How can I recognise a Sadguru or true Mukta Guru?Share

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> > To whom it concerns.

> >

> > Hey Timothy

> >

> > This one is never too clever to learn more about herself

> > and would like to share a little learning with you here.

> >

> > Found a book by Alice A. Bailey at the library yesterday

> > - on reincarnation.

> >

> > What is said about one as three appealed and I recognised

> > it as something I have always known, only forgotten again

> > likely due to my having played so much around, that I was

> > lost and had to be reminded of what/who I really am.

> >

> > One is:

> >

> > Spirit showing as individuals showing as personalities.

> >

> > The formless is the form(s) Mani-folded is None-folded un

> > folding. The best way to be folded is to be One-folded. U

> > ask JC about that. Onefolded is Simple Simon, Fool on the

> > hill etc.

> >

> > But we're no fools so we need a bit intuition and combine

> > it with our intellect. I got that from Baily - but I have

> > nevertheless done it - intuitively all the way through.

> >

> > Unlike what many individuals/personalities seem to figure

> > the in-dividual is the same as ego is the same as self. I

> > prefer the expression individual. It means un-divided and

> > that is what individuals are. So that.

> >

> > Division is but one, the unknowable, showing off as many;

> > that way it can play games with itself - I heard it likes

> > the game of chess

> >

> > If we want to know what and who we are in essence it seems

> > we must turn the look backwards and downwards as Alice did

> > when she vanished into the rabbit-hole. She took a journey

> > into herself as she moved backwards and downward. When she

> > had learnt what she had come for she moved UPwards FORward

> > and knew what she had to do. All was clear. This is my own

> > interpretation.

> >

> > So we need to move to the radix, the root of ourselves and

> > to be persistant about it, radical - or stay lost - but no

> > chance really - one cannot run away from what one is - not

> > forever at least

> >

> > Any comments?

 

 

 

Werner:

 

> Yes a comment, Lene,

>

> In case you knew the root of yourself (which you don't) who should be the

mover of the root ? And who should be persistant about it ?

 

 

 

When I talk about a root, a radix, I am talking about what I am

essentially. The who is the individual and thought is its voice.

 

All of the whos in the world are one - essentially - made up of

the same material which at the root is non-material which is un

knowable as such - yet knowable per se - as substance, as form.

 

 

 

> It is awlays the same story:

>

> You read a book or an artical and thought says 'I must do it' or 'I must get

it.

 

 

 

No. What I read in the books the content of which applies I've

always known. It reminds me of myself, what I am and what I am

doing.

 

Yesterday evening I read seven paragraphs following each other

like seven pearls on a string, and all seven spoke TO me about

me directly - you are, you will, you have etc. For instance it

said I have been working for an organisation for ten years. Is

correct. I've worked for the Krishnamurti organisation for ten

years. There were many other such facts about me. What is said

about my future though was worthwhile noticing. It said that I

ought to do so and so, but am free to do otherwise, this is to

say: carry on as usual I do find myself at a crossroad, and

the book said so and it is 100% correct.

 

I was taken aback. How could whoever wrote that many years ago

know about me, list precise facts about me? I cried - course I

cried Reminds me of the Islandic film: Jar City. The little

girl asks her father what are eyes for? Dad says so we can see.

Girl says no, eyes are for crying, Dad. And she passed away. I

cried and I celebrated, and I got drunk over the good old news

 

The only mysterious thing about my life is that I seem to keep

forgetting what I am, not in essence as it were these days but

in substance.

 

And like always when I do not know what to do and what to turn

to certain elements come to my rescue.

 

All of these elements are different from each other only shape

and formwise, not in essence.

 

Basically we are the very same: self, no self - known, unknown.

 

Some seem to cling to the materialistic, some to the spiritual.

Some cling to everything, some to nothing - some to none, some

to one.

 

I watch it all and learn and what I learn about is myself. That

is why I said I am never too clever to learn.

 

You seem to be a materialist. So be you Perhaps you have had

enough of the spiritual and need to be in touch with the soil a

while.

 

I know what I have to do: A little less of this - a little more

of that. This is writing, online discussions - that is directly

relating to people who need me " out there " .

 

I am very careful around people who imagine existance can be ex

plained via knowledge about the brain.

