HP: I will do my best to respond. If you want insight into my Guru by reading, then all of what Ramana has to say is the same my Guru would say. My Guru's last guru that apointed my Guru as Guru, was commissioned to be a guru by Poonjaji. In addition, my Guru's Guru had 3 tantric masters and his father was an enlightened being
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru > will say "this one" > > Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say "I'. Saying "this one" all > the time is ridiculous!.. HP: My guru does not say "this one" all the time, and I am sure that all the gurus you mentioned dont say "I" all the time either > > > replacing the word "I", the other Gurus in my path do the same. My > Guru said that > > speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the "me" > is gone and there is > > Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor. HP: Considering that my Guru is enlightened and has brought 2 others this past year so far to enlightenment, referring to my Guru as absurd is not only absurd but VERY IGNORANT, in my opinion. > > > > nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I > and me, but in general in > > my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as > persona but as > > consciousness > > Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making? HP: When a Guru brings 2 to enlightenment in one year, why they engage in certain methodologies is not important, and certainly if a student ( I realize you are not) needs to ask why, they are in the wrong place thMMY > doesn't caution people in that manner. HP: ok, then question this since it is apparent that there are none conming to realization there Your Guru is an oddball. HP: Some people may call you an asshole but I certainly won't. I am a really calm guy. I will cast my opinion though and say that deep down, you know this is not the right thing to do, telling a disciple that their guru is an oddball. I could go into depth in responding to this but no need really. > > > > Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my > opinion before, when they > > use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the > same time referring to > > the individual I, then this is dellusion. > > Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the "I" > word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis. Are you > saying these people are not Enlightened? HP: My Guru has also used the "I " word on many occasions. saying the above are enlightened or not is not based on this. > > > > Since there is no "Me", then when they use this, they are > referenceing something other- I > > think this is understood by many or most here. > > Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum > said there WAS a false "Me" or "I". HP: I think you may have meant to phrase this line a bit better Besides, what's so special about > that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying > this for thousands of years. HP: It is not that it is special, it is more that even though it is in the scriptures and said by sages for thousands of years, it still continues to be in place- so again, the fallacy that a me gains enlightenment is very much in the forefront. My Guru's comments speaking FROM BEING is " I just tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever" . Your general response is to call her an odd ball- so it seems indirectly that you will stick with you thought, understanding or whatever it is- and insist that the me is there. Can you go to your guru and get insights on this? HP: I have my guru, and this is the inspiration in what i write. Progress is looking good here for me and the other disciples. I dont mind responding but if you had the name calling like this such as odd ball, then my odd ball Guru would show you the door very quickly. What my path is about is transparency, honesty, integrity and respect. > > > > The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- > "the fallacy is that a > > "me" becomes enlightened > > Nobody every said a "me" becomes Enlightened. Stop confusing the > issues. As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as > a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in > which case the individuals REPORT that they "became" Enlightned; > realized the innate, "prior", pure Consciousness of the Self. > Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the > obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) > removed, the false "me" obviously cannot exist. > However, the "I" or "me" as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta > Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the > delusion of separateness. HP: I guess we can call it a paradox, and limitation with the use of words but again part of this paradox is refleected in the quote I mentioned where my guru told someone right in front of me "I tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever" > For example, Rory states that he realized the Self at some > particular time (I forgot the year, 2001?) HP:Yogananda was confirmed enlightened by his Guru, My guru by her Guru, Her Guru by his Guru. HP: MMY was not, sri sri ravi shankar was not. It takes some deep investigation, then the truth comes out > Adi Da says he realized the Self in 1970 while at the Vedanta Temple > in Hollywood. HP: I think he also says he is a unique incarnation special than any other? He is the greatest of his kind to ever come along in history > Ramakrishna says he realized the Self after getting initiated by a > Brahmin in some non-dualist school. > Ramana says he realized the Self on 7-17-1896. > Lakshmana, a disciple of Ramana, claims he realized the Self (I > believe in 1949); at which time shortly thereafter, he handed a note > to Ramana saying "I have realized the Self". > HWL Poonja says he realized the Self while in the presence of Ramana > Maharshi. > Obviously, the Realization the Self implies that the "I" acting as an > entity apparently separate from the Self had vanished, being a total > delusion. Nobody is disputing that! HP: Really? there are people here claiming enlightenment and yet the me, mind , body identification is quite in place Thus, that "I" can't realized > the Self since it was a delusional entity. > > So what is meant by such persons when they say "I have realized the > Self". HP: The veil has been removed and only the core essence is there The meaning is simply that (as reported by some aspect of the > individual as a body/mind)....; btw, you will agree that the above > persons reported that they had realized the Self. This is a matter > of record. HP: They said it and if it is actualized, then it is their reality To continue, the meaning is that the obscurations to the > self-evident nature Pure Consciousness had VANISHED. HP: yes, the veil is removed However, some > aspect of the body/mind reported on that event. > Though there is no separate entity that can realize the Self, there > is a part of the body/mind that can report on the fact of the > Realization in apparent space-time. HP: My guru would explain that it just 'IS", then life flows. consciousness knows what to do. Just as a plant has consciousness, it knows what to do, it does not have to think > Therefore, your Guru's statements are only partially correct. HP: words are not IT, on IT IS- perfection is there at the absolute, the relative has it checks and balances and other stuff > If he wants to go around saying "this person" or whatever, in place > of the "I" word, so be it. HP: I understand why it is done and tried to explain it, and I think many can relate to it. The Dalai Lama acts like an ordinary > person, on the surface. HP: My Guru is so ordinary that this is a turnoff for the vast majority. It is because she is down to earth and will not hand out ego candy. If an organization is big, it has become aparent to me that most likely this can only happen by handing out ego candy and giving the people what they want and not necessarily what they need. In my path here, this is the opposite, one gets what they need and not necessarily what they want. Because my Guru would rather walk away from it all that sell out to this, it seems this is a reason that there are only about 20 disciples, even though the door is open at present for all He uses the "I" word, does he not? HP: Probably not all the time, but more significant and telling than weather he uses I or whatever, I was in Dharamsala, his head quaters last summer. there are begging leppars in need right there and it is obvios that there is no asistance offered to them from the buddists, it is the tourists aiding them. These people are truly in need and this is a case where an offering would be great karma. Aren't the buddists billed as the great compassionate ones? Go there and see for yourself
