|
Home > Archive > Yoga > September 2006 > Samadhi,Enlightenment,Realisation and TRUTH
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 |
Samadhi,Enlightenment,Realisation and TRUTH
|
|
|
| Recent posters here clearly indicate that almost everyone of us has a
different meaning or understanding regarding samadhi, enlightenment,
realisation...
This suggests me that non of these concepts has a relation with TRUTH !
Because TRUTH can not be different from one person to another.
I see that for TM people Samadhi is like an everyday action...Going
into the bathroom to take a leak may be a samadhi for them. For some
other person, a mountain scenery is exactly what samadhi is...
Sometimes when I look at my beloved cat, I feel what she is
thinking...So this might be a very close picture of samadhi ! ! !
Same difference is going on enlightenment also. To me enlightenment is
a sudden seeing,or understanding of anything that has been staying in
front of yourselve for a long time but nothing were seen so far.
My friend Jared takes the meaning of enlightenment as to know God. And
according to this understanding, non of the Buddhist lamas were
enlightened and there is no hope for their enlightenment either...
Realisation is a completely different act of mind. Some people think
that if a person is a realised master then he/she can do things against
law of physics...( a sort of an exclusive post)
To me one can realise anything, in such a way that, as if that person
becomes together with the subject matter...This might be one of our
friends, or any problem after being solved.
TRUTH is such an understanding that without depending on our location
or cultural conditions
we all have the same feeling and understanding...
As an example of TRUTH, we can show the sun...
With compassion,
Puma
| |
| omjaroo 2006-09-15, 4:24 pm |
|
> Because TRUTH can not be different from one person to another.
>
True! True!
> My friend Jared takes the meaning of enlightenment as to know God. And
> according to this understanding, non of the Buddhist lamas were
> enlightened and there is no hope for their enlightenment either...
Puma you are right. Because I know that everything that exists is, as
and of God, the word God has a great deal of utility for me. But I
understand that many people's definition of God is narrower. So to
accommodate others I will modify the words I use to define realization,
enlightenment, etc.
Enlightenment according to Jared is: When an individual knows who and
what they are...
There, that should be inclusive of anyone, of any persuasion :-) It
also incorporates the idea of "degrees" of enlightenment, which I think
is more useful then the notion that one just "arrives" one day and is
"enlightened." I think that for most of us enlightenment is more of a
process then a "big bang."
Jared
o
^
| |
| dick blister 2006-09-15, 4:24 pm |
|
"omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158340835.080693.230240@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> True! True!
>
>
> Puma you are right. Because I know that everything that exists is, as
> and of God, the word God has a great deal of utility for me. But I
> understand that many people's definition of God is narrower. So to
> accommodate others I will modify the words I use to define realization,
> enlightenment, etc.
>
> Enlightenment according to Jared is: When an individual knows who and
> what they are...
Feels good to me...........................
"I am that, thou art that, all this is that"
> ==============================
> There, that should be inclusive of anyone, of any persuasion :-) It
> also incorporates the idea of "degrees" of enlightenment, which I think
> is more useful then the notion that one just "arrives" one day and is
> "enlightened." I think that for most of us enlightenment is more of a
> process then a "big bang."
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
>
| |
| dick blisters 2006-09-16, 2:26 am |
|
"puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158321224.570658.8580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Recent posters here clearly indicate that almost everyone of us has a
> different meaning or understanding regarding samadhi, enlightenment,
> realisation...
>
> This suggests me that non of these concepts has a relation with TRUTH !
>
> Because TRUTH can not be different from one person to another.
>
> I see that for TM people Samadhi is like an everyday action...Going
> into the bathroom to take a leak may be a samadhi for them. For some
> other person, a mountain scenery is exactly what samadhi is...
>
> Sometimes when I look at my beloved cat, I feel what she is
> thinking...So this might be a very close picture of samadhi ! ! !
>
> Same difference is going on enlightenment also. To me enlightenment is
> a sudden seeing,or understanding of anything that has been staying in
> front of yourselve for a long time but nothing were seen so far.
>
> My friend Jared takes the meaning of enlightenment as to know God. And
> according to this understanding, non of the Buddhist lamas were
> enlightened and there is no hope for their enlightenment either...
>
> Realisation is a completely different act of mind. Some people think
> that if a person is a realised master then he/she can do things against
> law of physics...( a sort of an exclusive post)
>
> To me one can realise anything, in such a way that, as if that person
> becomes together with the subject matter...This might be one of our
> friends, or any problem after being solved.
>
> TRUTH is such an understanding that without depending on our location
> or cultural conditions
> we all have the same feeling and understanding...
The truth may be the same for everyone but understood differently on an
intellectual level.
