|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 12:32:30 PM
|
I agree with TMS about Ishvara. Brahman is the non-dual absolute beyond creation and Ishvara is a personal God or being that created and rules the universe but it is not the same as Brahman. I thought most yoga people knew this as a lot of people are introduced to yoga via swami Vivekananda.
As far as "God" is concerned, i do not believe ANYBODY knows this being in any way other than as light and sound and psychic experiences. Look at the way you are all arguing about God and you are supposed to be enlightened people. Even atheists have good arguments against the existence of God. But i am not agreeing with atheists, just saying that when someone says they know God it is a red flag for me.
In Patanjali, in the "powers" section, there is a sutra about samyama on something to become omniscient. But since Ishvara (God) is one without a second i don't think Patanjali is saying that a person or yogi can become omniscient because it would mean there would be two omniscient beings, which would cancel each other out (unless the yogi merged into God somehow, but i don't believe this personally). Even Vivekananda said that a yogi becomes ALMOST omniscient (see his book on Raja Yoga). Almost is not the same thing.
Buddha, to my knowledge, said nothing about omniscience, and he is said to have achieved the highest spiritual state. I'm going along with Buddha here.
|
 |
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 12:37:35 PM
|
Buddhists believe that the Buddha practiced concentration on the breath and taught this was the best way of meditating. I don't think this is the best way of meditating at all. It causes breathing problems eventually and doesn't give the mind anything to play with. My experience with Deep Meditation AYP style has been immensely more powerful because it deals directly with the mind.
Relaxation is one thing but relaxed concentration is entirely another. It is not forced concentration that leads to samadhi but relaxad concentration. If you are concentrating on the breath your mind is divided.
|
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 1:05:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
TMS said:
I like to mix things up.
Do you mean, 'to mix things up' in the sense of to provoke a fight, or just merely to create confusion? Or both? 
David, Your contention is that I need to admit that I'm wrong. What am I wrong about? I'm wrong, because you agree with Christi? I'm not creating confusion. The confusion is already there. I would say it's you and Christi who are confused.
Patanjali's discourse on Yoga and the Buddha's Dharma are distinct. The Buddha came out of no where to offer something different. It is a different system, based on distinct fundamental views. Selflessness is not the same thing as Self or Brahman.
Now, I can see where Christi and you might think, "Gee it all leads to the same enlightenment." I concede this. There's no describing enlightenment. What I hope to introduce is not confusion, but clarity at the outset. I am trying to help not hinder. I'm sorry if this is not helping.
The distinction lies as the outset not the goal. For those who are receptive; I merely point out that if one is oriented to selflessness, the journey to enlightenment is a little tiny bit more direct and efficient. That little tiny bit can be of enormous importance near the end, when one encounters the Cosmic Mind and Brahman.
The Buddha states that the goal is beyond consciousness and not-consciousness, being and non-being, thingness and no-thing-ness. The Buddha encouraged the letting go process to continue until shunyata is encountered.
What is cultish about that? What is cultish about selflessness?
David, you also make the dreaded ad hominem attack. I sense you don't like being challenged. I'm not knocking yoga. I owe everything to Kundalini Yoga Tantra. I practice it every day.
At the final step of my meditation adventure, I encountered this insight about selflessness. I perceived it as an innovation, a simplification of technique, an added efficiency. I later came to know the Buddha made it the cornerstone of his teaching.
Maybe it is not true for you, but for many the ideas of soul, God and Spirit are spooky and superstitious. It's not for me; however, I do recognize that these terms are not necessary at all to complete the journey.
Peace is universal. Selflessness is the universal moral precept and the expression of love of one another and love of Earth.
That is all.
Ahh...
TMS |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 1:16:32 PM
|
You seem to have contradicted yourself TMS. You used the words "Cosmic Mind" and "Brahman" and then say you find ideas about "God" silly. What is the difference between "cosmic mind" and "God"?
Also, psychic phenomena and mediumistic phenomena definitely prove the existence of a greater power. You might not be interested in these things but it proves there are things you don't know. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 1:19:03 PM
|
TMS, I'm still asking the question. You said you like to mix things up. Do you mean, 'to mix things up' in the sense of to provoke a fight, or just merely to create confusion? Or both?
|
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 1:27:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
You seem to have contradicted yourself TMS. You used the words "Cosmic Mind" and "Brahman" and then say you find ideas about "God" silly. What is the difference between "cosmic mind" and "God"?
Also, psychic phenomena and mediumistic phenomena definitely prove the existence of a greater power. You might not be interested in these things but it proves there are things you don't know.
Clarifying. What I believe in (higher powers) doesn't matter if all that matters (personal and world peace) is achieved simply (from selflessness). That's all.
Cosmic Mind, Buddha-Matrix, God, Brahman, Allah whatever...
Ahh...
TMS |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 1:28:34 PM
|
David, why do you think TMS wants to be a guru? Furthermore, why do you have such a problem with gurus? It comes up in nearly every post of yours that i remember reading! Did you have a bad experience with a guru in the past?
Not knocking you David, just curious. |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 1:29:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
TMS, I'm still asking the question. You said you like to mix things up. Do you mean, 'to mix things up' in the sense of to provoke a fight, or just merely to create confusion? Or both?
Pardon me, Officer. Yes. Indeed you are in charge. I didn't for one second mean you were not in total control. I meant "mix things up" in the sense of discuss things. So neither. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 1:48:03 PM
|
I meant "mix things up" in the sense of discuss things. So neither.
I don't believe it. That is not the meaning of 'mix things up'.
You're struggling for dominance.
You won't get dominance here. People know too much. Why bang your head on a brick wall?
You still have a chance of gaining eminence, if you leave aside your struggle for dominance. Eminence is better.
Resist the Urge to Fight. RUF.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2008 2:00:16 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 2:07:01 PM
|
David, why do you think TMS wants to be a guru?
I think he wants to be a spiritual teacher. Just a feeling I get from a number of details.
Furthermore, why do you have such a problem with gurus? It comes up in nearly every post of yours that i remember reading! Did you have a bad experience with a guru in the past?
No, I saw the foolery from the outset and kept away from the control and reach of spiritual posers, but I've seen other people get burned. I was blessed with experience that guided me.
It is not that I think that all gurus are bad. Some are good, some are truthful and reputable. It is that most of the well-known ones are in a very immature and dishonest relationship with their disciples.
It comes up in nearly every post of yours that i remember reading!
Why am I interested? Maybe as it was for Freud and the topic of sex, I think there is something that needs to be known about this topic. (This is not to say I am a luminary like Freud. Rather that there is a 'need to know', as there was then.)
In spiritual teaching, I strongly believe that the future belongs to the honest. The day of the Posers and Priestcrafters is approaching its twilight. Advances in technology will determine that. More about that later when I get a chance. 
There's a recurring theme in my posts which is not all about gurus but more the need to be truthful. I've been blessed more than others in an ability to see how, in certain ways, people are not truthful. This makes me seem dark and cynical to some. But I just see the immaturity where others don't see it. And I can help stop the immaturity from spreading and create a foundation for maturity.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2008 2:18:26 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 2:19:44 PM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
I've been blessed more than others in an ability to see how, in certain ways, people are not truthful.
Not disagreeing with anything you are saying, just pointing out that your above sentence seems a little on the egoic side to me. Everything perceived by an individual is percieved through personal mental and emotional filters that may or may not distort the reality of a situation. Everything is subjective so you cannot ever know for sure if someone is lying or not or to what degree. Be careful.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Dec 02 2008 2:51:51 PM |
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 3:13:38 PM
|
hello TMS:
i just want to share my 2 cents on the matter and pardon me if i am a bit too honest.
