Michael: but then for me it does not have to be one-to-one. this is the difference between us: while this is a way i am going myself, i acknowledge that for many others it is different. you seem to insist by asking: 1) is it one-to-one 2) is it a satguru, that this is the only way, and that makes you dogmatic
Tanmay: All possibilities are there but I am promoting a concept - those 2 things- one to one and sat Guru. No one is forced to buy into this, but maybe it was never heard of before or thought possible or practical. I am delivering a message that yes, this is available right where you are ( you means anyone reading this). There is also more than one Guru doing this. Again, I am in this one to one relationship- it doesn't matter if it meets your definitions. However, even the definition the way you are describing it is possibe. Can also be a nice excuse to walk away from the whole thing- and I am not accusing you of this but what can be done here is lay out this ideal one to one that is the only one to one- then this is also dogmatic, then exclude yourself from the whole thing because you dont have the money to do this. All this does is get caught up in words which are simply unnecessary for me because at this moment, there is no need for me to say more than - I am in this one to one relationship, the Guru is right here guiding, if anyone would like to correct the methodologies of how my Guru is operating- you have the contact info- go there and do it. Regarding the transmissions- they speak for themselves. They come in all shapes and sizes, I only know my own, who ever has them from where ever they have them- you know them for yourself as well. There is a file I uploaded in the audio section where MMY talks about his transmissions with Gurudev Michael: then wy bother about a guru giving people the sadhana of staying in the right vastu? if the guru knows best what means to employ, why critizes gurus at all? why this double standard, one for your guru, all devotion and surrender, then for your ex-guru all criticism? you have to be consistent yourself. Tanmay: Some people have one Guru, some have many in their journey. That was Swami G's comments, she had 4. If you leave one and go to another, then isn't that almost automatically putting down the past one in some way? For that particular sadaka, it was like going from 8th grade to 9th- so the 9th grade is higher, but it doesnt mean not to honor what was gained from the 8th, but also while on one hand honoring the 8th, it can be picked apart and looked at what was lacking which is now here in the 9th. Notice I mentioned for that particular sadaka because for another sadaka, it may be entirely different as that guru can be the one and only where the enlightenement came about. So where is the higher path for that sadaka? If you are with a Guru and at the same time are picking apart the methodology, and it is not comfortable for you- I think that is odd. Don't you think that if one is not simply playing with spirituality, if this is the situation, then shouldn't it be time to move on and find the Guru where one can surrender to the process? It is the ego being surrendered. Ego is identification with mind, body, that which you are not Michael: that it going well for you is nice, and congrats, but that doesn't mean it is one to one. i'll keep to my old-fashioned definition Tanmay: There is no only one way either with "One to One". A sadaka coming here willing to work one to one as they have in mind, would have it fulfilled if that is what is needed. Over here, you get what you need, which may not be necessarily what you want. All the sadakas here are offered one to one- as was the traditional way it was done. Up to each sadaka to take the benefits from the Guru, the Guru is not going to chase after you. My status is I am working one to one with Swami G and I am coming along in my journey. As seva, I write about my experiences sometimes. Swami G asked one thing of me in this regard- be honest. For this aspect of seva, Swami G said you have the experiences and write about it. She also explained the purpose for other sadakas to read the experiences- as I recall one was that the sadakas can see what they have and don't have. Maybe other explanations were made, I dont recall them at the moment. Michael: yeah, and now the clever ego is even proud of that. amazing this ego isn't it? ;-) Tanmay: Swami G said either enlightened or not. Swami G also responded when one asked - so is it just the ego going? swami G replied - Just the ego? so it is not a small thing. If it is either enlightenemnet or not, then looks to me like it is either ego is there or not. I am not claiming enlightenment- so that tricky ego has got me, I have heard how cleaver it is. I brought up the ego with Swami G and she said she will take care of that. I think I said that I will watch it- I forget exactly what I said. Michael: i am glad you say it, its also not what i mean. but in many ways you say exactly this to others here: do you have this kundalini that i have, do you