Human Species Enlightenment

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
User avatar
darren
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:04 am

Post by darren » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:41 pm

There's over 11 hours of Gangaji footage on Google Videos.

'Why is are they crap?'

Lol I need to read my posts better before posting them.

mikel
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:35 am
Location: ireland

Post by mikel » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:27 pm

i wonder who would win in a race maybe we could take bets?

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:31 pm

I think Oshu would win.

User avatar
darren
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:04 am

Post by darren » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:58 pm

Adyashanti most prob, he used to be a cyclist at a high level, so I reckon he could take the others 8)

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:09 pm

Well Osho is over 80. But I speak from a more spiritual standpoint. The who wins looses the dharma battle.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Post by kiki » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:51 pm

Well Osho is over 80.
Well, actually - he is dead, and has been for a long time. But there is no doubt Osho could have used one of his Rolls Royces to trounce Adyashanti on his bicycle.
But I speak from a more spiritual standpoint. The who wins looses the dharma battle.
Let's hold a spiritual Olympics and determine once and for all who loses the dharma battle. Then all of us spectators who were rooting against the winner can stand back and say "I told you so."

In all honesty, I have found a lot of clarity in Osho's teaching. He was a maverick, that is certain, and lots of crazy things arose around his movement, but the kernel of his message was unmistakable. I wouldn't be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

User avatar
darren
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:04 am

Post by darren » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:43 pm

Image

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:46 pm

Don't know why I wrote 80. He died after US had kicked him out.

Is sarcasm as sing that your reaching enlightenment because then I'm way ahead of you :wink: .
A Dharma battle is a thing that zen buddhist do to test how far they have come.

Anyway when the baby is as ugly as Oshu I in my unrealised state have no problem throwing both him and the water out the window.
Good history of him.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia. ... neesh.html
Just because they say the right words doesn't mean anything other than that they can read.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Post by kiki » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:47 pm

Where can I get one, darren? :D I love biking.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Post by kiki » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:17 pm

I read Osho back when he was known as Bhagwan Rajneesh, more than 30 years ago, and felt something was there even though I couldn't grasp it, but when the crazy stories started coming out I disregarded his whole teaching. I dismissed him because he no longer fit my conception of how things should be with people who call themselves "spiritual" teachers. I, of course, knew better.

After many years passed I came across ET and things cleared up for me, and I started revisting some of the books and teachers that I had abandoned or moved away from. Among those were Krishnamurti and the guy presently known as Osho. I was startled by the clarity I was getting from both of them. So, what I am saying is not to be so quick to dismiss others and label them as worthless or ugly - getting what is offered is more of a matter of your current state. You are 23 years old right now; see what happens after some more time - you too may be surprised to find a change in how you see someone right now.
Just because they say the right words doesn't mean anything other than that they can read.
True; but when what they say does make a difference, when it does lead to clarity, what then? Could it be there is more to Osho than you are willing to admit, than you are able to see because of what your current experience allows? Is that a possibility? When your own self described "unrealized state" clarifies would you change what you say and "keep the baby?" after all?

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:58 pm

Of course people never changes only your perception of them.
And yes I am young but that really doesn't say anything other than that I have not been dieing for so long.

Even unrealised people can read biographies :D .
Gangaij for example lived with Papaji for a year then she went to the west teaching her own way. When she was just sent away because she was as he put it a leach on his back. He for example says that he has only met two realised people in his lifetime. Then you got to question those that teach in his name or clame lineage. It is just common sense.
But of course you can reach clarity from sitting on the toilet after eating bad chicken for all I know. When your ready it seems anything can set you free.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Post by kiki » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:40 pm

ninjin wrote:But of course you can reach clarity from sitting on the toilet after eating bad chicken for all I know.
Yes, and it would be just as worthwhile as any other "way".
When your ready it seems anything can set you free.
That's the whole point, isn't it - when you're ready. Who is to say when that is and by what means it will happen. Being open to what is is what helps to take you to that point, even if that means being open to what the ego/mind doesn't like about some teachers. When all else drops away, including and especially the prejudices and viewpoints held by the mind, there it is.

