--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TANMAY: MY CAPS ARE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMENTS BEING FOUND, I AM > NOT SHOUTING. okay, agreed, but I find all-caps still odd because hard to read. legability is better with low caps. now in contrast i'll resort to all-low-caps > I MET SWAMI G ON LINE- TRANSMISSIONS STARTED OCCURING FOR ME AND THE > KUNDALINI STARTED AWAKENING FROM OBSERVING MY BREATH AND READING THE > POSTS. IT IS ALL IN THE ARCHIVES UNDER SWAMI G SPEAKS YAHOO GROUP. so you had a strong determination, an intention to go deeper, and that alone could trigger an experience. having a transmission is not that rare. believe it or not, even people have this with me sometimes. someone reading my blog said this one time and i am not a guru. to transfere something, even over the net, doesn't mean you are a satguru. i am certainly not a guru - but if i had wanted, i could have made use of uch incidents. shakti can be there without acually being enlightened. same with consistency - it doesn't prove anything. if you were at atm in the past, you might have come across petrus, a new-born ex-tmer. he was very consistent, but that imho is not enough. to feel something of a shakti-transmission can happen via a photo, a simple quote, a video o of course an online conversation. but now i tell you hat the difference to such transmissions over a distance to a one-to-one relationship is: in a one-to-one relation the guru sees you in your everyday working, that is he can see you unprepared at any moment. so he can see whats going on with you. online you are prepared, you write and put your attention to the guru at this moment, you cannot be caught unawares. so s/he really sees you as you are, and not as you present yourself, and so can work on you. but then for me it does not have to be one-to-one. this is the difference between us: while this is a way i am going myself, i acknowledge that for many others it is different. you seem to insist by asking: 1) is it one-to-one 2) is it a satguru, that this is the only way, and that makes you dogmatic <snip> > I CAN CONTINUE WITH SOME OF SWAMI G'S COMMENTS BUT BASED ON WHAT YOU > ARE SAYING, IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT WHAT SWAMI G HAS TO SAY BUT NONE THE > LESS, ONE OF HER COMMENTS WAS THAT IF A DISCIPLE HAS COME A CERTAIN > DISTANCE IN THE JOURNEY, WHEN THEY ARE AROUND THE GURU, THERE IS NO > NEED FOR MEDITATION, AS THEY GO INTO A DEEP MEDITATION AT ALL TIMES > FROM BEING AROUND THE GURU- THIS IS WHAT MMY EXPLAINED HAPPENED TO > HIM, AND I HAD THIS, MAYBE OTHERS HERE ALSO HAVE- THEN IT IS OF COURSE > UNDERSTOOD sure, but again this does not have to be the only way, as -again Ramana is the example - stayed in samadhi (mainly) and in mouna for 16 years in the virupaksha cave, after having attained self-realization. the fact is that there are several levels of attainment, sometimes called the gyana bhumikas > Okay, one to one, I am totally okay with it, but does this mean that > one should have a cyber-guru? > > WHATEVER THE GURU GIVES AS METHODOLOGY, IT WORKS WELL WHEN ONE SAYS > YES GURUJI, AND IF ONE ARGUES WITH THE GURU AND TELLS THEM WHAT THE > METHODOLOGIES SHOULD BE, THEN WHY BOTHER GOING TO A GURU? then wy bother about a guru giving people the sadhana of staying in the right vastu? if the guru knows best what means to employ, why critizes gurus at all? why this double standard, one for your guru, all devotion and surrender, then for your ex-guru all criticism? you have to be consistent yourself. > AGAIN, THE SIGNIFICANT PART OF THIS IS A GURU HAS METHODOLOGIES, IF IT > IS NOT MEETING WHAT YOUR EYES WANT, THEN TIME TO RUN AWAY OR SURRENDER > TO THE PROCESS, FREE WILL IS THERE same thing you could say about vastu, rajas etc. don't you see that your logic applies to the very things you crizise? > RIGHT TO THE POINT- I AM IN A ONE TO ONE RELATIONSHIP WITH MY GURU, IT > IS AWESOME, MY KUNDALINI IS FULLY AWAKE, MY GURU IS LIVING FOR THE > SADAKAS, THIS IS HER COMMITMENT, THE PATH IS FIRST, AND THE PATH IS > THE SADAKAS. IF WHAT I AM DOING DOESN'T FIT IN WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF > ONE TO ONE, THEN CHANGE THE DEFINITION BECAUSE IT IS GOING REALLY WELL > HERE. that it going well for you is nice, and congrats, but that doesn't mean it is one to one. i'll keep to my old-fashioned definition MY GURU HAS BLASTED AWAY AT TIMES WITH ME, IT WAS PUBLIC EVEN. > THIS IS THE VELVIT 2 X 4 SMASHING AWAY AT EGO. yeah, and now the clever ego is even proud of that. amazing this ego isn't it? ;-) > And then one-to-one with WHOM? > > GURU IS CONSCIOUSNESS thats not what i meant <snip> > IT