he is a she..... --- purushaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we > have to go over > this? In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer > of Shakti from > the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the > disciple. Therefore, > the "me" in that context refers to the body, (and of > course all of > attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend > or not). > Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed > to other > persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course > of conversation, > may say "I", and "me" often. > Nobody is saying there's a delusional false "I" or > "me" that your Guru identifies with. If he's > Enlightened, then > there's no such false "I"; however, there's still a > body, mind, > actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social > interactions; ....etc; all of which make up the "I" > that separates > your Guru from other people. You will agree that > your Guru is not > MMY, correct? > Refer to "Prior to Consciousness", the transcribed > statements of > Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31. > The disciple asks, "Ramana Maharshi was a great > sage, he was unknown > in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in > English about him, > everybody went to see him and he became well known" > > MAHARAJ: "I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was > discovered by Paul > Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman". > So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, > Nisargadatta Maharaj, we > have the use of "I" twice in two lines, proving > there is an "I"; > (since, obviously), this "I" doesn't refer to the > delusional "I" > which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke > that, but rather, > everything - every property, quality, or attribute > that made him an > individual person, as opposed to other persons. > One of those differences between him and RM was > that the latter > was "discovered" by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), > and Maurice > Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj. > Again, hopefully for the last time, the "I" for > Enlightened people > is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of > properties (beginning > with the body(s); that makes up an individual > person, and which > distinguishes that person from others. But most > important, the "I" in > reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a > particular POV, differing > from the POV's of other Gurus. In some cases, the > POV's are closely > allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM. > In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart > Tolle. > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Comment from post:--"But Shakti comes from the > teacher, igniting > the student's Shakti." > > > > HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy > is that a "me" > gains enlightenment. As long > > as there is a me that is there, there is further > to go. Cognitions > belong to those having > > them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet. > > > > Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then > the mind reroots. > Then such comments > > as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, > there is an ego, > then they can be > > forgiven. Well, just because this is the > experience where the mind > rerooted, it is not the > > experience for those enlightened. For those with > this rerooting of > the mind, there is more > > to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner > Guru as the guide, ( > weather as form or > > absolute concept), and one thinks they have > arrived, it is sad > because there is more to go > > but they are not going to hear one word of that. > > > > The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana > Maharishi and all > the great sages of the > > past and now explain from their own existence that > this is the > case, there is no me and > > there never was. The me is ego and it can not > exist in > enlightenment- it is either one or > > the other. > > > > These are the general points from my Guru, and the > other two > recently enlightened echo > > the same independant of one another. > > > > I can only say that I have had the dharshan of > MMY, Mother Meera > and MY Guru. In > > addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as > well as taking it > from a healer and also from > > a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to > compare with. > > > > In my case, it is the most significant with where > I am now, it has > awakened the kundalini, > > and the on going guidance ensures that things are > in balance and > progress is taking place. > > I notice great progress with about 10 fellow > sadakas, it is very > impressive. > > > > The reason that Kundalini is finished in > enlightenment, and the > reason shakti does not > > come from an enlightened teacher is there is no > persona there, Guru > is only consciuous > > > > Hridaya Puri > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
