Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 I find that there is a bias against any guru who is not yet dead. And specially if that guru or thinker or mystic happens to be a westerner. I find this in most of the email groups. For example when I post something by Nisargadatta, nobody criticizes but when I post a very similar quotation from a westerner, somebody will always criticize. This bias also seems to be responsible for westerners changing their names to Hindu or Buddhist names! I am of Indian origin, yet I find modern western spiritual writers very refreshing, insightful, easier to understand and more effective than Nisargadatta or Ramana. [The writings of the ancient Sufis and the Buddhists are even more cryptic!] It is human nature that a genius is never acknowledged in his own time. He is only appreciated posthumously. Pardon me, but your egos are showing. ______________________ With Love, Cyber Dervish ```````````````````````````````````````` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Hi Jan, > > I find that there is a bias against any guru who is not yet dead. And > specially if that guru or thinker or mystic happens to be a westerner. I > find this in most of the email groups. I assume this is directed (at least in part) to my earlier post today about Catherine Ingram. I can only say again that she defines realization as a kind of insight that comes and goes. She is utterly open about this; it's not an inference on my part. This is true of all of Poonjaji's students, so far as I know. In contrast, other people, whom I trust more, describe or define it as permanent state which is not an insight. Poonjaji himself is in the second group. His teachings are different from his students' teachings. I can't help it if most of the people in the later group are Indians, and most of the people in the first group are Westerners. I imagine that there may be Indians in the first group today. I think it is possible this is a modern/traditional split more than a Western/Indian split. I know of at least two Westerners who seem to have had the second kind of experience: Suzanne Segal and Bernadette Roberts. I just posted a long excerpt from Suzanne on my website which sort of implies, I think, that I'm not criticizing her. > For example when I post something by Nisargadatta, nobody criticizes but > when I post a very similar quotation from a westerner, somebody will always > criticize. Again, if this is directed to me, I don't think Nisargadatta's teachings are the same as Catherine Ingram's or the other Poonjaji-ambassadors whose writings I've read. > > Pardon me, but your egos are showing. I should hope so. The only thing talking to you now is an ego. Regards, Rob - " Jan Sultan " <swork <allspirit >; <Realization > Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:00 PM Ancient Indian Gurus v/s Modern Western Gurus > I find that there is a bias against any guru who is not yet dead. And > specially if that guru or thinker or mystic happens to be a westerner. I > find this in most of the email groups. > > For example when I post something by Nisargadatta, nobody criticizes but > when I post a very similar quotation from a westerner, somebody will always > criticize. > > This bias also seems to be responsible for westerners changing their names > to Hindu or Buddhist names! > > I am of Indian origin, yet I find modern western spiritual writers very > refreshing, insightful, easier to understand and more effective than > Nisargadatta or Ramana. [The writings of the ancient Sufis and the > Buddhists are even more cryptic!] > > It is human nature that a genius is never acknowledged in his own time. He > is only appreciated posthumously. > Pardon me, but your egos are showing. > > > ______________________ > With Love, > Cyber Dervish > ```````````````````````````````````````` > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 At 10/3/2001-08:05 PM Rob Sacks wrote: >Again, if this is directed to me, I don't think Nisargadatta's >teachings are the same as Catherine Ingram's or the other >Poonjaji-ambassadors whose writings I've read. > > > > Pardon me, but your egos are showing. > >I should hope so. The only thing talking to you now is >an ego. > >Regards, > >Rob Sorry Rob. This was written before your reply on Cathrine Ingram. I had posted it to other groups where very similar posts of Nisargadatta and Adyashanti brought very different reactions. After seeing your reply I decided to post it here as well. And for your information, on the groups who do not know who Catherine Ingram is there was a very positive reaction to her! Michael Read [if there is anyone on these lists who is awakened then it has to be Michael], who I am sure knows who Catherine Ingram is, commented thus: Message: 20 Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:06:08 -0000 " Michael Read " Re: Enlightenment - Catherine Ingram allspirit, Jan Sultan wrote: > Any comments on the following? > > Jan > Yup! I like her. She speaks the truth - we are that awareness, vastness, and conciousness. I also agree with the way she says that enlightenment is not a big bang event. And that the very word enlightenment is so prone to thousands of interpretations. When awakening happens we see that it has been there all along. I experienced a taste of irony. It made me laugh. All the time I was suffering - this awareness was there - had always been there and would always be there. When she says she realized that THIS was it - well, that's smack on the money! This life is IT. How many times have teachers, masters, buddhas, christs, saints and so on said, " You are what you seek. " - millions of times? And we keep on looking somewhere else! Loveya - michael ______________________ With Love, Cyber Dervish ```````````````````````````````````````` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Rob Rote: > I assume this is directed (at least in part) to my earlier post > today about Catherine Ingram. I can only say again that she > defines realization as a kind of insight that comes and goes. > She is utterly open about this; it's not an inference on my part. > > This