Realization (was: Mie/Smadhi/ Drugs)

______________

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

December 13, 2001

, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

> Dear Jody,

>

> here is a brief quote from Paramahansa Yogananda that you might find of

> interest in the context of our discussion.

>

> ------

> Section III of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras mentions various yogic miraculous

> powers (vibhutis and siddhis). True knowledge is always power. The path of

> yoga is divided into four stages, each with its vibhuti expression.

> Achieving a certain power, the yogi knows that he has successfully passed

> the tests of one of the four stages. Emergence of the characteristic powers

> is evidence of the scientific structure of the yoga system, wherein delusive

> imaginations about one's "spiritual progress" are banished; proof is

> required!

> -------

>

> Take care,

>

> Michael

Michael, you are making the common mistake of

holding the map to be the territory. Yogananda has

provided one map of a process, based on the prior

work he is commenting on. Presenting yoga as

"scientific" was a means to increase its

marketability in the West, where Yogananda was

doing most of his teaching. By promoting the

emergence of siddhis as the "proof" required by

the scientific mind, he could make the concepts of

yoga more palatable to so-called rational

thinkers.

When one comes to Self realization, it is never a

matter of "progress." This is the first thing one

sees when they come to the understanding. Only

those who have come to this understanding can know

this, as Self realization is *entirely*

experiential with regards to its understanding.

Put another way, those that know, know. Those

that don't, cannot.

I will offer my warning again. Expectations about

realization are the biggest hindrances to its

manifesting in a life. As you sit and wait for

"evidence" of your "spiritual progress," your

opportunity to discover that which you already are

passes moment by moment.

Realization is not an "achievement" of any sort.

It is at most a simple discovery, astonishing when

encountered. When It is seen for the first time

the most incredible thing about it is how we had

been missing it all the years we were looking for

it. Realization sits right there in our front

pocket all the time. Because we keep looking

toward a sky full of saints and powers, we miss

the real thing that is closer to us than our own

heart over and over again.

December 13, 2001

Dear Jody,

I wish I could agree with you, but I can't. :-)

See, there is that element of a "process", or "progress", or

"achievement",

on other paths, too. Here are a few examples.

The Buddha's last words: "All compounded things are transient. Strive on

(for awakening) with diligence." (Mahaparanirvana Sutra)

In the Christian world, you have the "Pray without ceasing."

Or also, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works

that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do."

And again, "Verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard

seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place; and it

shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Or Sri Ramana (thanks, Gloria, your post was timely): "The student is bound

to wake up from the samadhi because release from the bondage of vasanas

tendencies) has not yet been accomplished.... When the student has freed the

heart the samadhi becomes permanent."

All these quotes are indicative of progress and achievement.

Of course, *after* ultimate realization, all striving ceases. But before

that is reached, "strive on with diligence", as the Lord Buddha says.

Take care,

Michael

December 13, 2001

, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

> Dear Jody,

>

> I wish I could agree with you, but I can't. :-)

>

> See, there is that element of a "process", or "progress", or

"achievement",

> on other paths, too. Here are a few examples.

>

> The Buddha's last words: "All compounded things are transient. Strive on

> (for awakening) with diligence." (Mahaparanirvana Sutra)

>

> In the Christian world, you have the "Pray without ceasing."

>

> Or also, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works

> that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do."

>

> And again, "Verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard

> seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place; and it

> shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

>

> Or Sri Ramana (thanks, Gloria, your post was timely): "The student is bound

> to wake up from the samadhi because release from the bondage of vasanas

> tendencies) has not yet been accomplished.... When the student has freed the

> heart the samadhi becomes permanent."

>

> All these quotes are indicative of progress and achievement.

>

> Of course, *after* ultimate realization, all striving ceases. But before

> that is reached, "strive on with diligence", as the Lord Buddha says.

>

> Take care,

>

> Michael

Michael, not once did I stay we shouldn't strive

for understanding. Self effort is recommended by

all the sages, despite the fact that the

connection between effort and the sought after

"result" is only apparent.

However, progress and achievement only occur

within the sphere of personal transformation.

While realization is associated with personal

transformation, those that come to the

understanding become quite aware of the tenuous

link between their efforts and the grace that

befell them.

This isn't to say "don't try" but to say "don't

expect". If we are striving for something, it

should be for the sake of striving itself. This is

in keeping with the Gita's recommendation to do

work for work's sake. By not making realization

our goal or sought after achievement, we allow

ourselves to be much more open to the possibility

of Its manifestation in our lives.

