|
Home > Archive > Yoga > August 2006 > Good online intro to Jnani
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 |
Good online intro to Jnani
|
|
| howdydave 2006-08-14, 4:27 pm |
| Howdy!
I've been looking for the longest time to find a good
way to get people acquainted with where I'm coming
from.
I think that I have finally found a site:
http://www.jnani.org/intro/exp_intro.html
Following the "Continue" links takes one through
a good 6 page introduction to what Jnani is all
about.
Dave
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
I went through your jnani org. Instead seeing some masters of yours ,
not JNANI actually, I did not like it... I know RUMI very well, I know
Osho very well,,,and the rest also have their lives ,,, Non of them can
be a master at all,,, For instance RUMI has seen all the women
inferior,,,and all the stories he had written were taken from kelile
and dimne without given any references,,,and furthermore,although he
was a TURKISH man, he had seen his own language lower, and had written
all his poems in PERSIAN language.. How is it possible for such a
person to be a JNANI MASTER???
You made me laugh,,ehh ehhh ehh, We all know what a sharlatan and
cheater was
OSHO,,He made himself BHAGWAN within one night,, how is it posssible to
call such a fake as a MASTER???
Dave I wonder if all the masters of JNANI are such sort of bullies!!!
It would be much better, if you have given no master name in JNANI...
I am very sorry but I am always at the truth side,, no bullies work
for me...
Puma
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I've been looking for the longest time to find a good
> way to get people acquainted with where I'm coming
> from.
>
> I think that I have finally found a site:
>
> http://www.jnani.org/intro/exp_intro.html
>
> Following the "Continue" links takes one through
> a good 6 page introduction to what Jnani is all
> about.
>
> Dave
| |
| howdydave 2006-08-14, 9:27 pm |
| Howdy Puma!
I said nothing about the rest of the site, just
those 6 pages.
Dave
puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Dave,
>
> I went through your jnani org. Instead seeing some masters of yours ,
> not JNANI actually, I did not like it... I know RUMI very well, I know
> Osho very well,,,and the rest also have their lives ,,, Non of them can
> be a master at all,,, For instance RUMI has seen all the women
> inferior,,,and all the stories he had written were taken from kelile
> and dimne without given any references,,,and furthermore,although he
> was a TURKISH man, he had seen his own language lower, and had written
> all his poems in PERSIAN language.. How is it possible for such a
> person to be a JNANI MASTER???
>
> You made me laugh,,ehh ehhh ehh, We all know what a sharlatan and
> cheater was
> OSHO,,He made himself BHAGWAN within one night,, how is it posssible to
> call such a fake as a MASTER???
>
> Dave I wonder if all the masters of JNANI are such sort of bullies!!!
>
> It would be much better, if you have given no master name in JNANI...
>
> I am very sorry but I am always at the truth side,, no bullies work
> for me...
>
> Puma
>
>
>
> howdydave wrote:
| |
| howdydave 2006-08-15, 4:27 pm |
| To answer the other issues in your post.
As far as I am concerened, Jnani is a solitary
path that one travels alone. One might
occasionally come across a few "guides" to
point them in the right direction while they
traverse their own path. In my experience
that is all they do -- point the way when you
come to an interseaction and then you go
on your way -- ALONE.
IMO: The whole concept of a Jnani "master" is
contradictory to the whole discipline. As I see it,
each jnani must find their own master within
themselves
Dave
howdydave wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Puma!
>
> I said nothing about the rest of the site, just
> those 6 pages.
>
> Dave
>
>
> puma wrote:
| |
| howdydave 2006-08-15, 4:27 pm |
| Howdy Puma!
To answer the other issues in your post.
As far as I am concerened, Jnani is a solitary
path that one travels alone. One might
occasionally come across a few "guides" to
point them in the right direction while they
traverse their own path. In my experience
that is all they do -- point the way when you
come to an interseaction and then you go
on your way -- ALONE.
IMO: The concept of a Jnani "master" is
contradictory to the whole discipline. As I see it,
each jnani must find their own master within
themSelves.
Dave
howdydave wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Puma!
>
> I said nothing about the rest of the site, just
> those 6 pages.
>
> Dave
>
>
> puma wrote:
| |
|
| On 2006-08-15 13:13:21 -0700, "howdydave" <howdydave@msn.com> said:
> Howdy Puma!
>
> To answer the other issues in your post.
>
> As far as I am concerened, Jnani is a solitary
> path that one travels alone. One might
> occasionally come across a few "guides" to
> point them in the right direction while they
> traverse their own path. In my experience
> that is all they do -- point the way when you
> come to an interseaction and then you go
> on your way -- ALONE.
>
> IMO: The concept of a Jnani "master" is
> contradictory to the whole discipline. As I see it,
> each jnani must find their own master within
> themSelves.
>
>
> Dave
Enjoyed your site Dave
Unlike Puma I liked the masters page.
http://www.jnani.org/masters/masters_set.html
I have read all of the people listed except for Douglas Harding. I
disagree with Puma though. Sometimes it is very difficult to judge
someone by current context. Rumi lived many 100's of years before
women's lib. Osho had some run in with the law, but many of his early
lectures on yoga are exceptional introductions. Everyone develops
along different lines. Some are well developed spiritually but they
could use work in other areas like running organizations or gender
politics. Its a shame to throw out the baby with the bath water.
