On the TTC/Fiuggi 1972 course, I listened to him categorically deny the possibility of a fully enlightened person returning to manifestation after the stream of his/her prana merged into the ocean of prana.
I knew enough Buddhism (Dr. Alfonso Verdu, 1969-1972) to know this opinion was contradicted by Mahayana. Later I read Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya (remember how it was totally useless for us "less-than-UC" people to read?). Shankara makes the points I listed so I don't need to go to Chaitanya or Longchenpa. However, I remember exiting last lifetime (in a rage) and entering this lifetime to witness the breach birth (but uninvolved with it). I described this to the Lama knowing that the Tibetan bardo teachings hold that we are only like leaves in the karmic winds without the power of directing anything. He listened intently but gave no opinion. He knows I'm just another Joe yet he never said anything. Perhaps he thinks it is only delusion but he seems willing to wait and see, since he does not necessarily accept every yak-yak about the bardo. I haven't explored the in-between simply because we will all be there soon enough anyway. Except Curtis and maybe you. Total annihilation is what some people yearn for in this life. For them death is not enough. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Sounds to me as if Maharishi should have read Shankara's > commentary. :-) > > We're very aware that there are different theories about > all of this, empt. What you seem unaware of is what MMY's > stance was. It was intractable; in the famous talks being > referred to here questioners went on for some minutes > asking him whether there was some other option other than > "drop merging with the ocean" after dying in CC. He kept > saying No. They asked him whether that didn't seem odd to > him, because it would mean that the person who died in CC > had lost forever the ability to attain GC and UC, and he > kept saying, "That's just the way it is." > > Personally I think that MMY was just not a terribly rigor- > ous thinker, and probably got this notion into his head > early in life and then spouted it out without really > thinking it through. But that WAS his stance, and a > fundamental part of the TM dogma. I'm not surprised > that Jimbo doesn't know this, because he has the intel- > lectual depth of a turnip, but I'm surprised you don't > know it. > > As the Judester says from time to time, what we're talking > here is not whether Maharishi was right -- I certainly don't > think he was -- just what it was that he taught. What he > taught was that when you die after CC there is no more > incarnation, period. No other option. Somebody here who > gives a shit can probably remember the actual name and > date of the famous lectures in which he said all this on > tape; they're probably still out there somewhere. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > Go read Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutra-s. > > > > He says if you want to reside in Brahma-loka you may do so - that is > > until everything is dissolved at the cosmic pralaya. If you want to > > play around and enjoy cosmic siddhi-s you may also do that. > > > > He also says that you may even be called back after dissolution by > > Ishvara if he wishes to give you a special adhikara i.e. a mission > > to do some specific activity or fulfill some specific role. > > > > Sometimes the speculation here on FFL is comical. > > > > Read it and weep. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > below: can't reincarnate, can't take a body....; that's because in the > > MMY/Jarvis model (from Shankara?); there are no "bodies". The elements > > making up those bodies completely disintegrate at death, among those in > > CC higher; again, with no options. Conventional bodies of course exist, > > case in point: the cancer that ate up Ramana's arm and extinguished his > > physical life. > > > ... > > > Jim - I don't believe anybody is faulting you personally (or maybe > > they are). I'm not anyway...just saying that this "model" of existence > > is the official TMO party line. > > > ... > > > wrt the statement "...there is no experience of the body as a separate > > entity". True; but there is the experience of bodily sensations, > > conventionally; otherwise Ramana Maharshi would not have commented on > > the fact that insects scarred his flesh while he was meditating in the > > Patala Lingam; and also the fact that he was stung by a bee, and then > > apologized to the bees for stirring them up. > > > ... > > > Nobody is calling into question nonduality. The question pertains > > solely to maintaining "bodies"...for some purpose. Not having any would > > be a no-brainer as far as options go, yes? Ramana said that he > > maintained 20 of them in different dimensions.. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote: > > > > > > > > "after reaching Unity, the only fate is annihiliation of existence, > > relatively speaking; since the supposed purpose of evolution has been > > fulfilled and there's nothing else to "do"). In other words, total > > extinction of all bodies, gross and subtle; but the Self remains, of > > course, without any bodies able to report on that fact." > > > > > > > > I think you added the part "In other words...". In UC there is no > > experience of the body as a separate identity as it is experienced prior > > to that state. It doesn't mean it stops being used as a vehicle for > > evolution and experience, just that it is no longer identified on the > > inside as "me" (of course to pretend such a thing externally only leads > > to confusion). > > > > > > > > Nothing odd about that. What IS odd is those here who believe that > > enlightenment creates more boundaries than it dissolves; can't > > reincarnate, can't take a body. What a complete and utter > > misunderstanding. This is the view of enlightenment from ignorance and > > identification. No wonder Barry got it ass-backwards. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Comes from Jerry Jarvis. (statement to me in 1973, I was in his > > office one day when he said emphatically that after reaching Unity, the > > only fate is annihiliation of existence, relatively speaking; since the > > supposed purpose of evolution has been fulfilled and there's nothing > > else to "do"). In other words, total extinction of all bodies, gross and > > subtle; but the Self remains, of course, without any bodies able to > > report on that fact. > > > > > ... > > > > > I'm planning on writing Jerry, asking him about this dogma. > > > > > ... > > > > > Yes, it seems to contradict the 200% of life orientation, doesn't > > it? Looks like Jerry has some explaining to do, imo. > > > > > http://www.fantasygallery.net/caldwell/art_4_cc03.html > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Reincarnation and heaven are not realities opposed to each > > other. Its just the fantasy that one spends one's "afterlife" in either > > heaven or hell *eternally* that is opposed to reincarnation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, the self and manifest world don't vanish with Self > > Realization. Maharishi said the EXACT OPPOSITE to that - A person lives > > 200% of life; 100% relative and 100% absolute. You taught TM so I am > > curious how you got this so screwed up in your mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
