Do.rflex, Please examine if your use of the word "Absolute" squares with Advaita.
"Absolute" is not Pure Being/amness/soul/mind/pure consciousness/intellect/heart. These other words are to label the "portal of the Absolute" the "place" where one waits for Grace to whisk one into the beyond-the-soul-ness, beyond identification with Hiranyagarba. TM is a technique of approaching Pure Being, and by sheer momentum, the transcending-attention is found blinding blasting through the "outer barrier of pleasure that surrounds amness -- that's a ritam-skin around the nucleus of soul-within -- that's an armor of bliss that stops most transcending in it's tracks." "Transcended" means all duality is brought to a point value of amness wherein the gunas are in perfect balance and not champing at the bit to "manifest something." OM is heard clearly then. A note that sings of UNITY, but not freedom. Practicing that ability (enter being, reside, wait until some seed of duality sprouts, exit being) cultures the nervous system, and the soul itself is eventually re-cognized as mere reflection, image, illusion, and suddenly it is understood to be a prison -- and escaping from "one's cell" is accomplished by "escaping into nothing." See Buddha/Vaj for details about the experiences of approaching ritam and dealing with that bliss-armor which attracts identification so well that Indra etc. all get glommed up with perfection's tarbaby. The only experience of the Absolute is being. Only being can be a proper symbol for the Absolute, but it's merely a reflection -- what the Absolute sees when looking into a mirror. As if, but that's the only way to work with words to convey this non-event, the non-everything, the Absolute. You can't take it with you. That "it" is identification. "I am" is the last thought (the sound OM is the thought: amness) before the practice of residing in thoughtlessness puts even that subtle identifying to an end. Pure being is pure identity, unsullied ego, but ego nonetheless, and it must be abandoned. It is not enough to merely withdraw from acts of being. To merely reside in being is but to abstain from placing identity on other symbols, but the possibility of identification must be ended too. Soul must evaporate like the river into the ocean too -- just as the mind had to do to enter the soul and rest therein. I write these words and know that I had to read suchlike hundreds of times before I finally got it that amness is not the ultimate. It was an extremely subtle concept that just kept going right over my head. Yet herein for the umpteenth time, it is clearly stated in words -- but it is hidden in plain sight. Read Ramana's "Talks" three times. Knowledge in the books stays in the books -- they say -- but if you just keep churning on the words, you'll be building something, sooner or later -- like a baseball field in the corn attracted that long line of cars on a country road -- the meaning will come. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 19, 2007, at 8:13 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:59 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Empty Bill: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To parrot Vaj: "Any real yogi familiar with Patanjali will be well > > > > > aware" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patanjali does not discuss the topic of "effort" in yoga other > > > than > > > > > to comment as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.46: a steady (sthira) and comfortable (sukha) seat (asana) comes > > > > > about from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.47: the loosening (shaitilya) of endeavour (prayatna) and a > > > > > consequent coinciding (samapatti) with the endless (ananta). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor does he ever use the word "alambana" in the sense of a > > > > > "cognitive object" in any of the sutras. > > > > > > > > This displays a basic misunderstanding of sutra literature in > > > general > > > > and the prerequisites for yoga-darshana study, a la Patanjali. Keep > > > > in mind Billy, a sutra requires a commentary to clarify it's > > > purpose, > > > > intent and practical application. This would typically mean the > > > 20 or > > > > so commentaries of the YS. But before these are even approached, one > > > > must understand sankhya. In fact one of the titles for the YS is > > > > Sankhya-pravachana, "The Enunciation of Sankhya". > > > > > > > > The prerequisite for understanding of the YS is a thorough > > > > comprehension sankhya via the Tattva-samasa-sutras. > > > > > > > > Once one has this understanding, one will also understand that an > > > > alambana will be based on any of the 24 evolutes of matter, the > > > > prakritis and the vikritis and that an alambana approaches > > > "union" or > > > > "yoga" via some method. No matter how easy and simple any of these > > > > methods are, they do constitute some type of effort. > > > > > > > > If one "skipped" the Tattva-samasa-sutras, one may miss this > > > > essential understanding. > > > > > > > > This really has little to do with Buddhist practice, but one can > > > find > > > > a similar dichotomy between causal vehicles of Buddhism which > > > rely on > > > > dualistic methods, all using some form of effort and nondual, truly > > > > effortless practice. In Hindu systems, truly effortless practice > > > > would be found in the Hindu nondual schools, like advaita vedanta or > > > > other nondual schools. For a more direct comparison, one could > > > > compare the nine-fold division of the Nyingmapa with the ninefold > > > > division in the Bengali tantras, as they are roughly parallel. > > > > > > All meaningless crap without a direct experience of the Absolute. > > > > > > Actually it would still possess meaning with or without a direct > > experience of "the absolute". What's important to get is just because > > someone tells you something represents the absolute does not mean it > > is the "absolute". > > > I'm not talking about what somebody says *about* the Absolute, I'm > talking about the *experience* of the Absolute. Like I said, Vaj, > without a direct experience of the Absolute, all of your pseudo > scholarly comparative mumbo-jumbo verbiage is meaningless apart from > satisfying curiosity but with nothing practical to show for it. > > If you can't come up with anything more than your pontifications > you're wasting everybody's time. But specifically offering something > practicable instead of just ignorantly bashing TM isn't your purpose, > is it? Your purpose is just to bash TM, a technique that works, > without offering anything else better; an empty arrogant exercise in > personal hostility. > > > > But the latter is common is diluted and/or > > distorted traditions, like the TMO. > > > Your attempt to characterize the TMO has nothing to do with the > reality of the actual direct *experience* of the Absolute by countless > numbers of TMers via TM. And you haven't a clue what that really is > since you've never *experienced* the actual properly instructed > practice of TM yourself. >