 

Bless ya anyway

 

-Lene

 

 

 

> But thought is not the doer and won't be able to do anything nor to get

anything. Thought is created by the brain for eventual verbal commmunication but

not for doinng.

>

> The doing or the 'will' happens in regions of the brain which are unconscious

and are beyond your control. And if some action will start then thought is

accompaning those action and maintaining to be their doer or the initiator of

them.

>

> Werner

>

>

> >

> > Cheers

> > -Lene

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Heya Pete,

> > > > >

> > > > > I haven't read messages here, on Dans forum or yours lately.

> > > > > Been busy on and off on a K-forum which has now been closed.

> > > > > Lovely! One down - how many to go?

> > > > >

> > > > > Love and best wishes.

> > > > > Sees

> > > > >

> > > > > -Lene

> > > >

> > > > P: Well, I'm glad you're back. Almost everyone

> > > > is back. I'll scratch everybody's back, even if

> > > > you people don't scratch mine that itches for good

> > > > nondual talk.

> > >

> > > I've seen plenty of 'good nondual talk' that Pete complains about.

> > >

> > > And it's always the poster, a perceived " self " , that's the subject of the

complaint, not the material in question.

> > >

> > > Perhaps you could program your PC to spit out " good " nondual phrases, so's

you don't have to deal with all those awful " selves out there " .

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

>

> > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the non-self. It

is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the mind is

nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the not-self,

and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud obscures

the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure reality

without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

>

>

> Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

>

> -Lene

>

 

Sure thing, Lene.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

>

> > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the non-self. It

is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the mind is

nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the not-self,

and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud obscures

the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure reality

without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

>

>

> Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

>

> -Lene

 

P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

and more powerful than the self? Something is

rotten in Denmark. )

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the non-self. It

is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the mind is

nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the not-self,

and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud obscures

the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure reality

without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> >

> >

> > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> >

> > -Lene

>

> P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> and more powerful than the self? Something is

> rotten in Denmark. )

 

 

 

Ha ha If there is anything rotten in DK I have nothing to do

with it - I gave up the whole game a hour ago - giving up means

to me to stop pretending to know anything at all.

 

Frankly speaking I have no idea what the feck is going on.

 

Like Alice helped me last night to attach to a belief or truth, whatever, Alice

helped me tonight to detach from it. Alice has

left the building and no one no who no what else has taken her

place.

 

I love Alice - who the hell is Alice?

 

May be what is

 

-Lene

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the non-self. It

is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the mind is

nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the not-self,

and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud obscures

the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure reality

without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> >

> >

> > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> >

> > -Lene

>

> P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> and more powerful than the self? Something is

> rotten in Denmark. )

> >

>

 

The assumption " there is something other than myself " , obscures the fact that

there is nothing other than oneself.

 

It may seem like swiss cheese until it's actually examined, " in one's own

context " , not the context of " something said by an other " .

 

Then it's dead obvious.

 

There is only thought and perception, both of which are " one's own " , not an

other's.

 

There is therefore nothing apart.

 

Clear as a bell.

 

Surrendering the pretense involved in words/language and actually 'living it',

is another matter.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the non-self.

It is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the mind is

nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the not-self,

and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud obscures

the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure reality

without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> > >

> > >

> > > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> > >

> > > -Lene

> >

> > P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> > full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> > is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> > and more powerful than the self? Something is

> > rotten in Denmark. )

> > >

> >

>

> The assumption " there is something other than myself " , obscures the fact that

there is nothing other than oneself.

>

> It may seem like swiss cheese until it's actually examined, " in one's own

context " , not the context of " something said by an other " .

>

> Then it's dead obvious.

 

 

 

It is actually. Finding out is like being " saved by the bell " -

every time.

 

It sounds like: ha, I don't have to listen to what you say, I'm

all there is, wae wae. You know - kid's style

 

But from there to say that I know WHAT I am - there is a jump +

life is only light and wonderful when that jump is not made.

 

-Lene

 

 

 

> There is only thought and perception, both of which are " one's own " , not an

other's.

>

> There is therefore nothing apart.

>

> Clear as a bell.

>

> Surrendering the pretense involved in words/language and actually 'living it',

is another matter.

