[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some good points.
On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from
his
side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition.
{Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks it
all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the
well
head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is tapped.
The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden
chain
is attached between teacher an student. And then everything flows.
The
teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
[this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]
Very interesting point. Thanks !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti.
This helps eradicate obstacles to the immediate apprehensionof Pure
Consciousness.
A dirt clod is equally The Absolute or, emptiness, compared to
MMY or a Buddha; but dirt clods don't help much. Therefore, there
are other ingredients that should be identified as evolution
facilitators..
.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@
wrote:
Some good points.
On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from
his
side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition.
{Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks
it
all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the
well
head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is
tapped.
The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden
chain
is attached between teacher an student. And then everything
flows.
The
teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
[this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]
Very interesting point. Thanks !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. Now do you know? Does lightning strike downwards, from cloud to earth, or upwards, from earth to cloud? As it turns out, both. From http://screem.engr.scu.edu/emerald/VLF/ligh.html : FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Does lightning travel upwards or downwards? The answer is BOTH: For a cloud-to-ground the stepped discharge, leader begins in the lower section of a and thunderstorm cloud travels downward and initiates an upward-moving leader when it gets close to the ground (see animation at right). The two meet in midair, usually at a point about 300 feet or less above ground. When the stepped leader and leader meet, providing a conducting path for charge flow, there is a huge flow of current upwards through the channel, brightly illuminating it.Other types of discharges, such as the less frequent ground-to-cloud discharges, consist of an upward moving stepped leader that starts from an object on the ground.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Pretty darn good questions again, New Morning. I think the various experiences come from our varying expectations. I went to see Amma, got real close to her, didn't do the hug thing. I was never impressed, felt no dharshan. Yet a friend of mine swears by her -- the dharshan for him is intense. I read a newspaper reporter on Amma saying she felt nothing particular from the hug. Yet others claim that hug changed their lives. Remember the movie Leap of Faith where Steve Martin plays the phony faith healer? He was instrumental in an actual cure. The crippled man sincerely believed in Steve Martin and in Christ and had an authenthic healing. This, in turn, caused the phony faith healer (who up til then had been a con-man and atheist) to change his heart and believe in something beyond what his senses could perceive. As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In fact, I'm suspicious of it. I saw some videos George DeForest linked us to from this site, of David Spero, a guru, and there was little doubt for me the guy is wired to something very powerful. Lots of shakti, even coming through the computer screen. But what is that energy, that shakti? Is it necessarily something benign? People say guru shakti zaps them into a transcendental state. At what possible cost? Who is it who's doing the zapping? Is it the Infinite One? Could it be a being from outside this dimension, using the human guru as a channel? If so, for malice or for good? Could the goal possibly be to devour human individuality, turning people into empty bone sacks? Or does that shakti really bring the spirit home to God? Yes, I know the traditional answers. But they were given us by the zappers. When you look at their lives, do those lives typically demonstrate something we want, do they indicate people we can trust and respect? If our history with gurus shows we so rarely can trust or respect them, can we trust their answers about where their shakti comes from and the effect it is having in our lives? I don't trust any of it. I consider the evidence, and draw my own conclusions. If a teacher is hooked up to shakti, and radiates it, that simply means they're connected to cosmic energy. Energy is only half of the consciousness/energy equation. What is the nature of their consciousness? Is it nihilist, annihilating individuality? Is it self-centered and sensual, having sex with young disciples? Is it self-centered and greed-ridden? When such qualities are present, who cares if they have shakti? The devil himself has shakti, I'm sure, if such a person exists. Shakti is just power. Hitler, for instance, had incredible charisma. Would he make a good guru? new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. The same dialectic / discussion and diversity survey questions to you that I just asked Billie on this thread. And do any expectations of how a person acts in enlightenment have validity? However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. And Turq, I believe, and others, have a completely different experience, indifferent,with MMY's darsan. Is your experience more valid than his? if so, in what ways? Does triggering deep spiritual experiences necessarily mean the source of that experience is enlightened? Is a murti in a temple enlightened. It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Is love enlightened? It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Someone said a teacher was not so good because she did not give the viewer of her picture a strong energy hit. If personal interpretation of darshaan experience is valid, the is energy-hit-ology also valid for judging a teacher? IMO, interpreation of darshan experience, and any spiritual experience, altered, or beyond conventional state, is an issue. As an example regarding darshan, when I first met SSRS, I went up to the stage and had a nice chat with him at intermission, and he taught my intro course, he asked me and others questions, so there was more than a 3 second type assembly line darshan. Yet I didn't feel so much from his darshan. But through the day I felt some
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MMY functions as a Sat Guru for some and not for others. Being a Sat Guru is not some sort of formal title. You trigger That awakening in someone and you are their Sat Guru. Actually, strictly speaking, according to the rules of sandhi, the t-sound of the word 'sat' should be changed to the correponding voiced sound 'd', because 'g' (as in 'get') of 'guru' is a voiced sound, which regressively partially assimilates the voiceless sound 't' right before it. But 'sadguru' or 'sad guru' doesn't sound too inspiring, or whatever, now, does it? :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cognitions and revelations are what my guru had prior to enlightenment and also this what s gave my Guru the understanding that enlightenment was there. As I said, there was a time where my guru could know anything about something and other such things The point is- who is there to cognize something? My recolletions are Bevan worships MMY as persona, therefore it is the greatest Guru in 10,000 years, and for example, on some walk MMY was having, all of the vedas or some certain apsects of the vedas were cognized. This has to do with knowing something, where as in Realization, the small self, the me, the identification of body and mind is imploded, merged, it IS only ONE, not one with something Stop this nonsense, get a job !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Never heard that Maharishi cognized the vedas. Could you spezify please ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: The point is- who is there to cognize something? jim_flanegin wrote: I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-) I don't see an answer to my question, just some misdirection; playing mind games with identification. Kinda boring.:-) And you will probably never get one since both Ron and his guru does not seem to have a clue about what you asked :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Nutdiving has been one of Vaj's favorite hobbies for years. No substance to the claims from this fellow, as usual. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does triggering deep spiritual experiences necessarily mean the source of that experience is enlightened? Is a murti in a temple enlightened. It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Is love enlightened? It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Someone said a teacher was not so good because she did not give the viewer of her picture a strong energy hit. If personal interpretation of darshaan experience is valid, the is energy-hit-ology also valid for judging a teacher? IMO, interpreation of darshan experience, and any spiritual experience, altered, or beyond conventional state, is an issue. As an example regarding darshan, when I first met SSRS, I went up to the stage and had a nice chat with him at intermission, and he taught my intro course, he asked me and others questions, so there was more than a 3 second type assembly line darshan. Yet I didn't feel so much from his darshan. But through the day I felt some very positive things, but did not attribute it to darshan. Excellent points, new. The issue, IMO, is that some folks are unable to distinguish between a state of inspiration or elevation that they feel around a certain person or object or place and the *source* of that inspiration or elevation. IMO, the dynamic of darshan is not on the level of Beam me up, Scotty. It's not that the teacher or object (as in relic or centuries-old spiritual treasure) or place (as in physical place of power) *does something* and sends out a set of Woo Woo Rays that change the student and make them capable of new and more interesting states of attention. That's the simplistic, IMO childish way of looking at the phenomenon. What I think is happening is more of a kind of spiritual resonance. The student comes into contact with an interesting teacher or spiritual object or physical place and these things trigger some kind of resonance effect in the student. Something about them reminds the student of different aspects of his Self that are not normally active. For some reason, the student is more able to see and exper- ience these higher aspects of Self *in the vicinity of* the teacher or object or place. And so, afterwards, it is quite natural for the student to *attribute* these glimpses of higher states of attention *to* the teacher or object or place. He/it blasted me with darshan. And though it might be natural, I personally don't think that's what's happening. And the reason I don't think that is that *not everyone in the room* has the same feelings of being uplifted by the darshan. Some people get a hit on the teacher or the object or the place, and others do not. So I really don't believe that it's a Beam me up Scotty type experience. The teacher around whom the student feels powerful darshan is NOT DOING ANYTHING. It's just that, for whatever reasons, the student feels a kind of *resonance* with that teacher that allows him or her to experience new states of attention. And that is way cool, but it doesn't mean that the teacher is a whiz-bang wizard capable of blasting someone with magical Woo Woo Rays and changing their lives forever. I would go so far as to say that for every person in a room with a spiritual teacher who feels blasted out of their socks by the teacher's darshan, there are probably 99 others in the same room who are noticing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. As I've said, I almost never got any kind of hit from Maharishi that tempted me to even think in terms of darshan. Around Rama I had far more experiences that made me think in terms of empowerment or trans- mission or darshan (although he never used that term). Around some other teachers, and even around some spirit- ual objects (ancient relics or Tibetan works of art), I've also experienced these major shifts of state of attention. And certainly I've experienced the