L B, As always, I feel both better informed and more sure of where I stand for having heard from you. Thanks.
** --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "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/
