Hardly. As I see it, this uber-popular Advaita “guru†is on the same (grossly overrated) spiritual level as Eckhart Tolle and Mooji. It’s more likely that Miley Cyrus is chaste, Hillary Clinton is honest, and OJ is innocent than Adyashanti is Enlightened.
Because I’ve reviewed a number of Adyashanti’s books at Amazon.com that make clear my POV on him, rather than write an article on the subject, I’ll just post a few of the reviews. The first one (A Blind Man Leading the Blind) is my two-star review of “The End of Your World,†the second (The Way of a Muddled Mystic) is my two-star review of “The Way of Liberation,†and the third (Falling into Dis-Grace) is my just-posted at Amazon one-star review of “Falling into Grace.â€
A Blind Man Leading the Blind
In the interview at the end of this book, Adyashanti implicitly makes it clear that he has no business writing books on spiritual awakening, or anything else for that matter. He says that "awakening is a mystery," and confesses: "What I really know is that I don't know." When the interviewer asks him, "Is there anything you know for certain?" he replies, "Only that I am; that's it." Regarding his own enlightenment, he is also uncertain. He says, "I hesitate to say, `Oh, yes, I have crossed a certain finish line,' because I don't see it that way..." He informs us, "Trying to put the truth into word is a fool's game..." Then why does he play it? I think you can guess the answer.
Even though Adyashanti doesn't know anything for certain, he nonetheless thinks he can identify reality. He informs us, "What is actually real is an infinite expanse of emptiness." Why would anyone want to awaken to a reality of empty space? And how does he know it's infinite? In contrast to Adyashanti, and in agreement with the great Hindu sages, I say what is actually real is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), not an ineffable emptiness. Emptiness is not an ontological primary; it is a derivative, because it can only "exist" within the context of a Thing or Being that is empty, or devoid of content.
Adyashanti has little understanding of "mysticism." He says, "One of the great misunderstandings about awakening or enlightenment is that it is some sort of mystical experience... Spiritual awakening is very different from having a mystical experience." Au contraire, spiritual awakening is a mystical experience, and if Adyashanti opened a dictionary, he'd see mysticism defined as "union with Ultimate Reality."
Adyashanti makes many of the same banal statements that pepper the neo-Advaita Vedanta texts I've recently reviewed at Amazon, which raises the question: Is he aping them or are they aping him? In alignment with these texts, he reduces awakening to "a shift in one's perception" and informs us that enlightenment is already the condition of all beings. Adyashanti tells us that when the Buddha awoke, he said, "I and all beings everywhere have simultaneously realized liberty." The Buddha never said that. Rather, he emphasized that each individual had to work out his own salvation through intense sadhana.
Adyashanti believes that awakening begins with the experience of no-self. I say it begins with the initial experience of the Holy Spirit, or Shakti. Any bloke can conceptually recognize that the self is not an entity, just an amalgm of discrete psycho-physical tendencies that combine to create an illusory self-sense; but real awakening does not begin until one is baptized in (or by) the Spirit, which is tantamount to receiving what Hindu yogis call "Shaktipat."
Adyashanti mentions "energetic unfolding" relative to the awakening process, but fails to provide details on this unfoldment and how it translates into final awakening. If he were fully, finally, awakened, he'd know that Kundalini-Shakti severs the spiritual Heart-knot, and once the knot is cut, the yogi is never again bound, as thereafter a permanent, radiant Force-current between the Heart-center and the crown outshines arising thought-forms, rendering them impotent as agents of bondage. This is not just my opinion but also that of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, India's greatest twentieth-century guru. Moreover, the Buddha also equated the attainment of enlightenment, or Nirvana, with the Heart-release. Adyashanti, by contrast, reduces "Heart Level Enlightenment" to "awakening on the level of emotion."
In my first book, "Beyond the Power of Now," I did not include any of Adyashanti's books on my Spiritual Reading List, but I did state that those interested in Advaita Vedanta might benefit from his books. That was mistake. At the time, "Emptiness Dancing" was the only book of his I had read, and though I didn't consider it an impressive text, I thought that newbies might find it a worthwhile read. I still think it's a three-star book (see my Amazon review), but I removed any reference to Adyashanti's books in my second book, "Electrical Christianity."
Now, after reading and reviewing "The Way of Liberation" and "The End of Your World," I will no longer refer anyone to Adyashanti. Based on what he says in this book, he is a blind man leading the blind.
The Way of a Muddled Mystic
This "book" is not really a book--unless you think 45 pages of material on a subject constitute a book. But this "spiritual" "book" is priced like a regular book, and the the term this brings to my mind is "spiritual materialism."
This book bills itself as a "practical guide to to spiritual enlightenment," but the Introduction contradicts this subtitle. It states, "No spiritual teaching is a direct path to enlightenment. In fact, there is no such thing as a path to enlightenment, simply because enlightenment is ever present in all places and at all times."
If there is no such thing as a path to enlightenment, then there can be no such thing as a practical guide to enlightenment, because a "practical" guide, by definition, provides a practical method that one can "practice" as means to a goal. Clearly, the goal of spiritual life is liberation, or enlightenment, but Adyashanti says enlightenment is ever present, so there can be no path to it, but then he provides such a path--albeit an indirect one--in his guidebook.
In contrast to Adyashanti, I say that enlightenment is not ever present, because if it were, every living being, including cockroaches, sharks, and murderer-rapists would be enlightened. And the very fact that liberation, or enlightenment is so hard to attain--it took Gautama Buddha, an ascetic spiritual genius, 6 years to attain Nirvana, or enlightenment--belies his claim that it is ever present. Spiritual Light is ever present, but en-Light-enment--the State of being literally, permanently, whole-bodily irradiated by that Light-energy--must be attained via a spiritual path or method.
And also in contrast to Adyashanti, I say there is a direct path to en-Light-enment--directly and immediately connecting to Clear-Light Energy and channeling its radiant Blessing/Blissing Power. But this radical method is not taught in Advaita Vedanta and Zen, the two spiritual traditions wherefrom Adyashanti's teachings derive.
This book contains three chapters: The Five Foundations, Three Orienting Ideas, and The Core Practices. I'll consider each in order.
The Five Foundations consists of five subchapters: Clarify Your Aspirations, Unconditional Follow-Through, Never Abdicate Your Autonomy, Practice Absolute Sincerity, and Be a Good Stewart of Your Life. In the words of Adyadhanti, "the Five Foundations provide the context within which the teachings unfold." It is unlikely that the Five Foundations will tell you anything you don't already know; they are rudimentary and common-sense components of a grounded spiritual life.
The Three Orienting Ideas consists of three subchapters: The Question of Being, The False Self, and The Dream State. The Question of Being is a short and disappointing section. First, Adyashanti contradicts himself, which he continually does in all his books. He says, "To Be, to truly Be, is not a given." But if Being is the enlightened state, and if enlightenment is ever present, a given, then Being likewise must be a given. Second, although according to Adyashanti "The question of Being is everything," in this subchapter he doesn't tell us what Being is; but I will: Being (Sat) = Consciousness (Siva)-Energy (Shakti). Adyashanti informs us that "it is within the dimension of Being that Truth reveals itself." But Adyashanti here doesn't say what Truth is and how it reveals itself. I say that Truth, or Reality, is the Divine Being, and that it reveals itself when the "vine" of Spirit (Shakti) unites with the "vine" of one's consciousness (Siva) in one's Heart-center (Hridayam, not Anahata). When this union takes place, one awakens as Siva-Shakti, the Divine Being
The False Self subchapter simply tells us what everybody into Eastern philosophy already knows--that the divided, conflicted ego-self is the false self, not the Real Self. And The Dream State subchapter tells us the same thing about "objective" reality--that our judgments, beliefs and opinions keep us trapped in a dream-like state of unconsciousness and strife that is the avoidance of Being, or What Is.
The Core Practices chapter consists of three subchapters: Meditation; Inquiry; and Contemplation. In the Meditation subchapter, Adyashanti decribes the core meditation practice in familiar terms to those who have studied J. Krishnamurti, Eckhart Tolle, and Advaita Vedanta. He describes it variously as "resting in silent, still awareness"; "effortless stillness, abidance in primordial Being"; the art of allowing everything simply to be"; progressively letting go of the meditator without getting lost in the mind."
Any spiritual teacher can parrot the the same "natural-state" meditation directives that Adyashanti teaches, but Adyashanti does not elaborate on the directives. He doesn't provide depth and detail on this "effortless effort" practice and the en-Light-enment, or divinization, process that follows it. In fact, he provides misleading information on the en-Light-enment process when he responds to a question from a student experiencing surges of energy in his meditation. Here is Adyashanti's response:
"It is not uncommon that at some point in your spiritual life you will experience various forms of intense energy. Do not become fascinated by the energy and do not try to suppress or control it, because doing so will intensify it."
