Just to be clear, my Guru was not responding to your post, I was. I stated the general comments of my Guru. You will find it to parrellell Ramana Maharihsi, so possibly you can investigate what he says regarding the same comments.
Tanmay --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bronte writes: > > The fact that your guru presumed to send a message to me brings up the > emotion of irritation and anger, and I'm looking at that to see what goes. I realize I do have the opinion that gurus in general are part of a racket aimed at exploiting seekers. I have little respect for the lot of them. When I come across some enlightened person like Flanigan, or others, who isn't trying to convert people but simply sees the world from a certain perspective, and who'll tell you what that is if you happen to ask them about it, I find that cool. I'm interested. > > But people who fit the traditional concept of guru manipulate people's > lives. They tell others they can read their souls and then they give them directions on how to live. They often wreck lives in the process. This is my experience. From what I've read of your postings in the past, your guru is of the traditional variety. I read the interchange you published on FFL between her and your friend and was appalled. I intend no insult to you personally, but Ron, I have to be frank. I just don't go for that stuff. > > So I have no desire to communicate with her or to receive comments on my > postings from her. If YOU want to comment on something I wrote, that's a different matter. However, since guru lady has had a go at me, I'll have a go at her this one time. I really can't resist. It won't be pretty. > > Ron had written: > > * General comments coming from my Guru are - a person cannot be > enlightened- this is > why it is advised for the sadakas in my path here to think of Guru as > consciosness and not > the persona. > > > Bronte writes: > > Bullshit. It's people who get enlightened. And gurus are no more and no > less consciousness than the rest of us. Telling your lot not to think of you as a person but as consciousness is just a cool device for getting them to park their critical thinking at the door and swallow whole anything you tell them. > > > *no doership with the enlightened as there is no one to do anything- the me > is gone- > sidhis, miracles, psychic phenomina may occur around the enlightened but this > just > happens, it is not being done > > > Bronte says: > > All more crap. Yadda yadda yadda. If the "me" is gone for you lady, I don't > want what you got. I perceive me-less people as walking zombies, who've sold out their sacred personhood for "superior" nihilistic bliss. Well go ahead and enjoy it. But if it's really that fulfilling for you, why do have a need to proseletyze to strangers who don't want to hear from you on Fairfield Life? > > > Guru lady says: > > Also, the body has nothing to do with enlightenment- you are not the body, > or mind, for > when these things are gone, there is something left, this is what One IS. In > the kudalini > path, where shakti meets shiva, the kundalini journey, which is one of > consciosness, is > completed. > > > Bronte says: > > The body has EVERYTHING to do with enlightenment. Enlightenment is achieved > in the confines of the body. My old guru himself used to say that you have to come here and take on a body and get enlightened inside it in order the complete the journey of involution and evolution, the whole round-trip. Kundulini takes place IN a body, and transforms it into the divine. So your little preachy message here isn't even consistent with your own tradition. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In reply to Ron, who commented that developing psychic abilities has > > nothing to do with enlightenment ... bud, I disagree. IMO, the fully > > enlightened person > > * General comments coming from my Guru are - a person cannot be enlightened- > this is > why it is advised for the sadakas in my path here to think of Guru as > consciosness and not > the persona. > > would have access to divine abilities, psychic ones > > being part of it. > > *no doership with the enlightened as there is no one to do anything- the me > is gone- > sidhis, miracles, psychic phenomina may occur around the enlightened but this > just > happens, it is not being done > > When all the chakras are open and lit up with the > > power of kundulini energy -- available on a permanent basis -- the > > human being is capable of miracles. > > Also, the body has nothing to do with enlightenment- you are not the body, or > mind, for > when these things are gone, there is something left, this is what One IS. In > the kudalini > path, where shakti meets shiva, the kundalini journey, which is one of > consciosness, is > completed. > > Again, these are the general messages from my guru > > > > That is more my idea of enlightenment than the nonattachment model. At > > least it's what I strive for, whatever one wants to call it. Being > > nonattached hold little appeal for me. But that's another topic. > > > > Bronte > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! > Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. >
