|
Home > Archive > Yoga > July 2005 > Mediation for removing your ego?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Mediation for removing your ego?
|
|
| JCarr 2005-06-12, 10:53 pm |
| Does anyone know of specific mediation techniques for the purpose of
removing the ego. I am have trouble finding information specific to this.
| |
| omjaram 2005-06-13, 8:55 am |
| Mahasamadhi...
Quite advanced though :-)
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-13, 8:55 am |
| Howdy!
Does one attempt to "remove the ego" or does one just explore the Self until
s/he discovers that the ego is empty?
The second alternative is closer to the way I got there.
IMO: it is a matter of discovery (enlightenment) and not a matter of
modification (self-improvement.)
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
"omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118636597.386445.257440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mahasamadhi...
> Quite advanced though :-)
>
> Jared
> Namaste
>
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-13, 8:55 am |
| Howdy!
BTW: "Mahasamadhi" (if I understand your use of the term) takes a
'lifetime' to accomplish, doesn't it? ;->
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:JS9re.580$yg4.257@news01.roc.ny...
> Howdy!
>
> Does one attempt to "remove the ego" or does one just explore the Self
until
> s/he discovers that the ego is empty?
>
> The second alternative is closer to the way I got there.
>
> IMO: it is a matter of discovery (enlightenment) and not a matter of
> modification (self-improvement.)
>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>
> "omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118636597.386445.257440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| mazlov@yahoo.com 2005-06-13, 8:55 am |
| That you call "Ego" is a distorted condition of Self, which is
unrealised with each rebirth. To remove the "Ego" means to remove
the "Self", and it is impossible, as the sense of Self is an
essence of any living being.
In order to correct the distorted condition of Self (Ego), we have to
reverse the power of distortion.
That distortion is formed each time when the human mind is identifying
itself with inherited breathing reflex (each inhale and each exhale)
which results in increase of the body-awareness and NOT Self
awareness...
To reverse or to destroy that distortion is a requirement for the
correct perception of the Universe in order to see your own life
correctly.
With respect,
Narayana
Ref: http://www.anandamayi.org/om/
| |
|
| On 2005-06-13 06:07:34 -0700, mazlov@yahoo.com said:
> That you call "Ego" is a distorted condition of Self, which is
> unrealised with each rebirth. To remove the "Ego" means to remove
> the "Self", and it is impossible, as the sense of Self is an
> essence of any living being.
>
> In order to correct the distorted condition of Self (Ego), we have to
> reverse the power of distortion.
>
> That distortion is formed each time when the human mind is identifying
> itself with inherited breathing reflex (each inhale and each exhale)
> which results in increase of the body-awareness and NOT Self
> awareness...
>
> To reverse or to destroy that distortion is a requirement for the
> correct perception of the Universe in order to see your own life
> correctly.
>
>
> With respect,
> Narayana
> Ref: http://www.anandamayi.org/om/
I agree. We need ego to function. Meditation will make for a better
functioning ego. I imagine if one were to erase their ego completely
they would be catatonic. It would be the mental version of erasing
one's spine. Our identity is what allows us to function in the world.
Meditation at its best allows for the identity to subside, and for the
center of Being to prosper. At a minimum, meditation is an excellent
form of relaxation.
As for what technique is the best meditation technique, I suggest
looking up yoga and meditation in your local yellow pages and looking
for teachers in your area. Hopefully you will find a spectrum of
teachers, from monks of different backgrounds to secular teachers with
scientific variations of meditation. Shop around. See what fits you
the best.
There are also books, tapes and Web sites available. But you should
start with real human's that can give you personal guidance.
Meditation is a subtle practice, at first it is beneficial to have
guidance.
--
~Stu
| |
| howdydave 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
|
mazlov@yahoo.com Wrote:
> That you call "Ego" is a distorted condition of Self, which is
> unrealised with each rebirth. To remove the "Ego" means to remove
> the "Self", and it is impossible, as the sense of Self is an
> essence of any living being.
>
> In order to correct the distorted condition of Self (Ego), we have to
> reverse the power of distortion.
>
> That distortion is formed each time when the human mind is identifying
> itself with inherited breathing reflex (each inhale and each exhale)
> which results in increase of the body-awareness and NOT Self
> awareness...
>
> To reverse or to destroy that distortion is a requirement for the
> correct perception of the Universe in order to see your own life
> correctly.
>
>
> With respect,
> Narayana
> Ref: http://www.anandamayi.org/om/
Howdy!
The definition you gave in your first sentence: "Ego is a distorted
condition of Self" contradicts what follows.
In order to get rid of a distorted image (condition) it is not
necessary to eleminate the original object (your "remove the Self"
reference) whose IMAGE is distorted.