have a satguru that i have, do you have a one-to-one relationship with him/her that i have. so you are putting people in a competition. Tanmay: Now lets not get negative here- ahhahaa. What if it is my ego? hahaha - You know it really is sort of like that, isn't it- hey look at me, my kundalini is awake- is yours? I have a sat guru and I am working one to one- are you? and I am just getting started here, let me tell you all the other stuff in my life. Sounds like I may get a whoopin ( ever hear that over in deutchland?) If I were enlightened, maybe I would have had a better approach. We are told - actually I brought up what Mother Meera said- the problem is we think we are special- the reality is no one is special and we are not chosen. This is a delicate thing to deliver I suppose, but there is not deep thought going into any of this. It is almost bragging again to explain how this memory is drowned out, and there is like this flow of being in the present, so writting this, it is coming out- it is so hard to explain what I am trying to say here, I am talking about an experience of what is actually taking place as I am writting this. This is not about sitting in comitties, discussing how we can make a better approach next time- I start writting, mostly it is a final draft ffirst time around- no editing- write and send- had no idea it was going to be a big or small letter Michael: no, this is again the indian-words-play. you do the same thing that you always did, defending what you think is the right spritual path, only one year ago it was tm now it is swami g. not that anything changed in that. before you said: maharishi said, now you say: swami g. says. before it was your self-interest or confusion, while now it is called seva. don't get me wrong, it is of course okay for you to be here and discuss, but to call it seva is rubbish. Tanmay: I haven't given it deep thought- you can call it something else, not insulted here. Things are just so different for me- it may sound so weird to try to explain but like I am blocked from digging into to past, also it doesn't hold much interest. Your description of "me" then, and now, and the comparison- ok, whatever you say- ah, just thought of something- Swami G was explaining how the personality comes right with you in enlightenemt- maybe you can tie that in with your comments about meeeeeeeee. You know, there is a lot of laughter in the path- weather TM or whichever. Michael: definitely not the case with me. evangelisation is not part of he path i belong to, and viewing a discussion like this as seva - no, no way. seva is hanging around the construction site, doing actual work, not convincing others or getting into intellectual disputes - this is more entertainment perhaps. posting a link to a video is more like sharing, but no idea of convincing. this is very very different from my path. Tanmay: Seva comes in all shapes and sizes- people contribute in their areas they know, like , have afinity or abundance with- but this brings up swami G's comments about Seva. As I recall, she said that when the sadaka does seva, it is not that the guru needs anything, but rather while the sadaka is living and working around the Guru, the transmissions are taking place , so this is a great benefit for the sadaka. It is natural for the sadaka to further his guru's teachings. Wouldn't it be dogmatic to specify what is seva as it fits one's own concept? Like I am a builder, my seva is the real significant thing- your seva of pulling weeds doesnt hold a candle compared to how great mine is? In fact here is a list of what is considered seva, and what is fun? hahaha- this is getting good- should I break the bad news to my Guru that what I thought was seva has now been labeled as fun and games , therefore I am all bummed out now for what i thought was seva is no longer because someone told me so? Micheal: maybe its just the way you were brought up, but you keep repeating the same phrases in a dogmatic way, and you seem to think that things have to be a certain way, for example one has to have a satguru, and one has to have a one-to-one relationship. thats called dogma in my eyes, and i don't see what the difference is to saying that tm is the best meditation method, or that the me will bring about worldpeace. its all the same dogmatic thinking. Tanmay: However you label it- but yes, I am promoting those 2 things i suppose, it just came up while writing- I am in the middle of it- if you view it from the outside , there may be other things I am doing and not paying attention to. Swami G has brought up the issue about a Guru, and how popular it is for people to gravitate to I don't need a Guru, I can do it on my own like Ramana- I think there is a very allergic reaction to the concept of haveing a Guru guide one in their life. It is not a popular thing and it is not going to make me popular if I tell people this. Michael: and she is already one of them. so she goes to dalheim, across the border to stay with klaus near the tigers den? Tanmay: Um, I think you said