Eitherway said “If you say to forget about the problems because they are an illusion and simply go for the Ultimate realization, I can only say that I put on my boxers first and then my jeans.”
And I might add…
My mom always told me to make sure I was wearing clean underwear just in case I got into a spiritual accident.
Peace and Love AND a few laughs…
Mac
Sorry Jim but I have to tell you reading this thread highlights my beef with the advaitists, always sound like scolding. I have this same beef with all spiritual teachers who scold. Scolding only makes me want to avoid all things so-called spiritual.
Yogani, your words always offer comfort AND inspiration to practice without actually putting anyone down. Many thanks for being a light to me.
Sorry to be blunt.
Jill
Jill, before judging Adyashanti on the basis of the quote I’ve extracted, plus my (apparently poor) attempt to explain it, please have a look at the interview, so he can be judged on his own basis, rather than via my flawed filtration. it’s at ttp://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/384/who_hears_this_sound?page=1 and I’d be really surprised if you were to maintain this opinion of him after reading that. But if I’m wrong and you do, I’d expect nothing less than your frank opinion! 
Hi Jill,
I’m confused now… who was scolding who?
Christi
I think she’s saying that Advaitans in general sound scoldy, and that I’m doing likewise.
The following might sound particularly scoldy, for those who realize I’m saying it with a goofy grin (it’s notoriously hard to convey such sentiment online, but, fwiw, I never say “dude” with a completely straight face):
But regardless of whether I’m scoldy or not, I really think Adyashanti isn’t. So I feel bad for misrepresenting his attitude, if that’s what happened!
I thought this was the best part of that article.
Not that they wern’t all the best part being one and all.
Saunders: Is that use of humor and play an intentional part of your teachings?
Adyashanti: It’s not intentional. I just see some things as profoundly funny.
Saunders: So it emerges more from your personality.
Adyashanti: Yeah, that’s more it, although I think it’s part and parcel of being awake that you don’t take things too seriously. The thing you probably take the least seriously is yourself. I’ve heard enlightenment described as the “restoration of cosmic humor.” I think that’s a wonderful description. If you think you’re awake, but you don’t have a sense of humor, you’re probably not as awake as you imagine yourself to be. Humor comes with the knowledge that all is well.
I was not naming names on purpose because it would not be fair to single out one particular person. I could very well be projecting, something I am quite capable of doing especially around the topic of scolding.
It is just something I have felt for a long time with the “just do it” advocates. Perhaps once in a while a person can hear this message and wake up but often it just seems cruel to tell people who are suffering to “suck it up” and “be here now” or some such thing.
Just my pet peeve. Sorry if I am rude 
Love to all,
Jill
Yeah. People tend to take yoga (and themselves as yogis) way too seriously. It’s all part of the striving thing.
Glad you read through, BRR. I found it really inspiring. Also,fwiw, that magazine, “The Sun” is good just in general.
Cute, Jim, very tongue in cheek, btw: LOL.
When humor is appropriate, use humor! When seriousness is appropriate, (be serious).
Btw, I read the entire interview with Adyashanti and I enjoyed the work that he’s doing. I’m not familiar with any of the processes that he uses other than those that he mentioned.
I especially enjoyed how he helped a woman who suffered with severe anxiety due to her fear of death. That was great. Anything that helps a person is a good thing.
The mind is an instrument, just like a muscle that is worked to exhaustion gets that much stronger later on even if it appears to antropy. Right? We can say that the muscle has disappeared but we know that isn’t the case, since that is the instrument that we human beings use to express ourSelves, the Divine, or whatever term we want to use to convey that Unknowingness. So, both work together. A healthy balance.
As we get closer to who we are, the detached mind becomes more acute, stronger, clearer, less muddled through striving, not striving; is dependent on ones batki, as is the outcome.
I liked this article which mentions the importance of using our mind in a balanced way:
“The Whole Hemisphere
The whole hemisphere or balanced mind is clear, simple, lucid, clean, inspirational, illuminating and ecstatic. It sees both sides of an event, the direct one and the interpreted one. It contains the feminine and masculine, the negative and the positive minds and is therefore neutral. Yoga is the product of balanced mental function. It deals with awareness, peace, love, harmony, illumination, silence, grace and beauty. It relies on discipline, meditation, daily practice and selflessness.”
