--- >Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse! What he says is apparently true in regard to what may come "later" - after the primal sounds and so forth. OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, but the Buddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures. MMY seems to equate "Vedic" with "good" (if it's not Vedic, then it isn't worth a hill of beans). All Buddhist teachers would disagree with this. In addition, cognizing the Vedas only goes so far, since IMO all of mathematics could be regarded as "Vedic", but MMY doesn't know much about math. (evidently, mathematics is in MMY's "later" category); AS WELL AS (and this is important!): the ability to cognize the FUTURE. Otherwise, if MMY could predict the future, he would no doubt use this ability to become a commodities market wizard, making all of the billions he so ravishly desires. To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in Buddhism; or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like mathematics. How about the broadest definition possible: Cognizing anything true.
> --- In [email protected], "brahmachari108" > <brahmachari108@> wrote: > <snip> > > What Maharishi? Talking only about first verse of Rg Ved for 30 > > years makes a maharishi? > > The Details of Vedic Cognition > > Dr Hagelin: `The last question is a deep one about the details of > Vedic cognition. Last week, Maharishi spoke of the deep mechanics of > cognition of the wholeness of the Veda by the Rishis of ancient > India. Maharishi said every Rishi sees the Veda, the Constitution of > the Universe, in one syllable "A", which contains within it all the > details of the Veda. > > My question is: Do these details of the Veda include the individual > recommendations for diet, herbal remedies, sound therapies, and > purification procedures that are available in Ayurveda, or the > precise mathematical calculations for proper layout of a building > that are found in Sthapatya Veda? Did all these details of these > different branches of the Veda also originate in the original > cognitions of the ancient Vedic Rishisthe cognitions of "A"? Or were > they developed subsequently by commentators at a later time?' > > Maharishi: `No, when we say "later time", time emerges from there > [laughter]. Time emerges from there. > > `About "A": it is like when you see the moon. When you see the moon, > you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon. Then what happens is, when > you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon, seeing the moon, what is > inside the moon begins to come into visionwhat is inside. Then what > is inside that, comes out; what is inside that, comes out; what is > inside that, comes out. > > `That is the situation about cognition of "A". "A" is a total > syllable. "A" is said to be"A" isSarva Vak. "Sarva Vak" means total > speech. "A" is total speech. When you see it, you get so absorbed in > it. > > `In the seeing process, the process of seeing takes the seer to the > sight. Now you want to see, you see "A". You are here, "A" is > somewhere in front. You see. So the seer jumps out of his own eyes; > from the eyes, he reaches the sight, and then brings the sight to the > eyes. This is the process of seeingthe sight comes out and occupies > the seer. The sight becomes the seer. > > `When the sight becomes the seer, then the sight, which is "A", is no > more in the vision. What is in the vision is "A", which has become > the seer, and what was inside "A" remains a sight. Then, in turn, the > same thing happens: something that was there inside "A" jumps out > of "A", jumps out from within "A", and again occupies the seer. > > `So all the time, the sight becomes the seer, and then the seer sees > something elsewhat was beneath it. This process of seeing, in > itself, is so unfolding that it unfolds whatever is inside, and keeps > on unfolding, keeps on unfolding, keeps on unfolding. > > `Immediately, in the second evolvement of "A", is a gap. There is a > gap, because the sight becomes the seer, and inside the sight, it > becomes the new sight. The new sight becomes the seer, the new sight. > > `Then the whole "A", seen like that, brings to sight complete > emptiness, which is the last reality of "A". "A", entering into it, > entering into it, entering into it, and then there is nothing to see: > it is emptiness"A". It is that emptiness, the total abstraction, > which is within a point. Within a point is that total abstraction, > unmanifest, transcendental reality. > > `When seeing "A", the process of seeing presents, ultimately, > something that is transcendental. That is emptiness, a big zero. What > is this big zero? It is emptiness of "A". It is no more "A"; it is > complete absence of "A", the totality of "A" in the unmanifest. > > `This is the cognition of the Veda"Ak". When the "A" ends, then > there is the gap there. And then, after the gap, comes out to > be "Ka". "Ka" is a Kan. "Kan" means the point. So from the wholeness > to nothingness. Nothingness is the gap. The gap after "A" is > nothingness. > > `From the total value of speech, "A" to the end of "A", this is > cognition of "A". "A" cognized means the Totality cognized. What was > there when the Totality was cognized? There was no Totality; there > was the basis of Totality, the shadow of Totality. The unmanifest > like the hollowness of the banyan seedis there. The hollowness is > there. > > `That hollowness is called the "Sandhi". Sandhi is the gap. In the > whole Vedic Literature, in the whole flow of the Veda, there is a > word and there is a gap; there is a word and a gap, and a word and a > gap, and a word and a gap. So when Rishi Madhuchhandas saw Veda, he > saw "A", and he saw unmanifest "A". Then he saw some other words, and > then he saw the unmanifest of that, and he saw some other words, and > he saw the unmanifest of that. > > `This whole run of the Veda is the run of Totality into emptiness > wholeness, emptiness, nothingness, gap. This first word and the gap, > word and the gaptwoare involved in presenting the definition of the > Veda. > > ` "Veda" means knowledge. Now what is the knowledge with reference to > seeing, with reference to vision? Veda is concrete Totality, abstract > Totality, concrete Totality, abstract Totalityword and the gap, and > a word and a gap, and a word and a gap. This gives Veda a definition. > The definition of Vedadefinition of knowledgeis "Mantra