Gangaji versus Sanaya Roman

Post Reply
User avatar
Clare
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: Limousin, France
Contact:

Gangaji versus Sanaya Roman

Post by Clare » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:51 pm

No, it's not an arm wrestling contest :)

In fact, I did think (ha!) that it seems silly to put these two against eachother. I am also willing to look at the nature of comparison, and whether it takes us out of presence as much when we do it to others as it does when we do it to ourselves.

But on the one hand you have Gangaji saying stuff that seems to me to be incredibly based around martyrdom. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it sounds incredibly negative to me: this idea of being 'nailed to the cross' of your suffering, and not trying to change it, giving up all hope, not trying to reach beyond it - that in fact any reaching for anything is the workings of the ego, denying what already is. We will cease to exist, and yet we Are, so just accept everything and anything, totally as it is, and if you go into the core of your suffering there you will find the true resurrection. Which, I hasten to add, is still (as Phil would be wont to point out) reaching for something.

Then you've got Sanaya, channelling the Higher Being Orin, who tells us that everything we could possibly want in the world that is for our highest good can be ours. That life is a dream, and we can change it effortleesly to support what is the very best and most blissful life for ourselves. Our creativity and our imaginations were given to us for this - not just to create art or new ideas, but create a work of art of our life. And that working with the medium of living energy, the effects are limitless.

I have had Sanaya's books for years, but I could never really believe them. It just sounded like feelgood 'buy this book and the world will fall into your lap' lip service. But recently I have tried a couple of the exercises. They worked. All the time I am listening to Gangaji, and then doing these exercises to change things, and they have worked. I don't succeed with the Gangaji teachings. In fact, at best it gives me this serene kind of depression. But despite the fizzy feelgood quality of Sanaya Roman's books, I find they actually seem to be promising that we CAN change things, and we CAN make things better - not just for ourselves, but for everything. Yet, Orin still allows us to 'consciously' pre-plan, to project forward in a deliberate manner, in meditation, in perfect presence of mind that we are doing that with intention. There is no time line in the higher dimesions, so anything we imagine is always happening now.

How, for that matter, does this work in with Mr Tolle? And I wonder what he would have to say about the idea that focusing so much on keeping present, and that being renegated to only focusing on our three dimensional now, limits us to not consider that in fact everything we have been, are and will be, are all one eternal moment.

Which reminds me of the intro from author Clive Barker, from his metaphysical fantasy novel The Great and Secret Show:

"Memory, prophecy and fantasy - the past, the future and the dreaming moment between - are all one country, living one immortal day. To know this is Wisdom. To use it is The Art."

Well, that kind of morphed into a whole branch of discussions already! Oops!

I wont edit, unless Heidi makes me, like the wicked moderator she is :twisted: :)

Love, Clare

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:26 pm

Interesting Clare, thanks for your review of these two teachers, an education for me.

Is this analogy relevant to your post?

SCIENTIST: Someone who is trying to observe facts. Objectivity is the priority for the scientist. The pure scientist is rigorous about removing their own expectations and goals from the process of observation.

ENGINEER: Someone who is trying to change facts. Creativity is the focus for the engineer. Goals and expectations are important tools for the engineer.

It seems if we wish to be scientists, and do a pure observation of what is, then we need to find a way to remove our needs and theories from the process. Or, to be more precise, surrender our attachments to any particular theory, remove our bias.

On other hand, if our goal is to engineer the current now in to some different future now, then we have a freer hand. We can analyze our needs, pick a theory that promises to address those needs, and give the theory a test drive and see how it works. If one theory doesn't work, try another, etc.

Does it help us evaluate various teachers if we are completely clear with ourselves about what our agenda is?

What is our priority, clear observation, or change?

Having made that choice, we could then evaluate each teacher in terms of how they can assist our personal agenda.

Is the teacher in question offering scientific techniques, or engineering techniques?

