Guest guest Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 " I love Maurice Frydman's I AM THAT books and they capture Maharaj but they were not written by Maharaj. This is why various other wonderful renditions of Nisargadatta sound so different, as good as they all are. This would include the works of Ramesh Balsekar. My personal dialogues with him and his own non-Maharaj teachings again show clearly qualified nonduality with a real world and body. Mr. Balsekar's financial connections helped to launch his publications but perhaps he could have offered more material support to the teacher, Maharaj, who he claims to succeed. " http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fnome.htm " I mentioned earlier that at the conclusion of his morning puja he put kum kum on the forehead of all the pictures in his room of the people he knew were enlightened. There were two big pictures of Maurice there, and both of them were daily given the kum kum treatment. Maharaj clearly had a great respect for Maurice. I remember on one of my early visits querying Maharaj about some statement of his that had been recorded in I am That. I think it was about fulfilling desires. Maharaj initially didn't seem to agree with the remarks that had been attributed to him in the book, but then he added, 'The words must be true because Maurice wrote them. Maurice was a jnani, and the jnani's words are always the words of truth.' " http://davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 As far as I know Maharaj did not write any books. They're usually recorded talks, compiled, interpreted, edited, depending on the understanding of the translators. Sometimes the talks are recollected from the memory without the aid of a recording device. There's no doubt " I am That " benefits from Maurice Frydman's and the Indian publisher/editor Sudhakar Dikshit's skills (who was also J Krishnamurti's publisher, if I am not mistaken). Hur Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " <joenorwood2005> wrote: > " I love Maurice Frydman's I AM THAT books and they capture Maharaj but > they were not written by Maharaj. This is why various other wonderful > renditions of Nisargadatta sound so different, as good as they all > are. This would include the works of Ramesh Balsekar. My personal > dialogues with him and his own non-Maharaj teachings again show > clearly qualified nonduality with a real world and body. Mr. > Balsekar's financial connections helped to launch his publications but > perhaps he could have offered more material support to the teacher, > Maharaj, who he claims to succeed. " > > http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fnome.htm > > " I mentioned earlier that at the conclusion of his morning puja he put > kum kum on the forehead of all the pictures in his room of the people > he knew were enlightened. There were two big pictures of Maurice > there, and both of them were daily given the kum kum treatment. > Maharaj clearly had a great respect for Maurice. I remember on one of > my early visits querying Maharaj about some statement of his that had > been recorded in I am That. I think it was about fulfilling desires. > > Maharaj initially didn't seem to agree with the remarks that had been > attributed to him in the book, but then he added, 'The words must be > true because Maurice wrote them. Maurice was a jnani, and the jnani's > words are always the words of truth.' " > > http://davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 i read " I Am That " but i thought it was by nisargadatta. now i read godman who says nisargadatta said it was by maurice frydman. nisargadatta said frydman was a jnani & therefore it must be accurate. another poster, durga, says that another of nisargadatta's " editors " , jean dunn, was also declared self-realized by nisargadatta. it seems that in order to become self-realized these days, one must become a publicist for a renowned guru. i don't know. like i said, i'm still learning... joe Nisargadatta , " Hur " <hur@n...