Blessings Sat*Chit*Anand Shanti-Shanti-Shanti OM
Love- Light - Great Peace & IS
0

Namaste,

Namaste and OM -

My experience in reading this post is an enlivening of a pleasant flow
of consciousness which remains now, the grace came right through.
Appropriate thing to say is may this poster experience the same, may
this post serve as a 2x4 to remove darkness so the light shines through.

G the original post is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/insightpractice

here is the next post which seeker is trying to instruct Guru ----
the whole of it is posted below.....
if you think it of benefit feel free to join and post your viewpoint. if
not then ignore - seekers seem to
think it is wise to instruct Guru's from their vast store of ignorance -
they think reading about something
gives them the wisdom to instruct teachers who have gone beyond mind and
seeking. One starts
and then they all want to jump on the bandwagon...... yet none of them know
not 1 iota of what
is taught here nor what this Guru's qualifications are. This is exactly why
most Guru's or Teachers
of any standing have nothing to do with internet groups and seekers Until
they come begging
for knowledge.

Hello G and All,

See message #26033, paragraph 3, sentence 1.

Someone here suggested once that it could be a good thing to focus
on one simple teaching until one really got it. I'm a beginner of
ordinary skill, but perhaps, especially on hot Fridays in July, even
Gurus can learn, and even beginners can be vessels through which
teaching may occur. If so, I think that sentence is what I would
suggest you master for now. It's not my teaching. Lots of smart
people have written it; I'm just repeating what I've heard and found
in my own life to be true. And yes, siski aki, if you're reading, I
see that I need to do exactly what I'm recommending myself. :0)
Metta,
Kathleen
--- In insightpractice@yahoogroups.com, "G" <crystalkundalini@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>First words of Buddha -
>
>G: Gold or fools gold ? was he a braggard or just honest ? For
One that is Realized this is
>not a brag for there is no (me) seen within to brag - there is no
ME that is Enlightened -
>that illusionfalls away implodes - There is no ME in Realization -

