--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > > > Bottom line is enlightenment is really a possibility this life > > time but the master has to be enlightened, sat Guru, and then > > from the opinion of my Guru, it is essencial to be working > > one to one. The Guru is the light, the disciple is in darkness > > which is ego ( identification of mind and body as being the > > self, or the small self is the existence) > > Bottom line is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are > talking about when you are quoting other "gurus". What you are > saying is just that; talk, talk, talk.
Why do I get the feeling that the 'other' in "other gurus" is meaningful when Nabby says it, and that he doesn't include Maharishi and *his* followers in the category of those who just talk, talk, talk and repeat what they've been told? :-) That quipped, I agree. It's all "hearsay about enlightenment." Someone who claims to be enlight- ened says such and such, and thus we should believe it. Yeah, right. Funny how the people who say these things, espec- ially the ones who say that you *have* to work with an enlightened teacher (such as *them*, of course), tell us these things about how essential it is to work one-on-one with someone such as themselves, and then, in the next breath, follow it up with, "Oh, by the way, my rent needs to be paid. It would be a gesture of your sincerity as a spiritual seeker if you paid it for me." Personally, I get the feeling that the vast maj- ority of "gurus" who claim that their followers "need" them to get enlightened in reality "need" their followers far more than the followers need them. If the followers weren't there hanging off every word and paying the bills, these "gurus" would have to work for a living.
