[FairfieldLife] Re: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Feelings
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --In other words, most descriptions of E. are fraught with a degree of error; and/or are incomplete, and may include contradictions. Nevertheless, it's amusing and sometimes informative to try! I would extend what you say above from most descrip- tions of E to *all* descriptions of E. But that said, I would agree with the 'amusing' part; 'informative' may be another matter. It is my experience that the spiritual seekers who consider themselves most 'informed' about the nature of E -- the ones who are ready to debate the fine points of what it is and how it all works at the drop of a hat -- are often folks who, when you cut to the bottom line, have only looked at maps. They're really *good* with maps. They can sound really *authoritative* about maps, often just as authoritative as the authorities who sold them the maps in the first place. But if you cut through the map-talk, you often find that they've never been to the places that the maps were describing. Over the years, the one thing I've noticed about the spiritual marketplace and the progress that seekers tend to make within it is that the more detailed and precise the map they are given to focus on, the more the seekers themselves tend to *focus on* the maps and *settle for* the maps. And the less likely they are able to actually get to where the maps point to. Whereas those seekers who are on a path that says right up front, No map is the territory, this one included, often find themselves there. Go figure. Probably a coincidence. Your mileage may vary, and all of that...
[FairfieldLife] Tallinn!
Professor Angot(sp?) from France, I believe, has been teaching Vedic recitation several times in Estonia. I wonder if it somehow could show in this pic from Tallinn. :0 http://www.gypsii.com/place.cgi?op=viewid=45392
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim emptybill@ wrote: snip The Houri-s sound so much better. OK, I can't stand it any longer. With plural nouns, why do you put a hyphen between the word and the s? I'm not at all sure, but in my understanding he does it if he thinks a word is not a genuine loan word from another language into English, but a word of another language used amongst English text. For instance, if you consider the word 'siddhi' a loan word from Sanskrit to English, it's OK to write the plural as 'siddhis', but the Sanskrit (nominative) plural would actually be the rather awkward 'siddhayaH' as in te samaadhaav upasargaa(,) vyutthaane siddhayaH. But if you don't think it's a loan word (yet), it seems to me quite cool to write the plural like 'siddhi-s'. That's probably not a convention accepted by native English grammarians, though. For instance the Finnish word 'sauna' is, AFAIK, nowadays a genuine English word borrowed from Finnish, so it's OK to write the plural like 'saunas', but the Finnish (nominative) plural would be 'saunat'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to confuse me, and you're never successful. For the record, the very *definition* of paranoia. Spaeking of paranoia, I read one of my best jokes ever on Friday: I was walking home yesterday when this guy hammering on his roof called me a paranoid little freak. In morse code.:-) Hehe :-) I know I'm paranoid, but I don't understand that to be a good enough reason for people to stalk me !
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life time but the master has to be enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of my Guru, it is essencial to be working one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is in darkness which is ego ( identification of mind and body as being the self, or the small self is the existence) Bottom line is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about when you are quoting other gurus. What you are saying is just that; talk, talk, talk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life time but the master has to be enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of my Guru, it is essencial to be working one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is in darkness which is ego ( identification of mind and body as being the self, or the small self is the existence) Bottom line is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about when you are quoting other gurus. What you are saying is just that; talk, talk, talk. Why do I get the feeling that the 'other' in other gurus is meaningful when Nabby says it, and that he doesn't include Maharishi and *his* followers in the category of those who just talk, talk, talk and repeat what they've been told? :-) That quipped, I agree. It's all hearsay about enlightenment. Someone who claims to be enlight- ened says such and such, and thus we should believe it. Yeah, right. Funny how the people who say these things, espec- ially the ones who say that you *have* to work with an enlightened teacher (such as *them*, of course), tell us these things about how essential it is to work one-on-one with someone such as themselves, and then, in the next breath, follow it up with, Oh, by the way, my rent needs to be paid. It would be a gesture of your sincerity as a spiritual seeker if you paid it for me. Personally, I get the feeling that the vast maj- ority of gurus who claim that their followers need them to get enlightened in reality need their followers far more than the followers need them. If the followers weren't there hanging off every word and paying the bills, these gurus would have to work for a living.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 23, 2007, at 7:43 PM, billy jim wrote: OK Vaj, I'm going to enter the fray here. The way this conversation is preceding you’re going to get tired soon from the suffocating squeeze of the pythoness. (I actually mean this as a complement to Judy.) Then the conversation will attenuate into a final pair of mutual - “the pox on your house, dear”. This is not only boring - it is unilluminating. And, being a fool’s fool, I only exist for the dazzling radiance that others of real worth, like you and Judy, can shine on my miserable bug-like existence. Help me out here, Vaj - illuminate me. I’ve heard this argument from you before and I never could decide which sutra-s of Patanjali you are directing our attention toward - above all because I’m overwhelmed by your ocean-like compassion to save us from our slavish adulation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (And who is this Mr. Varma who you keep talking about?) So … let me try to restate your referenced argument in simplified form – one that even a fecal larvae like me can understand: TM practitioners, particularly brain-washed TM teachers, falsely identify their direct, unmediated experiences of utter difference between pure-consciousness (purusha) and the intellect (buddhi- sattva) as kaivalya (aloneness of pure consciousness). However, kaivalya is described by Patanjali (Pada II.25) as the disappearance of ignorance (avidya) and the consequent ceasing of the correlation (samyoga) between the seer and the seen. The experiences of TM’er are NOT kaivalya but rather are transient flashes of viveka-khyati, or the “vision-of-discernment” between purusha and prakriti. So, Vaj, is this an accurate description of your argument against TM claims vis-à-vis Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras? No, not quite, we were referring to some old comments of Tom.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
On Sep 23, 2007, at 7:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ain't it awful? You work so hard trying to confuse me, and you're never successful. For the record, the very *definition* of paranoia. Unless of course she was confused to begin with...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Ron wrote: 1. I had felt caged in all these years from not living in a proper vastu Response from my Guru when I asked is anything had ever caged her in- no 2. cognitions of vedas Response from my Guru- cognitions, discoveries, knowing what needs to be known about anything, sidhis, cognizing all of jyotish, vedic mathmatics, vastu- these things are developed way beffore Realization and are not a part of a realized one- they are all about the transcient 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, Kundalini is for identification of where one is at It is said the more the kundalini is awake, the more enlightened one is, ultimately when kunalini is fully awake, this is enlightenment Response- If one knows what ice cream tastes like- one doesnt say it is said to taste sweet- this is not the words from knowing directly. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment, and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization will collect more These might make a nice addition to the files section Ron, updated as you find more examples.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/22/07 1:32:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. Almost converted me to Islam on the spot. You'd think it would take decades to learn to do that wonderful ornamentation so cleanly and gorgeously, but the kid just *owns* it. He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me , come and kill him? ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Peter's comment/ fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
Peter wrote: Ron, unfortuanately you're wasting your breath on these mala covered samsarins who insist on individuality and can not recognize the function of the ego in this belief that somehow realization of That includes individuality. Poor deluded bhogis. Bronte: I would say it's function of ego that prompts someone to term those who don't agree with them poor deluded bhogis. It also conveniently excuses them from contributing something substantive to the discussion. - Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life time but the master has to be enlightened, sat Guru, and then from the opinion of my Guru, it is essencial to be working one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is in darkness which is ego ( identification of mind and body as being the self, or the small self is the existence) Bottom line is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about when you are quoting other gurus. What you are saying is just that; talk, talk, talk. Why do I get the feeling that the 'other' in other gurus is meaningful when Nabby says it, and that he doesn't include Maharishi and *his* followers in the category of those who just talk, talk, talk and repeat what they've been told? :-) In tantric Buddhism there's actually a word for this. In Sanskrit they call them shravakas, lit. listeners and while it has a positive sense, in it's derogatory sense it means to people who are happy with just listening to teachings and then repeating them, often with a preachy affect. Parroters or parroteers might be a good western translation. If you hang around any spiritual scene, you're bound to eventually run into 'em.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Peter's comment/ fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
--- Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter wrote: Ron, unfortuanately you're wasting your breath on these mala covered samsarins who insist on individuality and can not recognize the function of the ego in this belief that somehow realization of That includes individuality. Poor deluded bhogis. Bronte: I would say it's function of ego that prompts someone to term those who don't agree with them poor deluded bhogis. It also conveniently excuses them from contributing something substantive to the discussion. Bronte, I was making a joke. The only thing it lacked was a smiley face. Obviously you are not evolved enough to appreciate my Enlightened humor. (this last sentence is a joke). ;-) - Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
[FairfieldLife] Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