Standing under the direct rays of the sun in my part of the world (northern
Canada) will be a completely different experience than it is for someone in
the Sahara desert. But it is the exact same sun.
The experience of God, enlightenment, liberation, unity, samhadi etc. may be
the same experience for everyone but when we try to describe, define or
quantify it, truth is colored by our relative, social and cultural
conditioning. That does not make it any less true or real. When we try to
give expression to a deep spiritual experience, we are limited even though
we speak the same language. Even the definition of a single word is
culturally and socially loaded though we may all use the same dictionary.
We have our biases, prejudices, personal experiences, beliefs, hopes, dreams
which ad further filters to what we are trying to convey. So it all comes
down to the personal. But once we have arrived at a place of personal truth
there are definite qualities that we wear as so called "gifts of the
spirit".. . . . patience, tolerance, humility, unconditional love and
acceptance for others etc.
Those outward signs carry a far more powerful message than any words can
convey. It is by walking in the stillness of our own personal truth that we
reflect, affirm and validate the full glory of our true Self and simply
acknowledge the existence of "That" same quality of spirit within others.
Truth is conveyed through a silent exchange in spiritual union.....where we
connect with one another at a level beyond the influence of intellect and
ego. We can experience Truth and express it through how we live in that
Truth.
For most of us it is easier to say what it is not that to define what it is.
We are fortunate to have had those throughout history who were able to not
only cognize and experience the absolute nature of reality but were also
capable of painting us a picture of it. Then there are those few who have
been able to give us a simple, natural, easy way to personally experience
the liberation, enlightenment etc. they had attained.
I have no doubt that this will be misunderstood for the very reasons I have
stated.
So why do I bother wasting time writing it all down?
I guess it's just an intellectual exercise to remind the ego the proper use
of the will which for me is to always strive to be walking in the direction
of spiritual growth.....
I may not always be successful, but I'm getting better at it day by day.
======================================
>
> As an example of TRUTH, we can show the sun...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
| |
|
|
dick blisters wrote:
> "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158321224.570658.8580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The truth may be the same for everyone but understood differently on an
> intellectual level.
> Standing under the direct rays of the sun in my part of the world (northern
> Canada) will be a completely different experience than it is for someone in
> the Sahara desert. But it is the exact same sun.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Dick Blister,
Exactly, this is the realisation of TRUTH, when we arrive at the same
realisation, to me it means that we are on the TRUTH...Here the key is
lies in the mindfullnes,and being aware of the filters as you`ve
indicated...
With compassion,
Puma
[vbcol=seagreen]
> The experience of God, enlightenment, liberation, unity, samhadi etc. may be
> the same experience for everyone but when we try to describe, define or
> quantify it, truth is colored by our relative, social and cultural
> conditioning. That does not make it any less true or real. When we try to
> give expression to a deep spiritual experience, we are limited even though
> we speak the same language. Even the definition of a single word is
> culturally and socially loaded though we may all use the same dictionary.
>
> We have our biases, prejudices, personal experiences, beliefs, hopes, dreams
> which ad further filters to what we are trying to convey. So it all comes
> down to the personal. But once we have arrived at a place of personal truth
> there are definite qualities that we wear as so called "gifts of the
> spirit".. . . . patience, tolerance, humility, unconditional love and
> acceptance for others etc.
>
> Those outward signs carry a far more powerful message than any words can
> convey. It is by walking in the stillness of our own personal truth that we
> reflect, affirm and validate the full glory of our true Self and simply
> acknowledge the existence of "That" same quality of spirit within others.
> Truth is conveyed through a silent exchange in spiritual union.....where we
> connect with one another at a level beyond the influence of intellect and
> ego. We can experience Truth and express it through how we live in that
> Truth.
>
> For most of us it is easier to say what it is not that to define what it is.
> We are fortunate to have had those throughout history who were able to not
> only cognize and experience the absolute nature of reality but were also
> capable of painting us a picture of it. Then there are those few who have
> been able to give us a simple, natural, easy way to personally experience
> the liberation, enlightenment etc. they had attained.
>
> I have no doubt that this will be misunderstood for the very reasons I have
> stated.
> So why do I bother wasting time writing it all down?
> I guess it's just an intellectual exercise to remind the ego the proper use
> of the will which for me is to always strive to be walking in the direction
> of spiritual growth.....
> I may not always be successful, but I'm getting better at it day by day.
> ======================================
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| omjaroo 2006-09-16, 4:26 pm |
| dick blisters wrote:
> Those outward signs carry a far more powerful message than any words can
> convey. It is by walking in the stillness of our own personal truth that we
> reflect, affirm and validate the full glory of our true Self and simply
> acknowledge the existence of "That" same quality of spirit within others.
