jeffty@sco.COM (Jeffery Tye) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun27.013722.1106@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes: >In article: 193 of soc.religion.eastern, Mr. Tye writes: > >>>Obviously, he has *landed* in the role of Guru and all the traps >>>that come with it. > >Etc., etc... Come, come Mr. Tye! Yes, there is an organization of those Did I push your buttons, John? ;-) >interested in supporting the teaching of Master Nome. What of it? How >else do you expect people to find out about it? To go hijack an auditorium >somewhere then advertise "It's all free!"? Please do enter the real >world, Sir! What club, society, or organization with regular events, What *real* world John? Your language reveals the dualism of your thinking. Your attitude shows you are no more enlightened, after years with your Guru, than the next guy on the street. ;-) >facilities, etc., have you ever belonged to that paid your way for >you? This is not hypocrisy; it is basic economics. If you choose to >ignore this and live in a fantasy world where "it's all free," by all means >do so. By the way, next time you get your payroll check (minus twenty >to thirty percent in taxes) think again about how free everything is! I never said that anything was free. My point is that your organization, with the blessing of your Guru, requires people to pay a fixed fee. It's your organization's right to do so. But to me it shows spiritual immaturity to have to *screen* people before Satsang and require them to pay a fixed amount per month. Why not let people give from their hearts and what they can *afford*? You place Nome, the Sage, or whatever his name (Jeff Smith?) up on the level of Buddha, Jesus, Ramana Maharshi, etc. None of those individuals had organizations around them that screened people or required fixed donations. Remember the "Widows Mite" story? >The philosophical society, SAT, does indeed exist to make the teaching >of non-duality, presented by Master Nome, available to interested seekers. Not all interested seekers. If the person cannot or refuses to pay the required amount they are not able to attend Satsang. Your organization cloaks this in an excuse, "We do not feel you are ready for the teaching." In other words, if you have the money you are worthy of the teaching. >It is a non-profit group, consisting of a small staff of full-time office >employees. The organization owns and manages the office headquarters and >facilities where Satsang is held. It's all very upfront. Not so upfront to seekers on this network. You gush on and on about how wonderful your master is but neglect to tell the details. It's all about money. Pure and simple. >Membership fees simply cover operating fees and staff salaries. It's simple >mathematics: overhead divided by number of members = membership cost. To me, an enlightened master on the order of the Buddha, Jesus, Ramana Maharshi, etc. does not require membership or any other trappings. Your master approves of the policies or your membership organization. Fine. My issue is in your *elevating* such a person to the level of Buddha or Jesus. >Incidentally, no funds are used to support Master Nome or compensate >him in any way for his services. His teaching is done voluntarily and >and he receives no financial renumeration from SAT in any form. So there >you have it. Rather banal, isn't it? By the way, if you have a better, more >efficient or economical plan for running a non-profit group, speak up. A >lot of struggling churches and non-profit groups could use a hand. Here's my suggestion, which BTW your organization rudely dismissed, for running your organization. Let the members pay what they are able to afford. My wife and I will gladly pay $200 each per month, which we can easily afford, if your organization will allow other interested seekers to pay what they can. And stop the screening process. Let people decide for themselves if the teaching is for them or not. Get it? >As far as your other comments, they are of a necessity (considering your >brief acquaintance with SAT) somewhat uninformed. But you are certainly >entitled to your opinions. I was extremely disappointed by the rigid policies and lack of love for ALL humans. A friend I brought to attend Satsang was screened out as not ready for the teaching. He was a struggling black man who is just as ready as you or I for the teaching. I felt I would have to ask all my friends for a financial statement in order to determine if they could attend Satsang. >>>It's a trap that the mind sets up. A person is exposed to a great >>>Truth, expands their consciousness/awareness, but *lands* in it >>>and becomes a follower of someone else. > >Again, you are entitled to your speculations and opinions. I have, in >previous postings, responded to the attitude of "paranoia" about having >a teacher or competent guide on the spiritual path. I would maintain >that you simply have not considered the matter very deeply. Any number >of enlightened sages throughout history have had a spiritual master. This Who was Jesus master? Who was Ramana Maharshi's? A mountain. Your own Sage claims his master is Ramana Maharshi. But Ramana was dead (1950) probably before your Sage was born. They never met in the flesh. So was it Ramana's spirit or soul that taught your master? My point is that the teaching will come to us through a variety of sources, a Sage, a mountain, an animal, etc. You are the Self and require no *human* teacher to realize that. The Guru is in many forms. >is historical fact, and need not be disputed. To do so would be laughable. History will prove that all great Sages pointed their students to themselves as the source of all answers. The Guru is nothing more than a mirror of who you really are, the Self. To *need* a Guru is an attachment of the mind. It is dualistic. Do you understand? I am not against teachers/Gurus/Sages. I appreciate their love and Truth. I am against the *need* for a Guru, the attachment that follows, and the attitude of, "My Guru is better than your Guru." >Sri Shankara, the preeminent Vedantic sage of antiquity, once said: >"By the word of my master, I have come to realize I am not an ego, >I am Brahman." Surely, Shankara, had no hang ups about having a good >master on the path. Gratitude? Yes! And Ramana Maharshi said, "It all depends on what you call a Guru. He need not be in human form. Dattatreya had twenty-four Gurus including the five elements - earth, water, etc. Every object in this world was his Guru." >I am not telling you what you should believe. If you are not interested >in a teacher, by all means do not seek one. Do not however assume that >your opinions are valid for everyone. John, take your own advice. I am interested in teachers who require me to do nothing, do not demand discipleship, lovingly recognize other living teachers, and have not LANDED in their role. Another issue I have with you and your organization is that the attitude that they have a monopoly on the teaching. You discredit any other non-dual teacher - John Klein, Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Andrew Cohen, Punja Ji, Ganga Ji, Robert Adams, etc. If I'm wrong, name one person outside of your organization who you feel is a living enlightened teacher of non-duality. You elevate master Nome to the state of the Buddha. Well, the Buddha or Jesus or Ramana or all the great Sages never claimed a monopoly on the teaching. >In your post you close with the following quote: > >>>``You have been so accustomed to objectification that you lost the >>>knowledge of yourself, simply because the Self cannot be objectified.'' >>>-- Ramana Maharshi > >If you are not beyond quoting, perhaps I may be allowed a quote also-- >it happens to be yours. In a previous post you said: "I am interested in >hearing from you, from your own heart, not from someone elses words." >Perhaps, Mr. Tye, we may ask the same of you? Oh yes, John, I have been speaking from my heart. I am not against quoting. My original point to Mr. Yee was that he said very little of his own words and posted volumes of his master's words. This is a discussion group, not a library. Jeffery -- ``The Satguru is within. The Self is the master.'' -- Ramana Maharshi