> > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > Too bad Robin, how gullible you could be. > > > > > > Maharishi wanted both the markets, the 'personal god market' > > > and the 'impersonal God market'. > > > > > > He did this basicaly to draw in the typical westerner who > > > has a 'protestant background'. > > > > > > Maharishi is an abberation in the field of Vedanta which > > > clearly emphasises that the entire creation is impersonal > > > and it's now evident through Science as well. > > > > > > --- "Robert" <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > 'Firstly, Let Us Provide a Context for this Discussion'... > > > > What are you talking about, when you say, 'Personal God' and 'Impersonal > > God'... > > > > My experience is that of the Atma, being 'All That There Is'... > > When you finally transcend the 'Intellect' and the 'Ego' there becomes the > > possibility of 'Seeing' from the 'ATma'... > > 'Seeing' or 'Cognizing' from the Atma(soul)Itself.... > > > > When you experience the 'Soul Intelf' you 'Realize' that you are no longer > > what you 'Thought You Were'... > > > > You begin to 'See' or 'Cognize' from the 'Witnessing Aspect'... > > > > Being Itself is 'Experienced as the Self'... > > > > You experience the soul itself in that 'Silence'... > > > > So, then you begin to 'Understand' and 'See' from the 'Perspective of Your > > Infinite Soul'... > > > > So, you 'Indentify No Longer' with the 'Small Made-Up Self' of the 'ego'... > > > > The 'Concept of God' begins to be 'Experienced Within' > > As you begin to 'Not Interfer' with the 'Process of Manifestation'... > > > > This 'Means' that 'YOu' experience from the level of 'Self' > > You 'Feel Self' expeanding and expanding out... > > > > From an 'Impulse Within Being Itself' it 'Expands Outward'... > > > > And it goes as far as the 'Flow Provides' from 'Within'... > > > > 'Within Means' 'Going Within' as in 'TM' > > > > Years of 'Going Within' has developed the Dhana Shakti... > > > > That type of 'Energy of that Shakti' which 'Pulls Within'... > > > > So, the 'Self Collapses Back Onto Self'... > > > > This Maharishi Calls 'Self-Referral'... > > > > When you are 'Stabliized in Being' within, all the time... > > > > Then you begin to 'EX;;periance the 'ONeness'... > > > > 'I Am That'...It's all just 'That'.... > > > > The End. > > --- "Robert" <babajii_99@...> wrote: > > Ok, now to finish what I started in 'Terms of Experiencing Brahman > Consciousness'... > > Now, when one is 'Used to Self-Referral' this 'Becomes a Constant Reality'... > > Now, instead of the ''Ego and Intellect'' having 'Control' of your 'Sou;'s > Energy'...the 'Soul Takes Over' and it has it's way with you... > > You begin to ''Experience the Finest Level of Reality'... > How the grass grows, the birds fly the sky looks blue, the wind is invisible, > the 'Thunder Comes and Brings the Rain' (Indra and Vayu)/// > > Now, when we are in 'Self-Referral' and we begin to 'Indentify the Self'' as > 'Atman' as 'Soul' as 'The Witnessor' as 'That Which Animates the Body' as > 'That Which Creates Reality'... > > We begin to 'EXperience a Unity Type of Consciousness' because we are > 'Creating OUt of Bliss Consciousness'... > > It's like the Beatles...you seee it clearly on stage with 'Certain > Performers'...I use this example where it can 'Be Clearly Felt to Be True!)... > > Now when they performed, there was 'This Unmistakable Bliss' imminating from > the Fab 4... > > Now that 'Bliss Created a Reality'... > > When one is in 'Bliss Consciosness' one is creating out of the 'Essence of > Beingness' which would be 'Felt as the Passionate Emotion of Expanding Heart > Felt Love,Love, Love...' > > Now here in lies the 'Unity Consciosness' because when 'ONe Radiates Bliss > and Love' the 'Creation Responds Remarkably yWell'... > > This is why, 'Maharishi Always Looked Like the Universe Was Responding to > Him' in some 'Cosmic Way'... > > It's like his 'Timing Was So Good!'... > > Just when he had been 'Teaching Around the World for 12 Years'.;.. > He was at an 'Interview in London'...saying that he was 'Retreating Back to > India' because 'He Had Done Enough' and the 'People Were Slow to Grasp the > Concept and Experience' he thought they should have... > > Maharishi sounded a bit down and disappointed, in that 'Interview in 1968'... > > So, what happens next is 'History!'... > > 'Here Comes the Sun;' Here comes John Lennon, born 1940, which makes him 28 > years old...here comes Paul, here comes Ringo, and here comes that lovely and > awesome soulful 'Character~George Harrison!)... > > 'Here Comes the Sun'... > > Baba > >
