Yesterday evening I went to the Gangaji meeting near Waterloo. It was, in its way, quite a revelation. Her short exposition of how she came to her teacher and found the freedom and fulfilment she was looking for, was simple and clarifying. Her subsequent handling of people who came to the front to talk to her was exemplary. But her voice! And presence. This is an extraordinary woman.
She spoke of silence and demonstrated it. She spoke of letting go the story of her life - and encouraged us to do the same as a necessary, if alarming, step towards fulfilment. Her words and manner acted as a very gentle cut.
Her teacher, a disciple of Sri Ramana Maharshi, whom she met in Lucknow, sent her back to teach. He said she had 'the purity, nobility and satvic nature to carry this transmission to the West' (Wikipedia).
Be that as it may, I walked out into the dusk to Waterloo Station on my way home and never have I found a railway station more beautiful and welcoming.
Today has been very quiet and reflective.
27 comments:
Laura said...
"She spoke of letting go the story of her life - and encouraged us to do the same as a necessary, if alarming, step towards fulfilment".
I was at the meeting as well, and I heard her say that the letting go of one's story equalled fulfilment. I didn't hear her say that she considered this 'a step towards' fulfilment.
'Stopping' (as she often calls it) can't be done in 'steps' - either there is 'movement' and an inability / unwillingness to stop, or there isn't. The notion that 'stopping' can be done in stages, i.e. that there is a 'path', is part of the 'story'.
A Gangaji quote:
"My teacher told me to stop where you are, just stop. That is really, basically what I offer you. I guarantee that if you are willing to investigate for yourself, you’ll find, in the heart of the matter, peace. There may be pain right before the moment of investigation, and there may be disbelief or denial of what’s found. But if there’s a willingness to stop following any thought, you will find even deeper peace and fulfillment. Finally, you will recognize you are discovering the truth of who you are."
Her quote is the one that I also heard.
I think the first comment above is an example of what I said in my earlier post about using quotations aggressively.
I didn't make it to the talk, after all. It sounds good.
Last week I was given a leaflet in group about the "Just This Day" event on 28 November. Gangaji's piece - prominent on the first page - is the only one that doesn't directly address the subject at hand, that is of meditation in everyday life.
It's also the only one that is selling something.
Call me a cynic, but it doesn't look good.
Yes, I do call you a cynic Kevin, and I am saddened by your comment.
Give her a chance! I only told her about Just This Day after the news item had been written. I was asked to supply a quotation for the front page (not something I had expected or asked for), but I hadn't been able at that time to speak to Gangaji herself about it. Once I had told her about it, she endorsed it with great enthusiasm, and I have this morning sent the following message (which she gave me last night)to be posted on the website:
'Silent, still awareness is our common denominator. To be willing to allow the mind to rest in the peace of silence is the same willingness to meet all, everything and everybody as oneself.
"Just This Day" is the invitation tobe yourself as silence. To be yourself as all.'
The whole point of Just This Day is for us all to rise above the apparent differences between belief systems, religions, 'paths' etc. Cynicism, it seems to me, is entirely out of place here.
Laura, I am so happy that you came and so clearly 'got' what my beloved Gangaji is about.
Katherine,
I think the idea of "Just This Day" is excellent. I think it's great that the School is finally looking to do things that are of service to the wider community and not just to its own self-promotion. And I think it's great that various organizations that ought to be friends are working together. I know that you have been involved in this project and working to make it a success.
However, I am only pointing out that in the leaflet (which I have in front of me) Gangaji has not given a message of support and appears only to promote herself. In other words, what is on the page is not in the spirit of what I admire about Just This Day.
You may wish to address this impression if you think it is mistaken, but I think you are shooting the messenger.
If I am going to be clear-eyed about my beloved School and its motives, I am certainly entitled to take the same approach to Gangaji.
It's very nice to hear your direct experience Laura, which is more valuable than conjecture.