same thing by going to places of power. And sometimes the people there with me in those rooms with teachers, or those museums full of spiritual objects, or those places of power noticed *nothing* in terms of major shift of state of consciousness, while I did. Go figure, eh? IMO, this does *not* mean that I was in any way more evolved than the people who noticed nothing. It certainly doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with the people who noticed nothing, or that there was anything right about me *for* noticing major shifts in my state of attention. It's just what happened...a kind of resonance effect. Some of us resonated with the teacher or the object or the place and some of us didn't. No harm, no foul, no scored goal either way. I honestly think that resonance is a fairly good way to think about these phenomena. Try it...you might like it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Never heard that Maharishi cognized the vedas. Could you spezify please ? FWIW, Maharishi is credited with cognizing the uncreated commentary of vedic literature in 1980, in the official lists of his year by year achievements; see http://www.alltm.org/Maharishi/Maharishi_year3.html another brief explanation: In the early eighties, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi cognized the nature and the details of this eternally fixed sequence of the words in Rik Veda. This cognition of the inherent structure of Rik Veda is termed as Apaurusheya Bhasya, or uncreated commentary. It brings to light, that the specific sequence of the letters, syllables, words, Padas, Richas, Suktas and Mandalas of Rik Veda, form an eternal structure in which every next expression provides a commentary on the previous expression. Every following expression is a natural elaboration or commentary on the expressions that are preceding it. From this it follows that all the knowledge of the entire Veda is contained in the first word and indeed even in the first letter of the Veda A. The term Apaurusheya Bhasya further implies that it is a commentary provided by the structure of the Veda itself. The whole essence of the Apaurusheya Bhasya can therefore be summarised in the phrase: Follow the sequence. Maharishi's Apaurusheya Bhasya has made clear to the world for the first time in the history of mankind that the sequence of the Vedic expressions is of an absolute significance. Only as such, the Veda can be understood as the blueprint of Creation, or as Maharishi formulated it in 1992, the Constitution of the Universe, containing the structuring dynamics of all the Laws of Nature that govern all evolutionary processes in the ever expanding universe. source: http://www.selfrealisation.net/VedicAstrology/instrman.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Never heard that Maharishi cognized the vedas. Could you spezify please ? FWIW, Maharishi is credited with cognizing the uncreated commentary of vedic literature in 1980, in the official lists of his year by year achievements; see http://www.alltm.org/Maharishi/Maharishi_year3.html another brief explanation: In the early eighties, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi cognized the nature and the details of this eternally fixed sequence of the words in Rik Veda. This cognition of the inherent structure of Rik Veda is termed as Apaurusheya Bhasya, or uncreated commentary. It brings to light, that the specific sequence of the letters, syllables, words, Padas, Richas, Suktas and Mandalas of Rik Veda, form an eternal structure in which every next expression provides a commentary on the previous expression. Every following expression is a natural elaboration or commentary on the expressions that are preceding it. From this it follows that all the knowledge of the entire Veda is contained in the first word and indeed even in the first letter of the Veda A. The term Apaurusheya Bhasya further implies that it is a commentary provided by the structure of the Veda itself. The whole essence of the Apaurusheya Bhasya can therefore be summarised in the phrase: Follow the sequence. Maharishi's Apaurusheya Bhasya has made clear to the world for the first time in the history of mankind that the sequence of the Vedic expressions is of an absolute significance. Only as such, the Veda can be understood as the blueprint of Creation, or as Maharishi formulated it in 1992, the Constitution of the Universe, containing the structuring dynamics of all the Laws of Nature that govern all evolutionary processes in the ever expanding universe. source: http://www.selfrealisation.net/VedicAstrology/instrman.htm Aparusheya Bhasya, thats right, forgot that one. Only a Maha Rishi could see the missing verse. Maharishi said he would write a commentary to the Brahma Sutras, if time allows.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest george.deforest@ wrote: Maharishi's Apaurusheya Bhasya has made clear to the world for the first time in the history of mankind that the sequence of the Vedic expressions is of an absolute significance. Only as such, the Veda can be understood as the blueprint of Creation, or as Maharishi formulated it in 1992, the Constitution of the Universe, containing the structuring dynamics of all the Laws of Nature that govern all evolutionary processes in the ever expanding universe. source: http://www.selfrealisation.net/VedicAstrology/instrman.htm Aparusheya Bhasya, thats right, forgot that one. Only a Maha Rishi could see the missing verse. Maharishi said he would write a commentary to the Brahma Sutras, if time allows. So...a Maha Rishi cognizing the missing verse. Is that sorta like Benjamin Creme talking about the space brothers or Maitreya, or is it more like Lou talking about how the space aliens were going to descend on Israel this last summer and take all the chosen people away to a new home in the sky, or is it more like somebody channeling some supposedly-wise dead thing or being from some other plane? Just checking, because as far as I can tell they all have exactly the same two elements in common. First, they are completely unverifiable...nothing but He/she said such-and-such. Second, they depend *entirely* on the level of FAITH that the follower or believer brings to the table. If the follower is *used to* suspending disbelief and treating everything said by the teacher as if it's Cosmic Truth, well...they're going to do so again when he claims to have cognized the missing verse from the Vedas. Or when he claims to be in commun- ication with space aliens or some mysterious world savior, none of who ever seem to show up in real life. Or when he/she says that he/she is in channel- ing some high being from somewhere. In other words, what you're talking about is FAITH. If you've got it, and are used to suspending your discriminative faculties and just believing what you are told to believe, no problemo. If, on the other hand, you'd kinda like a little objective something to *back up* these extraordinary claims, you're shit out of luck. But, as we all know, anyone who *would* like to have a little objective evidence to back up extraordinary subjective claims is often characterized by you guys who work purely on FAITH as less evolved than you are. You are more evolved than we are, and can see the truth of the situation where we -- deluded, lost souls that we are -- cannot. Did I paraphrase your many posts to this effect here on FFL correctly, Nablus? :-) Bottom line is that you have chosen to believe the things that you believe. Very few of them have any- thing to do with any kind of measurement of reality. It is your *right* to believe in these things if you want to, and it is even your right to try to convince others that they are real, or truth. But it is *our* right to laugh at you when you try, and to remind you every so often that you might benefit from realizing that you're talkin' crazy shit. You may *believe* in the crazy shit firmly, and you may consider those who *don't* believe in the crazy shit to be beneath you or less evolved than you are. But we low-born, lost, semi-skeptics outnumber you, and as far as I can tell, we also tend to have a lot more fun in our lives than you have in yours. So you can get as serious as you want to get, and you can look down on us all you want from your elevated, more evolved level, and we're *still* going to laugh at you. In fact, the more serious and the more elitist you get, the more we're going to laugh at you. Someday you might consider joining us, and learning to laugh at yourselves...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 9:58 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Your posts raises some interesting themes -- a discussion bobbing up and down here through the years. Since you have some degree of opinion or experience on the matter, I ask you and anyone the following -- not in a challenging way but an exploratory way to see the diversity of views and direct experiences for the following. In your framework (or direct experience) what does come from someone who is enlightened? Are people with certain characteristics unable to get enlightened? What are these bad characteristics? Could Tony Soprano be, or become, enlightened (in this life)? If not, how effective is TM (or name you favorite sadhana, practice or path), if they can't enlighten everyone? Would Tony Soprano's behavior change if he were enlightened? Particularly if yes, then does everyone's behavior become better in enlightenment? All aspects of behavior, or just some? Which aspects? One of my favorite texts to read is the Chaturashiti-Siddha-Pravritti (Tib.: Grub thob brgyad bcu tsa bzhi'i lo rgyus): the Legends of the 84 Siddhas. The stories detail the enlightenment of 84 very different human beings, not unlike ones any of us might meet today: a hedonist, a scholar, a temple whore, a thief, a chronic liar, a snob, etc. Each one found their unique guru and each guru, based on their students particular neurosis, gave a sadhana, a prescription for release, based on the students unique condition. And they all attained perfect enlightenment. Their traditions continue up to this very day. So yes, any student, if given the appropriate technique for their particular condition, can obtain perfect enlightenment. One technique will not suit all students anymore than one medicine will cure all diseases. In inner-tantra we have a saying the more wood, the more fire, meaning whatever ones particular obscurations are, they can be used as fuel for realization, given the right teacher and the right techniques.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:55 AM, george_deforest wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Never heard that Maharishi cognized the vedas. Could you spezify please ? FWIW, Maharishi is credited with cognizing the uncreated commentary of vedic literature in 1980, in the official lists of his year by year achievements; see http://www.alltm.org/Maharishi/Maharishi_year3.html another brief explanation: In the early eighties, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi cognized the nature and the details of this eternally fixed sequence of the words in Rik Veda. This cognition of the inherent structure of Rik Veda is termed as Apaurusheya Bhasya, or uncreated commentary. It brings to light, that the specific sequence of the letters, syllables, words, Padas, Richas, Suktas and Mandalas of Rik Veda, form an eternal structure in which every next expression provides a commentary on the previous expression. Every following expression is a natural elaboration or commentary on the expressions that are preceding it. From this it follows that all the knowledge of the entire Veda is contained in the first word and indeed even in the first letter of the Veda A. The term Apaurusheya Bhasya further implies that it is a commentary provided by the structure of the Veda itself. The whole essence of the Apaurusheya Bhasya can therefore be summarised in the phrase: Follow the sequence. Maharishi's Apaurusheya Bhasya has made clear to the world for the first time in the history of mankind that the sequence of the Vedic expressions is of an absolute significance. Only as such, the Veda can be understood as the blueprint of Creation, or as Maharishi formulated it in 1992, the Constitution of the Universe, containing the structuring dynamics of all the Laws of Nature that govern all evolutionary processes in the ever expanding universe. source: http://www.selfrealisation.net/VedicAstrology/instrman.htm Yes, a briefer mention of this is in all the the Modern Science and Vedic Science journals (Chandler's preface IIRC).