1st concerning enlightenment and it's experience i thought we agreed that it has a lot of different names and descriptions but still it's the same and we covered that when we spoke about the two schools of suffism. (self realization=god realization=selflessness=fanak fi allah...)
let me just remind you of two sayings which are used a lot by suffis. (oh and before i forget, i think you should read some stuff about the mystic martyr al mansour al hallaj i've posted smthg about him in the forums will look it up for you later)
these are the sayings:
(a hadiss)from the prophet mouhamad: "he who knows himself, knows god."
and another saying from the quran: "where ever you go, there is the face of god."
this stuff above schools of suffism agree too in theory, but when in practice the suffi realizes that he is ... and here we fall into disagreements concerning the description of the same thingy which is experienced as well by all schools of suffism who a lot of them differ in their approach and some of them have yogic practices; one of them even gave the praised names of allah to chakras...
so this means that christy is right...
2nd i respect your knowledge and how far you've went to be where you are now and the pain you went through in your life... (especially the death of your loved ones, my heart and prayers are with you i can relate to that).
putting that aside you have to excuse me my brother, cz on the look of your posts i have to agree a lot with David you are trying to be the dominant part in the conversation plus there some weird stuff about shiva and the eye of fire and that kind of threat tone and the i know it all...
what about all that?!!
by the way we all get lost in misunderstandings, oh and another thing pure advaita out of my own experience and what i've seen happening with others shouldn't be taken as knowledge for granted.
i am this and that and neti neti.... cz if it is taken like that, then why should a pure advaitan bother himself of living between people why not live in a cave or even better yet go mahasamadhi...
kindest regards,
Ananda
p.s: i was speaking of pure advaita, not the kind like ramana maharshi.
plus i'm an advaitan myself, but like swami rama's type (advaita plus advances yoga practices) |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 3:19:14 PM
|
just pointing out that your above sentence seems a little on the egoic side to me
It could be true that there is 'ego' in it.  But it could still be true, and the answer to Gumpi's question. 
As an aside, I'm not making very big claims here either. There is nothing magical, nothing fantastic or extreme in this ability. I think it's an ability to see the politican sometimes under the rhetoric. It's not getting caught up in the roar of the crowd, whether that roar is in anger or in joy.
you cannot ever know for sure if someone is lying or not or to what degree. Be careful.
By and large, true. So I gotta be careful for sure!
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2008 3:22:07 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 3:45:57 PM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
It could be true that there is 'ego' in it. But it could still be true, and the answer to Gumpi's question.
Not saying your statement is true OR that it is false...Just saying that it sounds a bit egoic to state that you can read people and their intentions because of some special ability you have. You really never know if you are reading them right or not.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
As an aside, I'm not making very big claims here either. There is nothing magical, nothing fantastic or extreme in this ability. I think it's an ability to see the politican sometimes under the rhetoric. It's not getting caught up in the roar of the crowd, whether that roar is in anger or in joy.
I understand and I have often thought myself to have the same ability. But you really never know if your intuition is correct or not. Noone can truly know another.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 3:59:52 PM
|
CarsonZi, I hope you don't think I'm saying I can always tell when people are telling the truth, or when they are lying. I'm just saying that sometimes, I've had insight into it where others have missed it. I'm not trying to build this up.
You know how some women say they can spot a 'player' while others can't? Well, that's sometimes true. Not saying they can't spot every 'player' in the world, or that they won't be wrong sometimes. But some women are much better at this than others.
And some women can be much worse at this than others. ('He throws me down the stairs, but deep inside he cares'). The very same thing goes for men's ability to determine a female sexual manipulator -- some are good at it, some bad. Some are blinded, some not. And the same thing goes for ability to discern that someone is manipulating you through your spiritual needs -- the ability to see the self-serving manipulator under the apparent saint.