> wrote: > As far as I know Maharaj did not write any books. They're usually > recorded talks, compiled, interpreted, edited, depending on the > understanding of the translators. Sometimes the talks are recollected > from the memory without the aid of a recording device. There's no > doubt " I am That " benefits from Maurice Frydman's and the Indian > publisher/editor Sudhakar Dikshit's skills (who was also J > Krishnamurti's publisher, if I am not mistaken). > > Hur > > Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " > <joenorwood2005> wrote: > > " I love Maurice Frydman's I AM THAT books and they capture Maharaj > but > > they were not written by Maharaj. This is why various other > wonderful > > renditions of Nisargadatta sound so different, as good as they all > > are. This would include the works of Ramesh Balsekar. My personal > > dialogues with him and his own non-Maharaj teachings again show > > clearly qualified nonduality with a real world and body. Mr. > > Balsekar's financial connections helped to launch his publications > but > > perhaps he could have offered more material support to the teacher, > > Maharaj, who he claims to succeed. " > > > > http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fnome.htm > > > > " I mentioned earlier that at the conclusion of his morning puja he > put > > kum kum on the forehead of all the pictures in his room of the > people > > he knew were enlightened. There were two big pictures of Maurice > > there, and both of them were daily given the kum kum treatment. > > Maharaj clearly had a great respect for Maurice. I remember on one > of > > my early visits querying Maharaj about some statement of his that > had > > been recorded in I am That. I think it was about fulfilling desires. > > > > Maharaj initially didn't seem to agree with the remarks that had > been > > attributed to him in the book, but then he added, 'The words must be > > true because Maurice wrote them. Maurice was a jnani, and the > jnani's > > words are always the words of truth.' " > > > > http://davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 The translation was by frydman. They were recorded talks where people talk to nisargadatta. The question was wether or not the translation was accurate. Nisargadatta has repeatedly said that you do not need an outer guru to become self-realized - that there is always the inner guru. Ryan joenorwood2005 <joenorwood2005 wrote: i read " I Am That " but i thought it was by nisargadatta. now i read godman who says nisargadatta said it was by maurice frydman. nisargadatta said frydman was a jnani & therefore it must be accurate. another poster, durga, says that another of nisargadatta's " editors " , jean dunn, was also declared self-realized by nisargadatta. it seems that in order to become self-realized these days, one must become a publicist for a renowned guru. i don't know. like i said, i'm still learning... joe Nisargadatta , " Hur " <hur@n...> wrote: > As far as I know Maharaj did not write any books. They're usually > recorded talks, compiled, interpreted, edited, depending on the > understanding of the translators. Sometimes the talks are recollected > from the memory without the aid of a recording device. There's no > doubt " I am That " benefits from Maurice Frydman's and the Indian > publisher/editor Sudhakar Dikshit's skills (who was also J > Krishnamurti's publisher, if I am not mistaken). > > Hur > > Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " > <joenorwood2005> wrote: > > " I love Maurice Frydman's I AM THAT books and they capture Maharaj > but > > they were not written by Maharaj. This is why various other > wonderful > > renditions of Nisargadatta sound so different, as good as they all > > are. This would include the works of Ramesh Balsekar. My personal > > dialogues with him and his own non-Maharaj teachings again show > > clearly qualified nonduality with a real world and body. Mr. > > Balsekar's financial connections helped to launch his publications > but > > perhaps he could have offered more material support to the teacher, > > Maharaj, who he claims to succeed. " > > > > http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fnome.htm > > > > " I mentioned earlier that at the conclusion of his morning puja he > put > > kum kum on the forehead of all the pictures in his room of the > people > > he knew were enlightened. There were two big pictures of Maurice > > there, and both of them were daily given the kum kum treatment. > > Maharaj clearly had a great respect for Maurice. I remember on one > of > > my early visits querying Maharaj about some statement of his that > had > > been recorded in I am That. I think it was about fulfilling desires. > > > > Maharaj initially didn't seem to agree with the remarks that had > been > > attributed to him in the book, but then he added, 'The words must be > > true because Maurice wrote them. Maurice was a jnani, and the > jnani's > > words are always the words of truth.' " > > > > http://davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 i already have a guru bhagavan sri ramana. that's not what i was posting about. i was posting about these reports from fairly reputable sources that nisargadatta maharaj did not write " I Am That " & that his publicists, frydman & dunn, were allegedly jnanis. to be declared a jnani is no small matter especially when it