[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) the Yogi suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly accorded a Hatha Yogi? Not necessarily a hatha yogi, but a practitioner of yoga-darshana (which includes hatha-yoga). Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. When I say yogi I don't usually mean it to refer to a hatha- yogi, although asana and even hatha-yoga may be practiced. However, oddly enough, that's exactly what you did in the post Marek is responding to. No wonder you snipped it from your reply: The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually one of the Shankaracharyas IIRC. I would think common sense could also make this clear. If M. was a yogi, he could have easily written a brilliant book or even better a course with his sharp intellect. But this is clearly not the case. Instead they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed the sets used for rounding. I'm sure many here have the booklets (which now circulate in PDF form).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
On Jun 17, 2007, at 2:00 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) the Yogi suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly accorded a Hatha Yogi? Not necessarily a hatha yogi, but a practitioner of yoga-darshana (which includes hatha-yoga). Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. When I say yogi I don't usually mean it to refer to a hatha- yogi, although asana and even hatha-yoga may be practiced. However, oddly enough, that's exactly what you did in the post Marek is responding to. No wonder you snipped it from your reply: The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually one of the Shankaracharyas IIRC. I would think common sense could also make this clear. If M. was a yogi, he could have easily written a brilliant book or even better a course with his sharp intellect. But this is clearly not the case. Instead they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed the sets used for rounding. I'm sure many here have the booklets (which now circulate in PDF form). No, once again you're missing the point through over-specification of language. An expert in yoga-darshana would almost certainly know the asanas since they parallel the inner practices (of yoga-darshana). In other words the outer asanas are a subset of the overall practices of yoga- darshana. Therefore it would be highly unusual for someone making a claim of being a yogi to not know them and have to rely on a gym teacher. One is forced to conclude that the Shankaracharya who stated that Mahesh was not a yogi was speaking the truth (if one is logical, objective and has some familiarity with the tradition). If you aren't familiar with the tradition, it's easier to pull the wool over your eyes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 17, 2007, at 2:00 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) the Yogi suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly accorded a Hatha Yogi? Not necessarily a hatha yogi, but a practitioner of yoga- darshana (which includes hatha-yoga). Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. When I say yogi I don't usually mean it to refer to a hatha- yogi, although asana and even hatha-yoga may be practiced. However, oddly enough, that's exactly what you did in the post Marek is responding to. No wonder you snipped it from your reply: The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually one of the Shankaracharyas IIRC. I would think common sense could also make this clear. If M. was a yogi, he could have easily written a brilliant book or even better a course with his sharp intellect. But this is clearly not the case. Instead they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed the sets used for rounding. I'm sure many here have the booklets (which now circulate in PDF form). No, once again you're missing the point through over- specification of language. No, once again you're backpedaling from your own over-specific language. In response to Marek's objection to what I just quoted, you claimed you rarely used yogi to refer to a hatha yogi, but that's what you had just done in the post Marek was responding to, and that was the very basis of his objection. An expert in yoga-darshana would almost certainly know the asanas since they parallel the inner practices (of yoga- darshana). In other words the outer asanas are a subset of the overall practices of yoga-darshana. Therefore it would be highly unusual for someone making a claim of being a yogi to not know them and have to rely on a gym teacher. And we have your word for it that the asana sheets handed out for rounding were entirely the work of this gym teacher with no input whatsoever from MMY, and that on this basis alone we should all agree-- nay, are forced to conclude--that MMY doesn't qualify to add Yogi to his name. Uh-huh. I'm sure convinced, especially given your impeccable accounting of other aspects of MMY's activities (such as your claim, for example, that MMY forced Hagelin to go on tour preaching to physicists that consciousnessness is the Unified Field when Hagelin himself, according to you, didn't believe it). As you know (or should, having been a TM teacher), the asana sheets were never intended to be anything remotely like a course in hatha yoga, nor did they require any deep knowledge of it. In other words, it was something a gym teacher with some knowledge of very basic, simple yoga asanas *could* put together on his own and make the drawings for, with perhaps some guidance from MMY. As you should also know, some years ago MMY *did* institute an actual course in hatha yoga, which, from everything I've heard about it, was focused directly on the inner-outer connection. One is forced to conclude ROTFL! that the Shankaracharya who stated that Mahesh was not a yogi was speaking the truth (if one is logical, objective and has some familiarity with the tradition). If you aren't familiar with the tradition, it's easier to pull the wool over your eyes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you aren't familiar with the tradition, it's easier to pull the wool over your eyes. And if you base your judgment on whether Maharishi is a yogi based on your intellectual understanding of some tradition, you can pull the thick wool over your own eyes, as you apparently have, and declare it to be wise sight, as you are so fond of implying.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
(snip) Veda also has a broader definition and that definition is simply knowledge (it's actually derived from the root vid, knowledge), as in direct, samadhic knowledge. In that sense it is eternal and not limited to texts bearing the name Veda. Everyone has access to their own veda as it were. Maharishi said: Knowledge that is in the book remains in the book. He also said, that Guru Dev, because he had devoted his life to silence, and had spent about 60 years in silence, in the forests of India- That Guru Dev embodied the knowledge that was in the books. He became the knowledge itself, in living, breathing form. So, it is not so important, this tradition or that, because they all have their misconceptions and limitations. But if you get to the place, as is mentioned above, that Everyone has access to their own Veda as it were, Then the knowledge is known, directly by the knower. Then the knower is known, directly by the known and visa versa. So, the difference in my mind between Maharishi, and Guru Dev, and some of the rest of all the traditions and the Gurus that represent them- It always comes back to consciousness, and how expanded their consciousness was and is. It's all about consciousness, first, last and always.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) Veda also has a broader definition and that definition is simply knowledge (it's actually derived from the root vid, knowledge), Just a minor correction: Sanskrit roots are verbal roots, and they are untranslatable, so to speak. Michael Coulson uses English forms 'bear, bearing, borne, burden' as basis for an analogy: the common element of those words is 'b-r'. That's analogous to Sanskrit verbal roots. Sez Coulson: The verbal roots are not words in their own right but convenient grammatical fictions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: I experience the presence of Guru Dev almost daily. I'd really like to hear the details of that if you care to share it. If not openly, then an email would work.:-) I am not challenging either of your personal experience. However, why would it be limited to SBS? Couldn't, isn't the same available from Jesus, Mohamad, Buddha, Mother Mera, Amma, SSRS, Ananda Maya Ma, Tat Wala Baba, Mother Theresa, John the Baptist, Moses, Abraham, Pope Paul II, John Lennon, Indra, Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, SomaGulakaOmPuri (a famous 8th century saint :), Shankara, Parashara, Vyassa, Shivananda, Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Meher Baba, Vayu7, Uma goddess of the Dawn, Surya, Jevhova, Isis, etc? Definately from many on that list depending on your affinity to them and their ability to involve themselves in the person here after their deaths. Their achivement on earth would necessarily have to reflect in their ability afterwards. I doubt that Paul II will be of much help, but who knows ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: I experience the presence of Guru Dev almost daily. I'd really like to hear the details of that if you care to share it. If not openly, then an email would work.:-) I am not challenging either of your personal experience. However, why would it be limited to SBS? Couldn't, isn't the same available from Jesus, Mohamad, Buddha, Mother Mera, Amma, SSRS, Ananda Maya Ma, Tat Wala Baba, Mother Theresa, John the Baptist, Moses, Abraham, Pope Paul II, John Lennon, Indra, Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, SomaGulakaOmPuri (a famous 8th century saint :), Shankara, Parashara, Vyassa, Shivananda, Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Meher Baba, Vayu7, Uma goddess of the Dawn, Surya, Jevhova, Isis, etc?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: I experience the presence of Guru Dev almost daily. I'd really like to hear the details of that if you care to share it. If not openly, then an email would work.:-) I am not challenging either of your personal experience. However, why would it be limited to SBS? Couldn't, isn't the same available from Jesus, Mohamad, Buddha, Mother Mera, Amma, SSRS, Ananda Maya Ma, Tat Wala Baba, Mother Theresa, John the Baptist, Moses, Abraham, Pope Paul II, John Lennon, Indra, Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, SomaGulakaOmPuri (a famous 8th century saint :), Shankara, Parashara, Vyassa, Shivananda, Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Meher Baba, Vayu7, Uma goddess of the Dawn, Surya, Jevhova, Isis, etc? John Lennon??? Didn't get the same kind of hit from him as the others- no offense to him. I'd answer your question with another, And yours is a great question-- why has yellow been my favorite color since I was ten? why not purple, or green or red or brown or blue or grey? Don't know- I just like the vibe of yellow best- always have. Regarding spiritual teachers, I recently went to Mother Meera's website and enjoyed every bit of it, and there is no doubt in my mind she is an avatar, the Divine personified. Loved the QA there too. Earlier in my life I read the book on Jesus's life by Kahlil Gibran (don't recall the name anymore) and really loved that book. Nowadays I bought my Buddha t-shirts at Target- liked them so much I have four of the exact same t-shirt now, in case the other three wear out. So I have enjoyed those that commune most closely with the Divine for a long time. Why Guru Dev specifically? In my case He is the One who I am comfortable with on a cellular level, constantly. Truly one of the family! Why? I don't know-- maybe it has to do with the combination of prayer to him and doing TM??:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I just forwarded 10 posts from this group to Swami G, I did the best I could to be sensible in leaving out a few posts, why ? With all due respect, I strongly suggest she answers directly to all the questions that was raised. Particulary the post from t3rinity
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I will forward this suggestion but in all fairness, if you see what I just said in the previous post, there are already 15 yahoo groups Swami G is monoriting. It just took me a lot of time in just this one group to go through the posts and weed out some unnecccessay things In addition to that, people are calling and also emailing directly, and some are seeing Swami G in person. Swami G's general comments are that it is preferred not to have any disciples but out of compassion is willing to work with sincere disciples. One comment was there is nothing that a sadaka has for which a Sat Guru is salivating over. My impression is that it is not like oh Swami G is so thrilled to get all these emails- no, it takes a lot of energy to respond to all of this, so it is done where it is seen, coming from flow, that the reponses are usefull for humanity. I think if it is seen that a response to a sadaka or whoever will be a waste of time, then the response won't be made. Tanmay --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Even a worse situation- I only read one paragraph before I responded, then noticed a long response to the post, so I reforwarded the entire commentary and will post any replies from Swami G Her driving mind drove her to create a forum for criticizing TM, yet most of the people who'd be inclined to engage her are here. So, why doesn't she just subscribe to FFL and save you the trouble of being the go-between? Ron, my advice to you would be to not waste time and energy serving as a go between between swami g and people who are upset she has a brain and can see through MMY- let them go to her website and engage her if they want. It seems to me that swami g is having a good effect on you, based on your earlier reports, and you should just focus on that experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello, This is the original post and the forwarded response from Swami G: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. G - You want it addressed according to your understanding ? ok then read the following after your entry * IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must say, that I don't believe it. G Now if you want to go on what is being promoted about Guru Dev saying that only Brahmins may be sannyas then STILL Mahesh Yogi can have no claim to being a Guru. here is the quote from the site i am sure you are getting your stance from : ccording to tradition only a brahmana (brahmin) can become a sannyasi (swami), and only a sannyasi can be a guru and take disciples. In a scarce Hindi book entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita', Guru Dev is quoted upholding this view:- ' , parantu guru saba nahiiM bana sakate . gurutva kevala braahmaNa hii ko hai .' '.. But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmanas are in the position to be a guru.' On account of his varna (caste), Brahmachari Mahesh could never have hoped to succeed his master nor could he ever become a guru himself. G NOR COULD BE BECOME A GURU HIMSELF - so no matter how you want to cut it Mahesh Yogi is not authorised to be a guru. As he has said ONLY A SANNYASI CAN BE A GURU AND TAKE DISCIPLES. so what is he doing going against his Guru ? i don't care how you want to slice it clearly he has gone Against the tradition while he holds up his Guru as his authority and backing. G as far as Brahmacharis being privy to the deeper parts of the tradition you may wish to read this written by a Saraswati - Now this Saraswati in fact does initiate others into Sannyas . Who is the Saraswati being referred to ? Swami Sivananda Saraswati http://www.atmajyoti.org/mo_sannyasa_dharma.asp You can read what he says about brahmachari and sannyas . Maha Shanti OM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, This is the original post and the forwarded response from Swami G: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. G - You want it addressed according to your understanding ? ok then read the following after your entry * IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must say, that I don't believe it. G Now if you want to go on what is being promoted about Guru Dev saying that only Brahmins may be sannyas then STILL Mahesh Yogi can have no claim to being a Guru. here is the quote from the site i am sure you are getting your stance from : ccording to tradition only a brahmana (brahmin) can become a sannyasi (swami), and only a sannyasi can be a guru and take disciples. In a scarce Hindi book entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita', Guru Dev is quoted upholding this view:- ' , parantu guru saba nahiiM bana sakate . gurutva kevala braahmaNa hii ko hai .' '.. But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmanas are in the position to be a guru.' On account of his varna (caste), Brahmachari Mahesh could never have hoped to succeed his master nor could he ever become a guru himself. G NOR COULD BE BECOME A GURU HIMSELF - so no matter how you want to cut it Mahesh Yogi is not authorised to be a guru. As he has said ONLY A SANNYASI CAN BE A GURU AND TAKE DISCIPLES. so what is he doing going against his Guru ? i don't care how you want to slice it clearly he has gone Against the tradition while he holds up his Guru as his authority and backing. G as far as Brahmacharis being privy to the deeper parts of the tradition you may wish to read this written by a Saraswati - Now this Saraswati in fact does initiate others into Sannyas . Who is the Saraswati being referred to ? Swami Sivananda Saraswati http://www.atmajyoti.org/mo_sannyasa_dharma.asp You can read what he says about brahmachari and sannyas . Maha Shanti OM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello, Going through the posts is not like normal letter, I am cutting out the redundency or what I think is either blatently ignorant or without sincerity or someone playing around. There was a post like that in the other thread. I did post a response which covers all the posts. If there are any sincere questions and comments, I am watching for them. I also posted where one can be in contact with Swami G directly. As I suspected, Swami G was on the net yesterday from 6 am until 1 am answering emails. That aleady is the routine without this new added group discussion which is about a week old or so. Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! LOL! [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! *lol* I love YOU, Alex; Your clarity in appreciating the Mirroring of the Self, together with Your specific laughter-flavor of Self- recognition, never fails to tickle me :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Come find the Beauty life has to Offer Be a Great Existence - #2 What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition--he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. G he wouldn't have gotten into the deeper teachings. * Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story-telling going on from Mr. Varma. G clearly he was with Guru Dev and acting as Secretary - it is clearly stated by some he Couldn't be initiated as a Swami because he is not a brahmin - and following through with that if you are not a swami you cannot be a guru with diciples. So NO Guru Dev is not going to advocate him to be a Guru. I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais. G well his guru bhais should know. #3 Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . . Message List Reply | Forward Message #141249 of 141305 Prev | Next Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. G he could have become a Sannayasi if he had come in through one of the other 10 dasanami orders. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly the opposite? G because i did. --he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has he ever actually made the claim? G in holding up Guru Dev as where he get's his authority - he would be acting against his Guru's admontitions . Claim or no claim. You can't go against the teachings and traditions of that order and then hold to them as ones foundation. No matter how ceative you want to make the story about it. If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But not from MMY himself. G doesn't matter he has the option of clearing the air - to not do so - and to have all these created stories about his being somehow held up to be a light to mankind through Guru Dev's admonissions this is not acting with integrity. And trust me he knew what press is being circulated. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- telling going on from Mr. Varma. Such as? I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais. This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner of yoga? G there are many facets of yoga. Yoga means union - a Yogi is one that is seeking Union with the Divine through one of the types of Yoga - could be Bhakti - Karma - Hatha etc. A Sannyasi is a Yogi. As a Sannyasi's sole focus should be on the path and heading towards Union. #4 Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . . On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:34 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Are we about to step into nonsense here because if so it is going to be very short lived from this side. Go ahead and list the basis for claim that Swami G is not a Guru if you like, then maybe there will be a response. Keep in mind my comment in an earlier post, if it is thought that a post coming from Swami G will be of no value, most likely there is not going to be one. I haven't seen it happen too often but I have seen it. You can see Swami G tell of her journey and how it is that she became a Guru in one of the 13 youtube videos under the search of Guruswamig Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! LOL! [snip] Enjoy your laughter as Swami G is very encouraging for peoplee to be immersed in laughter as part of the journey along the way
