The greatest sage that ever lived

Post questions or suggestions here.
Post Reply
jonfield
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:30 pm

The greatest sage that ever lived

Post by jonfield » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:01 am

His name was Nisargadatta Maharaj.

User avatar
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by sschaula » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:39 am

I disagree. What made him so great? The paradox of him being addicted to smoking tobacco? Confusing western people into believing they are enlightened?
- Scott

unwise
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 3:00 pm

Post by unwise » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:48 am

I agree with you Mr. Field - at least the part that describes him as an enlightened sage. He certainly was. I sort of like the fact that he smoked and cussed - he ran a gift shop and cigarette shop. Anyone who has deeply read 'I Am That' ought to recognized his deep understanding. Of course, the book is hard to comprehend. In fact, only another enlightened person is capable of fully 'groking' it. But it only goes to show that enlightened people are normal people - and they all are a little different.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:40 am

Holy Smoly. Boogity-boogity -- let's race.

Just reading this garbage has caused me to become enlightened. I see the light, I tell you what.

I am a fucking enlightened sage, no holds barred.

To think that I have struggled for years. I never knew it was this easy. Kind of like riding shotgun on a garbage truck.

I am so enlightened!!

Hot damn!

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:58 am

All right, I read it. First thing out of the sorry motherfucker's mouth is, "When I met my guru."

Right there, kills it. I am older than dirt and I have never met a goddamned guru -- excuse my French.

I don't give a flying fuck how wise some son of a bitch might be, I ain't followin' his ass.

If I could pull it off, I would be saved by Jesus. Life could be easier if I was a fucking Christian. But, for the life of me, I can't believe in that mumbo-jumbo bullshit. What a comfort it must be to feel saved by Jesus or Buddha or His-lam or some other dude or dude-ess.

The only way to wisdom is one's own path, no matter how rocky. No fucking body is going to lead you to wisdom, like a cow with a nose ring. It is not a free ride. You can't simply put a token in a slot and think you are there. There is no peace train.

You have to think on your own. You have to put yourself on the line. You have to transcend self and you have to know truth as an abstraction.

Putting your nose up the ass of some guru does nothing except to give you a brown nose.

Don't be a follower or a leader.

Be an individual first. Then, traverse the rocky road. You can't get there through a guru.

Faizi

unwise
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 3:00 pm

Post by unwise » Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:36 pm

Holy Smoly. Boogity-boogity -- let's race.

Just reading this garbage has caused me to become enlightened. I see the light, I tell you what.

I am a fucking enlightened sage, no holds barred.

To think that I have struggled for years. I never knew it was this easy. Kind of like riding shotgun on a garbage truck.

I am so enlightened!!

Hot damn!
You have to look and see what company you keep. As a matter of fact, some people DID become enlightened by hanging out with N.M. and H.W. Poonja, Ramana Maharshi and others. If you are interested in enlightenment, you MUST hang out with one. If you were a pirate and wanted to find a treasure, wouldn't you go see Blackbeard who has a map?
The only way to wisdom is one's own path, no matter how rocky. No fucking body is going to lead you to wisdom, like a cow with a nose ring. It is not a free ride. You can't simply put a token in a slot and think you are there. There is no peace train.
That's all bullshit. If you are an artist, you could get a whole new outlook hanging out with a Picasso. If you are a musician, you will get whole new ideas hanging out with Miles. In fact - the guru is very much like the sort of artist Picasso and Miles Davis are.

The usual standard dumb ass can't make any sense of Picasso and Miles. They don't see any art at all. They say, "Listen to that fucking retard." or "Look at that piece of shit painting." But Picasso could paint like Rembrandt if he wanted to. Miles could play any Beethoven etc. He could read music like little boy wonder Mozart. They are way beyond that shit. So, they play with the forms, kill the forms, fuck the forms....and take the art where it has never been before. Only a serious artist can even recognize it.

To hear a guru rift on sex, cars, history, politics, people, scripture....anything.....is to have your mind blown by a perspective you've never heard. The ignorant say, "Listen to that stupid illogical motherfucker." But the truly wise wonder about the thread that holds all this together. They sense that something is behind it.

The enlightened view I would not call wisdom. Wisdom is simply knowledge based on experience. All sorts of wisdom you can snag if you pay your dues. Enlightenment is a peculiar leap in insight - a quantum leap. It is beneficial to be around a person who has this insight because he is always pointing to it. Everyone else is just painting by numbers. So, you should follow their motherfucking ass and see if you can dig their shit.
You have to think on your own. You have to put yourself on the line. You have to transcend self and you have to know truth as an abstraction.
Yea, you're right about that. What? You think a guru hands you something? Peace? Peace my ass. No, that's only in Hollywood. Most gurus don't think you have a chance in hell anyway so you might as well be happy as best you can. How many people win the lottery? Not many, but what are your chances if you don't even bother to get a ticket with your popcorn?

