Firstly, it strikes me as very easy to just
trot out the type of absolutist statements and
pronouncements that Tony Parsons does in his
so-called ‘Open Secret’ perspective.
There is no this, there is no that ... etc. It's
a not particularly difficult game to play – denying
everything except the absolute, or seeing everything
in absolute terms. [A pretty pointless and unhelpful
line to take, many of us would say, of course!]
Tony's absolutism also has overtones of a type
of nihilism as well, it seems to me. Both absolutism
and nihilism have a whale of time denying things!
Also, of course, absolutism can 'sound good'
and have an impressive air to it that attracts
those of us who are not necessarily very astute
or discerning. It appeals to the idealistic and
merely intellectual in us – and ignores
the empirical and the practicalities of lived
experience. In short, it’s a type of immature
posturing.
Again from Tony (his tune never changes!) in
his ‘not two-ness’ piece he again
trots out the old 'the two perspectives do not
meet', as if there is no point in any enquiry
or comparison here. Yet he's quite happy to dismiss
the 'perspective' he doesn't agree with, I note.
So he's obviously indulging in some type of critical
comparison here to the effect that Traditional
Advaita is misguided and misconceived and his
Open Secret perspective isn't! So his claimed
puzzlement at the attempt to make a comparison
between the two perspectives is itself puzzling
as he clearly compares.…? And, yes of
course the two perspectives do not meet as one
(Open Secret) is merely intellectual – it’s
all talk, no direct looking and no practice engaged
in! And the other (Traditional Advaita) is practical
in the sense that it addresses the actual empirical
condition of the seeker. So it's the difference
between the intellectual chatterings and mere
talk of Idealism and Absolutism (Open Secret)
and the empirical practicalities of Realism (the
various varieties of non-absolutist Advaita,
both traditional and contemporary).
In the past I've been amazed at the poorness
and crudeness of some of Tony's 'arguments' and
in his 'not two-ness' piece he again delivers
by scraping the bottom of the same barrel, so
to speak. He criticises Traditional Advaita by
saying that it believes in "something called
a seeker (one) that can attain something else
called enlightenment (two)”. And so therefore,
it’s implied, by this ‘counting-numbers-logic’ Traditional
Advaita is clearly ‘dualistic’ and
so consequently misconceived! Fantastic ‘argument’,
Tony! Absolutely astounding! I have to say this
is one of the finest pieces of not-exactly-brilliant ‘thinking’ I’ve
had the pleasure of enjoying since hearing a
man exclaim that as both boots and raspberries
are illusions, both being transitory phenomena,
a boot is therefore a raspberry! Tony should
consider an alternative vocation as a comedy
logician, perhaps?
Well, of course, we can all play these types
of silly games where we put 'perspectives' we
do not agree with into crude terms and then start
counting numbers. This type of silliness is clearly
not something one could call intelligent criticism!
Tony can count to "two", can he? Well,
so can I! Here goes: "The Open Secret perspective
believes that there isn't a seeker (one) and
that there is no enlightenment (two). It is therefore
dualistic and so consequently misconceived." Not
exactly a great argument, I think we have almost
certainly agreed! Now a non-distorted and more
accurate way to represent Traditional Advaita
would be to say, "Traditional Advaita believes
that there are practical ways and techniques
whereby the seeker's experience and perception
of duality (two) can be dissolved or transformed
into the non-duality (not-two) of Self-Realisation".
This is a much fairer way to represent the Traditional
Advaita perspective. But, of course, Tony is
not interested in fairness and intelligent debate.
His main interest is to twist and distort the
Traditional Advaita message and then pointing
at his gross misrepresentations say, "You
see, it's all a load of dualistic nonsense!" … "Tut,
Tut, Tony!", I'm inclined to say, "Scraping
the bottom of that same barrel yet again!" [A
man (one) sighs wearily somewhere (two) … “Sigh!”]
As Tony's 'meetings' have apparently no agenda
or intention (his words) then why on earth does
he have them, I can't help wondering? Why doesn't
he stay at home and enjoy his garden (or his
wife or whatever)? This especially as there's
'no-one' for him to help according to his own
rigid and uncompromising absolutist position.
