[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ingegerd" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading through it.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brahmachari108" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > What Maharishi? Talking only about first verse of Rg Ved for 
30
> > > > years makes a maharishi?
> > > 
> > > The Details of Vedic Cognition
> > > 
> > > Dr Hagelin: `The last question is a deep one about the details 
> of 
> > > Vedic cognition. Last week, Maharishi spoke of the deep 
> mechanics 
> > of 
> > > cognition of the wholeness of the Veda by the Rishis of ancient 
> > > India. Maharishi said every Rishi sees the Veda, the 
> Constitution 
> > of 
> > > the Universe, in one syllable "A", which contains within it all 
> > the 
> > > details of the Veda.
> > > 
> > > My question is: Do these details of the Veda include the 
> > individual 
> > > recommendations for diet, herbal remedies, sound therapies, and 
> > > purification procedures that are available in Ayurveda, or the 
> > > precise mathematical calculations for proper layout of a 
> building 
> > > that are found in Sthapatya Veda? Did all these details of 
these 
> > > different branches of the Veda also originate in the original 
> > > cognitions of the ancient Vedic Rishis—the cognitions of "A"? 
Or 
> > were 
> > > they developed subsequently by commentators at a later time?' 
> > > 
> > > Maharishi: `No, when we say "later time", time emerges from 
> there 
> > > [laughter]. Time emerges from there.
> > > 
> > > `About "A": it is like when you see the moon. When you see the 
> > moon, 
> > > you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon. Then what happens is, 
> > when 
> > > you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon, seeing the moon, what 
> is 
> > > inside the moon begins to come into vision—what is inside. Then 
> > what 
> > > is inside that, comes out; what is inside that, comes out; what 
> is 
> > > inside that, comes out. 
> > > 
> > > `That is the situation about cognition of "A". "A" is a total 
> > > syllable. "A" is said to be—"A" is—Sarva Vak. "Sarva Vak" means 
> > total 
> > > speech. "A" is total speech. When you see it, you get so 
> absorbed 
> > in 
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > `In the seeing process, the process of seeing takes the seer to 
> > the 
> > > sight. Now you want to see, you see "A". You are here, "A" is 
> > > somewhere in front. You see. So the seer jumps out of his own 
> > eyes; 
> > > from the eyes, he reaches the sight, and then brings the sight 
> to 
> > the 
> > > eyes. This is the process of seeing—the sight comes out and 
> > occupies 
> > > the seer. The sight becomes the seer.
> > > 
> > > `When the sight becomes the seer, then the sight, which is "A", 
> is 
> > no 
> > > more in the vision. What is in the vision is "A", which has 
> become 
> > > the seer, and what was inside "A" remains a sight. Then, in 
> turn, 
> > the 
> > > same thing happens: something that was there inside "A" jumps 
> out 
> > > of "A", jumps out from within "A", and again occupies the seer.
> 
> And somebody sees the syllable M for Money.
> Ingegerd

Pathological.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[Ingegerd]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading through it.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brahmachari108" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > What Maharishi? Talking only about first verse of Rg Ved for 30
> > > years makes a maharishi?
> > 
> > The Details of Vedic Cognition
> > 
> > Dr Hagelin: `The last question is a deep one about the details 
of 
> > Vedic cognition. Last week, Maharishi spoke of the deep 
mechanics 
> of 
> > cognition of the wholeness of the Veda by the Rishis of ancient 
> > India. Maharishi said every Rishi sees the Veda, the 
Constitution 
> of 
> > the Universe, in one syllable "A", which contains within it all 
> the 
> > details of the Veda.
> > 
> > My question is: Do these details of the Veda include the 
> individual 
> > recommendations for diet, herbal remedies, sound therapies, and 
> > purification procedures that are available in Ayurveda, or the 
> > precise mathematical calculations for proper layout of a 
building 
> > that are found in Sthapatya Veda? Did all these details of these 
> > different branches of the Veda also originate in the original 
> > cognitions of the ancient Vedic Rishis—the cognitions of "A"? Or 
> were 
> > they developed subsequently by commentators at a later time?' 
> > 
> > Maharishi: `No, when we say "later time", time emerges from 
there 
> > [laughter]. Time emerges from there.
> > 
> > `About "A": it is like when you see the moon. When you see the 
> moon, 
> > you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon. Then what happens is, 
> when 
> > you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon, seeing the moon, what 
is 
> > inside the moon begins to come into vision—what is inside. Then 
> what 
> > is inside that, comes out; what is inside that, comes out; what 
is 
> > inside that, comes out. 
> > 
> > `That is the situation about cognition of "A". "A" is a total 
> > syllable. "A" is said to be—"A" is—Sarva Vak. "Sarva Vak" means 
> total 
> > speech. "A" is total speech. When you see it, you get so 
absorbed 
> in 
> > it.
> > 
> > `In the seeing process, the process of seeing takes the seer to 
> the 
> > sight. Now you want to see, you see "A". You are here, "A" is 
> > somewhere in front. You see. So the seer jumps out of his own 
> eyes; 
> > from the eyes, he reaches the sight, and then brings the sight 
to 
> the 
> > eyes. This is the process of seeing—the sight comes out and 
> occupies 
> > the seer. The sight becomes the seer.
> > 
> > `When the sight becomes the seer, then the sight, which is "A", 
is 
> no 
> > more in the vision. What is in the vision is "A", which has 
become 
> > the seer, and what was inside "A" remains a sight. Then, in 
turn, 
> the 
> > same thing happens: something that was there inside "A" jumps 
out 
> > of "A", jumps out from within "A", and again occupies the seer.

And somebody sees the syllable M for Money.
Ingegerd





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[jim_flanegin]

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading through it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brahmachari108" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > What Maharishi? Talking only about first verse of Rg Ved for 30
> > years makes a maharishi?
> 
> The Details of Vedic Cognition
> 
> Dr Hagelin: `The last question is a deep one about the details of 
> Vedic cognition. Last week, Maharishi spoke of the deep mechanics 
of 
> cognition of the wholeness of the Veda by the Rishis of ancient 
> India. Maharishi said every Rishi sees the Veda, the Constitution 
of 
> the Universe, in one syllable "A", which contains within it all 
the 
> details of the Veda.
> 
> My question is: Do these details of the Veda include the 
individual 
> recommendations for diet, herbal remedies, sound therapies, and 
> purification procedures that are available in Ayurveda, or the 
> precise mathematical calculations for proper layout of a building 
> that are found in Sthapatya Veda? Did all these details of these 
> different branches of the Veda also originate in the original 
> cognitions of the ancient Vedic Rishis—the cognitions of "A"? Or 
were 
> they developed subsequently by commentators at a later time?' 
> 
> Maharishi: `No, when we say "later time", time emerges from there 
> [laughter]. Time emerges from there.
> 
> `About "A": it is like when you see the moon. When you see the 
moon, 
> you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon. Then what happens is, 
when 
> you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon, seeing the moon, what is 
> inside the moon begins to come into vision—what is inside. Then 
what 
> is inside that, comes out; what is inside that, comes out; what is 
> inside that, comes out. 
> 
> `That is the situation about cognition of "A". "A" is a total 
> syllable. "A" is said to be—"A" is—Sarva Vak. "Sarva Vak" means 
total 
> speech. "A" is total speech. When you see it, you get so absorbed 
in 
> it.
> 
> `In the seeing process, the process of seeing takes the seer to 
the 
> sight. Now you want to see, you see "A". You are here, "A" is 
> somewhere in front. You see. So the seer jumps out of his own 
eyes; 
> from the eyes, he reaches the sight, and then brings the sight to 
the 
> eyes. This is the process of seeing—the sight comes out and 
occupies 
> the seer. The sight becomes the seer.
> 
> `When the sight becomes the seer, then the sight, which is "A", is 
no 
> more in the vision. What is in the vision is "A", which has become 
> the seer, and what was inside "A" remains a sight. Then, in turn, 
the 
> same thing happens: something that was there inside "A" jumps out 
> of "A", jumps out from within "A", and again occupies the seer.
> 
> `So all the time, the sight becomes the seer, and then the seer 
sees 
> something else—what was beneath it. This process of seeing, in 
> itself, is so unfolding that it unfolds whatever is inside, and 
keeps 
> on unfolding, keeps on unfolding, keeps on unfolding. 
> 
> `Immediately, in the second evolvement of "A", is a gap. There is 
a 
> gap, because the sight becomes the seer, and inside the sight, it 
> becomes the new sight. The new sight becomes the seer, —the new 
sight.
> 
> `Then the whole "A", seen like that, brings to sight complete 
> emptiness, which is the last reality of "A". "A", entering into 
it, 
> entering into it, entering into it, and then there is nothing to 
see: 
> it is emptiness—"A". It is that emptiness, the total abstraction, 
> which is within a point. Within a point is that total abstraction, 
> unmanifest, transcendental reality.
> 
> `When seeing "A", the process of seeing presents, ultimately, 
> something that is transcendental. That is emptiness, a big zero. 
What 
> is this big zero? It is emptiness of "A". It is no more "A"; it is 
> complete absence of "A", the totality of "A" in the unmanifest.
> 
> `This is the cognition of the Veda—"Ak". When the "A" ends, then 
> there is the gap there. And then, after the gap, comes out to 
> be "Ka". "Ka" is a Kan. "Kan" means the point. So from the 
wholeness 
> to nothingness. Nothingness is the gap. The gap after "A" is 
> nothingness.
> 
> `From the total value of speech, "A" to the end of "A", this is 
> cognition of "A". "A" cognized means the Totality cognized. What 
was 
> there when the Totality was cognized? There was no Totality; there 
> was the basis of Totality, the shadow of Totality. The unmanifest—
> like the hollowness of the banyan seed—is there. The hollowness is 
> there. 
> 
> `That hollowness is called the "Sandhi". Sandhi is the gap. In the 
> whole Vedic Literature, in the whole flow of the Veda, there is a 
> word and there is a gap; there is a word and a gap, and a word and 
a 
> gap, and a word and a gap. So when Rishi Madhuchhandas saw Veda, 
he 
> saw "A", and he saw unmanifest "A". Then he saw some other words, 
and 
> then he saw the unmanifest of that, and he saw some other words, 
and 
> he saw 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld"  
> > 
> > > >  To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in 
> Buddhism;
> > > > or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to
> > > > incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like 
> > > > mathematics. How about the broadest definition possible: 
> > > > Cognizing anything true.
> > >
> > 
> > What is truth?
> 
> Anything you cognize.
>

so much for testing your intuition in the cold light of the relative.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001"  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy to
> > > spot as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before you 
> were 
> > > to go out. If someone were to ask in which direction the fire 
> had 
> > > gone, north, south, east, or west, what would you reply?
> > > 
> > > I got this from this website: 
> > > http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html 
> > > which has a nice discussion on these issues.
> > 
> > My *sakes*, what a fascinating site!
> > 
> > Who IS that guy??
> > 
> > I just spent about a half an hour clicking around
> > the site trying to find out who he (?) is and got
> > nowhere.  Then I realized I must be asking an
> > indeterminate question.  ;-)
> 
> Probably! I don't know who the owner of the site is either. I was 
> just reminded of all this stuff by Barry's point on the universe 
> being eternal, and remembering vaguely about the 'indeterminate 
> questions' from Thurman's course, and I found the site via Google.
> I thought it was a really good discussion of the issues.

He sure has a gift for putting these impossible abstractions
into words.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001"  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy to
> > > spot as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before you 
> were 
> > > to go out. If someone were to ask in which direction the fire 
> had 
> > > gone, north, south, east, or west, what would you reply?
> > > 
> > > I got this from this website: 
> > > 
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html 
> > > which has a nice discussion on these issues.
> > 
> > My *sakes*, what a fascinating site!
> > 
> > Who IS that guy??
> > 
> > I just spent about a half an hour clicking around
> > the site trying to find out who he (?) is and got
> > nowhere.  Then I realized I must be asking an
> > indeterminate question.  ;-)
> 
> Probably! I don't know who the owner of the site is either. I was 
> just reminded of all this stuff by Barry's point on the universe 
> being eternal, and remembering vaguely about the 'indeterminate 
> questions' from Thurman's course, and I found the site via Google. 
I 
> thought it was a really good discussion of the issues.
> 
> Geoff
>
I looked at it, and it made my head hurt. An elaborate attempt to 
explain the inexplicable. To quote Seinfeld, "not that there's 
anything wrong with it..."






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[coulsong2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001"  
> wrote:
> 
> > Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy to
> > spot as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before you 
were 
> > to go out. If someone were to ask in which direction the fire 
had 
> > gone, north, south, east, or west, what would you reply?
> > 
> > I got this from this website: 
> > http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html 
> > which has a nice discussion on these issues.
> 
> My *sakes*, what a fascinating site!
> 
> Who IS that guy??
> 
> I just spent about a half an hour clicking around
> the site trying to find out who he (?) is and got
> nowhere.  Then I realized I must be asking an
> indeterminate question.  ;-)

Probably! I don't know who the owner of the site is either. I was 
just reminded of all this stuff by Barry's point on the universe 
being eternal, and remembering vaguely about the 'indeterminate 
questions' from Thurman's course, and I found the site via Google. I 
thought it was a really good discussion of the issues.

Geoff






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[Vaj]

On Mar 30, 2006, at 10:38 AM, sparaig wrote:> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld"  > >  To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in Buddhism;> > or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to> > incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like > > mathematics. How about the broadest definition possible: Cognizing > > anything true.>What is truth?1(mwd)satyamf(%{A})n. true , real , actual , genuine , sincere , honest , truthful , faithful , pure , virtuous , good. successful , effectual , valid (%{satyaM-kR} , `" to make true , ratify , realise , fulfil "') RV. &c. &c. ; m. the uppermost of the seven Lokas or worlds (the abode of Brahma1 and heaven of truth ; see %{loka}) L. ; N. of the ninth Kalpa (q.v.) Pur. ; the As3vattha tree L. ; N. of Vishn2u L. ; of Ra1ma-candra L. ; of a supernatural being Gaut. VarBr2S. Hcat. ; of a deity presiding over the Na1ndi1-mukha S3ra1ddha L. ; of one of the Vis3ve Deva1h Cat. ; of a Vya1sa Cat. ; of a son of Havir-dha1na BhP. ; of a son of Vitatya MBh. ; of one of the 7 R2ishis in various Manvantaras Hariv. Pur. ; (with %{AcArya}) N. of an astronomer (author of the Hora1-s3a1stra) VarBr2S. ; pl. N. of a class of gods in various Manvantaras Hariv. Pur. ; (%{A}) f. speaking the truth , sincerity , veracity W. ; a partic. S3akti Pan5car. ; N. of Durga1 Cat. ; of S3ita1 L. ; of Satyavati1 (mother of Vya1sa) L. ; = %{satya-bhAmA} MBh. Hariv. S3is3. ; of the family deity of the Kutsas and Atharvans Cat. ; of a daughter of Dharma (and wife of S3am2-yu) MBh. ; of the mother of Satya (= %{tuSita}) VP. ; of the wife of Manthu (and mother of Bhauvana) BhP. ; of a daughter of Nagna-jit (and wife of Kr2ishn2a) ib. ; (%{am}) n. truth , reality (%{satyena} , `" truly "' , `" certainly "' , `" really "' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] , `" for what reason , how is it that? "' [EMAIL PROTECTED] , `" for that reason , so truly "' ; %{yathA-tena} [or %{evaM}] %{satyena} , `" as-so truly "' ; with Buddhists truth is of two kinds , viz. %{saMvRti-} and %{paramA7rtha-satyam} , `" truth by general consent "' and `" self-evident truth "' Dharmas. 95 ; for the four fundamental truths of Buddhists see MWB. 43 ; 56) RV. &c. &c. ; speaking the truth , sincerity , veracity KenUp. Mn. R. &c. ; a solemn asseveration , vow , promise , oath ([EMAIL PROTECTED] , `" wishing to fulfil one's promise or keep one's word "') AV. &c. &c. ; demonstrated conclusion , dogma W. ; the quality of goodness or purity or knowledge MW. ; the first of the four Yugas or ages (= 1. %{-kRta4} q.v.) L. ; a partic. mythical weapon R. ; the uppermost of the 7 Lokas (see under m.) Veda7ntas. BhP. ; one of the 7 Vya1hr2itis L. ; partic. Satya-formula A1s3vS3r. ; = %{udaka} , water Naigh. i , 12 ; (also with %{prajApateH}) N. of Sa1mans A1rshBr. S3rS. ; (%{a4m}) ind. (g. %{cA7di} and %{svar-Adi}) truly , indeed , certainly , verily , necessarily , yes , very well (%{satyam-tu} , [EMAIL PROTECTED] , %{tathA7pi} , `" it is true - but , yet , however "' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] , `" indeed , certainly "') RV. &c. &c. [Cf. accord. to some , Gk. $.]





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld"  
> 
> > >  To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in 
Buddhism;
> > > or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to
> > > incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like 
> > > mathematics. How about the broadest definition possible: 
> > > Cognizing anything true.
> >
> 
> What is truth?

Anything you cognize.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy to
> spot as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before you were 
> to go out. If someone were to ask in which direction the fire had 
> gone, north, south, east, or west, what would you reply?
> 
> I got this from this website: 
> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html 
> which has a nice discussion on these issues.

My *sakes*, what a fascinating site!

Who IS that guy??

I just spent about a half an hour clicking around
the site trying to find out who he (?) is and got
nowhere.  Then I realized I must be asking an
indeterminate question.  ;-)







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[sparaig]

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld"  

> >  To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in Buddhism;
> > or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to
> > incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like 
> > mathematics. How about the broadest definition possible: Cognizing 
> > anything true.
>

What is truth?





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> >
> > While what you say below about the "indeterminable questions"
> > is true, Geoff, I have a very different theory as to why
> > the Buddha chose to fit certain things into that category.
> > It has nothing whatsoever to do with "category errors."
> > It's because thinking about them is a total waste of time. 
> > Nothing would be gained from knowing the answer. :-)  
> 
> Except that your argument seems to be that something would 
> indeed be gained from knowing the answer - that it would tend
> towards a world view that avoided some of the negative aspects 
> of the Hindu world view as you see them and supported some of 
> the positive aspects of the Buddhist world view as you see them. :-

That is not inconsistent with such things being 
a total waste of time.  :-)  

> > That said, you are welcome to your opinion as to what the
> > Buddha said about whether the universe was ever created
> > or not (which is the main point I'm homing in on, *not*
> > whether it is eternal in the sense of lasting forever into
> > the future). 
> 
> ('Eternal' in this context means that the universe will 
> last forever into the future AND that there never was a 
> start to it.)
> 
> > I base my belief on what I have been told by 
> > real, live teachers of Buddhism from several different 
> > sects -- Japanese, Tibetan, and Chinese. All were agreed 
> > on a cosmology in which there was never a start to creation.  
> > That's the thing that I think most distinguishes the mythos
> > of Buddhism from almost any other philosophy or study. It
> > creates a very, very different set of assumptions than
> > believing that there *was* a start to creation and that
> > creation has flowed linearly since that start.
> > 
> > Your mileage may vary...sounds as if it has. Believe 
> > whatever you want. 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > I tend to believe the real-life teachers
> > I've met and worked with. If you have heard differently from 
> > the real-life teachers with whom you have personally studied 
> > Buddhism, I'd love to hear who they were and what they thought 
> > about this matter. 
> 
> I got interested in this initially on a course I did (actually I 
> just sat in on the lectures :-)) at Columbia University, New York, 
> that was run by a prominent Buddhist called Robert Thurman. As I 
> remember it (I could be wrong though as it was a few years back) 
> he took the category error view.

