Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > , "MICHAEL BINDEL" > <michael_bindel@h...> wrote: > > > > Namaste,All. > > I have long since given up reading books on the subject. Pardon my > blunt nature.........It is 'confrontational yoga'....a provocation > to think or leave one's comfortable equilibrium.......Love and Om > Namah Sivaya to all........Tony. Ah haaa, so that's what'cha call it. I guess the only difference between you and me then, is that I mostly do it by accident. Oh well, gotta love us. Or not. (At least we have each other!) "hahahahahahh" *snort* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > , "AnneChris" <am009a8716@b...> > wrote: > > > > ----- Tolle lives here locally and I don't see how making money > is > > regarded as enlightened. Ramesh Balsakar is another plagiarist > as > > far as I can see. Ramana I do regard as a Jivanmukta though. > > Primitive tribes had trouble in achieving moksha for they > > essentially worshipped the astral plane. Very few Sages have > really > > ever existed, to paraphrase Maharaj only one in ten million can > even > > understand non-duality intellectually let alone realise > > it....ONS..Tony. > > > > Dear > > I respect you, your opinion and your knowledge and I agree > that very few have flowered into their true potential ie God - > realization . > > > > Please clarify for me. > > > > Are you saying that Eckhart is not enlightened because he is > making money, similarly Ramesh? > > There is no doubt they do make money. > > You dont know what hapens to the money when it is made and of > course money is consciousness too. > > Eckhart had no need to become a Guru in order to make money he > had a sucessfull career ahead of him certainly no need to quit that > and sit on a park bench for two years. his enlightenment came at the > age of 30 he is in his 50s now so its not exactly an overnight > sucess. > > Namaste, > > I question their 'enlightenment', in other words I do not believe > that either of them is a Jivanmukta, which is what enlightenment > is...They mostly regurgitate.ONS..Tony many people have some kind or some degree of enlightenment and they are sincere about their talking to angels or having overcome suffering or death; but i agree with ONS Tony, few are liberated. (Eckhart seems to be though, but what do i know?) eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > , "AnneChris" <am009a8716@b...> > wrote: > > > > ----- Tolle lives here locally and I don't see how making money > is > > regarded as enlightened. Ramesh Balsakar is another plagiarist > as > > far as I can see. Ramana I do regard as a Jivanmukta though. > > Primitive tribes had trouble in achieving moksha for they > > essentially worshipped the astral plane. Very few Sages have > really > > ever existed, to paraphrase Maharaj only one in ten million can > even > > understand non-duality intellectually let alone realise > > it....ONS..Tony. > > > > Dear > > I respect you, your opinion and your knowledge and I agree > that very few have flowered into their true potential ie God - > realization . > > > > Please clarify for me. > > > > Are you saying that Eckhart is not enlightened because he is > making money, similarly Ramesh? > > There is no doubt they do make money. > > You dont know what hapens to the money when it is made and of > course money is consciousness too. > > Eckhart had no need to become a Guru in order to make money he > had a sucessfull career ahead of him certainly no need to quit that > and sit on a park bench for two years. his enlightenment came at the > age of 30 he is in his 50s now so its not exactly an overnight > sucess. > > Namaste, > > I question their 'enlightenment', in other words I do not believe > that either of them is a Jivanmukta, which is what enlightenment > is...They mostly regurgitate.ONS..Tony devi: tony, you are faced with enlightened beings everday here on the internet and you just *refuse* to see it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 > > > > Namaste,All. > > I have long since given up reading books on the subject. Pardon my > blunt nature.........It is 'confrontational yoga'....a provocation > to think or leave one's comfortable equilibrium.......Love and Om > Namah Sivaya to all........Tony. devi: now there is your problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Dear Michael, --- MICHAEL BINDEL <michael_bindel wrote: NonDuality can be "understood" intellectually i f "you" have already touched a certain level intuitively. I call this "higher knowledge" - it cannot be attained thru books. SNIP Yes, non-duality can be "understood" to a certain "degree". But "non-duality" is just a concept. We are actually dealing with LIFE. All these concepts and philosophies are actually trying to understand and describe LIFE. So, all I'm saying is that no one that I know understands LIFE. And I'm willing to wager that no one that you know understands LIFE either. Warmest regards, michael Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 , "devianandi" <devi@p...> wrote: > , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> > wrote: > > , "AnneChris" > <am009a8716@b...