In fact, by having these 'meetings', isn't he
guilty of creating subtle forms of hope, expectation,
anticipation, goal-seeking, etc, in the ‘dream
seekers’ he apparently addresses? His ‘meetings’,
therefore, (according to his own rather silly
argument) must inevitably reinforce the very ‘dream
of separation’ he talks about. For by pandering
to the 'dream seeker's' enquiring tendencies – which
is why they are there, after all! – he
is clearly accentuating and strengthening the
presumed individual state of separation. Isn’t
he?
This, of course, is the ‘argument’ he
uses against the deconstruction analyses and
direct looking of Self-Enquiry, in addition to
aiming it at every other ‘way’ or ‘perspective’ that
differs from his own, including Traditional Advaita
as we see in his ‘not two-ness’ piece.
It is not necessarily the most intelligent or
perceptive ‘argument’ that could
conceivably arise. Mind-brain systems have their
limitations. One (or ‘no-one’) can
be the bees knees in terms of ‘individual
absence’ but this doesn’t mean that one's
mental functioning will now operate in a supremely
perceptive or intelligent manner. If one (‘no-one’)
couldn’t play the piano before the arising
of ‘individual absence’ there is
no good reason why one should be a brilliant
master pianist after.
In addition, in Tony’s case, it is unclear
whether ‘individual absence’ is really
there in a full sense or not. The ego can be
very subtle, of course, and make all sorts of
claims about its absence. “Judge them by
their fruits”, as a certain AWOL carpenter-boy
once said. And let us remember that Tony has
been quite happy to, so to speak, throw some
rotten fruit and derision in Ramana’s direction
as regards the ‘Granthi knot in the heart’ aspect
of Self-Realisation, a significant matter implying
a fullness which Tony does not seem to comprehend,
even intellectually! And it’s a matter
the significance of which is confirmed in his
own particular way by Douglas Harding as well,
we should note. Tony’s experience and perception
here seem to be somewhat absent – an absence
which undermines his claim of ‘individual
absence’ as regards his own particular
case. This in regards to its fullness, at least.
As I’ve previously said in a prior discussion,
the powerful de-conditioning effect of Self-Enquiry
performed with a significant and consistent effort
does not increase the ‘separate self’ condition
but on the contrary decreases it. This becomes
abundantly clear and obvious in practice! And
once the knack of ‘direct looking’ (of
right Self-Enquiry, so to put it) is acquired
it’s just a matter of time before the ‘separate
self’ idea falls away completely … under
the direct gaze and Look of the ‘Sun’ the ‘vampire’,
as it were, of the ‘separate self’ idea
burns up and turns to ashes … and so,
as some people call it, Self-Realisation. Of
course, the ‘separate self’ condition
was never actually the case in reality in the
first place. But it was present as a very powerful
set of conditioned beliefs. And de-conditioning
practices like Self-Enquiry or other Traditional
Advaitic techniques can be very effective tools
here, in contrast to the mere talk of the ‘Open
Secret’. Mere talk and the trotting out
of absolutist pronouncements aren’t going
to help much! So the idea, repeated again by
Tony in his ‘not two-ness’ piece,
that Traditional Advaitic techniques are likely
to increase the ‘separate self’ condition
(such is his implication) is not only absurd
and nonsensical but flies in the face of the
evidence of those cases where these techniques
have actually worked! Tony here, it seems to
me, is just repeating parrot-like the usual ‘Neo’ propaganda
and betraying his slavish unthinking adherence
to the ‘Neo’ politically correct
party line, so to speak. A ‘Neo’ politically
correct belief that has to be believed in no
matter what the arguments are and what the actual
evidence actually is!
Tony in his piece, despite the fact of all
his ‘meetings’, retreats, books,
etc, denies that his perspective is a ‘teaching
of becoming’. And, in addition, speaking
in a somewhat derisory tone claims that Traditional
Advaita is. Well, if we apply the same type of ‘thinking’ that
Tony likes to indulge in in his dismissal of
Traditional Advaita (and systems like it) we
can ‘argue’ that his perspective
is also a ‘teaching of becoming’.