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the

non-self. It is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the

mind is nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the

not-self, and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud

obscures the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure

reality without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> > > >

> > > > -Lene

> > >

> > > P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> > > full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> > > is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> > > and more powerful than the self? Something is

> > > rotten in Denmark. )

> > > >

> > >

> >

> > The assumption " there is something other than myself " , obscures the fact

that there is nothing other than oneself.

> >

> > It may seem like swiss cheese until it's actually examined, " in one's own

context " , not the context of " something said by an other " .

> >

> > Then it's dead obvious.

>

>

>

> It is actually. Finding out is like being " saved by the bell " -

> every time.

>

> It sounds like: ha, I don't have to listen to what you say, I'm

> all there is, wae wae. You know - kid's style

 

Fwiw, it doesn't sound like that to me.

 

Another assumption bites the dust? (i.e. that everyone would think it sounds

like that ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the

non-self. It is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the

mind is nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the

not-self, and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud

obscures the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure

reality without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> > > > >

> > > > > -Lene

> > > >

> > > > P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> > > > full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> > > > is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> > > > and more powerful than the self? Something is

> > > > rotten in Denmark. )

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The assumption " there is something other than myself " , obscures the fact

that there is nothing other than oneself.

> > >

> > > It may seem like swiss cheese until it's actually examined, " in one's own

context " , not the context of " something said by an other " .

> > >

> > > Then it's dead obvious.

> >

> >

> >

> > It is actually. Finding out is like being " saved by the bell " -

> > every time.

> >

> > It sounds like: ha, I don't have to listen to what you say, I'm

> > all there is, wae wae. You know - kid's style

>

> Fwiw, it doesn't sound like that to me.

>

> Another assumption bites the dust? (i.e. that everyone would think it sounds

like that ;-).

>

 

P.S. the next step after realizing " there is nothing other than oneself, " is

taking a close look at:

 

" It's important what others think of me " ....

 

And realizing that others can't see " me " at all -- they see only their own

assumptions.

 

That's when things really " get quiet " .

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the

non-self. It is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the

mind is nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the

not-self, and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud

obscures the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure

reality without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -Lene

> > > > >

> > > > > P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> > > > > full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> > > > > is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> > > > > and more powerful than the self? Something is

> > > > > rotten in Denmark. )

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The assumption " there is something other than myself " , obscures the fact

that there is nothing other than oneself.

> > > >

> > > > It may seem like swiss cheese until it's actually examined, " in one's

own context " , not the context of " something said by an other " .

> > > >

> > > > Then it's dead obvious.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > It is actually. Finding out is like being " saved by the bell " -

> > > every time.

> > >

> > > It sounds like: ha, I don't have to listen to what you say, I'm

> > > all there is, wae wae. You know - kid's style

> >

> > Fwiw, it doesn't sound like that to me.

> >

> > Another assumption bites the dust? (i.e. that everyone would think it sounds

like that ;-).

> >

>

> P.S. the next step after realizing " there is nothing other than oneself, " is

taking a close look at:

>

> " It's important what others think of me " ....

>

> And realizing that others can't see " me " at all -- they see only their own

assumptions.

>

> That's when things really " get quiet " .

 

 

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Never mind how it sounds. It is when

the fact dawns that the others cannot see me, do not know me --

cannot tell me who or what I am and what I am to do, that peace

enters the room. If on top of that I also realise that I do not

know me (how can I know that which is neer the same from moment

to moment?) - that I do not know what to do -- that I therefore

need not make plans for some " future " -- then I am homefree and

untouchable and fearless. So it is the whole idea, assumption -

about myself/other, that falls to the ground there. Dissolution

of all ideas - one simply is.

 

Love

Lene

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the

non-self. It is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the

mind is nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the

not-self, and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud

obscures the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure

reality without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -Lene

> > > > > >

> > > > > > P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> > > > > > full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> > > > > > is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> > > > > > and more powerful than the self? Something is

> > > > > > rotten in Denmark. )

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The assumption " there is something other than myself " , obscures the

fact that there is nothing other than oneself.

> > > > >

> > > > > It may seem like swiss cheese until it's actually examined, " in one's

own context " , not the context of " something said by an other " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Then it's dead obvious.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is actually. Finding out is like being " saved by the bell " -

> > > > every time.