It is only necessary to get rid of the distortion WITHIN THE IMAGE or
get rid of the IMAGE all togeather while the original object (Self)
remains intact.
"POWER of distortion"?
Exactly what do you mean by that?
The only concept that I can think of that comes close to being a
"power" of distortion is life itself.
Maybe you are talking about mahasamadhi too, eh?
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| mazlov@yahoo.com 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Dave, sorry, no idea that are u talking about.
Stu,
" Hopefully you will find a spectrum of
teachers, from monks of different backgrounds to secular teachers with
scientific variations of meditation. Shop around. See what fits you
the best. "
This is good for a beginner, most of the gurus saying the same thing -
"To concentrate..."
N 
| |
| JCarr 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| mazlov@yahoo.com wrote:
> That you call "Ego" is a distorted condition of Self, which is
> unrealised with each rebirth. To remove the "Ego" means to remove
> the "Self", and it is impossible, as the sense of Self is an
> essence of any living being.
>
> In order to correct the distorted condition of Self (Ego), we have to
> reverse the power of distortion.
>
> That distortion is formed each time when the human mind is identifying
> itself with inherited breathing reflex (each inhale and each exhale)
> which results in increase of the body-awareness and NOT Self
> awareness...
>
> To reverse or to destroy that distortion is a requirement for the
> correct perception of the Universe in order to see your own life
> correctly.
>
>
> With respect,
> Narayana
> Ref: http://www.anandamayi.org/om/
>
Excellent info. Thanks.
| |
| omjaram 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| David,
The poster's question was general to the point of being meaningless,
yet yogi sounding enough to provoke a discussion (troll?)
My somewhat flippant answer to the poster was "tongue in cheek",
Mahasamadhi being the final conscious withdrawal of the soul from the
body (essentially suicide).
>Does one attempt to "remove the ego" or does one just explore the Self >until
s/he discovers that the ego is empty?
Ego. Now there's a symbolic reference fraught with myriad possible
interpretations. The very notion could (and probably has) take up a
lifetime of consideration.
Until we agreed on what constitutes the "ego" then any discussion
along these lines is going to be a very long one :-)
>IMO: it is a matter of discovery (enlightenment) and not a matter of >modification (self-improvement.)
Not really wanting to get into a long discussion of an idea I see as an
essentially silly one (Fraud... please!) and assuming we are talking
about something close to the same idea/concept I would say the process
of reconciling the "ego" is more a function of "acceptance", as we
already "know" the truth of who we are and there is no such thing
as change (eg. time, space, and other fictions).
"Rediscovery/enlightenment is an essential component but what is
required for us to live a "transcendent" life is a willingness to
accept what is. Nothing else required. All the siddhis and such are of
the phenomenal world and can be learned and harnessed like anything
else but they don't mean anything in any transcendent sense and are
not in the least required to live with the "Truth". We don't need
yoga, religion, science, philosophy or anyone or anything's
permission. We need only accept (by degree) what is here and now.
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Howdy!
"omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118764743.349324.307660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David,
>
> The poster's question was general to the point of being meaningless,
> yet yogi sounding enough to provoke a discussion (troll?)
>
> My somewhat flippant answer to the poster was "tongue in cheek",
I know (so was mine!)... that's why I put 'lifetime' in single quotes.
'Cuz you can't achieve it until your life is "completed" i.e.; you die!
> Mahasamadhi being the final conscious withdrawal of the soul from the
> body (essentially suicide).
>
>until
> s/he discovers that the ego is empty?
>
> Ego. Now there's a symbolic reference fraught with myriad possible
> interpretations. The very notion could (and probably has) take up a
> lifetime of consideration.
>
> Until we agreed on what constitutes the "ego" then any discussion
> along these lines is going to be a very long one :-)
I was thinking about taking that tac myself by making references to the
superego and the id, but I decided against it.
>modification (self-improvement.)
>
> Not really wanting to get into a long discussion of an idea I see as an
> essentially silly one (Fraud... please!) and assuming we are talking
> about something close to the same idea/concept I would say the process
> of reconciling the "ego" is more a function of "acceptance", as we
> already "know" the truth of who we are and there is no such thing
Ahhh... there I would beg to differ. While you are using the approach of
"knowing who you are" I would use the approach of "knowing your (Atman)
relationship to the rest of the universe.
I would also protest (fairly strongly) with your contention that we "know
the TRUTH of who we are" due to the fact that TRUTH is such an abstract
concept. I might even go so far as to say that "truth" is a word so overused
that it is a cliche.
> as change (eg. time, space, and other fictions).
