John Sherman
The main difference of Eckharts teaching is rising above thought whereas sherman isnt concerned with that. If you go back to the post called "Knowing the ego is an illusion is not enlightenment" I made a whole post where people find out that they arent the ego and consider themselves enlightened. I beleive that every single one of us knows who we are, but the ego still is running a muck with us because we havent risen above thought which is what eckhart is pointing to.
Hello,
Recently, thanks to you, I've been watching J. Sherman on google. And I think I may suggest that you watch this video: At The End Of Your Rope.
I won't say anything about it, just listen if you have time (1h28min).
I hope the link works:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... hn+Sherman
Recently, thanks to you, I've been watching J. Sherman on google. And I think I may suggest that you watch this video: At The End Of Your Rope.
I won't say anything about it, just listen if you have time (1h28min).
I hope the link works:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... hn+Sherman
I listened to most of the video and I wonder if John is really in touch with Who He Is. He seems to claim that he is, but I am not so sure. Why is his energy so heavy?
Someone mentioned that he is speaking of something much different than Eckhart is. And maybe I am missing the point. But it seems to me that Eckhart has discovered his true Self, and he is as light as a feather.
Someone mentioned that he is speaking of something much different than Eckhart is. And maybe I am missing the point. But it seems to me that Eckhart has discovered his true Self, and he is as light as a feather.
Summer, you say that his energy is "heavy". We all perceive others in certain ways and call it "energy". It's simplification but understandable. How else could we describe it? The way one looks and talks - clothes (colors), face, eyes, voice timbre, gesture, mimicry, the smell if met in person - it all affects us in a certain way.
It's strange how differently we see others and how differently we are seen by others and why is that so? I see (or FEEL rather) everybody as having (or being) some kind of very specific "texture" which I find difficult to describe (some people I perceive as shimmering
, transparent, some are kind of fluid and colorful, some dull, even "dark" or "boiling" so to say, others seem very "solid" to me). And of course I may like it or not. I can't see the same light (awareness) in all people as ET says we all ARE.
It's very personal, very individual and it's just the structures (our false personalities) we built through life. Look into Sherman's CV - very impressive
. Everything he's lived through and done must have had an impact on his looks - it may be this "heavy energy" you talk about. But he also has loads of calm and peace in him. Is it enough to listen and follow him? I don't think so. There must be something else that draws people to his satsangs. He offers some disillusionment and, at the same time, appeasement to the seekers. I think I deep down agree with what he says because he doesn't promise any bliss and ascension. No lies, genuine, sincere. That's my view (for the time being
).
It's strange how differently we see others and how differently we are seen by others and why is that so? I see (or FEEL rather) everybody as having (or being) some kind of very specific "texture" which I find difficult to describe (some people I perceive as shimmering

It's very personal, very individual and it's just the structures (our false personalities) we built through life. Look into Sherman's CV - very impressive


I feel he lives what he speaks. There is a geniune quality to him that is unmistakeably authentic in my eyes. I like that he appears "normal" in the sense that he is just like everyone else; no air of "spirituality" about him, nothing out of the ordinary, just a normal guy who has seen through the illusion and relentlessly points others to the seeing of the truth within themselves. "Just return to the truth of what you are, that's enough" seems to be his main message, and everything else is irrelevant. Simple and direct - I like that. But then, that's just how I see him.
So true, Agnieszka,We all perceive others in certain ways and call it "energy". It's simplification but understandable. How else could we describe it?
What is probably more surprising is that we often trust our limited perceptions, and then conclude that "This is the way it is"
I was also impressed with John Sherman's genuineness, and lack of frills or false promises. The End of The Rope is a very provocative video.
Thanks for sharing it.
You are here, are you not? How do you know you are here?Lozza wrote:I was rivited... But please correct me if I'm wrong. What he said in a nutshell, is for each of us to ask ourselves "Who am I" or Who really is the I in me, or to realise who I is.
Don't ask your mind. Imagine you are three and you are looking in the mirror. You know you are here, you don't have to ask yourself or form words/theories to explain it! It's the most fundamental aspect of our existence.
You can join John for an online satsang. See his website for details.
Yes, that's the message, and as fnktrry points out no words or thoughts are necessary for that answer to be discovered. John returns again and again to Ramana's teaching, and that is to ask "Who am I?" The intent of the question is to turn awareness away from the content of the mind (thoughts) to the source of the mind, consciousness. In other words, discover what is here now before the arising of thought, what exists while thought is present, and what remains after thought ends. That's what you are, that ever present consciousness.Lozza wrote:What he said in a nutshell, is for each of us to ask ourselves "Who am I" or Who really is the I in me, or to realise who I is.
I enjoyed this Satsang "Escape From the Spiritual Ghetto" with John Sherman...
http://www.riverganga.org/john/Podcasting/index.shtml
http://www.riverganga.org/john/Podcasting/index.shtml
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:43 am
- Location: North America
- Contact: