Grace Of The Sat Guru
Michael Martin
The soul has become entangled here by the three gunas (attributes), five
tattwas, ten indriyas (sense organs), the mind etc., and has developed such
strong ties with the body and the things related to it that it finds it most
difficult to free itself from those bondages. Freedom from these bondages is
called liberation. The sense organs, the tattwas, the mind, etc., are the
inner bonds, while worldly things, the family and other relationships
constitute the external bonds. The jivatma (soul) is so inextricably caught
by these bonds that it now has no recollection of its real home. It finds
itself so far away from that home that it is very difficult to return to it
without the grace of a perfect Sat Guru.
M. Martin comments:
It might be party time, according to Heart Happy, but the condition of the
soul of most of us is pitiful. Christ said, "The kingdom of heaven is at
hand." Also, "Lift up your eyes for the harvest is ready." Did he not also
say, "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven?"
I'm willing to give the grace, which Swami Ji Maharaj (1818-1878) referred to
above. The grace is available for those who need it.
Michael Martin
Sat Guru of Surat Shabd Yoga
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
jodyr
I love coming to these groups to watch the "gurus" fish for chelas.
Michael Martin "is willing to give the grace". What's more, he
advertises himself as a Sat Guru. Now I ask, would Swami Ji Maharaj
promote himself as shamelessly? I doubt it.
I wonder what Michael's motives are for offering the "grace",
whatever that actually is. For some reason I'm having doubts.
--jodyr.
___________________________________|___________________________________
all challanges based on the belief that enlightened souls can handle it
-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------
Bruce Morgen
jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I love coming to these groups to watch the "gurus" fish for chelas.
>
>Michael Martin "is willing to give the grace". What's more, he
>advertises himself as a Sat Guru. Now I ask, would Swami Ji Maharaj
>promote himself as shamelessly? I doubt it.
>
>I wonder what Michael's motives are for offering the "grace",
>whatever that actually is. For some reason I'm having doubts.
>
Way to go, Jody, you are
showing every indication
of a three-digit IQ. The
more of Michaelji's posts
you read, the more your
doubts will be confirmed.
He is not, as far as I
can tell, a deliberate
charlatan, but rather an
honestly deluded person
broadcasting to us from a
perceptual la-la land.
Michael Martin
In article <352b704...@news.pond.com>,
Now I ask, would Swami Ji Maharaj
> >promote himself as shamelessly? I doubt it.
He held public satsangs from the age of 43. I waited to the age of 53. He
is known as the Saint who brought the true teachings out into the open.
After the lines of Masters descended from Kabir, and Guru Nanak, the true
teachings became forgotten and suppressed. He was bold enough to revive
them.
We should never speculate on what Saints might, or might not do. Just
assimulate their teachings, and seek the Living Perfect Sat Guru to learn
from him. That is the main thing.
> >I wonder what Michael's motives are for offering the "grace",
> >whatever that actually is.
My only motive is carry out the command of the Supreme Being. He gives the
orders, and I try my best to carry them out.
Bruce Morgen, your conjecture that I am deluded is wrong. Perhaps you are
the deluded one.
jody radzik
Michael Martin wrote:
> Mr. Morgen, and Jody,
>
> Now I ask, would Swami Ji Maharaj
> > >promote himself as shamelessly? I doubt it.
>
> He held public satsangs from the age of 43. I waited to the age of 53. He
> is known as the Saint who brought the true teachings out into the open.
> After the lines of Masters descended from Kabir, and Guru Nanak, the true
> teachings became forgotten and suppressed. He was bold enough to revive
> them.
Bullshit dude. There are plenty of true teachings out there, espesh in Ma
India.
You got yer Ramprasad, yer Ramakrishna, yer Shankara, yer Patanjali, etc.,
etc.
And oh, I severely doubt that Swami Ji promoted himself as you so shamelessly
do.
He probably had disciples that did it for him, probably despite his wishes to
keep
it low key.
> We should never speculate on what Saints might, or might not do. Just
> assimulate their teachings, and seek the Living Perfect Sat Guru to learn
> from him. That is the main thing.
We should do whatever it takes to get to God. If that means speculating about
what the Saints were up to, then that's what we should do. It's all part of
assimilating
the teaching.
And double bullshit on the "Living Perfect Guru" crap. I got the LPG right
here
<he forcefully points at his heart, and at his altar>. You are full of it
telling people
they need you, full of your "self" (note the use of lower-case.)
> > >I wonder what Michael's motives are for offering the "grace",
> > >whatever that actually is.
>
> My only motive is carry out the command of the Supreme Being. He gives the
> orders, and I try my best to carry them out.
Dude, you got it all wrong. The real servants of God kick-back and wait for
it to come to them. Putting yourself on a mission to save our souls is mere
grandiosity.
Unfortunately for you, you've got grandiosity mixed up with some kind of
enlightenment. The lamest kind of enlightenment, where you end up afraid of
the world--
your Mother.
> Bruce Morgen, your conjecture that I am deluded is wrong. Perhaps you are
> the deluded one.
I'm with Bruce on this one bucko. --jodyr.
All challenges based on the belief that enlightened souls can handle it.
Bruce Morgen
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
>In article <352b704...@news.pond.com>,
> edi...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>
>Bruce Morgen, your conjecture that I am deluded is wrong. Perhaps you are
>the deluded one.
>
Those with eyes to see
and ears to hear will
discern whether what
I say is conjectural
or insightful. I will
make no claim either
way, I merely share my
observations of your
activity here and have
no choice but to leave
the matter to "God."
The moment you fall
silent or demonstrate
the energy and demeanor
of a truthful one, my
work at love's behest
in this matter will
cease.
SUN222
Learn to let it be. Please
Those who will follow may learn something as they are needful by their
following. Those who will not follow will also learn something for they
walk a different course. Shall your efforts be rewarded as you subtract
from another? The myrtle tree gives her fragrance to all who come near and
asks for nothing in return. Shall we learn from her?
SUN222
33
Bruce Morgen wrote in message <352d9839...@news.pond.com>...
Bruce Morgen
"SUN222" <SUN...@none.com> wrote:
>Learn to let it be. Please
>
The Jews of Europe circa
1940 seemed to have
learned this lesson well,
history records the
result.
>Those who will follow may learn something as they are needful by their
>following.
Those determined to be
followers will ignore me.
>Those who will not follow will also learn something for they
>walk a different course.
Indeed!
>Shall your efforts be rewarded as you subtract
>from another?
To share observations is
neither to add nor to
"subtract." To be
"rewarded" is a whore's
motivation, a truthful
one casts bread upon the
waters without attachment
to outcome.
>The myrtle tree gives her fragrance to all who come near and
>asks for nothing in return. Shall we learn from her?
>
The fragrance of trees
has a biological function,
our enjoyment of it is a
wondrous coincidence. The
matter of the human psyche
and spirit is wondrous in
its own way and often
involves the deliberate
synthesis of a certain
psychological "fragrance"
designed to entice other
humans into dependence and
delusion. I simply point
out the difference between
natural fragrance and a
plainly synthetic perfume
falsely presented as not
only natural, but as a
deep and esoteric
knowledge of nature itself.
This is not an issue to be
glossed over with pretty
sentiments and appealing
imagery, but rather one of
the utmost import and
impact on the human
condition. When love bids
us speak are we to refrain
because of the doings of
trees, lizards, or protozoa,
which involve neither
sentience nor sapience?
jodyr
Hari Har Singh wrote:
>
> Since I first gathered this NG abouth half a year ago (or so...) I
> recognized Mr. Martin and the discussions and arguing he provoked with his
> "Sat Guru" Stuff....
> I'm really impressed by his endurance to allways start a new controverse
> discussion. But I'm much more impressed by the endurence some ppl have to
> argue with him!! To me it seems like talking with an "Jehovas witness" - you
> can proove them that they are wrong, it doesn't matter because they are not
> open to arguments. For a few times it could be fun to have these
> "door-discussions", but then it is simply tiring because it is like running
> in a circle.
> The Mr. Martin "discussion" is like a long-lasting "jehovas wittness"
> experience to me.
> Very tiring - an "energy sucker"...
No Sri Hari, an *energizer*. It's a blast to tear down the tired
old paradigms of spirituality, to rip off the facade and expose
the bullshit. And there is a ton of it around here.
> What do you think about this?
I think Ma has given me a body and mind to express Her folly,
and right now Her folly directs me to express in this way.
Mr. Martin may just be playing with us, Mr. Martin may be a
bigger fool than we can imagine, but Mr. Martin's tired ideas
about spirituality demand response either way.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Jeff Sawyer
He who knows not and knows that he knows not: he is simple -- teach him;
He who knows and knows not that he knows: he is asleep -- wake him;
He who knows and knows that he knows: he is wise -- follow him.
Michael Martin wrote:
The soul has become entangled here by the three gunas (attributes), five
tattwas, ten indriyas (sense organs), the mind etc., and has developed such
strong ties with the body and the things related to it that it finds it most
difficult to free itself from those bondages. Freedom from these bondages is
called liberation. The sense organs, the tattwas, the mind, etc., are the
inner bonds, while worldly things, the family and other relationships
constitute the external bonds. The jivatma (soul) is so inextricably caught
by these bonds that it now has no recollection of its real home. It finds
itself so far away from that home that it is very difficult to return to it
without the grace of a perfect Sat Guru.
M. Martin comments:
It might be party time, according to Heart Happy, but the condition of the
soul of most of us is pitiful. Christ said, "The kingdom of heaven is at
hand." Also, "Lift up your eyes for the harvest is ready." Did he not also
say, "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven?"
I'm willing to give the grace, which Swami Ji Maharaj (1818-1878) referred to
above. The grace is available for those who need it.
Michael Martin
Hari Har Singh
Since I first gathered this NG abouth half a year ago (or so...) I
recognized Mr. Martin and the discussions and arguing he provoked with his
"Sat Guru" Stuff....
I'm really impressed by his endurance to allways start a new controverse
discussion. But I'm much more impressed by the endurence some ppl have to
argue with him!! To me it seems like talking with an "Jehovas witness" - you
can proove them that they are wrong, it doesn't matter because they are not
open to arguments. For a few times it could be fun to have these
"door-discussions", but then it is simply tiring because it is like running
in a circle.
The Mr. Martin "discussion" is like a long-lasting "jehovas wittness"
experience to me.
Very tiring - an "energy sucker"...
What do you think about this?
Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
Bruce Morgen
jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>No Sri Hari, an *energizer*. It's a blast to tear down the tired
>old paradigms of spirituality, to rip off the facade and expose
>the bullshit. And there is a ton of it around here.
>
>> What do you think about this?
>
>I think Ma has given me a body and mind to express Her folly,
>and right now Her folly directs me to express in this way.
>Mr. Martin may just be playing with us, Mr. Martin may be a
>bigger fool than we can imagine, but Mr. Martin's tired ideas
>about spirituality demand response either way.
>
>Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Gentlemen, you are both correct.
Let those who love impels to
contend do so and those not so
moved hold their peace. Simple,
no? Love's impetus brings with
it the energy to do it's
bidding, and to those who tire
love brings welcome respite.
Heart Happy
Hari Har Singh wrote:
>
> The Mr. Martin "discussion" is like a long-lasting "jehovas wittness"
> experience to me.
> Very tiring - an "energy sucker"...
>
>
We ought to get James into this thread. He was some big cahuna teacher
and preacher for Jehovahs Witness many years ago!
Miracles can and do happen! Thank you God! :-)
Michael, the best gift is always left for last.
Catch..........! * Silence *
Hari Har Singh
jodyr schrieb in Nachricht <353166...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Hari Har Singh wrote:
(snippsnapp)
>
>No Sri Hari, an *energizer*. It's a blast to tear down the tired
>old paradigms of spirituality, to rip off the facade and expose
>the bullshit. And there is a ton of it around here.
I wish you not to get "stuck in the mud" someday. :-)
>> What do you think about this?
>
>I think Ma has given me a body and mind to express Her folly,
>and right now Her folly directs me to express in this way.
