--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2005, at 12:55 PM, akasha_108 wrote: > > > This along with your prior comments on darshana (view) as preceeding > > but not the same as experience is clarifying. its interesting that > > some proclaim they are in BC and that Brahman is an "understanding" > > not an experience. This sounds like a darshana. What is your > > traditions' and teachers' perspective on this? > > " Meditation is not; getting used to is." > > is a way he might describe the Primordial State and non-dual > contemplation. > > > Could it be possible that one could become absorbed in a darshana of > > Brahman -- and this enlivens shakti to some degree? And you then get a > > lot of egomaniacs spouting from the POV of their shakti > > experiences--their subtle egos? > > Doubtful. > > We were just discussing this on another list and one opinion I have > always held is that *IF* MMY really wanted to get people to Cosmic > Consciousness and if he really claimed to be representing the > Shankaracharya Tradition, he would use the standard texts of the > tradition on attainment of CC. These texts are very explicit on how to > attain CC. One thing they insist: use Patanjali as part of that path. > You know the bizarre thing? They insist you skip the entire siddhis > portion, ESPECIALLY the levitation siddhi! They also warn on > channelling, other beings, etc. Otherwise it is said you will NEVER > obtain CC. Period. > > Now knowing this you can only conclude that the reason this traditional > advice was ignored is because the idea of siddhis and levitation really > is attractive to some people and really SELLS. And thousands of people > have paid the price. Some with their health, others with their minds, > yet others rant and rave on their enlightened status.
That all sounds resonable. The questions i am trying to get at are: 1) Do your teachers and traditions view BC as an understanding or an experiential reality? 2) Assuming its experiential reality, still, you appear to have stated that darshana has a valuable role in uncovering the corresponding experience. Is this correct? 3) It appears possible that some claims of Brahman are simply a well infused darshana. Comments? 4) Enlivenment of shakti without corresponding shiva value could cause egomanical behavior -- if I have understood you. A well-infused darshana combined with such subtle ego, might cause an aspirant to make fairly extreme claims about realized states and experiences. Though such claims are false, they are believed by the aspirant --aka they are deluded. Have you observed this, or does this model seem to fit some of the posts on this list? 5) You appear to have equated revelling in a darshana to vipassana. And that doing this is "no at all bad" (paraphrasing). I am trying to get to the role, negative or positive, of taking a view -- darshana -- in ones life, prior to its experiential reality. Peter is famous and adament for claiming this is a disaster, its wasteful moodmaking at best -- echoing TMO (at least 70's TMO) doctrine. In sharp contrast to Peter, you apppear to have suggested that taking a view -- darshana -- in ones life, prior to its experiential reality, can be of value. And is the basis of much buddhist practices -- visapanna. Your view appears to be consistent with neo-TMO teachings -- someone posted such a while back -- that "moodmaking" is not frowned upon in TMO now a days -- because that which one puts ones attention on grows stronger in ones life, putting attention on attributes of a next state can help culture that. And your view appears consistent with teachings I have absorbed (perhaps incorrectly) from SS Ravi Shankar. He teaches many exercises to help culture the view and experience that everyone is divine. paraphrasing " how can you find God, if you can't find God in your neighbor." This and other of his teachings appear to me to encourage taking on, and living a darshana of Oneness -- even if that is not fully, or even remotely, an experiential reality. (Its ironic that Peter, in my understading of his views and Punditji's (SSRS) -- which I may incorrectly understand -- is adament that taking on a non-experiential darshana is "wrong, wrong, wrong!". And Peter is a great fan of SSRS) What are your understandings, observations, views and experiences of these issues? that one can have a darshana of Brahman and revel in it, float in it, and yet not To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