> Truth is conveyed through a silent exchange in spiritual union.....where we
> connect with one another at a level beyond the influence of intellect and
> ego. We can experience Truth and express it through how we live in that
> Truth.
> I have no doubt that this will be misunderstood for the very reasons I have
> stated.
Be that as it might, I can't recall having read it more clearly or
beautifully, put forward.
Jared
o
^
| |
|
| Srila Prabhupada the Founder of the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness and the Vedic literatures have explained "samadhi" as
follows:
Sam=E4dhi means "fixed mind." The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti,
says, samyag =E4dh=E9yate 'sminn =E4tma-tattva-y=E4th=E4tmyam: "When the
mind is fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in sam=E4dhi.
" Sam=E4dhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense
enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things.
They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.
Bg 2.45
Lord =C7iva said that since his heart was always filled with the
conception of V=E4sudeva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because of
the Supreme Lord's presence within his mind and heart, he was always
offering obeisances unto that Supreme Godhead. In other words, Lord
=C7iva is always in trance, sam=E4dhi
In his purport to this verse, =C7r=E9la Bhaktivinoda =D6h=E4kura says that
when one detaches himself from the sensual world and becomes situated
in sam=E4dhi, complete absorption in the Absolute Truth, one perceives
the pure spiritual self and is rewarded with intense bliss.
"Our dear lotus-eyed Lord, You are the source of pure goodness. There
are many great sages who simply by sam=E4dhi, or transcendentally
meditating upon Your lotus feet and thus being absorbed in Your
thought, have easily transformed the great ocean of nescience created
by the material nature into no more than the water in a calf's
hoofprint." The purpose of meditation is to focus the mind upon the
Personality of Godhead, beginning from His lotus feet. Simply by
meditation on the lotus feet of the Lord, great sages cross over this
vast ocean of material existence without difficulty.
omjaroo wrote:
> dick blisters wrote:
t we[vbcol=seagreen]
s=2E[vbcol=seagreen]
e we[vbcol=seagreen]
nd[vbcol=seagreen]
>
have[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Be that as it might, I can't recall having read it more clearly or
> beautifully, put forward.=20
>=20
> Jared
> o
> ^
| |
|
|
mark wrote:
> Srila Prabhupada the Founder of the International Society for Krishna
> Consciousness and the Vedic literatures have explained "samadhi" as
> follows:
>
> Sam=E4dhi means "fixed mind." The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti,
> says, samyag =E4dh=E9yate 'sminn =E4tma-tattva-y=E4th=E4tmyam: "When the
> mind is fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in sam=E4dhi.
> " Sam=E4dhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense
> enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things.
> They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.
> Bg 2.45
Hi Mark,
Is this guy, I mean Srila Prabhupada, an authority on SAMADHI?
What is material sense enjoyment?
What is not temporary in this universe?
Thanking you in adcance,
Puma
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Lord =C7iva said that since his heart was always filled with the
> conception of V=E4sudeva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because of
> the Supreme Lord's presence within his mind and heart, he was always
> offering obeisances unto that Supreme Godhead. In other words, Lord
> =C7iva is always in trance, sam=E4dhi
>
> In his purport to this verse, =C7r=E9la Bhaktivinoda =D6h=E4kura says that
> when one detaches himself from the sensual world and becomes situated
> in sam=E4dhi, complete absorption in the Absolute Truth, one perceives
> the pure spiritual self and is rewarded with intense bliss.
>
> "Our dear lotus-eyed Lord, You are the source of pure goodness. There
> are many great sages who simply by sam=E4dhi, or transcendentally
> meditating upon Your lotus feet and thus being absorbed in Your
> thought, have easily transformed the great ocean of nescience created
> by the material nature into no more than the water in a calf's
> hoofprint." The purpose of meditation is to focus the mind upon the
> Personality of Godhead, beginning from His lotus feet. Simply by
> meditation on the lotus feet of the Lord, great sages cross over this
> vast ocean of material existence without difficulty.
>
>
> omjaroo wrote:
can[vbcol=seagreen]
hat we[vbcol=seagreen]
ply[vbcol=seagreen]
ers.[vbcol=seagreen]
ere we[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
at[vbcol=seagreen]
I have[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| Hi Puma,
Thank you for asking such nice questions.
Is Srila Prabhupada an authority on Samadhi?
