I guess what I want to say is that from my point of view in enlightenment the question of what happens to the body(subtle/gross) becomes irrelevant b/c the SELF no longer experiences itself as being bounded i.e having a body.OTOH,after enlightenment, the SELF continues to have an experience of apparent boundaries( the physical body and the world etc)while no longer identifying with them or experiencing them as fundamentally real. I think Maharishi's statement" when your mind becomes THE MIND then your body is EVERY BODY" may be related to the question of what happens to the subtle bodies after physical death in enlightenment.My guess is that SELF is never devoid of the experience of boundaries since(IMO) the ultimate nature of REALITY is both pure unbounded awareness and the apparent objects of that awareness
I also think that this is a very deep question to which I doubt there is an answer which will be intellectually satisfying . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@...> wrote: > > Right, that's what the string addresses: the apparent boundaries/forms, > individual beings. It's obvious only the Self exists on the level of the > Self; but the Self is only able to write with apparent organs of actions. The > string addressed the organs of action, not the eternality of the Self. That's > obvious, isn't it? > ... > Concerning your statement "All that happens with E. is that the Self stops > idenitfying Itself with boundaries..."...Again, everybody knows this, or > should. What is addressed is the apparent container, the bodies, in > themselves, relatively and conventionally speaking, not the eternality of the > Self: do the subtle bodies continue or not? > ... > The Zen death you mention is the death of ontological attachment on the level > of the Self, not the continued existence of apparent containers, the bodies. > You're conflating two different questions. > ... > In any event, Shankara provides us with an answer in his Commentaries on the > Brahma Sutras. Refer to post #277826. However, I don't pay a lot of attention > to "authorities" unless there's some corroborating evidence. > Thx. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" <kc21d@> wrote: > > > > IMHO, their never is a"drop"separate from the ocean(SELF). > > The"drop " never has an actual existence.It is only the result of > > the eternal SELF's creation of apparent boundaries/forms i.e.individual > > beings.The SELF who is writing all the posts on this forum is the same SELF > > that exists after the apparent beings who wrote these posts are no longer > > manifest.All that happens with enlightenment is that the SELF stops > > identifying ITSELF with boundaries and has re-cognized ITSELF as > > unbounded/infinite. > > It seems very unlikely that this recognition would mean that the SELF would > > stop the creative process of manifestation which I suspect is also > > eternal.IOW we are much much more that the skin encapsulated > > ego we take are SELF to be. > > > > In Zen they say" if you die before you die then you don't die when you die" > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > What we need here on this forum is a post from someone who has died and > > > not lived to tell about it. > > > > > > If the drop becomes the ocean, the drop is no more as a drop, it is > > > completely recycled and uniformly distributed in the ocean, if we take > > > the analogy a bit further. The specific individuality of the drop is > > > gone. Try and reassemble it again. > > > > > > If you want to be immortal and retain individuality as a function of time > > > and space, I suggest endless life as a cockroach. Fear of death leads to > > > endless speculation. Life and death are pairs of opposites, one cannot > > > exist without the other, one is the negation of the other; they do not > > > exist simultaneously in the same place. The desire to have death be life > > > is misplaced. Leave them behind. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > let's go back to square one. > > > > > > > > MMY/Jarvis, and the TMO party line is non-existence; notwithstanding a > > > > few quotes here and there that one might come up with. > > > > ... > > > > The Guru Dev, Satyanand model does encompass the possibility of subtle > > > > existences after physical death among the Enlightened. For example, > > > > Guru Dev appeared to me twice, once in 1986 as a BBB in the dream > > > > state, conveying some interesting messages that must remain secret for > > > > now. > > > > ... > > > > The Guru Dev model of existence therefore differs from that of MMY, > > > > apart from the nondual orientation, in many respects; foremost > > > > regarding the value of devotion to the "Gods" (various Personal > > > > embodiments of the forces of nature). > > > > ... > > > > Now as to "why" MMY departed from many of the "Holy Tradition" > > > > teachings, that's anybody's guess. I suspect a demonic influence which > > > > ultimately led MMY to (a) assume leadership of a Movement designed to > > > > propagate TM, especially in the West; but (b) at the same time to sow > > > > the seeds of ultimate failure and virtually demolishing the world's > > > > chances of entering into the true Age of Enlightenment, (and the 200% > > > > Heaven on Earth angle) in the near future. > > > > ... > > > > The exceedingly clinical aspects of the non-religious orientation of > > > > most of the TMO fit in well with MMY's subterfuge and sabatoge. > > > > However, he can still be a "BBB" (Blazing Ball of Brahman) and have > > > > deviant/evil intentions. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you disagree with Maharishi AND you presume that Satyanand > > > > > imagined or fabricated his story. > > > > > > > > > > If, as Maharishi stated, reaching the status of Krishna requires > > > > > another series of incarnations into bodies finer than the physical > > > > > after having achieved Unity Consciousness, that clearly shows that > > > > > there is an individuality who has achieved Unity Consciousness that > > > > > does all that further incarnating. > > > > > > > > > > And, if indeed Guru Dev was enlightened, how could he speak to > > > > > Satyanand after his death if he had gone out of existence? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accounts of various people on this forum tend to outweigh the > > > > > > "subtle existence" option as to the official TMO dogma. (the > > > > > > witnesses have heard the statements directly from "the Man" himself > > > > > > and his mouthpieces.). The official dogma appears to be complete > > > > > > nonexistence. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > We must remember that Sat. is a direct disciple of Guru Dev, true? > > > > > > The religious orientation of the latter is geared toward devotion > > > > > > to the "Gods"; especially various form of the Divine Mother. (thus, > > > > > > the name "Saraswati". If M. had called himself Maharishe Mahesh > > > > > > Yogi Saraswati, then I would inquire if he were a devotee of that > > > > > > or another Goddess. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Devotion to the "Gods" appears to be anathema to the TMO; although > > > > > > we all know about or have read MMY's account of his own devotion to > > > > > > "God", Brahman. (a perfectly legitimate orientation shared by > > > > > > Ramana although the latter used the word "Self"). Muktananda says > > > > > > "Love God as your own Self". > > > > > > ... > > > > > > But the Paul Mason quotes of Guru Dev clearly show a place for > > > > > > devotion to the "Gods"...i.e. especially various Divine Mother > > > > > > forms along with the Sri Yantra as mention in Swami Rama's book. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Apart from being nondualists, I'd say that MMY and Guru Dev lived > > > > > > on different planets. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are part and parcel of God, but can never be God, according > > > > > > > > to Srila Prabhupada. I believe MMY wanted to say the same > > > > > > > > thing to you about this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. The point being made here is that when one reaches Cosmic, > > > > > > > God, or Unity Consciousness, and then dies, we DO NOT vanish into > > > > > > > the void of the undifferentiated Absolute [as the commonly used > > > > > > > phrase goes, "The drop becomes the ocean," suggesting that the > > > > > > > soul vanishes as an individual soul]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, the comments from both Maharishi and Satyanand > > > > > > > clearly indicate that there is STILL an individuality after death > > > > > > > when one is enlightened and drops the body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked Maharishi at TTC [Estes Park, CO] if when we reach UC > > > > > > > > > are we then like Krishna. He answered very quickly saying, > > > > > > > > > "No, that would require another series of incarnations into > > > > > > > > > bodies finer than the gross physical." He then quickly > > > > > > > > > changed the subject and said nothing further about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To further make the point that dropping the body in > > > > > > > > > 'enlightenment' doesn't mean that one completely dissolves, > > > > > > > > > here's a story that Brahmachari Satyanand told of his > > > > > > > > > experience after the death of Guru Dev: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Brahmachari 'Swami' Satyanand speaking c1967 about Guru > > > > > > > > > Dev's 'nirvana'-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'When in 1953 Guru Dev left this mortal frame and attained > > > > > > > > > nirvana I was at Benares, another place of pilgrimage for > > > > > > > > > Hindus, and at that moment I was staying in the ashram of > > > > > > > > > Guru Dev. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everybody knew that I am very attached to Guru Dev and > > > > > > > > > devoted to Guru Dev, and then news came to Benares that Guru > > > > > > > > > Dev has attained nirvana. I was sitting somewhere with a > > > > > > > > > group of my friends and the news was relayed there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When my friends heard that Guru Dev was no more they were > > > > > > > > > very anxious about me and when they conveyed that news, they > > > > > > > > > were rather alert to appraise whatever reaction is and what > > > > > > > > > happened, I simply, when I heard that news I became very sad, > > > > > > > > > very sorry and I just kept my head on the table before me. > > > > > > > > > And all of them were very anxious what will become of me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But soon after, while I was very morose, sorrow, sad, entire > > > > > > > > > world was empty for me and I did not understand what to do > > > > > > > > > without Guru Dev, just a half a minute or two seconds after, > > > > > > > > > a flash came and it appeared to me that Guru Dev was scolding > > > > > > > > > me; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What a fool you are! You have been with me for all > > > > > > > > > these many months and years, and you heard my discourses > > > > > > > > > too. Is it a moment of feeling sorry? Why should you be > > > > > > > > > sorry today? And you think that I am gone, where am I > > > > > > > > > gone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Till now whenever you wanted to meet me, you had, you > > > > > > > > > had to come to the place where I was, and today when I > > > > > > > > > have attained nirvana, I am everywhere, I am omnipresent. > > > > > > > > > Where have I gone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Very foolish for you to mourn on this occasion. > > > > > > > > > I am with you, here, there, everywhere. Why should you > > > > > > > > > be sorry?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the moment this flash came, my face became very > > > > > > > > > brilliant, I became very cheerful. And when I raised my head, > > > > > > > > > my friends who were standing there, very anxious and held in > > > > > > > > > suspense, they were upset to see my brilliant and cheerful > > > > > > > > > face. And then they said, "What has happened to you?" I said, > > > > > > > > > "No you can't understand, nothing has happened to me, I am > > > > > > > > > alright, now let me go back to the ashram and make the > > > > > > > > > necessary arrangements."' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Satyanand.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
