Gangaji, Eli, and Neo-Advaita hypocrisy

Ah, nothing like a guru-student sexual affair to spice up a churchless blog. Through my friend Randy’s “Gangaji’s Pinprick” and “More on Gangaji and Eli Jaxon-Bear” posts I’ve learned about some Neo-Advaitan hypocritical failure to practice what you preach.

Understand: the hypocrisy is what bothers me about spiritual teacher Eli, who is married to fellow spiritual teacher Gangaji, having a three-year affair with a much younger female student. Affairs happen. Usually they should remain a private matter.

Some of the commenters to an Ashland (Oregon) Daily Tidings story about Jaxon-Bear’s affair wondered why this was newsworthy.

Well, I agree with a Ron who said, “When you have an Ashland-based group that has some national prominence, and that is a spiritual organization whose leader gets caught with his pants down, so to speak, that's news.”

(Another commenter called Ashland “ten square miles of land surrounded by reality.” Neale Donald Walsch of “Conversations with God” fame, the subject of my previous post, also lives in Ashland. Along with other gurus. I love this quirky southern Oregon town, noted for its Shakespeare festival, which is about three and a half hours down I-5 from where I live.)

Coincidentally, if there is such a thing, yesterday I had coffee with my philosophical friend Patricia. She’d brought along the most recent issue of “What is Enlightenment?” It featured a critical article about Neo-Advaita that I found interesting: “Who’s Transforming Anyway?”

The author, Tom Huston, describes his youthful descent into the craziness of this New Agey teaching that we’re all already enlightened; we just don’t know it. Concerning Andrew Cohen and the editors of “What is Enlightenment?” Huston says:

No matter how effective a mystical teaching Advaita might have been in India’s ancient past, its newborn Western child, Neo-Advaita, seemed to be missing something significant. Isolated from its Eastern religious and historical context and taught as a quick-fix, no-frills contemporary path to spiritual enlightenment, they noticed its tendency to ignore traditional values like ethics and the cultivation of personal integrity.

Gangaji is one of the Neo-Advaita teachers mocked in Jessica Roemischer’s related previously-published piece, where Stacey Heartspring encounters the post-modern craze of Neo-Advaita. Here’s a typical Neo-Advaita bit of blather from Gangaji:

There is nothing that keeps you from the realization of your inherent, permanent, present freedom except your imagination that somebody or something is keeping you from that.

Neale Donald Walsch, who by and large echoes Gangaji’s and Eli’s outlook, says pretty much the same thing:

It’s not really a question of stepping into an experience so much as it is allowing it to flow through us more fully and more completely. It is quite possible for anyone to do that without any sort of training, without any particular sort of discipline, without any study, but with just a willingness to have the experience. And the first step is to allow the possibility that it could occur, because of course if you don’t think it could occur, then it cannot.

Well, fine. I haven’t realized my “inherent, permanent, present freedom.” But it’s possible that Gangaji and her hubby Eli have.

She’s written a book that promises to reveal how we all can “directly experience the perfect radiance of who you really are.” And at this very moment spiritual seekers are enjoying the “rare gift of being with Eli in an advanced setting for ten days.” So we have to assume that Gangaji practices what she preaches about desperation:

Find who is feeling desperate. The feeling of desperation only continues because you assume that you are, in fact, something that the feeling is hooked on to.

Hmmmm. I wonder why Gangaji and Eli had to go through a three month separation to resolve their differences if neither of them is a “something” that can be hooked by negative feelings, and if, as fellow Neo-Advaitist Tony Parsons says, “all concepts of good or bad, original sin, karma or debt of any kind are products of an unawakened mind.”

Eli and Gangaji, who somehow spoke as one voice in this interview, say:

Each of us needs to experience the ignorance, to find the place of fundamentalist certainty, fear, aggression, and animal territoriality, and to discover what is deeper. What is deeper is the next stage in the evolution of the human. It is the transcendental realization that you are not limited to human animal-ness. I do not mean merely to understand this, or to believe this, or to hope this is so, but to directly realize it for oneself. This requires the willingness to turn one’s back on personal identity as a male or female human animal.

Yet a student of theirs says that Eli is a “sexual predator who abused his power in the most egregious way.” Sounds pretty animalistic to me.

I’ve got no problem with men or women acting like animals. That’s a big part of what makes sex enjoyable. What ruffles my avian feathers is when a religious or spiritual figure pretends to be something that he or she is not, or says one thing and does another.

Another proponent of Neo-Advaita, Francis Lucille, says that “the only sin is to take yourself for a sinner.” I don’t agree with that point of view, but it is admirably simple and clear.

If it is true, though, then there wouldn’t have been a need for the Gangaji Foundation to issue an apologetic letter to their community of followers.
[Update: This letter has been removed by the Foundation. However, emails from the Foundation relating to the scandal still can be found at another web site.]

What was initially seen as a matter between adults is now recognized to be a betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power. A trust with the larger community also has been broken. This is an important revelation as real harm is being experienced by the student and is being fully acknowledged. The repercussions of this betrayal are reverberating in ways that were never imagined, but are very painful.

Tom Huston describes how he awakened from the relativistic nightmare of Neo-Advaita that, for a time, passed for spiritual truth in his excessively nihilistic eyes. There’s a valuable lesson for all of us here: fundamentalism doesn’t only come in the guise of traditional religion.

Tell it like it is, Tom:

Night after night, day after day, I’d storm Zen Buddhist forums, atheist forums, Christian forums, and even Natalie Portman fan discussion forums with my proselytizing passion for the Neo-Advaita way. “You morons think you’re real? Try this,” I’d say, as I dished out the intoxicating truth that renders human beings and their concerns into utter irrelevancy.

…“If all is One, then nothing is wrong,” said the notorious murderer Charles Manson. And while I didn’t actually kill anybody as I spread my love of Neo-Advaita far and wide, I probably did as much damage as one can with words alone, subverting all beliefs, trouncing all opinions, actively denying all values, hopes, and dreams—and loving every second of it, as I savored my absolute power over all relativity.

Yesterday Patricia and I talked about the big difference between thinking that you’re an enlightened spiritual person and actually being such. Passionate Neo-Advaita advocates, like all true believers, are prone to confusing the two. Thinking so doesn’t make it so.

If you claim to have turned your back on being a human animal, having a lengthy sexual affair with one of your students is just a touch contradictory (to put it mildly). Still, it’s always possible to take heart from a saying that my friend Hans is fond of repeating:

No one’s life ever is completely wasted. He can always serve as a horrible example for others.

Comments

[R Blog]

I could have said it better myself, but I didn't. You did. Nice analysis.

[Nick]

Dear Brian

Thank you for articulating with others comments, the reasons I am suspicious of neo advaitin 'philosophy'.
Tony Parsons for instance, claims that eating watercress and a steak are the same, as they are all part of the oneness.
Obviously such moral relativism does not take into account facts such as mammmalian species with advanced nervous systems can (according to our present knowledge) feel pain much more acutely than plant species.
Therefore, on this assumption we are at liberty to make eating choices based on a hierarchy of pain avoidance, etc.
Whatever we may wish to call enlightenment, you are right in saying that simply thinking one is already there is not the same as 'being' there. Witness a true example of advaita sageliness, Sri Ramana Maharshi who was singularly untarnished by any scandals or moral compromise.
Any school of thought that says we can just bypass our humaness and all its muck and brass, and just instantaneously be plopped into cosmic consciousness deserve the maximum suspicion.
Whilst the opposite extreme to neo advaitin moral and cosmic relativism, is the psychotherapeutic constant digging in the dirt, there has to be some balance.
Yes, I'm sure that at some levels of our being we are already perfect expressions of a universal something or other. But, it seems to me at other levels we have a whole lot of clearing out of emotionally conditioned baggage and transforming to go before transcendence could kick in as part of daily life.

[Edward]

From Bhikkhu Bodhi, in a Buddhist Society Publication:

"There are two interrelated flaws in eclecticism that account for its ultimate inadequacy. One is that eclecticism compromises the very traditions it draws upon. The great spiritual traditions themselves do not propose their disciplines as independent techniques that may be excised from their setting and freely recombined to enhance the felt quality of our lives. They present them, rather, as parts of an integral whole, of a coherent vision regarding the fundamental nature of reality and the final goal of the spiritual quest. A spiritual tradition is not a shallow stream in which one can wet one's feet and then beat a quick retreat to the shore. It is a mighty, tumultuous river which would rush through the entire landscape of one's life, and if one truly wishes to travel on it, one must be courageous enough to launch one's boat and head out for the depths.
The second defect in eclecticism follows from the first. As spiritual practices are built upon visions regarding the nature of reality and the final good, these visions are not mutually compatible. When we honestly examine the teachings of these traditions, we will find that major differences in perspective reveal themselves to our sight, differences which cannot be easily dismissed as alternative ways of saying the same thing. Rather, they point to very different experiences constituting the supreme goal and the path that must be trodden to reach that goal."