I was very pleased to see the inclusion of Andrew Cohen. He edits
"What is Enlightenment?", it is an excellent magazine. WEI.org
Jnani from the description you give relates very well with a concept
Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen talk about :
http://www.wie.org/j33/guru-pandit.asp?page=4
Here they relate “three faces of God”. I included the text below for
your reading pleasure. This is the forth page of a five page
discussion.
What is the specific technique used to achieve Jnani state? How did
you learn this approach?
--
~Stu
God's Playing a New Game
Integral Spirituality, Evolutionary Enlightenment,
and the Future of Religion
Andrew Cohen & Ken Wilber in dialogue
The Second Face of God
Cohen: You know, I’d always wondered why, in all of your great work,
where you honor and revere Spirit in all its many forms, I had never
heard you speak about surrender or having to come to one’s knees in the
face of God. So when I read the chapter on “Spirit in second-person,”
where you define the “three faces of God,” I was thrilled and relieved.
It had always seemed to me that a fundamental component of spiritual
evolution was missing in your work. Until Integral Spirituality, it
seems that you had emphasized God as the Self, or I-I, and God as the
entire evolving Kosmic process that we are all part of. But this is the
first time I’ve heard you speak so specifically, eloquently, and
passionately about God as the great Other before whom we all must
ultimately submit.
Wilber: You’re right. There are three topics I’ve written very little
on. One is psychic phenomena; one is rebirth and reincarnation; and one
is God in second-person. Because as soon as you open your mouth and say
anything about any of those, nobody takes you seriously in the
influential academic world.
You know, I’ve been talking to Father Thomas Keating for a decade and a
half about God in second-person and what it means. But in my own mind,
it was not until I was writing volume two of the Kosmos Trilogy that I
really started to, in a sense, download my own ideas, start eating them
and chewing them up and seeing what they meant. And that’s when this
whole idea of perspectives became incredibly alive, and that’s where
this recognition of the three faces of God came from. The clarity of it
comes from me really ingesting what first-, second-, and third-person
meant; what the quadrants meant; what all of that stuff really meant.
So the 1-2-3 of God or the three faces of Spirit basically mean that
Spirit can be approached in first-person perspective or second-person
perspective or third-person perspective. First-person Spirit is the
great “I AM,” the pure radical subjectivity or witness in every
sentient being. And then Spirit in the second-person is the great
“Thou,” something that is immeasurably greater than you could ever
possibly be in your wildest imagination, before whom surrender and
devotion and submission and radiant release and gratitude is the only
appropriate response, and from whom all blessings and all goodness flow
unreservedly. And a relationship to that Other, in love and devotion
and ecstasy, is the only appropriate response if you have any sanity at
all.
Cohen: [Laughs]
Wilber: And Spirit in third-person is the great Web of Life, the Great
Perfection of everything that’s arising. Those are third-person terms,
“it” terms, and Spirit is indeed the supreme radiant perfection of all
manifestation. And my point is that all three of these perspectives are
correct.
Ken Wilber So when this became clear to me, I was just fascinated and
then almost shocked to find that not a single tradition, East or West,
had ever put together first-, second-, and third-person perspectives of
Spirit; they tended to focus on one or the other, or sometimes two. You
do find in some of the traditions an acknowledgment of all three, for
example, in some of the Vajrayana traditions (at least the ones that
use guru yoga), but there isn’t an actual framework relating all three.
You find Vedanta emphasizing first-person virtually exclusively and
Christian mysticism emphasizing second-person quite extensively. And I
found that as I started speaking about this with various spiritual
teachers, it was an idea that just lit them up. If they were Western
Buddhists in particular, the chance to include a devotional approach
was so freeing because it had gotten truncated someplace back in their
childhood when they stopped believing in God in second-person.
This is one of the criticisms that I develop in Integral Spirituality,
which is what I call a level-line fallacy—that the second-person view
of Spirit got truncated in the West. It got chopped off at the mythic
level of development. Spirit in second-person has become stunted and
identified merely with God the Father, the old white-haired gentleman,
the mythic patriarch of the Bible that nobody believes in anymore.
Cohen: The guy we freed ourselves from in the Western Enlightenment.
Wilber: Exactly.
Cohen: Without all three faces being included, Andrew Cohen one will
have only a partial perspective on who and what God is. One’s
interpretations of one’s own God-experiences will always be incomplete.
And it’s been apparent to me ever since I began teaching twenty years
ago that especially for us postmodern extreme narcissists, the second
face of God is absolutely essential. Without God as Thou, the great
Other before whom we all must ultimately submit, becoming a living,
felt dimension of our own direct experience of Spirit, I wonder whether
it’s possible to ever move beyond ego in any kind of authentic way.
Wilber: That’s so true. Because green pluralism won’t allow any
principles higher than its own head, because it won’t allow any form of
hierarchy, it ensconces its own first-person imprisonment. And without
a second-person Spirit, I think you’re right, I don’t think they’re
going to get out of it. And that’s a problem. But too often, we in the
postmodern West tend to use only first-person and third-person—we use
Vedanta and science, or Buddhism and science, and so on.