Brahmanayor > Veda Nama Dheyam". "Veda Nama Dheyam"Veda came out to be the name. > From where did it come out to be the name? From Mantra and Brahmana. > Brahmana is the gap; Mantra is the wordword and the gap. Word and > the gap together make Veda. That means word and the gap; that means > something to see and something the basis of seeing, which is > unmanifest, unseen. > > `There is the unseen unmanifest and the seen manifestseen > manifest "A" and the basis of it, unseen "A". "A" unseen means the > unseen internal content of A". These are eight syllables. It was very > beautiful that Dr Hagelin hinted at the word "eight" there. This is > that "eight" value; eight values we can say like thatjust for the > sake of saying. We say that when "A" is seen, then "A" is seen in its > eight layers, each layer phasing into abstraction more and more, and > ultimately completely fading away. > > `The word and the gap"Mantra Brahmanayor Veda Nama Dheyam". "Veda" > means knowledge. Now remember this aspect of the version. What is > this aspect? Knowledge is not only in what one can see through the > eyes or hear through the ears or have from the five senses or put to > practice by the five organs. Knowledge is not only in the field of > that which can be opposed to the five senses, but another sense of > knowledge is in the unmanifest, in the abstraction. > > `There is knowledge of the concrete, which is open to the seeing > process, and knowledge of the abstract, unmanifest, which is beyond > the sight: this is knowledge. Knowledge is not that which is open to > sight; it is knowledge, but along with that which is not open to > sight. That means knowledge of the manifest, and with reference to > that manifest, there is the unmanifest. > > `Knowledge of the manifest and knowledge of the unmanifest are the > two pieces of knowledge which together are called knowledgeare > called Veda. The name Veda comes from the two aspects of knowledge, > one open to sensory perception and the other not open to sensory > perception, but open to the mind, intellect, ego, and open to self- > referral consciousness in the end. This is cognition. This is > cognition of the Veda. > > `This is right in the first syllable "A". And if we want to go more > into it, there is still a chance to go more into it. This emptiness, > this abstraction, is not beyond "A". Now we will go one more step > into it. This emptiness is not beyond "A"; it is within "A". When you > write "A", in the middle there is hollowness, there is emptiness, > there is hollowness, there is big zero, there is abstraction. So the > abstraction is not out of "A"; it is within "A". > > `That is why knowledge of that which is within "A" and knowledge of > that which forms the periphery of "A", both together, are called > knowledge. Veda is not just the words you say like thatno. The word > is the Veda, of coursethis is how you write, like that, like that > but inside, there is that hollowness. > > `The outside is concrete with boundaries, and when you write "A", you > arrest the emptiness. You arrest the emptiness by the boundaries. > From the boundaries you know the Totality, and from the unmanifest > inside you know another aspect of Totality of "A". Both together > constitute knowledge. > > `This is the conclusion. The conclusion is that if you want Veda, if > you want knowledge, then that has to be both on the surface and > within the surface. You have to find that which is beyond the > surface, which is unmanifest, and that which is bound in the boundary > of space and time. Both together constitute Veda. > > `The cognition of "A" is the cognition of total Veda. It is > emptiness; it is emptiness arrested, brought into boundary. It is > shut up. So here is absolute abstraction and that which makes > abstraction be seen from its boundariesto be seen. The abstraction > itself is unseen, but the boundaries of it are seen. That is why "A" > is really and really the total _expression of knowledge, in both > ways. It brings the knowledge of the absolute and it brings the > emptiness of the absoluteboth together. Both together are given a > name, Veda"Mantra Brahmanayor Veda Nama Dheyam." > > `It is a beautiful vision. It is a marvel of the Vedic language. No > matter what you say, you are saying both values, manifest and > unmanifest. We adore all those great seers of the past who gave us > the cognition of the Veda, because they gave us Total Knowledge. In > their _expression is contained the hollowness, the abstraction, and > in the same, the cognition of the abstraction itself is pronounced > because of the boundaries that come alongthe boundary of the > unmanifest. > > `Manifest and unmanifest, both, are the field of knowledge. The > knowledge of the unmanifest makes the mind so very full of energy and > intelligence that any wave of thatany desire, feeling, thought, > anythingactualizes itself. On its own level it actualizes itself, > because the knowledge is there of the abstraction and the knowledge > is there of the concrete value of the abstraction within thatin the > same stroke. > > `This is Vedic vision. We are talking of the beginning. "A" is the > beginning word. From there, the whole Veda begins; it flows out. When > the whole Veda flows out, the flowing part of the Veda is called Sama > Veda. The transformation of Rk into Sama, just the transformation > mechanics, are contained in Yajur Veda. The impulse that flows and > transforms, which is contained in the Rk Veda, is called Atharva Veda. > > `In "A" is that everything of Rk, Sama, Yajur, Atharva, and all the > details of Rk, Sama, Yajur, Atharva, and the whole Vedic Literature > is right there. That is why cognition of the Veda is the cognition of > Total Knowledge. Total Knowledge means cognition of the concrete and > abstractboth of them togetherGyana Shakti, Kriya Shakti, both > together. It is an enormous field of reality. And this is the > knowledge. > > `The field of knowledge has to contain not only the knowledge of the > manifest but also the knowledge of the unmanifest, because the > knowledge of the unmanifest makes our conscious mind to be a field of > all possibilities. That is spontaneously making use of the total > Constitution of the Universe, total Light of God. > > `It is beautiful. This is cognition; this is Vedic cognition. This is > the comprehension of Total Knowledge. It is so beautiful.' > 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/