I replied to this once. Somehow it never posted, so here goes again: From Judy, quoting Bronte: To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. Judy wrote: I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've never understood that in enlightenment the I dissolves into nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it was an illusion to start with) is *identification* with the I. The I is still there, doing its thing, not in any way inhibited by the lack of identification with it. Bronte writes: It's not just semantics. It's a fundamentally opposite way of viewing life and the universe. People of my mindset don't just claim that the ego never dissolves in true enlightenment. We also advocate that IDENTIFICATION WITH the ego -- in the subjective sense of I, the doer (not in the object sense of Me, the happened to) SHOULD never dissolve. We argue that having such dissolution as one's goal or allowing it to happen is the hugest mistake a human being can make. You say that the ego doesn't dissolve in enlightenment -- that identification with the ego is what dissolves. I don't think identification with the small self has to ever dissolve or should. What the goal should be is to identifify with both one's cosmic unlimited universal nature while AT THE SAME TIME identifying with oneself as an individual consciousness. Both identities must be simultaneous for true realization to occur. When a person stops identifying with their individual I, they lose their authorship, their empowerment, their freedom as original, creative expressions of God. The difference between your description of enlightenment and mine is huge: it's the difference between someone floating in the water and someone swimming. We're not here to float in the water, to let life happen to us. To observe and witness ourselves and life, to be done to. We're here to co-create with God, realizing our oneness with That, our infinite power and joy as God's dynamic expressions. Co-creating is impossible when people accept a belief that to identify with their individuality (thoughts, desires, etc.) is unspiritual, egotistical, and contrary to liberation. That false belief turns people ultimately into walking zombies. They do but don't do. They think but don't think. They desire but don't really care. Vanilla, watered-down people. Incapable of original doing, only of being done to and of observing themselves. You might say a floater still moves in the water, so therefore a floater has not abdicated being a doer. One who floats in the water still participates fully in life. But in reality, a floater only moves in the water in reaction to forces and objects around it. It does not move of its own accord. The difference between the nonexistent ego or nonidentified ego concept of enlightenment and my concept is the difference between a dead body in the water versus a live one. I agree that false identification is at the root of suffering in life. But what false identification consists of is not what Indianism tells us it is. False identification, and the cause of suffering, is identification of ourselves with the body, not identifcation of ourselves as individuals. When we think we are the body -- that is, matter -- we believe we are limited and bound, helpless within the confines of physical mass. That false belief causes every sort of pain that exists. When we move from this false perception to experiencing ourselves as unlimited consciousness -- an individual and unique impulse of unbounded cosmic mind -- then we no longer are victims. Now we know we live on a powerhouse of potential -- that we ARE the powerhouse of potential, the Infinite itself. Identifying with our universal nature at the same time as we identify with our individuality is both infinite freedom and personal empowerment. The mistake that causes suffering is the belief that we are nothing but this body, an entity that gets things done to it against its will, that can't achieve its desires, that is bound by space and time. Believing that I am the body, a human being grows selfish, hostile and attacking of others on account of their earth-bound frustration. Expand that belief to an understanding of one's universal nature, and the concept of body limitation no longer exists. One identifies with oneself as consciousness, a fluid-like eternal Isness that can make or remake itself into anything it desires. From that state of knowingness, the body no longer limits. It is a tool in the hands of spirit -- a spirit that is both individual and divine at the same time. A person with such knowledge
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/22/07 1:32:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. Almost converted me to Islam on the spot. You'd think it would take decades to learn to do that wonderful ornamentation so cleanly and gorgeously, but the kid just *owns* it. He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me , come and kill him? Bigotry is alive and well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Ron wrote: 1. I had felt caged in all these years from not living in a proper vastu Response from my Guru when I asked is anything had ever caged her in- no 2. cognitions of vedas Response from my Guru- cognitions, discoveries, knowing what needs to be known about anything, sidhis, cognizing all of jyotish, vedic mathmatics, vastu- these things are developed way beffore Realization and are not a part of a realized one- they are all about the transcient 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, Kundalini is for identification of where one is at It is said the more the kundalini is awake, the more enlightened one is, ultimately when kunalini is fully awake, this is enlightenment Response- If one knows what ice cream tastes like- one doesnt say it is said to taste sweet- this is not the words from knowing directly. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment, and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization will collect more These might make a nice addition to the files section Ron, updated as you find more examples. If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning/Giving in to the Flame
Kid the Willy? Duveyoung wrote: We kid the Willy around here. Get it? No kidding!
[FairfieldLife] Interview with David Crosby
I see plenty of future for music. Music is magic. It's been mankind's magic since the first caveman danced around his fire going 'Ugga bugga, hugga bugga!' That was music, and he was happy. And we're still doing it, and it makes us happy. It will transcend; it will go on. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/interviews/crosby.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Ron wrote: 1. I had felt caged in all these years from not living in a proper vastu Response from my Guru when I asked is anything had ever caged her in- no 2. cognitions of vedas Response from my Guru- cognitions, discoveries, knowing what needs to be known about anything, sidhis, cognizing all of jyotish, vedic mathmatics, vastu- these things are developed way beffore Realization and are not a part of a realized one- they are all about the transcient 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, Kundalini is for identification of where one is at It is said the more the kundalini is awake, the more enlightened one is, ultimately when kunalini is fully awake, this is enlightenment Response- If one knows what ice cream tastes like- one doesnt say it is said to taste sweet- this is not the words from knowing directly. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment, and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization will collect more If any was in doubt, this is exactly what I meant. Great examples of a fellow who has no idea about the meaning, or willing to understand the meaning, behind for example : it is said to - or I had felt. Better find something else to do Ron, because you keep on demonstrating that you have no idea, that's is why you ignored the Movements and Mother Miras instructions... what about getting a job ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because of this somewhat elitist POV, numerous schools and numerous realizers did view Shankara as a fanatic of demon. The dvaita master Madhava called Shankara a deceitful demon who had perverted the teachings of the Brahma-sutra to lead souls astray. Is it perchance so, that dvaitins perceive tattvamasi like tattvam asi and advaitins like tat tvam asi? sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa aatmaa ***tattvamasi*** shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha || 6\.8\.7||
[FairfieldLife] Re: I saw my first Gestapo van this morning/Giving in to the Flame
It was a joke, lurk. Gawd, does TM kill people sense of humor? TurquoiseB wrote: It's yer classic Internet Troll behavior. However, this is clearly a flame and an insult. I've been a TMer since 1964 and a respondent on this group for over five years, long before Barry stalked Judy over here from alt.m.t. to continue his ten-year posting obsession. Hey, Barry! You are supposed to read the messages BEFORE you post your own comments. ROTFLMAO!!! On Visiting Other Saints: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/786
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/22/07 1:32:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. Almost converted me to Islam on the spot. You'd think it would take decades to learn to do that wonderful ornamentation so cleanly and gorgeously, but the kid just *owns* it. He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him? Was *which* the verse?? The Koran is in Arabic, actually, which I don't speak, so I was just appreciating the music of the recitation. Any religion that can come up with something that extaordinarily beautiful has to have something going for it. However, what you quote is a hadith; it's not from the Koran. And while much has been made on right-wing Web sites of this hadith, moderate Muslims interpret it to refer not to Jews generally but rather to specific Jews who have committed violent acts against Muslims.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim emptybill@ wrote: snip The Houri-s sound so much better. OK, I can't stand it any longer. With plural nouns, why do you put a hyphen between the word and the s? I'm not at all sure, but in my understanding he does it if he thinks a word is not a genuine loan word from another language into English, but a word of another language used amongst English text. Aha! I'm sure you're right. For instance, if you consider the word 'siddhi' a loan word from Sanskrit to English, it's OK to write the plural as 'siddhis', but the Sanskrit (nominative) plural would actually be the rather awkward 'siddhayaH' as in te samaadhaav upasargaa(,) vyutthaane siddhayaH. But if you don't think it's a loan word (yet), it seems to me quite cool to write the plural like 'siddhi-s'. That's probably not a convention accepted by native English grammarians, though. In typeset material, such a word would be set in italics, but the s would be set in roman. If all you've got is roman characters, though, I suppose the hyphen is a reasonable way to indicate the s isn't the foreign plural form. However, in an informal context such as this, I'm not sure it's really justified; it makes the material harder to read, and there's no important purpose served by it. For instance the Finnish word 'sauna' is, AFAIK, nowadays a genuine English word borrowed from Finnish, so it's OK to write the plural like 'saunas', but the Finnish (nominative) plural would be 'saunat'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I replied to this once. Somehow it never posted, so here goes again: From Judy, quoting Bronte: To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. Judy wrote: I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've never understood that in enlightenment the I dissolves into nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it was an illusion to start with) is *identification* with the I. The I is still there, doing its thing, not in any way inhibited by the lack of identification with it. Bronte writes: It's not just semantics. It's a fundamentally opposite way of viewing life and the universe. People of my mindset don't just claim that the ego never dissolves in true enlightenment. We also advocate that IDENTIFICATION WITH the ego -- in the subjective sense of I, the doer (not in the object sense of Me, the happened to) SHOULD never dissolve. We argue that having such dissolution as one's goal or allowing it to happen is the hugest mistake a human being can make. You say that the ego doesn't dissolve in enlightenment -- that identification with the ego is what dissolves. I don't think identification with the small self has to ever dissolve or should. What the goal should be is to identifify with both one's cosmic unlimited universal nature while AT THE SAME TIME identifying with oneself as an individual consciousness. Both identities must be simultaneous for true realization to occur. When a person stops identifying with their individual I, they lose their authorship, their empowerment, their freedom as original, creative expressions of God. The difference between your description of enlightenment and mine is huge: it's the difference between someone floating in the water and someone swimming. Well, that's certainly a loaded analogy! We're not here to float in the water, to let life happen to us. To observe and witness ourselves and life, to be done to. We're here to co-create with God, realizing our oneness with That, our infinite power and joy as God's dynamic expressions. I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this; but again, my understanding is that if you identify with the Self rather than the self, you are identifying with the ultimate creative principle. Your self is then experienced to be *the creation of* that principle, of the Self. So in no way do you opt out of the job of creating. Co-creating is impossible when people accept a belief that to identify with their individuality (thoughts, desires, etc.) is unspiritual, egotistical, and contrary to liberation. Sure, if it's only a belief and not one's direct experience. snip I agree that false identification is at the root of suffering in life. But what false identification consists of is not what Indianism tells us it is. FWIW, it's not just Indianism that tells us this. Even St. Paul said Christians are to be in the world but not of it. False identification, and the cause of suffering, is identification of ourselves with the body, not identifcation of ourselves as individuals. But the identification that is said to dissolve in enlightenment isn't just with the body, it's with everything individual about the person--mind, personality, emotions, intellect, etc. Ultimately there's said to be a reintegration, in which all the individualities in the universe are seen to be one with the transcendent; that Unity is one's personal Self. You're very eloquent in your defense of your position, but I still strongly suspect that we're dealing with subtle semantics here, as well as, perhaps, different stages of realization. In any case, it's never been my understanding that one becomes a kind of robot in enlightenment (at least not in any sense that one wasn't a robot to begin with). One realizes one's status as the Robot Master, as it were, the generator of the very forces of creation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 9:44:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him? Was *which* the verse?? The Koran is in Arabic, actually, which I don't speak, so I was just appreciating the music of the recitation. Any religion that can come up with something that extaordinarily beautiful has to have something going for it. However, what you quote is a hadith; it's not from the Koran. And while much has been made on right-wing Web sites of this hadith, moderate Muslims interpret it to refer not to Jews generally but rather to specific Jews who have committed violent acts against Muslims. Would *violent acts against Muslims* include Zionists establishing a Zionist state? ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Old Chinese proverb: Mantra still good, keep meditating!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: I replied to this once. Somehow it never posted, so here goes again: From Judy, quoting Bronte: To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. Judy wrote: I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've never understood that in enlightenment the I dissolves into nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it was an illusion to start with) is *identification* with the I. The I is still there, doing its thing, not in any way inhibited by the lack of identification with it. Bronte writes: It's not just semantics. It's a fundamentally opposite way of viewing life and the universe. People of my mindset don't just claim that the ego never dissolves in true enlightenment. We also advocate that IDENTIFICATION WITH the ego -- in the subjective sense of I, the doer (not in the object sense of Me, the happened to) SHOULD never dissolve. We argue that having such dissolution as one's goal or allowing it to happen is the hugest mistake a human being can make. You say that the ego doesn't dissolve in enlightenment -- that identification with the ego is what dissolves. I don't think identification with the small self has to ever dissolve or should. What the goal should be is to identifify with both one's cosmic unlimited universal nature while AT THE SAME TIME identifying with oneself as an individual consciousness. Both identities must be simultaneous for true realization to occur. When a person stops identifying with their individual I, they lose their authorship, their empowerment, their freedom as original, creative expressions of God. The difference between your description of enlightenment and mine is huge: it's the difference between someone floating in the water and someone swimming. Well, that's certainly a loaded analogy! We're not here to float in the water, to let life happen to us. To observe and witness ourselves and life, to be done to. We're here to co-create with God, realizing our oneness with That, our infinite power and joy as God's dynamic expressions. I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this; but again, my understanding is that if you identify with the Self rather than the self, you are identifying with the ultimate creative principle. Your self is then experienced to be *the creation of* that principle, of the Self. So in no way do you opt out of the job of creating. Co-creating is impossible when people accept a belief that to identify with their individuality (thoughts, desires, etc.) is unspiritual, egotistical, and contrary to liberation. Sure, if it's only a belief and not one's direct experience. snip I agree that false identification is at the root of suffering in life. But what false identification consists of is not what Indianism tells us it is. FWIW, it's not just Indianism that tells us this. Even St. Paul said Christians are to be in the world but not of it. False identification, and the cause of suffering, is identification of ourselves with the body, not identifcation of ourselves as individuals. But the identification that is said to dissolve in enlightenment isn't just with the body, it's with everything individual about the person--mind, personality, emotions, intellect, etc. Ultimately there's said to be a reintegration, in which all the individualities in the universe are seen to be one with the transcendent; that Unity is one's personal Self. You're very eloquent in your defense of your position, but I still strongly suspect that we're dealing with subtle semantics here, as well as, perhaps, different stages of realization. In any case, it's never been my understanding that one becomes a kind of robot in enlightenment (at least not in any sense that one wasn't a robot to begin with). One realizes one's status as the Robot Master, as it were, the generator of the very forces of creation. Judy is correct, I just knew what a difficult case B would be and didn't want to take the time and effort to unravel all of his/her nonsense. BTW, Brahman isn't bored as he/she put it, the state of Brahman is ever new joy, eternal bliss, Anandam!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 8:58:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. Almost converted me to Islam on the spot. You'd think it would take decades to learn to do that wonderful ornamentation so cleanly and gorgeously, but the kid just *owns* it. He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me , come and kill him? Bigotry is alive and well. Yeah, and it's doubly a shame when it is taught from childhood as a religious duty, not necessarily this particular child , but what is broadcast to Palestinian children on Palestinian TV. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati PST: Maharishi is NOT A GURU. Never claimed to be, has made it clear that he isn't. Apples and pomegranates. But you knew that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 8:58:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, big thanks for the little Koran kid; pure stuff. Almost converted me to Islam on the spot. You'd think it would take decades to learn to do that wonderful ornamentation so cleanly and gorgeously, but the kid just *owns* it. He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me , come and kill him? Bigotry is alive and well. Yeah, and it's doubly a shame when it is taught from childhood as a religious duty, not necessarily this particular child , but what is broadcast to Palestinian children on Palestinian TV. You mean like the US right wing demonization of Muslims and Islam and like you're doing by your bigotted comments?
[FairfieldLife] Plato's Ideal (Re: A two minute lifetime with Beatles soundtrack)
TurquoiseB wrote: I haven't listened to the Beatles in years, and probably won't much in the future. Bad mix, dude. Edg: Turq, I was raised listening to 78 RPM, scratchy records, with poor speakers, and I never once thought the music was all that impaired on its journey to me. At the time, who knew fidelity? But your rejection of Beatles music just because today's mix-artistry is better seems, well, elitist. Not to mention that the Because song of the Beatles was acapella and so the mixing would have been a pretty simple thingy. It would be one thing for Paul's base to be too far in the background, but I'm guessing that Paul's voice was, in this particular song, mixed to be equal in volume to the other voices. It's one thing to say a recorded piece is low fidelity, but it's another to reject music because of it's embodiment. Do you not listen to any oldies but goodies? I hear the amateurishness of the early production standards, but I still tap my foot in time with Running Bear loved Little White Dove. This issue is generalized, methinks, when folks also don't listen to the truth of a religious lecture, but instead carp about the speaker's voice, delivery, vocabulary, bad grammar, whatever. When I read ANY scriptures, it is so simple for me to hear the core truths while at the same time seeing how much the truth may not be faithfully reflected in other dogma or actions of the religion itself. Thou shall not kill -- except terrorists, their families, and anyone else who happens to be near the bomb we drop on the terrorist. I can read this and still say, Ah, we agree that killing is bad. Their exception to the rule is incorrect though. Something like that. Hear the Beatles, forget the mix. Fortyish years ago, I saw Leonard Bernstein give one of his live concerts for children that was entirely about the music of the Beatles -- he saw core truths about their musical creativity that, to him, rivaled the artistry of Bach etc. He never mentioned tinny treble-favoring speakers and such. Plato knew this too -- the music of the spheres, ideals, and all that. Euclid knew there was no such thing as an actual straight line, but he built up all of geometry despite the scratchiness of his compass and straight edge. All day long, I'm singing aloud or in my head, and I don't know half the words or remember all the notes, but I'm still singing and not too concerned about being happy with the experience despite my low fidelities. Same deal with seeing the sacred in life. I'm a scratchy 78 RPM, tinny sinner, but I'm still able to hear the ideal good being sung by my intellect. Finally, seeing folks here struggle with ego vs. I seems to involve this same concept. It's one thing to say that how a truth is expressed is unpalatably embodied or illogical, but can't we all hear that there is something beyond ALL THIS SCRATCHYNESS that is perfect and that a meat robot can whistle this tune in its head? It doesn't matter much to me if the Advaitan point of view regarding self-ego-I-consciousness is precisely delineated here, but it does matter very much that, it seems, most of us do actually know the song we're all trying to sing! That gives me a lot of comfort. That said, I'd suggest piano lessons by Ramana Maharshi for anyone. Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 11:40:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me , come and kill him? Bigotry is alive and well. Yeah, and it's doubly a shame when it is taught from childhood as a religious duty, not necessarily this particular child , but what is broadcast to Palestinian children on Palestinian TV. You mean like the US right wing demonization of Muslims and Islam and like you're doing by your bigotted comments? No, nothing like that. When was the last time you saw a children's program in the US calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes? What specifically have I said that was bigoted? ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 9:44:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him? Was *which* the verse?? The Koran is in Arabic, actually, which I don't speak, so I was just appreciating the music of the recitation. Any religion that can come up with something that extaordinarily beautiful has to have something going for it. However, what you quote is a hadith; it's not from the Koran. And while much has been made on right-wing Web sites of this hadith, moderate Muslims interpret it to refer not to Jews generally but rather to specific Jews who have committed violent acts against Muslims. Would *violent acts against Muslims* include Zionists establishing a Zionist state? For moderate Muslims? I kind of doubt it, don't you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 11:40:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me , come and kill him? Bigotry is alive and well. Yeah, and it's doubly a shame when it is taught from childhood as a religious duty, not necessarily this particular child , but what is broadcast to Palestinian children on Palestinian TV. You mean like the US right wing demonization of Muslims and Islam and like you're doing by your bigotted comments? No, nothing like that. When was the last time you saw a children's program in the US calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes? Call for references that Palestinian TV has children's programs calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes. What specifically have I said that was bigoted? Your whole context is bigoted and it smacks of the contemporary Christian Right and the right wing media [particularly talk radio] attitude of anti-Muslim ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati I think MMY would qualify as he has given me atma-jnana or knowledge (thru experience) of the Adhyatma (underlying soul), as such I have become (thanks to MMY) a *knower of Reality*. SBS is talking about charlatans, one may not like MMY's methods but that does not make him a charlatan.
