"We don't want to be free from fear. All that we want to do is to play games with it and talk about freeing ourselves from fear." (U.G. Krishnamurti)
...and the internet is bloomin' well filled with "talk about freeing ourselves."
Have you seen the number of yahoo groups devoted to good old Ramana Maharshi, UG/J.Krishnamurti, Buddha, and Sri Obla dee and Obla da?
The links aren't for the groups there's too damn many.
James: My guru has had a face lift.
Jani: A face lift? What for?
James: I believe it is so that the appearance appears younger and more appealing to existing and prospective disciples.
Jani: Ah! I see. Appearances are so important for one who puts themselves in the public eye.
James: I thought you would be annoyed.
Jani: Annoyed? Why would I be annoyed that your guru has had a face lift?
James: I just assumed that you would point out the absurdity of an advaita guru who is besotted with physical appearance to the point that they would spend thousands of dollars on plastic surgery in order to perpetuate their guru-ness.
Jani: Why would I point that out? It is self apparent, as your last statement makes perfectly clear.
James: Yes. You are right. I won't go back.
Jani: Oh! That is a shame. You've invested so much going to the satsangs.
James: Life is a learning curve.
Jani: And... before you know it you are back where you started. [laughter]
I read a blog entry today which harped on and on and on and on about dead gurus and how those who followed such long gone doggone dead ones were doing so because it was a safe option. Now it would appear that this chappy reckons that this is a recipe for disaster and will "preserve the sense of separation and feed fixation." Now the question begs - who is more attached to the body and the physical form - one who reads the teachings of a teacher devoid of the material trappings or the one who craves contact and resonance with a 'living' guru who can be terrifying and compassionate while knitting you a cosy hat with a wooly bobble on the top or the one who brings up this rubbish while trying to peddle his "meditation" course ?
... also begging, the age old chestnut 
The entire piece is full of balogna sausage and conceptual red herrings.
Fervently desire the unattainable otherwise all that you will find will be that which you expect... and that which you expect can only be relative fiction - never absolute truth. Those who find, and are content with, that, which they expect, believing it to be absolute, are responsible for the preponderance of the various schools of thought. A little bit of relative fiction mistaken for the whole truth all too soon expands into a plethora of superstitious ideas. Although the original founder of a particular school may abide in truth, the followers, in their enthusiasm to attain the state of the founder, often stop short without breaking free of their very own fictional Idea-I.
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?
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.
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.