> > > >

> > > > It sounds like: ha, I don't have to listen to what you say, I'm

> > > > all there is, wae wae. You know - kid's style

> > >

> > > Fwiw, it doesn't sound like that to me.

> > >

> > > Another assumption bites the dust? (i.e. that everyone would think it

sounds like that ;-).

> > >

> >

> > P.S. the next step after realizing " there is nothing other than oneself, " is

taking a close look at:

> >

> > " It's important what others think of me " ....

> >

> > And realizing that others can't see " me " at all -- they see only their own

assumptions.

> >

> > That's when things really " get quiet " .

>

>

>

> Yes, that is what I meant. Never mind how it sounds. It is when

> the fact dawns that the others cannot see me, do not know me --

> cannot tell me who or what I am and what I am to do, that peace

> enters the room. If on top of that I also realise that I do not

> know me (how can I know that which is neer the same from moment

> to moment?) - that I do not know what to do -- that I therefore

> need not make plans for some " future " -- then I am homefree and

> untouchable and fearless. So it is the whole idea, assumption -

> about myself/other, that falls to the ground there. Dissolution

> of all ideas - one simply is.

>

> Love

> Lene

>

 

Nicely said :-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Heya Pete,

> > >

> > > I haven't read messages here, on Dans forum or yours lately.

> > > Been busy on and off on a K-forum which has now been closed.

> > > Lovely! One down - how many to go?

> > >

> > > Love and best wishes.

> > > Sees

> > >

> > > -Lene

> >

> > P: Well, I'm glad you're back. Almost everyone

> > is back. I'll scratch everybody's back, even if

> > you people don't scratch mine that itches for good

> > nondual talk.

>

> I've seen plenty of 'good nondual talk' that Pete complains about.

>

> And it's always the poster, a perceived " self " , that's the subject of the

complaint, not the material in question.

>

> Perhaps you could program your PC to spit out " good " nondual phrases, so's you

don't have to deal with all those awful " selves out there " .

>

 

good point... on the other hand if pete wants to personalize things to spicy it

up then he's cooking something. it may seem like an irony but even in nondual

sites we get annoyed easily. that's why i question if i ever met a nondual

person. i heard ramana would beat a seeker with a stick sometimes and it was

reported that nisargadatta slapped her daughter in law in front of the visitors.

cultural and personal traits slip in so easily.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " aoclery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> How can I recognise a Sadguru or true Mukta Guru?

>

> First of all a True Guru will call you and you will know from inside...the

heart..However they usually share some common signals.

>

> 1. Teach vegetarianism .....for Daya, Ahimsa and self purification.

>

> 2. Teach recognisable Teachings from Vedanta and other Muktas. All is One and

the small 'I' is false.

>

> 3. Usually they are not over active and don't travel a lot if

possible....Nowhere to go!!!

>

> 4. They teach a lot by silence like Dakshinamurthi.....and are not given to

long road show discourses...

>

> 5. They do not write copiously..but may answer questions.....but not usually

from dilletantes..

>

> 6. Have the ability to answer obtuse questions without being tertiary

educated...

>

> 7. You can usually feel their energy and they can give Diksha or initiation

and Saktipat....

>

> 8. They are usually not making, generating and selling Books, DVDs, and asking

for donations.

>

> 9. They are not given to siddhis and miracles although things may happen

around them.

>

> 10. Regard all beings as being equal including animals.

>

> 11. Sometimes grant Moksha to animals......and advanced humans...

>

> 12. They usually prefer to more reclusive than expansive....

>

> 13. Demonstrate or advise some kind of sadhana...and meditation.

>

> Those road show gurus are not usually Muktas and although do good work for

everybody and themselves cannot impart initiation as only a Mukta with power of

the Self can do that...

>

> The best way is to become a mukta oneself.....Tony.

>

 

for me the recognition of a guru is a subjective event. the key is love. without

love there's no guru.