That is his right. I tend towards the pragmatic view.

> > If, on the other hand, you're just looking 
> > for a pissing contest based on something you read on a website
> > somewhere, look elsewhere.  :-)
> 
> I was looking for a discussion on the nature of the 
> indeterminate questions rather than on the specific 
> questions themselves. As you say, your view is that 
> thinking about them is a total waste of time (this, 
> apparently, is indeed a common view in Buddhist traditions). 

Yup. And the "waste of time" part is primarily in 
terms of, "Would knowing the answer to this question
reduce suffering in myself or in others?" It's purely
pragmatic. There are, obviously, various schools of
thought as to why Buddha avoided dealing with certain
questions. Another possibility is that he just didn't 
have a clue. :-)

> And yet you have obviously thought about this one at 
> least and come to a specific conclusion. :-)

I've come to a hypothesis I *like*. I don't know any 
more than anyone else whether there was actually a start
to creation. Intuitively, the idea that there was *not* 
one seems to resonate better with me than the idea
that there was. What I *like* about having heard, from
a number of Buddhist sources, that they *didn't* have
any particular creation myth because they didn't think
there actually *was* a creation, was how *liberating*
such a notion was, and how many linearity hangups were 
avoided as a result.

It's *all* hypothetical, and thus the opposite of
pragmatic, but I just loved finding a philosophy that
deals with the age-old questions of How Things Started
and Who/What Started Them by taking one step back and
asking, "Who said it ever started?"  :-)







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[coulsong2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> While what you say below about the "indeterminable questions"
> is true, Geoff, I have a very different theory as to why
> the Buddha chose to fit certain things into that category.
> It has nothing whatsoever to do with "category errors."
> It's because thinking about them is a total waste of time. 
> Nothing would be gained from knowing the answer. :-)  

Except that your argument seems to be that something would indeed be 
gained from knowing the answer - that it would tend towards a world 
view that avoided some of the negative aspects of the Hindu world 
view as you see them and supported some of the positive aspects of 
the Buddhist world view as you see them. :-)
 
> That said, you are welcome to your opinion as to what the
> Buddha said about whether the universe was ever created
> or not (which is the main point I'm homing in on, *not*
> whether it is eternal in the sense of lasting forever into
> the future). 

('Eternal' in this context means that the universe will last forever 
into the future AND that there never was a start to it.)

> I base my belief on what I have been told by 
> real, live teachers of Buddhism from several different 
> sects -- Japanese, Tibetan, and Chinese. All were agreed 
> on a cosmology in which there was never a start to creation.  
> That's the thing that I think most distinguishes the mythos
> of Buddhism from almost any other philosophy or study. It
> creates a very, very different set of assumptions than
> believing that there *was* a start to creation and that
> creation has flowed linearly since that start.
> 
> Your mileage may vary...sounds as if it has. Believe 
> whatever you want. 

Thanks!

> I tend to believe the real-life teachers
> I've met and worked with. If you have heard differently from 
> the real-life teachers with whom you have personally studied 
> Buddhism, I'd love to hear who they were and what they thought 
> about this matter. 

I got interested in this initially on a course I did (actually I 
just sat in on the lectures :-)) at Columbia University, New York, 
that was run by a prominent Buddhist called Robert Thurman. As I 
remember it (I could be wrong though as it was a few years back) he 
took the category error view.

> If, on the other hand, you're just looking 
> for a pissing contest based on something you read on a website
> somewhere, look elsewhere.  :-)

I was looking for a discussion on the nature of the indeterminate 
questions rather than on the specific questions themselves. As you 
say, your view is that thinking about them is a total waste of time 
(this, apparently, is indeed a common view in Buddhist traditions). 

And yet you have obviously thought about this one at least and come 
to a specific conclusion. :-)

Regards,

Geoff
 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001"  
> wrote:
> >
> > In the below Barry says that "Buddhism believes that the 
> > universe is eternal, and that there has never been and 
> > will never be a moment in which the universe was not 
> > manifest and created." 
> > 
> > In fact, I've noticed (while lurking) that he quite often 
> > makes this assertion. But it's my impression that this is 
> > just plain wrong - Buddhism does NOT say this.
> > 
> > The question of whether the world is eternal or not eternal 
> > is one of the Buddha's 'ten indeterminate questions'. In 
> > fact, Buddhism says that 
> > 
> > - it is not true that world is eternal 
> > - it is not true that world is not eternal 
> > - it is not true that world is both eternal and not eternal 
> > - it is not true that world is neither eternal nor not eternal 
> > 
> > One interpretation (which is plausible to me) of why the 
> > Buddha called such questions 'indetermine', is that to give 
> > any answer to them (e.g. to the question "is the universe 
> > eternal") is to commit a category error.
> > 
> > Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy 
> > to spot as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before 
> > you were to go out. If someone were to ask in which direction 
> > the fire had gone, north, south, east, or west, what would 
> > you reply?
> > 
> > I got this from this website: 
> > http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html 
> > which has a nice discussion on these issues. 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Geoff
>







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, se

Re: [FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[Vaj]