The balanced mind uses intuition to come to conclusions. It integrates and organizes various traits or tendencies into one harmonious whole. It integrates and leads to integrity. It synthesizes. It puts two or more things together so as to form a whole. It joins analysis and interpretation. It is a whole made up of parts, or elements put together. It goes from the simple elements of thought into the complex whole, from a principle to its application, car parts into car, organs into human."
http://www.astromind.com/articles/brain.html
VIL
P.S. When I use the word “stronger” it is in the sense of reflecting the unknowingness more clearly. See how words are a poor way of conveying meaning.
Hi Jill,
Well, I have never heard anyone say “suck it up” as a serious spiritual teaching. Maybe there are teachers out there that I have somehow managed to avoid.
But I get what you mean in general. People do need a whole lot more than just being told to “be here now”. That’s what practices are for… as I’m sure Adyashanti would agree.
Christi
Hi All,
I know I’m coming in a bit late on all this, but I just wanted to say that I think Adya could be getting a bit of a hard rap here for no especially good reason. He seems to be getting accused of all sorts of things in this thread that he hasn’t actually said or done. It is starting to sound like one of those inter-faith meetings where everyone is saying the same thing about Truth, and no one can understand anyone else.
Adyashanti studied and practices and now teaches in the Zen Buddhist tradition. It’s a particular tradition with it’s own terminology and practices. There aren’t many practices (unlike in yoga), and one of them, the main one, is to spend hours every day sitting down and staring at a wall. It’s a really boring spiritual practice, probably the most boring in the world. The purpose of the practice, as Adya says, is to exhaust the seeking mind until it stops. There is another practice where one contemplates an irrational statement (koan) until the seeker is exhausted, and the mind comes to silence. Same thing, and it can even be done with the wall, just in case it isn’t boring enough on its own.
So when Adya talks about this being the main purpose of spiritual practices he is talking about his practices, the ones he did, and still does and now teaches in the Zen tradition. I am sure he wouldn’t say that the purpose of pranayama is to exhaust the seeker, or the purpose of asana practice is to exhaust the seeker. He is clearly an intelligent man. Maybe he should have said, “The purpose of zazen practices is to exhaust the seeker”. But then he is a Zen master, and he was giving an interview to some guys who had come to interview a Zen master, so he could be forgiven for assuming that it was already understood.
When he talks about “exhausting the seeker” he doesn’t mean that the seeker becomes physically exhausted. He is talking about the movement of the mind… the continual search for something other than what is right here right now. The continual movement away from the fundamental unsatisfaction of its present condition.
Also, he doesn’t say that once the seeker is exhausted, that’s it… welcome to nirvana. He said that it produced in him, an awakening experience that activated his kundalini (as Yogani pointed out). And then a long process began. He even uses the word “kundalini” which is pretty impressive for a Zen teacher! (One of the few who isn’t playing mental dodge ball).
Personally I think that “exhausting the seeker” and “illuminating the mind” are just two sides of the same coin. One will lead to the other, whichever one you start with. An illuminated mind will bring an end to the process of seeking, because it will bring an end to the subtle condition of pain and avoidance that leads to the spiritual search in the first place. Using (zazen) practices to exhaust the seeker, will lead to the illumination of mind, and the same end result, although it may not be the safest route to go down. But as Adya says, that is another story.
When he says that practices cannot take you all the way, they can only bring you to the door, again this comes from the Buddhist tradition. It actually comes from the Buddha himself. The Buddha said that spiritual practices are like a boat that you can use to take yourself across the ocean. When you reach the farther shore you have to get out of the boat and leave it behind. Adya isn’t putting spiritual practices down here, he is just explaining them in a Buddhist context, and is talking about Zen sitting practices. Enlightened Zen masters don’t spend hours every day staring at walls because they no longer need to. Their disciples do.
And, if he doesn’t see much evidence of the fact that humanity is on the brink of a spiritual revolution, then, well… he just doesn’t see it. Maybe that’s how things look from his front porch. I admire his honesty for saying so.
Will people be confused to the point of despair by his open advaitist teachings and bored to the point of giving up spiritual practices forever by his zazen meditation methods? Well, that remains to be seen. For the time being, he is drawing the crowds. Lets see if they hang around long enough to get any lasting benefit. I really hope they do.
