[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On second thought, I might be all wrong. I've always thought there's an ellipsis of the predicate verb, but it might not be the case after all. Beats me! The apostrphe-d is the verb. Stands for would or had in informal English. Yeah, but I gather both in I had rather and I would rather it's only an auxiliary verb. Of course had could also be the main verb. But it seems to me the main verb is missing in both cases. If had acted as a main verb, those idioms (with had and would) wouldn't IMO be...hmm... analogous(?). 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
Thanks Hanuman for your response. I'm glad to hear you have been reading 'Kathy's Story'. Jai Guru Dev --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: I obtained a copy of these satsangs more than thirty years ago, and have not posted quotations of Guru Dev speaking on this subject. However, Frank Lotz seemed to be parading his devotion to his 'Guru- jie' so I responded by doing a little Hindi translation work. So, you can thank Frank. Thanks Frank. I know Frank from past TM years, and if that helps you, can assure you, that he won't harm you, or send you a letter bomb. He easily gets heated, always was so. He has done fist fights when provoked, so it may not be a good idea to stand in front of his house and ring the bell, and say 'Fuck Maha..'. ;-) I myself was threatened here not too long ago by one of our more outspoken members here with the words: 'Fuck you and die' and I am still very much alive ;-) And he is not as closed minded as you would think. For example he also visited Mother Meera here, something real TB TMers wouldn't do. And he is a really, really good cook. So thank you also Paul. I just read your story of Kathy 2005 on your web, really amazing. So thanks Paul for all the interesting stuff. But I now also understand why MMY doesn't want to publish all of it. He simply doesn't agree with some of it. People seem to think that aligning ones thinking with the master, like in classical Guru/disciple devotion means that he should copy him, and do exactly the same things he did. I disagree. Simply copying a person in his outward acts or opinions is not a great achievement. Understanding his actions and desires was for MMY a *means* to achieve an inner alignment, which served as a channel for the transmission of the inner *essence*. Once this is achieved, there is no need to copy the master, rather everyone must live his own enlightenment. It is my understanding, that MMY had visions of GD while moving in the south, around 1955, and consequently similar hints at Kanyakumari and Guruvayur, which gave rise to him teaching. While in actual physical body GD never asked MMY to teach, or even would have disallowed him to be a Guru (he obviously allowed him to lecture in his presence, as seen on films), he may have done so in visions. You may believe in it or not, but for MMY that must have been the reason and indication to start teaching. All this 'happened'. MMY for some reason had this disposition, and we, as followers fell for it, and it subsequently changed our lives, more or less. For my part I am glad he did. History is full of great people who broke rules. Does it mean they parted from the tradition at a whole? Did Luther part from Christianity when he broke the rules of Catholicism? I know that all traditions change all the time. Even the current Shankaracharya of Kanchi is accused to break the rules of his former Shankaracharya, who like GD was a great saint, but also very rigid. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 no_reply@ wrote: snip Within the TMO there is a disinclination to consider that MMY's word and actions are also influenced by culture and thus that everything he says is not the absolute speaking absolutely (rather, no more than it is when you or I or they themselves speak), that women in saris is just fashion and culture instead of a law of nature, that condemnation of english and modern education and a strong campaign to repatriate the wealth stolen by the west back to India might be an just ideological quest, and that worshipping laws of nature in the form of Lakshmi and Ganesh might just be Hinduism and not neutral science. Again, well put. But one wants to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, is listening to Vedic chanting merely cultural, or do the sounds actually have an effect on consciousness? How do you know where to draw the line? Sometimes it seems obvious, but other times it may not be quite so clear. And different people, of course, draw the line in different places, so that line isn't absolute either. All sounds have an effect on consciousness--weed whackers, Bach, Vedic chanting, (c)rap music (the c is silent). Go for what feels life-supporting for you. Likewise, if you like wearing saris, fine. But to pretend it's a law of nature that women should wear saris is, IMO, unnecessary. Yeah, well, that kind of misses my point, which was that *some* things that are apparently cultural may *also* be scientific in that their specific effects are universal. (I wasn't including saris, by the way.) Thanks for clarifying. I didn't address that because I didn't see that the point was in contention (although universal is a pretty large in scope). I didn't even think I was suggesting throwing anything out in the first place, only saying that I don't believe Maharishi is totally uninfluenced by culture, history, situation in time, and ideology, and that some of what he does is based on that. I wasn't even saying that's a bad thing, more that it is unavoidable. Just as Guru Dev was influenced by his cultural milieu, so is Maharishi. And the issue with Vedic chanting, of course, would be whether it has a *positive* effect on consciousness. (I'm not talking about whether it's enjoyable or elevating to listen to aesthetically; I'd vastly rather listen to Bach for that.) That could lead to some interesting discussion about precisely which recitation--Vedic or or non-Vedic sanskrit, or Buddhist, Chinese, Japanese, Australian aboriginal, North American native, African etc.--has which effects for developing consciousness or making life more in harmony with natural law etc. I have more questions than answers in that regard. No doubt some of the more scholarly posters here would have some interesting things to say. If I have time perhaps I'll start a new thread on that topic. Drawing the lines is where thinking for ourselves comes in. Ultimately, we're responsible for ourselves. So long as we recognize the lines aren't universal. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what I'd call insisting that a country of 1 billion people throw out all English language education and western-style schooling educate everyone in their own tribal language and calling it Vedic. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Yeah, well, that kind of misses my point, which was that *some* things that are apparently cultural may *also* be scientific in that their specific effects are universal. (I wasn't including saris, by the way.) Thanks for clarifying. I didn't address that because I didn't see that the point was in contention (although universal is a pretty large in scope). If there really is a law of nature component to any of this stuff, it *would* be universal, wouldn't it? That's what I was getting at. I didn't even think I was suggesting throwing anything out in the first place, only saying that I don't believe Maharishi is totally uninfluenced by culture, history, situation in time, and ideology, and that some of what he does is based on that. Yes indeed, I fully agree. It's just that there's a tendency on this forum (not you necessarily) to see everything in black-and-white terms--in this case, if it's cultural, it's *only* cultural and can thus be disregarded. So I wanted to suggest a caveat in that regard. I wasn't even saying that's a bad thing, more that it is unavoidable. Just as Guru Dev was influenced by his cultural milieu, so is Maharishi. Yup. And the issue with Vedic chanting, of course, would be whether it has a *positive* effect on consciousness. (I'm not talking about whether it's enjoyable or elevating to listen to aesthetically; I'd vastly rather listen to Bach for that.) That could lead to some interesting discussion about precisely which recitation--Vedic or or non-Vedic sanskrit, or Buddhist, Chinese, Japanese, Australian aboriginal, North American native, African etc. Hebrew too, although from a different angle. Many ancient languages make similar claims. --has which effects for developing consciousness or making life more in harmony with natural law etc. I have more questions than answers in that regard. No doubt some of the more scholarly posters here would have some interesting things to say. If I have time perhaps I'll start a new thread on that topic. Please do, it's an area of interest for me. As far as I'm aware, the TMO is the only group that has attempted to research the effect of language sounds on consciousness. Do you know of any such efforts elsewhere, with other languages than Sanskrit? It would be neat to do a comparative study, I should think. Only one, which suggests that the effect isn't exactly replictable... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=searchDB=pubmed 1: Int J Neurosci. 2001 Jul;109(1-2):71-80. Links Physiological patterns during practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique compared with patterns while reading Sanskrit and a modern language. Travis F, Olson T, Egenes T, Gupta HK. Psychology Dept., Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa 52557, USA. This study tested the prediction that reading Vedic Sanskrit texts, without knowledge of their meaning, produces a distinct physiological state. We measured EEG, breath rate, heart rate, and skin conductance during: (1) 15-min Transcendental Meditation (TM) practice; (2) 15-min reading verses of the Bhagavad Gita in Sanskrit; and (3) 15-min reading the same verses translated in German, Spanish, or French. The two reading conditions were randomly counterbalanced, and subjects filled out experience forms between each block to reduce carryover effects. Skin conductance levels significantly decreased during both reading Sanskrit and TM practice, and increased slightly during reading a modern language. Alpha power and coherence were significantly higher when reading Sanskrit and during TM practice, compared to reading modern languages. Similar physiological patterns when reading Sanskrit and during practice of the TM technique suggests that the state gained during TM practice may be integrated with active mental processes by reading Sanskrit. