--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" <l_b_shriver@> > wrote:
snip > 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 Members directory.) 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 sophisticated intellects who post here, but others are almost startling in their depth and directness. Taken together, the wholeness contained therein is unmistakable, in my opinion. Others may disagree. My confidence in the authenticity comes from two fundamental sources: First, the 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 call 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 comments below: > 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." > snip > > 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 examples of his miraculous, extra-normal appearances to devotees, including those who never met him. 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 another. On the other hand: for a variety of well-established reasons, most of which you have 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. Ciao, L B S 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/
