Ultra:

First of all, I believe that a lot of souls have incarnated into this World who could really make a diffference. The problem is that it is quite a tangled web down here.  There are so many people who are led off course by the many false sources that exist.  Because I have taken the time to find out what these sources are about, I feel compelled to share what I've found with others. For the people my doing so helps in some way, wonderful. For those who want to think poorly of me, I don't mind as long as I know I am motivated by love.

In the spirit of love, here are some links about Sri Chinmoy, other than the links you provided on another thread. I've visited one of his book stores a couple of times, and also one of his restaurants. I could tell that when I spoke to his followers who worked at these places, they had a cult like mentality. Yet they seemed to be well meaning people. If only they would've found a better role model.

A key method of meditation with Sri Chinmoy's group is staring at his photo. I hope people don't do so too much today, because who knows what kind of realm he abides in now after his recent death.  If you read the attached links, you'll see that he didn't live according to love and light.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/srichinmoy/srichinmoy38.html

The above article refers to Carlos Santana. Did you ever see that album he did with Jazz Fushion guitarist John Mclaughlin "Love, Devotion, and Surrender?" Mclaughlin left Chinmoy's group after Chimoy made a pass at his wife.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/srichinmoy/srichinmoy20.html

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/chinmoy.asp

These aren't the only articles that exist. There are a bunch if one wants to take the time to find them.

Kundalini was a part Chinmoy's teachings. One night I had this experience. First I saw a life size image of a heavy metal rocker dude. I could see kundalini flowing within him. He said: "I use my kundalini for evil." Next I saw a lifesize demonic image of myself. Next I saw the face of Jesus Christ. The message was clear, if one is going to go through the kundalini unfoldment process, one needs to make certain one does so with Christ consciousness/love in mind.

Besides Chinmoy, there are a lot of false kundalini gurus who didn't choose Christ consciousness and love, and therefore were gurus who didn't have control of their sex drive. Swami Muktananda was one of the most famous. He used to have attractive young girls located in his ashram near his room, so he could easilly have sex with them. Sai Baba was another famous one. He used to sexually molest the male children of his followers.  Does it really make sense that such gurus can help people, even if they can come up with some flowery words now and then?

P.S. to Ahso. Thank you for what you wrote.

Greetings,

Ultra said:
"According to your premise, someone coming to this forum and observing the same
negative phenomenon here should rightfully conclude that Bruce Moen and his books
are responsible for the ego expansion, divisiveness, and intolerant fundamentalism
we see occasionally on this forum.  Somehow I don't see that as being true. "

I agree, Ultra, by seeing the opposite:  It seems the more closely we refer to Bruce's work, the more immersed in PUL we become.  That is the important effect of Bruce's work to me, although he's definitely a pioneer in exploring consciousness as well.
Conversely, the more we try to prove or disprove other sources, the more contentious our comments become. People who have been unified by PUL in the past are aggravating each other by trying to determine what's 'right.'  Let me correct that: it seems from my POV that these efforts are aggravating, since I sure  feel aggravated by them and saddened.



Even those of us who've read Moen would have to reread him, and perhaps keep the books nearby for reference when we want to post.  It sounds limiting but it is very much like what this site was like about two years ago when it was also a site illuminated by PUL.

This current crap of trying to prove/disprove every spiritual idea under the sun is just silly ! 

Grumpy Bets

Perhaps one main argument begins with the assumption that an individual position regarding a teacher actually matters.

Does it matter?

Additionally, can one's position (point of view) ever be conveyed to another with absolute clarity?

Or is there another way?


love, blink

Some people believe they have found a way to distinguish truth from falsehood....it seems that it always has to do with letting go....always it is about letting go.....just letting go.

The more we let go, the stronger we become....or so it seems to me.

love, blink

Vajra:

Perhaps one takes a narrow view when one isn't willing to take a complete look at a source of information, but instead picks and chooses what enables one to cling to such a source.

Regarding there being nothing credible about the links I provided, these links don't stand in isolation. One can find others. I guess one could say that anybody who writes about their bad experiences with Chinmoy are just liars, but wouldn't that be negative? Why would there be something positive to say when people are speaking about a guru who intentionally misled and used people?   Perhaps people share their experiences with false gurus such as Chinmoy, with the hope that other people won't end up making the same mistakes.  It is also possible that they help people who are currently entrapped by a false source of information.  Unfortunately, some people don't recognize the good heartedness of their intentions, and instead assume they are nothing but a bunch of malcontent liars.  What a "negative" way to view the good intentions of others.