IS NOT A COMPETITION- i am glad you say it, its also not what i mean. but in many ways you say exactly this to others here: do you have this kundalini that i have, do you have a satguru that i have, do you have a one-to-one relationship with him/her that i have. so you are putting people in a competition. > I AM PROMOTING SOMETHING AS SEVA, KNOCKING ON > THE INTERNET DOORS. no, this is again the indian-words-play. you do the same thing that you always did, defending what you think is the right spritual path, only one year ago it was tm now it is swami g. not that anything changed in that. before you said: maharishi said, now you say: swami g. says. before it was your self-interest or confusion, while now it is called seva. don't get me wrong, it is of course okay for you to be here and discuss, but to call it seva is rubbish. <snip> > > USUALLY, WHEN IN TM OR WITH A GURU AS I THINK YOU MIGHT BE SAYING YOU > ARE, IT IS A PART OF THE PATH AS SEVA TO FURTHER THE GURUS TEACHINGS, definitely not the case with me. evangelisation is not part of he path i belong to, and viewing a discussion like this as seva - no, no way. seva is hanging around the construction site, doing actual work, not convincing others or getting into intellectual disputes - this is more entertainment perhaps. posting a link to a video is more like sharing, but no idea of convincing. this is very very different from my path. > BUT THERE IS NOT IN THIS CASE HERE ANY RULES- DOGMA ISN'T HERE IN MY > PATH, OR IF IT IS OR YOU LABEL IT THAT WAY, IT IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN > IN TM maybe its just the way you were brought up, but you keep repeating the same phrases in a dogmatic way, and you seem to think that things have to be a certain way, for example one has to have a satguru, and one has to have a one-to-one relationship. thats called dogma in my eyes, and i don't see what the difference is to saying that tm is the best meditation method, or that the me will bring about worldpeace. its all the same dogmatic thinking. > SWAMI G SAID ONCE MMY PASSES, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF SELF PROCLAIMED > COMING FORWARD and she is already one of them. so she goes to dalheim, across the border to stay with klaus near the tigers den? > SWAMI G SAID THAT THE CONCEPT OF YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF WAS INSPIRED > BY MANY IN LOOKING AT RAMANA MAHARISHI. SWAMI G HOLDS RAMANA TO BE A > SAT GURU, AND SAID NO ONE CAN WRONG WITH RAMANA- AND SWAMI G SAID THAT > RAMANA SAYS 100% THAT ONE NEEDS A GURU FOR ENLIGHTENMENT. he said something like this. but then others said different things and he didn't say it has to be one-to-one. and i am not saying that you can do it yourself, just the self acts in different ways and the guru adopts different forms > GENERALLY, SWAMI G'S COMMENTS ABOUT WHY PEOPLE LOVE TO HEAR YOU CAN DO > IT ON YOUR OWN IS THIS IS EGO. so, i am not saying this. actually it is not at all in your hands. i may say that thinking you can work it out by certain methodolies and by following a guru and believeing that there is a definite outcome is just another way of the ego working out the very same thing - that i can do it. SOME RARE PEOPLE ARE BORN VERY RIPE, > THEN SOME LITTLE DARSHAN IS ENOUGH TO REMOVE THE FINAL THREADS OF EGO. don't say little darshan, then i say little guru. > I SUPPOSE IT IS EGO WHICH COMES ALONG TO SAY I AM THAT RARE SPECIAL > ONE AS RAMANA WAS AND JUST LIKE HIM, I DONT NEED A GURU EITHER. hey, but many people here have been practising meditation, they are seeing different divine personalities, so they are not saying i do it all myself. and if people are guided from within, by lets say hearing guru dev, then this is also guidance, and it has nothing to do with ego. > UP TO EACH PERSON THOUGH, YOU HAVE FREE WILL. i disagree, but thats another matter. ANOTHER INTERESTING > THING TO POINT OUT- SWAMI G TELLS ABOUT MUKTANANDAS GURU, NITYANANDA. > HE CHECKED OUT EARLY AND THEY DIDNT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE BODY. > HE SAID THAT THERE WAS NOT ONE DISCIPLE (INCLUDES MUKTANANDA) THAT > DIDNT COME FOR A BETTER ME, NOT ONE SINCERE ENOUGH DISCIPLE. THIS WAS > NOT SO LONG AGO, SO NOT MUCH DIFFERENT TODAY okay, i have been waiting for this: check out nityananda http://youtube.com/watch?v=WFlBf--DyCI you'll see muktananda halfway through the video. but i don't understand your point: if no disciple is sincere, what's the use for a guru? i mean you are saying that it doesn't really work. so does it work or not? <snip> > MY KUNDALINI WAS FULLY AWAKENED, THEN THIS IS ( NOT WAS) A DEEP STATE > OF PEACE I HAVE WALKED AWAY WITH AND