--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "Mr. Magoo" <wgm4u@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > In the intro to Love and God, p. 11, with reference to Guru
Dev,
> > > Maharishi says "We only pray Him to keep on guiding us,"
implying
> > > that he considers Guru Dev to still be playing a active role
from
> > > wherever he is.
> >
> > MMY says, "We only pray...", he doesn't say he IS!! MMY may or
may
> > not know, or it may be presumptous for him to say. Whether Swami
> > Brahmananda took on a 'Bodhisattva' role in the governence of the
> > Universe is speculative at best and CLEARLY has nothing to do
with
> > 'awareness' spoken of in the puja!
>
> Have you ever heard Maharishi admit to the possibility
> of someone who is enlightened dying and taking on a
> 'Bodhisattva' role? I sure haven't. I remember one long
> lecture in which he went on and on and on saying that
> the *only* possibility for what happens to an enlight-
> ened being when they die is that "the drop returns to
> the ocean," and he said definitely in that talk (in
> response to several direct questions) that there was
> *no* possibility of an enlightened being ever incarnating
> again in any form -- human or subtle.
>
> Now I don't personally believe this, but that's what the
> man said. But then he has waffled on many subjects before,
> so it's possible that he later recanted and allowed for
> there being more possibilities than the one he was adamant
> about in that talk. Has anyone here ever heard Maharishi
> speak of anything other than "the drop returns to the
> ocean" model?
>
> I'm mentioning it because if no one has, then Jim's claim
> to have "met" Guru Dev would seem to imply that Maharishi
> was...uh...wrong.
>
> Either that or it's possible that Jim was...uh...wrong,
> and what he "met" was the aftereffects of one of his
> burger and margarita feasts. :-)
>
lol! I don't see things after drinking- to each his own. As to what
Maharishi said, one of the brilliant things about him is that he
always speaks appropriately according to his audience. Why should he
go into details that folks like you don't have a hope of
comprehending?