> "Rediscovery/enlightenment is an essential component but what is
> required for us to live a "transcendent" life is a willingness to
> accept what is.
Sorta' sounds like fatalism there!
>Nothing else required. All the siddhis and such are of
> the phenomenal world and can be learned and harnessed like anything
> else but they don't mean anything in any transcendent sense and are
> not in the least required to live with the "Truth". We don't need
> yoga, religion, science, philosophy or anyone or anything's
> permission. We need only accept (by degree) what is here and now.
>
> Jared
>
> Namaste
BTW: I was just about to start another thread along the line of:
"Dualism/non-dualism, what's the big deal?"
Bringing up the issue that no matter what spin I put on it, it is still all
a matter of PERSONAL PERCEPTION. Thus whatever decisions *YOU or I* make
about the construct of the universe don't mean diddly-squat when it comes to
effecting how things really are.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| omjaroo 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Dave,
Oh and btw I just noticed I misspelled Freud in my post but since we
have established that we are both subtle jokesters I will claim Freudian
slip :-)
> Ahhh... there I would beg to differ. While you are using the approach of
> "knowing who you are" I would use the approach of "knowing your (Atman)
> relationship to the rest of the universe.
In an absolutist (non-dualist) view of the Universe there are no
relationships, it is all one and the same. I am saying that we all know
who we are because who we are is the only thing that exists. I would
surmise that on the manifest (earthly) plane we have trouble
knowing/remembering who we are because there is nothing to compare it to
(or perhaps too much to compare it to) and thus give us awareness. The
whole idea of knowledge is a symbol/fiction for a state that doesn't
even exist in the first place because we are what's known. Hence the
classic yoga reference to the knower, known and knowledge being one.
> I would also protest (fairly strongly) with your contention that we "know
> the TRUTH of who we are" due to the fact that TRUTH is such an abstract
> concept. I might even go so far as to say that "truth" is a word so overused
> that it is a cliche.
No need to protest to me, in fact most of the time I would say you were
singing to the choir here :-)
Far from being an abstract concept, I would say truth was one of the
most simple and easy to grasp notions in our universe. That the word has
been abused goes without saying but that doesn't change the nature of
what it symbolizes.
For the sake of discussion and unless you have any viable objections may
we use the definition of truth and reality as set out in the Encarta
World English Dictionary. The dictionary used in MSWord, and now the
closest thing we have to a Universal Standard ;-)
Truth
Correspondence to fact or reality.
Reality
The totality of real things in the world, independent of people's
knowledge or perception of them.
In other words the truth is whatever is, independent of anyone's
perception of it. There is no personal truth, there is no religious
truth, there is no my truth, your truth, there is only the truth and the
truth is whatever is; whatever actually exists. May we speak in these
terms?
>
> Sorta' sounds like fatalism there!
Far from fatalism (you do seem to like labels) a willingness to accept
what is real allows us to learn how to live with what is real. The more
in alignment with what is real, we can bring our mind, body and soul the
freer we become to express out true natures unimpeded by fear and other
fabrications. This allows us to function with better information and
therefore make better decisions as we go about our daily lives. End game
of this process is what is described in the yoga literature as bliss
absolute. In the mean time I have discovered I can live life with a
whole lot less bullshit and suffering if I surrender to the
truth/reality of my existence. In fact this has the distinct effect of
opening up the entire universe as my playground. I have been expressing
this in my dream state and it is migrating into my physical state.
No this is not fatalism, this is freedom. Just like self-discipline,
morality, sobriety, etc are not stifling but are actually freeing.
> BTW: I was just about to start another thread along the line of:
> "Dualism/non-dualism, what's the big deal?"
Well I guess I just weighed inŠ
Vivekananda has a great discussion of this and would say, it's no big
deal. You can reach the Truth from where ever you are. It's all the same
thing anyway.
> Bringing up the issue that no matter what spin I put on it, it is still all
> a matter of PERSONAL PERCEPTION. Thus whatever decisions *YOU or I* make
> about the construct of the universe don't mean diddly-squat when it comes to
> effecting how things really are.
I think I just covered this idea. If I didn't let me know. Fact is far
from having no effect on how things really are, you are the only cause
of how things really are. How do you like that one?
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Howdy!
I wasn't sure whether you meant Freud or fraud (it works either way!)
BTW: I don't think suicide would work for Mahasamadhi because mahasamadhi
(as I understand it) only works when a person has worked out all of their
karma. That last action of committing suicide would tilt the scales and
leave a person with a balance of karma that would have to be worked out in
the next life.
BTW2: How do I address you when I make a post:
Howdy Jared!
