Earlier this month I heard from a New Zealand woman, Elizabeth Wagner, who has come to embrace faith after a lengthy period of faithlessness. I liked how honestly she spoke about her spiritual journey, so with her permission I’ve shared her email message below (mildly edited for clarity and to Americanize those weird British spellings like “endeavour”).
Her thoughts are sort of a counter point to the “More criticism of Radha Soami Satsang Beas” post that similarly included a guest opinion from a person who, like me and Elizabeth, has had a long-time connection with RSSB, a.k.a. Sant Mat.
As I said in that post, this Church of the Churchless blog is concerned with churchlessness in general. But since my personal evolution from faith to faithlessness has occurred in a Sant Mat context, that’s the faith I often focus on, since it’s the one I know best.
Likewise, Elizabeth speaks of returning to the Sant Mat fold. However, her description of moving from faithlessness to faith to faithlessness to faith could have been written by a Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, or whoever. If we’re honest, most of us would admit to being torn between the poles of unbelief and belief. Elizabeth simply is more honest and self-aware than most.
The past few days my wife and I enjoyed talking about all sorts of subjects, spirituality included, with good friends who were visiting, Ron and Rita Morey (Ron’s special interest is the mystical glory of golf; I have my own attitude toward this crazy sport—see “Golf’s essential insanity” on my other weblog).
One morning Rita and I discussed the meaning of a movie we both found deeply moving, the European version of “The Vanishing.” I won’t give away the ending, but basically it involves the choice a husband is given by the man who kidnapped his wife: “Take these pills,” the man says, “and when you wake up you’ll know what happened to her.”
Always open to borrowing a powerful idea, I’ll admit that this scene was in the back of my mind when I wrote my “Just have faith” post. There I talked about a similar, but less dramatic, choice: being able to walk either through a door of Belief or a door of Reality. Would you prefer to hold onto your cherished beliefs—such as that your wife is still alive, or God loves you—or do you want to know what is truly real?
Elizabeth says, “The need to believe is so strong it overwhelms the ability to believe in nothing.” Yes, it is. I agree that we need to believe in something. The question is, What is the nature of that something?
Elizabeth is struggling to find her answer, as am I. I admire how she’s going about her search. Here’s her message to me:
Dear Brian:Greetings. To say how refreshing it is to read criticism and analytical views of RSSB [Radha Soami Satsang Beas] on the net. I give a huge sigh of relief.
Yes, after some years on the path it became to me somewhat infuriating to hear that this is the only path; that we don't know how lucky we are, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I found every fault I could with Sant Mat, the mind never ceasing in this regard.
I would like to have this opportunity to state my own little "story.” I visited Dera [Indian headquarters of RSSB] in 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1991. My first visit was in a depressed and miserable state (family reasons).
I came away from that visit in a state of bliss which remained with me for about six weeks—an altered state of consciousness. Whatever the trigger, even the grossest and ugliest was beautiful, composed of love and only love. I knew without the slightest doubt that the path was real, knew with solid certitude. I could not work, watch TV or radio and, from being a voracious reader I wondered how anyone could possibly look at a printed word. Yes, Charan Singh [the RSSB guru] gave.
My nature and temperament is that of an existentialist. From a young age I followed closely the works of Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus, Genet, and others, which correlated exactly with my own trend of thought. Part of my mind still exists at that level, the existential absurdity always around.
My next three visits were just that, visits to see the guru, ordinary but interesting and nothing more than that. Years passed and slowly the mind began to find fault with the teachings and I came to believe Sant Mat was just another path, one of many, just a little up from Catholicism, fundamentalism, Buddhism or whatever, just a fraction more believable.
For some considerable time I mentally left Sant Mat, wanting nothing to do with it, calling myself an atheist who understood and believed nothing; that life is absurd; that we exist in a mechanistic world; that the brain can produce anything it wants to, meaning good (and bad) effects from meditation, that the [inner mystic] Sound was an auditory, natural sound, audible to anyone if they listened. That the whole thing was nothing but a sham, a so-called valid justification for the horror and terror of existence with extinction at the end, giving meaningless hope where there is no hope, made up by possibly well-meaning persons whose lives were so ghastly they had to invent an elaborate and sophisticated system based on light and sound techniques in an endeavor to justify an otherwise pointless existence.
And I stayed at that level, for a long, long time.
