[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HP: I will do my best to respond. If you want insight into my Guru by reading, then all of what Ramana has to say is the same my Guru would say. My Guru's last guru that apointed my Guru as Guru, was commissioned to be a guru by Poonjaji. In addition, my Guru's Guru had 3 tantric masters and his father was an enlightened being All this mix of gurus is probably the reason for your profound confusion, IMO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
Ron (or shoud we call you by your new name?), what's the name of the guru commissioned by Poonjaji? -Peter --- Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HP: I will do my best to respond. If you want insight into my Guru by reading, then all of what Ramana has to say is the same my Guru would say. My Guru's last guru that apointed my Guru as Guru, was commissioned to be a guru by Poonjaji. In addition, my Guru's Guru had 3 tantric masters and his father was an enlightened being --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru will say this one Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say I'. Saying this one all the time is ridiculous!.. HP: My guru does not say this one all the time, and I am sure that all the gurus you mentioned dont say I all the time either replacing the word I, the other Gurus in my path do the same. My Guru said that speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the me is gone and there is Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor. HP: Considering that my Guru is enlightened and has brought 2 others this past year so far to enlightenment, referring to my Guru as absurd is not only absurd but VERY IGNORANT, in my opinion. nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I and me, but in general in my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as persona but as consciousness Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making? HP: When a Guru brings 2 to enlightenment in one year, why they engage in certain methodologies is not important, and certainly if a student ( I realize you are not) needs to ask why, they are in the wrong place thMMY doesn't caution people in that manner. HP: ok, then question this since it is apparent that there are none conming to realization there Your Guru is an oddball. HP: Some people may call you an asshole but I certainly won't. I am a really calm guy. I will cast my opinion though and say that deep down, you know this is not the right thing to do, telling a disciple that their guru is an oddball. I could go into depth in responding to this but no need really. Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my opinion before, when they use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the same time referring to the individual I, then this is dellusion. Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the I word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis. Are you saying these people are not Enlightened? HP: My Guru has also used the I word on many occasions. saying the above are enlightened or not is not based on this. Since there is no Me, then when they use this, they are referenceing something other- I think this is understood by many or most here. Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum said there WAS a false Me or I. HP: I think you may have meant to phrase this line a bit better Besides, what's so special about that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying this for thousands of years. HP: It is not that it is special, it is more that even though it is in the scriptures and said by sages for thousands of years, it still continues to be in place- so again, the fallacy that a me gains enlightenment is very much in the forefront. My Guru's comments speaking FROM BEING is I just tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever . Your general response is to call her an odd ball- so it seems indirectly that you will stick with you thought, understanding or whatever it is- and insist that the me is there. Can you go to your guru and get insights on this? HP: I have my guru, and this is the inspiration in what i write. Progress is looking good here for me and the other disciples. I dont mind responding but if you had the name calling like this such as odd ball, then my odd ball Guru would show you the door very quickly. What my path is about is transparency, honesty, integrity and respect. The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- the fallacy is that a me becomes enlightened Nobody every said a me becomes Enlightened. Stop confusing the issues. As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in which case the individuals REPORT that they became Enlightned; realized the innate, prior, pure Consciousness of the Self. Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) removed, the false me obviously cannot exist. However, the I or me as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron (or shoud we call you by your new name?), what's the name of the guru commissioned by Poonjaji? -Peter Well, I took sanyas- it is more karma sanya, the name Hridaya Puri means something like living in the city with eyes on Braman. All function within the world here in this path, so as a matter of practicality and choice, maybe sometimes I use my birth name- in this group here, I think there is enough spiritual maturity to understand that it has it 's use for me to be using my sanyas name. While there is great laughter in my path here- I was laughing so hard with my guru last week, I thought I would drop the body on the spot, and while my Guru points out that laughter is of great value in the the me is gone in the midst of it, as you might guess I have every intention not to play at being on the path but rather see if it can be pulled off that Realization is unfolded as soon as possible. Anyway, my Guru's name ( the most recent of a total of 4 gurus) is SatGuru Rishi Rajiv. You can see a picture of him in the most active yahoo group- here is the home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Swami-G/ There is a picture on the opening of the sanyasis here in the path- pictured is my guru in the middle, Sadvi Siddhananda Puri is the one with hair ( Realized July 20, 2007), then the rest is the new sanyasis. It has a beautifull background to the picture taken in California. In the photos section are more pics of the sanyas ceremony, as well as pics of the sadakas. Posting a pic is required for those that are members on the site, and not following the rules is subject to termination. The membership has been wiped clean more than once. Below is the comments on the oppening page: Namaste This group is for open discussion for, Sadhakas and potential sadhakas. If you want to discuss and have access to Sage Sadhvi Ganga-Puri (October 99) Sage Sadhvi Siddhananda-Puri (July 2007) Sage Sarojini. (Aug. 2007) Here is also the place to ask questions of the Sadhaka's who have already taken diksha. Who have been with Sadhvi -G and Know what her every day existance is. I WELCOME YOU ALL WITH GREAT LOVE AND RESPECT PLEASE DON'T BE A LURKER - LURKING WILL BE SUBJECT TO MEMBERSHIP TERMINATION. THIS GROUP IS FOR THOSE IMMERSED IN THE PATH OF THE MYSTIC - OR FOR THOSE SEEKING ENTRANCE INTO THIS PATH. PLEASE POST YOUR INTRODUCTION AND PATH TO DATE WHEN YOU JOIN MEMBERSHIP AND A PHOTO IS MANDATORY. Discussions and exploring various spiritual texts - the path of kundalini from start to completion termed non duality aka Realization, Mukti. THERE ARE A FEW RULES AND THIS IS TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIONS RESPECTFULLY - GIVE AN INTRODUCTION- POST A PHOTO - MONTHLY REPORT ALSO NAMASTE IS THE OPENING GREETING USED IN THIS PLACE For those who would like to view the Swami-G youtube videos they are located at: Guru Swami G on YouTube Her book Kundalini from Hell to Heaven may be found in a number of stores (author name - Ganga Karmokar)at: Livingcure DONATIONS MAY BE MADE AT: Kundalini Support DONATIONS ARE A WAY TO ALLOW THIS TEACHER TO CARRY ON THIS WORK AND AIDE OTHERS IN THEIR JOURNEY'S. Maha Shanti OM Love and Light 0 Find the Beauty Life has to offer - Be a Great Existance it is all in your hands. Sage Sadhvi Ganga-Puri I welcome you all with great love and respect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