As Sade said:
A license to love, insurance to hold
Melts all your memories and change into gold
His eyes are like angels but his heart is cold
There are people like that who operate in the 'spiritual' as well as the sexual realm. And they may give you real spiritual teachings, just as their sexual counterparts give out real fur coats.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2008 4:21:13 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 4:32:29 PM
|
I understand what you are trying to get at David, I just think it is impossible to truly know if one's intuition is right or not. You may just be projecting that "so and so is a player" and really they aren't. Maybe THEY are just projecting that they are a player and you would never know. And maybe there is a reason for projecting that they are a player that you have no idea about. And the same could go for any spiritual teacher as well. You may see the way a guru interacts with his/her disciples as immature, and it may be, but it also may be that they are interacting that way for a specific reason that you know nothing of, and this interaction may have nothing or everything to do with a guru's personality/level of Self Realization or it could have nothing to do with it. Noone can truly know the intentions of another. I think it would be best to let go of EVERYTHING you think you "know" or "can know" and focus on what is actually able to be experienced. Saying things like...
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
And I can help stop the immaturity from spreading and create a foundation for maturity.
is not realistic. You really can't stop anyone from doing/saying/or believing anything. Best to just let it go IMO.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Dec 02 2008 4:41:51 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 4:45:41 PM
|
You really can't stop anyone from doing/saying/or believing anything.
That's true in itself. But culture changes according to those involved in it. So I think it is realistic to think that one is participating in changing things, provided one understands it in the right way.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 4:49:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
culture changes according to those involved in it. So I think it is realistic to think that one is participating in changing things, provided one understands it in the right way.
How can one ever know that you are understanding something in the "right" way? Hitler probably thought he was seeing things the "right" way, but was he really?
Love,
Carson
P.S. Sorry if this seems arguementative, I'm really not trying to be like that. |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Dec 02 2008 4:52:56 PM |
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 5:12:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ananda
hello TMS:
i just want to share my 2 cents on the matter and pardon me if i am a bit too honest.
No worries. I want to add that I am merely pointing out things that may challenge all your assumptions. We are here to go beyond mind and into the heart. I don't care for dominance or eminence or precedence or fifty cents. RUF RUF RUF...
quote:
1st concerning enlightenment and it's experience i thought we agreed that it has a lot of different names and descriptions but still it's the same and we covered that when we spoke about the two schools of suffism. (self realization=god realization=selflessness=fanak fi allah...)
let me just remind you of two sayings which are used a lot by suffis. (oh and before i forget, i think you should read some stuff about the mystic martyr al mansour al hallaj i've posted smthg about him in the forums will look it up for you later)
these are the sayings:
(a hadiss)from the prophet mouhamad: "he who knows himself, knows god."
and another saying from the quran: "where ever you go, there is the face of god."
this stuff above schools of suffism agree too in theory, but when in practice the suffi realizes that he is ... and here we fall into disagreements concerning the description of the same thingy which is experienced as well by all schools of suffism who a lot of them differ in their approach and some of them have yogic practices; one of them even gave the praised names of allah to chakras...
so this means that christy is right...
I don't follow this logic. A Taoist would not agree with any of this divinity stuff. The Tao is not a personality or God. Taoists do, however, incorporate selflessness into their path of enlightenment.
My world view is basic. Selflessness is the highest truth; love flows from selflessness. Because of selflessness we are supported by the Cosmos. Love and selflessness connect us at the heart. I see no distinction between you and what you are calling God. Nor do I see any distinction between what you are calling God and the Cosmos. We are the Cosmos. That is all.
I'm tired of the debate about advaita, non-dualism, ankle bitas, and tom-foolerism. The mystical power of Tao or Shunyata or whateva can be realized as a transcendental experience of altered state of consciousness, but more importantly we are all capable of treating each other selflessly, loving ourselves, and engaging the healing and miraculous power by faith alone. It is because of a clear direct continuation of becoming from the mysterious void to the Cosmos, Earth and Us that there is no separation between any of us and the ultimate power before us, here and now, immanently.
Call it God if you want. Call it Brahman. Then yes, Christi is right.
quote:
2nd i respect your knowledge and how far you've went to be where you are now and the pain you went through in your life... (especially the death of your loved ones, my heart and prayers are with you i can relate to that).
putting that aside you have to excuse me my brother, cz on the look of your posts i have to agree a lot with David you are trying to be the dominant part in the conversation plus there some weird stuff about shiva and the eye of fire and that kind of threat tone and the i know it all...
what about all that?!!
