[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
  If you don't understand the difference, then 
  you're probably not qualified to comment. 
 
Lawson wrote:
 For those who are awaree of how different they 
 are from those around them, everything becomes 
 an opportunity to reveal those differences.

Or, everything becomes an opportunity to reveal
the unity in the experience of pure consciopusness.
Differences are only apparent - there's really only
a sameness in the experience.

According to Bernard, Kashmere Saivism accepts 
the fundamental premise that pure conciousness is 
the substance of the universe. 

Work cited:

'Philosophical Foundations of India' 
by Theos. Bernard
Rider, 1945
Amazon Paperback 

Being the last living guru of Kashmir Saivism 
meant that Swamiji held the pure distillation of 
a rich spiritual tradition

Self Realization in Kashmere Shaivism
The Oral teachings of Swami Laksmanjoo
By John Hughes
SUNY, 1994

Centering: The Supreme Awakening: 
http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/centering.htm

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Vaj]

Silly Willy:

On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


Vaj wrote:

It helps to have an experiential understanding
of the different states of consciousness being
expressed in the two different types of texts,


The transcendental state is the state being
discussed in the Shiva Sutras and there is only
one transcendental state of consciousness. You can
get an experiential unsterstanding of the
transcendental state by practicing transcendental
meditation.


Willy the word transcendental is an English word and does not appear  
in the Shiva sutras of Vasagupta. It's actually left undefined in TM- 
speak in terms of Sanskrit equivalents so it could be applied to  
whatever the Marsh-man wanted. Great for marketing your product, bad  
for authenticity.







yoga and nondualism. They're different states
of consciousness.


According to the Shiva Sutras, there are three
states of conciousness, Trika, but there is also
a fourth state, Turiya, the non-dual state. The
purpose of practicing yoga is to experience this
non-dual state.


Willy, it's the approach to that state that differs.





Although one can intellectually understand it,
it really is only clear if you are actually
experientially familiar with the states of
consciousness and their POV.


You can read the Shiva Sutras and you can read
commentaries by the Lachsmanjoo, but until you've
reached the transcendental state, you will not
understand the non-dual state of Turiya.


Unfortunately for your typically weak hypothesis the word  
transcendental is a moving target. It can mean whatever you want it  
to mean. You need to actually refer to a source word in the original  
text, not a vague or universal adjective in English--and these would  
have to be in synch with realizers and the way-of-seeing of the text  
you're referring to--you do neither. Methinks you're falling for the  
very common fallacy of other TMer TB's on this list, trying to argue  
from a vague but attractive English marketing term! :-)


Well at least we know you were sold!





To the ignorant it would just sound like
nit-picking.


Only the ignorant need to nit-pick - especaiily
those who have not experienced the transcendent,
and those who cannot read Sanskrit and those who
do not understand that the peractice of TM is the
best and fasted way to reach the transcendent.


What do you think the transcendent means experientially Willy?


Wise men like the Swami Lachsmanjoo practice TM
as taught by the Marshy, THEN they expound on the
various states of consciousness and read the
sutras.


Actually Swami Lakshman Joo didn't practice TM. But some fools have  
even tried to connect Trika literature to TM.


Swami Lakshman Joo meditated with his eyes wide open. I'm guessing,  
but I think you might want to get checked Willy. Since you seem to  
speak Texan, you might want to have an English-Texan translator  
available!

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
 It helps to have an experiential understanding 
 of the different states of consciousness being 
 expressed in the two different types of texts,

The transcendental state is the state being 
discussed in the Shiva Sutras and there is only 
one transcendental state of consciousness. You can 
get an experiential unsterstanding of the 
transcendental state by practicing transcendental 
meditation.
 
 yoga and nondualism. They're different states 
 of consciousness. 

According to the Shiva Sutras, there are three
states of conciousness, Trika, but there is also
a fourth state, Turiya, the non-dual state. The
purpose of practicing yoga is to experience this
non-dual state.

 Although one can intellectually understand it, 
 it really is only clear if you are actually 
 experientially familiar with the states of 
 consciousness and their POV.
 
You can read the Shiva Sutras and you can read
commentaries by the Lachsmanjoo, but until you've
reached the transcendental state, you will not
understand the non-dual state of Turiya.

 To the ignorant it would just sound like 
 nit-picking.

Only the ignorant need to nit-pick - especaiily
those who have not experienced the transcendent,
and those who cannot read Sanskrit and those who
do not understand that the peractice of TM is the
best and fasted way to reach the transcendent.

Wise men like the Swami Lachsmanjoo practice TM
as taught by the Marshy, THEN they expound on the
various states of consciousness and read the
sutras. Ignorant people like Vaj like to nit-pick
about the differences between the Trika and the
Sri Vidya, not understanding that they are both
the same and that the Marshy's TM is the actual
practicum of both.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Vaj]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 8:52 PM
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
  no_reply@ wrote:
  
   -
   
   They seem to translate
  saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
   That sucks!  :D
  
  
  Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is
  seen in a yoga-darshana text (the 
  Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e.
  the shiva-sutras of Vasagupta).
  