Srila Prabhupada is in a line of disciplic succession going back to
Lord Krishna Himself. This means that the Vedic knowledge was handed
down from qualified master to qualified disciple, much like they do in
martial arts. The student cannot be qualified if the master is not in a
bona fide disciplic succession coming from Lord Krishna Himself. There
are several bona fide disciplic successions, this is not the only one
coming from Krishna, there are three others. Krishna was born over 5000
yrs. ago, so this disciplic succession that Srila Prabhupada is in, has
been intact for several millenia. It is as follows:
1=2E Krsna
2=2E Brahma
3=2E Narada
4=2E Vyasa
5=2E Madhva
6=2E Padmanabha
7=2E Nrhari
8=2E Madhava
9=2E Aksobhya
10. Jaya Tirtha
11. Jnanasindhu
12. Dayanidhi
13. Vidyanidhi
14. Rajendra
15. Jayadharma
16. Purusottama
17. Brahmanya Tirtha
18. Vyasa Tirtha
19. Laksmipati
20. Madhavendra Puri
21. Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita)
22. Lord Caitanya
23. Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana)
24. Raghunatha, Jiva
25. Krsnadasa
26. Narottama
27. Visvanatha
28. (Baladeva) Jagannatha
29. Bhaktivinoda
30. Gaurakisora
31. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Puma asked,
What is not temporary in this universe?
"The Complete Whole, the Personality of Godhead, has immense potencies,
all of which are as complete as He is. Thus this phenomenal world is
also complete in itself. The twenty-four elements of which this
material universe is a temporary manifestation are arranged to produce
everything necessary for the maintenance and subsistence of this
universe. No other unit in the universe need make an extraneous effort
to try to maintain the universe. The universe functions on its own time
scale, which is fixed by the energy of the Complete Whole, and when
that schedule is completed, this temporary manifestation will be
annihilated by the complete arrangement of the Complete Whole." Srila
Prabhupada, commenting on a verse in Sri Isopanishad.
Puma asked,
What is material sense enjoyment?
"Those who are in Krishna consciousness are naturally reluctant to
engage in material sense gratification. But those who are not in such
consciousness should follow the rules and regulations of the revealed
scriptures. Unrestricted sense enjoyment is the cause of material
encagement, but one who follows the rules and regulations of the
revealed scriptures does not become entangled by the sense objects. For
example, sex enjoyment is a necessity for the conditioned soul, and sex
enjoyment is allowed under the license of marriage ties. According to
scriptural injunctions, one is forbidden to engage in sex relationships
with any women other than one's wife. All other women are to be
considered as one's mother. But in spite of such injunctions, a man
is still inclined to have sex relationships with other women. These
propensities are to be curbed; otherwise they will be stumbling blocks
on the path of self-realization." Srila Prabhupada commenting on
Bhagavada Gita 3:34.
Hope this helps. If you'd like more info you can go to this link:
there's a bunch of books translated by our spiritual master, Srila
Prabhupada. He translated over 70 volumes of Vedic Literature into
English, many for the first time.
http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/BG/
Warmest Regards,
Mark
puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> mark wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Is this guy, I mean Srila Prabhupada, an authority on SAMADHI?
>
> What is material sense enjoyment?
>
> What is not temporary in this universe?
>
> Thanking you in adcance,
>
> Puma
>
>
>
hat[vbcol=seagreen]
s can[vbcol=seagreen]
that we[vbcol=seagreen]
imply[vbcol=seagreen]
thers.[vbcol=seagreen]
where we[vbcol=seagreen]
ct and[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
s I have[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| howdydave 2006-09-18, 4:29 pm |
| Howdy Mark!
I would be very suspicious of that pedigree line!
If you take the time span at it's minimal value
(5,000 years) that means that the average lifespan
is --
OVER 150 YEARS!!!
As with any pedigree, if there are gaps or missing
links the whole thing is null and void because the
primary objective (providing an unbroken chain)
has not been achieved.
Dave
mark wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Puma,
>
> Thank you for asking such nice questions.
>
> Is Srila Prabhupada an authority on Samadhi?
>
> Srila Prabhupada is in a line of disciplic succession going back to
> Lord Krishna Himself. This means that the Vedic knowledge was handed
> down from qualified master to qualified disciple, much like they do in
> martial arts. The student cannot be qualified if the master is not in a
> bona fide disciplic succession coming from Lord Krishna Himself. There
> are several bona fide disciplic successions, this is not the only one
> coming from Krishna, there are three others. Krishna was born over 5000
> yrs. ago, so this disciplic succession that Srila Prabhupada is in, has
> been intact for several millenia. It is as follows:
>
> 1. Krsna
> 2. Brahma
> 3. Narada
> 4. Vyasa
> 5. Madhva
> 6. Padmanabha
> 7. Nrhari
> 8. Madhava
> 9. Aksobhya
> 10. Jaya Tirtha
> 11. Jnanasindhu
> 12. Dayanidhi
> 13. Vidyanidhi
> 14. Rajendra
> 15. Jayadharma
> 16. Purusottama
> 17. Brahmanya Tirtha
> 18. Vyasa Tirtha
> 19. Laksmipati
> 20. Madhavendra Puri
> 21. Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita)
> 22. Lord Caitanya
> 23. Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana)
> 24. Raghunatha, Jiva
> 25. Krsnadasa
> 26. Narottama
> 27. Visvanatha
> 28. (Baladeva) Jagannatha
> 29. Bhaktivinoda
> 30. Gaurakisora
> 31. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
> 32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
>
>
> Puma asked,
> What is not temporary in this universe?
