[GuruRatings] Back on the Ramesh Channel / Toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

wrote:

>

> > >

> > > Exception #1, from a devotee of Nisargadatta Maharaj . . .

> > >

> > > (Timothy Conway is a direct disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj,

and he wrote

> > > the book 'Women of Power and Grace'. Here are his comments

about Mutribo's

> > > explanation of Ramesh Balsekar's behavior.)

> > >

> > > Mutribo's rationalizations are " nifty, " aren't they? Actually

quite bizarre

> > > and utterly ridiculous.

> > > A few points:

> > >

> > > 1) Ramesh saying he " regrets " what happened doesn't cut it;

this is neither

> > > an authentic apology nor a proper " making amends " to those

whom he targeted

> > > with his advances.

> For a sage to say that he regrets " his " actions......indicates

that he believes that he had a choice in those actions....

>

> Regret for....or pride in one's actions is food for the sleeping

ones....not sages.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > > When Mutribo writes:

> > > " [...] he has blatantly alluded in the past to sexual desire

naturally

> > > arising in the body/mind of a Sage... "

> > > I say, yes, but a true sage does not ACT on it in a way that

exploits

> > > others.

>

>

>

> Bullshit.

>

> For the sage...there are no others

>

>

>

>

> In other words, a sage is free from being pushed around by

> > > samskaras. After all, what is a true sage but someone who is

free from the

> > > bound condition of being pushed and pulled by samskaras?

Annamalai Swami

> > > told me in 1980, when I asked him what enlightenment was

like, " It's like

> > > zero gravity... Nothing is pulling you anymore. "

>

>

>

>

> Only because there is no one there to pull.

>

>

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta, a true

> > > " Maharaj, " would always ask his visitors who claimed any kind

of

> > > enlightenment, " What do you do with arising desires and

fears? " He would

> > > not have seen indulging them as any kind of enlightenment,

that's for

> > > certain.

>

>

>

> I seriously doubt if a lot of women wanted to have sex with

Nisargadatta......He was a stikey little cigarette smoking fellow.

>

>

>

> > >

> > > If Nisargadatta was still alive, I bet he'd be beating the

crap out of

> > > Ramesh and telling him not to presume to teach until he was

fully cooked.

>

>

>

> > >

> > > When Mutribo further writes:

> > > " To sum up...... I think it's great all round! It's another

wake-up call

> > > for those who still prefer to project rather than see that any

Guru is

> > > still an ordinary human being. ... I can happily see most

angles in this

> > > story and I find all of them refreshing and good. I have no

idea what the

> > > repercussions may be on Ramesh and his Teaching but for me I

never met him

> > > with expectations that would have caused me any hurt. It is

simply just as

> > > it is and it's fine. "

> > >

> > > I can only respond to this pseudo-Advaita drivel: what would

this guy have

> > > said had he come to the Nazi death camps in 1945? " I think

it's great all

> > > round! " ?? Advaita that does not take a stand for justice is no

advaita at

> > > all, but merely clever mind games. WAKE UP!

>

>

> Advaita that takes a stand for or against anything ...is not

advaita.

>

>

>

> > > Feel free to share this with anyone on your list.

> > > Timothy

> > >

> > > ===========

> > >

> > > Exception #2, from a devotee of Sri Ranjit and Papaji . . .

> > >

> > > Thanks for the forwarded letter from Mutribo. He was the one

who did the

> > > recently filmed series ' " LET LIFE FLOW' with Ramesh in 2003.

> > >

> > > I honestly feel that when you set yourself up as an Advaita

Teacher, it

> > > means that you live Advaita. Your permanent experience is that

All is One.

> > > When you manipulate, lie, cheat, abuse and profit from

another, it means

> > > you are well established in duality. When you know that there

is no

> > > 'other', who are you then going to manipulate and take

advantage of? Ranjit

> > > Maharaj explained this very well. 'How can nothing affect

you?' For me, it

> > > is clear that Ramesh is not living Advaita.

>

>

>

>

> Everyone is living advaita.

>

>

>

>

> He is a preacher deeply-rooted

> > > in duality and who is trying to profit from the Advaita wave,

but at the

> > > same time he claims to be beyond all this. He is exploiting

Advaita and is

> > > mocking his master, Nisargadatta and also Ramana. I honestly

cannot accept

> > > this behaviour! That is why I cannot accept when Mutribo

says, 'Ramesh is

> > > still, by far and away, the cleanest and most honest and

available Teacher

> > > that I have ever had the good luck to meet and I will always

feel grateful

> > > to that.' Is he a fool or what? It seems that he has only met

crooks, our

> > > poor Mutribo. The quest for the Truth is not a joking, casual

matter. (It

> > > seems that Mutribo was probably bothered by all this and is

now playing the

> > > strong cowboy who pretends nothing can disturb his peace of

mind. Keep

> > > smiling and pretending you are strong and hopefully the

problem will go

> > > away) I can't believe that he has the nerve to say 'To sum

up...... I think

> > > it's great all round!' He doesn't realise what all of this

really means.

>

>

> No one understands what anything means.

>

>

>

>

> > > But what can you expect to hear from a manipulated disciple

who has studied

> > > Ramesh's dualist, contradictory teaching! He says at the

end 'It's a

> > > win-win-win situation from my perspective', but in fact for

many people who

> > > trusted in Ramesh, for them its a lose-lose-lose situation.