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Ron wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Are we about to step into nonsense here because if so it is going to be very short lived from this side. Go ahead and list the basis for claim that Swami G is not a Guru if you like, then maybe there will be a response. Keep in mind my comment in an earlier post, if it is thought that a post coming from Swami G will be of no value, most likely there is not going to be one. I haven't seen it happen too often but I have seen it. You can see Swami G tell of her journey and how it is that she became a Guru in one of the 13 youtube videos under the search of Guruswamig Tanmay People here tend to judge other gurus from the POV of the rather conservative Shankaracharya tradition as well as some maya or psychological constructs that MMY created. As Swami G points out in her videos she learned from a tantric in Rishikesh. I have had the same experience except I didn't have to go to India to learn, the guru came here and resides in the Bay Area and is a bonified tantric samrat from a very long Kali tradition. BTW, is Swami G of the Kali tradition or Shiva? Like Swami G I also was commissioned a Swami but that doesn't mean I can make other tantrics as I still have to attain the level of archarya before I'm allowed to do that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Are we about to step into nonsense here because if so it is going to be very short lived from this side. Go ahead and list the basis for claim that Swami G is not a Guru if you like, then maybe there will be a response. Keep in mind my comment in an earlier post, if it is thought that a post coming from Swami G will be of no value, most likely there is not going to be one. I haven't seen it happen too often but I have seen it. You can see Swami G tell of her journey and how it is that she became a Guru in one of the 13 youtube videos under the search of Guruswamig Your guru comes off to me like any other common person who has their own opinions. In the video I saw of her, she seems like any regular woman who attended some metaphysical classes and offers her point of view. In my view, she appears to offer absolutely nothing in her own persona, of spiritual substance that is impressive or appealing. Maharishi, whether he has certain initiations or not, has a much greater energy presence than your guru. Guru Dev [Swami Brahmananda Saraswati] far surpasses them both. This is just my view. Further, I don't think one can rely merely on what badges the boy scout [or girl scout] has acquired or claims, but rather on his character and the quality of the work he accomplishes. Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
I have forwarded both the post here and in the other thread to Swami G and will post a response. I know there were 4 Gurus along the way in Swami G's path- you can see some info about Tantra, mantra - how Swami G even defines it in www.abide-in-self.com Tanmay People here tend to judge other gurus from the POV of the rather conservative Shankaracharya tradition as well as some maya or psychological constructs that MMY created. As Swami G points out in her videos she learned from a tantric in Rishikesh. I have had the same experience except I didn't have to go to India to learn, the guru came here and resides in the Bay Area and is a bonified tantric samrat from a very long Kali tradition. BTW, is Swami G of the Kali tradition or Shiva? Like Swami G I also was commissioned a Swami but that doesn't mean I can make other tantrics as I still have to attain the level of archarya before I'm allowed to do that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Are we about to step into nonsense here because if so it is going to be very short lived from this side. Go ahead and list the basis for claim that Swami G is not a Guru if you like, then maybe there will be a response. Keep in mind my comment in an earlier post, if it is thought that a post coming from Swami G will be of no value, most likely there is not going to be one. I haven't seen it happen too often but I have seen it. You can see Swami G tell of her journey and how it is that she became a Guru in one of the 13 youtube videos under the search of Guruswamig Your guru comes off to me like any other common person who has their own opinions. In the video I saw of her, she seems like any regular woman who attended some metaphysical classes and offers her point of view. In my view, she appears to offer absolutely nothing in her own persona, of spiritual substance that is impressive or appealing. Maharishi, whether he has certain initiations or not, has a much greater energy presence than your guru. Guru Dev [Swami Brahmananda Saraswati] far surpasses them both. This is just my view. How long have you lived with any of the 3 Gurus that you just mentioned? I lived day and night with SwamiG, not the other 2. An instant transmission occured and kundalini awakened within a few days of being around Swami G, as she said it would. The first problem in understanding my coment so far is that an awakened kundalini is only understood by either those in the midst of the kundalini awakening or a Sat Guru that is familiar with it. Swami G explains that Realization is never what you thought it was, once it is known. Swami G explains it is normal existence, and that is what you see in the persona when you are around her. This is why I said to Swami G that most are not going to get past the personality. As I have said, if the kundalini awakens as it has for me, and really as all sadakas would want if they knew what it was, then in viewing the Guru or anything from that platform, it is enough of an anchor to fathom Swami G's caution to view the Sat Guru as consciousness and not the persona. While the videos of Guru dev look wonderfull and similar to how it would look for any Shankaracharia, with those surrounding him paying this respect and formailities, and while Maharihsi has this certain personality and actions of a pheniminal businessman, author, and lots of other things, I see from the platform here what is possible to happen along the journey, and it simply is not taking place in TM as it is here, and in other paths where the Sat Guru is working one to one with the sadakas. So, the personalities and transcient capabilities are not the deciding factor in who is or is not a Sat Guru, and what results will come about for the sadakas. I can make a long list of what is not here in this path in the transcient areas, no ashram, no security gaurds, no limosines, no promotors, no video production, no million dollar courses, no celebrity followings, few sadakas, no articles in news papers or TV. What is here is a Sat Guru and one willing from compassion to work one to one with sadakas. If I told you to phone your Guru up to clear up the confusion, if you can, then we are at the start of something that may be good. Swami G said what value is a Guru if the sadakas are left in confussion? If you want to consider personalities, then would it make any difference to you which Guru is worthwhile if the sadakas are in confusion or not? Even if I consider your angle, I will go with the Guru whose sadakas are in clarity and not confusion, you can pick your Guru based on the charisma and charm they have if you like. Swami G is not going to hand out ego candy and sweeten over what needs to be said to the sadakas as opposed to telling them what they want to hear. Further, I don't think one can rely merely on what badges the boy scout [or girl scout] has acquired or claims, but rather on his character and the quality of the work he accomplishes. First step is see what peace comes about under the guidance of the Guru you are under. Swami G's General comments are that until one is realized, you are not going to save the world. One who can't even save himself is going to save the world?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Could we happily devolve this into a jello-wrestling match?? I'll bring the pop corn! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Come find the Beauty life has to Offer Be a Great Existence - Namaste GuruJi, Namaste My Tantric Master was not from Rishiskesh but another part of india - what was learned wasn't what the west terms a left hand path - it was this Sat Guru that also commissioned me to go forward as a Guru. This was not done until it was established as to the state of Realization. So yes i am fully authorised to be a Guru and in the Tantric traditions a female Guru has more power than a male. that is simply the way it is viewed as far as tantra. maha shanti om 0 I don't know about these details but this looks like a good one to comment on for the others to see: She learned tantra from a tantric near Rishikesh. There are not a lot of rules on the left hand path as there are on the right hand path. Tantrics also believe that anyone who becomes enlightened is a Brahmin regardless of caste by birth. Westerners though go ga-ga over the right hand path because they want to be become holy not realizing they can become just as holy on the left hand path which fits much better our western lifestyles though you do have to find a qualified guru. She also has learned a lot of the same things that I learned from my tantra guru and even makes a point about the common message you get from gurus in one of her videos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Come find the Beauty life has to Offer Be a Great Existence - #5 Namaste mantra diksha is a far cry from becoming a sannyasi - Yes a transmission occurs around an authorised Guru - and it is known here having spoken with one of Mahesh Yogis Sadhakas who WAS in direct proximity working within his home that he had NO consciousness changing experiences while there. Like with my Sadhakas when they come into my presence the mind stills - meditation just takes place effortlessly. This is a test and again one that fails the test with Mahesh Yogi. Maha Shanti OM As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it: The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold, that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200 western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay, I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means, especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw. any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. #6 Who said anything about GD dumping MMY. Why is it impossible to have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee??? There's a world of difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him. G yes indeed - a vast difference - just like my Sadhaka's may be initiates but by no means are 99.9 % of them at this point authorised to be a Guru. There is one that is within training for this as the consciousness is at a level to do so. - there are others up and coming. #7 I certainly did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it. GD was said to be harsh of M. but never would have shunned such a devoted student. The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually one of the Shankaracharyas IIRC. I would think common sense could also make this clear. If M. was a yogi, he could have easily written a brilliant book or even better a course with his sharp intellect. But this is clearly not the case. Instead they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed the sets used for rounding. I'm sure many here have the booklets (which now circulate in PDF form). G he has NO buisness to give practices which can awaken Kundalini when he has no idea of HOW to keep the Sadhaka's within balance. This is not something you look for an outside source to get help with. Only one that is a completed Kundalini Master is FIT to be a Sat Guru in a tradition where Kundalini awakenings are generated as a matter of course. #8 Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . . Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) the Yogi suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly accorded a Hatha Yogi? Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. And if memory serves, Cenkner's Ph.D. thesis on the development of the SRM mentions that at Guru Dev's ashrams meditation and pranayama was emphasized/practiced more than asanas. If so, then Maharishi's own lack of expertise might be why he enlisted the help of a more formal practitioner. G a Sat Guru has NO
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your guru comes off to me like any other common person who has their own opinions. Maharishi, whether he has certain initiations or not, has a much greater energy presence than your guru. Agreed- felt, or didn't feel, the same thing.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Are we about to step into nonsense here because if so it is going to be very short lived from this side. Go ahead and list the basis for claim that Swami G is not a Guru if you like, then maybe there will be a response. Keep in mind my comment in an earlier post, if it is thought that a post coming from Swami G will be of no value, most likely there is not going to be one. I haven't seen it happen too often but I have seen it. You can see Swami G tell of her journey and how it is that she became a Guru in one of the 13 youtube videos under the search of Guruswamig Your guru comes off to me like any other common person who has their own opinions. In the video I saw of her, she seems like any regular woman who attended some metaphysical classes and offers her point of view. In my view, she appears to offer absolutely nothing in her own persona, of spiritual substance that is impressive or appealing. Maharishi, whether he has certain initiations or not, has a much greater energy presence than your guru. Guru Dev [Swami Brahmananda Saraswati] far surpasses them both. This is just my view. How long have you lived with any of the 3 Gurus that you just mentioned? I lived day and night with SwamiG, not the other 2. I have no desire to spend any time with your guru. I've spent a considerable amount of time with Maharishi on courses and teacher training. I experience the presence of Guru Dev almost daily. [snip] Further, I don't think one can rely merely on what badges the boy scout [or girl scout] has acquired or claims, but rather on his character and the quality of the work he accomplishes. First step is see what peace comes about under the guidance of the Guru you are under. Swami G's General comments are that until one is realized, you are not going to save the world. One who can't even save himself is going to save the world? I remain totally unimpressed. If you have found what you're looking for, then good for you. Meanwhile, I recommend that you take your own advice . . . Are we about to step into nonsense here because if so it is going to be very short lived from this side. . . . but recognise however, that that which appears to be nonsense [compared to the import of Maharishi and Guru Dev] is coming from your side.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Could we happily devolve this into a jello-wrestling match?? I'll bring the pop corn! :-) I would have expected Ron's 'swami' guru to rise above the polarity with something meaningful to at least present some dignity. Guru Dev [SBS] seems to have united people and done this without any apparent effort. Instead, Ron's guru appears to be part of the conflict.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
I looked at the picture, and it certainly is Swami G with, as you righly say a pujari. Please go also to http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Swami+Gsearch=Search and you can see that it Swami G is an American woman who has taken sannyas vows. About the stick I am also puzzled, by I don't think its a Danda (stick often wrapped in an orange cloth) Only Brahmins could become Danda Swamis. Guru Dev was one, and you can see such a stick on his photo. It is regarded as a holy symbol. So I suppose it must be some other tool. G i wanted it to be the usual plain danda with just the orange cloth tied around it - the sadhu that ushered me into sannyas wanted it fully covered - so it was - you are speaking of the Eka Dandi order - within the orange cloth wrapping are 3 small sticks - the danda is symbolic. Maha Shanti OM 0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Thanks again for the quick response. My comments follow: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip G Now if you want to go on what is being promoted about Guru Dev saying that only Brahmins may be sannyas then STILL Mahesh Yogi can have no claim to being a Guru. Actually he doesn't claim to be a guru, nor does he claim to be the successor of Guru Dev AFAIK. What he does say is that he gives the blessing of this tradition and of his Guru to the common people. You yourself said that many Swamis are not really practising and smoking Ganja, this I observed myself. Here is someone who but thousands if not millions to meditation, to regularly practise. here is the quote from the site i am sure you are getting your stance from : I don't get my stance from that particular site, but from common available knowledge about Dasanami traditions. ccording to tradition only a brahmana (brahmin) can become a sannyasi (swami), and only a sannyasi can be a guru and take disciples. In a scarce Hindi book entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita', Guru Dev is quoted upholding this view:- ' , parantu guru saba nahiiM bana sakate . gurutva kevala braahmaNa hii ko hai .' '.. But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmanas are in the position to be a guru.' On account of his varna (caste), Brahmachari Mahesh could never have hoped to succeed his master nor could he ever become a guru himself. Well I'm sure he knew this. and he also knew that if he would have run off to the next best non-Dandi-Swami Dasanami Guru he could have been and he knew this, yet he was faithful to his Guru, organizing everything for him. I have already given my opinion on this particular point to Judy in another post you may want to read and comment upon. Actually in this quote you are giving Brahmananda Saraswati is just giving the opinion of tradition, as he says. And as Alex righly pointed out, in his opinion you couldn't be eiher a guru then. When you point your finger on someone, three fingers are pointing back to yourself. G NOR COULD BE BECOME A GURU HIMSELF - so no matter how you want to cut it Mahesh Yogi is not authorised to be a guru. As he has said ONLY A SANNYASI CAN BE A GURU AND TAKE DISCIPLES. so what is he doing going against his Guru ? Thats not for me to answer neither is it any of your business I suppose - you wouldn't be entitled to be a guru in his opinion either - if this was really his final word and not taken out of context, but this is the tradition of the Saraswati order he comes from. i don't care how you want to slice it clearly he has gone Against the tradition while he holds up his Guru as his authority and backing. You yourself said just in the other post, that you feel the tradition has to be adapted to the situation in the modern world - I agreed on that. Here we have an example of one particular branch of the Dasanami being more conservative than others, as a medivial concession to orthodoxy, and while yourself are a western woman enjoying the reformatory work of previous generations in other subgroups of the same sect, you saying this sounds really hypocritical, if I may say so. G as far as Brahmacharis being privy to the deeper parts of the tradition you may wish to read this written by a Saraswati - Now this Saraswati in fact does initiate others into Sannyas . Who is the Saraswati being referred to ? Obviously he felt that some ortodox rules have to be adapted to modern times. If you endorse him, why accuse Maharishi for doing the same? Swami Sivananda Saraswati http://www.atmajyoti.org/mo_sannyasa_dharma.asp You can read what he says about brahmachari and sannyas . Maha Shanti OM Thanks, but I have read him already at large. He used to distribute Bija mantras on handouts. Not really orthodox. Thank you again and no offense from my site.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Come find the Beauty life has to Offer Be a Great Existence - Om Namo Narayana G my training is within both Shivaite and Kali traditions as well as esoteric christianity - as stated before i am Fully authorised by my Tantric Guru as a Sat Guru which is beyond the state of an achraya to carry forth this path. My path was through Kundalini which awakened at the age of 18 and completed on the banks of the Ganges at the age of 49. It was not until after this completed that i accepted the mantle of Guru - neither was this something that i would have chosen for myself this Seva is being given as per my Guru's wishes. would be most happy myself to have no sadhakas and to simply roam the earth enjoying the fruits of Realization. Maha Shanti OM 0 People here tend to judge other gurus from the POV of the rather conservative Shankaracharya tradition as well as some maya or psychological constructs that MMY created. As Swami G points out in her videos she learned from a tantric in Rishikesh. I have had the same experience except I didn't have to go to India to learn, the guru came here and resides in the Bay Area and is a bonified tantric samrat from a very long Kali tradition. BTW, is Swami G of the Kali tradition or Shiva? Like Swami G I also was commissioned a Swami but that doesn't mean I can make other tantrics as I still have to attain the level of archarya before I'm allowed to do that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
