Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only one reality, then the moment anyone realized UC, that should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. Right? It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen Any Day Now. :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that level. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Oh? Did you find that when you popped into Unity and perceived everything as One that everyone around you did, too? :-) Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. And, more important, there are important distinctions between them if one is ever to transcend them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) Or as Unc says, Everything is real. Perceiving that the universe is illusory from one state of consciousness doesn't make it illusory. It's just perception. And I'd be willing to bet that if you walked up to a gang of rogue grannies and tried to tell them they don't exist, they'd whup yer ass. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. No not at all. All paths consist of a Base or experiential View, a Path and a Fruit or a result. If the Base or the Path are different, the Result will be different. If the Base or Path are the same, the Fruition will be the same. If we want to go to New York City, we can take a jet plane, or a train, or a bus, or a car, or a bicycle, or walk-- but in every case we come to New York City. So different paths can lead to the same goal. But here the Base is the same: the human being who decides to go to New York; only the means of transportation differ. If the Base is the same, the result will be the same. So although we do arrive at the same locale, it's not because their paths were different, the Base, the experiential View was the same. Some systems which try to be inclusive of other ways of seeing, take it to a fault by trying to include everything: all paths lead to the same place; same mountain, different paths. However in the attempt to foster non-sectarianism, the relative distinctions and uniqueness is fudged.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:44 AM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) Technically, I didn't say all is one. I said that there is one reality. How can you argue against the existence of reality? As I am using the word, it includes everything in the phenomenological world and everything outside of it, all that exists, everything that doesn't. And haven't you heard the story about the buddhist monk who reached enlightenment only to discover, to his surprise, that everyone else was enlightened too? Well if it's the same story, everyone was provisionally enlightened. :-) Big difference from the way you are presenting it. Neoadvaitin's often make a similar mistake in not getting the relative distinction. We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) And everything is real. The relative differences between paths are an abstract and academic matter. Not according to Hinduism and Buddhism: the relative distinctions are actual and they can lead to differing states of consciousness. The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. Such consciousness could just as easily hone in on a false doctrine or View. But really, it would depend how you define the English word real. From the POV of Tibetan Buddhism, it's not until the Path of Seeing is reached that you can see beyond your own obscurations (which you've carried with you through countless existences) to even know the true nature of things. It's only at that state of evolution that our mental continuum's cessation allows us to experience reality via nonceptutal cognition. It is this one-pointed intention which becomes formed in the deepest levels of consciousness that finally delivers us to the goal. Delivers us? No path is a recipe that automatically produces enlightenment or states of consciousness. Enlightenment reconciles all the relative differences, and reveals the path to be illusory because there was never anywhere to go anyway. Well, you're welcome to your POV, but at least from the POV of Tibetan Buddhism and it's view, path and result there are important distinctions that give rise to important differences in the goal. Similarly, in Hinduism someone practicing a yoga- or samkhya- darshana would tend towards a dualistic CC style of awakening, a Vedantin would tend more towards a unified result, etc. The way you're describing things is more a Mean Green Meme view of reality, it feels it has to include everything, and that's also it's downfall. Very common nowadays.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
That was my point precisely. There is NO distinction in the transcendent. No distinction means no distinction: No distinguisher and nothing to distinguish. So if that is the goal, how could it be different unless it contained some distinguishing characteristic--which, by definition, it does not and cannot. This is a philosophically precise definition, not just a definition to satisfy the casual reader. An older commentator, Suzuki, speaks of Buddhist emptiness. I imagine he uses the locution to distinguish the transcendent from the emptiness that Existentialists speak about. But if upon merging with transcendent emptiness, one were to find a sign saying Buddhist then it would not be empty. Now, to the extent that any path is distinct from the goal, paths may be as different from one another as can be, but if they lead to the transcendent, then they all have the same goal. If they do not lead to this same goal, then they are not paths as defined in (and by) the context of the present discussion. This, again, is a philosophically precise definition. Some paths may be shorter or more efficient than others, but that is another discussion. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? How could it? What is there to *perceive* reality? What is there to be perceived? Reality is an irrelevant term to the Transcendent. If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. You're missing the point. There is no one TO distinguish in transcendence. There is nothing TO distinguish. There is no perceiver, and there is no perception. The Transcendent, as defined by MMY, is devoid of characteristics or attributes. How then does it have anything whatsoever to do with the concept of reality? --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only one reality, then the moment anyone realized UC, that should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. Right? It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen Any Day Now. :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that level. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
This whole discussion is about semantics--and, as such, it can go on forever without shedding any light anywhere. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: So if that is the goal, how could it be different unless it contained some distinguishing characteristic--which, by definition, it does not and cannot. In Yoga there is no goal, and Yoga is not a step-wise path; Knowledge is Light, ignorance is nescience. Where there is Light, there is no nescience. As H.H. Swami Bramhananda said: The techniques are not there to throw light on the Brahman-Essence. They are there to dispel darkness. Brahman-Essence is Light itself; it needs no other light to illuminate it. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Where there is Light, there is no nescience From: Willytex Date: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 12:24 am http://tinyurl.com/23skll This story illustrates the concept of the mind as a perciever, a witness, something that cannot be itself subject to analysis. The mind cannot examine itself, and since the mind cannot become an object of its own perception, its existence can only be understood intuitively through the practice of inner enquiry. Don't just do something, sit there. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Don't just do something, sit there From: Willytex Date: Fri, Oct 7 2005 http://tinyurl.com/yv9th8 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. Such consciousness could just as easily hone in on a false doctrine or View. But really, it would depend how you define the English word real. From the POV of Tibetan Buddhism, it's not until the Path of Seeing is reached that you can see beyond your own obscurations (which you've carried with you through countless existences) to even know the true nature of things. It's only at that state of evolution that our mental continuum's cessation allows us to experience reality via nonceptutal cognition. Isn't this what I was also saying? We form the deepest intention to see beyond these obscurations and know the true nature of reality, to see directly, via nonceptual cognition. You've stated it very precisely and beautifully. If you feel like it, say more about the Path of Seeing. The Path of Seeing is when you actually stop accumulating karma and residual obscurations are gone to the point where thought projections are no longer in the way of perception. You become an Arya, a Noble One. Emptiness is no longer obscured by the holographic projections of mentation (and their causes). In fact one gains the wherewithals to remove defilements as one pleases.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: This whole discussion is about semantics--and, as such, it can go on forever without shedding any light anywhere. Angela, that's always been part of Richard's game. Due to flooding in the midwest, he was actually spotted recently in Argentina: WillyTex's S. American Adventure
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: This whole discussion is about semantics--and, as such, it can go on forever without shedding any light anywhere. Vaj wrote: Angela, that's always been part of Richard's game. Due to flooding in the midwest, he was actually spotted recently in Argentina: Texas is in a drought, Moron. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ewx/ Jesus--well then get back to that bridge! It's a wonder any-hew that Bush's aura hadn't already sucked the prana out of the whole region.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:55 AM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from the Hinduism Today website (6 schools of Saivism).:
Gorakshanatha, in Viveka Martanda, gives his view of
samadhi: Samadhi is the name of that state of phenomenal
consciousness, in which there is the perfect realization of the
absolute unity of the individual soul and the Universal Soul, and
in
which there is the perfect dissolution of all the mental
processes.
Just as a perfect union of salt and water is achieved through the
process of yoga, so when the mind or the phenomenal consciousness
is
absolutely unified or identified with the soul through the process
of
the deepest concentration, this is called the state of samadhi.
When
the individuality of the individual soul is absolutely merged in
the
self-luminous transcendent unity of the Absolute Spirit (Siva),
and
the phenomenal consciousness also is wholly dissolved in the
Eternal,
Infinite, Transcendent Consciousness, then perfect samarasattva
(the
essential unity of all existences) is realized, and this is called
samadhi. Having achieved samarasattva
For some reason, that word sounded to me so weird
(samara-sattva??) that I had to check it out. Seems like the
correct form would be 'samarasatva' (sama-rasa [same-feeling] + tva;
cf. sat+tva sattva):
samarasa mfn. having equal feelings (%{-tva} n.) , Ka1s3ikh.