Howdy Omjaroo!
or
Howdy Namaste! ??
re: labels - IMO: the labels are NECESSARY when talking in an environment
such as this (where I don't know anything about your background and you
don't know anything about mine) just to make sure that we are in the same
ballpark. Once we know we are in the same ballpark we can work out the
knitty-gritty, get rid of the labels and work out the fine details.
"omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omjaroo-3716AB.16205614062005@news.corenews.com...
> Dave,
>
> Oh and btw I just noticed I misspelled Freud in my post but since we
> have established that we are both subtle jokesters I will claim Freudian
> slip :-)
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> In an absolutist (non-dualist) view of the Universe there are no
> relationships, it is all one and the same. I am saying that we all know
> who we are because who we are is the only thing that exists. I would
> surmise that on the manifest (earthly) plane we have trouble
> knowing/remembering who we are because there is nothing to compare it to
> (or perhaps too much to compare it to) and thus give us awareness. The
> whole idea of knowledge is a symbol/fiction for a state that doesn't
> even exist in the first place because we are what's known. Hence the
> classic yoga reference to the knower, known and knowledge being one.
>
That's the problem... not everybody here is a non-dualist!
Why heck... if a person says s/he is a dualist on this board we can't even
be sure if they are an Absolutist or a Qualified Non-Dualist!
When I communicate on a message board I work on the principle that I'm not
just talking to you. I am also talking to every other poster and lurker who
reads the board. Thus my statements come out a bit homoginized in order to
make them (at least PARTIALLY) understandable to everybody.
>
"know[vbcol=seagreen]
overused[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No need to protest to me, in fact most of the time I would say you were
> singing to the choir here :-)
>
> Far from being an abstract concept, I would say truth was one of the
> most simple and easy to grasp notions in our universe. That the word has
> been abused goes without saying but that doesn't change the nature of
> what it symbolizes.
>
Ahhh... but unless you define your terms the masses out there don't know
whether you are talking about truth as a concept or as an absolute. i.e.;
"truth" v. "Truth"
> For the sake of discussion and unless you have any viable objections may
> we use the definition of truth and reality as set out in the Encarta
> World English Dictionary. The dictionary used in MSWord, and now the
> closest thing we have to a Universal Standard ;-)
>
> Truth
> Correspondence to fact or reality.
>
> Reality
> The totality of real things in the world, independent of people's
> knowledge or perception of them.
>
> In other words the truth is whatever is, independent of anyone's
> perception of it. There is no personal truth, there is no religious
> truth, there is no my truth, your truth, there is only the truth and the
> truth is whatever is; whatever actually exists. May we speak in these
> terms?
>
The big problem I have here is that we end up using dualist definitions to
discuss non-dualist principles!
>
>
> Far from fatalism (you do seem to like labels) a willingness to accept
> what is real allows us to learn how to live with what is real. The more
> in alignment with what is real, we can bring our mind, body and soul the
> freer we become to express out true natures unimpeded by fear and other
> fabrications. This allows us to function with better information and
> therefore make better decisions as we go about our daily lives. End game
> of this process is what is described in the yoga literature as bliss
> absolute. In the mean time I have discovered I can live life with a
> whole lot less bullshit and suffering if I surrender to the
> truth/reality of my existence. In fact this has the distinct effect of
> opening up the entire universe as my playground. I have been expressing
> this in my dream state and it is migrating into my physical state.
>
> No this is not fatalism, this is freedom. Just like self-discipline,
> morality, sobriety, etc are not stifling but are actually freeing.
>
>
> Well I guess I just weighed inS
>
> Vivekananda has a great discussion of this and would say, it's no big
> deal. You can reach the Truth from where ever you are. It's all the same
> thing anyway.
>
all[vbcol=seagreen]
comes to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I think I just covered this idea. If I didn't let me know. Fact is far
> from having no effect on how things really are, you are the only cause
> of how things really are. How do you like that one?
>
> Jared
>
> Namaste
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| omjaroo 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| In article <bvKre.819$yg4.254@news01.roc.ny>,
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I wasn't sure whether you meant Freud or fraud (it works either way!)
Yes it does. That's why I will take credit for the pun (even if it was
unintentional)
>
> BTW: I don't think suicide would work for Mahasamadhi because mahasamadhi
> (as I understand it) only works when a person has worked out all of their
> karma. That last action of committing suicide would tilt the scales and
> leave a person with a balance of karma that would have to be worked out in
> the next life.
While suicide is a crass term, the fact is that mahasamadhi is the
deliberate/conscious ending of ones human life by the yogi. If one is
self-realized and has stepped off of the wheel of karma (unattached to
the fruits of ones actions) then no action will generate karma. Actually
from a absolutist POV there is no karma, no action, and nothing to
generate because there is no movement, time, space, etc.
