--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > There's method in jyotish for determining your ishta devata. > You cannot make yourself your own devata.
To do so would be a form of spiritual masturbation, and thus is frowned upon. Don't diddle your devata. :-) > Also, MMY said that the Buddha is a reincarnation of Vishnu > or Krishna. As such, the Buddha is not a mere human being > with unusual powers. Someday, John, you should really consider doing a little reading about spiritual history, so that you don't come off as such an ignoramus sometimes. What you cite Maharishi as "saying" is straight Hindu propaganda. It had its origins in the years follow- ing Buddha's life, when the Vedic/Hindu priests suddenly realized that the Buddha's message appealed to people far more than theirs did, and it cost them nothing (as opposed to being nickeled and dimed to death to pay for yagyas and the like). Faced with the prospect of large numbers of their sucker base...uh, I mean followers...converting to Buddhism, they had to do something. So they did what all "gotta hold onto our followers" religions did and attempted to *co-opt* the Buddha. They declared him an avatar of Vishnu, to make it seem as if he had been part of the Hindu/Vedic tradition all along. Nothing could be further from the truth. During his lifetime the Buddha stated often that he was *not* an avatar, of anything or any deity. Part of what made his teaching so popular is that he presented himself as *not* special, and in fact just like the people he was teaching. Any of them could achieve enlightenment, just as he had. The Buddha's *whole message* was the opposite of what Maharishi claimed. Buddha was as much a Hindu or a part of the Vedic tradition as Jesus was a Jew and part of that trad- ition. Both *broke away* from their traditions and rejected them, offering something vastly different. In this case as in so many others, settling for "what Maharishi said" is really "settling." MMJY, like you, clearly settled for what he had been told. The thought of opening a book about the Buddha, his life, and his actual teachings never occurred to him. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: > > > > > > Can we take our own future enlightenment as our ishta-devataa > > (meditation deity) in this lifetime? > > > > > > > > One of the definitions of final enlightenment (samyak.sam.bodhi) is > > omniscience (sarva-jñana) and supremacy over all states of existence. > > > > > > > > Patanjali Yoga Sutra 3.49 says: > > > > Only one discerning (khaati) the difference (anyataa) between purusha > > and sattva gains supremacy (adhi.staat.rtva) over all states (bhaava) > > and all-knowingness (sarvajñaat.rtva). > > > > > > > > The Buddha is said to be omniscient, but only in the limited sense that > > although he can see whatever he chooses, he does not perceive everything > > simultaneously, but must turn his mind to whatever it is he wants to > > perceive. Thus in the Theravada tradition, the Buddha denies that anyone > > can see everything in a single act of cognition (ekachaitanyam). > > However, one of the signal events of a Buddha's enlightenment is > > direct perception of his own past lives. This means he is not bound by > > the conventional ideas of separation between the past, the present and > > future. > > > > > > > > Thus the obvious question: > > > > > > > > In the future, in your fully enlightened state, are you looking at > > yourself right at this very "moment"? > > > > > > > > Considering this ultimate universal-supremacy and omniscience, can you > > take yourself as your own ishta-devatta, as that one who transforms you > > into Tad-Ekam or "That One"? Not some airy-fairy "higher > > self" but in the immediacy and directness of this present awareness? > > .. > > >