is true of all of Poonjaji's students, so far as I know. In > contrast, other people, whom I trust more, describe or define > it as permanent state which is not an insight. Poonjaji himself > is in the second group. His teachings are different from his > students' teachings. I don't see why we can't distinguish between full realization, which is a permanent trait, and partial realization, which is not. Such a difference exists in perhaps every line of development. When I was 14, I bowled a 245 game, immediately followed by a 91. A " fully realized " bowler might average 245, having a high-skilled trait. I had none, but had a flash of excellence never again to be repeated. So too in spiritual development, I have moments of realization of what is really important in life, moments which occur with increasing frequency and last for increasingly longer times, but which still all too often vanish when empirical conditions become too threatening. If there really are fully realized people -- a matter which I believe is of only theoretical importance, since whether or not they're fully realized doesn't help me -- then they maintain their state of realization under all empirical conditions. Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Hi Jan, Thanks for explaining. Back to the question... All I can do is notice that there seems to be a difference between the " Ramana lineage " and the " Western Poonjaji " lineage. The difference becomes apparent when they explain how it came about that they realized the Self, and when they say whether their state is permanent, and when they define realization. The only thing I can conclude from the Michael Read quote is that he is in the same state as Catherine Ingram. Maybe he is in it more continuously. But he doesn't answer the question: was Ramana Maharshi's state different from both Michael Read's and Catherine Ingram's? In the third volume of " Nothing Ever Happened, " Papaji distinguishes between " enlightenment " (which is what happened, he thinks, to his students like Catherine Ingram who have had the insight that there is nothing to be done) and the natural state. By " natural state " he means realization. ..It seems to me that if Catherine's teacher thinks she's in one state and he himself (and Ramana Maharshi) were in another, we should pay some attention and investigate. The publisher gave me permission to print an excerpt from that volume on the website. If that section makes a good article, standing by itself, I'll put it on the website in the next day or two. Regards, Rob - " Jan Sultan " <swork <Realization > Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:49 PM Re: Ancient Indian Gurus v/s Modern Western Gurus > At 10/3/2001-08:05 PM Rob Sacks wrote: > >Again, if this is directed to me, I don't think Nisargadatta's > >teachings are the same as Catherine Ingram's or the other > >Poonjaji-ambassadors whose writings I've read. > > > > > > Pardon me, but your egos are showing. > > > >I should hope so. The only thing talking to you now is > >an ego. > > > >Regards, > > > >Rob > > Sorry Rob. This was written before your reply on Cathrine Ingram. I had > posted it to other groups where very similar posts of Nisargadatta and > Adyashanti brought very different reactions. After seeing your reply I > decided to post it here as well. > > And for your information, on the groups who do not know who Catherine > Ingram is there was a very positive reaction to her! > Michael Read [if there is anyone on these lists who is awakened then it has > to be Michael], who I am sure knows who Catherine Ingram is, commented thus: > > Message: 20 Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:06:08 -0000 " Michael Read " > Re: Enlightenment - Catherine Ingram allspirit, Jan > Sultan wrote: > Any comments on the following? > > Jan > > Yup! I like her. She speaks the truth - we are that awareness, vastness, > and conciousness. I also agree with the way she says that enlightenment is > not a big bang event. And that the very word enlightenment is so prone to > thousands of interpretations. When awakening happens we see that it has > been there all along. I experienced a taste of irony. It made me laugh. All > the time I was suffering - this awareness was there - had always been there > and would always be there. When she says she realized that THIS was it - > well, that's smack on the money! This life is IT. How many times have > teachers, masters, buddhas, christs, saints and so on said, " You are what > you seek. " - millions of times? And we keep on looking somewhere else! > Loveya - michael > ______________________ > With Love, > Cyber Dervish > ```````````````````````````````````````` > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Hi Gary, It's possible that the only difference is whether the state is temporary or permanent. Let's call that hypothesis A. However, I incline toward hypothesis B, which is that realization is a completely different state from the one that Catherine Ingram experiences with increasing duration and frequency. It just so happens that Catherine's state is temporary and the realized state is permanent. I am led toward B by things said by certain people like Papaji and Ramana Maharshi, whom I take to be exemplars of full realization. For example, Papaji says that all the Catherine-Ingram-type experiences are imaginary, but the natural state involves the absence of imagination. I think this is an empirical question that can only be settled by science. It can't be resolved by logic. (Well, there is one alternative. Each one of us, if he or she happens to end up in Ramana's state, would know that hypothesis A is incorrect. We've had this conversation before, with regard to awareness during sleep.) Incidentally, I suspect that the Upanishadic idea of realization (which I take to be exemplified by Ramana Maharshi) is different from the contemporary Buddhist idea. I suspect that the contemporary Buddhist idea is the Catherine Ingram idea. Regards, Rob > I don't see why we can't distinguish between full realization, which is a > permanent trait, and partial realization, which