Apparently, at his meetings despite all the talk,
questions, responses, juggling of words and concepts,
Tony claims that ‘resonance’ is shared ‘energetically’ and
not through the exchange of ideas. Really! Not
through the exchange of ideas! I find that difficult
to believe…! Not through the manipulative
and cunning talk of the ‘cunning and manipulative
guru mind’. [These are Tony’s words,
of course, which he happily applies to other ‘communicators’ now
applied back upon himself!] But even if we let
that one go there is still the matter of this ‘resonance’ that
is supposedly ‘energetically shared’.
If ‘resonance’ (Tony’s very
word) does occur this means that there has clearly
been a shift from ‘non-resonance’ to ‘resonance’.
In simple terms, something has 'become' something
else! A shift has occurred, so inevitably…‘becoming’!
Tony’s teaching, which he calls a ‘perspective’,
is clearly a ‘teaching of becoming’.
[It’s very easy to ‘argue’ in
such a manner. And I indulge here to show that
anyone can indulge in the type of ‘thinking’ and
'arguing' that Tony all too frequently frequents
as he scrapes the bottom of certain barrels marked ‘bad
argument’ barrels!]
Also, it occurs to me here that in certain
sense every teaching is a ‘teaching of
becoming’. If there’s a shift from
confusion to clarity, ignorance to knowledge,
not-seeing to seeing, false identity to true
identity… etc, then a change has occurred
and something has ‘become’ something
else. If nothing changes then ignorance stays
as ignorance, not-seeing remains as not-seeing,
false remains as false… etc. It all depends,
of course, what we mean by ‘becoming’!
Tony, it seems, just uses this ‘teaching
of becoming’ expression as a term of abuse
to throw at Traditional Advaita. He never makes
it exactly clear precisely what it is he is actually
talking about. I suspect from my increased knowledge
now of Tony’s ‘thinking’ function
that he doesn’t really know what he is
talking about either! Under close examination
the rags and tatters of a lot of his ‘thinking’ disintegrate
into absurdities, inconsistencies and various
assorted nonsenses. In fact, the whole of his
Open Secret perspective seems to me to be little
more than a dry arid mirage of puffed-up absolutist
pronouncements above a poisoned well of snooty
dismissals and poor crude ‘arguments’! “A
lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing!” [Tony
may remember these words.]
Tony claims that the Open Secret’s ‘apparent
communication’ is “prior to all teachings
and yet eternally new”. Well, that’s
quite a boast, I have to say. In fact, you could
say it’s a boast among boasts if ever there
was one! One (or should that be ‘no-one’)
could even say, it’s a boast ‘prior’ to
all boasts! A boast soaring not exactly ‘eternally
new’ but ‘eternally lacking-in-modesty’ above
all other boasts! Good grief! Talk about talking
up your product! This is a seriously hard sell
that Tony is engaging in here! It’s very
clear what his game is. He’s basically
saying that his ‘apparent communication’ is
better or somehow truer or wiser than any other
teaching that has existed, is existing or that
will presumably exist. Sheesh! Boy, that is some
claim! Is this a type of modesty or rather its
reverse? Tony seems to be implying that the perceptions
and insights of the Tony Parsons body-mind system
is somehow superior to all other teachers throughout
the whole of time. We are evidently most fortunate
to be living in a period when the greatest teacher
or ‘apparent communicator’ of all
time is here among us to reveal the ‘apparent
communication’ that is “prior to
all teachings and yet eternally new”. Golly!
Tony in his piece says that “there is
no such thing as enlightenment or liberation… etc.” Yet
in the next sentence but one he goes on to say: “When
the assumed sense of being separate seems to
collapse, already there is only the constant
and unknowable wonder of being.” But this
is precisely what ‘enlightenment’ is!!