>
>those in the world are within mind - duality - and therefore
process all statements
>from the place of duality and persona. ignorance is (not
knowing fully - seeing from the
>point of separation residing in duality) it isn't a put down
saying that someone is stupid -
>ignorance in this case comes from simply not knowing and living
within a false cognition
>of world - and what one is not.
>
>When Buddha (Awakened One) makes a statement of being Awakened it
was not a
>personal brag for there is no self (divisionary beingness) that
remains. a Buddha or
>Realized ONE or Sat Guru is speaking from the Consciousness of
Reality - yes his eyes see
>a world of duality and knows that those he speaks with are still
within the dream of sleep -
>of illusion.
>
>Would there be the benefit to act as if one still sleeping ? the
good news is it is possible to
>come out of the world of illusion to Freedom. Thus did Buddha say
i am an Awakened One
>- Thus does a Guru (Sat Guru) say i am Guru. Guru is never a
persona it is that Awakened
>Consciousness which comes to
>dispel darkness. in Realization there is no seeing of the world -
no me - only that
>Absolute which IS.
>
>What remains is simply that abiding Truth - that attachment to a
form and experiences
>particular to that form which brought to life mind and the
delusion of being a separate
>entity is once and for all over. Others judge only from their own
mental illusion - as an
>Awakened ONE Knows immediately Gold from Fools Gold and the one in
mental drama
>only thinks they can perceive the difference by seeing the
surface.
>
>Maybe some would have thought Buddha was not humble - Obviously
he was a man -
>therefore how dare he come proclaiming Enlightenment - what
arrogance.
>
>Here is one telling of Buddhas cognition and his first words -
>
>http://www.buddhistforbundet.no/bs/fireedlesannheter/part00.htm
>
>* The ascetic said, "What is it that you have discovered?" and
the Buddha responded: "I am
>the perfectly enlightened one, the Arahant, the Buddha."
>
>* I like to consider this his first sermon. It was a failure
because the man listening thought
>the Buddha had been practising too hard and was overestimating
himself. If somebody
>said those words to us, I'm sure we would react similarly. What
would you do if I said, "I
>am the perfectly enlightened one"?
>
>* Actually, the Buddha's statement was a very accurate, precise
teaching. It is the perfect
>teaching, but people cannot understand it. They tend to
misunderstand and to think it
>comes from an ego because people are always interpreting
everything from their egos. "I
>am the perfectly enlightened one" may sound like an egotistical
statement, but isn't it
>really purely transcendent? That statement: "I am the Buddha, the
perfectly enlightened
>one" is interesting to contemplate because it connects the use
of "I am" with superlative
>attainments or realisations. In any case, the result of the
Buddha's first teaching was that
>the listener could not understand it and walked away.
>
>** ** **
>
>* Later, the Buddha met his five former companions in the Deer
Park in Varanasi. All five
>were very sincerely dedicated to strict asceticism. They had been
disillusioned with the
>Buddha earlier because they thought he had become insincere in his
practice. This was
>because the Buddha, before he was enlightened, had begun to
realise that strict asceticism
>was in no way conducive towards an enlightened state so he was no
longer practising in
>that way. These five friends thought he was taking it easy: maybe
they saw him eating milk
>rice, which would perhaps be comparable to eating ice cream these
days. If you are an
>ascetic and you see a monk eating ice cream, you might lose your
faith in him because you
>think that monks should be eating nettle soup. If you really loved
asceticism and you saw
>me eating a dish of ice cream, you would have no faith in Ajahn
Sumedho anymore. That is
>the way the human mind works; we tend to admire impressive feats
of self-torture and
>denial. When they lost faith in him, these five friends or
disciples left the Buddha - which
>gave him the chance to sit under the Bodhi tree and be enlightened.
>
>* Then, when they met the Buddha again in the Deer Park in
Varanasi, the five thought at
>first, 'We know what he's like. Let's just not bother about him.'
But as he came near, they
>all felt that there was something special about him. They stood up
to make a place for him
>to sit down and he delivered his sermon on the Four Noble Truths.
This time, instead of
>saying 'I am the enlightened one', he said: 'There is suffering.
There is the origin of
>suffering. There is the cessation of suffering. There is the path
out of suffering.' Presented
>in this way, his teaching requires no acceptance or denial. If he
had said 'I am the all-
>enlightened one', we would be forced to either agree or disagree -
or just be bewildered.
>We wouldn't quite know how to look at that statement. However, by
saying: 'There is
>suffering, there is a cause, there is an end to suffering, and
there is a way out of suffering',
>he offered something for reflection: 'What do you mean by this?
What do you mean by
>suffering, its origin, cessation and the path?' So we start
contemplating it, thinking about
>it. With the statement: 'I am the all-enlightened one', we might
just argue about it. 'Is he
>really enlightened?'.... 'I don't think so.' We would just argue;
we are not ready for a
>teaching that is so direct. Obviously, the Buddha's first sermon
was to somebody who still
>had a lot of dust in his eyes and it failed. So on the second
occasion, he gave the teaching
>of the Four Noble Truths.
>
>G first he gave his Qualification of being Awake - maybe some
will accept and some will
>attempt to denigrate - but First he came and stated simply what
was - No persona -
>Awakened out of the illusions - let me share How that can take
place - What is the Reality
>from the illusory. a Teacher doesn't come from these statements
as a brag - it is a simple
>honest telling of what is versus what was.
>
>There is no persona - God is and is not - in order for God to be
God then there must be
>something which is created and separate - there is not ....
Absolute or Self has no
>feeling of personalism so to say one discovers the I or Self is
rather a misnomer. It simply
>IS. not really one but closer to the 0 which is eternally Whole --
--- by itself it may be
>seen as Void - and yet when the vibrationary patterns appear to
cause a divisionary world
>to appear the 0 gives value and takes something from 1 to 10 -
keep adding 0's and the
>value grows by leaps and bounds. This Perfect Pregnant Void runs
like a thread through
>all of creation and yet it is always separate and distinct.......
not something to be
>understood by mundane minds logic. This paradox once stepped into
dissolves and
>implodes all the illusions - at once all is Known as it is. What
remains from that point is
>flow. This Flow then enters a new phase of the Sacred Dance. the
great Mystery is
>unveiled.
>
>
>Love, Light & Flow
>0
>












Tanmay