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.
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. > > > >
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.
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.
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" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > 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 us
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 11:34 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
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.
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 y
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
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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
In a message dated 6/4/2007 11:30:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Charlie Lutes said once at a lecture I attended that Maharishi was told by Guru Dev on his death bed that the timing for this knowledge to be shared with the world is now. That Maharishi should not worry about the money-that he would be taken care of. I'm sure this was not the exact words. Anyway, Maharishi sure did take care of his physical insecurities. I believe he owns over 3 billion dollars worth of real estate. AND THEY STILL CAN'T FIX THE LEAK IN THE GOLDEN DOME. Jai Guru Dev. Lsoma. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Due to continuous engagements in > preaching and the management of the Jyotishpeeth one thing sill > remains to be completed and that is to give a technique to family > people, in general so that by sitting and meditating for a few minutes > in the morning and in the evening every day, they might enjoy peace > and happiness in their lives you have to do this remaining work, I have > given you everything. A son has to complete his father's remaining > work after him, so also a disciple completes his guru's remaining work > after him." > > Doesn't this seem to contradict MMY's own account of what happened > after Guru Dev died and how the movement started? By his own account > he sat in Uttar Kashi without any thoughts for two years until he had > the thought to go South to Rameshwarum (Sp?) Even there he was > innocently goaded into doing lectures. Given MMYs delight in telling > the story of his meeting Guru Dev, I find the omission of the story of > Guru Dev's instructions to be unlikely. I think Dr. Varma was just > being creative here. I think if Guru Dev had given MMY this direct > instruction we would have heard about it from him. Your personal opinions and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:37 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . . According to Marshy, the thought of going to 'Rameshwarum' was suggested by one of the other sadhus at Uttar Kashi - it was not Marshy's idea. The way he told the story (many times) was that he kept having the thought to go to Rameswaram, which puzzled him, because he had no intention to leave Uttar Kashi, since the yogis there regarded everything beyond the town limits as a "sea of mud." After mentioning this thought to a friend several times over a 6 month period, the friend suggested that he "take care of it," meaning go there and get it out of his system. As we know, he never returned.