[FairfieldLife] Plato's Ideal (Re: A two minute lifetime with Beatles soundtrack)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: I haven't listened to the Beatles in years, and probably won't much in the future. Bad mix, dude. Edg: Turq, I was raised listening to 78 RPM, scratchy records, with poor speakers, and I never once thought the music was all that impaired on its journey to me. At the time, who knew fidelity? I just bought my latest toy on Sunday-- Magix Music Maker software (50 bucks at Target). This has everything that a full fledged recording studio does, and yet, it also has a 16 track recorder, with almost 4000 samples, so that I was making my own songs in about 15 minutes. Anyway, it is lots of fun!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 11:40:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, do.rflex@ writes: He sure was a cute *little devil* wasn't he? Was this the verse that says the rocks shall cry out, there's a Jew behind me , come and kill him? Bigotry is alive and well. Yeah, and it's doubly a shame when it is taught from childhood as a religious duty, not necessarily this particular child , but what is broadcast to Palestinian children on Palestinian TV. You mean like the US right wing demonization of Muslims and Islam and like you're doing by your bigotted comments? No, nothing like that. When was the last time you saw a children's program in the US calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes? CORRECTION: Call for references that Palestinian TV has children's programs calling for everyone to go out and kill a [Jew] or call them apes. What specifically have I said that was bigoted? Your whole context is bigoted and it smacks of the contemporary Christian Right and the right wing media [particularly talk radio] attitude of anti-Muslim ideology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Old Chinese proverb: Mantra still good, keep meditating! Hey ! How do you KNOW that Bush isn't the Hitler of today ? ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. Didn't think I would ever say this peter, but based on personal experiences I agree with you. What a strange world... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey ! How do you KNOW that Bush isn't the Hitler of today ? ;-) Hey, you're right, I give, Bush is the next Hitler! Especially since his term will expire next year! :-OOO
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati I think MMY would qualify as he has given me atma-jnana or knowledge (thru experience) of the Adhyatma (underlying soul), as such I have become (thanks to MMY) a *knower of Reality*. SBS is talking about charlatans, one may not like MMY's methods but that does not make him a charlatan. Indeed, BillyG. Based on my own experience I fully agree with you on what Maharishi has given. Vaj's comments are not based on his experience with TM. As far as I know, he hasn't been initiated by a qualified TM teacher. He just wants to trash TM. This was his whole agenda when he posted at a.m.t. But no matter what books he's read or what he's practiced, he hasn't really *experienced* for himself the results of the proper effective practise of Transcendental Meditation itself, as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He may not like Maharishi's ways. Neither do I. But you can't argue with what you experience. It's no longer a matter of debate when you actually *experience* that Reality. That's why I can't really dismiss what Jim Flanegin claims to be experiencing. I may disagree with some of his peripheral commentary, but his whole descriptive rings true on the basis of what I myself have also *experienced* .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I don't care what you call it...
Sad? Sounds like a good time to me. Maybe sad if you're not getting any. :) off_world_beings wrote: Yes folks, its sad but predictable. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...and I'm sorry, given whatever Hindu or Newage stuff you wish to project upon it, there is nothing quite like meeting someone *far* too young and *far* too beautiful for you in a bar -- in this case, the Corner Bar in Sitges...pool tables in the bar, good, cheap, single-malt Scotches at the bar itself -- and who speaks as little English as you speak Spanish or Catalan, and hitting it off *anyway*, no matter how inept your Spanish was. Suffice it to say that if you hear the name Sonia around here in the future, my seeing on this evening will have been correct. If you don't, well, so it goes. The world is full of wonderful women...
[FairfieldLife] Heroes Season 2 Starts Tonight
Just a reminder for the Heroes fans here and for those who don't know the show it is about a group of people who have specific siddhi like powers that plays on NBC. No it isn't a reality based show filmed in Fairfield. :-D For even more fun check out Chuck which precedes Heroes. I've seen the pilot which was available OnDemand and it is quite a fun show about a geek who works in the Geek Herd at a store called Buy More and becomes a intelligence concern when he comes into possession of some secret information. Quite a hoot with lots of digs at the tech industry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--Nope Billy - Bronte is more correct - although Auth is technically correct to a certain extent.. The bottom line, beyond the lively exchange of ideas, amounts to a thorough, deepseated POV about how one views the world and the ultimate goal of human evolution: (as discussed in a previous string), a. After E., one can still choose to exist as an individual, b. apparently, one can allow the compoments of one's existence to completely dissolve and disspate, leaving no individual, or c. choose not to choose. However, a. has a variation which may cloud the concept of individuality. A Buddha may exist relatively speaking, but the components of individuality may be spread throughout the universe in countless Transformation bodies. We can take Ramana as an example. He viewed the body as simply excess baggage to be gotten rid of (to paraphrase his own words!). Contrast this with the goals of certain Buddhas who may continue to exist in some form to assist the evolution of others. There's a contrasted POV here!. Thus, it's more than semantics; but the two sides amount to (perhaps) irreconciable differences. IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those who wish to continue with some type of relative body. But since the delusional I is only ONE component of what makes up an individual, the I cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. In this broad context, rocks can be individuals since each of them differs from the others. Thus, semantics enters into the picture, true.. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: I replied to this once. Somehow it never posted, so here goes again: From Judy, quoting Bronte: To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. Judy wrote: I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've never understood that in enlightenment the I dissolves into nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it was an illusion to start with) is *identification* with the I. The I is still there, doing its thing, not in any way inhibited by the lack of identification with it. Bronte writes: It's not just semantics. It's a fundamentally opposite way of viewing life and the universe. People of my mindset don't just claim that the ego never dissolves in true enlightenment. We also advocate that IDENTIFICATION WITH the ego -- in the subjective sense of I, the doer (not in the object sense of Me, the happened to) SHOULD never dissolve. We argue that having such dissolution as one's goal or allowing it to happen is the hugest mistake a human being can make. You say that the ego doesn't dissolve in enlightenment -- that identification with the ego is what dissolves. I don't think identification with the small self has to ever dissolve or should. What the goal should be is to identifify with both one's cosmic unlimited universal nature while AT THE SAME TIME identifying with oneself as an individual consciousness. Both identities must be simultaneous for true realization to occur. When a person stops identifying with their individual I, they lose their authorship, their empowerment, their freedom as original, creative expressions of God. The difference between your description of enlightenment and mine is huge: it's the difference between someone floating in the water and someone swimming. Well, that's certainly a loaded analogy! We're not here to float in the water, to let life happen to us. To observe and witness ourselves and life, to be done to. We're here to co-create with God, realizing our oneness with That, our infinite power and joy as God's dynamic expressions. I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this; but again, my understanding is that if you identify with the Self rather than the self, you are identifying with the ultimate creative principle. Your self is then experienced to be *the creation of* that principle, of the Self. So in no way do you opt out of the job of creating. Co-creating is impossible when people
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles in India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiAhzpGO1Qkmode=relatedsearch
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. I can only provide some intellectual response. Such as, the vedas is not what is cognized, it was relative things cognizesd- vedic math is relative, so it jyotish, and scripture. when all relative is gone, then ONE is, it is not persona, it only IS. A person can cognize seemingly infinite things if this is what one wants- beyond this IS only Being- this is why it is explained that a siddha Guru is one that is beyond siddhis- and the greatest siddhi of them all is to know the absolute. In enlightenment, siddhis may occur around the enlightened but it is not a doership as there is no one to do something. There are no longing and lasting desires, which includes the desire to know anything about anything- this is siddhis. One can know wwhatever one needs to know- My Guru explained that this was in her own journey way before being enlightened. actually, it was because advanced siddhis were known, that my Guru thought she was enlightened. She was on her own most of the journey. The last Guru ( there were 4 total) screamed in her face- this desription can be seen on youtube in the video describing my Guru's own Journey. Because the siddhis were very developed, she thought she was enlightend, then when she revealed this to her Guru, this is when he screamed in her face and told her, you fool, you know nothing, you idiot!!! while at the time, my Guru had less than nice thoughts about her Guru, she reflected backward and said that if not for this, she would have still been on the hampster wheel of karma. This whole thing will again boil down to that other title's thread- the fallacy is that a me is going to get enlightenmed. Me means identity with mind or body which is ego, and ego and Enlightenment cannot exist at the same time. Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles in India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiAhzpGO1Qkmode=relatedsearch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiAhzpGO1Qkmode=relatedsearch=
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Hey ! How do you KNOW that Bush isn't the Hitler of today ? ;-) Hey, you're right, I give, Bush is the next Hitler! Especially since his term will expire next year! :-OOO HEY ! How do you know that he won't create an enormous crisis which calls for his prolonged presidency ?? I mean, the fellow has just begun his mission for freedom for the whole world !
