[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote, Hawkins
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or maybe, just maybe, THEIR EXPERIENCE IS DIFFERENT. Maybe, but which one: the THC experience, the LSD experience, the amrit, ras, betel, wine, or the hopping experience? Going back, how about a different way of saying the non- duality 'thing'..., (transcribed from a lecture) from Dr David Hawkins. I'd like to end up back where we were, before we got off into the mind and all its propositions...you have that mantra?...everybody likes that one...after you hear it enough times it goes on its own within whenever you wish it to be there...and its often very useful because it takes you back into an energy at 740, the feelingness of a great cathedral, the exquisite beauty of nature, the divinity of all creatures as created, its more like it takes you into the memory of that reality and that sort of pulls you of the crisis that you are currently upset about...one just experiences the availability and the reality of that field of energy...it isn't the content of the mantra, whatever its saying, its the energy behind it...the essence of devotion itself, sensitivity to exquisite beauty, and the divinity of all that exists...the willingness to surrender to the Love of Godin the end it will be 'And to thee oh Lord, I surrender my life, that which I am, completely surrendered to thee Oh Lord, Amen, and that is the last thing to be answered before you walk through the final door...the willingness to surrender your life itself, not that which you think is your life, its physicality, but the actual core of life itself...its like we intuit where that space is, there's no book that can tell us how to get there, all the discussions we have are to clear away the obstructions and then the Light begins to, like, rise in the background and we get the space where all that takes place...umm, and our willingness to go there is our willingness to go there is our commitment to each other as a devotional group, our willingness to go there for ourselves and each other, umm, out of our love for each other...which is not different than our love for God. So thank you for being here today and sharing this...and bless you all. Sept 2002 Dr Hawkins i like the way this cuts through the splitting the hair mind thing in these kinds of discussions. After a quote like this you can just go home and be. -Doug
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
Jim Flanegin writes snipped from longer piece: Right. The experience of Realization can be had by anyone, any time. But in order to sustain Realization, purification must occur. I think it was Muktananda who said instant enlightenment is just that; it lasts for an instant. TomT; Jean Kline woke up in 1955 passed in 1998. The awakening was instantanious, clarity takes place in space-time. Torquiseb writes: Thanks, Tom. It's fascinating how much more accurate your statement is than Jim's. Jim's implies *failure* or something *missing* in short-term experiences of realization. Your statement -- far more accurate -- refers only to how much clarity we bring to the experience. No bullshit about physiology, no guru saying, Yeah, sure you've had the experience of realization but you still have to stick around and pay me because it isn't 'stabilized' yet. The only thing that develops over time is clarity of experience, which develops on its own, no guru needed. Much better way of expressing it. TomT; It is not exactly that simple and needs to be looked at in the larger context. As Suzanne Segal said hundreds of time in her book Collision with the Infinite. We do the next obvious thing. How do we know it is the next obvious thing? Because it is what we find our selves doing. Which strongly points to the fact that we are not the doer in the subtle sense. We do what we do until we do it differently. Those who do the movement thing are those who's doership is orientated that way. Those who do many things like you and me, do have different doership paths. We find our clarity by doing the next obvious thing. To suggest that we are really aware of what that next obvious thing is before we do it is the mistake of the intellect. There is no right or wrong for anyone on the path., Whatever path you are on is the next obvious thing for you. Whatever path someone else is on is the next obvious thing for them. Rather than insist that we need to shift our paths for some other path we might find that all paths are the next obvious thing for someone and to honor that path as perfect for them. It may not be the same for you, me or anyone else, but it is for them. In honoring the next obvious thing for them is to honor our own convoluted path as perfect and was the next obvious thing for us. In honoring any path as perfect for someone, we are honoring the entire creation as the ultimate path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: snip Perhaps it is the self-sufficiency of TM that bothers you- no complex intellectual traditions, or direct transmissions from the Master needed. Just plain old TM leading to plain old Realization. Complete, eternal, and timeless. Simply Everything. Could it be that easy? Yep. And not nearly elitist enough. You nailed it. Hi, I am actually OK with Vaj getting a lot of benefit from his technique(s). I am long past the immature notion that in order to believe in my own practices as the best for me, they must therefore be the best for everyone else, and conversely, no one else's measure up to mine. I also appreciate a thoughtful challenge to TM or definitions of enlightenment, or anything else for that matter. What comes across though in Vaj's postings though is a consistent message that TM and the states of consciousness it produces are somehow forever flawed, and by inference he has found the one true way. And that is just BS, plain and simple. So I have nothing personal against him. His just appears as an unbalanced view, bordering on zealotry, and when he expresses his spiritual prejudices, for whatever reason, I feel compelled many times to show the other side of the coin.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 9, 2006, at 10:23 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 9, 2006, at 4:25 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: and samakhya darshanas, but expect to somehow, miraculously jump paths and Views. Yoga darshana and samkhya darshana both have the same result: turiyatita (CC). Hmm... tad-vairaagyaad api doSa-biija-kSaye *kaivalyam* and sattva-puruSayoH shuddhi-saamye *kaivalyam*... Yes, precisely: in the darshana of yoga, kaivalyam is CC (as Alistair Shearer points out in his official TMer YS translation). How's progress possible without the guNa-s? puruSaartha-shuunyaanaaM *guNaanaaM _pratiprasavaH_ kaivalyaM* svaruupa-pratiSThaa vaa citi-shakter iti. Isn't one /nirguNa-brahma(n)/ then? Gunas? Just a philosophical construct IMSO (In My Sattvic Opinion) :-). In my book about as real as, say, gravity. YMMV! :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: snip Perhaps it is the self-sufficiency of TM that bothers you- no complex intellectual traditions, or direct transmissions from the Master needed. Just plain old TM leading to plain old Realization. Complete, eternal, and timeless. Simply Everything. Could it be that easy? Yep. And not nearly elitist enough. You nailed it. Hi, I am actually OK with Vaj getting a lot of benefit from his technique(s). I don't think any of us are against anybody getting a lot of benefits from whatever their practice is. I am long past the immature notion that in order to believe in my own practices as the best for me, they must therefore be the best for everyone else, and conversely, no one else's measure up to mine. I also appreciate a thoughtful challenge to TM or definitions of enlightenment, or anything else for that matter. What comes across though in Vaj's postings though is a consistent message that TM and the states of consciousness it produces are somehow forever flawed, and by inference he has found the one true way. To be fair to Vaj, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. As I understand him, he believes not that the states of consciousness TM produces are flawed per se, but they're simply less advanced than those of the techniques he espouses. And I don't see him saying what he has found is the one true way, just, again, that it's more advanced than TM. I suspect there are quite a few other paths he'd put in the more-advanced-than-TM category besides his. What's problematic is that whenever he makes some assertion about TM, it becomes clear that he is not *knowledgeable* about TM, either the techniques or the states they produce. He also contradicts himself frequently, much as Barry does. Just yesterday, he made the otherwise excellent point that you can't really compare enlightenment across paths, and then proceeded to do exactly that regarding TM and his own path in his very next post. It's just about impossible to see him as the authority he presents himself as, especially given his unpleasantly, arrogantly patronizing, meanspirited tone. Again, though, I think you nailed it when you suggested that what appeals to him about his own path is the *packaging*. Comparatively speaking, TM comes in a plain brown envelope, the contents to be made of what you will (unless you happen to be into Burger King mode, which most of us find pretty silly anyway).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis TomT; It is not exactly that simple and needs to be looked at in the larger context. As Suzanne Segal said hundreds of time in her book Collision with the Infinite. We do the next obvious thing. How do we know it is the next obvious thing? Because it is what we find our selves doing. Which strongly points to the fact that we are not the doer in the subtle sense. We do what we do until we do it differently. Those who do the movement thing are those who's doership is orientated that way. Those who do many things like you and me, do have different doership paths. We find our clarity by doing the next obvious thing. To suggest that we are really aware of what that next obvious thing is before we do it is the mistake of the intellect. There is no right or wrong for anyone on the path., Whatever path you are on is the next obvious thing for you. Whatever path someone else is on is the next obvious thing for them. Rather than insist that we need to shift our paths for some other path we might find that all paths are the next obvious thing for someone and to honor that path as perfect for them. It may not be the same for you, me or anyone else, but it is for them. In honoring the next obvious thing for them is to honor our own convoluted path as perfect and was the next obvious thing for us. In honoring any path as perfect for someone, we are honoring the entire creation as the ultimate path. Well said. This is something I bring up with people with good intellects in therapy who bemoan some previous decision they made an speak as if they had some sort of choice back then to make another decision. I point out that in this present moment that they are not making a choice that is wrong. In this moment it is the most obvious and appropriate choice to make. It may turnout to to be wrong in hindsight, but never in the moment it is made. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: llundrub wrote: TM is not different from Dzogchen. So, you're saying that Dzogchen is non-different from TM. When one past thought has ceased and a future thought has not yet arisen, in that gap, in between, there's a conciousness of the present moment; fresh, unaltered by even a hair's breadth of concept, a luminous, naked awareness. That is what Rigpa is, according to Sogyal! 'TM, Dzogchen, and staying in the View' http://tinyurl.com/yd4urd However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. *During* the experience, however long or fleeting it may be, it can be an actual experience of samadhi, because while it is going on, the intellect is not at home. But *immediately* afterwards the intellect logs back on and tries to superimpose its programmed intellectual understanding of what samadhi is onto the experience, most often with disastrous results. The result is often finding some way to deny that the experience took place, or that it was actually samadhi. What it usually took for a long-term TMer to recognize that samadhi was taking place was for it to last for an extended period of time -- say ten to twenty minutes. After such an experience, it was difficult for even the most conditioned intellect to impose its preconceptions on the experience. We're all talking around an experience here that cannot be talked about, and many of us are using different terminology to talk around it. It's like we're all pointing at the moon, but some of us are using our fingers and some of us are using big Bozo The Clown gloves. The moon is still there, but some can't recognize that it's being pointed at unless the person uses a finger they're familar with and comfortable with. :-) The thing that's fascinating to me is that it's pretty easy (at least for me) to tell which of the participants in this particular discussion have actually *been* to the moon and thus are speaking in their own chosen language around an experience that was actually an experience for them personally, and those who have *never* been there and are only mouthing what they've been told. Pretty interesting that that difference can come through, even on the Internet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
