atlanticgirl

My Review of Inner Engineering: Pros and Cons

77 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually it's not.

From the followers' POV, there is no difference. The person being worshiped doesn't matter. What matters it the conformity with which the person is worshiped and the worshiping itself.

Structure vs content is what matters. Devilry isn't in the content, it's in the structure. Christians have killed more people than Nazis.

Imagine if you will that more people end up killed in the name of Sadhguru than Jesus. If you don't take this possibility seriously, you're not understanding the depth of what I'm talking about.

Isn't it that the more devilry /duality/ the more powerful the Truth is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have uploaded these pics while the topic was hot but here is what Sadhguru has to say about what he plans for Isha once he is dead. Found it in his autobiography book. 

1.jpg

2 (1).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your posts have stimulated some exploratory thoughts in my mind. I don't intend to frame this as "you are wrong" and "I am right", so I will use the pronoun "we". . . . These are just explorations in my mind that is helping me clear up some cloudiness regarding God. . . 

4 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm curious of the context of "yourself" used here. 

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

The idea that there is a separate entity that needs to be liberated (enlightened) is just that - an idea.
While the idea is believed in, it appears as real, solid and concrete, but it cannot be liberated because it is mistaken.

 

7 hours ago, tsuki said:

You cannot liberate yourself. It cannot be manufactured.
Devotion to God is the final method

We say that *you* is a "mistaken idea that there is a separate entity that needs to be liberated." And then we say "You cannot liberate yourself. Devotion to God is the final method"

This seems the same as saying:  "A mistaken idea cannot liberate itself. Devotion to God is the final method (to liberate a mistaken idea from itself)." . . . This seems to make sense, a mistaken idea cannot liberate itself from itself.  . . The "catch" seems to come with the Devotion to God part. . . 

4 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

who/what is it that devotes "their self" to God? 

 

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

The person, while it appears.

If the person is a mistaken idea, how can a mistaken idea Devote itself to God? This seems strange. 

Another way of looking at it is that there is liberation from the attachment/identification to a mistaken idea of self. Then saying "an mistaken idea cannot liberate itself from the attachment/identification with the mistaken idea", seems to make sense. Yet how a mistaken idea can Devote itself to God still seems strange.  

We could say that rather than the mistaken idea itself, it is the subjective experience of a mistaken idea (of self) that seems real which Devotes itself to God. Yet again, how can a subjective experience Devote itself to God? . . . We could say "There is no actual Devotion to God, just a subjective experience of Devotion to God". Yet, this seems to be a different contextualization.

To me, the term "Devote" is awkward since there is nothing that can Devote itself to God - especially if the mistaken idea of self and the subjective experience of self are expressions of God. In this context, that would be saying God needs to Devote itself to itself to liberate itself from itself. . . 

If Devotion to God is simply an illusory subjective experience of Devotion, it raises a common question of whether a path of Devotion to God is the best approach. We are essentially using subject experience to trick a mistaken idea of self (that doesn't even exist) to Devoting it's non-existence to God. In the end, it's a total sham. It seems more efficient to cut to the chase and realize You are God. Yet I suppose that could diminish the human experience in a way.

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

I said that Gurus are middle-men of God, the symbol of God. Devotion is a way of stilling the mind.
I did not mean Guru as a title passed down the tradition, but rather whatever one finds elevating.
In some traditions, people are Gurus because seekers find traditions to be elevating. I would suspect that this is mostly present in blue countries, but the appearance of a teacher is helpful regardless of stage of development.

If we say a guru is a symbol of God, we are adding in a distinction of separation. We have created two things: God and the symbol of God. If we say that symbols of God are the middle-men, we have now created a third thing of distinction. There is God, the symbol of God and the being perceiving the symbol of God. . . What happens if we don't add in these distinctions? Then the symbol of God is God. Likewise, the being perceiving the symbol of God (God itself) is also God. The symbol, God and the being are all God. We need to add in human constructs of distinctions to create separation.

Taken together, God is playing a magic trick on itself. . .What a prankster. . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo repeatedly responded to this Salvijus guy, but the original posts aren't showing up. This happens in other threads too. 

Is Salvijus deleting them? deleted account? glitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cocolove said:

Leo repeatedly responded to this Salvijus guy, but the original posts aren't showing up. This happens in other threads too. 

Is Salvijus deleting them? deleted account? glitch?

Users have the option to "hide" their own posts - within a certain time limit.

We ask that users do this sparingly, because if post hiding is common-place it causes fragmented threads and confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@atlanticgirl sadhguru may be turquoise and is enlightened, but I'm impressed by how well his message reaches stage blue/orange. Of course there are still rationalists out there who get trigerred. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, the term "Devote" is awkward since there is nothing that can Devote itself to God - especially if the mistaken idea of self and the subjective experience of self are expressions of God. In this context, that would be saying God needs to Devote itself to itself to liberate itself from itself. . . 

It seems like this is the core issue of the discussion. Maybe it stems from misunderstanding of what devotion is?
When I hear the word "devotion", what comes to mind first is give-yourself-to something which I find to be misleading.
In Polish, devotion is poświęcić, which is the same word as consecrate. To consecrate means to move something closer to that, which is sacred. To consecrate the mistaken belief in a separate self means to make it closer, more similar, to God. That, in turn means: to surrender it.

This surrender is not done through acceptance of dogma, but through removal of ignorance - through growth.
That is how the idea of a guru comes together with knowledge, wisdom, elevation and teaching.
Worship here is a voluntary method of releasing arrogance, and love is the end-result of the process - selflessness.

