--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 jyouells@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 jyouells@
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 1:43 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
snip
Yeah, you know ALL about MMY and what he is or isn't...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 1:43 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 1:43 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:56 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he
On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:25 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
snip
There is so much hidden in the TMO, that unless we know
from our own experience, we're just guessing...
Or unless of course you knew and talked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
snip
yoga means union with God, so all you can say is you don't believe
Maharishi is in union with God.
I thought it was TM True Believers who
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
I don't understand why you would *ever* have been
(presumably unpleasantly) surprised to learn that MMY
sought out input from others. If you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 jyouells@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
snip
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he knows. Just taking what
has
come out here about Maharishi it's obvious that we only know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, larry.potter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
snip
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he knows. Just taking what
has
come out here about Maharishi it's obvious that we only know what he
presents
publically.
: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
Or unless of course you knew and talked with one of M's closest confidants
who helped set up SCI and the birth of the sidhi program... :-)
Having done that you'd know that he knew none of this stuff, but had to seek
it out with couriers dispatched
But, what is the definition of 'flying'.??
Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:05:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
Samyama's good side is that it helps fine-tune and hone our ability to
discriminate finer aspects of awareness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he knows. Just taking
what
has
come out here
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he knows. Just taking
what
has
come out here
a nice quote that describes the sanyama and P' Sutra process:
The parallel between the quantum field theory of effortless
creation and Maharishi's theory of sanyama continues in that both
involve spontaneous symmetry breaking. The creation of a Goldstone
boson takes place in a quantum field
will not appear here. He deserves his peace as well
answered separately.
Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:30:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
Or unless of course you knew and talked with one of M's closest
confidants who helped set up SCI
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
. [...]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he knows. Just taking what
has
come out here
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, larry.potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
snip
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Original Message -
From: sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, larry.potter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: authfriend [EMAIL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, larry.potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original Message -
From: sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- In FairfieldLife
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
yoga means union with God, so all you can say is you don't believe
Maharishi is in union with God.
I thought it was TM True Believers who were supposed
to be the ones to mistake their beliefs for facts.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
snip
yoga means union with God, so all you can say is you don't believe
Maharishi is in union with God.
I thought it was TM True Believers who
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi we (they) don't know what he knows. Just taking what
has
come out here about
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, jyouells2000 wrote:
The problem is, Jim, that unless someone(s) here has a personal
relationship
with Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:21 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Vyaasa doesn't seem to agree with you:
tasya saMyamasya jayaat samaadhiprajñaayaa bhavatyaaloko
yathaa yathaa saMyamaH sthirapado bhavati tathaa tatheshvara-
prasaadaat *samaadhi-prajñaa ***VISHAARADII*** bhavati*
Actually he says you must
On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:52 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:21 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Vyaasa doesn't seem to agree with you:
tasya saMyamasya jayaat samaadhiprajñaayaa bhavatyaaloko
yathaa yathaa saMyamaH sthirapado bhavati tathaa tatheshvara-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vaj writes:
Actually he says you must *conquer* (jayAt) samyama. This is
because samyama is mixed with chains of dhyana and dharana. It is
considered external to seedless samadhi. Seedless
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:52 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is mentioned in Vyasa's comment to YS 3:5 9( jayat). That's what
Cardemeister was quoting.
In v. 8 commentary he says that the trinity (trayam) of samyama
must be absent for seedless (pure) samadhi to occur.
Sure.
On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vaj writes:
Actually he says you must *conquer* (jayAt) samyama. This is
because samyama is mixed with chains of dhyana and dharana. It is
considered external to seedless samadhi. Seedless samadhi only
occurs when the triad
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote:
tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
Vaj writes:
Actually he says you must *conquer* (jayAt) samyama. This is
because samyama is mixed with chains of dhyana and
On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:36 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote:
tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
Vaj writes:
Actually he says you must *conquer* (jayAt) samyama. This is
because samyama is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
It is mentioned in Vyasa's comment to YS 3:5 9( jayat).
That's what Cardemeister was quoting.
In v. 8 commentary he says that the trinity (trayam) of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:36 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote:
tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote:
Vaj writes:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure.
Vyaasa doesn't seem to agree with you:
yathaa yathaa saMyamaH sthirapado bhavati tathaa tatheshvara-
prasaadaat *samaadhi-prajñaa ***VISHAARADII***
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:36 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:07 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure.
Vyaasa doesn't seem to agree with you:
yathaa yathaa saMyamaH sthirapado
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
snip
Yeah, you know ALL about MMY and what he is or isn't...
Thanks I have all the evidence I need, had it years ago and I've
talked to all the people I need to. For me this
On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:15 PM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure.
Vyaasa doesn't seem to agree with you:
yathaa yathaa saMyamaH sthirapado bhavati tathaa tatheshvara-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
Of course, you've spoken with people like Anoop Chandola, whose
uncle was part of the
group that selected
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip Samyama's good side is that it helps fine-tune and hone our
ability
to discriminate finer aspects of awareness, it's downside is that
if
it is used for siddhis (e.g. yogic flying) we become more
outward,
more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:15 PM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure.
Vyaasa doesn't seem to agree with
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. [...]