Peter, thanks for this (below). Really explains a lot of my own meditation experience for many years. However, I found that my experience changed after I read Nisargadatta. The clarity that is characteristic of meditation (and life) now is wholly in line with what I have learned from Maharishi but wasn't appreciated until I got the push from Nisargadatta. Like everything, the advent of a new awareness or understanding seems to be causally related to a prior act to which we assign significance, but it's merely a co-incidence of events, each inextricable and part of the entire picture, but not in a cause and effect relationship. It's the same refrain of the crow alighting on the tree and the coconut falling, repeated throughout the Yoga Vasishta; we interpret life and experience as effects and consequences, but it is neither one nor the other; it just is as it is. Thanks again. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: llundrub wrote: TM is not different from Dzogchen. So, you're saying that Dzogchen is non-different from TM. When one past thought has ceased and a future thought has not yet arisen, in that gap, in between, there's a conciousness of the present moment; fresh, unaltered by even a hair's breadth of concept, a luminous, naked awareness. That is what Rigpa is, according to Sogyal! 'TM, Dzogchen, and staying in the View' http://tinyurl.com/yd4urd However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
Barry, also well said, though I don't think disastrous results is necessarily correct. I understand that from your perspective in the Buddhist tradition you acknowledge that there are causes and consequences, valued as both good and bad, and there's no argument about that in my mind exactly, but it just isn't how I feel about it. At least not right now. Thanks. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. *During* the experience, however long or fleeting it may be, it can be an actual experience of samadhi, because while it is going on, the intellect is not at home. But *immediately* afterwards the intellect logs back on and tries to superimpose its programmed intellectual understanding of what samadhi is onto the experience, most often with disastrous results. The result is often finding some way to deny that the experience took place, or that it was actually samadhi. What it usually took for a long-term TMer to recognize that samadhi was taking place was for it to last for an extended period of time -- say ten to twenty minutes. After such an experience, it was difficult for even the most conditioned intellect to impose its preconceptions on the experience. We're all talking around an experience here that cannot be talked about, and many of us are using different terminology to talk around it. It's like we're all pointing at the moon, but some of us are using our fingers and some of us are using big Bozo The Clown gloves. The moon is still there, but some can't recognize that it's being pointed at unless the person uses a finger they're familar with and comfortable with. :-) The thing that's fascinating to me is that it's pretty easy (at least for me) to tell which of the participants in this particular discussion have actually *been* to the moon and thus are speaking in their own chosen language around an experience that was actually an experience for them personally, and those who have *never* been there and are only mouthing what they've been told. Pretty interesting that that difference can come through, even on the Internet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
On Dec 9, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Peter wrote: --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: llundrub wrote: TM is not different from Dzogchen. So, you're saying that Dzogchen is non-different from TM. When one past thought has ceased and a future thought has not yet arisen, in that gap, in between, there's a conciousness of the present moment; fresh, unaltered by even a hair's breadth of concept, a luminous, naked awareness. That is what Rigpa is, according to Sogyal! 'TM, Dzogchen, and staying in the View' http://tinyurl.com/yd4urd However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Wow, thanks for saying this. I couldn't agree more.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
As mentioned before; as the success of the Invincible America grows stronger, Vaj is getting more desperate and his language more foul. ---What kind of ludicrous statement is this?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. *During* the experience, however long or fleeting it may be, it can be an actual experience of samadhi, because while it is going on, the intellect is not at home. But *immediately* afterwards the intellect logs back on and tries to superimpose its programmed intellectual understanding of what samadhi is onto the experience, most often with disastrous results. Or not. The result is often finding some way to deny that the experience took place, or that it was actually samadhi. Or not. What it usually took for a long-term TMer to recognize that samadhi was taking place was for it to last for an extended period of time -- say ten to twenty minutes. After such an experience, it was difficult for even the most conditioned intellect to impose its preconceptions on the experience. snip The thing that's fascinating to me is that it's pretty easy (at least for me) to tell which of the participants in this particular discussion have actually *been* to the moon and thus are speaking in their own chosen language around an experience that was actually an experience for them personally, and those who have *never* been there and are only mouthing what they've been told. Pretty interesting that that difference can come through, even on the Internet. Or not. snicker
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. *During* the experience, however long or fleeting it may be, it can be an actual experience of samadhi, because while it is going on, the intellect is not at home. But *immediately* afterwards the intellect logs back on and tries to superimpose its programmed intellectual understanding of what samadhi is onto the experience, most often with disastrous results. Or not. The result is often finding some way to deny that the experience took place, or that it was actually samadhi. Or not. What it usually took for a long-term TMer to recognize that samadhi was taking place was for it to last for an extended period of time -- say ten to twenty minutes. After such an experience, it was difficult for even the most conditioned intellect to impose its preconceptions on the experience. snip The thing that's fascinating to me is that it's pretty easy (at least for me) to tell which of the participants in this particular discussion have actually *been* to the moon and thus are speaking in their own chosen language around an experience that was actually an experience for them personally, and those who have *never* been there and are only mouthing what they've been told. Pretty interesting that that difference can come through, even on the Internet. Or not. snicker Minus the snicker it seems that you're doing a perfect Jaimani imitation. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As mentioned before; as the success of the Invincible America grows stronger, Vaj is getting more desperate and his language more foul. ---What kind of ludicrous statement is this? Perhaps Maitraya got up on the wrong side of the bed or something. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. *During* the experience, however long or fleeting it may be, it can be an actual experience of samadhi, because while it is going on, the intellect is not at home. But *immediately* afterwards the intellect logs back on and tries to superimpose its programmed intellectual understanding of what samadhi is onto the experience, most often with disastrous results. Or not. The result is often finding some way to deny that the experience took place, or that it was actually samadhi. Or not. What it usually took for a long-term TMer to recognize that samadhi was taking place was for it to last for an extended period of time -- say ten to twenty minutes. After such an experience, it was difficult for even the most conditioned intellect to impose its preconceptions on the experience. snip The thing that's fascinating to me is that it's pretty easy (at least for me) to tell which of the participants in this particular discussion have actually *been* to the moon and thus are speaking in their own chosen language around an experience that was actually an experience for them personally, and those who have *never* been there and are only mouthing what they've been told. Pretty interesting that that difference can come through, even on the Internet. Or not. snicker Minus the snicker it seems that you're doing a perfect Jaimani imitation. Or not. guffaw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. *During* the experience, however long or fleeting it may be, it can be an actual experience of samadhi, because while it is going on, the intellect is not at home. But *immediately* afterwards the intellect logs back on and tries to superimpose its programmed intellectual understanding of what samadhi is onto the experience, most often with disastrous results. The result is often finding some way to deny that the experience took place, or that it was actually samadhi. What it usually took for a long-term TMer to recognize that samadhi was taking place was for it to last for an extended period of time -- say ten to twenty minutes. After such an experience, it was difficult for even the most conditioned intellect to impose its preconceptions on the experience. During residence courses and the large group courses I used to experience something that I suppose could be called Samadhi, in that I was totally overshadowed by bliss- just pouring out of me (along with some stress release), angelic visions, and feeling like I was transported to a paradisical place. It went on day and night at least as long as the course lasted and often for a little while after. But I came to see quickly that this was not Realization. I was still having the experiences in the context of my limited individuality. I didn't deny those experiences, and in fact welcomed them, but they didn't last for more than several days. Same thing during my experience of a visit from Guru Dev in early 1993. I wanted it to last forever and thought it would, but it didn't. So I knew that wasn't Realization either. In early 2005, I had another experience that I call Realization. Just prior to it I was feeling bliss flood out of the crown of my head, to the point where my face would flush and I would perspire from the volume of bliss. But that wasn't Realization either. The actual experience of Realization, while very, very lively-- Never A Dull Moment!