happening, and we appear to be a human, we cannot stop doing. 

It's in the nature of the mind/body to do, it's in the nature of Awareness to be. To integrate mind and body into the awareness, the mind and body need to do something (or more like undo)... All the conditioning and patterns from unconscious programming must go before a character in the dream is so transparent that you can feel the pure essense speaking through him and as him.

That's why practice is needed. But the Self is always enlightened now. It's just formless and shapeless.

Just like in a dream it appears that the character is interacting with an environment,  but later you realize you were never that character, you were sleeping and imagining the whole thing - so you were just as much the character as the environment and all other characters inside the dream... But this is hard to realise while being identified with the dream character - you would argue with everyone that you are that character because thats how it appears. But its just a very convincing illusion.

Rupert Spira uses many analogies to demonstrate this. You should watch more of his content, not sure about the others.

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Dodo

[Dodo]

21 minutes ago, arlin said:

Because i think he thinks that the realization just happends. and many others like adyashanti think this way, but, saying not to do anything because nothing can be done is like saying to do something. see? so jim newman is wrong in this regard i think.

If you do spiritual practices, you will have a realization more so if you don't, statistically speaking.

Most people who realize those things do spiritual practices. Even if it's true that you can do them for a lifetime and not have any awakening, it's more likely that would happen if you actually practice. 

If you seek and seek for years and get tired then some to a teaching like jim newman, that would be enough to suddenlty have a realization. But if you are a beginner doing nothing will not help you at all. it's more wise to go for self inquiry etc...

got it?

Yeah but Im sure either Adya or Leo has said that even though it happens through grace, one can make themselves more likely to be hit by the lightning ⚡...  Just like you can do things to be more likely to get hit by a real lightning even though its not in your control whether you get hit or not. 

Stillness of mind is one if those things for example which make it way more likely for this grace to happen. Self inquiry, true self inquiry is not a doing and it results in stillness of mind. But it begins as a mental doing for most and that is just how it has to be.

 

Basically what you wrote in other words btw im not trying to teach you here I know how it looks. It's more for the other users, I can see that you get it.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Dodo

[Ellenier]

15 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Rupert Spira uses many analogies to demonstrate this. You should watch more of his content, not sure about the others.

Let me introduce you to the analogy of John Smith and King Lear. I'm not sure, if you've already heard of it   

I really like Rupert and watch a lot of his videos and explanations. There's this one about grace vs. action that he made and it really appealed to me. But then there was Jim telling his audience something along the lines "it is all bs and self-deception"

7 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Yeah but Im sure either Adya or Leo has said that even though it happens through grace, one can make themselves more likely to be hit by the lightning ⚡...  Just like you can do things to be more likely to get hit by a real lightning even though its not in your control whether you get hit or not. 

Thats the same concept I have about this enlightenment stuff

[Dodo]

6 minutes ago, Ellenier said:

Let me introduce you to the analogy of John Smith and King Lear. I'm not sure, if you've already heard of it   

I really like Rupert and watch a lot of his videos and explanations. There's this one about grace vs. action that he made and it really appealed to me. But then there was Jim telling his audience something along the lines "it is all bs and self-deception"

Thats the same concept I have about this enlightenment stuff

But ofcourse. John Smith is using Self deception to become the best version of King Lear that he can.. Otherwise he would not perform his duties as King Lear to the best of his abilities - a good actor becomes the character he plays . But if King Lear is feeling depressed and upset about something in his life he only needs to remember his true identity to fix those issues, its not necessary to fix something (do something)  as King Lear, but simply to remember what he actually is. 

Yeah 

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Dodo

[arlin]

@Dodo Yes exactly, that's what i meant  

[Ellenier]

9 minutes ago, Ellenier said:

Let me introduce you to the analogy of John Smith and King Lear. I'm not sure, if you've already heard of it  

That was a joke  he mentions it in almost every single video

[Dodo]

1 minute ago, Ellenier said:

That was a joke  he mentions it in almost every single video

Hahaha yes ? but there is a reason, it is a very potent analogy

[Leo Gura]

There is no contradiction in saying that you can and that you cannot bring about enlightenment.

It works just like fishing. Can you bring about a fish from a lake? Not directly. You cannot ever know when the fish will bite.

But you would be a total fool to take that to mean that there is no skill to fishing. The difference in how much fish a skilled fisherman will catch vs one who is just randomly throwing hooks in the water is about 10,000%

Moreover, the Neo-Advaitan claim is just strictly false because I can consistently bring about enlightenment via 5-MeO-DMT in 15 minutes every single time, any time I want. So the idea that nothing can be done to bring about enlightenment is simply false. Furthermore, the idea that ego cannot take action that will bring about enlightenment is also simply false. You can easily disprove both these claims for yourself with psychedelics. And of course it doesn't stop with psychedelics. You can also do it with meditation, concentration, yoga, visualization, prayer, mantras, etc.