AM LIVING. I CALL UP SWAMI G AND > TELL HER OH MY GOD, THIS IS JUST SO AWESOME. SHE KNOWS WHAT IS TAKING > PLACE, SO DO I. you should read andrew cohens 'my master is myself' he praises his guru poonjaj just like you when he was in his sugar-candy-phase. but surprise surprise, just a few years later he denounced the same man in his autobiography. not that this should happen to you - i wish not. but how long are you now with swami g.? one year? why do i talk to you at all! be there 10 years and we talk again. i recently read a letter in one of the forums which is public, where you thank your swami AND mmy, whom you still were holding partly responsible. now you denouncce mmy. when will you denounce swami g.? > NOW, WE ARE GATHERING A LIST OF HOW THE ENLIGHTENED ARE- THEY HAVE > THESE SERENE EYES- ONE IS SUNK IN THE ABSOLUTE, THE OTHER IS FOCUSED > IN THE WORLD, THEY ARE WISE AND CALM AT ALL TIMES, THERE BEHAVIOR IS > SERENE, THEIR WALK IS LIKE AN ELEPHANT- THE LIGHT GLOWS FROM THEIR > HEAD, THEY HAVE THIS SERENE BLISS SMILE, THEIR PERSONALITY IS SO > FLAWLESS SECOND TO NONE IN HOW CLEAVER THEY ARE TO GIVE THE PERECT > ANSWERS, - IF THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR YOUR > DETERMINATION, OK- BUT WHAT SWAMI G WOULD TELL YOU IS THAT GURU IS > CONSCIOSNESS, ALL THOSE THINGS JUST MENTIONED ARE TRANSCIENT QUALITIES sure, and? whats the use of the guru when everything is cosciousness? if its all the same anywhere? why not look through the personality of anyone then? in the case of a guru the person is a door to the impersonal. so don't mix it up. if the eyes of ramana are glowing from samadhi, one can see it. if he eyes are not glowing one can also see. thats all i am saying. > I WONDER WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY IF YOU WERE AROUND WHEN RAMANA > SLAPPED A MAN FOR STEALING? THERE WAS ONE THAT WROTE A BOOK EXPOSING > ALL THE FLAWS OF RAMANA, SO HE CAN SAVE THE WORLD FROM THIS FAKE. AS I > HAVE HEARD IT, RAMANA WAS DELIGHTED AND WISHING THE BOOK GREAT > SUCCESS. THIS IS FOR THE SAME REASONS I SAID HOW SWAMI G PREFERS NO > DISCIPLES you should read annamalai swamis book called 'Living by the Words of Bhagavan' which narrates this instance. actualy ramana was trembling when this swami suddenly came into the hall abusing him, but he didn't say a word. the reply wasn't that cool as you say. thats the problem if you just get to hear second hand stories. the man in question was the same who built up skand-ashram, which ramana finally left. this man was once so close to him that he collected R's shit with his own hand! and he had a very horrible death, which ramana devotees ascribe to his behaviour. > IF IT IS A HELP FOR YOU, SWAMI NITYANANDA JUST MET WITH SWAMI G IN LA. > SWAMI G SAID HE IS ENLIGHTENED. i am not too fond of this new nithyananda either. when i was in tiruvannamalai there were everywhere these overlifesize posters of his portait spanning whole houses. he is sort of like ravi shankar or jaggi vasudev or kalki maybe. he is definitly out trying to get the masses. > MAYBE ONE THING TO CONSIDER IS WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WALKED AWAY WITH > THAT IS LASTING? that would be a longer story. there is something that was already there before that - and i would have to go into details now about that. but as it is, i do not want o go into a competition with you now, who has the bigger experience, and who has the bigger transformation. maybe it helps you when i say that the transformation, that i experienced is still holding true since 19 years and that it changed my life forever, no matter where i will be. some people here know it as i have been talking about it online, but i don't like to make a big thing out of it. SWAMI G COMMENTED ON ONE OF THE SADAKAS HERE THAT > ATTENDED THE 21 DAY COURSE WITH KALKI. actually i received deeksha at tiru as i ran into a kalki group. i personally found it not conducive, actually rather restricting. i also read that ammaji confirmed my impression. > ANYWAY, SWAMI G COMMENTED THAT YORUM WALKED AWAY WITH SOMETHING > LASTING FROM BEING WITH KALKI AND THIS IS GOOD. i may know yorum. was he on purusha? did he go to india in 2001 with mat? > SWAMI G WAS READING THINGS TO ME FROM RAMANAS BOOK, SHOWED ME VIDEOS > OF GANGAJI AND ALSO VIPRASANA. ALSO SWAMI G SENDS HER STUDENTS TO > VIPRASANA ADVISES NOT TO GET INTO THE PHILOSOPHY OF IT what is viprasana, or do you mean vipassana meditation? > From another post: > > How is Klaus doing these days ?... > > Tanmay: busy renting rooms in his house is this the klaus coming from cologne, who was selling ayurvedic stuff from dalheim (over the border from vlodrop?)
