[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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: --- 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Nothing would surprise me anymore I don't understand why you would *ever* have been (presumably unpleasantly) surprised to learn that MMY sought out input from others. If you were creating a curriculum to teach something you thought was of great importance, wouldn't *you* want to explore every possible angle with others who might have something to contribute, and incorporate into your curriculum whatever of their thinking you found valuable? Seems to me assuming you have nothing to learn from anybody would, at the very least, not be good pedagogy. It would be difficult to be surprised about Maharishi seeking out input from others, because he never mentioned it. Honest disclosure, now THAT would be a surprise I always figured that MMY borrowed stuff from other teachers, that doesn't bother me, but if he 'borrowed' it ALL, I'd like to know. How could he NOT borrow it? The Yoga Sutras have been around for between 1200 and 2500 years, depending on who you believe and MMY says that TM is the simplest form of dyhan ala Patanjali. Maharishi claims that the TM program is his unique revival of 'Knowlege' in this time by the grace of Guru Dev, not just a good program structured from remaining practices. I do understand that it's ultimately 'borrowed'. Come on, you know the patter! JohnY
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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... 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 was a closed issue years ago. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Of course, its all just opinion regardless of WHO he spoke to or didn't Uh, actually first-hand information, unlike the already discredited sources you seem to still need to mention.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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: 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 was a closed issue years ago. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Of course, its all just opinion regardless of WHO he spoke to or didn't Uh, actually first-hand information, Firsthand information as to whether MMY is a yogi? The only place that could come from is MMY himself. And your information about the course and lecture material is distinctly second-hand. unlike the already discredited sources you seem to still need to mention. Which discredited sources would these be?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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: 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 was a closed issue years ago. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Of course, its all just opinion regardless of WHO he spoke to or didn't Uh, actually first-hand information, unlike the already discredited sources you seem to still need to mention. Um who discredited Annop Chandola, Swami Shatananda and Swami Vishnudevananda?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 knows. Just taking what has come out here about Maharishi it's obvious that we only know what he presents publically. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Nothing would surprise me anymore That's of course not to say that we can't still feel some appreciation for what good we did receive, but sometimes the going just gets too weird for me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 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. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Nothing would surprise me anymore So how did this stuff get discovered in the first place Xenu left it our brains when we were exiled to Earth? Or maybe ancient sages invented it on their own? Why can't a gifted amateur reinvent the core teachings after hearing the descriptions of spiritual techniques? And why couldn't said amateur end up getting it more right than the people who merely learned it by rote? Better to learn it from the flowering of the teaching inside onself as jnana-vidya and verifiy with ones teacher. That subject, object and intervening process betwixt the two is such a indirect way to learn. Cut and pasting, diluting and marketing standard fair should never be confused with the former.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Nothing would surprise me anymore I don't understand why you would *ever* have been (presumably unpleasantly) surprised to learn that MMY sought out input from others. If you were creating a curriculum to teach something you thought was of great importance, wouldn't *you* want to explore every possible angle with others who might have something to contribute, and incorporate into your curriculum whatever of their thinking you found valuable? Seems to me assuming you have nothing to learn from anybody would, at the very least, not be good pedagogy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 were supposed to be the ones to mistake their beliefs for facts. I see that True Believer phase as a necessary part of seeking spiritual freedom. We've all been through it, TMers and non-TMers alike.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 were creating a curriculum to teach something you thought was of great importance, wouldn't *you* want to explore every possible angle with others who might have something to contribute, and incorporate into your curriculum whatever of their thinking you found valuable? Seems to me assuming you have nothing to learn from anybody would, at the very least, not be good pedagogy. It would be difficult to be surprised about Maharishi seeking out input from others, because he never mentioned it. Honest disclosure, now THAT would be a surprise I always figured that MMY borrowed stuff from other teachers, that doesn't bother me, but if he 'borrowed' it ALL, I'd like to know. Just ask Vaj. I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you that. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Nothing would surprise me anymore I don't understand why you would *ever* have been (presumably unpleasantly) surprised to learn that MMY sought out input from others. If you were creating a curriculum to teach something you thought was of great importance, wouldn't *you* want to explore every possible angle with others who might have something to contribute, and incorporate into your curriculum whatever of their thinking you found valuable? Seems to me assuming you have nothing to learn from anybody would, at the very least, not be good pedagogy. It would be difficult to be surprised about Maharishi seeking out input from others, because he never mentioned it. Honest disclosure, now THAT would be a surprise I always figured that MMY borrowed stuff from other teachers, that doesn't bother me, but if he 'borrowed' it ALL, I'd like to know. How could he NOT borrow it? The Yoga Sutras have been around for between 1200 and 2500 years, depending on who you believe and MMY says that TM is the simplest form of dyhan ala Patanjali.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 what he presents publically. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. There is so much hidden in the TMO, that unless we know from our own experience, we're just guessing... JohnY I agree that it ultimately comes down to an intuitive thing, a feeling, which I am entirely OK with. Trying to *prove* that Maharishi is anything other than what he has presented himself to be is like eating soup with a fork.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: But MMY, in my understanding, teaches exactly the opposite: samadhi is prerequisite to samyama. Obviously samyama is not the same as pure samadhi; 3:8 is a DEscription, not a PREscription. Can you refer us to any source by MMY to that effect, that reflect that that samadhi is prerequisite to samyama ? It's not my understanding of the MMY's teaching (Samyama). As I understand it, Samyama flows and go thru stages (processes, refinement) that evolves into a samadhi stage and not vice versa. Only later on, after more practice, the states of samyama and samadhi almost become one almost instantly. I'm not saying samyama and samadhi are the same. Rather, samadhi is a component of the practice of samyama. You've taken the TM-Sidhis course, right? Think back to the instructions for how to entertain the sutras. And recall that you can't take the TM-Sidhis course until you've had some experience of TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
Did he Cull anything from Paramahansa Yogananda.?? Who is this confidant.?? I heard that MMY used to sit with Sanskrit scholars all night and ask them all kinds of Questions about the Vedas. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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, it's downside is that if it is used for siddhis (e.g. yogic flying) we become more outward, more materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya-shakti) . So the sages say. Thus a method is given which does not necessitate using samyama and thus avoids it's pitfalls. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 Maharishi it's obvious that we only know what he presents publically. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Sorry, Vaj, but that MMY had to do research to develop his teaching is not the least bit problematic. In any case, the issue is not what he knew at some particular point in time, but what he *knows*. Patanjali himself, it is said, did not create but *compiled* the Yoga Sutras from teachings that had been around for a long time. That a student of SBS claims MMY knows nothing about yoga because he isn't a yogi does not, of course, make it the plain truth of the matter, and is moreover not something the student, or any of us, could possibly know with certainty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 Maharishi it's obvious that we only know what he presents publically. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. yoga means union with God, so all you can say is you don't believe Maharishi is in union with God. And I can't argue with that. I hold a different view, but I can't argue with that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 whenever the influences are such as to produce a spontaneous change from a more homogeneous to a less homogeneous state. In the regime of consciousness the influence of the Patanjali sutra on the wholeness of pure consciousness is such as to cause a spontaneous localization of the pure consciousness in the direction of a particular result specified by Patanjali, that is a symmetry breaking of the consciousness takes place whereby the wholeness of consciousness flows into a particular location. http://www.csun.edu/edpsy/Gowan/page38z.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