[FairfieldLife] Re: The fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realization
Comment: Personally, I get the feeling that the vast maj- ority of gurus who claim that their followers need them to get enlightened in reality need their followers far more than the followers need them. If the followers weren't there hanging off every word and paying the bills, these gurus would have to work for a living. Response: Maybe it is so for the vast majority but that has nothing to do with my Guru. My guru does not need any followers, prefers to have none, will in a short time only accept people in person, probably no longer available on the net or by phone, My Guru has a pension from the military so the bills are all paid, no fees are asked for, the donations go into an acount for an ashram, I think the acount is up to about 5k after 8 years. If the pension were not there, and there were not disciples willing to support my Guru, then she would work, and then this is just less time available for the sadakas. The thing is, if one has been wronged 1000 times by Gurus, this is not a ligitimate excuse to stop- and a guru is needed if you buy into what Ramana and other Gurus say. If you dont, well fine- your choice- what the same legitimate gurus would tell you is may you get all that you seek for
[FairfieldLife] let it be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oZYqAeIdYkmode=relatedsearch=
[FairfieldLife] Re: across the universe
another favorite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbirjVeI_Pk
Re: [FairfieldLife] let it be
2007-09-24
Thread
Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
Thank you for this, Nablusoss. On 9/24/07, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oZYqAeIdYkmode=relatedsearch= 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 -- Flourishingly, Dharma Mitra Helping you Say It With Panache! Because, how you say it can be, and often is, as important as what you want to convey, and what you have to say is very important to you. http://PROUT-Ananlysis-Synthesis.latest-info.com Copywriting - Editing - Publishing - Publicity I want every person to be complete in themselves. Your himsa has no place in my mission. Of all that anyone leading or teaching has to convey, the most valuable thing to cultivate and convey to others is a moral conscience. Only such persons deserve to lead others, in any capacity. Anything less is a menace to society.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- yagyax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. What distinguishes MMY from SSRS are space/time qualities. Of course these are different from one another. They have distinct personalities shaped by genes and environmental factors. But what they are, what is there instead of a separate sense of me is exactly the same as one another-just consciousness. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. No. What makes up an individual is not the space time parts of a personality, but the subjective sense of I that is identified with those parts. In Realization, all the parts are still there, but that identity is completely gone. Everything is still there as before, but now there is no subjective I that can be located. What has occured is the cessation of consciousness identifying with mind. In this broad context, rocks can be individuals since each of them differs from the others. Thus, semantics enters into the picture, true. Rocks have no self-referential consciousness so they are not individuals. Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: I don't care what you call it...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sad? Sounds like a good time to me. Gross. Old man with young chic. You're twisted. Maybe sad if you're not getting any. :) Then if you are not getting any, you should try it. OffWorld off_world_beings wrote: Yes folks, its sad but predictable. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: ...and I'm sorry, given whatever Hindu or Newage stuff you wish to project upon it, there is nothing quite like meeting someone *far* too young and *far* too beautiful for you in a bar -- in this case, the Corner Bar in Sitges...pool tables in the bar, good, cheap, single-malt Scotches at the bar itself -- and who speaks as little English as you speak Spanish or Catalan, and hitting it off *anyway*, no matter how inept your Spanish was. Suffice it to say that if you hear the name Sonia around here in the future, my seeing on this evening will have been correct. If you don't, well, so it goes. The world is full of wonderful women...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
I have a few responses to some statements made below: If one knows what ice cream tastes like - one doesn't say it is said to taste sweet - this is not the words from knowing directly. This conclusion may or may not be correct. The use of the word said may indicate an idiosynratic use of language by one who does not speak excellent Enlish, or simply one who is speaking colloquially. It also may be a reference to spiritual texts about Kundalini, which also does not imply non-realization of the Shakti. Thirdly, some Masters do not like to point or speak about their own Realilsation of the Divine, for one reason or another, so they distance themselves through referring to something objective such as a text or previous statement. For example, Ramana Maharishi often answered people by quoting what other texts stated about the Self-Realization. I would not conlude Ramana's non-realisation of the Self because of that. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Yes, I agree. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization Rotor Rooter is a good analogy - but there is more to the Shakti than its function as purifier. I would like to suggest that even after the Self is established, Kundalini-Shakti still circulates, and for some even radiates as a form of (extremely potent) spiritual transmission. Kundalini, therefore, is not merely a path to establish the Self. It is an actual property of the Absolute or Consciousness Itself through which the Self makes Itself known. Therefore, I feel it is innacurate to insist that it is over at a certain point of Realization. For some, it continues to function, quite powerfully and beautifully and spontaneously, as an initiating force (diksha) for others. Namaste, David Spero http://www.davidspero.org
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. snip Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch on TM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jzJjeT_rNQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
I'd rather not comment on the question about the Vedas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. snip Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. And, just to show that things are different based on who you are and how and what you choose to perceive, I had (by some standards) a great deal of personal contact with Maharishi. And I never considered him enlightened. Never. Still don't. In my book, his 'darshan' was so puny (compared to other teachers I've met) that I would be tempted to describe it as non- existent. Go figure, eh? My experience does not invalidate yours, and yours does not invalidate mine. But you really can't write off people who don't think he's enlightened as just not having had personal contact with him. That's not it at all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Heroes Season 2 Starts Tonight
All right baby, HEROES !! What a great show. I only hope its sophomore season will be as good as last year...Save the cheerleader, save the world. --- Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a reminder for the Heroes fans here and for those who don't know the show it is about a group of people who have specific siddhi like powers that plays on NBC. No it isn't a reality based show filmed in Fairfield. :-D For even more fun check out Chuck which precedes Heroes. I've seen the pilot which was available OnDemand and it is quite a fun show about a geek who works in the Geek Herd at a store called Buy More and becomes a intelligence concern when he comes into possession of some secret information. Quite a hoot with lots of digs at the tech industry. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. And, just to show that things are different based on who you are and how and what you choose to perceive, I had (by some standards) a great deal of personal contact with Maharishi. And I never considered him enlightened. Never. Still don't. In my book, his 'darshan' was so puny (compared to other teachers I've met) that I would be tempted to describe it as non- existent. Go figure, eh? My experience does not invalidate yours, and yours does not invalidate mine. But you really can't write off people who don't think he's enlightened as just not having had personal contact with him. That's not it at all. And it isn't what he said, either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Cognitions and revelations are what my guru had prior to enlightenment and also this what s gave my Guru the understanding that enlightenment was there. As I said, there was a time where my guru could know anything about something and other such things The point is- who is there to cognize something? My recolletions are Bevan worships MMY as persona, therefore it is the greatest Guru in 10,000 years, and for example, on some walk MMY was having, all of the vedas or some certain apsects of the vedas were cognized. This has to do with knowing something, where as in Realization, the small self, the me, the identification of body and mind is imploded, merged, it IS only ONE, not one with something My Guru, speaking from this knowing, informed me a few days ago that no, ccognitions are not there for the enlightened, it also was from experiecne that with the cogitions and revelations, my Guru thought she had arrived, but as long as there is a me cognizing, there is further to go This is the significance of the Guru being there with the disciple, otherwise , the disciple will go no further and this ends up being a sad thing. It is most likely the new age thing which people can relate to- it is there in sai Ma's web sight- become a God, develope your full potential, choose enlightenment, etc. People can relate to becoming a better me, gaining a cosmic ego People can not relate to no me, no ego, no self, only IS- then life flows Regarding the Kundalini comment from another post- Maybe it again is this paradoxal thing. My guru explains that where shakti meets shiva, the kundalini journey is over. IN enlightenment, yes, my Guru gives shatipat and shakti is kundalini. The thing is the persona is no longer there so the enlightened experienceing Kundalini? All 3 enlightened in my path went through the kundalini journey- 2 of the 3 are gurus- the other a sage- and it is an inspirational story for that one being on the path for only one year, with 3 babies ( all under 4) and a housewife. The 2 gurus had very heavy kundlaini journeys, and having arrived in realization, are extremely qualified to speak about Kundalini. Both independantly commented on MMY comments about Kundalini and said it is one that knows nothing of the kundalini journey. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. snip Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ron wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. I can only provide some intellectual response. Such as, the vedas is not what is cognized, it was relative things cognizesd- vedic math is relative, so it jyotish, and scripture. when all relative is gone, then ONE is, it is not persona, it only IS. Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
---No, you're wrong. In a broad definition of individual, one can define an entity as become composed of relative components that do not converge on a entity called the I. Thus, Ramana Maharshi is definitely an individual, otherwise he would not dare use such words as I and me in the context of one person vs. another. The term individual doesn't automatically imply that the person is claiming a convergent false I. One can be an individual and yet be composed (relatively speaking) of the many components that make up the holographic personality: Such components include the body, mind, habits, clothes, manner of interacting, speaking, etc. Nowhere is anybody claiming that such an entity as an individual also has a false I. Are you saying MMY is not an individual? In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- yagyax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. What distinguishes MMY from SSRS are space/time qualities. Of course these are different from one another. They have distinct personalities shaped by genes and environmental factors. But what they are, what is there instead of a separate sense of me is exactly the same as one another-just consciousness. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. No. What makes up an individual is not the space time parts of a personality, but the subjective sense of I that is identified with those parts. In Realization, all the parts are still there, but that identity is completely gone. Everything is still there as before, but now there is no subjective I that can be located. What has occured is the cessation of consciousness identifying with mind. In this broad context, rocks can be individuals since each of them differs from the others. Thus, semantics enters into the picture, true. Rocks have no self-referential consciousness so they are not individuals. __ __ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is- who is there to cognize something? jim_flanegin wrote: I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-) I don't see an answer to my question, just some misdirection; playing mind games with identification. Kinda boring.:-)
[FairfieldLife] individual clarified
