I guess what I want to say is that from my point of view in enlightenment
the question of what happens to the body(subtle/gross) becomes irrelevant b/c
the SELF no longer experiences itself as being bounded i.e having a
body.OTOH,after enlightenment, the SELF continues to have an experience
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius
anartaxius@ wrote:
If the drop becomes the ocean, the drop is no more as a drop, it is
completely recycled and uniformly distributed in the ocean, if we take
the analogy a bit further. The specific individuality of the drop is
gone. Try
IMHO, their never is adropseparate from the ocean(SELF).
Thedrop never has an actual existence.It is only the result of
the eternal SELF's creation of apparent boundaries/forms i.e.individual
beings.The SELF who is writing all the posts on this forum is the same SELF
that exists after the
Right, that's what the string addresses: the apparent boundaries/forms,
individual beings. It's obvious only the Self exists on the level of the Self;
but the Self is only able to write with apparent organs of actions. The string
addressed the organs of action, not the eternality of the Self.
We are part and parcel of God, but can never be God, according to Srila
Prabhupada. I believe MMY wanted to say the same thing to you about this
subject.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote:
I asked Maharishi at TTC [Estes Park, CO] if when we reach UC are
thx, I'm forwarding the previous post on M and Sat. to Jerry; along with an
invitation to comment on the official TMO nonexistence dogma.(probably won't
get a reply...he's not one to like people disagreeing with him).
...
As to Prabhupada; bringing him into the discussion wouldn't be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
We are part and parcel of God, but can never be God, according to Srila
Prabhupada. I believe MMY wanted to say the same thing to you about this
subject.
No. The point being made here is that when one reaches Cosmic, God, or
I disagree. Accounts of various people on this forum tend to outweigh the
subtle existence option as to the official TMO dogma. (the witnesses have
heard the statements directly from the Man himself and his mouthpieces.). The
official dogma appears to be complete nonexistence.
...
We must
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:
I disagree.
Then you disagree with Maharishi AND you presume that Satyanand imagined or
fabricated his story.
If, as Maharishi stated, reaching the status of Krishna requires another series
of incarnations into bodies finer
let's go back to square one.
MMY/Jarvis, and the TMO party line is non-existence; notwithstanding a few
quotes here and there that one might come up with.
...
The Guru Dev, Satyanand model does encompass the possibility of subtle
existences after physical death among the Enlightened. For
What we need here on this forum is a post from someone who has died and not
lived to tell about it.
If the drop becomes the ocean, the drop is no more as a drop, it is completely
recycled and uniformly distributed in the ocean, if we take the analogy a bit
further. The specific individuality
Right, the drop is no longer a drop. Depends on what people want (whatever,
fine with me). The Holy Grail of Christians is to live eternally in a dualistic
relationship with Jesus; but this doesn't necessarily contradict nondualistic
Realization also (just that the Oneness applies to the Self,
'And, if indeed Guru Dev was enlightened, how could he speak to Satyanand
after his death if he had gone out of existence?
(snip)
You don't go 'out of existence' when you die, instead you continue to exist, on
a soul level, without the need to incarnate into the physical again...
That's the
Nope: first, on an ultimate Absolute level, there is no Soul. I'm a Buddhist
philosophically. What makes the me is a bunch of non-local components without
a centered I. Conventional individuality is a conglomeration of components,
tendencies, and unfulfilled desires that can be located
You might mentally note that this concept of extinction
was pronounced here in the West by an 19th Century
English poet rather than by Shankara.
Never shall yearnings torture him
Nor sins stain him nor ache of earthly joys
And woes invade his safe eternal peace
Nor deaths and lives recur.
Prabhupad was a Gaudiya Vaishnava and only spoke their theology.
This was decidedly not what Maharishi was saying.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:
We are part and parcel of God, but can never be God, according to
Srila Prabhupada. I believe MMY wanted to say the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
We are part and parcel of God, but can never be God, according to Srila
Prabhupada. I believe MMY wanted to say the same thing to you about this
subject.
Better yet, direct his attention to the final part of the Brahma
Sutra-s with Shankara's commentary. Although he used to carry around
Maharishi's commentary on the Brahma Sutra-s, apparently he never
wanted to read Shankara's famous bhasya.This is probably because
Maharishi commentary did not
18 matches
Mail list logo