>Mr. Martin may just be playing with us, Mr. Martin may be a
>bigger fool than we can imagine, but Mr. Martin's tired ideas
>about spirituality demand response either way.
For me to continue joining this discussions would be like fighting
windmills. I see no movement, nothing changing - every month the same tiring
dogmas and christian/hindu middleadge like superstitious fairytales.
But I wish you to continue in having much joy with the Sat Guru windmill and
it's buddys. :-))
Love, light & peace - Hari Har Singh
"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - John Lennon
Hari Har Singh
Bruce Morgen schrieb in Nachricht <353174de...@news.pond.com>...
(schnipp)
Gentlemen??? :-))
>Gentlemen, you are both correct.
Dear Bruce,
I'm not questioning the "correctness" of anyones approach to MM's (and
other's) posts. :-)
What I like to know is how do you feel doing this longtime
"windmillfighting" - as I would call it - and what is it that keeps you
going on? And, what does MM's postings with you when you read them? How do
you feel?
(I tried to describe how I felt with it in my postings before.)
>Let those who love impels to
>contend do so and those not so
>moved hold their peace. Simple,
>no?
We won't argue about this, hm? ;-)
Hari Har Singh
Jeff Sawyer schrieb in Nachricht <35317C6E...@ids.net>...
(snipp)
I'm a little bit confused - is this a posting by Jeff or by Michael Martin??
Jeff, are you a "diciple" of Mr. Martin????
Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
Michael Martin
jodyr
Hari Har Singh wrote:
> I wish you not to get "stuck in the mud" someday. :-)
I am a mudfish.
--jodyr.
Heart Happy
***************
Did I say "at least one" - make it "two". :-)
Judi
Bruce Morgen
"Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>Bruce Morgen schrieb in Nachricht <353174de...@news.pond.com>...
>
>(schnipp)
>
>Gentlemen??? :-))
>
>>Gentlemen, you are both correct.
>
>Dear Bruce,
>I'm not questioning the "correctness" of anyones approach to MM's (and
>other's) posts. :-)
Not directly, of course
not. You are questioning
the efficacy or utility
of it, whether it is a
good thing to do
considering its apparent
futility.
>What I like to know is how do you feel doing this longtime
>"windmillfighting" - as I would call it - and what is it that keeps you
>going on? And, what does MM's postings with you when you read them? How do
>you feel?
>(I tried to describe how I felt with it in my postings before.)
>
The feeling is kind of
like "Here comes the
'Emperor,' he is wearing
his 'New Clothes.' Let
us speak of it on the
off chance something can
be learned from the
dialogue." It is simply
casting bread upon the
waters, there is
certainly no hope of the
said "Emperor" admitting
to the absurdity inherent
in his actvity.
Heart Happy
Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>> The feeling is kind of
> like "Here comes the
> 'Emperor,' he is wearing
> his 'New Clothes.' Let
> us speak of it on the
> off chance something can
> be learned from the
> dialogue." It is simply
> casting bread upon the
> waters, there is
> certainly no hope of the
> said "Emperor" admitting
> to the absurdity inherent
> in his actvity.
************************
And, also, look at it like this. If we did have any real hope, that
would
totally ruin it! :-) We are bad, very very bad! :-)
Hey Mikey...with friends like us, it's not looking too good for you!!!
LOL
Judi
SUN222
Bruce Morgen wrote:
>>Learn to let it be. Please
>>
>The Jews of Europe circa
>1940 seemed to have
>learned this lesson well,
>history records the
>result.
Do not confuse yourself with the past deeds of others and you will have less
contention with which to remove yourself from reason.
>>Those who will follow may learn something as they are needful by their
>>following.
>
>Those determined to be
>followers will ignore me.
Ignorance is not a province that is assigned by you.
>>Those who will not follow will also learn something for they
>>walk a different course.
>
>Indeed!
I appreciate your agreement, and look forward to more.
>>Shall your efforts be rewarded as you subtract
>>from another?
>
>To share observations is
>neither to add nor to
>"subtract." To be
>"rewarded" is a whore's
>motivation, a truthful
>one casts bread upon the
>waters without attachment
>to outcome.
The truth remains even while the darkness of night comes upon the land. We
shall either provide criticism and antagonize, or not, but the light of
truth remains even while we have allowed something to stand between us and
it.
>>The myrtle tree gives her fragrance to all who come near and
>>asks for nothing in return. Shall we learn from her?
>>
>The fragrance of trees
>has a biological function,
>our enjoyment of it is a
>wondrous coincidence. The
>matter of the human psyche
>and spirit is wondrous in
>its own way and often
>involves the deliberate
>synthesis of a certain
>psychological "fragrance"
>designed to entice other
>humans into dependence and
>delusion. I simply point
>out the difference between
>natural fragrance and a
>plainly synthetic perfume
>falsely presented as not
>only natural, but as a
>deep and esoteric
>knowledge of nature itself.
What you have proposed as coincidence is surely enjoyed yet is it not
wonderful that our enjoyment is not predicated upon our understanding?
>This is not an issue to be
>glossed over with pretty
>sentiments and appealing
>imagery, but rather one of
>the utmost import and
>impact on the human
>condition. When love bids
>us speak are we to refrain
>because of the doings of
>trees, lizards, or protozoa,
>which involve neither
>sentience nor sapience?
You may do as you wish, with no incumbence other than good judgement, and
even in judgement are you allowed to fall into error. The humans who are of
intellect will discern the path they have placed themselves upon. Those who
do not, will seek to know it.
SUN222
33
Hari Har Singh
jodyr schrieb in Nachricht <3531E1...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Hari Har Singh wrote:
>
>> I wish you not to get "stuck in the mud" someday. :-)
>
>I am a mudfish.
>
>--jodyr.
"Blop같, Blop!같" - Hari Har Singh :-))
Bruce Morgen
Heart Happy <arag...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Bruce Morgen wrote:
>>
>>> The feeling is kind of
>> like "Here comes the
>> 'Emperor,' he is wearing
>> his 'New Clothes.' Let
>> us speak of it on the
>> off chance something can
>> be learned from the
>> dialogue." It is simply
>> casting bread upon the
>> waters, there is
>> certainly no hope of the
>> said "Emperor" admitting
>> to the absurdity inherent
>> in his actvity.
>
>************************
>And, also, look at it like this. If we did have any real hope, that
>would totally ruin it! :-) We are bad, very very bad! :-)
>
"When I'm good, I'm very very good,
but when I'm bad I'm better."
-- Mae West
>Hey Mikey...with friends like us, it's not looking too good for you!!!
>LOL
>
The thing is, it's looking
astonishingly beautiful --
one simply must see through
the assumptions englobing
awareness, which in
Michaelji's case are layered
on as thick, sticky, and
opaque as tar.
Heart Happy
Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>> The thing is, it's looking
> astonishingly beautiful --
> one simply must see through
> the assumptions englobing
> awareness, which in
> Michaelji's case are layered
> on as thick, sticky, and
> opaque as tar.
*******************
I almost really hate to say this, but damned if it's not the truth,
if we could boil it all down to one thing, it would have to be "absurd".
So, there we have it folks. Unless somebody can come up with
something other, and that would have to be something *else* *entirely*,
we may just have to settle on absurdity!
Judi :-)
Bruce Morgen
"SUN222" <SUN...@none.com> wrote:
>
>Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>>>Learn to let it be. Please
>>>
>>The Jews of Europe circa
>>1940 seemed to have
>>learned this lesson well,
>>history records the
>>result.
>
>Do not confuse yourself with the past deeds of others and you will have less
>contention with which to remove yourself from reason.
>
I am accounted somewhat
adept with words but
cannot parse any meaning
from this rather vague
admonition.
>>>Those who will follow may learn something as they are needful by their
>>>following.
>>
>>Those determined to be
>>followers will ignore me.
>
>Ignorance is not a province that is assigned by you.
>
Whatever that means...
>>>Those who will not follow will also learn something for they
>>>walk a different course.
>>
>>Indeed!
>
>I appreciate your agreement, and look forward to more.
>
Agreement is pleasurable,
do we understand why we
"look forward to more?"
>>>Shall your efforts be rewarded as you subtract
>>>from another?
>>
>>To share observations is
>>neither to add nor to
>>"subtract." To be
>>"rewarded" is a whore's
>>motivation, a truthful
>>one casts bread upon the
>>waters without attachment
>>to outcome.
>
>The truth remains even while the darkness of night comes upon the land. We
>shall either provide criticism and antagonize, or not, but the light of
>truth remains even while we have allowed something to stand between us and
>it.
>
Sometimes the antagonism
that comes of perceived
criticism is precisely
what sunders that which
occludes and distorts our
seeing of that which is not
of thought. Conditioning
is occasionally susceptible
to shock, which may come
of anything from a stubbed
toe to the persistent
questioning of ones
cherished, previously
unchallenged assumptions.
Of course such a scenario
may also provoke an even
more vigorous defense of
the perceptual status quo,
but the observer and the
observed are not the only
witnesses in these public
fora, as your contribution
demonstrates.
>>>The myrtle tree gives her fragrance to all who come near and
>>>asks for nothing in return. Shall we learn from her?
>>>
>>The fragrance of trees
>>has a biological function,
>>our enjoyment of it is a
>>wondrous coincidence. The
>>matter of the human psyche
>>and spirit is wondrous in
>>its own way and often
>>involves the deliberate
>>synthesis of a certain
>>psychological "fragrance"
>>designed to entice other
>>humans into dependence and
>>delusion. I simply point
>>out the difference between
>>natural fragrance and a
>>plainly synthetic perfume
>>falsely presented as not
>>only natural, but as a
>>deep and esoteric
>>knowledge of nature itself.
>
>What you have proposed as coincidence is surely enjoyed yet is it not
>wonderful that our enjoyment is not predicated upon our understanding?
>
Yes, I couldn't agree more,
the myrtle, the peacock,
the sunset, and the stars
are beautiful with or
without "our understanding!"
True understanding, which is
not an intellectual matter,
brings us new eyes to see
such beauty in this very
moment, to see that
conscious existence itself
is a natural wonder of
astonishing beauty no matter
what the contents of the
sensorium.
>>This is not an issue to be
>>glossed over with pretty
>>sentiments and appealing
>>imagery, but rather one of
>>the utmost import and
>>impact on the human
>>condition. When love bids
>>us speak are we to refrain
>>because of the doings of
>>trees, lizards, or protozoa,
>>which involve neither
>>sentience nor sapience?
>
>You may do as you wish, with no incumbence other than good judgement, and
>even in judgement are you allowed to fall into error.
Why thank you! :-)
>The humans who are of
>intellect will discern the path they have placed themselves upon. Those who
>do not, will seek to know it.
>
There is little or nothing
of the intellect in my
observations other than in
the articulation, which is
unavoidable. Knowledge,
the storage of facts and
opinions as memories, is a
convenience but not to be
confused with the truly
sacred -- which, like the
fragrance of the myrtle,
occurs only in the eternal
now moment. Thank you for
your interest in my post.
SUN222
Bruce Morgen wrote in message
>There is little or nothing
>of the intellect in my
>observations other than in
>the articulation, which is
>unavoidable. Knowledge,
>the storage of facts and
>opinions as memories, is a
>convenience but not to be
>confused with the truly
>sacred -- which, like the
>fragrance of the myrtle,
>occurs only in the eternal
>now moment. Thank you for
>your interest in my post.
You "earned" my interest and many look forward to more.
SUN222
33
SUN222
Jeff Sawyer wrote:He who knows not and knows not that he knows not: he is a fool -- shun him;
He who knows not and knows that he knows not: he is simple -- teach him;
He who knows and knows not that he knows: he is asleep -- wake him;
He who knows and knows that he knows: he is wise -- follow him.
We are all of these at various times, and it is to our credit when we are able to detect which one we are at the time.
SUN222
33
Heart Happy
Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>> >What you have proposed as coincidence is surely enjoyed yet is it not
> >wonderful that our enjoyment is not predicated upon our understanding?