On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:45 PM, yhvhworld wrote:--- >Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse!  What he says isapparently true in regard to what may come "later" - after the primalsounds and so forth.OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, but theBuddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures.  MMY seems to equate"Vedic" with "good" (if it's not Vedic, then it isn't worth a hill ofbeans).  All Buddhist teachers would disagree with this.In addition, cognizing the Vedas only goes so far, since IMO all ofmathematics could be regarded as "Vedic", but MMY doesn't know muchabout math. (evidently, mathematics is in MMY's "later" category); ASWELL AS (and this is important!): the ability to cognize the FUTURE.Otherwise, if MMY could predict the future, he would no doubt use thisability to become a commodities market wizard, making all of thebillions he so ravishly desires.To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in Buddhism;or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded toincorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like mathematics.How about the broadest definition possible: Cognizing anything true.Or simply experiencing "speech" at the level of pashyanti, the-speech-which-sees. We all have that capacity, whether we actualize it is another thing.I like what Danielou says on an expanded use of the word "Veda". He hits the nail right on the head:"The Sacred BooksAs we have seen, writing is an urban phenomenon, characteristic of the Kali Yuga. To freeze the teachings of "prophets" in books regarded as sacred is to paralyze the spirit of research; it fixes so-called established truths and tends to create blind faith instead of the search for knowledge. The nature of knowledge is to evolve. Like other aspects of the human being, it knows periods of progress and decline. The teaching of the Rishi(s) is a living thing that enables the species to realize its role at various stages of its evolution. It can only be transmitted by initiation through qualified individuals. The fixation in Writings of the visions and perceptions of Seers, which represent the forms of knowledge necessary at a certain moment of the evolution of the species, whether it be a matter of cosmological, scientific, religious, or moral ideas, presents grave risks. The sacred book valid for all time and all people is a fiction.The new Sâmkhya sometimes replaces the word Agama (tradition) by the word Veda (from the root vid, knowledge) to represent permanent information (akshara), the plan that is at the basis of all aspects of creation, the object of all research, all science, all metaphysics, all true knowledge. Taken in this sense, the word Vedä has nothing to do with the religious texts known by this name. The notion of Vedä represents the belief in a universal law, the object of knowledge. This implies the acceptance of the idea that there exists divine order of the world of which it is possible to have a fragmentary glimpse, an "approach" (upanishad), even though this order remains on the whole unknowable. No one can pretend to possess the "truth" in any domain. A dogmatic teaching can be neither scientifically nor philosophically nor morally justifiable.    The advent of writing has allowed for the substitution of conceptions of religious or social reformers, in the guise of inspired prophets, for the teachings of the Seers. This has oven birth to the religions of the book that characterize the Kali Yuga.    The superstition of the written word is an obstacle to the development of knowledge in the domain of scientific or religious information. The religions of the book have been one of the most effective instruments of man's decadence during the course of the Kali Yuga and have been used by urban oligarchies, both religious and secular, as instruments of domination.    To take texts, whether called Vedä, Bible, or Koran, as an _expression_ of reality or of divine will is puerile and dangerous. This is part of the antireligion which lowers the concept of the divine to the human scale."





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[Vaj]

The historical Buddha, Shakyamuni taught on the impermanence of all compounded things. He also taught the middle way, which means he did not accept "eternalism" nor the other extreme, "nihlism".On Mar 30, 2006, at 7:08 AM, coulsong2001 wrote:  In the below Barry says that "Buddhism believes that the universe is  eternal, and that there has never been and will never be a moment in  which the universe was not manifest and created."   In fact, I've noticed (while lurking) that he quite often makes this  assertion. But it's my impression that this is just plain wrong -  Buddhism does NOT say this.  The question of whether the world is eternal or not eternal is one  of the Buddha's 'ten indeterminate questions'. In fact, Buddhism  says that   - it is not true that world is eternal  - it is not true that world is not eternal  - it is not true that world is both eternal and not eternal  - it is not true that world is neither eternal nor not eternal   One interpretation (which is plausible to me) of why the Buddha  called such  questions 'indetermine', is that to give any answer to them (e.g. to  the question "is the universe eternal") is to commit a category  error.  Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy to spot  as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before you were to go  out. If someone were to ask in which direction the fire had gone,  north, south, east, or west, what would you reply?  I got this from this website:  http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html  which has a nice discussion on these issues.   Regards,  Geoff 





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[TurquoiseB]

While what you say below about the "indeterminable questions"
is true, Geoff, I have a very different theory as to why
the Buddha chose to fit certain things into that category.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "category errors."
It's because thinking about them is a total waste of time. 
Nothing would be gained from knowing the answer. :-)  

That said, you are welcome to your opinion as to what the
Buddha said about whether the universe was ever created
or not (which is the main point I'm homing in on, *not*
whether it is eternal in the sense of lasting forever into
the future). I base my belief on what I have been told by 
real, live teachers of Buddhism from several different 
sects -- Japanese, Tibetan, and Chinese. All were agreed 
on a cosmology in which there was never a start to creation.  
That's the thing that I think most distinguishes the mythos
of Buddhism from almost any other philosophy or study. It
creates a very, very different set of assumptions than
believing that there *was* a start to creation and that
creation has flowed linearly since that start.

Your mileage may vary...sounds as if it has. Believe 
whatever you want. I tend to believe the real-life teachers
I've met and worked with. If you have heard differently from 
the real-life teachers with whom you have personally studied 
Buddhism, I'd love to hear who they were and what they thought 
about this matter. If, on the other hand, you're just looking 
for a pissing contest based on something you read on a website
somewhere, look elsewhere.  :-)

 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> In the below Barry says that "Buddhism believes that the 
> universe is eternal, and that there has never been and 
> will never be a moment in which the universe was not 
> manifest and created." 
> 
> In fact, I've noticed (while lurking) that he quite often 
> makes this assertion. But it's my impression that this is 
> just plain wrong - Buddhism does NOT say this.
> 
> The question of whether the world is eternal or not eternal 
> is one of the Buddha's 'ten indeterminate questions'. In 
> fact, Buddhism says that 
> 
> - it is not true that world is eternal 
> - it is not true that world is not eternal 
> - it is not true that world is both eternal and not eternal 
> - it is not true that world is neither eternal nor not eternal 
> 
> One interpretation (which is plausible to me) of why the 
> Buddha called such questions 'indetermine', is that to give 
> any answer to them (e.g. to the question "is the universe 
> eternal") is to commit a category error.
> 
> Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy 
> to spot as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before 
> you were to go out. If someone were to ask in which direction 
> the fire had gone, north, south, east, or west, what would 
> you reply?
> 
> I got this from this website: 
> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html 
> which has a nice discussion on these issues. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Geoff






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[coulsong2001]

In the below Barry says that "Buddhism believes that the universe is 
eternal, and that there has never been and will never be a moment in 
which the universe was not manifest and created." 

In fact, I've noticed (while lurking) that he quite often makes this 
assertion. But it's my impression that this is just plain wrong - 
Buddhism does NOT say this.

The question of whether the world is eternal or not eternal is one 
of the Buddha's 'ten indeterminate questions'. In fact, Buddhism 
says that 

- it is not true that world is eternal 
- it is not true that world is not eternal 
- it is not true that world is both eternal and not eternal 
- it is not true that world is neither eternal nor not eternal 

One interpretation (which is plausible to me) of why the Buddha 
called such 
questions 'indetermine', is that to give any answer to them (e.g. to 
the question "is the universe eternal") is to commit a category 
error.