But to bring this back to the original discussion,

the fact remains that there are individuals who

have come to Self realization in the context of a

life that included recreational drug use. This

idea might violate deeply held beliefs on your

part, but that doesn't preclude it from being

true.

I'm not after your agreement in telling you this.

I simply want to express the understanding my life

has encountered, in the hopes that you (and

others) won't hold the same misunderstandings I

did. If the present me was telling these things

to the me of 10 years ago, I would have produced

the same argument you have. Since then I've been

blessed to come to a clearer understanding of the

issue, and therefore I offer what I've come to

know in the hopes of providing some clarity.

I don't expect anyone to accept it, and I always

recommend that if not accepted it can be thrown

over the fence along with the dog dirt.

December 13, 2001

Dear Jody,

I have no problem with your statement that "people can come to moksha (or

liberation, or jnana) in the context of a life that includes some drug use."

Actually, some people have even come to moksha after having been murderers

in the context of their lives, such as Valmiki (the sage who created the

Ramayana), or the Tibetan yogi, Milarepa.

However, I don't think that any of these actions would be very conducive to

moksha, either. :-) Why build up hindrances voluntarily?

And, Jody, isn't it true that neither Jesus, nor Buddha, nor Krishna, nor

Ramakrishna, nor Sri Ramana, nor my own Guruji, ever advocated the use of

alcohol or of any other mind-altering substances for the purpose of

spiritual growth?

Yoganandaji had a few students who were alcoholics, and he treated them the

same as all others - with love and understanding. I am not aware of any drug

users among his students, but I have no doubt he would have given them the

same love. He did, however, strongly counsel his students to stay away from

any intoxicants.

Michael

December 13, 2001

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:27:04 +0100 MikeSuesserott writes:

> Dear Jody,

>

> I have no problem with your statement that "people can come to

> moksha (or

> liberation, or jnana) in the context of a life that includes some

> drug use."

> Actually, some people have even come to moksha after having been

> murderers

> in the context of their lives, such as Valmiki (the sage who created

> the Ramayana), or the Tibetan yogi, Milarepa.

Do you actually think creating

an equivalence or parallel

between recreational drug use

and murder is valid or

helpful here, Mike?

>

> However, I don't think that any of these actions would be very

> conducive to

> moksha, either. :-) Why build up hindrances voluntarily?

It has not been established

that they are necessarily

"hinderances." Do keep in

mind that the occurrence of

realization is not within

the realm of ordinary

causality, meaning that

nothing of maya can actually

hinder it. As Jodyji points

out, our preconceptions

about it are by far the most

significant barrier we

enounter. I would say that

a belief that drug use will

help bring about realization

is in the same problematic

category as your belief that

it is by nature a

"hinderance" to it!

>

> And, Jody, isn't it true that neither Jesus, nor Buddha, nor

> Krishna, nor

> Ramakrishna, nor Sri Ramana, nor my own Guruji, ever advocated the

> use of

> alcohol or of any other mind-altering substances for the purpose of

> spiritual growth?

Actually, Ramakrishna was a

regular cannabis user and

considered his use of it a

sacrament. Jesus was

criticized in his own time

for drinking wine.

>

> Yoganandaji had a few students who were alcoholics, and he treated

> them the

> same as all others - with love and understanding. I am not aware of

> any drug

> users among his students, but I have no doubt he would have given

> them the

> same love. He did, however, strongly counsel his students to stay

> away from any intoxicants.

I would suggest to you that

Yoganandaji's counsel was

specific to the path he

personally taught, as was

Ramakrishna's. Neither's

viewpoint can be

productively generalized to

typify all recreational

drug use as comprising

"hinderances."

>

> Michael

>

______________

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2001-11-29/faultlines.html/1/

December 13, 2001

, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

> Dear Jody,

>

> I have no problem with your statement that "people can come to moksha (or

> liberation, or jnana) in the context of a life that includes some drug use."

> Actually, some people have even come to moksha after having been murderers

> in the context of their lives, such as Valmiki (the sage who created the

> Ramayana), or the Tibetan yogi, Milarepa.

Ok then, we're on the same page now.

> However, I don't think that any of these actions would be very conducive to

> moksha, either. :-)

Your thoughts on the matter are based on your belief, supported

by what you've read. That's a good place to start, but doesn't

comprise understanding as it were.

> Why build up hindrances voluntarily?

Because perhaps for some it helps to dissolve them, at least

in their form as attachment to patterns of thinking, feeling

and behavior.

> And, Jody, isn't it true that neither Jesus, nor Buddha, nor Krishna, nor

> Ramakrishna, nor Sri Ramana, nor my own Guruji, ever advocated the use of

> alcohol or of any other mind-altering substances for the purpose of

> spiritual growth?