I suspect most of us are engineers, and are using spiritual teachers as our scientists. We trust them to have the clear unbiased observation of reality, and hope they will give us engineering techniques we can use to create something new in our life.

There's an efficiency to this. One person does the hard part, and many others benefit from the research.

The challenging bit seems to be that unless we are capable of our own unbiased view of reality, we are puzzled as to which teacher to pick.

But, if we are really engineers, we don't necessarily need to know if the teacher has a clear view of reality or not. All we need to know is, do the teacher's blueprints work, as we define "work"?

The scientist isn't interested in what works, but what is. Nature is the scientist's teacher.

Scientist? Or Engineer? Maybe the only bad choice is not being clear with ourselves what our choice is?

JedEye
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Poland

Post by JedEye » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:30 pm

I asked one of the teacher who`s teachings were totally different from E.T. about PoN book. He said the book is really good and as with all things wise person will get wiser and stupid person will get more stupid from it. He also said not to reject some teachings to chose some other, because they all are part of the one`s path and can fill each other.
useful ?
no more words

User avatar
Clare
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: Limousin, France
Contact:

Post by Clare » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:30 pm

Both very interesting replies. Thanks Phil and Jed.

I would say my agenda, Phil (and of course I have one) is to know Truth - that which is True. Big T. Now, one of my lifelong endeavours is to separate my truth from The Truth; to also discriminate between what is some other person who has set themselves up as a teacher's personal truth, as opposed to their expression of The Truth. Here we have another example.

I am not really trying to teach from my agenda here, though. I am trying to learn by putting this out here.

For me to find Truth, my first port of call is to:
1) Find what resonates with me personally.
2) Find out what works, based on the Huna principle: "Effectiveness is the measure of truth".

So yes, my personal feelings come into it. I also know that's not the end of it, which is why rather than sitting smugly knowing what works for me, I put a post out here and lay two things together to see what others make of it. Make sense? :)

Jed, the teacher sounds really wise. Although, his idealogy also points toward accepting everything that is said by anyone who sets themselves up as a 'Teacher'. I am discerning about who I call 'Teacher', and my criteria (of course, again) has to be that they resonate with something that feels True to me.

I Like what he said about how it will make some people wiser and others more stupid. That also seems to relate to whatever you bring to anything will define your personal experience of it, which circles back to Phil's point ( i think!).

Another thing about Gangaji: her voice is mellifulous, her face is beatific - she is unquestionably charismatic. At times, listening to her voice on recordings, I find myself mesmerised with the 'idea' that this gentle penetrating voice must have something for me, must be speaking something that I must listen to. But then I pull back objectively to actually listen to what she is saying, and it's like "Whaaaaat????" :?
:)
Clare

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:27 pm

Nice thread Clare.

(If you have Rubber Soul by the Beatles, check out the song The Word. Just came on here. My iTunes has developed an uncanny ability to play old rock tunes that fit in with whatever post I'm writing/reading.)
Clare wrote:I would say my agenda, Phil (and of course I have one) is to know Truth - that which is True. Big T.
OK, cool. That's the more interesting and elusive quest, and I'd welcome that conversation with you and others.

The Tolle retreat I've been listening to references how elusive a quest for the Big T (does that come with fries??) could be for us.

He was mentioning how we don't actually experience the world itself, but more precisely, our brain's interpretation of the world. I don't see YOU, I see what my brain does with all the light reflecting off your face. My actual experience is thus entirely internal.

He remarked that some philosophers question whether the external world even exists. Maybe it's all a dream? Tolle didn't find this question pressing, he just referenced it in passing.

I'd say I'm an engineer with dreams of the truth quest, and I realize that makes me a muddleman. So I'm trying to redeem the situation somewhat by shining a spotlight on the muddle. ATTENTION: Muddle Alert!
Clare wrote:Now, one of my lifelong endeavours is to separate my truth from The Truth;
Tolle addressed this too with, "believing in my interpretation of a situation as the truth, and not seeing it as my perspective of the situation." He quoted someone else as describing conflict as "an inability to accommodate a competing narrative".