I would have expected Ron's 'swami' guru to rise above the polarity with something meaningful to at least present some dignity. Guru Dev [SBS] seems to have united people and done this without any apparent effort. Instead, Ron's guru appears to be part of the conflict. Hello, Lets try this- Here is my thing I am into- find a Sat Guru that you resonate with, then work one to one with that guru. Maybe you don't agree with what I am into, well, that is fine. Those two things from my point of view now are the most significant so I emphasize both aspects of that- a Sat Guru who you resonate with and One to One Why Sat Guru? because one will only accel to the level of coinsciousnes of the Guru Why one to one? because I have seen people not one to one in a state of confusion in varios ways. For example, 2 people decalred themselves enlightened, but it was clearly a case where they thought they were accessing deeper levels than what was taking place. One of them admitted it after it somehow got pointed out to them, the other is lost in thinking they are accessing these levels which simply is not taking place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello t3rinity, Can you post that Judy post you are talking about here in this thread? I think this is called a thread - right? I am following emails from 15 yahoo groups, so I am only reading the mails in this thread and really busy. Swami G is not in FFL at all. Tanmay Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I experience the presence of Guru Dev almost daily. I'd really like to hear the details of that if you care to share it. If not openly, then an email would work.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: So, it basically boils down to one guru who isn't qualified to be a guru lashing out at another guru because he isn't qualified to be a guru. Indian spiritual politics... gotta love it! Could we happily devolve this into a jello-wrestling match?? I'll bring the pop corn! :-) I would have expected Ron's 'swami' guru to rise above the polarity with something meaningful to at least present some dignity. Guru Dev [SBS] seems to have united people and done this without any apparent effort. Instead, Ron's guru appears to be part of the conflict. eh- people follow who appeals to them. I don't see a lot of merit in Swami G., but glad he does.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have expected Ron's 'swami' guru to rise above the polarity with something meaningful to at least present some dignity. Guru Dev [SBS] seems to have united people and done this without any apparent effort. Instead, Ron's guru appears to be part of the conflict. Hello, Lets try this- Here is my thing I am into- find a Sat Guru that you resonate with, then work one to one with that guru. Maybe you don't agree with what I am into, well, that is fine. Those two things from my point of view now are the most significant so I emphasize both aspects of that- a Sat Guru who you resonate with and One to One Why Sat Guru? because one will only accel to the level of coinsciousnes of the Guru Then I'm satisfied to rise to the level of Guru Dev. Your guru reminds me of common housewives I've encountered whose big thing was having been 'into' various questionable metaphysical teachings. Why one to one? because I have seen people not one to one in a state of confusion in varios ways. For example, 2 people decalred themselves enlightened, but it was clearly a case where they thought they were accessing deeper levels than what was taking place. One of them admitted it after it somehow got pointed out to them, the other is lost in thinking they are accessing these levels which simply is not taking place. Of course feel free to continue your efforts, but please notice that I remain completely unimpressed with you and your guru.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) The dynamite never bothered me at all, and many others. Really. It bothered a few people, and I guess they're the ones who had talked to the course leaders about it and been given a Go away, every- thing is being taken care of story. But, don't you see the metaphor of this story... This whole thing seems like it really did bother you! You've used this to illustrate a whole attitude toward the TM thingy... In that you seem to want to blow the whole thing up? So, obviously this is something to let go of, as it seems to still be unresolved, for you...? It was used as an example of a mindset that interests me, that's all. There was no criticism of either Maharishi or the TM movement involved, just a fascin- ation with the phenomenon itself -- people in a spiritual tradition making shit up, attributing it to their teacher, and feeling no compunctions about doing so. I've seen it happen hundreds of times. This is *not* unique to the TM movement. It happens in pretty much *every* spiritual tradition. *That* it happens in pretty much every spiritual tradition is what interests me about it. It's an interesting slice of human nature, one that makes religious scholarship very difficult. How can you do an accurate biography of a spiritual teacher if his or her followers thought that they were free to make up things and claim that the teacher had said them? Look it up; it's a well-recognized issue in the world of religious studies. Catholic scholars are plagued with this all the time. That's why it's so difficult to be made a saint; so *many* people just make shit up about the people they consider saints that the Vatican has to assure itself that the miracle stories are true. I think you're trying to imagine an insult where none was intended. Curtis pointed out an interesting aspect of these conflicting stories -- that either Dr. Varma's account is knowingly false or Maharishi's account is knowingly false. I presented an example of similar fictions that are told every day in the TM movement, and attributed to Maharishi as if he spoke them. I personally believe that Dr. Varma's story is just another example of this same phenomenon, that's all. If you don't, no problemo. You get to have your own opinions, as do I. But I should point out that by believing Dr. Varma's story is true, you are choosing to believe that Maharishi's story was knowingly false. I basically agree with everything that you're saying in terms of what happens in religious movements, and political power, within those movements, whether in this one or that. In this case though, I would have to think that whatever happened between Maharishi and Guru Dev, and the time Maharishi spent in solitude, is way beyond what you or I can imagine. I also think Maharishi's relationship with Guru Dev, is and was quite fluid, in that I think there is a continued relationship and a continued communication. So, what was said or communicated at the time, or what was later intuited, is beyond any simple discription. So, I'm not quite sure of all the details of Dr.Vama's story, but sometimes, like you say, stories and reality sometimes vary. Check your milage. Everyone is trying to put Maharishi in this box or that. I don't think he fits into any black or white box, which people seem to want to place him in.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. Who said anything about GD dumping MMY. Why is it impossible to have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee??? There's a world of difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him. Please Boo don't get excited about just one word - I am not a native english speaker, so to express a certain sentiment in a foreign language isn't always easy. Besides that, I am not a TMO devotee since long. Try to read it within the context of the whole paragraph I wrote above. My point is obviousy to look beyound traditional formalisms, and that a real master like GD could have easiy given a silent transmission to MMY if he felt he was deserving. This is my hypothesis. Swami G is simply taking off on the fact that he was not formally initiated into the Sadhu vows. But I think the essence of a teachers enlightenment can be transmitted beyound formal initiations. In this way I dispute the statement of the lack of MMY's qualification on the mere ground he was a 'novice', 'not even in the initial stages' (Swami G's words) Wereas it has been clearly shown that the reason for this is is a formalsm in the extremely conservative tradition. I simply found Swami G's remarks deceptive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello t3rinity, Can you post that Judy post you are talking about here in this thread? I think this is called a thread - right? I am following emails from 15 yahoo groups, so I am only reading the mails in this thread and really busy. Swami G is not in FFL at all. Ron, I haven't checked in on this whole tsimmus, and probably won't, because to be honest I don't care that much about either Maharishi or Swami G. But I do find this whole cruise-internet-groups-for- followers thang interesting. I'm wondering what constitutes a true believer (or devoted follower, if you prefer) in her org. If she writes 16 hours a day to 15 groups, do her followers read them all? I mean, ya gotta admit...it's a kinda science-fictiony concept, right? Cybersatsang. Cyber- dharma talks. Cyberdarshan. Very Phillip K. Dick. What can you tell me about the group that follows Swami G and what they do with themselves? For a living (I mean, reading 15 newsgroups a day takes *time*, man...when ya gonna work, and at what?), for a daily sadhana (do you meditate?), for fun? I'm really asking out of curiosity, not as a setup for a slam or anything. I honestly have no hit on Swami G at all, and thus would almost certainly never have any interest in studying with her or even learning more about her, but I find myself very curious as to who would want to study with her. And what study entails in a Cybersangha.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: I experience the presence of Guru Dev almost daily. I'd really like to hear the details of that if you care to share it. If not openly, then an email would work.:-) I don't make a big issue about it. I'm even a little reluctant to talk about it. But if others can benefit the same way I have by my telling about it, then ok. Apart from normally practicing my meditation [TM] I experience the spiritual presence of Guru Dev in my meditation room where I have a picture of Guru Dev. It's the one that was commonly given to TM teachers to use for the Puja. Occasionally, if and when I have a pressing spiritual question I can usually just think about it and an answer will come - whether I'm in the meditation room or not. Sometimes I both 'see' and 'hear' Guru Dev telepathically. Most times I just 'hear' an answer. The answers are almost always very simple and short. Seems Guru Dev doesn't wish to have these experiences become an attachment. The physical picture itself often shows Guru Dev with different expressions. I almost always feel his presence when I look at that picture. I also once received some kind of blessing or something that really affected me. I could vaguely 'see' but plainly 'hear' Guru Dev saying some stuff in what I perceived to be Sanskrit. I don't know Sanskrit well and only remember one of the words. It was 'samhita'. After I heard those words I felt like I was in a very deep conscious state, much like one feels sometimes while performing the Puja during an initiation. I don't know the significance of that experience, but ever since I've felt much closer to Guru Dev and my experiences perceiving him directly - although very brief - are much clearer. I've even asked Guru Dev about that experience and the only answer I got was waves of love from him. That was enough of an answer for me. I've always been bahkti oriented. As one cannot easily be devoted to the undifferentiated Absolute, Guru Dev has become that object of devotion. I really have no adequate words for what I've experienced as a result of my meditation and how I feel about Guru Dev. I can only recommend with all my being that people look to God and meditate!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_lives@ wrote: But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. Who said anything about GD dumping MMY. Why is it impossible to have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee??? There's a world of difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him. Please Boo don't get excited about just one word - I am not a native english speaker, so to express a certain sentiment in a foreign language isn't always easy. Besides that, I am not a TMO devotee since long. Try to read it within the context of the whole paragraph I wrote above. My point is obviousy to look beyound traditional formalisms, and that a real master like GD could have easiy given a silent transmission to MMY if he felt he was deserving. This is my hypothesis. Swami G is simply taking off on the fact that he was not formally initiated into the Sadhu vows. But I think the essence of a teachers enlightenment can be transmitted beyound formal initiations. In this way I dispute the statement of the lack of MMY's qualification on the mere ground he was a 'novice', 'not even in the initial stages' (Swami G's words) Wereas it has been clearly shown that the reason for this is is a formalsm in the extremely conservative tradition. I simply found Swami G's remarks deceptive. I apologize trin. for going off on the word. I agree completely with most of what you say, and I personally don't care much for the conservative formalisms of hinduism or any other religion. In general I feel devotion not status is what is important. The one area I think I disagree - and I'm just recently appreciating this point - is that the head of lineage usually does make clear through external means who the successor is in terms of the living head of the lineage. This does not mean that the head of lineage can't bestow grace and enlightenment or whatever to lots of disciples no matter what their rank, but I'm learning that is a big deal who gets the transmission to take over as head of the lineage and this usually does involve the external trappings. So I think MMY can say whatever he wants in terms of being a good disciple of GD who inspired him to do what he does, but I don't think MMY represents any kind of traditional lineage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello t3rinity, Can you post that Judy post you are talking about here in this thread? I think this is called a thread - right? I am following emails from 15 yahoo groups, so I am only reading the mails in this thread and really busy. Swami G is not in FFL at all. Tanmay Okay, its this, but I think it was covered in some of your forwarded posts, even though it wasn't all to clear which comments were whos: The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold, that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200 western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay, I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means, especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw. any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. I also just clarified to BOO about the 'dumped' - I am german. we use phrases in a different way, but I think one can get it from the context. Basically there is not much to clarify here anymore, if you ask me. There are certain traditinal restrictions, and if you go by them, Swami G is right, MMY cannot be a Guru in this tradition, as it is a Sadhu tradition. If this is now the end of the story or not is a matter of belief. Traditions have always developed and changed. Again, MMY doesn't claim to be a guru. He says he gives the blessing of his Guru, and what he calls the 'vedic tradition', which again is a word that can mean many things. He is not claiming to be a Swami, not ever dressing in orange, he is acknowledging others to be the Shankaracharyas of his tradition, and they, some of them at least, acknowledge him, some others don't. The rest is personal evaluation. I personaly feel that I got good things from him in the past, and for that I am grateful. I feel that this was an enrichment of my life and development, but I moved to another place now, to another teacher that has nothing to do with traditionalsm at all. I also believe very much in the one to one thing - but then I can easily see the value of a technique that brings thousands into a habit of regular meditation and on the spiritual path, I think its a great thing. There maybe many aspects of the movement I don't agree with and for Gods sake, I am not part of it anymore, so I really don't care, but I don't see what was BASICALLY wrong with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Thanks for the correction but I could swear she said in one of the videos she at least met her master near Rishikesh. I also got the impression from the video that she didn't spend that much time with him (and he has passed on). It took me 5 years to get commissioned to Swami and I can only do limited things like teach meditation, give shaktipat and perform certain siddhis including ones for healing. My guru: www.realtantrasolutions.com Ron wrote: Come find the Beauty life has to Offer Be a Great Existence - Namaste GuruJi, Namaste My Tantric Master was not from Rishiskesh but another part of india - what was learned wasn't what the west terms a left hand path - it was this Sat Guru that also commissioned me to go forward as a Guru. This was not done until it was established as to the state of Realization. So yes i am fully authorised to be a Guru and in the Tantric traditions a female Guru has more power than a male. that is simply the way it is viewed as far as tantra. maha shanti om 0 I don't know about these details but this looks like a good one to comment on for the others to see: She learned tantra from a tantric near Rishikesh. There are not a lot of rules on the left hand path as there are on the right hand path. Tantrics also believe that anyone who becomes enlightened is a Brahmin regardless of caste by birth. Westerners though go ga-ga over the right hand path because they want to be become holy not realizing they can become just as holy on the left hand path which fits much better our western lifestyles though you do have to find a qualified guru. She also has learned a lot of the same things that I learned from my tantra guru and even makes a point about the common message you get from gurus in one of her videos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize trin. for going off on the word. I agree completely with most of what you say, and I personally don't care much for the conservative formalisms of hinduism or any other religion. In general I feel devotion not status is what is important. Oh, thanks, yes I agree. The one area I think I disagree - and I'm just recently appreciating this point - is that the head of lineage usually does make clear through external means who the successor is in terms of the living head of the lineage. This does not mean that the head of lineage can't bestow grace and