I cannot imagine a more ignorant response to the question. First, without the awakening of intense spiritual energy--Kundalini-Shakti--spiritual en-Light-enment is not possible. In fact, the Hindu Kashmir Shaivism tradition teaches that the more intense and violent the energy, the closer one is to en-Light-enment. Second--and I speak from intimate personal experience--what most intensifies the energy isn't trying to control, but rather totally letting go.
In the second subchapter of the Core Practices chapter, Adyashanti turns attention to inquiry, which he describes as "the dynamic counterpoint to True Meditation." Adyashanti writes: "The first focus of inquiry focuses on Being. Being is the key that unlocks the kingdom. Who or what am I? Apart from body, mind, belief, occupation, gender, role memory, or history, what am I? Exactly what is I?" Adyashanti describes inquiry "as a means to opening up space in the mind for intuitive wisdom to arise." But his he doesn't describe the inquiry in depth--the spiritual-energetic mechanics and esoteric anatomy involved in the practice.
If you are interested in Self-inquiry as a spiritual practice, I suggest you check out Robert Adams' book "Silence of the Heart," which eclipses this one as a guide to inquiry. And if you want to very deeply understand Self-inquiry, get "Sat-Darshana Bhashya and Talks with Maharshi," by Kapila Sastriar.
In the third subchapter, Contemplation, Adyashanti turns his attention to contemplation, which he describes as "the art of holding a word or phrase patiently in the silence and stillness until it begins to disclose deeper and deeper meanings and understandings." The first statement he recommends contemplating is: "There is no such thing as an absolutely true thought."
I don't know about you, but I can think plenty of thoughts that are absolutely true (for example, everyone who is born dies). But If Adyashanti is correct, and there is no such thing as absolutely true thoughts, then throw his Five Foundations and Contemplations in the trash, because they utilize thoughts, which, according to him, can only lead one to error.
Another phrase that Adyashanti tells us to contemplate is: "Being (or Spirit) is universal and exists prior to all conditions, all points of view, all objects of consciousness, and all subjects as well." Adyashanti finally tells us what Being is: Spirit--but unbeknownst to Adyashanti, Spirit, by definition is Shakti, the Energy of Consciousness, but Adyashanti has nothing to say about this Energy, except "not try to suppress or control it, because doing so will intensify it." If Adyashanti understood what Being (Siva-Shakti) and Spirit (Shakti) truly are, he'd know that that True Meditation is uniting one's consciousness (siva) with with Spirit (or Shakti), and that the union of these two "vines" "produces," or unveils, Di-vine Being.
Adyashanti tells us to contemplate Being via the phrases: "Being is the nature if everything, there is nothing beyond Being; Being is unborn and uncreated--the source and substance of all." Then he tells us to contemplate the Infinite via the phrase: "Beyond ego is universal Being, beyond Being, is the Infinite." This is a blatant contradiction. Adyadhanti first tells us there is nothing beyond Being, then he tells us the Infinite is beyond Being. Further, if the Infinite is beyond Being, and therefore different from It, then how do the two differ? Blank out.
Adyashanti next tells us to contemplate the phrase: "I AM is pure Being. It is the ultimate confession of Reality." Then he tells us to contemplate the phrase: "To realize the Infinite is to lose your inner world." How do the realizations of Being and of the Infinite differ? Adyashanti, ever the muddled surface-level mystic, doesn't tell us.
As a commenter once said about Adyashanti, "If he were a rock group, he'd be Boston or Nickleback," meaning he's warmed-over, commercialized Advaita Vedanta for the general public. Because it's not a neo-Advaita text, I say two stars for "The Way of Liberation."
Falling into Dis-Grace
Perhaps this book should have been entitled “Confessions of an Ignorant Guru,†for Adyashanti, as he does in many of his other books, confesses his utter ignorance. He writes, “I really saw that I had never understood anything. I had not understood a single thing… I really didn’t know anything.â€
The spiritual cognoscenti who read this book will doubtless agree with his self-assessment, for as the content of this text proves, he is an Un-en-Light-ened “guru†who is clueless regarding the purported subject matter of this text – Grace –and the other spiritual subjects he touches upon.
What’s seemingly amazing is how an admittedly ignorant guru could have so much to say on spiritual matters, churning out one book and audible after another. How can this be? It’s called $$$, a business. As long as the sheep keep ponying up for the prattle, he’ll keep dishing it out. A second answer is that he really doesn’t have much to say: every book is just a rehash of the others. It’s called rewriting the same book over and over again under different titles.
If you’re looking for a “guru†with the profundity of a petunia, Adyashanti could be your cup of tea. His talks are utterly bereft of verticality, totally devoid of an esoteric dimension. Comparing Adyashanti to Ramana Maharshi, a true Guru, is like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce. His spiritual shtick is psychologized Dharma and stories. When it comes to the nuts and bolts or nitty-gritty of the Atman project, he is nowhere to be found. Whereas Ramana would engage devotees in provocative talks about subjects such as Amrita Nadi, Jnana vritti, Kundalini, Shaktipat, samadhis, and cutting the Heart-knot as a precursor to Self-realization, Adyashanti sticks to tired homiletic monologues, which will entertain the spiritually unsophisticated, but bore the spiritually astute.
Adyashanti is a contradiction-riddled preceptor who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He informs us, “There is no such thing as a true thought,†then expands upon this theme: “If we allow this idea that no thought is actually real or true to sink into the core of our being, we can complete this shift in consciousness.†First off, if no thoughts are true, then why does he peddle one book and audio after another that are filled with his unreal, untrue thoughts? Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t answer this question, and elsewhere writes, “Words are important.†How can words be important if the thoughts behind them are unreal and untrue? Secondly, the words he uses are usually vague and unspecific, reflective of the fog he lives in and perpetrates. For example, consider his description of Grace:
“In the gap of not knowing, in the suspense of any conclusion, a whole other element of life and reality can rush in. This is what I call Grace. It’s that moment of ah-ha – a moment of recognition when we realize something we could never quite imagine.â€
In his description, he says “element of life and reality.†What “element†might that be? Why can’t he be specific? How, and from where, does it “rush in,†and what happens energetically relative to the body after it “rushes in?†Why does he use the term “rush in� Because he’s aping Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, who uses that expression in the book “I Am That.†Adyashanti, in typical Adyashanti fashion, can’t say what we realize, only that it’s beyond our imagination.
Because this review is already too long, I’ll cut to the chase regarding Grace, and explain what Adyashanti doesn’t.
First off, ah-ha experiences are not moments of Grace; they are moments when we have an epiphany and suddenly understand something we didn’t before. The way it works is that our subconscious mind, in response to our previous efforts, unexpectedly “pops out†an answer or insight to a question or concern we had, and we go “Ah-ha.â€
Unbeknownst to Adyashanti, the “element†that is Grace is specified in the foremost Trinitarian traditions: In Christianity it is the Holy Spirit, in Hindu Tantra it is Shakti, and in Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhism it is the Sambhogakaya. Grace is a literal electrical-like Spirit-current that generates a concomitant magnetic force-field that is felt-experienced as Presence (Holy Ghost, or Clear Light). Grace received is the descent of this Radiant-Spiritual (or Clear-Light) Energy into one’s body. It is Blessing Power that literally en-Light-ens and divinizes one’s bodily being. It is the Shakti that unites with contracted Siva (the jiva or soul) in one’s Heart-center (Hridayam), and this Di-vine Union (between the “vine†of Shakti and the “vine†of one’s soul, or consciousness) de-contracts contracted Siva, and “produces,†or unveils, Siva-Shakti (or Sat-Chit-Ananada), the Divine Self.
Further unbeknownst to Adyashanti is the Electrical Spiritual Paradigm (ESP), which explains, via the dialectic that is Ohm’s Law, how Grace (the Spirit-current, or “amperageâ€) is “earned†(or generated) by either intensifying consciousness-force (awareness-oneness/plugged-in presence, or “voltageâ€) or reducing resistance
(surrendering/letting go, or “ohms reductionâ€). Any contemporary mystic seriously interested in the subject of Grace would want to familiarize him/herself with this this leading-edge consideration of Grace, but clearly (as evidenced by this book, and his others), Adyashanti isn’t interested in (or capable of) moving beyond the ambit of simplistic, reductive Zen and Advaita Vedanta.
To summarize, this book is just the same-old Adyashanti pseudo-spiritual rap (and I say “pseudo-spiritual†because he doesn’t consider Shakti, or Spirit, in his discourses). It’s just the same-old rap re-packaged under a misleading title, because his discourse does not even begin to do the subject of Grace justice. If I had to describe this book in a single word, it would be: Dis-graceful.
Adyashanti: A True Guru?
Previous post: Cracking the Cosmic Code, Part 3
Next post: Cracking the Cosmic Code, Part 4
{ 135 comments… read them below or add one }
L.Ron, you also wrote a somewhat positive review of one of his first books, Emptiness Dancing (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1D5X358UPHLGP/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1591794595). I kind of like this book, but the newer ones, including Falling Into Grace, are really uninspired. I think Adyashanti is a sincere teacher and is an advanced mystic (not Enlightened), but his teachings are really muddy.