I believe Bruceji has already dealt with this statement and I concur.

> Yoganandaji had a few students who were alcoholics, and he treated them the

> same as all others - with love and understanding. I am not aware of any drug

> users among his students, but I have no doubt he would have given them the

> same love. He did, however, strongly counsel his students to stay away from

> any intoxicants.

>

> Michael

Yogananda may very well have a history of not doing as he said:

index.html

This isn't to imply he wasn't a saint. Ramakrishna was gay with

a preference for adolescent boys as well as being a very great

saint, and his great disciple Vivekananda introduced Vedanta to

the West.

It makes my case nicely. That is, it isn't behavior or abiding by

a moral code that brings realization. The blessing of moksha comes

to those engaged in sadhana more than others, but the spectrum of

those it reaches lies far beyond anything you could call the norm.

Thinking outside the box about these things, or not having any

thoughts at all about them, is perhaps the best approach to take if

one is to make themselves available to the blessing they seek.

December 14, 2001

Dear Jody and Bruce,

now it's my turn to say, please read what I wrote.

How can you even think that I equated drug use with murder in any way. I

used a logic device called "reductio ad absurdum" which basically consists

in trying to evaluate a statement by considering extreme cases. So don't get

worked up unnecessarily.

However, I am going to say something now that you may not like. It is a bit

judgmental, and you will probably feel quite differently about it. But I

think if these posts of ours are to be of any value at all, that value might

lie in the fact that we, each of us, are honest in saying what we feel to be

true.

During the course of this exchange, I had always been wondering about one

thing: how can these two gentlemen seem to think they have reached a state

that is on a par with Jesus Christ and Sri Ramakrishna and these other

saints? How do they justify this belief before their own minds?

>From your last posts I can see now how it is done. It seems the (perhaps

subconscious) mental mechanism is to simply drag down the spiritual stature

of these Great Ones to a person's own level of development, to phases that

that person is able to understand or relate to, so that it can then safely

be claimed that a comparable spiritual state (or better) has been achieved.

In the words of Sri Yukteswarji, it is "trying to be tall by cutting off the

heads of others."

I realize that you will not be willing accept this analysis. You will

probably feel that I am, at best, deeply deluded, and as far as I am

concerned, I will understand and we may leave it at that. Each of us has the

prerogative to sail his little boat in the direction he wants to go, and

feels attracted to. My sincerest good wishes go to you both.

Michael

December 14, 2001

, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

> How can you even think that I equated drug use with murder in any

> way. I used a logic device

I advise taking 3 grams of magic mushrooms

to free oneself from the shackles

of 'logic devices'.

> called "reductio ad absurdum" which basically

> consists in trying to evaluate a statement by considering extreme

> cases. So don't get worked up unnecessarily.

I have found a specific meditative & explorative technique

to be most useful. It likely wouldn't work for you

or fit into your limited conceptual framework

but I am not concerned because as you point out,

God loves even murderers

> I think if these posts of ours are to be of any value at all, that

> value might lie in the fact that we, each of us, are honest in

> saying what we feel to be true.

I honestly feel that there is absolutely

no value in saying what we feel to be true.

> During the course of this exchange, I had always been wondering

> about one thing: how can these two gentlemen seem to think they

have

> reached a state that is on a par with Jesus Christ and Sri

> Ramakrishna and these other saints?

What two gentlemen think this?

> How do they justify this belief before their own minds?

How does one justify one's belief

regarding what someone else thinks?

> From your last posts I can see now how it is done. It seems the

>(perhaps subconscious) mental mechanism is to simply drag down the

> spiritual stature of these Great Ones to a person's own level of

> development,

The blind can not see

the Great One

within.

They feel around outside themselves.

> to phases that that person is able to understand or relate to, so

> that it can then safely be claimed that a comparable spiritual

> state(or better) has been achieved. In the words of Sri

Yukteswarji,

> it is "trying to be tall by cutting off the heads of others."

If someone else's path

defies my own limited thinking

I'd cut their heads off too...

> I realize that you will not be willing accept this analysis. You

> will probably feel that I am, at best, deeply deluded,

Those who think they are not deluded

are the most deluded of them all...

> Each of us has the prerogative to sail his little boat in

> the direction he wants to go, and feels attracted to. My sincerest

> good wishes go to you both.

Where are you going?

David

(finds it extremely difficult to accept those

whose path may not be like his own but is trying

the best he can with what he has)

December 14, 2001

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:27:48 +0100 MikeSuesserott writes:

> Dear Jody and Bruce,

>

> now it's my turn to say, please read what I wrote.

