[on dry scripture] - to omprem

[Guest guest]

93

 

, "omprem" <omprem> wrote:

> From 'May I Answer That' by Swami Sivananda:

> People study a few books and pose as Jivanmuktas...

 

It is a noticed fact that U get irritated by what i say . This

started from our discussion regarding Kundalini; for U were not able

to stand the arguement that time, now U try to "win the battle"

indirectly - by "protecting" other "victims" )).

 

Then, i never said i am jivanmukta, siddha or alike. Did i? I`ve got

SOME theoretical knowledge and SOME experience that`s all.

But is it proper to try to shut me up saying "U are not realised"?

That`s ok, i am not and besides never stated that i am. But the case

with most of people here is the same.

Are U jivanmukta? If not then the only thing U can rely on is

knowledge and experience.

U again and again say against "mere bookish knowledge". As if i or

anyone told U that book studying leads to Liberation . But it is

better to have knowledge than not - otherwise why would gurus take a

burden of writing so much?

 

Regarding himsa-ahimsa stuff: it is U who now try to put it vice versa

- as if any arguement is himsa. Then U think that we have to say "yes"

to anything? Then why do U URSELF argued with me so much? U agitate

for ahimsa equating it with all-acceptance but in practice behave in

the other way... Strange, isn`t it? )

 

A.

[Guest guest]

" i am not [self-realized] and besides never stated that i am."

 

Now that we have that out of the way, why is it that you attack the

path of another, even after the person has indicated that they

were hurt by your public comments? If you are not Self-realized

why not leave the path to the person? You had an early

experience with the path, but because you were immature and

are not now Self-realized, perhaps you did not and do not

understand the path and have misjudged it. Your defense so far

has been a passive-aggressive abuse of Satya.

 

Just food for thought. I am not prepared to enter into any more

discussion on this issue.

 

 

Omprem

 

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

>

> 93

>

> , "omprem"

<omprem> wrote:

> > From 'May I Answer That' by Swami Sivananda:

> > People study a few books and pose as Jivanmuktas...

>

> It is a noticed fact that U get irritated by what i say . This

> started from our discussion regarding Kundalini; for U were

not able

> to stand the arguement that time, now U try to "win the battle"

> indirectly - by "protecting" other "victims" )).

>

> Then, i never said i am jivanmukta, siddha or alike. Did i? I`ve

got

> SOME theoretical knowledge and SOME experience that`s all.

> But is it proper to try to shut me up saying "U are not realised"?

> That`s ok, i am not and besides never stated that i am. But the

case

> with most of people here is the same.

> Are U jivanmukta? If not then the only thing U can rely on is

> knowledge and experience.

> U again and again say against "mere bookish knowledge". As

if i or

> anyone told U that book studying leads to Liberation . But it is

> better to have knowledge than not - otherwise why would gurus

take a

> burden of writing so much?

>

> Regarding himsa-ahimsa stuff: it is U who now try to put it vice

versa

> - as if any arguement is himsa. Then U think that we have to

say "yes"

> to anything? Then why do U URSELF argued with me so

much? U agitate

> for ahimsa equating it with all-acceptance but in practice

behave in

> the other way... Strange, isn`t it? )

>

> A.

[Guest guest]

Arjuna Taradasa wrote:

>

> But is it proper to try to shut me up saying "U are not realised"?

> That`s ok, i am not and besides never stated that i am. But the case

> with most of people here is the same.

 

 

I think that self-realization has many aspects. For example Aleister

Crowley, his self-realization I applaude.

 

But I don't see him as a big example to me because of that.

 

What do you mean by self-realization?

 

Best regards

 

Lars