>
> BTW2: How do I address you when I make a post:
>
> Howdy Jared!
> Howdy Omjaroo!
> or
> Howdy Namaste! ??
Omjaroo, Jared, Omjaram, anything you like. But like the comic said,
please don't call me late for dinner :-)
Namaste is a traditional Indian greeting/salutation which means I bow to
the divine in you.
>
> re: labels - IMO: the labels are NECESSARY when talking in an environment
> such as this (where I don't know anything about your background and you
> don't know anything about mine) just to make sure that we are in the same
> ballpark. Once we know we are in the same ballpark we can work out the
> knitty-gritty, get rid of the labels and work out the fine details.
No problem.
>
> "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:omjaroo-3716AB.16205614062005@news.corenews.com...
> of
>
> That's the problem... not everybody here is a non-dualist!
>
> Why heck... if a person says s/he is a dualist on this board we can't even
> be sure if they are an Absolutist or a Qualified Non-Dualist!
>
> When I communicate on a message board I work on the principle that I'm not
> just talking to you. I am also talking to every other poster and lurker who
> reads the board. Thus my statements come out a bit homoginized in order to
> make them (at least PARTIALLY) understandable to everybody.
I appreciate this and I agree with your purpose.
I would suggest that dumbing things down is not in fact helpful,
especially to those not conversant in the topic. I think it is important
to all concerned that you say (as much as possible) exactly what you
mean without regard to how or what people will hear. Then when someone
doesn't understand what you are saying, they can ask. If you withhold
some precision in order for other's less apt to understand you then they
will understand you but will take away nothing more then they already
had. If what they already had was lacking then they will advance
nowhere. Then the people who are capable of understanding you at your
level then hear lower level "speak" and then feel they have to dumb down
to reach you. And there you have a downward spiraling miscommunication
loop.
> "know
> overused
>
> Ahhh... but unless you define your terms the masses out there don't know
> whether you are talking about truth as a concept or as an absolute. i.e.;
> "truth" v. "Truth"
The lowest common denominator is not where any of us want to remain.
Better to let those who fall behind remain clueless then to let someone
who really wishes to benefit from your wisdom and experience want for
the truth and an upward progression.
>
>
> The big problem I have here is that we end up using dualist definitions to
> discuss non-dualist principles!
I'd say we a kinda stuck with the language we have, if having a
conversation is what you want to do. Remember my story about the two
famous gurus who met each other? Absolutist conversations (when there is
such a thing) are quite very stark. In fact there is only one word
needed to communicate all that can be known. (I will refrain from using
it here so as not to upset the materialists and various other dualists.)
Between two absolutists even that word is understood and it is only
spoken to the benefit of others still searching for the Truth.
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Howdy Jared!
Hmmmm....
So is mahasamadhi the death that they talk about that can happen during
nirvikalpa samadhi?
Sounds like you are talking about reaching a state in your enlightenment
when a person can CHOOSE to step off of the wheel. Does enlightenment render
all of the other concepts of Indian philosophy (like karma) null and void?
That would make sense if ahamkara, and Self become the void and Atman and
Brahman become the same thing.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
"omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omjaroo-3E77E0.18162614062005@news.corenews.com...
> In article <bvKre.819$yg4.254@news01.roc.ny>,
> "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes it does. That's why I will take credit for the pun (even if it was
> unintentional)
>
mahasamadhi[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> While suicide is a crass term, the fact is that mahasamadhi is the
> deliberate/conscious ending of ones human life by the yogi. If one is
> self-realized and has stepped off of the wheel of karma (unattached to
> the fruits of ones actions) then no action will generate karma. Actually
> from a absolutist POV there is no karma, no action, and nothing to
> generate because there is no movement, time, space, etc.
>
> Omjaroo, Jared, Omjaram, anything you like. But like the comic said,
> please don't call me late for dinner :-)
>
> Namaste is a traditional Indian greeting/salutation which means I bow to
> the divine in you.
>
>
environment[vbcol=seagreen]
same[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No problem.
>
Freudian[vbcol=seagreen]
approach[vbcol=seagreen]
(Atman)[vbcol=seagreen]
know[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
even[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
who[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I appreciate this and I agree with your purpose.
>
> I would suggest that dumbing things down is not in fact helpful,
> especially to those not conversant in the topic. I think it is important
> to all concerned that you say (as much as possible) exactly what you
> mean without regard to how or what people will hear. Then when someone
> doesn't understand what you are saying, they can ask. If you withhold
> some precision in order for other's less apt to understand you then they
> will understand you but will take away nothing more then they already
> had. If what they already had was lacking then they will advance
> nowhere. Then the people who are capable of understanding you at your
> level then hear lower level "speak" and then feel they have to dumb down
> to reach you. And there you have a downward spiraling miscommunication
> loop.
