As far as the world, Ramalinga was only concerned to bring the path of total divinisation to this world so others could follow and realize the result.
Aurobindo (literally: the point-essence of a light ray) was concerned to divinize the Inconscient (the life-ground resting on sheer matter). This brings up some questions. Did he mean: 1. Earth only inconscient 2. cosmic inconscient 3. universal inconscient? Why believe that they can be separated? Why wouldn't the attempt to divinize one world not implicitly involve the totality of all worlds, the totality of "what is"? By the way, tekchö and tögal are the names for the highest practices of Dzogchen upadesha - practices of contemplation rather than meditation. **************************************** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@...> wrote: > You mean like Ramalinga Swami of Vadalur, a place close by Pondicherry? Well, according to both of them, this was not their goal, nor yogic siddhis. There is a two volume book by a disciple of the Mother, comparing Ramalinga with their yoga, and letters and interchange between him and the Mother. > > Personally, I feel their Samadhi to be more powerful than that of Ramana Maharishi, which is also powerful, but in a different way. There is a very specific quality there which I don't feel elsewhere. I remember, at a time I was there, it was raining every day. I used to go every day to the Samadhi to meditate, usually there are many people there. But at one moment, because of the strong rain, I was there all alone, and I had the most powerful transmission there. > > >If you can't go "offline" as a mere form-body, I wouldn't expect you to even come close to body of light realizations - and I don't mean that just intellectually. > > Again, it was not their stated goal. What they stated as their goal, was not a light body, but a transformation of the physical body here on earth. Alledged ly this has never been done before - if it really exists is another issue. > > > I've read most of the English-translated Aurobindo and I've never read anything even remotely associated with what I'd consider the spontaneous "vision" of todgal. > I don't know what todgal is. There is a new book out by Peter Heehs a scholar and ex librarian of SAA. It is discussed very controversial. > http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/ as it debunks some of the myths created around him. > > Personally, I made it the point, to read the whole of the Savitri, you can read it more or less only intuitively. >