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 9:58 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Your posts raises some interesting themes -- a discussion bobbing up and down here through the years. Since you have some degree of opinion or experience on the matter, I ask you and anyone the following -- not in a challenging way but an exploratory way to see the diversity of views and direct experiences for the following. In your framework (or direct experience) what does come from someone who is enlightened? Are people with certain characteristics unable to get enlightened? What are these bad characteristics? Could Tony Soprano be, or become, enlightened (in this life)? If not, how effective is TM (or name you favorite sadhana, practice or path), if they can't enlighten everyone? Would Tony Soprano's behavior change if he were enlightened? Particularly if yes, then does everyone's behavior become better in enlightenment? All aspects of behavior, or just some? Which aspects? One of my favorite texts to read is the Chaturashiti-Siddha-Pravritti (Tib.: Grub thob brgyad bcu tsa bzhi'i lo rgyus): the Legends of the 84 Siddhas. The stories detail the enlightenment of 84 very different human beings, not unlike ones any of us might meet today: a hedonist, a scholar, a temple whore, a thief, a chronic liar, a snob, etc. Each one found their unique guru and each guru, based on their students particular neurosis, gave a sadhana, a prescription for release, based on the students unique condition. And they all attained perfect enlightenment. Their traditions continue up to this very day. So yes, any student, if given the appropriate technique for their particular condition, can obtain perfect enlightenment. One technique will not suit all students anymore than one medicine will cure all diseases. I could not agree more. One of my favorite things to read is stories of the early life of Milarepa. He became an accomplished (though unenlightened) siddha master, and because of his samskaras and youth and rashness, overreacted to the villagers dissing his Mom and wasted the whole lot of them. In other words, he was a murderer, many times over. And yet. Working with Marpa (whom I have heard referred to jokingly in Tibetan sects as Marpa the Prick because of his sometimes ruthless methods), Milarepa managed to become not only enlightened, but one of Tibet's most celebrated yogis. IMO enlightenment doesn't have anything to do with the things that many people project upon it or consider it's prerequisites or dependencies. It is the natural state of life, and just as attainable in the life of a Tony Soprano as it is in the life of a Gandhi. We may have *preferences* in terms of behavior and demeanor that we project onto the supposedly enlight- ened, but that's all they are -- preferences. Not one of them is binding, and not one of them (IMO) has any- thing whatsoever to do with enlightenment itself. That said, preferences are important in themselves. Consider what I was talking about in an early post today, the resonance effect that one feels around some teachers, and that one does *not* feel around others. If you are by predilection a bit of a New Age Twif, and can't stand to see violent movies or hear talk of that kind of reality, are you going to find a resonance with a teacher who is *not* offended by such things? Even if the teacher in question is fully, 100% enlightened? Well, duh...I think the obvious answer is No. You might feel more of a res- onance with someone who acts more like a New Age Twif. And that's *important*. You *should* have that kind of resonance with a teacher you choose to work with. All I'm saying is that these preferences have nothing to do with enlightenment. In inner-tantra we have a saying the more wood, the more fire, meaning whatever ones particular obscurations are, they can be used as fuel for realization, given the right teacher and the right techniques. Right on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: The point is- who is there to cognize something? jim_flanegin wrote: I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-) I don't see an answer to my question, just some misdirection; playing mind games with identification. Kinda boring.:-) And you will probably never get one since both Ron and his guru does not seem to have a clue about what you asked :-) ...which was an answer of sorts.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Never heard that Maharishi cognized the vedas. Could you spezify please ? FWIW, Maharishi is credited with cognizing the uncreated commentary of vedic literature in 1980, in the official lists of his year by year achievements; see http://www.alltm.org/Maharishi/Maharishi_year3.html Which is quite different from saying he cognized the Vedas. And that he came up with what he calls an uncreated commentary is hardly a rumor, as you go on to demonstrate, so it couldn't have been what Vaj was referring to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Some good points.
On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from his
side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition.
{Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks it
all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the well
head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is tapped.
The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden chain
is attached between teacher an student. And then everything flows. The
teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
[this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pretty darn good questions again, New Morning. I think the various
experiences come from our varying expectations. I went to see Amma,
got real close to her, didn't do the hug thing. I was never impressed,
felt no dharshan. Yet a friend of mine swears by her -- the dharshan
for him is intense. I read a newspaper reporter on Amma saying she
felt nothing particular from the hug. Yet others claim that hug
changed their lives.
Remember the movie Leap of Faith where Steve Martin plays the
phony faith healer? He was instrumental in an actual cure. The
crippled man sincerely believed in Steve Martin and in Christ and had
an authenthic healing. This, in turn, caused the phony faith healer
(who up til then had been a con-man and atheist) to change his heart
and believe in something beyond what his senses could perceive.
As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In
fact, I'm suspicious of it. I saw some videos George DeForest linked
us to from this site, of David Spero, a guru, and there was little
doubt for me the guy is wired to something very powerful. Lots of
shakti, even coming through the computer screen. But what is that
energy, that shakti? Is it necessarily something benign? People say
guru shakti zaps them into a transcendental state. At what possible
cost? Who is it who's doing the zapping? Is it the Infinite One? Could
it be a being from outside this dimension, using the human guru as a
channel? If so, for malice or for good? Could the goal possibly be to
devour human individuality, turning people into empty bone sacks? Or
does that shakti really bring the spirit home to God?
Yes, I know the traditional answers. But they were given us by the
zappers. When you look at their lives, do those lives typically
demonstrate something we want, do they indicate people we can trust
and respect? If our history with gurus shows we so rarely can trust or
respect them, can we trust their answers about where their shakti
comes from and the effect it is having in our lives? I don't trust any
of it. I consider the evidence, and draw my own conclusions.
If a teacher is hooked up to shakti, and radiates it, that simply
means they're connected to cosmic energy. Energy is only half of the
consciousness/energy equation. What is the nature of their
consciousness? Is it nihilist, annihilating individuality? Is it
self-centered and sensual, having sex with young disciples? Is it
self-centered and greed-ridden?
When such qualities are present, who cares if they have shakti?
The devil himself has shakti, I'm sure, if such a person exists.
Shakti is just power. Hitler, for instance, had incredible charisma.
Would he make a good guru?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest george.deforest@ wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Never heard that Maharishi cognized the vedas. Could you spezify please ? FWIW, Maharishi is credited with cognizing the uncreated commentary of vedic literature in 1980, in the official lists of his year by year achievements; see http://www.alltm.org/Maharishi/Maharishi_year3.html Which is quite different from saying he cognized the Vedas. And that he came up with what he calls an uncreated commentary is hardly a rumor, as you go on to demonstrate, so it couldn't have been what Vaj was referring to. Another rumor, although in this case one backed up by Yahoo, is that you are already over the posting limit for this week, and it's only Tuesday. Good. Three and a half more days of argument- free discussions ahead. Praise the lord. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy: PST: Maharishi is NOT A GURU. Never claimed to be, has made it clear that he isn't. Lurk: Maharishi not a Guru? Isn't that, as they say, a bit disingenuous? Judy: Huh?? Lurk: Thank you. No surprise. You actually echoed by sentiments about your comment more concisely. I genuinely don't understand why you think either of my comments is disingenuous. Neither do I understand, for that matter, why you're reluctant to say why you think that. Perhaps if you could say why, we could clear up the misunderstanding, but if you prefer to just call me a liar, fine, that's pretty much your problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest george.deforest@ wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Never heard that Maharishi cognized the vedas. Could you spezify please ? FWIW, Maharishi is credited with cognizing the uncreated commentary of vedic literature in 1980, in the official lists of his year by year achievements; see http://www.alltm.org/Maharishi/Maharishi_year3.html Which is quite different from saying he cognized the Vedas. And that he came up with what he calls an uncreated commentary is hardly a rumor, as you go on to demonstrate, so it couldn't have been what Vaj was referring to. Another rumor, although in this case one backed up by Yahoo, is that you are already over the posting limit for this week, and it's only Tuesday. Good. Three and a half more days of argument- free discussions ahead. Praise the lord. :-) Yeah, just think, you'll be able to demonize and tell falsehoods about me from now until next Saturday without any response from me. No wonder you're relieved.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
I like the idea that it is all the student when it comes to darshan,
but for a different reason than MMY. I think it is an innate human
capacity probably from our primate culture of dominance. Add to this
hours of waiting in states of meditation and boredom and you have a
perfect formula for an amazing experience.
I had plenty of MMY as a source of something magical experiences
while in his presence, and plenty of him as a regular Indian man.
Spending day after day in India with him was pretty telling. I
remember when he came to a celebration with his loin cloth twisted in
a knot about something and really came off as the most UN-magical
cranky old fart for the evening. It was surprising that the magic was
ALL gone that night. I just couldn't summon the experience for a guy
who was acting like a dad who had slipped on a carelessly placed
skateboard on the way in, and was fuming about it.
Hundreds of millions of people perceived Mao as a god. Lots of
miracle stories about a guy who killed so many millions of people he
is second behind Stalin. Did he have special shakti power? (Anyone
who proposes that he did and it comes from an Asura or demon must buy
an indulgence from the Catholic Church like a saint's fingernail and
send me the receipt before I will respond)
Do all people who are experienced as giving darshan really have the
power or is there something else at play here?
I think the darshan experience is a fascinating part of our human
nature, but the philosophy of what it all means from traditional
sources is not informative. MMY can both be the focus of amazing
personal experiences and at the same time another bag of flesh and
bones like us once we understand that we create it ourselves for
ourselves. You can experience your own power as if it is coming from
another person, but that isn't what I believe is going on. It is the
same in celebrity culture, rock star backstage parties and anytime a
human looks up to another human. We are wired that way. Early on
certain types of people learned how to exploit this experience to help
prop up the belief that they are intrinsically different in some way
from you and I.
