--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Empty wrote: >> An absurd story for gullible westerners by other sentimental westerners. If MMY wanted to >>follow his guru in death all he had to do was jump into any funeral fire or any sacred river to >>perform sadhu-sati. Nublusoss: >Thats exactly what Maharishi did. But Guru Dev told him to surface >and continue with life. > So you are saying the story is that Guru Dev told him to go back to the world? (??) So MMY is under water and has a clairaudient perception of Guru Dev? That supposes Guru Dev was hanging around like a common spirit observing the activities and participants at the funeral. I heard this story 25-30 years ago and it didn't make sense then. Today it sounds suspiciously apocryphal. Have you ever read Adi-Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya? He concurs that a brahma-vid doesn't go anywhere at death. This also means that he/she does not stay anywhere. A brahma-vid is like space whether inside or outside of a pot. Space as such is the same, only the features of the pot give us a reason to distinguish space as inside or outside. to are not findable after death. Not going, not staying what is the alternative? It is not returning either. When questions about this, I heard MMY definitively deny what he called the "bodhisattva idea". He said that the wave merging into the ocean and the wave emerging from of the ocean could not be defined as the same wave. This is very old point in MMY's knowledge base, older than the guru devotion story you are now repeating. And by the way, Maharishi's comment, could actually be a good example of a Buddhist explanation of the karmic continuity of personhood across multiple lifetimes. Adi-Shankara did state that Ishvara could grant adhikara (authorization) to select jivas to return to manifestation even after cosmic pralaya with the caveat that it was Ishvara who recollected them (their sanskaras) thus recalling them into being just as they were at the end of the previous mahakalpa. His point was that these previous adhikara-jivas (like the four kumaras) were those very deva- rishis who awakened at the dawn of the creation's new radiance (navya- prabhasa). His point was not that Ishvara might really like jiva-joe and thus keep joe's guru around hanging with the pretas while joe huddles with the masses. Guru Dev appears to have been a brahma-vid. Maharishi appears to be a brahma-vid. Why would we want to sentimentalize a teacher's devotion in this manner, except to lord it over ordinary meditators or newbie teachers? It's just like using slogans such as "First deserve, then desire". empty again
