--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru will say "this one"
Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say "I'. Saying "this one" all the time is ridiculous!.. > replacing the word "I", the other Gurus in my path do the same. My Guru said that > speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the "me" is gone and there is Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor. > nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I and me, but in general in > my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as persona but as > consciousness Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making? MMY doesn't caution people in that manner. Your Guru is an oddball. > > Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my opinion before, when they > use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the same time referring to > the individual I, then this is dellusion. Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the "I" word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis. Are you saying these people are not Enlightened? > > Since there is no "Me", then when they use this, they are referenceing something other- I > think this is understood by many or most here. Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum said there WAS a false "Me" or "I". Besides, what's so special about that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying this for thousands of years. > > The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- "the fallacy is that a > "me" becomes enlightened Nobody every said a "me" becomes Enlightened. Stop confusing the issues. As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in which case the individuals REPORT that they "became" Enlightned; realized the innate, "prior", pure Consciousness of the Self. Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) removed, the false "me" obviously cannot exist. However, the "I" or "me" as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the delusion of separateness. For example, Rory states that he realized the Self at some particular time (I forgot the year, 2001?) Adi Da says he realized the Self in 1970 while at the Vedanta Temple in Hollywood. Ramakrishna says he realized the Self after getting initiated by a Brahmin in some non-dualist school. Ramana says he realized the Self on 7-17-1896. Lakshmana, a disciple of Ramana, claims he realized the Self (I believe in 1949); at which time shortly thereafter, he handed a note to Ramana saying "I have realized the Self". HWL Poonja says he realized the Self while in the presence of Ramana Maharshi. Obviously, the Realization the Self implies that the "I" acting as an entity apparently separate from the Self had vanished, being a total delusion. Nobody is disputing that! Thus, that "I" can't realized the Self since it was a delusional entity. So what is meant by such persons when they say "I have realized the Self". The meaning is simply that (as reported by some aspect of the individual as a body/mind)....; btw, you will agree that the above persons reported that they had realized the Self. This is a matter of record. To continue, the meaning is that the obscurations to the self-evident nature Pure Consciousness had VANISHED. However, some aspect of the body/mind reported on that event. Though there is no separate entity that can realize the Self, there is a part of the body/mind that can report on the fact of the Realization in apparent space-time. Therefore, your Guru's statements are only partially correct. If he wants to go around saying "this person" or whatever, in place of the "I" word, so be it. The Dalai Lama acts like an ordinary person, on the surface. He uses the "I" word, does he not? Yes, in the Barbara Walters interfiew he used it several times. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "purushaz" <purushaz@> wrote: > > > > Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over > > this? In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from > > the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple. Therefore, > > the "me" in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of > > attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not). > > Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other > > persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, > > may say "I", and "me" often. > > Nobody is saying there's a delusional false "I" or > > "me" that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then > > there's no such false "I"; however, there's still a body, mind, > > actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social > > interactions; ....etc; all of which make up the "I" that separates > > your Guru from other people. You will agree that your Guru is not > > MMY, correct? > > Refer to "Prior to Consciousness", the transcribed statements of > > Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31. > > The disciple asks, "Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown > > in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, > > everybody went to see him and he became well known" > > > > MAHARAJ: "I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul > > Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman". > > So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we > > have the use of "I" twice in two lines, proving there is an "I"; > > (since, obviously), this "I" doesn't refer to the delusional "I" > > which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, > > everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an > > individual person, as opposed to other persons. > > One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter > > was "discovered" by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice > > Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj. > > Again, hopefully for the last time, the "I" for Enlightened people > > is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning > > with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which > > distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the "I" in > > reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing > > from the POV's of other Gurus. In some cases, the POV's are closely > > allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM. > > In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle. > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <sidha7001@> wrote: > > > > > > Comment from post:--"But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting > > the student's Shakti." > > > > > > HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a "me" > > gains enlightenment. As long > > > as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions > > belong to those having > > > them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet. > > > > > > Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. > > Then such comments > > > as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, > > then they can be > > > forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind > > rerooted, it is not the > > > experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of > > the mind, there is more > > > to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( > > weather as form or > > > absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad > > because there is more to go > > > but they are not going to hear one word of that. > > > > > > The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all > > the great sages of the > > > past and now explain from their own existence that this is the > > case, there is no me and > > > there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in > > enlightenment- it is either one or > > > the other. > > > > > > These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two > > recently enlightened echo > > > the same independant of one another. > > > > > > I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera > > and MY Guru. In > > > addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it > > from a healer and also from > > > a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with. > > > > > > In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has > > awakened the kundalini, > > > and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and > > progress is taking place. > > > I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very > > impressive. > > > > > > The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the > > reason shakti does not > > > come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru > > is only consciuous > > > > > > Hridaya Puri > > > > > >