However, and there's always a 'however'!, now things have swung around again as they do. Relatives become absolutes which, in turn, become relatives again, ad infinitum. I now realize that Sant Mat is the highest path that one can find on this planet (relative to my particular intelligence and knowledge). Having traveled widely on this globe investigating many religions, philosophies, etc. I can find nothing higher than Sant Mat.
If the whole thing is a fraud, so be it; it's the greatest and biggest fraud I know of and I don't care if it is just that—in a sense that doesn't matter. I believe that everything is an illusion anyway, absurd in its context, so I choose now to go along with the "you don't know how lucky you are" statement and on my deathbed trust that I have the opportunity to think and concentrate only on Him because it suits me to do so.
The need to believe is so strong it overwhelms the ability to believe in nothing. And if there's nothing, I shall not know. And if there is something in it all I will have wasted much of my life believing in nothing but that's how I'm shaped.
So I'm now back in Sant Mat (in my mind anyway); there's nowhere else to go. Sant Mat can well be called a cult, which it probably is, but again, that simply doesn't matter.
Whew! How great that all feels to express. Thank you, Brian, for this chance to speak and I look forward to reading more of your columns.
Elizabeth Wagner, New Zealand
Regarding some of the statements made by Elizabeth Wagner which were posted by Brian:
Elizabeth Wagner wrote:
"I now realize that Sant Mat is the highest path that one can find on this planet (relative to my particular intelligence and knowledge). Having traveled widely on this globe investigating many religions, philosophies, etc. I can find nothing higher than Sant Mat."
Response:
The key to this issue is Ms Wagner's qualifier: "relative to my particular intelligence and knowledge". In fact and reality, Sant Mat is NOT "the highest path that one can find on this planet". It is only so in the opinion of Elizabeth Wagner. Wagner states that she has "traveled widely on this globe, investigating many religions, philosophies, etc." Her investigation obviously must be lacking and incomplete.
If Ms. Wagner had discovered and sufficiently studied and gained familiarity with the path of real Self-knowledge, as realized and taught by the great Sage (Jnani) of the modern era, Sri Ramana Maharshi, and the teaching of Advaita Vedanta in general, then she would know and realize that Self-realization and Self-knowledge (the realization of one's own true nature) is the true enlightenment and the real liberation, and is to be realized here and now. There is no "higher" attainment than Self-knowledge. But this must be realized as direct experience, not just simply asserted, conceptualized, or believed.
Ms Wagner would also have understood that Sant Mat is simply nothing more than a dualistic, contrived, dogmatic, and authoritarian-power "path", which is composed of various unfounded assumptions, dualistic mental concepts, and false beliefs.
Sant Mat, as it is presently and generally followed, taught, and practiced, is a false path which significantly dis-empowers sincere seekers, and it traps such seekers into settling for dogmatic beliefs, dualistic cosmology, and submission to the outer authority of un-enlightened (fraudulent) gurus, as something which will give them 'salvation'. Sant Mat and Radha Soami is a blindly followed belief system which is simply a myth, and its practices do not result in true awakening, and Self-knowledge. I can say this with conviction and true knowledge, because I have both practiced RSSB Sant Mant, and I have also entered into the direct experience of the awakened and liberated state of Self-knowledge, ie: Self-realization. Anyone who thinks that there is some teaching, path, or attainment higher than Self-knowledge, is simply ignorant, un-awakened, and without true knowledge. But such ignorance can and will be dispelled by the pursuit of Self-realization.
However, I am not as concerned with criticising Ms. Wagner's assumptions, opinions, and beliefs, as I am with directing her (and all sincere truth seekers) to pursue the highest enlightenment of Self-realization, the realization of pure Self-knowledge.
For those who are genuine seekers of Truth, here are some valuable avenues of study, learning, practice, and true satsanga, for the teachings and the 'path' of Self-knowledge:
http://www.ramana-maharshi.org
http://www.davidgodman.org/index.shtml
http://www.arunachala.org
http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Sp/Ramana/Ramana.htm
http://www.realization.org/page/topics/ramana.htm
http://www.atmapress.com/Articles/Ramana/Ramana_1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/bhagavanramana/
Posted by: Who Am I ? | August 19, 2005 at 04:19 PM
Proponents of every path I've every looked into claim to have the "highest" teachings.
Well, someone's obviously wrong or they're all correct.
But, who really knows for sure??
So, when push comes to shove, I think it all boils down to following one's heart.