Cohen: Exactly. And because of that, when we have profound spiritual
experiences, our ego remains unthreatened and secure.
Wilber: Well, yes. Because in a first-person approach, there’s nothing
the ego has to surrender to except its own Self. And let’s just put it
this way: In your attempt to go from small mind to big mind, you can
end up going from small ego to big ego!
Cohen: Yes. [Laughs] Because there is—
Wilber: —nothing to surrender to.
Cohen: Exactly. The ego can survive intact before God in first-person
and God in third-person.
Wilber: That’s right.
Cohen: But when face to face with God in second-person, one’s ego is on
the chopping block. Unless an individual lines up with this absolute
dimension of spiritual evolution and transcendence, it won’t really
matter what kind of experiences he or she has—the fundamental
narcissistic core will remain untouched. And unless a serious dent is
made in that narcissistic core, I wonder how deep our participation can
really be in the creation of the future. I really wonder whether we’ll
be free enough to actually be able to do it, unless at the deepest
level we’ve been brought to our knees.
Wilber: That’s an incredibly profound point. And I think you’re right
that if we don’t come to terms with that in some way or another, we’re
not going to actually be as free as we can be because unknowingly we
will be mistaking some remnant of our ego—some remnant of our
first-person perspective that we have now turned into an I-I, an Atman,
a grand pure Vedanta witness—for the Absolute. That’s the last refuge
of the ego.
Cohen: Absolutely. And the subtlety in all this is staggering.
Wilber: So you have to say: “Wait a minute. I have to face something
that I completely surrender to. I have to face something greater than I
could ever imagine myself possibly to be.” You have to utterly
surrender with devotion and actually want to do it, because
second-person perspective carries a naturally welling up infinite love
and gratitude. So it’s not something that can be forced. If you’re
forcing it, then it’s not really a true transcendental surrender.
You’re not truly in love; you’re just faking it.
Cohen: That’s right.
Wilber: And God can spot faked orgasms.
| |
| howdydave 2006-08-15, 9:25 pm |
| Stu wrote:
> On 2006-08-15 13:13:21 -0700, "howdydave" <howdydave@msn.com> said:
>
>
>
>
> Enjoyed your site Dave
>
> Unlike Puma I liked the masters page.
> http://www.jnani.org/masters/masters_set.html
>
> I have read all of the people listed except for Douglas Harding. I
> disagree with Puma though. Sometimes it is very difficult to judge
> someone by current context. Rumi lived many 100's of years before
> women's lib. Osho had some run in with the law, but many of his early
> lectures on yoga are exceptional introductions. Everyone develops
> along different lines. Some are well developed spiritually but they
> could use work in other areas like running organizations or gender
> politics. Its a shame to throw out the baby with the bath water.
>
> I was very pleased to see the inclusion of Andrew Cohen. He edits
> "What is Enlightenment?", it is an excellent magazine. WEI.org
>
> Jnani from the description you give relates very well with a concept
> Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen talk about :
> http://www.wie.org/j33/guru-pandit.asp?page=4
>
> Here they relate "three faces of God". I included the text below for
> your reading pleasure. This is the forth page of a five page
> discussion.
>
> What is the specific technique used to achieve Jnani state? How did
> you learn this approach?
> --
> ~Stu
Howdy Stu!
The short answer is that there was no technique
involved at all... one day it just HAPPENED!
I found a term on that site that suits the purpose of
showing my starting point very well...
"DIVINE DARKNESS!" I had just started taking a
Hatha class. About a week or so into the class I
discovered this massive dark place within myself
during the standard meditation period after class.
After being forced back (much against my will) there
was a:
WOOA! WHAT WAS THAT???
Due to my Christian background, my first interpretation
was:
This isn't any of that 'your body is a temple unto the Lord'
stuff... There is a humongous CATHEDRAL in there!!!
Then I began a 7 year search in an attempt to answer
that question. One of my first possible answers was:
That must be "The Void" that the Buddhists talk about...
That wasn't it because it wasn't void, awareness was there.
I couldn't determine what it was, so I thought that I
would use the process of elemination. Much later
I discovered that without ever having heard about it
I was doing a neti neti search.
I soon discovered that I had been a practitioner
for most of my life without even being aware of it.
Finally, I ran across the word "Atman."
I've been going from there ever since.
Dave
| |
|
| Stu,
If one talks about Jnani Master, the character should reflect it...But
if only words were attered and no action or wrong action was done, it
means he/she is not a master...
For a Jnani master no matter when he/she lives one does not need to
have women Lib,
any person who sees women lower than himself, and no matter when he
lives, I am against him,,, furthermore if we are talking about Jnani
Master...Rumi was a person not only had seen women inferior, he also
had seen his native language at a lower degree that he has written all
his poems in PERSIAN language...What a Master!!!
Osho was an ill person,,, in every sense,,,he was a cheater,,he even
tried to cheat internal revenue.. He was a drug addict ...What a
Master...
You may like those masters,,, it is up to you...