you are german so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here regardling language and english not being your native tongue, but I am going to Klauses, not Swami G. I am not going for TM pueposes, I just happened to know Klaus. Michael: he said something like this. but then others said different things and he didn't say it has to be one-to-one. and i am not saying that you can do it yourself, just the self acts in different ways and the guru adopts different forms Tanmay: I saw a lady declare herself enlightened. She took the techniques of her Guru/s- Maharihsi, then she moved on to Kalki. She laughs at needing a Guru yet she has a Guru- what a confussion. She is declaring enlightenment but is not- her Guru has either no idea about this or no interest in her. Swami G is aware of this person, and I will give you Swami G s point of view about it, even though you already have indicated that what Swami G says does not hold much weight with you. Swami G said that this is a case where if the woman was one to one with the Guru, the Sat Guru would tell her to continue and see there is more to go. This is exactly what happened with Swami G's journey, she declared herself enlightened, it was not the case, but because she had a Guru and it was one to one, he screamed in her face literally. Swami G said that while at the time she couldn't see what was happening, she now clearly sees that without this, should would have not moved forward to the lights beyond all light, the life of all lives, death of all deaths which is enlightenment. This explains why a Guru is needed one to one, and one of the you tube videos talks about the need for confirmation from the Guru. Sorry for all this dogma if that is how you want to label it Michael: don't say little darshan, then i say little guru. Tanmay: it was a bus ride for Suzanne Seagall- big bus ride. Michael: hey, but many people here have been practising meditation, they are seeing different divine personalities, so they are not saying i do it all myself. and if people are guided from within, by lets say hearing guru dev, then this is also guidance, and it has nothing to do with ego. Tanmay: doing it on my own is I have my own inner Guru, visions, lights- sometimes it can be right, sometimes filtered through the ego. While it is explained that there never was outter Guru or outter grace from the standpoint of non dual existence, while in duality, then it is the outter Guru and outter Grace that Ramana is recomending. i guess that it the - it takes maya to remove maya. Michael: okay, i have been waiting for this: check out nityananda http://youtube.com/watch?v=WFlBf--DyCI you'll see muktananda halfway through the video. but i don't understand your point: if no disciple is sincere, what's the use for a guru? i mean you are saying that it doesn't really work. so does it work or not? Tanmay: haha- Nityananda completetly agrees with you- no use for the Guru so off he went. The Guru offers from compasion, they dont need anything, there is nothing the sadakas have that they can do without. Not unusual to see Gurus walk away from the whole thing. If you stood there and said I have ice cream and no one wanted it, fine, you go away and eat it yourself. Micheal: you should read andrew cohens 'my master is myself' he praises his guru poonjaj just like you when he was in his sugar-candy-phase. but surprise surprise, just a few years later he denounced the same man in his autobiography. not that this should happen to you - i wish not. but how long are you now with swami g.? one year? why do i talk to you at all! be there 10 years and we talk again. i recently read a letter in one of the forums which is public, where you thank your swami AND mmy, whom you still were holding partly responsible. now you denouncce mmy. when will you denounce swami g.? Tanmay: I am not claiming enlightenment- kundalini is shakti moving - the rotor rooter of conciousness clearing the pathways. Enlightenment is beyond kundalini. But what a trap that can be- what was, what will be based on how you were or how we think you will be. My experience now as far as I can tell is I am more in the present than ever before in my life and it is a better place to be. The alternative to this is the degree focussing in on the past or what will be- the more one is doing this, the more it is about shaddow living for it doesnt exist. What exists at this moment is I am sitting here typeing in front of my screen, reading loads of emails and answering this. Again this experiecnce is hitting me, I am speaking from it, I cant exactly explain it but I can;t go to the past or future now, nor is there an interest. Swami G says this present state living, which is witness starting to emerge, just continues to get better. Michael: sure, and? whats the use of the guru when everything is cosciousness? if its all the same anywhere? why not look through the personality of anyone then? in the case of a guru the person is a door to the impersonal. so don't mix it up. Tanmay; I Recall swami G bringing clarity