 

the guru can eat meat, travel, may not know anything about vedanta, not crazy

about pets,...there are really no particular rules. we often idealize gurus to

fit our own expectations of a how a holy man should behave...as the super-ego

extraordinaire.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " As the sun knows not darkness, so does the self know not the

non-self. It is the mind, which by knowing the other, becomes the other. Yet the

mind is nothing else but the self. It is the self that becomes the other, the

not-self, and yet remains the self. All else is an assumption. Just as a cloud

obscures the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure

reality without destroying it. " -- from " I Am That "

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Beautiful! Thanks for the quote, Tim.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -Lene

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P: Beautiful, yes, beautiful as a swiss cheese, just

> > > > > > > full of holes. All is the self, but an assumption

> > > > > > > is not the self? Is an assumption, then, different

> > > > > > > and more powerful than the self? Something is

> > > > > > > rotten in Denmark. )

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The assumption " there is something other than myself " , obscures the

fact that there is nothing other than oneself.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It may seem like swiss cheese until it's actually examined, " in

one's own context " , not the context of " something said by an other " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then it's dead obvious.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It is actually. Finding out is like being " saved by the bell " -

> > > > > every time.

> > > > >

> > > > > It sounds like: ha, I don't have to listen to what you say, I'm

> > > > > all there is, wae wae. You know - kid's style

> > > >

> > > > Fwiw, it doesn't sound like that to me.

> > > >

> > > > Another assumption bites the dust? (i.e. that everyone would think it

sounds like that ;-).

> > > >

> > >

> > > P.S. the next step after realizing " there is nothing other than oneself, "

is taking a close look at:

> > >

> > > " It's important what others think of me " ....

> > >

> > > And realizing that others can't see " me " at all -- they see only their own

assumptions.

> > >

> > > That's when things really " get quiet " .

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes, that is what I meant. Never mind how it sounds. It is when

> > the fact dawns that the others cannot see me, do not know me --

> > cannot tell me who or what I am and what I am to do, that peace

> > enters the room. If on top of that I also realise that I do not

> > know me (how can I know that which is neer the same from moment

> > to moment?) - that I do not know what to do -- that I therefore

> > need not make plans for some " future " -- then I am homefree and

> > untouchable and fearless. So it is the whole idea, assumption -

> > about myself/other, that falls to the ground there. Dissolution

> > of all ideas - one simply is.

> >

> > Love

> > Lene

> >

>

> Nicely said :-).

 

Yup - quite on target.

 

I would put it, " how can I know what is not an object to be known? "

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " aoclery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> >

> > How can I recognise a Sadguru or true Mukta Guru?

> >

> > First of all a True Guru will call you and you will know from inside...the

heart..However they usually share some common signals.

> >

> > 1. Teach vegetarianism .....for Daya, Ahimsa and self purification.

> >

> > 2. Teach recognisable Teachings from Vedanta and other Muktas. All is One

and the small 'I' is false.

> >

> > 3. Usually they are not over active and don't travel a lot if

possible....Nowhere to go!!!

> >

> > 4. They teach a lot by silence like Dakshinamurthi.....and are not given to

long road show discourses...

> >

> > 5. They do not write copiously..but may answer questions.....but not usually

from dilletantes..

> >

> > 6. Have the ability to answer obtuse questions without being tertiary

educated...

> >

> > 7. You can usually feel their energy and they can give Diksha or initiation

and Saktipat....

> >

> > 8. They are usually not making, generating and selling Books, DVDs, and

asking for donations.

> >

> > 9. They are not given to siddhis and miracles although things may happen

around them.

> >

> > 10. Regard all beings as being equal including animals.

> >

> > 11. Sometimes grant Moksha to animals......and advanced humans...

> >

> > 12. They usually prefer to more reclusive than expansive....

> >

> > 13. Demonstrate or advise some kind of sadhana...and meditation.

> >

> > Those road show gurus are not usually Muktas and although do good work for

everybody and themselves cannot impart initiation as only a Mukta with power of

the Self can do that...

> >

> > The best way is to become a mukta oneself.....Tony.

> >

>

> for me the recognition of a guru is a subjective event. the key is love.

without love there's no guru.

>

> the guru can eat meat, travel, may not know anything about vedanta, not crazy

about pets,...there are really no particular rules. we often idealize gurus to

fit our own expectations of a how a holy man should behave...as the super-ego

extraordinaire.

>

 

otherwise how else can you explain the fact that osho always seemed like a fraud

to me but some of the most spiritual and geninue people i knew regarded him as

their guru.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " aoclery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > >

> > > How can I recognise a Sadguru or true Mukta Guru?

