Hi friends,
about 10 years ago a friend lent me a book which told of travels to India/the region of Himalaya and the author met some masters there who were able to do all the miraculous things one can imagine. His name popped just up in my mind, Baird Spalding. I read not all of his books because at a point I had enough, I don't believed him. I read about him that he was charged and convicted to be a deceiver. Nevertheless, I couldn't get his stories out of my mind. If we assume he made it up, I wonder where he got his ideas from. For example, he wrote that those masters had a physical body but only for special purposes, and the most time they lay their bodies down for sleep and created some sort of protection around it so that it would stay well until they need to use it the next time. Is there a tradition of those stories? He lived, as far as I know 1858-1953 in the USA I think.
Bye, spooky

  I read and had this book many years ago. It was around the same time that I bought and read "Autobiography of a Yogi". 

  Both I mostly swallowed hook, line, and sinker.  I found out that the author of the Yogi book wasn't as enlightened as he tried to appear to others, and definitely was involved in at least some self delusion. For one example, he use to say that he was overweight because he took in so much prana/life force. Um, no, because he ate too much and was too sedentary.

   Regarding Spalding's book, interestingly, a friend of his wrote a sort of biography of Baird, which was overally friendly.  But, certain things about Baird's personality become apparent from this inside look. For example, he had told his friend at different points in his life that he was born in New York, he was born in England, and then another time, was born in India. 

    As far as we can tell, Baird hadn't even traveled to India before the book was written.  He did later travel to India sometime after the book was published. He also claimed he owned lands all over the world--well turns out that he was a sometimes miner, who did have some "claims" in different parts of the world, but it's not even close to being the same thing. 

   It seems that grounded, raw truth and Baird didn't particularly mix well. I wasn't aware of any personal connection to L Ron Hubbard. If true, this does not help Baird's case in any sense. L. Ron Hubbard was most definitely a conman type who preyed on and mistreated others. 

  I would also add that I've read many NDE accounts that have struck me as sincere, and faster vibratory than usual, but they are more in the category of the professional sensitives that I talked about earlier--they don't usually offer a broad, holistic, and very detailed over view. 

  I've found the more you focus on attuning self holistically to fast vibratory forces within, through meditation, prayer, diet/health lifestyle, holistic, positive service to others and above all, using one's freewill consistently from a positive, helpful, loving intention--the combo of these eventually leads to one developing one's intuition very strongly.  So strong and sharp that eventually you can develop what I call the automatic "b.s." and/or vibratory meter. 

  Meaning, you can come upon and outer source and feel/know what approximate level it is at. For me, I tend to translate this a lot in terms of color. For example, when reading Cayce or McKnight or Bob Monroe's last book and a good portion of Bruce's books, I would get a lot of violet, golden, and White Light type colors. 

   When I started to read Seth, I got a lot of red especially, some green, some yellow, and like the red, a good amount of a lack of Light, which appears as black or near black. 

   A good barometer of outer sources, according to Cayce's guidance is, whether or not they affirm the life, example, crucifixion, and resurrection of Yeshua (Jesus) who became a Christed one.  Those that deny or twist any aspect of one of the above, are not to be trusted or taken as a high source.

  I've found personally, that a lot of outer sources that do the above in some manner, have struck me as off in a feeling way, or I later get some more overt, in my face guidance about it being off. 

  Certainly there are also less than helpful sources that don't conform to the above and do affirm all of the above, but I've found that Yeshua is one of the lacking in LIght's favorite targets to try to diminish or marginalize in some form or manner.

p.s., I'm not religious and haven't ever been in this life.

Hello Spooky:

Long time no see.

I used to be really into the teachings of Ramana and Nisargadatta back in the 1980s, not anymore.

I am so not into their teachings that I wrote a book called "Joining the Oneness-Beyond Nonduality" in order to try to explain why such teachings are not completely accurate and incomplete.

Both Ramana and Nisargadatta claimed to be enlightened, and because this is supposedly so, many believe that they can't be wrong about spiritual matters.

Both of these gurus were a part of the Indian Guru culture. Within this culture gurus are frequently treated in an adoring and worshipful way. People surrender their lives to such gurus. Believe that such gurus will empower them to become enlightened. My feeling is that any person who truly understood about love, humility, oneness and equality would never allow himself to be treated in the ways that gurus are treated by their followers, to any degree whatsoever.