These two people I know very well... Others I do not know,,,One thing I
know, to be a Master of JNANI is not so cheap...
Puma
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-08-15 13:13:21 -0700, "howdydave" <howdydave@msn.com> said:
>
>
>
>
> Enjoyed your site Dave
>
> Unlike Puma I liked the masters page.
> http://www.jnani.org/masters/masters_set.html
>
> I have read all of the people listed except for Douglas Harding. I
> disagree with Puma though. Sometimes it is very difficult to judge
> someone by current context. Rumi lived many 100's of years before
> women's lib. Osho had some run in with the law, but many of his early
> lectures on yoga are exceptional introductions. Everyone develops
> along different lines. Some are well developed spiritually but they
> could use work in other areas like running organizations or gender
> politics. Its a shame to throw out the baby with the bath water.
>
> I was very pleased to see the inclusion of Andrew Cohen. He edits
> "What is Enlightenment?", it is an excellent magazine. WEI.org
>
> Jnani from the description you give relates very well with a concept
> Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen talk about :
> http://www.wie.org/j33/guru-pandit.asp?page=4
>
> Here they relate "three faces of God". I included the text below for
> your reading pleasure. This is the forth page of a five page
> discussion.
>
> What is the specific technique used to achieve Jnani state? How did
> you learn this approach?
> --
> ~Stu
>
>
> God's Playing a New Game
>
> Integral Spirituality, Evolutionary Enlightenment,
> and the Future of Religion
>
> Andrew Cohen & Ken Wilber in dialogue
>
>
>
> The Second Face of God
>
> Cohen: You know, I'd always wondered why, in all of your great work,
> where you honor and revere Spirit in all its many forms, I had never
> heard you speak about surrender or having to come to one's knees in the
> face of God. So when I read the chapter on "Spirit in second-person,"
> where you define the "three faces of God," I was thrilled and relieved.
> It had always seemed to me that a fundamental component of spiritual
> evolution was missing in your work. Until Integral Spirituality, it
> seems that you had emphasized God as the Self, or I-I, and God as the
> entire evolving Kosmic process that we are all part of. But this is the
> first time I've heard you speak so specifically, eloquently, and
> passionately about God as the great Other before whom we all must
> ultimately submit.
>
> Wilber: You're right. There are three topics I've written very little
> on. One is psychic phenomena; one is rebirth and reincarnation; and one
> is God in second-person. Because as soon as you open your mouth and say
> anything about any of those, nobody takes you seriously in the
> influential academic world.
>
> You know, I've been talking to Father Thomas Keating for a decade and a
> half about God in second-person and what it means. But in my own mind,
> it was not until I was writing volume two of the Kosmos Trilogy that I
> really started to, in a sense, download my own ideas, start eating them
> and chewing them up and seeing what they meant. And that's when this
> whole idea of perspectives became incredibly alive, and that's where
> this recognition of the three faces of God came from. The clarity of it
> comes from me really ingesting what first-, second-, and third-person
> meant; what the quadrants meant; what all of that stuff really meant.
>
> So the 1-2-3 of God or the three faces of Spirit basically mean that
> Spirit can be approached in first-person perspective or second-person
> perspective or third-person perspective. First-person Spirit is the
> great "I AM," the pure radical subjectivity or witness in every
> sentient being. And then Spirit in the second-person is the great
> "Thou," something that is immeasurably greater than you could ever
> possibly be in your wildest imagination, before whom surrender and
> devotion and submission and radiant release and gratitude is the only
> appropriate response, and from whom all blessings and all goodness flow
> unreservedly. And a relationship to that Other, in love and devotion
> and ecstasy, is the only appropriate response if you have any sanity at
> all.
>
> Cohen: [Laughs]
>
> Wilber: And Spirit in third-person is the great Web of Life, the Great
> Perfection of everything that's arising. Those are third-person terms,
> "it" terms, and Spirit is indeed the supreme radiant perfection of all
> manifestation. And my point is that all three of these perspectives are
> correct.
>
> Ken Wilber So when this became clear to me, I was just fascinated and
> then almost shocked to find that not a single tradition, East or West,
> had ever put together first-, second-, and third-person perspectives of
> Spirit; they tended to focus on one or the other, or sometimes two. You
> do find in some of the traditions an acknowledgment of all three, for
> example, in some of the Vajrayana traditions (at least the ones that
> use guru yoga), but there isn't an actual framework relating all three.
> You find Vedanta emphasizing first-person virtually exclusively and
> Christian mysticism emphasizing second-person quite extensively. And I
> found that as I started speaking about this with various spiritual
> teachers, it was an idea that just lit them up. If they were Western
> Buddhists in particular, the chance to include a devotional approach
> was so freeing because it had gotten truncated someplace back in their
> childhood when they stopped believing in God in second-person.
>
> This is one of the criticisms that I develop in Integral Spirituality,
> which is what I call a level-line fallacy-that the second-person view
> of Spirit got truncated in the West. It got chopped off at the mythic
> level of development. Spirit in second-person has become stunted and
> identified merely with God the Father, the old white-haired gentleman,
> the mythic patriarch of the Bible that nobody believes in anymore.