-- is not particularly blissful, or special in any way. It is just that I am, along with everything I experience, just exquisitely ALIVE! THAT is the determining factor for me. Other than that it is all chop wood and carry water. And it is also characterized by fluid boundaries between who I used to think as 'me' and that which is outside and that which is inside-- sort of a great big *meatball* now, with plenty of Sauce! This Absolute Normalcy is probably the greatest surprise to me. That, and the indifference that I treat any previously held concepts of mine of enlightenment, or higher states, like CC, GC, UC, etc. Before, I couldn't wait to 'get there'. Now, life is too short to even think about such things. As to your remark about having a well established intellectual concept of enlightenment prior to Realization possibly being an impediment to Realization, I find that it makes no difference whatsover-- that if the desire is true and pure to find out who we really are, it doesn't matter much what we do before hand, our time, for all time, will come regardless. Jai Guru Dev Om Shiva All Glory to His Holiness
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As mentioned before; as the success of the Invincible America grows stronger, Vaj is getting more desperate and his language more foul. ---What kind of ludicrous statement is this? One based on observation?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 9, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Peter wrote: --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: llundrub wrote: TM is not different from Dzogchen. So, you're saying that Dzogchen is non-different from TM. When one past thought has ceased and a future thought has not yet arisen, in that gap, in between, there's a conciousness of the present moment; fresh, unaltered by even a hair's breadth of concept, a luminous, naked awareness. That is what Rigpa is, according to Sogyal! 'TM, Dzogchen, and staying in the View' http://tinyurl.com/yd4urd However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Wow, thanks for saying this. I couldn't agree more. So who is able to make the distinction about someone else's experience, not to mention their own?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: However for many simply the cessation of thoughts does not give rise to pure consciousness because of the foundational projection/identification of consciousness with chitta. Cessation of thought/vrittis in chitta while identification is still present is a laya and not samadhi. I believe many of the decades long meditators are stuck in a laya when they meditate. They experience peace and, bliss, but it rarely moves into pure consciousness. Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. *During* the experience, however long or fleeting it may be, it can be an actual experience of samadhi, because while it is going on, the intellect is not at home. But *immediately* afterwards the intellect logs back on and tries to superimpose its programmed intellectual understanding of what samadhi is onto the experience, most often with disastrous results. Or not. The result is often finding some way to deny that the experience took place, or that it was actually samadhi. Or not. What it usually took for a long-term TMer to recognize that samadhi was taking place was for it to last for an extended period of time -- say ten to twenty minutes. After such an experience, it was difficult for even the most conditioned intellect to impose its preconceptions on the experience. snip The thing that's fascinating to me is that it's pretty easy (at least for me) to tell which of the participants in this particular discussion have actually *been* to the moon and thus are speaking in their own chosen language around an experience that was actually an experience for them personally, and those who have *never* been there and are only mouthing what they've been told. Pretty interesting that that difference can come through, even on the Internet. Or not. snicker Minus the snicker it seems that you're doing a perfect Jaimani imitation. What is the Sanskrit word for snicker?' IOW, how do you know that Jaimani wasn't snickering?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Turq's description seems closer to an intellectual argument presented to those practicing more of a mindfulness technique while remaining in the waking state, so the challenge is constantly to the waking state ego, stated in terms of the waking state ego. Without the unwinding that continual transcending brings about, this technique seems most useful if practiced in direct proximity to an enlightened Master. Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the required purification to take place in order to experience Realization. No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary. Whether pure or impure. - It's right up front and in the open as the first statement in the puja... JohnY
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
TorquiseB writes snipped: Well said. That's *exactly* why I suggested that having been given a strong intellectual framework that appeals to the normal (that is, unenlightened) waking state can actually be an *obstacle* to the appreciation of enlightenment when it dawns. Tom T: Heard Gangaji say after her trip to FF. She had never met such strong minds before. She laid it on to the effect of the sidhis program. She commented that it made it very difficult to break through the conditioning but once the break was made they got it totally. Sounded like the on the other hand gig. In one way it was harder to get it but on the other hand once the understanding was complete, it was a done deal. So who can say whether any of it was good or bad. It just was what it was. Tom
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on, as it were, and functions as a belief system to motivate the seeker to continue doing sadhana. The real value is in the sadhana, day in and day out, doing the program, not in the conceptual model. But once Realization occurs, the wakingstate model doesn't fit anymore. It is recognized as a useful fiction for waking state sadhana. Only in Realization do the advaitin teachings make any conceptual sense. Prior to Realization they appear to deny the rather clear experience of the space-time reality of waking state. --- hyperbolicgeometry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- Nisargadata Maharaj is one of those Neo-Advaitin Nihilists who states that he's Pure Consciousness, but refuses to acknowledge his existence in the relative world. (these teachings are inconsistent with what MMY says...since Brahman has two aspects in One, not one aspect in One.). Thanks anyway for the quote...a good illustration of a 100% teaching, as opposed to MMY's 200%. Buddhism, BTW on the whole; has a pure Consciousness only school; but on the whole (C.f. the statements of the Dalai Lama) is more down to earth than Nis.'s pie in the sky Nihilism. By looking tirelessly, I became quite empty and with that emptiness all came back to me except the mind. I find I have lost the mind irretrievably. I am neither conscious nor unconscious, I am beyond the mind and its various states and conditions. Distinctions are created by the mind and apply to the mind only. I am pure Consciousness itself, unbroken awareness of all that is. I am in a more real state than yours. I am undistracted by the distinctions and separations which constitute a person. As long as the body lasts, it has its needs like any other, but my mental process has come to an end. My thinking, like my digestion, is unconscious and purposeful. I am not a person in your sense of the word, though I may appear a person to you. I am that infinite ocean of consciousness in which all happens. I am also beyond all existence and cognition, pure bliss of being. There is nothing I feel separate from, hence I am all. No thing is me, so I am nothing. Life will escape, the body will die, but it will not affect me in the least. Beyond space and time I am, uncaused, uncausing, yet the very matrix of existence. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on, as it were, and functions as a belief system to motivate the seeker to continue doing sadhana. The real value is in the sadhana, day in and day out, doing the program, not in the conceptual model. But once Realization occurs, the wakingstate model doesn't fit anymore. It is recognized as a useful fiction for waking state sadhana. Only in Realization do the advaitin teachings make any conceptual sense. Prior to Realization they appear to deny the rather clear experience of the space-time reality of waking state. Beautifully and precisely said! As a note, when I read the Nisargadatta quote, he doesn't negate the limited self, he just clearly no longer identifies with it. So it continues to be a balanced view of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... ...as it were, and functions as a belief system to motivate the seeker to continue doing sadhana. The real value is in the sadhana, day in and day out, doing the program, not in the conceptual model. But once Realization occurs, the wakingstate model doesn't fit anymore. It is recognized as a useful fiction for waking state sadhana. Only in Realization do the advaitin teachings make any conceptual sense. Prior to Realization they appear to deny the rather clear experience of the space-time reality of waking state. Well said. In general, those who don't get the advaita approach have not had the direct experience of realization. For those who have, they make sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... And some waking-state minds cling to this notion about other waking-state minds, fervently believing (hoping?) that these other minds chew on the conceptual model in order to keep the actual experience of realization away, when in fact chewing on and clinging to aren't necessarily always joined at the hip (especially when one has the regular experience of transcending). ...as it were, and functions as a belief system to motivate the seeker to continue doing sadhana. The real value is in the sadhana, day in and day out, doing the program, not in the conceptual model. But once Realization occurs, the wakingstate model doesn't fit anymore. It is recognized as a useful fiction for waking state sadhana. Only in Realization do the advaitin teachings make any conceptual sense. Prior to Realization they appear to deny the rather clear experience of the space-time reality of waking state. Well said. In general, those who don't get the advaita approach have not had the direct experience of realization. For those who have, they make sense. If the advaita approach makes sense, it's not the direct experience of realization. (I'm nit- picking, but making sense can be said only of a waking-state model, strictly speaking. We don't really have any good terms for it other than the one Heinlein invented, grokking.