Oh, and one last point… as Kirtanman mentioned in an earlier thread, I also believe that what Yogani is teaching and what Adyashanti is teaching are really compatible, and can complement each other really well. If anyone is looking to add advaita self-inquiry to their practice, just contemplate the writings of Adyashanti. You can’t go far wrong.
Christi
Christi, if he did say ‘the role of the practice of Koans in Zen’, rather than ‘the role of practices’, he might be be making full sense. Even in the context of Zen at large though, it seems somewhat ‘off’ to characterize the role of practices as being to ‘exhaust the seeker’.
It’s almost always possible to re-interpret for some authority until there are no flaws in what they said. In which case though, you may be just coming up with your own corrected version – your version of what they should have said, as if they said it. Maybe I’m just right though – maybe his view of the role of practices is a bit too narrow right now.
BUT, I’ll thank you for saying what he should have said, because I think you’ve done a very good job of that! You have added needed context (maybe needed by us as well as by Adyashanti).
I think by reading any of Adya’s work, it is clear that he is genunine and speaking from silence. I also understand his background (read conditioning) but am somewhat surprised by his stance because the common belief is that the enlightened being is much less identified with his conditioning then the rest of us.
Clearly he is full of wisdom but at the same time there are instances when he dabbles in semantics instead of clarity. For example he says no practices are necessary once enlightenment takes place. However, he does meditate when called to sit in silence. However, this is not a practice because there is no effort.
I understand what he is trying to convey but question the wisdom of his choice of words. Most students would translate this as saying practices are not necessary after enlightenment. He should remember that most state (including he) that the path to enlightenment can be compromised of several awakenings and each can be easy to misconstrue as the final or abiding condition. This increases the possibility of students stopping prematurely and thus delaying or side tracking their progress.
For me it boils down to which path is smoother and more practical. Following Ayp clearly improves your daily life and the direction is undoubtedly divine. It seems by the time most students are getting “more advanced” , they have dealt with and are making peace with a lot of psychological baggage and other life issues. (the silence makes it a hell of a lot easier) This would mean that their personalities, life outlook, etc… are more stable and well rounded and this should lead to a better enlightenment.
Heresy you say!!! There is no person in enlightenment and thus no personality. The end of conditioning must be a prerequiste to realization. All enlightened beings are speaking from the same condition, etc… I believe Yogani has eloquently stated that the condition of enlightenment is a dynamic one. I personally believe that the differences in enlightened beings can be traced to their chosen path and personalities. For those scoffing at the notion, please consider UG Krishnamurti, J Krishnamurti, Adi Da, Osho, etc…
Certain paths (I can only vouch for ayp since that is all i know) lend well to cleaning house along the way to enlightenment whereas others seem to be able to take a route which somehow bypasses or supresses this. I believe some of them are doing some major cleaning/purifying while already being well awake and this might be what has lead to the downfall/improprieties of many a guru or non guru. Maybe those paths lead to a different condition where energy is predominating instead of silence. Who knows? just grist for the mill.
Exhausting or illuminating might end up at the same overall neurological condition but one seems to be a nicer way to get there (consider impact on family, friends, and other brethern, after all, we are all one).
Well said Eitherway!
Just a BTW, I think the idea of an enlightened person being free of ‘conditioning’ is problemmatic. Just like anyone else, enlightened people are conditioned by experience and learning. And sometimes, not conditioned enough (or in the right way) to be effective teachers!
Hi David,
I completely agree with the conditioning remark as it is plain to see when most of the gurus are placed under a microscope. The amazing thing about ayp is that enlightenment seemed to have taken place in a person (yogani of course) who was probably a great communicator (they usually learn to look at what they are teaching/communicating from all angles and perspectives, especially of their audience) before hand. This is what seems to make Ayp magic.
Instances of enlightenment in people who are in tune with their gifts or happen to have stumbled onto their given purpose seem to be the best hope for humanity. For example, think of an enlightened natural politician in a position of importance or a enlightened scientist working in Aids/Cancer research, etc…
Ofcourse, enlightenment is not to be confused with perfection but can it justly be equated to being close to genius or maybe better put, helping to make the most of one’s potential? Maybe I have the wrong idea and certainly other factors come into play but what do you guys think??
