--- In [email protected], "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > I have read about Swami G long before this exchange here. Someone at > > > ATM, > > *Tanmay: what is ATM? Swami G also has the first name Ganga- occasionally people mix > it up but I think the responses would have been similar anyway > > John Manning, brought her up once and actually mixed her up with > > > Gangaji. He the posted some exchange he had and the general response > > > was very positive. I also had a positive impression, she seemed to be > > > somewhat conservative, traditional, but not really unusual in what she > > > said. I still find the same now. The same person, John, who endorsed > > > her at the time at ATM, is here on this board and had a totally > > > opposite reaction now. > > Tanmay: That happens both with sadakas and those that never took initiation- It is not a > surprise. Maybe the closer one is to the goal, there can be more grounding reducing the > 100% faith based relationship because one is resting in a significant glimpse. > > However, it also appears one can have a very significant glimpse and even rest in samaghi, > Nivakalpa samadhi, then the mind reroots. These people can possibly create havoc with > procaliming their enlightenement and leading others. > > They may not hear a word when it is recomended that they should be with their Guru until > the Guru has pronounced them enlightened and then assigned them to be a Guru, should > that be a part of their dharma- this stuff I just told you is a general thing coming from > Swami G, I also have seen a lot of what I just spoke of this past year > > > > > This is the post, 4 years ago: > > http://groups.google.de/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/msg/ac6976 2b9c80733c > > Also read the thread, as a nmber of people, like Judy, commented in a > > more or less positive way. Compare post# 141576 (Judy) and # 141475 > > (John, I think) > > > Tanmay: Regarding the Om Mantra, I leave that for anyone interested to ask swami G > about it or I can forward questions as there is a lot to it. But I can tell a short experience > where I told TM er about it and he was like ohhhhh , you will see- you know like I am > supposed to loose my money. Profits in business like doubled, but funny enough, this guy > was off the beat and track even by most in TM, even though he lives in the vlodrop area. > They took over a million from one guy, then without his permission, spent hunreds of > thossands on Yagyas for their business, each leased expensive cars. The company and this > guy are broke, one of them left the country, the other probably will have to also. > > Aside from that, I think the explaination is flow ( refered to as life in acordance with > natural law in TM) has all to do with the mind not getting in the way. Whatever it is that > brings this about, this is what has life actually in flow- mind out of the way. > > I had this unquestionable flow while in TM, so looking at it in reverse, the only way this > can be the case is if the mind is not obstructing. My experience is thoughts are still here, > yet I hear about a totally stilled mind. My experience is also that even with thoughts- ( was > the case in TM) , there was flow. Now here, again, thoughts are still there, but there is still > flow. There is more flow now than there was before, but I am told that with a totally stilled > mind, it is even more. I can't understand this from hearing about it as it has to be > experienced, but I can understand the flow now, and see what is taking place and compare > this flow from what was while doing TM. > > In both cases though, even though the thoughts were there, it was to varios degrees not > impeding the flow. > > Now , about the promotion again- This group here has disciples from many gurus, I > would guess if someone comes here to talk about their Guru, whoever it is , there may be > a few or more interested. If someone came here and they had comments that Mother > Meera said for example, I would be interested. I am not reading most of the posts here > but do look over some of the topics since I just came back here. So, it is not a problem, > people not interested in this thread can skip over it, so there shouldn't be too much - um, > whatever about all this. > > Now about the Maharishi bashing- I am coming from a different perspective than Swami G > and maybe it looks like it got mixed up just as you said Swami G is coming to Klauses. My > perspective is coming from being in TM since 1978, taking all the advanced courses and > TTC like many. My experiences were good, the past is something which reddies one for > what is going on now in their life. The proper spiritual behavior is to honor all that has > benifitted one in their journey. Without TM, it may be reasonable to say that there may not > even be this body here on earth now. > > I don't really feel like I left TM in the sense that I am closer to the Goal, the Goal is that > One essence or Braman. Actually, any Sat Guru , should have a deep concern for the > evolution and clarity ( clarity is what evolution is , isn;t it?) of the sadaka. Sat guru is One, > so the Sat Guru would never object to anything that takes the sadaka into more clarity. > > For example, if a sadaka came to swami G and said they want to go to another Guru, all > blessings are there. However, it is still the sadaka coming to say they want to leave, then > the Guru responds. The Guru rightfully should ask which Guru? and ask very specifically > what they are doing, then they will as a matter of course and speaking and acting from > that level of being, make comments to the sadaka about this. > > If the Guru thinks the sadaka is going to a place where they will be misguided, the Guru > will let them know. > > Anyway, I honor what I got but as I said automatically by virtue of leaving for something > else, it means I think something is better and this is viewed as negative by those staying. > they can ask - how could you do this for our Guru is so beautifull - remember all the > beautifull times etc. So, I understand that perspective, I was in those lines of thinking not > long ago. > > So, maybe those there really shouldn't be reading this- I can even tell you something I > heard MMY say in 1978- something like those that want to stay with this beautifull > knopwledge- fine..., and those that want to leave should leave, but those staying > shouldn;t have to be surrounded with such negativity. > > So, yes, I refer to him as Maharihsi, some for various reasons do not any longer, especially > some that have left. So, with my perspective of not being a casuality and having deep and > good experiencences, ,my pointing for what I see lacking are entirely different than the > next guy and his reasons. > > Some are sorely bitter and have created TMX etc. I am not bitter but there are a lot of > things looking strange and imbalanced and I am not quiet about that but still it is not > some violent attack from my side. > > Now, Swami G has her angle. She is a Guru concerned about all sadakas from all gurus and > if she see's the Guru with immoral behavior, or see sadakas in confusion, or sees the Guru > doing what she sees as usefull practices or sees the disciples in strong advancement, she > is going to speak up strongly I believe, Swami g has made various comments about many > Gurus and sadaks, probably many other Guru's do the same, each has their methodologies
Still thing you should have listened to Mother Meeras advice and gotten a normal job.