>
> Cohen: The guy we freed ourselves from in the Western Enlightenment.
>
> Wilber: Exactly.
>
> Cohen: Without all three faces being included, Andrew Cohen one will
> have only a partial perspective on who and what God is. One's
> interpretations of one's own God-experiences will always be incomplete.
> And it's been apparent to me ever since I began teaching twenty years
> ago that especially for us postmodern extreme narcissists, the second
> face of God is absolutely essential. Without God as Thou, the great
> Other before whom we all must ultimately submit, becoming a living,
> felt dimension of our own direct experience of Spirit, I wonder whether
> it's possible to ever move beyond ego in any kind of authentic way.
>
> Wilber: That's so true. Because green pluralism won't allow any
> principles higher than its own head, because it won't allow any form of
> hierarchy, it ensconces its own first-person imprisonment. And without
> a second-person Spirit, I think you're right, I don't think they're
> going to get out of it. And that's a problem. But too often, we in the
> postmodern West tend to use only first-person and third-person-we use
> Vedanta and science, or Buddhism and science, and so on.
>
> Cohen: Exactly. And because of that, when we have profound spiritual
> experiences, our ego remains unthreatened and secure.
>
> Wilber: Well, yes. Because in a first-person approach, there's nothing
> the ego has to surrender to except its own Self. And let's just put it
> this way: In your attempt to go from small mind to big mind, you can
> end up going from small ego to big ego!
>
> Cohen: Yes. [Laughs] Because there is-
>
> Wilber: -nothing to surrender to.
>
> Cohen: Exactly. The ego can survive intact before God in first-person
> and God in third-person.
>
> Wilber: That's right.
>
> Cohen: But when face to face with God in second-person, one's ego is on
> the chopping block. Unless an individual lines up with this absolute
> dimension of spiritual evolution and transcendence, it won't really
> matter what kind of experiences he or she has-the fundamental
> narcissistic core will remain untouched. And unless a serious dent is
> made in that narcissistic core, I wonder how deep our participation can
> really be in the creation of the future. I really wonder whether we'll
> be free enough to actually be able to do it, unless at the deepest
> level we've been brought to our knees.
>
> Wilber: That's an incredibly profound point. And I think you're right
> that if we don't come to terms with that in some way or another, we're
> not going to actually be as free as we can be because unknowingly we
> will be mistaking some remnant of our ego-some remnant of our
> first-person perspective that we have now turned into an I-I, an Atman,
> a grand pure Vedanta witness-for the Absolute. That's the last refuge
> of the ego.
>
> Cohen: Absolutely. And the subtlety in all this is staggering.
>
> Wilber: So you have to say: "Wait a minute. I have to face something
> that I completely surrender to. I have to face something greater than I
> could ever imagine myself possibly to be." You have to utterly
> surrender with devotion and actually want to do it, because
> second-person perspective carries a naturally welling up infinite love
> and gratitude. So it's not something that can be forced. If you're
> forcing it, then it's not really a true transcendental surrender.
> You're not truly in love; you're just faking it.
>
> Cohen: That's right.
>
> Wilber: And God can spot faked orgasms.
| |
| omjaroo 2006-08-16, 2:28 am |
| Dave,
At the moment, I think you and I are it, in alt.yoga...
What is the purpose of your post?
Encouraging potential jnanis? Feeling lonely? Some doubts happening?
What?
Oh, BTW the site you linked was good.But it doesn't begin to tell even
half of the story. I doubt it will impart the least understanding of
what he path of the jnani is about to a non-jnani.
I still like Hittleman's definition: :
"Jnana is the path of liberation for those in whom the qualities of the
intellect-reason, dialectics, analysis- predominate. The student
(Jnani) has gravitated to this Yoga as the result of an intuitive grasp
of the fact that he is indeed SELF, that he is always and forever SELF
and that he could not for a moment ever be anything but SELF. However
his ordinary mind is still in the dominant position and advances
formidable intellectual doubts pertaining to his intuition: he therfore
experiences himself as a battleground upon which the force of intellect
and intuition oppose each other. Driven by his intuition to transcend
his intellectual doubts he turns to Yoga for guidance and invited to by
Jnana to engage in that peculiar and fascinating process wherein he
utilizes ordinary mind to transcend ordinary mind!
Jared
o
^
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I've been looking for the longest time to find a good
> way to get people acquainted with where I'm coming
> from.
>
> I think that I have finally found a site:
>
> http://www.jnani.org/intro/exp_intro.html
>
> Following the "Continue" links takes one through
> a good 6 page introduction to what Jnani is all
> about.
>
> Dave
| |
| howdydave 2006-08-16, 4:27 pm |
| Howdy Jared!
Nope...
Just a Eureka! I've finally found one! sorta' thing. I
was looking for background information for somebody
and just thought that I would share the information.
I'm fairly certain that you can not "recruite" potential
Jnanis.
The only problem with Hittleman is that not everybody
has a copy of the book. That means that they can not
ponder the content and context of the statement. If
they read a post they can probably access a URL.
Dave
omjaroo wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dave,
>
> At the moment, I think you and I are it, in alt.yoga...
>
> What is the purpose of your post?