Jokes, man; jokes. Not to be taken seriously.
quote:
by the way we all get lost in misunderstandings, oh and another thing pure advaita out of my own experience and what i've seen happening with others shouldn't be taken as knowledge for granted.
i am this and that and neti neti.... cz if it is taken like that, then why should a pure advaitan bother himself of living between people why not live in a cave or even better yet go mahasamadhi...
I'm in the camp of selflessness. I prefer at this point to disregard this old jargon. It's not useful.
Why a realized person should mess with society is simple. Hope. I see a world where we cease regarding borders and states, parties and religions, possessions and property, where we see the miraculous power of selflessness as not only the common thread of all ancient traditions, but the direct path to both the transcendent and the immanent. The transcendental wisdom and the immanent healing power. The wisdom of selflessness will allow us to return to a more natural state, giving and sharing our worldly works for the good of Earth, the balance in the Cosmos and for the longevity of our people. One heart, one people and one land.
I see the cycles of time clicking over together. We must be together as one tribe to survive whatever drastic changes are coming. If we can accept a modicum of the basic virtue of selflessness, then, despite anyone's belief or lack thereof in divinity, we will be lawful, good, and justice will flow from society. More importantly, we will restore balance to Earth, and we may again receive the fruit of her blessings.
Humbly,
Surrender Nath |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 6:08:44 PM
|
Carson said:
How can one ever know that you are understanding something in the "right" way? Hitler probably thought he was seeing things the "right" way, but was he really?
That's the philosophical problem of catastrophic skepticism, isn't it? How do I know I'm not a brain in a vat? What does 'know' mean? At the end of the day, you have to go with what you think is believe, but it's good to use the most reliable means of finding out what is true.
It's possible in principal that someone like Hitler would believe through-and-through that he was right. It so happens though that I doubt that this was the case with the real man. I think Hitler would have had difficulties facing open questioning. Was Hitler entirely honest? I doubt it. All sorts of questions could be asked of him that he probably would not want to answer, or to which he would wish to produce a false answer.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine him on a perfect lie-detector, with the whole country of his time looking on, and you are free to question him. What questions might you ask him that you think might prove to his people that he wasn't being truthful? Are there questions you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust? Are there questiosn that you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust even if you were not allowed to ask him of his plans?
VIL said:
I'd like to hear more about the above, david.
I would be happy to, but it may take a little while to prepare. Let's say in a week or two. Feel free to send me a note if I haven't responded.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2008 6:12:08 PM |
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2008 : 6:16:27 PM
|
thought your reply would be smthg like this, woof it's good to know that you're joking byt the way dahhh silly me hehehehe.
you are a good person, just check again between the lines and you'll see that i am into selflessness as well but... let's just let go of that for now.
and i'm not speaking about if the enlightened should be involved in the world or not, which is obvious that they should and we all have the dreams you are dreaming...
just about 45 minutes ago during my deep meditation session which was later than usual this evening due to personal engagements; i saw a vision (one of those which come and go now and then) it was of an african boy whose head was crushed and i felt so much pain accompanied to it and took that with me and released it during samyama.
anyways smthg i always thought about enlightenment and read long ago b4 coming here was the exact words mentioned in this post by yogani:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....page=5#19135
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
While a person may reach a condition of "Oneness," what we call "Unity" in AYP, this can be regarded as final enlightenment only by those sages who choose to rest on their laurels. Good for them. It is enlightenment in isolation.
No. There is much more. Enlightenment will not be complete until all of humanity (and the entire cosmos) is self-aware in Oneness. A seemingly impossible task, yes? Nevertheless, Oneness cannot truly be Oneness until all have been brought home to That. The urge for this is what drives sages forward. It is the power of divine love, and we see it in all who serve for the benefit of others.