> > > wrote: > > > > > > ----- Tolle lives here locally and I don't see how making > money > > is > > > regarded as enlightened. Ramesh Balsakar is another plagiarist > > as > > > far as I can see. Ramana I do regard as a Jivanmukta though. > > > Primitive tribes had trouble in achieving moksha for they > > > essentially worshipped the astral plane. Very few Sages have > > really > > > ever existed, to paraphrase Maharaj only one in ten million > can > > even > > > understand non-duality intellectually let alone realise > > > it....ONS..Tony. > > > > > > Dear > > > I respect you, your opinion and your knowledge and I > agree > > that very few have flowered into their true potential ie God - > > realization . > > > > > > Please clarify for me. > > > > > > Are you saying that Eckhart is not enlightened because he is > > making money, similarly Ramesh? > > > There is no doubt they do make money. > > > You dont know what hapens to the money when it is made and of > > course money is consciousness too. > > > Eckhart had no need to become a Guru in order to make money he > > had a sucessfull career ahead of him certainly no need to quit > that > > and sit on a park bench for two years. his enlightenment came at > the > > age of 30 he is in his 50s now so its not exactly an overnight > > sucess. > > > > Namaste, > > > > I question their 'enlightenment', in other words I do not believe > > that either of them is a Jivanmukta, which is what enlightenment > > is...They mostly regurgitate.ONS..Tony > > devi: tony, you are faced with enlightened beings everday here on > the internet and you just *refuse* to see it.. Namaste, That's right enlightened being don't usually write books themselves or discuss on the internet.....An enlightened being is a Jivanmukta only, the rest still live in their minds..ONS...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 , "devianandi" <devi@p...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste,All. > > > > I have long since given up reading books on the subject. Pardon my > > blunt nature.........It is 'confrontational yoga'....a provocation > > to think or leave one's comfortable equilibrium.......Love and Om > > Namah Sivaya to all........Tony. > > devi: now there is your problem Namaste, There is no problem, it is a technique long used in philosophy and teaching and discussing the Law........ONS...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 Dear Tony and ALL, My comments appear at the end of this thread. --- Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: > , "devianandi" > <devi@p...> > wrote: > > , "Tony > OClery" > <aoclery> > > wrote: > > > , > "AnneChris" > > <am009a8716@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Tolle lives here locally and I don't > see how making > > money > > > is > > > > regarded as enlightened. Ramesh Balsakar is > another > plagiarist > > > as > > > > far as I can see. Ramana I do regard as a > Jivanmukta though. > > > > Primitive tribes had trouble in achieving > moksha for they > > > > essentially worshipped the astral plane. > Very few Sages have > > > really > > > > ever existed, to paraphrase Maharaj only one > in ten million > > can > > > even > > > > understand non-duality intellectually let > alone realise > > > > it....ONS..Tony. > > > > > > > > Dear > > > > I respect you, your opinion and your > knowledge and I > > agree > > > that very few have flowered into their true > potential ie God - > > > realization . > > > > > > > > Please clarify for me. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Eckhart is not > enlightened because he is > > > making money, similarly Ramesh? > > > > There is no doubt they do make money. > > > > You dont know what hapens to the money when > it is made and > of > > > course money is consciousness too. > > > > Eckhart had no need to become a Guru in > order to make money > he > > > had a sucessfull career ahead of him certainly > no need to quit > > that > > > and sit on a park bench for two years. his > enlightenment came at > > the > > > age of 30 he is in his 50s now so its not > exactly an overnight > > > sucess. > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > I question their 'enlightenment', in other words > I do not > believe > > > that either of them is a Jivanmukta, which is > what enlightenment > > > is...They mostly regurgitate.ONS..Tony > > > > devi: tony, you are faced with enlightened beings > everday here on > > the internet and you just *refuse* to see it.. > > Namaste, > > That's right enlightened being don't usually write > books themselves > or discuss on the internet.....An enlightened being > is a Jivanmukta > only, the rest still live in their minds..ONS...> > Tony: You say that "...enlightened being don't usually write books themselves." Whereas that statement seems to be true it is actually meaningless. You use the qualifying term "usually" and thankfully that reveals the truth of the matter, which is that many enlightened beings have written books. Ramana wrote, Shankara wrote, and others have written. As far as your comment about "...discussing on the internet", why won't an enlightened being discuss on the internet? If they will discuss in person, then why not the internet. Ramana discussed with people at the Ashram. Sankara discussed with people. Sri Ramakrishna discussed with people. After all, if the "so called enlightened beings" never discussed with anyone or wrote about their philosophies and experiences, then we would have never known about those things. So what's up with the "internet" thing? Ramana didn't have the internet; but somehow his personage would appear to persons throughout India to communicate with them. The well known story about Ramana appearing at Papaji's doorstep shows that Ramana didn't need the Internet to communicate with persons at a distance. And it's a good thing he didn't need the internet because it didn't exist at the time. To be perfectly honest with you I don't give a "hoot" about enlightenment or enlightened beings. And I don't care who is enlightened and who is not enlightened. I don't know if there is any such thing as "enlightenment" or a "final human spiritual condition". All