Samyama's good side is that it helps fine-tune and hone our ability
to discriminate finer aspects of awareness, it's downside is that if
it is used for siddhis (e.g. yogic flying) we become more outward,
more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
snip
Yeah, you know ALL about MMY and what he is or isn't...
Thanks I have all the evidence I need,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:23 AM, sparaig wrote:
snip
Yeah, you know ALL about MMY and what he is or isn't...
Thanks I have all the evidence I need,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
. [...]
Samyama's good side is that it helps fine-tune and hone our
ability
to discriminate finer aspects of awareness, it's downside is
that if
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
. [...]
Samyama's good side is that it helps fine-tune and hone our
ability
From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
snip
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha
On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest stage is, I guess,
dharma-megha-samaadhi.
I wonder what stage typically(?) is the one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest stage is, I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willytex@ wrote:
jim_flanegin wrote:
I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
Which Buddha?
Any ol' Buddha. My logic was that to deny the
jim_flanegin wrote:
I barely know anything about religion.
Jim - You seem to be interested in religion, this topic concerns the
stages of samadhi. I'm just trying to point out that the word samadhi
pertains to the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali - one of the main scriptures
of the Indian Six Systems.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim_flanegin wrote:
I barely know anything about religion.
Jim - You seem to be interested in religion, this topic concerns the
stages of samadhi. I'm just trying to point out that the word samadhi
cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest stage is, I guess,
dharma-megha-samaadhi.
I wonder what stage typically(?) is the one mentioned
in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I feel no need
to postulate a creator or a sentient being
behind any of these phenomena; every single
one of them could have come about as a result
of nothing more than the eternal dance of karma
and the free will of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest stage is, I guess,
dharma-megha-samaadhi.
I wonder what stage typically(?) is the one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest stage is, I guess,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just as fodder for discussion, if anyone's on that
wavelength, it seems to me that the Vedic/Hindu
approach to these different types of samadhi
interprets them as stages because they're stuck
in a hierarchical
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Just as fodder for discussion, if anyone's on that
wavelength, it seems to me that the Vedic/Hindu
approach to these different types of samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Just as fodder for discussion, if anyone's on that
wavelength, it seems
I think there is a distinction to be made here, between
making some sort of value judgment about one state of
consciousness vs. another, and recognizing the valid
attributes of each state of consciousness, and that
enjoyment grows with the attainment of each successive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 5:28 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest stage is, I guess,
dharma-megha-samaadhi.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can't comment on that. I'm a Buddhist who doesn't
even believe that God exists. :-)
Really? If Buddha--Buddhism--Buddhist exists, how can God not
exist? I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
This progression
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Can't comment on that. I'm a Buddhist who doesn't
even believe that God exists. :-)
Really? If Buddha--Buddhism--Buddhist exists, how can God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 5:28 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Can't comment on that. I'm a Buddhist who doesn't
even believe that God
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 5:28 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions
On Jan 5, 2007, at 1:59 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 5:28 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main distinction seems to be sabiija- vs.
nirbiija-samaadhi. The highest
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 1:59 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 5:28 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Yoga-suutra mentions several stages of samaadhi.
The main
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
Can't comment on that. I'm a Buddhist who doesn't
even believe that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not
available to you. Therefore they weren't.
Hang on-- Broadening the discussion beyond
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not
available to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heck, Jim, there's a bunch of chimpanzees who
have transcended this limitation and are holding
forth on this very forum.
;-)
Shucks, Bonzo, she's found us out. Time to scram.
TurquoiseB wrote:
I'm a Buddhist
Which one?
who doesn't even believe that God exists.
You've mentioned this numerous times, as if it were a badge of honer,
being an athiest, and using that to impress other respondents. But
there is no evidence that the historical Buddha was an athiest. On
sparaig wrote:
The sentience of the Whole may be so incomprensible as to be
undetectable by any of the sentient parts, so it may not matter,
but why assume that there is or isn't such a thing?
It's not at all that complicated. If you read the Yoga Sutras,
Patanjali makes it dirt simple:
The
jim_flanegin wrote:
I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
Which Buddha?
The historical Buddha taught causation. The Buddhist teaching on karma
is entailed in the Buddha's sermon on the 'Second Watch of the Night'
when the Gotama described his attainment of enlightenment.
In the 'First
authfriend wrote:
Heck, Jim, there's a bunch of chimpanzees who
have transcended this limitation and are holding
forth on this very forum.
It's all about Barry, isn't it?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim_flanegin wrote:
I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
Which Buddha?
Any ol' Buddha. My logic was that to deny the existence of God while
following someone who because of their perfected nature
jim_flanegin wrote:
I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
Which Buddha?
Any ol' Buddha.
The historical Buddha?
My logic was that to deny the existence of God while
following someone who because of their perfected nature
(what I would call their Divine nature) gave birth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim_flanegin wrote:
I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
Which Buddha?
Any ol' Buddha.
The historical Buddha?
Beats me. I barely know anything about religion. not a strong
interest
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willytex@ wrote:
jim_flanegin wrote:
I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha.
sparaig wrote:
You assume that the universe would even
exist without some uber-deity.
Maybe the world is an appearance only.
93 matches
Mail list logo