The thing is, Kevin, that Gangaji had at the time that I was asked to send in something for the front page never heard of Just This Day. We simply looked for a quotation that seemed to be about stillness. There was absolutely no intention to promote Gangaji, and I did not ask for the details of the meetings etc. to be included. None of it was my idea, or the idea of anyone connected to Gangaji. You say it looks bad. But it seems to me that what Gangaji says in the quotation is entirely in keeping with the aims of Just This Day. And knowing Gangaji's utter integrity I found the suggestion that she might be "selling" something upsetting. If you had seen her I know you would have understood this.
Anyway, let's not fall out, shall we?
As Gangaji often says, the war stops here, in my heart - in each individual heart. The world can't wait for someone else to stop it.
Peace is the truth of who I am, who you are. I know you know that.
Laura,
I have been asked for a report of this week's satsanga in London with Gangaji for the Just This Day news page. Your description of Thursday's meeting is so beautiful, I wondered if you would give me permission to quote some of it.
If you say no, that's OK too. :)
Katharine - by all means, quote whatever you wish.
Katherine,
Nor do I want to fall out, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't go in for double standards. That is exactly why the School developed its problems: people saying "oh, Mr So-and-So is wise and truthful, so he must have had good reasons for what he did". People leaving their judgement at the door. It's taking a long time for them to remember that they ever had it.
I don't know why that article is the way it is: but it looks like an ad for her talks.
If this is just a mix-up, then why is a report of one of her talks going in the next JTD leaflet? It sounds like the same thing all over again.
I thought the point of JTD was to promote meditation in everyday life, not to promote the organizations that are taking part? That was why I thought it was such a good thing. If the School uses JTD to promote itself, then believe me I will be the first to point this out, because I think that would undermine the entire endeavour.
I understand the point you are making, Kevin. But in fact there was never the slightest intention of 'promoting' anything - except possibly stillness itself - which is what the article does, it seems to me. It was definitely not envisaged as any kind of advertisement. Gangaji had not even arrived in the UK and knew nothing about all this when I was asked to supply a quotation because the people running the newsletter wanted to put in a news item. It still seems to me that what I found as a quotation is entirely apt.
But perhaps it's the mention of the weekend etc. which disturbs you. But no contact details were given, and anyway the newsletter came out more or less as the satsanga was already taking place. I certainly did not receive any enquiries from readers of the newsletters - nor did I expect to.
I have now been able to explain about Just This Day to Gangaji and show her the website. She is full of support for the idea, and yesterday gave me a message to go on the website. Obviously, she couldn't give a message before she had heard about it!
As for the report, I think the intention is to report on any significant events which are conducive to the aim of JTD. Gangaji's satsang just happens to have been the first. I would hope that some reporting of meditation retreats in the School will also feature.
I do profoundly hope that Just This Day will become a focus for peace and real love, and not for the kind of thing which seems to have happened here.
I also went to see Gangaji at her evening meetings and her weekend satsang. I can only speak but highly of her, knowing her to be true in intention, word and deed. Being in her presence was like receiving a soothing balm to the soul. I have been troubled of late but since meeting her have been reconnected to the deep peace within which is everpresent regardless of circumstance.
What I also found remarkable (apart from the lady herself)was the bravery of those who went to the front to speak to her.
They were spotlit (literally and figuratively) for the time they were on stage. Their words and gestures were closely observed by the entire auditorium, and they were recorded for others to see and hear. And yet numbers put up their hands to this opportunity to bare their souls in public.
On the evening I was there only one man played a game with this (and with him it was evidently a long-standing habit). Everyone else was a genuine seeker, possibly awestruck by the circumstances but willing - indeed, eager - to rise to the occasion. It was as though Gangaji and the occasion sparked off the necessary courage to say what was in their hearts, probably for the first time.
I think it unlikely that I would have exposed myself in this way - even though her manner was loving, restrained and gentle - so I found it all the more inspiring.
Laura and Rebecca,
I'm glad you found the event valuable.
