--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 10, 2010, at 9:32 PM, tartbrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: > > >> > > >> TM volk will be a bit baffled by the disparity betweem M.'s typology of > > >> seven states and the two 7-stage typologies found in Yogavasishta. > > >> Likewise for the one found in Jivanmuktiveveka and the further one found > > >> in Madhusuudana Saraswati, the last great Advaitin. His Gita commetary, > > >> Gudaartika Dipika, discusses this typology of states, stages, stations. > > > > > > > > > OK Lucy. I will fall for the bait a second time. What are these seven > > > states and the two 7-stage typologies found in Yogavasishta and likewise > > > for the one found in Jivanmuktiveveka and what are the disparities with > > > M's 7 > > > > > > I think the point is that lineally speaking, that is, in the tradition M. > > claims to come from, their realizers describe the awakening process > > differently than M. does. > > Yes.. > > > That is, the Maharishi's system of awakening is one he made up and has no > > lineal or scriptural basis for it. > > > > > That's not to say there aren't some similarities, there are. > > > > But once you realize that's what's going on, there's really no need to > > compare. One's lineal and has been the replicated model of awakening for > > many centuries, the other is new and made up, but very cleverly and > > convincingly done. > > > And the lineal states that EB referenced are (as in an description)? >
* Some parts seem actually quite good. But I see no contradiction yet with MMY's framework (given that M spoke in analogies and simplifications. The culmination ofknowledge is when the identification with the Self totally replaces theidentification with the body (See Upadesa Sahasri, 4.5). *Thats it? Who still identifies with the body! On the attainment of this culmination, the knot of the heart is cut off, alldoubts are destroyed and all latent impressions are annihilated (Mund.Up. 2.2.8). The highest state attainable through karma is that ofHiranyagarbha. Even this pales into insignificance compared to theSupreme Brahman. The 'knot of the heart' means the wrong identity ofthe Self with the intellect, caused by beginningless ignorance; it isso called because it is as tight as a knot. * Yes -- the intellect is just a responsive entity trained by myriad of experience and training. It just does according to what it is. No real volition. But this is not earthshaking news. The doubts referred toare-- Is the Self a mere witness or the doer of actions? If it is onlya witness, is it Brahman or not? If it is Brahman, can it be known bythe intellect or not? Does liberation consist merely in this knowledge? * Ah ha -- the plot thickens. The 'latent impressions' are those that lead to future births. * Sanchita karma. Thesethree, being the results of Avidya, disappear on the realization of the Self. (See also Gita, 18.17). Bondage is the experience of pleasure and pain resulting from man looking upon himself as the performer of actions and the enjoyer of the fruits there of. Because of this bondage one is not able to experience theBliss which is natural to him. The cessation of this bondage isJivanmukti or liberation in life. Now the question arises-- is thebondage the natural characteristic of the Witness (Self) or of themind?. Since bondage ceases on the dawn of knowledge, it cannot be acharacteristic of the Self, because what is natural can never beremoved, like the heat of fire or the fluidity of water. If it is thenatural characteristic of the mind, then also it can never be got ridof. It may be argued that though the natural characteristic of the mind cannot be completely removed, its effect can be neutralized by thepractice of yoga. To this the answer given by the objector is that Praarabdha karma will make the person experience pleasure and pain and will prevent knowledge from destroying the ignorance along with its effects in its entirety. *Yes. The Siddhanti's reply to this is that the human efforts prescribed by the scriptures can counteract even the effects of Praarabdha karma. If this is not so, all the sacred texts on liberation will become useless. One should not give up further effort just because of failure once. * This explains how - or presents a model of how it is possible that some who are liberated still do wild and crazy things. And contrasts yogis who maintain deep practice after liberation from those active in the world. Nobody gives up eating for fear of indigestion or cooking for fear of being pestered by beggars or covering oneself with a blanket in cold weather because of the fear that there may be lice in it. When good desires arise soon after thepractice of Rajayoga, it should be attributed to the practice of theyoga. One should continue with such practice in accordance with theinstruction of the teacher, scripture and other valid evidence(Pramaana) until complete mastery over the mind is attained and theidentity of Brahman and Atman is realized. After that, when theobstacles in the form of evil desires have vanished, even the gooddesires should be given up. It is thus clear that all desires(including those arising due to Praarabdha karma) can be got rid ofthrough Yoga and so the possibility of Jivanmukti cannot be disputed. * if practice and dilligence is pursued after liberation. If not, wild and crazy things may still arise. * So where is the huge difference in frameworks?
