TODAY'S CONSIDERATIONS
[See the offer following this post for details on how you can watch a video which includes a discussion of all seven of the steps on the path as used by Maharaj]
CONSIDER:
"Heaven and hell are not geographic places but are states of mind,
nothing more than concepts dreamed up by men."
-- Pope John Paul II
"No one shall ever see 'the kingdom of heaven.' It is within."
--Yeshu'a (Jesus)
Here, "God," the "Son of God," the "Holy Spirit," "Buddha," "Krishna," etc., etc., etc.: are viewed as verbs, not nouns. See the end of the post for the full meaning and implications of that.
THE RATIONALE FOR CHOOSING SCIENTIFIC FACTS OVER THE EMOTIONAL INTOXICATION GENERATED BY RELIGIOUS / SPIRITUAL FANATICISM:
While Religion and Science Are Not Always Incompatible, Logic and Reason and Wisdom Make Clear That If a Choice Between The Two Is To Be Made, Only One Choice Is the Sane Option
Next, let’s re-consider the accuracy of some of the criticisms set forth about Maharaj and some of the labels which were applied to Maharaj over the decades as he shifted from using a religious / non-dual version of the Ultimate Medicine to using a spiritual / non-dual version of the Ultimate Medicine to using a psychologically-based version of the Ultimate Medicine:
CRITICISMS
(from among some of those shared in the eBook "SRI NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ and HIS EVOLUTION"):
"The later books of Maharaj do not enjoy the same clarity as 'I Am That'. It seems that he himself got complicated or rather evolved himself or declined maybe as happens to many teachers.
"His direct disciples who later on became notable teachers are of an especially low quality (e.g. Ramesh Balsekar, Wolinsky and others) which makes one to wonder how come."
"He taught an extreme form of narcissism in which 'I' am everything."
"At first when he was still listening to his guru he was telling the truth, like he did in 'I AM THAT.' In his other talks, his ego made him start telling things he dreamed up on his own that were not true."
"He deteriorated from one of the great spiritual men of all times to one of the least spiritual people of all times."
“He seemed to understand non-duality early on but later on he lost it. I think he went crazy or became senile or maybe it was Alzheimers.”
LABELS
He was a rebel.”
He was a maverick.”
He was a nonconformist.”
He was eccentric.”
He was the odd one out.”
He was a dissenter.”
He was a radical.”
He was a free spirit.”
Such labeling can only manifest in duality, when "someone" is contrasted with "someone else" or when "someone" is contrasted with "the way they are now" as compared to "the way they were before."
Sometimes the labels used to describe Maharaj were meant as criticisms and sometimes they were meant as compliments, but they always involved first judging and then either acceptance or rejection. He was viewed “positively” as “a rebel and maverick and nonconformist," etc. by those who had received no clarity at all by listening to the typical messages being offered by the typical teachers of the day. He was viewed “negatively” as “a rebel and maverick and nonconformist," etc. by those who were attached to the religious or spiritual identities which had been assigned to them or which they had assumed.
All who were deemed to be religious but who later abandoned their religion persona, and all who were deemed to be spiritual but who later abandoned the playing of their spiritual persona, should be aware that – among the duality-entrapped masses – the applause of the villagers can readily turn into the scorn of the townspeople if one does not accept each and every component of the belief systems of the villagers and townspeople.
Thus, many who had applauded Maharaj when he reinforced their assumed roles suddenly began attacking Maharaj after he saw that neither a religious nor a spiritual version of the Ultimate Medicine was treating the Ultimate Sickness successfully. As the case is with those who only take some antibiotics but do not complete the full dosage, the version of the Medicine prescribed to religious or spiritual persons might have sent the Sickness into a temporarily-less potent state or into a temporarily-dormant state for a period; yet Maharaj saw that the Sickness always eventually recurred.
Therefore, when he turned to focusing on the real root of – and the actual seat of - the Ultimate Sickness (namely, the mind), then the criticisms and labels came forth, especially when he said:
"Forget spirituality"
and when he encouraged seekers to
follow "their normal inclinations," (that is, to follow their natural tendencies, to abandon all of their spiritual work and just abide naturally - not unnaturally and not supernaturally, i.e., neither "religiously" nor "spiritually" nor "philosophically")
and when he told visitors to
"Do your normal duties"
and to
"just give up spirituality."
Consider: in Christian-dominated cultures, children are told an astonishing lie for years, a lie about an ancient, white-skinned, white-bearded man who has been around forever and who lives in another place and who is omniscient – even knowing if they are asleep or if they are awake – and who rewards those who are good with gifts. (Hummm. Sound like Someone else you've heard of?) Later, they are told by relatives – or they figure out on their own or they are told by friends who know the truth – that they were lied to, tricked, hoodwinked, duped, fooled, conned, taken in, deceived, and bamboozled.
Here, when the shift beyond the third-of-seven-steps happened – that third step being the one where religious and spiritual roles were assumed and played – many people make comments along these lines: “Floyd, you have allowed your ego to drive you to break relationship with God, and you will pay dearly for that.”
