On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:25 PM, sandiego108 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:11 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Maybe he really wasn't a yogi. Is that a possibility here? > > > > > > Yes! > > > > Be interesting to hear a definition of "yogi" > > from both of you. > > "CC" type attainment as a minimum--the slightly dualistic > turiyatita--"beyond the forth" being what I'd refer to in a TM- style > context. > > But there are non-dual and other yogis as well, so it is good to > specify what "style" of yogi you mean when you make some sort of > declaration. It's not a monolithic thing. I'm always glad to specify > if people are sensitive enough to even ask. > > Most aren't. > and those that know the truth about this sort of thing aren't either. Go home pretender. This notion that you have of their being a never ending path of signs and symbols and sciences and levels of accomplishment is all designed to mollify the fear of complete dissolution, of your own death. Nothing more. All who talk in these terms seek to keep those listening in bondage, keep them seeking outward for what is each of our spontaneous and wholly owned birthright, that of eternal freedom. Some of the trappings of these rituals of Maya are beautiful, but that doesn't make them liberating. There are just two kinds of existence, 1) bound and segregated, and 2) free and integrated. To make a fundamentalist science as you do of all of these gradations and other things keeps the mind busy so that it can believe in something other than its own naturally available annihilation. Just more fear and idiocy dancing with Maya.
Uh, thanks, Jim. I'll make sure I tell all the sages I meet.
