Using the sword of Vedanta to chop into little bits
the grandiose claimants to the throne of the "divine."

http://guruphiliac.org

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On 24 Oct 2005 13:45:22 -0700, "jody  radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Using the sword of Vedanta to chop into little bits
>the grandiose claimants to the throne of the "divine."
>
>http://guruphiliac.org

were you wanting to point out Tilka in particular, or all the
gurus listed there?

Aren't you the the same jody that posted on here 4 years ago?

tracy

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 13:45:22 -0700, "jody  radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>
> were you wanting to point out Tilka in particular, or all the
> gurus listed there?
>
> Aren't you the the same jody that posted on here 4 years ago?
>
> tracy

I've been posting to alt.meditation, on and off since
1992.

I'm pointing out that any guru who claims to be more
divine, or to possess magic abilities, is making
fraudulent claims.  All are equally divine, or none
is divine.  And most so-called siddhis are nothing more
than the myths the drive the occlusion which prevents
most of the devotees of the big times gurus from
becoming enlightened themselves.

Regarding Tilak, he's already been busted once in
1993 in New York.  Now he's surfaced on the west coast
with his same satscam.  Folks should know and understand
his history before they give him their cash, don't you
think?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On 25 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0700, "jody  radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I've been posting to alt.meditation, on and off since
>1992.
>
>I'm pointing out that any guru who claims to be more
>divine, or to possess magic abilities, is making
>fraudulent claims.  All are equally divine, or none
>is divine.

That is, logically, a false dichotomy. It's trying to state two
opposing views without alllowing for any other possibility.

>And most so-called siddhis are nothing more
>than the myths the drive the occlusion which prevents
>most of the devotees of the big times gurus from
>becoming enlightened themselves.
>
>Regarding Tilak, he's already been busted once in
>1993 in New York.  Now he's surfaced on the west coast
>with his same satscam.  Folks should know and understand
>his history before they give him their cash, don't you
>think?

I tend to think that anybody who is thinking of getting into that
group, and actually does want to check them out before doing so,
now has the internet resources to do it.  Were you thinking there
might be some people like that here on this ng?

Mind you, I'm not in favor of cults, just wondering.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2005 13:45:22 -0700, "jody  radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>
> were you wanting to point out Tilka in particular, or all the
> gurus listed there?
>
> Aren't you the the same jody that posted on here 4 years ago?
>
> tracy

Some one else threatening me for who I am, not sure the Blade spoken of
Mine is Fraiegha, or Claighma Solaris, Sword of Light, the Blade of
Nemesis/Karma/Justice, actually the Blade of Seraphis, the Talking Idol
which must be rebuilt.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
> On 25 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0700, "jody  radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>
> That is, logically, a false dichotomy. It's trying to state two
> opposing views without alllowing for any other possibility.
> 
>
> I tend to think that anybody who is thinking of getting into that
> group, and actually does want to check them out before doing so,
> now has the internet resources to do it.  Were you thinking there
> might be some people like that here on this ng?
>
> Mind you, I'm not in favor of cults, just wondering.


No, there is me, the one person proving they in fact are the legend.
Not saying I am, but showing how in the stories I am, it is my name, and
it is talking about me.
666
Je Saece, House of Je Oshua, Numbers 13:16, Gen 25:2, Shua's are the Wee
Folk, Babes (Badb's) of the House of Abraham.
Tribe of Gog and Magog, the 2 Brothers Wrestling for the Universe,
Joined into one being.
The Great "S", the Line which defines and separates the circle from
itself.
The sorry Podmieohm (?), to the Oghmanie(?).
Orkhon teachings explain a lot there.
I found the Codex Gi Toro and the existence of 2 doors, one where the
Arianhod fell, the other Hyper borealis, marked by the Red Ring in the
Sky.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:33:33 -0800, Azure <tain@pharae.org> wrote:

>
>
>Some one else threatening me for who I am, not sure the Blade spoken of
>Mine is Fraiegha, or Claighma Solaris, Sword of Light, the Blade of
>Nemesis/Karma/Justice, actually the Blade of Seraphis, the Talking Idol
>which must be rebuilt.

I don;t know what the heck you are talking about.  Whatever.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:33:33 -0800, Azure <tain@pharae.org> wrote:
> 
>
> I don;t know what the heck you are talking about.  Whatever.


Long thread getting mixed cross groups quite wide thanks to the Sassers.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

tracym@askme.net wrote:

> On 25 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0700, "jody  radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>
> That is, logically, a false dichotomy. It's trying to state two
> opposing views without alllowing for any other possibility.

Such is the nature of Brahman.  All divinity is
derived from it, yet it is equally distributed in
the universe, you could say.  You could also say
that it's not in the phenomenal universe at all.

Either way, gurus don't have it, nor can they wield it,
any more than anyone else.  The direct and experiential
knowing of it, called "jnana", doesn't mean anything
except that you know it.  No magic powers are included
in the deal.  Those are packaged with the occluding
ideology about gurus that has as much to do with
their truth as my dog's XXX.
 
>
> I tend to think that anybody who is thinking of getting into that
> group, and actually does want to check them out before doing so,
> now has the internet resources to do it.  Were you thinking there
> might be some people like that here on this ng?

Looking into Tilak?  Probably not.  Unfortunately,
there isn't very much material on him on the 'net.
The "New Yorker" piece is not published online,
although there was that one except that I found.

> Mind you, I'm not in favor of cults, just wondering.

I posted about the blog to build traffic for it.
The Tilak piece just happened to be the lead item
at the time.  That will change, shortly.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On 26 Oct 2005 07:56:39 -0700, "jody  radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:

 
>
>Such is the nature of Brahman.  All divinity is
>derived from it, yet it is equally distributed in
>the universe, you could say.  You could also say
>that it's not in the phenomenal universe at all.
>
>Either way, gurus don't have it, nor can they wield it,
>any more than anyone else.  The direct and experiential
>knowing of it, called "jnana", doesn't mean anything
>except that you know it.  No magic powers are included
>in the deal.  Those are packaged with the occluding
>ideology about gurus that has as much to do with
>their truth as my dog's XXX.

Leaving aside whether or not siddhis exist, traditionally, siddhis
were considered a distraction, and students were not encouraged
to focus on them too much.  Are you equating, let's say, some
hypothetical guru's claim to have become enlightened, with
some hypothetical guru's claim to have siddhis?  I want to be clear
about it.   If that is what you are doing, it is a logical error.

Also, it looks to me like you are merely repeating the false
dichotomy.  Basically you are saying there is no such thing
as enlightenment, whether any gurus are involved or not, in which
case you are wasting your time even being here,  unless your
interest is merely to do some asanas to get in better shape.

btw, have you considered that your dog's XXX might have a lot
of truth in it?











> 
>
>Looking into Tilak?  Probably not.  Unfortunately,
>there isn't very much material on him on the 'net.
>The "New Yorker" piece is not published online,
>although there was that one except that I found.
> 
>
>I posted about the blog to build traffic for it.
>The Tilak piece just happened to be the lead item
>at the time.  That will change, shortly.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]