>

> How can you even think that I equated drug use with murder in any

> way. I

> used a logic device called "reductio ad absurdum" which basically

> consists

> in trying to evaluate a statement by considering extreme cases. So

> don't get

> worked up unnecessarily.

I'm not the least bit worked

up, but honestly the posited

reducio ad absurdam was not

apparent in the referenced

paragraph, to whit:

"I have no problem with your statement that "people can come to moksha

(or

liberation, or jnana) in the context of a life that includes some drug

use."

Actually, some people have even come to moksha after having been

murderers

in the context of their lives, such as Valmiki (the sage who created the

Ramayana), or the Tibetan yogi, Milarepa."

A slight alteration in wording

would have avoided the

misunderstanding. As worded,

you erected an equivalence or

parallel without clearly

underlining the juxtaposition's

absurdity.

>

> However, I am going to say something now that you may not like. It

> is a bit

> judgmental, and you will probably feel quite differently about it.

> But I

> think if these posts of ours are to be of any value at all, that

> value might

> lie in the fact that we, each of us, are honest in saying what we

> feel to be true.

I agree, there is no value

whatsoever in dishonesty.

>

> During the course of this exchange, I had always been wondering

> about one

> thing: how can these two gentlemen seem to think they have reached a

> state

> that is on a par with Jesus Christ and Sri Ramakrishna and these

> other

> saints? How do they justify this belief before their own minds?

I would never occur to me to

make direct personal

comparisons of the type you

infer here.

>

> From your last posts I can see now how it is done. It seems the

> (perhaps

> subconscious) mental mechanism is to simply drag down the spiritual

> stature

> of these Great Ones to a person's own level of development, to

> phases that

> that person is able to understand or relate to, so that it can then

> safely

> be claimed that a comparable spiritual state (or better) has been

> achieved.

> In the words of Sri Yukteswarji, it is "trying to be tall by cutting

> off the heads of others."

No, you couldn't be more

off-base. I have nothing

but respect and admiration

of (what I have learned of)

"The Great Ones" under

discussion. As a matter of

fact, Jodyji soemtimes

refers to Ramakrishna as "my

avatar" and I have often

recommend the words of Jesus

as presented in The Gospel

Of Thomas.

>

> I realize that you will not be willing accept this analysis.

It doesn't qualify as

"analysis," it's pure

inference drawn as per

certain preconceptions about

the nature of realization

and of so-called "realized"

folks.

> You will

> probably feel that I am, at best, deeply deluded,

No, Mike, at worst your are

quite typical of folks who

approach these issues from a

reverential/devotional

mindset. As Jodyji confesses,

several years back he would

have participated in this

discussion from much the same

viewpoint. This is not

delusional, it simply reflects

who and where you are in this

moment. You are addressing

the matter as your see it and

that is as sincere and honest

at it ever gets. Namaste'!

> and as far as I am

> concerned, I will understand and we may leave it at that. Each of us

> has the

> prerogative to sail his little boat in the direction he wants to go,

> and feels attracted to.

True enough, but not really the

point here. So be it.

> My sincerest good wishes go to you both.

Right back atcha!

>

> Michael

>

Much love -- Bruce

______________

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

December 14, 2001

, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

> Dear Jody and Bruce,

>

> now it's my turn to say, please read

> what I wrote.

I wouldn't dream of doing otherwise.

> How can you even think that I equated

> drug use with murder in any way. I used

> a logic device called "reductio ad

> absurdum" which basically consists in

> trying to evaluate a statement by

> considering extreme cases. So don't get

> worked up unnecessarily.

Bruce rejected the comparison and I

accepted it, but I don't think either

of us got worked up over it.

> However, I am going to say something now

> that you may not like. It is a bit

> judgmental, and you will probably feel

> quite differently about it. But I think

> if these posts of ours are to be of any

> value at all, that value might lie in

> the fact that we, each of us, are honest

> in saying what we feel to be true.

Your honesty is appreciated.

> During the course of this exchange, I

> had always been wondering about one

> thing: how can these two gentlemen seem

> to think they have reached a state that

> is on a par with Jesus Christ and Sri

> Ramakrishna and these other saints? How

> do they justify this belief before their

> own minds?

Neither of us has ever stated that we

are on a par with any saint. All we

have done is express our understanding

as we have come to know it. You have

always been free to make what you want

of that, and now it seems you have.

The understanding we have arrived at

is not a belief in anything. There is

nothing we need to justify to ourselves

as individuals, and we are both well

aware of the fact that others may (and

often do) reject the clarity we offer.