I've been thinking about this for a couple of weeks since Katherine's last comment. I once read a remark from a contemporary traditional Advaitin teacher who was asked about what is called "Neo-Advaita" teachers. He said "perhaps these people are wise, but can they make others wise?"
The same remark might be made of an artist who, like Leonardo, was undeniably brilliant, but was hopeless at teaching others. It doesn't make him less of a great artist, but there is a difference between "a tradition of teachers" (to borrow the title of a book on the Shankaracharya lineage) and one-off brilliance.
When I was doing an Art Foundation course, I saw that the tutors believed that there was really nothing to teach - it was all about personal experience and insight and ideas. I reflected that if this was true, then I could certainly do that without them. I wanted to find somewhere that had things to teach.
I think that about sums up my view of 'traditionless' teachers: what they offer, I already have. What I don't have, they don't offer.
As a member of the School I believe that I am part of an ancient tradition, which is about teaching as much as it is about self-realization. I believe progress would be getting more in touch with that tradition, and perhaps renewing it, not going away from it.
A modern Neo-Advaitin such as Gangaji (who has said that she does not value the Vedanta), is clearly outside of that tradition, albeit that her teacher may have been part of it.
This doesn't mean she isn't "an extraordinary woman", of course - and we have Laura, Rebecca, Rudi and Katherine to attest to that - but the tradition that interests me is not about people's personal qualities.
Kevin said...
"I once read a remark from a contemporary traditional Advaitin teacher who was asked about what is called "Neo-Advaita" teachers. He said "perhaps these people are wise, but can they make others wise?"
Which is exactly what some contemporary teachers such as Gangaji say about those who turn Advaita Vedanta into a 'path' teaching.
"For me, Gangaji, as a modern Neo-Advaitin who has said that she does not value the Vedanta, is not really that interesting".
What exactly were her words, and what was the context? I have heard her say quite a few times how much she values all spiritual traditions incl. Advaita Vedanta and all the teachers who have come before her, enabling her to stand on the shoulders of giants, and the deep gratitude she feels towards them etc etc.
Maybe you heard her say that self-realisation involves letting go of all 'lower knowledge' (such as traditions, teachings and scriptural knowledge), since at this point 'higher knowledge' (one's 'inner teacher', the truth within, perfect understanding) 'takes over'. I am baffled how you can interpret this as her 'not valuing' the teaching, when the scriptures / teachings themselves say that they only represent 'lower knowledge'.
"This doesn't mean she isn't "an extraordinary woman", of course - and we have Laura, Rebecca, Rudi and Katherine to attest to that - but the tradition that interests me is not about people's personal qualities".
What makes her unusual in my eyes is certainly not her "personal qualities"; not even that she values her "tradition" (which she calls "lineage"); but the fact :-
a) that she seems to have grasped that Truth is beyond 'teaching' or 'tradition' (i.e. that a tradition serves Truth, not Truth tradition - the 'two thorns' analogy)
b) that (unlike Leonardo) she has a simple, elegant and direct way of conveying / pointing to / 'transmitting' eternal, everpresent peace (just as Rebecca said: "... since meeting her I have been reconnected to the deep peace within which is everpresent regardless of circumstance"). Most teachers (especially 'path' teachers) have never even encountered this absolute stillness - they only seem to know relative stillness (which when experienced in deep meditation or as peak experiences of extraordinary stillness may be deep and profound, but is, by its very nature, non-permanent).
"I think that about sums up my view of 'traditionless' teachers: what they offer, I already have. What I don't have, they don't offer".
What you seem to want, and what Gangaji can't offer, is a path to Truth. All she can do is point to pathless Truth since Truth, the 'Here and Now', is, by its very nature, 'a pathless land' (Krishnamurti). But then this is a blessing for those ready to take the final step, since any Truth arrived at by way of a path cannot possibly be the real thing, which is "the deep peace within which is everpresent regardless (sic!) of circumstance".