The Bhikkhu smells trouble in Ashland from before 1994! Proof that Buddhists can time travel?

[benandante]

I agree with so much that you say here, and yet I am troubled by something. Maybe it is my intellect masquerading as enlightened, but I can't help wondering why the bad act of the philosopher negates the philosophy itself.

In my experience, the best teachers often do not listen to their own teachings, at least from time to time. That was a hard lesson for me, the whole feet of clay trauma/drama, but once I accepted that we are humans and therefore WILL make mistakes (not prone to err, not sometimes err, but WILL err) I could jump off of my high horse and get to the real work of being the best person I could be.

As for the neo-advaita, I never subscribed to it or delved into it, but it seems relatively harmless from the outside looking in. As to moral equivalencies, it used to make me crazy that some people seemed to dismiss bad behavior in the name of collective unconsciousness and oneness.

Now I see it differently: the lack of affect or anger is not tacit acceptance of behavior. Nor does emphatic disgust mean rejection of behavior, as we see most recently in the form of Congressman Mark Foley.

If I cultivate the absence of outer judgement it does not equate with moral relativism, it is just my way of not reacting to evil acts and ideas.

I guess my refusal to label or blame (or at least my attempts at that) are my way of staying centered enough that when the loud ugly booms of violence and every other form of human depravity occur I am not shattered by them. Like your monks who meditate and do not startle, this is my waking meditation: partly instictive response to life, partly disciplined mental choice, it keeps me focused on my own choices in outlook, behavior and action.

Proof that this way of living and thinking does not promote joy, promote self-awareness or glorify God is not found in the sexual pecadilloes of a guru. Maybe the proof is evident in the existence of the guru in the first place?

Or, to paraphrase a famous author, maybe everything I just wrote is wrong.

[tao]

To Brian:

Although I agree with your over-all critique of hypocrites masquerading as enlightened teachers, and especially in the case of Gangaji of whom I find particularly shallow and phony, I wonder a little as to whether or not you are 'throwing the (genuine advaita) baby out with the (neo-advaita hypocrisy) bathwater'. Could you clarify that and also to what degree you have read the offerings of Tony Parsons?

To Nick:

I wonder, have you actually read Tony Parsons message to any significant degree? It sure sounds like you are reducing his entire teaching down to nothing more than your reaction to "steak" and "watercress". You did not say much, but what you did write indicates that you seem to have little understanding of Mr Parsons particular an over-all views. Also, if you lump him in with other so-called neo-advaita teachers, you are making a mistake. But that is for you to find out, not for me to elaborate upon.

[Dave]

People who seek to escape or transcend the supposedly animal part of their nature make me nervous. What would a non-human sexual predator look like? We are at the greatest remove from our non-human fellow inhabitants of the planet when we are the most abusive and willfully cruel.

[Nick]

Dear tao
I take your point. I would not wish to throw Tony Parsons out along with the steak and watercress.
I have read a series of interviews with between him and Jan Kerschott. I find his overall 'thrust' to be both powerful and deeply insightful.
And, as he is here in the UK perhaps I will attend one of his meetings sometime.
I sense that his ultimate 'position' is a cosmic 'truth', that everything is the expression of unbroken oneness.
I just have a problem in the wholesale application of that universal vision to the temporal and the relative, where we often have to make complex moral choices.

[Nick]

Tao
To answer your final comment, I am not sure that I lump Tony Parsons in with the neo advaita 'set' per se.
It seems to simply be a case of who or what one is drawn to explore and interact with.
Whether you call it karma, destiny, genes or whatever I have no idea.
I feel that Tony's 'teaching' does merit further investigation, though I do not feel a particular pull towards him, as I don't for either Gangaji or Mr Jaxon Bear.
I have felt a more empathic response to Eckhart Tolle for instance.

[Brian]

Tao, I've read Tony Parson's "As It Is" (and maybe some other books). I resonate with his message. But like Nick, I don't recall being hooked by Parsons when I read his book. (If this had happened, I assume I'd remember it).

Being spiritually lazy, I like the idea that there's nothing I have to do, that I already am the reality that I'm seeking. That seems to be the core of both Advaita and Neo-Advaita.

I suppose it's the packaging of this ageless message that bothers me, not the message itself. I've read a lot of Ramana. My understanding is that he wasn't interested in making money or gathering a swarm of disciples.

I love the photos of Ramana lying on his cot in a loin cloth. Reportedly that's about all he owned personally--a few items of clothing, a bowl, that sort of thing. Reading him, I'm left with an air of authenticity that I don't feel with the modern Advaita teachers.

Near the end of Parson's book he says, "The avoidance of what is most feared is created by turning what is being communicated into a method or system, which can be formulated, packaged, and delivered to groups of people. This has happened throughout history and is happening now with teachers who wish to control groups of people."

True. So there's a fine line between communicating the Advaita message, as Parsons does well, and turning that simple message into an exclusionary system. I don't know exactly where that line is, but it sure seems like some Neo-Advaita teachers have crossed it.

[tao]

To Nick and Brian:

Thank you for your reponses. However, please understand that I was in no way suggesting that you should have affinity ("pull" or "hooked") towards Mr Parsons as a personality or an individual, which you both kind of alluded to. I am not concerned with how people relate to the personality of the teacher, and I certainly don't think that that has much bearing in the case of Mr Parsons. I am not concerned with the messenger, but rather the message.

I also do not find making comparisons between Parsons and Ramana to be of much value. These are very different lives at very different times and circumstances. In defense of Mr Parsons, it is clear that he is not really making much money, other than his books which he has a right to do. There is just no comparison between Mr Parsons small informal group talks, and the excesses and money-grubbing of the Gangaji and Eli camps.

[Stuart]

> Yesterday Patricia and I talked about the
> big difference between thinking that
> you’re an enlightened spiritual person and
> actually being such.

I'm new to this blog, but it seems that you've got some interest in cutting through bullshit, right? If so, why use empty (or at best hopelessly fuzzy) words like "enlightened spiritual person"?

[Stuart Resnick]

It occurs to me that the criticism that Tom Huston and others level at "Advaita" could be more precisely aimed at how teachers like Gangaji etc present "awakening." I don't see any problem with the teaching that there's only one substance to everything (i.e. "non-duality").

But Gangaji et al emphasize "awakening" experiences. This first of all is contradictory. If it's all One, then there's nothing special to awake to; you're already as awake as you need to be. Teachings like "you're asleep now but I can help you awake" are highly dualistic in making a fundamental distinction between "ordinary awareness" and being "awake."

Gangaji's teaching is of the style of "everything is a dream," but then violates the premise by proposing awakening out of the dream. This fails to recognize that the very understanding she teaches is part of the dream (according to the premise).

Anyway, the moral problem that arise from this logical problem is that people get so attached to this (unnecessary) goal or idea of "awakening" that it competes and conflicts with our natural, ordinary inner mechanisms that lead simple, ordinary people to follow the Golden Rule.

[Edward]

It is a linguistic trick that being thirsty and being sated are dual states. If they were, we would "awaken" into the satiation brought by a draught of water and never thirst again.

Therefore the moral problem is not the unnecessary attachment, it is the application of snake oil to a bug bite.

All can still be one, with the growing and drinking and scratching.

[rob van es]

I wrote my response here on my own blog. It was partly directed at this post.

http://everybodyisacritic.blogspot.com/2006/10/everybody-is-guru-critic-there-is-big.html

[tao]

To Stuart Resnick:

You are on the right track, and it sounds like you should check out what Tony Parsons has to say before you limp him in with "et al". I think you may actually be surprised and impressed.

To rob van es:

Well... what the bleep do you know anyway?

[rob van es]

To stuart resnick:

That people like to judge and compare guru's, which is unhealthy behaviour. Same for teachings.

Btw: A disappointing response, can't you put some more effort into it?

[rob van es]

Oh, it was actually directed at tao.

[tao]

To rob van es:

I put as much effort into my comment as I cared to.

I also absolutely disgree with the conclusion of your response statement: "...people like to judge and compare guru's, which is unhealthy behaviour. Same for teachings."

It is most definitely quite healthy to judge, to compare, to critique, to appraise, to assess, to evaluate, and to consider gurus and their teachings.

The particular mentality that you seemed to have represented in your statement opposes engaging one's intelligence and reason, and it is rather closed-minded and backward.

[tao]

To rob van es:

PS:
Frankly, it was quite obvious that you were just promoting your Blog...otherwise you would have simply posted some subsatnce of your response and comments here, rather than directing readers elsewhere to your own Blog.