Charisma is a kind of magic. But when people try to pawn it off as
radiating pure knowledge or the power to enlighten others by their
presence...they should read all about the magical darshan of Chuck
Manson. His followers had amazing experiences of his personal
power, and they proved how strong that experience can be.
It was a useful part of our programming when we had to spot the leader
of our troupe quickly, but it is a quality of human nature that modern
humans need to keep an eye on IMO.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some good points.
On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from his
side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition.
{Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks it
all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the well
head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is tapped.
The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden chain
is attached between teacher an student. And then everything flows. The
teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
[this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter
brontebaxter8@ wrote:
Pretty darn good questions again, New Morning. I think the various
experiences come from our varying expectations. I went to see Amma,
got real close to her, didn't do the hug thing. I was never impressed,
felt no dharshan. Yet a friend of mine swears by her -- the dharshan
for him is intense. I read a newspaper reporter on Amma saying she
felt nothing particular from the hug. Yet others claim that hug
changed their lives.
Remember the movie Leap of Faith where Steve Martin plays the
phony faith healer? He was instrumental in an actual cure. The
crippled man sincerely believed in Steve Martin and in Christ and had
an authenthic healing. This, in turn, caused the phony faith healer
(who up til then had been a con-man and atheist) to change his heart
and believe in something beyond what his senses could perceive.
As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In
fact, I'm suspicious of it. I saw some videos George DeForest linked
us to from this site, of David Spero, a guru, and there was little
doubt for me the guy is wired to something very powerful. Lots of
shakti, even coming through the computer screen. But what is that
energy, that shakti? Is it necessarily something benign? People say
guru shakti zaps them into a transcendental state. At what possible
cost? Who is it who's doing the zapping? Is it the Infinite One? Could
it be a being from outside this dimension, using the human guru as a
channel? If
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the idea that it is all the student when it comes to darshan, but for a different reason than MMY. I think it is an innate human capacity probably from our primate culture of dominance. snip It was a useful part of our programming when we had to spot the leader of our troupe quickly, but it is a quality of human nature that modern humans need to keep an eye on IMO. If I change our need to spot the dominant member of the apes, to our need to feel good, what you have said here also applies to drinking or doing drugs. If it is all just a self serving feel good fest to be enjoyed in moderation, why bother with a guru at all? Go get your 'guru' in a six pack at the 7-11. There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru...and that says more about your post, than your post does.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru... Correct. But I didn't really get your 7-11 six pack point. Who buys their beer at 7-11's jacked up prices? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I like the idea that it is all the student when it comes to darshan, but for a different reason than MMY. I think it is an innate human capacity probably from our primate culture of dominance. snip It was a useful part of our programming when we had to spot the leader of our troupe quickly, but it is a quality of human nature that modern humans need to keep an eye on IMO. If I change our need to spot the dominant member of the apes, to our need to feel good, what you have said here also applies to drinking or doing drugs. If it is all just a self serving feel good fest to be enjoyed in moderation, why bother with a guru at all? Go get your 'guru' in a six pack at the 7-11. There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru...and that says more about your post, than your post does.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru... Correct. But I didn't really get your 7-11 six pack point. Who buys their beer at 7-11's jacked up prices? Dude, you're just SO unevolved. Everybody knows that the darshan is better at 7-11. That's why they can charge so much for the beer. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I like the idea that it is all the student when it comes to darshan, but for a different reason than MMY. I think it is an innate human capacity probably from our primate culture of dominance. snip It was a useful part of our programming when we had to spot the leader of our troupe quickly, but it is a quality of human nature that modern humans need to keep an eye on IMO. If I change our need to spot the dominant member of the apes, to our need to feel good, what you have said here also applies to drinking or doing drugs. If it is all just a self serving feel good fest to be enjoyed in moderation, why bother with a guru at all? Go get your 'guru' in a six pack at the 7-11. There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru...and that says more about your post, than your post does.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Comment below:
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea that it is all the student when it comes to darshan,
but for a different reason than MMY. I think it is an innate human
capacity probably from our primate culture of dominance. Add to
this
hours of waiting in states of meditation and boredom and you have a
perfect formula for an amazing experience.
I had plenty of MMY as a source of something magical experiences
while in his presence, and plenty of him as a regular Indian man.
Spending day after day in India with him was pretty telling. I
remember when he came to a celebration with his loin cloth twisted
in
a knot about something and really came off as the most UN-magical
cranky old fart for the evening. It was surprising that the magic
was
ALL gone that night. I just couldn't summon the experience for a
guy
who was acting like a dad who had slipped on a carelessly placed
skateboard on the way in, and was fuming about it.
Hundreds of millions of people perceived Mao as a god. Lots of
miracle stories about a guy who killed so many millions of people he
is second behind Stalin. Did he have special shakti power? (Anyone
who proposes that he did and it comes from an Asura or demon must
buy
an indulgence from the Catholic Church like a saint's fingernail and
send me the receipt before I will respond)
Do all people who are experienced as giving darshan really have the
power or is there something else at play here?
I think the darshan experience is a fascinating part of our human
nature, but the philosophy of what it all means from traditional
sources is not informative. MMY can both be the focus of amazing
personal experiences and at the same time another bag of flesh and
bones like us once we understand that we create it ourselves for
ourselves. You can experience your own power as if it is coming
from
another person, but that isn't what I believe is going on. It is
the
same in celebrity culture, rock star backstage parties and anytime a
human looks up to another human. We are wired that way. Early on
certain types of people learned how to exploit this experience to
help
prop up the belief that they are intrinsically different in some way
from you and I.
Charisma is a kind of magic. But when people try to pawn it off as
radiating pure knowledge or the power to enlighten others by their
presence...they should read all about the magical darshan of Chuck
Manson. His followers had amazing experiences of his personal
power, and they proved how strong that experience can be.
It was a useful part of our programming when we had to spot the
leader
of our troupe quickly, but it is a quality of human nature that
modern
humans need to keep an eye on IMO.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
Some good points.
On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from
his
side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition.
{Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks
it
all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the
well
head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is
tapped.
The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden
chain
is attached between teacher an student. And then everything
flows. The
teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
[this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter
brontebaxter8@ wrote:
Pretty darn good questions again, New Morning. I think the
various
experiences come from our varying expectations. I went to see
Amma,
got real close to her, didn't do the hug thing. I was never
impressed,
felt no dharshan. Yet a friend of mine swears by her -- the
dharshan
for him is intense. I read a newspaper reporter on Amma saying she
felt nothing particular from the hug. Yet others claim that hug
changed their lives.
Remember the movie Leap of Faith where Steve Martin plays
the
phony faith healer? He was instrumental in an actual cure. The
crippled man sincerely believed in Steve Martin and in Christ and
had
an authenthic healing. This, in turn, caused the phony faith
healer
(who up til then had been a con-man and atheist) to change his
heart
and believe in something beyond what his senses could perceive.
