Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience Or so the story goes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
Is it possible to perceive the world without the filter of concepts? If that's the case, why does someone blind from birth who gains sight have to learn to see? Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience Or so the story goes. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:18 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: I thought about the particular passage Vaj has taken exception to when I wrote it, because I am making a relative comparison, not an absolute one. To say that enlightenment is a state where all prior knowledge disappears is not accurate, and this isn't what I meant. There seems to be a basic level of conceptual knowledge that is necessary for our fulflling existence. Thanks for the question. It wasn't a question, it was a comment. Thoughts or emotions don't stop per se, but in the higher bodhisattva levels emotional and cognitive obscurations (Skt.: avarana) are lost forever. This is the POV of a gradual path (not a sudden path, although a sudden path (or pathless path) would naturally contain all the bodhisattva levels nonetheless). In a gradual path, eventually you lose a certain type of thought (or style of thought).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself (full text)
On Nov 24, 2007, at 6:21 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Too much silliness here not to make fun of. My apologies in advance to the True Believers. What a drama queen! Liberace couldn't have done a more dramatic retirement and retirement buildup! Doesn't anyone just retire anymore? Raja Vaj
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself (full text)
On Nov 24, 2007, at 9:24 AM, mainstream20016 wrote: Get ready Rajas, for MMY's latest concoction, Gyan Shakti. He's behind the bar mixing a new elixir, Gyan Shakti, designed for your consumption. The Berlin Raja fiasco will limit new Rajas from joining the club and infusing fresh funds, so MMY is setting the stage for offering new knowledge, Gyan Shakti, for only the most discriminating - existing Rajas with remaining discretionary funds. When do you think it will be offered ? As soon as Jan. 12th ? At what price ? Good point, but no one seems to have noticed, once again, where these new buzz phrases come from. From the Ved? Oh no sonny, this is again straight out of the tantras (the triad of jyana-shakti, kriya-shakti and iccha-shakti - or he could be using the fivefold version which adds cit-shakti (the power of pure consciousness) ananda-shakti (the power of bliss) -- their are numerous different schemes. They are the reflection of Shiva, his svatantrya: pure sahaj (spontaneity). TMO translation: there's an upcoming retirement special. You might not be able to sell the Vedas, but you sure can sell the tantras and just tell 'em it's duh Ved. Now that they're rolling out the rajas, who wants to bet they'll be doing their latest version of the royalty title scam (and that's what it really is) and giving out lesser titles. You can easily sell your house now and get one for 108,000 euros converted to raams.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
Self prior to all distinction? Doesn't that necessarily turn out to be a verbal quibble? To know itself as Self, doesn't it have to posit a non-self? Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: R: This simile still implies that the oil-slick and the ocean are in someway different though, and that's not true. That well explains why some are so eternally slippery. Braman is slippery -- MMY said it, too, so it must be true :-) Seriously (more or less), what do you expect of something that is subtler than either-or, a priori to language? How many here understand that the Self is prior to discrimination? Mmm? ... Almost everybody. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