The question is, If a child who believed a lie – like, say, believing in Santa Claus – then found out the truth and never again believed the lie and never again allowed the lie to affect her or his thoughts and words and actions, would one conclude that the child who eventually understood the truth had - "negatively" - become a “rebel,” a "maverick,” a “nonconformist,” etc.? Or would the child simply be one who had finally come to understand the truth and, as a consequence, had quit believing a lie, even a lie which the child had also repeated for years.
Or, if a parent put a child to bed at 8 PM and if the child stayed asleep for a long time but then suddenly woke up at 7 AM when the light began streaming through the bedroom window, would the parent conclude that the child who woke up is obviously and most certainly "rebellious" or "in a state of decline" or "deteriorated" or "narcissistic and egotistical," all because the child had simply awakened?
With Maharaj there, and in the case here, and in all cases where seekers wake up to the fact that they were taught a big pack of lies (and in all cases where they then return to a state in which differentiating between what is true and what is false is the norm rather than the exception), can any of those that determine to stop believing the lies and re-telling the lies which they had been taught suddenly be deemed – logically - to have “deteriorated” simply because they are rejecting lies or because they are telling the truth? Logically? No. Typically? Yes.
Why is that? That angry reaction among the masses will always happen when some begins marching to the beat of a different drum which is pounding out a cadence which differs from the beat to which the masses are marching. In such cases, the village will turn against them, the state can turn against them, the nation can turn against them, and those all around the globe who are judging them can turn against them.
Why? They are pissed off because their belief systems and their very identities are being challenged and because they, therefore, feel that they are literally being threatened or hurt or even . . . destroyed. Their misperceptions lead them to believe that a 130-pound female human who is walking away from them is a bigger threat then an 830-pound female bear that is charging toward them.
That is the core irony among humans about the truth: the truth can set them free, but it’s most likely going to piss them off first.
Tomorrow: So why did Maharaj’s treatment plan shift away from the use of religion and away from the use of spirituality and away from endorsing the use of “Self-Inquiry” and toward (1) addressing the issues with the mind and (2) addressing (via “self-inquiry”) the issues with the multiple personalities which persons have been assigned or which they assume are real identities?
To be continued.
NEW OFFER:
Watch an updated seven-hour streaming video of a retreat with Floyd Henderson which can be viewed by anyone with internet access. (In this video; all seven of the steps on "the path" as taught by Maharaj are explained and discussed.)
If interested; click the button below to pay the fee via PayPal. You will then receive an email which includes the link for you to view the private, unlisted video via an arrangement we have made with YouTube, Inc. You do not have to have a YouTube account to watch this privately streamed video.
(If you do not receive the link promptly, your computer or email provider may have high filter settings. Check your spam and trash folders because some providers automatically transfer emails containing links to those folders.)
To access the seven-hour streaming video of a retreat and begin watching right away, click this "Buy Now" button:
Please enter into the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE: The four most recent posts are below. You may access all of the posts in this series and in the previous series and several thousand other posts as well by clicking on the links in the "Recent Posts and Archives" section.]
In addition to the five non-duality books made available without charge by Andy Gugar, Jr. (see “FREEBIES” above), you can now access nearly 3,300 posts for any topics of interest to you.
Here, "God," the "Son of God," the "Holy Spirit," "Buddha," "Krishna," etc., etc., etc. are viewed as verbs, not nouns.
THE EXPLANATION
If looked at as nouns, they point to illusions and are, therefore, a total waste of time to even discuss; if looked at as verbs which are resulting in certain sane but rare behaviors among humanity, then they are worthy of some attention during the relative existence.
Meaning? There are members of certain groups who say things such as "My concept of God in the past was of a weak God, an absentee God, A Santa Claus-type God, a mean, punishing, vindictive God, etc. Today, I am in close contact with a loving and caring God whom I worship and praise and glorify and give thanks to."
The reply to that usually goes like this: "If you are in contact with a God that wants to be worshipped and praised and glorified, then you're dealing with someone like yourself - a narcissist - and hanging out with narcissists will never bring an end to your narcissism. Next, in the phrase 'loving and caring God,' any supposed God that truly had her or his act together would tell you that the totally irrelevant part of that phrase is 'God' and that the only part to be focused on should be the 'loving and caring' part.
"That is, a non-narcissistic god / goddess would say, "I care not an iota about being worshipped and praised and glorified by you or anyone else. How arrogant and insecure and needy would I have to be to want that? Forget the man-made, dreamed up noun 'God' and focus on the 'God as a verb' understanding and then go forth and let loving and caring be verbs - not adjectives - and let them generate the act of love and the act of caring and let those actions manifest through you.
Both Yeshu'a (Jesus) and Pope John Paul II were spot on:
"No one shall ever see 'the kingdom of heaven.' It is within"
and
"Heaven and hell are not geographic places but are states of mind, nothing more than concepts dreamed up by men."