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:58 pm

Well you have to follow a path and practice, it just doesn't come by itself. For like 99% of those that are realized.
For example following Papajis teachings is a bad idea because none of his followers was enlightened. Then you can question all those that claim that they were enlightened and continue to teach in his manner.

99.99% of the time Papaji taught no effort, no practice.
99.99% of the time Sri Ramana taught intense effort
and continuous practice during all the waking hours.

The two Teachings are completely different.
Papaji’s Teaching did not work.

According to Papaji not a single human being who came to see him was liberated. Thus Papaji’s Teaching did not work.

Sri Ramana has pointed out why a “just keep quiet” and “make no effort” approach, as taught by Papaji, can never lead to liberation.

Those extremely rare humans who are truly intent
on permanently ending the ego notion
will not pursue a Teaching that did not work.
http://uarelove1.tripod.com/DISCERNMENT.htm

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:20 pm

ninjin wrote:When your ready it seems anything can set you free.
Now that's a line I like.

It seems that when one is genuinely searching and open to Truth, Truth may be found where ever one happens to look. Even the discordant teachings of ego bound teachers may be understood in clarity. We don't even have to actively judge them to protect ourselves from misinformation. We only need to recognize that conceptual expressions, no matter what the source, is subject to problematic implication.

All teachings are but concepts of truth. We reject teachers and teachings at our own peril when we close them out completely. It is far better, and more productive, to be open to the ebb and flow of understanding based on the premiss that truth is eternal and ever present. It is not an analysis of information that brings one clarity so much as a sense of expansion and inclusion of whatever content a given message holds.

If a message, teaching or pointer does not bring a sense of greater understanding, set it aside for the moment and return to presence. Maybe there's nothing there, maybe it will be clearer later. Allow it to be what it is without making judgments.

Beating up on teachers we do not understand, or emotionally reject, says more about our own state of clarity than it does theirs. We're all living the human experience and everyone I"ve met has vestiges of ego. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just the way things are. It doesn't mean they are necessarily dominated by them.

Is there misinformation out there? Undoubtably so. But understanding the nature of misinformation can be just as liberating as pointers of truth. Allowing the free flow of ideas does not require us to believe any of it. However, being open to those ideas, allows one's genuine willingness to change in favor of a greater understanding, to transform our understanding of Being.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Post by kiki » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:59 pm

ninjin wrote:Well you have to follow a path and practice, it just doesn't come by itself. For like 99% of those that are realized.
The only "path" there is is the "path" taken away from your true nature. Stop following that path and you'll return consciously to where you already are. This is what the "teachings" are for, to get rid of the paths away from our true nature that we've been unconsciously following that hide that true nature. We can consciously follow a path to our true nature, but then who is it that makes that effort?

ninjin wrote:For example following Papajis teachings is a bad idea because none of his followers was enlightened.
And how do you know this? Can you honestly state categorically that nobody has realized enlightenment through Papaji's teachings? Can you see how you've taken on a belief here, either a conclusion you've reached or a belief someone else has stated?

Quoting Ramana himself:

"Reality is simply the loss of the ego.

"Destroy the ego by seeking its identity. Because the ego has no real existence it will automatically vanish, and reality will shine forth by itself in all its glory. This is the direct method.

"All other methods retain the ego. In those paths so many doubts arise, and the eternal question remains to be tackled. But in this method, the final question is the only one and is raised from the beginning.

"No practices are necessary for this quest."


The implication of this is that "methods" are for those who aren't ready yet for the what he calls the "direct method". He knew that some people believed they needed specific methods, and so he would tell some people to do this or that particular thing, knowing that they would eventually arrive at the realization that nothing actually has to be done. So in a round about way you can say methods are needed until it's realized they aren't.

So if someone thinks they need a method then practice one, but don't let it get in the way of the most important point while using a method, the dropping of the method altogether. Keep returning to presence, to what is simple, to what's already here. A little reminder is enough when confused or struggling, "Who is this happening to?" Allow awareness to find itself. This doesn't mean sitting on your butt and saying to heck with it; it simply means to see clearly what's actually happening right now. This is a sort of non-method method.

Post Reply