[rob van es]

To tao:

I fail to see the problem with that, are you to lazy to follow one link?

"It is most definitely quite healthy to judge, to compare, to critique, to appraise, to assess, to evaluate, and to consider gurus and their teachings."

That's what you think, but how does that help you realize who you are? Is guru bashing you hobby or is it actually a practical concern? Are you seeing a guru (teacher)?

"The particular mentality that you seemed to have represented in your statement opposes engaging one's intelligence and reason, and it is rather closed-minded and backward."

The very nature of judgment is close-minded, keeping an open-mind is not judging. If your serious about self-realization than you will have no problem with bad/false guru's, you will see thru them effortlessly. There will be no need for intellectual game's like this! (i.e. judgment/discussion about guru’s and teaching’s)

[tao]

To rob van es:

1. I am not interested in reading through your blog just to get your comment. I saw your blog. So what? I did not find any relevant comment there, and the link you gave is now dead. If you had wanted to make a brief comment, you could have easily done it here. Your saying: "I wrote my response on my own blog", was unnecessary. It was obviously just a cheap ploy to get people to go to your blog. You could have just made your comment here, and then mention your blog too.

2. You wrote: "That's what you think, but how does that help you realize who you are?"

What makes you assume that I need any such "help", or that I lack any realization of "who you are" (who I am)? You know nothing about me or state of realization.

3. You wrote: "Is guru bashing you hobby or is it actually a practical concern?"

Just how is it that you interpret my comments as "guru bashing"? My mere commenting on my observations, insight, and personal experience does not constitute any such "guru bashing". Such is not my "hobby", nor is it a "practical concern". Your response reflects undue sarcasm.

4. You wrote: "Are you seeing a guru (teacher)?"

No I am not, nor do I have any need whatsoever for a "guru" or "teacher". I serve as a teacher/guru and thus have students.

5. You wrote: "The very nature of judgment is close-minded,"

Not necessarily. Judgement can also be discriminative wisdom. Your negation of the judgement of discimative insight was obviously narrow-minded.

6. You wrote: "If your serious about self-realization"

I have no need to be "serious about self-realization". Just what makes you think so? Again, you know virtually nothing about my spiritual state or degree of, as you put it, "self-realization". You are merely presuming.

..."you will have no problem with bad/false guru's,"

Just what makes you think that I have any "problem with bad/false gurus"? I have no such problem. The problem seems to be yours, in that you make unfounded presumptions about someone such as myself whom you know nothing about.

..."you will see thru them effortlessly."

Just why do think that I can not "see effortlessly"? There is no indication in any of my previous commments that I have any difficulty "seeing thru them".

7. You wrote: "There will be no need for intellectual game's like this! (i.e. judgment/discussion about guru’s and teaching’s)

Well in case you have not noticed, discussion about guru's and teachings is what this site is all about. I you don't like it, then go elsewhere. Furthermore, I am not engaging in any such "intellectual games" as you say. I merely commented to your comment, and you went on to do likewise. If you have some problem with thoughtful consideration, discussion, critique, and/or critical analysis of various spiritual beliefs, teachers and public guru figures, then you probably don't belong here.

[mark timmins]

Seeing or believing any hypocrisy or betrayal is some version of fear. You cannot not be the absolute but any belief of fear(realized or not),stops you from being aware of yourself. Don't criticize what you cannot possibly ever hope to understand. Just for one second understand nothing.

[Brian]

Mark, I like your sentiments. And yet...(one of my favorite phrases)

Aren't you criticizing?

Aren't you understanding something?

If not, how is it possible for you to take the stand that you do?

I enjoy the advaitist viewpoint. However, it seems to me that if one truly saw life through that non-dual lens, he or she wouldn't be able to live as everyone seems to do: dualistically.

[tao]

To mark timmins:

Its obvious that you don't understand what you are criticising. There is no need to "be the absolute", simply because the absolute is being itself. There is no one for to "understand nothing".

[Edward]

It's a trick! Look out! Look out!

As soon as you type, the creative, living idea dies, and all you have is a poor sarcophagous to love. It is outside you now. It is in the past.

Beware the trickery of taking action!

[mark]

Brian,You are right. I am critcizing.However, I take no stand. I understand nothing.The life experienced is relative, who you are however is absoulte. Tao, there is now and there are words pointing to the now.

[tao]

To Mark: Where is "now"? And your own words were in fact pointing towards, as you yourself said, "what you cannot possibly ever hope to understand". But then I do not agree with you, and I do agree with Edward.

[mark]

Tao,understanding serves no purpose in stopping. Understanding the words that point you to stopping do. You are not in it,it is in you. It matters not whether you agree with Edward or me. Your mind can only take you to the point of inderstanding words or in agreement or belief. It serves no purpose beyond that. People are killing people over beliefs. How silly is that? Anyway, my inital intent in posting was only in support of Gangaji.
But who doesn't love a good discussion, it beats killing and you still get the juices flowing.

[tao]

To Mark:

"Stopping" what? I said nothing about "stopping".

Nor did I say that I was "in it" or "in" anything.

It is obvious that you are making various presumptions about myself, and arguing issues which your comments reveal to be quite mistaken.

Words are merely the medium of communication in this blog site.

Your assertion of "your mind" has no relevancy or bearing on me.

I have not any such "belief" that you mention and assume. But obviously you seem to have such yourself.

You wrote: "People are killing people over beliefs." Other people's beliefs and harmful acts are not my concern.

Your wrote: "my inital intent in posting was only in support of Gangaji." You can "support" all you want, but that does not change the obvious fact that the individual that you "support" is clearly a fraud, nor does it make for very intelligent "discussion".

[rob van es]

To tao:

Listen, I don’t know you, so I can’t really say anything about you state of being, but I find it suspicious that you should make judgements about people you don’t know. That you are a teacher makes it even more suspicious. Why is there a need for you to take position against these people?

You say: “Not necessarily. Judgement can also be discriminative wisdom. Your negation of the judgement of discimative insight was obviously narrow-minded.”

Judgement is not discriminative wisdom. Judgement is the game of right and wrong. How is that wisdom!? It makes me wonder what you actually teach people!

You say: “I have no need to be "serious about self-realization". Just what makes you think so? Again, you know virtually nothing about my spiritual state or degree of, as you put it, "self-realization". You are merely presuming.”

Yes, I don’t really know, I can’t tell if someone is Self-realised or not. But reading your post I don’t feel that you are Self-realised. This may be wrong, but then, does it matter? Reading your post I wanted foremost to put some counter weight against your ideas.

You say: “Just what makes you think that I have any "problem with bad/false gurus"? I have no such problem. The problem seems to be yours, in that you make unfounded presumptions about someone such as myself whom you know nothing about.”

You judged gangaji to be “shallow and phony”, why would you do that if you had no problems with guru’s that in your view are false guru’s?

You say: "Just why do think that I can not "see effortlessly"? There is no indication in any of my previous commments that I have any difficulty "seeing thru them"."

You seem to take this all very personal. Do you mind my assumptions about you that much? Your defensiveness might suggest that the things I said about you have some truth to them!

You say: “Well in case you have not noticed, discussion about guru's and teachings is what this site is all about. I you don't like it, then go elsewhere.”

If I didn’t want to be here I wouldn’t be here, don’t worry about that. It’s strange that you mention it, perhaps you don’t want me here? Do you only want people here that agree with each other, or do you actually want diverse input?

You say: “Furthermore, I am not engaging in any such "intellectual games" as you say. I merely commented to your comment, and you went on to do likewise. If you have some problem with thoughtful consideration, discussion, critique, and/or critical analysis of various spiritual beliefs, teachers and public guru figures, then you probably don't belong here.”

Yes I have a problem with that (duh, hehe)! That’s why I responded! Again, why do mention that I might not belong here, what is it to you?

[tao]

To rob van es:

In fact I do know them, Gangaji that is. That is precisely why I have such conclusions.

You wrote: "Why is there a need for you to take position against these people?"

I have already explained that.

You wrote: "Judgement is not discriminative wisdom."

That is simply incorrect. Discriminative wisdom is discriminative judgement. You are arguing semantics, not the matter of "judgement".

I wrote: “I have no need to be "serious about self-realization".

You wrote back: "Just what makes you think so?

Because being awakened, I don't need to "think so". Realization is pure Self-knowledge, or the self-perfected or awakened state.

You wrote: "I don’t really know, I can’t tell if someone is Self-realised or not. But reading your post I don’t feel that you are Self-realised."

You just admitted that you do not know, and then you say the opposite. You obviously do not know what you are talking about, nor do you have any basis to judge my state. Such an intentionally ignorant attitude does not deserve my further attention.

You wrote: "Reading your post I wanted foremost to put some counter weight against your ideas."