Here is an example of an indeterminate question that is easy to spot 
as such: Suppose a fire which had been burning before you were to go 
out. If someone were to ask in which direction the fire had gone, 
north, south, east, or west, what would you reply?

I got this from this website: 
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html 
which has a nice discussion on these issues. 

Regards,

Geoff

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld"  
> wrote:
> > --- 
> > Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse!  What 
> > he says is apparently true in regard to what may come 
> > "later" - after the primal sounds and so forth.
> >
> > OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, 
> > but the Buddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures.  
> > MMY seems to equate "Vedic" with "good" (if it's not 
> > Vedic, then it isn't worth a hill of beans).  All 
> > Buddhist teachers would disagree with this.
> 
> I think the difference in the two systems (Hindu and
> Buddhist) as to how they view "cognition of truth" 
> is related to the baseline assumptions that underly
> each tradition.
> 
> Hinduism is very much a "creation myth-based" belief
> system; it's linear. There was a moment of First Creation,
> with gods and goddesses and beings of power directly
> involved with the Creation. Buddhism believes that the
> universe is eternal, and that there has never been and
> will never be a moment in which the universe was not
> manifest and created. So it makes sense that the Hindu
> system would "look for" truth in something that supposedly
> was "closer" to the "moment of Creation" (in other words,
> in their myth system, the Vedas) than the Buddhists would.
> The Buddhists are free to look for truth in pretty much
> anything in creation, at any moment in time.
> 
> Hinduism believes very strongly in a "fall from grace,"
> similar to the Christian fall from Eden. Because time
> *is* linear in its view, there have been various Yugas,
> and like everything else in the Hindu system, these
> Yugas or time periods are hierarchical. The oldest
> (closest to the moment of Creation) are considered
> "higher," more evolved; the later ones (further away
> from the moment of Creation) are considered "lower."
> (And then everything repeats itself, like a stuck record.)
> 
> Again, Buddhism, not burdened with the notions of 
> linear time and a hierarchical representation of that
> time, considers every moment as NOW and allows for the 
> full cognition of truth in every moment, whether the 
> object or moment being used as a trigger for cognition
> took place centuries ago or a moment ago. In the Buddhist 
> system it is as easy to cognize truth right here, right 
> NOW as it ever was at any moment in time. Therefore, 
> Buddhists don't have the same built-in reverence for 
> and preference for scriptures of the past that Hindus have,
> and are more willing to look to everyday objects around
> them as having as much innate meaning and truth as
> the scriptures of old have.
> 
> Finally, Hinduism has a strong element of predetermination
> in its models of consciousness. There is a strong feeling
> that "nothing is new under the sun," that you are merely
> "rediscovering" ancient truth, as opposed to stumbling
> upon a brand-new way of appreciating truth, or as opposed
> to actually discovering a new truth.  Because many Hindus
> assume that they are *not* in charge of their own ability
> to evolve and realize enlightenment, much less their 
> ability to perform their own actions, they are less likely
> to consider themselves capable of cognizing any "new"
> truth in the everyday world around them. Instead, in their
> view divine forces cause them or enable them to "rediscover" 
> truth in the "oldest" objects, the Vedas. 
> 
> Buddhists have no problem with regard to taking credit 
> for their own initiative, or with doing something "new,"
> cognizing some new truth in the everyday objects o

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> --- 
> Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse!  What 
> he says is apparently true in regard to what may come 
> "later" - after the primal sounds and so forth.
>
> OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, 
> but the Buddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures.  
> MMY seems to equate "Vedic" with "good" (if it's not 
> Vedic, then it isn't worth a hill of beans).  All 
> Buddhist teachers would disagree with this.

I think the difference in the two systems (Hindu and
Buddhist) as to how they view "cognition of truth" 
is related to the baseline assumptions that underly
each tradition.

Hinduism is very much a "creation myth-based" belief
system; it's linear. There was a moment of First Creation,
with gods and goddesses and beings of power directly
involved with the Creation. Buddhism believes that the
universe is eternal, and that there has never been and
will never be a moment in which the universe was not
manifest and created. So it makes sense that the Hindu
system would "look for" truth in something that supposedly
was "closer" to the "moment of Creation" (in other words,
in their myth system, the Vedas) than the Buddhists would.
The Buddhists are free to look for truth in pretty much
anything in creation, at any moment in time.

Hinduism believes very strongly in a "fall from grace,"
similar to the Christian fall from Eden. Because time
*is* linear in its view, there have been various Yugas,
and like everything else in the Hindu system, these
Yugas or time periods are hierarchical. The oldest
(closest to the moment of Creation) are considered
"higher," more evolved; the later ones (further away
from the moment of Creation) are considered "lower."
(And then everything repeats itself, like a stuck record.)

Again, Buddhism, not burdened with the notions of 
linear time and a hierarchical representation of that
time, considers every moment as NOW and allows for the 
full cognition of truth in every moment, whether the 
object or moment being used as a trigger for cognition
took place centuries ago or a moment ago. In the Buddhist 
system it is as easy to cognize truth right here, right 
NOW as it ever was at any moment in time. Therefore, 
Buddhists don't have the same built-in reverence for 
and preference for scriptures of the past that Hindus have,
and are more willing to look to everyday objects around
them as having as much innate meaning and truth as
the scriptures of old have.

Finally, Hinduism has a strong element of predetermination
in its models of consciousness. There is a strong feeling
that "nothing is new under the sun," that you are merely
"rediscovering" ancient truth, as opposed to stumbling
upon a brand-new way of appreciating truth, or as opposed
to actually discovering a new truth.  Because many Hindus
assume that they are *not* in charge of their own ability
to evolve and realize enlightenment, much less their 
ability to perform their own actions, they are less likely
to consider themselves capable of cognizing any "new"
truth in the everyday world around them. Instead, in their
view divine forces cause them or enable them to "rediscover" 
truth in the "oldest" objects, the Vedas. 

Buddhists have no problem with regard to taking credit 
for their own initiative, or with doing something "new,"
cognizing some new truth in the everyday objects of the
world around them. The Buddhist "operating system" is
based on each individual having total free will; there
is no sense of predestination or of having one's actions
"led" or "determined" by an outside agency. Therefore
Buddhists are free to try new things, to experiment, and,
occasionally, to *find* new truths in the everyday objects
of NOW.

Anyway, the purpose of all of this is not to start a 
Hindu/Buddhist dick-size contest. :-) I just think that
it's important, when comparing Buddhism to most other
philosophical systems on the planet, to realize *how*
different its baseline assumptions are from most of the
others. Buddhism doesn't believe in a Creation, in a 
Creator, in the "better-ness" of the past as opposed to
the present (or a "better" future, for that matter),
and it *does* believe in total free will (within the 
boundaries of a wonderful teaching mechanism called 
karma). 