enlightenment or whatever to lots of disciples no matter what their rank, but I'm learning that is a big deal who gets the transmission to take over as head of the lineage and this usually does involve the external trappings. So I think MMY can say whatever he wants in terms of being a good disciple of GD who inspired him to do what he does, but I don't think MMY represents any kind of traditional lineage. Actually I also agree on this. He certainly doesn't represent the Dasanami Order of his Guru, and I don't think he actually claims to do so. The word 'Vedic Tradition' is actually a very broad term, and together with others I wrote on the german Wikipedia on it. Its more like a generic term pointing to the origin of teaching in my view, and it is used by different groups. Basically every group tries to base itself into the ancient traditions, and is related to it somehow. So the Shankaracharya tradition absorbed a lot of teachings from the Tantra, but it sees the Tantra (Agamas) as an elaboration on the Veda or Upanishads. Every group in Hinduism does this. Compare it to the flow of a river, it is not steady, and changes every moment. MMY may be guilty of giving the impression hat there is only one Vedic tradition and that its a kind of linear thing, but he never stated that he is the successor of Guru Dev. For him of course Guru Dev is the reference point, and for all his disciples this is so as well. Thereore they think they are the lineage, but does he ever say so? I don't think. But there is of course somehow the implication, that he is doing the important work. The words that he uses most in this context is: 'with the blessings of Guru Dev'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Hello t3rinity, Can you post that Judy post you are talking about here in this thread? I think this is called a thread - right? I am following emails from 15 yahoo groups, so I am only reading the mails in this thread and really busy. Swami G is not in FFL at all. Ron, I haven't checked in on this whole tsimmus, and probably won't, because to be honest I don't care that much about either Maharishi or Swami G. But I do find this whole cruise-internet-groups-for- followers thang interesting. Tanmay: ( Ron- using my spiritual name in the future) The sadana is an ongoing thing- there is open eye meditation so the mantra is going at all times when one remembers to do it. Since it is an experience, will use the best words as I can about all this. I just mentioned this because as seva, part of the sadakas thing would be to further the Guru's teachings. Talking may entrench the sadaka in duality ( not so for a realized one), so for one thing, if one is only curious, some sadakas may simply keep quiet and speak with those that have the interest to be in the path. Be that as it may, will do the best to tell of my experiences I'm wondering what constitutes a true believer (or devoted follower, if you prefer) in her org. Those looking for Realization abouve all else, sincerity, respect, honoring the pointings in the path, living life with integrity, honoring the commitments made that one has agreed to when entering the path, such as keeping in touch at least once a month, and other things If she writes 16 hours a day to 15 groups, do her followers read them all? I do I mean, ya gotta admit...it's a kinda science-fictiony concept, right? This probably aint nothin compared to what may be coming- why wouldnt a sat guru adapt to what is taking place in the world? Cybersatsang. Cyber- dharma talks. Cyberdarshan. Very Phillip K. Dick. What can you tell me about the group that follows Swami G and what they do with themselves? There are not a lot of takers. The next in line, Swami Siddhananda is a nurse that works in a hospice, Swami G said there is just one attachment left for her, and that she is very close. Sagar surfs in Israel, he was a vetinarian, was on purusha at some point, went through the 21 day course with Kalki. Dont know what he does for money. I do business of sorts in scrap metals and things. I also am in touch with Swami G daily. I met one disciple in Hawaii- Maui- he has some sort of clerk job. I have met Swami Siddhananda and her son- actually those two, Swami G and myself were together in India last year. And by the way, while in Rishikesh, one day, Swami Siddhananda , her son and me walked though the former TM ashram where the Beatles stayed A local friend took diksha but he aparently did not follow through on his commitment to keep in touch, etc. He works as a psychologist. Another TM friend from Germany came to India when we were there, took Diksha but also has not honored his commitment to keep in touch. A sadhu that was in Rishikesh took Diksha, I dont think he has been heard from but that was expected in that case. Swami Sidhananda and I saw him smoking charis- hard to say what is going on in his world. living (I mean, reading 15 newsgroups a day takes *time*, man...when ya gonna work, and at what?), for a daily sadhana (do you meditate?), for fun? Tanmay: there are practices given, and for fun- each does their thing- I play with my dog I'm really asking out of curiosity, not as a setup for a slam or anything. hahaha- what can i say here- curiousity is better than slaming, plunging in is better than curiousity I honestly have no hit on Swami G at all, and thus would almost certainly never have any interest in studying with her or even learning more about her, but I find myself very curious as to who would want to study with her. And what study entails in a Cybersangha. Firstly, my point of view as seva and therefore if there is something I recomemend, it is that curiosity should be switched to moving forward and plunging in. Then, as I said in an earlier post, it is not that I am promoting Swami G, I am promoting Sat Guru, for Sat Guru is One, it is consciousness- so find one that you resonate with and be more than curious, dive in. Up to you, I am not telling you what to do, what I mean is based on my experiences for what has taken place, I recommend that others have this. Who would want to study with her? first of all, study is not the right word I choose to use- this is not a classroom, and it is not information gathering, it is direct experience of dormant consciousness, the flow of shakti, called Kundalini. This is not the goal, but this is a matter of course in this path along the way as Realization unfolds. Kundalini is like the Rotor rooter of consciousness,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is - Yes, what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I'm finding as we inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted reactions around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. (I'm better than so-and-so!) we see that after all we have been indulging in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own dramas onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love and superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here and now find that what had appeared to be sin only IS IS, indescribable, radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self -- as it has always been! There may be some self righteousness and feeling of I'm better than behind perceptions of false gurus and manipulators of power, and those feelings should be addressed which may alter the subtle feelings around those perceptions and how they're expressed, but I don't think that spiritual growth towards unity eliminates the ability to makes those distinctions between truth and falsehood, in fact it seems to me that that ability to discriminate becomes clearer. IE I dont think discrimination per se must be based on some underlying drama or judgment that needs to be eliminated. Does rory feel that his seeing swami g as still stuck in remnants of dualism or other people stuck fully in dualism is a perception based on some underlying drama of his?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Christ, this whole dialog is a breath of fresh air. Ron, (Tanmay) you were born for this moment. lurk Hello, Nice to see a nice comment. I have a lot of enthusiasm for what is taking place. It is my seva, and it is a part of the whole process that one that is in a path is doing seva, to offer pointings to anyone who may be interested in this path. As usual since being on this path, as I write this moment, it is from this platform of an awakened kundalini. It is not enlightenment, but it in itself is a glimpse that is etched in stone and will be enough of an anchor to keep one glued on the path for the rest of this life, unless Realization totally unfolds, for then the path is no longer needed. Again, the Guru is there to guide one to remove the coverings so that you are what the Guru is. Once those coverings are gone, what need is there for the Guru? the Guru knows where you are, so a Sat Guru will let you know what's up. One just surrenders to the process and then lets see what happens. I emphasize the practicality of what I am doing. I am not sitting now with Swami G physically, and Swami G's comment is the path has to be practical. The breath of fresh air is the clarity, and clarity is a balance of everything, it is not only reading, hearing something from the Guru, or clearing up of some intellectual concept that brings about clarity, it is ( for me) being in a path with a Sat Guru, and working one to one. Those two things ( for me) are of the utmost importance in order for significant progress- and emphasized- Sat Guru and one to one. For those who have come across this, we can say that the universe has offered a choice. Swami G 's general comments are this happens when a sincere seeker is there, some may have one Guru in their journey, some may have many. Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: I can't deny my own experience. I am a TM teacher who has directly experienced Guru Dev during TM initiations and otherwise. I know of at least 7 other people, three of them TM initiators who have said they also have experienced Guru Dev directly. By experiencing Guru Dev directly, I mean in visual form, auditory communication [telepathic] form, or even in changes in Guru Dev's facial expression in a revered photo of Guru Dev. It has also been taught to TM teachers [as it was at my TTC] that A TMer's spiritual teacher and link to the Absolute is indeed Guru Dev and not Maharishi or the TM initiator. Wonderful, wonderful experiences! Thanks for sharing them here! Count me in as someone who experiences Brahmananda Saraswati constantly. I've had a personal relationship with Him for ~25 years now, and it is the most grounded, honest and uncompromising relationship of my life. There is just no escaping His living truth, His eternal essence, His Divine personality. After a long period doing TM and praying a lot to Guru Dev, in 1980 I took the Siddhis course and afterwards moved to Santa Barbara. During long soothing and somewhat lonely bike rides along the lemon and avocado groves, I began to see Guru Dev's head and shoulders in the center of my sight, my third eye. I had this experience for awhile. In a few years my experience progressed to seeing Him in full form whenever I would summon him to help me. Then it culminated in a week I spent in His constant presence, flooded with His bliss. These days it is just any part of Him that I wish to experience. We are pretty close at this point, though He does what He does and I muddle along here on earth, doing what I do. I've told this chronology here before. Not for those who enjoy doubting it, or to create a false impression of myself. But rather because there are always those who appreciate reading the experience, just as I have appreciated reading yours, and to let all who wish to, know that Guru Dev is always available to any who wish for Him to be. The asking must be sincere and focused, and then He comes.:-) Indeed. Excellent. Thank you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is - Yes, what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I'm finding as we inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted reactions around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. (I'm better than so-and-so!) we see that after all we have been indulging in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own dramas onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love and superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here and now find that what had appeared to be sin only IS IS, indescribable, radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self -- as it has always been! There may be some self righteousness and feeling of I'm better than behind perceptions of false gurus and manipulators of power, and those feelings should be addressed which may alter the subtle feelings around those perceptions and how they're expressed, but I don't think that spiritual growth towards unity eliminates the ability to makes those distinctions between truth and falsehood, in fact it seems to me that that ability to discriminate becomes clearer. IE I dont think discrimination per se must be based on some underlying drama or judgment that needs to be eliminated. Does rory feel that his seeing swami g as still stuck in remnants of dualism or other people stuck fully in dualism is a perception based on some underlying drama of his? Hello, I guess I can offer a little food for thought here. There are no rules that say one that is enlightened must keep it secret. I have been saying things are direct and to the point here in my path. So, for a starter, one can ask Swami G, are you enlightened. The reply is yes. From here, one can go into further inquiry as is needed for one to feel satisfied that they have the answers they need, should they want to further probe how it can be of benefit to have an enlightened Guru guilding them one to one. Tanmay
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh unravel once again. This would be worth adding to the list archives Ron. Veritas liberat. On Jun 11, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Ron wrote: I wonder if this Guru would enjoy Byron Katie... :-) * I doubt it. I've come across Swami G several times in the past few years, and it's always been in a context of conflict. She has a very dualistic and fundamentalist mindset about spiritual rights and wrongs G dualistic and fundamentalist ? i preach no dogmas - nothing dualistic, maybe he doesn't like what i have to say but at least be factual and the above is about the farthest from what is here. * and how things SHOULD be. Anyone who's that fond of criticizing what is is probably not going to enjoy loving what is. G there are Many Guru's that i am quite fond of - Many teachings and paths that are Fantastic. As far as loving what is - There is nothing better than being freed of the driving mind. Nothing better than being free of the suffering identifications. In any moment Bliss may be entered and enjoyed, simply from the movement of leaves on a tree - or the sound of a passing car which brings vibrational waves throughout the whole being. Yes this is loving what IS. Enjoying that Still point which all life revolves around is loving what IS. Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is - do you love the war ? Do you love when guru's or preachers speak from a platform that only continues stirring up fear or preying upon fears and insecurities ? There is a vast difference in Loving the person versus loving what is termed sin ie: that which separates and keeps one separated from that One Divine IS which is freedom. When things are encountered which keep separation in place - and continue keeping people bound then yes - this one will speak out. i have no anger, nothing against any individual though. i cannot remain in that type of mindset. i may speak against what one is doing but this has nothing to do with my loving them any less as having that One Divine Essence as Self. As far as advaitic crowd have always held that Gangaji has merit and gives a technique that is quite fine. i am simply not going to comment on a teacher and teaching that i am not familiar with - Neither does living within the conscious reality of Non-duality mean having a head in the sand when it comes to issues within the realm of duality. Unlike Balsekar i am not going to say all is perfect as it is - and if you are a murderer then that is quite fine it is perfect and just be what you are. Neither will i say that some of these gurus that are turning the path into a spiritual buisness are upholding the dharma and having compassion for the world state. Now if you want to call this having a dogma and being in a dualistic fundamentalist mindset then be my guest. No matter as the truth of what is said here will be born out eventually. May you find THAT which is the Life of ALL Life and the Death of ALL Death. maha shanti om 0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those two things ( for me) are of the utmost importance in order for significant progress- and emphasized- Sat Guru and one to one. For those who have come across this, we can say that the universe has offered a choice. Swami G 's general comments are this happens when a sincere seeker is there, some may have one Guru in their journey, some may have many. I don't know much about Swami G., but the one on one is very refreshing, and I find her comments quite interesting. Plus, what a remarkable transformation you have had. Excuse me for saying this, but 2 years ago you sounded just like Nabluss, and nothing against Nabluss, but he will defend to the T's any statement, and position put forth by MMY, or the TMO. Nothing wrong with it, but it is very rote. Here you sound like balanced, open minded individual dedicated to the path. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh unravel once again. And which lies would those be, Vaj? This would be worth adding to the list archives Ron. Veritas liberat. On Jun 11, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Ron wrote: I wonder if this Guru would enjoy Byron Katie... :-) * I doubt it. I've come across Swami G several times in the past few years, and it's always been in a context of conflict. She has a very dualistic and fundamentalist mindset about spiritual rights and wrongs G dualistic and fundamentalist ? i preach no dogmas - nothing dualistic, maybe he doesn't like what i have to say but at least be factual and the above is about the farthest from what is here. * and how things SHOULD be. Anyone who's that fond of criticizing what is is probably not going to enjoy loving what is. G there are Many Guru's that i am quite fond of - Many teachings and paths that are Fantastic. As far as loving what is - There is nothing better than being freed of the driving mind. Nothing better than being free of the suffering identifications. In any moment Bliss may be entered and enjoyed, simply from the movement of leaves on a tree - or the sound of a passing car which brings vibrational waves throughout the whole being. Yes this is loving what IS. Enjoying that Still point which all life revolves around is loving what IS. Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is - do you love the war ? Do you love when guru's or preachers speak from a platform that only continues stirring up fear or preying upon fears and insecurities ? There is a vast difference in Loving the person versus loving what is termed sin ie: that which separates and keeps one separated from that One Divine IS which is freedom. When things are encountered which keep separation in place - and continue keeping people bound then yes - this one will speak out. i have no anger, nothing against any individual though. i cannot remain in that type of mindset. i may speak against what one is doing but this has nothing to do with my loving them any less as having that One Divine Essence as Self. As far as advaitic crowd have always held that Gangaji has merit and gives a technique that is quite fine. i am simply not going to comment on a teacher and teaching that i am not familiar with - Neither does living within the conscious reality of Non-duality mean having a head in the sand when it comes to issues within the realm of duality. Unlike Balsekar i am not going to say all is perfect as it is - and if you are a murderer then that is quite fine it is perfect and just be what you are. Neither will i say that some of these gurus that are turning the path into a spiritual buisness are upholding the dharma and having compassion for the world state. Now if you want to call this having a dogma and being in a dualistic fundamentalist mindset then be my guest. No matter as the truth of what is said here will be born out eventually. May you find THAT which is the Life of ALL Life and the Death of ALL Death. maha shanti om 0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Those two things ( for me) are of the utmost importance in order for significant progress- and emphasized- Sat Guru and one to one. For those who have come across this, we can say that the universe has offered a choice. Swami G 's general comments are this happens when a sincere seeker is there, some may have one Guru in their journey, some may have many. I don't know much about Swami G., but the one on one is very refreshing, and I find her comments quite interesting. Plus, what a remarkable transformation you have had. Excuse me for saying this, but 2 years ago you sounded just like Nabluss, and nothing against Nabluss, but he will defend to the T's any statement, and position put forth by MMY, or the TMO. Nothing wrong with it, but it is very rote. Here you sound like balanced, open minded individual dedicated to the path. lurk Hello, I guess we can say shit happens. Swami G used dynamite with me regarding the TM perspective but the dynamite rippled through in other areas. Swami G explains ego is darkness, Sat guru is light. So, it works out to useing what Swami G refers to as a velvet 2x4 = that is what may be needed for the light to illumunate the darkness. The ego may fight tooth and nail to hold it's thrown, but it surely will have no problem holding it's thrown if it is going to be a cosmic ego See if you can find any sage like Ramana Maharishi talking about a cosmic ego? Ego is identification with body, mind, conditionings- it is the death of all this, then who you thought you were- gone. When the body is gone, ego, identification , conditionings are gone- is there something left? yes, and that is who you are- it is the eternal IS, - This is generally how Swami G would explain things. So, I think in researching the great masters, they will say that a Sat Guru is needed, and they may say that working one to one is also necessary. Otherwise, when one has some great experiecnes or samadhi, then one thinks they have arrived, so they stop the sadana, then they have stoped their chance at unfolding realization. Sat Guru is One, so if I were to tout anything as part of my seva, would recomend those two things- Any Sat Guru, and then one to one. The thing is this is not easy to find but acording to Swami G, more amd more Gurus are needed today as more and more are haveing spontaneous Kundalini awakenings, then will this be directed so that the greatest blessing in experienced as this is navigated for one;s best interest? or will this go the way of a misguided and therefore misunderstood expereience which can amount to big problems and even hell for a person. There is one Guru posting now in Muktanandas site, he is living in South India and while Swami G has never met, and therefore can not vouch for him, it is looking good so far. The last request I made to him was to please have some of his sadakas forward their experiences. swami G is always interested to come across Sat Gurus because people are spread out all over the globe, some may not have the finances to travel, and if there is someone reputable to send them too, then obviously great. Tanmay
