|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 2:49:21 PM
|
Hi Chinna, Can you put yourself in the shoes of another path and see the destination? Can you imagine no jnana marga?
Adamant |
 |
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 2:55:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I love how you can do yoga to get enlightenment and siddhis or get enlightenment to do yoga and get siddhis.
Adamant
Thanks. Spot on. Like a diamond. Look through any one facet and see all the others via the inner light. No necessity to look through many facets at once, or one by one, though that is fine too.
I like your newly spare eloquence, and should try to emulate it!
chinna |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 3:03:20 PM
|
There is only one path, and that is the path you are on.
quote:
Not two
Love.
 |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 3:04:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akasha
There are many roads to Delhi.
Thanks. Yes. One doesn't have to take them all to get there, thank God. One route is quite enough to reach the destination. One has no need of the whole map. It can be shared out with others, each to find their own path.
chinna |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 3:31:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
The reason why you are all confused, is because all these elements were borrowed haphazardly from buddhism. Only the original...buddhism has a clear path. Even if buddhism is not the original, the path is still clearer there.
Final enlightenment (Nisargadatta etc.) is still just step ONE.
After you obtain the final enlightenment, you must do yoga because of your bodicitta/compassion. You purposely gain yogic power/siddhi to help others. Omniscience is one of these powers.
There are no 'musts' here. You may or you may not. You will help others, because you have no choice, it happens spontanously when you no longer get in the way. You already have ample means to help. Special siddhis or powers may be your destiny. Or they may not. If you pursue a path with siddhis and powers as the object of practice, that is because it is your destiny so to do. It is not better than not doing so, it is different. The hierarchy you imply is a point of view offered by traditions which value siddhis and powers. Other traditions, equally esteemed, take different views.
Coincidentally, I spoke to a Tibetan Buddhist lama last night, who is in demand to teach in several countries, and is a close friend and professional collaborator. He said all Buddhism was borrowed from prior Indian traditions. I have heard both points of view argued many times, so I asked about this. He gave examples to support his vewpoint. He lived and studied in India, Tibet, Bhutan and Ladakh for many years before settling in UK, and spoke from direct experience of the views and motivations for different schools of thought on this.
Viewpoints are really all about motivation, including my own.
chinna |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 3:32:45 PM
|
quote:
Thanks Christi. We are presenting different points of view for different purposes. You seem unwilling to recognise that, so the conversation becomes ever less fruitful. There is no correct answer to anything, nothing that is simply 'information', including in yoga.
There is a jnana marga which is not the same as other yoga paths, in terms of what you do and don't do, what you focus on and don't focus on.
There is a difference between a practice and a path, which is at once acknowledged and obscured in those brackets of yours. Self-enquiry is a practice, jnana is a path. What is to be discriminated and ignored in one path, is practice to another.
The one constant in my 'inner life' since I was able to reflect has been what I recognised in jnana. I don't believe I have forgotten my past. But I guess when the evidence of my life doesn't fit your theory, the flaw must be in me, for sure. Jnana has always been my orientation, within a range of religious contexts. I have never been drawn to other orientations. I guess that I must have a very long way to go, in your book.
chinna
(a contracted, over-identified, jnana yogi)
Hi Chinna,
When I was talking about those who have forgotten their past I wasn't referring to you. Also, I have no idea how far you have to go, or don't have, it is really not relevant to me. In fact, the whole idea of "someone, having somewhere to go" is not that relevant for me.
We were discussing, together the nature of love, and exploring that in terms of identification, and the contraction of consciousness. My comments regarding spiritual paths were in relation to that exploration, and specifically in relation to false identification. No judgements are being made.
The exploration arose from our conversation about the nature of bliss and divine love in relationship to enlightenment. If you don't feel comfortable with where we are going with our inquiry, then we can leave it.
I am sure it will arise when the time is right.
Thank you for the very interesting discussion.
Christi |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 3:55:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Hi Chinna, Can you put yourself in the shoes of another path and see the destination? Can you imagine no jnana marga?
Adamant
I understand (and see how) that others following all kinds of different paths and none at all will reach the same destination. I have made this very clear always.
There could be no 'jnana marga' (the phenomenon, with or without the name or equivalent names), only if there were no human reflexive sense of self, no apparent duality, and no capacity for consideration of what these are and the predicament they lead to.
