Why is Avram's stuff tolerated here?

[Guest guest]

Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote:

> This may not be the time or the place for this, but I came across

it and it

> would be relevant to some, controversial to others, but food for

thought for

> all:

> The guru model works its spell on an immature mind not a seasoned

> one. Yes, we will still follow gurus, teachers, prophets, masters

> long into the future (it is an epigenetic predisposition), but

> hopefully with one important caveat: the gurus are NOT perfect. We

> finally realized that lesson during the Protestant Reformation

> (remember the Pope is not infallible!) when it came to

Christianity

> and guessed what blossomed because of it? SCIENCE.

>

> Now the guru world must undergo its purge, its protest movement,

its

> Lutheran revelations. And when the dust settles, mysticism can be

> divorced from myth, masters acknowledged as mortal, and

enlightenment

> understood as progressive (not permanent) insight. Until that is

done

> we live in a truly CON-fused time, where rationality flirts with

> silliness and sincere devotion with gross gullibility. The Guru is

> DEAD. And, to echo Nietzsche, we have killed him. We killed him by

> taking his turban off, by shaving his beard, by seeing him naked.

And

> what did we find? Ourselves.

>

> The guru is a poser and, as along as we make pretenses about who

and

> what we are, we will hide behind these projected "masks," these

> guises in which we cloak our weaknesses and our fears. The guru is

> dead and we killed him.

>

> But fear not, we will invent another guru in his absence, just as

> Voltaire warned that man would invent religion even if none

existed.

> Why? Because we have to. We cannot stand the silence of our own

being

> when confronted with the silence of the universe screaming back at

> us. Lonely creatures looking for a way out, for a meaning, for a

> purpose, for a father.... And the guru is merely us projecting all

> that we wish and desire upon another. God forbid we do cast such

> projetiles upon our own being. We couldn't withstand the

intensity;

> we couldn't withstand the responsibility.

>

> But what we couldn't withstand the most would be our severe

> disappointment. Because no matter what, our "image" would be less

> than our "reality." Far easier to shatter the image of another

than

> to shatter the image of ourselves. And in pieces and in ruins we

will

> find our fallen gurus and like shattered shards from a reflecting

> glass we will once again see our own face, our own psyche, our own

> soul. And in those broken pieces the abyss awaits us--infinite,

> eternal, unknowing.

>

> The guru is a temporary fix, but based upon an eternal need. For

that

> reason, dead gurus don't decompose. They resurrect in new forms:

from

> Zorasterianism to Judaism to Christianity to Mormonism to

Scientology

> to Eckankar to Radhasoami.

>

> The killer of the guru kills his idealized self and along with it

any

> hopes of a dreamy paradise. There is only one solution to all of

this

> yin and yang dread, but the honest guru (oxymoron alert) is rare.

How

> many gurus would commit the image suicide that is necessary to

> liberate the disciple from his "idea fixe"?

>

> It is a riddle of course. Because any guru that would allow such

an

> image in the first place has already betrayed the disciple.

>

> The guru image is suicide, a cutting off of one's own integrity,

> one's own power, one's own responsiblity.

>

> And, yet, the guru image is nowhere outside. It is part and parcel

of

> our own neurological make-up.

>

> We are both the disciple and the guru and until we stop

> distinguishing the two we will languish in the half-way house for

the

> devotionally mad. And in that madness we will split the universe

into

> two and our own psyche into compartments.

>

> Why?

>

> Because our very need to understand, to grasp, to model is itself

a

> communicative lie.

>

> A bubble's efforts will always be exploded when it tries to

encompass

> the ocean.

>

> Pop! Burst! Break!

>

> Broken

>

> from a post by Dave Lane,

> re-posted here: Avram, of course

>

>

 

Two weeks ago I has a thorough debate with "Avram" on these topics,

and am not happy to see him migrate his "anti bhakti" agenda to this

forum

 

Can I just say that these anti bhakti rants are a bunch of nonsense?

 

Oh Boy, we can't face an existential universe so we little

devotional wimps run to the guru. Amma is hardly a "crutch" for me.

She pushes me to expand myself to places I never would have imagined

on my own. This, reality as existential nothingness, is the

intellect's feeble attempt to categorize the great unknowable

mystery of life.

 

Is anyone tired of depressed jnanis slopping this garbage around as

truth?

 

I could care less what Krishnamurti had to say. Honestly. The Guru

is an opportunty to awaken out of the intellect's self centered

depression/delusion, the very kind that Avram is pushing on these

sites, as if he is some sort of masochistic truth machine.

 

Why would Amma instill innocence, love, humility and as we all

experience, Supreme Prema shakti on us? To fool us or deceive us?

 

Do Avram and his psuedo jnani ilk know better than the master

teacher, Amma?

 

Dharma is about positive living, respect for the Guru, respect for

humanity and respect for truth. Especially during difficult times.

 

This tamasic nonsense should not appear in this room. IMO. If I

wanted to hear Avram's dreck, I could go onto the hundreds of psuedo

adviata, psuedo intellectual nondual chat rooms.

 

Avram, if you are having a personal crisis around your devotion to

Amma, please take it to a counselor, or move onto a different path,

FOR YOURSELF. Your cheerleading for adharmic teachings have other

venues that would receive it with open arms.

 

Can we maintain a dharmic room?