>
> "The Complete Whole, the Personality of Godhead, has immense potencies,
> all of which are as complete as He is. Thus this phenomenal world is
> also complete in itself. The twenty-four elements of which this
> material universe is a temporary manifestation are arranged to produce
> everything necessary for the maintenance and subsistence of this
> universe. No other unit in the universe need make an extraneous effort
> to try to maintain the universe. The universe functions on its own time
> scale, which is fixed by the energy of the Complete Whole, and when
> that schedule is completed, this temporary manifestation will be
> annihilated by the complete arrangement of the Complete Whole." Srila
> Prabhupada, commenting on a verse in Sri Isopanishad.
>
> Puma asked,
> What is material sense enjoyment?
>
> "Those who are in Krishna consciousness are naturally reluctant to
> engage in material sense gratification. But those who are not in such
> consciousness should follow the rules and regulations of the revealed
> scriptures. Unrestricted sense enjoyment is the cause of material
> encagement, but one who follows the rules and regulations of the
> revealed scriptures does not become entangled by the sense objects. For
> example, sex enjoyment is a necessity for the conditioned soul, and sex
> enjoyment is allowed under the license of marriage ties. According to
> scriptural injunctions, one is forbidden to engage in sex relationships
> with any women other than one's wife. All other women are to be
> considered as one's mother. But in spite of such injunctions, a man
> is still inclined to have sex relationships with other women. These
> propensities are to be curbed; otherwise they will be stumbling blocks
> on the path of self-realization." Srila Prabhupada commenting on
> Bhagavada Gita 3:34.
>
> Hope this helps. If you'd like more info you can go to this link:
> there's a bunch of books translated by our spiritual master, Srila
> Prabhupada. He translated over 70 volumes of Vedic Literature into
> English, many for the first time.
> http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/BG/
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> puma wrote:
the[vbcol=seagreen]
hi.[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
rds can[vbcol=seagreen]
th that we[vbcol=seagreen]
simply[vbcol=seagreen]
others.[vbcol=seagreen]
..=2Ewhere we[vbcol=seagreen]
lect and[vbcol=seagreen]
n that[vbcol=seagreen]
ons I have[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
Thank you for your insight. We can only judge something by it's
results. We should be a little skeptical, especially because there are
so many spiritual cheaters. But just because one doctor is a quack,
does not mean that all are. Ditto for spiritual teachers. Check out
this site, read one of the books and then we can talk intelligently
about this subject matter.
http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/BG/
Warmest Regards,
Mark
howdydave wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Mark!
>
> I would be very suspicious of that pedigree line!
>
> If you take the time span at it's minimal value
> (5,000 years) that means that the average lifespan
> is --
>
> OVER 150 YEARS!!!
>
> As with any pedigree, if there are gaps or missing
> links the whole thing is null and void because the
> primary objective (providing an unbroken chain)
> has not been achieved.
>
> Dave
>
>
> mark wrote:
na[vbcol=seagreen]
n the[vbcol=seagreen]
=E4dhi.[vbcol=seagreen]
nse[vbcol=seagreen]
s=2E[vbcol=seagreen]
se of[vbcol=seagreen]
ys that[vbcol=seagreen]
ed[vbcol=seagreen]
ves[vbcol=seagreen]
re[vbcol=seagreen]
ed[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
words can[vbcol=seagreen]
ruth that we[vbcol=seagreen]
nd simply[vbcol=seagreen]
in others.[vbcol=seagreen]
..=2E..where we[vbcol=seagreen]
ellect and[vbcol=seagreen]
in that[vbcol=seagreen]
asons I have[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| howdydave 2006-09-19, 2:27 am |
| Howdy Mark!
WHY is our ability to carry on an intelligent
conversation dependant upon my reading that
particular website? (Or should I say that particular
author's translations?)
MOF: I would say quite the opposite! If you want to
carry on an intelligent conversation read several
different translations and several different commentaries.
Dave
mark wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Dave,
>
> Thank you for your insight. We can only judge something by it's
> results. We should be a little skeptical, especially because there are
> so many spiritual cheaters. But just because one doctor is a quack,
> does not mean that all are. Ditto for spiritual teachers. Check out
> this site, read one of the books and then we can talk intelligently
> about this subject matter.