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... And some waking-state minds cling to this notion about other waking-state minds, fervently believing (hoping?) that these other minds chew on the conceptual model in order to keep the actual experience of realization away, when in fact chewing on and clinging to aren't necessarily always joined at the hip (especially when one has the regular experience of transcending). snip Yep, important distinction to make- that with the regular experience of transcending, that clinging will eventually give way. Or there is set up such a cognitive dissonance between the experience of transcending and the waking state that meditation is stopped. Turq's description seems closer to an intellectual argument presented to those practicing more of a mindfulness technique while remaining in the waking state, so the challenge is constantly to the waking state ego, stated in terms of the waking state ego. Without the unwinding that continual transcending brings about, this technique seems most useful if practiced in direct proximity to an enlightened Master. Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the required purification to take place in order to experience Realization.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... And some waking-state minds cling to this notion about other waking-state minds, fervently believing (hoping?) that these other minds chew on the conceptual model in order to keep the actual experience of realization away, when in fact chewing on and clinging to aren't necessarily always joined at the hip (especially when one has the regular experience of transcending). snip Yep, important distinction to make- that with the regular experience of transcending, that clinging will eventually give way. Or there is no clinging to begin with, just chewing. With repeated transcending, you can't get enough of a grip on the conceptual model to cling to it. Nor does chewing get in the way; rather, it helps dissolve the model bit by bit as it's constantly being modified by experience. The more you chew, the more the model turns into a mush, and the more you have to just swallow and be done with it. Chewing is a terrific metaphor for the process! Another aspect of this is that in contemplating the conceptual model in any depth, paradoxically, logic *itself* tells you why it's the wrong tool for the job. That's a very liberating recognition that actually brings the model within a hair's- breadth of the experience, to where you can just step smoothly right over the gap. (Especially, again, if you've been transcending regularly, so you aren't stepping into unfamiliar territory, as it were.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... And some waking-state minds cling to this notion about other waking-state minds, fervently believing (hoping?) that these other minds chew on the conceptual model in order to keep the actual experience of realization away, when in fact chewing on and clinging to aren't necessarily always joined at the hip (especially when one has the regular experience of transcending). snip Yep, important distinction to make- that with the regular experience of transcending, that clinging will eventually give way. Or there is no clinging to begin with, just chewing. With repeated transcending, you can't get enough of a grip on the conceptual model to cling to it. Nor does chewing get in the way; rather, it helps dissolve the model bit by bit as it's constantly being modified by experience. The more you chew, the more the model turns into a mush, and the more you have to just swallow and be done with it. Chewing is a terrific metaphor for the process! Another aspect of this is that in contemplating the conceptual model in any depth, paradoxically, logic *itself* tells you why it's the wrong tool for the job. That's a very liberating recognition that actually brings the model within a hair's- breadth of the experience, to where you can just step smoothly right over the gap. (Especially, again, if you've been transcending regularly, so you aren't stepping into unfamiliar territory, as it were.) I like where you ran with this post, Judy! I agree. That would be using the model as part of a sadhana, a tool to bring, as MMY would say, the point value to the infinite value. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq's description seems closer to an intellectual argument presented to those practicing more of a mindfulness technique while remaining in the waking state, so the challenge is constantly to the waking state ego, stated in terms of the waking state ego. Without the unwinding that continual transcending brings about, this technique seems most useful if practiced in direct proximity to an enlightened Master. Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the required purification to take place in order to experience Realization. No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... But in MMY's model, CC, at least, is inevitable. It is merely a product of a transition in how the brain works. In MMY's model, all the intellectual theory is meant to do is provide a comfortable interpretation of this transition to alleviate the discomfort that might arise from intellectual confusion. This intellectual confusion is not to be confused with the dark night of the sould type of unsressing that someone might undergo during the last stage of the transition. ...as it were, and functions as a belief system to motivate the seeker to continue doing sadhana. The real value is in the sadhana, day in and day out, doing the program, not in the conceptual model. But once Realization occurs, the wakingstate model doesn't fit anymore. It is recognized as a useful fiction for waking state sadhana. Only in Realization do the advaitin teachings make any conceptual sense. Prior to Realization they appear to deny the rather clear experience of the space-time reality of waking state. Well said. In general, those who don't get the advaita approach have not had the direct experience of realization. For those who have, they make sense. You're acquainted with numerous people who have had the direct experience of realization, and are able to generalize this way based on experience, or are you speaking of what your own tradition says, or are you merely making things up because it fits with your own expectations?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Turq's description seems closer to an intellectual argument presented to those practicing more of a mindfulness technique while remaining in the waking state, so the challenge is constantly to the waking state ego, stated in terms of the waking state ego. Without the unwinding that continual transcending brings about, this technique seems most useful if practiced in direct proximity to an enlightened Master. Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the required purification to take place in order to experience Realization. No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary. And your evidence for this is... Your own experience?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: In general, those who don't get the advaita approach have not had the direct experience of realization. For those who have, they make sense. You're acquainted with numerous people who have had the direct experience of realization, and are able to generalize this way based on experience, or are you speaking of what your own tradition says, or are you merely making things up because it fits with your own expectations? Door Number One.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Turq's description seems closer to an intellectual argument presented to those practicing more of a mindfulness technique while remaining in the waking state, so the challenge is constantly to the waking state ego, stated in terms of the waking state ego. Without the unwinding that continual transcending brings about, this technique seems most useful if practiced in direct proximity to an enlightened Master. Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the required purification to take place in order to experience Realization. No purification is required to experience realization. Right. The experience of Realization can be had by anyone, any time. But in order to sustain Realization, purification must occur. I think it was Muktananda who said instant enlightenment is just that; it lasts for an instant. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. It is the functioning of the nervous system that prevents the relaization of Realization though. aka maya. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. Rather than words like clogged and impure which can imply judgment, my experience is that the self gets twisted and must become untwisted or unwound. I agree that the desire for Realization is a choice, however it is the purification of one's self resulting from this mature, sustained desire that grows eventually into sustained Realization. Although I think of it and experience it as a purification of the nervous system, it is a purification so profound on the one hand, and subtle on the other, that I doubt my subjective experience would conform to a scientifically sanctioned definition of the nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Turq's description seems closer to an intellectual argument presented to those practicing more of a mindfulness technique while remaining in the waking state, so the challenge is constantly to the waking state ego, stated in terms of the waking state ego. Without the unwinding that continual transcending brings about, this technique seems most useful if practiced in direct proximity to an enlightened Master. Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the required purification to take place in order to experience Realization. No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary. And your evidence for this is... Your own experience? Yup. And that of dozens of my friends and hundreds of people within the traditions I have studied. They have actually *had* the experience of realization, unlike some traditions that can only talk about it in theory and come up with excuses for why *their* students *don't* have the experience itself. Your nervous system isn't pure enough yet. You need to 'purify.' Just keep paying us the money we ask for and keep coming to these courses. Someday you'll be pure enough to experience what you already are. Yeah, right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary. And your evidence for this is... Your own experience? Yup. And that of dozens of my friends and hundreds of people within the traditions I have studied. They have actually *had* the experience of realization, unlike some traditions that can only talk about it in theory and come up with excuses for why *their* students *don't* have the experience itself. Which traditions would those be?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:54 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Yup. And that of dozens of my friends and hundreds of people within the traditions I have studied. They have actually *had* the experience of realization, unlike some traditions that can only talk about it in theory and come up with excuses for why *their* students *don't* have the experience itself. Your nervous system isn't pure enough yet. You need to 'purify.' Just keep paying us the money we ask for and keep coming to these courses. Someday you'll be pure enough to experience what you already are. Yeah, right. A turning in the seat of consciousness doesn't depend on a purification of a nervous system or certain brain wave styles or even a transcending mind. It's like Nike says Just do it. No doer required. Ego still optional. May not be available in some areas, but is present everywhere, at all times. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary. And your evidence for this is... Your own experience? Yup. And that of dozens of my friends and hundreds of people within the traditions I have studied. They have actually *had* the experience of realization, unlike some traditions that can only talk about it in theory and come up with excuses for why *their* students *don't* have the experience itself. Which traditions would those be? it sounds like 'Shamanism', only its called 'Strawmanism'...