Bob
Posted by: Bob | August 19, 2005 at 06:19 PM
To Bob:
1.) It matters not what "proponents" of various paths "claim". Nor is it sufficient to have merely "looked into" various paths. What is needed is direct experience of true knowledge, Self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is achieved by means of sincere Self-inquiry. Self-knowledge is not a belief, a path, or a philosophy. Self-knowledge is awakening into direct realization of one's own true nature. This awakening is termed Self-realization. Self-realization is not actually a path. Self-knowledge is pure knowledge (atma-jnana), which is abidance in and as pure Consciousness. The potential for, and essence of, Self-knowledge is innate within every conscious being.
2.) "They" are neither "wrong", nor "all correct". Opinions are relatively useless and worthless. However, when Self-knowledge is realized, then Truth itself will be tacitly known.
3.) Bob questioned and doubted: "Who really knows for sure?"
Answer: Those true Sages (Jnanis) who have awakened into perfect non-dual Self-knowledge, and abide as That. Self-knowledge is indestructable Being-Consciousness-Bliss.
Many people make premature judgements, criticisms, and intellectual debates about something which they have not actually understood or realized. Before attempting to criticize or dismiss Self-realization and Self-knowledge as "just another path", one should investigate it thoroughly - to the point of direct experience. Only then can one speak with authority and true knowledge. Otherwise they are merely expressing conjecture and speculation, not real Knowledge.
Posted by: Who Am I ? | August 19, 2005 at 09:30 PM
I have a comment on the comments above: Bob, I agree with you. Christians believe that "Jesus Saves." Sant Mat followers believe that "Guru is God." Admirers of Ramana believe that "Advaita is the Way."
Who am I? also makes a good point when he stresses the importance of direct experience. But someone else's experience can't be our own. This is why Bob is also correct when he says, "So, when push comes to shove, I think it all boils down to following one's heart."
I take "heart" to mean direct experience, that which is so intimate and close to us, it is ours alone and can't be shared with others.
Thanks to Who am I? for sharing the link to the Belief Systems site: http://www.trufax.org/general/beliefsystems.html
Near the top of this lengthy web page I read a definition of "Belief", which includes:
Belief - 'mental acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground of apparent authority, which does not have to be based on actual fact. ” Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony.
Thus if I accept someone or something as an authority, whether this be the Bible, a Guru, Advaita teachings, or whatever, and this someone or something doesn't provide demonstrable proof of the actual fact of what they're claiming to be true, then I've bought into a belief system.
As I've said numerous times before and will probably say many times again, in the realm of spirituality nothing should be taken on faith. If someone says, "I know the truth; accept it!", doubt it. They shouldn't expect to be believed just because they say it.
This is the main problem I have with Who am I?'s position. He praises the glory of Advaita, which I also admire. But it isn't appropriate to criticize other people for not believing that his personal experience is a universal truth.
My own attitude is that I'll believe it when I see it, not that I'll see it when I believe it. I respect the beliefs of other people, and understand that those seeming "beliefs" may be founded on actual direct experience.
However, no one can provide proof of their own direct experience. So for everyone other than the person who had the experience, it (the experience) is a belief.
Posted by: Brian | August 20, 2005 at 10:18 AM
Brian, I like what you say in the last couple of paragraphs of your last post here in Comments. It is rather painful to experience criticisms of a sincere seeker's chosen path. We each have our chosen path, even if it's atheism (in the end perhaps all paths eventually lead to the real path home, however circuitous may be the route). Like Brian said, to others, the chosen path of another appears as mere "belief." But to the one living and receiving fulfillment from that path, it's Truth. If it's providing peace, energy, and fulfillment, how could it be "wrong?"
One, it seems to me, ought to be content with what gives him/her joy and be the channel of THAT particular joy rather than trying to divert other's away from what's fullfilling them. And if one is not finding that joy is a regular companion on the journey, maybe one needs to courageously take the journey to a new level. Joy, if I may use that word yet once more, is the real "attractor."
My opinion anyway. It breaks one's heart to see criticisms of another's chosen path.
Posted by: Kevin | August 20, 2005 at 11:39 AM
Brian wrote: If someone says, "I know the truth; accept it." doubt it.
Bob's addition...
If someone says, "I know the truth; accept it!" Run like hell for the exit door and don't look back!!
LOL!