> http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/BG/
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> howdydave wrote:
a[vbcol=seagreen]
00[vbcol=seagreen]
as[vbcol=seagreen]
s,[vbcol=seagreen]
me[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
ex[vbcol=seagreen]
ps[vbcol=seagreen]
shna[vbcol=seagreen]
as[vbcol=seagreen]
hen the[vbcol=seagreen]
=E4dhi.[vbcol=seagreen]
sense[vbcol=seagreen]
ngs.[vbcol=seagreen]
ause of[vbcol=seagreen]
ays[vbcol=seagreen]
rd[vbcol=seagreen]
says that[vbcol=seagreen]
ated[vbcol=seagreen]
eives[vbcol=seagreen]
here[vbcol=seagreen]
ated[vbcol=seagreen]
he[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
y words can[vbcol=seagreen]
truth that we[vbcol=seagreen]
and simply[vbcol=seagreen]
thin others.[vbcol=seagreen]
n=2E....where we[vbcol=seagreen]
ntellect and[vbcol=seagreen]
ve in that[vbcol=seagreen]
reasons I have[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| howdydave 2006-09-19, 2:27 am |
| Howdy Mark!
"We can only judge something by it's
results." eh? That appears to be a complete
about face from the previous post that hinged
the quality of the message on the credentials
of the messanger!
WHY is our ability to carry on an intelligent
conversation dependant upon my reading that
particular website? (Or should I say that particular
author's translations?)
MOF: I would say quite the opposite! If you want to
carry on an intelligent conversation read several
different translations and several different commentaries.
(Hang around us Jnani's for a while and you will
discover that "WHY?" is our favorite question!)
Dave
mark wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Dave,
>
> Thank you for your insight. We can only judge something by it's
> results. We should be a little skeptical, especially because there are
> so many spiritual cheaters. But just because one doctor is a quack,
> does not mean that all are. Ditto for spiritual teachers. Check out
> this site, read one of the books and then we can talk intelligently
> about this subject matter.
> http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/BG/
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> howdydave wrote:
a[vbcol=seagreen]
00[vbcol=seagreen]
as[vbcol=seagreen]
s,[vbcol=seagreen]
me[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
ex[vbcol=seagreen]
ps[vbcol=seagreen]
shna[vbcol=seagreen]
as[vbcol=seagreen]
hen the[vbcol=seagreen]
=E4dhi.[vbcol=seagreen]
sense[vbcol=seagreen]
ngs.[vbcol=seagreen]
ause of[vbcol=seagreen]
ays[vbcol=seagreen]
rd[vbcol=seagreen]
says that[vbcol=seagreen]
ated[vbcol=seagreen]
eives[vbcol=seagreen]
here[vbcol=seagreen]
ated[vbcol=seagreen]
he[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
y words can[vbcol=seagreen]
truth that we[vbcol=seagreen]
and simply[vbcol=seagreen]
thin others.[vbcol=seagreen]
n=2E....where we[vbcol=seagreen]
ntellect and[vbcol=seagreen]
ve in that[vbcol=seagreen]
reasons I have[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
"We can only judge something by it's
> results." eh? That appears to be a complete
> about face from the previous post that hinged
> the quality of the message on the credentials
> of the messanger!
Your theory about the disciplic succession being broken is just that, a
theory. You're going to have to go a little further than your 150 yr.
thing. Do the research and let us know how it is that the message was
lost. At what point it was lost and who adulterated the message in the
disciplic succession. The job of the spiritual teacher is to free the
disciple from the cycle of birth and death. If the teacher is not
aligned with the knowledge received through the disciplic succession,
according to the Vedic literatures, that is not possible. Therefore
unless we here the message from the current "messenger" we cannot
determine his authenticity as a bona fide spiritual master.
WHY is our ability to carry on an intelligent
> conversation dependant upon my reading that
> particular website? (Or should I say that particular
> author's translations?)
How can we talk about Nietsche or Sartre or anyone if we both have not
read their work?
MOF: I would say quite the opposite! If you want to
> carry on an intelligent conversation read several
> different translations and several different commentaries.
I have read several commentaries on the Vedic literatures, and have
also practiced Buddhism extensively. I lived in a Zen Buddhist
monastery for some time.
If we need to read "different translations and several different
commentaries," then why won't you read this one? You're a "jnani," a
real "jnani" is searching for the truth. A "jnani" is not an eclectic
cynic who asks "why" but does not want an answer.
Warmest Regards,
Mark
..
howdydave wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Mark!
>
> "We can only judge something by it's
> results." eh? That appears to be a complete
> about face from the previous post that hinged
> the quality of the message on the credentials
> of the messanger!