"I believe progress would be getting more in touch with that tradition, and perhaps renewing it, not going away from it".
Yes, absolutely. Progress is getting in touch more deeply and renewing our understanding of what "nothing to do", "nowhere to go", "pathless land", "there is no sequence in illusion", "mind preoccupied with causality" actually point to, EVEN if what is discovered is contrary to one's traditional interpretation of the teaching.
Which is exactly what Gangaji seems to be doing.
Whenever such a thing [ enlightenment ] happened,
it happened to those people
who had given up completely and totally all their search.
That is an absolute requisite for that kind of a thing.
-Krishnamurti
Rudi said:
But then this is a blessing for those ready to take the final step, since any Truth arrived at by way of a path ... etc
What do you mean by "final step" Rudi? Doesn't this rather contradict your earlier denials of time, progress and "paths"? I suppose one could take steps "off-piste" as it were, but that still wouldn't remove the impression of change, causality, time being a necessary element on the way of knowledge (vide HH), etc etc.
I think this slip of the tongue illustrates that criticising people's language (as you are wont to do), instead of trying to understand what they mean, is apt to create more heat than light.
I've personally been taken to task over the use of the word "ultimate"; Kapila got a slap for "causality"; and of course nobody is allowed to use the wicked word "path".
Seriously, I do know what you mean by the above.
In Dennis Waite's BACK TO THE TRUTH: 5000 YEARS OF ADVAITA Gangaji said she was not interested in the scriptures or the tradition. This was the grounds on which Waite (who runs advaita.org.uk) said she was not part of the traditional Advaita Vedanta, and that she is also not what is called (not by me!) a "Direct Path" teacher, eg Nisargadatta.
I don't have the book, but will get a copy and give you the exact quotation ASAP.
In my short experience of Gangaji I would say that she is a teacher because she shows fulfilment in herself and thus communicates it deeply to others. There is no argument worth having as to whether or not a path is necessary for any one individual. All I would say is that it may be.
There's no call for anyone to go round banging doors or declaiming the odds - leave the door open, that's not a draught you feel, just a waft of consciousness.
Laura,
In some sense I think you are right. Presence does count for something.
But let us imagine that we were not talking about a living teacher but about someone whose words alone remain. There are plenty of examples: person A was an obscure Belgian lens-grinder despised by his own community, by outsiders, and by comtemporary philosophers, whose words are full of enduring luminous truth; person B was a much-beloved guru with 20,000 followers, but whose words on the page now appear unremarkable.
In the first case one wonders how such a miracle could have lived unnoticed; in the second one wonders what all the fuss was about.
Personally I believe in the slower judgement that looks at what someone is saying and whether it is reasonable, to the quick one that relies on charisma or "presence".
"Presence" MAY accompany wisdom, or it may not; but it is the wisdom that matters. Wisdom is not a vague matter: it may have surface beauty, or it may come in an unattractive package. It stands up to examination. Mr Jaiswal is fond of saying that we should "take a crack at Advaita" or "take a crack at the Absolute" - we should do our best to knock down what appears strong. He is unusual among School tutors in this regard: he positively encourages people to ask the hardest question they can. This is because he believes that what is left standing afterwards is the truth. Hanuman represents reason in the Ramayana, the power that burns the golden palaces of the ego. Arguments against the use of reason on grounds that it prevents a nice feeling make me suspicious.
Warren G Harding is said to have been the most deeply impressive of men: his splendid good looks, his sonorous voice, his aura of trustworthiness and power. As a young, obscure politician he was spotted by a wily old campaign manager who thought, "this man would make a great president".
Yet as a president he was a total disaster, because it was all empty, a passing show. One more reflective commentator of the time described one of his speeches as "an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea".
It's always a question of what is heard and what you remember. However wise the words, if they don't cut through the carapace they are not effective and wither like ice in summer.
So, although reason is a sure guide - and a sure guide, like a loyal friend, is invaluable - it only goes so far in my experience to date. I do appreciate, from what I've been told and heard, that I may be defective in this.