> >
> Yes, I couldn't agree more,
> the myrtle, the peacock,
> the sunset, and the stars
> are beautiful with or
> without "our understanding!"
> True understanding, which is
> not an intellectual matter,
> brings us new eyes to see
> such beauty in this very
> moment, to see that
> conscious existence itself
> is a natural wonder of
> astonishing beauty no matter
> what the contents of the
> sensorium.
>
I woke up this morning and thought of how I used to *fret* in my search
for happiness. And now I am assured that I will always find it.
It is inescapable. Because that is what life *is* - a game of happiness.
And I would tell someone who doesn't want to see this or belive me, to
find out
for yourself. Seek it. I guarantee you, sooner or later you will find
it.
Look anywhere. You could liken it to an easter egg hunt, with eggs up
the
kazoo. You already know the eggs are there, right? Why you say???
Because you're at an egg hunt, you ding dong! It's a given!
What else would you expect to find at an egg hunt?? Sheeesh!!
Judi :-)
James C. Allison
Heart Happy wrote:
> We ought to get James into this thread. He was some big cahuna teacher
> and preacher for Jehovah's Witnesses many years ago!
There are no big cahunas in the JWs. Just a bunch of deluded "sheep" who
will never be slaves as long as they are free to do what they are
ordered to do.
As far as Mikey being like a JW, it is alas true!
In that:
Neither one of them give a damn about what ANYONE ELSE thinks. The Holy
Writing says it... They believe it... End of conversation!
Both are occluded into what they think, to the exclusion of all other
concepts.
Both are of necessity over-simplistic in their comprehensions, even
though the concepts be the veriest of nonsenses.
For instance: Dinosaur bones that are millions of years old were
"really" put there by Jehovah as a "trick" to fool the "learned"
scientists. In actuality it has been less than 7,000 years since Jehovah
created life on Earth, and there is no mention in the Bible that he
created dinosaurs.
So when one of the "foolish scientists" tries to tell you that a certain
fossil is millions of years old... laugh at him, he has just been the
brunt of a trick that Jehovah has played on him to prove that education
is more of a hinderance than a help.
Neither have a clue about what is "REALLY" going on, but that doesn't
matter a bit! As long as those who are listening don't KNOW the
difference, they can't TELL the difference.
And then again, Mikey and the JWs are different in many ways too. Mikey
hasn't got a pot or a window, the JWs have the largest printing facility
in the world and are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mikey is a failure because he has failed to attract a following! The JWs
are failures because they didn't fail to attract a following! But in
doing so, they succeeded in becoming the very thing that they became
famous for hating! They based their whole premise on hating "organized
religion". One of their first big campaigns was "Religion is a Snare and
a Racket!".
They are vehemently anti-Catholic. They teach any kind of affluence was
anathema. Then they started to attract lots of malcontents who were
pissed at the system and in the process...whattayaknow... they "BECAME"
an organized and wealthy concern themselves!
So a little secret here::: If you don't want the JWs to persist in
trying to talk to you on Saturday and Sunday Mornings, or any other time
that they drag their sorry asses around your neighborhood, all you have
to do is say one simple little thing and they will be on their way in a
flash!
It is the dreaded "D" word! :) No other word strikes fear and terror
into the heart of a JW like the dreaded "D" word. It is like holding up
a cross in front of a vampire! They shrink from the one from whose mouth
it issues!
Are you ready for it? You must use this exact word! Any other word and
they know you are bluffing. Use THIS word and they are not allowed to
talk to you!!!
Just say: "I'm DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!!
If you say that, then in order for the JWs to make the sentence stick,
they have to refrain from ANY fellowship with you. No eating with you,
no shaking your hand, no smiling at, no talking to, no looking at, no
acknowledging that you even exist. They have to make believe that you no
longer exist for to do otherwise makes liars out of the "Elders" who
decided that the disfellowshipped one deserved having the Big D imposed.
It also means that Jehovah has murdered the D'd one. If that is so then
the JWs cannot acknowledge the D'd one's existence. Kind nice when you
don't want to have to futz around with that stupid bunch of bible
thumpers.
None-the-less, have a wonderland day and as I always say...
--
Hang in there!
Regards and sincere best wishes
AllisonWonderland
---
CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT
http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm
Comments welcome.
ossian
Heart Happy <arag...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>I almost really hate to say this, but damned if it's not the truth,
>if we could boil it all down to one thing, it would have to be "absurd".
>So, there we have it folks. Unless somebody can come up with
>something other, and that would have to be something *else* *entirely*,
>we may just have to settle on absurdity!
>
Then again....if you go stepping in doo doo....you start to smell like
it after awhile.
But if you leave it alone, it biodegrades and you don't smell it
anymore.
Ignore it and maybe it'll go away.
Be well...Phillip
Heart Happy
Kavindra wrote:
>
>> They did return- once. Came right up to that screened kitchen door.
> Came right up in time to see my friend making love to his wife on the
> kitchen table.
>
> They never came back to his house, either.
>
************
That's a good one. Hmm. Wonder why they wouldn't come back though?
Oh well, that is another thing all together.
But, at any rate, I never really had a problem getting rid of them,
cause I remember, on Saturday mornings, I was usually very busy,
with the house and 4 kids of my own. So, it was easy for me to
give them the bum's rush. But, I do remember this one time,
and this is what really pisses me off about the JW's, is thier
dressing their little kids up in suits and dragging them along
with them. This one time, I open the door, and they said their
bit, and I looked down at this kid, little boy about 10, all
dressed up in a suit, looking miserable and bored as hell,
and I say to him "How come you're not outside playing with your
friends today?" And then gave a questioning *stare* at the parent.
They definitely got my message. I really don't mind the adults
coming around doing what they do, it's a free world, but to
drag their kids around like that is an out and out crime.
For shame!
Judi
Jan Barendrecht
Hari Har Singh wrote in message <6grmpe$cv6$4...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
.>Since I first gathered this NG abouth half a year ago (or so...) I
.>recognized Mr. Martin and the discussions and arguing he provoked with his
.>"Sat Guru" Stuff....
.>I'm really impressed by his endurance to allways start a new controverse
.>discussion. But I'm much more impressed by the endurence some ppl have to
.>argue with him!! To me it seems like talking with an "Jehovas witness" -
you
.>can proove them that they are wrong, it doesn't matter because they are
not
.>open to arguments. For a few times it could be fun to have these
.>"door-discussions", but then it is simply tiring because it is like
running
.>in a circle.
.>The Mr. Martin "discussion" is like a long-lasting "jehovas wittness"
.>experience to me.
.>Very tiring - an "energy sucker"...
.>What do you think about this?
>Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
When I came across Michael's posts for the first time, I was rather amazed
that someone was calling himself a Satguru. Stating this contradicted his
threats of Satan et al, ready to drag us to hell if we wouldn't accept him
(Michael) as the only guru capable of delivery from evil. What struck me,
was his unconditional belief in the visions of his Master, ordering him to
act as he did. The controversies he created were very instructive to me.
Reflecting on such a thread revealed to me that everyone was comparing
Michael's post to his/her personal spiritual ceiling. This ceiling is
defined as right, if no contradiction exists with known spiritual paths and
wrong, if a contradiction is found. It made me wonder, what the reaction
would have been if Michael would have described a novel
meditation-technique. According to my experience, Michael showed a patience
and politeness in his responses within the thread that no Jehovah witness
ever can rival. Discussion was useless, as is always the case when one is
interpreting one's own view as "absolute truth". As everyone has a certain
amount of energy available, I wonder how it will be used without these
controversial subjects to dissipate a part of it. The one that can benefit
most from all of this is Michael himself, in applying the energy, generated
by the "free fall" from Satguru to Bhakta, in a yogic sense. I hope he does.
Jan Barendrecht
ossian
And he's enjoying all of this attention. What gratification it must
be to have so many of us making his posts the center of attention.
Kavindra
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 16:36:07 -0500, "James C. Allison"
<all...@livingston.net> wrote:
<snip>
>So a little secret here::: If you don't want the JWs to persist in
>trying to talk to you on Saturday and Sunday Mornings, or any other time
>that they drag their sorry asses around your neighborhood, all you have
>to do is say one simple little thing and they will be on their way in a
>flash!
>
>It is the dreaded "D" word! :) No other word strikes fear and terror
>into the heart of a JW like the dreaded "D" word. It is like holding up
>a cross in front of a vampire! They shrink from the one from whose mouth
>it issues!
>
>Are you ready for it? You must use this exact word! Any other word and
>they know you are bluffing. Use THIS word and they are not allowed to
>talk to you!!!
>
>Just say: "I'm DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!!
<snip>
When the JWs move into an area, they map it off into a grid and assign
people to each section.
If you engage them at all, they come back again & again.
I managed to get them to leave me alone once.
I had just returned from India, where I had been initiated into Yoga,
and felt like I was crackling with shakti all the time. I'd recently
been trained as a canvasser for an environmentalist group, taught the
"rap," taken door to door with a trainer, etc. It was a *very* cold &
snowy March that year, & canvassing was difficult work.
On my day off, immediately after completing my sadhana, I saw a
Cadillac pull up to the bottom of the driveway of the house I was
living in at the time. Two gentlemen in black suits & overcoats -one
older, one younger- began to make their way to the door. This was not
an easy task. They had to navigate six inches of snow which were
covered with a layer of ice, and the distance from the road to the
door was quite long.
I guessed who they were, but my heart went out to them, since I was
dealing with similar difficulties in my job. Of course, at this point
in my life, my heart was going out to everyone & I was the mushiest
bliss-puppy you'd ever meet. So I watched these two men slipping &
sliding their way to my door, & waited patiently there for them.
The younger man started to speak: "Excuse me, sir: I'm sure you're
aware of all the problems in the world today, with drugs and pollution
and crime and wars and all. How would you feel about seeing the
promise of a better world?" This was his rap. The older gentleman
watched him, nodding slightly- the trainer.
"Are you gentlemen with the Watchtower Bible Society?" I asked,
brimming with love for them. I had just gone through this myself with
my job!
The young man was clearly taken aback. Maybe he expected a snide "Are
you guys Jehovah's Witnesses?" or some such. It threw him off of his
rhythm. After a moment: "Why yes, sir. Now how would you feel about
seeing the promise of a better world?" Trying to pick up the script
again.
I thought for a long moment, then said: "I don't know. I'm sure that
God is running things pretty well, though."
The two men looked at each other in surprise, and both looked back at
me. Long pause. Then: "Well thank you, sir. Have a good day." And
they proceeded to slowly head back to their car. They never came
back. Go figure. Of course, I thought later how interesting it would
have been to invite them in and perform a puja to the bronze Siva
statue on the little altar in the living room.
A friend of mine also got them to leave him alone through somewhat
different means. When they first came to his house (the house was
arranged so that you reached the screen door to the kitchen when you
first come up the walk) he engaged them in discussion, not realizing
that this would insure their return.
They did return- once. Came right up to that screened kitchen door.
Came right up in time to see my friend making love to his wife on the
kitchen table.
They never came back to his house, either.
Jai Bhagwan,
Kavindra
Hari Har Singh
Bruce Morgen schrieb in Nachricht <3532168...@news.pond.com>...
>"Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bruce Morgen schrieb in Nachricht <353174de...@news.pond.com>...
[...]
>Not directly, of course
>not. You are questioning
>the efficacy or utility
>of it, whether it is a
>good thing to do
>considering its apparent
>futility.
But I intended not to talk in general (that's important to me!) but wanted
to share my experience and feelings and know about the others NG-members
experiences and feelings concerning this topic.
Saying there is an "correct" approach implements that there is allso an
"incorrect" approach and that I'm the one who knows wich ones the right &
wich one's the wrong (and that I may think I have the "right approach" ;-)
But I don't think in these "general terms" about this topic.
again: If somebody finds joy and fullfillment in this - that's ok with me.
