--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > > No one has yet stated the obvious, and that is that it > > > is not necessary to tread the path of "kundalini > > > awakening" to become realized. Of course those on such > > > a path will claim it is. > > > > Tanmay: Well peter, I am using one of my posting allotments > > dedicated to this because I thought I gave the response from > > my camp a number of times about this. Actually, I can throw > > in comments from Maharishi, since I just listened to his > > commentaries on Kundalini from an old audio tape, also > > comments from Swami G because I asked about it, and then > > there is a web site from what looks like a legitimate Guru > > in California, which is the kundalini path, and there are > > also comments about it. > > > > OK, I asked Swami G - does everyone go through the Kundalini > > Journey. I asked because based on my own experience with it, > > I can't imagine that it is possible without it. > > I think that this is the most accurate and telling > statement in your post, Ron, and the one that is > most relevant to Fairfield Life and the majority > of posts here about spiritual "progress." It's > about *personal experience*, which is valid, and > about *projection of that experience onto others*, > which IMO is not. > > On this forum we've had people say that because > *they* went through a period of anger at some > spiritual teacher who disappointed them, everyone > who criticizes a spiritual teacher is also feeling > anger. We've heard people say that their beliefs > and perceptions are *indisputable fact*, and that > others who believe and perceive otherwise are > WRONG.
** I think you mean that if one has red glasses on, they declare all is red and argue with anyone who claims to see any other color We've heard umpteen "definitions" of the > realization process, and the oh-so-precisely- > defined "steps" of that process, again as if > these are some kind of cosmic definition that > must apply to everyone. > > Isn't it possible that everyone on this forum (not > to mention every "guru" in human history) was just > trying to make some sense of a process that was > 1) individual, and 2) doesn't make sense? **Maybe for the seekers, The Guru' s claim otherwise but all is poosible- it is a leap of faith for the seeker as they can only go by the level of current experience and then faith beyound that Isn't it > possible that no guru in human history knew diddley- ** if this is not known by ditect experience, then we have to have faith that they do know clarity and not diddley > squat about anything other than their own experience, > and the interpretations of that experience that they > had been taught by their tradition or that they had > come up with on their own? ** Well, i posed one question based on logic and the answer was in the question- the Guru's may prescribe what they themselves went through as a process to unfold enlightenment. This by the way is interesting in my path, as since it was very practical for my Guru to exist in the world, taking care of and raising her children while at the same time being on the path, then this is what is given - methodologies to unfold enlightenment while carrying on in the world. I like this part very much and find it fortunate- and it looks to be a proven methodolgy that works > > I'm not saying that this is the reality of the situ- > ation (although I suspect it is), or that it's some > kind of cosmic Truth. I'm just asking you personally > (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) whether > it's *possible*. > ** most significant thing I can think to say here is faith is going to be needed at some point unless all answers are known now by direct experience > > Swami G answered something like I don't know, I think most > > do, most Guru's did. Then it looks like as things continue > > in the path here, all indications are that while Swami G > > is familiar with the Kundalini path, it looks possible that > > other paths get one there as well that don't have the > > Kundalini awakening as part of it. > > > > However, both MMY and this Kundalini Guru in CA are saying > > that all are going to go through it beforehand. Hopefully, > > someone comes up with the kundalini comments from MMY, and > > one can look up this Guru in CA and see what she says about it. > > > > So, there are the general comments from 3 Gurus- one says yes, > > 2 say no-Anyone who has comments about this from these same > > 3 Gurus or other ones, by all means, please post them > > My post is about a topic one level further up the > logic tree -- why do you assume that someone is a > "guru," and *when* you do, why do you assume that > their opinion has any more weight than your own, > or anyone else's. ** Again, the real bottom line to it, after using all sorts of logical answers and discussions is that if it is not known with direct knowing, faith is needed, after using your best discression you have. The entire way you choose to move forward, with a Guru, without, each one in the end has to make their own choice and live with that choice > > That strikes me as a far more interesting subject. > > Seems to me, from reading your posts, that your > definition of "guru" is twofold: 1) people that you > consider to be gurus, and 2) people that one of the > people you consider a guru have *told* you are gurus. > > Please explain to us *why* you consider someone a > "guru," and *why* someone else should pay any more > attention to their opinions than to anyone else's. **I think you have it right- it works out to my discretion - I lay out my own criteria for what a real guru is, then see who fills that prescription. OK, for example, intuiton says Ramana Maharishi is- now he gives answers to all the questions you are asking here- you can have a look at it at www.kundalinisupport.com, under the section - the need for a guru And actually, my intuiton would go along with all he has to say, so it covers this entire letter. But still, it is leap of faith and somehow, it is the truthfull bottom line answer to this whole letter. So, the views here are my belief, certainly, there are many more beliefs than my own > I'm asking not to put you on the spot personally, > Ron (although it does, a little), but because this > approach to life and "truth" appears so often on > this forum. A great number of posts here can be > deconstructed and analyzed as saying, "X is true > because guru Y says it's true," or "X is true > because scripture Y" says it's true. > > For those who *make* those kinds of posts, please > explain to me "Y" you believe that the Y's you cite > have more of a clue as to what constitutes truth > than anyone else. :-) > I can offer you my Guru's general comments about this: While a Guru is what you are, the difference is that the coverings are not there. The coverings are the maya, one thinking they are the body, mind or identifications. This group of coverings is labeled ego. So even though the Guru is what you are, since it is actualized for the Guru , and the seeker not and therefore in confusion and misery. So, while the heirarchy doent not exist once the coverings are not there, so long as they are, then it is not a buddy buddy with the Guru, where your truth spoken is as valid as the guru. If this is the case, then there would be no seeking by the seeker, as the same truth known by the Guru is also known by the seeker, for in which case, there is nothing that is needed to be seeked after. As long as there is a seeker, then the truth spoken of the Guru is not the same equall truth spoken by the seeker as it is filtered through the ego. The Guru is there to guide one to remove the coverings ( ego), and THEN after this, there is only One, Nothing is going to be gained from a buddy where what you have to say is as valid as what I have to say. If this is the case, then no need to hear anything from anyone for you already reside in this truth. If you make a concept of this but in fact it is not the realty, YOU ARE A FOOL, fooling yourself has no great value.