Posted by: Bob | August 20, 2005 at 04:45 PM
Brian wrote: "However, no one can provide proof of their own direct experience. So for everyone other than the person who had the experience, it (the experience) is a belief."
Well said. But that is the exact thing which St. Paul has stated that Jesus and the Jesus effect provides: proof of His direct experience via the descent of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. Thus taking the faithful from faith to knowledge and beyond belief.
That was then, this is now. What proof do Christians have now? They claim to have the same proof then as now--direct and personal experience with Jesus Christ. This is in effect what the Advaita/Ramana people are saying.
They do not say it is with Ramana, yet they follow him with cult-like blindness and his teachings that have been re-written by Jewish intellectuals, some whom have grossly distorted his teachings.
I know about the history of that group became my own group started out as an offshoot of the Ramana groups, founded by a member or follower. I allowed it to stand for a while but quickly lost interest in something that was leading me esoterically to a place I actually went--no WHERE! That is gospel truth. And the Ramana's are IMHO blind to the truth that they are merely following the natural goodness of the soul's lead. This is the path of least resistance--the heart of the soul.
They are preaching the causal plane which was expounded on by the best--Patanjali. No one has done it better than Patanjali. Where is the credit they give to him and to others?
I scratch my head on them, while MY heart leads me elsewhere.
Netemara
Posted by: Netemara | August 21, 2005 at 11:51 AM
To Brian:
This comment is addressed in direct response to Brian's somewhat critical opinions and comments which were posted above on August 20. I wish to make several points and rebuttals regarding certain particular statements, assumptions, and distortions which both Brian and others, have made about the teaching of Ramana Maharshi and also about my own views and position in general. Many of the points which I bring to attention here, can also can be applied in response to some of the other commentators as well.
To begin with, and before I address your specific statements, I want to make it very clear that several of your notions, interpretations, and statements, specifically about the teaching of Sri Ramana Maharshi, Advaita Vedanta in general, and your ideas about my own personal spiritual orientation and so-called 'position', are generally quite faulty and distorted. Before you go making such incorrect interpretations and criticisms, it would be wise to become considerably better informed, knowledgeable, and experienced in this subject matter than you are currently. You have previously stated to me that you have some general familiarity with the person of Sri Ramana Maharshi, but I have noticed in our various communications, both public and private, that you do not understand the basis and the primary point and focus of the teaching of Sri Ramana. Of course, without a good grasp on the primary and fundamental focus of his teaching, you cannot possibly have any true knowledge or experience which results from the application of his teaching.
Therefore, before I proceed with addressing Brian's specific comments, I will clearly establish what actually is the real and primary focus of the teaching of Ramana Maharshi, and how it differentiates from the general philosophy of "advaita". The primary and fundamental focus of the teaching of Ramana Maharshi is SELF-INQUIRY. Self-inquiry is an individual practice, not a "belief". The practice of Self-inquiry, for those who actually do engage in its practice, leads ultimately to the individual direct experience and realization of one's own true nature, which is referred to as SELF-KNOWLEDGE. Self-knowledge is not a "belief", concept, or philosophy either. It is direct experience, or tacit realization, and is thus referred to as SELF-REALIZATION. Self-realization is not an idea, belief, or philosophy. The teaching of Ramana Maharshi is not about having faith or belief, it is not about advaita philosophy, not about being attached to the person of Ramana, not about depending upon Ramana's experience, and also not about "advaita" as a dogmatic philosophical position. The teaching of Sri Ramana Maharshi , is about only one thing: The practice of SELF-INQUIRY, and its result, which is the direct and individual experience and realization of pure SELF-KNOWLEDGE. That is the sum and substance of the teaching of Sri Ramana. It is not to be combined with, or confused with, the general philosopy of 'advaita vedanta'. Nor is the teaching of Ramana about simply relying upon the "experience" of Ramana. The teaching of Ramana is about each sadhaka's own individual practice of Self-inquiry, and each sadhaka's own direct experience and realization of Self-knowledge. The teaching of Sri Ramana Maharshi has absolutely nothing to do with relying on concepts, beliefs, faith, or philosophy. Anyone who thinks or asserts otherwise, is definitely quite mistaken and seriously ill-informed.
