--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_couscous_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Apr 9, 2006, at 4:59 AM, t3rinity wrote:
> > >
> > > > From what I know, and what I have seen
> > > > in the Satsang movement, this is exactly what is being done
> there: The
> > > > truth of non-duality is being pointed out and explained in
terms of
> > > > his own everyday experience, it is being discussed, and quite
often
> > > > people are guided towards self-inquiry ('who am I'.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes this is what is happening in some cases IMO. Pointing out.
> >
> > It is ALWAYS happening. Its the core of the teaching: that anybodies
> > ultimate identity is Brahman, the Self whatever you like to say.
> > Should I give you quotes of the Ribhu Gita (highly recommended by
> > Ramana), or Avadhuta Gita?
> >
> > > However at the same time after some are "introduced" they go on
> > > rather quickly to claim Buddhahood, Unity Consciousness (brahma-
> > > chetana), Cosmic Consciousness (turiyatita) or in the case of TMO
> > > people, they go on to claim what "Maharishi said".
> >
> > I don't know about that. In the Satsangs that I observered, nobody
> > stands there saying: 'I am enlightened and you are not' I indeed have
> > never heard of this.
>
> I don't see Vaj stating that. You maybe are reading into his post
> something that is not in the words.
Not if you read the quote of Vaj directly following the sentence I
commented on, that is:
" In every case I am aware of, none of these people would fit the
definition of those states or the experience. There's a strong element
of grandiosity in it all." (now buried under our two comments, but in
Vajs post the sentence that just followed.) Now referring to 'states
of experiences' and 'element of grandiosity', I don't see this in the
satsang scene. Period.
> > You may here something like: 'Enlightenment is a
> > concept, get rid of it' or, ' you are already what you are seeking'
> > etc. All these claims can be perfectly substantiated by scriptures.
> I
> > am happy to cite, if you don't believe me. So, the point for me is
> > not, is there anybody invalidly claiming enlightenment, or even
> > different levels (equating them with completely different terminology
> > like CC or UC, something I have never heard in the Satsang scene), but
> > rather, does this format of interaction in modern Satsang conform to
> > something valid, as described in the ancient scriptures, and yes it
> > does.
>
> I can't comment on the satsang scene, but my observations of things
> such as apparent confusion and "mixing" views of dual andnon-dual
> states, and the apparent quick and unexplained jump from consciousness
> being aware of itself to Brahman Consciousness have been about posts
here.
Well, I was referring to actual Satsangs, that is meetings being held,
were questions are answered etc.
> > There are so many Shankaracharyas, giving discourses on Advaita,
> > and they make no secret that they aren't enlightened.
>
> Which ones? And if they are not "enlightened" by their definitions
> (classical) -- perhaps theirs is a "higher" bar than those
> self-proclaiming it.
I can show you the website of the Sringeri Shankaracharya, where it is
explicitely stated that one particular Shankaracharya was a rare Jivan
Mukthi, which means the others ore not. Its a traditionaly post, just
like the Pope, it doesn't imply enlightenment. It means they have to
be learned in a number of scriptures, have to be Brahmins, and devoted
to the tradition and selected by their predecessor.
> > > In every case I am
> > > aware of, none of these people would fit the definition of those
> > > states or the experience. There's a strong element of
grandiosity in
> > > it all.
> >
> > To you. I haven't oserved it. To the opposite, the Satsang movement
> > plays down enlightenment as an 'attainment'. It rather makes it
> > accessable, just always referring you to the next step. (Like: who is
> > asking this question?)
>
> Again, not the case with posts here.
Again I am not referring to posts, but to Satsangs, ie. meetings as
Rick has suggested to be visited to Vaj, which was the origin of this
subthread. (Rick didn't suggest to Vaj to read the posts of Jim or
whomever, he does this anyway.) And I don't know the Satsangs in the
particular TM subculture. Its besides the point also since Vaj was
referring to the larger Satsang culture himself.
> > >
> > > "Masters of old lashed out at those who claimed to be
> > > enlightened yet refused to be tested, calling them
> > > "earthworms living in the slime of self-validated
> > > satori"."
> > > -Philip Kapleau Roshi
> > >
> > > How many were tested by their teachers? would be my
> > > question--but I already know the answer.
> >
> > I was investigating the Satsang movement in the context of its
> > historic origin,
>
> which is good to do
Right
>
> > while you mix it with Zen Buddhism and Tibetan
> > Vajrayana. Now that is weird.
>
> well, the discussion has been on "modern" neo-statangs, the FF
> satsang, and pirmarily, IMO, posts on FFL.
Well, I am talking of neo advaita as well. I don't know about the
particular FFL Satsangs, maybe Rick can say something about this and
how they are different to lets say Satsangs of Gangaji or Isaac or I
don't know whom. I definitly didn't refer as Satsang to posts here,
since they are greatly mixed, and Satsang means comming together in
truth, and not reading or exchanging views over the net. I think it
needs a certain setting, and that is what I was referring to.
>
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/