As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In
fact, I'm suspicious of it. I saw some videos George DeForest
linked
us to from this site, of David Spero, a guru, and there was little
doubt for me the guy is wired to something very powerful. Lots of
shakti, even coming through the computer screen. But what is that
energy, that shakti? Is it necessarily something benign? People
say
guru shakti
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru... Correct. But I didn't really get your 7-11 six pack point. Who buys their beer at 7-11's jacked up prices? I figure its always either time or money-- save time/pay money or save money/spend time.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
You guys are cheap drunks if a six pack can getcha to nirvana. Takes me a six pack, pint of Jack, four joints and a tab of E laced with meth and LSD. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru... Correct. But I didn't really get your 7-11 six pack point. Who buys their beer at 7-11's jacked up prices? I figure its always either time or money-- save time/pay money or save money/spend time.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly the mindset (of the darshan receiver) and the setting are factors which provide a fertile ground for the experience of a purported saint's darshan. Most interesting to me would be the occassion in which the darshan came from an unexpected source, i.e., one that neither the darshan receiver anticipated and was in no other way elevated or singled out from the background as a 'possible' or anticipatory source; in other words, not someone on stage or sitting elevated on a dias, or behind a microphone covered in garlands, etc. This would be the unprepossesing, humble saint type of darshan -- illumination radiating from someone shining bright in his or her own effulgence. Has anyone ever experienced anything like that? I've had many such experiences, and they all contributed to the way I phrased my post on this subject earlier. In terms of unexpected darshan in the presence of objects, my strong- est experience of this was at a museum in Albu- qurque, New Mexico. There was an exhibit of Tibetan art there, and for some reason I'd been putting off checking it out, thinking, How good could an exhibition of Tibetan art be in *Albu- querque*, ferchrissakes. Boy, was I wrong. It turns out that the show was curated by the most famous curator of Tibetan art on the planet. He had retired a few years earlier, but was coaxed out of retirement to do this show, with the challenge, Do something you've never done before. So he mounted a show of objects that had never been displayed in public before. All were from private collections, and had been for decades, in some cases hundreds of years. But I didn't know any of this. I was just taking some woman friend of a friend to the Albuquerque airport as a favor. I hate to say this, but 1) she talked incessantly, and 2) she had nothing to say when she talked. And I was stuck with her during this trip to the museum. Suffice it to say that I was *not* in a mood-making mood or had set myself up for any kind of spiritual experience. But ten feet inside the door of the museum and it hit me like a ton of bricks. I literally had to find a bench and sit down, the silence and light were that intense. And I wasn't the only one to notice. I'd see straight tourists stand in front of a centuries-old lapis lazuli Buddha and go weak in the knees and have to be supported by their spouses. They just didn't know what was happening to them. *Very* powerful experience, and as you say, completely unexpected. During the times I studied with the Rama guy, I had quite a few instances of unexpected darshan with him. One night I was waiting in line for a movie in Westwood with my girlfriend and suddenly everything went gold. It stopped both of us in our tracks and in our conversation. The light had gotten lively and we both felt a profound shift in our states of attention. We were talking about it when Rama snuck up behind us and poked me in the side and said, Gotcha. He was like that. :-) Lots of similar experiences in places of power that I didn't *know* were places of power beforehand. I'd just go there out of curiosity and find myself settling into meditative or clear-witnessing states. Is that the sort of thing you were asking about?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 25, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: ne thing that Tom has talked about in the context of satsang is the resonance within a group that is consciously communicating about consciousness; that there is a stepping up of the vibration within a group like that that expands one's own consciousness. I honestly think most of what is experienced in the vast majority of satsang type settings, like Tom is referring to, is no different from that experienced in a men's groups (remember when men's groups became the in thing a 10 years ago or?) or any type of self-help group. It's the same basic energy dynamic IME, esp. if we go to that setting with that idea in mind or with some sense of anticipation. And too, at times it seems that some individuals got some hit or resonance off of me (and without me doing anything consciously to provoke it). There have been some interesting examples with a few clients and probably most of us who formerly taught TM can relate to that experience, too. I've had this happen when teaching meditation--and I've heard it from other teachers as well: reports of lights, energetic phenomenon, dream visitations, etc. While all very flattering, they were due to no intention whatsoever on my part. That type of experience has forced me to conclude that it is what people bring to a setting, consciously or subconsciously as an expectation, that sets up such experiences. As a further validation, I found when I went into clear light meditation retreats, where I'd have to be in total darkness for extended periods of time, the visionary material that would come up deep within would almost always at first be projections of subtle and super-subtle thought constructs I was maintaining as beliefs. It was only after such (very convincing and seemingly profound) experiences resolved that some form of pure vision could begin to develop. Certainly the mindset (of the darshan receiver) and the setting are factors which provide a fertile ground for the experience of a purported saint's darshan. Most interesting to me would be the occassion in which the darshan came from an unexpected source, i.e., one that neither the darshan receiver anticipated and was in no other way elevated or singled out from the background as a 'possible' or anticipatory source; in other words, not someone on stage or sitting elevated on a dias, or behind a microphone covered in garlands, etc. This would be the unprepossesing, humble saint type of darshan -- illumination radiating from someone shining bright in his or her own effulgence. Has anyone ever experienced anything like that? Absolutely. Some from humans, some from non-humans.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Takes me a six pack, pint of Jack, four joints and a tab of E laced with meth and LSD. Then you got ripped off on the weed, and the pill they sold you as E laced with meth and acid was a generic vitamin. Conclusion, change dealers! You deserve better. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You guys are cheap drunks if a six pack can getcha to nirvana. Takes me a six pack, pint of Jack, four joints and a tab of E laced with meth and LSD. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: There's nothing in what you said to convince anyone there is any higher purpose served by a Guru... Correct. But I didn't really get your 7-11 six pack point. Who buys their beer at 7-11's jacked up prices? I figure its always either time or money-- save time/pay money or save money/spend time.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Turq, yes and no, really. Except for your experiences in places of power that you had no prior expectation of anything special, I'd say no; the reason being that there was some, albeit perhaps slight, anticipation of something special in the other instances you mentioned. For instance, the museum show: right there you have both a formalized proscenium as your setting and the context of ritual and religious objects, particularly for you who as a student of meditation and Tibetan Buddhism, would certainly have some interest (and you did because that's why you went), but also even for the lay people who walked into a special place to see a special show. And as an aside, 'artifacts' are essentially the manifest respository of someone's attention; the more time putting one's attention on something and the more fundamental the underlying intention underlying that attention was, the more power (I feel) the object can hold and radiate. A religious icon or murti or ritual implement, made first with the intensity of attention such an object demands, coupled with the long and fervent attention of others who have used or appreciated or meditated on the object over a long period of time builds up and carries a lot of that shakti (attention). As to Rama's golden glow zap, sure you didn't see it coming, but you've written before about his ability to tune in and turn on certain folks, yourself included, so that doesn't fit what I was asking about, either, though it sounds totally fine and wish I'd been there myself. The unexpected power places does fit what I was talking about, and I've had those experiences, too. But what I'm interested in is if anyone's had the experience of getting high from someone that they didn't know or have any reason to expect anything out of the ordinary from. You know, Guru Dev in a crowd, Buddha traveling incognito, God rummaging through the trash looking for something either edible or recyclable. Doesn't really much matter, I guess, but who doesn't love to be high, exalted, to glow from within? I feel certain that there are folks like that wandering around whose interior hum could innocently reset my own(Maughm's Larry Darrell pulling up in his taxi and asking Where to?); just never ran across one of them myself. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Certainly the mindset (of the darshan receiver) and the setting are factors which provide a fertile ground for the experience of a purported saint's darshan. Most interesting to me would be the occassion in which the darshan came from an unexpected source, i.e., one that neither the darshan receiver anticipated and was in no other way elevated or singled out from the background as a 'possible' or anticipatory source; in other words, not someone on stage or sitting elevated on a dias, or behind a microphone covered in garlands, etc. This would be the unprepossesing, humble saint type of darshan -- illumination radiating from someone shining bright in his or her own effulgence. Has anyone ever experienced anything like that? I've had many such experiences, and they all contributed to the way I phrased my post on this subject earlier. In terms of unexpected darshan in the presence of objects, my strong- est experience of this was at a museum in Albu- qurque, New Mexico. There was an exhibit of Tibetan art there, and for some reason I'd been putting off checking it out, thinking, How good could an exhibition of Tibetan art be in *Albu- querque*, ferchrissakes. Boy, was I wrong. It turns out that the show was curated by the most famous curator of Tibetan art on the planet. He had retired a few years earlier, but was coaxed out of retirement to do this show, with the challenge, Do something you've never done before. So he mounted a show of objects that had never been displayed in public before. All were from private collections, and had been for decades, in some cases hundreds of years. But I didn't know any of this. I was just taking some woman friend of a friend to the Albuquerque airport as a favor. I hate to say this, but 1) she talked incessantly, and 2) she had nothing to say when she talked. And I was stuck with her during this trip to the museum. Suffice it to say that I was *not* in a mood-making mood or had set myself up for any kind of spiritual experience. But ten feet inside the door of the museum and it hit me like a ton of bricks. I literally had to find a bench and sit down, the silence and light were that intense. And I wasn't the only one to notice. I'd see straight tourists stand in front of a centuries-old lapis lazuli Buddha and go weak in the knees and have to be supported by their spouses. They just didn't know what was happening to them. *Very* powerful experience, and as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