comes from someone as esteemed as the maharaj himself. i had never heard about this before & wanted to get some feedback from those who may have more knowledge about nisargadatta than i do. thanks for your input tho. joe Nisargadatta , Ryan McGeeney <brokentricycle> wrote: > The translation was by frydman. They were recorded talks where people talk to nisargadatta. > The question was wether or not the translation was accurate. Nisargadatta has repeatedly said that you do not need an outer guru to become self-realized - that there is always the inner guru. > > Ryan > > > joenorwood2005 <joenorwood2005> wrote: > i read " I Am That " but i thought it was by nisargadatta. now i read > godman who says nisargadatta said it was by maurice frydman. > nisargadatta said frydman was a jnani & therefore it must be accurate. > another poster, durga, says that another of nisargadatta's " editors " , > jean dunn, was also declared self-realized by nisargadatta. it seems > that in order to become self-realized these days, one must become a > publicist for a renowned guru. i don't know. like i said, i'm still > learning... > > joe > > Nisargadatta , " Hur " <hur@n...> wrote: > > As far as I know Maharaj did not write any books. They're usually > > recorded talks, compiled, interpreted, edited, depending on the > > understanding of the translators. Sometimes the talks are recollected > > from the memory without the aid of a recording device. There's no > > doubt " I am That " benefits from Maurice Frydman's and the Indian > > publisher/editor Sudhakar Dikshit's skills (who was also J > > Krishnamurti's publisher, if I am not mistaken). > > > > Hur > > > > Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " > > <joenorwood2005> wrote: > > > " I love Maurice Frydman's I AM THAT books and they capture Maharaj > > but > > > they were not written by Maharaj. This is why various other > > wonderful > > > renditions of Nisargadatta sound so different, as good as they all > > > are. This would include the works of Ramesh Balsekar. My personal > > > dialogues with him and his own non-Maharaj teachings again show > > > clearly qualified nonduality with a real world and body. Mr. > > > Balsekar's financial connections helped to launch his publications > > but > > > perhaps he could have offered more material support to the teacher, > > > Maharaj, who he claims to succeed. " > > > > > > http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fnome.htm > > > > > > " I mentioned earlier that at the conclusion of his morning puja he > > put > > > kum kum on the forehead of all the pictures in his room of the > > people > > > he knew were enlightened. There were two big pictures of Maurice > > > there, and both of them were daily given the kum kum treatment. > > > Maharaj clearly had a great respect for Maurice. I remember on one > > of > > > my early visits querying Maharaj about some statement of his that > > had > > > been recorded in I am That. I think it was about fulfilling desires. > > > > > > Maharaj initially didn't seem to agree with the remarks that had > > been > > > attributed to him in the book, but then he added, 'The words must be > > > true because Maurice wrote them. Maurice was a jnani, and the > > jnani's > > > words are always the words of truth.' " > > > > > > http://davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " <joenorwood2005> wrote: > i already have a guru bhagavan sri ramana. that's not what i was > posting about. i was posting about these reports from fairly reputable > sources that nisargadatta maharaj did not write " I Am That " & that his > publicists, frydman & dunn, were allegedly jnanis. to be declared a > jnani is no small matter especially when it comes from someone as > esteemed as the maharaj himself. i had never heard about this before & > wanted to get some feedback from those who may have more knowledge > about nisargadatta than i do. thanks for your input tho. > > joe > Hi Joe, Just read this after I replied to one of your posts. So I guess I'm a bit out of synch. Anyway, Jean Dunn also took Ramana Maharshi as her guru for many many years. That was why she was living at Ramana Ashram. At two different times people told her about Maharaj, but she didn't want to go see him because, as she put it, " Well I already had a guru. Sure he was dead.... " Finally someone told her about Maharaj a third time, so she went. Maharaj told her, " That donkey on the street and you and I are the same consciousness. " Jean didn't like those words, so she tried to leave, but she couldn't get a train ticket out for several days, so she ended up staying with Maharaj. I don't know if most of us can gain Self-knowledge without a living