--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the > renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part > of the Vedic literature?
You could say so. It's part of the Shivarahasya Purana, and is to it, what the Gita is to the Mahabharatam. It's a very fundamental Vedantic scripture, and a favorite of Ramana Maharshi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivarahasya_Purana It seems, that there was a Tamil translation of this book the library of one of the older Ashrams in Tiruvannamalai - the Eshanya Math - http://wikimapia.org/20376193/ESANYA-MADAM and he read it there for the first time - and recognized that he finally found a text which exactly described his experience. It is still being read every day as part of the ceremonies at the Ramana Ashram, but in Tamil. There is another Sadhu near Tiru, who's main teaching is the Ribhu Gita, his name is Thuli Baba. I came across it, when Poonjaji (Guru of Gangaji, disciple of Ramana) read it every day in the lecture hall in Lucknow. > I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is > always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I > just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and > orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against > the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet > companion. > > > ________________________________ > From: navashok <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from > > CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the > > surface of life.àSo we might not feel deep, even during TM.àAnd we > > shouldn't TRY to feel deep. > > Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes > say, that I am very high up. But you are right. > > > > In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix > > of silence and liveliness together.àSo I extrapolate from that that > > it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. > > You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are > concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. > > Here from the Ribhu Gita: > > "All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all > worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of > gods, too, are unreal." > > "All being only Consciousness, the name "all" never is. Renouncing all forms, > be of the certitude that all is Brahman." > > "All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti > (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti > and resort to the remembrance of Brahman." > > "Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further > this "established nature", remain only as the Self." > > "Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. > Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself." > > "What the finger points out as "this" is a deceased thought; "this" is only > of words and speech." > > " "All" is supposition. There is no doubt of this. "All" is unreal. There is > no uncertainty of this. "All" is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. > "All" is delusion. There is no doubt of this." > > (Rib.G 18, 24-30) > > > ________________________________ > > From: navashok <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an > > object? > > > > > > à> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM > > > > > remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's > > > > > simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure > > > > > Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. > > > > > > > > > > In every other meditation technique with published research, you see > > > > > a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as > > > > > you become more experienced. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with > > > > > regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where > > > > > you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their > > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two > > > > paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* > > > > are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never > > > > gets deeper or more profound) with "Pure Consciousness." > > > > I doubt that scientists would. > > > > > > No progress in the technique... > > > > > > It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. > > > > > > What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble > > > the state during TM. > > > > But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is > > supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. > > Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being > > removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will > > be clearer and more prolonged. > > > > And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, > > so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, > > how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the > > 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - > > transcendence is all pervading and cannot be isolated, especially if you > > want to experience it consciously.) > > > > So this process of being more conscious in the transcending process, > > whatever it is, has to be reflected in EEG, for all what it's worth. > > Initial transcendence is not clear transcendence, it is just a hazy > > slipping into it and out of it. We know it, as teachers, but it's not what > > you say to people. > > > > > > As for "not trusing non-TM teachers," I can say that TM > > > > teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they > > > > were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far > > > > as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have > > > > any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They > > > > know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing > > > > about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* > > > > from learning about any of the others, under pain of > > > > banishment. > > > > > > Well, ok bu... > > > > > > > > > > > Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that > > > > were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. > > > > Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... > > > > > > > > > Where have I attempted to dispute anything about what is taught to TM > > > teachers? > > > > > > My impression has always been that TM teachers are technicians who have > > > been trained to handle things in a specific situation that has been set > > > up via the "7 steps." > > > > Apart from TM teachers just being 'loud-speakers' who parrot the teachings, > > they have the additional advantage that they saw a lot more tapes of > > Maharishi during all those courses. There he accidentally let's out > > sometimes some of his secrets, or he contradicts himself. With that you get > > a sort of different background on many things. And yes, TM teachers usually > > have a lot of experience on rounding courses, or later siddhi courses where > > you meditate a lot more. That *might* be a difference to some plain vanilla > > sidhas or meditators - it doesn't have to be. > > > > > Go too far outside that narrow field of expertise, and they're really no > > > better than anyone else, any more than an x-rray tech is competent to be > > > a lorry driver. > > > > > > > > > L > > > > > >
