Fwd: Tony O'Clery was indeed none other than Sri Dakshinamurti Himself

[Guest guest]

GuruRatings , " aoclery " <aoclery wrote:

 

 

 

GuruRatings , " dukeofdharma " <dukeofdharma@> wrote:

>

>

> > > advaitajnana , " aoclery " <aoclery@> wrote:

> > > <snip>

> > > > Namaste,

> > > >

> > > > If Ramana was a reincarnation of Dakshinamurti that means Dakshinamurta

wasn't realised. On the other hand Ramana being realised may have been talking

in a universal rather than a particular way....Because Ramana said that it

happened doesn't mean Ramana is saying it is him.....that might be a long bow on

the writer muruganar's part....Tony.

> > > >

> > > > --- End forwarded message ---

>

>

> > > #vg#

> > > Dear Tony,

> > > It is the Hindu belief, that God himself comes in human

form - Avatar, for helping humanity overcome difficulties. Sri.Ramana Maharishi

is considered to be an Avatar of Shiva. So is Dakshinamurthy. It is also belived

that one who fully understands the Dakshinamurthy Strotram, by Adi

Sankaracharya, attains Moksha. This slokas deals with the Universe, the Self and

their inter relatedness.

> > > Here is a version from Youtube, including English text :

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > VG

> > >

> > Namaste,

> >

>

>

> > 'God' as you suppose...is already everyform...please note this piece on

avatars ....that I wrote some time ago.

> >

> > http://oclery.blogspot.com/2009/10/avatars.html

> >

> > We already have moksha actually

> >

> > Cheers Tony.

> >

> >>

>

> Er, Namaste' Tony, and Tat Tvam Asi to you as well,

>

> Now,Thou hast truly written on your blogsite:

>

> " Before

> this creation, and as we know pralayas and mahapralayas make many endless

> creations, there was Saguna Brahaman with all subsumed into itself in

> potentiality but there was still 'mind' there to enable the new creation, "

sayeth Tony.

>

> Would you do me a BIG favor, and explain to me just HOW you know this to be

true?

>

> I mean, is his INSIGHT into the True Nature of Things something you have

gleaned from your OWN direct, im-mediate, and PERSONAL experience, or is this

simply something you read about in one of TRANSLATED books allegedly written by

Sri Shankara?

>

> I mean, you gotta be kidding me.

>

> The thing that amazed some people about Jesus, was that he " spoke as one with

AUTHORITY, and NOT as the Scribes. "

>

> Pray tell, are you an authority, or even a " partial " authority.

>

> Or are you MERELY one of the Scribes?

>

> No need to answer.

>

> We already know.

>

>

> Fool.

>

>

> Gary

>

Namaste,

 

Well for a start it isn't full truth as it is saguna. However giving it some

validity for arguments sake......it came to me.

 

Through meditation and hence logical deduction...nothing to do with Sanakara per

se...he didn't write as far as that.

 

My logic goes like this.....Any appearance, or potentiality requires a mind

whether in pralaya or not. Nirguna Brahman cannot have a mind otherwise that

would be dualistic. so mind is saguna brahman as a tool and ultimatley

unreal....It could never have happend otherwise god is dualistic which is

impossible.............Cheers

--- End forwarded message ---