>
> Encouraging potential jnanis? Feeling lonely? Some doubts happening?
> What?
>
> Oh, BTW the site you linked was good.But it doesn't begin to tell even
> half of the story. I doubt it will impart the least understanding of
> what he path of the jnani is about to a non-jnani.
>
> I still like Hittleman's definition: :
> "Jnana is the path of liberation for those in whom the qualities of the
> intellect-reason, dialectics, analysis- predominate. The student
> (Jnani) has gravitated to this Yoga as the result of an intuitive grasp
> of the fact that he is indeed SELF, that he is always and forever SELF
> and that he could not for a moment ever be anything but SELF. However
> his ordinary mind is still in the dominant position and advances
> formidable intellectual doubts pertaining to his intuition: he therfore
> experiences himself as a battleground upon which the force of intellect
> and intuition oppose each other. Driven by his intuition to transcend
> his intellectual doubts he turns to Yoga for guidance and invited to by
> Jnana to engage in that peculiar and fascinating process wherein he
> utilizes ordinary mind to transcend ordinary mind!
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
>
> howdydave wrote:
| |
|
| On 2006-08-15 15:31:51 -0700, "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> said:
> Stu,
>
> If one talks about Jnani Master, the character should reflect it...But
> if only words were attered and no action or wrong action was done, it
> means he/she is not a master...
>
> For a Jnani master no matter when he/she lives one does not need to
> have women Lib,
> any person who sees women lower than himself, and no matter when he
> lives, I am against him,,, furthermore if we are talking about Jnani
> Master...Rumi was a person not only had seen women inferior, he also
> had seen his native language at a lower degree that he has written all
> his poems in PERSIAN language...What a Master!!!
>
> Osho was an ill person,,, in every sense,,,he was a cheater,,he even
> tried to cheat internal revenue.. He was a drug addict ...What a
> Master...
>
> You may like those masters,,, it is up to you...
>
> These two people I know very well... Others I do not know,,,One thing I
> know, to be a Master of JNANI is not so cheap...
>
> Puma
Mr. Puma sir,
Charlie Parker was a great saxophone player. Arguably a spiritual
advanced saxophone player. His music moves one to a higher plain. Yet
he was a drug addict.
People can be advanced in some ways but not in others.
Its like being a top poster. I don't discount everything you say
because you are so irresponsible about how you post.
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.lionsgrove.com/topposting.html
http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/08/09/top-posting/
--
~Stu
I just discount most things you say.
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2006-08-15 15:31:51 -0700, "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> said:
>
>
> Mr. Puma sir,
>
> Charlie Parker was a great saxophone player. Arguably a spiritual
> advanced saxophone player. His music moves one to a higher plain. Yet
> he was a drug addict.
>
> People can be advanced in some ways but not in others.
>
> Its like being a top poster. I don't discount everything you say
> because you are so irresponsible about how you post.
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
> http://www.lionsgrove.com/topposting.html
> http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/08/09/top-posting/
> --
> ~Stu
>
> I just discount most things you say.
Hi Stu,
Thanks for your reply. If we were talking about an ordinary person or
people then we would assume that """People can be advanced in some ways
but not in others."""
But if the subject person is a MASTER of JNANI, then every body has a
right to see his/her misfits...
It is very natural to find truth and false statements in posters of
ours...So we do certainly
some discounts and some counts on our friends posters...
It is not my irresponsibility how to post,,, it is only my preference
to do so...For me top-posting or under-posting does not mean much... I
am against several points as MASTERS,,,Imaginary rules,,,and
conditioned minds,,,Offcourse our postings are the reflection of our
personalities... I am very happy about my personality,,no matter what
others feel about it,,, weather they like it or not... I know myself,,,
and I am happy about it.
Regards,
Puma
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-08-17, 4:27 pm |
| puma wrote:
> Stu wrote:
>
> Hi Stu,
>
> Thanks for your reply. If we were talking about an ordinary person or
> people then we would assume that """People can be advanced in some ways
> but not in others."""
>
> But if the subject person is a MASTER of JNANI, then every body has a
> right to see his/her misfits...
>
> It is very natural to find truth and false statements in posters of
> ours...So we do certainly
> some discounts and some counts on our friends posters...
>
> It is not my irresponsibility how to post,,, it is only my preference
> to do so...For me top-posting or under-posting does not mean much... I
> am against several points as MASTERS,,,Imaginary rules,,,and
> conditioned minds,,,Offcourse our postings are the reflection of our
> personalities... I am very happy about my personality,,no matter what
> others feel about it,,, weather they like it or not... I know myself,,,
> and I am happy about it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Puma
yes, knowing who is master and who is faker requires some discernment.
The yogi who has been sitting for several hours in meditation and
enjoying some samdhi, when he opens his/her eyes and stands up, the
eyes may be bloodshot, the gait may be wobbly, and there may be much
giddy chuckling from the divine intoxication.
But look at the one who stands up after a number of alcoholic drinks:
the eyes may be blood-shot, the gait wobbly and there may be much giddy
laughter.
One is experiencing, acting, out of expanded and clarified
consciousness, out of the predominance of satvaguna, and the other out
of narrowing of consciousness, out of predominance of tamaguna.