> From your last posts I can see now how

> it is done. It seems the (perhaps

> subconscious) mental mechanism is to

> simply drag down the spiritual stature

> of these Great Ones to a person's own

> level of development, to phases that

> that person is able to understand or

> relate to, so that it can then safely be

> claimed that a comparable spiritual

> state (or better) has been achieved. In

> the words of Sri Yukteswarji, it is

> "trying to be tall by cutting off the

> heads of others."

The "Great Ones" are such due to the

phenomenon known as hagiography. This

is the tendency of those that come

after the "Great Ones" to pump up their

biographies with miraculous details

and events that probably didn't happen,

or at least happen in the way described.

Anything that could be construed as

less than pure is whitewashed away

as well, leaving very little of their

original humanity, but a whole lot

of preened and primped divinity.

The devotees of the "Great Ones" keep

them up on that pedestal due to a

preoccupation with their own short-

comings. It's a kind of hubris that

masquerades as humility. People come

to believe that only by being perfectly

humble will they come to be blessed

with realization. The method is to

always be looking up at the "Great

Ones" so that they will never come to

believe we are great ourselves.

The problem with this is that due to

the hagiography, we've come to believe

in men and women that almost certainly

didn't exist in the way they are

described, and we acquire a whole set

of entirely unrealistic expectations

about what Self realization brings to

a life. In this way most of what

comprises traditional spiritual

culture does much more to occlude

understanding than foster it.

However, people seem to need the security

blanket of a "Great One" on a pedestal.

It's too bad the shadow that results

gets in the way of the light they are

seeking.

> I realize that you will not be willing

> accept this analysis. You will probably

> feel that I am, at best, deeply deluded,

> and as far as I am concerned, I will

> understand and we may leave it at that.

> Each of us has the prerogative to sail

> his little boat in the direction he

> wants to go, and feels attracted to. My

> sincerest good wishes go to you both.

>

> Michael

I've never felt you were deluded. You

seem like a very sincere seeker to me,

and I'm reminded of myself a number of

years back. If the me of then had

encountered the me of now, I'd of had

the same assessment of me that you do.

By reducing Bruceji and myself to poor

deluded souls, you've preserved your

system of beliefs and expectations. Since

you are convinced they are the only way

to go, you are now insured not to fall by

the wayside as we apparently have.

You expect that hewing to this line you

have drawn will surely bring about the

understanding you seek. I wish you the

best as well, but I'm afraid the line you've

drawn is a wall that keeps you from the

simple recognition that sits right there in

your very own front pocket.

December 14, 2001

Dear Michael --

It's not a matter

of determining who's the one who's

really deluded here, and who knows

what he or she is talking about.

Nope, believe it or not, it isn't the

property of a someone, who can be

given the quality of being wise,

while someone else is designated as deluded.

There are no "someone's" here.

And, it's not a state.

It's not a state that is entered.

Anything that can be entered, can be left,

and there must be a someone who is

doing the entering and leaving.

What is it that has never been left,

can never be entered, and has never

been the product of someone's development?

It's easy, it just can't be articulated.

No matter how much you look for it, look to

others to represent it to you, try to distinguish

who really can offer it to you and who is deluded --

the fact is, you've never lost it ...

And of course, it's not just knowing the concepts

to say. It's far beyond that. And it's beyond

any particular experience of any specific

individual in a particular time and place,

whether that be a drug trip, a satori experience,

orgasmic bliss, or shovelling cow manure.

One thing about it (and knowing that any words distort)

is that it "makes all things equal" ... so that there is

nothing that is not "it", and nothing in particular that

is more "it" than anything else. So, naturally, "it's"

not an "it", and is so unspeakably "who you are", that

it is fully "your being" before you knew yourself in

terms of a name, body, or situation in time/space.

And it's fine to use a teacher to

represent what can't be represented,

as long as you realize that's what you're doing.

Love,

Dan

> Dear Jody and Bruce,

>

> now it's my turn to say, please read what I wrote.

>

> How can you even think that I equated drug use with murder in any

way. I

> used a logic device called "reductio ad absurdum" which basically

consists

> in trying to evaluate a statement by considering extreme cases. So

don't get

> worked up unnecessarily.

>

> However, I am going to say something now that you may not like. It

is a bit

> judgmental, and you will probably feel quite differently about it.

But I

> think if these posts of ours are to be of any value at all, that

value might

> lie in the fact that we, each of us, are honest in saying what we

feel to be

> true.