As a narcissist, it's hard for me to enter the POV of another, and I'm thinking that this may be a major dynamic in my never having had the experience of receiving shakti from darshan. I'm thinking that some disciples can want so badly to be seeing through the eyes of their guru that, well, I hate to use this word, but they hypnotize themselves into the experience. In a dream, what cannot be experienced? If so, then who can doubt that the most common person could rassle up some bliss when they daydream about their guru? Self induced, to me, is Occam's razor giving us the simplest explanation. We are all gods who can manufacture any experience -- only we don't because we think we're unenlightened, but in special cases we let ourselves slip off of this notion about ourselves and leap to the stance of the guru and take a look around from the POV -- this done with projective imagining -- not by receiving energy or sucking energy out of a guru IMO. And all the gurus are screaming that they are merely the externalized Self of the disciple anyway, so, logically, it IS Self induced, eh? Watch any child playing with toys -- those toys are alive with the energy projected. I remember at age 7 rolling about 20 marbles along the floor and being thrilled that I was a cowboy and these were my cattle. Why not, then, gurus being played with in just such a fashion? It's called love. Put your attention on anything and it blooms before your eyes. Putting one's attention on the supposed good parts of one's guru might, indeed, be a powerful hypnotic technique for some personalities -- a relentless focusing of one's mind on certain qualities -- who would be surprised to have a rush up the backbone? Edg -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, yes and no, really. Except for your experiences in places of power that you had no prior expectation of anything special, I'd say no; the reason being that there was some, albeit perhaps slight, anticipation of something special in the other instances you mentioned. For instance, the museum show: right there you have both a formalized proscenium as your setting and the context of ritual and religious objects, particularly for you who as a student of meditation and Tibetan Buddhism, would certainly have some interest (and you did because that's why you went), but also even for the lay people who walked into a special place to see a special show. And as an aside, 'artifacts' are essentially the manifest respository of someone's attention; the more time putting one's attention on something and the more fundamental the underlying intention underlying that attention was, the more power (I feel) the object can hold and radiate. A religious icon or murti or ritual implement, made first with the intensity of attention such an object demands, coupled with the long and fervent attention of others who have used or appreciated or meditated on the object over a long period of time builds up and carries a lot of that shakti (attention). As to Rama's golden glow zap, sure you didn't see it coming, but you've written before about his ability to tune in and turn on certain folks, yourself included, so that doesn't fit what I was asking about, either, though it sounds totally fine and wish I'd been there myself. The unexpected power places does fit what I was talking about, and I've had those experiences, too. But what I'm interested in is if anyone's had the experience of getting high from someone that they didn't know or have any reason to expect anything out of the ordinary from. You know, Guru Dev in a crowd, Buddha traveling incognito, God rummaging through the trash looking for something either edible or recyclable. Doesn't really much matter, I guess, but who doesn't love to be high, exalted, to glow from within? I feel certain that there are folks like that wandering around whose interior hum could innocently reset my own(Maughm's Larry Darrell pulling up in his taxi and asking Where to?); just never ran across one of them myself. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Certainly the mindset (of the darshan receiver) and the setting are factors which provide a fertile ground for the experience of a purported saint's darshan. Most interesting to me would be the occassion in which the darshan came from an unexpected source, i.e., one that neither the darshan receiver anticipated and was in no other way elevated or singled out from the background as a 'possible' or anticipatory source; in other words, not someone on stage or sitting elevated on a dias, or behind a microphone covered in garlands, etc. This would be the unprepossesing, humble saint type of darshan -- illumination radiating
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, yes and no, really. Except for your experiences in places of power that you had no prior expectation of anything special, I'd say no; the reason being that there was some, albeit perhaps slight, anticipation of something special in the other instances you mentioned. For instance, the museum show: right there you have both a formalized proscenium as your setting and the context of ritual and religious objects, particularly for you who as a student of meditation and Tibetan Buddhism, would certainly have some interest (and you did because that's why you went), but also even for the lay people who walked into a special place to see a special show. It's possible. But I really *wasn't* expecting anything; I had felt anything remotely like darshan emanating from an art object in a museum setting only once before, with a statue in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. So I wasn't looking for it in Albuquerque, or with Tibetan art in general. I own a great deal of Tibetan art, and I get a real hit from only one of the pieces. And as an aside, 'artifacts' are essentially the manifest respository of someone's attention; the more time putting one's attention on something and the more fundamental the underlying intention underlying that attention was, the more power (I feel) the object can hold and radiate. That's it exactly. Before the Albuquerque show, the only two ancient artifacts I ever had gotten a real hit on darshan-wise both had that quality, of having captured years or even decades of an interesting being's aura and attention field. One was the statue in Amsterdam. It was in the Asiatic Wing (which I *highly* recommend if you haven't been there...second only to one other Asian Art museum in the world in my experience), Japanese, carved in wood. There is a photo of it in the Web version of my book, which you can look at directly here: http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/pics/art/OneOfTheTenGreatDisciplesOfBuddha.jpg or in context here: http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm30.html The magic is in the subject matter, which is in the longer URL above. The artist was a simple monk, nameless. We will never know who he was because spiritual artists didn't sign their names to their art in that culture at that time. And whoever he was, he was wise enough to know that he really couldn't do justice to a sculpture of a Buddha. If you're not enlightened, how can you even *begin* to grasp what a Buddha is, much less do a portrait of him. So this anonymous artist chose instead a fellow monk, One of the Ten Great Disciples of the Buddha. *Him*, the monk could identify with. And he put all of that identification and a lifetime's worth of attention into his sculpture. It survives still, centuries later, and yes, it *radiates* that attention big-time. IMO, of course. The other object that I get a hit on hangs above my bed. It's a 17th-century high lama's robe, from a famous Tibetan monastery. The Sixth Dalai Lama, my favorite character in history, taught in that monastery for many years, during the same period. The robe would only have been worn on ceremonial occasions, during which the high lama would dance through the dimensions for his followers. I don't get a real hit on this one from merely looking at it, although I obviously did when I ran into it in a tiny Tibetan store that was going out of business. The magic happens when you wear it. Suffice it to say I do, from time to time. It's like putting on the mindset of the man who wore it first. But other than that, it's not like I'm a relic freak. I really don't get much of a hit from objects that many others consider holy relics. There are sculptures of dancing Shivas in the Rijksmuseum, right next to the statue I like, that are worth millions of dollars, and are considered some of the best examples of that style of art still existing on the planet. And yet, just a few feet away from them, unregarded and unnoticed by most of the tourists, is a simple, 3/4-life-size statue that -- in my opinion as a perceiver -- outshines the dancing Shivas completely. So I don't think I was really set up for any particular experience when I walked into the museum. What I experienced took me completely by surprise. A religious icon or murti or ritual implement, made first with the intensity of attention such an object demands, coupled with the long and fervent attention of others who have used or appreciated or meditated on the object over a long period of time builds up and carries a lot of that shakti (attention). Indeed. As to Rama's golden glow zap, sure you didn't see it coming, but you've written before about his ability to tune in and turn on certain folks, yourself included, so that doesn't fit what I was asking about, either, though it sounds totally fine and wish I'd been there myself. I guess the thing in this
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Thanks, Turq, both for the further response and the image of the monk provided. Fine stuff. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Turq, yes and no, really. Except for your experiences in places of power that you had no prior expectation of anything special, I'd say no; the reason being that there was some, albeit perhaps slight, anticipation of something special in the other instances you mentioned. For instance, the museum show: right there you have both a formalized proscenium as your setting and the context of ritual and religious objects, particularly for you who as a student of meditation and Tibetan Buddhism, would certainly have some interest (and you did because that's why you went), but also even for the lay people who walked into a special place to see a special show. It's possible. But I really *wasn't* expecting anything; I had felt anything remotely like darshan emanating from an art object in a museum setting only once before, with a statue in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. So I wasn't looking for it in Albuquerque, or with Tibetan art in general. I own a great deal of Tibetan art, and I get a real hit from only one of the pieces. And as an aside, 'artifacts' are essentially the manifest respository of someone's attention; the more time putting one's attention on something and the more fundamental the underlying intention underlying that attention was, the more power (I feel) the object can hold and radiate. That's it exactly. Before the Albuquerque show, the only two ancient artifacts I ever had gotten a real hit on darshan-wise both had that quality, of having captured years or even decades of an interesting being's aura and attention field. One was the statue in Amsterdam. It was in the Asiatic Wing (which I *highly* recommend if you haven't been there...second only to one other Asian Art museum in the world in my experience), Japanese, carved in wood. There is a photo of it in the Web version of my book, which you can look at directly here: http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/pics/art/OneOfTheTenGreatDisciplesOfB uddha.jpg or in context here: http://ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm30.html The magic is in the subject matter, which is in the longer URL above. The artist was a simple monk, nameless. We will never know who he was because spiritual artists didn't sign their names to their art in that culture at that time. And whoever he was, he was wise enough to know that he really couldn't do justice to a sculpture of a Buddha. If you're not enlightened, how can you even *begin* to grasp what a Buddha is, much less do a portrait of him. So this anonymous artist chose instead a fellow monk, One of the Ten Great Disciples of the Buddha. *Him*, the monk could identify with. And he put all of that identification and a lifetime's worth of attention into his sculpture. It survives still, centuries later, and yes, it *radiates* that attention big-time. IMO, of course. The other object that I get a hit on hangs above my bed. It's a 17th-century high lama's robe, from a famous Tibetan monastery. The Sixth Dalai Lama, my favorite character in history, taught in that monastery for many years, during the same period. The robe would only have been worn on ceremonial occasions, during which the high lama would dance through the dimensions for his followers. I don't get a real hit on this one from merely looking at it, although I obviously did when I ran into it in a tiny Tibetan store that was going out of business. The magic happens when you wear it. Suffice it to say I do, from time to time. It's like putting on the mindset of the man who wore it first. But other than that, it's not like I'm a relic freak. I really don't get much of a hit from objects that many others consider holy relics. There are sculptures of dancing Shivas in the Rijksmuseum, right next to the statue I like, that are worth millions of dollars, and are considered some of the best examples of that style of art still existing on the planet. And yet, just a few feet away from them, unregarded and unnoticed by most of the tourists, is a simple, 3/4-life-size statue that -- in my opinion as a perceiver -- outshines the dancing Shivas completely. So I don't think I was really set up for any particular experience when I walked into the museum. What I experienced took me completely by surprise. A religious icon or murti or ritual implement, made first with the intensity of attention such an object demands, coupled with the long and fervent attention of others who have used or appreciated or meditated on the object over a long period of time builds up and carries a lot of that shakti (attention). Indeed. As to Rama's golden glow
