Who's Transforming Anyway?

Who's Transforming Anyway?

One afternoon last spring, I was sitting with my dear, wise friend Vera at the local juice bar, sharing a blue-green algae shake, when she was suddenly overcome with inspiration. “Stacey, your debut in the last issue of What Is Enlightenment? [Issue 21, Spring/Summer 2002] was truly evolutionary. I mean, there you were, hosting luminaries from the Buddha to Teilhard de Chardin, who were popping in to WIE’s new Fourth Dimension Conference Room to offer their views on the latest developments in the spiritual world. You have quite the job, old girl. So, I was thinking, why don’t you continue breaking spiritual ground and present the world’s first fourth-dimensional satsang?!” “Satsang?” I replied. “Vera, I have to admit that even with all the advanced personal growth work I’ve done, like in my lunchtime yoga class and with my holotropic breath counselor, I’ve never actually been to a satsang.” “Well, Stace,” she said, “don’t let that stop you, because you owe your readers the benefit of all spiritual possibilities, even ones you personally don’t know that much about. And these days the ‘satsang circuit,’ with its plethora of new, or ‘neo,’ Advaita teachers, is attracting quite of bit of interest.” Now, don’t worry, dear readers if, like me, you’re in the dark about satsangs and Advaita, because I took Vera’s advice, did some research, made a few calls, and am here now to present, for your spiritual edification (and mine), this very special event: the first Neo-Advaita “satsang,” or spiritual gathering, to take place without the usual impediments of space and time.

Read more…

Re: Who's Transforming Anyway?

Hi C4,

thanks for bringing this article onto the stage for discussion. Recently, a few of my spiritual friends and i were sitting in coffee shop gettting ready for a race and we started talking about “the Neo-Advaita” perspective. I flipped into this state of consciousness in a way that i never had before. And as i did, my fellow spiritual friends started shooting questions at me that were trying to penetrate the absolute nature of the view itself… I tell you, the whole thing scared the heck out of me. I could see that as powerful as the perspective is, it has the potential to completely cut one off from the reality of the effects that we have on one another, and also took the away the inherent demand on us to navigate the delicate territory of cause and effect and human relationship.

But then something else happened as i was sitting there that scared me equally. I flipped into a state of consciousness that had no transcendant quality, no sense of timelessness and the unborn. And from this place, i could also see that nothing could happen in consciousness, nothing could evolve. It seemed that because distinctions where only being made at the level of the cogniitve, it seemed to me to be another form of Neo-Advita. At least from a certain perspective.

At this point, and since, the reality that we each must be endeavoring to have both the world of form and the reality of the unborn in consciousness, to evlove and grow on that level, has been a contemplation that i am finding incredibly valuable. It was an ah-ha moment. I have been a student of Andrew Cohen for almost 10 years, where he has always demonstrated an uncanny ablity to navigate the most difficult situations as he has tried to help all of us to wake up to both the absolute nature of reality beyond the mind and time, and simultaneously navigate in a way that is as evolutionary as possible the world of time and space and human relationship…. and from this has been born his teaching on Evolutionary Enlightenment.

I am appreciating so much the incredible challenge in this, and also respecting the forces that we are up against–as both the transcendant and the world of form are profoundly alluring and powerful. But that is what is so exciting about discovering for oneself the possiblity of something that transcends and includes both. I am appreciating even more the value of evolving our understanding of Enlightenment itself.  And it seems to me now that without a full embrace of both, we are not going to get anywhere new, or find solutions to our predicament unless we find a way to simultaneously embrace and become an expression of both… What an awesome life….

Terri

Re: Who's Transforming Anyway?

there is no neo advaita
there is only advaita
its as old as it is new
it is timeless
it is simply the reality itself

a means not and dvaita means two or duality
thus advaita means not two

to further clarify advaita means exactly one
not two nor three nor multiplicity at all

then you say you want to navigate between two worlds

but what if there are not two

this relativve existence i see andrews students so wound up about
is simply nonexistent

i feel pretty sure that this is andrews point exactly
and hes giving you all sorts of chances to figure it out for yourself

feel free to take advantage of them

i have no bone to pick with you teri

the thing is i see so many caught up in exactly this same contradiction

first theyre spouting off about how wonderful being not two is
and in the same sentence saying what a difference it makes
in their life in the everyday world of form
as well as their life in the world of the absolute

its not just you teri there are many

there are not two worlds theres only one
life is life
life is one
you dont have two of them

advaita is not the latest trend in meeting friends and influencing people
it is the truth absolute and always has been

its not a cute philosophy
its the fact

so i watch these people trying to serve two masters
and when my laughter dies down i poke a bit of fun at them
to see whether or not they will start up again

inevitably one or another of them will
and i get to do it all again as many times as i want
before moving on to other sport

theyre all we must act in the world here and now
blithely disremembering the fact that all this never happened and never will
and that there is no other

by the way what methods is andrew using over there

apparantly theyre not strong enuff

do you not get the joke
the joke is on you
he is humoring you hoping you will see for yourself

shall i realize the truth for you
no thats your job
i already did mine

when the teacher hits you with his stick
you think youre supposed to realize something
that youve done something wrong
been inattentive or some nonsense

maybe he just likes whacking the fuck out of you
after all it is great fun
hes enjoying himself enjoying his life

maybe its not about you at all

thats the point
the jokes on you

have you ever jumped up and said cut it out fucker or ill kick you in the nuts

no of course you havent and seems like you never will
because thats not what is expected of you
because you might startle someone
because that would show who you actually are
what  you actually think and feel
and somebody might take offense and then they wouldnt like you
and might do something to you

theyre already doing junk to you all the time

you havent the guts and youre waiting to get them from somebody else
patiently waiting absorbing punishment after punishment
like the wonderfully good person you think you are

youre not growing in courage youre growing in pain

you may be able to take a lot
but anybody can take only so much of this

either get the joke and be the eternal laughter or you will have to go

and when you go you wont be wiser youll simply be sore

if anyone takes offense at this mind your own business

i am not singling anyone out
i am not harming anyone nor threatening to

so if you see what im getting at then youre welcome
if not just walk away

it is no concern of mine either way

if you just want to fight debate call names critique etc
more power to you but youll have to find another target

there are scads of them just itching to participate
in that particular avenue of pleasure

much love to all beings tho they already have it and always will

Re: Who's Transforming Anyway?

Sometimes I understand what the guy above is saying. I spend a lot of time in confusion and contemplation, wanting to understand this, wanting to have control over the mind, etc. etc. At some point, it dawns on me the whole thing is a misunderstanding on my part. I've created all these problems and now need to fix them.

We live in the “real world” but actually we know too it's just a kind of dream world composed of agreed-upon concepts. And we can talk about enlightenment and all of the concepts like that. But then the reality is quite different, isn't it? It's hard to say much about that.

Anyways, this is a dilemna that I struggle with all the time.

Who or "What" is Transforming?

By asking “who” are we not making an artificial assumption?  Would it not be more appropriate to ask “what” is transforming instead?  I come from a computer programming background and when I evaluate the brain/mind it appears to me as “circuits” or “areas of operations” going on (agents, subagents, etc.).  So, by saying “who” are we not anthropomorphising a computer program-like function?  If a person's personality or thinking process transforms into a better “operating system” then by acting like it is a “who” are we not superimposing an artificial construct upon the evaluation?  Adding an unnecessary layer on top of what is being evaluated?  Should we not ask “what” instead of “who” (or whom)?

Re: Who or "What" is Transforming?

You can ask “who”  or “what”…
“Who” is intended to uncover the habit
or programming,
of identifying with the body/mind
as who one is….