Yes, that's right. We actually see this same word, used the same way
among the Naths and practitioners of Mahamudra.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Michael wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not imagining anything about you Michael, I just go by what you say. No I think thats hard to do. Words almost always trigger divers responses according to the associations we attach to them -consciously or unconsciously. You cannot be indifferent: I was specifically reacting to this sentence (Message #171715): 'Well, no I'm not a bliss-kitten bhakti and I don't aspire to any sort of contrived devotion a la the Hari Khrishnas (or bhaktis in general). But yes guru-yoga does play a very important part of my own life, but not in the way you seem to be imagining it.' As if devotion has to be contrived! As if you even have to aspire for it! Its nothing of that sort. And why Hare Krishna (and quickly add Bhaktas in general)? Mike, you were asking me about guru-yoga as if that meant I should be having some sort of devotion towards a guru-figure but I see no reason--and definitely no advantage--to dividing reality for love or devotions sake. And again you speak of Guru Yoga as important to you, but not the way I IMAGINE. So how would I have imagined it? We could go back and forth on this one all day. The best way to understand any practice is to check it out yourself and receive teachings from those who have experience in that area. However approaching a teaching with a bias towards proving it wrong usually isn't a great way to investigate something. Therefore, if sometime in the future such a practice rocks your boat, check it out, then see what you get. While at the same time make fun of anyone 'following' a preceptor - or rather portraying this as the main problem of religion - which in any case you keep on redefining as you go along. Like in the case of Mao - Mao as a religious leader is equated with theism, whereas he was clearly an atheist No. All I am saying about Mao--yes he was an atheist--he became a god to 100's of millions. His book of sayings, the little red book, became like a bible to many, many people: In October 1966, Mao's Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, which was known as the Little Red Book was published. Party members were encouraged to carry a copy with them and possession was almost mandatory as a criterion for membership. Over the years, Mao's image became displayed almost everywhere, present in homes, offices and shops. His quotations were typographically emphasised by putting them in boldface or red type in even the most obscure writings. Music from the period emphasized Mao's stature, as did children's rhymes. The phrase Long Live Chairman Mao for ten thousand years was commonly heard during the era, which was traditionally a phrase reserved for the reigning Emperor. After the Cultural Revolution, there are some people who still worship Mao in family altars or even temples for Mao.[35] And no, I am not trying to redefine things as I go along, I am merely attempting to clarify my points from some casual remarks I initially made which are being over-parsed to the point of bearing no resemblance whatsoever to my own POV. Actually Mao was not the type of person I was thinking of when I made my original casual comments, but it is interesting what can happen when someone becomes a god and is the head of a government. - while Buddhism is redefined as atheism (we can talk about if Buddhism is Atheism, but if you believe in an Absolute or Unity consciousness (Unity with what?) its not atheism to me. Sorry, but to me this is a big confusion about language. There are theistic Buddhists and there are some low forms of Buddhism which involve even worship of Buddha as a god type figure. They seem to me to be deviations. You seemed to non-sequitur on to different POV completely from what I was talking about. It's kinda hard to respond to someone who didn't seem to get the gist of what you were saying in the first place. I hardly think the type of Theists we have to worry about are various Hindu (or Christian, Jewish or Sufi, etc.) saints! Well you were talking about God men. I was thinking more of a different type of god worshipper, say like George W. Bush or those from the House of Saud or the European leaders who lead the Crusades. It's adherents at an entirely different developmental stage who seem to be the ones causing problems, both in the present and in the past. I could agree with that easily - but thats not what you said. Development - high and low - is a new aspect you are bringing in now. No Mike, I'm just clarifying where I'm coming from, that's all. I actually suspect, based on things you've shared in the past, that we actually have quite a bit in common. Most probably we do have a lot of things in common. Bhakti type approaches were just never my cup of tea, that's all. Neither were they mine. I'm not the big bhajan singer or pujari -
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Michael wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I actually suspect, based on things you've shared in the past, that we actually have quite a bit in common. Bhakti type approaches were just never my cup of tea, that's all. On a second thought: My reaction is simply the insight, that I donot actually want to change you or anyone here. If its not your cup of tea its not your cup of tea. If it was, we wouldn't need to discuss it, it would just be obvious. I OTOH have not need in proving anything about myself either - if you think I am stupidly attached to a dual view, while the nondual is highest, (btw Willy is right - Buddhism is most certainly not nondualistic )I am okay, its okay to be stupid ;-) I have my own insights, and I follow them, no need really to share. Thats why it is futile. What would be interesting would be to hear your own insight as to what the worship of god, gods and goddesses has done for humanity--and other life on this planet--throughout history. Has it decreased suffering or has it increased it? Has it helped decrease negative emotions for the majority of it's adherents? What has worship of god, gods or goddesses done for world peace? And what of science and god, gods and goddesses? Are god, gods or goddesses considered higher or more special than humans or other forms of sentient life? Should laws be put in place globally to prevent god or goddess-based human right abuses? If my parents god believes that the foreskin of my penis should be removed surgically while still a child, should they be allowed to do that or is that child abuse? Should temples throughout India, Nepal and other places be allowed to sacrifice animals and/or humans to gain the boon or favor from some god or goddess? Are there some forms of god that are naturally disruptive of human and other life? If yes, what does that mean? Should Indian sacrificial wars still be allowed to 'blow of steam' and re-establish balance with nature? Should texts which once promulgated human and or animal sacrifices still be considered valid or even useable? If yes, what are the implications for karma?