Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 May I ask how many people here are into the " Satsang " culture that has sprung up in the last few years? It's not really that hard to do " enlightenment " by the way, but one has to question the motive in my opinion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Dear Helen, The Sanskrit word is 'satsanga', which is made up of 'sat' - meaning true, or real or good, and 'sanga' which means a bringing together, a coming together, a meeting, or simply 'company'. So satsanga literally means 'good company', or perhaps a coming together for truth or reality. Its traditional use is to describe a gathering where people come together to try to find truth or reality. Not much different from 's meetings, then. As people in the west have come to understand it, it does mostly seem to involve a teacher answering questions, but it could equally well just be a silent meeting for meditation. Or it could be a group of people sharing insights. The essential point is that the aim is truth, or spiritual understanding, and people come together in integrity. (Rather than, say, to achieve anything, or decide anything, or prove anything, or dominate anyone, or get ones point across, or any of the other reasons for attending a meeting.) The word 'sitting' is often brought in, because the idea is that one 'sits' for meditation, or one 'sits' at the feet of a teacher. Generally, people understand 'satsang' to be something you attend in order to discover 'who I really am'. Various teachers have expounded on this, including Ramana Maharshi, and many, perhaps most, teachers will acknowledge their debt to the person who in turn taught them. Thus, I imagine, Sherman does not claim that the teaching he passes on is his - he got it from his teacher. As far as I can gather, most satsang gatherings are also about 'non-duality' - the understanding that there is in essence only one self (or Self), manifesting in all the different bodies. As a satsanga-attender (!) for over 40 years (which answers your question, , but I pre-date the 'satsang culture' by a good many years), I can unequivocally say that not only does 's Work not conflict in any way; it is essentially the same thing - discovering, after all the layers have been sloughed off, who is really here. Hope this helps. Love Katharine PS Hello everyone. As you can see, I'm back, and will write the promised answer to Margaret's question about what I learned from KT when she came to London as soon as I can find the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Katharine 's teacher is Gangaji, and therefore Papaji and Ramana Maharshi steve Re: re: satsang [deleted] Thus, I imagine, Sherman does not claim that the teaching he passes on is his - he got it from his teacher. [deleted] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 I wouldn't assume there is a link back to Ramana Maharshi. Before he passed, Bhagavan didn't recognize or authorize anyone to carry on his teaching work. He stated that he would always be the guru and would always be " here. " Mark > Katharine > 's teacher is Gangaji, and therefore Papaji and Ramana Maharshi > steve > > Re: re: satsang > > [deleted] > > Thus, I imagine, Sherman does not claim that the teaching he passes on > is his - he got it from his teacher. > > [deleted] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Mark, I often have a hard time hearing Papaji's lineage placed with Ramana Maharshi...I don't want to step on toes too heavily but he was a tad different than the teachers who claim him as the source of what they are doing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Um, at least that's my story B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 : I agree. Mark > Mark, > I often have a hard time hearing Papaji's lineage placed with Ramana > Maharshi...I don't want to step on toes too heavily but he was a tad > different than the teachers who claim him as the source of what they are > doing... > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Wait a minute, ! All this time I'm thinking enlightenment is one of those things that people like and Eckhart exemplify (and the rest of us struggle daily to get there) and now you say it's not really that hard??? Do you offer classes and stuff? On a more serious note: please explain what satsang has to do with enlightenment and define each of those terms. Words words...I'm soooo confused! And for the sake of this confused person, please explain what motive would be in question on either of these things. Go easy with the complex ideas. I emptied my head yesterday and there isn't much left to work with here today. ;-) either that or I'm into #3 of the buddhist moods. Laurie O. -- Re: re: satsang May I ask how many people here are into the " Satsang " culture that has sprung up in the last few years? It's not really that hard to do enlightenment " by the way, but one has to question the motive in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Laurie, I love your humor...In my opinion " enlightened teacher " is a role, not a state of being...also enlightenment is a choice that we are all free to make, so someone playing the role as someone that can " do it to you " , when it's really a matter of choice, is circumspevt to me..and so for the above reasons, I say motive matters.. ps.. i'm using " enlightenment " to mean relative non-attachment to a story...not something in any ultimate sense... pps. I think " enlightenment " is a matter of degree to which there is no identification with thinking...we all fit somewhere on the spectrum of that degree according to our own choice, conscious or not...I have experienced several times in my life where I realized I could go very deeply into " it " or deeply into the " role " of non-attachment to thinking but I found that the motive to be seen a certain way was right up there with the motive to " serve " people... the " real " enlightenment is not different than ordinary life except that it's more conscious, experienced more wakefully, so I ask why play the " role " , enlightened teacher? I'd rather listen to Martha than several of the teachers I've heard in the past (and I'm not saying those teachers lacked clarity)... ppps...It might be valid to put me in the same category as an ex-smoker who judges smokers overly much.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 In my opinion we wake up when and to the degree to which we want to...---'s book " Losing the Moon " talks about freedom being the result of being willing to give up the moon (the habit of telling a story about what is)...Most of us don't give that up merely because we don't want to..no more, no less... In my experience it is a choice..not necessarily an easy one to make...but a choice nonetheless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.