The lonely sage who holds up his or her Oneness as separate from everyone else (contending that nothing else exists) is an incomplete being. Only in giving it all away for the benefit of others can the sage be said to be enlightened. It is only in pouring out divine love that the enlightenment process can continue, encompassing all that exists (apparently) in the field of duality.
This scenario of true enlightenment residing in sacrifice for others does not sit easily with most people, so it doesn't get much press. Who would choose that from an unenlightened point of view? It is directly opposed to our sense of self-preservation. Or is it? For the person who has achieved Oneness, doing for others is self-preservation, and comes naturally. This is why we hold Christ, Buddha and others who gave all they had for the spiritual progress of others as the highest measure of enlightenment. They are the gold standard.
Anyone who is moved from within to aid others on the path is manifesting Oneness. Much better to manifest Oneness than not. Stillness in action!
And where does it end? It never does. Therefore, real enlightenment is an unending continuum of outpouring divine love. It is not something we can take home and lock in the closet.
The guru is in you.
you gotta love this guy...
oh and by the way some pure advaitans should go mahasamadhi or live in a cave.
even though they might think they are enlightened bcz they achieved a certain state of being which makes them kind of stubborn on how much right they are.
well this is leading into much hurt and is blocking the way toward enlightenment for a lot of people and leaving them in a world of illusions.
but just too be fair at least some are benefiting (a rare club of evolved souls).
this is my own opinion on the matter, let's just let it go and let the tao, god, whatever you wanna call it take care of it.
oh! and it's good that you're tired of debating, that benefited you spiritually don't worry about it everything happens for a good cause once we are on the path. (zen style)
i think that you will benefit a lot from these forum discussions like all of us are, especially if you have the intent on becoming a spiritual teacher like David says.
light and love,
Ananda
p.s: i'm not enlightened nor near it anyways any hows, just want to point that out in case some of the lines between my post incline to the fact that i am at a certain stage of spiritual attainment. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Dec 03 2008 : 1:12:46 PM
|
Hi TMS
quote:
Hi David, I don't take myself seriously. I like to mix things up. We are having a debate. And Christi and I disagree about something. I'm definitely the clown. I don't come from India, I was born in Oregon though. Christi, likes to use what's known as ad hominem attacks rather than addressing specific points. Eh, Christi?
I was under the impression that we were simply discussing specific Sanskrit terms, and the way they are used in yoga! No?
quote:
Hi Christi, I think we have peace. Notwithstanding there is no difference between Buddhism and Astanga Yoga, that they are indeed the same path, please explain what is distinct, if any? You are aware that Patanjali wrote 500 years after the Buddha began teaching? Although, it appears that Patanjali transcribed a practice that pre-dates the Buddha, because it appears very much in line with Vedanta and the Upanishads. Whereas, the Buddha introduced new terms like anatta and shunyata.
Yes you are right, Patanjali was following in a long tradition of yoga teaching that pre-dates the Buddha by many hundreds of years.
At the time that the Buddha was born, and in the area where he lived, many people were involved in idol worship. They were worshipping specific gods, and performing puja to these gods. They did not understand that their own nature was divine, and their practices could not bring them that understanding. These people were not practicing yoga, but were engaging in religious practices that did not help them to evolve. The Buddha’s teaching of yoga, was designed to cut through idol worship, and reliance on external forms of worship (puja) as spiritual practices. So he taught in a specific way, using a very different language than had been used before. He stripped away a lot of terminology to get back to the basics. What he did was good, and many people beneffited from it.
quote:
My understanding was that the Buddha introduced a new method of meditation, supplemented by indoctrinating inductees with the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Precepts. I thought he wanted to align students to the correct view initially, with selflessness as the seed, that way he could introduce selflessness at the beginning and have it flower fully as nirvana.