This is one way to describe it (in words, by
the way, Tony!). It’s probably not the
best description I’ve heard, but it’s
not too bad. So why Tony berates Dennis for trying
to describe (in words) what ‘enlightenment’ is
when he clearly does so himself, in addition
to also saying that there is no such thing as ‘enlightenment’,
is puzzling to say the least. There are ‘two’ inconsistencies
here which I’m sure even Tony can see now
they’ve been pointed out. Tony has already
proved that he can count to ‘two’ so
he shouldn’t have a problem here. It’s
quite clear! He is clearly contradicting himself
on ‘one’ count and on the other (‘two’)
indulging in an inconsistency by berating Dennis
for describing ‘enlightenment’ when
he himself clearly does so. Extraordinary! And
Dennis, of course, Tony insinuates, is clearly
unreasonable in using words for the description.
Well, what else is he supposed to use exactly?
Semaphore? Paint? Ballet dancing? An intelligent
arrangement of shopping trolleys? Musical notes
tapped out on the nearest ‘dream seeker’s’ apparent
teeth? …? For goodness sake, Tony! Be
a little reasonable, at least!
Tony goes on to say that the “Open Secret
illuminates the myth of separation and points
to that which can’t be known.” Just
stating that separation is a myth is not particularly
illuminating for most people. As Tony has previously
agreed and stated clearly himself, the ‘separate
self’ state is a “powerful energetic
state”, quote. Mere ‘Tony talk’ is
not going to do that much good! A powerful consistent
Traditional Advaitic practice such as Self-Enquiry
coupled with a deep analysis of false notions
and conditionings is more likely to result in
the direct knowledge or experiential cognition
of the myth of separation. There is a difference
between the mere intellectual statement and apprehension
of this and its direct Realisation. It’s
the difference between being in a dark cave viewing
pictures of a sunlit garden luxurious with flowers,
and actually being there intimately enjoying
its radiance and its intoxicating aromas! Mere ‘exchange
of ideas’ or the type of absolutist pronouncements
that we see from Tony’s so-called Open
Secret perspective do not illuminate in any real
sense. Real illumination comes from the type
of consistent practice and deep analysis I’ve
already mentioned.
And, also, I would like to know, what is the
point of just pointing to that which can’t
be known? What’s the point in just pointing?
How is that helpful or useful? What’s the
point? “Hey, everybody, in that direction
there’s something that can’t be known!
Really! Well, thank you so much. Glad you pointed
that out. That’s so helpful in breaking
down the myth of separation and establishing ‘individual
absence’. Cool! By the way, nice bit of
pointing! As ‘apparent communicators’ go,
Tony, you’re the tops when it comes to
pointed – or should that be pointless – pointing!”
Also, in his ‘not two-ness’ piece,
Tony says that the “Open Secret perception
is that there is no such thing as a ‘mind’.” Well,
here again we have another blatant contradiction.
On his website he states that his feeling in
relation to self-observation (Self-Enquiry both
implied and misrepresented!) is that it is just
the ‘mind watching the mind’. So
here he is quite happy to accept the existence
of the ‘mind’ in stark contrast to
his official ‘Open Secret perception’ that
there is no such thing as a ‘mind’.
Teensy-weensy contradiction, possibly? Or pretty
damn blatant, more like! If Tony was playing
in a football game and the existence of the ball
was dependent on his confused and changing perception
the game would soon descend into a type of farce
as the ball would be constantly appearing and
disappearing. It seems that Tony is quite happy
to accept the existence of the ‘mind’ when
it suits him and then deny its existence when
it doesn’t. Well, of course, with this
type of ‘thinking’ you can prove
or disprove anything. One could even say that
it’s a type of ‘thinking’ that
is ‘prior to all intelligence, yet seemingly
eternally with us – [weary sigh!]’. “Red
card!” [one] “Ref, send him off!” [two]
Also, how on earth can the ‘mind watch
the mind’? Does this idea make any actual
sense or is it just nonsensical ‘anti Self-Enquiry’ propaganda
to fool the undiscerning and to toe the ‘Neo’ party
line? The ‘mind’, according to the
direct evidence of what’s actually experienced,
is a type of functioning and is not a type of ‘entity’ like
a box or a ‘ghost’… etc. Thoughts
come and go in the ‘Awake Space’,
so to call it, of this Consciousness that is
always unchangingly present. So it’s clear
that the real ‘Watcher’ or ‘Seer’ of
anything is Being or Consciousness itself. So
Tony’s idea of the ‘mind watching
the mind’ is therefore what is technically
known as complete and utter hogwash! It’s
like saying that a series of objects coming and
going can somehow see themselves coming and going.