The person devotes itself to God because it acknowledges its own ignorance, its suffering.
To say that it is really God playing trick on itself is true, but only from the vantage point of the end-result of the process.
That is how a guru sees a student that devotes himself/herself to it. The student sees it differently.

Edited by tsuki

Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD, your God, is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.
Dt 9:6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@atlanticgirl Nirvikalpa samadhi is the highest may be after stabilizing it said to be sahaja Nirvikalpa samadhi.But since you have experienced Nirvikalpa why you are interested in Yogic meditation programmes ? 

I guess Regarding why instructors are required to memorize and repeat what is said to them instead of expressing in their own words is - it will lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura @Leo Gurar

So instead try like religion of Rajneesh marriage is a social construct love is authentic have sex with any one - let there be just children a commune born out of love not family it's Left hand tantra - supreme understanding - vaama Marg ? Lol.🤣🤣🤣🤣

Awareness is curative. conciously you do - smoke conciously and the habit will drop by itself ???? Lol 😊😊😊🤣🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv 

The practice starts from duality.

There is a devotee and a God.

Devotion is a Bhavam - state of mind of prayer surrender receptive mind set acceptance of higher power will what ever.

Guru - let us say the enlightened mind giving instructions - if there is no receptivity and mind keeps rejecting what is said.The wisdom cannot be imparted grasped by the seeker-student.

And some gurus add to confusion by saying there is no path.Because path is an illusion.What path ? This is absurd then the seeker can never begin.

In other words You as Absolute there are no others then to whom you are interacting and discussing ?

So all instructions practice path if dismissed from absolute standpoint (but who is dismissing ?) It will lead no where.

 

 

@Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jkris said:

@Serotoninluv 

So all instructions practice path if dismissed from absolute standpoint (but who is dismissing ?) It will lead no where.

@Leo Gura

Yea, thats the paradoxical conundrum: Nowhere is the destination. Somewhere = Nowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlightenment is this in very concise words.

how does my mind see two? Is it two or one ? 

When your mind reflects through reality, so to will your true being. 

Its not about luck, although the process can be skipped, this is true. Sufferers find love because they do not see the sufferer and their heart immediately opens and they become enlightened. 

It’s not your human mind, it’s God’s mind itself. God becoming aware of it self through simply understanding the pointers given in the pathway. 

The end of practice is the beginning of the last path, because once you found true self, then what ? See ? All you can do is say. This is what I know to be my true self. You can’t skepticise it because it was what ever conclusion your mind reached. See level of unlocking mind is somewhat proportional to level of enlightenment. As it should be. 

Because your mind is trying to get between all dualities. Not your human mind, God’s mind.

Also yes, there is no path because you neither arrived nor left the same place. Which is now-here. 

 

Edited by Aakash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tsuki said:

It seems like this is the core issue of the discussion. Maybe it stems from misunderstanding of what devotion is?
When I hear the word "devotion", what comes to mind first is give-yourself-to something which I find to be misleading.
In Polish, devotion is poświęcić, which is the same word as consecrate. To consecrate means to move something closer to that, which is sacred. To consecrate the mistaken belief in a separate self means to make it closer, more similar, to God. That, in turn means: to surrender it.

This surrender is not done through acceptance of dogma, but through removal of ignorance - through growth.
That is how the idea of a guru comes together with knowledge, wisdom, elevation and teaching.
Worship here is a voluntary method of releasing arrogance, and love is the end-result of the process - selflessness.

The person devotes itself to God because it acknowledges its own ignorance, its suffering.
To say that it is really God playing trick on itself is true, but only from the vantage point of the end-result of the process.
That is how a guru sees a student that devotes himself/herself to it. The student sees it differently.

Yea, it's a tricky, nuanced topic. In traditional English "Devotion" generally has a very strong "me" implied. Such as "He is a very devoted father" or "I am going to devote 1hr a day to studying Spanish". 

I like the frame of "to move something closer to that which is sacred". This reduces the attachment to "me". Yet like you said, within the contraction of a personality dynamic and a timeline, there will be some sense personal dedication to a practice and some type of personal desire - even if that intention is liberation from personal desire. I think this is why many people describe awakening as a "cosmic joke". It's like we search for years looking for our glasses, to discover they were on our face the whole time. It's like we first need to check hundreds of places to determine our glasses aren't there - then after exhaustion we give up and surrender, then discover our glasses where on our face the whole time. In a way, it's comical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jkris Your question is good. I looked at the link. I like Shinzen Young very much. I’ve spoken to him myself. 

A number of sources refer to Nirvakalpi Samadhi as the ultimate stage. However, Ramana Maharshi stated that most spiritual seekers stop too soon. He said even once Nirvakalpi has occurred, vasanas would still be present and must be addressed ( with further Self-enquiry).  My thoughts about Kriya for myself at this point is that it supports health and vitality, and will provide the energy and focus to address remaining vasanas - which at this point are a small fraction of what they once were. Shinzen Young says “Enlightenment is capable of endless enlargement”. My plan is to dedicate the rest of my life to see how far I can go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lmfao Yes, I agree, he is appealing to huge numbers of people at Stage Blue and Orange. Since education is strongly correlated with evolving to higher stages, I wonder if this will happen over time? Or, will this natural evolution actually be hampered by unquestioned devotion to Sadhguru and the dogmatism in the teachings, similar to the fundamentalism observed in Scientologists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@atlanticgirl Could you give me the instructions for shambavi mudra? I have a lot of problems and I cannot wait until the next course in October. If you can give me the instructions, please contact me at milantroude@outlook.fr thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now