Guru Purnima
hap...@supernews.com
Guru Purnima is celebrated Thursday at the center, and I'm not going.
Last year I didn't go for the first time in all my years of SY. It
was strange, very strange, to not be in the center celebrating at
that time. But I got through it.
I remember looking up at that moon last year and wondering how it was
possible that events have taken me out of the environment of the
ashram/center on this day... it is such a signficant day in the life
of a devotee.
This year I will just contemplate the inner and pray for guidance and
to make the beneficial changes which will support and uplift me and
others, and to let go of those things which are no longer useful and
beneficial to my life. I pray for gradual, beneficial, useful,
positive healing on all levels for myself and everyone.
I'm wondering what others here are feeling/experiencing at this Guru
Purnima time...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Hrdtired
Purnima time...
>>
Not much.
I think it might be fun to go to a G.P. celebration someplace, sometime...but
it holds no special significance for me, other than the moon being very full.
In my experience, the "guru" is not exactly "purnima" (perfect).
To pray for "gradual, beneficial, useful, positive healing on all levels for
myself and everyone" is a great thing, anytime and anywhere. I welcome any
fruit of those prayers, that's for sure!
Hey Hap -- why don't you git out the house that night and not be alone with
your misery? Just because you're not going to the ashram doesn't mean that you
can't celebrate in other ways.
-- The Tired Heart
Violet1884
>Purnima time...
***********************
Not a thing! Didn't even remember it was the BIG GP!! Kinda wish I had not
been reminded of it actually. Anyway, I am sure I will enjoy the beauty of
the full moon as I always do.
Violet
PattyV1953
>I'm wondering what others here are feeling/experiencing at this Guru
>Purnima time...
Guru purnima was always special for me. Since finding one whom I thought was a
spiritual "master," I had felt particularly blessed. Not "special," but
eternally fortunate. Whether I was at home or at the ashram, I tried to do
something to honor that relationship to "the Master." However, finding out
that the gurus of SY have feet of clay erased that significance. The claim to
"the most perfect moon of the year" strikes me as being particularly
hypocritical. So, I'm happy to have dispensed with the idea that the full moon
in July (or any other month) "belongs to the guru."
I remember feeling so guilty and conflicted when family celebrations and
vacations would coincide with GP (and felt like that moreso than on The
Birthday; never did like the circus atmosphere on June 24th). It happened
virtually every year. It's a delight and a relief to make my family my
priority.
The skylights in our house have terrific lunar sightlines (goo's grease, I'm
sure). In our bedroom on a clear night, I can just about read by the full
moon's light. I have to say, though, that I cherish the experience of the full
moon much more since having been in SY. The focus on it made me much more
aware of it's beauty.
Pat
BillyG1993
>Guru Purnima is celebrated Thursday at the center, and
>I'm not going. Last year I didn't go for the first time in
>all my years of SY. It was strange, very strange, to not
>be in the center celebrating at that time. But I got
>through it.
>
> (snip)
>
>I'm wondering what others here are feeling/experiencing
>at this Guru Purnima time...
Happily,
I personally took offense at the number of "auspicious days" that were always
being "celebrated" with the usual saptahs, feelings of being special, and of
course dakshina for this, dakshina for that. The only days they did not
celebrate were Voodoo days and African days.
I used to get into arguments with the queen of our center by asking her to tell
me which days were considered to be "not auspicious" and I would pray extra
hard on those days. She of course laughed off my logic.
The point I am trying to get across is that imo all these so called
celebrations were an elaborate cover designed for the devotee to ignore their
lives outside the ashram and thereby tighten SY's grip on their time, money,
and life.
Happily, every day is special, you are special. The hell with whether the moon
is full or not. Go have a Foster's.
Love,
Billy
Andy Comanda
>
> ... imo all these so called
> celebrations were an elaborate cover designed for the devotee to ignore their
> lives outside the ashram and thereby tighten SY's grip on their time, money,
> and life.
>
> ...every day is special, you are special. The hell with whether the moon
> is full or not. Go have a Foster's.
Right on!!!
JKnepp4350
I'll second that one. That's exactly what I got out of the sy
auspicious-days-thing. Since programs were given constantly and every single
person attending was told that the day was auspicious, well.... you get the
picture. I don't feel lied to on that score though. In fact, I think it's a
great teaching. Every day really is an auspicious day and every day is the
day of the Lord. The constant whirl of celebrations, yagnas and dance-a-thons
in sy was a real plus for me. It impressed me as something from an earlier
time - a holdover from village life and maybe even the proper way to live.
What irked me in this regard is that in village life the goal of ritual is to
benefit an entire community. In sy, the real community is ashram, inc. and any
other goals are complicated by the natural desire of a giant corporation simply
to perpetuate itself.
God-mad
BillyG1993
>>Go have a Foster's.
>
>Right on!!!
Hey Andy,
During a brief sober spell, I just read the can, and Foster's is brewed in
Canada. I feel betrayed by my beer guru, thought he was Australian. Can you
suggest any beer sadgurus out there? I am only seeking authentic beer
sadgurus. The real McCoy.
Respond quickly, before I lose the shakti. I only have enough cans left for
three home intensives.
Your pal,
Billy
BillyG1993
> (snip)
>In fact, I think it's a great teaching. Every day really
>is an auspicious day and every day is the day of the Lord.
> (snip)
God-mad,
Re: the above, do you have any prayers/techniques that you could pass on to me?
Even though I believe the teaching, I have difficulty experiencing it every
day.
Thanks in advance,
Billy
acum...@my-dejanews.com
I have been lurking for some time, and have been blown away recently by the
quality of the posts. Thank you, thank you, from someone who has had finals,
gallstones and headcolds to deal with!! Your erudition is a breath of fresh
air in my sometimes hazy world.
I thought I would answer your question, Happily, because I left SY at last
year's Gurupurnima. In fact, I drummed the chant - which was gawdawful,
thanks to some nasty chanting - and left SY behind with the final "SGNMKJ".
(By design - I was the only drummer in town that night. I was doing them a
favor.)
I have treasured this NG through the past year for the insights and support I
have found on its pages. I think the most important things that I have
learned are: 1) leaving SY is a step up; 2) dealing with the aches and pains
of life *as they come up* is much preferable to stuffing it all down with a
bolus of "it must be okay, it's the (eyelash flutter) SHAKTI! (Ooooo!)"; and,
3) I ain't gotta listen to nobody, nohow, tell me whut's spiritual and whut
ain't (even you guys).
I re-read some old journals I found the other day. I have an entry dated
from shortly after I returned from 6 months in Ganeshpuri, after March 1986.
(Darn, I wish I could find it again - when I do, I'll post it for you!) In
it, I simply raged against GM and her sneaky ways - I had just found out
about the riot at Ralph Abrams' in Ann Arbor, and since I was from there I
was furious! I burned all her pictures and all my old Siddha Path's and a
generic red silk scarf she gave me, just kept my chanting book and some pics
of Baba and Bhag. Nit. It's a great entry, I'll have to find it.
So why it took me eleven years after that to actually quit SY, I dunno. I
*do* know things were never quite the same for me after that. I guess I was
just slow to give up something that still had some joy for me - at least in
the chanting.
I saw an old friend from the Center today. I don't expect she'll call, but
it was nice to say hello. I miss her, and one or two others, but I can't
play the "gooroo game" with them anymore. I think they're deluded, and
there's no way I could hide that from them except in the politest of
conversations. Each to his/her own, but I don't have to pretend to approve,
either!
Some of the deep philosophical points have left me thinking deep
thoughts...yes, I can imagine shaktipat occurring through "imperfect"
vessels, whatever that means...didn't Baba used to talk about how an
enlightened being's behavior could be really strange (Hara Giri, etc.), so
you sort of had to be able to sniff 'em out, to sense them in some way?
Makes sense to me, always has...Doesn't that mean that "enlightenment",
whatever that is, doesn't necessarily transform us into cookie-cutter clones
of the gooroo, or into Stepford yogis, but into wild and crazy wantons and
bacchanales who whoop it up on God's time?...Life does, indeed, begin at 40
(okay, 39) and after SY - I have two more years to go in acupuncture school,
after which I, too, will have lots of lovely student loans. But hey, what
was I gonna do in that time anyway? At least I won't be a secretary anymore,
and the money is just money...Am I the only woman who has boycotted pantyhose
in the time since she left SY? (What a relief!)
Well, my posts are never as cogent or amusing as the you-all's, so I'll give
it up. Thanks again for being a shoulder for this lurker to lean and to weep
upon, even if you never saw. Take good care, and Happy Independence Day!
With great respect and joy,
Marcy Phooli Hoeflein
always available at leor...@hotmail.com
S235108
learned are: 1) leaving SY is a step up; 2) dealing with the aches and pains
of life *as they come up* is much preferable to stuffing it all down with a
bolus of "it must be okay, it's the (eyelash flutter) SHAKTI! (Ooooo!)"; and,
3) I ain't gotta listen to nobody, nohow, tell me whut's spiritual and whut
ain't (even you guys)."
Right On, Marcy! Imagine, when I confronted one of the local LA center leaders
last year with my upset about the Ann Arbor "skunk oil" incident (among other
things) she tried to tell me that "the one person who is responsible for that
has recently apologized to everyone for the trouble he caused." I was hopping
mad when I heard that one and I told her that what she was saying was an
outright lie! I had been told the names of Gurumayi's lieutenants; three
prominent sevites from South Fallsburg had been dispatched to break up the
meeting in ann Arbor and I knew who they were.
The lengths that ordinarily good people have gone to to "protect"
Siddha Yoga and Gurumayi from devotees finding out the truth is truly
disgusting. Imagine a so-called "spiritual path" being dreadfully AFRAID of THE
TRUTH! What kind of path can that be?
As someone is purported to have said, "You can fool some of the people some of
the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Good bye, bogey
yoga! Welcome Marcy.
******************S235108***********************
“Why would even the most realized of beings want people to become
reliant on his wisdom instead of their own?” GURU PAPERS
hap...@supernews.com
acum...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Well, my posts are never as cogent or amusing as the you-all's, so I'll give
> it up. Thanks again for being a shoulder for this lurker to lean and to weep
> upon, even if you never saw. Take good care, and Happy Independence Day!
>
> With great respect and joy,
> Marcy Phooli Hoeflein
> always available at leor...@hotmail.com
>
Dear Marcy,
Quite to the contrary, your post is awesome. I truly enjoyed reading it.
Thanks for your insight and please join us more often. Hope you can make the
time to share more of your insights.
Sincerely,
Happily
hap...@supernews.com
billy...@aol.com (BillyG1993) wrote:
> Happily wrote:
>
> >Guru Purnima is celebrated Thursday at the center, and
> >I'm not going. Last year I didn't go for the first time in
> >all my years of SY. It was strange, very strange, to not
> >be in the center celebrating at that time. But I got
> >through it.
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >I'm wondering what others here are feeling/experiencing
> >at this Guru Purnima time...
>
> being "celebrated" with the usual saptahs, feelings of being special, and of
> course dakshina for this, dakshina for that.
I really loved to celebrate at a program/celebration in a "spiritual" way
through chanting and remembering God. It did make my day special indeed. I
felt the days in teh ashram, starting with Baba, had a special aura/energy
and it made me feel alive in a unique, new way. It touched my soul to the
core. The celebrations were, at least for me, a way to access the specialness
in that ceremonial way
>
>
> The point I am trying to get across is that imo all these so called
> celebrations were an elaborate cover designed for the devotee to ignore their
> lives outside the ashram and thereby tighten SY's grip on their time, money,
> and life.
>
> Happily, every day is special, you are special. The hell with whether the moon
> is full or not. Go have a Foster's.
>
> Love,
> Billy
>
I am learning that every day is special, yes. I again admit that when we
all got dressed to go to an "auspicious" occasion such as Guru Purnima, it
did to me have a unique, holy vibe which I related to entirely. Whether real
or unreal, it was tangible to me and I loved it.
Also, as a participating musician, I was always there early for rehearsal
and often practiced the chants during the week prior to the occasion. The
chants/celebrations often flowed through me all week because of that.
I can't deny the joy this brought to me. The chants were often ecstatic,
especially when a good drummer materialized.
To be honest, I only have good memories of these occasions.
And yes again, I am learning that I don't need a chant, a program, and an
experience talk to experience the special uniqueness of a singular day.
Tonight, for example, I had a bite to eat under the moon at the shore and it
was Divinely simple and profoundly powerful...
Thanks for sharing
Shawdan
>Well, my posts are never as cogent or amusing as the you-all's, so I'll give
>it up. Thanks again for being a shoulder for this lurker to lean and
to weep
>upon, even if you never saw. Take good care, and Happy Independence Day!
>
>
Not true! Great post, thanks for delurking!
Yes, student loans, the bane of the ex-cult members existence. Someone I met
who was a big manager type in Trans. Meditation (TM) who also left at 40 or so
told me that she was lucky, because her husband never quit his job, but that
most of her friends who left TM were also scrambling to make ends meet as they
go back to school or try to reenter the job market.
If we knew then what we knew now --- oh well. Perhaps for some of us, SY was a
way of delaying a fuller investment in ourselves, and transferring the
investment on to the goo.
Hey, at least we got out. That took strength and courage, and I gotta believe
that it only gets better from here.
Speaking of Guru Purnima, I'm not nostalgic because I remember not sleeping for
too many nights in a row, trying to prepare some preposterous extravaganza
program, trying really hard to feel intense devotion and having to whip myself
up into a spaced out drunken hysteria to feel it, and having to sleep with 20
people in my closet sized room, missing all my meals because no time to get to
Atma Nidhi, and having to spend my non existent pay check at Amrit, not having
time to do laundry, no space to iron, etc. etc etc. No, not nostalgic.
I have a friend who tells me that whenever she and her husband are in a lousy
situation, one of them says, "Well, it could be worse, we could be at the
ashram." And they laugh. Not to put down people's nostalgia for good times in
SY. I had many, although most are related to my extensive travels with
mandalis and on tour - Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Hawaai, Rome, Heidelberg,
New Delhi and other parts of India, all over the U.S. Wow, I really saw the
world, it was great! People were so friendly and hospitable - I even got to
eat dinner at Jyoti's house, way back when.