>

> During the course of this exchange, I had always been wondering

about one

> thing: how can these two gentlemen seem to think they have reached a

state

> that is on a par with Jesus Christ and Sri Ramakrishna and these

other

> saints? How do they justify this belief before their own minds?

>

> From your last posts I can see now how it is done. It seems the

(perhaps

> subconscious) mental mechanism is to simply drag down the spiritual

stature

> of these Great Ones to a person's own level of development, to

phases that

> that person is able to understand or relate to, so that it can then

safely

> be claimed that a comparable spiritual state (or better) has been

achieved.

> In the words of Sri Yukteswarji, it is "trying to be tall by cutting

off the

> heads of others."

>

> I realize that you will not be willing accept this analysis. You

will

> probably feel that I am, at best, deeply deluded, and as far as I am

> concerned, I will understand and we may leave it at that. Each of us

has the

> prerogative to sail his little boat in the direction he wants to go,

and

> feels attracted to. My sincerest good wishes go to you both.

>

> Michael

December 14, 2001

, "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> wrote:

> , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

>

> > How can you even think that I equated drug use with murder in any

> > way. I used a logic device

>

> I advise taking 3 grams of magic mushrooms

> to free oneself from the shackles

> of 'logic devices'.

Now, how will you free yourself of your

assumptions about magic mushrooms?

> > called "reductio ad absurdum" which basically

> > consists in trying to evaluate a statement by considering extreme

> > cases. So don't get worked up unnecessarily.

>

> I have found a specific meditative & explorative technique

> to be most useful. It likely wouldn't work for you

> or fit into your limited conceptual framework

> but I am not concerned because as you point out,

> God loves even murderers

But does God love her mother?

>

> > I think if these posts of ours are to be of any value at all, that

> > value might lie in the fact that we, each of us, are honest in

> > saying what we feel to be true.

>

> I honestly feel that there is absolutely

> no value in saying what we feel to be true.

I honestly feel your statement is absolutely valuable

and truthful.

> > During the course of this exchange, I had always been wondering

> > about one thing: how can these two gentlemen seem to think they

> have

> > reached a state that is on a par with Jesus Christ and Sri

> > Ramakrishna and these other saints?

>

> What two gentlemen think this?

Those two, over there.

>

> > How do they justify this belief before their own minds?

>

> How does one justify one's belief

> regarding what someone else thinks?

By convincing oneself one is correct.

And convincing oneself that one can convince oneself.

> > From your last posts I can see now how it is done. It seems the

> >(perhaps subconscious) mental mechanism is to simply drag down the

> > spiritual stature of these Great Ones to a person's own level of

> > development,

>

> The blind can not see

> the Great One

> within.

The Great One can't be seen,

because there is no "within" nor "without" ...

>

> They feel around outside themselves.

>

> > to phases that that person is able to understand or relate to, so

> > that it can then safely be claimed that a comparable spiritual

> > state(or better) has been achieved. In the words of Sri

> Yukteswarji,

> > it is "trying to be tall by cutting off the heads of others."

>

> If someone else's path

> defies my own limited thinking

> I'd cut their heads off too...

Yes, it's a rare one who will cut off one's own

head to spite one's beliefs ...

>

> > I realize that you will not be willing accept this analysis. You

> > will probably feel that I am, at best, deeply deluded,

>

> Those who think they are not deluded

> are the most deluded of them all...

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is most

deluded of all?

>

> > Each of us has the prerogative to sail his little boat in

> > the direction he wants to go, and feels attracted to. My sincerest

> > good wishes go to you both.

>

> Where are you going?

Nowhere, fast ...

-- Dan

(finds the path, wherever he goes,

and is trying to get off the path,

but never succeeding)

>

> David

> (finds it extremely difficult to accept those

> whose path may not be like his own but is trying

> the best he can with what he has)

December 14, 2001

This notion that we know what is best for someone is highly problematic. We

are moving. Is it a movement of love? Michaelji is speaking from his heart.

One who speaks from the heart is not in need of advice or being told what

stage they are at and what they should realize, etc.

Love to all

Harsha

dan330033 [dan330033]

Friday, December 14, 2001 5:49 PM

Re: Realization (was: Mie/Smadhi/ Drugs)

Dear Michael --

It's not a matter

of determining who's the one who's

really deluded here, and who knows

what he or she is talking about.

Nope, believe it or not, it isn't the

property of a someone, who can be

given the quality of being wise,

while someone else is designated as deluded.

There are no "someone's" here.

And, it's not a state.

It's not a state that is entered.

Anything that can be entered, can be left,

and there must be a someone who is

doing the entering and leaving.