:-)
(snipp)
>The feeling is kind of
>like "Here comes the
>'Emperor,' he is wearing
>his 'New Clothes.' Let
>us speak of it on the
>off chance something can
>be learned from the
>dialogue." It is simply
>casting bread upon the
>waters, there is
>certainly no hope of the
>said "Emperor" admitting
>to the absurdity inherent
>in his actvity.
Huh, Bruce - you are a word wizzard and I'm only a little German Yogateacher
with a dictonary on my knees trying to understand your magic... :-)) It's
not easy! How do you say? "Gimme a break!"?? ;-)
Heart Happy
Hari Har Singh wrote:
>
> But I intended not to talk in general (that's important to me!) but wanted
> to share my experience and feelings and know about the others NG-members
> experiences and feelings concerning this topic.
> Saying there is an "correct" approach implements that there is allso an
> "incorrect" approach and that I'm the one who knows wich ones the right &
> wich one's the wrong (and that I may think I have the "right approach" ;-)
> But I don't think in these "general terms" about this topic.
> again: If somebody finds joy and fullfillment in this - that's ok with me.
> :-)
******************
The bottom line here is that Michael is just simply too stupid to talk
to?
I think we can all agree on that. No matter how *pleasant* his stupidity
is.
We all gave it our best shots. We should perhaps keep our eyes peeled
for others that may be lured into never-never land with his nonsense.
And, we'll give them our best shots at that time.
So, I think we, as intelligent and sane persons,
can safely call it a wrap with Michael?
I doubt that he will come knocking on our doors. And if he does,
we'll just tell him to hit the road Jack. You had your chance,
now beat it! :-)
Judi
Judi
Hari Har Singh
James C. Allison schrieb in Nachricht <353285...@livingston.net>...
[...]
>So a little secret here::: If you don't want the JWs to persist in
>trying to talk to you on Saturday and Sunday Mornings, or any other time
>that they drag their sorry asses around your neighborhood, all you have
>to do is say one simple little thing and they will be on their way in a
>flash!
[snipp]
>Are you ready for it? You must use this exact word! Any other word and
>they know you are bluffing. Use THIS word and they are not allowed to
>talk to you!!!
>
>Just say: "I'm DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!!
>
>If you say that, then in order for the JWs to make the sentence stick,
>they have to refrain from ANY fellowship with you. No eating with you,
>no shaking your hand, no smiling at, no talking to, no looking at, no
>acknowledging that you even exist. [snipp...]
You know what once happened to me? :-))
The first time they came to my door it were two young guys - one was the
intelligent, he talked - and we discussed about 2 hours (really fun). The
next time the intelligent came back with an man in the mid40's (maybe his
"Boss"?) and we discussed again for two hours - until the older one said
surprisingly to the young: "Ah, c'mon, it's not worth to continue discussing
with him, we leave." (The younger one was fascinated to discuss with me - he
wanted to stay) and I was the one who asked them to stay! But "they" didn't
wanted it...
Until this time they never came back. [snif] :-)))
Hari Har Singh :-)
Hari Har Singh
Kavindra schrieb in Nachricht <3532ce5...@news.snet.net>...
[snipp]
>A friend of mine also got them to leave him alone through somewhat
>different means. When they first came to his house (the house was
>arranged so that you reached the screen door to the kitchen when you
>first come up the walk) he engaged them in discussion, not realizing
>that this would insure their return.
>
>They did return- once. Came right up to that screened kitchen door.
>Came right up in time to see my friend making love to his wife on the
>kitchen table.
>
>They never came back to his house, either.
>
>
> Jai Bhagwan,
> Kavindra
Hehehe...
"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans"!!! - John
Lennon
I like this one - nice story Kavindra! :-D
<g> - Hari Har Singh
Michael Martin
In article <892509653.432946@cache>,
"Jan Barendrecht" <janb...@fraser.infase.es> wrote:
>
>
> Hari Har Singh wrote in message <6grmpe$cv6$4...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
>
> .>Since I first gathered this NG abouth half a year ago (or so...) I
> .>recognized Mr. Martin and the discussions and arguing he provoked with his
> .>"Sat Guru" Stuff....
> .>I'm really impressed by his endurance to allways start a new controverse
> .>discussion. But I'm much more impressed by the endurence some ppl have to
> .>argue with him!! To me it seems like talking with an "Jehovas witness" -
> you
> .>can proove them that they are wrong, it doesn't matter because they are
> not
> .>open to arguments. For a few times it could be fun to have these
> .>"door-discussions", but then it is simply tiring because it is like
> running
> .>in a circle.
> .>The Mr. Martin "discussion" is like a long-lasting "jehovas wittness"
> .>experience to me.
> .>Very tiring - an "energy sucker"...
>
> .>What do you think about this?
>
>
> that someone was calling himself a Satguru. Stating this contradicted his
> threats of Satan et al, ready to drag us to hell if we wouldn't accept him
> (Michael) as the only guru capable of delivery from evil. What struck me,
> was his unconditional belief in the visions of his Master, ordering him to
> act as he did. The controversies he created were very instructive to me.
> Reflecting on such a thread revealed to me that everyone was comparing
> Michael's post to his/her personal spiritual ceiling. This ceiling is
> defined as right, if no contradiction exists with known spiritual paths and
> wrong, if a contradiction is found. It made me wonder, what the reaction
> would have been if Michael would have described a novel
> meditation-technique. According to my experience, Michael showed a patience
> and politeness in his responses within the thread that no Jehovah witness
> ever can rival. Discussion was useless, as is always the case when one is
> interpreting one's own view as "absolute truth". As everyone has a certain
> amount of energy available, I wonder how it will be used without these
> controversial subjects to dissipate a part of it. The one that can benefit
> most from all of this is Michael himself, in applying the energy, generated
> by the "free fall" from Satguru to Bhakta, in a yogic sense. I hope he does.
>
Yaawn!
Discussion was useless, as is always the case when one is
> interpreting one's own view as "absolute truth".
The Sat Guru doesn't give his own view. He gives the the view of the
Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the Creator.
The one that can benefit
> most from all of this is Michael himself, in applying the energy, generated
> by the "free fall" from Satguru to Bhakta, in a yogic sense. I hope he does.
I'm both a Bhakta, and a Sat Guru. It would be a mistake for anybody to
underestimate me. Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise the
Sat Guru what he should do?
Best Wishes,
Michael Martin
Bhakta, or Sat Guru, of Surat Shabd Yoga
Michael Martin
In article <3532aea9...@news.mindspring.com>,
oss...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> And he's enjoying all of this attention. What gratification it must
> be to have so many of us making his posts the center of attention.
>
> And he's enjoying all of this attention.
Another conjecture, only this one is not Bruce Morgen's. I enjoy the
attention if anyone follows my advice, otherwise, it's not very enjoyable, to
say the least.
What gratification it must
> be to have so many of us making his posts the center of attention.
How do you know I haven't done this before in previous lifetimes? Perhaps
it's nothing new at all. Saint Dariya wrote that he had been sent as a
saviour eighty-eight times.
If I carry out his orders, the Lord's, then I can feel some gratification,
that I'm doing a good job. A shepherd is only the good shepherd if he can
collect the sheep.
Saints come here from a very high spiritual region. They have no karma of
their own. They come here on a mission of mercy. Very rarely are they
recognized for what they are. Their whole life is a sacrifice. Their birth
is a sacrifice. Their youth is a sacrifice. Middle age, and old age, if the
Saint lives that long, is a sacrifice. All that is sacrificed for us. It
behooves us to pay attention to them. They are the golden opportunity for us
to get out of the ever-grinding wheel of reincarnation.
Michael Martin
A Practicioner of the Yoga of the Holy Spirit
Michael Martin
In article <35331F...@pacbell.net>,
> The bottom line here is that Michael is just simply too stupid to talk
> to?
You are the one who didn't want to go to that party, which is always going on
in the Father's house. The public can judge, who is the stupid one.
We should perhaps keep our eyes peeled
> for others that may be lured into never-never land with his nonsense.
> And, we'll give them our best shots at that time.
>
> So, I think we, as intelligent and sane persons,
> can safely call it a wrap with Michael?
>
> I doubt that he will come knocking on our doors. And if he does,
> we'll just tell him to hit the road Jack. You had your chance,
> now beat it! :-)
Christ said, "Nobody can pluck the sheep, which the Father has given me, out
of my hand." Same goes for me, Judi.
Garuda
>It
>behooves us to pay attention to them. They are the golden opportunity for us
>to get out of the ever-grinding wheel of reincarnation.
>
Sorry St. Michael, but you lost me when you said that Yama was Satan.
I would hate to be in your shoes when you answer to Lord Yama for that
one.
Be well - Phillip (oss...@mindspring.com)
Bruce Morgen
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
There is nothing that is
not "the Father's house,"
e.g. "many mansions."
This so-called "mundane,"
"physical" world is one
of them, the one we are
born into to live in and
understand, not to escape.
That is the first lesson
of maturity -- seek not
escape, but rather
understanding. Escape is
easy -- there are so many
ways to opt out of life as
it is: drugs, psychological
obsession, and the very
picturesque and elaborate
lifeboats offerred by
various confused-but-
confident would-be gurus
and other teachers/leaders.
Life, the truth of the human
psyche and spirit, is
arduous -- not in the usual
obey-and-be-rewarded sense,
but in its demands on our
integrity, discernment, and
courage. A true teacher
helps us to understand this,
a false one offers shortcuts
and escape hatches based on
attractive fictions and
personal fealty. The true
teacher earns our respect
and affection, the false one
asks for it beforehand based
on a priori agreement with
the teacher's self-image.
>The public can judge, who is the stupid one.
>
Yes, that is true, it all
falls to the discernnent
of our readers.
> We should perhaps keep our eyes peeled
>> for others that may be lured into never-never land with his nonsense.
>> And, we'll give them our best shots at that time.
>>
>> So, I think we, as intelligent and sane persons,
>> can safely call it a wrap with Michael?
>>
>> I doubt that he will come knocking on our doors. And if he does,
>> we'll just tell him to hit the road Jack. You had your chance,
>> now beat it! :-)
>
>Christ said, "Nobody can pluck the sheep, which the Father has given me, out
>of my hand." Same goes for me, Judi.
>
Michaelji, not only aren't
you Christ, you are far
out of touch with your own
Christ nature, insulated
by layer upon layer of
elaborate and largely
fictional assumptions.
Presenting yourself as the
equal of various Famous
Dead Guys[tm] is an insult
to your readers' intelligence
and an indication (albeit
indeterminate) of serious
mental disorder, possibly
even schizophrenia.
Those of our readers that
are indeed "sheep" are
already yours for however
long they manifest the
intelligence and discernment
of a barnyard animal. The
anatomy of that relationship
and of its end are illustrated
by this commentary on a poem
from your own Sant Mat lineage:
WARNING: DEVOTEES OF THE PARTICULAR LINEAGE
DESCRIBED BY MICHAEL MIGHT WELL BE OFFENDED
BY THIS OFFHANDED ELABORATION OF WHAT MIGHT
BE REGARDED AS HOLY OR OTHERWISE SPECIAL
WORDS. IF YOU FEEL SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUCH
OFFENSE AND WISH TO AVOID SUCH FEELINGS,
DO NOT READ THESE NOMINALLY FICTIONAL BUT
ULTIMATELY TRUTHFUL PARAGRAPHS INSPIRED BY
MICHAEL'S POST. bcnu -- Bruce
_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Turner <m.tu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hi there:
>The following is from "Niyamawali": a small book of devotional prayers
>published by Soami Bagh (the Radhasoami Satsang "parent" lineage in
>Agra). Enjoy!
> "Surat is craving for the gift of lvoe for the Holy Feet of Guru.
>Full of enthusiasm, she comes before Guru and is delighted on having His
>darshan. She is pleased on hearing His discourses. She breaks off all
>ties with the worldly people.
So once again does the tragic separation of the "worldly"
and the "sacred" commence. Surat does not see that all
"craving" is of the same fabric, that her desire for what
"Guru" proffers is no different than her earlier wanting
for a sari of a different color or finer cloth.