  If you don't understand the difference, then you're
  probably not qualified to comment. :-)
 
 Say more about this, guys.

Technical terms have different meanings when expressed from different vantage 
points.

saMyamaa from the point of view of yoga sees two things as separate, and so 
they need to 
be joined through introverting away from the outside world, focusing attention 
and then 
joining attention till there's no longer an observed, process of observing and 
an observer. 
Then the subject-object duality collapses. It's dualistic by nature and that's 
the View of the 
yoga way-of-seeing and the samkhya way-of-seeing. Since the path is dualistic 
their fruit 
or style of awakening can only, ipso facto, retain some dualism (e.g., CC). In 
order to 
evolve to a nondual (pathless) path, one basically has to dissolve or let go 
of any 
dualistic process (Alambana).

However saMyamaa from the POV of nondual Shaivism has the View that one is 
already 
Shiva, I am Shiva. There's nothing to attain, nothing to modify, nothing to 
transcend. 
We're already innately awake. So from the POV of the shiva-sutra, it sees 
saMyamaa as 
sameness or super-sameness. Seamlessness.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Vaj]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 For those who are awaree of how different they are from those around them, 
 everything 
 becomes an opportunity to reveal those differences.
 
 
 Lawson

It helps to have an experiential understanding of the different states of 
consciousness being 
expressed in the two different types of texts, yoga and nondualism. They're 
different states 
of consciousness. Although one can intellectually understand it, it really is 
only clear if you 
are actually experientially familiar with the states of consciousness and their 
POV.

To the ignorant it would just sound like nit-picking.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
 Actually it highlights how differently the 
 word samyama is seen in a yoga-darshana text 
 (the Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual 
 Shaivite text (i.e. the shiva-sutras of 
 Vasagupta).
 
 If you don't understand the difference, then 
 you're probably not qualified to comment. :-)

Two birds sat on a tree; one ate the fruit; the 
other looked on. - Rig Veda 1-164-20

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Richard J. Williams]

cardemaister wrote:
 That seems to support the idea of Maharishi-effect:
 someone being in samaadhi (e.g. during YF) radiates
 happiness into the whole universe?
 
3-44 naisargikah pra-nasambandhah

The link with the vital breath is natural.

- Subhash C. Kak

http://www.saivism.net/etexts/sivasutras.asp

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  
  For those who are awaree of how different they are from those around them, 
everything 
  becomes an opportunity to reveal those differences.
  
  
  Lawson
 
 It helps to have an experiential understanding of the different states of 
 consciousness 
being 
 expressed in the two different types of texts, yoga and nondualism. They're 
 different 
states 
 of consciousness. Although one can intellectually understand it, it really is 
 only clear if 
you 
 are actually experientially familiar with the states of consciousness and 
 their POV.
 
 To the ignorant it would just sound like nit-picking.


Quite.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
 
  -
  
  They seem to translate saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
  That sucks!  :D
 
 
 Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is seen in a
yoga-darshana text (the 
 Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e. the
shiva-sutras of Vasagupta).
 
 If you don't understand the difference, then you're probably not
qualified to comment. :-)


Perhaps. The translation is so commentary-ish that it's a bit
hard to evaluate it. 

OTOH, I like the translation of 1.18:

lokaanandaH (loka+aanandaH) samaadhisukham

The joy of his mystical trance (samaadhi) is bliss for
the whole universe.

---

That seems to support the idea of Maharishi-effect:
someone being in samaadhi (e.g. during YF) radiates
happiness into the whole universe?

IMO, in Sanskrit, as I believe in English and many other
languages, the preferred position of the subject in a
sentence is before the predicative, or whatever that sentence
constituent is called in English. For the above translation
IMO one has to take samaadhi-sukham to be the subject, and
lokaanandaH to be the predicative, as if the word order 
would be:

samaadhisukhaM lokaanandaH

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
  
   They seem to translate saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
   That sucks!  :D
  
  Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is seen 
  in a yoga-darshana text (the 
  Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e. the
  shiva-sutras of Vasagupta).
  
  If you don't understand the difference, then you're probably not
  qualified to comment. :-)
 
 Perhaps. The translation is so commentary-ish that it's a bit
 hard to evaluate it. 
 
 OTOH, I like the translation of 1.18:
 
 lokaanandaH (loka+aanandaH) samaadhisukham
 
 The joy of his mystical trance (samaadhi) is bliss for
 the whole universe.
 
 ---
 
 That seems to support the idea of Maharishi-effect:
 someone being in samaadhi (e.g. during YF) radiates
 happiness into the whole universe?

Card, I am not a Sanskrit nerd the way you and
Vaj are, nor am I ever likely to be. But I cannot
help but be struck by the fact that you like the
translation of 1:18 above because 1) it reaffirms
in your mind that Maharishi was right, and 2)
it reaffirms the self-centric, I-am-important-
to-the-universe-and-can-change-its-very-nature-
by-simply-changing-my-own-subjective-state-of-
attention stance that Maharishi promoted.