Selflessness (anata) was not introduced initially by the Buddha to new disciples. It is a more advanced practice with many preliminary practices that need to be undergone first. Still to this day in Asia, it is only taught as an advanced practice, when the student has developed enough inner silence to be able to understand what it is really about. It is only in the west, that selflessness is being taught to new student, and there are many teachers in Asia who do not think this is a good idea. Introducing the teaching too early on can lead to a great deal of confusion and possible mental instability.
It can be the making of fools.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Dec 03 2008 : 1:20:23 PM
|
Hi Gumpi,
quote:
I agree with TMS about Ishvara. Brahman is the non-dual absolute beyond creation and Ishvara is a personal God or being that created and rules the universe but it is not the same as Brahman. I thought most yoga people knew this as a lot of people are introduced to yoga via swami Vivekananda....
In Patanjali, in the "powers" section, there is a sutra about samyama on something to become omniscient. But since Ishvara (God) is one without a second i don't think Patanjali is saying that a person or yogi can become omniscient because it would mean there would be two omniscient beings, which would cancel each other out.
If Ishwara (God) is one without a second, and Brahman is something different from God, then wouldn't that make two? Ishwara would have to be one with a second.
Maybe Vivekanada didn't work that one out?
Christi |
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Dec 03 2008 : 3:34:54 PM
|
i think that there is a mistake here between the two words ishta and ishvara which hold 2 different meanings.
|
|
|
|
themysticseeker
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 03 2008 : 4:27:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi TMS
quote:
Hi David, I don't take myself seriously. I like to mix things up. We are having a debate. And Christi and I disagree about something. I'm definitely the clown. I don't come from India, I was born in Oregon though. Christi, likes to use what's known as ad hominem attacks rather than addressing specific points. Eh, Christi?
I was under the impression that we were simply discussing specific Sanskrit terms, and the way they are used in yoga! No?
quote:
Hi Christi, I think we have peace. Notwithstanding there is no difference between Buddhism and Astanga Yoga, that they are indeed the same path, please explain what is distinct, if any? You are aware that Patanjali wrote 500 years after the Buddha began teaching? Although, it appears that Patanjali transcribed a practice that pre-dates the Buddha, because it appears very much in line with Vedanta and the Upanishads. Whereas, the Buddha introduced new terms like anatta and shunyata.
Yes you are right, Patanjali was following in a long tradition of yoga teaching that pre-dates the Buddha by many hundreds of years.
At the time that the Buddha was born, and in the area where he lived, many people were involved in idol worship. They were worshipping specific gods, and performing puja to these gods. They did not understand that their own nature was divine, and their practices could not bring them that understanding. These people were not practicing yoga, but were engaging in religious practices that did not help them to evolve. The Buddha’s teaching of yoga, was designed to cut through idol worship, and reliance on external forms of worship (puja) as spiritual practices. So he taught in a specific way, using a very different language than had been used before. He stripped away a lot of terminology to get back to the basics. What he did was good, and many people beneffited from it.
quote:
My understanding was that the Buddha introduced a new method of meditation, supplemented by indoctrinating inductees with the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Precepts. I thought he wanted to align students to the correct view initially, with selflessness as the seed, that way he could introduce selflessness at the beginning and have it flower fully as nirvana.
Selflessness (anata) was not introduced initially by the Buddha to new disciples. It is a more advanced practice with many preliminary practices that need to be undergone first. Still to this day in Asia, it is only taught as an advanced practice, when the student has developed enough inner silence to be able to understand what it is really about. It is only in the west, that selflessness is being taught to new student, and there are many teachers in Asia who do not think this is a good idea. Introducing the teaching too early on can lead to a great deal of confusion and possible mental instability.
It can be the making of fools.
Christi
That's odd because selflessness is also the highest moral calling and is synonymous with love. I didn't think it was an advanced notion to be kept away from the uninitiated. I would have thought it was an important goal for everyone.
Can't say I would rely on your history there, Christi. How do you know the Buddha kept anatta from all but his advanced disciples? It's clearly stated in the Pali Canon.
WE ARE THE COSMOS!
TMS |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
A Buddhist with an awakend Kundalini