Regarding openess,  because there are so many false sources of information, one doesn't have the luxory of "not" being discriminitive, with the belief that this is what being a loving and hip person is all about. All one does when one takes on such an approach, is give those who want to mislead the power to do so. The fact of how so many false sources of information have been able to mislead so many people, shows that this is the case.

Regarding being light, I guess if we lived in a world where so many false sources of information didn't exist and so many people weren't misled by them we could be light, but the fact of the matter is that we live in a world where we need to be careful.

My findings on false sources of information aren't based on their inappropriate behavior alone. Once one finds one's self out of the limited way of thinking such sources expouse, it becomes much easier to recognize their short comings. When a person is caught up in such a way of thinking, it is hard to clearly see what such teachings are all about. This is how it is no matter what belief system a person is limited by.

Regarding discrediting an entire tradition, I usually speak of specific sources of information. An exception is Vedanta. I've found that this tradition has some shortcomings.

Quote:

betson wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 2:37pm:



  Hi Bets, some people seem to believe that disagreement, debate, or conflict of any kind is somehow inherently wrong or 'unspiritual'--particularly Venusian, Air, and Water (with the exception of Scorpio) types seem to take that standpoint.    I don't, and i realize that in such conditions, difficult or challenging ones, is where our souls tend to grow the most.    This is why so many of us come here for Earth lives, not because its super harmonious, everyone agrees, and there is not challenge.   We don't have to agree, but we should try to keep the more personal jabs and remarks out of it.   

  I see truth in many belief systems, and i see plenty of errors, distortions, etc. in plenty of belief systems.   Yet, i rarely speak out against a particular belief system, but i will address the ones i find to be particularly deceptive and negatively influential.    I realize that i cannot make anyone to believe or see what i believe or see.   But, that doesn't mean i won't try to outline my perceptions in the most holistically logical way that i can.   

  For those who respect Christ, does anyone here besides Albert, a couple others, and i actually look at the example that he lived?    Did he sit idly by while the false spiritual sources and 'teachers' of his day where misleading, ripping off, or deceiving others and themselves?   Did he say, "well i can't say anything to them or to those listening to them because gee golly whiz it's just not 'spiritual' to do so".   "What will people think of me?"   "Lord knows i should act how they want me to."   


  The answer to these questions above is an resounding NO, he did not sit idly by, he was occasionally a loud mouth who kept getting himself in social trouble with the accepted groups and ways of acting, spiritual beliefs, believing and living in his times.   I will follow him and his example only.  Not Bets, not Blink, not Ultra, not Vajra, not even Bruce Moen or Bob Monroe, and not anyone here who does not maintain full Source attunement like he did.   And i will speak out towards any and all sources who teach a different way than what he perfectly lived.  Particularly in regards to those sources like ACIM, Seth, and the like. 


  Too many of us are too concerned with with our projected and inner image of spirituality.  We carefully craft and design a concept, an image of what a spiritual person is suppose to act like, or be like, and then when others not so concerned with their projected images come along and act differently, we point fingers and call them "aholes" or the like.    Plenty of people called John the Baptist and Yeshua overly outspoken aholes in their day, do you realize that?      Did they give it a moments thought?  NO.   I get the very strong sense that some of us here are way too attached to this forum.

  What i will agree with Bet's, is that this topic is getting pretty old fast.  I outlined all that i could possibly outline and its time to let it go.   We always have the responsibility for the aggravated, grumpy feelings that we feel, not anyone else here.   I have not felt anything negative, except for a couple moments of brief frustration, while reading or writing on this thread.   Because i choose not too.

in silence are all of our answers. 

Love is in the silence
Love is who you are
Love is all there is that is real
Love is where we came from
Love is where we return

there is only this
there is no gain
there is no loss
there is only love
Love is your heritage
Love is your refuge

and we circle back around
until we come back to the place we started
then we remember who we are.
you are love
you are loved greatly
you will remember who you are
soon. very soon.

Much of this discussion overlooks one of psychiatrist Scott Peck's important insights into the psychodynamics of evil.  Evil is deceptive: evil expresses several truths to gain credibiilty for its lies.  This means that important insights about the Light can ber gained during one's subtle descent into the Darkness.  Also, evil infects the human recipient of channeled materials.  For example, Helen Schucman became a psychotic debunker of ACIM and all things spiritual after her 7-year odyssey as a channeler.  In her riveting book, "The Beautiful Side of Evil," Johanna Michaelsen recounts how thrilled she was to play a role in the channeled healings of a Mexican shaman--before she began to sense the evil origin of these healings!  The protest, "But it really helped me,"  is irrelevant to the potential danger lurking behind channeled materials.

Don