--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" <l_b_shriver@>
> wrote:


> Thanks LB. And its nice to have you back on FFL. (new.morning = akasha
> = omg, from past lives, if the style and themes were not a tip off.)


Thank you, Richard. (Hope you don't mind me using your name as listed in the 

I am trying to minimize my participation here, mostly for pragmatic reasons 
having to do 
with availability of time and energy. Therefore I will be limiting my 
responses, somewhat. 
Instead of trying to respond to every point raised, I will just hit the ones 
where I think I 
have something useful to contribute, and will not be just adding to the 
rhetoric and 
polemics. If you feel I've shorted you on some significant point, however, 
please feel free 
to draw it to my attention. 

Previously I said:

> > The 108 pieces of darshan in the Upadesh Amrit collection represent
> only a fragment of 
> > Guru Dev's public discourses. Strung together, they would amount to
> a couple of hours, at 
> > most. Nevertheless, I believe they represent the wholeness of his
> teaching, and represent 
> > it accurately.

You replied:

> I take your word on it. But are there reasons also one might not come
> to such a conclusion. If so, can you elaboate. On both sides.


By "wholeness" here I am referring to that elusively quality that tells you, 
This is the Whole 
Thing, the Real Thing. It's that quality that makes you feel more awake when 
you have 
come into contact with it. Some of the discourses in the Upadesh Amrit 
collection have a 
somewhat pedestrian quality, perhaps, from the point of view of some of the 
intellects who post here, but others are almost startling in their depth and 
Taken together, the wholeness contained therein is unmistakable, in my opinion. 
may disagree.

My confidence in the authenticity comes from two fundamental sources: First, 
provenance of the texts, which is historically established. Second, it is also 
well known that 
Brahmanandaji was not much concerned with anything amounting to what we would 
political correctness. Everything that has been reported about his life 
indicates that he was 
so absorbed in realization that he cared nothing for mere opinions. He was an 
embodiment of truth. For him, truth was known through the shastras and through 
realization. He had no room in his life for anything else.

I continued:

> > It has previously been pointed out that Brahmanandaji's teachings
> were somewhat 
> > conditioned by historical and cultural conditions of his time and
> place. As New Morning 
> > has pointed out in a different context, perhaps we could all benefit
> by considering the 
> > limitations we bring to interpreting them.
> > 
> > Also, with regard to those who feel especially close or intimate 
> > relationship with 
> > Brahmanandaji in this lifetime, 
You brought up the following counterpoints which are interleaved with my 
> And ironically, one thing MMY has "whispered" to entire large courses,
> is that, paraphrsing "I do not communicate with you in visions. Guru
> Dev does not communicate with you in visions."  He did, in such
> lectures, and at other times, point out that various "entities" (like
> astral entities -- my words) can take the form of anything in visions
> and even "real life" and trick people. He always said, "If I need to,
> I will communicated with you by phone."

> > I would offer one small suggestion: We have seen so many 
> > examples wherein the guru whispers one thing into the ear of the 
> > disciple at his right 
> > hand, and something entirely different to the disciple at his left. 
> [Taking MMY as a  guru who has whispered,] if he whispered it to each,
> how would we know it was different? We only know by different accounts
> of what each staff said he/she heard. Thats several layers removed
> from what MMY may actually have said to each. 
> The advanced technique "confusion" is a good example of this possibly
> distortional layering. (As is the parlor game "telephone".) Even in
> something as important as advanced technique instruction, it may be
> that people's "inner knowledge of what was "meant" -- filtered by
> "knowledge" of what should be, clouds the actual instructions conveyed.
> > Would it have been 
> > different with Guru Dev? Do we know for sure, one way or the other?
> If we are confident 
> > that Guru Dev speaks to us directly, that is fine, 
> But is contrary to what MMY told 1000's at a time. Its odd IF he would
> whisper something else to some others. But in cases on this forum, I
> don't think MMY whispered anything to anyone. So its a student
> interpreting something as happening that MMY said would never happen. 
> But its a delicate area. IMO, IME, things like puja are clear
> attunement with "holiness". To use others' terms, its like a clear
> transmission of that state lived by saints (of the tradition).
> But thats different from talking to physical forms. (That MMY said
> explicitly were imposters.)
> Then again... 
> > but we should keep in mind: This is what 
> > he says to me. What he says to another is none of my business.
> Yes. IF he said something, a HUGE if, given MMY's caveats, it certanly
> does not necessarily apply to anyone else. Not that I recall such
> universality claims being made on FFL, but this sort of thing has
> caused a lot of confusion in centers. 
> (And MMY's wrath (quite different from personal anger), when he got
> word of it. He had no tolerance for people making claims about what he
> said or meant, or GD, via visions.)


Your points are well taken. But don't forget. In Guru Dev's biographies we have 
of his miraculous, extra-normal appearances to devotees, including those who 
never met 

In Varmaji's version, we have the story of Guru Dev instructing him 
(paraphrased): If you 
can't be near me when questions come up don't worry. Sit in front of my picture 
and ask, 
and the guidance will come.

I agree in principle that skepticism of certain kinds of reports is warranted, 
for a variety of 
well-established reasons, most of which you have enumerated at one time or 

On the other hand: for a variety of well-established reasons, most of which you 
enumerated at one time or another, one cannot just dismiss out-of-hand any 
possibility in 
the realm of the truly great masters.

When I feel the skepticism arise, I have learned to check in and see who is 
being skeptical. 
If I find the voice that is saying, "No, I am the devoted one, you can't have 
more intimate 
experiences than I do," then whatever shred of integrity I can locate in that 
moment forces 
me to drop the issue.



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