teacher. Perhaps it is possible. Many can't even gain it with a living teacher, and with some very good teachers at that. Well, those are just ponderings of mine. The guru is the Self and the Self is ever present. However, I have found that for me having a living teacher is essential. Best to you, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " > <joenorwood2005> wrote: > > i already have a guru bhagavan sri ramana. that's not what i was > > posting about. i was posting about these reports from fairly > reputable > > sources that nisargadatta maharaj did not write " I Am That " & that > his > > publicists, frydman & dunn, were allegedly jnanis. to be declared a > > jnani is no small matter especially when it comes from someone as > > esteemed as the maharaj himself. i had never heard about this > before & > > wanted to get some feedback from those who may have more knowledge > > about nisargadatta than i do. thanks for your input tho. > > > > joe > > > Hi Joe, > > Just read this after I replied to one of your posts. So > I guess I'm a bit out of synch. > > Anyway, Jean Dunn also took Ramana Maharshi as her guru > for many many years. That was why she was living at > Ramana Ashram. At two different times people told her > about Maharaj, but she didn't want to go see him because, > as she put it, " Well I already had a guru. Sure he was > dead.... " > > Finally someone told her about Maharaj a third time, so > she went. > > Maharaj told her, " That donkey on the street and you and > I are the same consciousness. " > > Jean didn't like those words, so she tried to leave, but > she couldn't get a train ticket out for several days, so > she ended up staying with Maharaj. > > I don't know if most of us can gain Self-knowledge without > a living teacher. Perhaps it is possible. Many can't even > gain it with a living teacher, and with some very good > teachers at that. > > Well, those are just ponderings of mine. The guru is the Self > and the Self is ever present. However, I have found that for > me having a living teacher is essential. > > Best to you, Durga hey. that's alright. you've been very informative. i can tell you've been at this advaita vedanta game a long time. u know ur way around the block, as the saying goes. ramana isn't dead. he was never born. ur mistaking the body for the self. joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " <joenorwood2005> wrote: > > ramana isn't dead. he was never born. ur mistaking the body for the self. > > joe Mistaking the body for the Self is what we all do, until we we don't. Mistaking the body for the Self is the cause of Self-ignorance. Self-ignorance *is* mistaking the body/mind for the Self. However, everybody does it (except jnanis). The body/mind is never away from the Self, so our minds take the two experiences (Self and body/mind) to be one. And we've be doing it for forever, so no blame, no shame. Even Ramana said something to the effect of, " You have taken yourself to be a body/mind person, so the guru (the Self) has to appear to you as a body/mind person to tell you that you are not the body/mind person. " BTW today is the full moon in July. The day the guru is honored in India, so Happy Guru Purnima. All the best to you--Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " joenorwood2005 " > <joenorwood2005> wrote: > > > > > ramana isn't dead. he was never born. ur mistaking the body for > the self. > > > > joe > > Mistaking the body for the Self is what we all do, until we > we don't. Mistaking the body for the Self is the cause > of Self-ignorance. Self-ignorance *is* mistaking the > body/mind for the Self. if u know that to be the case why do u continue to do it? > > However, everybody does it (except jnanis). i don't. am i a jnani? >The body/mind is never > away from the Self, so our minds take the two experiences (Self and > body/mind) to be one. And we've be doing it for forever, so no > blame, no shame. the body/mind is in the self. the self is the nothingness in which everything appears. > > Even Ramana said something to the effect of, " You have taken > yourself to be a body/mind person, so the guru (the Self) > has to appear to you as a body/mind person to tell you that > you are not the body/mind person. " ramana is a wonderful guide. u can't go wrong with ramana. om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya. > > BTW today is the full moon in July. The day the guru is honored > in India, so Happy Guru Purnima. All the best to you--Durga i thought yesterday was guru purnima? the last few days have been heavy meditation & enquiry for me. everyday is guru purnima. god bless u, durga. luv, joe 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.