> > >

> > > First of all a True Guru will call you and you will know from inside...the

heart..However they usually share some common signals.

> > >

> > > 1. Teach vegetarianism .....for Daya, Ahimsa and self purification.

> > >

> > > 2. Teach recognisable Teachings from Vedanta and other Muktas. All is One

and the small 'I' is false.

> > >

> > > 3. Usually they are not over active and don't travel a lot if

possible....Nowhere to go!!!

> > >

> > > 4. They teach a lot by silence like Dakshinamurthi.....and are not given

to long road show discourses...

> > >

> > > 5. They do not write copiously..but may answer questions.....but not

usually from dilletantes..

> > >

> > > 6. Have the ability to answer obtuse questions without being tertiary

educated...

> > >

> > > 7. You can usually feel their energy and they can give Diksha or

initiation and Saktipat....

> > >

> > > 8. They are usually not making, generating and selling Books, DVDs, and

asking for donations.

> > >

> > > 9. They are not given to siddhis and miracles although things may happen

around them.

> > >

> > > 10. Regard all beings as being equal including animals.

> > >

> > > 11. Sometimes grant Moksha to animals......and advanced humans...

> > >

> > > 12. They usually prefer to more reclusive than expansive....

> > >

> > > 13. Demonstrate or advise some kind of sadhana...and meditation.

> > >

> > > Those road show gurus are not usually Muktas and although do good work for

everybody and themselves cannot impart initiation as only a Mukta with power of

the Self can do that...

> > >

> > > The best way is to become a mukta oneself.....Tony.

> > >

> >

> > for me the recognition of a guru is a subjective event. the key is love.

without love there's no guru.

> >

> > the guru can eat meat, travel, may not know anything about vedanta, not

crazy about pets,...there are really no particular rules. we often idealize

gurus to fit our own expectations of a how a holy man should behave...as the

super-ego extraordinaire.

> >

>

> otherwise how else can you explain the fact that osho always seemed like a

fraud to me but some of the most spiritual and geninue people i knew regarded

him as their guru.

 

anyone taking osho as other than a very intelligent, glib manipulator had to

shut out what they didn't want to see. especially true of those close to him,

but even in the way he wrote - which was often psychologically tinged, like

constructing a role as part guru part therapist.

 

as with those who loved and adored adi da, and had to shut out or distort what

they saw in order to believe his claims of being the greatest realizer in

history. most people function as psychological beings, and the need for a

powerful authority to adore can be a strong psychological motive.

 

clear awareness, not based in the personal and psychological, is rare among

humans.

 

seeing clearly without shutting out what isn't wanted to be there.

 

thus, humans actually get gratification out of deluding themselves and others,

gain a sense of continuity as a personal being. and this motive is as much

involved in " spirituality " and " religion " as it is in " business " and " the family

unit. "

 

love certainly isn't the be-all, end-all.

 

love without clarity easily lends to distortion.

 

the love that isn't personalized nor based on emotions and the past is not the

love offered by a personal being, which love is a disguised attempt to get

something back.

 

the typical love and adoration aimed at a guru is for the sake of having an

ideal object that can be counted on.

 

of course, just as you say, this is purely a subjective opinion I'm expressing.

 

as for what isn't a subjective opinion - there is no story to it.

 

and anything said in words will construe a story.

 

yours without capital,

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " aoclery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > How can I recognise a Sadguru or true Mukta Guru?

> > > >

> > > > First of all a True Guru will call you and you will know from

inside...the heart..However they usually share some common signals.

> > > >

> > > > 1. Teach vegetarianism .....for Daya, Ahimsa and self purification.

> > > >

> > > > 2. Teach recognisable Teachings from Vedanta and other Muktas. All is

One and the small 'I' is false.

> > > >

> > > > 3. Usually they are not over active and don't travel a lot if

possible....Nowhere to go!!!

> > > >

> > > > 4. They teach a lot by silence like Dakshinamurthi.....and are not given

to long road show discourses...

> > > >

> > > > 5. They do not write copiously..but may answer questions.....but not

usually from dilletantes..

> > > >

> > > > 6. Have the ability to answer obtuse questions without being tertiary

educated...