All in all, these are *very* different baseline assumptions
than those that would be made by a Hindu, or a Christian,
or a Jew, or whatever. Not better, but vive la différence.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[Robert Gimbel]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- 
> > 
> > >Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse!  What he says
> > is apparently true in regard to what may come "later" - after the 
> > primal sounds and so forth.
> 
> Not sure exactly what you mean by this...
> 
> >  OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, but 
the
> > Buddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures.  MMY seems to 
equate
> > "Vedic" with "good" (if it's not Vedic, then it isn't worth a 
hill 
> > of beans).  All Buddhist teachers would disagree with this.
> 
> Oh, I don't know if he makes that equation.  I think
> he considers the Veda the *ultimate*, but not necessarily
> that everything else along these lines is worthless.
> 
> >  In addition, cognizing the Vedas only goes so far, since IMO all 
of
> > mathematics could be regarded as "Vedic", but MMY doesn't know 
much
> > about math. (evidently, mathematics is in MMY's "later" category);
> > AS WELL AS (and this is important!): the ability to cognize the 
> > FUTURE. Otherwise, if MMY could predict the future, he would no 
> > doubt use this ability to become a commodities market wizard, 
> > making all of the billions he so ravishly desires.
> 
> It would be interesting to ask him about this.  My
> (uninformed) sense is that one would cognize specific
> information on a "need-to-know" basis (the need being
> determined by nature).
> 
> Plus which, there may be some metaphysical problems
> involved in messing with the future.  It's not clear
> to me that one can predict the future without 
> *changing* the future, so it's no longer quite the
> same future you're predicting--sort of along the
> same lines as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
> 
> Just thinking about it makes me want to take a nap...
> 
> 
> 
> >  To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in 
Buddhism;
> > or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to
> > incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like 
> > mathematics. How about the broadest definition possible: 
Cognizing 
> > anything true.


I was reading some things from this website, called 'The Field 
Center', which may add to this discussion; in regard to the 
manifestation process; quantum mechanics; and the role of particle, 
and wave, in consciousness itself:

http://www.fieldcenter.org/

Click on 'Resources', then click on 'Free Audio Library'...

Lot's of fun stuff about the relativity of time, etc...
>






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yhvhworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- 
> 
> >Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse!  What he says
> is apparently true in regard to what may come "later" - after the 
> primal sounds and so forth.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this...

>  OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, but the
> Buddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures.  MMY seems to equate
> "Vedic" with "good" (if it's not Vedic, then it isn't worth a hill 
> of beans).  All Buddhist teachers would disagree with this.

Oh, I don't know if he makes that equation.  I think
he considers the Veda the *ultimate*, but not necessarily
that everything else along these lines is worthless.

>  In addition, cognizing the Vedas only goes so far, since IMO all of
> mathematics could be regarded as "Vedic", but MMY doesn't know much
> about math. (evidently, mathematics is in MMY's "later" category);
> AS WELL AS (and this is important!): the ability to cognize the 
> FUTURE. Otherwise, if MMY could predict the future, he would no 
> doubt use this ability to become a commodities market wizard, 
> making all of the billions he so ravishly desires.

It would be interesting to ask him about this.  My
(uninformed) sense is that one would cognize specific
information on a "need-to-know" basis (the need being
determined by nature).

Plus which, there may be some metaphysical problems
involved in messing with the future.  It's not clear
to me that one can predict the future without 
*changing* the future, so it's no longer quite the
same future you're predicting--sort of along the
same lines as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Just thinking about it makes me want to take a nap...



>  To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in Buddhism;
> or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to
> incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like 
> mathematics. How about the broadest definition possible: Cognizing 
> anything true.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[yhvhworld]

--- 

>Thanks for posting this(below) excellent discourse!  What he says is
apparently true in regard to what may come "later" - after the primal
sounds and so forth.
 OTOH, Buddhism is no less "Dharmic" than Saivite Hinduism, but the
Buddhist Masters cognize their own Scriptures.  MMY seems to equate
"Vedic" with "good" (if it's not Vedic, then it isn't worth a hill of
beans).  All Buddhist teachers would disagree with this.
 In addition, cognizing the Vedas only goes so far, since IMO all of
mathematics could be regarded as "Vedic", but MMY doesn't know much
about math. (evidently, mathematics is in MMY's "later" category); AS
WELL AS (and this is important!): the ability to cognize the FUTURE.
Otherwise, if MMY could predict the future, he would no doubt use this
ability to become a commodities market wizard, making all of the
billions he so ravishly desires.
 To conclude, "cognizing the Vedas" isn't valued at all in Buddhism;
or perhaps the definition of the Vedas needs to be expanded to
incorporate Buddhist texts and pure Platonic knowledge like mathematics.
 How about the broadest definition possible: Cognizing anything true.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brahmachari108" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > What Maharishi? Talking only about first verse of Rg Ved for 30
> > years makes a maharishi?
> 
> The Details of Vedic Cognition
> 
> Dr Hagelin: `The last question is a deep one about the details of 
> Vedic cognition. Last week, Maharishi spoke of the deep mechanics of 
> cognition of the wholeness of the Veda by the Rishis of ancient 
> India. Maharishi said every Rishi sees the Veda, the Constitution of 
> the Universe, in one syllable "A", which contains within it all the 
> details of the Veda.
> 
> My question is: Do these details of the Veda include the individual 
> recommendations for diet, herbal remedies, sound therapies, and 
> purification procedures that are available in Ayurveda, or the 
> precise mathematical calculations for proper layout of a building 
> that are found in Sthapatya Veda? Did all these details of these 
> different branches of the Veda also originate in the original 
> cognitions of the ancient Vedic Rishis—the cognitions of "A"? Or were 
> they developed subsequently by commentators at a later time?' 
> 
> Maharishi: `No, when we say "later time", time emerges from there 
> [laughter]. Time emerges from there.
> 
> `About "A": it is like when you see the moon. When you see the moon, 
> you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon. Then what happens is, when 
> you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon, seeing the moon, what is 
> inside the moon begins to come into vision—what is inside. Then what 
> is inside that, comes out; what is inside that, comes out; what is 
> inside that, comes out. 
> 
> `That is the situation about cognition of "A". "A" is a total 
> syllable. "A" is said to be—"A" is—Sarva Vak. "Sarva Vak" means total 
> speech. "A" is total speech. When you see it, you get so absorbed in 
> it.
> 
> `In the seeing process, the process of seeing takes the seer to the 
> sight. Now you want to see, you see "A". You are here, "A" is 
> somewhere in front. You see. So the seer jumps out of his own eyes; 
> from the eyes, he reaches the sight, and then brings the sight to the 
> eyes. This is the process of seeing—the sight comes out and occupies 
> the seer. The sight becomes the seer.
> 
> `When the sight becomes the seer, then the sight, which is "A", is no 
> more in the vision. What is in the vision is "A", which has become 
> the seer, and what was inside "A" remains a sight. Then, in turn, the 
> same thing happens: something that was there inside "A" jumps out 
> of "A", jumps out from within "A", and again occupies the seer.
> 
> `So all the time, the sight becomes the seer, and then the seer sees 
> something else—what was beneath it. This process of seeing, in 
> itself, is so unfolding that it unfolds whatever is inside, and keeps 
> on unfolding, keeps on unfolding, keeps on unfolding. 
> 
> `Immediately, in the second evolvement of "A", is a gap. There is a 
> gap, because the sight becomes the seer, and inside the sight, it 
> becomes the new sight. The new sight becomes the seer, —the new sight.
> 
> `Then the whole "A", seen like that, brings to sight complete 
> emptiness, which is the last reality of "A". "A", entering into it, 
> entering into it, entering into it, and then there is nothing to see: 
> it is emptiness—"A". It is that emptiness, the total abstraction, 
> which is within a point. Within a point is that total abstraction, 
> unmanifest, transcendental reality.
> 
> `When seeing "A", the process of seeing presents, ultimately, 
> something that is transcendental. That is emptiness, a big zero. What 
> is this big zero? It is emptiness of "A". It is no more "A"; it is 
> complete absence of "A", the totality of "A" in the unmanifest.
> 
> `This is the cognition of the Veda—"Ak". When the "A" ends, then 
> there is the gap there. And