of that is completely immaterial to me. But if there are "enlightened" beings, as far as I'm concerned they can communicate in any manner that they like. Warmest regards, michael Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 , Michael Bowes <rmichaelbowes> wrote: > Dear Tony and ALL, > > My comments appear at the end of this thread. > > ---> > > > > > > > > > ----- Tolle lives here locally and I don't > > see how making > > > money > > > > is > > > > > regarded as enlightened. Ramesh Balsakar is > > another > > plagiarist > > > > as > > > > > far as I can see. Ramana I do regard as a > > Jivanmukta though. > > > > > Primitive tribes had trouble in achieving > > moksha for they > > > > > essentially worshipped the astral plane. > > Very few Sages have > > > > really > > > > > ever existed, to paraphrase Maharaj only one > > in ten million > > > can > > > > even > > > > > understand non-duality intellectually let > > alone realise > > > > > it....ONS..Tony. > > > > > > > > > > Dear > > > > > I respect you, your opinion and your > > knowledge and I > > > agree > > > > that very few have flowered into their true > > potential ie God - > > > > realization . > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify for me. > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Eckhart is not > > enlightened because he is > > > > making money, similarly Ramesh? > > > > > There is no doubt they do make money. > > > > > You dont know what hapens to the money when > > it is made and > > of > > > > course money is consciousness too. > > > > > Eckhart had no need to become a Guru in > > order to make money > > he > > > > had a sucessfull career ahead of him certainly > > no need to quit > > > that > > > > and sit on a park bench for two years. his > > enlightenment came at > > > the > > > > age of 30 he is in his 50s now so its not > > exactly an overnight > > > > sucess. > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > I question their 'enlightenment', in other words > > I do not > > believe > > > > that either of them is a Jivanmukta, which is > > what enlightenment > > > > is...They mostly regurgitate.ONS..> > > > > > devi: tony, you are faced with enlightened beings > > everday here on > > > the internet and you just *refuse* to see it.. > > > > Namaste, > > > > That's right enlightened being don't usually write > > books themselves > > or discuss on the internet.....An enlightened being > > is a Jivanmukta > > only, the rest still live in their minds..ONS...> > > > > > Tony: You say that "...enlightened being don't > usually write books themselves." Whereas that > statement seems to be true it is actually meaningless. > You use the qualifying term "usually" and thankfully > that reveals the truth of the matter, which is that > many enlightened beings have written books. Ramana > wrote, Shankara wrote, and others have written. Namaste, Ramana wrote and scribbled spontaneously, he didn't publish neither did Maharaj---devotees published. That says it all.......ONS..Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 > Tony: You say that "...enlightened being don't> usually write books themselves." Whereas that> statement seems to be true it is actually meaningless.> You use the qualifying term "usually" and thankfully> that reveals the truth of the matter, which is that> many enlightened beings have written books. Ramana> wrote, Shankara wrote, and others have written.Namaste,Ramana wrote and scribbled spontaneously, he didn't publish neither did Maharaj---devotees published. That says it all.......ONS..Namaste Tony et all Chris writes, actually, no he, chris dosent. The actor in the play may think he does. Maharaj certainly dident by his own admission he was just one level above illiterate but great spiritual teaching flowed through him. It was ok for him to keep his ferocious temper though. Dosent matter who put the words on paper the power of presence is in the words which are the carriers of energy of Truth, it may well be the silent energy of Truth that brings about the awakening rather than the carrier words. Eckhart says the words may have some informational value but that is not that important what is important is as allready stated is the unerlying energy carried by the words which is recognised by the I am within the non-existant seperate listener. You may fault my linguistics here and thats ok. I am neither right or wrong. The one common aspect of the sages is that they know they are not the doer of anything. They are the great enjoyers of life which might seem a contradiction because they as the ego are no longer there to do anything. Whater happens in the now is not judged only accepted as what is. Eckhart or Ramesh is not the teacher Presence teaches through him. The words arise whether on paper or not. Basically there is only Consciouseness and That can do as it please through whom it choses to act through. The darkness comes from the same place as the light, it can not be otherwise. ie no peace without war. The Sage fully accepts this duality. With respect chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > , "devianandi" <devi@p...> > wrote: > > , "Tony OClery" > <aoclery> > > wrote: > > > , "AnneChris" > > <am009a8716@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Tolle lives here locally and I don't see how making > > money > > > is > > > > regarded as enlightened. Ramesh Balsakar is another > plagiarist > > > as > > > > far as I can see. Ramana I do regard as a Jivanmukta though. > > > > Primitive tribes had trouble in achieving moksha for they > > > > essentially worshipped the astral plane. Very few Sages have > > > really > > > > ever existed, to paraphrase Maharaj only one in ten million > > can > > > even > > > > understand non-duality intellectually let alone realise > > > > it....ONS..Tony. > > > > > > > > Dear > > > > I respect you, your opinion and your knowledge and I > > agree > > > that very few have flowered into their true potential ie God - > > > realization . > > > > > > > > Please clarify for me. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Eckhart is not enlightened because he is > > > making money, similarly Ramesh? > > > > There is no doubt they do make money. > > > > You dont know what hapens to the money when it is made and > of > > > course money is consciousness too. > > > > Eckhart had no need to become a Guru in order to make money > he > > > had a sucessfull career ahead of him certainly no need to quit > > that > > > and sit on a park bench for two years. his enlightenment came at > > the > > > age of 30 he is in his 50s now so its not exactly an overnight > > > sucess. > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > I question their 'enlightenment', in other words I do not > believe > > > that either of them is a Jivanmukta, which is what enlightenment > > > is...They mostly regurgitate.ONS..Tony > > > > devi: tony, you are faced with enlightened beings everday here on > > the internet and you just *refuse* to see it.. > > Namaste, > > That's right enlightened being don't usually write books themselves > or discuss on the internet.....An enlightened being is a Jivanmukta > only, the rest still live in their minds..ONS...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 , "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote: > , "devianandi" <devi@p...> > wrote: > > , "Tony OClery" > <aoclery> > > wrote: > > > , "AnneChris" > > <am009a8716@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Tolle lives here locally and I don't see how making > > money > > > is > > > > regarded as enlightened. Ramesh Balsakar is another > plagiarist > > > as > > > > far as I can see. Ramana I do regard as a Jivanmukta though. > > > > Primitive tribes had trouble in achieving moksha for they > > > > essentially worshipped the astral plane. Very few Sages have > > > really > > > > ever existed, to paraphrase Maharaj only one in ten million > > can > > > even > > > > understand non-duality intellectually let alone realise > > > > it....ONS..Tony. > > > > > > > > Dear > > > > I respect you, your opinion and your knowledge and I > > agree > > > that very few have flowered into their true potential ie God - > > > realization . > > > > > > > > Please clarify for me. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Eckhart is not enlightened because he is > > > making money, similarly Ramesh? > > > > There is no doubt they do make money. > > > > You dont know what hapens to the money when it is made and > of > > > course money is consciousness too. > > > > Eckhart had no need to become a Guru in order to make money > he > > > had a sucessfull career ahead of him certainly no need to quit > > that > > > and sit on a park bench for two years. his enlightenment came at > > the > > > age of 30 he is in his 50s now so its not exactly an overnight > > > sucess. > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > I question their 'enlightenment', in other words I do not > believe > > > that either of them is a Jivanmukta, which is what enlightenment > > > is...They mostly regurgitate.ONS..Tony > > > > devi: tony, you are faced with enlightened beings everday here on > > the internet and you just *refuse* to see it.. > > Namaste, > > That's right enlightened being don't usually write books themselves > or discuss on the internet.....An enlightened being is a Jivanmukta > only, the rest still live in their minds..ONS...Tony devi: from my point of view you have some strange ideas about what is a jivan-mukti..he's what i go by its from a book called God Speaks by meher baba "The Jivan-Mukta (Azad-e-Mutlaq) in Turiya Avastha (Fana-ma-al-Baqa) enloys the three Koshas i.e. All-Bliss, All-Knowlege and All-Power, and his consciousness is sometimes of the "I Am God" state and in addition to that, sometimes of the three spheres - the gross, sublte and mental: but being without duty, he does not use the bliss knowledge and power for others" from my understanding there are a few different kinds of mukties...if your interested in tell you more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 , "devianandi" <devi@p> > only, the rest still live in their minds..ONS...Tony > > devi: from my point of view you have some strange ideas about what > is a jivan-mukti..he's what i go by its from a book called God > Speaks by meher baba > > "The Jivan-Mukta (Azad-e-Mutlaq) in Turiya Avastha (Fana-ma-al- Baqa) > enloys the three Koshas i.e. All-Bliss, All-Knowlege and All- Power, > and his consciousness is sometimes of the "I Am God" state and in > addition to that, sometimes of the three spheres - the gross, sublte > and mental: but being without duty, he does not use the bliss > knowledge and power for others" > > from my understanding there are a few different kinds of > mukties...if your interested in tell you more. Namaste, Meher Baba was essentially a Muslim I believe, so looked through things through that prism---states and tarikas etc. A Jivanmukta is what it says Jiva who has achieved Moha kshaya. There is only one kind, how can there two truths? There are different Samadhis not Muktas. Meher Baba's description sounds more like the concept of avatar. A Jivanmukta survives in all the worlds as we also do, until the body drops at the end of his karma....ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.