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' Checking on the story of Chudala and her husband Shikhidhvaja, I came across this: Shikhidhvaja said: Aha, I have truly been awakened by you, O sage. I am freed of foolishness, You are MY GURU; I am YOUR DISCIPLE. Pray instruct me in what you know, knowing which one does not grieve. In the story of Yoga Vasishtha, King Shikhidhvaja has given up the kingdom to become a recluse, turning over the reigns to his Queen Chudala. Chudala by sheer grace did get awakened on hearing the truth of the scriptures about non-attachment. The king is not able to accept her advice at first, as she is his wife, a mere woman. The queen sees his plights in the forrest with her yogic eye and appears to him as a Brahman boy, to whom the King has addressed the above. The Queen, in the disguise of the Brahman boy accepts his discipleship, by saying: I shall instruct you if you cherrish my words and are in a receptive mood Yoga Vasishtha VI.87.42 This dierectly contradicts what Guru Dev says. Indeed the whole import of the story seems to be, that enlightenment is independend of social status. See the pun in the story, that She who is enlightened does only get recognized to be so by her husband, after she has adopted the shape of a Brahmana. As she continues to instruct the King who finally realizes, and comes back to the kingdom. So it is also about that the enlightened is qualified to be the teacher independend of social status. Besides that, both weren't Brahmanas, they were of course Kshatriyas as was Krishna who instructed Arjuna. Maybe Guru Dev, who certainly knew the story, which directly contradicts him, meant to say that women did not accept other disciples or more disciples. He did so to make his point, and obviously this question was around at his time, otherwise no need to address it. I can imagine, that in old times, the Sadhus were basically naked, just dressed with a lion cloth, it would have been strange for a women to have male disciples. Other way round too. So the whole thing was very much a male affair, except when wifes were involved. These are totally outdated rules, but orthodoxy tries to preserve them, and GD happened to be their main representative. There have been many female teachers in India, very famous e.g. Anandamayi Ma, whom Maharishi visited. I know that MMY accepted Anandamayi as a teacher, because I once overheard, how somebody suggested to him to call a certain person for a project, and MMY declined saying that this person was now with Anandamayi Ma, which shows, that he respected that this person had adopted her as a Guru. If MMY was not a Guru, there would be no need to refer to people with 'other' 'Gurus', that being a reason for rejecting dome attendance. It would be enough then, if people practise TM and Siddhis at the time of the programme. So Maharishi seems to be Guru to at least some. Also, traditionally, Mantra Diksha (Initiation) is indicative of adopting a Guru (in the case of MMY, he has delegated this task to disciples). In any case, it is clear that MMY broke with the rigidity of this tradition, rightly as I think. This is not the first time at all,but it just happened to be within this most orthodox branch of the Dasanami Sampradaya. If you want to accuse MMY of that, do it. But then you show symphathy for the utmost orthodox opinion within Hinduism, and prove your agreement to heritary caste system. For most people, with the possible exception of Paul, our views and appreciation of Guru Dev stem solely from MMY. We love him because we see him through the eyes of MMY. Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. I doubt that anybody here would be interested in him, if it wasn't for the involvement with MMY and TM. If MMY would have been rejected to be a teacher out of lack of qualification, I would understand it. But here its all about caste and sexism. I have a female guru (who doesn't call herself guru btw.) and so has Rick and many others. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
I obtained a copy of these satsangs more than thirty years ago, and have not posted quotations of Guru Dev speaking on this subject. However, Frank Lotz seemed to be parading his devotion to his 'Guru- jie' so I responded by doing a little Hindi translation work. So, you can thank Frank. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' Checking on the story of Chudala and her husband Shikhidhvaja, I came across this: Shikhidhvaja said: Aha, I have truly been awakened by you, O sage. I am freed of foolishness, You are MY GURU; I am YOUR DISCIPLE. Pray instruct me in what you know, knowing which one does not grieve. In the story of Yoga Vasishtha, King Shikhidhvaja has given up the kingdom to become a recluse, turning over the reigns to his Queen Chudala. Chudala by sheer grace did get awakened on hearing the truth of the scriptures about non-attachment. The king is not able to accept her advice at first, as she is his wife, a mere woman. The queen sees his plights in the forrest with her yogic eye and appears to him as a Brahman boy, to whom the King has addressed the above. The Queen, in the disguise of the Brahman boy accepts his discipleship, by saying: I shall instruct you if you cherrish my words and are in a receptive mood Yoga Vasishtha VI.87.42 This dierectly contradicts what Guru Dev says. Indeed the whole import of the story seems to be, that enlightenment is independend of social status. See the pun in the story, that She who is enlightened does only get recognized to be so by her husband, after she has adopted the shape of a Brahmana. As she continues to instruct the King who finally realizes, and comes back to the kingdom. So it is also about that the enlightened is qualified to be the teacher independend of social status. Besides that, both weren't Brahmanas, they were of course Kshatriyas as was Krishna who instructed Arjuna. Maybe Guru Dev, who certainly knew the story, which directly contradicts him, meant to say that women did not accept other disciples or more disciples. He did so to make his point, and obviously this question was around at his time, otherwise no need to address it. I can imagine, that in old times, the Sadhus were basically naked, just dressed with a lion cloth, it would have been strange for a women to have male disciples. Other way round too. So the whole thing was very much a male affair, except when wifes were involved. These are totally outdated rules, but orthodoxy tries to preserve them, and GD happened to be their main representative. There have been many female teachers in India, very famous e.g. Anandamayi Ma, whom Maharishi visited. I know that MMY accepted Anandamayi as a teacher, because I once overheard, how somebody suggested to him to call a certain person for a project, and MMY declined saying that this person was now with Anandamayi Ma, which shows, that he respected that this person had adopted her as a Guru. If MMY was not a Guru, there would be no need to refer to people with 'other' 'Gurus', that being a reason for rejecting dome attendance. It would be enough then, if people practise TM and Siddhis at the time of the programme. So Maharishi seems to be Guru to at least some. Also, traditionally, Mantra Diksha (Initiation) is indicative of adopting a Guru (in the case of MMY, he has delegated this task to disciples). In any case, it is clear that MMY broke with the rigidity of this tradition, rightly as I think. This is not the first time at all,but it just happened to be within this most orthodox branch of the Dasanami Sampradaya. If you want to accuse MMY of that, do it. But then you show symphathy for the utmost orthodox opinion within Hinduism, and prove your agreement to heritary caste system. For most people, with the possible exception of Paul, our views and appreciation of Guru Dev stem solely from MMY. We love him because we see him through the eyes of MMY. Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. I doubt that anybody here would be interested in him, if it wasn't for the involvement with MMY and TM. If MMY would have been rejected to be a teacher out of lack of qualification, I would understand it. But here its all about caste and sexism. I have a female guru (who doesn't call herself guru btw.) and so has Rick and many others. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
I just realized that not only a woman can't be a guru, a man can not be a guru either. So there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' Checking on the story of Chudala and her husband Shikhidhvaja, I came across this: Shikhidhvaja said: Aha, I have truly been awakened by you, O sage. I am freed of foolishness, You are MY GURU; I am YOUR DISCIPLE. Pray instruct me in what you know, knowing which one does not grieve. In the story of Yoga Vasishtha, King Shikhidhvaja has given up the kingdom to become a recluse, turning over the reigns to his Queen Chudala. Chudala by sheer grace did get awakened on hearing the truth of the scriptures about non-attachment. The king is not able to accept her advice at first, as she is his wife, a mere woman. The queen sees his plights in the forrest with her yogic eye and appears to him as a Brahman boy, to whom the King has addressed the above. The Queen, in the disguise of the Brahman boy accepts his discipleship, by saying: I shall instruct you if you cherrish my words and are in a receptive mood Yoga Vasishtha VI.87.42 This dierectly contradicts what Guru Dev says. Indeed the whole import of the story seems to be, that enlightenment is independend of social status. See the pun in the story, that She who is enlightened does only get recognized to be so by her husband, after she has adopted the shape of a Brahmana. As she continues to instruct the King who finally realizes, and comes back to the kingdom. So it is also about that the enlightened is qualified to be the teacher independend of social status. Besides that, both weren't Brahmanas, they were of course Kshatriyas as was Krishna who instructed Arjuna. Maybe Guru Dev, who certainly knew the story, which directly contradicts him, meant to say that women did not accept other disciples or more disciples. He did so to make his point, and obviously this question was around at his time, otherwise no need to address it. I can imagine, that in old times, the Sadhus were basically naked, just dressed with a lion cloth, it would have been strange for a women to have male disciples. Other way round too. So the whole thing was very much a male affair, except when wifes were involved. These are totally outdated rules, but orthodoxy tries to preserve them, and GD happened to be their main representative. There have been many female teachers in India, very famous e.g. Anandamayi Ma, whom Maharishi visited. I know that MMY accepted Anandamayi as a teacher, because I once overheard, how somebody suggested to him to call a certain person for a project, and MMY declined saying that this person was now with Anandamayi Ma, which shows, that he respected that this person had adopted her as a Guru. If MMY was not a Guru, there would be no need to refer to people with 'other' 'Gurus', that being a reason for rejecting dome attendance. It would be enough then, if people practise TM and Siddhis at the time of the programme. So Maharishi seems to be Guru to at least some. Also, traditionally, Mantra Diksha (Initiation) is indicative of adopting a Guru (in the case of MMY, he has delegated this task to disciples). In any case, it is clear that MMY broke with the rigidity of this tradition, rightly as I think. This is not the first time at all,but it just happened to be within this most orthodox branch of the Dasanami Sampradaya. If you want to accuse MMY of that, do it. But then you show symphathy for the utmost orthodox opinion within Hinduism, and prove your agreement to heritary caste system. For most people, with the possible exception of Paul, our views and appreciation of Guru Dev stem solely from MMY. We love him because we see him through the eyes of MMY. Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. I doubt that anybody here would be interested in him, if it wasn't for the involvement with MMY and TM. If MMY would have been rejected to be a teacher out of lack of qualification, I would understand it. But here its all about caste and sexism. I have a female guru (who doesn't call herself guru btw.) and so has Rick and many others. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just realized that not only a woman can't be a guru, a man can not be a guru either. So there. Because only SELF can recognize itSELF, and nobody can enlighten you, and there is no other, just ONE which is always realized ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' Checking on the story of Chudala and her husband Shikhidhvaja, I came across this: Shikhidhvaja said: Aha, I have truly been awakened by you, O sage. I am freed of foolishness, You are MY GURU; I am YOUR DISCIPLE. Pray instruct me in what you know, knowing which one does not grieve. In the story of Yoga Vasishtha, King Shikhidhvaja has given up the kingdom to become a recluse, turning over the reigns to his Queen Chudala. Chudala by sheer grace did get awakened on hearing the truth of the scriptures about non-attachment. The king is not able to accept her advice at first, as she is his wife, a mere woman. The queen sees his plights in the forrest with her yogic eye and appears to him as a Brahman boy, to whom the King has addressed the above. The Queen, in the disguise of the Brahman boy accepts his discipleship, by saying: I shall instruct you if you cherrish my words and are in a receptive mood Yoga Vasishtha VI.87.42 This dierectly contradicts what Guru Dev says. Indeed the whole import of the story seems to be, that enlightenment is independend of social status. See the pun in the story, that She who is enlightened does only get recognized to be so by her husband, after she has adopted the shape of a Brahmana. As she continues to instruct the King who finally realizes, and comes back to the kingdom. So it is also about that the enlightened is qualified to be the teacher independend of social status. Besides that, both weren't Brahmanas, they were of course Kshatriyas as was Krishna who instructed Arjuna. Maybe Guru Dev, who certainly knew the story, which directly contradicts him, meant to say that women did not accept other disciples or more disciples. He did so to make his point, and obviously this question was around at his time, otherwise no need to address it. I can imagine, that in old times, the Sadhus were basically naked, just dressed with a lion cloth, it would have been strange for a women to have male disciples. Other way round too. So the whole thing was very much a male affair, except when wifes were involved. These are totally outdated rules, but orthodoxy tries to preserve them, and GD happened to be their main representative. There have been many female teachers in India, very famous e.g. Anandamayi Ma, whom Maharishi visited. I know that MMY accepted Anandamayi as a teacher, because I once overheard, how somebody suggested to him to call a certain person for a project, and MMY declined saying that this person was now with Anandamayi Ma, which shows, that he respected that this person had adopted her as a Guru. If MMY was not a Guru, there would be no need to refer to people with 'other' 'Gurus', that being a reason for rejecting dome attendance. It would be enough then, if people practise TM and Siddhis at the time of the programme. So Maharishi seems to be Guru to at least some. Also, traditionally, Mantra Diksha (Initiation) is indicative of adopting a Guru (in the case of MMY, he has delegated this task to disciples). In any case, it is clear that MMY broke with the rigidity of this tradition, rightly as I think. This is not the first time at all,but it just happened to be within this most orthodox branch of the Dasanami Sampradaya. If you want to accuse MMY of that, do it. But then you show symphathy for the utmost orthodox opinion within Hinduism, and prove your agreement to heritary caste system. For most people, with the possible exception of Paul, our views and appreciation of Guru Dev stem solely from MMY. We love him because we see him through the eyes of MMY. Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. I doubt that anybody here would be interested in him, if it wasn't for the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
Since I seem to be in a two cents mood for a few days --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: big snip Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. Yes. There are some interesting points being made in this discussion. One of my big heresies within the TMO was to suggest that being enlightened (yes, working on the assumption that MMY is enlightened) does not free one from all historic, cultural, and ideological boundarie s. It's easy for people to look at an old-fashioned idea that Guru Dev may have had and reject it because it doesn't fit with modern thinking. Within the TMO there is a disinclination to consider that MMY's word and actions are also influenced by culture and thus that everything he says is not the absolute speaking absolutely (rather, no more than it is when you or I or they themselves speak), that women in saris is just fashion and culture instead of a law of nature, that condemnation of english and modern education and a strong campaign to repatriate the wealth stolen by the west back to India might be an just ideological quest, and that worshipping laws of nature in the form of Lakshmi and Ganesh might just be Hinduism and not neutral science. Just as it is not a condemnation of Guru Dev to recognize the cultural milieu in which he operated, nor is it a condemnation to recognize the same about any other spiritual teacher whether it's Meister Eckhardt, St. Teresa of Avilla, Walt Whitman, the woman next door, or MMY. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I seem to be in a two cents mood for a few days --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: big snip Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. Yes. There are some interesting points being made in this discussion. One of my big heresies within the TMO was to suggest that being enlightened (yes, working on the assumption that MMY is enlightened) does not free one from all historic, cultural, and ideological boundarie s. It's easy for people to look at an old-fashioned idea that Guru Dev may have had and reject it because it doesn't fit with modern thinking. Well, you don't have to be *that* modern to reject his ideas in this regard as oldfashioned. Around that time, the turn of last century, there was lot of discussion about renovating Hinduism, and there was considerable scepticism as to what the original Veda actually meant. Just think of the reformist Hindu movements like Brahmo Samaj or Arya Samaj. For example Ganapati Muni strived for equality of women and men with regard to vedic studies. He was of the opinion, that caste was not determined by birth, but by the distribution of sattva, rajas and tamas in an individual. Within the TMO there is a disinclination to consider that MMY's word and actions are also influenced by culture and thus that everything he says is not the absolute speaking absolutely (rather, no more than it is when you or I or they themselves speak), that women in saris is just fashion and culture instead of a law of nature, that condemnation of english and modern education and a strong campaign to repatriate the wealth stolen by the west back to India might be an just ideological quest, and that worshipping laws of nature in the form of Lakshmi and Ganesh might just be Hinduism and not neutral science. Just as it is not a condemnation of Guru Dev to recognize the cultural milieu in which he operated, nor is it a condemnation to recognize the same about any other spiritual teacher whether it's Meister Eckhardt, St. Teresa of Avilla, Walt Whitman, the woman next door, or MMY. I agree with all of your points. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I seem to be in a two cents mood for a few days --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: big snip Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. Yes. There are some interesting points being made in this discussion. One of my big heresies within the TMO was to suggest that being enlightened (yes, working on the assumption that MMY is enlightened) does not free one from all historic, cultural, and ideological boundarie s. It's easy for people to look at an old-fashioned idea that Guru Dev may have had and reject it because it doesn't fit with modern thinking. Within the TMO there is a disinclination to consider that MMY's word and actions are also influenced by culture and thus that everything he says is not the absolute speaking absolutely (rather, no more than it is when you or I or they themselves speak), that women in saris is just fashion and culture instead of a law of nature, that condemnation of english and modern education and a strong campaign to repatriate the wealth stolen by the west back to India might be an just ideological quest, and that worshipping laws of nature in the form of Lakshmi and Ganesh might just be Hinduism and not neutral science. Again, well put. But one wants to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, is listening to Vedic chanting merely cultural, or do the sounds actually have an effect on consciousness? How do you know where to draw the line? Sometimes it seems obvious, but other times it may not be quite so clear. And different people, of course, draw the line in different places, so that line isn't absolute either. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I obtained a copy of these satsangs more than thirty years ago, and have not posted quotations of Guru Dev speaking on this subject. However, Frank Lotz seemed to be parading his devotion to his 'Guru- jie' so I responded by doing a little Hindi translation work. So, you can thank Frank. Thanks Frank. I know Frank from past TM years, and if that helps you, can assure you, that he won't harm you, or send you a letter bomb. He easily gets heated, always was so. He has done fist fights when provoked, so it may not be a good idea to stand in front of his house and ring the bell, and say 'Fuck Maha..'. ;-) I myself was threatened here not too long ago by one of our more outspoken members here with the words: 'Fuck you and die' and I am still very much alive ;-) And he is not as closed minded as you would think. For example he also visited Mother Meera here, something real TB TMers wouldn't do. And he is a really, really good cook. So thank you also Paul. I just read your story of Kathy 2005 on your web, really amazing. So thanks Paul for all the interesting stuff. But I now also understand why MMY doesn't want to publish all of it. He simply doesn't agree with some of it. People seem to think that aligning ones thinking with the master, like in classical Guru/disciple devotion means that he should copy him, and do exactly the same things he did. I disagree. Simply copying a person in his outward acts or opinions is not a great achievement. Understanding his actions and desires was for MMY a *means* to achieve an inner alignment, which served as a channel for the transmission of the inner *essence*. Once this is achieved, there is no need to copy the master, rather everyone must live his own enlightenment. It is my understanding, that MMY had visions of GD while moving in the south, around 1955, and consequently similar hints at Kanyakumari and Guruvayur, which gave rise to him teaching. While in actual physical body GD never asked MMY to teach, or even would have disallowed him to be a Guru (he obviously allowed him to lecture in his presence, as seen on films), he may have done so in visions. You may believe in it or not, but for MMY that must have been the reason and indication to start teaching. All this 'happened'. MMY for some reason had this disposition, and we, as followers fell for it, and it subsequently changed our lives, more or less. For my part I am glad he did. History is full of great people who broke rules. Does it mean they parted from the tradition at a whole? Did Luther part from Christianity when he broke the rules of Catholicism? I know that all traditions change all the time. Even the current Shankaracharya of Kanchi is accused to break the rules of his former Shankaracharya, who like GD was a great saint, but also very rigid. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: I obtained a copy of these satsangs more than thirty years ago, and have not posted quotations of Guru Dev speaking on this subject. However, Frank Lotz seemed to be parading his devotion to his 'Guru- jie' so I responded by doing a little Hindi translation work. So, you can thank Frank. Thanks Frank. I know Frank from past TM years, and if that helps you, can assure you, that he won't harm you, or send you a letter bomb. He easily gets heated, always was so. He has done fist fights when provoked, so it may not be a good idea to stand in front of his house and ring the bell, and say 'Fuck Maha..'. ;-) I myself was threatened here not too long ago by one of our more outspoken members here with the words: 'Fuck you and die' and I am still very much alive ;-) Since I can be pretty certain that our resident No-that's-not-what-was-said-this-is-what-was- really-what-was-said expert is not likely to come running in to correct this particular piece of misinformation :-), I will. What was actually said (and I know because I said it) was, Fuck off and die. Off, dude, not you. There's a difference. Fuck off and die is not really a threat, Michael It's a common form of dismissal, along the lines of, Go forth and multiply elsewhere, somewhere they actually take people like you seriously. :-) :-) :-) Michael, if you had misquoted something that the aforementioned expert had said this egregiously, you *know* how she would have reacted. She would have questioned your motives, accused you of having an anti-somethingorother agenda, and called you a LIAR twelve ways to Sunday. I'll merely suggest 1) that English is not your native language, and 2) that you tend to over- react and get a little hysterical and show your girlyman side when someone doesn't take you seriously. As for the phrase itself, I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, dude, but you really *are* going to die. All of us are, someday. So another way of looking at someone telling you to fuck off and die is as a *positive* sugges- tion -- they're sending you on your way with the wish that you'll get a good roll in the hay in before you croak. :-) :-) :-) 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: snip I myself was threatened here not too long ago by one of our more outspoken members here with the words: 'Fuck you and die' and I am still very much alive ;-) Since I can be pretty certain that our resident No-that's-not-what-was-said-this-is-what-was- really-what-was-said expert is not likely to come running in to correct this particular piece of misinformation :-), I will. What was actually said (and I know because I said it) was, Fuck off and die. Off, dude, not you. There's a difference. Fuck off and die is not really a threat, Michael It's a common form of dismissal, along the lines of, Go forth and multiply elsewhere, somewhere they actually take people like you seriously. :-) :-) :-) Michael, if you had misquoted something that the aforementioned expert had said this egregiously, you *know* how she would have reacted. She would have questioned your motives, accused you of having an anti-somethingorother agenda, and called you a LIAR twelve ways to Sunday. Barry, take your medication, please. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was actually said (and I know because I said it) was, Fuck off and die. Off, dude, not you. You are right, that is what you must have said. There's a difference. I can't tell, I couldn't know, I wouldn't know, I am german, how many American idioms am I suppossed to know. No,it wasn't a threat in the sense that I expected you to come over here and help. But I did think die means die, that is 'dead to me', that is sort of: 'If you were dead it doesn't make any difference.' And that's not nice, even for somebody you don't like Fuck off and die is not really a threat, Michael It's a common form of dismissal, along the lines of, Go forth and multiply elsewhere, somewhere they actually take people like you seriously. :-) :-) :-) Michael, if you had misquoted something that the aforementioned expert had said this egregiously, you *know* how she would have reacted. She would have questioned your motives, accused you of having an anti-somethingorother agenda, and called you a LIAR twelve ways to Sunday. I'll merely suggest 1) that English is not your native language, and 2) that you tend to over- react and get a little hysterical and show your girlyman side when someone doesn't take you seriously. Take the first point. You have to understand the language in order to know how to react. Why the hell do you throw idioms at a person you know he can't know? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: What was actually said (and I know because I said it) was, Fuck off and die. Off, dude, not you. You are right, that is what you must have said. There's a difference. I can't tell, I couldn't know, I wouldn't know, Very little difference, actually, between Fuck you and Fuck off. I am german, how many American idioms am I suppossed to know. No,it wasn't a threat in the sense that I expected you to come over here and help. But I did think die means die, that is 'dead to me', that is sort of: 'If you were dead it doesn't make any difference.' More like, I'd rather you were dead. But still not a threat. And that's not nice, even for somebody you don't like It's *very* hostile. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 no_reply@ wrote: Since I seem to be in a two cents mood for a few days --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: big snip Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. Yes. There are some interesting points being made in this discussion. One of my big heresies within the TMO was to suggest that being enlightened (yes, working on the assumption that MMY is enlightened) does not free one from all historic, cultural, and ideological boundarie s. It's easy for people to look at an old-fashioned idea that Guru Dev may have had and reject it because it doesn't fit with modern thinking. Well, you don't have to be *that* modern to reject his ideas in this regard as oldfashioned. Around that time, the turn of last century, there was lot of discussion about renovating Hinduism, and there was considerable scepticism as to what the original Veda actually meant. Just think of the reformist Hindu movements like Brahmo Samaj or Arya Samaj. For example Ganapati Muni strived for equality of women and men with regard to vedic studies. He was of the opinion, that caste was not determined by birth, but by the distribution of sattva, rajas and tamas in an individual. MMY says it's determined by the Jyotish chart, which allegedly is the same thing. Within the TMO there is a disinclination to consider that MMY's word and actions are also influenced by culture and thus that everything he says is not the absolute speaking absolutely (rather, no more than it is when you or I or they themselves speak), that women in saris is just fashion and culture instead of a law of nature, that condemnation of english and modern education and a strong campaign to repatriate the wealth stolen by the west back to India might be an just ideological quest, and that worshipping laws of nature in the form of Lakshmi and Ganesh might just be Hinduism and not neutral science. Just as it is not a condemnation of Guru Dev to recognize the cultural milieu in which he operated, nor is it a condemnation to recognize the same about any other spiritual teacher whether it's Meister Eckhardt, St. Teresa of Avilla, Walt Whitman, the woman next door, or MMY. I agree with all of your points. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? But still not a threat. And that's not nice, even for somebody you don't like It's *very* hostile. Well, lets forget about it. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: What was actually said (and I know because I said it) was, Fuck off and die. Off, dude, not you. You are right, that is what you must have said. There's a difference. I can't tell, I couldn't know, I wouldn't know, I am german, how many American idioms am I suppossed to know. No,it wasn't a threat in the sense that I expected you to come over here and help. But I did think die means die, that is 'dead to me', that is sort of: 'If you were dead it doesn't make any difference.' And that's not nice, even for somebody you don't like Fuck off and die is not really a threat, Michael It's a common form of dismissal, along the lines of, Go forth and multiply elsewhere, somewhere they actually take people like you seriously. :-) :-) :-) Michael, if you had misquoted something that the aforementioned expert had said this egregiously, you *know* how she would have reacted. She would have questioned your motives, accused you of having an anti-somethingorother agenda, and called you a LIAR twelve ways to Sunday. I'll merely suggest 1) that English is not your native language, and 2) that you tend to over- react and get a little hysterical and show your girlyman side when someone doesn't take you seriously. Take the first point. You have to understand the language in order to know how to react. Why the hell do you throw idioms at a person you know he can't know? Congratulations! You have successfully demonstrated that there *are* other people in the universe who can hold a grudge as long as Judy Stein does. The not too long ago in your mind when you wrote about the horrible, terrible Fuck off and die threat hurled at you was back in APRIL, dude. We have not exchanged words since then, if I am not mistaken. I'm trying to decide whether this routine is what Germans do to disprove the recently- voiced opinions here that they take them- selves WAY too seriously, or whether it's some technique that Mother Meera's students use to demonstrate how effective her programs are at resolving attachment. Either way, I don't think it's working. :-) 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip You have successfully demonstrated that there *are* other people in the universe who can hold a grudge as long as Judy Stein does. Just for the record, let's recall that Barry was dumping on me enthusiastically *even before I arrived here*. Like so many others of Barry's attacks, his hold a grudge mantra is the purest rojection. Thing is, once Barry's decided to hold a grudge against you, there's no need for you to hold a grudge against him, because he'll keep the ill will nice and fresh, attacking you obsessively even for such things as saying you're going to postpone listening to a Vedic chant until bedtime. And if he's really run out of things to attack you for, why, he'll just make some up, like fantasizing you might say something and then attacking you for it as if you *had* said it. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have successfully demonstrated that there *are* other people in the universe who can hold a grudge as long as Judy Stein does. No, I'm not really holding a grudge up. This just came up, because Paul felt threatened by Frank. As inappropriate Franks behavour was,it wasn't a threat either. The not too long ago in your mind when you wrote about the horrible, terrible Fuck off and die threat hurled at you was back in APRIL, dude. We have not exchanged words since then, if I am not mistaken. Because I had left the forum basically. I'm trying to decide whether this routine is what Germans do to disprove the recently- voiced opinions here that they take them- selves WAY too seriously, or whether it's some technique that Mother Meera's students use to demonstrate how effective her programs are at resolving attachment. Either way, I don't think it's working. :-) And it won't work teasing me with the epitet 'Germans'. Were have you been? Since the world cup, which was not too long ago, we got rid of this reputation. We Germans are nice multicultural, welcoming folks, who hold up their flags because they are so colorful. ;-) 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. Were is the verb? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. Were is the verb? That's an interesting expression in English. Rather seems to act like a verb. I think it's an ellipsis, or stuff. I'd say from the English point of view it's perfectly grammatical. This from Webster's: :) 7. had or would rather, to prefer that or to: I had much rather we not stay. We would rather go for dinner after the show. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. Were is the verb? That's an interesting expression in English. Rather seems to act like a verb. I think it's an ellipsis, or stuff. I'd say from the English point of view it's perfectly grammatical. This from Webster's: :) 7. had or would rather, to prefer that or to: I had much rather we not stay. We would rather go for dinner after the show. On second thought, I might be all wrong. I've always thought there's an ellipsis of the predicate verb, but it might not be the case after all. Beats me! 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. Were is the verb? That's an interesting expression in English. Rather seems to act like a verb. I think it's an ellipsis, or stuff. I'd say from the English point of view it's perfectly grammatical. This from Webster's: :) 7. had or would rather, to prefer that or to: I had much rather we not stay. We would rather go for dinner after the show. Thanks. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
On Aug 31, 2006, at 12:29 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Fuck off and die is not really a threat, Michael It's a common form of dismissal, along the lines of, Go forth and multiply elsewhere, somewhere they actually take people like you seriously. Gosh, and here I've been avoiding this thread because on account of the title, I figured it would be some boring, bland spiritual discussion. :) Sal 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. Were is the verb? Would rather acts as a verb, meaning prefer; I would rather is an idiom meaning I would prefer it if... Sorry, didn't mean to spring another idiom on you! 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. Were is the verb? That's an interesting expression in English. Rather seems to act like a verb. I think it's an ellipsis, or stuff. I'd say from the English point of view it's perfectly grammatical. This from Webster's: :) 7. had or would rather, to prefer that or to: I had much rather we not stay. We would rather go for dinner after the show. On second thought, I might be all wrong. I've always thought there's an ellipsis of the predicate verb, but it might not be the case after all. Beats me! The apostrphe-d is the verb. Stands for would or had in informal English. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: More like, I'd rather you were dead. Is that a full sentence? The part in quotes is. Were is the verb? That's an interesting expression in English. Rather seems to act like a verb. I think it's an ellipsis, or stuff. I'd say from the English point of view it's perfectly grammatical. This from Webster's: :) 7. had or would rather, to prefer that or to: I had much rather we not stay. We would rather go for dinner after the show. On second thought, I might be all wrong. I've always thought there's an ellipsis of the predicate verb, but it might not be the case after all. Beats me! The apostrphe-d is the verb. Stands for would or had in informal English. Yeah, but those are auxiliary verbs, no? I think the main verb is rather, standing in idiomatically for prefer, although there's no verb to rather, obviously. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would rather acts as a verb, meaning prefer; I would rather is an idiom meaning I would prefer it if... Sorry, didn't mean to spring another idiom on you! Thanks for your efforts. No problem as I am learning, and you are obviously not insulting. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? By the classical definition, they CANNOT be gurus. Sorta like the classical prohibition against charging for instruction, I guess. Exactly like it. But MMY is not a guru in the traditional sense, and he doesn't charge for instruction. Whaddya mean, he doesn't charge for instruction? His organziation charges for lifetime menbership in the organization. A distinction without a difference Naah. There is no such thing as membership in the TMO. He charges for instruction and lifetime follow-up on that instruction. Agreed. JohnY 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 no_reply@ wrote: Since I seem to be in a two cents mood for a few days --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: big snip Obviously GD was a very powerfull yogi, full with the radiance of decades of tapasya, but also with very outdated and oldfashioned ideas. Yes. There are some interesting points being made in this discussion. One of my big heresies within the TMO was to suggest that being enlightened (yes, working on the assumption that MMY is enlightened) does not free one from all historic, cultural, and ideological boundarie s. It's easy for people to look at an old-fashioned idea that Guru Dev may have had and reject it because it doesn't fit with modern thinking. Within the TMO there is a disinclination to consider that MMY's word and actions are also influenced by culture and thus that everything he says is not the absolute speaking absolutely (rather, no more than it is when you or I or they themselves speak), that women in saris is just fashion and culture instead of a law of nature, that condemnation of english and modern education and a strong campaign to repatriate the wealth stolen by the west back to India might be an just ideological quest, and that worshipping laws of nature in the form of Lakshmi and Ganesh might just be Hinduism and not neutral science. Again, well put. But one wants to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, is listening to Vedic chanting merely cultural, or do the sounds actually have an effect on consciousness? How do you know where to draw the line? Sometimes it seems obvious, but other times it may not be quite so clear. And different people, of course, draw the line in different places, so that line isn't absolute either. All sounds have an effect on consciousness--weed whackers, Bach, Vedic chanting, (c)rap music (the c is silent). Go for what feels life-supporting for you. Likewise, if you like wearing saris, fine. But to pretend it's a law of nature that women should wear saris is, IMO, unnecessary. Drawing the lines is where thinking for ourselves comes in. Ultimately, we're responsible for ourselves. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what I'd call insisting that a country of 1 billion people throw out all English language education and western-style schooling educate everyone in their own tribal language and calling it Vedic. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 no_reply@ wrote: snip Within the TMO there is a disinclination to consider that MMY's word and actions are also influenced by culture and thus that everything he says is not the absolute speaking absolutely (rather, no more than it is when you or I or they themselves speak), that women in saris is just fashion and culture instead of a law of nature, that condemnation of english and modern education and a strong campaign to repatriate the wealth stolen by the west back to India might be an just ideological quest, and that worshipping laws of nature in the form of Lakshmi and Ganesh might just be Hinduism and not neutral science. Again, well put. But one wants to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, is listening to Vedic chanting merely cultural, or do the sounds actually have an effect on consciousness? How do you know where to draw the line? Sometimes it seems obvious, but other times it may not be quite so clear. And different people, of course, draw the line in different places, so that line isn't absolute either. All sounds have an effect on consciousness--weed whackers, Bach, Vedic chanting, (c)rap music (the c is silent). Go for what feels life-supporting for you. Likewise, if you like wearing saris, fine. But to pretend it's a law of nature that women should wear saris is, IMO, unnecessary. Yeah, well, that kind of misses my point, which was that *some* things that are apparently cultural may *also* be scientific in that their specific effects are universal. (I wasn't including saris, by the way.) And the issue with Vedic chanting, of course, would be whether it has a *positive* effect on consciousness. (I'm not talking about whether it's enjoyable or elevating to listen to aesthetically; I'd vastly rather listen to Bach for that.) Drawing the lines is where thinking for ourselves comes in. Ultimately, we're responsible for ourselves. So long as we recognize the lines aren't universal. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what I'd call insisting that a country of 1 billion people throw out all English language education and western-style schooling educate everyone in their own tribal language and calling it Vedic. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
In a message dated 8/30/06 7:55:43 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" premanandpaul@... wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev PaulYou agree with Guru Dev that women and those oflower caste should not be gurus, Paul? I get the impression that Paul is saying Guru Dev is either *right* or *wrong*. Also the Shastras are either *right* or *wrong*. There is not a lot of wiggle room in Guru Dev's statement. Very interesting. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
It appears that Guru Dev was extremely orthodox. --- Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one is using the word 'guru' in the Indian strict sense of the word, no, there can be no flexibility in who and who cannot be gurus. But if one is using the more modern and much looser sense of the word 'guru', then of course, we can all join in. We all have the opportunity to learn a fantastic amount from each other. In fact, in the west, where so many women are interested in yoga and meditation, there are many who know proportionately much more than many male seekers. But it is not really necessary to set oneself up as a 'guru' for surely we can just learn from one another, sharing stuff. Unfortunately, i --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one is using the word 'guru' in the Indian strict sense of the word, no, there can be no flexibility in who and who cannot be gurus. Could you define the Indian strict sense of the word, please? But if one is using the more modern and much looser sense of the word 'guru', then of course, we can all join in. We all have the opportunity to learn a fantastic amount from each other. In fact, in the west, where so many women are interested in yoga and meditation, there are many who know proportionately much more than many male seekers. But it is not really necessary to set oneself up as a 'guru' for surely we can just learn from one another, sharing stuff. Unfortunately, i --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self- knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
I think GD was a very strict Gentleman without compromises regarding the Vedas. It does not mean that I totally agree with him, but I think it is very doubtfull that he allowed MMY to go out and teach or sell Mantras. I have very great respect for GD because he made his thoughts very clear. It was just the way he was. Ingegerd --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
Guru Dev has pointed out that a guru must prerequisitely be a brahmana. Furthermore he clarifies in a quote used by MMY in 'Amrit Kana':- 'In the Shastra it is written that there are two marks of a guru: stotriyata (one who has thoroughly studied the Vedas) and brahmanishthata (one possessing knowledge of the immortal Self, Brahman) - tadviGYaanaarthasa gurumevaabhigachchhet samitpaaNiH shrotriyaM brahmanishhTha' (Manduka Upanishad 1-1-12) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: If one is using the word 'guru' in the Indian strict sense of the word, no, there can be no flexibility in who and who cannot be gurus. Could you define the Indian strict sense of the word, please? But if one is using the more modern and much looser sense of the word 'guru', then of course, we can all join in. We all have the opportunity to learn a fantastic amount from each other. In fact, in the west, where so many women are interested in yoga and meditation, there are many who know proportionately much more than many male seekers. But it is not really necessary to set oneself up as a 'guru' for surely we can just learn from one another, sharing stuff. Unfortunately, i --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self- knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ingegerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think GD was a very strict Gentleman without compromises regarding the Vedas. It does not mean that I totally agree with him, but I think it is very doubtfull that he allowed MMY to go out and teach or sell Mantras. Of course, MMY does not sell mantras. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guru Dev has pointed out that a guru must prerequisitely be a brahmana. You mean, a member of the Brahmin caste? Furthermore he clarifies in a quote used by MMY in 'Amrit Kana':- 'In the Shastra it is written that there are two marks of a guru: stotriyata (one who has thoroughly studied the Vedas) and brahmanishthata (one possessing knowledge of the immortal Self, Brahman) And women are not capable of this? (What's Amrit Kana?) - tadviGYaanaarthasa gurumevaabhigachchhet samitpaaNiH shrotriyaM brahmanishhTha' (Manduka Upanishad 1-1-12) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: If one is using the word 'guru' in the Indian strict sense of the word, no, there can be no flexibility in who and who cannot be gurus. Could you define the Indian strict sense of the word, please? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev has pointed out that a guru must prerequisitely be a brahmana. You mean, a member of the Brahmin caste? Yes, further elaboration at:- http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/brahmana.htm Furthermore he clarifies in a quote used by MMY in 'Amrit Kana':- 'In the Shastra it is written that there are two marks of a guru: stotriyata (one who has thoroughly studied the Vedas) and brahmanishthata (one possessing knowledge of the immortal Self, Brahman) And women are not capable of this? That is neither stated nor inferred by Guru Dev. (What's Amrit Kana?) Amrita means ambrosia, elixir of life and Kana means droplet. In late 1950 a book of this title was published by Shankaracharya Ashram. It is said to be compiled by Bal Brahmachari Maheshji (MMY), and certainly he is credited with the very lengthy foreword, in praise of Guru Dev. A translation is available at:- http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/AKtransrough.htm alongwith files of the Hindi (in Itrans and .pdf files) - tadviGYaanaarthasa gurumevaabhigachchhet samitpaaNiH shrotriyaM brahmanishhTha' (Manduka Upanishad 1-1-12) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: If one is using the word 'guru' in the Indian strict sense of the word, no, there can be no flexibility in who and who cannot be gurus. Could you define the Indian strict sense of the word, please? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? Buddha said that women were incapable of enlightenment and that women in monasteries would always be subservient to men. Culturally ingrained sexism? or maybe they know something we don't? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? Buddha said that women were incapable of enlightenment and that women in monasteries would always be subservient to men. Culturally ingrained sexism? or maybe they know something we don't? Did Buddha really say that? Please find the source of that piece of information. I'd say it was purely sexist because there have been and are enlightened women. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru on 8/30/06 10:16 AM, hugheshugo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buddha said that women were incapable of enlightenment and that women in monasteries would always be subservient to men. Culturally ingrained sexism? or maybe they know something we don't? If Buddha really said that, he was full of crap, but it might have been attributed to him by some sexist follower. But just to be safe, if I see him on the road, Ill kill 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buddha said that women were incapable of enlightenment and that women in monasteries would always be subservient to men. Culturally ingrained sexism? or maybe they know something we don't? Did Buddha really say that? Please find the source of that piece of information. I'd say it was purely sexist because there have been and are enlightened women. Yes I'm certain I read that in the Buddhist handbook when I was getting interested in this stuff, I remember telling a particularly feminist girlfriend about it at the time and she was less than impressed. I can't find the book just now but will have a look in the attic later. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 8/30/06 10:16 AM, hugheshugo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buddha said that women were incapable of enlightenment and that women in monasteries would always be subservient to men. Culturally ingrained sexism? or maybe they know something we don't? If Buddha really said that, he was full of crap, but it might have been attributed to him by some sexist follower. That's what is most likely. It is very possible that you could find such sexist crap in the Vinaya (the branch of the Buddhist canon that has to do with rules of behavior for monks), but I've never met any Buddhist who believes that anything in the Vinaya was actually spoken or written by the Buddha himself. Even many of the items in the Sutta Pitaka (the branch of the Buddhist canon considered to be the actual discourses of the Buddha) are in dispute as to whether or not he ever spoke them. Nothing was written down for hundreds of years, and so it is possible that *most* of what has been attributed to the original Buddha was never actually said by him. But just to be safe, if I see him on the road, I¹ll kill 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 8/30/06 10:16 AM, hugheshugo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buddha said that women were incapable of enlightenment and that women in monasteries would always be subservient to men. Culturally ingrained sexism? or maybe they know something we don't? If Buddha really said that, he was full of crap, but it might have been attributed to him by some sexist follower. But just to be safe, if I see him on the road, I¹ll kill him. Yes I guess all sorts of cultural clutter can creep in once the original inspiration has died, but before you despatch him though check and make sure eh? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Furthermore he clarifies in a quote used by MMY in 'Amrit Kana':- 'In the Shastra it is written that there are two marks of a guru: stotriyata (one who has thoroughly studied the Vedas) and brahmanishthata (one possessing knowledge of the immortal Self, Brahman) And women are not capable of this? That is neither stated nor inferred by Guru Dev. From the quotes in your earlier post: There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one is using the word 'guru' in the Indian strict sense of the word, no, there can be no flexibility in who and who cannot be gurus. But if one is using the more modern and much looser sense of the word 'guru', then of course, we can all join in. We all have the opportunity to learn a fantastic amount from each other. In fact, in the west, where so many women are interested in yoga and meditation, there are many who know proportionately much more than many male seekers. But it is not really necessary to set oneself up as a 'guru' for surely we can just learn from one another, sharing stuff. And of course, MMY isn't a guru in that sense. The puja is to Gurudev, not him, and he doesn't let TM be taught under any organization he endorses UNLESS a puja to Gurudev is performed. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? By the classical definition, they CANNOT be gurus. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It appears that Guru Dev was extremely orthodox. With one important exception, so is MMY. Do you expect the Pope or his secretary to be liberal Catholics? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: If one is using the word 'guru' in the Indian strict sense of the word, no, there can be no flexibility in who and who cannot be gurus. Could you define the Indian strict sense of the word, please? The Sastras, obviously. He meant orthodox hindu when he said strict Indian, I'm sure. But if one is using the more modern and much looser sense of the word 'guru', then of course, we can all join in. We all have the opportunity to learn a fantastic amount from each other. In fact, in the west, where so many women are interested in yoga and meditation, there are many who know proportionately much more than many male seekers. But it is not really necessary to set oneself up as a 'guru' for surely we can just learn from one another, sharing stuff. Unfortunately, i --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self- knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 8/30/06 10:16 AM, hugheshugo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buddha said that women were incapable of enlightenment and that women in monasteries would always be subservient to men. Culturally ingrained sexism? or maybe they know something we don't? If Buddha really said that, he was full of crap, but it might have been attributed to him by some sexist follower. But just to be safe, if I see him on the road, I¹ll kill him. He obviously wasn't referring to Judy Stein. She's never been wrong once in her life. How many men can you say that about? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It appears that Guru Dev was extremely orthodox. With one important exception, so is MMY. Do you expect the Pope or his secretary to be liberal Catholics? This was not a criticism of Guru Dev. It's just that I've come to realize that personalities and cultural beliefs can vary widely across the enlightened. Also Guru Dev and MMY are from early generations of Indians who are cuturally conservative. SSRS, for example, is much more relaxed and not as culturally bound although he is of the Brahmin caste and a Brahmin priest. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? By the classical definition, they CANNOT be gurus. Sorta like the classical prohibition against charging for instruction, I guess. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' Guru Dev is certainly wrong on this. Queen Chudala brought her husband Skhidhvala to self-realization, as recounted in the Yoga Vasishta. In fact the Yoga Vasishta uses Chudalas teaching as a teaching device in itself. There is no mention of gurudom at all in the Rig Veda, so, of course women couldn't be mentioned there, and AFAIK also not in the other Vedas. Atharva Veda mentions Brahmacharis, but no mention of Guru. The 4 Vedas certainly did not dismiss women being Gurus as Gurus aren't mentioned. Rig Veda has more than 25 women seers. Woman sages like Gargi participated in philosophic discussions in the Upanishads. Originally women had the right to perform vedic rituals. RV 8.91.1 states that a maiden offers Soma to the deities in yajna. Singing of hymns in the Vedic yajna was considered as the most appropriate function of the wife; in the vedic age yajna was performed jointly by husband and wife; only later the singing was done completely by the Udgata priest (Shatapatha Brah. 14.3.1.35). In the Ramayana women perform sandhya and other rites (ramayana 2.20.15). In the Mahabharata, in the vana parva, spiritual wisdom is explained by a butcher. There is an indication that varnas were not inheritary originally in the Vedas. The Vedas themselves declare that the Veda (Knowledge) seeks him out who is aware. RV further states that the 'true' Brahmana is not the one who merely repeats vedic verses, but the one endowed with understanding. The upanishads declare that a boy is a Brahmana on account of speaking the truth (that he doesn't know who his father was). There are many such instances, and nothing in the original Veda states that castes were heritary. All these rigid rules were of a later developement of the Smritis, when vedic religion become overregulated and ritualistic. But even later Puranas deviate from this practise of heritary varnas, and state that varnas can be aquired according to personal disposition. Originally, as stated in the Vedas, all people were entitled to listen to the Vedas and to aquire Knowledge. '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' At the time of the muslims, many Sadhus were molested by some fanatic fakirs of Islam who were unarmed. As Sadhus had to be Brahmanas at this time, who were disallowed to carry weapons, emporer Akbar suggested to allow other castes than Brahmins to enter the sannyas order, who were allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves. The Hindu community accepted the proposal in the 16th century, that of the ten suborders of Sannyasins, three must be preserverd to Brahmins, ie Ashrama, Tirtha and ... Saraswati (Guru Devs order), and the remaining seven for other castes. This custom has been observered since then in Northern India, which of course means that the Swamis (and Gurus) of 7 out of ten Dasanami orders are not (or not necessarily Brahmins). 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? By the classical definition, they CANNOT be gurus. Sorta like the classical prohibition against charging for instruction, I guess. Exactly like it. But MMY is not a guru in the traditional sense, and he doesn't charge for instruction. Whether or not these distinctions mean anything concerning his karmic burdens and all that, who can say? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? By the classical definition, they CANNOT be gurus. Sorta like the classical prohibition against charging for instruction, I guess. Exactly like it. But MMY is not a guru in the traditional sense, and he doesn't charge for instruction. Whaddya mean, he doesn't charge for instruction? Whether or not these distinctions mean anything concerning his karmic burdens and all that, who can say? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
