According to Patanjali -
YS 1.27: The sound which expresses (Ishvara) is the pranava (OM). (tasya
vacaka pranava).
YS 1.28: Meditative repetition of it realizes its referent. (tajjapas
tad-artha pranava).
According to my friend L., the Samkhya-Yoga scholar -
"The unfolding sound/silence structure of OM parallels the structure of the
mind and the universe itself."
"Though OM has been associated with the divine in all Hindu religious sects,
it is obiously more than just a convenient tag for a personal Lord. Names for
divinity in Hinduism are innumerable; OM is unique.
"Om is speech par excellence. By linking the mind with the nonlinguistic
realities beyond it, OM, as speech, acts as a bridge, a means of passing over
from the word to the referent. In the case of a referent that is spiritual -
that is entirely immaterial - OM also functions paradoxically to disjoin what
in speech is erroneously linked - the material intellect and consciousness
itself. Here language does not function constuctively to shape and mold
experience; it functions to deconstruct itself, to remove itself from
consciousness. The ultimate purpose of ritual murmuring of the OM sound is
conscious silence. This involves knowledge of a range of progressively more
attenuated levels of speech and mental fuctioning as a whole."
These are only partial quotes taken from one of his essays published in book
form. Perhaps this will help answer your question.
empty
tertonzeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---What's the Name of Ishvara?
In [email protected], "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> New morn,
>
> Thanks for your reply and encouragement.
>
> There seems to be much support among later advaita teachers (ie.
> after Shankara) for the idea of the sheer freedom of the fully
> liberated being from any constrainsts whatsoever. They call this
> state "videha mukti" or bodiless liberation. However there are also
> historically major advaita teachers who followed the "Yogavasishta"
> and another text called "Jivanmukti-viveka" in asserting that
freedom
> means not only transcendence of individuality but also freedom of
> sheer universality. According to them, a liberated being can live
> anywhere in the universe at will. From this POV karmic results
simply
> cease or dissolve away when there is no individual doer to create,
> experience or receive them. Like the actions of Krishna, Shiva or
> Deva Mata, such a universalized being plays at will throughout the
> multiverses yet is never the doer - all is done by Ishvara, the
> cosmic ruler.
>
> Having said this, I think we would be hard pressed to figure this
one
> out on our own. Better yet - maybe we should be among those
> who "have" to ponder whether to retire or keep playing lila games
> with the other surfers of divine grace.
>
> empty
>
>
> --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "emptybill" <emptybill@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Empty, I have been catching up on your posts. I like them.
> >
> > This topic is intersting. Some cosideration:
> >
> > 1) Yogananda wrote of his teacher returning to earth plane, from
his
> > new role as teacher on causal planes helping other to gain
> liberation
> > from casual rebirth.
> >
> > 2) liberation from the cycle of birth and death, and not going
> > anywhere -- that is, being omnipresent -- could be on level of
(near
> > around) akasha -- and still subject to rebirth in astral and
casual
> > planes (which is another part of yoganandas story)
> >
> > 3) Some traditions -- including now TM, hold there are a number of
> > states beyond BC (= Brahma-vid in your cosmo9logy?). This would
> imply
> > a brahma vid could go on to some omni-present subtle body
somewhere
> > and continue to "work it out".
> >
> > 4) Indra and other gods are said to be titles, and various
entities
> > attain that title for some time, then relinquish it. And I know
the
> > dogma that even the gods are not fully realized, yada yada. But if
> > Saraswati is a title, and some entity is currently holding that
> title,
> > its seems odd that that entity would be less evolved than Brama-
> vids,
> > and a whole order of swamis, who are devoted to and worship the
> Goddess.
> >
> > 5) While liberation from earthly, astral and casual bodies /
planes
> is
> > a function of getting beyond the BINDING influence of ones vast
> > karma,it does not eliminate that karma. A brahma-vid still has
tons
> of
> > karma, its just that that karma does not necessitate rebirth on
> > corresponding planes. But where does that karma go. It doesn't
> > dissappear. There is no loss or creation of energy in the cosmos -
-
> > all is just transformed from one thing to another.
> >
> > And I can't deliver the "punchline" to this argument -- because it
> > doesn't add up -- that is, I am not sure what appropriate
conclusion
> > follows. Other than the compelling point that it doesn't all add
up.
> > That karma goes some where, effects something. Could there still
be
> an
> > "entity" -- as omni-present and unstructured as can be --
> associated
> > with, but not bound by that karma? Like a jivan mukti letting the
> > "last push of the cart" unfold?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Have you ever read Adi-Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya? He
concurs
> > > that a brahma-vid doesn't go anywhere at death. This also means
> that
> > > he/she does not stay anywhere. A brahma-vid is like space
whether
> > > inside or outside of a pot. Space as such is the same, only the
> > > features of the pot give us a reason to distinguish space as
> inside
> > > or outside. to are not findable after death. Not going, not
> staying
> > > what is the alternative? It is not returning either. When
> questions
> > > about this, I heard MMY definitively deny what he called
> > > the "bodhisattva idea". He said that the wave merging into the
> ocean
> > > and the wave emerging from of the ocean could not be defined as
> the
> > > same wave. This is very old point in MMY's knowledge base,
older
> than
> > > the guru devotion story you are now repeating.
> > >
> > > And by the way, Maharishi's comment, could actually be a good
> example
> > > of a Buddhist explanation of the karmic continuity of
personhood
> > > across multiple lifetimes.
> > >
> > > Adi-Shankara did state that Ishvara could grant adhikara
> > > (authorization) to select jivas to return to manifestation even
> after
> > > cosmic pralaya with the caveat that it was Ishvara who
> recollected
> > > them (their sanskaras) thus recalling them into being just as
> they
> > > were at the end of the previous mahakalpa. His point was that
> these
> > > previous adhikara-jivas (like the four kumaras) were those very
> deva-
> > > rishis who awakened at the dawn of the creation's new radiance
> (navya-
> > > prabhasa). His point was not that Ishvara might really like
jiva-
> joe
> > > and thus keep joe's guru around hanging with the pretas while
joe
> > > huddles with the masses.
> > >
> > > Guru Dev appears to have been a brahma-vid. Maharishi appears
to
> be a
> > > brahma-vid. Why would we want to sentimentalize a teacher's
> devotion
> > > in this manner, except to lord it over ordinary meditators or
> newbie
> > > teachers? It's just like using slogans such as "First deserve,
> then
> > > desire".
> > >
> > > empty again
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware
protection.
