Had to look (praj·na·pa·ra·dha) up, yeah been there done that :-) I guess you could say it is acting contrary to natural law which brings suffering as MMY has stated. But man in the making had no other choice, how else was he going to learn less he experienced good and evil, right and wrong? It's all part of God's drama, "...get away from my maya (world of delusion)", as Krishna admonishes Arjuna in the Gita.
I wouldn't fall into the trap that you think you can understand a paradox, that's why it's called a paradox. You'll just have to wait and see what the final chapter of life is and THEN you'll know for yourself. praj·na·pa·ra·dha/ (pruj″nah-pah-rah-thah´) [Sanskrit] in ayurveda http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ayurveda, deliberate, willful indulgence in unhealthy practices that leads to unbalanced body functions and disease. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: wgm, could we also say that man thought he could be separate from God and that was the first pragyaparadh? Isn't that the same one we are tricked by over and over? OTOH, if wholeness is at every point, is it even possible for a samskara or vasana to be separate from wholeness?! On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:43 PM, wgm4u <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: That's right, it's a paradox, merely the play of nature or lila shakti as you well know. MMY called it a 'seeming' or Mithya. Only those truly enlightened know the mystery. The very first decision by man in the garden of Eden set the wheel of karma in motion, man was warned NOT to eat of the forbidden fruit in the 'center' (sex organs) of the Garden (body), yet, being the pioneering spirit he was, he preferred to know Good from Evil and become like a 'God', as Lucifer suggested. The was his first Samskara, if you will and he's been trapped ever since in a matrix of his own making. So MMY comes and says, "Mistrigunya bhav Arjuna, be without the three gunas (forces), "Yogastah kuru karmani " established in Being (Yoga or truth) perform action (be free of the binding effects of karma). ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: wgm4u, when you say proclivities of the ego, could this be referring to samskaras and or vasanas? And if yes, then that seems to blow free will out of the water. Thanks for distinction bt para prakriti and apara prakriti which I've not heard before. Would you say they are both in the bap? Or is para prakriti in the Absolute? But it can't be if it's prakriti! Is it a paradox? On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:08 PM, wgm4u <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: IMHO, the ego is a product of nature, however nature is both pure (para-prakiti) and impure (apara-prakriti). When the Bible speaks of a fallen angel they are talking about the purely material nature, or Satan. Depending on the proclivities of the ego it is either Satanic or Angelic. (And, yes MMYs small s). Regarding Satan-Satan is; "The power that works for Good, though scheming ill", from Faust. Earth and Satan's power is the obstacle ground that creates character in men and woman, without the challenge of temptation man would not grow, (nor would an athlete unless he had challenges to his athletic ability). Earth is the proving ground, if you will.... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: What do you all think: is Satan the same thing as the ego? What is meant by ego? Is it what Maharishi meant by small s self? If I remember correctly, the only difference on the MMPI between schizo and genius, is good ego strength which the genius has. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:55 AM, wgm4u <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Wow, powerful documentary. Just goes to show, Satan (temptation) is everywhere, even Jesus himself was tempted by Satan, but never succumbed, "Get thee behind me Satan", he said. Here's the Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH6dc449jec http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH6dc449jec ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: Correction. Now that I'm paying more attention to the French, I should say that most of the people "speaking" in the documentary in sign language are students who were formerly abused by the priests, not necessarily monks who had taken a vow of silence. The students were deaf, you see, and the priests thought that speaking only in sign language they'd never be able to convince anyone what had happened to them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" wrote: > > Watching this documentary tonight, in French although the original was > in English. Very powerful, and very disturbing. It's about sexual abuse > within the Catholic Church, told beautifully and heart-breakingly. The > film won three Primetime Emmy awards, and won top honors at the British > Film Institute Awards and the Irish Film and Television Awards. > > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2111478/reference > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2111478/reference > > > Worse than the sexual abuse is the conspiracy of silence that strove to > hide it. Much of the film is "narrated" by monks who have taken a vow of > silence. Their superiors thought that they were "safe," and that their > vows would keep them silent. They forgot sign language. >