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:35 am

Marsha wrote:
You have to think on your own. You have to put yourself on the line. You have to transcend self and you have to know truth as an abstraction.
What do you mean by “think on your own”? Are you advising budding thinkers to never read or listen to anyone else’s thoughts incase some of those thoughts enter into their minds and influence their thinking?

You advise others to “put yourself on the line”. You do not signify what line they should be putting themselves onto. It can’t be a line toward Truth, because you have made it very clear on this forum that you consider Truth a fallacy. So, what other direction would you have them go?

“You have to transcend the self.” Remembering that you have no interest in a philosophy that is dedicated to encouraging people to become enlightened, why then do you advise people to transcend the self?

“Know truth as an abstraction”: Again, knowing that you dismiss Truth as being just a fabrication, are you here advising people to create their own truths, ones that neatly fit their needs and desires?

Sue

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:59 pm

I think they should read the basics. Leaping from one guru to another guru does nothing.

I think that they should learn to live on their own without living with their parents whom they despise. I agree with young people who say that they do not want to be like their parents. Then, get out from under the care of those parents. When I say put it on the line, put your beliefs and your convicitions on the line. If life can be better without electicity, then, prove it. Test it.

If I ever said that truth is fallacy, I was being ironic.

When I say, think for yourself, I mean, THINK. Thinking is a taxing and grisly task. It comes with a price and it takes a toll.

You are not going to get there going downstairs to the kitchen eating Mom's fried chicken at three in the morning in that middle class kitchen and hiking it back to your bedroom to get on the computer.

I do not think one can forsake the world with no experience of the world.

If one's parents are corrupt, then, why would someone interested in wisdom choose to live with his parents?

Obviously, the world at large is corrupt and has been for many thousands of years. But I do not see that as excuse for hiding under the wing.

In answer to someone else who wrote, I have always said that having children was a mistake. Having kids is perpetuating the great lie. I have taught each of my kids to remember this. I love both of my kids. Love is beside the point.

Love is nothing. Wisdom is everything.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:05 pm

Unwise,

I do not believe there is a map to enlightenment. I think enlightenment is a path you cut on your own. You can visit the thought of one person or another person; some writing and some other writing. But no one is going to show you the way but yourself.

No Maharishi is going to cut down the bamboo or traverse the alligators.

You have to do it.

Faizi

suergaz

Post by suergaz » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:51 pm

I have always said that having children was a mistake. Having kids is perpetuating the great lie. I have taught each of my kids to remember this. I love both of my kids. Love is beside the point.
Love is nothing. Wisdom is everything.
What great lie?! Life? Is your mistake everyones?
What you told them to remember is a lie!
How is love nothing Marsha?

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:03 pm

Love is meaningless. That is what I want to impart to each of my children and I think I have succeeded. Because he remembers the hardships I had in raising him and his sister, my son does not want to have kids. He fears that he will get an "Omen" type kid. We watched something about Helen Keller and the young Helen made him think of his sister. But Rock did not have the excuse of being deaf and blind. She was just psycho. She is eighteen now and much improved but, as a kid, it was kind of like "The Exorcist."

Love does not put food on the table. Love does not buy a house. Love does not give you an automobile.

Romantic love is delusional; blind. Children do not prove love or provide love. Children are burdensome. A lifetime of nourishing; relinquishing of one's life for the lives of others.

I hate to see either of my children relinquishing their lives. I prefer to see each of them on an individual path, if not a philosophical one.

So far, neither of them have been smitten with romantic, delusional love. Of course, I know that the sexual impulse is strong and I expect them to have boyfriends and girlfriends. But I do think I have educated them about the fallacies and pratfalls of romantic love.

Having children perpetuates the great lie of social conformity and the notion of romance.

I started my daughter on birth control when she was sixteen. If I could give my son birth control, I would. If I am ever a grandmother, I would love my grandchildren. But I am not willing to raise another child.

I think the best deterrent to having kids is remembering school. Neither of my kids have had good experiences in school. Rock recently got a GED. My son hates school. I also hated it and so did their father.

School was pretty bad when I was a kid but it was far worse for my kids. I would not go through elementary school with a kid for anything. I have no stomach at all for such cruelty.

Faizi

unwise
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 3:00 pm

Post by unwise » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:15 pm

Can you imagine your life without your kids? Would you wave a wand and wipe them out of existence - make it so they were never born? Would your life be richer if they had never been born? Would you be more wise or less wise?

Fuck the philosophy section. I am not qualified for the philosphy section so I will talk here in the worldly section.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:25 pm

I should never have had kids. If I had it to do over again, I would not.

I do like each of my kids as people. I enjoy them more in their teenage state than I did when they were children. We can converse.

Would I erase them? No, of course not. I had them. They live.

Yet, had I been more knowledgable in my mid-thirties, I would not have had children. I raised them on my own. I would not wish single parenthood on anyone. Pure hell.

Without kids, I would be more educated with a better job. My life would be completely my own. I would have money in the bank and I would be able to afford to travel. I could afford to have a very comfortable life, even with my current level of skill.