Outwardly they seem the same. and only close inspection and
understanding can reveal who is who.
| |
|
| Discernment is a term used in the Catholic Church, and other Christian
traditions to describe the process of ascertaining God's will for one's
life. In most contexts (in Catholicism), it describes the interior
search for an answer to the question...
hbkta@aol.com wrote:
> puma wrote:
>
> yes, knowing who is master and who is faker requires some discernment.
> The yogi who has been sitting for several hours in meditation and
> enjoying some samdhi, when he opens his/her eyes and stands up, the
> eyes may be bloodshot, the gait may be wobbly, and there may be much
> giddy chuckling from the divine intoxication.
> But look at the one who stands up after a number of alcoholic drinks:
> the eyes may be blood-shot, the gait wobbly and there may be much giddy
> laughter.
> One is experiencing, acting, out of expanded and clarified
> consciousness, out of the predominance of satvaguna, and the other out
> of narrowing of consciousness, out of predominance of tamaguna.
> Outwardly they seem the same. and only close inspection and
> understanding can reveal who is who.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-08-17, 9:28 pm |
|
puma wrote:
> Discernment is a term used in the Catholic Church, and other Christian
> traditions to describe the process of ascertaining God's will for one's
> life. In most contexts (in Catholicism), it describes the interior
> search for an answer to the question...
>
>
Hi Puma,
We are not discussing Christianity or Catholicism.
The word, discernment, has meaning outside of these traditions.
Usually the context in which a word is used can point towards the
meaning(s) being used.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=3Ddiscernment
Discernment:
Main Entry: dis=B7cern=B7ment
Pronunciation: di-'s&rn-m&nt, -'z&rn-
Function: noun
1 : the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure :
skill in discerning
2 : an act of discerning
synonyms DISCERNMENT, DISCRIMINATION, PERCEPTION, PENETRATION, INSIGHT,
ACUMEN mean a power to see what is not evident to the average mind.
DISCERNMENT stresses accuracy (as in reading character or motives or
appreciating art) <the discernment to know true friends>.
DISCRIMINATION stresses the power to distinguish and select what is
true or appropriate or excellent <the discrimination that develops
through listening to a lot of great music>. PERCEPTION implies quick
and often sympathetic discernment (as of shades of feeling) <a novelist
of keen perception into human motives>. PENETRATION implies a searching
mind that goes beyond what is obvious or superficial <lacks the
penetration to see the scorn beneath their friendly smiles>. INSIGHT
suggests depth of discernment coupled with understanding sympathy <a
documentary providing insight into the plight of the homeless>. ACUMEN
implies characteristic penetration combined with keen practical
judgment <a director of reliable box-office acumen>.
also see
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discern
DISCERN
Pronunciation: di-'s&rn, -'z&rn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French discerner, from Latin
discernere to separate, distinguish between, from dis- apart + cernere
to sift -- more at DIS-, CERTAIN
transitive verb
1 a : to detect with the eyes <discerned a figure approaching through
the fog> b : to detect with senses other than vision <discerned a
strange odor>
2 : to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DISCRIMINATE
<discern right from wrong>
3 : to come to know or recognize mentally <unable to discern his
motives>
intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference.
so I am sure that now you can understand the difference
[vbcol=seagreen]
> hbkta@aol.com wrote:
..=2EBut[vbcol=seagreen]
, it[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
he[vbcol=seagreen]
nani[vbcol=seagreen]
lso[vbcol=seagreen]
n all[vbcol=seagreen]
ven[vbcol=seagreen]
hing I[vbcol=seagreen]
Yet[vbcol=seagreen]
ys[vbcol=seagreen]
,,[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| Discernment definetion is not my own ,,, it is from ;
'"""""
Discernment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discernment is a term used in the Catholic Church, and other
Christian traditions to describe the process of ascertaining God's will
for one's life. In most contexts (in Catholicism), it describes the
interior search for an answer to the question...
Quick Links: Catholic theology and doctrine - Derived from
Catholic Encyclopedia - Roman Catholic Church stubs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discernment - 18k - Cached - More from this
site """""
Yee,,, not mine,,it is from WIKIPEDIA, the free encyclopedia...
hbkta@aol.com wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> puma wrote:
>
> Hi Puma,
> We are not discussing Christianity or Catholicism.
> The word, discernment, has meaning outside of these traditions.
> Usually the context in which a word is used can point towards the
> meaning(s) being used.
>
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=3Ddiscernment
> Discernment:
> Main Entry: dis=B7cern=B7ment
> Pronunciation: di-'s&rn-m&nt, -'z&rn-
> Function: noun
> 1 : the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure :
> skill in discerning
> 2 : an act of discerning
> synonyms DISCERNMENT, DISCRIMINATION, PERCEPTION, PENETRATION, INSIGHT,
> ACUMEN mean a power to see what is not evident to the average mind.
> DISCERNMENT stresses accuracy (as in reading character or motives or
> appreciating art) <the discernment to know true friends>.