For what purpose? Just to argue? I am not at all interested in your arguing just for arguements sake.

You wote: "You judged gangaji to be “shallow and phony”, why would you do that if you had no problems with guru’s that in your view are false guru’s?"

Because Brian brought up the issue and the topic of discussion of Gangaji, and because that is my conclusions about Gangaji.

You wrote: "You seem to take this all very personal. Do you mind my assumptions about you that much?

I don't care what you think. What do you know? ... Not much as far as I can see. You presume alot, but know nothing whatsoever about me. But I know your type.

You wrote: "...do you actually want diverse input?" Actually it appears that you are the one who has a problem with criticism of Gangaji and her ilk.

You wrote: "...what is it to you?"

It seems that you are somewhat fond of frauds and scammers like Gangaji, so I expressed my opinions and criticisms about the subject of Gangaji and the foolish people who follow her.

[rob van es]

To tao:

When I say that I can’t tell if you are self-realised or not it is to be fair, but as you seem to be making judgements on appearances than I don’t see why I can’t. Or did you judge gangaji on something else than appearance, are you a mind/soul reader? I don’t think so. Your major point is that I don’t know you, well you don’t know me, and I doubt you really know gangaji. Perhaps you should be a bit more self-reflective! I do want to point out that gangaji is not my guru or anything, I think see teaches in a wonderful way, but I am not associated with her. It just ticks me off to see all these people thinking they know if someone is the real deal or not like there are actually objective criteria. There aren’t. That’s why I think at most you can say you don’t like her. Then perhaps the most I can say about you is that I don’t like you, you are a arrogant and insensitive oaf, and if you are self-realised than you’re a self-realised arrogant and insensitive oaf!

[tao]

To rob van es:

Since you still don't quite get it (maybe even deliberately), let me spell it out for you:

(your statements are in quotations, and mine are not)

"you seem to be making judgements on appearances"

How would you know that? I don't make judgements simply on appearances. I have personal experience with the object of my criticisms.

"Or did you judge gangaji on something else than appearance, are you a mind/soul reader? I don’t think so."

You can think anbything you want, but that does not make it correct. I know much more about Gangaji that you realize. And I have already made that quite clear. Gangaji is a fraud and a money scammer in my opinion. I don't have to be a "mind/soul reader", the facts speak for themselves. Gangaji has clearly revealed self-possessed egotism, narcissitic self-importance, and arrogant intolearnce towards others, as well as attempting to demand and extort money from her gullible followers. There are witnesses, documents, and facts to prove that. You on the other hand, have a rather dubious and preumptious attitude.

"and I doubt you really know gangaji"

I know Gangaji much better than you think, and certainly better than you do. You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, or what personal experience and knowledge I have about Gangaji.

"you should be a bit more self-reflective!"

Its obvious that you yourself are lacking or incapable of self-reflection. Otherwise you would not be saying things about me that you just do not know aything about. In fact, your attitude is juvenile and impudent.

"It just ticks me off to see all these people thinking they know if someone is the real deal or not like there are actually objective criteria. There aren’t."

Thats exactly the crux of your problem, and where you are wrong. There are indeed objective criteria as to whether or not someone is truly Awakened or so-called 'self-realized/enlightened'. There are attributes to Self-knowledge. How someone acts, behaves, speaks, and conducts themselves towards others reveals quite alot about their spiritual state and realization. The signs are there, and it just depends on if you know what to look for. So your presumptious assertion that there are no "objective criteria" clearly reveals that you are ognorant and don't know what you are talking about.

"I think at most you can say you don’t like her."

I don't like or dislike her. I simply know that, as a supposed realized/enlightened/awakened teacher, she is nothing but a complete fraud. Those who follow her are gullible and are without knowledge and wisdom. She has some superficial intellectual grasp of certain fashionable spiritual type ideas, but her supposed enlightened state is seen as obviously quite a false facade to those who are in fact truly awakened. And her conduct with her cult followers and cult organization business and financial practices are extremely suspect.

"perhaps the most I can say about you is that I don’t like you, you are a arrogant and insensitive oaf,"

How would you know? You don't know me personally at all. You have no experience with me other than that I disagree with your presumptions about Gangaji (of which you know far less than I do about) and myself, and your semi-approval or support of someone who is a fraud spiritually. Even my friend Brian who sponsers this Blog and who brought this issue up in the first place has articulated his doubt and criticism of Gangaji and Eli. Perhaps you should take up your argument with him as well. You seem to think that you know better. ... But the fact is that you don't, and I have far more insight and experience and knowledge about Gangaji than you apparently do.

So for you to say: "you are a arrogant and insensitive oaf," just does not have any substance to it. I have patiently and tactfully explained to you how your presumptions about me are incorrect and why I criticise Gangaji as I do, so to call me "arrogant and insensitive" is a joke. As a matter of fact, your own refusal and avoidance to hear what I have presented shows that it is actually you yourself who is "arrogant and insensitive", not to mention an "oaf". I think it is realy you who are arrogant when you make assumption about me of which you have no knowledge or experience.

I have spent the last 44 years out of my 60 years of age deeply involved in the spiritual realm and pursuit of the dharma. I have traveled the world numerous times and have lived in India and elsewhere for years at a time. I have met and personally known and lived with several genuinely awakened and enlightened Sages. I have also awakened into, and unwaveringly abide in awakened Self-knowledge myself. I know what it is to be awakened, and to have true wisdom in the self-perfected state of true realization.

Unlike Gangaji and her ilk, I have not ever, and will not ever, require or accept any money from anyone for sharing the truth, knowledge, and wisdom that I have been fortunate to have been blessed with.

According to how and what you have expressed in your comments to me, you clearly have not yet awakened. Nor do you know the truth about this fraudulent so-called spiritual teacher Gangaji. You have merely made unfounded and ignorant presumptions about both myself, as well as Gangaji.

I have nothing more to say to you until you relate towads me in a more intelligent manner and with a little more self-honesty and humility. If you wish to continue to be deceived by such false teachers, then that is your problem, not mine. You obviously do not know what I know about Gangaji, but again, if you choose to remain blind about it, then I guess thats what you deserve.

If you ever come around to sincerely desiring help towards true understanding and becoming awakened, then you can contact me through Brian.

I wish you well on your path to peace, understanding, and freedom.

tao

[Jamandi]

If teachers do not act like teachers, then nobody would listen to them. But why do we expect them to act like this all the time?
There are not machines meant to live up to our expectations.
I have never heard of existence judging a person for being a real or a false teacher. Come to think of it, I have never heard of existence judging anybody at all. So why do we?
Great anger and aggression are up there in the comments and it’s always pointed at the other person. Ping-pong. Have fun flaming, guys. Please just don’t beat each other up. There is enough of that in the world already.

[rob van es]

To Tao:

I’m a little hurt by your post, nobody wants to be called ignorant, but I guess I had it coming. (don’t play with fire if you don’t want to get burned) On reflection I feel it’s better show more honesty. I usually respond from defensiveness, I did this in our discussion. The reason why I responded in the first place is because I feel gangaji is a wonderful teacher, but this impression is only from books and video’s. Not knowing her personally I might be wrong, and you might be right. The resistance I feel to your opinion is because it is in my nature to be optimistic about people. To think that there are teachers out there fooling people for money is disturbing, I rather not think like that at all, especially not about a teacher who (as far as I can tell) a good teacher. Yet I have come to the limit of my knowledge, not knowing her personally I must accept the possibility that she is a fraud. If on appearance someone can look so genuine, than how can I be sure who is truly genuine? I would like to know about you and what you teach, will you tell me?

[Jamandi]

Rob,

I felt surprised to read your words. Your posts have more feeling in them, so I was surprised that you would ask questions from a guy who is obviously an arrogant nincompoop.
You certainly have more humility in you, because you can be self critical and are also able to show it.
Just stay with your feelings, because feelings are the language of your soul and reason is the language of the mind.
If you have a feeling for a teacher, then stay with it and you will be certain to learn something more about yourself that you never new.

Greetings,
Jamandi

[tao]

To Jamandi:

You wrote: "...a guy who is obviously an arrogant nincompoop."

Which shows just how very little you understand about me or the issue which was being debated.

The arrogance that you see is really but your own reflection.

Rob's reply was apparently honest and sensible, and that is much to his credit.

Your ignorant comment about me is unfortunatly nothing more than cheap and baseless ridicule.

[tao]

To Rob:

I appreciate your willingness to reconsider. Your tendency and desire to be optimistic is positive, and I do understand, but it can also overlook things which should not be overlooked. I have shared my honest opinions about the issue with you, but you must come to your own conclusions. I would simply encourage you to reflect and be more careful in who you give your admiration and belief to. If you wish to correspond with me privately, then you are welcome to do so. I do not care to discuss the matter further here. Best wishes.