Juliano, I gave “Emptiness Dancing” three stars , and the benefit of my doubt. But the subsequent texts I read by him made his spiritual status, or lack thereof, clear. His teachings are both muddy and shallow, not at all indicative of Enlightenment. Instead of demonstrating refinement and sophistication in his Dharma presentation since “Emptiness Dancing,” he just peddles the same repetitive, uninspiring, contradiction-riddled rap under different covers.
Ron G., you maintain on the one side of your mouth to “know” better than anybody else how to become enlightened and on the other side of that mouth you complain how far away the grapes of enlightenment are hanging!
If you’d have understood Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi only a bit then you’d know that this thought of “difficulty” alone will not allow “you” to become Self-realized. Proper sadhana is not concerned about how “far away or difficult” Self-realization really is but maintains the effort without being agitated where one might be on the path.
The only thing which is concerned about difficulties and advancement and comparison is your ego and you are inflating it which every thought about that!
Matthew Geigerhausen, I don’t see any contradiction in Gardners observation. He did not make a false statement. He followed his gut feeling. I’ve read over 500 pages of Talks with Ramana Maharshi. I mean his name change to Adyashanti is in itself new age vomit. Again, there are no teachers of zen but there is zen. Meaning, Adyashanti says a lot of things that are true but he’s human, fallible and conditioned. And!!! Not fully conscious. But what he does and how he hustles this “darma talk” beats having to washing dishes in a restaurant. Sophists and false profets are like gamblers, they get off on winning over your mind. So what he’s doing has more to do with Nietzsche than the Truth in itself.
Matthew, until one is Self-realized, the search will persist. Even attempting to remain in the Now and not seek for anything involves a “search” of sorts as one must work to refine the “mechanics” of meditation/contemplation. As Ramana Maharshi puts it (in various ways), efforts must (and will) persist until the state of effortless Self-realization is attained.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In agreement with David Godman, the most prominent authority on Ramana Maharshi’s teachings, I say there are no current publicly known Self-realized masters. So what’s left are teachers — and my writings make clear what I think of Adyashanti in this regard. The proof of the pudding is that Self-realization is very difficult to attain; otherwise wed see gurus like Ramana on every corner instead of nowhere to be found.
Your comments are BS and pure unadulterated tripe! The mind or ego or individuality is a fiction, and Self-inquiry is geared to dismantle that fiction and to realize that what we already are and always were – Self. The problem is that people pay rather attention to outward objects, people, desires, the world, concepts, than to go “within” and paying attention to Self. So we all are deliberately ignoring that what we already are and instead, out of habit, play the role of that apparent body with its apparent mind. That is Bhagavan’s teaching in a nutshell! And you can call that “reductionist”, however if you practice faithfully Self-Inquiry and surrender your “understanding” (and everything else) completely paradoxically everything becomes clear in an instant without any thought or mind involvement. As long as “you” believe to have understood or have cracked the “cosmic code” as long “you” will be bound!
Looking at your reviews and your comments throughout your and others reviews, it is apparent that your ego stubbornly denies this, foremost because it believes it has understood. But you are just following a fantasy, an imagination my friend. Simply put, your ego, your sense of individuality does not want to die! And it must “die” (or better, realizing there was [never]/is no mind, or ego, or individuality) in order to realize Self!!!
This response is just a courtesy, I have no intention to convince you, you have to get that on your own. My comment is directed to all who may read your raving lunatic rantings and to give them a different perspective.
They can choose to follow whatever they feel inclined to……………..
Matt
Thanks you for that. I had the same feeling.
People will deny the truth with such eagerness. This article is quite on point. Even if it shows some ego stuff, it also shows great analysis and understanding. Adyashanti is just fraud.
“The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon” is why any Ashanti says putting such truth into words is a fool’s game. Words are inherently limited but they can point the way. Imagine I asked you to explain what an orgasm was. And you tried. You described it as a surge or a flooding of sensation or any other descriptor of your choice. And say I made an argument that because you didn’t use the right words that you’ve never had an orgasm. After all, if you did, you certainly would have mentioned the vulva and the cervix and explained and been able to explain the scientific process behind it. But of course, many people have had an orgasm and don’t know what a vulva is. Just like there are people living simple lives who have never read any treatises on enlightenment or poured over the Bhagavad Gita and have become enlightened. But you wouldn’t rant at them and pour over their word choice just like you inherently know that collecting knowledge about the scientific process behind an orgasm is not required to have one. Everything you have written here is precisely the “sooty knowledge” adyashanti refers to in his poem, “A Tendency to Shine.” But just because a person can’t produce another Bhagavad Gita or recite the 7 fold path, let alone to your specific satisfaction does not mean they are not enlightened. And if, despite not being a wordsmith, they spend their moments trying to explain it to help others in any way they could, that would be worthwhile if not saintly. Because everyone has to do it themselves. Adyashanti cannot explain you into enlightenment. No one can. And you seem to hate him for that.
Sorry, but Adyashanti is utterly un-profound and un-esoteric. There is nothing in his writings to indicate that he is truly En-Light-ened, but plenty to indicate that he isn’t.
Well said, Matt. I put my voice behind yours fully for precisely the reasons you state.
Matt, if you read my Amazon reviews, you will see that I’m a HUGE advocate of Ramana Maharshi and his teachings. I strongly recommend to my students that they practice his Self-enquiry method as well as Divine Yoga.
Moreover, if you bothered to read my reviews of Adyashanti’s books, you’ll see that while I identify Adyashanti as Un-Self-realized teacher, I identify Ramana Maharshi as a Self-realized Master and one of the greatest Gurus ever.
Isn’t it funny, Ron G. always invites people to “deconstruct” his fantasies, however he is not capable to “deconstruct” phenomena which don’t fit into his carefully constructed card house of, how does he call it :-), “en-light-enment project”.
A cow became Self-realized, ueber-expert and human Ron G. however can just talk and write about it (enlightenment), silently hoping it will eventually catch up with him 😉
Matt
Matt, you should appreciate my honesty. Go right on down the line with all of the gurus/teachers appearing at Buddha at the Gas Pump – and tell me how many confess to not being Self-realized. David Godman, whom you seem to respect, says there are no true Jnanis like Ramana around now. Please identify a living, perfectly Self-realized master that people can sit with. If I knew of such a one, I would say so. And if there was an Enlightened cow available, I’d also say so.
As I see it, I’m the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to Dharma elaboration and exegesis. And I’m an ultra-advanced meditator, with deep insight, based on personal experience, into the En-Light-enment project. Plenty of people appreciate my insights, and there are no complaints that I’ve abused or exploited anyone.
Ron, “Should”?????
For a long time my Amazon name was ‘ca_cicero’…..and I’m an idiot who thinks he knows it all. I project my hubris and superiority on others, especially L. Ron Gardner, who I have an obsession with in matters of Spiritual Enlightenment. I have made an utter fool of myself in the comment threads at Amazon.com.
Now I go by the name ‘Matt’ at Amazon, where I lurk, poop and peep on others who are posting conversations and comments. This is due to my own arrogance, that hides my insecurity. My final word is: Everything I write here is also true of the author, L. Ron Gardner!…deluded clown of the highest order! 😉
Matt, your problem is that you can’t just respectfully disagree. I give people plenty of space to disagree — as one can judge from the disagreeable comments directed at me at this blog which I don’t delete. All I ask for is civil exchange and behavior.
Looking at your reviews and your comments throughout your and others reviews, it is apparent that your ego stubbornly denies this, foremost because it believes it has understood. But you are just following a fantasy, an imagination my friend. Simply put, your ego, your sense of individuality does not want to die! And it must “die” (or better, realizing there was [never]/is no mind, or ego, or individuality) in order to realize Self!!!
This response is just a courtesy, I have no intention to convince you, you have to get that on your own. My previous comment is directed to all who may read your raving review and to give them a different perspective.
They can choose to follow whatever they feel inclined to………
Matt
Matthew, I have no idea what fantasy you’re talking about. You’re welcome to attempt to deconstruct my reviews or articles.
Nobody in their right mind would ever try to deconstruct your fantasy of En Lite EnMint.
Have fun with your sycophantic followers
One must find the ego and kill it!…obviously, you are incapbke of doing so! Your ego runs amuck with arrogance and pride. Find your ego and kill it to know the true freedom that I KNOW. I understand this far better than you or your grovel ing followers.
Matt (ca_cicero from Amazon)
Matt, it couldn’t be clearer that you’re utterly free of your ego, and that it is your Higher Self (in selfless service of humanity) that has been cyber-stalking me for years at Amazon. If only the world knew of and understood this. Let me know what I can do to help educate people on this important matter.
