Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: skumar@smdvx1.intel.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Seven Stages of Life - Da Avabhasa
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.232308.15124@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 24 Jun 91 23:23:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: nas.1991Jun24.232308.15124
References: <1991Jun21.063840.2827@nas.nasa.gov> <1991Jun21.220008.29472@nas.nasa.gov> <1991Jun22.112746.10193@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Microprocessor Component Group, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 57
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

In article <1991Jun22.112746.10193@nas.nasa.gov> cak0l@larch.cs.Virginia.EDU (cak0l) writes:
>In article <1991Jun21.220008.29472@nas.nasa.gov> skumar@smdvx1.intel.com (Sitanshu Kumar) writes (one '>' section at end):
>>>
>>>Have you tried? I suggest that you are not more capable of forgetting about
>>>money, food and sex than forgetting about anything else. It is one thing to
>>>affirm "the Self is the only Reality", you can turn it in your mind till the
>>>end of time and it will never become true Realization. The spiritual process
>>>is something else totally. It is an ordeal that will break your heart, your
>>>mind and your ego. It is not something that an ego can do by itself.
>>
>>Mr. Da is so completely dualistic to be totally blind. All spiritual
>>processes are part of the ego, and can only lead to continuation of such.
>>especially if it is an ordeal. You can break your heart, but that which
>>is broken will be reconstructed. Insight is differnt, but Mr. Da does
>>not seem to have any inkling about it.(at least not in these postings)
>>
>>S. Kumar
>
>hmmm... let us all take our insight where we find it, yes?
>all discourse is based in the nature of dualities, because words
>represent objects whose existence is not separate from the knower
>perceiving them, from the non-dual point of view.
>therefore, all talk is necessarily imprecise.
>one cannot necessarily judge the 'level of insight' of another from
>his words, and almost certainly has the capability to misunderstand
>another's words if one does not possess at least the insight of the
>speaker.

Are you saying that I misunderstood Mr. John?? is that the case?, I am
just saying that he is plainly deluded, just a glib talker. If you
want to discuss this post anything by Mr. John and I'll analyse it.
This s no great deed. Mr. John lacks humility completely, so is
the case with bookish scholars. All the wise ones have said I can not
give it to you, and this guy is blowing his trumpet that he is the
greatest and also can make any body like him , what a charlatan??
insight is insight, it does not belong to anybody. If it does it is 
not insight.



>personally, i welcome the information that da free john has presented
>in these articles (that yee has posted), and find them not only to be
>insightful but to have the characteristics of allowing me to step outside
>of my mundane mental states for a while.  surely one who can do this
>to me is insightful.

That'a all right, one can learn from a tape recorder also. One does not
need to prostate before it.  


s. Kumar


>Christopher Koeritz (cak0l@Virginia.EDU)
>--------------  hmmm....  ----------  hmmm....  ---------------
>   To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others.
>                                      -- Shakyamuni Buddha