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:44 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh unravel once again. And which lies would those be, Vaj? The ones exposed here (sorry, accidentally responded to the wrong email!): Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster, and G = Swami G: T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of tradition - ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are Bharati/Giri/Puri and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic practices and knowledge. All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. So do i need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. * This would resolve her argument. G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only here but also within this sect in india. * That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just employed vs being a student. G he was a Brahachari - it is known absolutely that he was not a fully initiated Swami. Undoubtedly he was a student there are many such nowadays - brahmachari's that are in the process of learning About the tradition before being formally inducted into it. This is a common practice. * Anyone can see on the youtube video that he was speaking in front of GD, he is shown on photos of showing the first president of india around in the Ashram - so don't tell me he didn't have the trust of GD. I am not saying Swami G is totally wrong, but I do see that she takes her own path as sort of absolute. G My path IS the same tradition as the one he is supposed to be speaking from. this is what you don't understand. He may have been showing the first president around the Ashram but this proves absolutely nothing. The problem is you have only read about the traditions and haven't actually lived within them. T: My Guru said that in her case, there is one being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one. * Traditionally this is the case. G yes And ? there are no but's - this is the way it has been and continues to remain. * But look at the controversies in many traditions, Hindu and Buddhist - very often the succession is not clear. G look succession was not clear when it came to Guru Dev. That Math had no heir for over 100 Years. - Guru Dev was choosen and approved by the other Shankaracharya's. That is true. But there is NO way - not ANYWHERE - that a Shankaracharya is going to appoint a brahmachari that is not even a full swami as the one to carry on as a Guru. -- he may give him blessings but he most assuredly will not appoint him to buck the whole of the tradition. And what you are putting forth would be exactly that. * There maybe contradiory statements of the Guru, like in the case of Muktananda, G Muktananda was also not held up or appointed. i have this on full reliability with one that was With Nithyananda at his passing. Nithyananda left his body by will - and was quite clear as to why. This is another matter though one that i will not get into at this point in time. * or simply missing public instructions, or the tradition has a certain restrictive format, like in the case of GD. G i know what the restrictions are within this tradition. i also know what mantras are given - i know the in's and outs of this tradition as far as what the Dasnami traditions do and don't do. --- did you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh unravel once again. This would be worth adding to the list archives Ron. Veritas liberat. Hello, Well, As was suggested by Swami G , one honors where one benefitted from. I went really deep with Tm in the last 5 years. Swami G's general comments are it readied me for what is taking place now. Actually, there are a few others from TM now with Swami G, but also from other Gurus, and it is even a comment from Swami G how it seems those who have a backgraound with other gurus progress well in this path. I have been in the trap of what Swami G refers to as a pity party, and Swami G as well in her journey. I am a little short of time now to explain but is comsumes more energy to moan and grown about the wrongs that has been done to me. So, the thing is, time to move forward. Take what was gained, honor that, and then apply it for what is taking place now. Swami G was in LA living with prabu pad for a few years (ISKON- harry krishna) , while she never took initiation there, Prabupad told her she would reach realization there this life. Again, while Swami G points out the Bhakti lesson gained while being there, she points out that she felt Prabupad did an injustice to the knowledge, as he knew more than he gave out for various reasons that can be explained but I am short of time now. This is what was meant that on the one hand honor what was given, but at the same time, if there are lackings there, it is seva to point it out, then this can be a lauching pad for one in their journey while moving forward. Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip there is no way a full initiate would be wearing white - and while he may claim Guru Dev as his Guru, like stated before there is no way a Full initiate and most certainly a Shakaracharya that holds the rules of the order intact is going to appoint a half initiate as a guru. * Therefor I think your Gurus assesment is somewhat restrictive. Notice it is not Swami Mahesh-Saraswati Nor is it Mahesh-Giri , nor Mahesh-Bharati etc. He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. - Vaj and the Guru should come together to further discuss superficial and useless speculations in great detail. I'm sure Vaj will be more than happy to help in spreading any, absolutely any conceivable nonsense about Maharishi. That fellow is very well known indeed on this forum for doing just that :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh unravel once again. Just one minute, Vaj my man, but if *lies* are unraveling, wouldn't that result in them revealing their truth? And what is wrong with truth? Methinks you meant to say, [Shiva's] so-called truths unraveling...C'mon get your slander right, ferchristsake.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip there is no way a full initiate would be wearing white - and while he may claim Guru Dev as his Guru, like stated before there is no way a Full initiate and most certainly a Shakaracharya that holds the rules of the order intact is going to appoint a half initiate as a guru. * Therefor I think your Gurus assesment is somewhat restrictive. Notice it is not Swami Mahesh-Saraswati Nor is it Mahesh-Giri , nor Mahesh-Bharati etc. He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. - Vaj and the Guru should come together to further discuss superficial and useless speculations in great detail. I'm sure Vaj will be more than happy to help in spreading any, absolutely any conceivable nonsense about Maharishi. That fellow is very well known indeed on this forum for doing just that :-) I was thinking just that- how happy he was to climb in bed with Swami G. Swami G., and Swami Gee Whiz. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:44 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh unravel once again. And which lies would those be, Vaj? The ones exposed here (sorry, accidentally responded to the wrong email!): Right, and what are the lies exposed in this post? Please highlight them for us. The fact is, Vaj, the liar is you--again. Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster, and G = Swami G: T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of tradition - ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are Bharati/Giri/Puri and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic practices and knowledge. All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. So do i need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. * This would resolve her argument. G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only here but also within this sect in india. * That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just employed vs being a student. G he was a Brahachari - it is known absolutely that he was not a fully initiated Swami. Undoubtedly he was a student there are many such nowadays - brahmachari's that are in the process of learning About the tradition before being formally inducted into it. This is a common practice. * Anyone can see on the youtube video that he was speaking in front of GD, he is shown on photos of showing the first president of india around in the Ashram - so don't tell me he didn't have the trust of GD. I am not saying Swami G is totally wrong, but I do see that she takes her own path as sort of absolute. G My path IS the same tradition as the one he is supposed to be speaking from. this is what you don't understand. He may have been showing the first president around the Ashram but this proves absolutely nothing. The problem is you have only read about the traditions and haven't actually lived within them. T: My Guru said that in her case, there is one being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one. * Traditionally this is the case. G yes And ? there are no but's - this is the way it has been and continues to remain. * But look at the controversies in many traditions, Hindu and Buddhist - very often the succession is not clear. G look succession was not clear when it came to Guru Dev. That Math had no heir for over 100 Years. - Guru Dev was choosen and approved by the other Shankaracharya's. That is true. But there is NO way - not ANYWHERE - that a Shankaracharya is going to appoint a brahmachari that is not even a full swami as the one to carry on as a Guru. -- he may give him blessings but he most assuredly will not appoint him to buck the whole of the tradition. And what you are putting forth would be exactly that. * There maybe contradiory statements of the Guru, like in the case of Muktananda, G Muktananda was also not held up or appointed. i have this on full reliability with one that was With Nithyananda at his passing. Nithyananda left his body by will - and was quite clear as to why. This is another matter though one that i will not get into at this point in time. * or
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is - --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Yes, what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I'm finding as we inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted reactions around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. (I'm better than so-and-so!) we see that after all we have been indulging in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own dramas onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love and superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here and now find that what had appeared to be sin only IS IS, indescribable, radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self -- as it has always been! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There may be some self righteousness and feeling of I'm better than behind perceptions of false gurus and manipulators of power, and those feelings should be addressed which may alter the subtle feelings around those perceptions and how they're expressed, but I don't think that spiritual growth towards unity eliminates the ability to makes those distinctions between truth and falsehood, in fact it seems to me that that ability to discriminate becomes clearer. IE I dont think discrimination per se must be based on some underlying drama or judgment that needs to be eliminated. Yes, I find that we don't lose discrimination, we actually gain more discrimination, allowing the intellect to regain its innocent transparency: we can acknowledge and move beyond each pain- engendering story entirely by inquiring into its absolute truth, acknowledging how it feels in the body, entertaining the feel of the story's absence, and playing with turn-arounds to the story, recognizing it's always deep-down about *us*. Does rory feel that his seeing swami g as still stuck in remnants of dualism or other people stuck fully in dualism is a perception based on some underlying drama of his? Yes! There are no other people -- that's why I said as WE inquire... And absolutely, there are portions, particles, of me that are still working this stuff out; we are constantly cycling through our stories and returning again and again to the primordial innocence. That's the fun of it! I like to say, it's not the stories that cause the problem; it's *believing that the stories are real*. This place is a phenomenal playground -- *anything we think, we manifest!* What a treat! What an absolute Grace-gift! Be God for a day! Multidimensional, multisensory Creation! It's just that we've lost touch with how to operate the system, have forgotten how it works or even that it works and are unconsciously misusing our manifesting, having lost touch with our innocent divine-ordinariness and thinking ourselves the victim of someone else's play, of someone else's stories. There was a great original Star Trek episode that evoked this Understanding very neatly -- the crew went down to a planet that instantly manifested all their thoughts, and they were plagued with their own monstrous nightmares until they figured out the nature of the planet -- whereupon they left, realizing they could return when they had become more mature and learned how to think more consciously. Well, that's Earth! Discrimination allows us to understand clearly it is all ourSelf playing with itSelf, telling stories about ourSelf, whereupon we cease to believe the stories and the suffering evaporates. The only reason I use the typewriter at all to express my thoughts is, I sometimes find that it appears to wake up *more* of my particles, enlivening *more* of mySelf than if I don't! In other words, it's fun! :-) *L*L*L*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I can offer a little food for thought here. There are no rules that say one that is enlightened must keep it secret. I have been saying things are direct and to the point here in my path. So, for a starter, one can ask Swami G, are you enlightened. The reply is yes. From here, one can go into further inquiry as is needed for one to feel satisfied that they have the answers they need, should they want to further probe how it can be of benefit to have an enlightened Guru guilding them one to one. Yes, I have never been one to keep enlightenment a secret. I am just pointing out that there may be much that remains to be done *after* enlightenment, including realizing the relative and self-reflective nature of all of our stories, of every particle in our awareness. In fact, enlightenment or non-enlightenment are really not the issue; removing the suffering around believing our stories may be practiced through self-inquiry at any time, whether or not we tell ourselves/others we're enlightened :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must say, that I don't believe it. Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster, and G = Swami G: T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of tradition - ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are Bharati/Giri/Puri and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic practices and knowledge. That may all be, but then the fact remains, that the Saraswati order does not accept non-Brahmins (not to even think of american women ;-) All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. And so was Guru Devs Guru, he came from the south. Guru Dev could have only initiated within the Saraswati order, so he didn't have the choice of initiating a nonbrahmin desciple within his own order, and he couldn't initiate anyone into another order than his own. This whole story, why this is so has to do with the opening of he Shankara order to nonbrahmins in the medevial ages, and the influence of islam on Hinduism, when Hindus had to defend their own faith. Originally the Shankara path was only open to Brahmins. But Brahmins were not allowed to fight. This issue was solved by alloing other caste-members to enter the Shankara order, first in a limited way. This is the origin of the Naga-Babas, who are enjoined to the Dasanami order, but ususally the members are of lower castes and are looked down on by the other Dasanami orders. As a result of this development also other orders accepted non-Brahmins, but as a concession to Brahmins, three orders were kept free from this development, membership exclusively reserved for Brahmins. Saraswati is one of them. That they are mostly coming from the south makes sense, as the muslim influence was there less, and the south is generally more conservative. So do i need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. Yes, sure. But then I wonder why you didn't know what I was just describing above. * This would resolve her argument. G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only here but also within this sect in india. Just to remind you what the argument is about - that there exists a formulism within Maharishis order that did not allow him to be a Sadhu. Instead of accepting that this is something that has to do with a very restrictive tradition, she makes - unrightfully I think - a qualifying argument out of it, stating that MMY could not have received the essence of Gd's teaching. ( I am not objecting that he was not initiated into all of the sadhus secret teachings, I knoe they are there and Sadhus are very particular about it) * That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just employed vs being a student. G he was a Brahachari - it is known absolutely that he was