>
abstract[vbcol=seagreen]
were[vbcol=seagreen]
has[vbcol=seagreen]
i.e.;[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The lowest common denominator is not where any of us want to remain.
> Better to let those who fall behind remain clueless then to let someone
> who really wishes to benefit from your wisdom and experience want for
> the truth and an upward progression.
>
may[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I'd say we a kinda stuck with the language we have, if having a
> conversation is what you want to do. Remember my story about the two
> famous gurus who met each other? Absolutist conversations (when there is
> such a thing) are quite very stark. In fact there is only one word
> needed to communicate all that can be known. (I will refrain from using
> it here so as not to upset the materialists and various other dualists.)
> Between two absolutists even that word is understood and it is only
> spoken to the benefit of others still searching for the Truth.
>
>
> Jared
>
> Namaste
| |
| omjaroo 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| In article <spMre.830$yg4.597@news01.roc.ny>,
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote:
> Howdy Jared!
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> So is mahasamadhi the death that they talk about that can happen during
> nirvikalpa samadhi?
From what I have read I could see how they could be related or perhaps
one precedes the other but they appear to be distinctly different. What
do I know, I am not training in either of these two things. I'm having
enough trouble with run of the mill life :-)
A great deal of this yogi stuff is a function of training. I imagine
that while Yogananda and others may be able to project themselves
astrally, not a one of them could step into a Jet and pilot it anywhere
as they did not have the training.
I don't believe that any of this religious or occult training is needed
for enlightenment. After all enlightenment is simply knowing what is
True. Whether or not one chooses to train the body and mind to
experience and move about in certain psychic and/or astral states does
not alter the Truth one wit. This training won't necessarily cause one
to know what is true either.
Once you know what is true then the project becomes aligning your mind,
body and soul with what you know. This can be real difficult, I'm here
to tell you. But I can do it as a car mechanic, a real estate salesman,
or a homeless person. I don't have to be a yogi, a priest, a monk or
anything at all.
> Sounds like you are talking about reaching a state in your enlightenment
> when a person can CHOOSE to step off of the wheel. Does enlightenment render
> all of the other concepts of Indian philosophy (like karma) null and void?
Except to the degree that a philosophy describes the Truth/Reality, they
are all null and void. I've come to the conclusion that they are all
just so much bullshit.
> That would make sense if ahamkara, and Self become the void and Atman and
> Brahman become the same thing.
Remember, an absolutist would say there is no becoming, no void, no not
void, there is only (_________) Pick your term.
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I wasn't sure whether you meant Freud or fraud (it works either way!)
>
> BTW: I don't think suicide would work for Mahasamadhi because mahasamadhi
> (as I understand it) only works when a person has worked out all of their
> karma. That last action of committing suicide would tilt the scales and
> leave a person with a balance of karma that would have to be worked out in
> the next life.
No, it's one of the yogic powers listed by Patanjali.
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, III:
"40. By conquering the current called Udana, the Yogi does not sink in
water or in swamps, he can walk on thorns etc, and can die at will."
It does not incur bad karma under the following circumstance: if you
have already exhausted your stock of karma for this life, then it's not
necessary to go on living, unless you really want to.
The same yogic privilege is mentioned in the Bhagavadgita, I think.
S.
| |
| Dave C?C? 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:tmPre.27298$d5.179259@newsb.telia.net...
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
>
mahasamadhi[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No, it's one of the yogic powers listed by Patanjali.
>
> Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, III:
> "40. By conquering the current called Udana, the Yogi does not sink in
> water or in swamps, he can walk on thorns etc, and can die at will."
>
> It does not incur bad karma under the following circumstance: if you
> have already exhausted your stock of karma for this life, then it's not
> necessary to go on living, unless you really want to.
>
> The same yogic privilege is mentioned in the Bhagavadgita, I think.
>
> S.
Howdy S.!
Hmmmm....
So the stock of karma doesn't necessarily have to be EMPTY?
Only prerequisite is that there isn't any BAD karma left?
I'm looking at this from the point of view that "doesn't incur any bad
karma" is not necessarily the same as "doesn't incur any karma at all."
Semantics is my one true vice! (Well... that and a pinch of snuff!)
--
Dave C?C?
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| Dave C?C? wrote:
> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tmPre.27298$d5.179259@newsb.telia.net...
> mahasamadhi
> their
> in
>
> Howdy S.!
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> So the stock of karma doesn't necessarily have to be EMPTY?
> Only prerequisite is that there isn't any BAD karma left?