On Jan 8, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Jason Spock wrote: Did he Cull anything from Paramahansa Yogananda.?? answered offlist Who is this confidant.?? I heard that MMY used to sit with Sanskrit scholars all night and ask them all kinds of Questions about the Vedas. His name 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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: . [...] 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 materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya- shakti). So the sages say. Thus a method is given which does not necessitate using samyama and thus avoids it's pitfalls. Right, that's why Patanjali titled his work How to Become More Outward and Materialistic and Fooled by the Power of Your Own Delusions. Well, that's what he *should* have called it. That he called it How to Know God instead proves he was fooled by the power of his own delusions. What sages, where? C'mon Judy, admit it, Vaj knows waay more than Maharishi and Patanjali, combined!! The only reasons he deigns to participate here is in hope of being recognized as the great seer that he is. 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. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. There is so much hidden in the TMO, that unless we know from our own experience, we're just guessing... People HAVE gone and spoken with the monks that were around Gurudev (note that the OTHER shankaracharyas chosen by committee were NOT long-time students of Gurudev) and they tell a different story than the anti-MMY PR you get from Usenet. Anoop Chandola (google him) spoke with Swami Shantananda about MMY and heard stories from his relatives about how the selection processs went after SBS died. Jay Coplin spoke to various people. When you read theaccount by others, they spoke with the committee-selected Shankaracharya, but never with anyone who was on the other side. IOW, we only get partial stories anyway and whatever story you chose to go with reflects on what you already believe. JohnY
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 Maharishi it's obvious that we only know what he presents publically. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! We also have one brother student who said that MMY was his first choice to succeed him except for the caste issue (Swami Shantananda) and one brother student who says that MMY contributed greatly to SBS's tradition (Swami Vishnudevananda) and one All-India saint (Matanda Moi Ma) whose official biolgraphy mentions visits from MMY and Swami Brahmanada and Swami Shatanada by name, but only mentions the other shankaracharyas by math. I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. As you see it...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: But MMY, in my understanding, teaches exactly the opposite: samadhi is prerequisite to samyama. Obviously samyama is not the same as pure samadhi; 3:8 is a DEscription, not a PREscription. Can you refer us to any source by MMY to that effect, that reflect that that samadhi is prerequisite to samyama ? It's not my understanding of the MMY's teaching (Samyama). As I understand it, Samyama flows and go thru stages (processes, refinement) that evolves into a samadhi stage and not vice versa. Only later on, after more practice, the states of samyama and samadhi almost become one almost instantly. snip One must already know TM and practice to learn and practice MMY's samyama technique. That's a prerequisit in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 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 sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: But MMY, in my understanding, teaches exactly the opposite: samadhi is prerequisite to samyama. Obviously samyama is not the same as pure samadhi; 3:8 is a DEscription, not a PREscription. Can you refer us to any source by MMY to that effect, that reflect that that samadhi is prerequisite to samyama ? It's not my understanding of the MMY's teaching (Samyama). As I understand it, Samyama flows and go thru stages (processes, refinement) that evolves into a samadhi stage and not vice versa. Only later on, after more practice, the states of samyama and samadhi almost become one almost instantly. snip One must already know TM and practice to learn and practice MMY's samyama technique. That's a prerequisit in the first place. right, in that context that Judy was referring to, of teaching new students the Sidhi technique after they are familiar with TM. I understood that she was referring to that later on. initially I was more thinking in the context of a specific one session, of using the mantra in meditation until the flow becomes a full evolved Samadhi. Samyama is basically a pulse of attention, hence any session of meditation will have parts of it as well (not just the Sidhis), therefore also before the full blown Samadhi there will be an ongoing samyama pulses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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@yahoogroups.com, larry.potter larry.potter@ wrote: From: authfriend jstein@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: But MMY, in my understanding, teaches exactly the opposite: samadhi is prerequisite to samyama. Obviously samyama is not the same as pure samadhi; 3:8 is a DEscription, not a PREscription. Can you refer us to any source by MMY to that effect, that reflect that that samadhi is prerequisite to samyama ? It's not my understanding of the MMY's teaching (Samyama). As I understand it, Samyama flows and go thru stages (processes, refinement) that evolves into a samadhi stage and not vice versa. Only later on, after more practice, the states of samyama and samadhi almost become one almost instantly. snip One must already know TM and practice to learn and practice MMY's samyama technique. That's a prerequisit in the first place. right, in that context that Judy was referring to, of teaching new students the Sidhi technique after they are familiar with TM. I understood that she was referring to that later on. initially I was more thinking in the context of a specific one session, of using the mantra in meditation until the flow becomes a full evolved Samadhi. Samyama is basically a pulse of attention, hence any session of meditation will have parts of it as well (not just the Sidhis), therefore also before the full blown Samadhi there will be an ongoing samyama pulses. It seems plausible that you can describe TM as samyama without intention, while the sidhis are samyama with intention.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 were supposed to be the ones to mistake their beliefs for facts. Former True Belevers are often more rabid than current ones.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 Maharishi it's obvious that we only know what he presents publically. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Nothing would surprise me anymore
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. 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 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 to various locales. You'd also know that much lecture material was also not his own. And I believe we have one a brother student of SBS who said flat out, M knew nothing about yoga: he was not a yogi! I know this is hard for some people, but it is the plain truth of the matter. Nothing would surprise me anymore So how did this stuff get discovered in the first place Xenu left it our brains when we were exiled to Earth? Or maybe ancient sages invented it on their own? Why can't a gifted amateur reinvent the core teachings after hearing the descriptions of spiritual techniques? And why couldn't said amateur end up getting it more right than the people who merely learned it by rote?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. Vaj wrote: It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Yoga Sutra 3.4: Samyama is (awareness of) the three (dh�ran�, dhy�na, and sam�dhi) in one place. Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure. 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* So samadhi never takes place during samyama practice? I guess I'll have to explain to my nervous system that something is wrong...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 *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 of samyama is not present.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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. 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. Vaj wrote: It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Yoga Sutra 3.4: Samyama is (awareness of) the three (dhâranâ, dhyâna, and samâdhi) in one place. Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure. So samadhi never takes place during samyama practice? I guess I'll have to explain to my nervous system that something is wrong... OK, let us know what it says.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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- prasaadaat *samaadhi-prajñaa ***VISHAARADII*** bhavati* 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 of samyama is not present. Since it is pure, that's kinda redundant. Nothing wrong with redundant, but don't get all excited about it. The word literally (according to one source) means winning edge, and I get an intution of a divine cut, where the less pure is on one side, and the more pure is on the other. Just as in the first chapter, there is a PROGRESSION towards purity (seedless samadhi). It's not a matter of advanced techniques vs non-advanced, but of mastery (jayàt). My favorite multi-translation site's version is below. The V commentary is Vyasa's. http://www.bindu.freeserve.co.uk/yoga/yogasutra/ys3_comments.htm#sutra3.5 YS 3.5 tajjayàtpraj¤àlokaþ tad - that; jayàt - through victory, from mastery; praj¤à - higher knowledge, higher consciousness; lokaþ - light Translations: [B] The light of the highest knowledge comes from acquisition of this perfect mastery. [D] Samyama on a chosen object leads to a comprehensive knowledge of the object in all its aspects. [F] Through mastery of that [practice of constraint there comes about] the flashing-forth of wisdom (praj¤à). [H] By mastering that, the light of knowledge dawns. [R] By the achievement thereof comes the light of knowledge. [S] By the mastery of samyama comes the light of knowledge. [T] By mastering it (samyama) the light of the higher consciousness. Commentary: V says, As samyama gets firmly established, so does the knowledge attained in samàdhi get purer and purer. H's explanation of V is that as samyama is practised in respect of more and more subtle objects, the knowledge gets more and more clear.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 samadhi only occurs when the triad of samyama is not present. Tom T: Chapter and verse please. I would like to verify this claim. Thanks Tom See YS 3.3-3.10 Vaj likes to take a single translation that fits his notions about what MUST be the ase. That's fine. I like to look at several different translations and intuit how they fit in with what MMY says and taught me. There's no way to prove who is correct about this, despite what Vaj claims, until such time as perfect mastery of the sidhis is demonstrated in a labratory setting. Samyama involves subtle fluctuations of the mind. The sidhis take place at the most subtle level, but they are still fluctuations. That doesn't mean that seedless samadhi doesn't happen during sutra practice, just that the sidhis aren't manifest during that state (how could they be since sidhis are a relative, intentional thing?). Seedless samadhi is turiya, what Vaj likes to call the fourth pranayama. But there is NO characteristic of the fourth. That's why nothing is said of it. Specifically, YS 3.8 says: http://www.bindu.freeserve.co.uk/yoga/yogasutra/ys3_comments.htm#sutra3.3 YS 3.8 tadapi bahiraïgaü nirbãjasya tad -this; api - even, same, as well; bahiþ - external; aïgaü - limb; nirbãjasya - contemplation without seed Translations: [B] These last three limbs must themselves be seen as external compared to contemplation without a seed. [D] The state where the mind has no impressions of any sort and nothing is beyond its reach (nirbãja samàdhi) is more intricate than the state of directing the mind towards an object (samàdhi). [F] Yet, they are outer limbs (bahir-anga) [in regard to] the seedless [ecstasy]. [H] That also is (to be regarded as) external in respect of nirbãja or seedless concentration. [R] Even that is non-intimate to the seedless. [S] Even these three are external to the seedless samadhi. [T] Even that (Sabãja samàdhi) is external to the Seedless (Nirbãja samàdhi).