Fwd: Similarites between sai baba and tony blabber

[Guest guest]

> > Namaste D,

> >

>

> >

> > It is also interesting that you would say that somebody in

Sahaja

> > Samadh is unaware of the existence of creation.

>

> Tony,

>

> I did not say that someone in Sahaja Samadhi is unaware of

> the existence of the creation. I said that someone in

> Nivekalpa Samadhi, where the mind is resolved in the Self,

> is unaware of the creation.

>

> Someone in Sahaja Samadhi, is fully aware of the existence

> of the creation. This state (sahaja samadhi) describes the

> waking state of a jivan mukta.

>

> For the rest, Tony, I don't really care to argue with you.

> I have only written down what I have been taught, and which

> frankly makes a certain amount of sense to me.

>

> Since neither you nor I is a jivan mukta, statements

> concerning what is or is not the experience of a mukta when

> the body drops, are at best theoritical. Certainly even

> statements we make about the experience of a jivan mukta while

> alive, fall into the category of theory, since it is not the

> direct experience of either of us.

>

> It seems to me, (and I could be totally wrong) that your

> tenacious hold to the theory, 'that nothing ever happened'

> may be some sort coping strategy, some sort of maha denial

> of what actually 'has' happened to the jiva (individual)

> known as Tony, which is too painful to deal with, other than

> to say, 'it never happened.'

>

> I don't like the way people are pursuing you, and hurling

> insults at you. I don't hold with picking up the scent

> of blood, and running with the pack, as sometimes goes on

> on lists, so I don't usually get involved in all of this.

>

> I wrote what I did to indicate that what you are saying

> is not what is taught according to Advaita/Vedanta in the

> tradition in which I study. I am sure that there are other

> theories.

>

> Durga

>

 

Namaste, Durga,

 

When I said unaware of creation, what I was saying was that it is

impossible to be in Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samdhi and be unaware of

creation for that is dualistic. In actual fact there is no creation

to be aware of that is the whole point.

 

There are different levels of Samdhi from 'With attributes'

to 'without attributes'. Nirvikalpa is without attributes but is

still like putting a bucket in a pond, it is fully emersed but when

the bucket is pulled out it isn't immersed anymore. Sahaja or

natural state the mind falls into the ocean without a bucket sot to

speak. So in this state there is nothing to be aware of. For as

Gaudapada says Maya and Creation disappear, (for they never existed

in the first place).

 

This is why eventually we have to give positions and ideas for they

do not exist either. So it is not so much that I am holding to a

theory but that I am not holding to anything.

 

It all falls back to the fact that to the Mukta that drops the body

the world and even its appearance has disappeared as 'never having

happened'....ONS....Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

 

GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108@> wrote:

>

> GuruRatings@>

>

> A jnani is a jivan mukta.

>

> I just checked all of this out with a local jnani,

> jivan mukta, Vedanta teacher, and I'm correct about

> what I wrote about the ahamkara.

>

> And vijnanamaya kosha, does refer to the individual

> buddhi. It is part of the mind. The 'universal mind'

> is called, Hiranyagarba, the mind of the total Maya

> Upadhi, the mind of Ishwara, the Lord.

>

> A jnani, a jivan mukta, does not have access

> to Hiranyagarba. The individual koshas, which comprise

> the mind, (there are five), still limit what a jivan

> mukta has access to in terms of knowledge.

>

> I do not know if this is opposed to what you

> are saying.

>

> It seems to me that the problem in your logic,

> is that you seem to be saying that the mind of the

> jnani is resolved in Hiranyagarba (the total

> mind).

>

> Now perhaps you are not saying this.

>

> Anyway, Tony, jivan muktas, jnanis and even

> very good Vedanta teachers do exist and are

> available. They may even be able to clear up

> your thoughts about what the experience of the

> jnani is after the jnani's body drops.

>

> However, if you prefer to get your info second

> hand, through books written by people who weren't

> there when what was said was said, who don't have

> Self-knowledge, and who are working off of translations,

> well then that's your choice, of course.

>

> Moi, I prefer going to the source whenever available.

>

> Durga

>

Namaste,Durga.

 

I doubt there is one true Jnani or Mukta in the whole of North

America actually.

 

The source I prefer is reading the sages and then meditation.

 

Hiranyagharba or golden egg or womb is more of a religious concept

from the cosmology in the Bhagavata Purana. Then there is the Mahat

as well? Well in my copies anyway and I have one from 1905, so

there's not much modern interlopation there. Your philosophy is

quite dualistic and this is where we differ. To me Ishwara is the

sum total of the jivas like a forest is the sum total of the trees.

 

The mind of the Jnani is the Vijnanamayakosa/intellectual awareness

sheath, that is purified, all the other actions performed by the

Mukta are Prarabda Karma, as it is ours if we give up the ego....

 

The Jnani has realised the I-I as in Who am I? KoHam.......ONS..Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery

wrote:

 

GuruRatings , Bruce Morgen <editor@> wrote:

>

> Tony OClery wrote:

>

> >GuruRatings , " jodyrrr " <jodyrrr@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >>GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@>

wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>[snip]

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>>I doubt there is one true Jnani or Mukta in the whole of North

> >>>America actually.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>And believing such critically disables all your attempts

> >>to become the same.

> >>

> >>You are a clearly-outlined example of what occluding

> >>belief is, Tony. Your path leads to nowhere, and not

> >>the nowhere you think you are going.

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >Namaste,

> >

> >I said 'I doubt' for only a mukta can recognis another one...> >

> ...and you know that exactly how?

> I'm not disputing the statement,

> which may well be true, but from

> whence comes the certitude with

> which you purport it?

>

Namaste B,

 

Actually I have never read or talked to any expert or sage on

Vedanta that didn't say the same thing about it. I try to use a

certain kind of deduction or logic to come to my own conclusion.

Reading stories of real Muktas it becomes obvious that people cannot

tell what the Mukta sees or doesn't see. So it is logical to me that

an ordinary human cannot tell whether another has lost his Ego sense

or not. How would they determine the Mukta's prarabda karma for

example.

 

I will say it again. Notwithstanding all the egos and blind

believers-true believers'; I doubt that there is one true

Jnani/Mukta in the whole of North America. In fact I doubt there is

actually more than a handful in the whole world and most of those

would be in places like rural India etc.

 

The reason I know is because I don't know........ONS...Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---