[FairfieldLife] MMY on Vedic Cognition (was Re: a Spiritual Master?)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "brahmachari108" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What Maharishi? Talking only about first verse of Rg Ved for 30
> years makes a maharishi?

The Details of Vedic Cognition

Dr Hagelin: `The last question is a deep one about the details of 
Vedic cognition. Last week, Maharishi spoke of the deep mechanics of 
cognition of the wholeness of the Veda by the Rishis of ancient 
India. Maharishi said every Rishi sees the Veda, the Constitution of 
the Universe, in one syllable "A", which contains within it all the 
details of the Veda.

My question is: Do these details of the Veda include the individual 
recommendations for diet, herbal remedies, sound therapies, and 
purification procedures that are available in Ayurveda, or the 
precise mathematical calculations for proper layout of a building 
that are found in Sthapatya Veda? Did all these details of these 
different branches of the Veda also originate in the original 
cognitions of the ancient Vedic Rishis—the cognitions of "A"? Or were 
they developed subsequently by commentators at a later time?' 

Maharishi: `No, when we say "later time", time emerges from there 
[laughter]. Time emerges from there.

`About "A": it is like when you see the moon. When you see the moon, 
you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon. Then what happens is, when 
you are seeing the moon, seeing the moon, seeing the moon, what is 
inside the moon begins to come into vision—what is inside. Then what 
is inside that, comes out; what is inside that, comes out; what is 
inside that, comes out. 

`That is the situation about cognition of "A". "A" is a total 
syllable. "A" is said to be—"A" is—Sarva Vak. "Sarva Vak" means total 
speech. "A" is total speech. When you see it, you get so absorbed in 
it.

`In the seeing process, the process of seeing takes the seer to the 
sight. Now you want to see, you see "A". You are here, "A" is 
somewhere in front. You see. So the seer jumps out of his own eyes; 
from the eyes, he reaches the sight, and then brings the sight to the 
eyes. This is the process of seeing—the sight comes out and occupies 
the seer. The sight becomes the seer.

`When the sight becomes the seer, then the sight, which is "A", is no 
more in the vision. What is in the vision is "A", which has become 
the seer, and what was inside "A" remains a sight. Then, in turn, the 
same thing happens: something that was there inside "A" jumps out 
of "A", jumps out from within "A", and again occupies the seer.

`So all the time, the sight becomes the seer, and then the seer sees 
something else—what was beneath it. This process of seeing, in 
itself, is so unfolding that it unfolds whatever is inside, and keeps 
on unfolding, keeps on unfolding, keeps on unfolding. 

`Immediately, in the second evolvement of "A", is a gap. There is a 
gap, because the sight becomes the seer, and inside the sight, it 
becomes the new sight. The new sight becomes the seer, —the new sight.

`Then the whole "A", seen like that, brings to sight complete 
emptiness, which is the last reality of "A". "A", entering into it, 
entering into it, entering into it, and then there is nothing to see: 
it is emptiness—"A". It is that emptiness, the total abstraction, 
which is within a point. Within a point is that total abstraction, 
unmanifest, transcendental reality.

`When seeing "A", the process of seeing presents, ultimately, 
something that is transcendental. That is emptiness, a big zero. What 
is this big zero? It is emptiness of "A". It is no more "A"; it is 
complete absence of "A", the totality of "A" in the unmanifest.

`This is the cognition of the Veda—"Ak". When the "A" ends, then 
there is the gap there. And then, after the gap, comes out to 
be "Ka". "Ka" is a Kan. "Kan" means the point. So from the wholeness 
to nothingness. Nothingness is the gap. The gap after "A" is 
nothingness.

`From the total value of speech, "A" to the end of "A", this is 
cognition of "A". "A" cognized means the Totality cognized. What was 
there when the Totality was cognized? There was no Totality; there 
was the basis of Totality, the shadow of Totality. The unmanifest—
like the hollowness of the banyan seed—is there. The hollowness is 
there. 

`That hollowness is called the "Sandhi". Sandhi is the gap. In the 
whole Vedic Literature, in the whole flow of the Veda, there is a 
word and there is a gap; there is a word and a gap, and a word and a 
gap, and a word and a gap. So when Rishi Madhuchhandas saw Veda, he 
saw "A", and he saw unmanifest "A". Then he saw some other words, and 
then he saw the unmanifest of that, and he saw some other words, and 
he saw the unmanifest of that. 

`This whole run of the Veda is the run of Totality into emptiness—
wholeness, emptiness, nothingness, gap. This first word and the gap, 
word and the gap—two—are involved in presenting the definition of the 
Veda. 

` "Veda" means knowledge. Now what is the knowledge with reference to 
seeing, with referen