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. Vaj wrote: It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Yoga Sutra 3.4: Samyama is (awareness of) the three (dhâranâ, dhyâna, and samâdhi) in one place. Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure. So samadhi never takes place during samyama practice? I guess I'll have to explain to my nervous system that something is wrong... OK, let us know what it says. That you've got a very wrong idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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. The sidhis occur on the relative side of the divide. Sedless is on the other side. However, just because the sidhis are an obstacle to seedless samadhi, doesn't mean that seedless samadhi can't occur during sutra practice. The manifestation of the sidhi doesn't occur at that point because NOTHING manifests.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 of samyama is not present. Tom T: Chapter and verse please. I would like to verify this claim. Thanks Tom See YS 3.3-3.10 Vaj likes to take a single translation that fits his notions about what MUST be the ase. No actually when I studied the YS it was looking at the 24 most authoritative commentaries from the POV of the lineage of Patanjali. That's fine. I like to look at several different translations and intuit how they fit in with what MMY says and taught me. There's no way to prove who is correct about this, despite what Vaj claims, until such time as perfect mastery of the sidhis is demonstrated in a labratory setting. Actually we were talking about Vyasas's comment. Samyama involves subtle fluctuations of the mind. The sidhis take place at the most subtle level, but they are still fluctuations. That doesn't mean that seedless samadhi doesn't happen during sutra practice, just that the sidhis aren't manifest during that state (how could they be since sidhis are a relative, intentional thing?). Seedless samadhi is turiya, what Vaj likes to call the fourth pranayama. But there is NO characteristic of the fourth. That's why nothing is said of it. There is quite a lot said on this is the supplementary texts. It's very detailed and does require an authentic master of that tradition to properly explain it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 dharana. It is considered external to seedless samadhi. Seedless samadhi only occurs when the triad of samyama is not present. Tom T: Chapter and verse please. I would like to verify this claim. Thanks Tom See YS 3.3-3.10 Vaj likes to take a single translation that fits his notions about what MUST be the ase. No actually when I studied the YS it was looking at the 24 most authoritative commentaries from the POV of the lineage of Patanjali. That's fine. I like to look at several different translations and intuit how they fit in with what MMY says and taught me. There's no way to prove who is correct about this, despite what Vaj claims, until such time as perfect mastery of the sidhis is demonstrated in a labratory setting. Actually we were talking about Vyasas's comment. Samyama involves subtle fluctuations of the mind. The sidhis take place at the most subtle level, but they are still fluctuations. That doesn't mean that seedless samadhi doesn't happen during sutra practice, just that the sidhis aren't manifest during that state (how could they be since sidhis are a relative, intentional thing?). Seedless samadhi is turiya, what Vaj likes to call the fourth pranayama. But there is NO characteristic of the fourth. That's why nothing is said of it. There is quite a lot said on this is the supplementary texts. It's very detailed and does require an authentic master of that tradition to properly explain it. Of course, YOU have found such a master, while MMY isn't...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 mixed with chains of dhyana and dharana. It is considered external to seedless samadhi. Seedless samadhi only occurs when the triad of samyama is not present. Tom T: Chapter and verse please. I would like to verify this claim. Thanks Tom See YS 3.3-3.10 Vaj likes to take a single translation that fits his notions about what MUST be the ase. No actually when I studied the YS it was looking at the 24 most authoritative commentaries from the POV of the lineage of Patanjali. That's fine. I like to look at several different translations and intuit how they fit in with what MMY says and taught me. There's no way to prove who is correct about this, despite what Vaj claims, until such time as perfect mastery of the sidhis is demonstrated in a labratory setting. Actually we were talking about Vyasas's comment. Samyama involves subtle fluctuations of the mind. The sidhis take place at the most subtle level, but they are still fluctuations. That doesn't mean that seedless samadhi doesn't happen during sutra practice, just that the sidhis aren't manifest during that state (how could they be since sidhis are a relative, intentional thing?). Seedless samadhi is turiya, what Vaj likes to call the fourth pranayama. But there is NO characteristic of the fourth. That's why nothing is said of it. There is quite a lot said on this is the supplementary texts. It's very detailed and does require an authentic master of that tradition to properly explain it. Of course, YOU have found such a master, while MMY isn't... I've been very fortunate and no Mahesh is not a yogic Master, although he is advertised as such and tries to dress the part... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 samyama must be absent for seedless (pure) samadhi to occur. Sure. The sidhis occur on the relative side of the divide. Sedless is on the other side. However, just because the sidhis are an obstacle to seedless samadhi, doesn't mean that seedless samadhi can't occur during sutra practice. The manifestation of the sidhi doesn't occur at that point because NOTHING manifests. The translations conquer (Vyasa) and obstacle (Patanjali) suggest that samyama must be overcome before pure samadhi can occur--i.e., that samyama is a bug rather than a feature. But MMY, in my understanding, teaches exactly the opposite: samadhi is prerequisite to samyama. Obviously samyama is not the same as pure samadhi; 3:8 is a DEscription, not a PREscription. To say the 'trinity' (trayam) of samyama must be absent for seedless (pure) samadhi to occur is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the point entirely, at least in MMY's teaching. The purpose of the practice of samyama, according to MMY, is to stabilize the coexistence of samadhi with mental activity. Alistair Shearer writes, By samyama the value of fully expanded awareness [samadhi] is, as it were, coaxed into the very fabric of the thinking mind, so that proficiency in the technique leaves the mind saturated with silence, *no matter how active it may be on the surface* [emphasis added]. Samyama results in 'the state in which activity and silence are equally balanced in the mind' (3:12 [in Shearer's translation]). When that balance is permanent, there is enlightenment. To base an argument about what Patanjali means on a translation of Vyasa's Sanskrit, especially with regard to specific English words, doesn't really make much sense. If the translation conquer is subtly wrong, Patanjali's discourse on samyama-- and on Yoga itself--is turned upside down, inside out, and backward. Patanjali doesn't explain the procedure for the practice of samyama; rather, he explains the mechanics of consciousness by which it occurs, and what it's designed to accomplish. The only way for those not steeped in ancient Sanskrit to really understand those mechanics, it seems to me (and perhaps even for those who are), is to follow the procedural instructions for the practice of samyama given by a master, and see via your own personal experience whether those instructions *work* to produce siddhis (and ultimately enlightenment). Then you can work *backward* from those instructions and that experience to Patanjali's Sanskrit and evaluate the various English translations of Patanjali (and Vyasa). But you can't do it the other way around, starting with translations of Vyasa to determine what Patanjali is saying, and from that determination derive the proper instructions. There are too many layers of potential misunderstanding, and a single mistranslation of a term (e.g., conquer) can lead you down the wrong trail entirely.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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: 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 of samyama is not present. Tom T: Chapter and verse please. I would like to verify this claim. Thanks Tom See YS 3.3-3.10 Vaj likes to take a single translation that fits his notions about what MUST be the ase. No actually when I studied the YS it was looking at the 24 most authoritative commentaries from the POV of the lineage of Patanjali. That's fine. I like to look at several different translations and intuit how they fit in with what MMY says and taught me. There's no way to prove who is correct about this, despite what Vaj claims, until such time as perfect mastery of the sidhis is demonstrated in a labratory setting. Actually we were talking about Vyasas's comment. Samyama involves subtle fluctuations of the mind. The sidhis take place at the most subtle level, but they are still fluctuations. That doesn't mean that seedless samadhi doesn't happen during sutra practice, just that the sidhis aren't manifest during that state (how could they be since sidhis are a relative, intentional thing?). Seedless samadhi is turiya, what Vaj likes to call the fourth pranayama. But there is NO characteristic of the fourth. That's why nothing is said of it. There is quite a lot said on this is the supplementary texts. It's very detailed and does require an authentic master of that tradition to properly explain it. Of course, YOU have found such a master, while MMY isn't... I've been very fortunate and no Mahesh is not a yogic Master, although he is advertised as such and tries to dress the part... :-) Of course, you've spoken with people like Anoop Chandola, whose uncle was part of the group that selected Swami Brahmananda Saraswati to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, about what at least SOME of that gorup think of MMY, right? You spoke directly with Swami Shantananda like Anoop did? You spoke with Swami Vishnudevananda about MMY like Dr. Jay Coplin did? Yeah, you know ALL about MMY and what he is or isn't...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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*** bhavati*
The more (yathaa yathaa) saMyama becomes (bhavati) firmly rooted
(sthirapado: sandhi for sthirapadaH) the more (tathaa tathaa;
tatheshvara...: sandhi for tathaa + iishvara) by the divine
grace (iishvara-prasaadaat) samaadhi-consciousness(?) (samaadhi-
prajñaa) becomes (bhavati) clear(?) (vishaaradii: feminine form
of 'vishaarada', agreeing with the feminine noun 'prajñaa').