My happy times were when I got out of the ashram and away on tour. Life in the
ashram itself was mostly stress, overwork, exhaustion, constantly wondering
what GM would be mad or insulting or uncooperative about at our next
interaction. And boredom, plenty of boredom.
So, I can see why ashram visitors would be able to feel nostalgic, but having
lived there year in and year out, I don't miss it at all. Sometimes, when I'm
walking around, I miss recognizing people. For years, I recognized most of
the faces I saw. But was I really close with anyone? Very few, if at all -
how can you be close when your whole conversation is about GM? How do you ever
connect just person to person if it's always about the goo?
So even though I sometimes miss seeing lots of familiar faces wherever I go,
I'm glad that now I have closer relationships with friends, colleagues and
family, and I don't so much mind not having zillions of smiling acquaintances.
***************
Sha...@aol.com (Daniel Shaw)
http://members.aol.com/shawdan/page1.htm
"It has been my experience that folks with no vices have few virtues." --
Abraham Lincoln
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." -- Abraham Lincoln
Annielori9
>My happy times were when I got out of the ashram and away on tour. Life in
>the
>ashram itself was mostly stress, overwork, exhaustion, constantly wondering
>what GM would be mad or insulting or uncooperative about at our next
>interaction. And boredom, plenty of boredom. ...
> I don't so much mind not having zillions of smiling acquaintances.
Marci and Dan,
Thanks for your posts! I am also one who is biting the bullet and taking out
loans for an education that may be more of a lark than a practical approach to
the job market but what the hey, I deserve a lark, even an $$ lark!
I am glad Dan brought of the boring part about the ashram. The last two times
I was in SF I was bored, bored, bored! Had a nice seva, co-sevites who were
interesting, met some good people but there was a sense of going through the
motion, wondering what happened to the shakti. With GM withdrawing from so
much from the public life during those stays, it became quite clear that most
of the "fun" revolved around seeing her, getting that glance, etc. Without
that "fun" SF was mostly a long ways to go for a working vacation. And I
realize now, that "fun" of a glance, etc. was largely self-concocted.
Speaking of self-concocted, I had an experience recently which revealed what a
bad habit that is! I am studying the New Testament with a kindly old priest.
I had read the gospels and was half-way through Paul's letter when I had a
dream in which the priest told me I should go back to Luke and start from
there. I immediately went into delusional SY mode and treated the dream like
it was a message from the shakti! Went into a tizzy about all the reading I
would have to do again (each book of the Bible involves lots of reading of
outside sources).
Then I went, whoa, wait a minute. It was only a dream. And decided to wait
for independent verification. Like a call from the priest telling me I should
start with Luke again. So I kept reading Paul's letters and next time I saw
the priest...he said nothing! And I was very glad I hadn't done all that
reading ... over.
For years, so much of my thoughts and feelings were based on the glances, the
dreams, and the interactions with the inner-guru during meditations. When I
wondered if I could trust such things, Gm would actually say in an intensive
something along the lines of "In Siddha Yoga, you can trust what happens to you
in meditation." and I would take that as a sign. People would tell me their
main form of interaction with GM was in dreams so I believed that was another
way the shakti/guru intereacted.
Rarely did I look for independent verification...
One of my biggest complaints of SY, the organization, the guru, is their lack
of ability to temper such delusions...if anything, the delusions are encouraged
and cultivated so much that people thing something is actually happening in
their sadhana! One of the reasons I sought out the Catholic church is that
they have been in this spiritual business for almost two millenia and they have
experience with the delusional stuff. St. John of the Cross wrote extensively
about how one can be misled by the interior messages, etc. and it is very
necessary to have a spiritual advisor to talk to and examine these things.
Even with a spiritual advisor, one can have problems, especially when the
advisor gets sucked into the delusion also, and believes your messages and asks
you to ask God for stuff! St. John says one has to be very cautious..
I went to my so-called spiritual advisor, my guru, about these interior
messages and was sent to a therapist, who told me I was impure if I had doubts
about the guru. My interaction with this therapist showed me that SY doesn't
have a clue...The most important thing was to make GM look good and my
spiritual crisis was swept under the carpet and treated like a psychological
problem. I went to GM for help about the interior messages, etc. and went
away still in crisis, still in turmoil.
SY is very very negligent in this area, very dangerously so!
Al
Hrdtired
whatever that is, doesn't necessarily transform us into cookie-cutter clones
of the gooroo, or into Stepford yogis, but into wild and crazy wantons and
bacchanales who whoop it up on God's time?.>>
You mean...I'm enlightened? :)
Nice to hear from ya again Marci -- pop in more often!
-- The Tired Heart
JyotiK2052
What a great post! Welcome Back!
Respectfully - Jyoti
JyotiK2052
Thanks for your "not nostalgic" post. You brought back plenty of concurrent
memories and they are dead on!
Respectfully - Jyoti
Annielori9
Maybe we shouldn't have looked for the meaning in the glances, the dreams and
the other alleged non-interactive ways GM had of communication with us. Maybe
we should have looked at the meaning of being on a path with a spiritual
advisor who doesn't have a whole lot to do with most of us, and although she
can't spiritually administer to the past and current crop of devotees is
constantly looking for more!
I should have wondered about the meaning of the response I got about my
spiritual questions! The meaning of being too afraid to go up to GM and ask for
more illumination. The meaning of being afraid I would be humilated or ripped
apart or ignored or passed on to someone else as I had been when I initially
asked the questions. The meaning of being subjected to powerful
spiritual/natural/supernatural forces with very little guidance about what is
happening other than "it is the shakti", or "it is the guru's grace" or "chant
more" or "you're impure".
Al
megha...@hotmail.com
acum...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> I have been lurking for some time, and have been blown away recently by the
> quality of the posts. Thank you, thank you, from someone who has had finals,
> gallstones and headcolds to deal with!! Your erudition is a breath of fresh
> air in my sometimes hazy world.
>
> I thought I would answer your question, Happily, because I left SY at last
> year's Gurupurnima. In fact, I drummed the chant - which was gawdawful,
> thanks to some nasty chanting - and left SY behind with the final "SGNMKJ".
> (By design - I was the only drummer in town that night. I was doing them a
> favor.)
>
> I have treasured this NG through the past year for the insights and support I
> learned are: 1) leaving SY is a step up; 2) dealing with the aches and pains
> of life *as they come up* is much preferable to stuffing it all down with a
> bolus of "it must be okay, it's the (eyelash flutter) SHAKTI! (Ooooo!)"; and,
> 3) I ain't gotta listen to nobody, nohow, tell me whut's spiritual and whut
> ain't (even you guys).
>
Great to hear from you again! I, too, greatly enjoyed your post. I was
really struck by your Winter '96 experience because I was also there and was
also disgusted by gm's behavior. That was the beginning of the end for me
and it also took me many years to admit it to myself.
Take care and share those journal entries if you find them- I'mn sure they
will strike many chords with all of us,
Thanks,
Megha
JKnepp4350
Dear, dear friend! I wish I did! Years ago, when I fled Christianity for Zen
Buddhism, I had trouble making the switch from prayer with eyes closed to
meditation with eyes open. I never did get the hang of it. Either I forced
the eyes wide open until they bugged out like a frog, or I blinked obsessively
or closed them on the sly. When I studied sy, it was so much easier. Just
sink into the velvety dark, concentrate on yourself as Siva, and let 'er rip.
These days Roshi Philip Kapleau must be smiling, because I consider every
waking moment to be meditation and that means the eyes are definitely open the
whole time. My only technique is thanking God when I wake up, seeing
everything as God as I go through the day (this is God, that is God...), and
then thanking God again when I lay down to sleep. When everything is God,
life is full of beauty and meaning (sy's strong suit), as well as profound
vulnerability and risk (the genius of the symbol of the cross IMO). Joy,
ecstacy, compassion, pain, spiritual transport and mental anguish are all just
part of the landscape when eyes are opened wide. Keeping the peepers open
probably doesn't sound like much of a technique, but it's all I have. I
figure the purpose of light is to let me see things just the way they are, and
these days, that's enough.
God-mad
JyotiK2052
You said, "....>I consider every
>waking moment to be meditation and that means the eyes are definitely open
>the
>whole time. My only technique is thanking God when I wake up, seeing
>everything as God as I go through the day (this is God, that is God...), and
>then thanking God again when I lay down to sleep. When everything is God,
>life is full of beauty and meaning (sy's strong suit), as well as profound
>vulnerability and risk (the genius of the symbol of the cross IMO). Joy,
>ecstacy, compassion, pain, spiritual transport and mental anguish are all
>just
>part of the landscape when eyes are opened wide. Keeping the peepers open
>probably doesn't sound like much of a technique, but it's all I have. I
>figure the purpose of light is to let me see things just the way they are,
>and
>these days, that's enough."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and I'm intoxicated from your words...thanks.
Respectfully - Jyoti
ChelseaBW
>messages and was sent to a therapist, who told me I was impure if I had
>doubts
>about the guru. My interaction with this therapist showed me that SY doesn't
>have a clue...The most important thing was to make GM look good and my
>spiritual crisis was swept under the carpet and treated like a psychological
>problem. I went to GM for help about the interior messages, etc. and went
>away still in crisis, still in turmoil.
>
>SY is very very negligent in this area, very dangerously so!
>
>Al
>
>
wonderful post, Al. I think this happens a lot. When people approach gm, (I
know in my case this was true) it was not about psychological issues, but
spiritual issues. She was supposed to be a saint, for heaven's sake. Who
expects to be sent to a therapist? That is a major sign of a problem with this
"saint" in my opinion. Looking back, I think that since she's not really a
saint and has no real spiritual power, all she could do was send someone to a
therapist. She had no ability to reach the spiritual issues.
Good luck with the new direction of your life, Al. I know what you mean about
the Catholic church because I've read extensively many autobiographies of
saints. They were not into the woowoo stuff in sy. They always had someone
grounding them in reality, pointing out their delusions. I highly respect the
paths of many of the saints in the catholic tradition, through I don't have
interest in the catholic church itself.
In fact, one of my conflicts in sy was seeing the difference between the
saints in the catholic tradition and gm. One thing I read once (can't
remember where) was of a nun saying that another sister in her convent could
write in the most beautiful way, such beautiful spirtual writings, but had so
many emotional problems and treated people badly. It looked as if this woman
was on the one hand in touch with a high spiritual state, but at a closer look
the nun realized that a high spiritual state was more than being able to write
beautiful words. It was a real learning experience for herself spiritually.
Anyway, reading that haunted me for a long time. I didn't like it. And
looking back now I see why. It's describing life in sy - all the flowering
loving talk that is nothing but delusional words from delusional minds.
ChelseaBW
Hrdtired
>messages and was sent to a therapist, who told me I was impure if I had
>doubts
>about the guru. My interaction with this therapist showed me that SY doesn't
>have a clue...>>
It shows ME that they practice thought reform, like totalitarian governments
do. In the former Soviet Union, dissidents were sent to mental hospitals.
-- The Tired Heart
Satdesh
> One of the reasons I sought out the Catholic church is that
>they have been in this spiritual business for almost two millenia and they
>have
>experience with the delusional stuff. St. John of the Cross wrote
>extensively
>about how one can be misled by the interior messages, etc. and it is very
>necessary to have a spiritual advisor to talk to and examine these things.
>Even with a spiritual advisor, one can have problems, especially when the
>advisor gets sucked into the delusion also, and believes your messages and
>asks
>you to ask God for stuff!
The idea that all paranormal spirit phenomena is "valid" is one of the
unexamined, and unfortunately unchallenged, axioms of the New Agers. In order
to be inclusive, tolerant, nonjudgmental and to distance themselves from the
God vs. Devil way of thinking, this thought system embraces everything of a
spirit nature as valid and worthy of being appreciated and honored.
I don't agree with this axiom, but neither do I believe that all spirit
phenomena boils down to a standoff between God and The Devil. Inbetween the
sattvic level that ultimately merges in the trigunatita state, and the lowest
tamasic spirit levels where (imo) a truly satanic force resides, I feel there
is a continuum of spirit grades or gradations.
I know that some people here believe in the "tainted vessel" theory. That
doesn't help me understand my sy experience at all. What is the force flowing
through the vessel and who is the originator of that force?
The "tainted vessel" theory evidently assumes that "the force" involved here is
that sattvic Spirit force that awakens the dormant soul awareness of the jiva.
The unstated assumption seems to me to be that God is using SM/GM as a vessel
to transmit this divine awakening energy to the bound souls. I can't accept
this explanation because it imputes ignorance and stupidity and poor judgement
to God. If people on this ng are smart enough to figure out the flaws of the
syda gurus (gross flaws if the allegations in the Harris article are true),
then God should be smart enough to realize these faults as well. It cannot be
said that there are not more suitable vessels than GM/SM (again, assuming the
allegations are true). There are pure and noble teachers [imo, Swami
Chidananda, the Dalai Lama, Daya Mata, among others] in the yoga traditions but
this kundalini/shaktipat/spontaneous siddha yoga process is not happening
through any of them. If God were looking for a pure vessel to transmit this
highest of yogas through, then there are obviously better choices around.
I cannot accept the unstated assumption that God is stupid. The "shaktipat
power" flowed through SM until the day he died and it continues to flow through
GM to this day. None of their alleged actions impeded the flow of this power
one iota.
If one believes in their power and believes in their alleged immoral actions,
then I believe one has to look for the source of their power elsewhere on that
continuum.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Shawdan
(Satdesh) writes:
>If one believes in their power and believes in their alleged immoral actions,
>then I believe one has to look for the source of their power elsewhere on
>that
>continuum.
>
>Sincerely,
>Satdesh
>
>
I think this is one of the most complicated issues. I don't know what the
GM/Sw.M power is, but I don't trust it, don't want it, and I'm not looking for
someone else who is more moral who has it. I don't want to be seduced and
controlled by this kind of power in anyone, whoever they claim to be and
whatever they claim to offer.