I am claiming nothing special for jnana marga (named or otherwise). I am asserting its existence, validity and efficacy alonside all other perspectives, from single paths to multiple and integral, and indeed all possible permutations. All are valid. All can be equally effective. But they are not all the same, and jnana practice from an integral perspective is different from jnana path from a single-path perspective, as my dialogue with Christi has made very clear. Each has been expressed and explored in response to different human needs. All are necessary whilst there are humans.
chinna
PS, Perhaps you are asking can I imagine a realm where humans are all enlightened. That would be a very good and indeed revealing question, in more than one way.
|
Edited by - chinna on Jan 13 2010 7:59:29 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 4:28:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
He said all Buddhism was borrowed from prior Indian traditions.
chinna
Are you sure he wasn't saying that tibetan buddhism is a continuation of Indian Vajrayana?
Tibetan buddhism is a continuation of Indian Vajrayana in Tibet. All Tibetan buddhists read the original Indian buddhist texts. All the major heroes are Indian, like Nagarjuna, Virupa, Tilopa, Naropa, Aryadeva, Guru Rinpoche, Shantideva and on and on. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Jan 13 2010 4:42:22 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 4:36:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
If you pursue a path with siddhis and powers as the object of practice, that is because it is your destiny so to do. It is not better than not doing
chinna
Actually thats not true. Once you obtain perfect Buddhahood through yoga you can help a LOT more beings. That is sorta the entire point. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Jan 13 2010 4:40:00 PM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 7:53:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
He said all Buddhism was borrowed from prior Indian traditions.
chinna
Are you sure he wasn't saying that tibetan buddhism is a continuation of Indian Vajrayana?
Tibetan buddhism is a continuation of Indian Vajrayana in Tibet. All Tibetan buddhists read the original Indian buddhist texts. All the major heroes are Indian, like Nagarjuna, Virupa, Tilopa, Naropa, Aryadeva, Guru Rinpoche, Shantideva and on and on.
Hi Alwayson
Yes absolutely. He talked about the syncretism and mutual dependency of all Indian and Tibetan paths, the dependence of both yoga and Buddhism on earlier traditions. He rooted his comments in the history of the traditions and their host cultures. He was very clear that Buddhism in India and Tibet was dependent on earlier Indian traditions, just like yoga, and that these traditions crossed and recrossed repeatedly with the ebbs and flows of history, including Sikhism and Jainism in this complex pattern too.
The claims of these ancient traditions, whose origins are lost in a very complex crucible of cultures, to primacy over the others is surely more about passion and identity, even politics and propaganda, than anything very objective. And nothing wrong with that. Such claims are expressions of passion and identity, they motivate seekers to practice and everyone benefits from that. But this should also give pause to the view that the particular estimations of the supreme objective of any one tradition is anything but a tool in that tradition's assertion of primacy or supremacy. One will say siddhis, another will say siddhis are irrelevant.
Incidentally, my friend gives short shrift to the idea of seeking siddhis, too. Our collaboration is based on the fact that we share the same deconstructive perspective and practice. I have no idea how typical this is or isn't within Tibetan Buddhism, though the third member of our collaboration, who is a Zen Buddhist teacher, says he is a 'high lama'.
I am sorry this is second hand information and that I didn't pay more attention to the details of his evidence for you. I am sure the issue will come up again and I will try to do so.
chinna
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 8:43:06 PM
|
Hi Chinna, It is error to say that the Buddha (Gotama's) teaching was dependent on earlier Indian teachings in these specific ways:
1. The truth of dukkha
2. Impermanence
3. Dependant origination (aka no-self)
4. Absolute relativism (and therefore irrelevance) of views
Of course karma was already an aged theory. However, the Buddha posited an original theory of multiple causation. He was also the one to posit a thorough escape from causality, per the mind (dependent cessation).
The Buddha innovated in the above ways which are lasting. He also had original methods, e.g., the yoga of choiceless awareness release, which are is fruit of his discovery of dependent origination. Overall the teachings on vipassana were an innovation.
So except for these items, which represent the core teachings of the Buddha, Buddhism depends on earlier Indian teachings. For example, the shamatha jhanas are all lifted wholesale from his hindu yogi teachers.
Adamant
P.S. One has to be careful about taking the words of a lama at face value, because, like any guru, they will tell you what you need to hear. But will also gloss over and confabulate just to save time. Also, different lineages have very divergent versions of this history. The Gelug, Shakya, Nyingma and Kagyu all have their own very different brand of history. It gets very sectarian where each claims to be more pure than the other. (Kagyus and Nyingmas tag team as both claim to be hard-core retreat people and back each other's claim up.) |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Jan 13 2010 9:08:49 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 8:45:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
chinna
PS, Perhaps you are asking can I imagine a realm where humans are all enlightened. That would be a very good and indeed revealing question, in more than one way.