Some of the things they teach are okay, such as happiness is found inside, but nondual teachings are also nihilistic.  Gurus such as Ramana and Maharaj repeatedly stated that you are not your mind, you are only pure awareness. They'd say this in a way that is really misleading. Some people develop a delusional split between the awareness aspect of their being and their mind aspect of being. It is true that not every thought we have represents who we, but our mind aspect of being is definitely a part of who we are.

Nondual gurus, such as Ramana, tend to say that we don't have to worry about the suffering that takes place in this world because it is only an illusion. They say it in a way that is literal. I've known of numerous followers of nondual gurus that spoke as if they weren't concerned about what takes place in this world, because according to their way of thinking, only a person who believes in a world that is real would be concerned about the suffering that takes place within it. I understand that this world isn't the first and final reality, but when suffering takes place within it, it does in fact take place. The indifference of a nondualist won't do anything to make this world a better place.

Back to the mind factor, I've found that many nondualists like the I am not my mind theory, because they don't want to have to take responsibility for their mind. They don't want to have to make the effort. I know of  an  American guru who claims to be a part of the Maharaj lineage. He is  a porn and sex addict. Claims he doesn't have to worry about this because his mind isn't a part of who he is, it is just an illusory appearance. He can fool himself (and others) as long as he likes, but eventually he will have to take responsibility for his mind aspect of being. I know this can be painful, but it is well worth it.

Maharaj was supposedly enlightened to an extent where he abided according to complete inner happiness. Yet he was a chain smoker that required the people who saw him to breath in his second hand smoke.

Many nondualists won't be open to what I say above. Why not? Because in some form the below takes place.

1. They hear about the concept of enlightened people and conclude that such people are infallible when it comes to spiritual knowledge. Their mind gets "programmed" accordingly.
2. They conclude that a particular guru is enlightened, their mind gets "programmed" accordingly.
3. Once their mind gets programmed in such a way they have a hard time seeing beyond such programming, until they earnestly seek to undo it.

One of the insidious parts of the nondual way of thinking is that within its own circle of determination, it seems logical. Once a person seeks to see beyond such a limited circle and the validation it supposedly gets from supposedly enlightened people, they can gain freedom from such a limited way of thinking.

There is also the factor of how the portions of nondual teachings that are true can make them seem more true and complete than they are. For example, a person can experience what being is like before manifestation comes into existence. It is fine to experience in such a way, but such an experience doesn't mean that what the creative and mind aspects of being bring into existence has no validity. If a person truly wants to know himself, then he needs to know about all parts of himself.

Because I chose to become free of such a way of thinking, I've been able to increase the amount of divine love I am  able to experience to an extent that wouldn't be possible if I continued to limit myself to a nondual way of  thinking.

I believe it is relevant that nondual gurus pretty much never speak of the world of spirit. Supposedly they don't because they are beyond it. Going by my experience, once you open up to divine love, it is hard to not be in contact with spirit beings to some degree, after all, they exist at the energetic level of divine love. Such beings fully understand that the mind aspect of their being is a part of who they are.

Hi there, Recoverer and Justin,
certainly, we have to be sceptical when reading about any kind of spiritual and/ or philosophical systems. There's always the danger of self- delusion and/ or to become addicted to ideas and practices.

I would say, when someone reads about nondual ideas, and does develop an attitude of "I think I've understood" and starts to build in the words of these teachings in his/her everyday life, then you have not understood! Then you only have programmed your mind. To "get" it doesn't mean to talk yourself into it. Those things happen suddenly (at least, this is my experience). A keyword in nondualistic literature is "concept". Everything we think, believe in, or speak, so they say, is "(only a) concept". So, the reader/ listener has to keep in mind that nondualistic philosophy as well is only a concept, as long as it is just a framework of words which is programming our thinking and acting.

However, nondualistic philosophy is touching questions which the seeker sooner or later is confronted with. Whether the literature about it is helpful or not, everyone has to decide for oneself. If much money and/ or authoritarian power comes into play with a teacher, one should be very, very careful indeed.

Spooky

Recoverer,

yes, from your viewpoint your considerations are logical. I only like to admit that your viewpoint includes some presuppositions, such as "there are eternal souls", which a nondualist would not accept. A smart nondualist maybe would say: "There is nobody who is saying anything. There is appearing saying and listening. All what happens is appearing spontanously within the mind. The mind and it's ideas is only a mirror-play within that which is no thing, which is no idea."

This is only to show that we can't prove this system to be wrong. Of course, this doesn't mean it's true. But when it comes to those fundamental questions of "I" or "reality" we cannot prove anything to others, we can only experience it for ourselves- as long as there is an experiencer .

Spooky