Q: You don't support Rupert Spira and Mooji. But you support Joan Tollifson.
Q: You don't support Rupert Spira and Mooji. But you support Joan Tollifson. On the other hand, Joan Tollifson supports both Rupert and Mooji, as she can be seen sharing their stuff on her Facebook page. What the hell is going on?
A: Simple. Joan Tollifson and Robert Saltzman are different people. Joan likes what she likes, and Robert likes what he likes. No one chooses what to like or dislike. All that arises preconceptually, and then we call the conscious coming to awareness of those preconceptual brain states “me.”
While Joan and I don’t concur on every detail, she and I agree on the basics. Even more than the content of her message, which is already brilliant, I admire Joan's commitment to raw honesty--a rare quality that is a message in and of itself.
Joan knows Rupert as a friend. I don't. I might like him if we met. I am put off by any metaphysical preaching from on high (the teacher knows “Truth” and you don't), and specifically by Rupert’s claim that he has powers of “higher reasoning” that substantiate his beliefs.
Philosophical idealism is one point of view among many, not "Truth," as Rupert asserts. Metaphysical conjectures are not converted into facts simply because someone wants them to be facts and proclaims them to be true. Speaking authoritatively without proper skepticism regarding one’s own beliefs can only confuse and hypnotize listeners.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
—Yeats
Mooji is a different deal entirely. If you have ever allowed someone to kiss your feet (and it's even worse if you held the foot out to have it kissed), I don't want to hear a word you have to say about anything.
I don't swing the Bhakti way, but some people do, and I get that. In my opinion, devotion is better addressed to nature, the universe, or whatever impersonal symbol one likes. Projecting it personally upon a human object is a different matter. Then, the deeply engrained top dog/underdog psychosexual dynamic comes into play.
A romantic affair is one thing. Those idealizations will end naturally as ordinary life impinges upon the honeymoon. But imagining that a human--any human--actually stands in for "God" is, from my perspective, sad. It's a weak-minded misunderstanding of our situation as human primate animals and a dangerous game with deleterious consequences.
But that's my view. Your mileage may vary.
Since I was mentioned, I guess I'll say a few things. First, I am a huge fan of Robert's work, in addition to considering him a dear friend. As he says, we agree on more than we disagree about.
Yes, I like and recommend both Rupert and Mooji, but that doesn't mean I resonate with everything they say or do. The recommended books list on my website includes a hugely diverse group of teachers and authors.
I met Rupert many years ago, before he was teaching, on a retreat with Francis Lucille. In the years since Rupert has been teaching, we've had a few in person conversations when we were in the same place, we've exchanged a few emails, we shared a meal once at a SAND conference, and we certainly have a friendly collegial relationship, but I wouldn't describe us as personal friends.
I met Mooji in person once, early in his teaching career, at a small private gathering in Chicago. He was very down to earth and warm-hearted. I felt great love from him, and I was moved by what he said. We've had contact a few times since and I've listened to many of his talks online. I find his essential message very clear and powerful. I recommend him for the clarity of the message and the love I feel from him and around him.
Yes, Mooji does teach in the Hindu guru style of his teacher, Papaji, and it's not my style by any means, but I'm not as put off by it as many Westerners are, probably because I do have a devotional bhakti streak. (I love Rumi, for example, while Robert does not). Feet kissing is a thing in India, and my sense is that Mooji tries to dissuade people from doing it. In fact, people are asked not to do it, but some do it anyway, and Mooji accepts it gracefully when they do. So, while I can't imagine letting anyone kiss my feet, it doesn't bother me that much when it happens with Mooji. He is physically affectionate with both men and women, young and old. Offstage, Mooji seems to hang out with his devotees in a casual way, albeit he is clearly looked upon as the guru by his followers. Anyway, I love him, and I don't see him the way Robert does, although I do see the dangers in the guru style of teaching, and it isn't my way..
I agree with Robert that Rupert presents his understanding and perspective (philosophical Idealism) as a fact, and for me, it is a possibility and not a certainty. I greatly appreciate, resonate with and share Robert's epistemological humility in such matters. But I don't see Rupert playing the guru in the way Mooji does. I haven't been to any of Rupert's retreats, but I would guess that, like his teacher Francis, Rupert hangs out with everyone in a casual way outside the talks. I find him very clear and his expression very beautiful and primarily experiential in focus, all of which I appreciate.
Like Rupert, I even have a Christian streak. I resonate with the word God. But at heart, I'm about the simplicity of just being here in this moment, appreciating the beauty and the wonder in what is, and not needing any metaphysical explanations or certainties.
I support William Butler Yeats. :)