--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: > snip > > The movement uppers and Rajas would have wanted the body to be burried, > and have a real Samadhi, but the current Shankaracharya, even though > supportive of the movement did not allow. > > Real Samadhi? By being buried. How does that work exactly?
Haha, funny, well there is also Jeeva Samadhi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeva_Samadhi or Jala Samadhi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZE0E4ckc No, I'm confusing you. In this case Samadhi simply denotes the grave of a yogi or saint. Usually Hindus are cremated, but saints, Sadhus, Swamis are buried. Funny story here: I was at the ashram of a famous yogi in India, actually we had the discussion about one of his successors recently here, Shiva Bala Yogi, who spend 12 years as a boy in continuous Samadhi. I went to the ashram at the wrong time, so couldn't see him, but had an extraordinary meditation at some office room. When I went out, I ask a child if the Swami was in Samadhi, meaning it in the sense of a spiritual absorption. The child laughed and said, no, no the swami is very much alive, I have just seen him yesterday. So the child thought I had meant the Swami was dead. Ironically, he died the following year not being too old. Maybe the term has something to do with Maha-Samadhi. Jeeva Samadhi is actually more like what you have been thinking of: A saint / Yogi goes into Samadhi, voluntarily stops his life functions and gets buried. I was once at a place of an Avadhut, one of those 'crazy' saints, fairly crazy I would say, and he had, in the middle of his house, dug out a big hole, where he would later take Jeeva Samadhi. The hole is still there. A Jal samadhi is when the body is immersed in water. There was a yogi at Tiruvannamalai, who sat in samadhi, while a flood surprised him and took his life. Now that's called Jal Samadhi,the place is still there in the form of a little water tank inside an ashram. When the sarcophagus of Guru Dev was immersed in the Ganges it is also called Jal Samadhi. I think that was what they might have wanted for Maharishi. > > > > The question for me is therefore: how much do you believe in the caste > system and all the orthodox rules? If I don't believe in the caste > system, I have no reason to reject OM for meditation. In fact it would > simplify things a lot. Everybody knows it, knows it's proper > pronunciation, and it is not directly connected to any gods, it is not > sectarian or cultic. > > > > For example Shree Rama Jaya Raam Jaya Jaya Raam is a Vaishnavic Mantra > and associated with Rama. There might be Shaivas who don't like it. > There are Shaivas who don't visit Vaishanava temples. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there is only one truly Vedic mantra and that is OM. > > > > > > > > Dear Nava, > > > > Real TM tru-believers strongly hold that Maharishi's revival of > Knowledge has saved India from `Om". I have been lectured several times > on this very point by extremely faithful TM people who seem quite > convinced. You'll notice that none of the TM versions of mantras on the > TM-X website notice `Om' as any part of a TM mantra. Though Shri Vidya > and everyone else going back use "Om" to initiate or energized mantras. > Is TM missing something? Maharishi uniquely seems a Vedic out-layer on > this in the distribution of sages on mantras. > > > > I like `Om' myself to spin the root and tune the heart and then go > from there. But that is different from TM and should not be confused > even though chakras well light up upon proper awareness and practice of > the TM-sidhis. But at that point it is independent of employing 'Om' or > much of anything else. > > > > Best Regards from Fairfield, > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > <richard@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navashok: > > > > > > > Where does the TM technique come from? > > > > > > > > > > > > > From India and the Vedas? LoL! > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Mircea Eliade, only the rudiments of classic > > > > > > Yoga are to be found in the Vedas, and while shamanism and > > > > > > other techniques of ecstasy are documented among other > > > > > > Indo-European people, "Yoga is to be found only in India > > > > > > and in cultures influenced by Indian spirituality" (102). > > > > > > > > > > I think there is only one truly Vedic mantra and that is OM. > What Maharishi teaches as the Vedic tradition is actually the Tantric > tradition appropriated by Brahmanism, through the teaching of Shri > Vidhya. With Vedic literature, he means the Agamas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Work cited: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Yoga : Immortality and Freedom' > > > > > > by Mircea Eliade > > > > > > Princeton University Press, 1970 > > > > > > > > > > > > Read more: > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: A decomposition of practice ertswhile abusers lore > > > > > > Author: Willytex > > > > > > Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental > > > > > > Date: February 6, 2005 > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/ykqy7zh > > > > > > > > > > > > Other titles of interst: > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy' > > > > > > by Mircea Eliade > > > > > > Princeton University Press; 2004 > > > > > > > > > > > > 'The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, > > > > > > Philosophy and Practice' > > > > > > by Georg Feuerstein and Ken Wilbur > > > > > > Hohm Press, 2001 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