Faizi

unwise
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 3:00 pm

Post by unwise » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:22 pm

Well, I didn't want kids either. I had a vasectomy when I was 34. But, my girlfriend had a three-year-old. I didn't want to be a dad. I could have left, but liked them both. Later, I moved in with a tall redhead artist. She was just what I wanted, but I preferred being a family guy to smoking pot and fucking all the time - and being bored.

My son has been an opportunity to love. Love is a great emotion. You can say you love the nigger in the street, but in reality you only love your family. But love is important.

My son has needed my support. He's half blind, and he's had other problems. I don't mind these problems; I have been happy to help. He thinks I am god. This is a great opportunity to worship god and the creation in the form of a son.

Without him I would have more money and the undivided attention of his mother. I would rather serve.

suergaz

Post by suergaz » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:04 pm

Marsha:
Love is meaningless. That is what I want to impart to each of my children and I think I have succeeded. Because he remembers the hardships I had in raising him and his sister, my son does not want to have kids. He fears that he will get an "Omen" type kid. We watched something about Helen Keller and the young Helen made him think of his sister. But Rock did not have the excuse of being deaf and blind. She was just psycho. She is eighteen now and much improved but, as a kid, it was kind of like "The Exorcist."
Was the thing about Helen Keller 'the miracleworker'?
Love does not put food on the table. Love does not buy a house. Love does not give you an automobile.
Yes it does.
Romantic love is delusional; blind. Children do not prove love or provide love. Children are burdensome. A lifetime of nourishing; relinquishing of one's life for the lives of others.
Love.
I hate to see either of my children relinquishing their lives. I prefer to see each of them on an individual path, if not a philosophical one.
What you prefer for them is love too.
So far, neither of them have been smitten with romantic, delusional love. Of course, I know that the sexual impulse is strong and I expect them to have boyfriends and girlfriends. But I do think I have educated them about the fallacies and pratfalls of romantic love.
Wherever one is overwhelmed by love, it is romantic. Love inevitably overwhelms us no matter how we are prepared for it.
Having children perpetuates the great lie of social conformity and the notion of romance.
Social conformity is no lie, and the notion of romance is only a notion of it.

I think the best deterrent to having kids is remembering school. Neither of my kids have had good experiences in school. Rock recently got a GED. My son hates school. I also hated it and so did their father.School was pretty bad when I was a kid but it was far worse for my kids. I would not go through elementary school with a kid for anything. I have no stomach at all for such cruelty.

Faizi
There's not enough teachers for all the schools it is true. This will not deter people from loving or having children. Only war and massive mortality seem to do that.

unwise
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 3:00 pm

Post by unwise » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:34 pm

Faz,

As a mother you would feel joy and relief to see someone come into the life of one of your children. Someone who loves your child, who will be there for support and caring. The worse curse of all is loneliness, and surely you do not want this for your children.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:57 pm

Suer wrote:
There's not enough teachers for all the schools it is true. This will not deter people from loving or having children. Only war and massive mortality seem to do that.
When I read your writing here, I hear it in a high pitched voice.

The problem is not lack of teachers. The problem is conformity. Schools force kids to conform. Mediocrity judges mediocrity. If you are not mediocre, you will be made to fail.

Having put two kids through school, I would not do it again. Pure hell. When I see a five year old boarding a school bus, I nearly want to cry.

I have been a nurse in this county for about eleven years. That means I see kids from the time they are newborns or three year olds or six year olds through high school.

You see these three year olds who are so full of life and curiosity. Then, you see them in sixth grade when they have been molded. They are mama's boys or rebels or preps or cheerleader types. You remember them when they were three years old -- everything before them; could do anything.

You see what school does to kids. It is not education. It is relegation. Adult hatefulness.

My daughter -- a rebel with the tatoo of a panther on her left shoulder -- is friends with a mama's boy academic type -- pure as the undriven snow. I was surprised by that. He is going to an ivy league college so I figured he would look down his snoot on her. But they are friends. I am more surprised that she likes him than he likes her.

Kind of nice to know that, sometimes, the genetic clearing house is not successful. Opposites can be friends.

My guess is this boy is looking to rebel. For the first time, he will be away from his mother. When he was in elementary school, his mom worked in the office. Same thing through middle school and high school. Mom was always right there.

She can't follow him to college. For the first time in his life, he will be without his mama.

I wish him well, partly because he is a friend of my daughter, despite cultural differences. He must have a mind of his own to be a friend of Roxanna and Roxanna clearly has her own mind to claim him as a friend.

Such opposites who have known each other from kindergarten. She is working construction and he is ivy league.

Faizi

suergaz

Post by suergaz » Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:33 pm

The problem is not lack of teachers. The problem is conformity. Schools force kids to conform. Mediocrity judges mediocrity. If you are not mediocre, you will be made to fail.
Conformity is not a problem. The lack of teachers where teachers are expected is part of the problem. The root of the problem is educators not meeting the rare ones who deserve them through the overall institutionalization of education. Most teachers are nothing more than daycare workers, hence the mass molding, the accidental and incidental education.

Post Reply