> Worldly activities do no interest and please her any longer; she
>has kicked off all karams and dharams (the so-called religious deeds and
>duties). She loves Guru as a child loves his mother. Now she does not
>feel restful and easy without darshan; she does not feel interest in any
>other thing.
Surat has left her parents and siblings in tears and
confusion, she has abandoned the friends of her youth
and the hope of husband and family. All other ties
sundered, she is free to pursue and indulge her deep
attachment to darshan and her dependence on Guru.
> She daily performs Abhyas and Dhyan (contemplation); she has
>enshrined Guru's form in her heart. Every moment she sees Him within.
>She feels delighted on seeing His countenance.
Surat feels nothing whatsoever other than delight, the
plight of the destitute and diseased touches her not,
nor do the pleas of her family, which arrive weekly and
are not read, she sees only the image of Guru's
contenence.
> She enjoys Anhad Dhun within. The current of ami (nectar) is
>dripping from Sunn.
Surat spends whatever waking hours are granted her
daydreaming elaborately of fictions described in
Guru's discourses, she performs arduous labor in
Guru's service in order to keep Him nourished with
carefully prepared meals and fresh fruits and to
assure the comfort and cleanliness of his abode.
For a very brief lucid moment she remembers her
father's kindness to her and her sisters in the
face of the taunting of her brothers and their
friends. She pushes the distraction aside with a
thankful prayer to Guru and is rewarded with the
enjoyment of several particularly attractive
fictions.
> The mind and Surat rise to higher planes and hear Shabd stage by
>stage. She witnesses wonderful spectacles within and sings hte praises
>of Guru with ardour and zeal.
Guru never notices her devotion, he is thinking
of his own beloved Guru, and how of the many
yearning devotees that clung to Him for decades
only he, the cleverest and most patient, has
attained equivalent status and the allegiance of
many respected and moneyed families. He takes
an orange from the hand of a young woman and
does not look beyond that hand, the nearby face
is that of Surat but Guru remains lost in his
thoughts and the sweetness of the proffered
fruit.
> Beloved Radhasoami Guru has showered His grace and mercy on Surat;
>she merges in His Holy Feet with love."
In the midst of this final, ecstatic reverie,
Surat notices the appearance of Guru's Holy
Feet. Though recently pedicured, they are
ill-formed as well as pasty-white and soft
from a sheltered existence where walking is
seldom required. She looks up at Guru's
contentence with tear-dimmed eyes and sees
an inattentive old man with juice dribbling
down his chin and onto his clothing. In that
moment she is Enlightened and thanks Guru for
the last time.
>Michael Martin
>A Practicioner of the Yoga of the Holy Spirit
>
Ah, yet another self-demotion.
Your new-found humility seems
to come of 20-20 hindsight!
Bruce Morgen
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
>In article <892509653.432946@cache>,
> "Jan Barendrecht" <janb...@fraser.infase.es> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hari Har Singh wrote in message <6grmpe$cv6$4...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
>>
[snip]
>>
>Dear Jan,
>
>Yaawn!
>
Here the avatarguru
evidences the very
human tendency to
manifest (or feign?)
boredom as a rhetorical
device.
>Discussion was useless, as is always the case when one is
>> interpreting one's own view as "absolute truth".
>
>The Sat Guru doesn't give his own view. He gives the the view of the
>Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the Creator.
>
Let's not and say we did.
Needless to say, the
naked, delusional hubris
of this assertion is
astonishing given the
spiritual and intellectual
vapidity of the writer's
record of written
discourse in this venue.
> The one that can benefit
>> most from all of this is Michael himself, in applying the energy, generated
>> by the "free fall" from Satguru to Bhakta, in a yogic sense. I hope he does.
>
>I'm both a Bhakta, and a Sat Guru. It would be a mistake for anybody to
>underestimate me. Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise the
>Sat Guru what he should do?
>
Well, for one, Jan seems
to see your condition far
more clearly than you do,
that would seem to be the
first and foremost
qualification of any
credible advisor.
>Best Wishes,
>
>Michael Martin
>Bhakta, or Sat Guru, of Surat Shabd Yoga
>
I liked "practictioner" for
its honesty.
jodyr
Mr. Martin writes:
*snip*
>The Sat Guru doesn't give his own view. He gives the the view of the
>Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the
>Creator.
Mr. Martin, the Creator you speak of doesn't have a view at all. Views
are limited to the region of space/time. Views are products of human
minds. There is only one thing you can attribute to the Creator, and
that is Sat-Chit-Ananda. The view you speak of is your own view, and I
take great exception to it. You promote an old and useless view of
spirituality that is mired in patriarchy and brahminical politics.
Your time is well past. Your ideas are dead.
The new expression of spirituality completely bypasses any ideas of
what is "correct" or "incorrect" in terms of practice. The new
expression has no use for grandiose preachers of useless ideologies
with no connection to the now.
*snip*
>I'm both a Bhakta, and a Sat Guru. It would be a mistake for anybody to
>underestimate me. Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise the
>Sat Guru what he should do?
Your claims of enlightenment fool no one but yourself. I would advise you to
seek psychological counseling.
BTW: You haven't responded to any of my critiques. Why is that? The original
post entitled "Hard-rock spirituality" was directed at you. You haven't attempted
to refute any of the points I make about you or your lame ideology. Can't the
Sat Guru take pity on a deluded soul crying out for guidance? That's what I
must be from your skewed perspective. Come on Mr. Martin. You want some of me?
--jodyr.
Heart Happy
jodyr wrote:
>
> BTW: You haven't responded to any of my critiques. Why is that? The original
> post entitled "Hard-rock spirituality" was directed at you. You haven't attempted
> to refute any of the points I make about you or your lame ideology. Can't the
> Sat Guru take pity on a deluded soul crying out for guidance? That's what I
> must be from your skewed perspective. Come on Mr. Martin. You want some of me?
>
:-)
jodyr
Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
> jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Mr. Martin writes:
> >
> >*snip*
> >
> >>The Sat Guru doesn't give his own view. He gives the the view of the
> >>Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the
> >>Creator.
> >
> >Mr. Martin, the Creator you speak of doesn't have a view at all. Views
> >are limited to the region of space/time. Views are products of human
> >minds. There is only one thing you can attribute to the Creator, and
> >that is Sat-Chit-Ananda. The view you speak of is your own view, and I
> >take great exception to it. You promote an old and useless view of
> >spirituality that is mired in patriarchy and brahminical politics.
> >Your time is well past. Your ideas are dead.
> >
> >The new expression of spirituality completely bypasses any ideas of
> >what is "correct" or "incorrect" in terms of practice. The new
> >expression has no use for grandiose preachers of useless ideologies
> >with no connection to the now.
> >
> >*snip*
> >
> >>I'm both a Bhakta, and a Sat Guru. It would be a mistake for anybody to
> >>underestimate me. Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise the
> >>Sat Guru what he should do?
> >
> >Your claims of enlightenment fool no one but yourself. I would advise you to
> >seek psychological counseling.
> >
> after a few rounds with even
> as weak a specimen as yours
> truly, Michaelji already
> resembles "The Black Knight"
> in "Monty Python and The
> Holy Grail" -- he seems now
> to lack the limbs to flail
> about pretending to be the
> great warrior of his dreams,
> he just hasn't noticed that
> the thrust of his recent
> discourse boils down to "How
> dare you?!" with a few
> extraneous and ineffective
> embellishments.
I feel I have little mercy for those who play-act based on an inappropriate
interpretation of flawed theology. If Mr. Martin is who he says he is
then he should be able to defend his world-view without resorting to
sappy quotes from the bible.
Mr. Martin stands for all that is wrong with spirituality as it is taught
in America, despite his devotion to an Indian guru. What he and many
others fail to realize is that the cultural context of Indians is quite
different from that of Americans. While the essential ideas of an Indian
guru may be quite correct, they become clouded in the cultural translation,
sometimes, as Mr. Martin so clearly demonstrates.
I wish no harm to Mr. Martin, despite my aggressive sounding posts.
However, the bullshit he presents as wisdom demands a response from
me. If he really does know the grace of Mother in the form of
knowledge of the Absolute, he will be readily equipped to deal with
any and all critiques. If Mr. Martin were really who he thinks he
his, he would have put us all down handily.
--jodyr.
Hari Har Singh
Michael Martin schrieb in Nachricht <6gvstj$4it$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
OOOoooooh, I can't stand this.....
Sorry - but I have to comment on this too! ;-))
>Dear Jan,
>
>Yaawn!
Here we are shown the respectful side of "St. Michael", hm?
>Discussion was useless, as is always the case when one is
>> interpreting one's own view as "absolute truth".
>
>The Sat Guru doesn't give his own view. He gives the the view of the
>Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the Creator.
Impressing! Really, it is....
Some ppl travel the vastness of their Ego and think they messured Gods
infinity.
Of course you are the creator - but the same way a cell is part of the human
body! Just imagine one of my cells would say: "I am Hari Har Singh! I am the
whole human!" - that would be a stupid cell...
"If you can't see God in all you can't see God at all"
If you only see one cell (yourself) as godly - you totally miss for the
whole human beeing - for God.
>
> The one that can benefit
>> most from all of this is Michael himself, in applying the energy,
generated
>> by the "free fall" from Satguru to Bhakta, in a yogic sense. I hope he
does.
>
>I'm both a Bhakta, and a Sat Guru. It would be a mistake for anybody to
>underestimate me.
Why that???!!!
Do you really care about that?? Do you think a man with a spark of holyness
in his bones would care about beeing underestimated??? Oh Jesus, Buddha,
maria, Osho - please, let's rain brain from heavens!
> Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise the
>Sat Guru what he should do?
EVERYbody should be an advisor for you - holy man! Because everyBODY was
created by your creator to teach you! What about love and devotion?
Humblyness? Respect? Inspiration? Understanding? Support? A holy man should
constantly radiate all this to his fellow human beeings. I never, NEVER felt
this radiated or given from you to another person in this NG - and you call
yourself holy, not only that! you call yourself the ONLY TRUE (Sat) "way
from darkness to light" (Guru) on this planet!!
This really makes me angry!
I wish that you would stop this camouflage and selfbetrayal and seriously
start to think about a good psychotherapy.
Bruce Morgen
jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Mr. Martin writes:
>
>*snip*
>
>>The Sat Guru doesn't give his own view. He gives the the view of the
>>Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the
>>Creator.
>
>Mr. Martin, the Creator you speak of doesn't have a view at all. Views
>are limited to the region of space/time. Views are products of human
>minds. There is only one thing you can attribute to the Creator, and
>that is Sat-Chit-Ananda. The view you speak of is your own view, and I
>take great exception to it. You promote an old and useless view of
>spirituality that is mired in patriarchy and brahminical politics.
>Your time is well past. Your ideas are dead.
>
>The new expression of spirituality completely bypasses any ideas of
>what is "correct" or "incorrect" in terms of practice. The new
>expression has no use for grandiose preachers of useless ideologies
>with no connection to the now.
>
>*snip*
>
>>I'm both a Bhakta, and a Sat Guru. It would be a mistake for anybody to
>>underestimate me. Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise the
>>Sat Guru what he should do?
>
Bruce Morgen
jodyr <jo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I feel I have little mercy for those who play-act based on an inappropriate
>interpretation of flawed theology.
Let's not discount the
possibility that he is
simply mentally ill.
This is often the case
with those who make
grandiose claims without
any semblance of
credibility.
>If Mr. Martin is who he says he is
>then he should be able to defend his world-view without resorting to
>sappy quotes from the bible.
>
It's pretty clear that
he is about as far from
"who he says he is" as
the Titanic was from
"unsinkable."
>Mr. Martin stands for all that is wrong with spirituality as it is taught
>in America, despite his devotion to an Indian guru. What he and many
>others fail to realize is that the cultural context of Indians is quite
>different from that of Americans. While the essential ideas of an Indian
>guru may be quite correct, they become clouded in the cultural translation,
>sometimes, as Mr. Martin so clearly demonstrates.
>
Frankly, I suspect he
would have nearly as
many problems in India,
even with the help of a
culture for which guru
reverence and spiritual
hierarchy are SOP.