Having established the above facts and clarifications, I will now address the comments and statements of Brian Hines:
Brian wrote: "Admirers of Ramana believe that 'Advaita is the Way.' "
Response: First, the issue here is not about supposed "admirers". The issue is about "advaita". The fact of the matter is that Ramana did not teach or preach "advaita". Ramana taught the sadhana or spiritual practice of Self-inquiry (atma-vichara), which, if engaged sincerely and with attention, leads to the direct experience and realization of Self-knowledge. Advaita literally means 'non-dual'. The nature of Self-knowledge is non-duality. This is the correspondence between the direct experience of Self-knowledge, and advaita. However, those who practice aand apply the teaching of Ramana are not concerned with "advaita" as a concept, belief, or philosophy. Those who "admire" Ramana, and more importantly, those who practice and apply his teaching, are only concerned with Self-inquiry and the resultant awakening and direct experience and realization of Sellf-knowledge. Therefore, those who genuinely follow, practice, and apply the teaching of Ramana, are not concerned with either "believing" in "advaita, or that advaita is the Way". It is all and only a matter of application and practice of Ramana's teaching and instruction. The singular and primary goal is one's own direct experience, realization, and awakening into Self-knowledge, not "belief that advaita is the way".
Brian wrote: "Who am I? also makes a good point when he stresses the importance of direct experience. But someone else's experience can't be our own."
Response: First Brian says he agrees with my stressing direct experience. Then Brian speaks about the fact that "someone else's experience can't be one's own". Both statements are correct, but somehow the second statement sounds as if you are implying that the general idea is to depend upon Ramana's experience, and not upon one's own experience. Overall it is somewhat unclear what Brian intends to say by the juxtaposition of these two statements.
Brian also wrote: " I take "heart" to mean direct experience, that which is so intimate and close to us, it is ours alone...."
Response: This is precisely the very meaning, purpose, and goal of the teaching of Sri Ramana.
Brian wrote: "....if I accept someone or something as an authority, whether this be the Bible, a Guru, Advaita teachings, or whatever, and this someone or something doesn't provide demonstrable proof of the actual fact of what they're claiming to be true, then I've bought into a belief system."
Response: This assertion is primarily centered, as it is stated, on the action of : "accept someone or something as an authority", and the belief thereof; and then secondarily, it is upon evidence of "demonstrable proof ". Neither "authority" nor "belief" is the basis and focus of the specific teaching of Ramana Maharshi, or even of of the advaita philosophy in general. The teaching of Ramana is based upon the application of Self-inquiry and one's own direct personal experience, not upon any belief in any authority, or upon any "belief system".
Brian wrote: "If someone says, "I know the truth; accept it!", doubt it. They shouldn't expect to be believed just because they say it."
Response: Just to make it unquestionably clear, I myself have never stated or implied that anyone MUST "accept" what I say. What I DO say is this: Apply the teaching and practice of Self-inquiry, and one will be able to have their own direct experience of Self-knowledge and Self-realization. There is no demand for any such acceptance or belief at all. It is all a matter of engaging in the sadhana or spiritual practice of Self-inquiry. Furthermore, the blanket admonition to: "doubt it", is in my opinion, a bad recommendation. One need only simply proceed along the lines of sincere and honest Self-inquiry, and thus verify and know the actual truth through one's own direct experience.
Brian wrote: "This is the main problem I have with Who am I?'s position. He praises the glory of Advaita"....."But it isn't appropriate to criticize other people for not believing that his personal experience is a universal truth."
Response: First of all, Brian has clearly shown on several occasions, that up to now he does not have any factual or proper understanding of my own "position", my view, or my experience. I know exactly where I stand, what is my own experience and realization, and what my so-called "position" is. Brian then goes on to say that I "praise the glory of advaita". Again, this is an outright distortion and an unfounded assertion. Mind you, I am not opposed to the conclusions of advaita philosophy ... however, advaita philosophy and the so-called "praise" thereof, is not at all my basic premise and/or orientation. Brian's statement is simply his own opinion and false interpretation about me. But it is simply not my position at all.
Furthermore, I have never criticised other people, or demanded that anyone believe in my own personal experience. I have always recommended that seekers apply themselves pragmatically to Self-inquiry, and therby achieve their own direct experience and Self-realization. I have also pointed out other people's reliance on beliefs, rather than their own direct experience and knowledge.
Brian wrote: "My own attitude is that I'll believe it when I see it, not that I'll see it when I believe it."
