gatito

Throttle
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,640

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by gatito

  1. Posted · Edited by Welcomer

    On 4/6/2020 at 10:46 AM, dwai said:

    FWIW, Sadhguru is legit. I know many high level practitioners attest to his abilities as a genuine dhyana siddha. And these are not some anonymous cowards on the internet either,  but rather are very highly reputed and respected individuals whom I know personally (and their own capabilities as well). 

     

     

    You little shit!

     

    PM me and I'll give you the opportunity meet me and to gob-off to me face-to-face you gutless twat!

     

    <Moderator note: This was written at a time when we didn't have active moderators.  Now that we do, this would bring a suspension>

     

  2. Posted

    6 minutes ago, gatito said:

    The only True guru is ब्रह्म, the Ultimate Truth ItSelf.

     

    As opposed to the jumped-up little sex-pest jivas who delude themselves and others into the belief they're "sharing presence" in internet chatrooms...

     

    Presence is obviously OmniPresent and doesn't require the intervention of any jumped-up jivas.

     

    That's just basic Hinduism 101...

     

  3. Posted

    1 minute ago, C T said:

    Even if he's 50% fake, that would mean he's authentic half the time. 

     

    No. That was not what I intended to convey.

     

    3 minutes ago, C T said:

    How does this influence the content of the video? 

     

    I haven't watched that specific video, nor do I intend so to do because the title itself is arrant, superstitious nonsense, as anyone with even a modicum of विवेक will see.

     

  4. Posted

    2 minutes ago, C T said:

    Is being a mainstream spiritual brand a criteria for determining a guru's authenticity? 

    I have my own ideas, but would like to hear what others think in this regard - what qualifies a guru as authentic? Or mainstream, for that matter. Is Mother Meera considered mainstream? Is she regarded as authentic? What about Amma? 

     

    These are sincere questions. 

     

     

    The sincere answer is that unless the "guru" helps you to access fully  the Truth yourself directly within 6-24 month, s/he's a fake.

     

    The only True guru is ब्रह्म, the Ultimate Truth ItSelf.

     

  7. Posted

    2 minutes ago, dwai said:

    No, sharing presence is not their invention. It is done by spiritual teachers across the globe, across traditions. It is very much a daoist tradition as well -- they just call it something different. Whether you like it or not is another matter, and it boils down to your personal preference. My teacher initiated me by sharing presence and it put me in a sahaja samadhi state for 18+ months continuously. It is called Shaktipat etc etc in other traditions.

     

    That aside, my note was intended for someone else, not those whom you are referring to. 

     

    You're demonstrating clearly to some of those observing your ignorant antics that you don't even begin grasp the fundamentals:

     

    चैतन्यमात्मा

     

  8. Posted

    7 minutes ago, C T said:

     

    Whats the degree of his fakeness, in your opinion? 

    And whats the criteria you're using to qualify your opinion? 

    Which guru have you personally certified as authentic? 

    This is important to know, for obvious reasons. 

    Lol

     

     

    Nice1! CT!  rotfl.gif

     

    9 minutes ago, C T said:

    Whats the degree of his fakeness, in your opinion? 

     

    On a scale of 0-10, about 5.

     

    10 minutes ago, C T said:

    And whats the criteria you're using to qualify your opinion? 

     

    विवेक

     

    10 minutes ago, C T said:

    Which guru have you personally certified as authentic? 

     

    ब्रह्म

     

    14 minutes ago, C T said:

    This is important to know, for obvious reasons. 

     

    Obviously...

     

    15 minutes ago, C T said:

    Lol

     

    rotfl.gif

     

     

  10. Posted

    12 hours ago, dwai said:

    😃

    For whom that this may apply — 

    Better way to share presence is using the MDT. The Lower  Dantien is good for things but not good for sharing presence.

     

     

    *** Note to Lurkers Begins ***

     

    This refers to members of this site's underground Chaturbation sexploitation cult that was cobbled together from a toxic mixture of misunderstood religious theories and practices.

     

    It stifled all criticism and most rational discussion until the previous administrator and moderators were removed by this sites owner.

     

    This cult is now located at theprimordialway.com      because their previous forum (at livingunbound.net) was closed down by its owners.

     

    It should also be noted that most of it's activity takes/took place via PMs and Slack Chat.

     

    Sharing presence is a reference to their invented practice of hanging out in various Chatrooms chatting their aforementioned bullshit.

     

    *** Note to Lurkers Ends ***

     

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    Just now, CloudHands said:

     

    Consider yourself lucky for that. Or maybe you are an "escaper".  Plus generally past the 30s people wise up or get softer.

     

    I'm extremely lucky in where I live and aikido (and iaido) taught me to be situationally aware.

     

    I also have a couple of quite large dogs, so when they're around, I don't even need to exercise much in the way of situational awareness.

     

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, old3bob said:

    Lord Siva as Lord Nataraja-Lord of the Dance.

     

    Indeed!

     

    1 hour ago, old3bob said:

    A most excellent teaching!

     

    The statue does say it all (although, the Vijñāna Bhairava Tantra certainly provide the keys).

     

    1 hour ago, old3bob said:

    & 5 major powers.

     

    Perhaps you were wise to say silent about the specific power of trampling upon ignorant dwarves.

     

    I will therefore follow your excellent example and remain mute on that particular aspect of Trika Shaivism myself, as it's obviously wide-open to potential misuse and misinterpretation.

     

    However, I do feel that it's important to stress that no ignorant dwarves were harmed in the casting of this statue.

     

  20. Posted

    Just now, mrpasserby said:
    There appears to be more then one def for tantra. 
    I was trying to be supportive of this thread.
    I have practical experience in Non touching tantra magic, as used to enhance a creative word spell.
    What is Tantra magic?
    In the words of Vaman Shivram Apte in his The Practical Sanskrit — English Dictionary, tantra is. “a religious treatise teaching magical and mystical formularies for the worship of the deities or the attainment of superhuman power.” We might agree that the above definition is what we mean by “black magic”.

     

    As I said:

     

    8 minutes ago, gatito said:

    You seem to misunderstand the term tantra.

     

    However, as I've now defined how I'm using the word (तन्त्र), there's no excuse for your ongoing ignorance.

     

    rotfl.gif

     

    • Haha 1

  22. Posted

    You seem to misunderstand the term tantra.

     

    Here's a précis:

     

    Quote

    Tantra (/ˈtʌntrə, ˈtæn-/; Sanskrit: तन्त्र, literally "loom, weave, system") denotes the esoteric traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism that co-developed most likely about the middle of the 1st millennium AD. The term tantra, in the Indian traditions, also means any systematic broadly applicable "text, theory, system, method, instrument, technique or practice".[1][2]

     

     

  24. Posted

    10 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

    I said “less serious about Buddhism.” You are saying they are not real Buddhists. I disagree. But if you really want to argue that put it in a different thread.

     

    The difference that's no difference.

     

    I actually did not assert that Tibetan "Buddhists" are/were "less serious" (about Buddhism...).

     

    In any case, I'll probably continue to "argue" whatever I want, wherever I choose (ATM...).

     

    However, do feel free to disagree.

     

    That's part of the joy of the current anarchy.

     

    rotfl.gif

     

  25. Posted

    9 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

    I don’t think that’s a defensible statement. Yes, some of the lamas get into some bad shit, the theocratic-feudal order was bad, and the whole tulku system seems problematic but I don’t think it could be fairly said that Tibetan Buddhists are less serious about Buddhism that the ones in China, Thailand, etc.

     

    Hello to the straw man. rotfl.gif

     

    I didn't assert that Tibetan "Buddhists" are/were "less serious".