--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has nothing to do with rules per se but those activities that
will
support enlightened activity and realization. The vows are there
for
a reason, they are not just arbitrary. We might not like the
gaudy
sign that
On Jan 12, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote: I mean ultimately if you cannot perceive your consort as pure vision, i.e. as the Deity, the result is NOT going to be enlightenment. Vaj, I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on this a bit. I can see how seeing one's lover as the
On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:15 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has nothing to do with rules per se but those activities that will support enlightened activity and realization. The vows are there for a reason, they are not just
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Welcome to high voltage cause--effect. :-)
And welcome to being limited by what you choose to believe. :-)
IME the vows represent a transcendental morality, that is they
reflect important elements that can help or
On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:02 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Welcome to high voltage cause--effect. :-) And welcome to being limited by what you choose to believe. :-) IME the vows represent a transcendental morality, that is they reflect
--- Vaj wrote:
Vaj wrote:
I mean ultimately if you cannot perceive your consort as pure
vision, i.e. as the Deity, the result is NOT going to be
enlightenment.
Without breaking any vows I think it's safe to say that since you
need to perfect the generation stage before perfecting
On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Patrick Gillam wrote:--- Vaj wrote: Vaj wrote: I mean ultimately if you cannot perceive your consort as pure vision, i.e. as the Deity, the result is NOT going to be enlightenment. Without breaking any vows I think it's safe to say that since you need to perfect
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
IME the vows represent a transcendental morality,
What's a transcendental morality? Seems like a
contradiction in terms, the transcendent being
beyond all distinctions, at least by any definition
I've ever encountered.
On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:03 AM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip IME the vows represent a transcendental morality, What's a "transcendental morality"? Seems like a contradiction in terms, the transcendent being beyond all distinctions, at
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:03 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
IME the vows represent a transcendental morality,
What's a transcendental morality? Seems
On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:14 AM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:03 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip IME the vows represent a transcendental morality, What's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:14 AM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
IME the vows represent a transcendental morality,
What's a transcendental morality? Seems like a
On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:35 AM, authfriend wrote:I don't believe you addressed my question.I have. Distinctions, no matter how fine, cannot be "transcendental," by definition--unless you're using a very different definition of the transcendent than any I've ever seen. Jnana is transcendental.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:35 AM, authfriend wrote:
I don't believe you addressed my question.
I have.
Distinctions, no matter how fine, cannot be
transcendental, by definition--unless you're
using a very different
On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:03 PM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:35 AM, authfriend wrote: I don't believe you addressed my question. I have. Distinctions, no matter how fine, cannot be "transcendental," by
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:03 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:35 AM, authfriend wrote:
I don't believe you addressed my question.
On Jan 13, 2006, at 1:29 PM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:03 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:35 AM, authfriend wrote: I don't believe you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 1:29 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:03 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
oxymoronic
eight morons? I have just counted five so far. :)
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
Vaj writes;snipped
Yuganaddha, two-in-one, is a paradox that's difficult to describe in
linear words. There will automatically be a disconnect between written
descriptions and the experience itself. It cannot be adequately
described by words in written or spoken speech.
Tom T:
Is this the same as
--- Vaj wrote:
Vaj wrote:
I mean ultimately if you cannot perceive your consort as pure
vision, i.e. as the Deity, the result is NOT going to be
enlightenment.
Without breaking any vows I think it's safe to say that since you
need to perfect the generation stage before perfecting
On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Patrick Gillam wrote:--- Vaj wrote:Vaj wrote:I mean ultimately if you cannot perceive your consort as purevision, i.e. as the Deity, the result is NOT going to beenlightenment.Without breaking any vows I think it's safe to say that since you need to perfect the
On Jan 13, 2006, at 7:15 PM, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis wrote:Vaj writes;snipped Yuganaddha, two-in-one, is a paradox that's difficult to describe in linear words. There will automatically be a disconnect between written descriptions and the experience itself. It cannot be adequately
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 7:15 PM, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis wrote:
Vaj writes;snipped
Yuganaddha, two-in-one, is a paradox that's difficult to describe in
linear words. There will automatically be a disconnect between
perfect for the seeker addicted to seeking
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mission of Diamond Mountain is to provide all of the
conditions,
inside and outside of us, that we need to actually reach
enlightenment, ourselves, before the day we die.
Would they need to seek anything else?If it is what it claims, there would not need to be anymore seeking, as it would contain the entire path. After obtaining stable experiences, they'd be able to teach on their own.On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:01 AM, uvulonicus wrote:perfect for the seeker addicted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the primary teachers, Geshe Michael Roach, has declared
that he has taken a (sexual) consort. He has also claimed a
certain degree of realization.
Quelle horreur!
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the primary teachers, Geshe Michael Roach, has declared that he has taken a (sexual) consort. He has also claimed a certain degree of realization. Quelle horreur! Well
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment University
on 1/12/06 10:57 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the primary teachers, Geshe Michael Roach, has
On Jan 12, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Rick Archer wrote:on 1/12/06 10:57 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the primary teachers, Geshe Michael Roach, has declaredthat he has taken
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 12, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
on 1/12/06 10:57 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the primary teachers, Geshe Michael Roach, has declared
that he has taken a (sexual)
Well the reason there is a controversy has to do with the fact
he is a monk and has not disrobed.
However...for a yogin in this path if he has mastered the
creation
stage of meditation to the point where he no longer has impure
vision, it's not a problem. It will be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the reason there is a controversy has to do with the fact
he is a monk and has not disrobed.
However...for a yogin in this path if he has mastered the
creation
stage of meditation to the point
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well the reason there is a controversy has to do with the fact
he is a monk and has not disrobed.
However...for a yogin in this path if he has mastered the
creation
stage of meditation to the point
On Jan 12, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:One of the primary teachers, Geshe Michael Roach, has
On Jan 12, 2006, at 1:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:Well the reason there is a controversy has to do with the fact he is a monk and has not disrobed. However...for a yogin in this path if he has mastered the creation stage of meditation to the point where he no longer has impure vision, it's
--- Vaj wrote:
I mean ultimately if you cannot perceive your consort as pure
vision, i.e. as the Deity, the result is NOT going to be
enlightenment.
Vaj, I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on
this a bit. I can see how seeing one's lover as
the Deity would indicate a lofty level
38 matches
Mail list logo
