[Advaita-l] Re: Love molecule
skbhattacharjya at yahoo.co.in
Sun Dec 4 23:29:07 CST 2005
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya,
So you agree that without being disciple of a traditional guru (ie. of a guru from a traditional guru lineage) one can become like what Ramana Maharshi and Nityananda Swami had become. Then what prevents a modern guru from becoming like any of them? I find it difficult to accept your sweeping statement that the non-traditional gurus are no good. It would have been more convincing if you would have given a few examples of the modern gurus, whom you consider to be fake.
What do you mean by " I would not be faulted"?. Can you elaborate.
Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68 at gmail.com> wrote: Sri Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:
> Do you mean to say that all the modern gurus are fake?
Not really. Some of them may indeed be excellent social workers or
good psychotherapists -- if only they gave up the facade of teaching
spirituality and concentrated on their core competencies.
> Secondly Ramana Maharsi and Nityananda Swami, the guru of Swami Muktananda, did not have any guru, They were all not from very long past. Do you want to call them fake also?
I am confused why you put Ramana and Nityananda in the same category.
Ramana was not a new ager by any standard. His understanding of
tradition and shAstra were flawless and his credentials were
acknowledged by no less than kAnchI mahAswAmigal. Note that peer
review is an important part within tradition.
Since I do not know much about Nityananda Swami, I would desist from
hazarding a guess. Though judging from the teachings of his disciple
Swami Muktananda, I would not be faulted, if I did.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Enjoy this Diwali with Y! India Click here
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list