Who is to distinguish, using the Hindu model, SY's shaktipat power from riddhis
and siddhis, which scripture says should be shunned? Isn't the point of
riddhis and siddhis, or the devil, or infatuation, or idolatry, that the power
appears real but is not? That one is easily misled and deceived by this power
into thinking it is the real thing, when really it is delusion, porjection,
illusion?
I often feel (this is me, personally, now - not trying to globalize) that I
turned to God for love because I could not get a handle on human love.
Couldn't feel it, hold it, elicit it, exchange it - just could not experience
it in any sustained, sustaining way.
Having seen clearly, up close and personal, the cruelty and sadism in the
so-called love of the SY guru, I really got turned off to being a devotee. I
made up my mind that loving shadows would not do, and that I would and could
find love with a real person, and with real people. It seems so pointless now,
to be in love with "the guru", and not be able to love people, your own family,
or friends.
Why are so many SY marriages celibate marriages? Because people can't be
bothered really loving each other when they have to adore and worship the guru.
It's hard work loving people - wife, husband, child, parents, friends. Really
hard work, sometimes. It can seem easier to love a fantasy fairy godmother
than a real person, whom you really have to have actual vulnerability and
commitment to, day in, day out, thick and thin.
From my post-SY position, I find a great deal more power in human love than in
"guru love."
Annielori9
been contemplating lately.
Are my expriences of universal love over? Were they specific to the
ashrams--both SF and GSP?
During my stays at both ashrams, I had incredible experiences of being loved
and loving the universe. It had nothing to do with the guru or intensives, in
fact, these experiences happened outdoors. The wind caressed my face with
love, the universe enveloped me with love and I loved back, from within, with
my heart.
The last two months of my stay in GSP were like this, the infusion of love into
me happened at all hours, even in my sleep, in my dreams. It was incredible
and went on for days.
Of course I have heavily identified these experiences of love as being related
and caused by the SY shakti and hence not available now that I am no longer in
the fold.
But I have to admit, there were more times at the ashram I felt like I was in
hell or some kind of insane asylum!
Dan is so right about loving other people close up, instead of loving the guru
from a far. Maybe that is why so many long-term people in the ashram develop
eating disorders, depression, etc. We are all seeking to be loved and to love
and the long-distant deattached relationship with the guru just doesn't fulfill
those basics human needs, IMO.
Al
Hrdtired
Chidananda, the Dalai Lama, Daya Mata, among others] in the yoga traditions but
this kundalini/shaktipat/spontaneous siddha yoga process is not happening
through any of them. If God were looking for a pure vessel to transmit this
highest of yogas through, then there are obviously better choices around.>>
Agreed. But when I say "the vessel is flawed," I"m not necessarily saying that
what the vessel is filled with is "divine" either.
I don't know what Shaktipat is, or whether or not it truly is divine energy.
It's a power; that's all I can say for now.
Perhaps Swami Chidananda, the Dalai Lama, and Daya Mata could transmit
something if they wished...and perhaps they do not wish to because they wish to
remain humble and helpful to humanity. Perhaps once you start manipulating
energies, that's nothing more than manipulating people -- cosmic mind-f*cking.
These days I most respect teachers who know they have something to say, but who
do not need to place themselves on the level of the divine.
-- The Tired Heart
Hrdtired
to be in love with "the guru", and not be able to love people, your own family,
or friends.
Why are so many SY marriages celibate marriages? Because people can't be
bothered really loving each other when they have to adore and worship the guru.
It's hard work loving people - wife, husband, child, parents, friends. Really
hard work, sometimes. It can seem easier to love a fantasy fairy godmother
than a real person, whom you really have to have actual vulnerability and
commitment to, day in, day out, thick and thin.
>>
Good point, Dan. Also, why are so many celibate SYDA marriages sanctioned,
even "commanded?" Could it be that the goo fears human commitment, which is
apparently as strong as, if not stronger than, the bond between fairy godmother
and disciple?
-- The Tired Heart
Hrdtired
<<Of course I have heavily identified these experiences of love as being
related
and caused by the SY shakti and hence not available now that I am no longer in
the fold.
But I have to admit, there were more times at the ashram I felt like I was in
hell or some kind of insane asylum!
>>
My experience exactly. Perhaps our resident shrink can shed some light on this
phenomenon. Why were some of us so elated in SY and so depressed within it at
the same time? Why did not one emotion cancel out the other? For me, these
were not the ordinary highs and lows of "real life." And, no, I do not need
Lithium!
<< Maybe that is why so many long-term people in the ashram develop
eating disorders, depression, etc. We are all seeking to be loved and to love
and the long-distant deattached relationship with the guru just doesn't fulfill
those basics human needs, IMO.>>
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps many of these people were
depressed and feeling unloved before coming into SY? I suspect as much.
-- The Tired Heart
hap...@supernews.com
sat...@aol.com (Satdesh) wrote:
The "shaktipat
> power" flowed through SM until the day he died and it continues to flow through
> GM to this day.
And of course, the shaktipat power still flows through SM now, even after
"death" as well - eg, new devotees are still drawn in through his photos,
dreams of him, tapes, energy, samadhi shrine, etc.
hap...@supernews.com
annie...@aol.com (Annielori9) wrote:
>
> Are my expriences of universal love over? Were they specific to the
> ashrams--both SF and GSP?
>
>
> and caused by the SY shakti and hence not available now that I am no longer in
> the fold.
>
>
The way I see it, my shaktipat and other inner experiences were nurtured by
the guru but it has continued in various ways and experiences, afterwards.
In fact, my shaktipat experience really does help me and it takes me inward
- it did happen in a dramatic SY typical way, and is still there to tap into.
My present growth and inner experiences are not "dependent" on the proximity
of the guru. It really is a continual process which has not abandoned me
even if not in the ashram or around the guru.
>
> Another thing - as I said, I have connected to several guru's and teachers, both before, during, and "after" SY. I see each one as helping me go within and each has given me things to learn, and growth has been the result.
Thus, your comment about not being in the fold - I don't think you will stop
growing or experiencing great progress when you are ready to.
JKnepp4350
judgement by using bm and gm as vehicles for shaktipat?
Of the many New Age communities I've visited over the years, a few seemed to
possess just as much Shakti juice as sy. In one meeting, people spontaneously
fell to the floor during a healing service, even though the culture of that
particular group was light years removed from the old Pentacostal "slain in
the spirit" stuff. In addition, this particular healing service was run by a
person who has profound personal problems and can in no way be called a saint.
Yet the healings happened just the same, apparently unconcerned that the
setting wasn't right or even that the people involved had any way to integrate
or explain their experience!
Even though I try to love God through anthropormorphized dieites (Jesus,
Krishna and all their friends), from what I've observed so far, the Lord seems
more like electricity than a being with personality attributes. I think
shaktipat given by corrput gurus and healings which happen in "incorrect
contexts" have more in common with two wires coming into proximity than
conscious decision-making on the part of God. I also think that the only
attribute which allows any teacher, preacher or guru to perform works of power
is their unshakable belief or faith that they indeed posses this power and the
willingness to dispense it.
Personally, I think there are only two conditions which must be met before
shaktipat can happen and neither one of them has anything to do with the
characters of the people involved or God's intelligence or lack of it. OK.
Big breath. All it takes for Shaktipat to happen is for one person to really
experience themselves as a resevoir of kundalini power (absolutely no doubts)
and another who wants a taste of it. I know this is true because, once, in a
rare state of grace, it even came through me. My husband and I were performing
a sacred number, an old-time gospel tune at a New Age convention no less, when
suddenly someone in the back started weeping and going into shaking kriyas.
They were so freaked by this experience that after the show they came up and
demanded to know what I'd done to them and couldn't I please stop it!
Am I a guru? No way, hon. Was the setting right? Sure - if you like
thousands of flourescent lights, videos on aliens and aisles full of booths
selling crystals and little pewter gnomes. Then how the heck could such a
thing happen? The way I explain it is God likes to dance and doesn't care who,
what, where or when. During a moment of creative, musical transport, for
maybe half a second, I lost all doubt about who and what I really am. The gate
to God's power in me was opened and someone on the other side of the door
caught the ball. I don't think that gm's having power has to mean that God
is stupid or can't tell a real guru from a stuffed marmoset. It could mean
that God's most basic and essential attribute is simply unabshed promiscuity.
God-mad
Hrdtired
"death" as well - eg, new devotees are still drawn in through his photos,
dreams of him, tapes, energy, samadhi shrine, etc.
>>
Happily -- doesn't your butt hurt from sitting on that fence?
-- The Tired Heart
Hrdtired
what, where or when. During a moment of creative, musical transport, for
maybe half a second, I lost all doubt about who and what I really am. The gate
to God's power in me was opened and someone on the other side of the door
caught the ball. I don't think that gm's having power has to mean that God
is stupid or can't tell a real guru from a stuffed marmoset. It could mean
that God's most basic and essential attribute is simply unabshed promiscuity.
God-mad
>>
Love it!!!!
-- The Tired Heart
JyotiK2052
You just keep on with the most delicious posts! I loved yours of 7/13/98,
Subject: Re: Guru Purnima...
I completely agree that 'Shakti-juice' flows freely elsewhere than sy. In
fact, it's flowing all the time everywhere, amen, even when we are not aware of
it.....I also agree with your analogy of it being like 'electricity' rather
than a being with personality attributes.
I do have some comments about something you said, however....you said:
"All it takes for Shaktipat to happen is for one person to really experience
themselves as a resevoir of kundalini power (absolutely no doubts) and another
who wants a taste of it." In a way that may be correct to some extent, but to
me, I see it as the kundalini energy being supremely free and non-dependant on
any human 'container' and can be accessed one-to-one; human to 'holy ghost' if
you will, when the 'hay' is not damp, but bone dry. This is a continuation of
the premise that when conditions are right....the phenomena will occur.
Again, we are mostly in agreement as to the dynamics....I just feel that
shaktipat is a god-given gift...through whatever avenue. And I am not using
the term wrongly, though many believe that the term can only be used when
speaking of a transmission of kundlini energy from one human to another. But
the kundalini is 'built in' to all of us. So...it's not a matter of
transmission so much as it is an acknowledgement of the readiness of the
transformation.
As usual, you write with great heart, wit, purity, and emotion. I always look
forward to your 'juice' here on the ng.
Respectfully - Jyoti
JKnepp4350
and non-dependant on
>any human 'container'
Yes, yes! Of course, Kundalini Ma is everywhere, forever and ever amen. "When
conditions are right...the phenomena will occur." Succintly put and right on.
But what fantastic worlds are hidden in that one word, "conditions?" I don't
have this all worked out. Far from it. I'm just thinking out loud now. Do
you remember that famous Jesus line where he says "whenever two agree on any
given thing, it shall come to pass" and "wherever two or more are gathered in
my name, there am I in the midst of them"? The concept of agreement comes
really close to the mechanism I think is at work in Shaktipat and that's what I
was trying to describe earlier. In the world of provisional duality ( it's
all One to God but sure as heck feels like two to me) one person agrees to
give and another agrees to receive. I think the word "God" refers to the
system as a whole, with agreement really meaning God agreeing with
Him/Herself.
I don't believe we make kundalini or that human beings are necessary for
Kundalini to exist. Not unless the word "Kundalini" refers to the Holy Spirit
as manifested strictly in human beings (Hindu scholars - help!). I do believe
that human beings experience kundalini in very human-specific ways. The only
way for God to be aware of herself in and through me is if we are somehow both
one and somehow also different. I think this is true because of how I define
the word "awareness." I think awareness means being aware and knowing you're
aware, so automatically we've already counted to two. I'm not saying that God
doesn't exist in me and as me without any of these preconditions. I take it as
a basic operating assumption that She does. I'm saying that God in/as me can't
really be consciously aware of Herself in and as me unless I can hold the
paradox of the One (Shakti everywhere) and the Two (Shakti train coming!) at
the same time. Because it is the only device we have for holding
contradictory realities simultaneously, I think paradox is the only way we
have of coming close to describing God at all.
There's no friction unless two things rub against each other. You could say
God is the flint, God is the stone and God is the tinder (I do - every day),
but if there's not somebody around to beat the Hell out of them, you'll also
never get a fire. It's a fascinating conundrum.
Thinking in circles but still God-mad.
Maha...@my-dejanews.com
jyoti...@aol.com (JyotiK2052) wrote:
> I see it as the kundalini energy being supremely free and non-dependant on
> any human 'container' and can be accessed one-to-one; human to 'holy ghost' if
> you will, when the 'hay' is not damp, but bone dry. This is a continuation of
> the premise that when conditions are right....the phenomena will occur.
>
> Again, we are mostly in agreement as to the dynamics....I just feel that
> shaktipat is a god-given gift...through whatever avenue. And I am not using
> the term wrongly, though many believe that the term can only be used when
> speaking of a transmission of kundlini energy from one human to another. But
> the kundalini is 'built in' to all of us. So...it's not a matter of
> transmission so much as it is an acknowledgement of the readiness of the
> transformation.
I think Baba clearly stated that *his* form of shaktipat should properly be
termed "gurukripa;" the former term is more general, the "descent" of shakti,
whereas "gurukripa" is more specific and refers to guru's grace, the
transmission through the guru. Believe this is in Perfect Relationship book.
Although my experience came via SM & GM, I agree that shaktipat does not
require a human transmitter. If anyone doubts Jyoti's point here, I urge you
to check out the Kundalini Resource Center:
http://www.aloha.net/~bpeay/kundalini/index.html#index
You'll find discussion groups from around the world, helping people totally
freaked out by a spontaneous kundalini awakening. Without a theoretical
framework to explain it, the experience can be quite frightening. Actually,
pretty frightening even *with* an explanation, in my case.
You'd be amazed how many people are having high-intensity kundalini
experiences without benefit (?) of any particular path. Further proof for me
that SY does not have a monopoly on my inner state.