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:47 AM, t3rinity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must say, that I don't believe it. What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition--he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- telling going on from Mr. Varma. I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly the opposite? --he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has he ever actually made the claim? If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But not from MMY himself. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- telling going on from Mr. Varma. Such as? I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais. This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner of yoga?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:34 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly the opposite? It depends on how you read it. Keep in mind this is casual speech which already contains some casual errors. I read He most certainly could have become an full initiate. as He most certainly could have become an full initiate if he had wanted to or if he was a brahmin. Furthermore, since he wears white, it's an indication he was not initiated into sannyasi. That's unlikely (vows of sannyasi) because he was not a brahmin... Perhaps Swami G could clarify so we'd be certain. However to corroborate this, the email also said: It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. Also, the statement He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. seems to support what I'm seeing. Also the title Giri or Saraswati is not in his name. In fact the title he did add, apparently on his own, yogi, is known to be fallacious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unlike Balsekar i am not going to say all is perfect as it is - and if you are a murderer then that is quite fine it is perfect and just be what you are. Personally, I find Balsekar's perspective refreshing. While I haven't studied him in depth, what I've read about him online struck me as having a mahavakya-like quality in pointing out that even the most extreme of polarities are wholeness and perfect as they are, even as the ego-mind continues in its quest to divide and separate, which is also wholeness and perfect as it is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly the opposite? --he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has he ever actually made the claim? If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But not from MMY himself. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- telling going on from Mr. Varma. Such as? I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais. This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner of yoga? As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it: The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold, that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200 western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay, I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means, especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw. any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly the opposite? --he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has he ever actually made the claim? If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But not from MMY himself. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- telling going on from Mr. Varma. Such as? I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais. This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner of yoga? As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it: The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold, that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200 western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay, I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means, especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw. any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. Who said anything about GD dumping MMY. Why is it impossible to have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee??? There's a world of difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. You seem to posses quite a lot of knowledge on this. Thanks for sharing with us. Since I have no knowledge of all these controversies; does this mean that this Guru/Swami can not have been ordained as she claims ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:24 PM, boo_lives wrote: So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? No, he dumped him, saying: Hit the road, Jack. I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. Me too. I mean, GD really could have gone to the trouble to make up his own lyrics. Who said anything about GD dumping MMY. Why is it impossible to have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee??? Question of the year. There's a world of difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:24 PM, boo_lives wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly the opposite? --he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has he ever actually made the claim? If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But not from MMY himself. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- telling going on from Mr. Varma. Such as? I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais. This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner of yoga? As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it: The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold, that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200 western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay, I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means, especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw. any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. Who said anything about GD dumping MMY. Why is it impossible to have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee??? There's a world of difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him. I certainly did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it. GD was said to be harsh of M. but never would have shunned such a devoted student. The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually one of the Shankaracharyas IIRC. I would think common sense could also make this clear. If M. was a yogi, he could have easily written a brilliant book or even better a course with his sharp intellect. But this is clearly not the case. Instead they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed the sets used for rounding. I'm sure many here have the booklets (which now circulate in PDF form).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Just want to echo Nablusoss' appreciation of all the information you posted and ask a related question: the Saraswati order is one of 3 that you said are only for Brahmins; what are the other 2? Also, I've understood that at least some of the Dashanami orders are entirely defunct, such as Sagar and Parvata; is this true (or do you know)? Thanks again for the informed posting. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. You seem to posses quite a lot of knowledge on this. Thanks for sharing with us. Since I have no knowledge of all these controversies; does this mean that this Guru/Swami can not have been ordained as she claims ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) the Yogi suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly accorded a Hatha Yogi? Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. And if memory serves, Cenkner's Ph.D. thesis on the development of the SRM mentions that at Guru Dev's ashrams meditation and pranayama was emphasized/practiced more than asanas. If so, then Maharishi's own lack of expertise might be why he enlisted the help of a more formal practitioner. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:24 PM, boo_lives wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: snip What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her direct experience being in that living tradition Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he *could* have been: He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly could have become an full initiate. This was quoted in the post to which you were replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and decided she had said exactly the opposite? --he would not be able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has he ever actually made the claim? If he didn't have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics. But not from MMY himself. But essentially one is left to conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- telling going on from Mr. Varma. Such as? I should further add that the appellation yogi added to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais. This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner of yoga? As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it: The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold, that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200 western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay, I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means, especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw. any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari? I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. Who said anything about GD dumping
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) the Yogi suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly accorded a Hatha Yogi? Not necessarily a hatha yogi, but a practitioner of yoga-darshana (which includes hatha-yoga). Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did or did not do Hatha Yoga. When I say yogi I don't usually mean it to refer to a hatha-yogi, although asana and even hatha-yoga may be practiced. And if memory serves, Cenkner's Ph.D. thesis on the development of the SRM mentions that at Guru Dev's ashrams meditation and pranayama was emphasized/practiced more than asanas. If so, then Maharishi's own lack of expertise might be why he enlisted the help of a more formal practitioner. An interesting thought.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello, I forwarded this to Swami G, there have been really a lot of eamils today. Anyway, what is a Braman? Swami G has pointed out in the past what a Braman really is, as opposed to how it is practiced today- something like what american gem society did to clasify birthstones in order to sell the stones- but the selcetion of the gems was coming from a deeper science- this is only an analogy, not really necessary that I commented at all as I only was shown the tradition as Swami G is recomending that people witness so that it is removed from the book knowledge to some direct experience I will forward Swami G's response so hold off on making any comment from what I just wrote Tanmay --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must say, that I don't believe it. Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster, and G = Swami G: T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of tradition - ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are Bharati/Giri/Puri and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic practices and knowledge. That may all be, but then the fact remains, that the Saraswati order does not accept non-Brahmins (not to even think of american women ;-) All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. And so was Guru Devs Guru, he came from the south. Guru Dev could have only initiated within the Saraswati order, so he didn't have the choice of initiating a nonbrahmin desciple within his own order, and he couldn't initiate anyone into another order than his own. This whole story, why this is so has to do with the opening of he Shankara order to nonbrahmins in the medevial ages, and the influence of islam on Hinduism, when Hindus had to defend their own faith. Originally the Shankara path was only open to Brahmins. But Brahmins were not allowed to fight. This issue was solved by alloing other caste-members to enter the Shankara order, first in a limited way. This is the origin of the Naga-Babas, who are enjoined to the Dasanami order, but ususally the members are of lower castes and are looked down on by the other Dasanami orders. As a result of this development also other orders accepted non-Brahmins, but as a concession to Brahmins, three orders were kept free from this development, membership exclusively reserved for Brahmins. Saraswati is one of them. That they are mostly coming from the south makes sense, as the muslim influence was there less, and the south is generally more conservative. So do i need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. Yes, sure. But then I wonder why you didn't know what I was just describing above. * This would resolve her argument. G there is no
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Even a worse situation- I only read one paragraph before I responded, then noticed a long response to the post, so I reforwarded the entire commentary and will post any replies from Swami G --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not addressing this. IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must say, that I don't believe it. Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster, and G = Swami G: T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of tradition - ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are Bharati/Giri/Puri and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic practices and knowledge. That may all be, but then the fact remains, that the Saraswati order does not accept non-Brahmins (not to even think of american women ;-) All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. And so was Guru Devs Guru, he came from the south. Guru Dev could have only initiated within the Saraswati order, so he didn't have the choice of initiating a nonbrahmin desciple within his own order, and he couldn't initiate anyone into another order than his own. This whole story, why this is so has to do with the opening of he Shankara order to nonbrahmins in the medevial ages, and the influence of islam on Hinduism, when Hindus had to defend their own faith. Originally the Shankara path was only open to Brahmins. But Brahmins were not allowed to fight. This issue was solved by alloing other caste-members to enter the Shankara order, first in a limited way. This is the origin of the Naga-Babas, who are enjoined to the Dasanami order, but ususally the members are of lower castes and are looked down on by the other Dasanami orders. As a result of this development also other orders accepted non-Brahmins, but as a concession to Brahmins, three orders were kept free from this development, membership exclusively reserved for Brahmins. Saraswati is one of them. That they are mostly coming from the south makes sense, as the muslim influence was there less, and the south is generally more conservative. So do i need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. Yes, sure. But then I wonder why you didn't know what I was just describing above. * This would resolve her argument. G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only here but also within this sect in india. Just to remind you what the argument is about - that there exists a formulism within Maharishis order that did not allow him to be a Sadhu. Instead of accepting that this is something that has to do with a very restrictive tradition, she makes - unrightfully I think - a qualifying argument out of it, stating that MMY could not
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even a worse situation- I only read one paragraph before I responded, then noticed a long response to the post, so I reforwarded the entire commentary and will post any replies from Swami G Her driving mind drove her to create a forum for criticizing TM, yet most of the people who'd be inclined to engage her are here. So, why doesn't she just subscribe to FFL and save you the trouble of being the go-between?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello, I just forwarded 10 posts from this group to Swami G, I did the best I could to be sensible in leaving out a few posts, also from the new thread with Swami G in the title. There are two yahoo groups ( out of around 15) that Swami G monitors and responds to posts. Some of you may consider joining them: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TM_Discussion/?yguid=228252276 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Swami-G/ Swami G is responding on the internet sometimes up to 15 hours per day. Also, there are 13 videos on youtube under the search of guruswamig
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello, I will forward this suggestion but in all fairness, if you see what I just said in the previous post, there are already 15 yahoo groups Swami G is monoriting. It just took me a lot of time in just this one group to go through the posts and weed out some unnecccessay things In addition to that, people are calling and also emailing directly, and some are seeing Swami G in person. Swami G's general comments are that it is preferred not to have any disciples but out of compassion is willing to work with sincere disciples. One comment was there is nothing that a sadaka has for which a Sat Guru is salivating over. My impression is that it is not like oh Swami G is so thrilled to get all these emails- no, it takes a lot of energy to respond to all of this, so it is done where it is seen, coming from flow, that the reponses are usefull for humanity. I think if it is seen that a response to a sadaka or whoever will be a waste of time, then the response won't be made. Tanmay --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Even a worse situation- I only read one paragraph before I responded, then noticed a long response to the post, so I reforwarded the entire commentary and will post any replies from Swami G Her driving mind drove her to create a forum for criticizing TM, yet most of the people who'd be inclined to engage her are here. So, why doesn't she just subscribe to FFL and save you the trouble of being the go-between?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello again, I just remembered that one of Swami G's books should be in 21st century book store, or also at amazon- Kundalini from hell to heaven by Ganga Karmokar I think I have that right Tanmay