Sheer silliness! Objects cannot see themselves.
They cannot be their own subject. In relation
to any and all objects there is only one Seer.
One Seer in all beings, as it has been said.
Continuing, Tony, in his piece, complains that
Dennis has misrepresented so-called ‘neo
Advaitins’ (Tony himself implied, of course!)
in his various works. He speaks of Dennis’ “prejudiced
portrayal” …etc. Well, I found this
comment extraordinary coming from a master misrepresenter
such as Tony! Tony Parsons is a man who is supremely
qualified to give master classes when it comes
to the subject of misrepresentation and “prejudiced
portrayals.” We only have to look to his
own writings and previous discussions with his
critics to see (and be amazed!) by the gross
distortions and gross misrepresentations that
Tony only too happily engages in when representing
other ‘perspectives’ to his own.
In fact, his uncompromising and absolutist type
of Advaita, from the evidence, actually seems
to use ‘gross misrepresentation’ as
a type of weapon to discredit every other form
of Advaita around as none of them coincide with
his own rather narrow blinkered absolutist point-of-view.
It’s actually a type of intolerance. Only
my ‘perspective’ is right …etc.
Well, it’s all very well to complain
about “prejudiced portrayals” …etc
but where is the evidence that Dennis has misrepresented ‘neo
Advaitins’? Tony hasn’t given any
examples. He just states this. Now, on the other
hand, when it comes to Tony’s misrepresentations
of Dennis and Traditional Advaita examples and
evidence abound! He puts all sorts of words into
Dennis’ mouth by asserting that Dennis
believes and confirms this and that …etc.
And when we look at what Dennis is supposed to
believe and confirm it turns out to be a highly
distorted and “prejudiced portrayal” of
Dennis’ and Traditional Advaita’s
actual position. For example, Dennis apparently “confirms
his belief and experience in the reality of the
constant existence of an individual with free
will and the ability to choose and bring about
consequence.” I doubt very much whether
Dennis would confirm this. I suspect he would
confirm that this is in fact a distortion and
misrepresentation of his view. I suspect further
that he would say and confirm the same in relation
to Tony’s other distorted representations
of his position. Also, to represent Traditional
Advaita as a teaching about “what should
be” is again another example of Tony’s
silly (and somewhat sly, in this case) misrepresentations.
As Tony provides no verifiable evidence to
back up and support his beliefs and opinions – he
just makes statements and pronouncements! – isn't
his own 'perspective' just a "complex collection
of ideas", to use the very same words he
uses to dismiss Traditional Advaita? His 'perspective'
is just beliefs, opinions and ideas of an absolutist
flavour. Where's the evidence to back it up?
At least more 'down-to-earth' systems like Traditional
Advaita (and others) can be tested! Tony's mere
'pie-in-the-sky' absolutist intellectualisms
cannot. His 'talks' are just that – 'talks'!
A juggle of absolutist ideas and non-empirical
pronouncements. They change little of substance
and have little effect. "Much ado about
nothing." Indeed! Tony's quote from Shakespeare
sums up for me his ‘perspective’ and
the whole of the Neo-Advaita 'perspective' in
general.
[Postscript: I notice Tony has put his ‘not
two-ness’ piece on his website. I also
notice that there is no mention of Dennis’ response!
In all fairness, he should at least put a link
to Dennis’ reply so any given reader can
decide for themselves the relative merits of
both perspectives. Dennis to his credit on his
website gives a voice to all the differing perspectives
even if they are not in agreement with his own.
One website strikes me as a form of propaganda
intolerant to all other perspectives. And the
other while representative of a certain Traditional
point-of-view strikes me as open and tolerant
and able to debate the issues in a fair and reasonable
way. Tony, take note!]
Alan Stoltz, August 2008
Return to list of topics in Discourses by Teachers and Writers .
See the list sorted by Topic.
See the list sorted by Author.
|