regarding something similar to this- the only thing perfect is that eteranl IS, all else requires checks and balances. If the Guru is enlightened but yet through not understanding, the personality is what is judged, then you get nailed to the cross- that is what happened with Christ- talk about shittly looking eyes- there must have been something really not appealing there. So if the checks and balances have closed an open door, maybe the words - view the Guru as consciousness might keep the door open for one. Here is an exchange with Swami G today: * Otherwise, I was responding in the FFL group- One telling me to look at the eyes of Ramana, then compare and you can see who is enlightened or not. In a nutshell, I let him know that the personality, and eyes are transcient and not what the guru is. G he can look at the eyes of Nisargadatta who is Also a Realized One. Now what ? Yes this one photo of Ramana is famous but his eyes were not always like this 24 hours a day - of course this is the one that is going to be promoted - it is a spectacular photo. BUT one has to come to what the whole of the reality is, versus what is promoted which is like taking a moment out of time and projecting it as the only thing. This is how pedestals are created - ones that give a falsified view as to the living Reality of Moksha. if the eyes of ramana are glowing from samadhi, one can see it. if he eyes are not glowing one can also see. thats all i am saying. Michael: i am not too fond of this new nithyananda either. when i was in tiruvannamalai there were everywhere these overlifesize posters of his portait spanning whole houses. he is sort of like ravi shankar or jaggi vasudev or kalki maybe. he is definitly out trying to get the masses. Tanmay: sounds about right- some Guru 's are like this- seems like some are enlgihtened , some not Michael: that would be a longer story. there is something that was already there before that - and i would have to go into details now about that. but as it is, i do not want o go into a competition with you now, who has the bigger experience, and who has the bigger transformation. maybe it helps you when i say that the transformation, that i experienced is still holding true since 19 years and that it changed my life forever, no matter where i will be. some people here know it as i have been talking about it online, but i don't like to make a big thing out of it. Tanmay: Maybe it is the kundalini awakened ?- I havent read your posts, I have been away for a few years from FFL. Weather you talk about it or not, up to you, but it either case,- no rule that says it can only be there weather you speak about it or not- what is - is Michael: actually i received deeksha at tiru as i ran into a kalki group. i personally found it not conducive, actually rather restricting. i also read that ammaji confirmed my impression. Tanmay: Swami G asked- why are they calling shaktipat - diksha? Swami G only authorizes people to do this that have a stilled mind otherwise what is going on with them can be included in the transmission. Their claim is they are not involved but only a vessel for the process to occur. if that is so that they are in fact not involved, with a stilled mind, then as I have heard it, it looks good- Having met a number of kalki people and the confusion along with it, it doesnt look like that stilled mind is there. I went through a dramatic experience with one, I had Swami G right there to clear the air. If I didn't, I know how that would have gone as I have been through it in the past. Swami G words about this person and how she is proceding- " She is going to fuck people up"- hahaha- right to the point- I would have been one of her victums- I was but the impact was minimal for me. Michael: i may know yorum. was he on purusha? did he go to india in 2001 with mat? Tanmay: you probably do know him, I have his email somewhere- he was european pursha I believe- friends with Tomas Aman, who I also am friends with. Tomas went to kalki for 10 day thing, has spoken with Swami G and has been considering things. He keeps in touch with me and Yorum. I bring his name up with Swami G on ocasion. It would be nice to see some TM people come on board here but I am cracking up because for various reasons, not so many takers so far. I have another friend from TM that followed along with the posts, a few that wrote in with some exchange with swami G way back, and now this ffl thing Last year, we went to the PK clinic in Delhi, Swami G and Dr Raju enjoyed each other. Michael: what is viprasana, or do you mean vipassana meditation? Tanmay: You proably got it right- I haent done it yet, i dont think it is meditation, but it is called that by people not familiar with the details- maybe more like contemplation is a better description. Michael: is this the klaus coming from cologne, who was selling ayurvedic stuff from dalheim (over the border from vlodrop?) Tanmay: that;s the dude This took a long time, I will get tot he other posts later and try to make it shorter, I have 15 emails waiting