But that's not what I said. I said: "..if you have already exhausted
your stock of karma for this life..". I never said it's just about BAD
karma.
> I'm looking at this from the point of view that "doesn't incur any bad
> karma" is not necessarily the same as "doesn't incur any karma at all."
True, it isn't. I thought that any assumption that it could possibly
incur GOOD karma was very far from anybody's mind and thus didn't have
to be mentioned. So, to make myself more clear: it doesn't incur any
karma at all. (Providing your life is already "finished" with regard to
exhausting your karma, good AND bad)
> Semantics is my one true vice! (Well... that and a pinch of snuff!)
Semantics are good. Why call it a vice?
S.
| |
| omjaram 2005-06-15, 12:19 pm |
| 700E and Dave,
A point of clarification here. (Not semantics) Karma can never be
"exausted", "used up", "paid for", etc, it can only be "let go". As is
letting go of all desires (good, bad or indifferenct) for the fruit of
ones actions.
Just like "transcendence", "enlightenment", "self-realization", etc can
not be "earned", "attained" or given, it can only be "accepted".
Oh, and there's no good or bad either with respect to Karma or anything
else for that matter :-)
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Dave C?C? 2005-06-16, 8:54 am |
| "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:U_Rre.27303$d5.179217@newsb.telia.net...
> Dave C?C? wrote:
>
way!)[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
out[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> But that's not what I said. I said: "..if you have already exhausted
> your stock of karma for this life..". I never said it's just about BAD
> karma.
>
>
> True, it isn't. I thought that any assumption that it could possibly
> incur GOOD karma was very far from anybody's mind and thus didn't have
> to be mentioned. So, to make myself more clear: it doesn't incur any
> karma at all. (Providing your life is already "finished" with regard to
> exhausting your karma, good AND bad)
>
>
> Semantics are good. Why call it a vice?
>
> S.
Howdy S.!
I call semantics "a vice" because I tend to over-analyze things...
It isn't a vice to me, but I go at it with such gusto that it tends to
irritate other people at times. I feel that one might possibly be justified
in calling it a vice due to the fact that it sometimes gets on other
people's nerves! :-)
--
Dave C?C?
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-16, 8:54 am |
|
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote in message
news:1A9se.931$yg4.64@news01.roc.ny...
> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> news:U_Rre.27303$d5.179217@newsb.telia.net...
> way!)
of[vbcol=seagreen]
scales[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
worked[vbcol=seagreen]
> out
in[vbcol=seagreen]
> not
all."[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Howdy S.!
>
> I call semantics "a vice" because I tend to over-analyze things...
>
> It isn't a vice to me, but I go at it with such gusto that it tends to
> irritate other people at times. I feel that one might possibly be
justified
> in calling it a vice due to the fact that it sometimes gets on other
> people's nerves! :-)
>
>
> --
> Dave ©¿©¬
>
> http://www.howdydave.com
>
>
IOW: I ENJOY it too much for it to be anything except a vice!
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-16, 11:51 am |
| omjaram wrote:
> 700E and Dave,
>
> A point of clarification here. (Not semantics) Karma can never be
> "exausted", "used up", "paid for", etc, it can only be "let go". As is
> letting go of all desires (good, bad or indifferenct) for the fruit of
> ones actions.
Karma can be used up. There are three kinds of action: good, bad or
mixed. Good acts result in good karma, bad acts in bad karma, and most
of our acts, a bit of both. The acts of a yogi, though, can be free of
karma, once the yogi has roasted the seeds of karma, samskara, in the
yogic fire of meditation. However, these are matters of faith, not
really open to scientific study.
> Just like "transcendence", "enlightenment", "self-realization", etc can
> not be "earned", "attained" or given, it can only be "accepted".
>
> Oh, and there's no good or bad either with respect to Karma or anything
> else for that matter :-)
I beg to differ. Still, these things can't be proven in any scientific
sense, so let's just leave it at that.
S.
| |
| omjaroo 2005-06-16, 5:55 pm |
| In article <8whse.27394$d5.179512@newsb.telia.net>,
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote:
> omjaram wrote:
>
>
> Karma can be used up. There are three kinds of action: good, bad or
> mixed. Good acts result in good karma, bad acts in bad karma, and most
> of our acts, a bit of both. The acts of a yogi, though, can be free of
> karma, once the yogi has roasted the seeds of karma, samskara, in the
> yogic fire of meditation. However, these are matters of faith, not
> really open to scientific study.
Here is an interesting conversation some of us had a while back on this
subject. Covers a lot of the ground suggested here, in more detail.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...2277e3b70620303
>
> I beg to differ. Still, these things can't be proven in any scientific
> sense, so let's just leave it at that.
>
> S.