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary. Another way of looking at it is that realizing enlightenment is a choice that becomes available only once the nervous system is been sufficiently purified (or untwisted, to use Jim's term). Still another way of looking at it is that it is a choice *only in retrospect*, i.e., from the perspective of realization, but not from the waking-state perspective (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness). The very nature of choice is different in different states of consciousness. That one is always already realized is irrelevant, a red herring. That is a realization that comes *with realization*. Hearing this in waking state, as intellectual knowledge, does not facilitate realization (unless perhaps one is right on the brink and hears it from a realized master as a mahavakya). It's an interesting bit of theoretical information, but to use it as an exhortation or as a putdown is just silly (especially from those who are themselves still in waking state).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip No purification is required to experience realization. Realization is present at every moment and has always been present at every moment of one's life. There was no moment in which one was ever *not* realized. Not realizing one's enlightenment is a choice, not a matter of a clogged or impure nervous system. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary. And your evidence for this is... Your own experience? Yup. And that of dozens of my friends and hundreds of people within the traditions I have studied. They have actually *had* the experience of realization, unlike some traditions that can only talk about it in theory and come up with excuses for why *their* students *don't* have the experience itself. Which traditions would those be? it sounds like 'Shamanism', only its called 'Strawmanism'...:-) Gosh, I never woulda guessed...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:54 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Yup. And that of dozens of my friends and hundreds of people within the traditions I have studied. They have actually *had* the experience of realization, unlike some traditions that can only talk about it in theory and come up with excuses for why *their* students *don't* have the experience itself. Your nervous system isn't pure enough yet. You need to 'purify.' Just keep paying us the money we ask for and keep coming to these courses. Someday you'll be pure enough to experience what you already are. Yeah, right. A turning in the seat of consciousness doesn't depend on a purification of a nervous system or certain brain wave styles or even a transcending mind. It's like Nike says Just do it. No doer required. Ego still optional. May not be available in some areas, but is present everywhere, at all times. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Are you referring to the one who became clinically depressed after her beloved husband died too young? Thanks for reminding me. Hey, remind us too, Vaj.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... But in MMY's model, CC, at least, is inevitable. It is merely a product of a transition in how the brain works. I don't see CC as a product of brain functioning. Brain functioning is reflected in the functioning of mind and vice versa. Consciousness realizing its own unlocalized nature will profoundly effect brain functioning but not the other way around. In MMY's model, all the intellectual theory is meant to do is provide a comfortable interpretation of this transition to alleviate the discomfort that might arise from intellectual confusion. MMY's model is great for a waking state understanding of Realization. After Realization the knowledge to understand what is happening is there, but it is not conceptualized as it was in waking state prior to Realization. Many, if not all, of the waking state assumptions regarding Realization and many other things are radically alter after Realization. There is not a continuum of S/self from waking state into CC. That is an assumption of the waking state intellect because it doesn't have a friggin' clue what will happen in Realization. How can it? It only knows waking state. There is a radical change in conceptual understanding of Realization from waking state to the intellect functioning in Realization. Realization can not be conceived in waking state, but the waking state intellect doesn't know that. ...as it were, and functions as a belief system to motivate the seeker to continue doing sadhana. The real value is in the sadhana, day in and day out, doing the program, not in the conceptual model. But once Realization occurs, the wakingstate model doesn't fit anymore. It is recognized as a useful fiction for waking state sadhana. Only in Realization do the advaitin teachings make any conceptual sense. Prior to Realization they appear to deny the rather clear experience of the space-time reality of waking state. Well said. In general, those who don't get the advaita approach have not had the direct experience of realization. For those who have, they make sense. You're acquainted with numerous people who have had the direct experience of realization, and are able to generalize this way based on experience, or are you speaking of what your own tradition says, or are you merely making things up because it fits with your own expectations? 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Are you referring to the one who became clinically depressed after her beloved husband died too young? Thanks for reminding me. Hey, remind us too, Vaj. from The Noble Eightfold Path on Wikipedia: Right speech (samyag-vâc · sammâ-vâcâ), as the name implies, deals with the way in which a Buddhist practitioner would best make use of his or her words. In the Magga-vibhanga Sutta, this aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path is explained as follows: And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech. Walpola Rahula glosses this by stating that not engaging in such forms of wrong and harmful speech ultimately means that one naturally has to speak the truth, has to use words that are friendly and benevolent, pleasant and gentle, meaningful and useful. I guess Vaj has a way to go...oh well, at least he is in the 'initial' stages.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
Torquise B srites snipped: No purification is required to experience realization. Jim Flanegin writes snipped from longer piece: Right. The experience of Realization can be had by anyone, any time. But in order to sustain Realization, purification must occur. I think it was Muktananda who said instant enlightenment is just that; it lasts for an instant. TomT; Jean Kline woke up in 1955 passed in 1998. The awakening was instantanious, clarity takes place in space-time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: **Snip** Still another way of looking at it is that it is a choice *only in retrospect*, i.e., from the perspective of realization, but not from the waking-state perspective (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness). **End** This (above), is backwards. Realization is the extinction of even the concept of choice. It's in the so-called waking state where choice (like waking state) appears to exist. Realization is that it doesn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
---You mean the question of free will. The jury's out on this question, which we (and philosophers going back thousands of years), have gone over before. Choice may or may not really exist; but in any event, our lack of knowledge concerning the future, and karmic interactions in general, serve us a plate of alternative apparent choices, and there's currently no proof as to the nature of the realness. I realize that some Gurus - like Ramana Maharshi - say there's no free will; but why should his statement be believed; especially in view of the statements regarding karma: that karma is unfathomable - even for Sages?. Ramana is a Sage but this doesn't make him an expert in karma. There are no experts in karma, and there's no proof or even evidence for Ramana's assertion, other than the appeal to authority. (but in regard to the appeal to authorities, I wouldn't trust MMY to guide anybody in matters of economics). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: **Snip** Still another way of looking at it is that it is a choice *only in retrospect*, i.e., from the perspective of realization, but not from the waking-state perspective (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness). **End** This (above), is backwards. Realization is the extinction of even the concept of choice. It's in the so-called waking state where choice (like waking state) appears to exist. Realization is that it doesn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: **Snip** Still another way of looking at it is that it is a choice *only in retrospect*, i.e., from the perspective of realization, but not from the waking-state perspective (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness). **End** This (above), is backwards. Realization is the extinction of even the concept of choice. It's in the so-called waking state where choice (like waking state) appears to exist. Realization is that it doesn't. Well, that's yet *another* way of looking at it. The semantics gets very difficult here! I don't think choice is an appropriate term in any context or state of consciousness with regard to realization. There is no sense in which one chooses to become (or not become) realized. That's the notion of a thoroughly stuck control freak.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---You mean the question of free will. The jury's out on this question, which we (and philosophers going back thousands of years), have gone over before. If there's a jury involved, the wrong question is being asked.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going .? Thanks for reminding me. Rather that numerous of Maharishis students now are experiencing permanent Bliss as a result of patience, dedication and longtime purification. These effects are regularily documented in the Invincible America course right now. Vaj may not like it, but it is happening.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
