--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_couscous_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > OK. Maybe I am not following all the thread. Small and perhaps > > unimportant point, but I still didnt see Vaj saying that in satsangs > > he has heard people say "I am enlightened and you are not". > > I didn't actually say that he said it. I just used it as an example, > that satsang is not about their own aggrandizing their experiences. > While Vajs point was all about that they couldn't be enlightened, my > point is that in the teaching itself, the distinction between > enlightenment and ignorance is not stressed, so that possible > attainment of the teacher is not th focal point of discussion, but > rather the knowledge, or truth itself. I think this is the point Vaj > has missed.
OK. > He said, > > as I understood in his view, people he has observed, from afar, in > > satsang, did not meet classic criteria. > > He means to say that they don't meet classical test of their own > enlightenment, but thats an idea he got from Buddhism or Tantra, not > the Advaita tradition itself. Besides that, Satsang doesn't imply that > there is an enlightened teacher. So its all besides the point. Satsang > means listen, discussing the Truth together, and of course making > awakening possible thereby. And that's pure Upanishadic teaching, as I > showed. The point is: Nobody here objects if someoe reads the same > phrases in the Upanishads, or the Avadhut Gita or Ribhu Gita, but if a > Satsang teacher dares to say it, he is frowned upon. Thats the point i am not gettting. I don't observe anyone frowning on the process of satsang -- whether classic, neo, FF, or FFL . I see some cautions about groupthink, peer inducements to "testify", grandiose claims building on themselves, apparent confusion and "mixing" views of dual and non-dual states, and the apparent quick and unexplained jump from consciousness being aware of itself to Brahman Consciousness. > > > Anyway, I'll let Vaj clarify > > what he said, heard, heard only on a subtle plan, transmitted but did > > not speak, did not hear, or did not speak. :) > > Okay, of course :-) > > > > As I recall, MMY said enlightenment was also one of the criteria. Or > > something like "knowledge of the vedas and direct experience of thier > > reality." But its a bit vague in my memory. > > > > I had a personal audience with the S. of Puri,the prior one. I did not > > sense a great darshan, but that does not mean much. > > > > I also had a small group audience with the S. of Kanchi where he > > performed a wonderful puja. The one that is now in jail. I was more > > impressed by him, but not overwhelmed. Again, these are superfical > > impressions. > > He isn't anymore. That is Jayendra Saraswathi. I saw the younger one, > Vijayendra, and was equally unimpressed. ;-) The one who's samadhi is > there, the Paramacharya was indeed a Jivanmukthi. He's the one who > directed Paul Brunton to Ramana. He was still alive when I was at the math, but in seclusion. I would have liked to have his direct darshan. >>>>Though, to me, the better parts of FFL, which > > have not manifested much in the last several years, are both a sharing > > of eperiences, and View(s), a respectful yet deep inquiry into them. > > Something along live satsang lines as I understand it. 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/