Gardner, you just can’t help but use ad hominem in calling me again a cyber stalker. You keep complaining to be targeted with ad hominem but if you do it that doesn’t count, n’est-ce pas?
Matt
Gardner, you insist that I translate Bhagavan’s words from German? You are deluded. Here is a link to the actual free e-book I read:
http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/downloadbooks/whoami_all_languages/Who_Am_I_German.pdf
Gardner is caught up in his own mind prison calling himself the “unsurpassed expert in most spiritual traditions” [sic!] and an “ultra-advanced practitioner” [sic!]. The only thing what is ultra-advanced with Gardner is his ego!
Gardner is a real life Wizard of Oz and the few poor chaps who are following his drivel have not pulled aside the curtain yet!
Matt is a long-time detractor of mine who cyberstalks me in my reviews at Amazon, but is unable to deconstruct anything I write, so he resorts to ad hominem. Wake me up when he says something substantive.
I have no idea what curtain he’s talking about. There are no skeletons in my closet, and everyone is welcome to read my blog posts, 300 + Amazon reviews, and my Facebook Group –Meditation-Consciousness-Spirituality — posts, and draw their own conclusions about me. I answer all civil e-mails and questions, have not asked for any money from anybody. I’m as close to being a saint as any spiritual teacher around. The fact that I’ve allowed him to post his garbage here without deleting it reflects my tolerance for disagreement (that doesn’t degenerate into outright vicious ad hominem).
I am reading this string of emails, and as an ageing unenlightened seeker I am thinking to myself this Mr. Matt and this Mr. Matthew Geigerhausen have real personal issues to deal with.
1. Ron’ s Amazon reviews have been extremely helpful to me in sorting out the wheat from the chaff amongst the wisdom literature out there, and consequently saved much time and effort. For this I am deeply grateful.
2. What Ron has to say,declare or think about himself is his business. It makes little difference to me and is not a contentious issue.
3. Mr. Matt and Mr. Matthew Geigerhausen seem to have anger / resentment issues which if I am correct Mr. Buddha had something to say about. However, their issues are reasonably understandable if they are Americans since loud, aggressive bullying tactics are their favourite method of communication.. After all we are all quite used by now to the mayhem and death they spread across the world stage.
4. Seems to me Ron has made a worthwhile contribution to society, whether you agree as to its value or not. Let me see . . . What have Mr. Matt and Mr. Matthew contributed? . . . Oh. That’s right . . . Absolutely nothing . . . Well Done boys.
As a reader of Ron’s posts, both here and at his Amazon reviews, I can confirm that this Matt and Matthew Geigerhausen are one and the same person. He frequently changes his name at Amazon but currently is using “Matt”. All these comments are the same he has posted there.
I agree with Graham, this fellow has a plethora of personal issues. They are conveniently denied…as long as he perpetuates his reductionist spiritual fantasy.
Graham and William, thank you. I very much appreciate your support and your identification of Matt as a troubled individual with a less than positive agenda.
Matt is a huge fan of Ramana Maharshi, as am I, though we have different views on his teachings. But Matt cannot deal with our differences in a mature manner. Instead, he continuously harangues me in my Amazon book reviews, and now has extended his agenda to my blog. If Ramana Maharshi were alive, he would certainly disapprove of Matt’s rude and immature behavior.
Gardner sounds like a broken record in regurgitating that what his mind has memorized. Who cares about sheaths? Who cares about siva-shakti? Who cares about the Holy Spirit?
Matt, plenty of people do. Because the en-Light-enment process cannot be understood without them. Said Ramana Maharshi: “Saktipata alone confers the true and right experience.” And Saktipata (the Descent of Divine Power) is about the descent of Shakti (or the Holy Spirit) into the spiritual Heart-center. Without this Shakti, the Heart-knot cannot be cut.
You’re full of contradictions. You say there is no free will, but that individuals must kill their minds. Then you say the mind is unreal. If the mind is unreal, why would there be a need to kill it? Moreover, saints and sages still think and use their minds to give talks and write books. Apparently they didn’t “kill” their minds. You also contradict Ramana Maharshi. You say there is no God, but he says there is.
I’m the only one here NOT using my mind…it is the Self speaking because I had a true experience of Self…you, and all your flunkies, did NOT! You are caught in your own delusion of mind. I am free of mind.
Now I think I’ve heard everything. This “Matt” definitely has serious psychological issues.
Thanks, Matt. It’s good to know that it’s the Self cyberstalking me at Amazon, and not you using your mind.
Mr. Gardner,
I looked up Matt’s profile and he has “as of now” changed his name to Graham Lawrence. Is he not the guy who spoke in favor of you in your Electrical Spirituality blog? So he has hijacked another person’s name once again. Whenever he deletes all his comments here he selects a new name.
IJ.
Mr. Graham Lawrence,
Matt is as of now using your name at Amazon in his profile.
IJ.
The poor boy is obviously unhappy with my previous comments! He needs to get a real life instead of lurking in his parents’ basement.
Oh! A 60 or 70 year old poor boy? What a shame indeed. LOL! Anyway they had changed it to some other name last time I checked. His parents above his basement are still in the process of deciding the correct name for him. LOLOLOLOL!
A seventy year old buffoon who calls himself Matt is lurking in his parents’ basement? How bizarre and shameful it must be for him. I really feel sorry for this imbecilic cuckoo. No wonder he is behaving this way. Maybe he can admit himself into a psychiatric facility if he is not already there. LOLOLOL! Hahahahaha.
Matt did you read this? LOLOLOL! Hahahahaha.
Matthew Geigerhausen? What an idotic name. He can as well call himself Matts Dildoinmyass. LOLOLOLOL!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
The above comment is in reference to Matt’s five star review of a dildo he purchased from Amazon and had recommended it to another amazon customer. LOLOLOLOL!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!!
Hi L. Ron Gardner,
I’ve read both Maharshi and Adyashanti, and I’ve found them both to be pointing at the same underlying truth and recommending more or less the same spiritual practices. I see no fundamental difference between them. My question to you is, what differences do you see between them that make you criticize Adyashanti and praise Maharshi so much? Thank you.
Erik
Hi Erik.
so far I find Adyashanti also in line with Nisargadatta Maharaj which is my guru. I have no issues with him at all.
Hi L. Ron Gardener,
I don’t think it is possible to judge if someone is enlightened or not until you are enlightened yourself. It also doesn’t matter. All that matters is if a teacher/guru/master is helpful to somebody and it looks to me that Adyashanti does help and attract a lot of people. Maybe you do too, I don’t know you. What I don’t understand is why you need to review and judge other teachers. Don’t you think people can make up their own mind? Judging is often related to a strong ego. All the best.
Markus
Mr. Gardner,
Erik could well be Matt, Matthew Geigerhausen (ca_cicero). It looks like another trick question just to test you.
IJ.
Erik,
If you are not that obnoxious guy Matt, then my sincere apologies to you. Matt has been posting comments pretending to be some body else. This was the reason for my doubts.
IJ.
IJ,
Apologies accepted. I’m not Matt, and my question was not intended to be a trick question just to get anyone. It was a sincere question.
Erik.
Erik, read my posted reviews of Adyashanti’s books. Read the Ramana Maharshi books I recommend. Unlike Ramana Maharshi, there is nothing profound or esoteric in Adyashanti’s teachings. He has no comprehension of the Kundalini. He said he had a Kundalini experience once. A true Master like Ramana unbrokenly radiates Kundalini energy as Hridaya-Shakti, the Amrita Nadi, a radiant Force-current or Pillar of Light-Energy between the Hridayam and the Sahasrara. Ramana abided in unbroken, natural, effortless Samadhi. This is concomitant with his Heart-knot being cut, and the radiance of the Hridaya-Shakti unbrokenly shining to Infinity. Adyashanti does not grok Ramana Maharshi’s Self-enquiry, and cannot properly describe it.
Adyashanti makes constant ridiculous statements. He’ll describe Being as emptiness and as ultimate reality, then elsewhere he’ll describe ultimate reality as beyond Being. He drowns in his contradictions. He’s a neo-Advaitan who reduces Enlightenment to the popular meme” a shift in perception.” Anyone with real insight into true Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi’s teachings will laugh at his dumbed-down, psychologized rendition of Awakening.
Adya cannot even be compared with Sri Ramana Maharshi or even with Sri Nisargadatta. Adya is not even in the same highest quality spiritual accomplishers as was many of Sri Ramana’s disciples of his time. Adya is just another earnest spiritual rookie at best.
Mr. Gardner’s quote:
Adyashanti is a neo-Advaitan who reduces Enlightenment to the popular meme” a shift in perception.” Anyone with real insight into true Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi’s teachings will laugh at his dumbed-down, psychologized rendition of Awakening. Quote.
Yes. Absolutely correct.
Erik,
I don’t think you have thoroughly looked into the esoteric life of Sri Ramana Maharishi, resulting in his complete Self realization and his teachings based on that.
IJ.