[Ken Kennet]

Jamandi, you aren't ignorant. If you the fiction are, You the Real are not, so why be hurt? But why should one judge any teacher on his or her behaviour? It's not that I was a fan of Gangaji's (nor an opponent). I'm rather fond of Balsekar's way of teaching, but I also like Nisargadatta or Robert Adams. Some propose Balsekar too is or was engaged in immoral sexual behaviour and financial greed. Well, who cares? Really. Is Gangaji's fictitious self involved in so-called immoral behaviour or the real Self? That's the question to ask here, I'd say. And the answer makes it clear that the whole dicussion is moot. Anyway, we shouldn't trust any teacher, only the one Teacher, which I am. It's so easy to want to trust a teacher, but that's a mistake. Well, not really.

[donald ponder]

I've just read through this 'thread' of comments on eli & gangaji and am amazed at the ill feelings! And not just this site but at so many 'spritual'sites.seems like for every sage or teacher there appears debris trail of disappointment,disaffection,&disillusion. how quickly we are thrown into the pit of snakes, finding ourselves in a streetfight with broken bottles and shivs(knives) in our fists going for necks & faces! i've seen a few videotapes on my local cable access channel of eli & gangaji and they come across to me as stunningly wonderful.inspired me to read 'diamond in your pocket' by ganaji-a truly great-spirited work.whatever their 'scandals' may be their profound medicine has entered me and begun its transmutations! a bit contrary some of the negative opinions, i find 'neo-advaitism' right on the button. after many years of search & study &practice in spiritual paths alternative&oriental medicine it feels so intuitively right. when all the various 'ulimate' ways-including mahamudra,dzogchen buddhism, zen,etc.are teased free of their cultural givens ie:gods &goddesses,myths,legends,&heroes-all that came stuck to them in the various valleys in which they arose-doesn't it seem both normal And a relief and 'why didn't i see that before' that it takes no turning & tisting, no 'no pain no gain', no puritan handwringing & punishment,but a simple,profound,revelatory recognition-discovery that we are always already in fresh & open complete fulfillment in every now even when we're feeling way off the mark AND STUMBLING.i feel embarrassed to say this but i love you!

[tao]

To donald ponder:

If you think "eli & gangaji" are "stunningly wonderful" and "great-spirited"... then all I can say to you is that you just don't have a clue about what's up with them, or about yourself, and so you are merely charmed by very shallow superficialites.

You are wasting your precious time. There is absolutley nothing there for you with frauds like "eli & gangaji".

Sooner...or later, you will come realize that. For your sake, I hope its much sooner and not later.

[Matthew]

This entire comments thread is itself a great lesson in non-duality. Teacher / student / guru / devotee. Fraud / Enlightened being. Round and round and round she goes. . .

[arvind]

love all serve all. it's easy to find faults in others. as jesus said --let him cast the first stone ... instead of focusing on errors in others let us correct ourselves. no matter what fault another may have the reality is that inside them is god. so instead of focusing on and criticizing why not see the god within all.

[foxblood]

I am sorry that I take part in this discussion. But I just wanted to say that as long as you have the need to become something, to understand something, to enlighten yourself in any way, then you are vulnerable to all the folly, hypocrisy
and deceptions of so called enlightened gurus. Why to want such thing? Why want to be one with everything? Basically you want to know what is it all about? You were born not knowing, you live not knowing and you will die not knowing. Face it. And what is wrong with that?

[John Christian]

"This first of all is contradictory. If it's all One, then there's nothing special to awake to; you're already as awake as you need to be."

Its not WHAT you awaken too, that stays the same, to its how you see it from the perspective of the senses that changes completly. That along with loss of personal identity and a slowing of the mind. Life stays the same. It does seem to be a physiological experience.

[Henry]

New informations about Gangaji: http://www.gangaji.biz/

[tao]

Henry,

Many thanks and appreciation for putting up your site revealing the fraud, deceipt, and scam of Gangaji and cult. It's been so obvious to me right from the get-go. In fact, I've been saying this very same thing for 10 years or more, but hardly anyone wanted to face the truth about it until now. So good for you for standing up for the truth and for Sri Ramana's legacy.

I also urge and encourage other readers to support Henry in exposing Gangaji (and Eli) and her cult and (also HWL Poonja) for the scam that it is.

[arvind]

Whatever you see outside is a projection of what is inside.
If you see bad outside it means there is bad within.
the world is like a mirror -- it reflects what is within us.
instead of trying to correct the outer --look deep within.
you will find the fault within you.
life is short.
there is barely enough time to correct yourself.
don't get sidetracked in attacking others.
simply spend energy in perfecting yourself

just my opinion...

[tao]

Arvind,

That may just be your opinion, but its also a fundamentally flawed view of life. In fact, its a load of rubbish.

If what you say was actually true, then you would likely be practicing what you preach.

But instead, your comment is visible proof of the falsity of your opinion, and thus that you are a hypocrite.

Furthermore, there is nothing which needs "perfecting". Nor is there anything "outside" or "inside".

You are apparently merely parroting ideas and opinions that have been acquired from elsewhere.

Your comment smells of typical stale religious rhetoric.

[rob]

3 letters. S A D. you people are DOWNERS. period

[tao]

rob,

8 letters: U R A LOSER

[Vic]

Re. Tony Parsons.

As far as I am concerned Ramana Maharshi was the real deal. When I hear Tony Parsons say in one of his videos - http://www.theopensecret.com/audio1.htm - that Ramana Maharshi appeared to be teaching 'some kind of duality' and gradual path, even though Tony Parsons in the same video stated that he knew very little of Ramana Maharshi's teachings and was basing his assessment on hearsay. Then I would say I am entitled to take Tony Parson's 'teachings' with more than a little grain of salt.

[tao]

Vic,

(a) Brian's article had nothing to do with Tony Parsons.

(b) Contrary to your suppostion, and as far as I know, Tony Parsons happens to be quite well informed about Ramana Maharshi and his teaching.

(c) Before you go dismissing Parsons message, perhaps you should actually hear all or most of what he has to say. (not just some clip off a website).

(d) You ought not let your firm devotion to Ramana limit your open-mindedness to hear the value and insight in what others have to say.

[Vic]

Tao,

Unfortunately you appear to have fired off your reply before checking your facts.

a) My reply had nothing to do with Brian's article - just some comments I had seen about Tony Parsons in the comments section, so I thought I'd add my own twopence worth
b) I don't know why you think Tony Parsons is well-informed about Ramana Maharshi, he clearly is not. How do I know ? Because he says so himself ! in the video clip I mentioned, if you had bothered to listen to it you would have heard him say that what he knew about Ramana Maharshi came through what other people had supposedly said about him and had been interepreted and translated 6000 times (which is nonsense) - I suggest you listen to the video.
c) I have heard Tony Parson's message in person as it happens and you cannot dismiss what Tony Parsons is saying as a 'video clip off some website' as you put it - firstly because it is a video of him talking live so where it comes from is hardly relevant (I do not think the video has been doctored), but secondly and I guess in your eyes most importanly the video clip is from Tony Parson's own website (hardly 'some website' - I assume he has some control over what is posted on his own website)
d) There is nothing wrong with my open-mindedness - I just feel that as the original post was about Neo-Advaita and the various flavours of nonesense that is sometimes spouted, people ought to know that Tony Parsons is not above spouting some of his own, which of course doesn't matter in neo-advaita as 'anything goes'.

Please check your facts in future.

[tao]

Vic,

To briefly respond:

(a) I checked the "facts" as much as was apparent. It rather seemed that you were responding to Brian and not to other comments, because you did not indicate clearly that you were responding to any other particular comment or commenter.

(b) Fyi, I have read all of Mr Parsons books, listened to most of his talks (CDs) and have seen all the video clips that he has put on his site over the past few years, including the that one you referred to. I think you are misinterpreting and not understanding what he was trying to say. He seems to be saying and implying that, since he himself (and his audience) has never directly heard what Sri Ramana had spoken when he was alive, that therefore everything is second-hand info, quotations, and interpretations. So what we know of what Sri Ramana said, has in fact come through "what other people had supposedly said about him and had been interepreted and translated". The "6000 times" was merely an obvious exaggeration designed to make the point.

(c) I was not dismissing the video clip, or the website. I was merely saying and indicating that it was but a brief clip that does not represent the whole of Mr Parsons message.

(d) I am glad you say you are open-minded, but I am not really much concerned with your personal critical views about Mr Parsons. I will say however, that it seems to me that you are somehow missing his point.

[pauly]

may all your questions dissolve so that the answer is revealed .. the truth of who you are is eternal presence and awareness, the rest, like you body your mind your observations, your claims etc, mean absolutely nothing .. millions of years go by in time/space so dont get too caught up in what other people are doing and being, though im glad it seems you are enjoying playing in the illusion as i am .. namaste

[tao]

Pauly,

What questions? What claims? What illusion?

