--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Comment below: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > **SNIP** > > > > > > > > > > > By what "definition"? This presumes self to begin with. In > > > other > > > > > > words, someone experiencing a sense of self has uttered > these > > > words. > > > > > > Contrast this with comments from Suzanne Segal such as: The > > > > > mothering > > > > > > function is happening. It is happening better than if there > > > were a > > > > > > mother. But there is no mother. She was referring to > herself in > > > > > > relation to her child. From an outsider's > perspective, "she" > > > was > > > > > > obviously present, but she experienced no sense of a self. > > > > > > > > > > **END** > > > > > > > > > > "The ego(self) is as real as the 'it' in 'It's raining.'" > > > > > -- paraphrase from something posted last year on FFL > > > > > No it at all. Just raining. > > > > > > > > Objectifying principle? Projection? The meaning of 'pragya- > parad' - > > > > creating an object where there is no such thing - the mistake > of the > > > > intellect. > > > > > > > > > > The mistakeof the intellect is in seeing a distinction where > there > > > isn't one. Objects have every bit as much reality as > consciousness. > > > > Yes. It (the it in it's raining) depends on ones point of view. We > > were using the other perspective. I am that, thou art that, all this > > is that, that alone is. Progression in point of view. If caught in > the > > objective the other perspective may be more useful. What was the > yoga > > sutra quoted the other day about negative thought?
I think it's II 33: vitarka-baadhane pratipakSa-bhaavanam Taimni's translation: When the mind is disturbed by improper thoughts constant pondering over the opposites (is the remedy). FWIW, the next suutra seems to define "vitarka": vitarkaa hiMsaadayaH [...] iti pratipakSa-bhaavanam In Sanskrit, a bahuvriihi compound with the word 'aadi' (= beginning; nominative plural: 'aadayaH') as the last component is used to express the notion 'et cetera'. Thus, 'himsaadayaH' (hiMsaa + aadayaH) means 'violence, etc'. It seems to refer to the /yamas/, a_hiMsaa, satya, a_steya, brahmacarya and aparigraha, and actually the opposites of those: violence (hiMsaa), non-truthfulness, stealing (steya), etc. Entertain the > exact > > opposite. > > What is the opposite of a though To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