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 30, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Michael wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Michael wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: I actually suspect, based on things you've shared in the past, that we actually have quite a bit in common. Bhakti type approaches were just never my cup of tea, that's all. On a second thought: My reaction is simply the insight, that I donot actually want to change you or anyone here. If its not your cup of tea its not your cup of tea. If it was, we wouldn't need to discuss it, it would just be obvious. I OTOH have not need in proving anything about myself either - if you think I am stupidly attached to a dual view, while the nondual is highest, (btw Willy is right - Buddhism is most certainly not nondualistic )I am okay, its okay to be stupid ;-) I have my own insights, and I follow them, no need really to share. Thats why it is futile. What would be interesting would be to hear your own insight as to what the worship of god, gods and goddesses has done for humanity--and other life on this planet--throughout history. Has it decreased suffering or has it increased it? Can't answer that one, no way to compare really. You could ask the same question about science. While I agree it has decreased suffering, it also has let the planet to the verge of extinction. Well I don't know that we can say science is responsible, instead human beings using science along with questionable morals and lack of any real sense of connectedness to others seems the root problem. And what of science and god, gods and goddesses? Are god, gods or goddesses considered higher or more special than humans or other forms of sentient life? Well God is usually considered to be the highest ideal of life. But I think, the way you phrase your questions clearly shows a big gap of undestanding. Would you rephrase your questions and substitute it instead of 'god, gods goddesses' with 'essence of consciousness' or with anoher phrase like 'all that there is' or with simply 'the Absolute'. How would this sound then? Childish? Only if you value an absolute and if that provided something of value for society. In many ways, an absolute would be an extreme. Esp. if it ignores the relative. So if it is placed in the position of the highest ideal of life and given that cherishing the absolute is an extreme, I can also see that this could cause some major problems for those whose development isn't inclined to spiritual practice--currently the majority of this planet's humans. In terms of spiritual practice regarding an absolute, I'd also be concerned that taking any extreme as a key part of spiritual practice could be problematic as one would hope the human physical and subtle nervous systems would prefer a balanced more middle way rather than some cosmic personality superimposed on our nervous systems. However having said that, I'd also think that some wisdom deities, like Saraswati for example, could be beneficial as part of a practice. The maha- aspect of numerous Hindu deities are balanced pairs, when practiced in a balanced way. That's tantra, balance thru opposites. Should temples throughout India, Nepal and other places be allowed to sacrifice animals and/or humans to gain the boon or favor from some god or goddess? I am strictly against animal sacrifices. I have friends in India who were actively fighting against it yes. I too question it. In this country it's mainly practiced by a religion known as Voudoun. One hears the most horrible rumors. They worship a pantheon of gods known as Loa, like with Hindu deities some are benign, some are fun and some are malignant or violent. Are there some forms of god that are naturally disruptive of human and other life? If yes, what does that mean? My opinion is, that it very much depends on the attitude of the worshiper. Sure there are different spirit beings, read the gita. I also have little interest in Vaishnavism--really most of the puritanical and sentimental eastern trips don't do that much for me which isn't to say there aren't some interesting things there. The Hare Krishnas in this country are fabulous vegetarian cooks. Should Indian sacrificial wars still be allowed to 'blow of steam' and re-establish balance with nature? Sacrificial wars? Never heard about it. No. of course not. Yeah, they went on until fairly recently, like 75 years ago and may still in secret. They're meant to be mock wars but I'm told many a time they get bloody and people are killed, often rendering participants covered in human blood. And of course it's considered highly auspicious to die at one of these battles. Sick. Should texts which once promulgated human and or animal sacrifices still be considered valid or even useable? If yes, what are the implications for karma? No, I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 30, 2008, at 2:07 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: Vaj, what distinction is there between the unenlightened on any path? Whether the ignorant adhere to belief in god or to belief in no god, the problems of injustice and atrocities are directly attributed to ignorance. The atheists and the god-believers are all equally capable of evil and will create or adopt structures of belief and images of god that reflect and condone their own ignorance and limitation. Yes, I agree since relatively speaking any vehicle for destruction can be a demonic influence on life. But then why have religious peoples who commit wars and atrocities at all? And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Michael wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's quite a nice state, since that type of equanimity sees no distinction or preference, the polarities that give rise to tensions just simply lost all their juice. (...) Exactly. Thats why, for the moment I discontinue our dialog about atheism and bhakti. I also feel its mainly a quarrel about words, which are like boxes you imagine the other to be in.. I'm not imagining anything about you Michael, I just go by what you say. You seemed to non-sequitur on to different POV completely from what I was talking about. It's kinda hard to respond to someone who didn't seem to get the gist of what you were saying in the first place. I hardly think the type of Theists we have to worry about are various Hindu (or Christian, Jewish or Sufi, etc.) saints! It's adherents at an entirely different developmental stage who seem to be the ones causing problems, both in the present and in the past. I actually suspect, based on things you've shared in the past, that we actually have quite a bit in common. Bhakti type approaches were just never my cup of tea, that's all.