Erik, below is a copy/paste from the April archives of my other blog: Integralspiritualmeditation.com. This article describes Self-enquiry from my perspective. Read various Ramana Maharshi texts to get other perspectives.
The Two Direct Ways to God-Realization, Part 1
by L. Ron Gardner on April 29, 2015
[This is an article I recently wrote, which will be included in a meditation book I am writing. I contend that, based on the Trinitarian “structure” of Reality, there can only be two direct ways to the Absolute — the Way of the Mystic, Divine Yoga, and the Way of the Gnostic, Jnana Yoga. This article is about the latter, while Part 2 will focus on the former.]
Q: Self-enquiry, finding out who one truly is, is a very popular spiritual practice nowadays. What are your thoughts on this practice?
A: I highly recommend Self-enquiry, particularly as it was taught by the late, great Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950). His teachings on Self-realization are the deepest and most detailed.
Q: How do you know that?
A: From decades of wide-ranging study, practice, and spiritual experiences. Anyone who can truly practice Ramana’s Self-enquiry (which means “pulling the mind into the spiritual Heart-center,” the soul-locus two digits to the center of one’s chest, where one awakens to the Self) will concur with my assessment.
Q: What do you mean by “pulling the mind into the spiritual Heart-center”?
A: When an “initiated” practitioner (one who has awakened Anugraha Shakti, the palpable force-flow of descending spiritual Energy) enquires to whom his thoughts arise, the Heart-center, which is the seat of the Self in the embodied being, literally sucks the thoughts into Itself, dissolving them. And when the mind is undone in the Heart-center, the Self spontaneously, for a time, shines forth as Consciousness-Radiance. When, in the rarest of beings, the Heart-center knot is severed by Anugraha Shakti (which is the same force-flow as the Christian Holy Spirit and the Buddhist Sambhogakaya), the Self is realized and thenceforth shines ceaselessly as illimitable Consciousness-Radiance.
Q: You say that one’s mind is pulled into and undone in the Heart-center. Where does the mind originate from, and where is it pulled down from?
A: The mind originates in the spiritual Heart-center, which contains the human soul-matrix, one’s psychical seed tendencies. These karmic seed tendencies, in response to internal and external stimuli, sprout forth, concatenating into habit-energies, which “crystallize” as thought-forms in the brain. But in an initiated yogi, the mind (the “bundle” of one’s thought-forms) is literally sucked back into the Heart-center, the Source whence it originated. Moreover, in an advanced yogi, the habit-energies that sprout forth from the Heart-center can be “irradiated” (obviated by Light-Energy) before they crystallize as thought-forms in the brain.
Q: How does the practice of Self-enquiry relate to pulling the mind into the Heart-center and realizing the Self?
A: The “I” thought, which perpetuates the ego (or separate-self sense), is at the root of all one’s thoughts. Self-enquiry is the practice of questioning each “I” thought as it arises. For example, if the thought “I want to eat” arises, one enquires: “Who am I?” Because no “I” — no entity or thinker at the root of the thought — can be found, the mind has no answer and is rendered silent. The uninitiated meditator’s experience is simply this silence, but an advanced meditator concomitantly experiences Anugraha Shakti, a force-current that pulls his attention (or “gaze”) into the Heart-center. When his attention and the Shakti merge in the Heart-center, he spontaneously recognizes himself as the true, or transcendental, “I,” the Self.
The Self, or Buddha-nature, is Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Sat-Cit-Ananda), not mere silence or emptiness. The Madhyamika and Zen Buddhists who identify the answer to “Who am I?” as just emptiness have not taken Self-enquiry to its onto-logical conclusion, which means finding out Who sees emptiness. The Self is Awareness, the Seer. Emptiness can only be an object. The Self, or Seer, is always the Subject, the true, or transcendental, “I” Who sees both emptiness and form.
Q: Why don’t these Buddhists get to the Heart-center and recognize the Self, the true Buddha-nature?
A: Because they have not awakened Anugraha Shakti, which is Blessing/Blissing Clear-Light Energy, the same Body, or Dimension, as the Buddhist Sambhogakaya and the Christian Holy Spirit. Anugraha Shakti is also the same Hypostases as the Hindu Bliss Sheath, which is the fifth and final (and therefore hierarchically most senior) sheath, or kosha, covering the Self, or Soul. The Self cannot be realized until Anugraha Shakti unites with one’s soul, or consciousness (contracted Siva), in the Heart-center; therefore, as long as one contemplates Shakti as an Object over against one’s consciousness, it functions as a sheath, albeit a blissful one. When Anugraha Shakti cuts the Heart-knot, it permanently de-contracts immanent Siva (one’s bound pure consciousness), and the Self shines forth as Siva-Shakti. When the Heart-knot is cut, Anugraha Shakti transmutes into Hridaya (or Heart)-Shakti, as the Self-Awakened yogi now radiates, rather than just receives, Blessing/Blissing Power.
The Nuts and Bolts of Practice
Q: Do you have specific recommendations for the practice of Self-enquiry?
A: Yes. First, instead of disidentifying from the body, be present as the whole body. When you are organismically present, you are integrally present, which is the optimal asana, or position, from which to initiate the enquiry. Consciously feel yourself as the whole body and be present to existence as a singular entity. Then begin the enquiry. Although, ultimately, you are timeless, spaceless Being, by being present as the whole body, you imbue your practice with consciousness-force, which will enable you to more quickly progress with the enquiry.
Whenever, in the course of practicing the enquiry, you become unsettled, randomly, briefly reassume the asana of being whole-bodily present. Once you feel integrally present, return to the enquiry.
Begin Self-enquiry by watching your thoughts. As soon as a thought with an “I” arises, such as “I don’t want to meditate right now,” enquire, “Who am I?” Or, alternatively, you can phrase the enquiry, “Who doesn’t want to meditate right now?” or “To whom do these thoughts arise?”
If thoughts cease and you encounter silence or emptiness, enquire, “Who sees the emptiness?” Eventually, your practice will generate enough conscious force to make the emptiness “dance,” to make it “come alive” as Shakti.
Periodically relax your bodymind and totally let go, being as if dead. This “unconditional surrender” is the perfect yin complement to the yang practice of intense enquiry. Alternating yin effortlessness (akin to Ohm’s reduction) with yang enquiry (akin to voltage) is the optimal way to generate maximal Shakti, or Spirit-current (akin to amperage).
The way to the Self is via Anugraha Shakti, the Spirit-current that is sucked into the Heart-center. And by alternating effortlessness with enquiry, you will, at some point, awaken (and thenceforth be able to evoke) Anugraha Shakti, the “Flow of Grace” that unveils the Self in the Heart-center.
Q: Because this Shakti, or Energy, is an object to one’s consciousness, just as thoughts and emptiness are, shouldn’t one enquire, “Who experiences the Shakti?”
A: Yes, because so long as the Shakti is perceived as an Object (even a holy Object) apart from one’s consciousness (or soul), it functions as the Bliss Sheath (or Body), the final covering of the soul. When this covering is removed, the soul shines as the Soul, the nondual Self (Siva-Shakti).
But the only way to “remove” the Shakti, the Bliss Sheath, is to merge your consciousness, or soul, with it. Therefore, even if you enquire into who perceives the Shakti, you will still perceive it, because, in the end, Shakti, being Siva’s Energy, is inseparable from Siva (Consciousness Itself). But when, upon Self-realization, the Shakti is no longer experienced as a separate Object, then the Bliss Sheath is “removed,” even though one still experiences the Bliss (or Ananda)-flow as a nondual extension of one’s Self (or Being-ness). In the State of Self-realization (or Sat-Cit-Ananda), Consciousness (Cit, or Siva) and Energy (Ananda, or Shakti) are One.
Miscellaneous Questions
Q: You talk about “pulling the mind into the Heart-center.” Does any other spiritual teacher talk about this?
A: Yes. The late Robert Adams (1928-1997), a direct disciple of Ramana Maharshi who spent a few years in Ramana’s company. In Adams’ book Silence of the Heart, he repeatedly enjoins his students to practice Self-enquiry and pull the mind into the Heart-center, located two digits to the right of the center of the chest.
Q: I’ve read lots of Advaita Vedanta and neo-Advaita Vedanta books, and they don’t talk about Self-realization the way that you do. Besides Adams’ book, can you recommend any other texts that go into esoteric detail regarding the Self-realization process?
A: Yes. Get Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (avoid the dumbed-down Inner Directions version), Sri Ramana Gita, and Sat Darshana Bhashya.
Q: I was under the impression that one simply had to stop thinking, or transcend the mind, in order to realize the Self. But you describe Self-realization as a multi-level process.