Yes. I totally agree. And just as an aside, I like your moniker. I don't use one now, but when I first posted here I used 'nothoughtdas'. Kind of fun to get to play with the name/form thing on a forum like this. The moniker-thing is an interesting part of it. Nisargadatta never fails to draw a response, right? Can't help but love him as a second teacher. Quite a guy. Thanks, Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---You mean the question of free will. The jury's out on this question, which we (and philosophers going back thousands of years), have gone over before. Choice may or may not really exist; but in any event, our lack of knowledge concerning the future, and karmic interactions in general, serve us a plate of alternative apparent choices, and there's currently no proof as to the nature of the realness. I realize that some Gurus - like Ramana Maharshi - say there's no free will; but why should his statement be believed; especially in view of the statements regarding karma: that karma is unfathomable - even for Sages?. Ramana is a Sage but this doesn't make him an expert in karma. There are no experts in karma, and there's no proof or even evidence for Ramana's assertion, other than the appeal to authority. (but in regard to the appeal to authorities, I wouldn't trust MMY to guide anybody in matters of economics). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: **Snip** Still another way of looking at it is that it is a choice *only in retrospect*, i.e., from the perspective of realization, but not from the waking-state perspective (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness). **End** This (above), is backwards. Realization is the extinction of even the concept of choice. It's in the so-called waking state where choice (like waking state) appears to exist. Realization is that it doesn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---You mean the question of free will. The jury's out on this question, which we (and philosophers going back thousands of years), have gone over before. Choice may or may not really exist; but in any event, our lack of knowledge concerning the future, and karmic interactions in general, serve us a plate of alternative apparent choices, and there's currently no proof as to the nature of the realness. I realize that some Gurus - like Ramana Maharshi - say there's no free will; but why should his statement be believed; especially in view of the statements regarding karma: that karma is unfathomable - even for Sages?. Ramana is a Sage but this doesn't make him an expert in karma. Sages like Maharishi and Ramana Maharshi will have different colours in their expression of reality. That is life. Try reading Robert Svobodas third book on his Guru Vimalananda and you will find a fellow with very detailed knowledge of Karma indeed. Every word in that book is like; if Maharishi would write a book on Karma, this is what He would say. Very entertaining, knowledeable, sweet and humerous. There are no experts in karma, and there's no proof or even evidence for Ramana's assertion, other than the appeal to authority.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
---Thanks, I believe I read those 3 books, while standing in the local New Age bookstore for 20 min. I've seen books that taut certain Gurus with having supernatural knowledge of past, present, and future. Sai Baba claims to be one of these Omniscient Gurus; but invariably, (to dream up a saying akin to P.T.Barnum's): one can predict the future some of the time, but nobody can predict the future all of the time. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusos108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman mathatbrahman@ wrote: ---You mean the question of free will. The jury's out on this question, which we (and philosophers going back thousands of years), have gone over before. Choice may or may not really exist; but in any event, our lack of knowledge concerning the future, and karmic interactions in general, serve us a plate of alternative apparent choices, and there's currently no proof as to the nature of the realness. I realize that some Gurus - like Ramana Maharshi - say there's no free will; but why should his statement be believed; especially in view of the statements regarding karma: that karma is unfathomable - even for Sages?. Ramana is a Sage but this doesn't make him an expert in karma. Sages like Maharishi and Ramana Maharshi will have different colours in their expression of reality. That is life. Try reading Robert Svobodas third book on his Guru Vimalananda and you will find a fellow with very detailed knowledge of Karma indeed. Every word in that book is like; if Maharishi would write a book on Karma, this is what He would say. Very entertaining, knowledeable, sweet and humerous. There are no experts in karma, and there's no proof or even evidence for Ramana's assertion, other than the appeal to authority.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
On Dec 8, 2006, at 9:27 PM, nablusos108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going .? Thanks for reminding me. Rather that numerous of Maharishis students now are experiencing permanent Bliss as a result of patience, dedication and longtime purification. These effects are regularily documented in the Invincible America course right now. Vaj may not like it, but it is happening. More cosmic heroin addicts? Yeah.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth. Pathological.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. I totally agree. And just as an aside, I like your moniker. I don't use one now, but when I first posted here I used 'nothoughtdas'. Kind of fun to get to play with the name/form thing on a forum like this. The moniker-thing is an interesting part of it. Nisargadatta never fails to draw a response, right? Can't help but love him as a second teacher. Quite a guy. Thanks, Marek He didn't suffer fools, that's for sure! ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---You mean the question of free will. The jury's out on this question, which we (and philosophers going back thousands of years), have gone over before. Choice may or may not really exist; but in any event, our lack of knowledge concerning the future, and karmic interactions in general, serve us a plate of alternative apparent choices, and there's currently no proof as to the nature of the realness. I realize that some Gurus - like Ramana Maharshi - say there's no free will; but why should his statement be believed; especially in view of the statements regarding karma: that karma is unfathomable - even for Sages?. Ramana is a Sage but this doesn't make him an expert in karma. There are no experts in karma, and there's no proof or even evidence for Ramana's assertion, other than the appeal to authority. (but in regard to the appeal to authorities, I wouldn't trust MMY to guide anybody in matters of economics). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: **Snip** Still another way of looking at it is that it is a choice *only in retrospect*, i.e., from the perspective of realization, but not from the waking-state perspective (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness). **End** This (above), is backwards. Realization is the extinction of even the concept of choice. It's in the so-called waking state where choice (like waking state) appears to exist. Realization is that it doesn't. 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 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
---On a conceptual basis, yes...Dzogchen takes place somehow beyond all progressions, and (as Vaj so astutely pointed out); doesn't involve the transmission of Shakti (unlike Muktananda's Shaktipat). But on a practical basis, (as Vaj so unastutely failed to mention); one (the aspirant) is still confronted with the problems of ingrained inertia, stress, vasanas;...etc; all of the traditional Buddhist (or otherwise) impediments to Enlightenment - such as the vices - that we may allude to as behavioral patterns connected to stress - that simply don't vanish in the blink of an eye when one attends a Dzogchen retreat. Even as pointed out by the greatest of Dzogchen Masters (Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche among them - this is Vaj's Guru); the element of TIME invariably creeps in, and although one may get it (i.e. Grok IT to a certain extent); the fact remains that unless one is 99.999% already realized, various impediments dissalow one's immediate Enlightenment even though the Dzogchen transmission is immediate. Unfortunately, most of the Buddhist Gurus (except possibly the Dalai Lama and a few others); haven't YET gotten the connection between the delay in one's hoped for immediate Enlightenment and the stark reality of time, time, time... ; and the possible cause of that delay: stress. But thanks to MMY, we new insights into the phenomenon of the progression toward Enlightenment; but at the same time, nothing is preventing people from Grok-ing the fact that they are already IT. (even though tomorrow morning and the day after, one may have to Grok this again). Contrary to what the Neo-Advaitins like HWL Poonja would have us believe, simply Groking IT for the first time may be insufficient; and likewise, simply receiving a Dzogchen transmission a single time may not get people immediately Enlightened. Like it or not, a progression of time is usually involved, due to ingrained stresses. Though MMY is not really one of my personal Gurus (I'm a devotee of Padma Sambhava), may he be praised forever for coming up with TM and the connection between progressive Realization and the concept of stress release. Praise God! But in defense of Dzogchen, one simply ditch the attitude that one is not already Pure Consciousness (and then continue with the practice of TM tomorrow and the day after, and the day after). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth. and thanks for tracking all the rules for us!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:54 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Yup. And that of dozens of my friends and hundreds of people within the traditions I have studied. They have actually *had* the experience of realization, unlike some traditions that can only talk about it in theory and come up with excuses for why *their* students *don't* have the experience itself. Your nervous system isn't pure enough yet. You need to 'purify.' Just keep paying us the money we ask for and keep coming to these courses. Someday you'll be pure enough to experience what you already are. Yeah, right. A turning in the seat of consciousness doesn't depend on a purification of a nervous system or certain brain wave styles or even a transcending mind. It's like Nike says Just do it. No doer required. Ego still optional. May not be available in some areas, but is present everywhere, at all times. ;-) How can anyone possibly be certain of this either way?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. Which one is that, and suchthings never ever happen with students of any other spiritual teacher? Are you saying that no Tibetan Buddhist who studied with the Dali Lama EVER went insane, neither in this incarnation, or in any previous one?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: People make a mistake when they view advaitin teachings as presenting conceptual models of Realization for a waking state intellect. For the waking state intellect they are obviously lacking as you and others have pointed out. It doesn't mean what they say is false or wrong, its just that they are meant to be applied in two ways: as a tool for transcendence or as a conceptual understanding of a direct experience that you are having. Contrast this with MMY's teaching which presents a conceptual model of Realization for a waking state intellect. The waking state mind has something to chew on... I would add, and to cling to, as a mechanism for keeping the actual experience of realization away... But in MMY's model, CC, at least, is inevitable. It is merely a product of a transition in how the brain works. I don't see CC as a product of brain functioning. Brain functioning is reflected in the functioning of mind and vice versa. Consciousness realizing its own unlocalized nature will profoundly effect brain functioning but not the other way around. Err, and how could you tell the difference? As I said in a slightly different context, trying to draw disintions between mind/brain/ consciousness is using a piece of charcoal todraw on burnt wood. Where do you draw the line and how do you know where you drew it? In MMY's model, all the intellectual theory is meant to do is provide a comfortable interpretation of this transition to alleviate the discomfort that might arise from intellectual confusion. MMY's model is great for a waking state understanding of Realization. After Realization the knowledge to understand what is happening is there, but it is not conceptualized as it was in waking state prior to Realization. Many, if not all, of the waking state assumptions regarding Realization and many other things are radically alter after Realization. There is not a continuum of S/self from waking state into CC. That is an assumption of the waking state intellect because it doesn't have a friggin' clue what will happen in Realization. How can it? It only knows waking state. There is a radical change in conceptual understanding of Realization from waking state to the intellect functioning in Realization. Realization can not be conceived in waking state, but the waking state intellect doesn't know that. Where did I or MMY or whatever say therewas a continuum of self from waking state into CC? There is a transition of physiological state, certainly (according to my own experience and belief as colored by MMY's theory), but the transition from self to Self is neither abrupt or gradual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: **Snip** Still another way of looking at it is that it is a choice *only in retrospect*, i.e., from the perspective of realization, but not from the waking-state perspective (Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness). **End** This (above), is backwards. Realization is the extinction of even the concept of choice. It's in the so-called waking state where choice (like waking state) appears to exist. Realization is that it doesn't. Realization is... Trying to continue past that implies that you can put it into words.