Shayam Dodge wrote this to critique a Buddhist teacher. But it seems similar
to most guru centered teachings.
I removed the names of the Buddhist teacher whose work is being critiqued by Shayam and replaced that name with "Mooji".
(Corboy note: this teacher has a clean record with zero indication of damaging
meditation talks or practices. I bring this up to illustrate how commonplace these teachings are, whether from a commercial neo advaita guru or a respected Buddhist teacher with a clean record. Anyone seeking to heal from a neo advaita guru by going to a buddhist group needs to be careful that any emotional numbing incurred during ones time in a neo advaita group is not further entrenched by poorly taught buddhistic material)
Read it and see if it matches up.
the entire document can be read here:
[speculativenonbuddhism.com]
Here is an excerpt from this essay with the other teacher's name replaced by Moo.
See if this matches in any way with Moo's teachings.
to most guru centered teachings.
I removed the names of the Buddhist teacher whose work is being critiqued by Shayam and replaced that name with "Mooji".
(Corboy note: this teacher has a clean record with zero indication of damaging
meditation talks or practices. I bring this up to illustrate how commonplace these teachings are, whether from a commercial neo advaita guru or a respected Buddhist teacher with a clean record. Anyone seeking to heal from a neo advaita guru by going to a buddhist group needs to be careful that any emotional numbing incurred during ones time in a neo advaita group is not further entrenched by poorly taught buddhistic material)
Read it and see if it matches up.
the entire document can be read here:
[speculativenonbuddhism.com]
Here is an excerpt from this essay with the other teacher's name replaced by Moo.
See if this matches in any way with Moo's teachings.
Quote
But there are other, more subtle ways in which Moo’s atman-infused metaphysics actually avoids suffering.
His main priority is concerned with poisonous “mental formations” not political or social freedom. In many ways his weird version of non-self is intent upon transcendence (through dissociation from suffering). Moo is not seeking to apply therapy to suffering but to anesthetize the Devotee to external suffering via freedom from “mental formations,” which is eerily similar to his claim that non-self is to be realized independent of intellectual understanding.
Moo’s so-called “freedom from mental formations” combined with his version of non-self reveal the cornerstone of his philosophy: he is seeking a spiritual liberation from the suffering of the world. One that is independent of “mental formations,” of the intellect and “poisonous” emotions. Moo is seeking a transcendent soul. Therefore, his philosophy is concerned with dissociating from the intellect, from the emotions, from the real world conditions of suffering in order to touch a greater truth.
Moo’s ideology constructs a particular type of citizen: one more concerned with their internal reality than an external one. The devotee, in this sense, self-regulates, self-medicates (or meditates) in order to alleviate their psychic suffering regardless of the social reality they live in. This vision of the dharma prefers anesthesia over social change, the numbing of pain over addressing the real conditions of suffering. Moo’s version of Moo’s teaching seeks to make the subject into a non-reactive, non-discriminating, non-jealous, metta-inspired citizen: A Devotee who abdicates their passion in favor of an ascetic non-participatory attitude, without actually leaving society. A kind of Devotee zombie. It makes the Devotee into a ‘good citizen,’ subservient to authority (or in Moo’s language “seniority”).