 IMO, in Sanskrit, as I believe in English and many other
 languages, the preferred position of the subject in a
 sentence is before the predicative, or whatever that sentence
 constituent is called in English. For the above translation
 IMO one has to take samaadhi-sukham to be the subject, and
 lokaanandaH to be the predicative, as if the word order 
 would be:
 
 samaadhisukhaM lokaanandaH

But it isn't. Therefore, isn't it more likely that
the original placement of the words connotes some-
thing more along the lines of, The bliss of the
whole universe is *interpreted* by him as the joy 
of his mystical trance (samaadhi)?

This is just playing with words for me, but it also
reflects my beliefs that the writers of these words
didn't necessarily know much more than we do, and
that if there really is any truth to be found in
them (let alone Truth), that truth probably does
not revolve around the seeker's own sense of self
importance and his value to the universe. 

Time and the reactions of others to the TM-centric
claim that *we* (the butt-bouncers) and *we* alone
are responsible for everything of a positive nature
that happens in this world should have produced a
realization in those who promote that idea that it's
an idea based in ego. Wouldn't a more evolved stance
be more along the lines of, I don't know whether
this silly thing I do every day benefits the universe
or not, but I gain some subjective benefits from it
and thus can hope that my (hopefully) improved state
of mind can be of benefit to others.

There is some humility in the latter stance. There
is none is declaring, essentially, that I am respon-
sible for the bliss of the whole universe.

Words are clothes that thoughts wear.
- Samuel Butler 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
-snip-

 Time and the reactions of others to the TM-centric
 claim that *we* (the butt-bouncers) and *we* alone
 are responsible for everything of a positive nature
 that happens in this world should have produced a
 realization in those who promote that idea that it's
 an idea based in ego. Wouldn't a more evolved stance
 be more along the lines of, I don't know whether
 this silly thing I do every day benefits the universe
 or not, but I gain some subjective benefits from it
 and thus can hope that my (hopefully) improved state
 of mind can be of benefit to others.
 
 There is some humility in the latter stance. There
 is none is declaring, essentially, that I am respon-
 sible for the bliss of the whole universe.
 
 Words are clothes that thoughts wear.
 - Samuel Butler

thanks again for a provocative piece of writing. the way i 
understand the operation of TM with regards to bliss and the 
universe is that it is a mechanical way to transcend and in so doing 
reliably enlivens the foundation of this universe, which is bliss. 

i think the Maharishi recognized TM's unique value in being able to 
reliably and mechanically enliven this universal source of bliss and 
hence made his claims of responsibility for positive global change.

it is not a statement of ego, but rather one of mechanical 
certainty, much as rolling a ball down a hill guarantees that it 
will reach the bottom of the hill.

without the knowledge of this simple mechanical process, one could 
easily mistake the claims of the Maharishi to be ego tripping. 
alternatively, a person could claim that they instead have a 
mechanically reliable way for anyone to transcend that is not TM. 

no other technique has been shown to have the same reliable and 
mechanical qualities for everyone as does TM. this is not a claim 
about the glorified specialness of TM. rather it is a statement of 
the unique property of this technique, that it is both mechanical 
and reliable with regard to enliviening bliss, for anyone who 
practices it. 

given this reliable and mechanical enlivening of bliss, which is the 
foundation of the universe, it follows logically that positive 
changes on a macro scale will result if enough people do the TM 
technique. how these positive changes manifest is controversial and 
i would be the first to say that the macro effects of large groups 
doing TM cannot be predicted. and even if they could, someone would 
claim positve benefits were really negative, and vice versa.

and you thought i didn't do TM...:) 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[cardemaister]

-

They seem to translate saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
That sucks!  :D

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 -

 They seem to translate saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
 That sucks!  :D

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Vaj]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 -
 
 They seem to translate saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
 That sucks!  :D


Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is seen in a 
yoga-darshana text (the 
Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e. the shiva-sutras of 
Vasagupta).

If you don't understand the difference, then you're probably not qualified to 
comment. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[Peter]

--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 8:52 PM
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  -
  
  They seem to translate
 saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
  That sucks!  :D
 
 
 Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is
 seen in a yoga-darshana text (the 
 Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e.
 the shiva-sutras of Vasagupta).
 
 If you don't understand the difference, then you're
 probably not qualified to comment. :-)

Say more about this, guys.




 
 
 
 
 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
 
 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
 
  -
  
  They seem to translate saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
  That sucks!  :D
 
 
 Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is seen in a 
 yoga-darshana text 
(the 
 Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e. the shiva-sutras of 
 Vasagupta).
 
 If you don't understand the difference, then you're probably not qualified to 
 comment. 
:-)


For those who are awaree of how different they are from those around them, 
everything 
becomes an opportunity to reveal those differences.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 
 
 
 --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Shiva Sutras'
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 8:52 PM
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
  no_reply@ wrote:
  
   -
   
   They seem to translate
  saMyamaat in 3.44 to 'sameness'.
   That sucks!  :D
  
  
  Actually it highlights how differently the word samyama is
  seen in a yoga-darshana text (the 
  Patanjali yoga-sutras) and a nondual Shaivite text (i.e.
  the shiva-sutras of Vasagupta).
  
  If you don't understand the difference, then you're
  probably not qualified to comment. :-)
 
 Say more about this, guys.
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  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