(Oh my, the Beatles are now on to Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds. Somebody pass the peace pipe over here to me.)
Clare wrote: which is why rather than sitting smugly knowing what works for me, I put a post out here and lay two things together to see what others make of it. Make sense?
Sure. Networking the brains together, that's what we're here for.
Clare wrote:That also seems to relate to whatever you bring to anything will define your personal experience of it, which circles back to Phil's point ( i think!).
Yup, message received.
Clare wrote:At times, listening to her voice on recordings, I find myself mesmerised with the 'idea' that this gentle penetrating voice must have something for me, must be speaking something that I must listen to.
Maybe just the music of her voice is what you can listen to. That's what I love about music, it doesn't need a point to work. In fact, it usually works better without a point.

Any Joni Mitchell fans here? She's a great lyricist, maybe the best of her generation. But I love her the best when she uses her voice as a pure instrument, and uses the multitrack tape deck to layer all her different voices together. Nine Joni's all singing at once, and singing nothing but sound. Drives me wild!

(Back to Beatles, "And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right, where I belong I'm right, where I beloooong....)

User avatar
spatialbean
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post by spatialbean » Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:00 am

Ahhhhhhhh...Beatles.

DavidK
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:29 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Re: Gangaji versus Sanaya Roman

Post by DavidK » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:14 am

Clare wrote:
Which reminds me of the intro from author Clive Barker, from his metaphysical fantasy novel The Great and Secret Show:

"Memory, prophecy and fantasy - the past, the future and the dreaming moment between - are all one country, living one immortal day. To know this is Wisdom. To use it is The Art."
Ack! Now I have to go out and buy another book. I love Clive Barker. But I have not yet got around to reading that one. I had recently imposed a moratorium on my book buying. But it looks like it will have to start after I get The Great and Secret Show. Ever read Imajica? I love that one.

Dave

P.S. I think that if we are interested in awakening without delay, it can be good to get our heads out of the future and goal oriented thinking. I think that is where Gangaji is coming from. However once we've been still long enough to see through the illusion and awaken. We can play with goals and intentions all we want. :D

User avatar
Clare
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: Limousin, France
Contact:

Post by Clare » Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:35 am

Hahaha! That was a very apt song to be Llstening to. The actual way the lyrics are placed for Fixing a Hole is:

"It doesn't really matter if I'm wrong
I'm right where I belong."


hahaha! I'll take notes. Thanks Phil - And John. :)

Yeah, Dave, it's a great book about the nature of reality is Mr B's GSSS.. It's also his most Jungian book. It has some pretty strong sex scenes in it. But as always with Mr B, you have to take the shock with the superlative.

Anyone read or listened to these two other authors I was talking about? If not, what does anyone think about releasing all agenda (what Gangaji calls giving up hope, right?) versus positive manipulation of energy?

And it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong... :)
Clare

JedEye
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Poland

Post by JedEye » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:31 pm

I think when there is no resistance in You, the energy flows through you and your life in a perfect way that you would never think of. And it manipulates you so you change all the time, and after some time when you look back you see how you have changed and it is so huge that the mind with it`s ideas can only stay suprised. I mean the flow of life is much bigger when it is natural and not changed by the mind.
I guess real question is - will I lose something, joy of life or things that I want if I surrender to life?
Giving up hope as I see it is not waiting for the future to be better, so you can already enjoy. :D
no more words

Egoicmidget
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:09 pm

Post by Egoicmidget » Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:16 pm

I guess real question is - will I lose something, joy of life or things that I want if I surrender to life?


I have lost many things, stress, chronic tension and unease, misery and suffering created by my egoic self, much drama and reaction.
The story of me that created all my suffering and heartache is also misssing.
My tendency towards wishing things wern't the way they are is also vanishing.

My "us versus them "egoic reality (false of course). Gone for the most part.