Thanks, God-mad and Jyoti. Really an elevating discussion.
Love, -MahaLinga
PS: Next time you sing, God-mad, can you direct some of that Shakti-juice my
way? I have complete faith in you. And I bet you don't charge $400.
JyotiK2052
Yes, I do remember that saying of Jesus, "wherever two or more are gathered in
my name, there I am in the midst of them." What I remember about that
particular scripture is that it pertained to the founding of his church, and
showed the power of numbers to accomplish much. I also remember other
scriptual references to one being the same as many...."....for I was hungered
and ye gave me meat, thirsty and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took
me in: naked and ye clothed me, I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison
and ye visited me."
I agree with your idea of "agreement". And could it be that not only can 'two"
people agree but the individual soul can 'agree' with the universal? I agree
also with your thought that the word "God" refers to the system as a
whole...(and here you actually say the same thing I have been saying!)
and...agreement really meaing God agreeing with Him/Herself."
Sometimes thinking in circles takes one the whole route!
I love it!
Respectfully - Jyoti
Satdesh
>What if there were choices other than calling God stupid or exercising poor
>judgement by using bm and gm as vehicles for shaktipat?
If you believe what they say about themselves (ie., the sy/shaktipat
transmission to the world through BN, SM, (and later GM)) and that their
mission is the command of the siddhas and the will of God - please see
Chitshaktivilas for more on this - then you either believe that and disbelieve
the allegations or you belive the allegations and disbelieve the dogma or you
believe the dogma and the allegations and conclude that God stupidly choose
immoral vessels for this most divine and holy dharma. There are no other
choices that I can think of.
>Of the many New Age communities I've visited over the years, a few seemed to
>possess just as much Shakti juice as sy.
You didn't define what "Shakti juice" was and I have never heard the term
before. From a scientific or a yogic point of view I am unsure of what this
implies.
>In one meeting, people spontaneously
>fell to the floor during a healing service,
God Mad, I suspect that there is a continuum of spirit activity between "raw
satanism" and the trigunitata state of nirvana. The concept of the continuum
is that there are many grades or levels of spirit activity taking place. Holy
spirit/Pentacostal phenomena, Subud, shabd (sound current) yoga, Santaria, and
many other systems could be named.
Are all these spirit types equal. I doubt it. Lynn Sherrer did a story on
20/20 last year about a church in Florida (I think it may have been in
Pensacola) where all sorts of dramatic manifestations were taking place. There
was shaking and trembling similar to some sy kriyas, but most of the
manifestations were those associated with the Holy Spirit of Pentacostalism
(main line protestants and traditional catholicis do not accept this phenomena
as an action of the Holy Spirit). What was the net effect of all this "spirit
activity". Where does it lead and what is its purpose?
I do not doubt at all that spirit phenomena, even powerful spirit pheonomena,
takes place quite apart from the syda. The santeros of santaria and some of our
Holy Ghost preachers are not necessarily saints and are often just regular
folks. Powerful symptoms of spirit activity are observed in their
ministrations and activities.
> from what I've observed so far, the Lord seems
>more like electricity than a being with personality attributes.
I don't understand an analogy that analogizes God to electricity. Electricity
represents a physical source of energy and power which has no consciousness, no
will, no volition, no love and no wisdom. How is that analogous to God? [BTW,
didn't you say you are in the Methodist seminary or am I confusing you with
someone else?]
>Personally, I think there are only two conditions which must be met before
>shaktipat can happen and neither one of them has anything to do with the
>characters of the people involved or God's intelligence or lack of it. OK.
Where did you come up with that? Is this set forth in the writings of
Vivekananda, Sivananda, or in Devatma Shakti? All recognized authorities
maintain that kundalini can only be awakened *safely* in a properly prepared
student and that the ethics and purity of the student and the teacher are of
paramount importance. Spirit influence and/or spirit possession of course can
take place in anyone who opens themselves by various means to accepting the
influence of the spirit. No extensive preparation is necessary.
Gopi Krishna's book was well known among sydaites in the 70s and Baba commented
on the book. He said GK's experience was authentic but was a do-it-yourself
job whereas shaktipat under a guru was much easier and lacked the perils of the
unguided method. GK didn't have shaktipat, he experienced kundalini awakening
without shaktipat (and experienced considerable suffering in the process!).
Kundalini is known to awaken without a guru but rarely does it fully develop
itself unless one is guided by a competent guru. I don't dispute that such
things happen. [Sorry, I don't think you brought this up - I think it was Maha,
I'm jumping around here].
>All it takes for Shaktipat to happen is for one person to really
>experience themselves as a resevoir of kundalini power (absolutely no doubts)
>and another who wants a taste of it. I know this is true because, once,
God Mad, I do not doubt your veracity or sincerity is relating this story, but
*one* such incident is hardly adequate evidence around which to construct a
working hypothesis for explaining or defining syda style shaktipat. Unless you
knew your "devotee" well, or at all, you probably have no idea what their
physical, mental or emotional state was nor whether they had mental or
emotional problems nor whether they were medicated or using recreational drugs.
Perhaps they even had prior kundalini experiences and your presence and your
heightened state of awareness during your singing did stir up the shakti in
this person. This is not a new view. Doesn't Baba say that people can receive
shaktipat from siddha students? There never was any notion that only the guru
could activate the shakti or give shaktipat. But it had to come through an
object, place or person that had been "marked" in some occult manner by the
shaktipat guru.
I apologize for sounding confrontational or caustic in this post. I do not
mean to sound this way but the ideas you are voicing rub a raw nerve in me as I
heard "the shakti this" and "that shakti that" for all too many years. I do
believe in the existence of the kundalini shakti but the shakti doctrines
thrown around at syda and the shakti ideas that people seemed to subliminally
pick up there began to sound like some universal solvent that absorbed and
explained everything it confronted.
As ever, I love reading your posts and enjoy your insights, as I have
previously indicated to you.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Satdesh
>I completely agree that 'Shakti-juice' flows freely elsewhere than sy. In
>fact, it's flowing all the time everywhere, amen,
But you made a choice not to get your "shakti juice" from the syda. Why? Is
it a tainted well? Can't you see the shakti "flowing all the time" in the syda
and it's ashrams and centers or is something within you obscuring your vision
on that point? Are you saying that shakti flows everywhere but in syda?
If shakti flows everywhere, even in the syda and God is only "electricity" then
why not stay in the syda? Can't you see the shakti flowing through the immoral
actions of the gurus? Other than that, the food is great, the people (well,
most of them) are nice, the chants are beatiful and enjoyable. Why stay away?
What is your conscience? Does something in you tell you that right and wrong,
that moral imperatives are somehow higher spirituality that getting juiced up
on your "electricity God". Electricity wouldn't care if a child rotted in the
street or if Mother Theresa picked the child up and took it in and nursed it
back to health. It's all the same to electricity. Electricity would't care if
someone were imprisoned without due process of law or whether Amnesty Intl.
mounted a campaign to bring justice to the imprisioned victim. It's all just
energy either way to electricity.
You have the attribute of loving justice and hating injustice. That's why you
left syda. This love of justice is an aspect of personality. Do you imagine
that God is devoid of these qualities that even we have? (ie. you state: >I
also agree with your analogy of it being like 'electricity' rather than a being
with personality attributes.<).
>I see it as the kundalini energy being supremely free and non-dependant on
>any human 'container'
That's an oxymoron. The "kundalini" is the "coiled" power, coiled (31/2 times
as I recall) at the base of the human (not your dog's or goldfish's) spine.
This power awakes and travels through the brahmanadi from the base of the spine
to the center of the brain effecting complete spiritual awakening. To speak of
the kundalini energy in a context outside of the human body makes no sense
whatsoever.
By the Lord's various shaktis many things are effected. All beings are kept in
a state of spiritual slumber or stupor by the Lord's mayashakti. The
scriptures identify various shaktis which can cumulatively be defined as "the
shakti" but the kundalini shakti is the specific energy lying dormant at the
base of the human spine. There is no kundalini shakti in your automobile.
Baba didnt give shaktipat to Volkswagens.
>..I just feel that
>shaktipat is a god-given gift...through whatever avenue.
I agree, with an emphasis on *god-given*. If the channel of this energy is
living far below the commands or demands of dharma, then the "shakti" coming
forth is not of God. It has to be something else.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Satdesh
> I don't believe we make kundalini or that human beings are necessary for
>Kundalini to exist. Not unless the word "Kundalini" refers to the Holy
>Spirit
>as manifested strictly in human beings (Hindu scholars - help!). I do
>believe
>that human beings experience kundalini in very human-specific ways. The
>only
>way for God to be aware of herself in and through me is if we are somehow
>both
>one and somehow also different.
God Mad, I am at a total loss to understand how you weave God in and out of the
equation on the shaktipat issue. After reducing the shaktipat experience to a
couple of incarnate electrcity blobs psychically or physically bumping into
each other down here on earth, we now have the Kundalini transforming itself
into the Holy Spirit!!!
I'm not disputing that the "devatma shakti" (transmitted by the sadguru, which
awakens our kundalini shakti) could be the same force as the "Holy Spirit".
But I am confused at the way you switch terminologies and concepts. As a
Methodist seminarian, when you use the term "Holy Spirit" you must be aware
that you are using a term that is loaded with meaning gathered from references
in the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Spirit is not a Hindu term, it's a
Bibilical term. You can analogize it to something in Hinduism but it should be
to a concept in Hinduism that has the same or similar meanings as it does in
Christianity/Judaism. To relegate this force to some amoral electrical
something or other is nothing short of bizarre, IMO.
To say that Kundalini exists without human beings is like saying the human arms
and legs and livers could exist on earth without human bodies. The divine
shakti that created the universe exists everywhere. It's in the dog feces that
you won't eat as well as the fresh apple that you presumably would. The
shakti, as mayashakti, keeps the souls in a state of slumber or divine
forgetfulness. When by great yearning and merit, a soul meets a true teacher,
that teacher awakens the kundalini shakti lying dormant within the disciple.
That awakened kundalini shakti then brings the disciple to full enlightenment.
There is no kundalini shakti in your toaster oven.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
P.S. I apologize if I am getting you mixed up with someone else. I thought
you were the one who said sometime back that you were in a Methodist seminary.
Maha...@my-dejanews.com
sat...@aol.com (Satdesh) wrote:
>
>I'm not disputing that the "devatma shakti" (transmitted by the sadguru, which
>awakens our kundalini shakti) could be the same force as the "Holy Spirit".
>But I am confused at the way you switch terminologies and concepts. As a
>Methodist seminarian, when you use the term "Holy Spirit" you must be aware
>that you are using a term that is loaded with meaning gathered from references
>in the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Spirit is not a Hindu term, it's a
>Bibilical term. You can analogize it to something in Hinduism but it should be
>to a concept in Hinduism that has the same or similar meanings as it does in
>Christianity/Judaism. To relegate this force to some amoral electrical
>something or other is nothing short of bizarre, IMO.
Dear Satdesh:
You keep your theories and definitions and neat pigeonholes for the different
"types" of shakti. I'll just keep my personal experience, and the knowledge
that it's all just one energy, anyway, with different names across different
cultures. This energy is beyond the mind, and beyond our limited concepts of
it.
My personal experience doesn't have to fit your definitions. It doesn't even
fit *mine*. The "naming ceremony" is ultimately a waste of time: trying to fit
God into the space between our ears. Trying to capture God with words is like
trying to tie the sky into a bundle.
Leave it to a Catholic scholar to count how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin. And assign limits, names, and rules to them, to boot. Really got a
kick out of your levels of heaven and hell, demonic possession,
classifications of spirit, etc. That's a hoot.
God/Holy Spirit/Kundalini/Shakti/Power-beyond-name-and-form exists whether we
have our human bodies or not. It's with us before we're born and after we die.
It's beyond limits, and certainly beyond "needing" a human body. I think of it
as the prime force of Creation, that takes on limitless names and forms.
Shakti isn't bound by the body. The body is just one expression of Shakti.
You over-intellectualize what cannot be grasped by the mind. Give it up and
sit still.
Love, -MahaLinga
JyotiK2052
Thanks for your provocative questions regarding my post of 7/13/98. You said:
"...Jyoti writes: 'I completely agree that *Shakti juice* flows freely
elsewhere than sy. In fact, it's flowing all the time everywhere, amen,' (and
you go on to say) But you made a choice not to get your "shakti juice" from the
syda. Why?"
I didn't make a choice not to get my 'shakti juice' from syda. In fact,
obviously I partook in quite a bit of 'shakti juice' in the nearly 20 years I
was involved there. I have written a lot about seeing God/shakti everywhere.
The fount from which it flows is simply not dependant on a 'container' and is
available to everyone anywhere whether or not they are involved with sy or any
other organization. I am not saying that the shakti flows everywhere BUT
syda...I am saying that it flows everywhere.
Then you ask: "If shakti flows everywhere, even in the syda and God is only
"electricity" than why stay away from syda?"
I didn't say that God is only 'electricity'; I was agreeing with God-mad's
analogy in the spirit in which it was written; that the "Lord" seemed more
*like* electricity than a being with personality attributes. In that sense, as
a force or energy in this world, that is more understandable to me. I stopped
participating in syda because of the discrepancies I saw in what was taught and
what was done on a moral and humane level.
What I see flowing through all actions are two things, the intent of the actor,
and the choices made to fulfil that intent. When the choice causes harm, there
is no upliftment. I left syda because there are plenty of opportunities to
experience the unfoldment of my spiritual life without having to rationalize
the mundane choices made by the teachers which were abuses of power. Not
everyone is partaking in the 'shakti-juice' at the same rate or with the same
intent or the same understanding or the same results. Each person goes at
their own rate, in their own time in their own chosen set of circumstances.
So, whether one chooses to be in sy, or leave sy, is of no consequence to the
unfolding of their spiritual journey, as long as their intent is clear, pure,
and strong.