Right on.
Adamant |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:00:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We were discussing, together the nature of love, and exploring that in terms of identification, and the contraction of consciousness. My comments regarding spiritual paths were in relation to that exploration, and specifically in relation to false identification. No judgements are being made.
Christi
Well I wasn't! And I don't buy the stance that your comments (or anyone else's) involve no judgement.
I am happy to talk about love and identity, the contraction or expansion of consciousness to include others (really, not just theoretically, or in an untested way). I am cautious in doing so, perhaps, because as a psychotherapist working with extreme suffering I know just how costly that needs to be, to be authentic and true.
In my work, I am responsible for the residential care, education and treatment of about 50 severely emotionally and psychologically traumatised children at any one time. The only tool which I and my colleagues have for this is our own selves. These children and young people have typically had 20-60 placements in their short lives, and have destroyed every one. With us they learn how to relate to others without killing themselves or other people. They have lost all orientation about what is good or bad, and what is love and what isn't, because of the extremes of neglect and abuse to which they have been subjected. The right to talk about love, in such a context, is and needs to be very hard won and sparingly used. Love is demonstrated in the capacity for sharing another's suffering, and is tested to destruction, before it can be spoken of. It involves a clear and sharp discrimination, in every thought and action, every day, if what the child is to learn is really about love, rather than about just another form of defensive cut-offness, exploitation or self-serving manipulation.
All of us who work in this field are brought face to face with our human vulnerabilities and the brokenness which every human being struggles with, and the drive to 'cut off' from this painful self-recognition in a wide range of fantasies and delusions, to which the religious can be, we notice, particularly and in our field dangerously prone. Such self-knowledge is our window into the vulnerabilities of the children. Indeed, when attuned to our own weaknesses all of the time in a group this can become a remarkable 'siddhi', in terms of becoming one-mind-and-heart with everyone involved, and knowing exactly where each is in their inner world whenever one places one's attention on them, and so being able to keep the children and adults safe, and help all to grow. A siddhi based in openness to one's own fragmentation and brokenness - this as the door to unity, to the possibility of love in our circumstances. Certainly in this context, unity or powers based on anything else, or in a lack of the constant practice of discrimination, would be extremely dangerous.
That's the school of love which I encounter. I am forced to recognise every day that I do not begin to qualify to talk much of love.
I hesitate even more to talk of divine love, or the goodness of God, in the face of such human suffering.
chinna |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:02:42 PM
|
Ok let us forget about siddhis.
Once you attain Nisargadatta style Final Enlightenment, you must do yoga to obtain Buddhahood, due to your compassion to help others.... as Buddhahood lets you help out a LOT more.
Nisargadatta helped a few beings through his teachings, but what if he became a Buddha? He would have done this plus more.
Even Zen buddhism acknowledges this you know. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Jan 13 2010 9:12:16 PM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:05:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
There is only one path, and that is the path you are on.
quote:
Not two
Love.
Yes. Or to put it another way, there are as many as there are people.
chinna |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:12:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
the shamatha jhanas are all lifted wholesale from his hindu yogi
Hindu? Hinduism did not even exist at this point. The only stuff back then was vedic fire ritual, mysticism (the jhanas, yoga etc.) and ascetism (which evolved into jainism).
Shakyamuni Buddha was a yogi. The jhanas are pure yoga. The divya caksus is pure yoga. Thats the one thing missing from AYP. We should be doing AYP in a trance state. I don't believe the asanas were invented until the medieval period. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Jan 13 2010 9:29:09 PM |
|
|
|
Akasha
421 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:23:55 PM
|
| Buddha was a Hindu :) |
Edited by - Akasha on Jan 13 2010 10:12:54 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:35:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
the shamatha jhanas are all lifted wholesale from his hindu yogi
Hindu? Hinduism did not even exist at this point. The only stuff back then was vedic fire ritual, mysticism (the jhanas, yoga etc.) and ascetism (which evolved into jainism).
Shakyamuni Buddha was a yogi. The jhanas are pure yoga. The divya caksus is pure yoga.
By "hindu" I'm referring to Vedic tradition, and the existing shramana practice, simply to differentiate it with the Buddha's teaching (which the Buddha never described as Buddhism). Every teacher described their stuff as "dharma." The big question was, How do we transcend samsara? So everyone had that idea. Divya caksus is not a method; it's an attainment. It is the fruit of formless jhanas.
Adamant |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:42:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Hi Chinna, Christi....