A: It’s actually a multi-sheath process, because in order to realize the Self, one must “cut through,” or transcend, the five hierarchically ordered (from grossest to most subtle) sheaths, or koshas, that encase or envelop (and veil) the indwelling Being-Consciousness. In his monumental text The Yoga Tradition, the late Dr. Georg Feuerstein, the foremost twentieth-century authority on yoga, describes the five sheaths thus:
1. The anna-maya-kosha, or sheath composed of food; that is, of material elements: the physical body.
2. The prana-maya-kosha, or sheath composed of life force: the etheric body in Western occult literature.
3. The mano-maya-kosha, or sheath composed of mind: The ancients considered the mind (manas) as an envelope surrounding the` physical and the etheric body.
4. The vijnana-maya-kosha, or sheath composed of understanding: The mind simply coordinates the sensory input, but understanding (vijnana) is a higher cognitive function.
5. The ananda-maya-kosha, or sheath composed of bliss: This is that dimension of human existence through which we partake of the Absolute. In later Vedanta, however, the Absolute is thought to transcend all five sheaths.
In the course of practicing Self-enquiry, a yogi (if he has not already done so) eventually awakens prana-shakti, the “lower,” or ascending, Kundalini, which correlates with the prana-maya-kosha. This awakening usually (but not always) corresponds with the temporary transcendence of one’s mind (manas), the mano-maya-kosha. Self-enquiry itself involves the “higher mind,” or “discriminative intelligence,” which enables the yogi to intuit or apperceive the Self as pure Awareness that is senior to (and apart from) the first three sheaths. At some point, the yogi will then begin to enjoy the Bliss-current (Anugraha Shakti) that accompanies abidance in transcendental Awareness. This Bliss-current is the ananda-maya-kosha. When this universal Bliss-current, the “higher,” or descending, Kundalini (which cascades down the frontal line of the body), unites with the yogi’s individual soul (or consciousness) in the Heart-center, Divine Union is attained, and the Self is realized.
Erik, I’ve had, and continue to have, powerful spiritual experiences. I regularly experience powerful Shakti pulled down into the Heart-center. I regularly rest in Heart-felt samadhis for a time, abiding in what could be call jnana samadhi or kevala nirvikalpa samadhi.
I practice the Plugged-in Presence meditation I teach and write about and Ramana Maharshi’s Self-enquiry.
Thank you so much for answering my questions in such a comprehensive and detailed manner. Wishing you all the best in your future endeavors!
Erik,
Same to you. Good luck and best wishes to you. I wish you realize the Self very soon.
IJ.
I wouldn’t be so sure this “Erik” is not the former “Matt”. His entire interaction here seems a bit too pat.
William,
I still have my doubts like you do. That guy Matt is the son of the devil. I have never come across another person who is a follower like Sri Ramana Maharshi like this “sicko arse-hole” Matt.
William,
I still have my doubts like you do. That guy Matt is the son of the devil. I have never come across another person who is a follower of Sri Ramana Maharshi like this “sicko arse-hole” Matt.
Rest assured we have not heard the last of this sicko cockroach Matt or whatever his real name is in his sick life until he dies and is buried securely 12 feet down under.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I think this same mentally unhinged person named Matt is over at Ron’s Amazon reviews posting comments again, this time with a new name. It looks to me like the same style of writing:
Posted on Sep 12, 2016 7:12:29 PM PDT
Muralidhar Rao says:
How does the reviewer know that Adi Da awakened “in the heart”? He can’t! It is one of many BS assumptions of this delusional narcissist!
Gardner is preaching the gospel of shakti and anybody who is not preaching the same gospel is a reductionist. “Divine Light-energy or Clear Light Energy”? What BS is that and from which deluded source did he pick that up and is regurgitating it now at any chance he gets.
Gardner, you never practiced self-surrender, that’s just hot air as is everything else by you, your insufferable hubris and arrogance is the proof! Instead you practiced the mantra “I am the unsurpassed expert in most spiritual traditions” and finally it worked and you now believe that.
Time to cut the heart-knot you imbecile! Where is it according to you, at the right side of your chest? Good luck finding it, you’ll find it as much as you’ll find an oasis in a Fata Morgana.
The deranged fellow Matt is now posing to be an Indian guy. Poor fellow, needs immediate medical attention since his schizophrenia is getting worse. Perhaps a severe whack on his imbecilic head with a hammer would solve his mental problems in the short run. I told you this whacko Matt will be here forever unless he drops dead like a fly.
I am sure Erik is not Matt because it IS someone else.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
Sorry, guy. I may have come onto this late but even I don’t believe a thing you write. You think you’re fooling people but you are not. Get some help, you have lost touch with sanity.
My comment above was directed at the post from “Amazon Customer”.
Matt is also posting as Amazon Customer? Matt is definitely suffering from a severe case of narcissistic multiple personality disorder. Perhaps multiple whacks on his imbecilic head should take care of his problems temporarily. This is the crackpot who preaches that everyone is the Self and all is done by the Self. LMAO!!!. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Hahahahahahaha,
No doubt it’s easy to post here as any name, but the content of the post shows the person behind it. The posts from 3:46, 3:50 and 3:57 seem to be from the same person that used “Matt” here and at Amazon. You are seriously troubled.
Matt is also posting as IJ? Matt is definitely suffering from a severe case of narcissistic multiple personality disorder. Perhaps multiple whacks on his imbecilic head should take care of his problems temporarily. This is the crackpot who preaches that everyone is the Self and all is done by the Self. LMAO!!!. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Hahahahahahaha,
The post at 3:59 is also “Matt”
Ron, I suggest you contact your webmaster about this person posting his abusive comments here. He is one sick individual.
I wonder why William has to blamed for my comments toward Cockroach Matt. Williams’s comments here have been most decent.
IJ.
William,
You are right about this fellow Matt posting as us and different people. I only started posted here after Mr. Gardner mentioned this blog on Sept 6th. Before that I did not even know this blog existed and Matt had already started posting his abusive comments. Because I make so much fun of Matt at Amazon he thinks I posted as Matt over here. LOL!
Take care.
IJ.
Cockroach-man Matt certainly needs multiple whacks with a sledge hammer on his imbecilic head for his overbearing anger. This guy who talks from the pulpit about the Self as if he has realized the Self, can’t even bear to read a few truthful comments about himself. Matt says there is no mind but then he takes the comments from the mind extremely seriously. OMG! What a cockroach Matt really is. LMAO! LOLOLOLOL!!! Hahahahaha!!
Matt can’t even delete his comments he posted here posing as some of us and under different names. I am sure Mr.Gardner can figure out all the comments posted from each of us us since we have to type our emails when we post comments. I have used only valid email for all of my posts.
IJ.
Matt is a f’ing rotting old scumbag. He deserves to kick the bucket so Mr. Gardner can have peace and quiet. Matt thinks if he posts his abusive comments at us I am going to stop harassing him at Amazon or here. I won’t unless Mr.Gardner specifically tells me not to post comments here and at his Amazon reviews.
I respect Mr. Gardner a whole lot for his immense spiritual knowledge of different Dharmas and will support him against f’ing abusive trolls like Cockroach-man Matt a k a ca_cicero. Matt you will rot in hell for eternity and you will never ever get enlightened or realize the Self. Go fu** yourself. LOLOLOLOL!!! Hahahahahaha!!!!
IJ.
Hi IJ, got some time and saw the reference to this blog here. Did ca_cicero fall back into his abusive trolling? LOL!!!
Mr. no-mind has a tamper-tantrum, waah waah LOL!!!
Good to see you still posting. Take care.
Green,
Hello my dear friend. So nice to hear from you . How are you and how is your father doing? Trust you and your father are doing fine. I hope you don’t mind my using your comments at Amazon. They are so apt and funny. I wish I could post like you do.
I miss your humorous comments at Amazon. It is no fun posting comments there all by myself but it was quite necessary I post them to defend the spiritual truths of different Dharmas that Mr.Gardner is teaching in his reviews. He is being unnecessarily attacked there for his honest and truthful views on spirituality.
I will pass making any comment here about the “pest” since he is not worth being given any importance in this post. But what you said above is true.
Best wishes to you Green. I wish you and your family the very best.
IJ.
William,
Comments posted by the “sicko cockroach Matt” posing as others on Sept 13th.
Times all AM: 3.19, 3.46, 3,50, 3.57, 3.59, 4.03, 4.05, 4.07 and 4.10.
All the best to you.
Cockroach Matt,
Take the sledge hammer from you cabinet and whack yourself on you f’ing head several times. All is the Self remember, including the sledge hammer. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!!
Cockroach Matt,
Take the sledge hammer from your cabinet and whack yourself on your f’ing brainless head several times. All is the Self remember, including the sledge hammer. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!
Green says correctly,
Did ca_cicero fall back into his abusive trolling? LOL!!!
Mr. no-mind has a tamper-tantrum, waah waah LOL!!!
Quote.
Yes. Cockroach Matt a k a ca_cicero has gone into wild temper tantrums and trolling because I called him out several times as a hypocritical fraud and stinking ar** hole he really is. Where is his Self to pacify him? And how come his non-existent mind got so hurt from my mere truthful comments about Matt (ca-cicero). Even a donkey has more brains than “cockroach Matt- ca_cicero.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!!