>I wish no harm to Mr. Martin, despite my aggressive sounding posts.
I know.
>However, the bullshit he presents as wisdom demands a response from
>me. If he really does know the grace of Mother in the form of
>knowledge of the Absolute, he will be readily equipped to deal with
>any and all critiques. If Mr. Martin were really who he thinks he
>his, he would have put us all down handily.
>
The deluded cannot cope
with the authentic, Q.E.D.
Jan Barendrecht
Michael Martin<SH...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote in message
<6gvstj$4it$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...>In article <892509653.432946@cache>,
> "Jan Barendrecht" <janb...@fraser.infase.es> wrote:
>> Hari Har Singh wrote in message <6grmpe$cv6$4...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
>> .>Since I first gathered this NG abouth half a year ago (or so...) I
>> .>recognized Mr. Martin and the discussions and arguing he provoked with
his
>> .>"Sat Guru" Stuff....
.<snip>
>> .>The Mr. Martin "discussion" is like a long-lasting "jehovas wittness"
>> .>experience to me.
>> .>Very tiring - an "energy sucker"...
>> .>What do you think about this?
>> >Sat Nam - Hari Har Singh
>> When I came across Michael's posts for the first time, I was rather
amazed
>> that someone was calling himself a Satguru. Stating this contradicted his
>> threats of Satan et al, ready to drag us to hell if we wouldn't accept
him
>> (Michael) as the only guru capable of delivery from evil.
<snip>
>Dear Jan,
>Yaawn!
>Discussion was useless, as is always the case when one is
>> interpreting one's own view as "absolute truth".
>The Sat Guru doesn't give his own view. He gives the the view of the
>Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the Creator.
> The one that can benefit
>> most from all of this is Michael himself, in applying the energy,
generated
>> by the "free fall" from Satguru to Bhakta, in a yogic sense. I hope he
does.
>I'm both a Bhakta, and a Sat Guru. It would be a mistake for anybody to
>underestimate me. Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise
the
>Sat Guru what he should do?
>Best Wishes,
>Michael Martin
>Bhakta, or Sat Guru, of Surat Shabd Yoga
Dear Michael,
This time, you managed even to involve Boolean logic into your statement
about being Satguru and/or Bhakta. Yes, rightly, many are qualified to
advise someone who is calling himself Satguru. Because the Satguru is
seeing God in everything, the Satguru is merely taking advice from God :-)))
I took the liberty to make a poem about the lighter side of it. Don't take
it serious...
To be a Satguru, just how can you know
Is it for real or is it for show
Is it a find of the devious mind
Or the disguise for someone unwise
In this case - one is caught in a maze
If mind has dissolved then nothing is there
Saying "I’m finally guru-aware"
But mind being there and an ant becomes bear
Mind is a tool except for the fool
For some it’s a maze that is filled with a haze
Hiding a wire that can kindle a fire
Clearing the maze and dispelling its haze
Liking the maze with its parties of craze
Will cost a lot so one will finally rot
Deluded once more without reaching the shore
Not knowing the real and just turning the wheel
So don’t be a pundit with knowledge and skill
For just turning the wheel without paying the bill
©Jan
SUN222
Er kann nicht velliecht erinnen Deutsch, aber Sie macht sehr gut English.
SUN222
33
Hari Har Singh wrote in message <6gv554$fsr$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
>
>Bruce Morgen schrieb in Nachricht <3532168...@news.pond.com>...
>>"Hari Har Singh" <f...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Bruce Morgen schrieb in Nachricht <353174de...@news.pond.com>...
>
>[...]
>>Not directly, of course
>>not. You are questioning
>>the efficacy or utility
>>of it, whether it is a
>>good thing to do
>>considering its apparent
>>futility.
>
>But I intended not to talk in general (that's important to me!) but wanted
>to share my experience and feelings and know about the others NG-members
>experiences and feelings concerning this topic.
>Saying there is an "correct" approach implements that there is allso an
>"incorrect" approach and that I'm the one who knows wich ones the right &
>wich one's the wrong (and that I may think I have the "right approach" ;-)
>But I don't think in these "general terms" about this topic.
>again: If somebody finds joy and fullfillment in this - that's ok with me.
>:-)
>
>(snipp)
>
>>The feeling is kind of
>>like "Here comes the
>>'Emperor,' he is wearing
>>his 'New Clothes.' Let
>>us speak of it on the
>>off chance something can
>>be learned from the
>>dialogue." It is simply
>>casting bread upon the
>>waters, there is
>>certainly no hope of the
>>said "Emperor" admitting
>>to the absurdity inherent
>>in his actvity.
>
>Huh, Bruce - you are a word wizzard and I'm only a little German
Yogateacher
>with a dictonary on my knees trying to understand your magic... :-)) It's
>not easy! How do you say? "Gimme a break!"?? ;-)
>
SUN222
He that would lead many must first serve many, for in that way the house is
maintained clean, and Malkuth serves as fitting foundation.
If he is from the source, we will know it.
SUN222
33
Michael Martin
In article <892609527.866928@cache>,
"Jan Barendrecht" <janb...@fraser.infase.es> wrote:
>
> Michael Martin<SH...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote in message
> <6gvstj$4it$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...>In article <892509653.432946@cache>,
> > "Jan Barendrecht" <janb...@fraser.infase.es> wrote:
>
> >> Hari Har Singh wrote in message <6grmpe$cv6$4...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
>
> >> .>Since I first gathered this NG abouth half a year ago (or so...) I
> >> .>recognized Mr. Martin and the discussions and arguing he provoked with
> his
> >> .>"Sat Guru" Stuff....
> .<snip>
> >> .>The Mr. Martin "discussion" is like a long-lasting "jehovas wittness"
> >> .>experience to me.
> >> .>Very tiring - an "energy sucker"...
>
> >> .>What do you think about this?
>
>
Here we go again.
Yes, rightly, many are qualified to
> advise someone who is calling himself Satguru.
Who says it's right? You?
If someone is calling himself a Sat Guru, we should proceed with great
caution, in case it's true. If it is true, then we wouldn't want to be the
recipients of the Lord's wrath, now would we? There is a very severe
punishment given those who have the unmitigated gall to treat the Sat Guru
with disrespect.
There is only one way for us to know, and that is to rise to the level of the
Sat Guru's. Then we can know. When one is initiated into Sant Mat, the
disciple gets to know his Master by stages. Each stage we know him better
and better. The only way to fully know the True Sat Guru is to reach Sach
Khand ourself. Then we can realize with absolute knowledge that he is the
Lord himself.
Michael Martin
Practicioner of the Yoga of the Holy Spirit
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
SUN222
You need not lie to anyone. To offer dishonesty presents yourself as less
than the ones you wish to keep from your door.
There are other ways to prevent the publishers of the "gospel" from your
door, should that really be the intent.
SUN222
33
SUN222
Energy, is a strange commodity for love is multiplied by division in much
the same fashion as mass is converted to energy by nuclear fission.
If love is applied to all we meet, the result is that we, ourselves, are
happy. It is of small consequence that those who are loved do not recognize
the effort in such a venue.
For this reason it becomes wiser to accept the love and reason with the
position of the one who offers it, than to attempt to reduce the efforts to
our own observance.
SUN222
33
SUN222
Do not be misled by any, but the deviant is usually correct. It may take
more time than you are willing to spend in order to determine the tangent
from your universe to another, but sometimes I have found it worthwhile.
SUN222
33
Michael Martin
In article <3533fc3...@news.pond.com>,
> >>Creator. He works for the Creator. You can even say; he is the
> >>Creator.
> >
> >are limited to the region of space/time. Views are products of human
> >minds. There is only one thing you can attribute to the Creator, and
> >that is Sat-Chit-Ananda. The view you speak of is your own view, and I
> >take great exception to it. You promote an old and useless view of
> >spirituality that is mired in patriarchy and brahminical politics.
> >Your time is well past. Your ideas are dead.
> >
> >The new expression of spirituality completely bypasses any ideas of
> >what is "correct" or "incorrect" in terms of practice. The new
> >expression has no use for grandiose preachers of useless ideologies
> >with no connection to the now.
> >
> >*snip*
> >
> >>underestimate me. Why do you, Jan, consider yourself qualified to advise the
> >>Sat Guru what he should do?
> >
> >seek psychological counseling.
> >
> >BTW: You haven't responded to any of my critiques. Why is that? The original
> >post entitled "Hard-rock spirituality" was directed at you. You haven't attempted
> >to refute any of the points I make about you or your lame ideology. Can't the
> >Sat Guru take pity on a deluded soul crying out for guidance? That's what I
> >must be from your skewed perspective. Come on Mr. Martin. You want some of me?
> >
> Have a little mercy, Jody,
> after a few rounds with even
> as weak a specimen as yours
> truly, Michaelji already
> resembles "The Black Knight"
> in "Monty Python and The
> Holy Grail" -- he seems now
> to lack the limbs to flail
> about pretending to be the
> great warrior of his dreams,
> he just hasn't noticed that
> the thrust of his recent
> discourse boils down to "How
> dare you?!" with a few
> extraneous and ineffective
> embellishments.
>
> >Mr. Martin, the Creator you speak of doesn't have a view at all.
You mean to say the Creator doesn't have any opinion on anything?
Views
> >are limited to the region of space/time. Views are products of human
> >minds.
Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. The Lord has his opinion, and whatever
is his will, he dictates to the Saints what to say (teach) and do in this
world. Christ said, "Not my doctrine, but his that sent me."
There is only one thing you can attribute to the Creator, and
> >that is Sat-Chit-Ananda.
Let's don't even try to write about his attributes. Nanak wrote we could do
that for millions of years, and we wouldn't even be at the first letter.
The view you speak of is your own view, and I
> >take great exception to it.
Everyone has the right to express their opinions on this newsgroup. You
shouldn't be so thin-skinned.
You promote an old and useless view of
> >spirituality that is mired in patriarchy and brahminical politics.
We are the same as we were at the time of Buddha. We eat the same. We
defecate the same. We urinate the same. We procreate the same. Everything
is just about the same. God is still in us, just as he was then. We have to
meditate to reach him, just as Buddha had to then.
Would you like spirituality to come out in a new model every year, as new
cars do. To me, you're putting your own ego in, and perhaps you would like
to tell God what to do.
> >Your time is well past. Your ideas are dead.
Surat Shabd Yoga has served me very well. I'm greatful to my Sat Guru for
that.
> >The new expression of spirituality completely bypasses any ideas of
> >what is "correct" or "incorrect" in terms of practice. The new
> >expression has no use for grandiose preachers of useless ideologies
> >with no connection to the now.
If you want to follow a path, which is different from Sant Mat, then I wish
you luck. I know from 33 years of Sant Mat meditation that it is not
useless. I know it is the only true path. You think the "now" is so
important. Ages and ages have passed, and more will come. What you consider
"now" will soon be past history.
I would advise you to
> >seek psychological counseling.
Thanks, but I will reject that advice. Who are you to give me advice? What
qualifies you?
Come on Mr. Martin. You want some of me?
I'm willing to help any soul find the truth. Truth is synonymous with the
highest region. It's my duty to take sincere souls to that blissful place.
he seems now
> to lack the limbs to flail
> about pretending to be the
> great warrior of his dreams,
It's not my duty to fight with people. I just explained my duty to Jody.
James C. Allison
sent, it produced a General Protection Fault and dropped the post into a
TMP file. So please find attached, that file. How it will look in NG
format is going to have to be seen.
--
Hang in there!
Regards and sincere best wishes
AllisonWonderland
---
CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT
http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm
Comments welcome.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
In article <6h2hhk$p3j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
*snip*
> If someone is calling himself a Sat Guru, we should proceed with great
> caution, in case it's true. If it is true, then we wouldn't want to be the
> recipients of the Lord's wrath, now would we? There is a very severe
> punishment given those who have the unmitigated gall to treat the Sat Guru
> with disrespect.