The idea that spiritual practices do not bring about awakening is just absurd and counter to common sense because spiritual techniques would not exists unless they were effective for some people.

And the greatest absurdity of the entire Neo-Advaitan position is the most canonical enlightenment of all time: The Buddha. The Buddha used his ego to generate his enlightenment by forcing himself to sit under the fucking tree.

So the next time a Neo-Advaitan tells you it's impossible to create enlightenment, tell them: But what about the Buddha? And then watch them begin their mental gymnastics.

The idea that the Buddha would have become enlightened without doing his 7 years of hardcore practice is laughable.

Ego plays a crucial role in bootstrapping enlightenment. Without the proper ego, there will be no enlightenment.

[mandyjw]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Moreover, the Neo-Advaitan claim is just strictly false because I can consistently bring about enlightenment via 5-MeO-DMT in 15 minutes every single time, any time I want. So the idea that nothing can be done to bring about enlightenment is simply false. Furthermore, the idea that ego cannot take action that will bring about enlightenment is also simply false. You can easily disprove both these claims for yourself with psychedelics. And of course it doesn't stop with psychedelics. You can also do it with meditation, concentration, yoga, visualization, prayer, mantras, etc.

The idea that spiritual practices do not bring about awakening is just absurd and counter to common sense because spiritual techniques would not exists unless they were effective for some people.

And the greatest absurdity of the entire Neo-Advaitan position is the most canonical enlightenment of all time: The Buddha. The Buddha used his ego to generate his enlightenment by sitting under the fucking tree.

There's no actual cause and effect though. We create our own meaning and we pick and choose cause and effect in the same way. For example, your post provokes me to respond to your's, cause and effect. Or, we were both born 30ish years ago. Or the big bang. Is there really time, for our causes and effects to hinge on? If so how far back in time should I go to pick the cause of the effect I decided needed a cause. Cause and effect are dualistic, they exist within the story. The story is always changing on us, your past is always being rewritten, Buddha is always newly imagined in the minds and hearts of everyone. 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

There's no actual cause and effect though.

This is context-dependent and relativistic.

Yes, cause and effect is a dualistic notion. From the absolute perspective cause & effect chains are infinite.

But that is a misleading conflation of the absolute and relative domains. When a student asks a Neo-Advaitan teacher about what he can do to become enlightened, saying, "There's nothing you can do because you're already enlightened and cause & effect does not exist" is a foolish answer because obviously the student's question is coming from the relative domain. In the relative domain there is much you can do, like stick some 5-MeO-DMT up your ass.

In the absolute sense you can argue that sticking 5-MeO-DMT up your ass does not cause enlightenment because cause and effect aren't real. But the simple fact remains: if a student sticks enough 5-MeO-DMT up his ass, he will get enlightenment. It's simple, practical, and scientific. No BS games.

[Corpus]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 because I can consistently bring about enlightenment via 5-MeO-DMT in 15 minutes every single time, any time I want.

 

And the greatest absurdity of the entire Neo-Advaitan position is the most canonical enlightenment of all time: The Buddha. The Buddha used his ego to generate his enlightenment by forcing himself to sit under the fucking tree.

So the next time a Neo-Advaitan tells you it's impossible to create enlightenment, tell them: But what about the Buddha? And then watch them begin their mental gymnastics.

The idea that the Buddha would have become enlightened without doing his 7 years of hardcore practice is laughable.

 

Is the 5 MeO DMT "experience" enlightenment, or is it enlightenment as defined by Leo?

 

You have only the stories of the Buddha to derive any conclusions from, don't you?

 

I do agree though- Neo Advaitans present a disingenuous picture. 

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Corpus said:

Is the 5 MeO DMT "experience" enlightenment, or is it enlightenment as defined by Leo?

It is as enlightenment as enlightenment gets.

If anything, it is more enlightenment than any of those Neo-Advaitans know.

Quote

You have only the stories of the Buddha to derive any conclusions from, don't you?

Let's force the Neo-Advaitan into such a corner that he has to deny Buddha's enlightenment. That will be entertaining.

Neo-Advaitan teachings do not pass basic common sense. They only make sense as long as you blindly follow them without any critical thinking.

[Corpus]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

It is as enlightenment as enlightenment gets.

Let's force the Neo-Advaitan into such a corner that he has to deny Buddha's enlightenment. That will be entertaining.

Again, you are defining; but you know that, right?

This forum is entertaining. 

[Dodo]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In the relative domain there is much you can do, like stick some 5-MeO-DMT up your ass.

 

Sounds like literally backdooring enlightenment ?

I prefer your pointings in the Next level of meditation video from 2016. Still "practicing " it and it is something way more easy to access than 5meo! 

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Corpus said:

Again, you are defining

Since you are God, you are defining everything, always. So what's your point?