yathA [...][EMAIL PROTECTED]@tathA}*** or %{evaI74va} , ` in
whatever manner ' , -` in that manner ' , ` according as ' or `
in proportion as ' , -` so ' , ` by how much the more'-` by so
much ' , `*** the more'-` the more *** ;
sthirapada mf(%{A})n. firmly rooted
bhavati (it) becomes
IzvaraprasAda m. divine grace.
samaadhi-prajñaa samaadhi-consciousness?
vizAradamf(%{A})n. experienced , skilled or proficient in ,
conversant with (loc. or comp. ; %{-tva} n. Pan5cad.) Mn. MBh. c. ;
learned , wise W. ; clever (as a speech) BhP. ; ***of a clear or
serene mind*** Lalit. [...]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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: tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ 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 of samyama is not present. Tom T: Chapter and verse please. I would like to verify this claim. Thanks Tom See YS 3.3-3.10 Vaj likes to take a single translation that fits his notions about what MUST be the ase. No actually when I studied the YS it was looking at the 24 most authoritative commentaries from the POV of the lineage of Patanjali. That's fine. I like to look at several different translations and intuit how they fit in with what MMY says and taught me. There's no way to prove who is correct about this, despite what Vaj claims, until such time as perfect mastery of the sidhis is demonstrated in a labratory setting. Actually we were talking about Vyasas's comment. Samyama involves subtle fluctuations of the mind. The sidhis take place at the most subtle level, but they are still fluctuations. That doesn't mean that seedless samadhi doesn't happen during sutra practice, just that the sidhis aren't manifest during that state (how could they be since sidhis are a relative, intentional thing?). Seedless samadhi is turiya, what Vaj likes to call the fourth pranayama. But there is NO characteristic of the fourth. That's why nothing is said of it. There is quite a lot said on this is the supplementary texts. It's very detailed and does require an authentic master of that tradition to properly explain it. Of course, YOU have found such a master, while MMY isn't... I've been very fortunate and no Mahesh is not a yogic Master, although he is advertised as such and tries to dress the part... :-) Of course, you've spoken with people like Anoop Chandola, whose uncle was part of the group that selected Swami Brahmananda Saraswati to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, about what at least SOME of that gorup think of MMY, right? You spoke directly with Swami Shantananda like Anoop did? You spoke with Swami Vishnudevananda about MMY like Dr. Jay Coplin did? 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 was a closed issue years ago. I realize it's still vital for you, but you have to understand many (most?) of us have already moved on. Best of luck with your path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 bhavati tathaa tatheshvara- prasaadaat *samaadhi-prajñaa ***VISHAARADII*** bhavati* The more (yathaa yathaa) saMyama becomes (bhavati) firmly rooted (sthirapado: sandhi for sthirapadaH) the more (tathaa tathaa; tatheshvara...: sandhi for tathaa + iishvara) by the divine grace (iishvara-prasaadaat) samaadhi-consciousness(?) (samaadhi- prajñaa) becomes (bhavati) clear(?) (vishaaradii: feminine form of 'vishaarada', agreeing with the feminine noun 'prajñaa'). snip samaadhi-prajñaa samaadhi-consciousness? FWIW, Shearer uses the phrase supreme knowledge to translate prajna in 3:5: When samyama is mastered, the light of supreme knowledge dawns. In the introduction, he defines supreme knowledge in this context as the *intellect* in its sattvic purity, transparent to the Self (emphasis added).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 was a closed issue years ago. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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-
prasaadaat *samaadhi-prajñaa ***VISHAARADII*** bhavati*
The more (yathaa yathaa) saMyama becomes (bhavati) firmly rooted
(sthirapado: sandhi for sthirapadaH) the more (tathaa tathaa;
tatheshvara...: sandhi for tathaa + iishvara) by the divine
grace (iishvara-prasaadaat) samaadhi-consciousness(?) (samaadhi-
prajñaa) becomes (bhavati) clear(?) (vishaaradii: feminine form
of 'vishaarada', agreeing with the feminine noun 'prajñaa').
yathA [...][EMAIL PROTECTED]@tathA}*** or %{evaI74va} , ` in
whatever manner ' , -` in that manner ' , ` according as ' or `
in proportion as ' , -` so ' , ` by how much the more'-` by so
much ' , `*** the more'-` the more *** ;
sthirapada mf(%{A})n. firmly rooted
bhavati (it) becomes
IzvaraprasAda m. divine grace.
samaadhi-prajñaa samaadhi-consciousness?
vizAradamf(%{A})n. experienced , skilled or proficient in ,
conversant with (loc. or comp. ; %{-tva} n. Pan5cad.) Mn. MBh. c. ;
learned , wise W. ; clever (as a speech) BhP. ; ***of a clear or
serene mind*** Lalit. [...]
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 materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya-
shakti). So the sages say. Thus a method is given which does not
necessitate using samyama and thus avoids it's pitfalls.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 Swami Brahmananda Saraswati to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, about what at least SOME of that gorup think of MMY, right? You spoke directly with Swami Shantananda like Anoop did? You spoke with Swami Vishnudevananda about MMY like Dr. Jay Coplin did? 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 was a closed issue years ago. I realize it's still vital for you, but you have to understand many (most?) of us have already moved on. So you didn't speak to any of Gurudev's disciples about MMY or get accounts from people who are related to people who helped select SBS? Just who DID you talk to? Best of luck with your path. Best of luck in yours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya- shakti). You can assert this all you want, though you should take into account the maxim, knowledge is structured in consciousness. Your consciousness. There is no inherent downside in performing siddhis, when done properly. To assert that there is some incontrovertable downside to performing siddhis sounds like the preachers of old asserting that money is the root of all evil. There may be conclusions reached by sages in the past, then misintepreted and propagated by others for their own means. To say that the performance of siddhis will somehow make a person more outward and more materialistic completely denies any knowledge of the integration of enlightenment. Your emphasis on scholarly distinctions and divisions sounds *very* materialistic, and something you are probably working on personally. However it does not support the truth of so much spritual knowledge, the goal and experience of which is Unity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 you:
yathaa yathaa saMyamaH sthirapado bhavati tathaa tatheshvara-
prasaadaat *samaadhi-prajñaa ***VISHAARADII*** bhavati*
The more (yathaa yathaa) saMyama becomes (bhavati) firmly rooted
(sthirapado: sandhi for sthirapadaH) the more (tathaa tathaa;
tatheshvara...: sandhi for tathaa + iishvara) by the divine
grace (iishvara-prasaadaat) samaadhi-consciousness(?) (samaadhi-
prajñaa) becomes (bhavati) clear(?) (vishaaradii: feminine form
of 'vishaarada', agreeing with the feminine noun 'prajñaa').
yathA [...][EMAIL PROTECTED]@tathA}*** or %{evaI74va} , ` in
whatever manner ' , -` in that manner ' , ` according as ' or `
in proportion as ' , -` so ' , ` by how much the more'-` by so
much ' , `*** the more'-` the more *** ;
sthirapada mf(%{A})n. firmly rooted
bhavati (it) becomes
IzvaraprasAda m. divine grace.
samaadhi-prajñaa samaadhi-consciousness?
vizAradamf(%{A})n. experienced , skilled or proficient in ,
conversant with (loc. or comp. ; %{-tva} n. Pan5cad.) Mn. MBh. c. ;
learned , wise W. ; clever (as a speech) BhP. ; ***of a clear or
serene mind*** Lalit. [...]