Individual defined as: (online dictionary). 1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group. 2. a person: a strange individual. 3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item. 4. a group considered as a unit. 5. Biology. a. a single organism capable of independent existence. b. a member of a compound organism or colony. 6. Cards. a duplicate-bridge tournament in which each player plays the same number of hands in partnership with every other player, individual scores for each player being kept for each hand. The above definition includes entities which upon closer inspection, are composed of components making up a unit, as opposed to other units. The defintion says nothing about a false or delusional I; which is simply another component. When the false I vanishes, other components that make up the individual such as body, habits, manner of speech, etc; remain, and it is these components together as a unit that is the referent when the person himself/herself (as MMY, Ramana, etc), says I or me, AFTER getting Enlightened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ron wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. I can only provide some intellectual response. Such as, the vedas is not what is cognized, it was relative things cognizesd- vedic math is relative, so it jyotish, and scripture. when all relative is gone, then ONE is, it is not persona, it only IS. Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. I actually thought it had faded away, until I heard it here a while back. A friend of Rick's stated back in May (on FFL): You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. I actually thought it had faded away, until I heard it here a while back. A friend of Rick's stated back in May (on FFL): You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself. Oh well, maybe he did, and certainly from my POV lives the Reality of the Vedas. And no doubt ime he has the ability to cognize them-- I'm not disputing that. But he sure hasn't had the time to *document* his cognition.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Regarding Yagyax's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
Hi, Yagyax. Never saw you on the forum before. This was brilliant. However, I'm confused what you meant by this part: IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those who wish to continue with some type of relative body. But since the delusional I is only ONE component of what makes up an individual, the I cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. I agree that the delusional I is only one component of what makes up the individual. Another component is the enlightened I, which from my perspective includes not just I the universal but I the purified individual ego. I'm not sure that's what you were saying though. If it is, we're in complete agreement. Were you, instead, meaning to say that the false I is the thing that makes us separate from other persons? If that is the case, I disagree. A purified individual ego still distinguishes between itself and others -- moreover, it acts dynamically, rather than passively observing its own actions. It isn't false I to step dynamically into one's individual expression, especially when the universal I is awake within. I was thinking of another analogy: the figures in a painting. All a painting is, on one level, is a painted canvas. There is no diversity other than canvas and paint (kinda like consciousness and energy). That is the oneness level of the painting. But it would be false to say the figures in the painting don't exist. It would not be wrong for a lion in the painting to say I am an individual lion at the same time as it says I am a painting. Both are true. What isn't true is for the lion to say I am only a painting. I was never really a lion. yagyax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Nope Billy - Bronte is more correct - although Auth is technically correct to a certain extent.. The bottom line, beyond the lively exchange of ideas, amounts to a thorough, deepseated POV about how one views the world and the ultimate goal of human evolution: (as discussed in a previous string), a. After E., one can still choose to exist as an individual, b. apparently, one can allow the compoments of one's existence to completely dissolve and disspate, leaving no individual, or c. choose not to choose. However, a. has a variation which may cloud the concept of individuality. A Buddha may exist relatively speaking, but the components of individuality may be spread throughout the universe in countless Transformation bodies. We can take Ramana as an example. He viewed the body as simply excess baggage to be gotten rid of (to paraphrase his own words!). Contrast this with the goals of certain Buddhas who may continue to exist in some form to assist the evolution of others. There's a contrasted POV here!. Thus, it's more than semantics; but the two sides amount to (perhaps) irreconciable differences. IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those who wish to continue with some type of relative body. But since the delusional I is only ONE component of what makes up an individual, the I cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. In this broad context, rocks can be individuals since each of them differs from the others. Thus, semantics enters into the picture, true.. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: I replied to this once. Somehow it never posted, so here goes again: From Judy, quoting Bronte: To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its limited expression. Such limited expression certainly needs dissolving for cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to dissolve into the I. It was never intended by the Infinite that the I should dissolve into non-existence. Judy wrote: I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've never understood that in enlightenment the I dissolves into nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it was an illusion to start with) is *identification* with the I. The I is still there, doing its thing, not in any way inhibited by the lack of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. I actually thought it had faded away, until I heard it here a while back. A friend of Rick's stated back in May (on FFL): You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Yagyax's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Were you, instead, meaning to say that the false I is the thing that makes us separate from other persons? If that is the case, I disagree. A purified individual ego still distinguishes between itself and others -- moreover, it acts dynamically, rather than passively observing its own actions. FWIW, I have *never* heard anybody assert that the purified individual ego does not distinguish between itself and others, nor that it passively observes its own actions rather than acting dynamically.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 12:24:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, nothing like that. When was the last time you saw a children's program in the US calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes? Call for references that Palestinian TV has children's programs calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes. What specifically have I said that was bigoted? Your whole context is bigoted and it smacks of the contemporary Christian Right and the right wing media [particularly talk radio] attitude of anti-Muslim ideology. Gladly!_‘Palestinian’ Education from Hell « Arab racism Islamo fascism_ (http://arabracismislamofascism.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/palestinian-education-fro m-hell/) _Teach Kids Peace – 'Sesame Street' Show Teaches Kids to Hate and Kill_ (http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc112.php) Here are two for you to mull over. There are many more. Calling for an explanation of a religious belief that evokes high emotion and political activism, that often ends in death for a group of people, is hardly anti- Islamic, unless of course it happens to be an embarrassing belief. The light of truth can make one uncomfortable. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:44 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? Well now, that would depend on how Ron intended it. He wrote me offlist and stated his source, but I'm waiting to hear whether or not this included the vedas. This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. Or you have and you're lying. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Actually I have just heard of one source offlist: Bevan Morris. Let me guess Judy, you never heard of him either...
[FairfieldLife] Regarding Peter's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- yagyax wrote: Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. -- Peter wrote: What distinguishes MMY from SSRS are space/time qualities. Of course these are different from one another. They have distinct personalities shaped by genes and environmental factors. But what they are, what is there instead of a separate sense of me is exactly the same as one another-just consciousness. Bronte writes: No, not exactly the same. Each individual is a UNIQUE IMPULSE of Creative Intelligence, a unique thought in Divine Mind. Just as every snowflake, while having the same basic structure, is fundamentally unique. Each soul has its own propensities, based not just on its worldly experience but on the very impulse that is its essential individual nature. Each person was sent into the world with its own divine mission to accomplish, its own perspective to explore the world with, beaming back information to Computer Central, which is Cosmic Mind. Through us, the Infinite explores and continually creates the world -- or wrecks it, if we, Its instruments, forget the nature of the arrangement. The nature of the arrangement is that we were meant to stay in touch with Computer Central while identifying with our work as individual probes here below. Most people in the world go awry by losing touch with Computer Central -- they become renegade probes, feeding off of the energy supply of their Source, but losing their ability to be directed by it. Spiritual people usually go awry by going to the opposite extreme: so strongly identifying with Computer Central that they no longer function well as probes. Imaging saying I do not exist when you've got a job to do. Or I do not identify with my mission when Computer Central is trying like heck to get the darn contraption to respond. Yagyax wrote: That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. Peter wrote: No. What makes up an individual is not the space time parts of a personality, but the subjective sense of I that is identified with those parts. In Realization, all the parts are still there, but that identity is completely gone. Everything is still there as before, but now there is no subjective I that can be located. What has occured is the cessation of consciousness identifying with mind. Bronte writes: Individual I is so much more than a collection of personality parts. It is a divine impulse of consciousness, a unique and eternal thought in the mind of the Great One. A thought that can apparently think itself into dissolution, because it has that freedom. Yagyax wrote: In this broad context, rocks can be individuals since each of them differs from the others. Peter wrote: Rocks have no self-referential consciousness so they are not individuals.,_._,___ Bronte writes: How do you know, Peter? Were you ever a rock? - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 12:22:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would *violent acts against Muslims* include Zionists establishing a Zionist state? For moderate Muslims? I kind of doubt it, don't you? I guess that would depend on how you define *moderate* Muslims. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:44 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? Well now, that would depend on how Ron intended it. He wrote me offlist and stated his source, but I'm waiting to hear whether or not this included the vedas. Another non sequitur. This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. Or you have and you're lying. Nope, I don't lie, Vaj. Don't project. I was as surprised as anybody to see that Purusha chap make the claim here. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Actually I have just heard of one source offlist: Bevan Morris. Speaking of blissninnies... Let me guess Judy, you never heard of him either...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 12:24:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, nothing like that. When was the last time you saw a children's program in the US calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes? Call for references that Palestinian TV has children's programs calling for everyone to go out and kill a Muslim or call them apes. What specifically have I said that was bigoted? Your whole context is bigoted and it smacks of the contemporary Christian Right and the right wing media [particularly talk radio] attitude of anti-Muslim ideology. Gladly!_âPalestinianâ Education from Hell « Arab racism Islamo fascism_ (http://arabracismislamofascism.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/palestinian-education-fro m-hell/) _Teach Kids Peace â 'Sesame Street' Show Teaches Kids to Hate and Kill_ (http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc112.php) Here are two for you to mull over. There are many more. That's Israeli government propaganda, plain and simple. That's my view, unless you can provide verifiable unbiased corroboration. Calling for an explanation of a religious belief that evokes high emotion and political activism, that often ends in death for a group of people, is hardly anti- Islamic, unless of course it happens to be an embarrassing belief. The light of truth can make one uncomfortable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Yeah, Vaj is just the flip side of the blissninnys. No problem.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Yeah, Vaj is just the flip side of the blissninnys. No problem.:-) Except that the blissninnies aren't motivated by malice.