You continue with: "What is your conscience? Does something in you tell you
that right and wrong, that moral imperatives are somehow higher spiritiuality
than getting juiced up on your 'electricity' God? Electricity wouldn't care if
a child rotted in the street or if Mother Theresa picked the child up and took
it in and nursed it back to health. It's all the same to electricity.
Electricity wouldn't care if someone were imprisoned without due process of law
or whether Amnesty Intl. mounted a campaign to bring justice to the imprisoned
victim. It's all just energy either way to electricity."
Here you are continuing to use the electricity analogy which I have already
said isn't appropriate in your argument because it wasn't used as you are
contending. However, for the sake of this conversation, I will try and sort
through your questions.
We are given conscience at birth, although we do not claim it until we are
taught it by having some type of empathic experience. We don't much care if
some other child gets hurt until we have fallen down ourselves. Once we
understand the relatedness of all things, we also understand that what hurts
one hurts all; what uplifts one uplifts all, although the form of that
upliftment may be different in any particular case. I agree that electricity
'doesn't care' but then in the case of shakti, which I view as supremely
independent (of containment...) and supremely intelligent, I see it as having
effulgent understanding of the readiness of an individual at any given moment
for the 'igniting' of the flame of enlightenment (or whatever term best suits
one's understanding of that phenomena).
You further ask: "Do you imagine that God is devoid of these qualities that
even we have?" No. I imagine that we are made in *God's* image, and these
qualities are part of that image, but perhaps not in the limited way that I
experience them.
You take issue with my statement "I see it as the kundlaini energy being
supremely free and non-dependent on any human 'container'" You call that an
oxymoron. Well, where was the kundalini energy before it was in the human?
Was it perhaps somewhere with a potentiality? Does it exist on a purely
physical plane? These are very interesting questions. I certainly stand ready
and eager for education and see these dialogues as a continuing opportunity for
same.
Then you say, "I agree, with an emphasis on *god-given* (this in response to my
statement, ' I just feel that shaktipat is a god-given gift...through whatever
avenue.'). If the channel of this energy is living far below the commands or
demands of dharma, then the 'shakti' coming forth is not of God. It has to be
something else."
Now you have me confused somewhat, although I believe that I understand what
you are saying. Are you saying that if a shaktipat guru is living an immoral
life and not fulfiling his/her dharma, that the energy/shakti coming forth
comes not from God but from a personal attempt to manipulate those persons
coming to him/her to guide the shakti?
Just to clarify my stance regarding the shaktipat experience. I believe that
it is the birthright of every human. I believe that it is available through
any number of means and is not dependent on having to find, meet, and adore any
particular person, and then attract them (or be attracted to) to such an extent
that they are willing to impart such experiences. I believe that the longing
for merging with the Absolute and the fulfilment of one's personal dharma is a
propelling factor in this experience, and that much depends on the intent of
the seeker. I believe that shakti and the kundalini shakti are one and the
same, and one may be coiled 3 1/2 times around the base of the spine in the
human, and the other supremely free of containment, and that though this is a
great mystery how this can be, that it is yet simple and pure to those who
truly believe in the interconnectedness of all things.
Again, it has been most stimulating to answer your very good and provocative
post. Thanks for the opportunity.
Respectfully - Jyoti
Maha...@my-dejanews.com
sat...@aol.com (Satdesh) wrote:
>
> I agree, with an emphasis on *god-given*. If the channel of this energy is
> living far below the commands or demands of dharma, then the "shakti" coming
> forth is not of God. It has to be something else.
OK, then: if GM is living far below the commands/demands of dharma ...
... can we agree on this? ...
... then the shakti in her shaktipat is not of God (according to you).
If it "has to be something else," then what do you call it? If not of God,
then of what? And, more importantly, what practical difference does that make
in my life? If I didn't get shaktipat from GM or BM, then what *did* I get?
Satanic possession? Seriously, what kind of shaktipat is *not* of God? D'ya
got a special vocabulary word or book reference for that one, too? Where is
your own logic leading you? What's your conclusion, here?
IMO, all shakti/chi/energy/whatever ultimately comes from God. I'm one of
those non-dualist types, sorry. Even "evil spirits," *if* they exist,
ultimately came from God and will ultimately return there. I don't get all
bent out of shape over Satan, fallen angels, rakshas, etc. The demonic
possession and exorcism stuff I've seen is all a farce. Not impressed. The
scariest things I've ever experienced came from deluded people who needed
love. I can accept that. I don't need disembodied evil spirits to explain
human suffering.
I think this is the key to the current debate: if my shaktipat came from
God/Spirit/HolyGhost/whatever, then how and why did it flow through such an
imperfect guru? Or if, as you say, it's not God's shaktipat because the
channel's flawed, then what off-brand of shakti did I get? And, practically
speaking, what difference does this make? What do I do about it?
Enjoying the intellectual stimulation of this debate.
JKnepp4350
I guess so. At least it coaxed you out for a few rounds. You're right about
my being a seminarian. I'm getting a master's in theology at a Methodist
institution, but I'm no Methodist. Frankly, I don't think they'd have me. My
knowledge of Hindu scripture also comes mainly from sy so you're probably also
right about yogic ideas picked up subliminally and turned into the "universal
solvent" which absorbs and explains everything it comes into contact with
(great line).
Using "electricity" to describe God/God's power may or may not have been a poor
word choice, but it's the best I can do. Maybe "energy" would have been
better. In any event, do you think I was trying to reduce God? How could I?
How could anyone?
What I was trying to get at was the idea of God as activity as opposed to
personality. My current thinking is that personality is dependent upon
activity, its child. In Christian terms, the word becomes flesh and dwells
among us. Vibration becomes everything else. I think of this vibration as
"OM" but that could be more pop-Hinduism so you'll have to enlighten me. As
you point out, thinking about God in this way releases me from some problems
but creates others. On the plus side, it explains how a corrupt guru could
give shaktipat without resorting to the idea of satanic forces. God just
doesn't care who S/He dances with. On the down side, it also makes the word
"evil" meaningless. Activity is activity is activity - whether it manifests as
a saint or a sinner. This makes God amoral, and words like justice and
righteousness also lose their meaning - words which we're not prepared to give
up.
So where does that leave me? Well, where I've always been and always will
be: without adequate equipment to explain or describe God.
You seem to be calling me a sloppy thinker, and since you're not the first
person to say this, I have to at least entertain the idea that it might be
true. So be my teacher. I will learn better if you don't use scripture as a
proof, however. I might use the Bible to flesh out a point, but proof texting
is something I avoid like the plague. If I ever write an "Accordionist's
Sutra," the first aphorism will be "Getting hit in the head with a book feels
the same no matter what tradition it comes from."
God-mad
sres...@slip.net
> You have the attribute of loving justice and hating injustice. That's why you
> left syda. This love of justice is an aspect of personality. Do you imagine
> that God is devoid of these qualities that even we have? (ie. you state: "I
> being with personality attributes.").
Yes, we have the attribute of loving justice, compassion, etc. If we ignore
those things & only seek our own happiness, that's unnatural & create's
problems.
But our feelings & experiences, no matter how wonderful they may be, are like
"electricity" in that they don't have this connection to justice or
compassion. So people may have amazing meditation experiences (with a guru,
at a temple, through hard practice, spontaneously, whatever), but that
doesn't automatically lead to becomeing a just & loving person. Our SY
experience clearly shows us this. The experiences may be wonderful &
important, but they're not enough. We have to make the decision & the effort
to see the world clearly & to act correctly towards others.
So I'm not sure what the great mystery or confusion is, regarding the fact
that we can have these incredibly nice inner feelings (what I suppose some of
us are calling "shaktipat") triggered by a relationship with a decidedly
not-nice guru. It's not so different from the incredibly nice lustful or
romantic feelings we may get, triggered by people who end up causing us
nothing but suffering. It's not that the object of our romance was a "flawed
vessel." It's simply that following our good feelings or attachments isn't
always the best path.
My bottom line, I think: In some of the discussion about "shaktipat," I think
there's the assumption that it involves something terribly vital to us (God,
the divine, kundalini shakti, whatever) that we need to get from someone else
(the guru). I'd of course suggest that maybe we already have everything we
need at this moment. As long as we keep this assumption, however subtle, that
we need to get something from outside, I don't think questions like, "How
could the divine shakti act through such a flawed vessel," etc, can be
resolved.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
sres...@slip.net
> We are given conscience at birth, although we do not claim it until we are
> taught it by having some type of empathic experience. We don't much care if
> some other child gets hurt until we have fallen down ourselves. Once we
> understand the relatedness of all things, we also understand that what hurts
> one hurts all; what uplifts one uplifts all, although the form of that
> upliftment may be different in any particular case.
It's an interesting question, whether conscience or compassion is natural or
learned. It's significant, because the extreme view that we are born selfish
& need to be taught compassion (similar in spirit to the Christian "original
sin" concept) can have a profound affect on how we relate to others.
I'm not at all sure that we aren't born with empathy. Of course, we are born
with extreme, immediate needs (food, etc) that we're helpless to provide for
ourselves. So lots of our time & energy goes into wailing for someone to take
care of us. But once these basic needs are temporarily satisfied, I think
there are studies that have showed that compassion arises in the youngest
babies (that is, they'll appear happy when they see others who are happy, &
sad when they see others who are sad).
So I'd suggest that compassion doesn't come from an understanding of the
relatedness of all things. It arises naturally, because all things *are*
related, whether we understand it or not.
Selfishness (clinging to "I, my, me") also arises naturally, so I'd say we do
need to make an affirmative effort to let go of "my" wants & ideas. Out of
such efforts comes clear perception; out of clear perception, we can see
suffering & naturally respond with helpful action.
JyotiK2052
In your post of 7/14/98, you say...
"If I ever write an 'Accordionist's Sutra,' the first aphorism will be:
'Getting hit on the head with a book feels the same no matter what tradition it
comes from.'
LOL!- Loved that picture! Thanks!
Respectfully - Jyoti
Hrdtired
Respectfully - Jyoti
>>
Me too. If you write it, God-Mad, I'll chant it.
-- The Tired Heart
RTuttle419
eyes. Namu Butsu!
Shawdan
>So I'm not sure what the great mystery or confusion is, regarding the fact
>that we can have these incredibly nice inner feelings (what I suppose some of
>us are calling "shaktipat") triggered by a relationship with a decidedly
>not-nice guru. It's not so different from the incredibly nice lustful or
>romantic feelings we may get, triggered by people who end up causing us
>nothing but suffering. It's not that the object of our romance was a "flawed
>vessel." It's simply that following our good feelings or attachments isn't
>always the best path.
In major agreement!!!!
***************
Sha...@aol.com (Daniel Shaw)
http://members.aol.com/shawdan/page1.htm
"It has been my experience that folks with no vices have few virtues." --
Abraham Lincoln
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." -- Abraham Lincoln
ByeSY
> I
>made up my mind that loving shadows would not do, and that I would and could
>find love with a real person, and with real people. It seems so pointless
>now,
>to be in love with "the guru", and not be able to love people, your own
>family,
>or friends.
> It's hard work loving people - wife, husband, child, parents, friends.
>Really
>hard work, sometimes. It can seem easier to love a fantasy fairy godmother
>than a real person, whom you really have to have actual vulnerability and
>commitment to, day in, day out, thick and thin.
And I say amen!
JyotiK2052
Very interesting points in your post of 7/14/98:
>So I'd suggest that compassion doesn't come from an understanding of the
>relatedness of all things. It arises naturally, because all things *are*
>related, whether we understand it or not.
>
I'd say that I have to agree with that.
Respectfully - Jyoti
Hrdtired
-- The Tired Heart
Saty...@my-dejanews.com
> The way I explain it is God likes to dance and doesn't care who,
> what, where or when.
and
> I don't think that gm's having power has to mean that God
> is stupid or can't tell a real guru from a stuffed marmoset. It could mean
> that God's most basic and essential attribute is simply unabshed promiscuity.
>
> God-mad
(with a fan in one hand and the other raised in the air...Southern Baptist
style) Amen!
Satyajit
PS Before anyone gets cranky, I'm talking about the feel good and got the
spirit Southern Baptism part of my family history. Tha'sall <g>
Saty...@my-dejanews.com
sat...@aol.com (Satdesh) wrote:
> If you believe what they say about themselves (ie., the sy/shaktipat
> transmission to the world through BN, SM, (and later GM)) and that their
> mission is the command of the siddhas and the will of God - please see
> Chitshaktivilas for more on this - then you either believe that and disbelieve
> the allegations or you belive the allegations and disbelieve the dogma or you
> believe the dogma and the allegations and conclude that God stupidly choose
> immoral vessels for this most divine and holy dharma. There are no other
> choices that I can think of.
I don't understand how believing the dogma _and_ the allegations means that *
God* made a stupid choice. SY(tm) twists a bunch of teachings for their own
benefit and make their texts the only valid references. Maybe *I* made a
stupid choice for believing liars who said that they were the source of the
dogma. Do you see that as possible? I'm interested.
Regards, Satyajit
ByeSY
>the same no matter what tradition it comes from."
>
Great aphorism, God-Mad. What say we shelve all "revelatory" texts for, oh,
ten years. Let's have a moratorium on all dogma. How about we talk to each
other in plain language about why we think we are here? What if we all
(humaity) just let go of the need for religious primacy? What would happen if
we had no place to look but to ourselves for the "answers"? Imagine.
Satdesh
>Date: Mon, Jul 13, 1998 20:29 EDT
>Message-id: <6oe8pk$jjk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>Although my experience came via SM & GM, I agree that shaktipat does not
>require a human transmitter. If anyone doubts Jyoti's point here, I urge you
>to check out the Kundalini Resource Center:
http://www.aloha.net/~bpeay/kundalini/index.html#index
No, you're wrong. You are free of course to adopt your own terminology and
definitions for your own personal philosophy and religion, but are you going to
post your personal dictionary along with everything you post here? If not, for
the purpose of communicating with other humans here, it is helpful to have
agreed upon definitions for the terms we use.
"Shaktipat" for those of us here with a sy/syda background, means, by
definition, the descent of grace/shakti upon a seeker through the agency of a
siddha guru. It is kundalini awakening via the guru's grace or shakti.