Unmitigated gall? How about divinely inspired outrage! That's what I got
chump! The real Sat Gurus don't refer to themselves as such. You are as
transparent as the air above Annapurna.
You have no access to the Lord's wrath. The Lord has no wrath. Cause and
effect will bring reaction, but I'm not afraid of the karma I invoke by
challenging your sorry ass.
> There is only one way for us to know, and that is to rise to the level of the
> Sat Guru's. Then we can know. When one is initiated into Sant Mat, the
> disciple gets to know his Master by stages. Each stage we know him better
> and better. The only way to fully know the True Sat Guru is to reach Sach
> Khand ourself. Then we can realize with absolute knowledge that he is the
> Lord himself.
Bullshit. A real Sat Guru invites challenge, in fact he or she revels in it.
Look at Sri Ramakrishna, who encouraged Swami Vivekananda (then known as
Narendra) to question and provoke him. Narendra went out of his way to take
Ramakrishna up on his offer, and he did so mercilessly. The result was that
Narendra came to regard Ramakrishna as an Incarnation, and Ramakrishna just
continued to love Narendra throughout his tireless inquisition.
With every post you demonstrate more clearly the fraud that you are, whether
you realize that you are such or not. Please keep the posts flowing. I
live to take the likes of you down. You are an utter disgrace to those who
practice Sant Mat meditation, and you bring shame upon real gurus all over
the world.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
In article <6h2j08$r6e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
*snip*
> Dear Bruce, and Jody,
>
> > >Mr. Martin, the Creator you speak of doesn't have a view at all.
>
> You mean to say the Creator doesn't have any opinion on anything?
Exactly fool. The Creator is beyond having opinions. The Creator is
*all* opinions that exist or have ever existed, along with everything
else in the Universe. Your "Creator's" opinion is merely your delusion,
based on your ignorance of Truth and your inflated projections of divinity.
> Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. The Lord has his opinion, and whatever
> is his will, he dictates to the Saints what to say (teach) and do in this
> world. Christ said, "Not my doctrine, but his that sent me."
You wouldn't know a saint if he/she bit you on the ass. Saints are crazy.
People don't realize saints are saints because of their screwed-up ideas
of what saints are supposed to be.
God doesn't have any doctrines at all. You are little better than a fundy
Christian telling us we are damned because we don't belong to their club.
The voices you hear are the result of biochemical imbalances in your head.
I repeat my advice that you seek some help for them.
> There is only one thing you can attribute to the Creator, and
> > >that is Sat-Chit-Ananda.
> Let's don't even try to write about his attributes. Nanak wrote we could do
> that for millions of years, and we wouldn't even be at the first letter.
Then why do you describe his opinion to us? An opinion is an attribute, and
one far down the ladder of them.
> The view you speak of is your own view, and I
> > >take great exception to it.
>
> Everyone has the right to express their opinions on this newsgroup. You
> shouldn't be so thin-skinned.
You do have a right to your opinion, so please, don't stop expressing them.
I have the same right, and I revel in it. Keep it up Mr. Martin, you've met
a greatest adversary in me.
> You promote an old and useless view of
> > >spirituality that is mired in patriarchy and brahminical politics.
>
> We are the same as we were at the time of Buddha. We eat the same. We
> defecate the same. We urinate the same. We procreate the same. Everything
> is just about the same. God is still in us, just as he was then. We have to
> meditate to reach him, just as Buddha had to then.
Fool, have not 2000 years of cultural evolution changed us? Are we where we
were then? We *are* our cultures just as much as we are eating, shitting, and
fucking beings, and the culture of today is so far beyond what we might have
even imagined 2000 years ago.
> Would you like spirituality to come out in a new model every year, as new
> cars do. To me, you're putting your own ego in, and perhaps you would like
> to tell God what to do.
There is a different model of spirituality for each soul on the planet. The
problem is most of them are held back by the crap you preach. Of course my
ego is in this, as is yours so obviously, but in a much different way. My
heart is a modem, as is everyone else's on the planet. I have a T1 to God,
as do the rest of us. We don't need you and I for one resent you telling us
that we do.
> > >Your time is well past. Your ideas are dead.
>
> Surat Shabd Yoga has served me very well. I'm greatful to my Sat Guru for
> that.
I'd say you've been inflated past repair by it.
> > >The new expression of spirituality completely bypasses any ideas of
> > >what is "correct" or "incorrect" in terms of practice. The new
> > >expression has no use for grandiose preachers of useless ideologies
> > >with no connection to the now.
>
> If you want to follow a path, which is different from Sant Mat, then I wish
> you luck. I know from 33 years of Sant Mat meditation that it is not
> useless. I know it is the only true path. You think the "now" is so
> important. Ages and ages have passed, and more will come. What you consider
> "now" will soon be past history.
Ho-ho-ho. The only true path?! Deriding the importance the *now*?! You
just dug yourself 10ft deeper.
> I would advise you to
> > >seek psychological counseling.
>
> Thanks, but I will reject that advice. Who are you to give me advice? What
> qualifies you?
My sheer indignation qualifies me.
>
> Come on Mr. Martin. You want some of me?
>
> I'm willing to help any soul find the truth. Truth is synonymous with the
> highest region. It's my duty to take sincere souls to that blissful place.
And you are helping us to find the truth, by being an excellent example of
what not to become, and what not to believe in. You will help us to that
blissful place in exactly the opposite way you intend. Proof that God is
one crazy Honey and that you are the one She has pulled the wool over.
Jai Ma! --jodyr.
Heart Happy
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> You wouldn't know a saint if he/she bit you on the ass. Saints are crazy.
> People don't realize saints are saints because of their screwed-up ideas
> of what saints are supposed to be.
************* Crazy??? Surely you jest??? LOL I think I resent that
remark!! :-)
Just keeping everything on the up and up here. Or maybe it's down and
out?
I don't know. Maybe I forgot??? Who knows? Who's to say anyway???
Besides, it's my brownie time.
Judi
Heart Happy
I hate when that happens. :-) Turns into a g.d. free for all! LOL
Shut up!! I don't want to see anybody else laughing!!
Judi
Bruce Morgen
"SUN222" <SUN...@none.com> wrote:
>
>Do not be misled by any, but the deviant is usually correct.
There is certainly no shortage
of those understandably called
"deviant" (a very subjective
label, no?), does "usually"
imply that most of them are
"correct" (not quite sure what
that means, either)?
>It may take
>more time than you are willing to spend in order to determine the tangent
>from your universe to another, but sometimes I have found it worthwhile.
>
Feel free to do so and share
what you observe. Anything
that contributes to
understanding is surely
"worthwhile," isn't it?
Bruce Morgen
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
>In article <892609527.866928@cache>,
> "Jan Barendrecht" <janb...@fraser.infase.es> wrote:
>>
>> Michael Martin<SH...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote in message
>> <6gvstj$4it$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...>In article <892509653.432946@cache>,
>> > "Jan Barendrecht" <janb...@fraser.infase.es> wrote:
>>
>> >> Hari Har Singh wrote in message <6grmpe$cv6$4...@unlisys.unlisys.net>...
>>
[snip]
The guruavatar evidences
exasperation, very telling.
> Yes, rightly, many are qualified to
>> advise someone who is calling himself Satguru.
>
>Who says it's right? You?
>
Actually, Michaelji, you
are the only one contending
over this point -- not that
consensus proves anything,
of course, but this is just
another way of saying "How
dare you?!" You can't even
manage to be effectively
intimidating, a "sad guru"
indeed.
>If someone is calling himself a Sat Guru, we should proceed with great
>caution, in case it's true.
I did exactly that until
your deluded state became
very apparent. I am
cautious by nature.
>If it is true, then we wouldn't want to be the
>recipients of the Lord's wrath, now would we? There is a very severe
>punishment given those who have the unmitigated gall to treat the Sat Guru
>with disrespect.
>
Michaelji, you are not
only deluded and possibly
mentally ill, you are a
bully trying to intimidate
people with power and
authority that you clearly
don't have, just like the
limbless knight loudly
issuing challenges he
cannot meet other than
with more loud challenges.
>There is only one way for us to know, and that is to rise to the level of the
>Sat Guru's.
Did you say "rise?" Surely
you jest, sir!
>Then we can know.
Given enough conditioning,
the willing chela "can know"
that the earth is flat too.
This is the nature of
conditioning when personal
sovereignty had been ceded
to the conditioner!
>When one is initiated into Sant Mat, the
>disciple gets to know his Master by stages.
At each "stage" the devotee
acquires more (and more
elaborate) conditioning.
>Each stage we know him better
>and better.
At each "stage" the conditioning
becomes more integrated into
consciousness and less likely to
be seen for what it is.
>The only way to fully know the True Sat Guru is to reach Sach
>Khand ourself.
"Come into my parlor said the
spider to the fly," and when
we're are finished your will
"fully know" me indeed!
>Then we can realize with absolute knowledge that he is the
>Lord himself.
>
I have been threatened by far
more fearsome madmen than you,
Michaelji, all of them proved
to be as powerless as they were
clueless. You manifest zero
insight, zero wisdom, and zero
expressive impact, and yet you
expect to be accepted as "the
Lord himself." This is an
indicator of mental illness or
deliberate charlatanism; since
I account you honest I suspect
it's the former.
Bruce Morgen
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
What you so misleadingly
call "the Creator" is
quite beyond the human
foible of "opinion," it
is the essence of truth.
> Views
>> >are limited to the region of space/time. Views are products of human
>> >minds.
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. The Lord has his opinion, and whatever
>is his will, he dictates to the Saints what to say (teach) and do in this
>world. Christ said, "Not my doctrine, but his that sent me."
>
Nonsense, there are no such
explicit commissions,
appointments, and
instructions. The impetus
of love is wordless and
thus devoid of doctrine, it
is pure truth.
> There is only one thing you can attribute to the Creator, and
>> >that is Sat-Chit-Ananda.
>
>Let's don't even try to write about his attributes. Nanak wrote we could do
>that for millions of years, and we wouldn't even be at the first letter.
>
>The view you speak of is your own view, and I
>> >take great exception to it.
>
>Everyone has the right to express their opinions on this newsgroup. You
>shouldn't be so thin-skinned.
>
This from he of so many ways
of saying "How dare you?!"?
ROTFLMAO!
> You promote an old and useless view of
>> >spirituality that is mired in patriarchy and brahminical politics.
>
>We are the same as we were at the time of Buddha. We eat the same. We
>defecate the same. We urinate the same. We procreate the same. Everything
>is just about the same. God is still in us, just as he was then. We have to
>meditate to reach him, just as Buddha had to then.
>
Not that I'm a Buddhist or a
scholar of Gautama's life,
but what we have that purports
to be his utterances does not
speak of "God" or of any
divine personage. The fact
that the image of Buddha has
itself become an object of
worship and veneration has no
basis in what is presented as
his sayings.
>Would you like spirituality to come out in a new model every year, as new
>cars do. To me, you're putting your own ego in, and perhaps you would like
>to tell God what to do.
>
Actually, where Jody is coming
from is the very essence of
spirituality stripped of its
cultural and temporal baggage,
its superfluous and misleading
ornamentation. He is looking
out the window while you
continue obsess on the curtains
and shiny decorative hardware.
>> >Your time is well past. Your ideas are dead.
>
>Surat Shabd Yoga has served me very well.
It apparently has driven you
well and truly mad.
>I'm greatful to my Sat Guru for
>that.
>
No doubt.
>> >The new expression of spirituality completely bypasses any ideas of
>> >what is "correct" or "incorrect" in terms of practice. The new
>> >expression has no use for grandiose preachers of useless ideologies
>> >with no connection to the now.
>
>If you want to follow a path, which is different from Sant Mat, then I wish
>you luck. I know from 33 years of Sant Mat meditation that it is not
>useless. I know it is the only true path.
A true guru never asserts such
exclusivity. Sant Mat is not
a particularly old lineage and
even you acknowledge those who
had no exposure to it as "saints."
How therefore can it possibly be
"the only true path?"
>You think the "now" is so
>important. Ages and ages have passed, and more will come. What you consider
>"now" will soon be past history.