But it's not reason that can cure and it's not reason that opens an obstinate heart.
I don't think I really understand reason or its processes, that's what it amounts to. For example, it makes perfect sense, and accords with nature at its highest, to Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself. It goes further than that, it is an injunction to unity that is so simple yet profound.
But what has this to do with reason? If I can see the value of this, irrespective of whether or not I've experienced it, that seems to me reasonable. If, on occasions, I've experienced it, that has greater force and knowledge. But the former also requires an act of faith whereas the latter does not. And faith is an unusual bedfellow of reason. Or perhaps not?
Is reason, therefore, an act of mind which takes a principle and then works along a line from the known to the unacknowledged or unknown - to a new point? As in Platonic dialogue? Deductive. Can it be inductive? Are both possibilities 'reasonable'?
The difficulty I have with reason is that it purports to answer all questions, whereas it often seems to give a perfectly reasonable answer which never gets to the heart of the matter and just leaves me floundering.
Why is it that I can't accord with the argument? I ask myself. Can follow it but my heart isn't in it.
So that's where revelation comes in. That's why I posted on Gangaji.
I think that, if you don't think reason can cure, you aren't talking about the same reason.
I believe that none of us lacks reason or intelligence, and so we don't need to depend on anyone else's. We don't need any special revelation or miracle. The miracle is already within us.
May I ask you for a definition of reason as you understand it?
Kevin said...
Rudi said: But then this is a blessing for those ready to take the final step, since any Truth arrived at by way of a path ... etc
"What do you mean by "final step" Rudi? Doesn't this rather contradict your earlier denials of time, progress and "paths"? I suppose one could take steps "off-piste" as it were, but that still wouldn't remove the impression of change, causality, time being a necessary element on the way of knowledge (vide HH), etc etc."
You need to distinguish between words and their ordinary meaning on the one hand, and that which they are used to point to on the other. Human language is intrinsically dualistic, and wholly incapable of describing Truth ("the tao that can be spoken is not the tao" etc). In that sense, every single word I have ever used here 'contradicts Truth'.
All one can do is give a description, and then explain that what has just been described is NOT what one is talking about - and that (and how) the description is merely a pointer. Even the scriptures and Shankara, Shantananda etc are forced to use dualistic language in that they all refer to 'paths' (path of knowledge / devotion / action etc), and then warn against interpreting these 'descriptions' (of how things already are) as 'prescriptions' (with 'somewhere to go', 'something to do' etc). As Shantananda says: the only point of his descriptions is to 'trigger the subtle imagination of the mind', or 'memory', since 'where is the sequence in illusion?'
Despite of this, 'spiritual seekers' invariably mistake 'descriptions' for 'prescriptions', 'the finger for the moon' (or, in Shantananda's words, 'clay coins for real ones') - words such as 'ultimately', 'in the final analysis' and 'after self-realisation' tend to give the game away.
We discussed this in great detail under the 'Letter from the leader' post.
"I think this slip of the tongue illustrates that criticising people's language (as you are wont to do), instead of trying to understand what they mean, is apt to create more heat than light. I've personally been taken to task over the use of the word "ultimate"; Kapila got a slap for "causality"; and of course nobody is allowed to use the wicked word "path".
This has NOTHING to do with the use of words or language - only the understanding behind them. When I use dualistic language such as 'final step', and make it clear at the same time that there is no path and that my descriptions are merely pointers, then obviously I don't use 'final' in the sense of 'the last step in a series of steps', nor am I even saying that 'a single step' (from somewhere to somewhere else) needs to be taken. What I am saying is that the one and only 'step' (but not of the 'moving' kind) 'finally' (but not in a 'chronological' sense) 'taken' (but not in a 'doing' sense) is the 'realisation' (which is not an 'event') that 'we' (but not in an 'individualistic' sense) are the Here and Now and all that arises in the Here and Now; and that all path-activity aimed at realising this implies that the Here and Now can be found 'somewhere else' and / or 'later', and therefore amounts to resistance to this realisation (just as in the metaphor of someone conducting his search for his spectacles through his spectacles).