A facinating discourse on spiritual progress Sri.Gimbel-ji. I would like to add to the point you mentioned about fleeting glimpse of bliss we experience in our daily lives. Watching the blue skies, green grass, holding a baby, watching birds fly, watching the sunset, cows returning home in the evening....... The sastras say, this fleeting glimpse of bliss also comes from the Brahman and it's called 'Vibhudhi'. The bliss which you experienced during the Beatles concert is also Vibhudhi. When this bliss becomes permanent, it becomes ananta. > > > > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Raunchydog, > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > As for how "Maharishi beautifully expressed how he > > > > experiences both together" [the personal and the > > > > impersonal God] I would only say this, Raunchydog (that > > > > might as well be your real name, so much personal vitality > > > > and individuation you have invested in itit has become > > > > you: I wonder if your real name has quite the resonance > > > > that Raunchydog now possessesI speak for myself here): *I > > > > know this experience of Maharishi's*, and it is very very > > > > true. This definitely, emphatically, truthfully *was* > > > > Maharishi's experience. He apprehended the co-existence of > > > > the personal and impersonal God in his own beingness. An > > > > extraordinary experience to haveand I lived inside that > > > > same experience (not on the grand scale of Maharishi; but > > > > in principle and empirically it was the same). I would > > > > only say the obvious, Raunchydog: To experience this truth > > > > that the personal and impersonal Gods come together in > > > > one's experienceand I agree that Mahrishi was inspired > > > > when he wrote "Love and God"*does not necessarily make it > > > > a true experience*; that is, an experience which > > > > corresponds with reality, with what really is the case. > > > > When I had this permanent experiencepermanent until I > > > > went at it hammer and tongit was much more real than mere > > > > waking state consciousness, and it seemed to afford one an > > > > extraordinary vantage point in terms of reading reality. > > > > But having deconstructed my enlightenment I can now view > > > > that experience very differently, and recognize that > > > > logically and ontologically it is impossible. God is God. > > > > He is the being that he is. [Assuming he exists; I haven't > > > > been able to find the God that was the object of worship > > > > in the Western traditionThe Eastern (impersonal) God is > > > > alive and well of course, and I didn't have any problem > > > > finding *him*.] > > > > > > > > For me, Raunchydog, the very fact of Maharishi telling us > > > > he is experiencing these different realities > > > > simultaneously, is itself proof that he is deceived. While > > > > it is true that he indeed did, objectively, have this > > > > experienceand this experience came about systematically > > > > and purposefully through his relationship to his Master, > > > > Guru Devthis experience carries no evidence that it > > > > represents realityexcept that Maharishi in his person and > > > > in his performance (in the late sixties and seventies at > > > > least) seemed to give credence to such a state of > > > > consciousness, such a form of experience. But for me, > > > > Raunchydog, there is no impersonal God.That is, if there > > > > ever was a Personal God. An Impersonal God makes the > > > > Crucifixion an act of psychosis, and therefore the entire > > > > tradition of the Christian West a kind of ridiculous > > > > idolatry. Maharishi only finally believed in the > > > > Impersonal Godfor the Absolute always rules the Relative, > > > > and the Personal God for Maharishi dwells in the Relative. > > > > Therefore the Personal God has in some sense eventually to > > > > become the Impersonal God. If there really is a Personal > > > > God there is no Impersonal God. And Maharishi's > > > > experience, however sublimely and authoritatively felt and > > > > lived, is an hallucination. > > > > > > > > But I don't therefore say that it is necessarily fatal or > > > > wrong or false to believe that what Maharishi is > > > > describing here represents the final truth for a human > > > > being. I don't think it really matters for the time being; > > > > but it certainly will mean something when one comes to > > > > experience death. In some sense if there is the Personal > > > > and Impersonal Godboththen, when one comes to die, one > > > > just transcends into the Impersonal God (recognizing that > > > > one is really just thisand if this is the case, then > > > > Death should, in every instance, make this clear, even > > > > bring this about), and therefore realizesjust as this is > > > > happeningone did not ever really exist in a personal > > > > sense. After that moment, of course, one becomes what one > > > > was before one existed. > > > > > > > > Still, love your posts, Raunchydog, but when I say that, I > > > > am experiencing the formal cause of Raunchdogthis, and of > > > > course, the final cause as well. :-) Who you are, > > > > Raunchdog, when you express your judgment of Aristotle and > > > > then Maharishi, this tells me there certainly is a > > > > Personal Godbecause Raunchdog was someone the Personal > > > > God created. I don't get the slightest sense of the > > > > existence of the Impersonal God from my experience of this > > > > post. He is nowhere to be found. No, Raunchydog, you are > > > > all about *the person that you are*; you are nothing about > > > > the Absolute. Your first child that you carried in your > > > > womb, was that child really just the Impersonal God? > > > > > > > > I am vacationing in Florida right now, so you must forgive > > > > me being indulgent here. Blame my efficient cause. > > > > > > > > That would be, that would have to be, the personal God. > > > > > > > > Thanks for this, Raunchydog. And maybe you and Maharishi > > > > are right. But that would make me right once and wrong > > > > now.:-) An interesting thought, that. > > > > > >