I know it is likely not warranted, nor desired for me to chime in here, but I am anyways ...you know me....always sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong.
What I wanted to say here was what came to mind when reading your last post Chinna....in my experience, all paths of Yoga are intimately intertwined. You may start one path, and later find yourself on another path without ever having made any decision to "switch". In my experience each path flows effortlessly into the others. It's like each path is part of a large circle and there is much overlap. One person my be practicing "jnana" in their own mind, but another person doing the same set of practices/non-practices may consider this "bhakti" yoga....one person may be practicing what they deem "kundalini" yoga, but another doing the exact same set of practices may consider their path "tantra". To me, all the paths of yoga are inseperable, at least at some points. They are all part of a greater whole and you can't do only one style of yoga because they all blend together in the end.
Just my 2 cents.
Love.
Dear Carson
You have as much right as any of us to a view, and I don't completely disagree with what you say. I would emphasise it a bit differently, wanting to hang on to my own experience (and I think that of the tradition, reflected in terms like 'jnana marga') that you can practise one path, even though it will open up perspectives and understanding from other paths, and perhaps all paths. I fully respect your own experience that you can switch and swap paths and that ultimately the paths merge into one. I don't think these two perspectives are at all incompatible, nor that one is any more all-encompassing or more traditional or in any way superior to the other. The difference between the perspectives is subtle, but from a practice perspective is valid, and for those who can be most helped by jnana marga, significant.
chinna
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 9:49:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Ok let us forget about siddhis.
Once you attain Nisargadatta style Final Enlightenment, you must do yoga to obtain Buddhahood, due to your compassion to help others.... as Buddhahood lets you help out a LOT more.
Nisargadatta helped a few beings through his teachings, but what if he became a Buddha? He would have done this plus more.
Even Zen buddhism acknowledges this you know.
I think I agree.
If you are saying that following 'enlightenment' one cannot avoid the demand of suffering to be relieved, and that this calls forth the development of ever greater and ultimately limitless capacities, I agree wholeheartedly.
chinna |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 10:19:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akasha
Buddha was a Hindu :)
I'm pretty sure once he said the caste system and the Vedas were not valid, he ceased to be a Hindu.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Akasha
421 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 11:38:55 PM
|
quote:
I don't believe the asanas were invented until the medieval period.
Not sure what you mean by 'asana'.But 'Asana' means seat.
There might have been a renaissance in the codificatioon and development,refinement of systems of hatha yoga in that period around the time of the 'Hatha Yoga pradaika', 'Gerhanda Samhita' etc.
But asana is as old as civilisation itself. Look at the seals of Harappan civilization around 3000 BC which show engravings of a sage sitting in an asana.Or google 'Seal of Shiva from Harappa, Indus Valley culture, circa 2500 B.C.E.' & scroll down to the lower picture.
Not sure what you mean by that. BUt The asanas are like expressions of our enegetic & psycho-physical, & spiritual make-up. They find expression, sometimes on automatic( 'automatic yoga/kriya') once we engage in one or more of the other 'limbs', as patanjali codified them for simplification terms. As old as meditation.What came first?- probably meditation.But who meditated first?- I have no idea. I am no scholar in the subject.
It is possible when man adopted agriculture he moved away from hunter-gathering or nomadic modes of subsitence ( what archaeoligsts/prehistorians call the mesolithic/neolithic revolution though it may have happened at different periods starting with Mesopatamia( the cradle of civiliasation as it sometimes called) and actually THEN sat down in one place long enough for the results to unfold.
Languaage came first (which may have co-incided with the devlopment of the cerbral cortex,expansion of the frontal lobes mainly i think,the planniing part,working with the seasons etc, the modern brain), then agriculture and then possibly meditation and asana---on that time line.
This is my speculation btw, but there may be some truth to it.I studied alittle ancient civilisation and prehistory/archaeology at uni. so i'm not a complete dunce.
I don't necessarily disagree with your statement qouted above though i think i've came across it before and it may be possible some folk might actually believe there was no hatha yoga until the time-line you mention.I just thought i would draw attention to it.It is worth a much closer look. Surya Nmakar has to be as old as the hills for instance, ancient..This is my yoga-inspired automatic gut instinct. They are expression of the sacred...the divine.So alot older than the mediaevial period. I could be wrong here but don't suspect so. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2010 : 04:58:25 AM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
We were discussing, together the nature of love, and exploring that in terms of identification, and the contraction of consciousness. My comments regarding spiritual paths were in relation to that exploration, and specifically in relation to false identification. No judgements are being made.