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:22 PM, kaladevi93 wrote: You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Well kinda. The basic Dzogchen transmission is the transmission of what TMers might parrot as Unity Consciousness. Shearer says that different darshanas have different states of consciousness as their goal and that Dzogchen's darshana (more precisely, it's drsti or View) is that of Unity. So, yes, it begins there. But that is only part of the story. Much of Dzogchen is beyond anything most Tm people would understand. There is a certain amount of overlap if you accept that Advaita Vedanta (as a darshana) and it's result, brahma- chetana, is similar experientially to the acquisition of the Dzogchen View. Of course TM does not lead to Buddhahood and would certainly be considered a false path on a number of grounds. Most TMers don't even comprehend that both TM and the TMSP are soundly part of the yoga and samakhya darshanas, but expect to somehow, miraculously jump paths and Views. Yoga darshana and samkhya darshana both have the same result: turiyatita (CC). What all of the TMers who claim enlightenment share in common is that they're describing vikeka- khyati, an impermanent state. And short of CC. It's extremely unpopular to point this failing out. Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth. Thank you. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:49 PM, matrixmonitor wrote: ---On a conceptual basis, yes...Dzogchen takes place somehow beyond all progressions, and (as Vaj so astutely pointed out); doesn't involve the transmission of Shakti (unlike Muktananda's Shaktipat). But on a practical basis, (as Vaj so unastutely failed to mention); one (the aspirant) is still confronted with the problems of ingrained inertia, stress, vasanas;...etc; all of the traditional Buddhist (or otherwise) impediments to Enlightenment - such as the vices - that we may allude to as behavioral patterns connected to stress - that simply don't vanish in the blink of an eye when one attends a Dzogchen retreat. Sorry this is simply wrong. You don't seem to have any idea of what Mahasandhi/Dzogchen is. One wonders if you even have that transmission. Even as pointed out by the greatest of Dzogchen Masters (Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche among them - this is Vaj's Guru); the element of TIME invariably creeps in, and although one may get it (i.e. Grok IT to a certain extent); the fact remains that unless one is 99.999% already realized, various impediments dissalow one's immediate Enlightenment even though the Dzogchen transmission is immediate. What you fail to mention is that that Dzogchen Fruit, the realization of the Body of Light, is far beyond any of the TM conceptual darshanas or the TM practical darshanas (really basic yoga darshana, CC). Unfortunately, most of the Buddhist Gurus (except possibly the Dalai Lama and a few others); haven't YET gotten the connection between the delay in one's hoped for immediate Enlightenment and the stark reality of time, time, time... ; and the possible cause of that delay: stress. But thanks to MMY, we new insights into the phenomenon of the progression toward Enlightenment; but at the same time, nothing is preventing people from Grok-ing the fact that they are already IT. (even though tomorrow morning and the day after, one may have to Grok this again). And again, this is totally incorrect. In fact the Dalai Lama, as de facto head of the Gelukpa sect, also represents the head of the Lam Rim (the Gradual Path), no? Contrary to what the Neo-Advaitins like HWL Poonja would have us believe, simply Groking IT for the first time may be insufficient; and likewise, simply receiving a Dzogchen transmission a single time may not get people immediately Enlightened. It really depends on your *definition* (more importantly the *experiential definition*) of enlightenment. Since that experiential definition is different for every darshana, the word enlightenment is only accurate if it is compared within a particular darshana. If you try to compare *across* darshanas (which is actually what you are doing), you are comparing apples to orangutans (actually much worse). Since each darshana not only possesses it's own View *and* it's own intendant logic, arguing across darshanas is a grand logical fallacy if ever there was one. Like it or not, a progression of time is usually involved, due to ingrained stresses. Though MMY is not really one of my personal Gurus (I'm a devotee of Padma Sambhava), But you are in direct contradiction to his teaching. You are presenting both a false Path and a false View. One is tempted to assume therfore that your View is false Gary. may he be praised forever for coming up with TM and the connection between progressive Realization and the concept of stress release. Praise God! But in defense of Dzogchen, one simply ditch the attitude that one is not already Pure Consciousness (and then continue with the practice of TM tomorrow and the day after, and the day after).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 PM, yhvhworld wrote: ---Vaj, but this is the initial stage, ...even from the POV of your Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, complete, continuous realization requires at least, time and abundant practice. Perhaps Norbu is missing an important point regarding bodily purification; and...I contend, MMY's fund of knowledge on the topic of Realization is superior to Norbu's. This is not a case of my Guru is superior to yours. Just look at the facts. You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Are you referring to the one who became clinically depressed after her beloved husband died too young? Thanks for reminding me. Hey, remind us too, Vaj. from The Noble Eightfold Path on Wikipedia: Right speech (samyag-vâc · sammâ-vâcâ), as the name implies, deals with the way in which a Buddhist practitioner would best make use of his or her words. In the Magga-vibhanga Sutta, this aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path is explained as follows: And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech. Walpola Rahula glosses this by stating that not engaging in such forms of wrong and harmful speech ultimately means that one naturally has to speak the truth, has to use words that are friendly and benevolent, pleasant and gentle, meaningful and useful. I guess Vaj has a way to go...oh well, at least he is in the 'initial' stages. Spot on ! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:22 PM, kaladevi93 wrote: You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Well kinda. The basic Dzogchen transmission is the transmission of what TMers might parrot as Unity Consciousness. Shearer says that different darshanas have different states of consciousness as their goal and that Dzogchen's darshana (more precisely, it's drsti or View) is that of Unity. So, yes, it begins there. But that is only part of the story. Much of Dzogchen is beyond anything most Tm people would understand. There is a certain amount of overlap if you accept that Advaita Vedanta (as a darshana) and it's result, brahma- chetana, is similar experientially to the acquisition of the Dzogchen View. Of course TM does not lead to Buddhahood and would certainly be considered a false path on a number of grounds. Most TMers don't even comprehend that both TM and the TMSP are soundly part of the yoga and samakhya darshanas, but expect to somehow, miraculously jump paths and Views. Yoga darshana and samkhya darshana both have the same result: turiyatita (CC). What all of the TMers who claim enlightenment share in common is that they're describing vikeka- khyati, an impermanent state. And short of CC. It's extremely unpopular to point this failing out. Perhaps because it's extremely incorrect? Or perhaps because: It really depends on your *definition* (more importantly the *experiential definition*) of enlightenment. Since that experiential definition is different for every darshana, the word enlightenment is only accurate if it is compared within a particular darshana. If you try to compare *across* darshanas (which is actually what you are doing), you are comparing apples to orangutans (actually much worse). Since each darshana not only possesses it's own View *and* it's own intendant logic, arguing across darshanas is a grand logical fallacy if ever there was one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
---Thanks, you're definitely right about the Rainbow Light Body, but it remains to be seen if anybody outside of secluded parts of Tibet will be able to acquire this type of body. This is a hope-for goal in the category of progressive evolution. Evidence suggests that it's at the end of a progressive biological evolution - something not to be aquired through an immediate transmission! (stress release can't be avoided). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:49 PM, matrixmonitor wrote: ---On a conceptual basis, yes...Dzogchen takes place somehow beyond all progressions, and (as Vaj so astutely pointed out); doesn't involve the transmission of Shakti (unlike Muktananda's Shaktipat). But on a practical basis, (as Vaj so unastutely failed to mention); one (the aspirant) is still confronted with the problems of ingrained inertia, stress, vasanas;...etc; all of the traditional Buddhist (or otherwise) impediments to Enlightenment - such as the vices - that we may allude to as behavioral patterns connected to stress - that simply don't vanish in the blink of an eye when one attends a Dzogchen retreat. Sorry this is simply wrong. You don't seem to have any idea of what Mahasandhi/Dzogchen is. One wonders if you even have that transmission. Even as pointed out by the greatest of Dzogchen Masters (Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche among them - this is Vaj's Guru); the element of TIME invariably creeps in, and although one may get it (i.e. Grok IT to a certain extent); the fact remains that unless one is 99.999% already realized, various impediments dissalow one's immediate Enlightenment even though the Dzogchen transmission is immediate. What you fail to mention is that that Dzogchen Fruit, the realization of the Body of Light, is far beyond any of the TM conceptual darshanas or the TM practical darshanas (really basic yoga darshana, CC). Unfortunately, most of the Buddhist Gurus (except possibly the Dalai Lama and a few others); haven't YET gotten the connection between the delay in one's hoped for immediate Enlightenment and the stark reality of time, time, time... ; and the possible cause of that delay: stress. But thanks to MMY, we new insights into the phenomenon of the progression toward Enlightenment; but at the