[FairfieldLife] cognizing the Vedas - Ganapati Muni
There's evidence Ganapati Muni could cognize the Vedas before he supposedly became Enlightened through the assistance of Ramana: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/ganapathi.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 12:24:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] What specifically have I said that was bigoted? Your whole context is bigoted and it smacks of the contemporary Christian Right and the right wing media [particularly talk radio] attitude of anti-Muslim ideology. [snip] Calling for an explanation of a religious belief that evokes high emotion and political activism, that often ends in death for a group of people, is hardly anti- Islamic, unless of course it happens to be an embarrassing belief. Yes. That's sounds just like some of the 'beliefs' of those in the Christian Right and the right wing media who demonize Muslims. Kinda like Michael Savage who wanted to stick dynamite up their asses, light the fuse and drop them out of airplanes. Or Anne Coulter who recommended we invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Or Glenn Beck During a November 14, 2006, interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck said to the congressman: What I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. (Beck later apologized for what he said was a poorly worded question.) On his shows, Beck repeatedly belittles the Muslim faith by mocking Muslim names and through actions such as mark[ing] the death of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a Zarqawi bacon cake. Jerry Falwell, I think Mohammed was a terrorist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Yagyax's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--Hi Bronte...you ask if the false I makes individuals separate. That contributes to it among those ignorant of the Self, since such persons are mainly concerned about the veneer of psychomaterial existence, which is innately separate without consideration of pure Consciousness; in fact evil according to Eckart Tolle. Among those in whom the false I no longer exists, the (strictly relative) separateness that makes MMY different than SSRS or Ramana different than SBS would for starters rely on the (apparent) separateness of things, people, etc oriented in space-time; but more important; since the universe can be considered as an immense computer (matter); with laws (the programs); all conceived of as pure digital bits of information, what really makes people different is simply their POV. Thus, MMY's POV (which is the mind-orientation of an individual within the universal hologram) differs considerably from Ramana's, and then again from the Dalai Lama's. The POV's (viewpoints) partake of extremely powerful M-fields which are often at odds; at this time in the metaphysical area, chiefly the clash between extremist Islam and the West. And, we haven't even touched the problem of world physical suffering; e.g. 16,000 children die each day due to malnutrition. Either one is concered about such problems, or not. The motto of the Advaitins seems to be I don't know and I don't care. Imagine a world in which everybody is Enlightened. Nobody would go around saying There's no Me, or I; since the playing field would be even, at ground zero for everybody; and relative minds would go back to an apparent type of separateness; only fully unified as Pure Consciousness. If somebody were wearing flashy clothes that deserved commenting upon, that would be quite natural; and nobody would belabor the question of there being individuals or not. Of course there are individuals!...but some think not. If individuals didn't exist, there would be no point in having Heaven on Earth. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Yagyax. Never saw you on the forum before. This was brilliant. However, I'm confused what you meant by this part: IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those who wish to continue with some type of relative body. But since the delusional I is only ONE component of what makes up an individual, the I cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. I agree that the delusional I is only one component of what makes up the individual. Another component is the enlightened I, which from my perspective includes not just I the universal but I the purified individual ego. I'm not sure that's what you were saying though. If it is, we're in complete agreement. Were you, instead, meaning to say that the false I is the thing that makes us separate from other persons? If that is the case, I disagree. A purified individual ego still distinguishes between itself and others -- moreover, it acts dynamically, rather than passively observing its own actions. It isn't false I to step dynamically into one's individual expression, especially when the universal I is awake within. I was thinking of another analogy: the figures in a painting. All a painting is, on one level, is a painted canvas. There is no diversity other than canvas and paint (kinda like consciousness and energy). That is the oneness level of the painting. But it would be false to say the figures in the painting don't exist. It would not be wrong for a lion in the painting to say I am an individual lion at the same time as it says I am a painting. Both are true. What isn't true is for the lion to say I am only a painting. I was never really a lion. yagyax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Nope Billy - Bronte is more correct - although Auth is technically correct to a certain extent.. The bottom line, beyond the lively exchange of ideas, amounts to a thorough, deepseated POV about how one views the world and the ultimate goal of human evolution: (as discussed in a previous string), a. After E., one can still choose to exist as an individual, b. apparently, one can allow the compoments of one's existence to completely dissolve and disspate, leaving no individual, or c. choose not to choose. However, a. has a variation which may cloud the concept of individuality. A Buddha may exist relatively speaking, but the components of individuality may be spread throughout the universe in countless Transformation bodies. We can take Ramana
[FairfieldLife] To Yagyax / Love locates the heart of individual
Hey Yagyax, I like you. I've found another kindred spirit here. But it's fun hashing it out with all these non-kindred spirits, isn't it? It refines the intellect. Your point that what really makes people individuals is the point of view I like, but would put a slight spin on it. That is, essentially, it: we are all a point of view in the divine consciousness, a perspective from which It views itself. But part of individuality is an impulse that is more than point of view: it is an essence, a spirit-personality, much deeper than the surface personality developed in a human lifetime. It is an impulse that can be experienced in meditation, unless a person does not believe it's there and as a result never looks for or detects it. Anyone who's been deeply in love has experienced this essence in another -- a person-ness eternal and unique. Anyone who's ever been loved has experienced this essence in themselves, enlivened by the perception of the lover. It's why love is so precious! It locates the essential in us all. I believe that soulmates are two halves of the same essence, and the innate drive of the heart to find itself in another is the urge to rediscover and unite with the deepest individual impulse of one's own being. I think it's impossible to be in love and to want to non-exist, or to believe nothing exists but the Isness. The awareness that is Love finds the exquisite essence of the person it adores, as a bee finds the heart of a flower. Each person, like each flower, is unique. Each person has an essence different from every other essence in creation, to be discovered and cherished and loved. We treasure being loved because it makes us rich in our individuality -- something far more than a collection of parts (body, mind, earth-built personality, emotions, likes and dislikes). Love makes us real. It reminds us of our essential reality, both our Cosmic nature and our sacred impulse as a unique, sacred consciousness. yagyax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Hi Bronte...you ask if the false I makes individuals separate. That contributes to it among those ignorant of the Self, since such persons are mainly concerned about the veneer of psychomaterial existence, which is innately separate without consideration of pure Consciousness; in fact evil according to Eckart Tolle. Among those in whom the false I no longer exists, the (strictly relative) separateness that makes MMY different than SSRS or Ramana different than SBS would for starters rely on the (apparent) separateness of things, people, etc oriented in space-time; but more important; since the universe can be considered as an immense computer (matter); with laws (the programs); all conceived of as pure digital bits of information, what really makes people different is simply their POV. Thus, MMY's POV (which is the mind-orientation of an individual within the universal hologram) differs considerably from Ramana's, and then again from the Dalai Lama's. The POV's (viewpoints) partake of extremely powerful M-fields which are often at odds; at this time in the metaphysical area, chiefly the clash between extremist Islam and the West. And, we haven't even touched the problem of world physical suffering; e.g. 16,000 children die each day due to malnutrition. Either one is concered about such problems, or not. The motto of the Advaitins seems to be I don't know and I don't care. Imagine a world in which everybody is Enlightened. Nobody would go around saying There's no Me, or I; since the playing field would be even, at ground zero for everybody; and relative minds would go back to an apparent type of separateness; only fully unified as Pure Consciousness. If somebody were wearing flashy clothes that deserved commenting upon, that would be quite natural; and nobody would belabor the question of there being individuals or not. Of course there are individuals!...but some think not. If individuals didn't exist, there would be no point in having Heaven on Earth. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Yagyax. Never saw you on the forum before. This was brilliant. However, I'm confused what you meant by this part: IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those who wish to continue with some type of relative body. But since the delusional I is only ONE component of what makes up an individual, the I cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the false I does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. I agree that the delusional I is only one component of what makes up the individual. Another
[FairfieldLife] Enlightened Ones are not caged in and do not have cognitions
Oh well, maybe he did, and certainly from my POV lives the Reality of the Vedas. And no doubt ime he has the ability to cognize them-- I'm not disputing that. But he sure hasn't had the time to *document* his cognition.: Hridaya Puri: One doesn't live the reality of the vedas and at the same time is caged in by an inproper vastu, nor do enlightened have cognitions, revelations, or perform sidhis. Jim:If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) Hridaya Puri: Cognitions are all to do with the transcient, it is only the unenlightened ones stil in the process that will have cognitions and revelations such as knowing whatever they want to know in an instant, unfoldiung the entire structure of Jyotish, vedic mathmatics, or the vedas. enlightened on Are the vedas, just Being- not persona Jim:I don't see an answer to my question, just some misdirection; playing Hridaya Puri: I think this is approximately how an enlightened one would answer. If I asked the 3 enlightened one's in my path for this answer, independantly, the same answer would come because it is coming from that same One. Jim:mind games with identification. Kinda boring.:-) Hridaya Puri: I state my reason for posting all this in the first place. There is a value to knowing if a master is enlightened or not because they are only going to take you as far as they are. One might consider when trying to figure out if the one they will entrust their faith with is enlightened by both being with this Guru, and then seeing the progress of the students- are they in confusion, are there enlightened one's etc. For those who are interested in enlightenment above all else, this is an important consideration. Ultimately, one has to use their own discretion, then live with these choices. I present my opinions because it is an option. The way it is received is not up to me but most certainly it will probably be hell for some and maybe heaven for some as well, and then anywhere in between that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 6:32:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's Israeli government propaganda, plain and simple. That's my view, unless you can provide verifiable unbiased corroboration. Those lying Jews! Right? ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 6:32:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's Israeli government propaganda, plain and simple. That's my view, unless you can provide verifiable unbiased corroboration. _YouTube - Palestinian TV: Inciting Children To Commit a Massacre_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEcaI7zQG3E) Seeing is believing...in some cases. Of course those *lying Jews* probably mistranslated the subtitles. Right? ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my understanding is that if you identify with the Self rather than the self, Judy, in your framework: Who is the you that is identifying with the small self? If the answer is the ego, then what is the differentiation of the ego with the i) you (above) Which are volitional? Same question of Bronte, or anyone, if the above framework is your understanding, or experience. And which?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 6:32:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's Israeli government propaganda, plain and simple. That's my view, unless you can provide verifiable unbiased corroboration. Those lying Jews! Right? The right wing government in Jerusalem is no stranger to propaganda and their AIPAC lobby is more than formidable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 6:32:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's Israeli government propaganda, plain and simple. That's my view, unless you can provide verifiable unbiased corroboration. _YouTube - Palestinian TV: Inciting Children To Commit a Massacre_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEcaI7zQG3E) Seeing is believing...in some cases. Of course those *lying Jews* probably mistranslated the subtitles. Right? pmw.org is clearly an Israeli propaganda website. Who do you think you're kidding?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Your posts raises some interesting themes -- a discussion bobbing up and down here through the years. Since you have some degree of opinion or experience on the matter, I ask you and anyone the following -- not in a challenging way but an exploratory way to see the diversity of views and direct experiences for the following. In your framework (or direct experience) what does come from someone who is enlightened? Are people with certain characteristics unable to get enlightened? What are these bad characteristics? Could Tony Soprano be, or become, enlightened (in this life)? If not, how effective is TM (or name you favorite sadhana, practice or path), if they can't enlighten everyone? Would Tony Soprano's behavior change if he were enlightened? Particularly if yes, then does everyone's behavior become better in enlightenment? All aspects of behavior, or just some? Which aspects?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