is not. Such a difference > exists in perhaps every line of development. When I was 14, I bowled a 245 > game, immediately followed by a 91. A " fully realized " bowler might average > 245, having a high-skilled trait. I had none, but had a flash of excellence > never again to be repeated. So too in spiritual development, I have moments > of realization of what is really important in life, moments which occur with > increasing frequency and last for increasingly longer times, but which still > all too often vanish when empirical conditions become too threatening. If > there really are fully realized people -- a matter which I believe is of > only theoretical importance, since whether or not they're fully realized > doesn't help me -- then they maintain their state of realization under all > empirical conditions. > > Gary > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 Rob, > [snip] Papaji says that all the Catherine-Ingram-type experiences are > imaginary, but the natural state involves the absence of imagination. Don't know what Papaji means by that, but I could give a meaning to it in terms of my own experience and agree with him and then argue that such an experience could be temporary or permanent. > > I think this is an empirical question that can only be settled by science. It > can't be resolved by logic. Agreed. > > (Well, there is one alternative. Each one of us, if he or she happens to end > up in Ramana's state, would know that hypothesis A is incorrect. We've had > this conversation before, with regard to awareness during sleep.) Or we could end up in Ramana's state and know that A is correct. > > Incidentally, I suspect that the Upanishadic idea of realization (which I take > to be exemplified by Ramana Maharshi) is different from the contemporary > Buddhist idea. I suspect that the contemporary Buddhist idea is the Catherine > Ingram idea. > Could you say more about that? Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2001 Report Share Posted October 3, 2001 The term partial realization seems so oxymoronic to me......Partial realization=partially pregnant.... Trace Gary Schouborg [garyscho] Wednesday, October 03, 2001 3:18 PM Realization Re: Ancient Indian Gurus v/s Modern Western Gurus Rob Rote: > I assume this is directed (at least in part) to my earlier post > today about Catherine Ingram. I can only say again that she > defines realization as a kind of insight that comes and goes. > She is utterly open about this; it's not an inference on my part. > > This is true of all of Poonjaji's students, so far as I know. In > contrast, other people, whom I trust more, describe or define > it as permanent state which is not an insight. Poonjaji himself > is in the second group. His teachings are different from his > students' teachings. I don't see why we can't distinguish between full realization, which is a permanent trait, and partial realization, which is not. Such a difference exists in perhaps every line of development. When I was 14, I bowled a 245 game, immediately followed by a 91. A " fully realized " bowler might average 245, having a high-skilled trait. I had none, but had a flash of excellence never again to be repeated. So too in spiritual development, I have moments of realization of what is really important in life, moments which occur with increasing frequency and last for increasingly longer times, but which still all too often vanish when empirical conditions become too threatening. If there really are fully realized people -- a matter which I believe is of only theoretical importance, since whether or not they're fully realized doesn't help me -- then they maintain their state of realization under all empirical conditions. Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho ...........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.org By sending a message to this list, you are giving permission to have it reproduced as a letter on http://www.realization.org ................................................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Trace There is no such thing as partial realisation. One could have spiritual 'highs' which seem like the real Mccoy, but I suspect what Ramana talks about realisation is the real thing. :-) Raghu Trace Thode wrote: > The term partial realization seems so oxymoronic to me......Partial > realization=partially pregnant.... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 Hi Raghu, - raghunandan Realization Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:00 AM Re: Ancient Indian Gurus v/s Modern Western Gurus TraceThere is no such thing as partial realisation. San: That's what Trace is saying. Partial realization is an oxymoron. ----- One could have spiritual 'highs' which seem like the real Mccoy, but I suspect what Ramana talks about realisation is the real thing. :-) San: Why? Just because the dude in the diapers says so? Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 > Trace > There is no such thing as partial realisation. > > San: > That's what Trace is saying. Partial realization is an oxymoron. By San's dualistic, simulated non-dual account, we can say nothing about realization including the following: Realization is partial Realization is not partial Realization is Realization is not We can say nothing about Realization Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2001 Report Share Posted October 4, 2001 You thought you couldn't say that? But you just did! Did you surprise yourself? -- Dan --- Gary Schouborg <garyscho wrote: > > Trace > > There is no such thing as partial realisation. > > > > San: > > That's what Trace is saying. Partial realization > is an oxymoron. > > By San's dualistic, simulated non-dual account, we > can say nothing about > realization including the following: > > Realization is partial > Realization is not partial > Realization is > Realization is not > We can say nothing about Realization > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > NEW from GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities./ps/info1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.