--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > MMY's personality is very much a product of his > > time > > > and culture. It has nothing to do with anything > > > "cosmic". Blazing Brahman expresses itself through > > an > > > aging, slightly senile, lower-caste, 89 year old > > Hindu > > > man who has run a spiritual movement with an iron > > fist > > > for the past 50 years. > > > > Boy, I think this is an important point. > > > > Peter, would it also be correct to phrase it > > slightly differently and say, This is *how* > > Blazing Brahman is expressing itself through > > this particular aging, slightly senile, > > lower-caste, 89-year-old Hindu man who has > > run a spiritual movement with an iron fist > > for the past 50 years? > > Yes, better stated your way.
Dunno about "better." Just another angle, really. > > I mean, obviously one has to think MMY has > > *realized* Blazing Brahman in order to make > > either of these two statements. > > > > But people tend to look at the *expression*, > > find it to be much less than what they think > > of as "perfection" in a relative sense, and > > on that basis assume MMY has *not* realized > > Brahman. > > Agreed. If you're looking for relative perfection in a > realized master, good luck! For example in a > residential Art of Living course I took about a year > ago with SSRS in residence, I was bothered by his > casual manner in talking about funny stories from his > ashram and people throwing themselves at his feet. He > wasn't making fun of them or anything but was talking > about the difficulty in walking around and how much > time it took to go from one end of his ashram to > another. Very funny, very cute story. But I was amazed > at part of my own reaction. I wanted him to be more > serious and aloof and not have the reaction he did. > Just some silly relative ideal of what a guru should > be. My attachment, my problem, not his. > > > Of course whether he has or hasn't is still > > one's individual take; it's just that the take > > shouldn't be based, it seems to me, on the > > perceived distance of the expression from what > > they would consider relative perfection. > > The first time I saw MMY in 1972 my mind blew wide > open and left absolutely no doubts about his Realized > status. And in every ensuing contact with him over the > years this has happened over and over again with the > experience getting deeper and deeper everytime. > > > So what should it be based on?? I assume > > realized people and nonrealized people have > > different ways of evaluating MMY's state of > > consciousness. > > Your own direct experience...only! Well, I've never been in his presence, so if I'm going to make such a determination, I have to rely on other means. > > From my unrealized perspective, it's a > > combination of a gut hunch, and my awe at the > > depth, comprehensiveness, and internal > > consistency of his teaching on the nature and > > mechanics of consciousness (including its > > implementation in the TM technique), as well > > as the teaching'sextraordinary explanatory value. > > Right, you find great value in his teachings. > > > > It just doesn't seem possible to me that a person, > > no matter how brilliant their mind, could come up > > with such a teaching purely on an intellectual > > basis. It has to be coming from some basis in > > higher intuitive knowledge (or Knowledge, to > > distinguish it from intellectual knowledge). > > Ageed! > > > > Of course, that's still based on a sense of how > > close MMY's expression comes to my idea of > > relative perfection, which is what I just said > > you shouldn't do. > > I don't think we can ever, to a complete degree, get > away from this. In fact, it perhaps is a foolish > "spiritual "ideal. Sure. The question is whether some relative expressions give one a more accurate idea of the higher reality than others. Seems to me his teaching on consciousness is a more accurate measuring tool in this regard than his political/social behavior, but I'm having trouble articulating why this should be the case. > > Now I'm trying to figure out on what basis I think > > evaluating his teaching on the nature and mechanics > > of consciousness is a more appropriate criterion on > > which to have an opinion of his realization, versus > > evaluating the sensibleness of his political and > > social pronouncements and what he's been doing with > > the TMO. > > > > Help me out here. They're both measuring what MMY > > expresses against a personal idea of relative > > perfection. Why should choosing one *type* of > > expression over another make a difference? Or > > are both approaches essentially absurd? > > > > Obviously I've gone off on something of a tangent > > here... > > Yeah, but a good tangent.... I think, ultimately, the > value of a guru/master is in him/her functioning as a > catalyst for one's own realization. This is > appreciated by people as their experiences with the > body of techniques offered, the intellectual > knowledge, and the transcendent darshan experiences > with the master. Well put. (Also, of course, it isn't even *necessary* to have an opinion on the master's state of consciousness one way or the other.) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Dying to be thin? Anorexia. Narrated by Julianne Moore. http://us.click.yahoo.com/abEMxA/sbOLAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