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 materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya-
shakti). So the sages say. Thus a method is given which does not
necessitate using samyama and thus avoids it's pitfalls.
So some sages say. Others say differently.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya- shakti). So the sages say. Thus a method is given which does not necessitate using samyama and thus avoids it's pitfalls. Right, that's why Patanjali titled his work How to Become More Outward and Materialistic and Fooled by the Power of Your Own Delusions. Well, that's what he *should* have called it. That he called it How to Know God instead proves he was fooled by the power of his own delusions. What sages, where?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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, had it years ago and I've talked to all the people I need to. For me this was a closed issue years ago. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Not just made up- closed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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, had it years ago and I've talked to all the people I need to. For me this was a closed issue years ago. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Of course, its all just opinion regardless of WHO he spoke to or didn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 it is used for siddhis (e.g. yogic flying) we become more outward, more materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya- shakti). So the sages say. Thus a method is given which does not necessitate using samyama and thus avoids it's pitfalls. Right, that's why Patanjali titled his work How to Become More Outward and Materialistic and Fooled by the Power of Your Own Delusions. Well, that's what he *should* have called it. That he called it How to Know God instead proves he was fooled by the power of his own delusions. What sages, where? C'mon Judy, admit it, Vaj knows waay more than Maharishi and Patanjali, combined!! The only reasons he deigns to participate here is in hope of being recognized as the great seer that he is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 materialistic and fooled by the power of our own delusions (maya- shakti). So the sages say. Thus a method is given which does not necessitate using samyama and thus avoids it's pitfalls. Right, that's why Patanjali titled his work How to Become More Outward and Materialistic and Fooled by the Power of Your Own Delusions. Well, that's what he *should* have called it. That he called it How to Know God instead proves he was fooled by the power of his own delusions. What sages, where? C'mon Judy, admit it, Vaj knows waay more than Maharishi and Patanjali, combined!! The only reasons he deigns to participate here is in hope of being recognized as the great seer that he is. 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. Teachers, governors, re or decertified, have little relationship with Maharishi. What we do have a peculiar kind of PR. There is so much hidden in the TMO, that unless we know from our own experience, we're just guessing... JohnY
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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@ wrote: But MMY, in my understanding, teaches exactly the opposite: samadhi is prerequisite to samyama. Obviously samyama is not the same as pure samadhi; 3:8 is a DEscription, not a PREscription. Can you refer us to any source by MMY to that effect, that reflect that that samadhi is prerequisite to samyama ? It's not my understanding of the MMY's teaching (Samyama). As I understand it, Samyama flows and go thru stages (processes, refinement) that evolves into a samadhi stage and not vice versa. Only later on, after more practice, the states of samyama and samadhi almost become one almost instantly. snip
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 mentioned in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. Vaj wrote: It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Yoga Sutra 3.4: Samyama is (awareness of) the three (dhâranâ, dhyâna, and samâdhi) in one place. Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 guess, dharma-megha-samaadhi. I wonder what stage typically(?) is the one mentioned in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. Vaj wrote: It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Yoga Sutra 3.4: Samyama is (awareness of) the three (dhâranâ, dhyâna, and samâdhi) in one place. Yes, exactly my point. It's mishra: mixed. Not pure. So samadhi never takes place during samyama practice? I guess I'll have to explain to my nervous system that something is wrong...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 existence of God while following someone who because of their perfected nature (what I would call their Divine nature) gave birth to a religion, didn't make sense to me. Then after exploring what we meant by God, I decided it wasn't the contradiction I had first thought, more an issue of perception and that being a completely personal thing, is not up for debate as far as I am concerned. Everyone perceives God differently, even those choosing not to believe in His/Her existence. Well said. For the record, I don't deny the existence of God; it's just irrelevant to me. None of my personal experiences, including those of realization and extended periods of enlightenment, have indicated to me that what I might term the Absolute has a sentience of its own, or that the universe has a plan or a design that indicates the hand of a Creator who guides or influences it or is even aware of its existence. One of the things I tend to believe that *is* relevant is a well-known (and well-discussed in sociological/antropological/religious studies forums) phenomenon in which spiritual seekers tend to find in their own subjective experiences pretty much what they *expect* to find. Thus someone who has been raised to believe in God tends to *interpret* his or her experiences in terms of experiencing that God. Someone who has been raised in a non-deist environment may have exactly the same experiences, and interpret them devoid of any hint of God. It's just the most fascinating thing. When you read the experiences themselves, two seekers see a formless blaze of light. One interprets this as a vision of God (or an angel or devata or whatever), and the other interprets it only as a formless blaze of light. Go figure. I consider myself fortunate to have been raised without being tinged by any particular religious upbringing. I got tossed out of Sunday School for asking questions like, So Caine went forth from Eden into the Land of Nod and found some women there and begat so-and-so and so-and-so, right? So where did these other women come from? The Sunday School teacher called my parents after that class and told them that I was not welcome back. :-) So I grew up without any particular imprinting that might have colored my understanding of my own spiritual experiences, and cause me to inter- pret them in terms of God. They were what they were, nothing more, nothing less. My first acid trips were simply mind-boggling -- hours and hours of the direct experience of Unity. But because I didn't bring God to the table in terms of an expectation, I was never tempted to interpret those experiences in terms of union with God or the experience of God. It was just an experience of Unity. Same thing with later realization experiences. They were what they were, and are what they are. Intellectually, I resonate with some of the basic premises of Buddhism. For example, they don't have to deal with the notion of a Creator because they don't believe there was ever a Creation. In their view the universe is, has always been, and will always be...it's a continuum of eternality, with no start and no finish. They see what scientists think of as the Big Bang as nothing more than the sound of one champagne cork popping in a long, long, infinitely long party, one that never started and will never end. This resonates with my intuitive feel for the universe and how it is structured. Similarly, the notion of karma + free will to me explains every phenomenon I have ever exper- ienced or witnessed in my life. 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 the individual dancers who inhabit the universe. That said, I am not particularly attached to this point of view. If someday I have an experience that can only be explained in terms of the existence of a sentient God, so be it. I'll change camps as quickly as a Washington lobbyist changes party affiliations when a new adminis- tration hits town. :-) Thanks to Jim for keeping this mini-discussion on a high level.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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. But the other respondent, Barry, seems to be confused and wants to debate Patanjali about the existence of the Ishvara. The term samadhi is a Buddhist term, so what's up with the misinformation about the God of Yoga? The word Samadhi is found in the early Buddhist leterature, specifically the Anguttara Nikaya IV.94 of the Samadhi Sutra of Shakya the Muni, namely Gautama of Kapilavastu, India's first historical yogin. There is a long history of the use of this word in early pre-sectarian Buddhism, in the Chan tradition and in Zen Buddhism. In the index of the Visuddi Magga, for example, there are over twenty-five references to Samadhi that need to be read in context. However, the word Samadhi is not found in any of the 10 Upanishads commented on by Shankara Acharya. This is no small mattter and cannot be passed over, for if, as other respondents say, the attainment of Samadhi is central to the experiential verification of the Vedanta, one would expect the phrase to occur in the sacred texts, would one not? Samadhi: 1. Sanskrit (Saúmaúdhi) n. Jap., sanmai or zanmai 2. Nirvana, Parinirvana 3. from the root word 'Sam', to establish, make firm. 4. A conscious experience that lies beyond waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. 5. A non-meditative meditative mental equipose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 pertains to the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali - one of the main scriptures of the Indian Six Systems. Well, I do enjoy samadhi, like anyone else! Thanks for the background on this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. Vaj wrote: It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Yoga Sutra 3.4: Samyama is (awareness of) the three (dhâranâ, dhyâna, and samâdhi) in one place. Siva Sutra, 2.1: Mantra is mind (consciousness) - cittam mantrah - mind mantra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 the individual dancers who inhabit the universe. That said, I am not particularly attached to this point of view. If someday I have an experience that can only be explained in terms of the existence of a sentient God, so be it. I had a cool experience today, though I can't say it proves the existence of God :-) I was about to make breakfast this morning for my family. It was late, more like brunch, and I figured to drink we'd just have one of the bottles of sparkling apple juice left over from last year's entertaining. Then, randomly, I got a strong urge to make fresh squeezed OJ from the oranges in the backyard. Seemed like a good idea, and I was already preparing breakfast, so I quickly and immediately walked out to the yard to get some oranges. The roofers replacing the roof on a house in back of ours had just shown up for work. I said good morning to one of them, and he said he had just dropped his tool belt in my backyard, and could I please pick it up and toss it to him? I did, he thanked me, I picked some oranges, and went back inside.