Mr. L. Ron Gardner who IS the spiritual expert has never resorted to ad hominem and abusive filthy comments like “sicko cockroach-man Matt -ca_cicero” has been doing for many years.. The f’ing stinking shi*bag Matt ca_cicero who boasts and brags brags so much about the Self always resorts to ad hominem and filthy abusive language and behavior towards anyone who makes fun of him.
That itself proves Cockroach-man Matt ca_cicero is a hypocritical fraud not to be trusted at all. He deserves no respect or compassion from anyone. Matt gets the treatment he richly deserves. Nobody gives a f’ing damn if sicko Matt ca_cicero quotes from Sri Ramana Maharshi. It means absolutely nothing coming from sicko Matt ca_cicero, as anyone can quote Sri Ramana Maharshi. Big deal.
Mr. L. Ron Gardner has credibility and respect because it is backed by spiritual knowledge and spiritual experience. Sicko cockroach Matt- ca_cicero has zero credibility because he has neither spiritual knowledge nor spiritual insight. Just reading Ramana Maharshi books and completely misunderstanding his teachings does not help him gain either of them. Sicko Matt will go straight to hell after he dies and there will be no moksha ever for sicko Matt- ca_cicero. LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Hahahahahahaha!!
This is what happens when a filthy and mentally sick person like Matt-ca_cicero who has not yet realized the Self preaches about the Self to others. Only his stinking sh** comes out of a person like Matt- ca-cicero who presumes he is qualified to talk about the Self in the internet to others he has not even met.
Was the mentally retarded circus buffoon (Matt_ca_cicero) here to peep, poop and delete? He should change his moniker to Ipeepnpoopndelete. Oh, man here he will go on his temper tantrums all over again. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Hahahahahaaaah!!!!!
I disapprove of Matt’s adharmic behavior towards L. Ron Gardner. I have informed Lord Iswara to grant Self Realization and enlightenment to L. Ron Gardner immediately and withhold it indefinitely (for eons) to matt_ca_cicero who is filled with tamas and rajas vasanas and is ineligible for Self -realization.
This post is directed to Ishwaraprasad Jamadagni, whose original comment is post-stamped Sept. 6, 2016 2:39 am
I have learned that an IT person handling the WordPress site can tell from the ISP/IP of these posts that one single person has likely posted all the comments above except for William (me), Ron, Graham and yourself. You later abbreviated your name to IJ, so you know which of those comments belongs to you.
The rest are all fake names from the same ISP number, with the same IP address. This guy is a barking moonbat and seems to have gotten progressively more hostile. He has been reported.
William
Yes. That is correct. That was my first post here on Sept. 6, 2016 2:39 am. I posted here after Mr.Gardner alerted me about this same jackass calling himself as “Matt” who has been harassing Mr.Gardner everyday for several years now at his Amazon reviews with an obsessive grudge against him.
But this fellow Matt or whoever he is, is also a compulsive and pathological liar and said it was I who posted all the comments here from the beginning posing as he. Before that he blamed another person Green for all his comments. Then he blamed us both and then he blamed it all on me again. Like I said I had never knew of this website until Mr.Gardner told me about this on Sept 5th at his Amazon thread reviews.
Then on Sept 13th as I have listed above with the times, Matt posted several abusive and also very filthy comments posing as me and you using our user names as he does at Amazon. Matt or ca_cicero as he usually goes by is a filthy piece of shit and should not only be reported but also should be exterminated like a cockroach because he is as worthless as a cockroach.
This is nothing new. Matt has been a very abusive, hostile and posted vulgar comments at Amazon and then deletes them after we have read those abusive and vulgar comments. To bypass Amazon moderators he posts abusive words in Indian languages. It is also confirmed he is also an Amazon moderator and so no action has been taken against him for his offensive behavior towards Mr. Gardner and others at Amazon. In short Matt is just bad news.
I would not in the least bit be surprised if Matt does this all over again over here posting comments as if it was one of us.
I think I’ve now deleted all of Matt’s later, abusive posts. I put comments on manual approval, so I will now see and approve comments before they are posted.
Good. That should solve all unnecessary comments appearing in your web page. You are quite welcome to delete all of my comments here also if you deem necessary because they have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of Adya being another pretentious blind person leading other blind imbeciles like this “batty schizophrenic Matt- ca_cicero”.
IJ.
LRG;
Just found your critique on Adhya….. you and I see to eye to eye….. seems like a nice guy with some genuine awakening of profundity but they writing….oy vey! what a waste of cash….
Hello Ron, I happened to notice a one-star review of your book just posted at Amazon. I wonder if it’s your old nemesis that was causing trouble here a while ago. Here’s the link:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R1M1MDVJY75EKR?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl
Thanks, William. Yes, it is him. I would appreciate it if you post a comment at my book in response to his “review.”
Hi L.Ron,
I just listened to Adya’s latest chat with Rick Archer over at BATGAP site. It was a three way thing with some lady called Suzanne who seems to be a follower of his, and pretty much exists to back up everything Adya says.
The topic of discussion seems to be the latest revelation of Adya’s. According to him, what we all call enlightenment is actually only an intermediary stage which he calls ‘unity consciousness’. Adya claims to have found a state beyond unity consciousness which he calls the ‘no-self’ state.
I wondered what your thoughts were on this?
I couldn’t make head nor tale of it He seems to be rejecting the old advaita concept of seeing beyond the false self to see the real Self which we truly are.
Adya seems to be saying that he’s even seen beyond the Self (capital) and found some state beyond the Self. He then says that all the saints and spiritual greats, including Jesus(!) were actually stuck in the highest state of Selfhood consciousness, and hadn’t moved beyond this.
Does this mean that Adya is saying he’s gone beyond Jesus, Ramana, in fact everyone before him? That’s quite a claim. All the spiritual traditions talk about the realisation of the Self (capital), but to claim that you’ve even dropped the Self sounds like tosh.
More suspicious still, he’s now uploaded an online course (not free of course) where you can learn all about this ‘no-self’ state beyond what is normally called enlightenment.
Perhaps Adya is the most realised (although I can’t say ‘Self-realised’ now apparantly) sage who ever lived, but…. something ain’t right.
Douglas, if you read my July 27th article, “Adyashanti: a True Guru?” you’ll see that I have little regard for Adyashanti and his teachings.
Wow, I’m amazed at the hangups people have in spiritual circles. This is no difference from the gossip magazines
I didn’t write any gossip about Adyashanti. I simply reviewed his books/teachings, which will impress the ignoranti, but not the cognoscenti.
If you read “I am that” by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj you might find similar statements of a state behind the SELF.
I just finished “The End of Your World.” I thought I was the only one who felt this guy is a con artist. He is a complete walking contradiction. Thank you for saying all that I could not. I gave 1 star review on Goodreads and I hope you don’t mind but I also added a link to this blog so all can educate themselves.
BRAVO!!!!
Dawn, thank you for the appreciation of my review and the link.
I agree with you. He’s a business man… one with a very intact ego. I went to a silent retreat of his, and he liked talking through meditation time… about himself and how great he is. He did a lot of talking about how people hadn’t seen what he’s seen– basically focusing on making sure the students there didn’t dare get the impression they were getting close to anything resembling enlightenment. At one point he said something like, “The tradition that I left did teach me something in a very powerful way and I can’t talk about it without tearing up.” Then he paused. Then he let us all know that he wasn’t given any information during Zen training– he had to discover on his own, through direct experience. And he was sure to let us know that it’s different for us– having access to so much so that many people today can simply learn the words and pretend they have had some experience, when in fact they have only memorized someone else’s experience. And just to add… because I have a very intact ego that was insulted by his very intact ego, he said, “supposably”. Yup. He did. I didn’t judge him from the great Oneness… I judged him from this little old brain.
There are many incisive, good points here on Adyashanti’s muddled sayings and warmed over, pop Advaita. The author has pointed out blatant contradictions in language that do cause great confusion to seekers. I don’t agree with every point about kundalini — and neither does Ramana Maharshi — but this level of scrutiny is refreshing to see. Thanks
Thank you, Mike. Glad you appreciate it.
Hey Matt,
I read some of youre stuff here, not al, just some in the beginning.
What that adyashanti guy says doesn’t make sense to you because he is seeing from another place.
It is not about logic, truth is different than that. When you reach the end like that you can’t make a true statement, it’s just not possible. Everything you say to explain what is going on from there is basically seen as a lie. Therefor it’s less obout what you say then where you say it from.
It’s good that you have this vendetta, its your way. Take it al the way and when you reach the end of the rope and you let you’re self see you’re own reflection in al this it will smash a good part of you’re ego to peace’s. Nothing is an error if you really want the truth. Everything will get you there. If you are ready, everything is to you’re edvantage.
Keep going, good luck!