So the answer is yes, then perhaps the question becomes what you consider as loss.

Hopefully I'll continue to loose what my ego considered valuable for it's maintainence and ficticous take on the external world.

My beleif is the manifested and unmanifested share the same field of "oneness".

My take on what is real and what is not has basically taken a huge shift.

What I thought was real "my own thoughts" turned out to be not only false
but added to"my story" in such a way as I continously beleived I was "right" and the rest of the world was wrong. Arrogance beyond beleif!

Every emotion I had felt so justified in my self created prison in the head.

So loss (if that's your definition) and gain became one.

Things are so much less complicated when I stop the conditioned "trying"
that my mind still wants to do at times.



John

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:01 am

Clare wrote:what does anyone think about releasing all agenda versus positive manipulation of energy?
You're raising a great question Clare. Keep it coming.

Is releasing all agenda possible? What would be my agenda for releasing all agenda?? I would be making a decision to release all agendas for some reason, with some motivation or another, yes?

It seems "releasing all agenda" could be another way of saying "accept what is" or "observe the now". Whatcha think? If yes, then your question seems to take us deeper in to the heart of everything we're discussing here. Love it.

Can we accept what is, go in to now, release all agenda, for no reason at all? If we have a reason, are we really doing it?

Normally we look at the process of going in to now as a method for meeting a need, solving a problem. Should we consider the reverse of that? Do we need to solve the problem, meet the need, before we're actually in a position to observe now and accept it, as it really is?

Positive manipulations of energy is likely a more accessible issue. Not as interesting perhaps, but probably more immediately practical. Find stuff that makes us feel good, in a healthy way, and push the peddle to the metal. Pretty straightforward.

User avatar
heidi
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2703
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:37 am
Location: 42nd parallel, Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Post by heidi » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:40 am

Releasing all agenda is an agenda. It's a good agenda, just as acceptance is. :)
Heidi
http://www.heidimayo.com
wonderment on the third wave

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:29 am

heidi wrote:Releasing all agenda is an agenda. It's a good agenda, just as acceptance is. :)
Well, OK sure, each person can decide for themselves whether acceptance is good or bad or something else. No worries.

But what do we mean by "acceptance"? Can we be more precise?

I'm walking in the woods. It starts to rain. I'm getting all wet. No shelter for miles.

If I like getting wet then the subject of acceptance doesn't really come up, as I'm already content. I don't need spiritual tools.

But...

If I don't like getting wet, let's observe that.

"I don't like" is obviously my internal situation. That's the issue, not the rain.

I don't like my reaction? No, not quite there. I don't like my experience of that reaction.

So I might decide to roll with the rain to change my internal experience.

Have I accepted now?

Yes and no.

I've accepted the rain.

But I've rejected my experience, and used a technique to transform it in to something else.

Given that my experience, not the rain, is the real issue is "acceptance" really a good word to describe what we're talking about here?

I like Clare's term better. Positive manipulation of energy. Or transformation. Or inner growth. Let's observe this process for what it is, another technique for changing what is in to something else.

Releasing all agenda, really accepting what is (all of it) seems a very interesting, but different, subject.

DavidK
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:29 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by DavidK » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:03 am

phil wrote:
Have I accepted now?

Yes and no.

I've accepted the rain.

But I've rejected my experience, and used a technique to transform it in to something else.
I don't think that you have rejected your experience here.

You've just noted it's spontaneous appearance in consciousness. "ah, rain. ah inner feelings, ah foot steps".

Now if you tell yourself. "I am not going to get stuck in this emotion." or "I'm going to let go of it or transform it." Then you haven't accepted it in quite the same way

two cents. :D

-dave

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:18 pm

Hi there Dave,
DavidK wrote:I don't think that you have rejected your experience here. You've just noted it's spontaneous appearance in consciousness.
What is my motivation for observing my experience? Why am I engaged in this subject at all?

Post Reply