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 mentioned in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. http://web.mac.com/lawsonenglish/iWeb/Site/Meditation%20EEG.html The highest stage might corresdpond to the periods of universal EEG coherence where the vertical lines are drawn... Compare samadhi with turiya in Mandukya Upanishad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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, dharma-megha-samaadhi. I wonder what stage typically(?) is the one mentioned in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. http://web.mac.com/lawsonenglish/iWeb/Site/Meditation%20EEG.html The highest stage might corresdpond to the periods of universal EEG coherence where the vertical lines are drawn... Compare samadhi with turiya in Mandukya Upanishad. Interesting, the postcontrol breathing seems like more rapid than the precontrol. Huccome?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of 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 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. http://web.mac.com/lawsonenglish/iWeb/Site/Meditation%20EEG.html The highest stage might corresdpond to the periods of universal EEG coherence where the vertical lines are drawn... Compare samadhi with turiya in Mandukya Upanishad. Interesting, the postcontrol breathing seems like more rapid than the precontrol. Huccome? 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 mindset. Because they bring a hierarchical set of assumptions to the table, they see these different types of samadhi experience as existing within a linear structure of experiences that has a top and a bottom, a structure in which the experiences at the top are better than those further down, which are perceived to be less better. This is not the only way to view samadhi exper- iences. I've heard talks from several different teachers who share my more relational view of the structure of creation, and they don't see it that way at all. For them there is NO highest state of consciousness. Such a concept simply doesn't exist for them. There is only the state of consciousness that is going on at the time. If that is stage one samadhi, cool; if it is stage ten samadhi, that's cool, too. If it's normal, vanilla waking state, that's OK, too. They assume (and I do, too, because it jibes with my personal experiences) that there IS no linear sequence of evolution from lowest to highest. No state of consciousness -- even the states of consciousness one associates with ignorance -- is either better or worse than another. They are just what's going on at the time, the level of self-realization you are comfortable with at the time, that's all. They also assume that states of consciousness will continue to change and fluctuate, even after enlightenment is stable. One day you'll be experiencing stage one samadhi, and next something else. Your state of consciousness will continue to fluctuate as long as you have a body, because that is the nature of having a body. And that's OK. They view the idea that one could achieve a certain state of consciousness and consider it the end point and then *stay* there with a great deal of amusement. They laugh until their sides ache, as if someone has just told them the funniest joke they've ever heard.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 mindset. Because they bring a hierarchical set of assumptions to the table, they see these different types of samadhi experience as existing within a linear structure of experiences that has a top and a bottom, a structure in which the experiences at the top are better than those further down, which are perceived to be less better. This is not the only way to view samadhi exper- iences. I've heard talks from several different teachers who share my more relational view of the structure of creation, and they don't see it that way at all. For them there is NO highest state of consciousness. Such a concept simply doesn't exist for them. There is only the state of consciousness that is going on at the time. If that is stage one samadhi, cool; if it is stage ten samadhi, that's cool, too. If it's normal, vanilla waking state, that's OK, too. They assume (and I do, too, because it jibes with my personal experiences) that there IS no linear sequence of evolution from lowest to highest. 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 state. In other words, to say one has stabilized a particular state of consciousness, and is therefore better than someone who hasn't, is obviously nonsense, as you said. On the other hand, to say that one state of consciousness results in a greater degree of happiness and success in life than its previous state is a valid distinction. So it is important to recognize a hierarchy of states of consciousness, so that our own evolution continues smoothly, while at the same time being comfortable within our own dharma (and everyone else's), whatever that may be. In this way, both the hierchical and relational models exist together, without conflict.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 interprets them as stages because they're stuck in a hierarchical mindset. Because they bring a hierarchical set of assumptions to the table, they see these different types of samadhi experience as existing within a linear structure of experiences that has a top and a bottom, a structure in which the experiences at the top are better than those further down, which are perceived to be less better. This is not the only way to view samadhi exper- iences. I've heard talks from several different teachers who share my more relational view of the structure of creation, and they don't see it that way at all. For them there is NO highest state of consciousness. Such a concept simply doesn't exist for them. There is only the state of consciousness that is going on at the time. If that is stage one samadhi, cool; if it is stage ten samadhi, that's cool, too. If it's normal, vanilla waking state, that's OK, too. They assume (and I do, too, because it jibes with my personal experiences) that there IS no linear sequence of evolution from lowest to highest. 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 state. Their view would be that ALL states of consciousness offer exactly the same possibility for enjoyment. If a person finds one state of consciousness more enjoyable than another, that implies a limitation on his or her part, not an inherent attribute of the state of consciousness itself. In other words, to say one has stabilized a particular state of consciousness, and is therefore better than someone who hasn't, is obviously nonsense, as you said. We are agreed on this. On the other hand, to say that one state of consciousness results in a greater degree of happiness and success in life than its previous state is a valid distinction. Not in these teachers' opinion, and not in mine. The ability to experience happiness is neither dependent on one's state of consciousness nor necessarily related to it. And success is off the map entirely; some who are fully realized may be successful, and others not care about it at all. They're all just states of mind, IMO, none higher than another, none intrinsically more valuable than another. So it is important to recognize a hierarchy of states of consciousness, so that our own evolution continues smoothly, while at the same time being comfortable within our own dharma (and everyone else's), whatever that may be. In this way, both the hierchical and relational models exist together, without conflict. We must agree to disagree. I don't think it's either important or valuable to assign a hierarchical status to states of consciousness that have none as their attributes. One brings to the state of consciousness what one brings to it, whether that state of consciousness be deep sleep or dreaming or waking or 'CC' or 'UC.' As Tom suggested earlier, it may be more a matter of attention *within* any given state of consciousness and where that attention is focused than it is the state of conscious- ness itself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 to me that the Vedic/Hindu approach to these different types of samadhi interprets them as stages because they're stuck in a hierarchical mindset. Because they bring a hierarchical set of assumptions to the table, they see these different types of samadhi experience as existing within a linear structure of experiences that has a top and a bottom, a structure in which the experiences at the top are better than those further down, which are perceived to be less better. This is not the only way to view samadhi exper- iences. I've heard talks from several different teachers who share my more relational view of the structure of creation, and they don't see it that way at all. For them there is NO highest state of consciousness. Such a concept simply doesn't exist for them. There is only the state of consciousness that is going on at the time. If that is stage one samadhi, cool; if it is stage ten samadhi, that's cool, too. If it's normal, vanilla waking state, that's OK, too. They assume (and I do, too, because it jibes with my personal experiences) that there IS no linear sequence of evolution from lowest to highest. 