--- 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/
 




Reply via email to