Spontaneous kundalini awakening without a guru is something else. That is the
phenomena Gopi Krishna endured. To speak of shaktipat without a guru is an
oxymoron (again).
Satdesh
Satdesh
>Date: Tue, Jul 14, 1998 12:17 EDT
>Message-id: <6og0a0$v20$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>IMO, all shakti/chi/energy/whatever ultimately comes from God. I'm one of
>those non-dualist types, sorry. Even "evil spirits," *if* they exist,
>ultimately came from God and will ultimately return there.
Tell me your kidding, please. You're a dualist in this physical realm I
presume (ie., I presume you don't relish eating feces and poisonous substances
and doing other equally odd and strange things like some of the avadhuts are
alleged to have done because they had risen above all dualities and opposites.)
Why don't you be honest with yourself. Your're no Nityananda or Trailanga
Swami and neither am I. You are very much caught up in the dualities of
creation as am I. This giddy airy-fairy nonduality bullshit that you and some
of the others are getting off on is a profound self-delusion, IMO.
Rudi introduces the idea of psychic nourishment via absorbing the subtle energy
given off by yoga masters and/or highly evolved beings. I'm not sure Rudi
lived long enough to fully develop his understanding of this whole process, but
what he did say provides a lot of food for thought on this. He ultimately got
spiritual indigestion from Muktananda. Did he ultimately reach the "right"
conclusion about any of this? Don't know. But his life and teachings do
demonstrate the concept of subtle nourishment quite well.
In the west we are born and raised in religions that more or less see spiritual
entities or forces as being of God or satan. It's an either-or proposition.
There are no shades of gray in this paradigm. In Hinduism the picture is much
more complex. Those raised in it don't have to have this explained to them.
Different classes of beings, both good and evil, not so good and not so evil,
neutral but mischevious and so on, are recognized as existing in the subtle
realms. We are raised to believe it must be God or the devil.
I dont think syda/sy is "satanic" or of the devil. I have stated this before
but you seem to keep returning to that idea as if to put words in my mouth.
The "think" here seems to be that, because it's "obvious" that syda shaktipat
is not satanic, then it must be of God. I am challenging this assumption. I
try to interpret sy in a manner consistent with the understandings of the
system it arose from and not in a manner consistent with the religious systems
prevailing in the culture to which it was transplanted. (Consciously or
subconsciously, some here, are interpreting it in light of the assumptions or
their childhood religions. I believe this results in an inaccurate
interpretation).
Megha spoke earlier about Orientalism, a method of interpreting religious life
and thought in India from a standpoint of western assumptions. The
Orientalists reached wrong interpretive results, IMO (see the Introduction or
Preface, I forget which, to Barbara Miller's translation of the Gita). Whether
we like it or not, we, as "Hindus by adoption" so to speak, suffer some of the
interpretive liabilities that the Orientalists did (even though we approach
Hinduism from a sympathetic frame of mind).
You may fantasize that you're a non-dualist in the subtle realm if you like but
your fantasy will only work to your detriment, just as it would if you decided
to drink some Drano tomarrow morning to prove to the world that you were a
great non-dualistic avadhut. If you some day reach that rare state that a
Trailanga Swami reached, then you can eat and absorb whatever you want, whether
it be on the physical plane or on the subtle plane. You wont be affected.
Until that time you had better take care of what you absorb into your physical
and your subtle bodies. This requires a certain amount of prudence and wise
decision making. Running around giggling about nonduality will end you up in a
sad predicament.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
PS. Sorry for the surly nature of some of my words here. Sometimes being
surly makes the point quicker than three hours of typing.
Satdesh
>Date: Tue, Jul 14, 1998 11:47 EDT
>Message-id: <6ofuje$rk1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>You keep your theories and definitions and neat pigeonholes for the different
>"types" of shakti. I'll just keep my personal experience, and the knowledge
>that it's all just one energy, anyway, with different names across different
>cultures. This energy is beyond the mind, and beyond our limited concepts of
>it.
>My personal experience doesn't have to fit your definitions.
Very good Maha. That's the most splendid testament to sydaspeak that I have
yet to read here. Was this ghostwritten for you by the editorial staff of
"Darshan"?
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Satdesh
>Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 00:28 EDT
>Message-id: <6ohb4m$3nm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> Maybe *I* made a
>stupid choice for believing liars who said that they were the source of the
>dogma. Do you see that as possible? I'm interested.
Yes, I do. I don't deny my own culpability for getting involved with this. I
was (relatively) young at the time, very naive about such matters, idealistic,
and inquisitive as I had a few experiences while growing up of a "paranormal"
nature that propelled me into a fascination with this stuff. I was extremely
trusting. There were things I didn't like and things that seemed improper to
me from the get-go, but nothing big. However, when I read the Co-Ev article I
was crushed. Like others, I tried to live with this knowledge, to resuscitate
my spiritual life in spite of it. It is hard to deal with. It's one thing to
have been falsely convicted and incarcerated for 20 years for a crime you
didn't commit. It's another to realize that you plead guilty to a crime you
never committed and put yourself in jail for 20 years.
That's why we go through all these mental gyrations to try to convince
ourselves that being duped was no big deal (IMO). After all, SM only awakened
us to our own spiritual gifts and endowments," thank you Baba." " And now, the
shakti juice, heck, its just flowing all over the place and I can drink this
nectar any old time. I'm not at a disadvantage because I no longer have a guru
and the guru's satsang. I'm just going onward and upward with my kundalini yoga
sadhana. I've got my inner guru, etc., etc."
Some people may sincerely believe this and may actually live in a state of
great spiritual fulfillment in their post-syda days. But maybe they're just
trying to convince themselves that they didn't waste 10-20 years of their life
on a sad deception because they lack the psychological tools to deal
effectively with such a grim realization.
I'm not sure this answered your question completely. I feel like I'm rambling.
Maybe I'll take another try at this some other time.
Sincerely,
Satdesh.
Shawdan
(Satdesh) writes:
>Some people may sincerely believe this and may actually live in a state of
>great spiritual fulfillment in their post-syda days. But maybe they're just
>trying to convince themselves that they didn't waste 10-20 years of their
>life
>on a sad deception because they lack the psychological tools to deal
>effectively with such a grim realization.
OK, I'm the "either - or" police. Does effective realization of the ills of SY
and of one's own internal world in connection with SY have to be mutually
exclusive to continued spiritual fulfillment?
I'm certainly one who hasn't continued any formal practice and who lives in a
sort of uncertain, semi-atheist, existential humanist kind of state (as opposed
to being what folks would call "spiriutal"), and I make heavy use of
psychological tools.
But I can tolerate and accept others who don't overhaul their belief systems as
radically. Why shouldn't I? I can't see into their minds and hearts and know
all about their choices, not just by reading their posts on this newsgroup,
that's for sure.
So while I think your point is valid, that one can leave SY and still cling to
belief systems that might not make sense or that might obscure deeper
realizations about one's self, I disagree with what seems like an overbroad
generalization on your part about the nature of people's spirituality post-SY.
Still, I appreciate your critical thinking and your attempt at tightening up
definitions.
Respectfully,
deid...@my-dejanews.com
However, when I read the Co-Ev article I
> was crushed. Like others, I tried to live with this knowledge, to resuscitate
> my spiritual life in spite of it. It is hard to deal with. It's one thing to
> have been falsely convicted and incarcerated for 20 years for a crime you
> didn't commit. It's another to realize that you plead guilty to a crime you
> never committed and put yourself in jail for 20 years.
>
>
Well said. For me, the most tragic piece of all has been trying (or trying
to try) to "resuscitate my spiritual life."
Thanks to you and all the other recent posters with their deeply-felt,
thought-provoking writings. You give me much to ponder.
Gratefully,
deidre_1 (old Deidre: had to get a new name)
RTuttle419
From the Soto Zen tradition (and others I imagine).
Japanese.
"I respect Buddha"
Or, to give it a SY flavor, "I bow to the Buddha who lives within me as me and
the Buddha who lives within you as you."
See the Buddha in others.
JyotiK2052
I'm right there witcha with the Southern Baptist memories! Grew up with a fan
and a raised hand and swaying to 'Amazing Grace' or 'Love Lifted Me' or 'In the
Garden.'
But, I used to hide from the preacher when he tried to corner me to ask me when
I was going to 'come forward and be saved.' I kept saying...I didn't know I was
in danger! Just glad that even though that preacher really tried to put the
'fear' of God in me...it didn't really 'take.'
Boy I loved that music, though.
Respectfully - Jyoti
he...@kanis.com
> your fantasy will only work to your detriment, just as it would if you decided
> to drink some Drano tomarrow morning to prove to the world that you were a
> great non-dualistic avadhut. If you some day reach that rare state that a
> Trailanga Swami reached, then you can eat and absorb whatever you want,
whether
> it be on the physical plane or on the subtle plane. You wont be affected.
> Until that time you had better take care of what you absorb into your physical
> and your subtle bodies. This requires a certain amount of prudence and wise
> decision making. Running around giggling about nonduality will end you up in
a
> sad predicament.
>
> Sincerely,
> Satdesh
> PS. Sorry for the surly nature of some of my words here. Sometimes being
> surly makes the point quicker than three hours of typing.
>
Yes. very surly. I hope it's not a reflection of what's truly inside.
I would not like to see the after effects of a Trailanga Swami drinking some
Drano. If you think that's possible and can find someone willing to
demonstrate, it would change my life indeed.
Seeking truth, remaining open.
Sincerely,
Herb
JyotiK2052
In your post of 7/15/98, you say, "That's why we put ourselves through all
these mental gyrations to try and convince ourselves that being duped was no
big deal (IMO). After all SM only awakened us to our own spiritual gifts and
endowments, 'thank you Baba.' And now, the shakti juice, heck its just flowing
all over the place and I can drink this nectar any old time. I'm not at a
disadvantage because I no longer have a guru and the guru's satsang. I'm just
going onward and upward with my kundalini yoga sadhana. I've got my inner
guru, etc., etc.
Some people may sincerely believe this and may actually live in a state of
great spiritual fulfilment in their post-syda days. But maybe they're just
trying to convince themselves that they didn't waste 10-20 years of their life
on a sad deception because they lack the psychological tools to deal
effectively with such a grim realization."
This brings up some very interesting points. Is it wrong to try to find
something to salvage from an investment of time and devotion to a fallen guru?
Was the time completely wasted? I don't believe that I hear many people who
post here saying that they completely wasted their time. I know from my own
experience that I found out a great deal about myself through sy and I also
know that I am grateful for all experiences that have brought me to where I am
today. Even the bad ones.
I'm also not sure that we're all going through mental gyrations, and I think
that most of us do have the psychological tools to deal with the 'grim
realization' of a path gone awry. The fact that it takes time and effort to
deal with it does not take away from the understanding that each of us do have
within us the capability of growing even from disappointment.
In my own case, I had already experienced extraordinary awakenings prior to
meeting sm and getting involved with sy, and that continues after. I have
always known where the responsibility for my spiritual life lies...with me.
And, yes, the 'shakti-juice' (you love this expression, and ...it's pretty apt,
I guess!) IS flowing all over the place and I'm NOT at a disadvantage no longer
having sm as a guru/satsang, for I did have it at one time and got what I was
supposed to get at that time and yes, I moved on. Just because I don't have
the same sandwich to eat today that I had last Thursday doesn't mean that I'll
never be nourished again.
But please don't take this as that I have missed your point completely. I know
that what you are saying is that the disappointment and disillusionment from
learning that one's beloved guru/path is not what was once believed is deep,
dreadful, and not easily laid aside. And that it might be easy for some to
rationalize that away and not really deal with it. I do not minimize that. I
have had people for whom that is absolutely true come to me for solace and
comfort. And I have no place to direct them except back into their own heart,
their own strengths, their own truth. That's the only place where it can 'all
come right' again. And they are not to blame for sm's and sc's behaviors, nor
what happened to the organization. And those years are not wasted.
Again, thanks for a most provocative post.
Respectfully - Jyoti
JyotiK2052
Well, dear, you are a bit surly, I have to admit, but I'm sure that you're just
more than a tad irritated with us 'air-fairy' folk and our loose definitions.
I can understand that. And yet, sometimes I thnk it's necessary to 'bend' the
rules a bit in order to get things into the framwork we're most comfortable
with, so that they can be discussed on a level we know.
For instance, I knew exactly what Maha was talking about when it was said, "I'm
one of those non-dualist types..." Maha wasn't trying to say that she/he was
an avadhut...just that the belief system allowed for the interconnectedness of
all things. (Maha...you correct me if I failed to get the spirit of this.)
The reason I say, that, of course, is because that's how I see it, too.
I do like it that you try to keep us 'honest' regarding definitions and such,
but sometimes the 'spirit' of what is being said speaks louder than mistakes of
syntax and precise speech. (Not that I don't like to be precise.) Just a
thought.
Anyway...always enjoy your posts and the dialogue that ensues.
Respectfully - Jyoti
sres...@slip.net
For what it's worth-- I found it interesting that in Siddha Yoga, "namah" is
translated as "bow," while in the Zen school I'm familiar with, the equivalent
"namo" in various chants is translated as "become one."
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
Satdesh
>Date: Thu, Jul 9, 1998 10:40 EDT
>Message-id: <199807091440...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>The meaning of being subjected to powerful
>spiritual/natural/supernatural forces with very little guidance about what is
>happening other than "it is the shakti", or "it is the guru's grace" or
>"chant
>more" or "you're impure".
Annielori, this is a very insightful observation and I believe it's one of the
keys for deciphering what is going on there. While I think there is a lot of
bragging, exaggering and fabrication going on vis a vis these experiences, some
of what I observed there seemed to be induced by an external force. My
experiences, which were few, could be attributable to merely physiological or
psychological forces. I can't rule this out for myself. What I saw physically
take place in the bodies of one or two other people however, is harder to
explain on the basis of a mere physiological or psychological malfunction..