If my posts are pissing you off, you may consider hitting the delete button whenever you see a post from me All this mix of gurus is probably the reason for your profound confusion, IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If my posts are pissing you off, you may consider hitting the delete button whenever you see a post from me All this mix of gurus is probably the reason for your profound confusion, IMO. I'm reading it page by page, not by email, so that is not possible. From time to time I will have to stumble across your repetitous and intensely boring messages. We all have our crosses to carry I suppose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over this? In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple. Therefore, the me in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not). Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, may say I, and me often. Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or me that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then there's no such false I; however, there's still a body, mind, actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social interactions; etc; all of which make up the I that separates your Guru from other people. You will agree that your Guru is not MMY, correct? Refer to Prior to Consciousness, the transcribed statements of Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31. The disciple asks, Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, everybody went to see him and he became well known MAHARAJ: I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman. So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we have the use of I twice in two lines, proving there is an I; (since, obviously), this I doesn't refer to the delusional I which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an individual person, as opposed to other persons. One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter was discovered by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj. Again, hopefully for the last time, the I for Enlightened people is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the I in reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing from the POV's of other Gurus. In some cases, the POV's are closely allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM. In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment from post:--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a me gains enlightenment. As long as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions belong to those having them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet. Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. Then such comments as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, then they can be forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind rerooted, it is not the experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of the mind, there is more to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( weather as form or absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad because there is more to go but they are not going to hear one word of that. The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all the great sages of the past and now explain from their own existence that this is the case, there is no me and there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in enlightenment- it is either one or the other. These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two recently enlightened echo the same independant of one another. I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera and MY Guru. In addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it from a healer and also from a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with. In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has awakened the kundalini, and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and progress is taking place. I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very impressive. The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the reason shakti does not come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru is only consciuous Hridaya Puri
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
he is a she. --- purushaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over this? In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple. Therefore, the me in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not). Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, may say I, and me often. Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or me that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then there's no such false I; however, there's still a body, mind, actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social interactions; etc; all of which make up the I that separates your Guru from other people. You will agree that your Guru is not MMY, correct? Refer to Prior to Consciousness, the transcribed statements of Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31. The disciple asks, Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, everybody went to see him and he became well known MAHARAJ: I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman. So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we have the use of I twice in two lines, proving there is an I; (since, obviously), this I doesn't refer to the delusional I which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an individual person, as opposed to other persons. One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter was discovered by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj. Again, hopefully for the last time, the I for Enlightened people is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the I in reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing from the POV's of other Gurus. In some cases, the POV's are closely allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM. In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment from post:--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a me gains enlightenment. As long as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions belong to those having them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet. Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. Then such comments as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, then they can be forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind rerooted, it is not the experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of the mind, there is more to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( weather as form or absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad because there is more to go but they are not going to hear one word of that. The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all the great sages of the past and now explain from their own existence that this is the case, there is no me and there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in enlightenment- it is either one or the other. These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two recently enlightened echo the same independant of one another. I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera and MY Guru. In addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it from a healer and also from a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with. In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has awakened the kundalini, and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and progress is taking place. I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very impressive. The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the reason shakti does not come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru is only consciuous Hridaya Puri To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a little couch
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru will say this one replacing the word I, the other Gurus in my path do the same. My Guru said that speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the me is gone and there is nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I and me, but in general in my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as persona but as consciousness Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my opinion before, when they use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the same time referring to the individual I, then this is dellusion. Since there is no Me, then when they use this, they are referenceing something other- I think this is understood by many or most here. The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- the fallacy is that a me becomes enlightened --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, purushaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over this? In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple. Therefore, the me in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not). Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, may say I, and me often. Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or me that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then there's no such false I; however, there's still a body, mind, actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social interactions; etc; all of which make up the I that separates your Guru from other people. You will agree that your Guru is not MMY, correct? Refer to Prior to Consciousness, the transcribed statements of Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31. The disciple asks, Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, everybody went to see him and he became well known MAHARAJ: I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman. So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we have the use of I twice in two lines, proving there is an I; (since, obviously), this I doesn't refer to the delusional I which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an individual person, as opposed to other persons. One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter was discovered by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj. Again, hopefully for the last time, the I for Enlightened people is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the I in reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing from the POV's of other Gurus. In some cases, the POV's are closely allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM. In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Comment from post:--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a me gains enlightenment. As long as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions belong to those having them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet. Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. Then such comments as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, then they can be forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind rerooted, it is not the experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of the mind, there is more to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( weather as form or absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad because there is more to go but they are not going to hear one word of that. The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all the great sages of the past and now explain from their own existence that this is the case, there is no me and there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in enlightenment- it is either one or the other. These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two recently enlightened echo the same independant of one another. I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera and MY Guru. In addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it from a healer
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru will say this one Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say I'. Saying this one all the time is ridiculous!.. replacing the word I, the other Gurus in my path do the same. My Guru said that speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the me is gone and there is Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor. nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I and me, but in general in my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as persona but as consciousness Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making? MMY doesn't caution people in that manner. Your Guru is an oddball. Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my opinion before, when they use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the same time referring to the individual I, then this is dellusion. Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the I word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis. Are you saying these people are not Enlightened? Since there is no Me, then when they use this, they are referenceing something other- I think this is understood by many or most here. Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum said there WAS a false Me or I. Besides, what's so special about that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying this for thousands of years. The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- the fallacy is that a me becomes enlightened Nobody every said a me becomes Enlightened. Stop confusing the issues. As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in which case the individuals REPORT that they became Enlightned; realized the innate, prior, pure Consciousness of the Self. Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) removed, the false me obviously cannot exist. However, the I or me as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the delusion of separateness. For example, Rory states that he realized the Self at some particular time (I forgot the year, 2001?) Adi Da says he realized the Self in 1970 while at the Vedanta Temple in Hollywood. Ramakrishna says he realized the Self after getting initiated by a Brahmin in some non-dualist school. Ramana says he realized the Self on 7-17-1896. Lakshmana, a disciple of Ramana, claims he realized the Self (I believe in 1949); at which time shortly thereafter, he handed a note to Ramana saying I have realized the Self. HWL Poonja says he realized the Self while in the presence of Ramana Maharshi. Obviously, the Realization the Self implies that the I acting as an entity apparently separate from the Self had vanished, being a total delusion. Nobody is disputing that! Thus, that I can't realized the Self since it was a delusional entity. So what is meant by such persons when they say I have realized the Self. The meaning is simply that (as reported by some aspect of the individual as a body/mind); btw, you will agree that the above persons reported that they had realized the Self. This is a matter of record. To continue, the meaning is that the obscurations to the self-evident nature Pure Consciousness had VANISHED. However, some aspect of the body/mind reported on that event. Though there is no separate entity that can realize the Self, there is a part of the body/mind that can report on the fact of the Realization in apparent space-time. Therefore, your Guru's statements are only partially correct. If he wants to go around saying this person or whatever, in place of the I word, so be it. The Dalai Lama acts like an ordinary person, on the surface. He uses the I word, does he not? Yes, in the Barbara Walters interfiew he used it several times. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, purushaz purushaz@ wrote: Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over this? In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple. Therefore, the me in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not). Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, may say I, and me often. Nobody is saying there's a delusional false I or me that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then there's no such false I; however, there's still a body, mind, actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social interactions;
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall
HP: I will do my best to respond. If you want insight into my Guru by reading, then all of what Ramana has to say is the same my Guru would say. My Guru's last guru that apointed my Guru as Guru, was commissioned to be a guru by Poonjaji. In addition, my Guru's Guru had 3 tantric masters and his father was an enlightened being --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru will say this one Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say I'. Saying this one all the time is ridiculous!.. HP: My guru does not say this one all the time, and I am sure that all the gurus you mentioned dont say I all the time either replacing the word I, the other Gurus in my path do the same. My Guru said that speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the me is gone and there is Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor. HP: Considering that my Guru is enlightened and has brought 2 others this past year so far to enlightenment, referring to my Guru as absurd is not only absurd but VERY IGNORANT, in my opinion. nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I and me, but in general in my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as persona but as consciousness Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making? HP: When a Guru brings 2 to enlightenment in one year, why they engage in certain methodologies is not important, and certainly if a student ( I realize you are not) needs to ask why, they are in the wrong place thMMY doesn't caution people in that manner. HP: ok, then question this since it is apparent that there are none conming to realization there Your Guru is an oddball. HP: Some people may call you an asshole but I certainly won't. I am a really calm guy. I will cast my opinion though and say that deep down, you know this is not the right thing to do, telling a disciple that their guru is an oddball. I could go into depth in responding to this but no need really. Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my opinion before, when they use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the same time referring to the individual I, then this is dellusion. Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the I word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis. Are you saying these people are not Enlightened? HP: My Guru has also used the I word on many occasions. saying the above are enlightened or not is not based on this. Since there is no Me, then when they use this, they are referenceing something other- I think this is understood by many or most here. Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum said there WAS a false Me or I. HP: I think you may have meant to phrase this line a bit better Besides, what's so special about that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying this for thousands of years. HP: It is not that it is special, it is more that even though it is in the scriptures and said by sages for thousands of years, it still continues to be in place- so again, the fallacy that a me gains enlightenment is very much in the forefront. My Guru's comments speaking FROM BEING is I just tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever . Your general response is to call her an odd ball- so it seems indirectly that you will stick with you thought, understanding or whatever it is- and insist that the me is there. Can you go to your guru and get insights on this? HP: I have my guru, and this is the inspiration in what i write. Progress is looking good here for me and the other disciples. I dont mind responding but if you had the name calling like this such as odd ball, then my odd ball Guru would show you the door very quickly. What my path is about is transparency, honesty, integrity and respect. The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- the fallacy is that a me becomes enlightened Nobody every said a me becomes Enlightened. Stop confusing the issues. As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in which case the individuals REPORT that they became Enlightned; realized the innate, prior, pure Consciousness of the Self. Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) removed, the false me obviously cannot exist. However, the I or me as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the delusion of separateness. HP: I guess we can call it a paradox, and limitation with the use of words but again part of this paradox is refleected in the quote I mentioned where
