--- 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.

> 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

> > 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:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to