>
The eternal now moment is all
there is and all that ever was.
The past is dead and the future
is imaginary, one is record
keeping, the other guesswork
based on those records.
> I would advise you to
>> >seek psychological counseling.
>
>Thanks, but I will reject that advice. Who are you to give me advice? What
>qualifies you?
>
Yet another "How dare you?!"?
Honestly proferred advice is
surely "God" speaking to "God."
I echo this advice, please do
consider it!
> Come on Mr. Martin. You want some of me?
>
>I'm willing to help any soul find the truth. Truth is synonymous with the
>highest region. It's my duty to take sincere souls to that blissful place.
>
Such a mechanical response is
yet another indication of
severe mental disorder.
> he seems now
>> to lack the limbs to flail
>> about pretending to be the
>> great warrior of his dreams,
>
>It's not my duty to fight with people. I just explained my duty to Jody.
>
It's your duty to see to your
mental health and stop acting
out you fantasy life in public
fora. Do get a grip, sir!
James C. Allison
SUN222 wrote:
>
> Do not be misled by any, but the deviant is usually correct. It may take
> more time than you are willing to spend in order to determine the tangent
> from your universe to another, but sometimes I have found it worthwhile.
There are times when writing like this is meant to convey depth of
thought. If it is successful, the writing becomes profound.
If it fails to convey the depth of the thought no matter, it becomes
simply "difficult".
And then there are those rare times when it is pure obfuscation.
Non-the-less, if one doesn't know the difference, one cannot tell the
difference. I happen to know how to tell the difference. Thus again:
This is very cryptic SUN222, would you care to elucidate?
SUN222
Bruce Morgen made request:
>There is certainly no shortage >of those understandably called
>"deviant" (a very subjective >label, no?), does "usually"
>imply that most of them are >"correct" (not quite sure what
>that means, either)?
The common definition indicates one who deviates or does not accept the path
deemed as "accepted". When an individual forges a new path which is unlike
his fellows, often his fellows will term this "deviant". This of course, is
relative to the new path which is forged, and the intent of the one doing
the forging. Not all paths which are deviant will be correct, but in the
balance of the Tao, there is nothing that is wrong. Let it be....sufficient
that the deviant will find the path that is correct for him comes to him.
>>It may take more time than you are willing to spend in order to
>>determine the tangent from your universe to another, but sometimes I
>>have found it worthwhile.
>Feel free to do so and share >what you observe. Anything
>that contributes to >understanding is surely
>"worthwhile," isn't it?
A "Sat Guru" and all people here have a specialness which causes them both
fear and joy. In the balance is the contentment that, we progress. If a
self proclaimed Sat Guru, is merely that, then it will be exposed in time
and there will be nothing left for that ego than his own failure to reach
his self proclaimed height. If he truly is of this spiritual calibre then
the attempt to "unseat" him from that position will not succeed and you will
be found to be actually working against what is good. The wisest course is
to "Let it be", such that the fruitage of the tree may be observed and the
tree's worth determined. If there is no fruitage, it will not seed and
thus, it will not spread.
SUN222
33
SUN222
James C. Allison wrote
>There are times when writing like this is meant to convey depth of
>thought. If it is successful, the writing becomes profound.
>If it fails to convey the depth of the thought no matter, it becomes
>simply "difficult".
>And then there are those rare times when it is pure obfuscation.
>Non-the-less, if one doesn't know the difference, one cannot tell the
>difference. I happen to know how to tell the difference. Thus again:
>This is very cryptic SUN222, would you care to elucidate?
Please excuse my poor attempt to reach the hearts of those who frequent
here. My meaning, to me, was clear....and one of my largest faults is that
I believe that if I see the clarity of something then all people can.
Elucidation for the cryptic posting will be attempted. The common
definition for the word "deviant" indicates one who deviates or does not
accept the path deemed as "accepted". When an individual forges a new path
which is unlike his fellows, often his fellows will term this "deviant".
This of course, is relative to the new path which is forged, and the intent
of the one doing the forging. If the motive is good and the effort well
placed, the deviant succeeds in forging a new path which leads to truth.
Not all paths which are deviant will be correct, but in the balance of the
Tao, there is nothing that is wrong. Let it be....sufficient that the
deviant will find the path that is correct for him comes to him.
SUN222
33
James C. Allison
SUN222 wrote:
> Please excuse my poor attempt to reach the hearts of those who frequent
> here.
and if it is worthy of being taken to heart, it will make it.
> My meaning, to me, was clear....
I had hoped that would be the case.
> And one of my largest faults is that I believe that if I see the clarity of
> something then all people can.
Good sized fault, but the nice thing is that one can see it. That
happens to be the thing that is wrong with most instruction manuals, if
one knows what one is doing, then the instructions make perfect sense.
The problem is that if one DOESN'T know what oine is doing, they are
just obscure.
> Elucidation for the cryptic posting will be attempted.
This better be good! :)
> The common definition for the word "deviant" indicates one who deviates or
> does not accept the path deemed as "accepted". When an individual forges a
> new path which is unlike his fellows, often his fellows will term this
> "deviant".
But there are also other terms with which he could get labeled: Pioneer,
Pathfinder, TrailBlazer, Innovater, Futurist,
> This of course, is relative to the new path which is forged, and the intent of
> the one doing the forging.
And here we come to the real basis for deviancy. There are just some
things that are better not having paths forged to them. But this is not
to say that deviancy doesn't have it's place.
> If the motive is good and the effort well placed, the deviant succeeds in
> forging a new path which leads to truth.
Maybe, but this is certainly not a universally accepted event.
Successfully finding the truth by being a deviant may not be impossible,
but there has to be a better way!
> Not all paths which are deviant will be correct, but in the balance of the
> Tao, there is nothing that is wrong.
But some thing hurt more than other!
> Let it be....sufficient that the deviant will find the path that is correct
> for him comes to him.
I suspect the previous sentence contains a typo.. either that or I have
intellectually fallen down and I can't get up!!! :)
The Disiderata says:
"As much as it may not be evident, the Universe is unfolding exactly as
it should."
None the less, thank you for the elucidation. Remain opulent, Have a
wonderland day and as I always say...
Heart Happy
James C. Allison wrote:
>
>
>> but there has to be a better way!
>
LOL Sheesh. You are trying to kill me aren't you? :-)
One of these days James...one of these days...
James C. Allison
Heart Happy wrote:
> LOL Sheesh. You are trying to kill me aren't you? :-)
Die laughing? I would hope not.
> One of these days James...one of these days...
Yes....!
Heart Happy
James C. Allison wrote:
>
> Heart Happy wrote:
>
> > LOL Sheesh. You are trying to kill me aren't you? :-)
> Die laughing? I would hope not.
>
> > One of these days James...one of these days...
> Yes....!
********* Well, Ralph, all I can say is that one of us is going to be
thankin our lucky stars........up close and personal! :-)
SUN222
James C. Allison wrote
>The best way to one's heart on the NewsGroups is to communicate >clearly
and if it is worthy of being taken to heart, it will make it.
In this we tend to agree save for the mention of "worth". I have found that
many times the "pearls" that one offers are not often perceived as pearls by
the one they are offered to. While it is certainly true that communication
is the response one receives, it is also true that many will not "hear" when
they do not wish to. It is imcumbent upon the speaker to determine the
desire to hear by the listener. We do this even now.
>> My meaning, to me, was clear....
>I had hoped that would be the case.
Yes, of course you did and your hope is not lost.
>> And one of my largest faults is that I believe that if I see the clarity
of
>> something then all people can.
>Good sized fault, but the nice thing is that one can see it. That
>happens to be the thing that is wrong with most instruction manuals, if
>one knows what one is doing, then the instructions make perfect >sense.
The problem is that if one DOESN'T know what oine is doing, >they are just
obscure.
Sometimes, we must train the trainer, for in that way we learn what we are
doing such that the result is not obscure, but informative. Since you seem
to be instructing me, I will allow you to train me as to what will make
sense to you so that obscurity is left behind us and we both profit by the
exchange.
>> Elucidation for the cryptic posting will be attempted.
>This better be good! :)
I was not expecting a critique, but then I notice you did not really offer
one! :)
>> The common definition for the word "deviant" indicates one who >>deviates
or does not accept the path deemed as "accepted". When >>an individual
forges a new path which is unlike his fellows, often his >>fellows will term
this "deviant".
>But there are also other terms with which he could get labeled: Pioneer,
>Pathfinder, TrailBlazer, Innovater, Futurist,
Of course, and that is why I made reference to the "good" (he may intend) by
his path to truth later on in the previously posted paragraph.
>> This of course, is relative to the new path which is forged, and the
>>intent of the one doing the forging.
>And here we come to the real basis for deviancy. There are just some
>things that are better not having paths forged to them. But this is not
>to say that deviancy doesn't have it's place.
There are some things better left unsaid, as well, however even they too,
have a place.
>> If the motive is good and the effort well placed, the deviant succeeds
>>in forging a new path which leads to truth.
>Maybe, but this is certainly not a universally accepted event.
>Successfully finding the truth by being a deviant may not be impossible,
>but there has to be a better way!
Universal acceptance is not required or mandated. The better way, could be
to lead humankind to peace, however even this will not be done without some
deviance from the accepted "norm".
>> Not all paths which are deviant will be correct, but in the balance of
>>the Tao, there is nothing that is wrong.
>But some thing hurt more than other!
Yes, I agree once more. In every step we make, we maintain balance lest we
fall. It is certain that some steps will cause us some pain, even if it is
merely our own fear which is the root of it.
>> Let it be....sufficient that the deviant will find the path that is
correct
>> for him comes to him.
>I suspect the previous sentence contains a typo.. either that or I have
>intellectually fallen down and I can't get up!!! :)
You intellectual self remains intact. The truth is that we move about in a
dynamic sphere and that the sphere itself moves toward us and away from us.
In this way, the path truly comes to us, even if we attempt to remain at
rest.
>The Disiderata says:
>"As much as it may not be evident, the Universe is unfolding exactly as
>it should."
Onederful words, the "Desiderata" copyright © 1927 by Max Ehrmann
copyright © renewed 1954 by Bertha K. Ehrmann I especially liked the
stanza...
"You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees & the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
>None the less, thank you for the elucidation. Remain opulent, Have a
>wonderland day and as I always say...
You are quite welcome, and I shall.
SUN222
33
Heart Happy
SUN222 wrote:
>
> James C. Allison wrote
>>
> >Maybe, but this is certainly not a universally accepted event.
> >Successfully finding the truth by being a deviant may not be impossible,
> >but there has to be a better way!
>
> Universal acceptance is not required or mandated. The better way, could be
> to lead humankind to peace, however even this will not be done without some
> deviance from the accepted "norm".
>
***************************
Ok, gentlemen, finding a better way to lead humankind to peace will have
to be put on hold, the cake is now on the table!
Judi :-)
SUN222
Heart Happy wrote in message
And all this time I had thought it left out in the rain.
SUN222
33
Bruce Morgen
"SUN222" <SUN...@none.com> wrote:
Don't tell me:
"I don't think that I can take it,
'cause it took so long to bake it,
and I'll never have that recipe again!"
There 'tis, y'all, the best
and only cut on "Richard
Harris: The Top Ten Hits"
Thanks, Sunny!
SUN222
Heart Happy
SUN222 wrote:
>
> Heart Happy wrote in message
> >> >Maybe, but this is certainly not a universally accepted event.
> >> >Successfully finding the truth by being a deviant may not be impossible,
> >> >but there has to be a better way!
> >>
> >> Universal acceptance is not required or mandated. The better way, could
> be
> >> to lead humankind to peace, however even this will not be done without
> some
> >> deviance from the accepted "norm".
> >>
> >
> >***************************
> >Ok, gentlemen, finding a better way to lead humankind to peace will have
> >to be put on hold, the cake is now on the table!
>
> And all this time I had thought it left out in the rain.
>
> 33
*************
Well, well! :-) Mmmmm, now you got my mouth watering!
Judi