What is it that has never been left,

can never be entered, and has never

been the product of someone's development?

It's easy, it just can't be articulated.

No matter how much you look for it, look to

others to represent it to you, try to distinguish

who really can offer it to you and who is deluded --

the fact is, you've never lost it ...

And of course, it's not just knowing the concepts

to say. It's far beyond that. And it's beyond

any particular experience of any specific

individual in a particular time and place,

whether that be a drug trip, a satori experience,

orgasmic bliss, or shovelling cow manure.

One thing about it (and knowing that any words distort)

is that it "makes all things equal" ... so that there is

nothing that is not "it", and nothing in particular that

is more "it" than anything else. So, naturally, "it's"

not an "it", and is so unspeakably "who you are", that

it is fully "your being" before you knew yourself in

terms of a name, body, or situation in time/space.

And it's fine to use a teacher to

represent what can't be represented,

as long as you realize that's what you're doing.

Love,

Dan

December 15, 2001

Dear Bruce and Jody,

I appreciate the kind and well-balanced spirit of your replies. Though I had

hoped for this, I had not been quite sure what to expect. :-) Thanks also to

Harsha for his loving presence, to Dan for his friendly input, and to David

for his controversial one. I bow to the God in all of you.

I am not a guru, just a simple brother devotee on the path. Any of you who

feel you have moksha, or are liberated or realized, I congratulate you. But

I know that I for one will not be satisfied until I can truthfully say as

Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" and, speaking of his life, "No man

taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,

and I have power to take it again." (John 10)

It may take a long time, perhaps many lives, but this is what I am after -

unity with the creator of heaven and earth, time and space. The Great Ones

have shown it can be done.

Love,

Michael

December 15, 2001

No thought here about what someone should or shouldn't

realize.

And most definitely respecting all who speak,

for where is there not evidence of the Heart?

Nothing problematic here.

All love,

Dan

> This notion that we know what is best for someone is highly

problematic. We

> are moving. Is it a movement of love? Michaelji is speaking from his

heart.

> One who speaks from the heart is not in need of advice or being told

what

> stage they are at and what they should realize, etc.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

December 15, 2001

> Mike:

>I appreciate the kind and well-balanced spirit of your replies.

>Though I had

> hoped for this, I had not been quite sure what to expect. :-) Thanks

also to

> Harsha for his loving presence, to Dan for his friendly input, and

to David

> for his controversial one. I bow to the God in all of you.

Dan: You're welcome, Michael.

And thanks for your kind consideration.

I'd bow to God, but I'm not sure which

direction that would be.

> I am not a guru, just a simple brother devotee on the path. Any of

you who

> feel you have moksha, or are liberated or realized, I congratulate

you.

Congratulations would seem to be in order.

But to whom to send those congratulations, and in which direction?

But

> I know that I for one will not be satisfied until I can truthfully

say as

> Jesus said, "I and my Father are one"

O.K.

And, what keeps such "satisfaction" from being "now"?

What would make such a statement untruthful?

>and, speaking of his life, "No

man

> taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay

it down,

> and I have power to take it again." (John 10)

Yes. As Gautama said, "Be a lamp unto yourself" ...

> It may take a long time, perhaps many lives, but this is what I am

after -

> unity with the creator of heaven and earth, time and space.

Are you sure that unicity is an outcome of time?

Has what is originally whole been separated?

>From whence would arise the factor that could

separate Reality?

The

Great Ones

> have shown it can be done.

Where is the Great One not showing itself?

Love,

Dan

December 15, 2001

Hi Dan,

> > Jesus said, "I and my Father are one"

> O.K.

> And, what keeps such "satisfaction" from being "now"?

> What would make such a statement untruthful?

Well, Dan, if you can *truthfully* say this, and by this I mean, not just

parroting something from the scriptures, but being one with the reality of

it to the fullest, you might do me a few insignificant favors:

create a universe (a small one like ours would do)

create a grain of wheat

create man and woman

for the third task, you might think of a new species, the old one having

sort of worn out by now.

Understand what I am trying to say? :-)

Take care,

Michael

December 15, 2001

Hi Michael,

> > > Jesus said, "I and my Father are one"

> > O.K.

> > And, what keeps such "satisfaction" from being "now"?

> > What would make such a statement untruthful?

>

> Well, Dan, if you can *truthfully* say this, and by this I mean, not

just

> parroting something from the scriptures, but being one with the

reality of

> it to the fullest, you might do me a few insignificant favors:

>

> create a universe (a small one like ours would do)

Here it is.

> create a grain of wheat

There it is.