Some of the experience shares sounded fake to me but a few of them which were
quite spectacular seemed to be delivered with great sincerity and honesty.
I believe that the gurus there have some role in stirring up or initiating
these experiences by some occult method. After they get you hooked you're
basically on your own. They have little if any control over what ensues and
that is why GM can't guide or counsel her flock except by her canned speaches.
The syda dogma that this stuff is a conscious all knowing *power* (rendered
*shakti* in sanskrit) that knows just what you need, adjusts it's intensity so
that it's just right for you, purifies your body and drives out all diseases,
etc.,etc., is a bunch of horseshit. It's something other than what they are
claiming it is and that's why there is "very little guidance about what is
happening" as you put it..
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Satdesh
>Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 10:37 EDT
>Message-id: <199807151437...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>Is it wrong to try to find
>something to salvage from an investment of time and devotion to a fallen
>guru?
No. If you play the violin for 20 years and then decide it's not for you, that
you want to play the piano, all is not lost. A lot of musical knowledge is
carried over. Same with yoga. But there is a lot of "retooling" required
mentally and emotionally to readjust to a different discipline, whether it is
Zen, devotional Catholicism, Iyengar yoga, or adjusting to no sadhana at all.
A lot of questions get posted here by people asking questions about retooling
for a new sadhana after syda. Haven't you noticed this?
In reality, few people had any real kundalini yoga sadhana going for them in
syda (even though many were diligently following the practices). IMO, this
relates back to the bogus initiation involved which I no longer consider to be
a true kundalini awakening at all - I believe it is something else of a spirit
nature. If they did have any kundalini development going, when the support of
the guru, props and satsang were removed, their kundalini development would go
into remission. Rudi was the most advanced western practitioner of this yoga
that I have heard of. Even he had problems retooling after Muktananda. This
is what I was getting at but I didn't want to spend this much time typing to
try to explain myself. But anyway, thank you for giving me this opportunity to
clarify matters.
>In my own case, I had already experienced extraordinary awakenings prior to
>meeting sm and getting involved with sy, and that continues after. I have
>always known where the responsibility for my spiritual life lies...with me.
This is why, again IMO, you have been able to cope so well with leaving syda
and have been able to resume a fruitful spiritual life in the aftermath.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Satdesh
>Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 10:49 EDT
>Message-id: <199807151449...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>Well, dear, you are a bit surly, I have to admit, but I'm sure that you're
>just
>more than a tad irritated with us 'air-fairy' folk and our loose definitions.
Well, not irritated with you and God Mad at any rate (well, not truly irritated
at Maha either come to think about it). You and God Mad both have hearts of
gold and I hope neither of you interpret my admittedly surly posts as meaning
that I feel otherwise. Your word usages however were driving me nuts. It's
hard to communicate, especially in cyberspace, when terms are being thrown
around that everyone is ascribing different meanings to.
For me, the shakti doctrines all fall with the guru doctrines and all else
syda. To me, you cannot extract out the shakti from the syda cafeteria style.
You can leave there with a Jnaneshwari, a few postures and the ability to sit
still for a half hour or so in meditation and some basic competence in
contorting your mouth and tongue for some sanskrit syllables, but that's about
it. It's just my opinion that when you leave there you can't take the shakti
with you. (and I'm not sure why you would want to). Your capacity for
self-discipline and your hard earned lessons go with you.
You and God Mad brought up many good points in your posts and it looks like I'm
only focusing on what I don't agree with as if there was nothing else written
there of any merit. Nothing could be further from the truth. But dangle those
shakti issues in front of me and I tend to go off like a dog with a dirty sock.
>I knew exactly what Maha was talking about when it was said, "I'm
>one of those non-dualist types..." Maha wasn't trying to say that she/he was
>an avadhut...just that the belief system allowed for the interconnectedness
>of
>all things.
No. Maha was saying much more than that. Even I believe in the
"interconnectedness of all things" as you put it. Maha says he doesn't get
bent out of shape over evil spirits or Satan or fallen angels and what not.
They, like shakti/chi/energy, etc. all come from God and return there per Maha.
Did you miss that part? Did you understand *why* he was saying such a patently
absurd thing?
I had suggested that the shakti was something *other* than what the syda dogma
says it is and that is why there is all this evidence that something is rotten
in Denmark even while all these apparently supernatural manifestations of power
are going on there. To undercut this Maha came up with this lame brain idea
that you don't need to distinguish between spiritual entities, agencies and
powers because they all come from God. I responded that what you nourish your
subtle being with (per Rudi - do you remember me mentioning Rudi and why I
brought him up in this context) is just as important as what you nourish your
physical body with. You have to practice prudence and care in both regards.
Then I alluded to the idea that just as someone wouldn't feed poison or feces
to their physical body (as duh, it would't be good for it) they also wouldn't
feed the *equivalent* of these things in the subtle realm to their subtle body.
Now, with this explanation you can read Maha's post again and see the stupid
and grandiose things he claims. To claim this type of spiritual strength and
imperviousness is equivalent to trying to call yourself an avadhut because only
an enlightened being or avadhut would have such strength.
This takes too much damn time to spell out. Don't always try to defend every
nitwit that posts here. Let them defend themselves. Anyone calling himself
MahaLinga doesn't need a pure hearted person like you defending him.
Ever affectionately yours,
Satdesh
Satdesh
>Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 11:30 EDT
>Message-id: <6oihui$pa9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>I would not like to see the after effects of a Trailanga Swami drinking some
>Drano. If you think that's possible and can find someone willing to
>demonstrate, it would change my life indeed.
Try your Guru. She is descended from Bhag. Nityananda who also performed a
similar feat. She how has his *shakti*.
What's your problem anyway. Most people today are going for Tagamet and
Maalox. You seem to be going the other way around.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Shawdan
(Satdesh) writes:
>Now, with this explanation you can read Maha's post again and see the stupid
>and grandiose things he claims.
Hey, it's a little hard to hear what you're saying when you put it in terms
like the above. Be angry, debate and disagree, but do you have to be
personally insulting? That just makes it hard (for me, maybe others?) to pay
full attention. I think your points are really interesting, I just don't like
the personal insults - they don't enhance your points, they just sound mean.
Satdesh
>Date: Thu, Jul 16, 1998 05:36 EDT
>Message-id: <199807160936...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>Hey, it's a little hard to hear what you're saying when you put it in terms
>like the above. Be angry, debate and disagree, but do you have to be
>personally insulting?
OK., this point is well taken. Mea culpa, and my apologies to Mahalinga.
Actually however my apology is more directed to my referring to him as a
"nitwit" rather than to his claims as being "grandiose and stupid".
Sincerely,
Satdesh
P.S. If I could be allowed a minor explanation: I try not to call a person
stupid even though I might call his or her ideas or claims stupid (although I
admit I was getting inappropriately close to the line in this post). There is
a difference. Brad-Bunny posted a list of dubious stuff - Vitamin C therapy
was on the list. A great champion of Vit. C therapy was the late Dr. Linus
Pauling. Pauling was a two time Nobel Prize winner. He discovered the helical
structure of protein molecules, a discovery that allowed Watson and Crick a few
years later to discover the DNA double helix. These discoveries had enormous
impact on biological science and medicine. Pauling is a giant in the world of
20th century chemistry. His fascination with Vit. C therapy in his later years
has to be considered anticlimactic to a glorious life and career. Many would
consider his claims in this area to be crazy and grandiose. That does not
mean that he was stupid by any stretch of the imagination. A man of lesser
intelligence is still free to criticize a man of greater intelligence and even
call his ideas and claims "stupid" if he feels justified in doing so. There
are many more examples that could be cited.
Music critic Martin Bookspan called the great German composer Richard Strauss a
"moral coward" for his failure to leave Nazi Germany in protest to the immoral
policies of the Third Reich. Strauss (IMO) was probably the greatest composer
of the 20th century and was a great genius. His political insight and
judgement in my mind were "stupid". I am not willing to go as far as Bookspan
and call him a "moral coward" (though Bookspan may be right). Even great
persons lapse inexplicably into shortsightedness and stupidity at times.
Maha may infact be morally and intellectually my superior. I feel it is, in an
absolute sense, OK to attack someone else's ideas and claims as "stupid or
grandiose" in a discussion. As a prudential matter however, I feel you are
quite right. I need to learn more discipline in this matter and am glad you
tactfully brought this to my attention.
Satdesh
acum...@my-dejanews.com
sat...@aol.com (Satdesh) wrote:
> >From: annie...@aol.com (Annielori9)
> >Date: Thu, Jul 9, 1998 10:40 EDT
Satdesh, you raise an interesting point. However, my own experience is that
of aparashaktipat (imperfect shaktipat) vs. parashaktipat. I began
practicing hatha yoga when I was in college, under a raja yogini who did
*not* give me initiation. Still, I began to experience very uncomfortable
sensations, both physically and emotionally. Then, I was initiated into TM
about a year later. I began having very intense experiences of energy rushes
throughout my body, and uncontrollable fear at odd times, plus some random
visions during meditation and having the volume turned up on my psychic
powers...I very much had a sensation that something was out of control, and
began learning about kundalini (read a book with an exerpt of Baba's "sex
experience" from Play of Consciousness...outrageous! *G*) The TM teachers
told me to take longer to come out of meditation, until it was taking me an
hour to come out of a 30 min. meditation...I finally gave up and the feelings
subsided once I stopped doing TM...got to SY, got shaktipat from Baba very
palpably the first night, plus several intense experiences thereafter, and
have never had that "out of control" feeling again, just a feeling of steady,
slow progress...not an endorsement of SY, but I had a real connection with
Baba and am not willing to buy that he was not in control of the
shakti...*never, ever* felt it from GM, not even once, no matter how hard I
tried!
Nice discussion, thank you for it. I can't quote scripture, but I sure know
what my experiences were...
With great respect,
Marcy Phooli Hoeflein
always available at leor...@hotmail.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Satdesh
>Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 01:29 EDT
>Message-id: <6opbs6$dha$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>got shaktipat from Baba very
>palpably the first night, plus several intense experiences thereafter, and
>have never had that "out of control" feeling again, just a feeling of steady,
>slow progress...not an endorsement of SY, but I had a real connection with
>Baba and am not willing to buy that he was not in control of the
>shakti...
Interesting. Not everyone had problems and your experience amply points this
out. Others did have problems. The shakti was sold as a cure all type of
mystical snake oil. But, aside from my own experience which indicated that
this definitely was not the case, we are always reading here of people, even
those at the highest levels and with the longest committments in siddha yoga,
who have not had any significant improvements as a result of the sy practice.
When you look at those who teach sy style kundalini yoga, GM, Chet, Chuck, and
Nity Jr., you can see that they have deep unfulfilled emotional needs. The
premises upon which the practice is based find no fulfillment in even these
"masters" of the practice. Even Rudi, whom I consider the most advanced
western practitioner of this art, had emotional turmoil and despair in his life
right up until the time he broke off from Muktananda. If we also take the case
of Amrit Desai into consideration (even though he is from a different
"lineage") we have yet another negative example. Nevertheless, I still believe
there are some out there, like yourself, who have had no negative experiences
with SM's shaktipat.
I think someone shared an experience here where they saw Sevananda and someone
else beating a German devotee in GSP. I thought this was because his kriyas
were out of control (someone correct me if I am wrong on this point). I saw
people go into extreme states of aloofness/withdrawal and depression in the
ashram. This was called "OD'ing on the shakti". This was considered to be a
major purificatory overhaul by the shakti. I'm not so sure. I kind of think
things were spinning out of control. But I also have to say that I knew people
who always seemed to be happy as larks and who were very enthusiastic about the
whole affair.
> However, my own experience is that
>of aparashaktipat (imperfect shaktipat) vs. parashaktipat. I began
>practicing hatha yoga when I was in college, under a raja yogini who.....
Interesting experiences. I don't remember Baba talking about aparaS. vs.
paraS. Are these concepts mentioned in any syda literature or did you get them
from some other organization's books. Just curious.
Thanks for sharing.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
JyotiK2052
You make some excellent points in your post of 7/17/98 regarding "retooling"
after sy. Thanks.
Respectfully - Jyoti
acum...@my-dejanews.com
when I first got into SY (1980). I've always remembered it because it seemed
to describe my experiences so clearly. I don't know if it's written down
anywhere.
Yes, I acknowledge that my experience of SM was different from many, many
others', and I do not deny that he was an abusive sonofabitch. I cannot
reconcile these facts to my own experience, so I just sort of let them
co-exist. Baba gave me shaktipat *and also* beat the crap out of people,
kept guns, and sexually abused young girls. It's not a perfect psychological
solution, but the only one I can come up with at this time.
I'm the first to admit I denied my feelings about SY, especially GM, for far
too long. I should've left in 1984, when I first started thinking about it,
or in 1986, when I did leave for six months. But I kept coming back for the
chanting. [Pardon this aside: Some friends set me up with a trance medium
here in Portland in October, 1984. The session was taped, and I listened to
it not too far back. I asked the "tranced spirit" if I should quit SY. He
said my time with SY was not done, and although Baba was the only one on
Earth who could've performed that particular awakening for me, the lesson I
should get from his dying 2 yrs later was that I was supposed to learn to
stand on my own two spiritual feet. Good advice I wish I had taken much
sooner.]
I no longer worship SM, but I just simply cannot convince myself that my
experiences were unreal, despite many long hours of anger and soul-searching.
Perhaps those farther along in the process will see this as an intermediate
stage, toward a time when I will finally see the whole SY thing as BS. I'd
like to hear your comments.
Thanks for giving me the chance to talk about this,
Marcy Phooli Hoeflein
always available at leor...@hotmail.com
In article <199807180829...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
JyotiK2052
I read with interest your post of 7/18/98 in which you describe your
experiences with SM in SY, and wondering about reconciling the 'facts' to your
'own experience....."...so I just sort of let them co-existg. Baba gave me
shaktipat *and also* beat the crap out of people, kept guns, and sexually
abused young girls.............." "I no longer worship SM, but I just simply
cannot convince myself that my experiences were unreal, despite many long hours
of anger and soul-searching."