>
> WHY is our ability to carry on an intelligent
> conversation dependant upon my reading that
> particular website? (Or should I say that particular
> author's translations?)
>
> MOF: I would say quite the opposite! If you want to
> carry on an intelligent conversation read several
> different translations and several different commentaries.
>
> (Hang around us Jnani's for a while and you will
> discover that "WHY?" is our favorite question!)
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> mark wrote:
in[vbcol=seagreen]
in a[vbcol=seagreen]
ere[vbcol=seagreen]
ne[vbcol=seagreen]
5000[vbcol=seagreen]
has[vbcol=seagreen]
ies,[vbcol=seagreen]
uce[vbcol=seagreen]
ort[vbcol=seagreen]
time[vbcol=seagreen]
la[vbcol=seagreen]
ch[vbcol=seagreen]
ed[vbcol=seagreen]
For[vbcol=seagreen]
sex[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
hips[vbcol=seagreen]
cks[vbcol=seagreen]
rishna[vbcol=seagreen]
" as[vbcol=seagreen]
"When the[vbcol=seagreen]
am=E4dhi.[vbcol=seagreen]
l sense[vbcol=seagreen]
hings.[vbcol=seagreen]
gy.[vbcol=seagreen]
ecause of[vbcol=seagreen]
lways[vbcol=seagreen]
Lord[vbcol=seagreen]
a says that[vbcol=seagreen]
tuated[vbcol=seagreen]
rceives[vbcol=seagreen]
There[vbcol=seagreen]
ly[vbcol=seagreen]
reated[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
r this[vbcol=seagreen]
any words can[vbcol=seagreen]
al truth that we[vbcol=seagreen]
f and simply[vbcol=seagreen]
within others.[vbcol=seagreen]
ion.....where we[vbcol=seagreen]
intellect and[vbcol=seagreen]
live in that[vbcol=seagreen]
y reasons I have[vbcol=seagreen]
ly or[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| Lawson English 2006-09-20, 4:28 pm |
| puma wrote:
> Recent posters here clearly indicate that almost everyone of us has a
> different meaning or understanding regarding samadhi, enlightenment,
> realisation...
>
> This suggests me that non of these concepts has a relation with TRUTH !
>
> Because TRUTH can not be different from one person to another.
>
> I see that for TM people Samadhi is like an everyday action...Going
> into the bathroom to take a leak may be a samadhi for them. For some
> other person, a mountain scenery is exactly what samadhi is...
>
For someone who is enlightened, samadhi is an every instant "action."
> Sometimes when I look at my beloved cat, I feel what she is
> thinking...So this might be a very close picture of samadhi ! ! !
Not in any normal sense that I can think of. Samadhi has many
translations, but none of them have to do with knowing what your cat is
thinking.
>
> Same difference is going on enlightenment also. To me enlightenment is
> a sudden seeing,or understanding of anything that has been staying in
> front of yourselve for a long time but nothing were seen so far.
>
Actually, I base my use of the word samadhi on what Patanjali says about
the Yoga Sutras, as interpreted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and validated
by modern physiological research.
"Enlightenment" is a possible translation of the various states of
consciousness that Patanjali and other Yogic scholars mention, including
turya,
> My friend Jared takes the meaning of enlightenment as to know God. And
> according to this understanding, non of the Buddhist lamas were
> enlightened and there is no hope for their enlightenment either...
>
> Realisation is a completely different act of mind. Some people think
> that if a person is a realised master then he/she can do things against
> law of physics...( a sort of an exclusive post)
>
> To me one can realise anything, in such a way that, as if that person
> becomes together with the subject matter...This might be one of our
> friends, or any problem after being solved.
>
> TRUTH is such an understanding that without depending on our location
> or cultural conditions
> we all have the same feeling and understanding...
>
> As an example of TRUTH, we can show the sun...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
| |
|
| Lawson English wrote:
> puma wrote:
>
> For someone who is enlightened, samadhi is an every instant "action."
=========================================================
Ohhh Lawson how are you?
It is really as I have described TM people are so enlightened that
every action they do is SAMADHI they think...Because they believe that
If they are enlightened samadhi is an every instant " action"....Okey I
have said the same thing for only TM people...
>
>
> Not in any normal sense that I can think of. Samadhi has many
> translations, but none of them have to do with knowing what your cat is
> thinking.
Samadhi has no relation with thinking,,,, so your thinking no matter in
what sense,,can not make any picture of samadhi,,, so this applies to
what a picture of samadhi is for me and for my cat!!! Because I am
talking about a very close picture of samadhi..""" Not the SAMADHI
itself """
>
>
> Actually, I base my use of the word samadhi on what Patanjali says about
> the Yoga Sutras, as interpreted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and validated
> by modern physiological research.