> > > >

> > > > 7. You can usually feel their energy and they can give Diksha or

initiation and Saktipat....

> > > >

> > > > 8. They are usually not making, generating and selling Books, DVDs, and

asking for donations.

> > > >

> > > > 9. They are not given to siddhis and miracles although things may happen

around them.

> > > >

> > > > 10. Regard all beings as being equal including animals.

> > > >

> > > > 11. Sometimes grant Moksha to animals......and advanced humans...

> > > >

> > > > 12. They usually prefer to more reclusive than expansive....

> > > >

> > > > 13. Demonstrate or advise some kind of sadhana...and meditation.

> > > >

> > > > Those road show gurus are not usually Muktas and although do good work

for everybody and themselves cannot impart initiation as only a Mukta with power

of the Self can do that...

> > > >

> > > > The best way is to become a mukta oneself.....Tony.

> > > >

> > >

> > > for me the recognition of a guru is a subjective event. the key is love.

without love there's no guru.

> > >

> > > the guru can eat meat, travel, may not know anything about vedanta, not

crazy about pets,...there are really no particular rules. we often idealize

gurus to fit our own expectations of a how a holy man should behave...as the

super-ego extraordinaire.

> > >

> >

> > otherwise how else can you explain the fact that osho always seemed like a

fraud to me but some of the most spiritual and geninue people i knew regarded

him as their guru.

>

> anyone taking osho as other than a very intelligent, glib

> manipulator had to shut out what they didn't want to see.

 

Fwiw, I always rather liked what Osho had to say.

 

I wasn't there when he was alive, just read some of his books.

 

Enjoyed what he had to say.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hurg@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " aoclery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > How can I recognise a Sadguru or true Mukta Guru?

> > > > >

> > > > > First of all a True Guru will call you and you will know from

inside...the heart..However they usually share some common signals.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. Teach vegetarianism .....for Daya, Ahimsa and self purification.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2. Teach recognisable Teachings from Vedanta and other Muktas. All is

One and the small 'I' is false.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3. Usually they are not over active and don't travel a lot if

possible....Nowhere to go!!!

> > > > >

> > > > > 4. They teach a lot by silence like Dakshinamurthi.....and are not

given to long road show discourses...

> > > > >

> > > > > 5. They do not write copiously..but may answer questions.....but not

usually from dilletantes..

> > > > >

> > > > > 6. Have the ability to answer obtuse questions without being tertiary

educated...

> > > > >

> > > > > 7. You can usually feel their energy and they can give Diksha or

initiation and Saktipat....

> > > > >

> > > > > 8. They are usually not making, generating and selling Books, DVDs,

and asking for donations.

> > > > >

> > > > > 9. They are not given to siddhis and miracles although things may

happen around them.

> > > > >

> > > > > 10. Regard all beings as being equal including animals.

> > > > >

> > > > > 11. Sometimes grant Moksha to animals......and advanced humans...

> > > > >

> > > > > 12. They usually prefer to more reclusive than expansive....

> > > > >

> > > > > 13. Demonstrate or advise some kind of sadhana...and meditation.

> > > > >

> > > > > Those road show gurus are not usually Muktas and although do good work

for everybody and themselves cannot impart initiation as only a Mukta with power

of the Self can do that...

> > > > >

> > > > > The best way is to become a mukta oneself.....Tony.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > for me the recognition of a guru is a subjective event. the key is love.

without love there's no guru.

> > > >

> > > > the guru can eat meat, travel, may not know anything about vedanta, not

crazy about pets,...there are really no particular rules. we often idealize

gurus to fit our own expectations of a how a holy man should behave...as the

super-ego extraordinaire.

> > > >

> > >

> > > otherwise how else can you explain the fact that osho always seemed like a

fraud to me but some of the most spiritual and geninue people i knew regarded

him as their guru.

> >

> > anyone taking osho as other than a very intelligent, glib

> > manipulator had to shut out what they didn't want to see.

>

> Fwiw, I always rather liked what Osho had to say.

>

> I wasn't there when he was alive, just read some of his books.

>

> Enjoyed what he had to say.

 

Me, too, at times.

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

without love there's no guru

without beloved there's no lover

in time the beloved and lover may fade

but love in hearts lingers a little longer

till there's no one to speak of the memories of love