Response: Brian will "see it" when Brian has direct experience and realization. Belief is not an element of my recommendation, or of Sri Ramana's teaching either. No none is asked to "believe" anything. The recommendation and emphasis is upon the application of real Self-inquiry, and the resultant direct experience of Self-knowledge.
Brian wrote: "....no one can provide proof of their own direct experience. So for everyone other than the person who had the experience, it (the experience) is a belief."
Response: Of course, this is only obvious. But there is no need to "provide proof". The point and the goal is not about "proof", or proving something to others. The path of sadhana that I speak of, is the application of Self-inquiry, and the goal and result of that application, which is one's own direct experience of Self-knowledge, ie: SELF-REALIZATION.
Some final comments:
I myself have not criticised anyone for their chosen spirituality. I have always endeavored to direct people towards personal Self-inquiry, yet you and others have challenged and criticised both my own offerings, the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, as well as the philosophy of advaita. These criticisms are based primarily in ignorance and a lack of knowledge and direct experience.
Brian has consistently twisted my statements, views, position, focus, and teaching, as well as the teaching and primary focus of Sri Ramana Maharshi.
The teaching of Ramana is fundamentally about Self-inquiry, and the direct experience of Self-knowledge which results from the application of Self-inquiry.
Brian has lumped Ramana in with the traditional dogmatic philosophy of advaita. The realiy is that Ramana taught Self-inquiry and direct Self-knowledge, not 'advaita philosophy'.
No one, not Sri Ramana, nor myself, have ever advised relying upon or believing in, the experience or experiences of others, even believing in the experience and realization of Sri Ramana.
The teaching and practice of Self-inquiry, and the attainment of Self-realization, is definitely and absolutely not a "cult" or any type of cultism, as some other of the commentators have presumed, suggested, asserted, and judged. To do so simply reveals the utter ignorance and absence of real knowledge, understanding, and practical experience, upon which Self-inquiry and Self-knowledge hinges.
Posted by: Who Am I ? | August 22, 2005 at 07:19 PM
Re. Who Am I?s many comments praising Ramana and his personal spiritual path: I think we've gotten the message here at the Church of the Churchless.
It's much like how I feel about the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm happy to accept a brochure or two when they come to the door, but if they want to leave a huge stack, or keep coming back with the same message, I must respectfully say, "No thank you. I appreciate your desire to share your faith with others, but now I can make up my own mind."
I don't want the Church of the Churchless to turn into a debating forum about which spiritual path or religion is the best. The tagline here is "Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence," not "Preaching the gospel of _______."
So I think it's fine for someone to suggest that the Churchless investigate this or that path or religion. The suggestion even could be repeated. But when this takes on a dogmatic or evangelizing tone, I believe the suggestee would be better off starting his or her own web site/weblog devoted to singing the praises of _______.
The Church of the Churchless is for seekers, not for those who have found. It's for those who are still searching for the highest truth, not for those who have attained it.
So I hope visitors here will respect this comment policy. I'd prefer to leave the commenting feature free and open, but the option exists for me to review comments before they're posted, as is done by some webloggers.
Posted by: Brian | August 22, 2005 at 07:45 PM
To Netemara:
Netemara wrote: "This is in effect what the Advaita/Ramana people are saying."
Response: This statement is nothing but distorted, ill-informed, and ignorant nonsense. "Ramana people" is a also a gross generalization, which has no specific application or validity.
Netemara wrote: "...they do not say it is with Ramana, yet they follow him with cult-like blindness and his teachings that have been re-written by Jewish intellectuals, some whom have grossly distorted his teachings.
Response: Again, this is extreme distortion and outright absurd nonsense. The practitioners of the teachings of Sri Ramana are not cultish, nor are they blind. Sri Ramana's teachings have NOT been re-written, nor have they been distorted by "Jewish intellectuals". The very fact that you think this, say this, or even attempt to convince others of this, is not only quite wrong and an outright lie, but over-all it is 'adharmic', or anti-truth.
Netemara wrote: "I know about the history of that group became (because?) my own group started out as an offshoot of the Ramana groups..."
Response: What history ? This is another ridiculous and erreoneous assertion. There is no particular Ramana "group". The students of Sri Ramana are many and varied. This is an unfounded generalization. Nor is there any particular "history", unless you are referring to the history of Ramana's life story, which cannot possibly be argued against.
Netemara wrote: "...something that was leading me esoterically to a place I actually went--no WHERE! .... And the Ramana's are IMHO blind to the truth that they are merely following..."