Marci, your experiences were real. They were yours. They emanated from your
pure intent and seeds planted long before your meeting SM. SM had gigantic
charisma, and I can say nought about his ability to attract and enchant many.
Nor do I doubt that many experienced true grace in his presence. But this is
not his gift to you. This is your own 'gift' to yourself, awakening to the
awareness of grace; which is ever present, ever-prevading. (Violet...I really
like the term 'grace' better than the term "God.")
As far as being able to reconcile that some of your most powerful spiritual
experiences came in proxmity with SM, and also that SM did practice abuses of
power; please know that your spiritual experiences are not tainted. The taint
is on the abuses of power.
I don't think it is necessary for those of us who have left sy to see the
'whole sy thing as bs.' Those moments of pure joy, clarity and sweetness were
gifts from the universe and it is possible to bless the opportunity for them
while at the same time removing oneself from an organization fraught with
inconsistencies, to say the least.
I would more predict that there will come a time when there is less confusion
about sy, and more belief in your own ability to discern the wheat from the
chaff. SY is one of the most extraordinary phenomonon that I have ever been in
contact with; full of contradiction, yet the basic ancient teachings still have
the power to transform in spite of the teachers.
I always enjoy your soul-honest posts. Keep giving us your voice, please...
Respectfully - Jyoti
JyotiK2052
First of all, forgive me for misspelling your name! I've got it now.
It's wonderful to have YOU on the ng, too! Keep posting!
Respectfully - Jyoti
acum...@my-dejanews.com
jyoti...@aol.com (JyotiK2052) wrote:
> ...This is your own 'gift' to yourself, awakening to the> awareness of grace; which is ever present, ever-prevading...please know that your spiritual experiences are not tainted. The taint
> is on the abuses of power.
JyotiK, many thanks from this soul. At the risk of sounding "maudlin and
disingenuous", I always feel like such a dork in posting, but sometimes I
come up with gems for replies which really move me and help me.
I e-mailed your post to myself so I can re-read it some more. You've given
me some wonderful insights and permissions here. What a blessing to have you
on this NG.
With love,
Marcy Phooli Hoeflein
always available at leor...@hotmail.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Violet1884
>I don't think it is necessary for those of us who have left sy to see the<BR>
>'whole sy thing as bs.'
Might not be necessary but some of us do!! :) Like me for example.
Violet
Satdesh
>Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 16:54 EDT
>Message-id: <6or21t$1qf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>Perhaps those farther along in the process will see this as an intermediate
>stage, toward a time when I will finally see the whole SY thing as BS.
I'd
>like to hear your comments.
Marcy,
I find your experience and insights interesting. About seeing the whole thing
as BS: I don't know if you ever will. When I was younger and had less life
experience, I was 100% sure about everything I had an opinion on (which was
just about everything). Today, I sincerely doubt that I am 100% sure about
anything!
I do form opinions, some very strong. But I never shut the door completely to
considering new facts and points of view on any particular issue. I don't know
"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" about the sy gurus and
sy *shakti*. I do currently believe that there was a supernatural or
paranormal force at work in some instances. I'm not sure exactly what that
force or power is. My strong tendancy is to believe that it was something
*other* than what the official syda party line said it was. The reasons for
this I have set forth in other posts.
I think it was Kurt Keutzer who said he was gathering information as part of a
kundalini research project. Hopefully in the future we will see more research
in this area from scientists and other "experts".
BTW, does anyone know what happened to the TM levitation craze that Maharishi
and Doug Henning were peddling on the Merv Griffin Show back in the late 70s.
Is this another mystical/new age ballon that went crash?
Thanks for sharing, Marcy.
Sincerely,
Satdesh
Annielori9
>and Doug Henning were peddling on the Merv Griffin Show back in the late 70s.
>
>Is this another mystical/new age ballon that went crash?
Last I heard, from a former TM person while I was at SF two years ago, was that
no one had managed to levitate yet but people were hopping. I saw a picture of
one of the hoppers in the Los Angeles Times. When this craze started what I
thought was goofy was that all the levitation was for peace! And a lot of the
classes they offered to achieve this siddhi were held in Washington D.C.
because that city needed peace more than anywhere else. The courses, I was
told from a different friend, were between $2000-3000. This friend had a
friend whose health and finances were destroyed from taking the courses.
By the way, I took a friend to the Santa Monica center one time and she swore
she levitated during the meditation session. It scared her immensely and she
never wanted to go back.
Al
ByeSY
>also continue to assert that there was no "shaktipat power" in the gurus
>(whatever you want to call this power)?
I am no longer aware of any "shaktipat power" from SM or any one else.
Like many "spiritual methods" that started out well for me, sy is just another
promise that just didn't deliver. So currently I am feeling like Sisyphus,
having rolled that boulder yet again up that mountain only to have it roll back
down.. This time I'm content to sit at ground level beside that old boulder
and never try to roll it up that hill again.
Hrdtired
<<Baba gave me shaktipat *and also* beat the crap out of people,
kept guns, and sexually abused young girls. It's not a perfect psychological
solution, but the only one I can come up with at this time.>>
Does there have to be a solution? Can this not simply be the truth?
For example, I know that my father loved me and that I loved him...and at the
same time, he was someone who had a hard time loving people in general, and
women in particular. But I know what I know about our relationship, or my
experience of it. And I can still say there was something good between us,
while acknowledging at the same time that he didn't do the best job of
parenting me that he could or should have, and that this resulted in some
damage that I may have to work on for the rest of my life.
To my (relatively new) way of thinking, things can be true ("I was loved and
yet not always treated lovingly") without being comfortable or even
particularly understandable. (Unfortunately, this belief will be twisted by
those who would profit from the phenomenon of the "unknowable," i.e. "Strange
are the ways of the gooroo.")
(SNIP)
<<I no longer worship SM, but I just simply cannot convince myself that my
experiences were unreal....Perhaps those farther along in the process will see
this as an intermediate
stage, toward a time when I will finally see the whole SY thing as BS.>>
I'm certainly not farther along in the process than you, Marci, but if I may
comment anyway:
While I might now see the SY "trip" as a load of crap, I don't view my time in
SY as having had no meaning (not this week anyhow!). In a way, that would be
like saying my entire life was BS. I've certainly been gulled before, made
ghastly mistakes before, you know?
This was just another one of those life-stages that was, in part, a rather
tragic mistake, and in part, a mightly learning experience.
That I had some good experiences in SY, I cannot deny. That they did not come
from a "pure vessel," I cannot deny either. That leaving SY was the biggest
lesson of having been in SY I definitely cannot deny, or even regret. Hey, at
least we got out!
In short, what I didn't know (or couldn't admit to myself), I learned, when I
was prepared to learn it. That seems to me to be the lesson of life itself.
-- The Tired Heart
Hrdtired
<<There is no denying the criminal organization that is SYDA, but how can you
also continue to assert that there was no "shaktipat power" in the gurus
(whatever you want to call this power)?
If I misinterpreted you, please forgive me.>>
My feeling about Happily's posts is that he still wants to absolve the gurus of
all blame about what goes on in the ashrams and centers. He continues to
praise the very font of SYDA corruption while claiming that he is no longer
involved in SY. That is certainly his right.
As for your belief that there is "shakipat power" in the gurus, I do not
question your experience of that, but I do question that they are the sole
proprietors, or even knowledgeable technicians, as Happily and others seem to
assert. I also question the "purity" of my own experiences. Yes, I had them,
but I do believe I was well prepared to have them. For you, this may not be the
case.
I personally do not know anyone who had a life-changing experience simply from
looking at SM's photograph. Yes, I heard Namdev H. talk about it in programs,
but I trust him about as much as I trust Butt Rambler of Convolution Course
fame. (He is WIDELY PUBLISHED in a trade paperback called "Kundalini," as well
as in the Kripalu literature, as having received his initial shaktipat diksha
from Amrit Desai, a claim he conveniently appears to forget about/deny when
discussing in an early chapter of the course his "kundalini awaking" as being
from SM.)
-- The Tired Heart
JyotiK2052
Very excellent post written to Marcy 7/19/98, Subject: Re: Meaningul
glnces...>While I might now see the SY "trip" as a load of crap, I don't view
my time
>in
>SY as having had no meaning (not this week anyhow!). In a way, that would be
>like saying my entire life was BS. I've certainly been gulled before, made
>ghastly mistakes before, you know?
>
>This was just another one of those life-stages that was, in part, a rather
>tragic mistake, and in part, a mightly learning experience.
>
>That I had some good experiences in SY, I cannot deny. That they did not
>come
>from a "pure vessel," I cannot deny either. That leaving SY was the biggest
>lesson of having been in SY I definitely cannot deny, or even regret. Hey,
>at
>least we got out!
>
>In short, what I didn't know (or couldn't admit to myself), I learned, when I
>was prepared to learn it. That seems to me to be the lesson of life itself.
******************************
Indeed! Thanks.
Respectfully - Jyoti
acum...@my-dejanews.com
Thank you for your thoughtful posts. If you don't mind,
I will reply to a bunch of you in one shot. It's a long
one, so bear with me...
Hrdy, in a great post, posed the question:
"Does there have to be a solution?"
Well, yes and no. I survived so long in SY because I
got good at the psychoemotional trick of believing two
things that gave me major conflicts: 1) I really loved
the chanting and meditation, and 2) I thought GM and her
"inner circle" were a shitload of scoundrels. My final
solution to the conflict was to follow the advice of
Stuart and others on the LSY site and get the hell out
of SY, after which I regained equilibrium and lost 65
pounds (from not "stuffing"). So when I run into a
place where I think I have to believe two conflicting
things equally, I examine it very carefully and try to
resolve it.
The two things in this case are my beautiful spiritual
experiences, especially in Baba's day, and that Baba
himself was such a bastard. Mind you, my parents were
extremely abusive and I've never doubted I love them
dearly, while hating their actions. But again, I had to
spend a long time working with those feelings before I
found that equilibrium where I could truly feel both
things at once.
What has started to turn the trick for me, thanks to
Jyoti's post, was to remember that my spiritual
experiences started at an extremely early age (I was
three or four when Vatican II took away my Latin
Tridentine Mass, and boy, was I pissed!), spontaneous
meditation, a strong sense of the Divine, talkin' to
Jesus & Mary alla time (no, I don't "hear voices", *S*),
etc., etc. Jyoti reminded me that I was looking for the
guru and that when I found Muktananda, I was a rocket
crammed with gunpowder. I was innocent and pure in my
beliefs and my desire for deepened spiritual experience.
Baba, or my belief in his power perhaps, just lit that
match and I took off into the skies in a blaze of
thunder! And part of my distancing from SY after Baba
died was an attempt to maintain that innocence and
purity - I never got involved in SY "politics", never
ran around after GM, and spent (relatively) little money
on programs and travel. That doesn't make me less
culpable for having stayed in SY so long, supporting
scoundrels. But Jyoti reminded me that the experiences
*are all MINE*, and were not "given" to me by what you
term the "tainted vessels." Being reminded of my
ownership of my own spiritual experiences left me, well,
verklempt, to say the very least. It also gave me the
right perspective, so now I can answer you truly, "No,
there doesn't really need to be a solution."
Hrdtired, you continued:
>That leaving SY was the biggest lesson of having been
>in SY I definitely cannot deny, or even regret.
You are so right. Leaving has been a huge experience.
Only now are new vistas opening before me where I take
responsibility for my own spiritual experience.
And, at last, this gem:
>
> In short, what I didn't know (or couldn't admit to
myself), I learned, when I was prepared to learn it.
>That seems to me to be the lesson of life itself.
>
Hrdtired, this is pure wisdom, and I'll keep trying to
stop kicking myself for staying in SY too long. Thanks.
***
Satdesh, you're right, I'm not sure of 100% of anything
either, but I do have to resolve my conflicts if I'm to
feel at peace with myself and my life.
To add to Annielori's post, I got into TM in the late
70's. I was having such strong kriyas that the teachers
kept urging me to take the Siddhis courses, but I was in
college and just plain couldn't afford them. (Plus,
they kept giving me this line of crap about, "If you
want to take the course badly enough, the Universe will
send you the money." Like I didn't have other things to
spend 3K bucks on! That line always hit me like tinfoil
on a filling. Does it sound familiar to anyone?)
Anyway, I *did* end up taking a road trip from Kalamazoo
to Fairfield to visit Maharishi International University
for a weekend. While I was there, I picked up a
brochure for "Happy Landings Flight Cushions", these
padded asanas you strap onto your ass for added comfort
during "hopping". The brochure is still one of my
prized possessions, and if we ever meet, remind me to
bring it along. It's a classic!
P.S. JyotiK, thanks for the headsup on "FHBradley &
LISBunny". I'll put away my flyswatter and get out the
bug repellent.
Anyway, thank you all for your fine, thoughtful posts.
It's nice to be able to work some of this stuff out!
Love,
Satdesh
>Date: Mon, Jul 20, 1998 00:20 EDT
>Message-id: <199807200420...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>I personally do not know anyone who had a life-changing experience simply
>from
>looking at SM's photograph. Yes, I heard Namdev H. talk about it in programs,
>but I trust him about as much as I trust Butt Rambler of Convolution Course
>fame.
Dear Hrdy,
Not to fawn online, but your levity and wit do wonders for me, and they do not
obscure the many thoughtful insights contained in this and your other posts on
today's date (and on many other dates as well, for that matter).
Sincerely,
Satdesh
sres...@slip.net
> BTW, does anyone know what happened to the TM levitation craze that Maharishi
> and Doug Henning were peddling on the Merv Griffin Show back in the late 70s.
> Is this another mystical/new age ballon that went crash?
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8331/flying.jpg
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
Hrdtired
nor the "Convolution Course." I forget whose stroke of brilliance that was but
I steal it frequently!
-- The Tired Heart
PattyV1953
but I could be wrong.
Pat
Shawdan
patty...@aol.com (PattyV1953) writes:
No, I think it was Howie Sm. Good one, eh?