--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > > > > > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <drpetersutphen@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this post, Tom. There were too many posts > > > > > > > > implying Gangaji was some sort of fraud. She is one > > > > > > > > powerful woman. Some people repond to an advaitic > > > > > > > > teacher and others just get confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if you were directing that comment at me, but I > > > did > > > > > not > > > > > > > imply that Gangaji is a fraud. I simply posted my reaction > to > > > her. > > > > > > > And, being more toward the Tantric end of the spectrum, I > > > regard > > > > > > > advaitic dismissal of the relative as a tedious exercise in > > > > > denial. If > > > > > > > the relative is such worthless illusory crap, then why not > > > just > > > > > throw > > > > > > > the worthless illusory human body in front of an illusory > > > freight > > > > > train? > > > > > > > > > > > > Because its an illusory act of compassion to avoid having an > > > > > illusory > > > > > > someone having to clean up all the illusory blood and gore. > > > > > > > > > > "Dismissal of the relative" isn't Advaitic anyway. > > > > > > > > Yes. Its sort of like concluding that people who realize that > films > > > > are an illusion, are people who don't like films. > > > > > > But the point MMY makes--and I've heard other > > > teachers make it, so it's not just him--is not > > > that the relative is an illusion; rather, the > > > illusion is that the relative isn't Brahman. > > > > > > Your analogy works nicely either way, though. > > > > The words I often heard hims say is -- relative = maya: paraphrasing > > -- maya is that which is not. Its not that maya is an illusion, its > > not what it appears. > > > > Snake is really a rope. > > > > And/or -- parallel to greeks -- Hericlitus? -- its ever changing. It > > has no permanence. Its here today, gone tomorrow. How can one give > > that the status of "real". > > > > Kashmir Shiavism - how can anything unreal come from the real? >
It never came? But was a beautiful, adorable reflection from the "bending / streching" created by the real each morning when it gets up. :) 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/ <*> 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