I think you really do not have any clue as to what's up here in this forum. nd you are probably just another hit-and-run poster.

[Robin]

I can't speak about Gangaji, I never worked with her. But I spent nearly two years with Eli, and I feel totally betrayed by him. Yet,in reading the various discussions these months something has been weighing on my mind. Today, as I discover he has been diagnosed with cancer, I want to say it:

Eli may be a hypocrite, a sexual predator, a cheat, and much more. But among the legitimate bad-mouthing, there is one perception of Eli which I would like to dispel--that he was the purveyor of an instant enlightenment teaching that appealed to spoiled well-to-do New Age consumers because they didn't have to do anything to feel enlightened. Enlightenment Lite.

Eli's teaching involved the use of the Enneagram to determine one's own fixation in order to relentlessly examine one's character flaws and selfishness. It required constant self-scrutiny and could be an extremely painful process. It was never easy. It was similar in some ways to the relentless self-scrutiny of Twelve Step groups.

Additionally, Eli's teaching involved learning to sit with negative emotion. He taught that anger, sorrow, fear and then despair lead to the Black Hole through which one fell in ego-death, dying in life to Awakening. Therefore, one had to "welcome negative emotion", silencing all thoughts and distractions in the head, in order to physically feel layers of previously unexamined grief, terror, and so on. One trained oneself to sit alone in silence with this and also to learn to face these emotions while interacting with the world.

One trained oneself to be sient in daily interactions, to control one's impulses to assert one's personality in order to be there for others and show compassion for them/ One learned how not to "move", that is not to act and react in the habitual patterns one had learned since babyhood. One was taught to be constantly "vigilant" of every fixated, selfish, or mechanical behavior, that is, of most of our behaviors. One was expected to work at this 24/7.

One was taught to "stand in truth" even if it meant losing friends, jobs, money. One was taught that the only thing that really mattered was to be truthful, regardless of the consequences; that if everyone did this the world would be a better place. Greed and deceit were the downfalls of humanity; we could help build it up, perhaps save it, prepare it for the next evolutionary stage, by putting our own needs behind the need to serve Truth.

I don't practice most of this any more because I feel too betrayed by Eli and I can't go there . And in hindsight I don't even know what I think about it and I don't really care. But I can tell you one thing. It was no New Age Lite, it was work: hard, painful, constant work. Those of us who seriously followed Eli were serious. It wasn't an easy path. It had no glamour, gave no immediate pleasure or quick fixes, often caused discomfort and pain, didn't make you popular, certainly didn't fill your pockets and it wasn't much fun. This was no say Abraham/Hicks teaching and could not possibly appeal to any New Age consumer of Enlightenment Lite. There was nothing to consume (beyond the retreats and the books) and it wasn't light, it was heavy.
You were on your own, directly confronting your own suffering on the profoundest possible levels in order to free yourself from your selfishness to be there for the suffering of others. The silence, the experiencing of of negative emotions, the constance vigilance, the risks involved in standing in truth, and the sense of being so different from others as the ego did in fact diminish, without the comfort of wearing orange or chanting hare krishna or any of the accoutrements of awakening that other groups might have, all of these things were very, very hard.

Why I feel so betrayed by Eli is precisely because the teaching was so hard and so painful and he would always tell us to "just stop" acting on our deep-rooted fixations, and all that time he wasn't stopping. He, the sexual 8, was living out his own fixation through his infidelity. It wasn't the affair itself that bothered me; it was that he told us to stop and he wasn't stopping.

I just wanted to set the record straight. Eli may be called many things, but not a merchant of Enlightenment Lite. And those who seriously followed him, we weren't its consumers either. It felt like the real deal.

[tao]

Robin,

You have written the following (in quotes):

"Eli may be a ... ... ... But ... there is one perception of Eli which I would like to dispel--that he was the purveyor of an instant enlightenment teaching that appealed to spoiled well-to-do New Age consumers because they didn't have to do anything to feel enlightened."

Ms. Ganga is in fact a "purveyor of an instant enlightenment teaching". There is no doubt about that. Mr Eli's approach may be different, but he too is selling enlightenment. He too is playing seekers as suckers. He too is a fraud and a con. He may not be offering it as "instant", but even putting people through all the nonsense, work, and stress that you describe, is also deceptive.

"I don't practice most of this any more because I feel too betrayed by Eli and I can't go there . And in hindsight I don't even know what I think about it and I don't really care."

If you don't care, then why are you still holding onto it, and dumping Eli's garbage and nonsense onto this forum?

"Those of us who seriously followed Eli were serious."

You may believe that, but your so-called seriousness was very misplaced. You were merely serious about a load of rubbish, thats all. Don't be so proud of it. You were conned. To those who are awake, Eli's spiritual trip is clearly a con game. And you apparently still don't understand how and why. In ignorance, you bought into a bunch of spiritual BS, sold to you by a fraud. At least that's basically what you have described here in your comment.

"There was nothing to consume (beyond the retreats"

So what? ... Spending good money on bullshit retreats is consuming. And buying into convoluted nonsense and misplaced and unnecessary effort, is also consuming.

"...and the sense of being so different from others as the ego did in fact diminish, without the comfort of..."

There is no "dimish" of ego. There is either the delusion of ego... or there is not. There are no degrees. One is either awake, or one is not. Neither is there any sense of "being so different from others".
I am sorry to tell you, but you are sorely mistaken. You have acheieved nothing fro Eli other than weasting your time, effort, and money. The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you will be on your way to true awakening.

"Eli may be called many things, but not a merchant of Enlightenment Lite. And those who seriously followed him, we weren't its consumers either. It felt like the real deal."

It may have "felt" that way to you, but you were and are mistaken. You have been fooled. Moreover, the "real deal"... is nothing like you have described.

I am sorry to see that you have been so mislead. You still do see that. You clearly are still in denial and making excuses for someone who was, and is a fraud. Until you you understand that, and let go of the convoluted nonsense that Eli fed you, and you bought into and hold onto, you will not be free.

[Matthew]

Tao,
I am writing out of anger at your last post, shredding Robins honest account of her experience.

who do you think you are?
..the spiritual police?

Sharing our thoughts and feelings with others gives us all the opportunity to receive some help in working things out. For this to happen, you do require the ability to shut up and listen.

[tao]

Matthew,

You wrote: "I am writing out of anger at your last post..."

That's tough dude. Get over it. Don't be so immature.

You wrote: "who do you think you are?
..the spiritual police?"

You've really got a bit of problem there don't you? However, I don't think about myself... but I DO think that you are nothinbg more than an immature whiney little punk who has difficulty thinking objectively. Fyi, this is a forum where people express their opinions, and sometimes even criticisms. If you can't handle that, then maybe you should go somewhere where people are just as intellectually and emotionally immature as you are, and where they don't have any minds of their own. As far as "police" goes, it seems obvious that you are far more of a 'policing' bent than I could ever possibly be... So that makes you a hypocrite as well.

You wrote: "Sharing our thoughts and feelings with others gives us all the opportunity to receive some help in working things out."

I guess it never occured to you that what I had said might be of far greater "help" to that person than the lame drivel that you have just posted. And I also guess that it never occured to you that I intended to say what I said for that very reason... namely to perhaps help dispell the delusions about about Ganga and Eli that that person (Robin) was holding onto in ignorance. I guess it never occured to you that the truth isn't always what people want to admit.

You wrote: "...you do require the ability to shut up and listen."

Well I think that you ought to practice what you preach. I also think you don't have a clue about the issue that was being discussed/debated. And therefore I think your comment is among some of the dumbest and most pathetic that I've ever read in this forum. Better luck next time.... that is, whenever you grow up to be a man of mature intellect.

[Matthew]

Tao,

"this is a forum where people express their opinions, and sometimes even criticisms."
"the truth isn't always what people want to admit."

so stop and listen..

[Matthew]

.. and then you "might be of far greater "help" to that person than the lame drivel that you have just posted."

[tao]

Matthew,

Heh heh heh... Listen to your inane garbage?... Hah!! Not a chance. Go tell your stupid-ass self to "shut up and listen".

You're nothing but a whiney little fool. You just don't have a clue. Go back to junior high school where you belong.

[tao]

Matthew,

You are way out of your depth here little smart-mouth.

I am not here to "help" anyone. I really don't give a damn. You can take my opinion, or leave it. It's really not my problem if fools like you, or someone else, wants to believe in the pathetic pseudo-spiritual BS that is promoted and $$$ sold by the likes of cheap frauds such as Eli & Ganga.

