--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > His yoga was not focussed upon the ascent of kundalini nor on any form > of prana. This includes ascending to the head or above the head (to the > dvadaamsha).
Yes, sure. He still would advise people to focus attention at this point - on the top of the head. Other Chakras would consecutively develop from 'top down'. > His yoga was based upon calling the Divine Mother (not Mira Alfassa) in > her unlocalized nature as Adya-Shakti (the primal or original power) and > then surrendering to the descent of the shakti into the sadhaka-s body > and subtle vehicles. The Adya-Shakti thus controlled the purification > and yogic transformation. > > He was very clear that he taught a descending yoga. > > ************************************************** > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as the world, Ramalinga was only concerned to bring the path > of > > > total divinisation to this world so others could follow and realize > the > > > result. > > > > > > Aurobindo (literally: the point-essence of a light ray) was > concerned to > > > divinize the Inconscient (the life-ground resting on sheer matter). > > > > > > This brings up some questions. > > > > > > Did he mean: > > > > > > 1. Earth only inconscient > > > 2. cosmic inconscient > > > 3. universal inconscient? > > > > > > Why believe that they can be separated? Why wouldn't the attempt to > > > divinize one world not implicitly involve the totality of all > worlds, > > > the totality of "what is"? > > > > I have no idea to be honest. Much what the whole supramental > transformation is all about goes over my head, it is unrealistic for me > to think about it. I would guess though it is the 3rd. > > > > But still Aurobindo is the one to me, who best describes my own > experiences, more than Ramana Maharshi or other Advaita teachers. > originally, he advised desciples to concentrate on the top of the head, > and a 'lid' would open at the Sahasrada, where through the divine power > comes in. > > > > Later it seems(that is 1926) they changed the emphasis of this to the > heart chakra, as it seems under the influence of Mira, as described in a > book by K.D. Sethna on Mira's influence on him. (Sri Aurobindos > spiritual system and the Mothers contribution to it.) > > > > > > > > By the way, tekchö and tögal are the names for the highest > > > practices of Dzogchen upadesha - practices of contemplation rather > than > > > meditation. > > > > > > > > > **************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > You mean like Ramalinga Swami of Vadalur, a place close by > > > Pondicherry? Well, according to both of them, this was not their > goal, > > > nor yogic siddhis. There is a two volume book by a disciple of the > > > Mother, comparing Ramalinga with their yoga, and letters and > interchange > > > between him and the Mother. > > > > > > > > Personally, I feel their Samadhi to be more powerful than that of > > > Ramana Maharishi, which is also powerful, but in a different way. > There > > > is a very specific quality there which I don't feel elsewhere. I > > > remember, at a time I was there, it was raining every day. I used to > go > > > every day to the Samadhi to meditate, usually there are many people > > > there. But at one moment, because of the strong rain, I was there > all > > > alone, and I had the most powerful transmission there. > > > > > > > > >If you can't go "offline" as a mere form-body, I wouldn't expect > you > > > to even come close to body of light realizations - and I don't mean > that > > > just intellectually. > > > > > > > > Again, it was not their stated goal. What they stated as their > goal, > > > was not a light body, but a transformation of the physical body here > on > > > earth. Alledged ly this has never been done before - if it really > exists > > > is another issue. > > > > > > > > > I've read most of the English-translated Aurobindo and I've > never > > > read anything even remotely associated with what I'd consider the > > > spontaneous "vision" of todgal. > > > > > > > I don't know what todgal is. There is a new book out by Peter > Heehs a > > > scholar and ex librarian of SAA. It is discussed very controversial. > > > > http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/ as it debunks some of the > myths > > > created around him. > > > > > > > > Personally, I made it the point, to read the whole of the Savitri, > you > > > can read it more or less only intuitively. > > > > > > > > > >