Christi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I wasn't! And I don't buy the stance that your comments (or anyone else's) involve no judgement.
We were discussing all these things together, and then you started to become defensive about certain things that I was saying. That doesn't mean that anyone was judging you, it just means that you were reacting in a defensive fashion, and so felt judged. When we begin to look deeply into things it can bring up a lot of stuff. We get to see what we are holding onto, our own self-image. This is the beauty of true inquiry.
If used wisely, this can be a wonderful opportunity to go deep: We can ask ourselves, "Who is it who feels judged?", "Who is it who is holding onto something?", "How would you feel if you let go of that?". This is the path to freedom.
quote:
I hesitate even more to talk of divine love, or the goodness of God, in the face of such human suffering.
Everyone suffers. There is nobody who does not suffer. It is our common inheritance on this earth. If we cannot talk about love in the face of suffering then we could never speak of it! It is because of such suffering that the need to talk of love is so urgent. Because all suffering is simply the absence of love, or true relationship with reality.
That love can be tested in the world, in our interactions, but it arises through knowledge (jnana). Through jnana (Self-knowing), the human vehicle becomes a channel of that love in the world. Then it is everywhere, shining in the eyes of every child, even the most abused and neglected of children. None are without love, because it is who they are and who they always will be. We just need the eyes to see it.
Christi
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2010 : 06:43:59 AM
|
Dear Christi
Every contribution to this forum involves judgement and discrmination, limits and boundaries, that is what words do. Discussion of anything is fuelled by identification with positions, including yours. I have made no secret of the rootnedness of what I say in my experience, and therefore my identity, and yes I react in response to the denial of its validity, as you do of yours. I do not buy your presentation of offering only value-free information and advice.
Ramana reacted to alternative views. Nisargadatta reacted to alternative views. Everyone reacts to alternative views. Even the most exalted teachers who have claimed to be beyond all that, or that one can be beyond all that, have too often come a-cropper, especially in the connected media age. The vasanas are never quite exhausted whilst there is breath in the body.
Hesitations in talk of love and god are widely held in many traditions, and in our centuries particularly post-Auschwitz. In the face of such suffering and such evil, theorising about love, and god-talk more generally, is experienced by many as too trite and too easy to be valid any more. Silence and action are the only appropriate responses, from this point of view. Hence for the post war decades in which I grew up the attractions of zen and jnana paths for many.
I have tried to give you an answer clearly forged in difficult experience, to share something real, to bring some kind of realism and proper hesitation to talk of love, to the choice of words.
There are no 'correct' viewpoints. If jnana shows us anything, it is that. Jnana relativises all viewpoints and systematically doubts, causes hesitation about, any position that is adopted, any statement that is made, any words that we reach for, ad infinitum, including and perhaps especially the use of words of love and god, the reification of absolutes.
It is not easy to reconcile that practice with the affirmative practices of other yoga paths and the integral view. The way I do that is accepting that there are different paths and combinations of paths which are all perfectly valid, and which work from a different angle, and lead to the same destination by different routes. I honour them all. I can understand that the fact that some other jnanis adopt a different position, and say that only their path is valid, may have given single-path jnana a bad name here. But jnanis are not unique in that. In any event, as I have often said, that is not my position, based on the experience of recognising in the arising phenomana, as a result of jnana practice, the descriptions of other yoga paths. It seems self-evident to me, on the basis of my experience, that you can know the whole via one or multiple perspectives. Which perspective you take will depend on your history, personality, and for many, family and friends.
Being attached to the most all-encompassing integral path, seeing how all paths fit together, holding a conceptual construct about that, is a position like any other, rooted in personal make-up and history. I welcome you defending it, but notice the similarity of its roots to my own. We are all lotuses with roots in the mud.
chinna |
Edited by - chinna on Jan 14 2010 09:24:31 AM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2010 : 10:57:27 AM
|
Dear Friends
I have had a really good go at articulating the jnana path here, but feel that other developments now call for the time and attention to be redirected. I have enjoyed being with you. I have learned much from several, and some of those who say the least. But I have particularly learned, and been stimulated to look further into the traditions, by Adamant's and Alwayson's exchanges, for which many thanks. And I have been able to focus the argument about single-path jnana more clearly thanks to Christi - thank you for your resilience!
Thank you Yogani for your hospitality, graciousness and wisdom.
If anyone is interested to pursue email exchange about the jnana path, don't hesitate to contact me:
chinna@ojnm.org
Long live AYP!
Chinnamastananda
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
What Does Practicing No Path Mean?