Maharishi has made it clear that the path of gaining enlightenment through a guru-disciple relationship is completely different from the path of gaining enlightenment through practice of Transcendental Meditation: You see, to meditate and transcend and get to the Being and come out and with this practice bringing the mind out to the field of outer gross life is one way of achieving cosmic consciousness. The path of surrender is another way. The path of surrender starts by tuning the mind with the mind of the Master. Tuning the mind with the mind of the Master means: Whatever he likes, I begin to like. I begin to forgo my liking if he wants me to go that way, I go that way. And having gone halfway if he wants me to turn, I turn. And again he wants me to go that way, I go that way. If he wants to return I return. Nothing of my will everything His will. This is how by foregoing our own likings and disliking, adjusting our mind to the mind of the Master, that is picked up by the disciple, and that is the most important thing. If he asks to do this, you do this. If gone halfway, he wants us to stop, we stop. You don't feel in the least that `Oh, so much effort has been put and now he wants me to stop!' -- nothing like that. The way he turns, we turn, the way He likes, we like, the thing that He dislikes, we begin to dislike. This is how one begins to forego his liking and disliking and begins to tune his mind to the mind of his Master. In this line it is not the work that is important, it is the flow of His mind that is to be kept, and that is important. As the Master wants, so he moves, His likes and dislikes begin to become the likes and dislikes of the disciple. Like that he attunes his mind. When the mind of the disciple is completely tuned to the mind of the Master, then the thoughts of the Master become the thoughts of the disciple. The feelings of the Master become the feelings of the disciple and when that attunement is gained -- because the mind of the Master is cosmic consciousness -- the status of the mind of the disciple gets to that standard automatically. The relationship of the disciple and the Master is -- two bodies and one existence, two minds and one mind. Thus is how, because the natural state of the Master's mind is cosmic consciousness, the mind of the disciple is cultured to that state in a spontaneous, automatic manner. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
Thanks for the quote. Brilliant! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maharishi has made it clear that the path of gaining enlightenment through a guru-disciple relationship is completely different from the path of gaining enlightenment through practice of Transcendental Meditation: You see, to meditate and transcend and get to the Being and come out and with this practice bringing the mind out to the field of outer gross life is one way of achieving cosmic consciousness. The path of surrender is another way. The path of surrender starts by tuning the mind with the mind of the Master. Tuning the mind with the mind of the Master means: Whatever he likes, I begin to like. I begin to forgo my liking if he wants me to go that way, I go that way. And having gone halfway if he wants me to turn, I turn. And again he wants me to go that way, I go that way. If he wants to return I return. Nothing of my will everything His will. This is how by foregoing our own likings and disliking, adjusting our mind to the mind of the Master, that is picked up by the disciple, and that is the most important thing. If he asks to do this, you do this. If gone halfway, he wants us to stop, we stop. You don't feel in the least that `Oh, so much effort has been put and now he wants me to stop!' -- nothing like that. The way he turns, we turn, the way He likes, we like, the thing that He dislikes, we begin to dislike. This is how one begins to forego his liking and disliking and begins to tune his mind to the mind of his Master. In this line it is not the work that is important, it is the flow of His mind that is to be kept, and that is important. As the Master wants, so he moves, His likes and dislikes begin to become the likes and dislikes of the disciple. Like that he attunes his mind. When the mind of the disciple is completely tuned to the mind of the Master, then the thoughts of the Master become the thoughts of the disciple. The feelings of the Master become the feelings of the disciple and when that attunement is gained -- because the mind of the Master is cosmic consciousness -- the status of the mind of the disciple gets to that standard automatically. The relationship of the disciple and the Master is -- two bodies and one existence, two minds and one mind. Thus is how, because the natural state of the Master's mind is cosmic consciousness, the mind of the disciple is cultured to that state in a spontaneous, automatic manner. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? By the classical definition, they CANNOT be gurus. Sorta like the classical prohibition against charging for instruction, I guess. Exactly like it. But MMY is not a guru in the traditional sense, and he doesn't charge for instruction. Whaddya mean, he doesn't charge for instruction? His organziation charges for lifetime menbership in the organization. Whether or not these distinctions mean anything concerning his karmic burdens and all that, who can say? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? By the classical definition, they CANNOT be gurus. Sorta like the classical prohibition against charging for instruction, I guess. Exactly like it. But MMY is not a guru in the traditional sense, and he doesn't charge for instruction. Whaddya mean, he doesn't charge for instruction? His organziation charges for lifetime menbership in the organization. Naah. There is no such thing as membership in the TMO. He charges for instruction and lifetime follow-up on that instruction. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the quote. Brilliant! *** This is a more complete rendition of that quote: The Guru-Disciple Relationship In this path of the Divine as it is the case in any other path of knowledge, the importance of the Master is the greatest. If you get a good Master, it takes you quickly, if not -- keep on going slowly, slowly and there is no end to it. The finding of a proper Master is all that an aspirant on the path of truth has to do -- just a proper Master, not only on the path of truth, even on the path of engineering or doctory (medicine) or psychology -- any of that -- the coming across a right Master, a right guide and almost the whole thing is done. Because, the finding of a Master means someone who tells you like that -- for the Divine is omnipresent. Omnipresent Divine, its nature blissful, so the bliss being omnipresent. How long a mind should take to get to it? Should not take long, but if you do not strike against the right Master, you keep on going round and round and round and you do not find anything. In this field, when we leave here and find a proper Master, we just surrender to him, all body and mind, one-pointed in consciousness remains the individuality of the Master. No looking here or there, just at his feet obedience and obeisance. I know what a surrender to a Master is, because I have been through that. Once the surrender is done the work of spiritual quest is done. It does not need anything more to be done. You see, to meditate and transcend and get to the Being and come out and with this practice bringing the mind out to the field of outer gross life is one way of achieving cosmic consciousness. The path of surrender is another way. The path of surrender starts by tuning the mind with the mind of the Master. Tuning the mind with the mind of the Master means: Whatever he likes, I begin to like. I begin to forgo my liking if he wants me to go that way, I go that way. And having gone halfway if he wants me to turn, I turn. And again he wants me to go that way, I go that way. If he wants to return I return. Nothing of my will everything His will. This is how by foregoing our own likings and disliking, adjusting our mind to the mind of the Master, that is picked up by the disciple, and that is the most important thing. If he asks to do this, you do this. If gone halfway, he wants us to stop, we stop. You don't feel in the least that `Oh, so much effort has been put and now he wants me to stop!' -- nothing like that. The way he turns, we turn, the way He likes, we like, the thing that He dislikes, we begin to dislike. This is how one begins to forego his liking and disliking and begins to tune his mind to the mind of his Master. In this line it is not the work that is important, it is the flow of His mind that is to be kept, and that is important. As the Master wants, so he moves, His likes and dislikes begin to become the likes and dislikes of the disciple. Like that he attunes his mind. When the mind of the disciple is completely tuned to the mind of the Master, then the thoughts of the Master become the thoughts of the disciple. The feelings of the Master become the feelings of the disciple and when that attunement is gained -- because the mind of the Master is cosmic consciousness -- the status of the mind of the disciple gets to that standard automatically. The relationship of the disciple and the Master is -- two bodies and one existence, two minds and one mind. Thus is how, because the natural state of the Master's mind is cosmic consciousness, the mind of the disciple is cultured to that state in a spontaneous, automatic manner. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev on who and who cannot be a guru
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Mason premanandpaul@ wrote: Guru Dev speaks about who and who cannot become gurus, and the following are translated extracts of satsang number 74 of 108, included in a collection of his teachings entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita' 'There is no mention of women being gurus anywhere in the shastras. Women cannot be a guru. Gargim, Chudala, Sulabha etc. were women who had become yogis and possessed of self-knowledge. But it is not met with anywhere that they made their own disciples.' '...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmans to be in the position of guru. In addition to brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishya, shudras can become shishya (disciples), but not guru. Women also have no right to be made a guru.' 'Nowadays kaayastha, vaishya, teli (oilman), and also kalavar (seller of spirits) are taking to wearing the colours of the sadhu (holy man) and are eagerly wishing to make shishya (disciples) of their own. Actually both this kind of guru and shishya (disciple) are to get their downfall. Actually this speech we are saying coincides with the shastras, it is not something of my own that I have made up.' Jai Guru Dev Paul You agree with Guru Dev that women and those of lower caste should not be gurus, Paul? This has been a rough 24 hours for Judy: 1) First she learned that she can't become enlightened because she's a girl; and 2) She can't be a guru because she's a girl. How much did your parents spend on that liberal arts college you went to? You know, the one where they taught you all that feminist shit about being equal? 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