Response: The teaching of Ramana Maharshi and Self-knowledge/Self-realization has nothing to do with going to any particular "place". Nor is it "nowhere". It is about awakening into direct experience of Self-knowledge.
The next statement: "..the Ramana's are ... blind to the truth that they are merely following", is also again nothing but more generalization, and completely ignorant nonsense. The individual introspective practice of Self-inquiry is not about any such "following".
Netemara wrote: "They are preaching the causal plane..."
Response: This is simply an idea and an opinion which has no substance or validity in truth and reality. Self-knowledge, Self-realization, and 'The Self', have no relation to notions such as "causal plane", etc.
Overall, Netemara's statements and opinions are simply without substance, validity, or meaning. Anyone who has any basic familiarity and knowledge with the teaching of Sri Ramana Maharshi, and any real practice and experience of Self-inquiry, will view Netemara's assertions as being illegitimate and unfounded distortions, and will arrive at the same conclusion about Netemara's opinions as I have.
Posted by: Who Am I ? | August 22, 2005 at 08:24 PM
To Brian:
For the record:
I did not, and am not, simply "praising Ramana".
Self-knowledge is not specifically limited to, or based upon Sri Ramana's "personal spiritual path". Actually, Ramana had no such "path". Ramana had Realzation and steady adidance in and as the Self.
My intention has never been to give "The Message, here at the Church of the Churchless".
My sole intent has been to respond to the various statements and opinions that were posted by both yourself, as well as other commentators, which I feel to be either misinterpretations, incorrect assumptions, or not based in fact and truth.
You wrote: "...your desire to share your faith" --- I have no "faith". I have not promoted "faith". I have not desired to share any such "faith". I have simply and only pointed towards Self-inquiry and the consequent direct experience of Self-knowledge.
You wrote: "...but now I can make up my own mind." --- Well I am not here to convince you, or to get you to subscribe to any kind of belief, "faith", or ideas.
You wrote: "I don't want ... a debating forum about which spiritual path or religion is the best." --- I have not promoted any spiritual path or religion, or any superiority of one over another.
You wrote: "Preaching the gospel of _______" --- I have not previously, and am not now, "preaching the gospel of" anything. I have only suggested and recommended the wisom of personal introspection and direct experience in the form, practice, and result of Self-inquiry.
You wrote: "But when this takes on a dogmatic or evangelizing tone," --- Again, I have not been, and am not now, "evanglizing". I am offended by your distortion of my "position", my intent, and my responses.
You wrote: "The Church of the Churchless is for seekers, not for those who have found. It's for those who are still searching for the highest truth, not for those who have attained it." --- Why would you care or discriminate between "seekers" and "those who have attained" ? Is not Light, Wisdom, and true Knowledge welcome here at Church of the Churchless ? To my surprise, apparently not. What does it matter what level of spiritual awakening those who visit and comment here are upon or have attained ? This does not sound open-minded at all.
You wrote: "So I hope visitors here will respect this comment policy." --- So does this mean that those who may have some greater awakening, spiritual knowledge, and understanding are not welcome to share and post comments here ? That's pretty restrictive and narrow-minded in my opinion. If you do not wish to equally allow other people's fair views and comments, then why allow comments at all ?
I have made all the comments and responses which I care to, and I have nothing more to say. Thank you to those who do have an open-mind.
Posted by: Who Am I ? | August 22, 2005 at 10:40 PM
Who Am I? Did you read Brian's comment? I have hesitated to comment about your "path" yet I did make a few well-placed, experiential comments.
I am bowing out of that conversation because Brian it right. Even if he's wrong he's still right because this is his weblog.
Shakespeare said it best "thou protesteth too much I fear."
"Perception is reality."
Netemara
Posted by: Netemara | August 24, 2005 at 05:26 PM
Regarding Netemara's statements:
In case you have not noticed, the Church of the Churchless blog is not "Shakespeare", and any such gesture or suggestion implying the suppression of another's liberty to "protesteth" any issue of their choosing, is simply Facist in nature. If Netemara does not wish to hear or read different opinions, perspectives, or protests, then Netemara should simply go elsewhere. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that includes reasonable protest as well. Netemara's comment is suppressive.
Perhaps "Perception is reality" for Netemara, but such is not a universal truth. Perception is relative. Reality, by definition, is absolute.
Posted by: Who Am I ? | August 27, 2005 at 02:56 PM