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 state. Their view would be that ALL states of consciousness offer exactly the same possibility for enjoyment. If a person finds one state of consciousness more enjoyable than another, that implies a limitation on his or her part, not an inherent attribute of the state of consciousness itself. Fascinating topic-- What I am talking about in terms of enjoyment, and success, is the growth we experience from one state of consciousness to another, and the enjoyment we subsequently gain due to the greater number of possibilities available to us in the higher state of consciousness. It is not our striving from one state to the next that leads to our enjoyment, but just the natural process of progression from one state to the next. As an example, I will use my own experience of God, or the embodiment of Divine energy: My first experience of God was as a vague feeling and something to dedicate my life to. My second experience was of a personal God, experiencing God as a Being with a distinct form and personality, but still as a separate being from myself. My third experience is experiencing God as me. This progression of states of consciousness has occurred because of my dissatisfaction with the previous state of consciousness (or Someone's dissatisfaction anyway...;-)). In other words, there were things I wanted to achieve for myself that were unobtainable at the lesser state of consciousness, so I watched myself evolve to the next state. The next state was then more enjoyable because I was able to accomplish more for myself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 state. Their view would be that ALL states of consciousness offer exactly the same possibility for enjoyment. If a person finds one state of consciousness more enjoyable than another, that implies a limitation on his or her part, not an inherent attribute of the state of consciousness itself. Fascinating topic-- What I am talking about in terms of enjoyment, and success, is the growth we experience from one state of consciousness to another, and the enjoyment we subsequently gain due to the greater number of possibilities available to us in the higher state of consciousness. It is not our striving from one state to the next that leads to our enjoyment, but just the natural process of progression from one state to the next. As an example, I will use my own experience of God, or the embodiment of Divine energy: My first experience of God was as a vague feeling and something to dedicate my life to. My second experience was of a personal God, experiencing God as a Being with a distinct form and personality, but still as a separate being from myself. My third experience is experiencing God as me. Can't comment on that. I'm a Buddhist who doesn't even believe that God exists. :-) This progression of states of consciousness has occurred because of my dissatisfaction with the previous state of consciousness (or Someone's dissatisfaction anyway...;-)). That is my entire point. If you are dissatisfied with *any* state of consciousness, it's because *you* are dissatisfied, not because the state of consciousness is less satisfying than any other. In other words, there were things I wanted to achieve for myself that were unobtainable at the lesser state of consciousness... I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not available to you. Therefore they weren't. Later some- thing happened, which you attribute to a shift in your state of consciousness, and you dropped that limiting assumption and they were available to you. But they were available all along, in every state of consciousness you have ever worn in this life. ...so I watched myself evolve to the next state. The next state was then more enjoyable because I was able to accomplish more for myself. And this is a good thing? Some have it that the purpose of spiritual evolution is to accomplish things for others. :-) As you say, it's a fascinating subject, but I don't think I have anything more to say about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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: 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. http://web.mac.com/lawsonenglish/iWeb/Site/Meditation%20EEG.html The highest stage might corresdpond to the periods of universal EEG coherence where the vertical lines are drawn... Compare samadhi with turiya in Mandukya Upanishad. Interesting, the postcontrol breathing seems like more rapid than the precontrol. Huccome? 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 mindset. Because they bring a hierarchical set of assumptions to the table, they see these different types of samadhi experience as existing within a linear structure of experiences that has a top and a bottom, a structure in which the experiences at the top are better than those further down, which are perceived to be less better. This is not the only way to view samadhi exper- iences. I've heard talks from several different teachers who share my more relational view of the structure of creation, and they don't see it that way at all. For them there is NO highest state of consciousness. Such a concept simply doesn't exist for them. There is only the state of consciousness that is going on at the time. If that is stage one samadhi, cool; if it is stage ten samadhi, that's cool, too. If it's normal, vanilla waking state, that's OK, too. They assume (and I do, too, because it jibes with my personal experiences) that there IS no linear sequence of evolution from lowest to highest. No state of consciousness -- even the states of consciousness one associates with ignorance -- is either better or worse than another. They are just what's going on at the time, the level of self-realization you are comfortable with at the time, that's all. They also assume that states of consciousness will continue to change and fluctuate, even after enlightenment is stable. One day you'll be experiencing stage one samadhi, and next something else. Your state of consciousness will continue to fluctuate as long as you have a body, because that is the nature of having a body. And that's OK. They view the idea that one could achieve a certain state of consciousness and consider it the end point and then *stay* there with a great deal of amusement. They laugh until their sides ache, as if someone has just told them the funniest joke they've ever heard. And MMY doesn't claim this and neither does Patanjali. There's a point past which discussion is impossible, however.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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. I wonder what stage typically(?) is the one mentioned in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Pure samadhi can (and does) occur during samyama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of 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 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. http://web.mac.com/lawsonenglish/iWeb/Site/Meditation%20EEG.html The highest stage might corresdpond to the periods of universal EEG coherence where the vertical lines are drawn... Compare samadhi with turiya in Mandukya Upanishad. Interesting, the postcontrol breathing seems like more rapid than the precontrol. Huccome? Who knows? The most important part is the suspension periods though. The bottom part of the figure is ticked off in seconds, while the top is compressed to show a period of many minutes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 of states of consciousness has occurred because of my dissatisfaction with the previous state of consciousness (or Someone's dissatisfaction anyway...;-)). That is my entire point. If you are dissatisfied with *any* state of consciousness, it's because *you* are dissatisfied, not because the state of consciousness is less satisfying than any other. I can see it that way- means the same thing to me. In other words, there were things I wanted to achieve for myself that were unobtainable at the lesser state of consciousness... I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not available to you. Therefore they weren't. Hang on-- Broadening the discussion beyond human form, would you also say that a chimpanzee doesn't speak English because of some self-imposed limitation? Where do you draw the line between self- imposed limitations and physiologically based limitations? Later some- thing happened, which you attribute to a shift in your state of consciousness, and you dropped that limiting assumption and they were available to you. But they were available all along, in every state of consciousness you have ever worn in this life. ...so I watched myself evolve to the next state. The next state was then more enjoyable because I was able to accomplish more for myself. And this is a good thing? Some have it that the purpose of spiritual evolution is to accomplish things for others. :-) That (accomplishing things for others) could certainly be included as a goal for myself. As you say, it's a fascinating subject, but I don't think I have anything more to say about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 not exist? I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha. Just a normal, everyday guy, who realized what it really is to be a normal, everyday guy. Buddha would have laughed himself silly at the notion that he was anything else. What I don't believe in is God as a being with sentience of his/her/its own or the universe having a will or design/direction of its own. I have no problem with the concept of the Absolute, merely with it having a will or sentience other than that made up of the combination of all the will and sentience of its separate parts. In other words, there were things I wanted to achieve for myself that were unobtainable at the lesser state of consciousness... I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not available to you. Therefore they weren't. Hang on-- Broadening the discussion beyond human form, would you also say that a chimpanzee doesn't speak English because of some self-imposed limitation? Where do you draw the line between self- imposed limitations and physiologically based limitations? I limit myself in these discussions to discussing humans. They have no limitations as far as I am concerned except those that they impose upon themselves. :-) In other words, I do not believe in the stress keeps us from realizing enlightenment theory. Not for a minute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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. 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Pure s samadhi can (and does) occur during samyama. In my understanding there is no saMyama without samaadhi-in-the- sense P. uses that word in the third, because trayam ekatra saMyamaH: ~those three (dhaaraNaa, dhyaana and samaadhi) together (are) saMyama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 exists. :-) Really? If Buddha--Buddhism--Buddhist exists, how can God not exist? I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha. Just a normal, everyday guy, who realized what it really is to be a normal, everyday guy. Buddha would have laughed himself silly at the notion that he was anything else. What I don't believe in is God as a being with sentience of his/her/its own or the universe having a will or design/direction of its own. I have no problem with the concept of the Absolute, merely with it having a will or sentience other than that made up of the combination of all the will and sentience of its separate parts. Why not? 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? In other words, there were things I wanted to achieve for myself that were unobtainable at the lesser state of consciousness... I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not available to you. Therefore they weren't. Hang on-- Broadening the discussion beyond human form, would you also say that a chimpanzee doesn't speak English because of some self-imposed limitation? Where do you draw the line between self- imposed limitations and physiologically based limitations? I limit myself in these discussions to discussing humans. They have no limitations as far as I am concerned except those that they impose upon themselves. :-) In other words, I do not believe in the stress keeps us from realizing enlightenment theory. Not for a minute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Pure s samadhi can (and does) occur during samyama. In my understanding there is no saMyama without samaadhi-in-the- sense P. uses that word in the third, because trayam ekatra saMyamaH: ~those three (dhaaraNaa, dhyaana and samaadhi) together (are) saMyama. Sure. I was referring to the breath-suspension (fourth pranayama) kind of samadhi.