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello group, Since being in touch with Rick lately, I followed 2 threads- is that what you call them? I read all the comments about Guru Dev's deathbed instructions, and also comments about Maharishi's latest comments about being caged in when not being in a proper vastu. I am not claiming to be up on all current events for what takes place in the movement, and therefore my assessment can be off, but there was very little inquiry about Maharishsi saying he was caged in. When I read this, I thought what I think almost everyone would think- we know from Tm and otherwise that with this state of enlightenment, nothing cages in that consciousness- and actually, then enlightened tell you that this is what they are, consciousness, and caution the disciples - do not think of the Guru as persona. There was at least one comment here in the group, and the question was posed- what sort of fragile state of enlightenment is this that is dependent on a house for illumination? My angle I am coming at it with is that I am with another Guru, the advancement in consciousness that came about was very quick, then I knew this new existence was always possible, and it is directly related to methodologies used and grace of Guru. And then general comments from my Guru is a Guru can only take you as far as they are. So, in the angle I am coming from, it is not just this comment from Maharishi, it is the overall situation of what unfolded- it is like an added piece to the puzzle when I read these comments. Regarding the deathbed instructions from Guru Dev, firstly all that has been said by my Guru has been straight truth, not sugar coated. Confusion is simply not there because the Guru is right there to clear the air. My findings is that all has been truthful, therefore what is said is reliable and honest, no reason not to believe it. In the case of this situation with Maharishi, and the deathbed instructions, I am simply no longer used to speculating about what happened because in my camp here, I pick up the phone, or send an email and the reliable answer is there in 5 minutes. Maharishi is in form at present- this question seemingly cant even be asked and even if it were, it doesn't seem the air would be all cleared up anyway. So, I can join right in with the speculators and guess that Dr. Varma's comments were not accurate. I heard the same story that many did from Maharishi which puts it at Maharishi being a self appointed Guru, I guess similar as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. My Guru said that in her case, there is one being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one. My Guru started a TM yahoo discussion group, there are already some posts up about this subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or try this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TM_Discussion/?yguid=228252276 My Guru is from the same tradition as TM's Guru Dev. Ron Your guru ends the message of trying to draw Maharishi down into the mud with: I WELCOME YOU ALL WITH GREAT LOVE AND RESPECT. What a joke...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Your guru ends the message of trying to draw Maharishi down into the mud with: I WELCOME YOU ALL WITH GREAT LOVE AND RESPECT. What a joke... I forwarded this comment to Swami G and this is the reply: G when it comes to the antics of Mahesh Yogi, this Guru is not laughing - when so many needless casualties are heard of in TM, this Guru is not laughing - when TM is being touted as a legitimate path and Mahesh is having Raja's and spending millions on absolute nonsence, this Guru isn't laughing. When i see Bija mantras being sold as complete mantras, this Guru isn't laughing. When i see flying courses sold and people hopping around the floor like toads and hear with my own ears that this is the way to Save humanity. This Guru is not laughing. When i hear someone say that if you are wealthy you can just take over your country and teach yogic flying and this will cure all the ills. This Guru is not laughing. When i see him playing the seekers for fools while relieving them of as much money as possible and leaving them all in the lurch Trust me, This Guru isn't laughing. i assure you this is no joke. i Do welcome all with Great Love and Respect. - any are welcome to come and sit with me for the day - ANY that want liberation i will work with. i don't Sell courses - i don't play games of making Raja's and parades while telling people they should build peace palaces. i don't sell honey that plays a jingle when you open the package at an exorbitant rate. i don't have to have a specially built place in order to secure Peace of mind and Harmony within. You my friend may get irrate with what is said here - that is fine - you have a right to your opinion. If you enjoy Mahesh Yogi and you don't know the difference between a legitimate path and what he is teaching and putting out there then you are not to blame - i can understand loyalty when you feel you have gotten something there - in my own path i was with Guru's that i did acquire some valuable tools from and in fact moved foward due to their aide - but i also Know from where i am now that what they gave was not the whole of the truth. There are also some other things which i would never participate in as the end does not justify the means. This does not mean that i do not honor them for what was given - but also it doesn't mean that i will sit by like an ostrich with my head in the sand being in denial about the whole of it. How one sees from the end of the path in Realization is vastly different than how one percieves things while still seeking and in confusion. While still needing a strong figurehead to pull one through. Unfortunately Mahesh Yogi got his grand name by promotion - promotion - and more promotion - when the Beatles went to him then it became the *in* thing to do. In the early years it was exotic and Maharishi has this charismatic way - but charisma is not tantamount to being a good Guru. ---as far as being realized, some of what he says raises Huge red flags - and the way he is giving out things based upon playing on ones emotional tags and Selling the path simply again points to a buisness man rather than one that is Really concerned with aiding humanity at large. No one has to draw someone into the mud that has been playing in the mud for years. - he is playing a game - laughing at nieve seekers for years. You simply don't go from being a secretary not even a full initiate to a Full Guru in two years. Absolute Nonsence - If Mahesh Yogi came i would also welcome him with Great Love and Respect for in the core of Being all are ONE. - but when it comes to the transient play of heirachy and the world of Shakti - this Guru simply would rather speak to the truth of it versus making sandcastles and mudpies in the realm of Maheshville. You are more than welcome to come with Mahesh Yogi in tow and i would be most happy to sit and dine with you both - equally. i still welcome you with great love and respect. i have enough love and respect for you and for the spiritual path to speak the truth of it rather than making a politically correct answer. Maha Shanti OM 0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] In the case of this situation with Maharishi, and the deathbed instructions, I am simply no longer used to speculating about what happened because in my camp here, I pick up the phone, or send an email and the reliable answer is there in 5 minutes. Maharishi is in form at present- this question seemingly cant even be asked and even if it were, it doesn't seem the air would be all cleared up anyway. So, I can join right in with the speculators and guess that Dr. Varma's comments were not accurate. I heard the same story that many did from Maharishi which puts it at Maharishi being a self appointed Guru, I guess similar as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. My Guru said that in her case, there is one being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one. My Guru started a TM yahoo discussion group, there are already some posts up about this subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or try this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TM_Discussion/?yguid=228252276 My Guru is from the same tradition as TM's Guru Dev. Went to that site and checked it out. I also have read what you posted from your Guru about Maharishi. While I'm not a great fan of Maharishi it is my understanding that TM was not taught by Guru Dev but that it was given to Maharishi by him. I can't deny my own experience. I am a TM teacher who has directly experienced Guru Dev during TM initiations and otherwise. I know of at least 7 other people, three of them TM initiators who have said they also have experienced Guru Dev directly. By experiencing Guru Dev directly, I mean in visual form, auditory communication [telepathic] form, or even in changes in Guru Dev's facial expression in a revered photo of Guru Dev. It has also been taught to TM teachers [as it was at my TTC] that A TMer's spiritual teacher and link to the Absolute is indeed Guru Dev and not Maharishi or the TM initiator. Whether or not Dr. Varma's account is accurate, my own repeated undeniable experience clearly indicates that Guru Dev is directly involved in not only the TM initiation as the direct object of attention in the Puja and the sponsorship for the initiate to transcend, but that he is also involved as one's spiritual Guru as a TMer - whether one is actively aware of it or not. I'm curious to see what might happen with sincere TMers who are not aware of this if they were to seek out Guru Dev in that context. If you wish to think that Guru Dev upon his physical death merely disappeared into the Absolute, you may wish to see the following statement from Brahmachari Satyanand, a long time disciple of Guru Dev and later an assistant to Maharishi, who directly experienced Guru Dev after his death: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Satyanand.htm According to one of his biographers, Guru Dev also expressed to disciples that he would respond to them via his picture. Specifically he referred to his picture in the Puja room in a disciple's home. I discovered the truth of that long before I ever heard about it from anywhere else. My meditater wife has also seen Guru Dev's expression change in a photo we have of him, AND spoken [telepathically] with him - and she's only been meditating for about 6 months. We've been married for over six years and she's been too skeptical about TM to do it until about 6 months ago when she finally agreed to try it. She loves it. Ron
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
I wonder if this Guru would enjoy Byron Katie... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your guru ends the message of trying to draw Maharishi down into the mud with: I WELCOME YOU ALL WITH GREAT LOVE AND RESPECT. What a joke... I forwarded this comment to Swami G and this is the reply: G when it comes to the antics of Mahesh Yogi, this Guru is not laughing - when so many needless casualties are heard of in TM, this Guru is not laughing - when TM is being touted as a legitimate path and Mahesh is having Raja's and spending millions on absolute nonsence, this Guru isn't laughing. When i see Bija mantras being sold as complete mantras, this Guru isn't laughing. When i see flying courses sold and people hopping around the floor like toads and hear with my own ears that this is the way to Save humanity. This Guru is not laughing. When i hear someone say that if you are wealthy you can just take over your country and teach yogic flying and this will cure all the ills. This Guru is not laughing. When i see him playing the seekers for fools while relieving them of as much money as possible and leaving them all in the lurch Trust me, This Guru isn't laughing. i assure you this is no joke. i Do welcome all with Great Love and Respect. - any are welcome to come and sit with me for the day - ANY that want liberation i will work with. i don't Sell courses - i don't play games of making Raja's and parades while telling people they should build peace palaces. i don't sell honey that plays a jingle when you open the package at an exorbitant rate. i don't have to have a specially built place in order to secure Peace of mind and Harmony within. You my friend may get irrate with what is said here - that is fine - you have a right to your opinion. If you enjoy Mahesh Yogi and you don't know the difference between a legitimate path and what he is teaching and putting out there then you are not to blame - i can understand loyalty when you feel you have gotten something there - in my own path i was with Guru's that i did acquire some valuable tools from and in fact moved foward due to their aide - but i also Know from where i am now that what they gave was not the whole of the truth. There are also some other things which i would never participate in as the end does not justify the means. This does not mean that i do not honor them for what was given - but also it doesn't mean that i will sit by like an ostrich with my head in the sand being in denial about the whole of it. How one sees from the end of the path in Realization is vastly different than how one percieves things while still seeking and in confusion. While still needing a strong figurehead to pull one through. Unfortunately Mahesh Yogi got his grand name by promotion - promotion - and more promotion - when the Beatles went to him then it became the *in* thing to do. In the early years it was exotic and Maharishi has this charismatic way - but charisma is not tantamount to being a good Guru. ---as far as being realized, some of what he says raises Huge red flags - and the way he is giving out things based upon playing on ones emotional tags and Selling the path simply again points to a buisness man rather than one that is Really concerned with aiding humanity at large. No one has to draw someone into the mud that has been playing in the mud for years. - he is playing a game - laughing at nieve seekers for years. You simply don't go from being a secretary not even a full initiate to a Full Guru in two years. Absolute Nonsence - If Mahesh Yogi came i would also welcome him with Great Love and Respect for in the core of Being all are ONE. - but when it comes to the transient play of heirachy and the world of Shakti - this Guru simply would rather speak to the truth of it versus making sandcastles and mudpies in the realm of Maheshville. You are more than welcome to come with Mahesh Yogi in tow and i would be most happy to sit and dine with you both - equally. i still welcome you with great love and respect. i have enough love and respect for you and for the spiritual path to speak the truth of it rather than making a politically correct answer. Maha Shanti OM 0
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Ron, please forward this to Swami G. I my judgment of MMY was solely based on his behavior I too would doubt the legitimacy of him and his teachings. I agree with you, and there are many others also in the TMO that see his behavior as strange, to say the least. But while I have this surface experience of MMY that evokes a certain reaction there is a whole other domain of of transcendent experiences that place him in an entirely different light. I can deny neither of these extremes of experiences. Thus, for this mind, MMY is a paradox. On one hand he is a cranky old fool and on the other hand he is infinite Self. I can deny neither because both experiences are quite real. However the transcendent experiences evoked by the practice of TM and the TM siddhi program along with the experiences evoked in MMY's presence are very powerful and tend to make his surface behavior meaningless to a large degree. --- Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your guru ends the message of trying to draw Maharishi down into the mud with: I WELCOME YOU ALL WITH GREAT LOVE AND RESPECT. What a joke... I forwarded this comment to Swami G and this is the reply: G when it comes to the antics of Mahesh Yogi, this Guru is not laughing - when so many needless casualties are heard of in TM, this Guru is not laughing - when TM is being touted as a legitimate path and Mahesh is having Raja's and spending millions on absolute nonsence, this Guru isn't laughing. When i see Bija mantras being sold as complete mantras, this Guru isn't laughing. When i see flying courses sold and people hopping around the floor like toads and hear with my own ears that this is the way to Save humanity. This Guru is not laughing. When i hear someone say that if you are wealthy you can just take over your country and teach yogic flying and this will cure all the ills. This Guru is not laughing. When i see him playing the seekers for fools while relieving them of as much money as possible and leaving them all in the lurch Trust me, This Guru isn't laughing. i assure you this is no joke. i Do welcome all with Great Love and Respect. - any are welcome to come and sit with me for the day - ANY that want liberation i will work with. i don't Sell courses - i don't play games of making Raja's and parades while telling people they should build peace palaces. i don't sell honey that plays a jingle when you open the package at an exorbitant rate. i don't have to have a specially built place in order to secure Peace of mind and Harmony within. You my friend may get irrate with what is said here - that is fine - you have a right to your opinion. If you enjoy Mahesh Yogi and you don't know the difference between a legitimate path and what he is teaching and putting out there then you are not to blame - i can understand loyalty when you feel you have gotten something there - in my own path i was with Guru's that i did acquire some valuable tools from and in fact moved foward due to their aide - but i also Know from where i am now that what they gave was not the whole of the truth. There are also some other things which i would never participate in as the end does not justify the means. This does not mean that i do not honor them for what was given - but also it doesn't mean that i will sit by like an ostrich with my head in the sand being in denial about the whole of it. How one sees from the end of the path in Realization is vastly different than how one percieves things while still seeking and in confusion. While still needing a strong figurehead to pull one through. Unfortunately Mahesh Yogi got his grand name by promotion - promotion - and more promotion - when the Beatles went to him then it became the *in* thing to do. In the early years it was exotic and Maharishi has this charismatic way - but charisma is not tantamount to being a good Guru. ---as far as being realized, some of what he says raises Huge red flags - and the way he is giving out things based upon playing on ones emotional tags and Selling the path simply again points to a buisness man rather than one that is Really concerned with aiding humanity at large. No one has to draw someone into the mud that has been playing in the mud for years. - he is playing a game - laughing at nieve seekers for years. You simply don't go from being a secretary not even a full initiate to a Full Guru in two years. Absolute Nonsence - If Mahesh Yogi came i would also welcome him with Great Love and Respect for in the core of Being all are ONE. - but when it comes to the transient play of heirachy and the world of Shakti - this Guru simply would rather speak to the truth of it versus making sandcastles and mudpies in the realm of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I'm not a great fan of Maharishi it is my understanding that TM was not taught by Guru Dev but that it was given to Maharishi by him. Even MMY does not actually say this literally. MMY speaks of guru dev as the inspiration for tm much as he speaks of guru dev as the inspiration behind most every project the tmo has come up with. guru dev himself did not teach tm meditation according to other disciples in his ashram. And MMY changed the technique of tm many times over the yrs, starting off with only the mantra Ram and then changing to bija mantras and then changing the criteria for selecting mantras over the yrs, so what exactly was it he was taught by guru dev, and why did he not go out and teach it immediately? I can't deny my own experience. I am a TM teacher who has directly experienced Guru Dev during TM initiations and otherwise. I know of at least 7 other people, three of them TM initiators who have said they also have experienced Guru Dev directly. By experiencing Guru Dev directly, I mean in visual form, auditory communication [telepathic] form, or even in changes in Guru Dev's facial expression in a revered photo of Guru Dev. It has also been taught to TM teachers [as it was at my TTC] that A TMer's spiritual teacher and link to the Absolute is indeed Guru Dev and not Maharishi or the TM initiator. Whether or not Dr. Varma's account is accurate, my own repeated undeniable experience clearly indicates that Guru Dev is directly involved in not only the TM initiation as the direct object of attention in the Puja and the sponsorship for the initiate to transcend, but that he is also involved as one's spiritual Guru as a TMer - whether one is actively aware of it or not. I'm curious to see what might happen with sincere TMers who are not aware of this if they were to seek out Guru Dev in that context. If you wish to think that Guru Dev upon his physical death merely disappeared into the Absolute, you may wish to see the following statement from Brahmachari Satyanand, a long time disciple of Guru Dev and later an assistant to Maharishi, who directly experienced Guru Dev after his death: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Satyanand.htm According to one of his biographers, Guru Dev also expressed to disciples that he would respond to them via his picture. Specifically he referred to his picture in the Puja room in a disciple's home. I discovered the truth of that long before I ever heard about it from anywhere else. My meditater wife has also seen Guru Dev's expression change in a photo we have of him, AND spoken [telepathically] with him - and she's only been meditating for about 6 months. We've been married for over six years and she's been too skeptical about TM to do it until about 6 months ago when she finally agreed to try it. She loves it. Though it may have significant personal meaning for a devotee to feel the presence of a guru in a photo or in contact with them on the subtle level, I'm not sure it proves anything objectively. There are tens of millions of people in the US, including our president, who feel Jesus talks to them personally. Does that mean Jesus is living up in a christian heaven overseeing the Iraq War among other things?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Went to that site and checked it out. I also have read what you posted from your Guru about Maharishi. While I'm not a great fan of Maharishi it is my understanding that TM was not taught by Guru Dev but that it was given to Maharishi by him. I can't deny my own experience. I am a TM teacher who has directly experienced Guru Dev during TM initiations and otherwise. I know of at least 7 other people, three of them TM initiators who have said they also have experienced Guru Dev directly. By experiencing Guru Dev directly, I mean in visual form, auditory communication [telepathic] form, or even in changes in Guru Dev's facial expression in a revered photo of Guru Dev. It has also been taught to TM teachers [as it was at my TTC] that A TMer's spiritual teacher and link to the Absolute is indeed Guru Dev and not Maharishi or the TM initiator. Whether or not Dr. Varma's account is accurate, my own repeated undeniable experience clearly indicates that Guru Dev is directly involved in not only the TM initiation as the direct object of attention in the Puja and the sponsorship for the initiate to transcend, but that he is also involved as one's spiritual Guru as a TMer - whether one is actively aware of it or not. I'm curious to see what might happen with sincere TMers who are not aware of this if they were to seek out Guru Dev in that context. If you wish to think that Guru Dev upon his physical death merely disappeared into the Absolute, you may wish to see the following statement from Brahmachari Satyanand, a long time disciple of Guru Dev and later an assistant to Maharishi, who directly experienced Guru Dev after his death: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/Satyanand.htm According to one of his biographers, Guru Dev also expressed to disciples that he would respond to them via his picture. Specifically he referred to his picture in the Puja room in a disciple's home. I discovered the truth of that long before I ever heard about it from anywhere else. My meditater wife has also seen Guru Dev's expression change in a photo we have of him, AND spoken [telepathically] with him - and she's only been meditating for about 6 months. We've been married for over six years and she's been too skeptical about TM to do it until about 6 months ago when she finally agreed to try it. She loves it. Ron Wonderful. Thanks for sharing this, much of which is also my experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: [snip] My meditater wife has also seen Guru Dev's expression change in a photo we have of him, AND spoken [telepathically] with him - and she's only been meditating for about 6 months. We've been married for over six years and she's been too skeptical about TM to do it until about 6 months ago when she finally agreed to try it. She loves it. Though it may have significant personal meaning for a devotee to feel the presence of a guru in a photo or in contact with them on the subtle level, I'm not sure it proves anything objectively. There are tens of millions of people in the US, including our president, who feel Jesus talks to them personally. Does that mean Jesus is living up in a christian heaven overseeing the Iraq War among other things? Attempting to equate my direct experiences and the experiences of others with Guru Dev to your description above, is more than lacking - particularly after the evidences I've given in the post, from TTC instruction, Brahmachari Sattyanand, other initiators and TMers and from Guru Dev himself according to his biography. I'm very familiar with what extremist Christians actually experience and don't experience, having lived among them for some time. There is NO comparison - just as there is no comparison between experiencing contemporary Christianity and experiencing the legitimate practice of TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