In a message dated 9/24/07 7:07:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Calling for an explanation of a religious belief that evokes high emotion and political activism, that often ends in death for a group of people, is hardly anti- Islamic, unless of course it happens to be an embarrassing belief. Yes. That's sounds just like some of the 'beliefs' of those in the Christian Right and the right wing media who demonize Muslims. Kinda like Michael Savage who wanted to stick dynamite up their asses, light the fuse and drop them out of airplanes. Or Anne Coulter who recommended we invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Or Glenn Beck During a November 14, 2006, interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck said to the congressman: What I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. (Beck later apologized for what he said was a poorly worded question.) On his shows, Beck repeatedly belittles the Muslim faith by mocking Muslim names and through actions such as mark[ing] the death of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a Zarqawi bacon cake. Jerry Falwell, I think Mohammed was a terrorist. So which one of these people is quoting a religious text calling for anybody's death? Michael Savage isn't a Christian, he's a Jew. Ann Coulter's comment, as I recall, was tongue in cheek. Glenn Beck mocked a dead terrorist not a religion and Jerry Falwell just may have been right about Mohammed being a terrorist due to all the killings he was responsible for on scriptural grounds (Koran of Medina ) 8:12 : “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!” ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
Hey, New Morning. I've been loving your posts on opinions that are 97.9 % true, rules of engagement for dialoging, etc. Your observations are very profound to me. Regarding this question, I'm not sure what you are asking -- this is thorny stuff to put into words, so abstract -- but I'll answer the part I can. You quoted then wrote: Judy: my understanding is that if you identify with the Self rather than the self, New Morning: Judy, in your framework: Who is the you that is identifying with the small self? If the answer is the ego, then what is the differentiation of the ego with the i) you (above) Which are volitional? Same question of Bronte, or anyone, if the above framework is your understanding, or experience. And which? Bronte writes: Who is the I that identifies with the small self -- or for that matter, with the Big Self? This is a profound question you ask. It focuses me to observe that the I that dentifies has to be something other than the thing it identifies with, either Big Self or small self (small self meaning a collection of time-space parts: body, mind, life-built personality, senses, experiences). That which does the identifying is something different from any of that, something that stands inbetween: individual consciousness, the sacred uniqueness, the spirit-personality, the impulse of divine mind at the base of ego. Ego in its pure, pristine form, uncluttered with identification with body or sense experience. Not the earth-bound personality and body nor the Universal Self. Something else. I remember a lecture by MMY on levels of mind or personality. He layered it like a cake. Outer layer of the personality is the senses, beneath that the body, beneath that is the mind, subtler still is the intellect, subtler still is feeling, subtler still individual ego, subtler still universal ego. Maybe someone can remember if I got those right. If I did, individual ego would mean the individual consciousness, the innate unique impulse of divine mind that is I. Universal ego would mean that part of me that is still deeper, the universal mind itself. Which is volitional, you asked. Individual consciousness is volitional, so much so it that it can will to destroy itself if it's has swallowed the story from gurus that self-annihilation is the path to God. Once it self-annihilates, no will is left, no motivation to dynamic or creative action. Only the outer shell remains, that collection of parts we spoke of. Just Universal Mind and the body/mind shell -- no individual at home in it anymore. The prince has abdicated the throne. Universal mind's very purpose in creating that individual has been subverted. - Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/24/07 7:07:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Calling for an explanation of a religious belief that evokes high emotion and political activism, that often ends in death for a group of people, is hardly anti- Islamic, unless of course it happens to be an embarrassing belief. Yes. That's sounds just like some of the 'beliefs' of those in the Christian Right and the right wing media who demonize Muslims. Kinda like Michael Savage who wanted to stick dynamite up their asses, light the fuse and drop them out of airplanes. Or Anne Coulter who recommended we invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Or Glenn Beck During a November 14, 2006, interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck said to the congressman: What I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. (Beck later apologized for what he said was a poorly worded question.) On his shows, Beck repeatedly belittles the Muslim faith by mocking Muslim names and through actions such as mark[ing] the death of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a Zarqawi bacon cake. Jerry Falwell, I think Mohammed was a terrorist. So which one of these people is quoting a religious text calling for anybody's death? Michael Savage isn't a Christian, he's a Jew. Ann Coulter's comment, as I recall, was tongue in cheek. Glenn Beck mocked a dead terrorist not a religion and Jerry Falwell just may have been right about Mohammed being a terrorist due to all the killings he was responsible for on scriptural grounds (Koran of Medina ) 8:12 : âI will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelieversâ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!â Bible: Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. The same dialectic / discussion and diversity survey questions to you that I just asked Billie on this thread. And do any expectations of how a person acts in enlightenment have validity? However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. And Turq, I believe, and others, have a completely different experience, indifferent,with MMY's darsan. Is your experience more valid than his? if so, in what ways? Does triggering deep spiritual experiences necessarily mean the source of that experience is enlightened? Is a murti in a temple enlightened. It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Is love enlightened? It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Someone said a teacher was not so good because she did not give the viewer of her picture a strong energy hit. If personal interpretation of darshaan experience is valid, the is energy-hit-ology also valid for judging a teacher? IMO, interpreation of darshan experience, and any spiritual experience, altered, or beyond conventional state, is an issue. As an example regarding darshan, when I first met SSRS, I went up to the stage and had a nice chat with him at intermission, and he taught my intro course, he asked me and others questions, so there was more than a 3 second type assembly line darshan. Yet I didn't feel so much from his darshan. But through the day I felt some very positive things, but did not attribute it to darshan. That night, the good thing was huge. Still being a skeptical of many casual causal claims, I still did not say or think SSRS caused this. When I went to a second and third course, and the same thing happened, the correlation sank in. (correlation i not causation .. but... for other reasons, I saw it a causal) The effect was huge, but I was looking in the wrong place, so to speak. I initially incorrectly interpreted the source of the huge effect. YMMV As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. Does that make him enlightened? If so,are all sources of paradox enlightened? If not, which are and which are not? To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. And that is your opinion, an your interpretation of your darshan experiences with him. Both are respected. But does your experience sigularly establish that he is enlightened? Can he be enlightened for you, and not for others? What is the role of expectation of the darshan experience have with the actual interpretation of the experience? IMO, its quite large. That might be a factor in explaining the large variance in experiences. Many of the former skin-boys had far far more face time with MMY than you and yet don't share your experience of his darshan. What explains that variance of experience? (an authentic, not pointed, question)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Replying to New Morning's excellent questions (below) on this thread: It appears that all these people we hold up as enlightened masters wear the shine off their halos the more we get to know them. I say the reason is our concept of enlightenment. If all that means to us is that the person becomes aware of their universal nature (CC) or even it means he becomes aware of his oneness with all existence (BC), little has been done to change and perfect the ego, or individual consciousness, which many people on FFL are claiming doesn't exist. Of course if you think it doesn't exist, you'll do nothing to align it with divine mind, cosmic intention. You'll think that just knowing your universal aspect is the quintessential height of evolution. In reality, that's only part of the journey. The remaining part is for individual consciousness to master the limitations of this dimension, imbibing and expressing universal consciousness in every aspect of one's individual being. This cannot happen if you've gone and annihilated your individual consciousness. To me, true enlightenment is cognizing your universal nature and perfecting your individual nature at the same time -- which means retaining your ego, identifying with it, and purifying/ filling it with the universal light of your own universal Brahman nature. If that became part of people's definition of enlightenment -- which it isn't, for most participants in Eastern spiritual systems -- then the human personality would outgrow its flaws and earthbound limitations. We'd all become masters in the truest, fullest sense. Not walking zombies, and not shakti-zappers who have to screw their disciples. new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Your posts raises some interesting themes -- a discussion bobbing up and down here through the years. Since you have some degree of opinion or experience on the matter, I ask you and anyone the following -- not in a challenging way but an exploratory way to see the diversity of views and direct experiences for the following. In your framework (or direct experience) what does come from someone who is enlightened? Are people with certain characteristics unable to get enlightened? What are these bad characteristics? Could Tony Soprano be, or become, enlightened (in this life)? If not, how effective is TM (or name you favorite sadhana, practice or path), if they can't enlighten everyone? Would Tony Soprano's behavior change if he were enlightened? Particularly if yes, then does everyone's behavior become better in enlightenment? All aspects of behavior, or just some? Which aspects? - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an I or a Me?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rocks have no self-referential consciousness so they are not individuals. And enlightenment, you have suggested, does not need a nervous system. Which is quite a distinct proposition from the almost truism that Consciousness Knowing Itself omnipresently. If I have misunderstood you in the past,and you are only suggesting point 2, then your point is clear. If you are suggesting both propositions, then a question: and it does no follow precisely, but may in a round about, or back door way, i) if a nervous system is not needed for enlightenment, and ii) a rock has no nervous system, and iii) consciosness omnipresently knows itself, why then can't the rock be enlightened? And as in last post, can an enlivened rock murta in a temple be enlightened?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch on TM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jzJjeT_rNQ On as in David Lynch on Steroids?