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 stage is, I guess, dharma-megha-samaadhi. I wonder what stage typically(?) is the one mentioned in Vibhuuti-paada (third book). It's hardly nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Pure samadhi can (and does) occur during samyama. Pure samadhi? Sound like BS to me Spare.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 nirbiija, because of artha-maatra-nirbhaasam. Or, then again, I don't understand anything about the stages of samaadhi, LOL. It's not pure samadhi in the vibhuti-pada, merely samyama. Pure samadhi can (and does) occur during samyama. Pure samadhi? Sound like BS to me Spare. Why? Pure samadhi can occur at any time in any place, though its rare. Watching a beautiful sunset can induce pure samadhi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 exists. :-) Really? If Buddha--Buddhism--Buddhist exists, how can God not exist? I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha. Just a normal, everyday guy, who realized what it really is to be a normal, everyday guy. Buddha would have laughed himself silly at the notion that he was anything else. What I don't believe in is God as a being with sentience of his/her/its own or the universe having a will or design/direction of its own. I have no problem with the concept of the Absolute, merely with it having a will or sentience other than that made up of the combination of all the will and sentience of its separate parts. These terms (like God) are open to such wide intepretation, it is challenging to discuss them sometimes. Having said that, I can agree that God is not separate from His/Her creation, and that the intelligence and beauty imbued within His/Her creation is not less than the totality of Him/Her. The way I look at it is that God's love for His/Her creation is so great that he allows it to have complete and total freedom (from the Chrstian perspective, resting on the 7th day and all that...). Having said that, I can see your statement that God doesn't exist as compatible with mine. It makes no real difference our beliefs, only what works for each of us. In other words, there were things I wanted to achieve for myself that were unobtainable at the lesser state of consciousness... I would say instead that you *assumed* they were not available to you. Therefore they weren't. Hang on-- Broadening the discussion beyond human form, would you also say that a chimpanzee doesn't speak English because of some self-imposed limitation? Where do you draw the line between self- imposed limitations and physiologically based limitations? I limit myself in these discussions to discussing humans. They have no limitations as far as I am concerned except those that they impose upon themselves. :-) In other words, I do not believe in the stress keeps us from realizing enlightenment theory. Not for a minute. I would agree that stress doesn't keep us from realizing enlightenment, but that it prevents us from sustaining it. I also believe that once we become aware of this, it is up to us and no one else to do something about it. This is based on my direct experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 human form, would you also say that a chimpanzee doesn't speak English because of some self-imposed limitation? Where do you draw the line between self- imposed limitations and physiologically based limitations? Heck, Jim, there's a bunch of chimpanzees who have transcended this limitation and are holding forth on this very forum. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 you. Therefore they weren't. Hang on-- Broadening the discussion beyond human form, would you also say that a chimpanzee doesn't speak English because of some self-imposed limitation? Where do you draw the line between self- imposed limitations and physiologically based limitations? Heck, Jim, there's a bunch of chimpanzees who have transcended this limitation and are holding forth on this very forum. ;-) Aw, yer just monkeyin' around...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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: 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. Just a normal, everyday guy, who realized what it really is to be a normal, everyday guy. Buddha would have laughed himself silly at the notion that he was anything else. What I don't believe in is God as a being with sentience of his/her/its own or the universe having a will or design/direction of its own. I have no problem with the concept of the Absolute, merely with it having a will or sentience other than that made up of the combination of all the will and sentience of its separate parts. Why not? 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? Occam's razor. The universe would work perfectly well through the combination of karma and free will. No sentient God is required to ensure its eternal, effortless functioning, given those two forces. Therefore, why postulate something that is not necessary?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 the contrary, he apparently believed in all the gods. That the Buddha was an athiest, as you define it, is but a false rumor that has been spread because Buddha and his desciples rejected the saving grace of the Vedas, rejected the caste system, and promulgated ahimsa, which upset the blood sacrifice livelihood of vested interests such as the Brahmin priests of his day. According to Gotama, belief in the Gods or God does not in any way alter the law of action and reaction, in which each individual gets exactly what is coming to him, based on his karma or past actions, so whether or not you believe in God or the gods is irrelevant to the topic of samadhi, according to the Buddha.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 Master [Ishvara] is the spiritual man [Purusha], who is unaffected by hindrances [klesha], actions [karma], and the fruition and seed of works. YS I.24
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 Watch of the Night' he had attained knowledge of rebirth, but in the second he attained a different kind of knowledge, the knowledge of karma, the natural law of cause and effect - natural law. According to the Buddhist records the historical Buddha is supposed to have said: With the heavenly eye, purified and beyond the range of human vision, I saw how beings vanish and come to be again. I saw high and low, brilliant and insignificant, and how each obtained according to his karma, a favorable or painful rebirth (55). Works cited: 'The Historical Buddha' By H.W. Shumann Arkana, 1989
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 (what I would call their Divine nature) gave birth to a religion, didn't make sense to me. Then after exploring what we meant by God, I decided it wasn't the contradiction I had first thought, more an issue of perception and that being a completely personal thing, is not up for debate as far as I am concerned. Everyone perceives God differently, even those choosing not to believe in His/Her existence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
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 to a religion, didn't make sense to me. Did Barry say that he was a follower of the historical Buddha? Then after exploring what we meant by God, I decided it wasn't the contradiction I had first thought, more an issue of perception and that being a completely personal thing, is not up for debate as far as I am concerned. Everyone perceives God differently, even those choosing not to believe in His/Her existence. So, why do you suppose Barry insists on stating time after time that he's a Buddhist who doesn't believe in God if it's not up for debate? I'm simply pointing out that most Buddhists that I know believe in all kinds of Gods and Bodhisatvas. By beyond the range of human vision the Buddha meant that there is a transcendental state of conciousness that is beyond our ordinary range of perception.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 of mine. 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 to a religion, didn't make sense to me. Did Barry say that he was a follower of the historical Buddha? Then after exploring what we meant by God, I decided it wasn't the contradiction I had first thought, more an issue of perception and that being a completely personal thing, is not up for debate as far as I am concerned. Everyone perceives God differently, even those choosing not to believe in His/Her existence. So, why do you suppose Barry insists on stating time after time that he's a Buddhist who doesn't believe in God if it's not up for debate? I am saying I don't debate stuff like that. everyone's path is different right? I'm simply pointing out that most Buddhists that I know believe in all kinds of Gods and Bodhisatvas. I would hope so. By beyond the range of human vision the Buddha meant that there is a transcendental state of conciousness that is beyond our ordinary range of perception. Yep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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 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 not exist? I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha. Just a normal, everyday guy, who realized what it really is to be a normal, everyday guy. Buddha would have laughed himself silly at the notion that he was anything else. What I don't believe in is God as a being with sentience of his/her/its own or the universe having a will or design/direction of its own. I have no problem with the concept of the Absolute, merely with it having a will or sentience other than that made up of the combination of all the will and sentience of its separate parts. Why not? 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? Occam's razor. The universe would work perfectly well through the combination of karma and free will. No sentient God is required to ensure its eternal, effortless functioning, given those two forces. Therefore, why postulate something that is not necessary? You assume that the universe would even exist without some uber-deity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
--- 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. Which Buddha? Any ol' 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 to a religion, didn't make sense to me. Then after exploring what we meant by God, I decided it wasn't the contradiction I had first thought, more an issue of perception and that being a completely personal thing, is not up for debate as far as I am concerned. Everyone perceives God differently, even those choosing not to believe in His/Her existence. Atheists might become fully enlightened--one-with-God--and remain atheists. Why? Because what they call God and what God actually might be, might be so far apart as to make no sense if they try to assign the label God to whatever they become one with. God The Concept vs. God The Reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stages of samaadhi
sparaig wrote: You assume that the universe would even exist without some uber-deity. Maybe the world is an appearance only.
