Howdy!

I'm curious about "jnana instruction."  I've been stewing in my own
juices and developing some ideas. Let me know if you think I am correct
here:

1. It seems to me that jnana is different than any other type of yoga
in that "teaching" defeats the whole purpose.  As a person studies and
learns s/he may need support and encouragement but anything along the
line of instruction (especially interpretation) would, in the long run,
hinder the development of the yogi.

3. "Guidence" may involve discussing insights with a person who is
above your level for confirmation of your interpretation.

4. "Guidence" may involve discussing the mechanics of meditation in
order to develop technique.

5. Any "what does this mean?" sort of inquiries to another person are
(or should be) discouraged.

BTW: These are all shots in the dark!


--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Yes!
Err, and no.
Well, it depends..
Jnana is about discriminating between what is true and what is not.
To the Jnani everyone is a teacher and no one is a teacher.
When the student is ready, the teacher shall appear.
God is the only teacher.

By the number, I would say:

1.	Incorrect
2.	Missing
3.	Correct
4.	Correct
5.	Incorrect

Jnana is generally a self-directed pursuit but it can benefit from some
coaching and focus. The great thing is, because Jnana in the beginning
is an intellectual pursuit, the techniques and inquires needed lend
themselves to being conveyed in writing. Many of the great Jnanis
were/are great writers, so there is a ton of material to contemplate
and run through the Jnanic filter ;-) I suggest Yogananda, Vivekananda,
Rajneesh and Hittlemen, but there are many, many others.

As my Jnana practice progresses I find myself needing more and more the
discipline of Raja , the physical health, strength and control of
Hatha, the ardor of Bhakti and the non attachment of Karma yoga.  I
know what the Truth is, so now I endeavor to bring this "vehicle" I
am using in alignment with what is true: There is only God. This
requires the other yogic disciplines and expressions as my
"vehicle" is kicking, screaming and resisting right down to the
DNA! :-(  My "vehicle" doesn't believe the Borg, but I do :-)


Namaste

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Howdy omjaram!

Thanks!

BTW: 2 is missing because my original question #2 was incorporated into
#1 and I forgot to change the following numbers.

My whole slant here is based on the hypothisis that  somebody else can
not tell/show me what MY truth is.


--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"howdydave" <howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org> wrote in
message news:howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org..
>
>
> My whole slant here is based on the hypothisis that  somebody else can
> not tell/show me what MY truth is.
>

jnana (or prajna in buddhism), cannot be taught. they have to arise
within the student to be of value.

when they are taught it is to encourage the students and to
aweken their search. in some cases the student may awaken
on reading/hearing it.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Howdy,

> My whole slant here is based on the hypothesis  that  somebody else
> can not tell/show me what MY truth is.

They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.  So
it is with truth. There are no secrets. The truth is right in front of
us all the time. The only thing that can exists is true, all the rest
does not. So the only thing that can be known, seen or touched is
truth. A teacher can be useful and sometimes necessary to help us get
past ourselves (ignorance/fear) and point out what is real. Sometimes
"teachers" abuse and mislead us in order to show us what is not real.
In recovery they like to say, everyone is good (a teacher) for
something, even if it is to demonstrate what not to do :-) But a
teacher can not see for us, can not do the work for us, can not make us
drink. Truth doesn't change from one person to the next. There is no my
truth and your truth. Truth is (like reality) what is. What is
different or what constitutes yours or mine is the level of recognition
and/or acceptance of what is true.

So a teacher is good or useful if that's what I want or need. And
anyway as much as I try to avoid them they appear anyway :-) Personally
I have found pain, frustration, fear and hatred to be the best and most
appropriate/necessary teachers up until recently. While painful
reminders remain ever present coaches, I have over the last 15 or so
years been taking lessons from Love, kindness, patience, compassion,
fortitude, commitment, generosity, sympathy, gratitude, and the like.
Truth hasn't changed over the years but my drinking of it has. [Hey
that's cool, I've traded one kind of drinking for another. I like
that!] As you might suspect, I look forward to finding good teachers
now and I am not so nearly frightened of them as I once was (even the
painful ones).

Wisdom, Transcendence, Self Realization, Enlightenment, are degrees of
my acceptance in mind, body and soul of what is True. When this
awareness and acceptance is total and unequivocal then I am "There".
"There", of course, being where I am right now. Where I have always
have been and where I will always be. In and of and as whatever is
True.

Jared

Namaste

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

anon wrote:

>
> "howdydave" <howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org> wrote in
> message news:howdydave.1pua4k@no-mx.forums.yoga-meditation.org.. 
>
> jnana (or prajna in buddhism), cannot be taught. they have to arise
> within the student to be of value.
>
> when they are taught it is to encourage the students and to
> aweken their search. in some cases the student may awaken
> on reading/hearing it.

Some of it can be taught: Logic is very important and it can be useful
to read up on it, or even take some classes, if only to be able to
understand the current terminology.

Semantics is also difficult to develop all by yourself, as is critical
thinking in general (particularly nowadays, as it is often discouraged
by the forces of marketing and propaganda).

These disciplines are a selection of tools that can be used for the
actual work, I'm sure there may be others. Perhaps I'm like someone who
recommends a spade for digging, just because I'm unaware of the
existence of bulldozers and such things.

S.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:RSGme.25936$d5.176350@newsb.telia.net..
> anon wrote:
> 
>
> Some of it can be taught: Logic is very important and it can be useful
> to read up on it, or even take some classes, if only to be able to
> understand the current terminology.
>
> Semantics is also difficult to develop all by yourself, as is critical
> thinking in general (particularly nowadays, as it is often discouraged
> by the forces of marketing and propaganda).
>

by no means am i devaluing teaching. it has its (important) place.

jnana is the emotional maturity which allows one to "transcend"
the self. teaching can awaken curiosity for it, but likely the
student has to work hard on herself to really get past the
self. some lucky ones may awaken on just being with the
teacher, or hearing the teaching. such cases are rare, and
are akin to the ripe fruit dropping.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Howdy!

I am currently reading:

Jnana-Yoga: The Way of Knowledge
By: Puligandla

When a person is talking about non-dualism, should an argument be discarded
due to faulty logic?

After all.. logic (or any other dualistic discipline) is bound to break
down when talking about non-dualism.

In this case he is attempting to identify "objectless conciousness" with
"sunyata" (aka: "the void", "non-dual reality".)

His logic goes along the lines:

Since nothing can be said about "objectless concisousness"
AND
Since nothing can be said about "sunyata"

THEN

"Objectless conciousness" and "sunyata" must be identical.

To me, that is the same as saying:

A is not B
C is not B
Therefore A is C.

Which is clearly faulty logic.

Of course, this takes me to my other thread: "Why we can't talk about
reality"!

Dave

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:

> Howdy!
>
> I am currently reading:
>
> Jnana-Yoga: The Way of Knowledge
> By: Puligandla
>
> When a person is talking about non-dualism, should an argument be discarde
d
> due to faulty logic?
>
> After all.. logic (or any other dualistic discipline) is bound to break
> down when talking about non-dualism.
>
> In this case he is attempting to identify "objectless conciousness" with
> "sunyata" (aka: "the void", "non-dual reality".)
>
> His logic goes along the lines:
>
> Since nothing can be said about "objectless concisousness"
> AND
> Since nothing can be said about "sunyata"
>
> THEN
>
> "Objectless conciousness" and "sunyata" must be identical.
>
> To me, that is the same as saying:
>
> A is not B
> C is not B
> Therefore A is C.
>
> Which is clearly faulty logic.
>
> Of course, this takes me to my other thread: "Why we can't talk about
> reality"!
>
> Dave
>
>

Hey Dave - check out this article ->
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Williamson0531.htm

It's  the third in a series by Harold Williamson, an "independent scholar"

He suggests that we can indeed talk about reality, we just can't know it.

David

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

David Wrote:
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> 
> discarded 
> break 
> with 
> about 
>
> Hey Dave - check out this article ->
> http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Williamson0531.htm
>
> It's  the third in a series by Harold Williamson, an "independent
> scholar"
>
> He suggests that we can indeed talk about reality, we just can't know
> it.
>
> David

Howdy David!

Williamson is talking to/about people who are all in agreement about
dualism.

If everybody present accepts that proposition than I would agree with
him.

HOWEVER.. I am a non-dualist.

His: "We can talk about reality, we just can't know it"
v.
My:  "We can know reality, we just can't talk about it"

Is pretty much the same mirror image that I see in cognizant
self-awareness:

I think therefore I am.
v.
I am therefore I think.


--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]