Hi Eitherway and All:
I don’t think it has to be all one approach or the other. No doubt students of Adyashanti can gain some benefit from AYP. And no doubt we are gaining from the teachings of Adyashanti, even as we write.
Certain elements of teaching will not be compatible, and others will be. They use a wall, and we use a mantra – probably not a good idea to use both, especially at the same time. 
It is a logical strategy to keep an open mind and choose what is in the best interest of our progress from wherever we can find it. AYP was built that way, and continues to expand in its scope and integration of knowledge and methods. These kinds of discussions are part of the process.
Seeing Adyashanti as the eclectic Zen Buddhist teacher he is helps with understanding his perspective and statements. Thanks for adding that, Christi. It is good to be comparing apples with apples, and not apples with oranges, even though both are fruit.
I don’t doubt Adyashanti’s state of consciousness or sincerity. And I can accept what he teaches as “practice,” including the way he defines it – exhausting the seeker – essentially a Zen Buddhist approach. On the other hand, I do not see the approach he teaches as being particularly easy or effective for most people. Can his considerable charisma and crowd appeal make up for the difficulties inherent in the approach he teaches? Not likely. Zen Buddhism is not going to bring enlightenment to the whole of humanity. It was never intended to. He knows that, and we know that.
This isn’t to say there are not other ways to reach the whole of humanity with effective spiritual methods. We can hope for that, and work toward it. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Incidently, there is considerable hazard in Adyashanti’s celebrity, for both him and his followers. I made this point about him some time back, and I hope we don’t see the downside of it come to fruition. Time and again it has been demonstrated that a spiritual path revolving around a single person leads to instability (exception - sometimes it works if the person is dead). The bigger it gets, the more unstable it becomes. That is one reason why AYP is a different approach – about the knowledge and the practitioners’ relationship to it, while minimizing the role of a “figurehead” as much as possible. If the knowledge is effective and verifiable by every practitioner, it can continue for a long time as a big wide flat thing that is very stable, instead of a tall narrow thing that is bound to fall over, with everyone left to pick up the pieces.
This is not a reflection on Adyashanti’s character or anything. It is just a difficult teaching model to move forward with. Sooner or later, celebrity breeds contempt. That’s just how it is.
Well, everyone is doing what they can. Each will put their best foot forward. We are all obliged to do that. Let’s just make sure it is our own best foot we are putting forward and not someone else’s.
The guru is in you.
Yogani,
In the verbiage of my favourite musicians, WORD!!!
Hi there,
Just want to clarify that Adya doesn’t teach staring at a wall for a meditation technique.
This is the style of meditation he teaches now:
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=writings_inner&writingid=12
I attended an Adyashanti retreat last summer, here is a summary of what it was like for those interested:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1502&whichpage=7#24431
You will see that meditaion in the style described above, was what was done most at the retreat.
Interesting stuff!
In the description of the meditation method, I notice more of the (unconscious) semantic games Eitherway observes. In his giving the directions for the method of ‘True meditation’, he observes that ‘True meditation has no direction, goals, or method’.
His ‘true meditation’ has a method! He’s describing it! That stuff is put up there for people to know how it’s done – or if you prefer, how it happens, depending on fine semantic distinctions.
J. Krishnamurti come back! All your semantic sins are forgiven! (Actually, on second thoughts, they aren’t…). 
I think Yogani has hit the nail on the head with ayp while leaving plenty of room for improvement, new techniques, and integration from other traditions (no prob with adya style self inquiry, he just suggests to wait till it becomes automatic or atleast till there is inner silence bubbling up).
I’m beginning to see the following :
More talking + abstract practices = The movement becomes about the leader (not making a judgement at all about the intentions , etc… of said leader)
Concrete practices + not much $$$$ involved + open mindedness = gives the majority of seekers a self verifiable path that at worse leads to improvement in daily life and at best leads to levels of consciousness unfathomable by most seekers.
p.s - True meditation having no direction, goals or method is bringing back J. Krishnamurti’s pathless path pitch. I wonder how many people krishnamurti helped (again not judging his intentions but rather the wisdom of his method) and how many were left frustrated or apathetic to spiritual life.
Please, again just to make sure this isn’t regarded as Guru bashing, I really like Adya’s satsangs, books, etc… just bringing up what I think is valid criticism and comparing with other gurus from the near past.