OK.
Namaste
| |
|
|
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-16, 5:55 pm |
| omjaroo wrote:
> Here is an interesting conversation some of us had a while back on this
> subject. Covers a lot of the ground suggested here, in more detail.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...2277e3b70620303
Thanks for the link. I think I agree most with Mike D's views on karma.
I still liked your imagery of the pond and the ripples returning to
where a stone was tossed in. For some reason, I guess we haven't seen
the last of the discussions on karma in this forum. :-)
Namaste
S.
| |
| omjaroo 2005-06-16, 5:55 pm |
| In article <UTkse.140445$dP1.492279@newsc.telia.net>,
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote:
> Thanks for the link. I think I agree most with Mike D's views on karma.
I've always appreciated MikeD's analysis and commentary. He works very
hard at processing and presenting it all. He has been away from the
group for over a year now. He just posted a note to alt.yoga. I replied
but he didn't. I don't know what's up with that. I look forward to his
return, should that ever happen.
> I still liked your imagery of the pond and the ripples returning to
> where a stone was tossed in.
Thanks
> For some reason, I guess we haven't seen
> the last of the discussions on karma in this forum. :-)
Not so long as we have a desire to communicate! :-)
So tell me what do you think of what I did to your moniker (700E)? I
thought it had a nice, expensive luxury car, ring to it.
Namaste
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-16, 5:55 pm |
| omjaroo wrote:
> So tell me what do you think of what I did to your moniker (700E)? I
> thought it had a nice, expensive luxury car, ring to it.
Well, I noticed it, but then I forgot about it again, so I'm sure it's
ok by me. Either that, or my short term memory is going bad. Now, what's
with the omjaram/omjaroo thing? They're both you, aren't they?
S.
| |
| omjaram 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| 700e,
>Now, what's with the omjaram/omjaroo thing? They're both you, aren't they?
Yes they are. Depending which news service I am posting from (which
depends on which machine I am sitting at mac/pc) I will either be
omjaroo or omjaram. I realize this is a bit confusing (and isn't this
subject confused enough?) so I changed my preferences in google, so I
should be omjaroo, all the time now.
Below is a link to a thread describing where the name omjaroo came
from.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a7b33884b621754
I started to use omjaram because I intend to make omjaroo a more public
name, so I needed another to continue my personal communications here
on alt.yoga.
omjaram is a variation of omjaroo, which is somewhat more efficient in
that all three syllables reference God, instead of just two.
Namaste
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-06-18, 6:24 pm |
| omjaram wrote:
> 700e,
>
>
> Yes they are. Depending which news service I am posting from (which
> depends on which machine I am sitting at mac/pc) I will either be
> omjaroo or omjaram. I realize this is a bit confusing (and isn't this
> subject confused enough?) so I changed my preferences in google, so I
> should be omjaroo, all the time now.
It wasn't too confusing really. After all, I guessed it. But I agree
that it's easier for everybody to have just a single label for you.
>
> Below is a link to a thread describing where the name omjaroo came
> from.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...a7b33884b621754
>
>
> I started to use omjaram because I intend to make omjaroo a more public
> name, so I needed another to continue my personal communications here
> on alt.yoga.
>
> omjaram is a variation of omjaroo, which is somewhat more efficient in
> that all three syllables reference God, instead of just two.
Hmm.. I'll see if I can figure it out.. Om Ja Ram? Om is obvious of
course, and I guess Ja is ancient Semitic, and Ram may be a form of
Rama. And three such references, too! A Trinity, no less, except I'd be
hard pressed to tell which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Namaste
S.
| |
|
|
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> omjaram wrote:
>
>
> It wasn't too confusing really. After all, I guessed it. But I agree
> that it's easier for everybody to have just a single label for you.
>
Pleas do not forget that for these trinity a holy mother also needed,if
you consider who is gonna make food for these guys!!!
I just would like to remaind it..
With compassion,
Puma[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Hmm.. I'll see if I can figure it out.. Om Ja Ram? Om is obvious of
> course, and I guess Ja is ancient Semitic, and Ram may be a form of
> Rama. And three such references, too! A Trinity, no less, except I'd be
> hard pressed to tell which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
>
> Namaste
>
> S.
| |
| aumshanti 2005-07-20, 2:08 pm |
|
ego is simply another form of energy, science tell us that all energy
can only be transformed, not "removed" or destroyed. selfless service,
japa, daily meditation, all of these help in this tranformation. know
for sure you yourself can do nothing without grace of the guru. who has
said to that ego should be removed? do everything without expection-
open your heart and ask the universal intelligence for guidance. see
the world in abosute perfection.
--
aumshanti
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
|
| |
|
|