(snip) I'd class it at the same level of veracity as the guys on my TTC who said, when we complained about the dyna- miting next door to our hotels, Maharishi has *definitely* been told about the dynamite, and he told me to tell you that you shouldn't mind it. He's working on resolving the problem, but remember that noise is no barrier to med- itation. Then when Maharishi visited a few weeks later, and someone stood up to ask whether there had been any progress on the dynamite issue. Maharishi's response? What dynamite? Perhaps when Maharishi asked, What dynamite? he was making a joke. In other words, for Maharishi, the dynamite wouldn't be such a big deal, as you have made it, and all these years later- As if you have taken this one incident, and blamed everything that has happened since then on this one incident. Perhaps this dynamite was all in your mind? Perhaps it was traumatic to you? PTSD- (explosions can cause that)... All I know, is that from my TM practice, I notice I don't respond to loud noises in the same jumpy way as those around me; My nervous system is definitely changed due to my TM practice, no question. r.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) I'd class it at the same level of veracity as the guys on my TTC who said, when we complained about the dyna- miting next door to our hotels, Maharishi has *definitely* been told about the dynamite, and he told me to tell you that you shouldn't mind it. He's working on resolving the problem, but remember that noise is no barrier to med- itation. Then when Maharishi visited a few weeks later, and someone stood up to ask whether there had been any progress on the dynamite issue. Maharishi's response? What dynamite? Perhaps when Maharishi asked, What dynamite? he was making a joke. In other words, for Maharishi, the dynamite wouldn't be such a big deal, as you have made it, and all these years later- As if you have taken this one incident, and blamed everything that has happened since then on this one incident. Other teachers here who were in Cala Millor would probably be able to verify this incident. The course leaders were later reamed by MMY for not telling him about the dynamite. If he was just jokin' around by making the comment, perhaps he was joking around during the public reaming, too. :-) Perhaps this dynamite was all in your mind? Perhaps it was traumatic to you? PTSD- (explosions can cause that)... The dynamite never bothered me at all, and many others. Really. It bothered a few people, and I guess they're the ones who had talked to the course leaders about it and been given a Go away, every- thing is being taken care of story. But I'll tell you an unstressing idea I had there that cracked me up. They had this little air horn that they used to blow three times before each explosion. I assume it was to warn workers on the construction site that blasting was about to take place. The horn would go HONK (pause) HONK (pause) HONK (pause), and then would come the dynamite. I always thought it would be a crackup if someone on the blasting crew got word of all these meditators next door who'd been complaining about him doing his job, and had himself a chuckle. One day, he'd pick up the air horn and go HONK (pause) HONK (pause) HONK (pause) No dynamite. Now I know that noise is no barrier to meditation and all that, and I agree that it isn't. But that one would probably snap a few eyes open on any course. And on this one, as I remember, we were doing 8-10 hours of rounding a day at that point, and some people were really fried. All I know, is that from my TM practice, I notice I don't respond to loud noises in the same jumpy way as those around me; My nervous system is definitely changed due to my TM practice, no question. Yup. I have to agree. I don't tend to react to noises, either, and neither does my best friend here, who medi- tated for years, but not TM-style. We were having dinner out with a neighbor here, and a chair fell over across the restaurant, making a loud BANG! as it hit the floor. My friend and I didn't even pause in our conversation, and we looked over at our neighbor, and he was almost having a heart attack. But this fellow meditates, too, and has daily for over a decade. So go figure, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
(snip) The dynamite never bothered me at all, and many others. Really. It bothered a few people, and I guess they're the ones who had talked to the course leaders about it and been given a Go away, every- thing is being taken care of story. But, don't you see the metaphor of this story... This whole thing seems like it really did bother you! You've used this to illustrate a whole attitude toward the TM thingy... In that you seem to want to blow the whole thing up? So, obviously this is something to let go of, as it seems to still be unresolved, for you...?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? This would resolve her argument. That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just employed vs being a student. Anyone can see on the youtube video that he was speaking in front of GD, he is shown on photos of showing the first president of india around in the Ashram - so don't tell me he didn't have the trust of GD. I am not saying Swami G is totally wrong, but I do see that she takes her own path as sort of absolute. My Guru said that in her case, there is one being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one. Traditionally this is the case. But look at the controversies in many traditions, Hindu and Buddhist - very often the succession is not clear. There maybe contradiory statements of the Guru, like in the case of Muktananda, or simply missing public instructions, or the tradition has a certain restrictive format, like in the case of GD. Therefor I think your Gurus assesment is somewhat restrictive. I also agree lagely with the critics of MMY's public antics, with the critics of many that the focus of the movement shifted to all these side issues, etc My Guru started a TM yahoo discussion group, there are already some posts up about this subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or try this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TM_Discussion/?yguid=228252276 My Guru is from the same tradition as TM's Guru Dev. Obviously not, as she is a westerner, and could not have been made a swami in the saraswati order of he Dasanami Sampradaya. Lucky for, otherwise she would also be a 'self-appointed Guru' Ron
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) The dynamite never bothered me at all, and many others. Really. It bothered a few people, and I guess they're the ones who had talked to the course leaders about it and been given a Go away, every- thing is being taken care of story. But, don't you see the metaphor of this story... This whole thing seems like it really did bother you! You've used this to illustrate a whole attitude toward the TM thingy... In that you seem to want to blow the whole thing up? So, obviously this is something to let go of, as it seems to still be unresolved, for you...? It was used as an example of a mindset that interests me, that's all. There was no criticism of either Maharishi or the TM movement involved, just a fascin- ation with the phenomenon itself -- people in a spiritual tradition making shit up, attributing it to their teacher, and feeling no compunctions about doing so. I've seen it happen hundreds of times. This is *not* unique to the TM movement. It happens in pretty much *every* spiritual tradition. *That* it happens in pretty much every spiritual tradition is what interests me about it. It's an interesting slice of human nature, one that makes religious scholarship very difficult. How can you do an accurate biography of a spiritual teacher if his or her followers thought that they were free to make up things and claim that the teacher had said them? Look it up; it's a well-recognized issue in the world of religious studies. Catholic scholars are plagued with this all the time. That's why it's so difficult to be made a saint; so *many* people just make shit up about the people they consider saints that the Vatican has to assure itself that the miracle stories are true. I think you're trying to imagine an insult where none was intended. Curtis pointed out an interesting aspect of these conflicting stories -- that either Dr. Varma's account is knowingly false or Maharishi's account is knowingly false. I presented an example of similar fictions that are told every day in the TM movement, and attributed to Maharishi as if he spoke them. I personally believe that Dr. Varma's story is just another example of this same phenomenon, that's all. If you don't, no problemo. You get to have your own opinions, as do I. But I should point out that by believing Dr. Varma's story is true, you are choosing to believe that Maharishi's story was knowingly false.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Hello, I am forwarding a reply from Swami G to some of the comments: G i don't know enough about Byron Katie to comment - so will stay silent on this. As far as the other comments are concerned - if they have gotten something from TM GREAT, if they remain in balance and not in confusion then Great - as far as telepathic and pictures etc. there have been sadhaka's that have seen this ones face before meeting and also this phenomena takes place as a matter of course. It is simply the way the universe works and will manifest to seekers that are honest in their search. One sadhaka wanted to come to Canada to recieve initiation and he was turned away at the border but because of his intense desire and heart commitment to the path he saw this form appear to him and he recieved a very tantric type of initiation. Things like this can and do take place. What appears is a form that is acceptable to the seeker. Does a Guru consciously make this manifest ? the answer to this is no - it simply takes place. Is it because a seeker has seen some picture and just imagines it ? sometimes that could be the case in other times there have been those who have never seen a picture and were quite surprised when they recognise that there has been a spontaneous appearance. Ones personality is not a qualifier of ones state in Reality. Yukteswar was one type - Ramana another , Nityananada another, Nisargadatta another. All had very different qualities of external persona but the Reality of Non-Duality was ONE. Maha Shanti OM 0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if this Guru would enjoy Byron Katie... :-) I doubt it. I've come across Swami G several times in the past few years, and it's always been in a context of conflict. She has a very dualistic and fundamentalist mindset about spiritual rights and wrongs and how things SHOULD be. Anyone who's that fond of criticizing what is is probably not going to enjoy loving what is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster, and G = Swami G: T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru was appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost knowledge to a secretary. * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of tradition - ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are Bharati/Giri/Puri and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic practices and knowledge. All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. So do i need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. * This would resolve her argument. G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only here but also within this sect in india. * That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just employed vs being a student. G he was a Brahachari - it is known absolutely that he was not a fully initiated Swami. Undoubtedly he was a student there are many such nowadays - brahmachari's that are in the process of learning About the tradition before being formally inducted into it. This is a common practice. * Anyone can see on the youtube video that he was speaking in front of GD, he is shown on photos of showing the first president of india around in the Ashram - so don't tell me he didn't have the trust of GD. I am not saying Swami G is totally wrong, but I do see that she takes her own path as sort of absolute. G My path IS the same tradition as the one he is supposed to be speaking from. this is what you don't understand. He may have been showing the first president around the Ashram but this proves absolutely nothing. The problem is you have only read about the traditions and haven't actually lived within them. T: My Guru said that in her case, there is one being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one. * Traditionally this is the case. G yes And ? there are no but's - this is the way it has been and continues to remain. * But look at the controversies in many traditions, Hindu and Buddhist - very often the succession is not clear. G look succession was not clear when it came to Guru Dev. That Math had no heir for over 100 Years. - Guru Dev was choosen and approved by the other Shankaracharya's. That is true. But there is NO way - not ANYWHERE - that a Shankaracharya is going to appoint a brahmachari that is not even a full swami as the one to carry on as a Guru. -- he may give him blessings but he most assuredly will not appoint him to buck the whole of the tradition. And what you are putting forth would be exactly that. * There maybe contradiory statements of the Guru, like in the case of Muktananda, G Muktananda was also not held up or appointed. i have this on full reliability with one that was With Nithyananda at his passing. Nithyananda left his body by will - and was quite clear as to why. This is another matter though one that i will not get into at this point in time. * or simply missing public instructions, or the tradition has a certain restrictive format, like in the case of GD. G i know what the restrictions are within this tradition. i also know what mantras are given - i know the in's and outs of this tradition as far as what the Dasnami traditions do and don't do. --- did you know that we have a secret language that one initiate Sadhu speaks to another ? This way we can distinguish who is a Sadhu versus who has adopted the clothing. There are other secret practices which are clearly known to true intiated
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
I wonder if this Guru would enjoy Byron Katie... :-) * I doubt it. I've come across Swami G several times in the past few years, and it's always been in a context of conflict. She has a very dualistic and fundamentalist mindset about spiritual rights and wrongs G dualistic and fundamentalist ? i preach no dogmas - nothing dualistic, maybe he doesn't like what i have to say but at least be factual and the above is about the farthest from what is here. * and how things SHOULD be. Anyone who's that fond of criticizing what is is probably not going to enjoy loving what is. G there are Many Guru's that i am quite fond of - Many teachings and paths that are Fantastic. As far as loving what is - There is nothing better than being freed of the driving mind. Nothing better than being free of the suffering identifications. In any moment Bliss may be entered and enjoyed, simply from the movement of leaves on a tree - or the sound of a passing car which brings vibrational waves throughout the whole being. Yes this is loving what IS. Enjoying that Still point which all life revolves around is loving what IS. Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is - do you love the war ? Do you love when guru's or preachers speak from a platform that only continues stirring up fear or preying upon fears and insecurities ? There is a vast difference in Loving the person versus loving what is termed sin ie: that which separates and keeps one separated from that One Divine IS which is freedom. When things are encountered which keep separation in place - and continue keeping people bound then yes - this one will speak out. i have no anger, nothing against any individual though. i cannot remain in that type of mindset. i may speak against what one is doing but this has nothing to do with my loving them any less as having that One Divine Essence as Self. As far as advaitic crowd have always held that Gangaji has merit and gives a technique that is quite fine. i am simply not going to comment on a teacher and teaching that i am not familiar with - Neither does living within the conscious reality of Non-duality mean having a head in the sand when it comes to issues within the realm of duality. Unlike Balsekar i am not going to say all is perfect as it is - and if you are a murderer then that is quite fine it is perfect and just be what you are. Neither will i say that some of these gurus that are turning the path into a spiritual buisness are upholding the dharma and having compassion for the world state. Now if you want to call this having a dogma and being in a dualistic fundamentalist mindset then be my guest. No matter as the truth of what is said here will be born out eventually. May you find THAT which is the Life of ALL Life and the Death of ALL Death. maha shanti om 0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is - Yes, what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I'm finding as we inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted reactions around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. (I'm better than so-and-so!) we see that after all we have been indulging in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own dramas onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love and superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here and now find that what had appeared to be sin only IS IS, indescribable, radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self -- as it has always been! Again, we've often found Byron Katie (Loving what IS) to be very useful in helping the divisive mind to catch up with Us :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, we've often found Byron Katie (Loving what IS) to be very useful in helping the divisive mind to catch up with Us :-) http://www.thework.com/index.asp