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Ron wrote: 1. I had felt caged in all these years from not living in a proper vastu Response from my Guru when I asked is anything had ever caged her in- no 2. cognitions of vedas Response from my Guru- cognitions, discoveries, knowing what needs to be known about anything, sidhis, cognizing all of jyotish, vedic mathmatics, vastu- these things are developed way beffore Realization and are not a part of a realized one- they are all about the transcient 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, Kundalini is for identification of where one is at It is said the more the kundalini is awake, the more enlightened one is, ultimately when kunalini is fully awake, this is enlightenment Response- If one knows what ice cream tastes like- one doesnt say it is said to taste sweet- this is not the words from knowing directly. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment, and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization will collect more These might make a nice addition to the files section Ron, updated as you find more examples. If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Ron wrote: 1. I had felt caged in all these years from not living in a proper vastu Response from my Guru when I asked is anything had ever caged her in- no 2. cognitions of vedas Response from my Guru- cognitions, discoveries, knowing what needs to be known about anything, sidhis, cognizing all of jyotish, vedic mathmatics, vastu- these things are developed way beffore Realization and are not a part of a realized one- they are all about the transcient 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, Kundalini is for identification of where one is at It is said the more the kundalini is awake, the more enlightened one is, ultimately when kunalini is fully awake, this is enlightenment Response- If one knows what ice cream tastes like- one doesnt say it is said to taste sweet- this is not the words from knowing directly. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment, and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization will collect more If any was in doubt, this is exactly what I meant. Great examples of a fellow who has no idea about the meaning, or willing to understand the meaning, behind for example : it is said to - or I had felt. Better find something else to do Ron, because you keep on demonstrating that you have no idea, that's is why you ignored the Movements and Mother Miras instructions... what about getting a job ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Old Chinese proverb: Mantra still good, keep meditating!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati PST: Maharishi is NOT A GURU. Never claimed to be, has made it clear that he isn't. Apples and pomegranates. But you knew that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati I think MMY would qualify as he has given me atma-jnana or knowledge (thru experience) of the Adhyatma (underlying soul), as such I have become (thanks to MMY) a *knower of Reality*. SBS is talking about charlatans, one may not like MMY's methods but that does not make him a charlatan.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Old Chinese proverb: Mantra still good, keep meditating! Hey ! How do you KNOW that Bush isn't the Hitler of today ? ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember the post about MMY saying a doctor could prescribe for you a medicine and still be sick himself? (paraphrased) It doesn't matter whether or not MMY is enlightened, he is NOT a personal Guru, as such the idea of whether or not he is a Sat Guru is irrelevant, most folks aren't ready for a Sat Guru anyway!! Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. Didn't think I would ever say this peter, but based on personal experiences I agree with you. What a strange world... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey ! How do you KNOW that Bush isn't the Hitler of today ? ;-) Hey, you're right, I give, Bush is the next Hitler! Especially since his term will expire next year! :-OOO
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:35 AM, BillyG. wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: 3. Speaking about Kundalini and explaining it is said to be at the base of the spine, I believe this statement is from MMY's lecture on Kundalini, as such I think you make an interesting point, is MMY functioning from Aham Brahmasmi? and does it matter? If the guru cannot give the pupil bhagadadarshana (sight of God) or aatmaGYaana (self-knowledge) and continually avails himself of his [students] wealth, then certainly he will gain ghora naraka (horrible hell). -Swami Brahmananda Saraswati I think MMY would qualify as he has given me atma-jnana or knowledge (thru experience) of the Adhyatma (underlying soul), as such I have become (thanks to MMY) a *knower of Reality*. SBS is talking about charlatans, one may not like MMY's methods but that does not make him a charlatan. Indeed, BillyG. Based on my own experience I fully agree with you on what Maharishi has given. Vaj's comments are not based on his experience with TM. As far as I know, he hasn't been initiated by a qualified TM teacher. He just wants to trash TM. This was his whole agenda when he posted at a.m.t. But no matter what books he's read or what he's practiced, he hasn't really *experienced* for himself the results of the proper effective practise of Transcendental Meditation itself, as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He may not like Maharishi's ways. Neither do I. But you can't argue with what you experience. It's no longer a matter of debate when you actually *experience* that Reality. That's why I can't really dismiss what Jim Flanegin claims to be experiencing. I may disagree with some of his peripheral commentary, but his whole descriptive rings true on the basis of what I myself have also *experienced* .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. I can only provide some intellectual response. Such as, the vedas is not what is cognized, it was relative things cognizesd- vedic math is relative, so it jyotish, and scripture. when all relative is gone, then ONE is, it is not persona, it only IS. A person can cognize seemingly infinite things if this is what one wants- beyond this IS only Being- this is why it is explained that a siddha Guru is one that is beyond siddhis- and the greatest siddhi of them all is to know the absolute. In enlightenment, siddhis may occur around the enlightened but it is not a doership as there is no one to do something. There are no longing and lasting desires, which includes the desire to know anything about anything- this is siddhis. One can know wwhatever one needs to know- My Guru explained that this was in her own journey way before being enlightened. actually, it was because advanced siddhis were known, that my Guru thought she was enlightened. She was on her own most of the journey. The last Guru ( there were 4 total) screamed in her face- this desription can be seen on youtube in the video describing my Guru's own Journey. Because the siddhis were very developed, she thought she was enlightend, then when she revealed this to her Guru, this is when he screamed in her face and told her, you fool, you know nothing, you idiot!!! while at the time, my Guru had less than nice thoughts about her Guru, she reflected backward and said that if not for this, she would have still been on the hampster wheel of karma. This whole thing will again boil down to that other title's thread- the fallacy is that a me is going to get enlightenmed. Me means identity with mind or body which is ego, and ego and Enlightenment cannot exist at the same time. Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Hey ! How do you KNOW that Bush isn't the Hitler of today ? ;-) Hey, you're right, I give, Bush is the next Hitler! Especially since his term will expire next year! :-OOO HEY ! How do you know that he won't create an enormous crisis which calls for his prolonged presidency ?? I mean, the fellow has just begun his mission for freedom for the whole world !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
I have a few responses to some statements made below: If one knows what ice cream tastes like - one doesn't say it is said to taste sweet - this is not the words from knowing directly. This conclusion may or may not be correct. The use of the word said may indicate an idiosynratic use of language by one who does not speak excellent Enlish, or simply one who is speaking colloquially. It also may be a reference to spiritual texts about Kundalini, which also does not imply non-realization of the Shakti. Thirdly, some Masters do not like to point or speak about their own Realilsation of the Divine, for one reason or another, so they distance themselves through referring to something objective such as a text or previous statement. For example, Ramana Maharishi often answered people by quoting what other texts stated about the Self-Realization. I would not conlude Ramana's non-realisation of the Self because of that. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Yes, I agree. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization Rotor Rooter is a good analogy - but there is more to the Shakti than its function as purifier. I would like to suggest that even after the Self is established, Kundalini-Shakti still circulates, and for some even radiates as a form of (extremely potent) spiritual transmission. Kundalini, therefore, is not merely a path to establish the Self. It is an actual property of the Absolute or Consciousness Itself through which the Self makes Itself known. Therefore, I feel it is innacurate to insist that it is over at a certain point of Realization. For some, it continues to function, quite powerfully and beautifully and spontaneously, as an initiating force (diksha) for others. Namaste, David Spero http://www.davidspero.org
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. snip Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
I'd rather not comment on the question about the Vedas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. snip Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. And, just to show that things are different based on who you are and how and what you choose to perceive, I had (by some standards) a great deal of personal contact with Maharishi. And I never considered him enlightened. Never. Still don't. In my book, his 'darshan' was so puny (compared to other teachers I've met) that I would be tempted to describe it as non- existent. Go figure, eh? My experience does not invalidate yours, and yours does not invalidate mine. But you really can't write off people who don't think he's enlightened as just not having had personal contact with him. That's not it at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. And, just to show that things are different based on who you are and how and what you choose to perceive, I had (by some standards) a great deal of personal contact with Maharishi. And I never considered him enlightened. Never. Still don't. In my book, his 'darshan' was so puny (compared to other teachers I've met) that I would be tempted to describe it as non- existent. Go figure, eh? My experience does not invalidate yours, and yours does not invalidate mine. But you really can't write off people who don't think he's enlightened as just not having had personal contact with him. That's not it at all. And it isn't what he said, either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Cognitions and revelations are what my guru had prior to enlightenment and also this what s gave my Guru the understanding that enlightenment was there. As I said, there was a time where my guru could know anything about something and other such things The point is- who is there to cognize something? My recolletions are Bevan worships MMY as persona, therefore it is the greatest Guru in 10,000 years, and for example, on some walk MMY was having, all of the vedas or some certain apsects of the vedas were cognized. This has to do with knowing something, where as in Realization, the small self, the me, the identification of body and mind is imploded, merged, it IS only ONE, not one with something My Guru, speaking from this knowing, informed me a few days ago that no, ccognitions are not there for the enlightened, it also was from experiecne that with the cogitions and revelations, my Guru thought she had arrived, but as long as there is a me cognizing, there is further to go This is the significance of the Guru being there with the disciple, otherwise , the disciple will go no further and this ends up being a sad thing. It is most likely the new age thing which people can relate to- it is there in sai Ma's web sight- become a God, develope your full potential, choose enlightenment, etc. People can relate to becoming a better me, gaining a cosmic ego People can not relate to no me, no ego, no self, only IS- then life flows Regarding the Kundalini comment from another post- Maybe it again is this paradoxal thing. My guru explains that where shakti meets shiva, the kundalini journey is over. IN enlightenment, yes, my Guru gives shatipat and shakti is kundalini. The thing is the persona is no longer there so the enlightened experienceing Kundalini? All 3 enlightened in my path went through the kundalini journey- 2 of the 3 are gurus- the other a sage- and it is an inspirational story for that one being on the path for only one year, with 3 babies ( all under 4) and a housewife. The 2 gurus had very heavy kundlaini journeys, and having arrived in realization, are extremely qualified to speak about Kundalini. Both independantly commented on MMY comments about Kundalini and said it is one that knows nothing of the kundalini journey. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. snip Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ron wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. I can only provide some intellectual response. Such as, the vedas is not what is cognized, it was relative things cognizesd- vedic math is relative, so it jyotish, and scripture. when all relative is gone, then ONE is, it is not persona, it only IS. Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is- who is there to cognize something? jim_flanegin wrote: I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-) I don't see an answer to my question, just some misdirection; playing mind games with identification. Kinda boring.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Ron wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. I can only provide some intellectual response. Such as, the vedas is not what is cognized, it was relative things cognizesd- vedic math is relative, so it jyotish, and scripture. when all relative is gone, then ONE is, it is not persona, it only IS. Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. I actually thought it had faded away, until I heard it here a while back. A friend of Rick's stated back in May (on FFL): You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? This is one of many self-perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. I actually thought it had faded away, until I heard it here a while back. A friend of Rick's stated back in May (on FFL): You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself. Oh well, maybe he did, and certainly from my POV lives the Reality of the Vedas. And no doubt ime he has the ability to cognize them-- I'm not disputing that. But he sure hasn't had the time to *document* his cognition.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. I actually thought it had faded away, until I heard it here a while back. A friend of Rick's stated back in May (on FFL): You FEEL more comfortable reducing Maharishi to a relative personality, with flaws like all of us, who may know less about Vedic knowledge than some gay cowboy named Dana or Oscar or LeRoy who went to India and studied with the Hindu status quo; you don't FEEL comfortable seeing Maharishi as an embodiment of pure knowledge, the only Rishi in history who has cognized all the vedas, because that would not fit into your world view and that is not how you feel comfortable with yourself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:44 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? Well now, that would depend on how Ron intended it. He wrote me offlist and stated his source, but I'm waiting to hear whether or not this included the vedas. This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. Or you have and you're lying. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Actually I have just heard of one source offlist: Bevan Morris. Let me guess Judy, you never heard of him either...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:44 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? Well now, that would depend on how Ron intended it. He wrote me offlist and stated his source, but I'm waiting to hear whether or not this included the vedas. Another non sequitur. This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. Or you have and you're lying. Nope, I don't lie, Vaj. Don't project. I was as surprised as anybody to see that Purusha chap make the claim here. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Actually I have just heard of one source offlist: Bevan Morris. Speaking of blissninnies... Let me guess Judy, you never heard of him either...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:10 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Ron, is the reason you mentioned 'cognizing the vedas' because of the rumor spread by TB's (probably purushoids) that Mahesh 'cognized the Vedas'? Such a rumor certainly wasn't part of the discussion until you brought it up. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you couldn't care less where Ron got the idea from, you just wanted an excuse to make the TMO look bad? This is one of many self- perpetuated myths the org puts forth to help justify devotion/investment despite waning interest. BTW, what does self-perpetuated mean where a rumor is concerned? That people don't have to repeat it, it just magically spreads itself? I never heard Maharishi say he had cognized the Vedas, nor did I hear anyone say this about Maharishi. Wasn't his translation of, and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita enough!?? Next you'll be telling us he wrote the encyclopedia brittanica...:-) Well Jimbo, you just ain't been around! :-) It's a rather common TMO myth IME. Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Yeah, Vaj is just the flip side of the blissninnys. No problem.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Funny, I never heard it either. That a blissninny may have asserted it here doesn't mean the TMO is putting it forth. You remind me of the right-wingers who go hunting for unseemly comments on lefty blogs and then attempt to characterize the entire left as out of line on the basis of a nitwit comment or two. There's even a name for it now: nutdiving. Yeah, Vaj is just the flip side of the blissninnys. No problem.:-) Except that the blissninnies aren't motivated by malice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Your posts raises some interesting themes -- a discussion bobbing up and down here through the years. Since you have some degree of opinion or experience on the matter, I ask you and anyone the following -- not in a challenging way but an exploratory way to see the diversity of views and direct experiences for the following. In your framework (or direct experience) what does come from someone who is enlightened? Are people with certain characteristics unable to get enlightened? What are these bad characteristics? Could Tony Soprano be, or become, enlightened (in this life)? If not, how effective is TM (or name you favorite sadhana, practice or path), if they can't enlighten everyone? Would Tony Soprano's behavior change if he were enlightened? Particularly if yes, then does everyone's behavior become better in enlightenment? All aspects of behavior, or just some? Which aspects?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! If you have never had any personal contact with MMY I can easily understand why a person would say MMY is not Realized. Especially the last decade or so he has made many an outrageous comment. So, from a conceptual level of evaluating MMY based on his speech and behavior he does not meet many people's expectations of how a Realized person speaks and behaves. The same dialectic / discussion and diversity survey questions to you that I just asked Billie on this thread. And do any expectations of how a person acts in enlightenment have validity? However, personal contact with MMY, in my experience, pretty much crushes any conceptual edifice regarding Realization. His darshan is incredibly powerful and triggers deep spiritual experiences. And Turq, I believe, and others, have a completely different experience, indifferent,with MMY's darsan. Is your experience more valid than his? if so, in what ways? Does triggering deep spiritual experiences necessarily mean the source of that experience is enlightened? Is a murti in a temple enlightened. It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Is love enlightened? It can trigger powerful spiritual experience to some. Someone said a teacher was not so good because she did not give the viewer of her picture a strong energy hit. If personal interpretation of darshaan experience is valid, the is energy-hit-ology also valid for judging a teacher? IMO, interpreation of darshan experience, and any spiritual experience, altered, or beyond conventional state, is an issue. As an example regarding darshan, when I first met SSRS, I went up to the stage and had a nice chat with him at intermission, and he taught my intro course, he asked me and others questions, so there was more than a 3 second type assembly line darshan. Yet I didn't feel so much from his darshan. But through the day I felt some very positive things, but did not attribute it to darshan. That night, the good thing was huge. Still being a skeptical of many casual causal claims, I still did not say or think SSRS caused this. When I went to a second and third course, and the same thing happened, the correlation sank in. (correlation i not causation .. but... for other reasons, I saw it a causal) The effect was huge, but I was looking in the wrong place, so to speak. I initially incorrectly interpreted the source of the huge effect. YMMV As has been said here many times, MMY is an incredible paradox. Does that make him enlightened? If so,are all sources of paradox enlightened? If not, which are and which are not? To dismiss MMY as unenlightened is, IMHO, ridiculous based on my own personal experience with him. And that is your opinion, an your interpretation of your darshan experiences with him. Both are respected. But does your experience sigularly establish that he is enlightened? Can he be enlightened for you, and not for others? What is the role of expectation of the darshan experience have with the actual interpretation of the experience? IMO, its quite large. That might be a factor in explaining the large variance in experiences. Many of the former skin-boys had far far more face time with MMY than you and yet don't share your experience of his darshan. What explains that variance of experience? (an authentic, not pointed, question)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Replying to New Morning's excellent questions (below) on this thread: It appears that all these people we hold up as enlightened masters wear the shine off their halos the more we get to know them. I say the reason is our concept of enlightenment. If all that means to us is that the person becomes aware of their universal nature (CC) or even it means he becomes aware of his oneness with all existence (BC), little has been done to change and perfect the ego, or individual consciousness, which many people on FFL are claiming doesn't exist. Of course if you think it doesn't exist, you'll do nothing to align it with divine mind, cosmic intention. You'll think that just knowing your universal aspect is the quintessential height of evolution. In reality, that's only part of the journey. The remaining part is for individual consciousness to master the limitations of this dimension, imbibing and expressing universal consciousness in every aspect of one's individual being. This cannot happen if you've gone and annihilated your individual consciousness. To me, true enlightenment is cognizing your universal nature and perfecting your individual nature at the same time -- which means retaining your ego, identifying with it, and purifying/ filling it with the universal light of your own universal Brahman nature. If that became part of people's definition of enlightenment -- which it isn't, for most participants in Eastern spiritual systems -- then the human personality would outgrow its flaws and earthbound limitations. We'd all become masters in the truest, fullest sense. Not walking zombies, and not shakti-zappers who have to screw their disciples. new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I question whether or not he is enlightened especially when he started damning democracy and suggesting Bush was Hitler, that doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is enlightened! Your posts raises some interesting themes -- a discussion bobbing up and down here through the years. Since you have some degree of opinion or experience on the matter, I ask you and anyone the following -- not in a challenging way but an exploratory way to see the diversity of views and direct experiences for the following. In your framework (or direct experience) what does come from someone who is enlightened? Are people with certain characteristics unable to get enlightened? What are these bad characteristics? Could Tony Soprano be, or become, enlightened (in this life)? If not, how effective is TM (or name you favorite sadhana, practice or path), if they can't enlighten everyone? Would Tony Soprano's behavior change if he were enlightened? Particularly if yes, then does everyone's behavior become better in enlightenment? All aspects of behavior, or just some? Which aspects? - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Replying to New Morning's excellent questions (below) on this thread: It appears that all these people we hold up as enlightened masters wear the shine off their halos the more we get to know them. I say the reason is our concept of enlightenment. If all that means to us is that the person becomes aware of their universal nature (CC) or even it means he becomes aware of his oneness with all existence (BC), little has been done to change and perfect the ego, or individual consciousness, which many people on FFL are claiming doesn't exist. Who here has been claiming the ego doesn't exist?? snip In reality, that's only part of the journey. The remaining part is for individual consciousness to master the limitations of this dimension, imbibing and expressing universal consciousness in every aspect of one's individual being. This cannot happen if you've gone and annihilated your individual consciousness. Who has suggested enlightenment involves annihilating your individual consciousness?? I'm increasingly coming to think, Bronte, that you're defending your position against a big bunch of straw men.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote PST: Maharishi is NOT A GURU. Never claimed to be, has made it clear that he isn't. Maharishi not a Guru? Isn't that, as they say, a bit disingenuous? lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jstein@ wrote PST: Maharishi is NOT A GURU. Never claimed to be, has made it clear that he isn't. Maharishi not a Guru? Isn't that, as they say, a bit disingenuous? Huh??
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
Judy: PST: Maharishi is NOT A GURU. Never claimed to be, has made it clear that he isn't. Lurk: Maharishi not a Guru? Isn't that, as they say, a bit disingenuous? Judy: Huh?? Lurk: Thank you. No surprise. You actually echoed by sentiments about your comment more concisely.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
MMY functions as a Sat Guru for some and not for others. Being a Sat Guru is not some sort of formal title. You trigger That awakening in someone and you are their Sat Guru. --- lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy: PST: Maharishi is NOT A GURU. Never claimed to be, has made it clear that he isn't. Lurk: Maharishi not a Guru? Isn't that, as they say, a bit disingenuous? Judy: Huh?? Lurk: Thank you. No surprise. You actually echoed by sentiments about your comment more concisely. 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] Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