same time, nothing is preventing people from Grok-ing the fact that they are already IT. (even though tomorrow morning and the day after, one may have to Grok this again). And again, this is totally incorrect. In fact the Dalai Lama, as de facto head of the Gelukpa sect, also represents the head of the Lam Rim (the Gradual Path), no? Contrary to what the Neo-Advaitins like HWL Poonja would have us believe, simply Groking IT for the first time may be insufficient; and likewise, simply receiving a Dzogchen transmission a single time may not get people immediately Enlightened. It really depends on your *definition* (more importantly the *experiential definition*) of enlightenment. Since that experiential definition is different for every darshana, the word enlightenment is only accurate if it is compared within a particular darshana. If you try to compare *across* darshanas (which is actually what you are doing), you are comparing apples to orangutans (actually much worse). Since each darshana not only possesses it's own View *and* it's own intendant logic, arguing across darshanas is a grand logical fallacy if ever there was one. Like it or not, a progression of time is usually involved, due to ingrained stresses. Though MMY is not really one of my personal Gurus (I'm a devotee of Padma Sambhava), But you are in direct contradiction to his teaching. You are presenting both a false Path and a false View. One is tempted to assume therfore that your View is false Gary. may he be praised forever for coming up with TM and the connection between progressive Realization and the concept of stress release. Praise God! But in defense of Dzogchen, one simply ditch the attitude that one is not already Pure Consciousness (and then continue with the practice of TM tomorrow and the day after, and the day after).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
But you are in direct contradiction to his teaching. You are presenting both a false Path and a false View. One is tempted to assume therfore that your View is false Gary. As mentioned before; as the success of the Invincible America grows stronger, Vaj is getting more desperate and his language more foul. may he be praised forever for coming up with TM and the connection between progressive Realization and the concept of stress release. Praise God! But in defense of Dzogchen, one simply ditch the attitude that one is not already Pure Consciousness (and then continue with the practice of TM tomorrow and the day after, and the day after).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:22 PM, kaladevi93 wrote: You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Well kinda. The basic Dzogchen transmission is the transmission of what TMers might parrot as Unity Consciousness. Shearer says that different darshanas have different states of consciousness as their goal and that Dzogchen's darshana (more precisely, it's drsti or View) is that of Unity. So, yes, it begins there. But that is only part of the story. Much of Dzogchen is beyond anything most Tm people would understand. There is a certain amount of overlap if you accept that Advaita Vedanta (as a darshana) and it's result, brahma- chetana, is similar experientially to the acquisition of the Dzogchen View. Of course TM does not lead to Buddhahood and would certainly be considered a false path on a number of grounds. Most TMers don't even comprehend that both TM and the TMSP are soundly part of the yoga and samakhya darshanas, but expect to somehow, miraculously jump paths and Views. Yoga darshana and samkhya darshana both have the same result: turiyatita (CC). What all of the TMers who claim enlightenment share in common is that they're describing vikeka- khyati, an impermanent state. And short of CC. It's extremely unpopular to point this failing out. Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth. Thank you. :-) Your quotes from above: * Most TMers don't even comprehend that both TM and the TMSP are soundly part of the yoga and samakhya darshanas... * What all of the TMers who claim enlightenment share in common is that they're describing vikeka-khyati, an impermanent state... * Much of Dzogchen is beyond anything most Tm people would understand... I am quoting you above to highlight the arrogance and foolishness of your grand pronouncements. For the sake of argument, let's say there are 100,000 existing, active TMers, worldwide. Have you even spoken personally with let's say 1,000 practitioners of TM- 1%- in enough depth to assertain their beliefs? I can guess the answer. It is absurd to think you can speak for most TMers or all of the TMers or most Tm people, as you state above. You obviously make this stuff up as you go along. I know you've discovered something that is very special to you, and works for you. Granted. Good for you! But to continue to spread your distortions about TM under the guise of somehow 'speaking the truth' for all of us supposedly naive and uninformed souls, is laughable. Perhaps it is the self-sufficiency of TM that bothers you- no complex intellectual traditions, or direct transmissions from the Master needed. Just plain old TM leading to plain old Realization. Complete, eternal, and timeless. Simply Everything. Could it be that easy? Yep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
---Thanks, to back track a few months to Vaj's erronous and distorted notion that TM is dualist, to repeat another contributor's reply: that what's dualist or otherwise depends on the Consciousness of the aspirant, rather than the technique. But let's take Vaj's Guru: Norbu Rinpoche. He conducts retreats in which the Dzogchen transmission is given. Fine. This is likewise dualist since one must have the Guru right in front of you and pay money for the transmission. So how, Vaj, is this less dualist than the TM mantra? Second, Vaj apparently likes the mindfulness technique. Great, but ideally, this should be practiced in a special retreat. Again, time and money spent for the retreat. Once initiated into TM, it can be taken anywhere, any time. Can one practice mindfulness at a busy airport? No. Third, another technique of Norbu's is the Dance of the Vajra: a type of dance done on a mandala with accompanying Tibetan musical instruments, and the performance of various mudras. Why is this not dualist. As far as techniques go, it's impossible (apparently) to avoid some element of dualism, since mantras, mudras, Dzogchen, etc are types of transmissions. In due time, one may transcend the vehicle, YET...continue with the practice since the transcendence of duality doesn't imply particular changes (chopping water, carrying wood). In short, Vaj's dualism argument doen't hold water. It's a piss poor analysis based on a misinterpretation of his own Guru Norbu and a complete misunderstanding of TM. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:22 PM, kaladevi93 wrote: You mean like one of Mahesh's beautiful and primary students recently going insane? Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure Vaj might agree, he's mentioned it before here: Dzogchen begins where Unity ends. At least that's the gist of Shearer's official comments, right Vaj? Well kinda. The basic Dzogchen transmission is the transmission of what TMers might parrot as Unity Consciousness. Shearer says that different darshanas have different states of consciousness as their goal and that Dzogchen's darshana (more precisely, it's drsti or View) is that of Unity. So, yes, it begins there. But that is only part of the story. Much of Dzogchen is beyond anything most Tm people would understand. There is a certain amount of overlap if you accept that Advaita Vedanta (as a darshana) and it's result, brahma- chetana, is similar experientially to the acquisition of the Dzogchen View. Of course TM does not lead to Buddhahood and would certainly be considered a false path on a number of grounds. Most TMers don't even comprehend that both TM and the TMSP are soundly part of the yoga and samakhya darshanas, but expect to somehow, miraculously jump paths and Views. Yoga darshana and samkhya darshana both have the same result: turiyatita (CC). What all of the TMers who claim enlightenment share in common is that they're describing vikeka- khyati, an impermanent state. And short of CC. It's extremely unpopular to point this failing out. Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth. Thank you. :-) Your quotes from above: * Most TMers don't even comprehend that both TM and the TMSP are soundly part of the yoga and samakhya darshanas... * What all of the TMers who claim enlightenment share in common is that they're describing vikeka-khyati, an impermanent state... * Much of Dzogchen is beyond anything most Tm people would understand... I am quoting you above to highlight the arrogance and foolishness of your grand pronouncements. For the sake of argument, let's say there are 100,000 existing, active TMers, worldwide. Have you even spoken personally with let's say 1,000 practitioners of TM- 1%- in enough depth to assertain their beliefs? I can guess the answer. It is absurd to think you can speak for most TMers or all of the TMers or most Tm people, as you state above. You obviously make this stuff up as you go along. I know you've discovered something that is very special to you, and works for you. Granted. Good for you! But to continue to spread your distortions about TM under the guise of somehow 'speaking the truth' for all of us supposedly naive and uninformed souls, is laughable. Perhaps it is the self-sufficiency of TM that bothers you- no complex intellectual traditions, or direct transmissions from the Master needed. Just plain old TM leading to plain old Realization. Complete, eternal, and timeless. Simply Everything. Could it be that easy? Yep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Perhaps it is the self-sufficiency of TM that bothers you- no complex intellectual traditions, or direct transmissions from the Master needed. Just plain old TM leading to plain old Realization. Complete, eternal, and timeless. Simply Everything. Could it be that easy? Yep. And not nearly elitist enough. You nailed it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nisargadatta quote
-- Nisargadata Maharaj is one of those Neo-Advaitin Nihilists who states that he's Pure Consciousness, but refuses to acknowledge his existence in the relative world. (these teachings are inconsistent with what MMY says...since Brahman has two aspects in One, not one aspect in One.). Thanks anyway for the quote...a good illustration of a 100% teaching, as opposed to MMY's 200%. Buddhism, BTW on the whole; has a pure Consciousness only school; but on the whole (C.f. the statements of the Dalai Lama) is more down to earth than Nis.'s pie in the sky Nihilism. By looking tirelessly, I became quite empty and with that emptiness all came back to me except the mind. I find I have lost the mind irretrievably. I am neither conscious nor unconscious, I am beyond the mind and its various states and conditions. Distinctions are created by the mind and apply to the mind only. I am pure Consciousness itself, unbroken awareness of all that is. I am in a more real state than yours. I am undistracted by the distinctions and separations which constitute a person. As long as the body lasts, it has its needs like any other, but my mental process has come to an end. My thinking, like my digestion, is unconscious and purposeful. I am not a person in your sense of the word, though I may appear a person to you. I am that infinite ocean of consciousness in which all happens. I am also beyond all existence and cognition, pure bliss of being. There is nothing I feel separate from, hence I am all. No thing is me, so I am nothing. Life will escape, the body will die, but it will not affect me in the least. Beyond space and time I am, uncaused, uncausing, yet the very matrix of existence.