Dear Ron,
please allow me to disagree with what you are saying. Obviously you haven’t realized your true nature, because if you had you would have realized that absolutely everything that Adyashanti says, it’s valid! I can confirm that at least from my own personal experience.
You criticize even one of the most beautiful sayings, that of ‘One thing I know, that I know nothing’, which Socrates said and Adyahsanti says as well, and which it is absolutely truth when you have realized your true self. When there is no identification with thoughts and beliefs, all that is left is a knowledge that you know nothing, which is extremely liberating by itself. How else can it be when, our true nature is beyond our mind and all the mental constructs that it creates. Even contradictory statements like ‘I am everything, and I am nothing’ are true too. But in order to realize all these, a person must first awake in his true nature. Else is just a play for the mind, which tries always to make sense, and criticizes the things that do not add up. But how can it make sense of something that is beyond it? It is impossible.
I stand by what I’ve written about Adyashanti.
Using words to try to represent Truth is misleading. There’s no inherent Truth in any of what Adyashanti or Ron both wrote. The difference is that Adya says it all the time whereas Ron thinks he has it. Adya never told any true statement nor Truth. He says all of his talks are failed attempts, he says that all the time but I guess Ron isn’t interested in portraying that.
Do you imagine your judgment to be the final word – as true for 7 billion people as it is for you? If something doesn’t resonate with you, you can choose to move on to what does. What proof can there be for such varied personal views on such things? And what threat does a differing opinion really pose? If you are willing to look within, always deeper, there is no need to fear being misled.
Thereismoretolife, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I express my views on various Dharmas and dharmas, and readers are welcome to resonate with or reject them. I want people to think for themselves.
Can that be true? Are you not telling others exactly how they should “think for themselves” by publicly criticizing the character and intentions of another without provocation?
Anyone can accept or reject anything I say or write–and that includes my criticisms of teachers and/or their writings.
Too much words, too much knowing… the truth is lost in the midst of these words
Hi Ron, I would like to know which book you saw the Adya quote about the Buddha saying: “I and all beings everywhere have simultaneously realized liberty.” It obviously denies the truth of interdependence….I’d like to see the source thanks!
Ron, Please let me know the book where he says , What is actually real is an infinite expanse of emptiness.
Buddhists talk a lot about emptiness, but it is just the conceptual aspect of ultimate reality…and usually people misinterpret it, turning it into an object of knowledge, by making it into something intellectual. Thanks again.
I don’t remember, and I’m not going to spend the time looking for it. I’ve reviewed a number of his books.
Ron attempts to pick and carefully select some of Adya’s statements and make them look like they contradict themselves. They do, and Ramana contradicted himself many times, and Nisargadatta. Is that prove they were blinds leading the blinds? Just because he doesn’t put it the way you would like him to put it or because he doesn’t do it the same way as the old masters did is prove he is a blind leading the blind?
Once you experience even the slightest experience of transformation when you allow everything to be as it is, be it the most boring thing such as stage fear or whatever, you will look at the experience Adya is referring to as 100% accurate.
And to be honest, once you will get to a point you will no longer be in this chase for a better teacher, Adyashanti is more raw and no bullshit than all the Mooji’s and stuff which are just the same old spiritual lingo.
Im positive you will stop looking for teacher and inspirations and all kind of actions to awake and reach enlightenment, the fact that thats the way you choose to critic just proves your POV and your readiness to critic that experiential thing
Adya is purely exoteric. He’s better than Mooji and Gangaji, but that’s not saying much.
Typical example of “I’m the one who knows who’s really enlightened while everyone else acts like sheeps” delusion-trap. Keep inquiring into that.
If you want to keep believing that Adyashanti is Enlightened, be my guest. I’m not here to second that illusion.
I don’t understand the hostility toward the author. Why can’t the responses be a civil, “hmm that’s an interesting take – but I disagree”. The undercurrents of hostility make me think some Adyashanti followers have had their feathers ruffled. At least Ron is questioning if Adyashanti is a truly enlightened guru. Isn’t that curiosity and questioning a healthy thing? Perhaps the most important thing to entering this path in the first place. Best wishes. I’m just trying to make sense of the battle-of-egos going on in the comments here. Funny enough, the only commenter who has shown true humility is the author himself. That includes me – if I’m honest, I’m a bit ruffled by the rufflers.
At least they didn’t have their feathers fluffed. If Adya likes to have sex with his devotees, that is not really my business. People find in the guru whatever they seek. If it is Adya’s cold hard cock, so be it.
It’a good thing that you are so intelligent as to be able to discern what is true and what is not. My teacher once said ” The cat doesn’t see, the cat just doesn’t see.”
I appreciate this article.
Thank you. I’m glad to hear that.
Ron – I appreciate the way you’ve handled all the toxic, uncivilized comments. It only enhances your credibility on the subject (ethos?). I relate a lot to what Adyashanti has to say, and believe him to be “right” in many ways — but it has illuminated to me that there are two types of ‘knowing’. Perhaps the fact that he changed his name to Adyashanti says it all. I enjoy listening to him speak, but I’m not convinced that his ego isn’t just as enlarged as his spirituality. He probably means well – and has hit on some important truths and dedicated much of his life to this way – but he doesn’t ooze pure love and stillness the way I’d expect from a true master. Truth be told, I’m new to all this, and now I’m off to discover this Ramana Maharshi fellow some of you have mentioned. I appreciate your honest thoughts and respect you for following your heart in this matter. Regards, Tim.
Forgot to add: have y’all not figured out that “Matt” is Adyashanti ?? 😉
I’ve only been interested in such teachings for 5 years. But in those 5 years I have caught on to a few important things: One is, no one really can know anything. It doesn’t matter who the human being is. Every word ever uttered or written is at best a game of guess and dress-up.
Another: labels seem quite moot and useless, including the label “enlightened” and who gets to be one, say one is, etc.
And I will also say that the people I admire the most, however they express themselves when it comes to these topics of spirituality, all have humility, earnestness, and a compassion that doesn’t allow for pettiness. They are who they are, whether you want to experience them or not, and they certainly allow others to be as they are.
And I will say, it is a lovely thing to experience within oneself and in observation.
Jennifer, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I hardly agree with it. I contend that human beings can really know something, and that objective criteria can be used to describe “Enlightenment.”
Brilliant review, thank you for saying what was dying to be said, liberating. Get that Adyashanti out of my face !!!!!
Thank you.
Ron, I understand your critic review of Adya’ work but I am not sure if Ramana Maharshi or Robert Adams, you refer to, had been real spiritual models or sagas. For instance:
Ramana Maharshi cult:
Actually In 1939-49, Ramana Maharshi built up for himself and his mother a very expensive stone Matrubuteswarta Temple – God in the form of his Mother in Ramanashram. Ramana’s brother only managed the Temple construction, architect, Vaidyanatha Sthapathy was entrusted with the construction of this Ashram Temple in 1939. This Temple was divided into parts; Ramana Maharshi’s Temple Hall built also as a future ‘pharaoh’ Ramana Maharshi’s Samadhi tomb and the second part as Ramana’s ‘divine’ Mother Samadhi Shine. (She died in 1922, Ramana died in 1950). Photos: Ramana Maharshi’s Temple Hall was also built as future Ramana Maharshi’s Samadhi tomb during his life with his youthful statue on the roof of this Ramanashram Temple, in The LIFE magazine, 1949: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1k4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA92
Robert Adams a liar:
https://selfreflexiveloopphotography.photo.blog/2020/02/10/the-mystery-of-robert-adams-did-he-really-meet-ramana-maharshi-and-the-sages-of-india/
Ales, I see no problem with Ramana having a temple constructed. Ramana appreciated holy sites, and burial sites of great sages are revered as great abodes of Shakti. Yes, there is controversy surrounding Robert Adams’ relationship, or non-relationship, with Ramana. Adams was not a Heart-master, and his book “Silence of the Heart” is overrated, not on the level of Ramana’s teachings. But a lot of people love it, just as they love Sri Nisargadatta’s “I Am That,” another, IMO, overrated spiritual text.
I see no problem with positive cults. If being a HUGE lover of Ramana Maharshi and his teachings makes me a member of the Ramana cult, then so be it.
In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King. Adyashanti strings a bunch of platitudes and cliches together and is able to get a following and make some money. Not much more to be said. One good thing? Whenever I find someone praising him, it is a litmus test for shallowness.
Why do you recommend Robert Adams who has been exposed as a charlatan who never ever sat foot in Ramanashram and the people he claimed to know never heard of him.
I don’t know that he was a charlatan. It is a matter of controversy if he “sat foot in Ramanashram.” His book, which I gave 4 stars in my (deleted by Amazon) review, is better than most Advaita Vedanta books, but not good enough to make my Highly Recommended category. Also, it’s a very popular text that many dig.
Derek, I’ve never written anything about Adya’s sex life, and I have no idea what it’s about. I’ve only criticized his spiritual teachings.