[Robin]

I wrote what I wrote to dispel the idea that some people have that Eli's system was an easy path to follow, which appealed to lazy New Agers who wanted a simple way to Enlightenment Lite. And I stand by it. Eli's path was an extremely difficult one to follow, involving intensive soul-searching 24/7, and often extreme psychological discomfort as one went through the deep layers of emotion to overcome "fixation." I said I don't know what I think about his way at this point and I don't, but I do know it wasn't easy. Eli's way involved extreme confrontation with pain. I don't advocate it, I am just trying to set the record straight. The people who seriously followed Eli were VERY serious. Maybe we were fools, but serious fools. Eli had zero appeal for superficial New Age spiritual consumers, and his followers were intellectuals, political radicals, artists and the like. We were NOT spiritual consumers and it was no bowl of cherries. I stand by my previous comments. Tao, you have a lack of understanding of nuance if you think I was defending it. I was merely reporting what it was like.

[Robin]

PS Thanks, Matthew

[tao]

Robin,

Perhaps you were not "defending", but I don't think you really understand that Eli's so-called "path" was/is anything more than pseudo-spirituality. It may have seemed difficult to you, but such is no measure of its actual validity or value. You may also think it's not a new-age, but you are in denial.

If you really want to engage a genuine spiritual work, a path that is truly difficult to traverse, and that requires profound intelligence, commitment, and serious growth, please go review and study the following material:

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/adv_prep1.htm

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/respect.htm

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/preparatory_study.htm

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/preparatory_curriculum.htm

http://www.hermes-press.com/creative_inspiration.htm

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/intro_study.htm

http://www.hermes-press.com

[james]

Robin....

Having lived/worked a couple years with the Eli/Tony groups (10 years ago), I agree with your open assessment of what it was like - serious stuff....thank you.

Most often, for we westerners, the spiritual family/sangha becomes a reflection of our nuclear family....the most sublime - the worse dysfunction.

I am grateful for the information Eli had gathered and shared about the enneagram and personal development.....it has been very helpful in my continued life's journey. The enneagram is a wonderful tool for an adult to study adult fixation. To understand one's childhood patterning/fixation, one must dive a bit deeper. And prior to this, is an even deeper womb/birth fixation/ conditioning.

A guide, whether be parent, priest, guru, or therapist, can only take us as far as they know the way themselves. There is Sexual Subtype behavior that can explain sexual acting out for adults. There is sexualized behavior that is a replay of childhood sexual abuse and should not be lightly pushed off as Sexual Subtype fixation.. Sexual, Physical and Verbal abuse childhood issues were not truly addressed with the Eli-Gangaji groups....not with the teachers or the members. This is true for some of the other Papaji teachers and their members, I have been around. I have been expecting something of this sort to happen....and I am not the only person who is outside the group with this view.

Robin...I kindly suggest....Eli as a guide has taken you as far as he himself was willing to go....you have to decide if you are willing to dive deeper than your last guide....this is how one honors one's parent, one's teacher, one's journey. But of course, make your own decision...my belief is my belief...

Sorry, to hear about Eli's cancer...I suspect we will not have the chance to meet again.

[Lom Duong]

words words words... over nothing...

He who speaks does not know.
He who knows does not speak.
"Tao" speaks a great deal.

He who speaks does not know.
He who knows does not speak.
"Tao" speaks a great deal.

He who speaks does not know.
He who knows does not speak.
"Tao" speaks a great deal.

[kris]

God is All-That-Is. Simple. Let it Be.

[Laurie]

Gangaji is very human and never professes to be otherwise. She is teaching people to find inner peace with in all situations, not to be superior or above experiencing all situations. the writer fully misunderstands her message.

[tAo]

Gangaji is "fully" full of shit... and other peoples hard-earned green paper. And I am sure that "the writer" (that would be Brian I presume) and myself both understand her (Gangaji's) exceedingly bogus message quite well. But I am surprised that she has any followers still lingering. It's amazing how stupid and gullible some humans can be.

[dinKy tAo]

Stop attacking the messenger already, it makes you sound like a Rethuglican. The "silent source of all that is" is hardly an exceedingly bogus message, as you put it -- and your assertion of bogus-ness only speaks to the limitations of your own projections, as always. Examine the message, not the messenger -- for yourself -- experientially. Your outrage at the thought of someone "selling" the Open Secret of The Buddha's Mind and Christ's Heart is merely egoic foolishness, like a dog barking at the Moon -- and it hardly affects the Mind, the Heart, or the Moon.

[tAo]

Stop attacking the "messenger" you say? -- why should I? the so-called "messenger" is the source of the rubbish. and in this case, messenger = poseur.

The "silent source of all that is"? -- excuse me while I vomit....

"limitations of your own projections"? -- is that what you are doing? thanks for letting us know what your problem is

"Examine the message not the messenger"? -- you mean don't look at the fraudulent one, just believe her empty words? in your dreams maybe. what an idiot you are.

"experientially" you say? -- now that's rather funny! thanks for making a fool of yourself and making me laugh.

"outrage"? -- speaking of outrage, take a look in the mirror of your own mind,

"the Open Secret of The Buddha's Mind and Christ's Heart"? -- you must be kidding. are you really as naive and stupid as your pseudo-spiritual babbling sounds?

"egoic foolishness"? "like a dog barking at the Moon"? -- that must be like yourself... egoic foolishness indeed. *chuckle*

[dinKy tAo]

why so angry, tAo?

"I have spent the last 44 years out of my 60 years of age deeply involved in the spiritual realm and pursuit of the dharma."

There's no fool like an old fool.

I am not concerned with the messenger, but rather the message.
Posted by: tao | October 23, 2006 at 04:48 PM

Stop attacking the "messenger" you say? -- why should I? messenger = poseur.
Posted by: tAo | February 21, 2008 at 08:22 PM

Tao is correct: "How someone acts, behaves, speaks, and conducts themselves towards others reveals quite alot about their spiritual state and realization". Since Tao has favored us with the following pearls, he is obviously a truly awakened Master -- or is well on his way, after 44 years of being "deeply involved in the spiritual realm and pursuit of the dharma". Would anyone be able to help translate the following into Sanskrit?

----------------------

being awakened, I don't need to "think so".

I serve as a teacher/guru and thus have students.

I know what it is to be awakened, and to have true wisdom in the self-perfected state of true realization.

I have also awakened into, and unwaveringly abide in awakened Self-knowledge myself.

I am not here to "help" anyone. I really don't give a damn.

what the bleep do you know anyway?

It's really not my problem if fools like you...

Its obvious that you yourself are lacking or incapable of self-reflection.

you are ognorant and don't know what you are talking about.

I don't care what you think. What do you know? ... Not much as far as I can see.

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about

U R A LOSER

Such an intentionally ignorant attitude does not deserve my further attention.

you are nothinbg more than an immature whiney little punk ...

Listen to your inane garbage?... Not a chance.

Go tell your stupid-ass self to "shut up and listen".

You're nothing but a whiney little fool.

You just don't have a clue.

Go back to junior high school where you belong.

what an idiot you are.

thanks for making a fool of yourself

are you really as naive and stupid as your pseudo-spiritual babbling sounds?

to call me "arrogant and insensitive" is a joke.

You are way out of your depth here little smart-mouth.

I have nothing more to say to you until you relate towads me in a more intelligent manner and with a little more self-honesty and humility.

What makes you assume that I need any such "help", or that I lack any realization of "who you are" (who I am)?

According to how and what you have expressed in your comments to me, you clearly have not yet awakened.

you really do not have any clue as to what's up here in this forum

Better luck next time.... that is, whenever you grow up to be a man of mature intellect.

If you ever come around to sincerely desiring help towards true understanding and becoming awakened, then you can contact me through Brian.

[Brian]

Questions about the preceding comment:

--if someone doesn't care what someone else thinks, why spend time and energy responding like this?

--does this comment reflect the humility that the commenter is calling for in the other person?

--does saying that someone "go back to junior high school" advance a dialogue, or does it bring it down, well, to a junior high school level?

[Tiago]

why do you waste your time with that? With master's private life? Just get the message!

[tAo]

To Tiago:

Who is "master's"?

Master who?

And "get" what message?

And why do YOU waste YOUR time being concerned with how other people "waste" their time?

[No-name]

Master who? And "get" what message?

* * * * *

"Arrogance diminishes wisdom." -- Arabian Proverb

tAo, have you lost your powers of inference with that oh-so-mighty mind of yours? Your umpteen years of study have left you a slave to your own ego. In your endless samsaric need to be right all the time, to know all the time, to understand all the time -- you dismiss out-of-hand the obvious:

(a) ANY master
(b) The MESSAGE of awakening

This site, and all the pontificating herein, all the visible intellectual attachments, all the theories, all the arguing, all the egos -- is precisely how the mind veils truth.