Samadhi has nothing to do with what others say or talk about, even if
their names were
Sri Patanjali or Mr.Mahesh ... Mr.Mahesh is not a yogi actually,
because any real yogi does not call himself /herself as MAHA --RISHI...
A rishi is actually is an enough GREATNESS, so Rishi knows this and
does not need to call himself/herself as MAHA !!! Only inferior
persons need such unnecessary supports...
> "Enlightenment" is a possible translation of the various states of
> consciousness that Patanjali and other Yogic scholars mention, including
"""ENLIGHTENMENT is such an action that it is not dependent on some
guys` interpretations """, no matter who they are...In other words"""
ENLIGHTENMENT is a sudden seeing, or sudden realisation of any action
or any happening, or anything that is in front of you for a long
time,""" it may be there since when you were born ,,, but you were not
able to see it up to the moment""",,,"""so suddenly you start to see
it,,, or you start to realise it...""" Enlightenment is possible for
any sort of action or any sort of phenomena """
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| howdydave 2006-09-21, 2:29 am |
| Howdy Mark!
You appear to be getting your feathers all
ruffeled over what you are clearly reading
into my post.
There is no theory in:
" 5,000 years / 32 teachers =3D 156.25 years/teacher"
I never refused to read anything. I simply asked why
you thought that it was necessary for me to read
specific works before we could have a conversation.
BTW: You are right about one thing...
A Jnani is not an eclectic cynic --
more of a "universal Cynic"
(n.b.: capital "C"!) ;->
Dave
mark wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Dave,
>
> "We can only judge something by it's
>
> Your theory about the disciplic succession being broken is just that, a
> theory. You're going to have to go a little further than your 150 yr.
> thing. Do the research and let us know how it is that the message was
> lost. At what point it was lost and who adulterated the message in the
> disciplic succession. The job of the spiritual teacher is to free the
> disciple from the cycle of birth and death. If the teacher is not
> aligned with the knowledge received through the disciplic succession,
> according to the Vedic literatures, that is not possible. Therefore
> unless we here the message from the current "messenger" we cannot
> determine his authenticity as a bona fide spiritual master.
>
> WHY is our ability to carry on an intelligent
>
> How can we talk about Nietsche or Sartre or anyone if we both have not
> read their work?
>
> MOF: I would say quite the opposite! If you want to
>
> I have read several commentaries on the Vedic literatures, and have
> also practiced Buddhism extensively. I lived in a Zen Buddhist
> monastery for some time.
> If we need to read "different translations and several different
> commentaries," then why won't you read this one? You're a "jnani," a
> real "jnani" is searching for the truth. A "jnani" is not an eclectic
> cynic who asks "why" but does not want an answer.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> howdydave wrote:
to[vbcol=seagreen]
ded[vbcol=seagreen]
do in[vbcol=seagreen]
t in a[vbcol=seagreen]
There[vbcol=seagreen]
one[vbcol=seagreen]
r 5000[vbcol=seagreen]
n, has[vbcol=seagreen]
ncies,[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
oduce[vbcol=seagreen]
ffort[vbcol=seagreen]
n time[vbcol=seagreen]
en[vbcol=seagreen]
rila[vbcol=seagreen]
such[vbcol=seagreen]
aled[vbcol=seagreen]
s=2E For[vbcol=seagreen]
nd sex[vbcol=seagreen]
g to[vbcol=seagreen]
nships[vbcol=seagreen]
an[vbcol=seagreen]
se[vbcol=seagreen]
locks[vbcol=seagreen]
Krishna[vbcol=seagreen]
hi" as[vbcol=seagreen]
ti,[vbcol=seagreen]
: "When the[vbcol=seagreen]
sam=E4dhi.[vbcol=seagreen]
ial sense[vbcol=seagreen]
things.[vbcol=seagreen]
ergy.[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
because of[vbcol=seagreen]
always[vbcol=seagreen]
, Lord[vbcol=seagreen]
ura says that[vbcol=seagreen]
situated[vbcol=seagreen]
perceives[vbcol=seagreen]
s=2E There[vbcol=seagreen]
ally[vbcol=seagreen]
ur[vbcol=seagreen]
created[vbcol=seagreen]
on the[vbcol=seagreen]
by[vbcol=seagreen]
ver this[vbcol=seagreen]
n any words can[vbcol=seagreen]
onal truth that we[vbcol=seagreen]
elf and simply[vbcol=seagreen]
t within others.[vbcol=seagreen]
union.....where we[vbcol=seagreen]
of intellect and[vbcol=seagreen]
e live in that[vbcol=seagreen]
ery reasons I have[vbcol=seagreen]
arly or[vbcol=seagreen]
|
| |
|
|