That is for

> > > sure!

>

>

>

> Just the dream of loosing.

>

>

>

>

> Many are deeply shocked and are not speaking because of this.

> > >

> > > Ranjit and Papaji, two great masters that I had the fortune to

meet : they

> > > never once thought about taking advantage of anything or

anyone.

>

>

>

> You don't know that.

>

>

>

>

> And I'm

> > > sure that Ramana and Nisargadatta were the same. These four

were definitely

> > > living from the Absolute and were absorbed in the Truth of the

Self. When

> > > you compare their beingness with Ramesh's beingness, there is

no comparison.

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> You want your gods to be pure....your sages to be

pristine...........

>

> WAKE UP!

>

> This is Life...blood and guts LIFE...Everything is only what it is.

>

>

>

>

>

> toombaru

 

You are addressing others when you speak like this, Toom.

 

By speaking on a list, you are relating.

 

In the world of relationships, there is a difference between

manipulation and sincerity, integrity and deceit,

love and selfish desire.

 

These are not unimportant distinctions, and skimming over

them because one is supposedly " nondual " just makes

everything fuzzy. Fuzziness isn't more nondual than

clarity, including clarity about relating.

 

Life doesn't preclude purity. Water that is pure tastes

better than water that has sludge in it.

 

Life being all-inclusive, includes purity as perceived,

impurity as perceived, blood and guts as perceived,

love as perceived.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

>

 

>

> You are addressing others when you speak like this, Toom.

>

> By speaking on a list, you are relating.

>

> In the world of relationships, there is a difference between

> manipulation and sincerity, integrity and deceit,

> love and selfish desire.

>

> These are not unimportant distinctions, and skimming over

> them because one is supposedly " nondual " just makes

> everything fuzzy. Fuzziness isn't more nondual than

> clarity, including clarity about relating.

>

> Life doesn't preclude purity. Water that is pure tastes

> better than water that has sludge in it.

>

> Life being all-inclusive, includes purity as perceived,

> impurity as perceived, blood and guts as perceived,

> love as perceived.

>

> -- Dan

 

Keepin it real, yo.

 

Joe

[Guest guest]

u

>

> You are addressing others when you speak like this, Toom.

>

> By speaking on a list, you are relating.

 

 

Yes...that is seen.

 

 

 

 

 

>

> In the world of relationships, there is a difference between

> manipulation and sincerity, integrity and deceit,

> love and selfish desire.

 

 

That is not seen.

 

All of those " things " are conceptual constructs about a condition that is

illusory.(relationship)

 

 

Any thing said about the water in a mirage...is untrue.

 

 

 

 

>

> These are not unimportant distinctions, and skimming over

> them because one is supposedly " nondual " just makes

> everything fuzzy. Fuzziness isn't more nondual than

> clarity, including clarity about relating.

 

 

There can never be clarity in relating.

 

 

>

> Life doesn't preclude purity. Water that is pure tastes

> better than water that has sludge in it.

 

 

We are not talking about water...We are talking of....and with.... concepts that

emerge with

the illusion of separation.

 

>

> Life being all-inclusive, includes purity as perceived,

> impurity as perceived, blood and guts as perceived,

> love as perceived.

>

> -- Dan

 

 

 

 

Perceptual=delusional

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...>

wrote:

>

> u

> >

> > You are addressing others when you speak like this, Toom.

> >

> > By speaking on a list, you are relating.

>

>

> Yes...that is seen.

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > In the world of relationships, there is a difference between

> > manipulation and sincerity, integrity and deceit,

> > love and selfish desire.

>

>

> That is not seen.

>

> All of those " things " are conceptual constructs about a condition

that is

> illusory.(relationship)

 

But so is the construct " illusory " - so why bias toward

that construct?

 

> There can never be clarity in relating.

 

You are trying to present an absolute and you're not.

 

It's just your personal opinion, no more and no less,

perhaps based on your experience.

 

May you experience clarity in relating -- then you'll

know the fallacy to making an absolute out of:

there never can be clarity in relating.

 

> > Life doesn't preclude purity. Water that is pure tastes

> > better than water that has sludge in it.

>

>

> We are not talking about water...We are talking of....and with....

concepts that emerge with

> the illusion of separation.

 

Again, why weight the construct " illusion " so heavily, as

if biasing toward that construct explains something?

 

If I offered you pure water in one glass and a glass of

sewer sludge, and you drank the sludge, I'd say you had

a mental disorder.

 

There are distinctions involved in life, and they are

involved in relationships as well as in drinking glasses

of water.

 

> > Life being all-inclusive, includes purity as perceived,

> > impurity as perceived, blood and guts as perceived,

> > love as perceived.

> >

> > -- Dan

>

>

>

>

> Perceptual=delusional

 

Again, that can only be true if there is a separate someone to be

deluded.

 

Otherwise, there is no rationale for especially weighting

the words " illusion " and " delusion " as if they explain

everything perceptual. They themselves are based on

a perceptual distinction that contrasts illusion with

reality, and delusion with facticity. If you take

one side of a co-determining pair, and try to make it,

by itself, and explanation and characterization for all

human life and perception, you've tricked yourself.

In other words, it's contradictory to use one half of

a self-constructed dichotomy to explain the being of the

self that made the contrast.

 

-- Dan

 

-- Dan