What mind?! What veil?! What truth?! You will no doubt reply, like a little yapping dog, trapped in the parked car of its own self-importance, barking at everyone who passes by.

Now get on your high ego horse and flame away. Show us all how smart you are. Convince yourself once more how right you are, how knowledgeable you are, how righteous you are -- yapping out from the conditioned cage of your own self-importance, your own false sense of security. Flame away mighty mind.

"Truth is found through meditation and fixing attention on the Self within, not by dealing with the deceptive and transient phenomena of the world."
-- Katha Upanishad 4.1-2

[tAo]

Yes, "Truth is found through meditation and fixing attention on the Self within, not by dealing with the deceptive and transient phenomena of the world."

and NOT from:

"(a) ANY master"

and NOT from:

"(b) The MESSAGE of awakening"

PS: I suggest you quit childishly digging around in the rubbish pile and grow up and go get yourself a real life.

[No-name]

...like a little yapping dog, trapped in the parked car of its own self-importance, barking at everyone who passes by...

"P.S. I suggest you quit childishly digging around in the rubbish pile and grow up and go get yourself a real life."

----------

nailed it.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

-- Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels entitled.

-- Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.

-- Feels grandiose and self-important. Exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying.

-- Demands to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements.

-- Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people.

-- Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, and failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply).

[tAo]

Ahhh... some more typically juvenile nonsense from the deliberately anonymous commenter, who really does need to grow up and get a real life.

[Lucinda Ramsey]

Ahhh! The ease of criticizing that which we neither understand nor want to be accountable for. See how we grasp at cynicism in vicious attachment to smallness and suffering.

[Paul]

Someone here is a disgrace to his name.

[inga]

Dear Tao,

I loved your comments and your playful sparring with all the posters who tried to screw up their courage and beat you up like kids in a playground.

At least you are honest.

The smooth, organized and well financed type of "teachers" would never respond with such piss and vinegar. That much honesty and derring-do would hurt their bottom line. Then the kids might not return for another show.........

$$$$$.........wink, wink !!

[Adolfo (Spain)]

¿What thing is in the mind of anyone to consider, or even paying the slightest attention to the story of "some individual who had an affaire with an student"? ¿What does it have to do with the Truth (resembled by Advaita, neo-advaita, or whatever other branch-reflection of Philosophia Perennis available on Earth)? Really, who cares. And you, whoever you are that cares for that, that the point in wich you are, that is the point in wich you have installed yourself. These mind tricks are so comic and beautiful...

[AK]

At 11/17/2006 4:10 PM, Anonymous said...
IMO The really harmful feature of this situation is the secrecy of it all. And the favoritism implied in singling out one student to be the teacher's consort.

Secrecy and favoritism (even when the favoritism doesnt become sexualized) both introduce deceit and tension that will undermine the trust and spiriutal practice of every person in the community. A teacher who really and truly grasps the big picture would care deeply enough about the welfare of all students that he or she would never be willing to take such risks, no matter what the temptation.

First, keeping an affair secret between teacher and student takes a tremendous amount of energy.

Even if the teacher's wife has consented, its always worth asking

1) Did she really give free consent, or was she bullied into it?

2) Is the teacher's wife hoping to preserve her marriage by colluding in her husband's extra marital affairs?

Either way, this is a grievous lack of integrity for even ordinary persons--let alone those whose authority is based on being 'enlightened.'

Finally, all three persons in this triangle--the married couple and the student--have been living a lie and keeping a corrosive secret from the rest of the sangha.

It is worth giving some though to the sheer effort it takes to hold in your emotional energy, control your eyes, and contrict and guard your your body language when you're in a state of erotic arousal and your secret beloved is sitting in the midst of the sangha.

All the effort used to control one's body and one's nonverbal behavior to conceal a spiritually adulerous affair is energy that no longer available for spiritual practice.

Your inner life may feel very lively and intense due to the erotic charge, and the charge may be intensified by the secrecy, which may generate very confincing 'spiritual' feelings, but these feelings are misleading.

Long term, at a deeper level, anyone who lives this way will suffer diminishment of their inner life. It is a wounding that is very difficult to identify and remedy.

And, we must consider the pround impact on the community.

A sangha is based on profound trust, rooted in a dimension that is supposed to be greater than any one personality.

Before a secret is revealed, members of a sangha may sense some turbulence in the atmosphere and be distracted from it. Thier spiritual practice may suffer and in the absence of validating information, they may blame themselves for thier lack of progress, when in fact the teacher's secret betryals are generating nonverbal anxiety or stimulating distracting lust throughout the sangha.

When the sangha members find that a secret has been kept from them, there is going to be vast betrayal and that in turn will be wounding to everyone's spiritual practice.

This will call into question whether the teachings are worth their effort since
'being enlightened' did not prevent thier teacher, the teacher's spouse and a student from living a lie for so long a time.

Finally, there can be a serious hazard for a young practitioner who is singled out as a teacher's consort.

The intensity of such a bond can interfere with that young person's process of erotic and psychological self development and can make it difficult to find satisfaction in ordinary relationships with partners who are not special, merely human and who cannot offer the intensity and glamor of guru-sex.

It may be that life as a guru can end in a blind alley of intensity and loneliness. An aging guru may fear death and physical debilitation and this may trigger sudden upsurges in loneliness and sexual yearning--urgings that an enlightened being is not supposed to have. Rather than consciously admit this, the suffering guru may unconscious act out--and find a tempting array of young admirers on hand.

Students see the guru as special, they relate to that guru's public image, are trained to relate only to that guru's public image. They relate to that guru's charisma, to his or her maks, but never to the guru as a human being.

Thus the human portion of the guru may come to feel starved while his or her public persona becomes more and more bloated and top heavy from adultation.

This causes an exhausting split between the neglected, emotionally starved true self within the guru, versus the over fed public persona.

Eventually the person may break down in various patterns of greed, in an effort to find nurture--some may over eat, others may crave money, even if already wealthy, and still others may seek erotic adventure, despite being married.

That's the problem with the enlightenment myth--it puts the enlightened one on a fictitious pedestal and isolates them, putting them at risk of emotional starvation--especially if they become gurus.

A guru in this predicament is trapped. Most gurus socialize only with other gurus who may be potential competitors as well as friends.

How can can a suffering guru admit to needing help and seeking psychotherapy? That's the booby prize of becoming special--you're so special you're ashamed to face that you need help and a gurus life is so extreme that few therapists may be equipped to help.

From

http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2006/11/jaxon-bear-debacle-mainstreams.html

[Sam]

Hey, why everyone wants to stick their nose into other people's private relationship? Even if Eli had affair with his student, so what? It was by good will of both of them. Nobody has right to judge him or her. everyone who accuses and badmouthes them are morons and hypocrits.

[John]

I'm relatively new (a few months) to the miraculous discovery of who I am. My life has been transformed beyond my ability to describe, and I find the void left where rage and hatred used to be is now filled with Love, particularly its flavors of Gratitude and Humility.
Within the story of my life, it was a moment of receiving grace and forgiveness that cracked the armor of my heart, and planted a seed for later. I'm finding as I live that the inescapable byproducts of forgiveness--of truly experiencing grace and forgiveness--are gratitude and humility. I'm discovering in my new life that gratitude seems to fuel compassion, while humility seems to fuel empathy. It's truly a miracle to observe the beautiful mechanics of Love as they dance in this body that used to be so eager to rush to judgment and hatred.
When I consider the suffering I have caused in my own lifetime, it's the humility of grace that keeps me from pointing fingers at anyone else.
Whatever the strengths of their humanity, whatever the weaknesses and limitations of their humanity, to Eli and Gangaji I will always be profoundly grateful.
The expression, "Ye shall know them by their fruits" comes to mind. So it looks like a couple bad apples have been exposed within the the virtual harvest that can be called Eli's life. Whose life is free of bad apples?
May my life produce a fraction of the bounty his has. In my heart he is absolved, and in that forgiveness there is freedom for us both.

[Robert]

Tao has taken the long path, more power to him/her though seems to have fallen by the wayside in the effort to shine light on others splinters while still suffering a mighty oak in the middle eye that thinks its seeing clearly!! ha ha ha! Propositioning yourself as self-realized and posting quackery links to `new enlightenment` ,why all this tomfoolery?
I wont be back so dont bother replying.
peace to you.

[jack quack]

robert the robot,

you must be an idiot, becase no one will miss you when you don't come back.

peace? no, not your kind of peace

[Peter S]

I think some of the cynical dismissals of Gangaj's and Eli's are a little overstated. Much of the impact of an advaitic (or neo-advaitic for that matter) teacher is the experiential shift that occurs in the consciousness of the student in the presence of the teacher. Words out of context can make any spiritual teacher look like a mood-making asshole.