"In Dennis Waite's BACK TO THE TRUTH: 5000 YEARS OF ADVAITA Gangaji said she was not interested in the scriptures or the tradition. This was the grounds on which Waite (who runs advaita.org.uk) said she was not part of the traditional Advaita Vedanta, and that she is also not what is called (not by me!) a "Direct Path" teacher, eg Nisargadatta".
On p. 386 Dennis Waite quotes Gangaji as saying:-
"The Advaita theory in general? Well, forget it! Advaita fundamentalism everywhere! They're caught in a box and it's the fundamentalism in every religion that causes the most problems because it demands conceptually a freedom and a perfection. But freedom and perfection are not conceptual. Anything that is conceptual is bound by the mind ... And I don't speak in Advaitic terms because I find them very stilted, like if I were speaking in biblical terms or some other religious terms".
I can't find anything in those words that would indicate that Gangaji is 'not interested in the scriptures or the tradition' / 'does not value the tradition'. She is merely objecting to the tendency to 'theorise' Advaita (as distinct from realising it as the living truth) and getting caught in 'a box of conceptual understanding' - both of which invariably lead to an interpretation that 'demands a freedom and a perfection' (i.e. turns the teaching into something 'prescriptive', thereby creating the illusion of a 'path').
If you actually heard Gangaji's message (as opposed to relying on a single quote, or, even more strangely, someone else's interpretation of a single quote), you would immediately realise that her teaching is pure Advaita. Your interpretation of the teaching could still be different from hers, but you couldn't possibly argue any longer that she 'does not value / is not interested in the tradition'.
As long as you are doing something to be selfless,
you will be a self-centered individual.
-Krishnamurti
.
OK Rudi,
So when you use words they are metaphors; but when others use them they are merely evidence of ignorance.
That is why these exchanges are always such a joy.
By the way, why are you a member of the School? I haven't really grasped that point.
Laura,
Shantananda speaks of four forms of grace: grace of the Absolute, grace of the teacher, grace of the scriptures and grace of the self.
I think he says that there are drawbacks to the second and third, because people tend to mistake the vehicle for the source itself.
Grace of the self is through viveka (reason). Specifically, viveka is the discrimination between the animate and inanimate, the conscious and unconscious.
It seems to me that when one has an insight of some kind, the self or consciousness becomes apparent and the grace is that one realises that the personality one previously believed oneself to be is not real.
I think the grace of the absolute is the same thing - one re-discovers the existence of the infinite universe and, intuitively, of its underlying unmanifest reality. This takes one out of oneself (smaller self) and the experience of peace, balance, poise, etc is because one discovers that one is at peace with the absolute.
Grace appears to be that which takes one out of the little circle of existence. I suppose that the grace of the teacher or of scriptures, because they appear to depend on temporal things, are potentially, though not necessarily problematic.
Kevin said...
"So when you use words they are metaphors; but when others use them they are merely evidence of ignorance".
Oh dear!
From my perspective, not a single difference of view between us has been merely over words or terminology. Precise language is obviously helpful, but ultimately I couldn't care less how someone expresses his views. Our entire discussion to date has been over whether liberation has pre-requisites, i.e. whether anything 'causal' or 'sequential' (a path, development or similar) can lead to it. I said 'no'; you argued or implied that some change (presumably on the subtle or causal level) was required. I challenged you ONLY over the substance of what you were saying - NEVER over mere words or terminology.
"By the way, why are you a member of the School? I haven't really grasped that point".
I enjoy being there. Not sure why.
You can only be lost
If you are trying
to get somwhere.
-Ram Tzu
.
Thanks, Kevin. I'll ponder and apply.
If there are further difficulties - untangled knots - I guess I'll need to specify and have an observation ready.
Post a Comment