Tea, biscuits and melting thoughts

A conversation you don't often overhear in the coffeehouse:

"I've just had satsang."
"Who with?"
"Joe from around the corner."
"Joe? Who is Joe?"
"You know Joe. He is often out and about with his dog. He's a bus driver."
"Joe's not a very exotic name, is it? Aren't these folks that give satsang normally called something exotic, like 'Mango-ji'? What kind of satsang does he give? Does he do chants and stuff?"
"No."
"How about humpback whale music and Tibetan bells?"
"No, I can't say I've heard him play that."
"Does he wear exotic clothes or silk shirts and call you 'my love'?"
"No, just normal clothes, like you and me and he calls me by my name."
"Does he mention the Maharshi in dulcet tones and remind you that he's in his lineage?"
"Not that I've noticed."
"How much does he charge?"
"Nothing."
"Nothing? How can you make money doing satsang if you don't charge? He can't be very good!"
"Hmm! it must cost him money because he always offers tea and biscuits to his visitors. Lovely homemade shortbread that his wife makes. Or sometimes lentil soup. Or even a sandwich. At the very least you'll get a cup of coffee. And all those questions you think you need answered just seem to melt away."
"Funny business that. Giving satsang and not getting paid."

More on effort

It is strange that the fatalist-sics are happy to quote the Maharshi and drop his name into conversation at every opportunity and yet he recommends effort to attain the Self.

In Ramana Gita, it is clearly stated that the seeker of knowledge must go further than mere study of the scriptures. There must also be upasana. Ganapati Muni (author of Ramana Gita) has chosen an interesting word here, "upasana", which can mean 'meditation' but also means "the act of throwing off [arrows]" (Monier-Williams). One must throw off the thought arrows and sense objects which assail the mind. In this way, the natural state is experienced during practice. This is also called upasana.

The Maharshi continues, in Chapter 1 of Ramana Gita, "having abandoned sense objects, one abides in one's own true state, burning as jnana. This is called the natural state."

This is clear to me. Why do people re-interpret to suit themselves?

Nondualism and fate

The conflation of fatalism with non-dualism and the subsequent assumption that "there is nothing you can do" is unfortunate. It is the interpretation of a lazy mind. For such a lazy mind to parade as an enlightened mind is symptomatic of this pick and mix 'new age'.

Now I could simply say that 'for anyone seeking 'enlightenment', effort is not only possible but necessary" and leave it at that but perhaps some further justification is required.

If you look at some of the published books of those who assume the existence of the above conflation you will find clues, written by the fatalists themselves, which are contrary to the words they preach. These conflational fatalists have simply missed or overlooked the discrepancies in their haste to join the modern religion, Celebrity, and hold their own satsangs. In truth, they are half-baked. And as often happens when half-baked things are consumed one is left with a bad taste in the mouth and an upset tummy.

Books, recommended by esteemed non-dualists, through the ages, are replete with advice which counters the idea that you cannot do anything to achieve liberation in this very life.

Hemalekha says that, one should not refrain from individual effort, like the followers of some fatalist pretenders [so...this is not a new issue]. Hemalekha further decries 'lack of effort in favor of dry polemics' and declares that the idea that one cannot escape one's destiny is applicable to weak minded wasters alone.

Astavakra tell us that anyone who wants liberation must actively give up objects of the senses, seek truth and know the Self by getting rid of body and mind-borne identification. The fatally-sics seem to embrace this body and mind-borne identification, in extraordinary fashion, by submitting wholesale to the bondage of destiny. Such a cop out!!

Now there are many more quotes available but that could take ages and I would be showing off so we'll leave it here, for the moment.

Provider and providee

A couple of friends popped in today. We got to chatting about this and that and a question arose which lead to a convoluted discussion. I listened for a while. It was much of the same old, same old, neo advaita. You know the stuff that begins "there is not a thing you can do..." and then goes off on one. Apparently this type of fatally-sic philosophy is becoming increasingly prevalent and very popular. Of course it is, it justifies your life and any behavior you care to do, because, after all, the self-proclaimed enlightened chappy said "nothing is my fault" and justified his own eye-raising behavior in the same way. Sounds great!!

It was a fun conversation until I piped up, "Sorry folks, this is all just so much cowpat. You pay $495 (or whatever charge there might be) for a weekend satsang so that some self-indulgent chappy sitting on a dais will tell you it's not your fault and you just have to go with the flow. You actually paid for this, did you? Are you completely mad?"

My friend then said, rather sheepishly, "But he was entertaining, I enjoyed the experience. And there was a resonance."

I replied, "The resonance was merely the outcome of your relationship as a buyer with a provider. You believed you were getting something from him. As for the entertainment, at that price it bloody well should be entertaining. One side of your newly formed resonant relationship laughed, and I bet he laughed all the way to the bank."

My friend was quiet for a while. Then we had tea.

Idea-I and paradoxical enlightenment

Idea-"I", the reader [and narrator], is a figment. The narrative of 'my' life never touches the truth of life. The narrative, no matter how accurate it appears to 'me', is a fiction. 'I' invent it, and re-invent it, at every given opportunity.

This persuasive myth, devoid of independent confirmation, is perpetuated by the aberrant use of thought. Cut off the steady stream of thought and the individual [idea-"I"] vanishes too.

Enlightenment, that illusive paradox, is the unbiased acceptance, and implementation, of this simple truth.