> create man and woman

Here they are.

> for the third task, you might think of a new species, the old one

having

> sort of worn out by now.

:-)

It's "one with the Father/Mother", not

"separate from, and doing things in a new

and different way from the Father/Mother."

> Understand what I am trying to say? :-)

Yes, you're saying that being

one with the Father/Mother means being

an "I" who can make the universe

according to what "I" wants.

And I'm saying, with no one apart to make

things be the way he or she wants,

unicity is "now" the reality.

"Not 'my' will, but Thy will be done" ...

"In this day, YHVH is ONE, and the Will

of YHVH is ONE"

Be well,

Dan

December 15, 2001

Dear Dan,

see, you have been able to create words only. No new species has emerged.

:-)Creating words is not the same as realization, unfortunately.

Michael

> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

> Von: dan330033 [dan330033]

> Gesendet: Sunday, December 16, 2001 00:18

> An:

> Betreff: Re: Realization (was: Mie/Smadhi/ Drugs)

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> > > > Jesus said, "I and my Father are one"

> > > O.K.

> > > And, what keeps such "satisfaction" from being "now"?

> > > What would make such a statement untruthful?

> >

> > Well, Dan, if you can *truthfully* say this, and by this I mean, not

> just

> > parroting something from the scriptures, but being one with the

> reality of

> > it to the fullest, you might do me a few insignificant favors:

> >

> > create a universe (a small one like ours would do)

>

> Here it is.

>

> > create a grain of wheat

>

> There it is.

>

> > create man and woman

>

> Here they are.

>

> > for the third task, you might think of a new species, the old one

> having

> > sort of worn out by now.

>

> :-)

>

> It's "one with the Father/Mother", not

> "separate from, and doing things in a new

> and different way from the Father/Mother."

>

> > Understand what I am trying to say? :-)

>

> Yes, you're saying that being

> one with the Father/Mother means being

> an "I" who can make the universe

> according to what "I" wants.

>

> And I'm saying, with no one apart to make

> things be the way he or she wants,

> unicity is "now" the reality.

>

> "Not 'my' will, but Thy will be done" ...

>

> "In this day, YHVH is ONE, and the Will

> of YHVH is ONE"

>

> Be well,

> Dan

>

> /join

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places,

> sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and

> exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves

> rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from

> Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come

> and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart

> Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A

> true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

> spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

> a.

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

December 15, 2001

Jesus couldn't do what you

asked of Danji either,

Mike. With all do respect,

your challenge is very much

that of a Sadducee -- or an

American from the "show me"

state of Missouri! :-)

Do you honestly believe any

of the "name brand" saints

you revere, including your

beloved guruji, could or

would have met the challenge

you posed? Do you further

believe that realization

necessarily entails siddhis?

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:38:57 +0100 MikeSuesserott writes:

> Dear Dan,

>

> see, you have been able to create words only. No new species has

> emerged.

> :-)Creating words is not the same as realization, unfortunately.

>

> Michael

>

> > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

> > Von: dan330033 [dan330033]

> > Gesendet: Sunday, December 16, 2001 00:18

> > An:

> > Betreff: Re: Realization (was: Mie/Smadhi/

> Drugs)

> >

> > Hi Michael,

> >

> > > > > Jesus said, "I and my Father are one"

> > > > O.K.

> > > > And, what keeps such "satisfaction" from being "now"?

> > > > What would make such a statement untruthful?

> > >

> > > Well, Dan, if you can *truthfully* say this, and by this I mean,

> not

> > just

> > > parroting something from the scriptures, but being one with the

> > reality of

> > > it to the fullest, you might do me a few insignificant favors:

> > >

> > > create a universe (a small one like ours would do)

> >

> > Here it is.

> >

> > > create a grain of wheat

> >

> > There it is.

> >

> > > create man and woman

> >

> > Here they are.

> >

> > > for the third task, you might think of a new species, the old

> one

> > having

> > > sort of worn out by now.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > It's "one with the Father/Mother", not

> > "separate from, and doing things in a new

> > and different way from the Father/Mother."

> >

> > > Understand what I am trying to say? :-)

> >

> > Yes, you're saying that being

> > one with the Father/Mother means being

> > an "I" who can make the universe

> > according to what "I" wants.

> >

> > And I'm saying, with no one apart to make

> > things be the way he or she wants,

> > unicity is "now" the reality.

> >

> > "Not 'my' will, but Thy will be done" ...

> >

> > "In this day, YHVH is ONE, and the Will

> > of YHVH is ONE"

> >

> > Be well,

> > Dan

> >

______________

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: