--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I put a few posts together so I dont go over the pumkin limit: > > Poster:
My id here is t3rinity, or trin or Michael > I have a friend who lives 25 years in India, and he is probably the > man who searched out most Gurus, Yogis and Avadhutas, most of them > hardly known in the west. > > Tanmay: > > Obviously, this is not any sort of background that makes him qualified to speak on levels > of consciousness of others Not alone. But having practised and studied for a long time, he can very well distinguish, and so can I. We can compare, as we have lots of experience to draw from. This my, and the impresion of many here as well, in conjunction to the many inconsistencies of your Gurus claims and her general behaviour, leads to a certain judgement which is nothing more, a judgement, an opinion, nothing absolute. > He is very font of Brahmananda Saraswati, > > Tanmay: Font"- Helvitica, Times Roman, Bold? Soooorrry, I'm german, so fond, okay? > > > Poster: > > whenever I show photos to him, no connection to TM otherwise. When I > showed the video of Swami G. his thumb went down immediately, he felt > like most here, no shakti, nothing just prattle etc. Its not about > tradition: many of the great saints in India never belonged to any > tradition, like this Shiva Bala (child) Yogi, who naturally went into > Samadhi as a child, and stayed in Samadhi for twelve years. > > Tanmay: What it can be about for anyone is finding a Sat Guru, working one to one, then > the enlightened qualities are transmitted in shaktipat- this doesn't even have to be the > Guru touching you- I have an audio from MMY ( I can send it- MP3) where he explains > how he was affected and it was in the air while being around Guru dev- that is shaktipat- > and it occured, according to how MMY explains it, as a result of being aound Guru dev- it > was one to one. Okay, one to one, I am totally okay with it, but does this mean that one should have a cyber-guru? MSN messaging is not one-to-one in my eyes. If you want one-to one its not just about spending an occassional holiday, but LIVING day-by-day, WORKING meaning doing actual work with the guru. Most people can't afford that sort of thing. And then one-to-one with WHOM? Do you mean one-to-one with just about anyone claimng to be a Satguru? > First thing is do you buy into this concept of one to one? Do you buy into this concept that > you need a Sat Guru? I have more one-to-one than you probably ever get in your live, but I am not going around with this 'Concept' like a Jehovas Witness from door to door. I have a Sat-Guru, I have personal advice, plenty, I have spiritual experiences, but I am not going around and setting it up as a dogma. There are enough people who have profited from a TM like meditation, and claim enlghtenment by it, and they are probably more so than you (not to denounce your experiences). IOW there are different ways. Not everybody will be one-to-one in an external relationship with a 'sat-guru'. Many enlightened beings in the world have never had an external Guru, Ramana is just one to mention here, Shivabalayogi would be another one. I just said: look people, compare the video of the 'swami' G. and that video of Shivabalayogi. Everybody can gather his/her own impression. Its not about being indian or not. Its in the movement, the eyes, the whole behaviour, something in the expression of the whole person, but you don't seem to get this. just look at the photo of Ramana Maharshi, look at his eyes, and compare that, and you know what I mean. >if so, you may ask yourself, do you have this, if so, good, and go for > it 100%. Thats what I'm doing already. >Verify what the Guru is all about from direct transmissions from being around > them, not from someone else's opinion, not from watching a video of them. Well thats what I am doing. But you may also recognize a great being, even if you see it on a video or just a photo. And, if you would have seen my other posts, I narrated the transmission I got from Shivabalayogi, by simply being in his Ashram, not even seeing him. Extraordinary. I had seen photos of him before, having read a book, and had a similar experience. So, from a photo, a video, you can gather something, and thats what people here are doing. They get attracted or not, and that is what they are expressing. Why are you afraid if I tell people that they may compare that Shivabalayogi with the videos of your guru G? Whats the reason you put it on youtube then? > You may have a preconceived qualification list before you even give some consideration- > such as they have to be a male yogi and indian with a big following, etc. No, not at all. My guru is not male for example. Also when I joined my Guru, she had almost no following, it was almost like a secret. But then she didn't advertise herself. I find it funny, to go around proselyticing and then making it a point that there is no big following. > > Well, the outright truth of the matter is there is going to be faith involved. Have you ever > heard MMY use the word faith? I saw once where the speaker said it, then MMY quickly > corrected the speaker and said recognition. In my opinion, that is not true- one can > recognize what ice cream tastes like only if they have tasted it- otherwise it is faith that it > will taste good. This is all just about semantics, and thats another game your guru plays - its all indian terms - sat-guru, mantra-diksha etc. But that doesn't make any difference, its just terminology. > > So, you have to come up with what ever guild lines you are going to use to see if one is > enlightened- but what good is that if you sit on the sidelines with that identification? I'm not sitting on the sidelines, and I guess most here agree that they just sit in the centerof their respective lifes. > To clarify, the interest here is to look at any casualties in any movements these days, Oh yeah, like Andrew Cohen used to do, until he became the object of such controversies himself. The point is: you Swamiji is simply to little known and has simply not enough students for much to appear. If she has only less than 10 students, its simply unlikely there will be suicide cases. Its a matter of statistics and time of exposure to the public. > because Swami G is interested, as her seva to humanity, in cleaning up after those who > have run into problems with different Guru's. Gosh, that gives me the rest already. What a annoying and arrogant attitude! And I guess she will rely heavily on hearsay and the normal dissatifaction on the way. Point is, anyone whose ego is being worked on, may feel 'problems'. So, she is promising honeymoon to you, alltime? Maybe I want to save you from her, because its my divinely ordained mission, and I have discovered that she is a fraud, who simultaneausly calls herself Paramahansa and Dandiswami (wearing the Dandi - only allowed for special Swamis of brahmin origin). She is just collecting spiritual titles from India - her swamihood is based on the Juna Akahada, but she faild to even mention the name of her Juna Akhara Guru, and doesn't even display the tutelary deity of the Junas on her webpage - Lord Dattatreya. Instead she resorts to this phoney eclecticism, while simultaneausly discouraging her students to study any other teachers. These are all very muddy waters. >I think I am reflecting what is recommended > here when I say those 2 things, sat Guru and working one to one with them. In cyperspace I suppose > So Swami G's interest, and therefore as Seva, I following along in these foot steps, is not > so much in weather a Guru comes from one tradition or another, or if they are enlightened > or not, but rather what is taking place with the sadakas- are the methodologies creating > confusion, leaving the sadakas in confusion, darkness and even worse than this? In who's case do you think. Who do you think is confused? > As seva, the interest is to offer light for this- we can say if one has stumbled into this line > of thinking, these claims, offers, whatever- the Universe is offering a choice. Exactly, the universe is offering choice, and this is different for everybody. Yours is just a veiled fundamentalism. Before it was TM, now its Sat-Guru (and of course you know who a satguru is), before it was the ME, now its one-to-one. Just another dogma. I suggest you get rid of ALL these dogmas, and not just substitute TM dogmas with guru G dogmas. What maybe right for you now, may not be right for someone else. What maybe wrong for you, maybe right for others. > If you do buy into this concept to find a Sat Guru and work one to one ( as Maharishi did), I > think you may find there are slim pickings, and that is even before one lays down their > preconceived requirements about what will pass the test as being a Sat Guru. Its really not about preconceived requirements. First of all your whole dogma is wrong. Second, life happens, and if the right Satguru appears, there is no question anymore, there is simply not choice anymore, as you are overwhelmed. If any phucing dogma is needed to convince you, you are already on the wrong track, believe me. > If you think that it was Gods plan that a Sat Guru can't be an American housewife, but can > only be an indian Yogi, ok, fine- whatever Sat Guru you find, but don't forget to let him > know that you have rejected the idea that there could be an American Guru that is > enlightened because he will slap your ass- hahahahaha Haha, but you missed the idea. Here the point is, a Satguru can of course be an American housewife, but she doesn't have to look like that, you know, that kind of aura. As I said, its not just the color of the skin, its in the movement, the expression, the way she behaves, and finally what she says and what she is all about. But then, whatever I feel, or others feel is in no way absolute. I am just expressing my feelings.