> DISCRIMINATION stresses the power to distinguish and select what is
> true or appropriate or excellent <the discrimination that develops
> through listening to a lot of great music>. PERCEPTION implies quick
> and often sympathetic discernment (as of shades of feeling) <a novelist
> of keen perception into human motives>. PENETRATION implies a searching
> mind that goes beyond what is obvious or superficial <lacks the
> penetration to see the scorn beneath their friendly smiles>. INSIGHT
> suggests depth of discernment coupled with understanding sympathy <a
> documentary providing insight into the plight of the homeless>. ACUMEN
> implies characteristic penetration combined with keen practical
> judgment <a director of reliable box-office acumen>.
>
> also see
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discern
> DISCERN
> Pronunciation: di-'s&rn, -'z&rn
> Function: verb
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French discerner, from Latin
> discernere to separate, distinguish between, from dis- apart + cernere
> to sift -- more at DIS-, CERTAIN
>
> transitive verb
> 1 a : to detect with the eyes <discerned a figure approaching through
> the fog> b : to detect with senses other than vision <discerned a
> strange odor>
> 2 : to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DISCRIMINATE
> <discern right from wrong>
> 3 : to come to know or recognize mentally <unable to discern his
> motives>
>
> intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference.
>
>
> so I am sure that now you can understand the difference
>
>
>
id:[vbcol=seagreen]
t=2E..But[vbcol=seagreen]
ne, it[vbcol=seagreen]
d to[vbcol=seagreen]
n he[vbcol=seagreen]
Jnani[vbcol=seagreen]
also[vbcol=seagreen]
ten all[vbcol=seagreen]
even[vbcol=seagreen]
thing I[vbcol=seagreen]
.. Yet[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
ways[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
nce[vbcol=seagreen]
.. I[vbcol=seagreen]
at[vbcol=seagreen]
f,,,[vbcol=seagreen]
dy[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-08-18, 4:27 pm |
|
puma wrote:
> Discernment definetion is not my own ,,, it is from ;
>
So?
I did not say it was your own definition.
I pointed out that the word has meaning outside of the christian and
catholic traditions, that the word is not limited to the useage given
by these traditions.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> '"""""
> Discernment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> Discernment is a term used in the Catholic Church, and other
> Christian traditions to describe the process of ascertaining God's will
> for one's life. In most contexts (in Catholicism), it describes the
> interior search for an answer to the question...
>
> Quick Links: Catholic theology and doctrine - Derived from
> Catholic Encyclopedia - Roman Catholic Church stubs
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discernment - 18k - Cached - More from this
> site """""
>
> Yee,,, not mine,,it is from WIKIPEDIA, the free encyclopedia...
>
>
>
>
>
> hbkta@aol.com wrote:
's[vbcol=seagreen]
said:[vbcol=seagreen]
it...But[vbcol=seagreen]
done, it[vbcol=seagreen]
eed to[vbcol=seagreen]
hen he[vbcol=seagreen]
t Jnani[vbcol=seagreen]
he also[vbcol=seagreen]
itten all[vbcol=seagreen]
he even[vbcol=seagreen]
t a[vbcol=seagreen]
ne thing I[vbcol=seagreen]
ual[vbcol=seagreen]
in. Yet[vbcol=seagreen]
ay[vbcol=seagreen]
n or[vbcol=seagreen]
e ways[vbcol=seagreen]
as a[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
rence[vbcol=seagreen]
..=2E. I[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
what[vbcol=seagreen]
elf,,,[vbcol=seagreen]
nt.[vbcol=seagreen]
s:[vbcol=seagreen]
iddy[vbcol=seagreen]
out[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| On 2006-08-17 03:44:35 -0700, "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
> Hi Stu,
>
> Thanks for your reply. If we were talking about an ordinary person or
> people then we would assume that """People can be advanced in some ways
> but not in others."""
>
> But if the subject person is a MASTER of JNANI, then every body has a
> right to see his/her misfits...
>
> It is very natural to find truth and false statements in posters of
> ours...So we do certainly
> some discounts and some counts on our friends posters...
>
> It is not my irresponsibility how to post,,, it is only my preference
> to do so...For me top-posting or under-posting does not mean much... I
> am against several points as MASTERS,,,Imaginary rules,,,and
> conditioned minds,,,Offcourse our postings are the reflection of our
> personalities... I am very happy about my personality,,no matter what
> others feel about it,,, weather they like it or not... I know myself,,,
> and I am happy about it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Puma
Thank you for bottom posting. Generally one only tops posts when
answering long posts with short answers like "Great article!"
As for masters, you are correct. If a master is out there and has some
faults like sexual harassment or high fees it should be explicit. The
student certainly should judge accordingly.
This is basically common sense. The same rule applies to doctors and
refrigerator repairmen.
However, for some reason the internet is full of unsavory characters
who like to spread their venom because of past grudges. As a result, I
would bet it is impossible to name a saint who lives up to this
scrutiny.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| On 2006-08-17 13:04:18 -0700, "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> said:
> Discernment is a term used in the Catholic Church, and other Christian
> traditions to describe the process of ascertaining God's will for one's
> life. In most contexts (in Catholicism), it describes the interior
> search for an answer to the question...
How about some top posting discernment. Which is also a Buddhist term.
--
~Stu
|
| |
|
|