Guest guest Posted April 10, 2001 Report Share Posted April 10, 2001 Just because a Guru might comment on a teacher doesn't mean that he is in competition with that teacher. Maharaj could be critical but does that mean that he felt in comptetion. No I don't think so. What was interesting to me was that everyone else took Maharaj's comment as a complement. They thought that being a great thinker was a great accomplishment. Competition in itself isn't bad, look at Shankara. He competed, debated and won. He reformed Hinduism as a result of that competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2001 Report Share Posted April 10, 2001 Could it be that Maharaj was just stating a fact? Why does a comment have to be tainted with dualistic opposites like 'good' and 'bad'? " This person is a great thinker. " OK. Yes he was. Ahh, so. There is such a thing as 'just reporting'. Most people seem to miss it somehow. For example, I might say " I have a headache, " and immediately 20 people either rush to say " I'm so sorry... sorry to hear that, " or " Quit complaining... it's not so bad... what's wrong with you, " etc. It's ridiculous. Maybe I just wanted to borrow an aspirin, and was about to ask for one? :-) Namaste, Omkara Nisargadatta, cathywb@p... wrote: > Just because a Guru might comment on a teacher doesn't mean that he > is in competition with that teacher. Maharaj could be critical but > does that mean that he felt in comptetion. No I don't think so. > What was interesting to me was that everyone else took Maharaj's > comment as a complement. They thought that being a great thinker > was a great accomplishment. Competition in itself isn't bad, look > at Shankara. He competed, debated and won. He reformed Hinduism as > a result of that competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2001 Report Share Posted April 11, 2001 Indeed. Competing is what happens in the " realm of ideas " . Whether " he " felt " in competition " -- who knows? It depends on whether he felt any investment in being right. No investment in being right, no being in competition. And if I'm not invested in being right, then what concern have I what N. thought of K. really, or what he really must have been feeling about it, etc.? Hearing you say about S. " he won " seems incongruous ... with no " feeling of being in competition " , what difference would it make who won? What he said would be important, perhaps, but not whether that seemed (to a subjective observer) as " winning " . Of course, for any observer, there will be another with a very different assessment, about S., or about anyone " debating " . All subjective, consensus assessments about who wins or loses a debate are irrelevant when no weight is placed on assessments of a subject supposedly able to stand apart and evaluate. ( If there is no " he " there, how can it be that " he won " ? If " he " won, then some other " he " or " she " lost. If there are no two " he's " then winning and losing are a dream.) The realm of ideas is ongoing flux, competition, reassessment -- with no " final answer " , no where for it all to get, no final winner or loser. If one view is expressed, another contradictory perspective is inevitable. Anything that can be affirmed can be negated, and vice versa. Reality is for this one here to discover/know/be. There is no one " else " involved in seeing/being " what is " , and no " else " means no idea, no no winner, no " right vs. wrong views " , no observer ... Am I right in the way I expressed this view? Did I win something by expressing it? No and no -- thank God! Love, Dan Just because a Guru might comment on a teacher doesn't mean that he is in competition with that teacher. Maharaj could be critical but does that mean that he felt in comptetion. No I don't think so. What was interesting to me was that everyone else took Maharaj's comment as a complement. They thought that being a great thinker was a great accomplishment. Competition in itself isn't bad, look at Shankara. He competed, debated and won. He reformed Hinduism as a result of that competition. Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2001 Report Share Posted April 11, 2001 " The guru does nothing more than negate the disciple as an entity while at the same time negating himself as the guru. " Ramesh, cited on " Net of Jewels " Yes, clearly this isn't so easy -- this negation of " me " and negation of " the guru " -- And it's the same thing -- negating " me " by retaining " the guru " , is retaining " me " ... Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2001 Report Share Posted April 11, 2001 Dan Berkow wrote: Indeed. Competing is what happens in the "realm of ideas". Whether "he" felt "in competition" -- who knows? It depends on whether he felt any investment in being right. snip> The Jnani While living, and even when the body falls dead, the Jnani rests in his own essential nature , his own swarupa, that is all full, all pure, timeless consciousness and bliss. .. Cravings torture him not, sins stain him not, birth and death touch him not. He is free from all cravings and longings. He sees the one infinite self in all, and all in the infinite self, which is his being. He remains forever as the infinite self of consciousness and delight. * Jnani: One who has fully and permanently realized his or her true nature through jnana marga, the path of knowledge. words from a jnani 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.