--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller,
> > > higher than even the subtlest relative.
> > >
> Billy wrote:
> > In some circles Ishvara represents Brahman and his consort
> > Prakriti,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> > As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say
> > that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness,
> > then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya
> > due to the effects of the gun
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On May 15, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John wrote:
>
> > I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the
> > divine through his vedic background.
>
> What Vedic background?>>
Probably the one called "Rig Ved"
Billy,
My comments to your other statements are as follows:
1.> > The fall was the temptation of Lucifer in the spinal canal of
infant humanity, (sexual energy in the spine, hence the metaphor of
the snake), now he had freewill and 'fell' (i.e. succumbed to
> temptation) from the nursery home
On May 15, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John wrote:
I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the
divine through his vedic background.
What Vedic background?
Richard,
I believe Patanjali had inherited the knowlege of the nature of the
divine through his vedic background. He was confirming and validating
some of the techniques to realize the Self. Based on Iyengar's
translation of the Yoga Sutras, I came to a conclusion that each sutra
can be anal
John wrote:
> In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about
> the nature of the divine.
>
Did Patanjali make any such speculations?
> > Which brings us to the final question: what is reality?
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138751
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
wrote:
> > It's not my intention to be nasty, but I don't think it's
> > a trivial matter if you confuse for instance "brahma"(Brahman,
> > the Absolute) with "brahmaa
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not my intention to be nasty, but I don't think it's
> a trivial matter if you confuse for instance "brahma"(Brahman,
> the Absolute) with "brahmaa" (the Creator).
The reason Swami Yogananda uses Brahm, with the
Billy,
My comments are as follows:
1.> Yes, but walked with God was meaning back in the Lemurian and
> Atlantian epochs where man in the making was shepherded by the gods
> out of necessity. It was only until the form side of Adam/Eve
became crystalized enough thru in-volution was it capable of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
> > wrote:
> > > > From a lingu
Richard,
In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about the nature of
the divine. But, as humans, we do not have the same capacity to
understand the mystery of creation (or even before it) as the
divine. I find Thomas Merton's words to be practical when he said
that God is infinite a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
> wrote:
> > > From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
> > > to know what exactly is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
wrote:
> > From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
> > to know what exactly is your source for that.
>
> The analogy of the crystal ball comes from Sw
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Among theological circles, Moses is proclaimed to be the author of
> the Myth of Eden. Given his Hebrew background, the ideas of maya and
> prakriti are foreign to him.
I think it would be hard to say what Moses knew
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a linguistic POV that's so confusing that I'd like
> to know what exactly is your source for that.
The analogy of the crystal ball comes from Swami Yogananda's book,
"The Second Coming of Christ".
> Actually, th
Billy G.,
Your response is very thought provoking. I'm sure the theologians
and yogis of the past have addressed your ideas one way or another.
My take is as follows:
1.> Certainly 'Adam and Eve", (representing the thinking and the
feeling part of man's nature, even today) the androgynous h
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brahm is Brahman's reflection in Prakriti, as such He/She is
limited
> in time and space. A blue crystal ball will refect the yellow
light of
> the sun IN the crystal, as blue...once the crystal ball (prakriti)
> disol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> > As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say
> > that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness,
> > then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya
> > due to the effects of the guna
John wrote:
> As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say
> that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness,
> then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya
> due to the effects of the gunas.
>
The point I was trying to make, John, is that if
Purusha, the Transcendental Person, is part
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip>
> In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the effects of Maya is similar to
> the myth of Eden, where humans have lost the capacity to enjoy divine
> existence while here on Earth due to the error (sin) of Adam and
> Eve.
To Billy G.
Several years ago, when Deepak Chopra was with the TM Movement, he
explained that the person in cosmic consciousness or at higher levels
of consciousness recognizes that the phenomenal existence and one's
Self is the same. That is, he or she can say that a tree in the park
is real
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>snip
>The
> word transcendental in the Upanishads means "beyond the
> material world".
>snip
An Important point often lost in TM circles...when we 'transcend' we
first achieve awareness of the SELF which i
Vaj wrote:
> That's only because the three are related in terms
> of emergence. Non-dual Shaivite Hinduism is likely
> derived from Zhang Zhung rishi's pre-Buddhist
> Mantrayana and Mahasandhi.
>
What in the hell are talking about, Vaj? There's no
mention of "non-dual Shaivite Hindusim" in Pat
matrixmonitor wrote:
> --Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints,
>
There's no "impersonalist" viewpoint in Patanjali's
Yoga Sutras. Patanjali precisely refers to Ishvara,
the God of Yoga, as I pointed out. Saivite Hinduism
came much later than Patanjali who lived in 200 B.C.
before mos
> > According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller,
> > higher than even the subtlest relative.
> >
Billy wrote:
> In some circles Ishvara represents Brahman and his consort
> Prakriti, wherein is found his immanent nature Brahma, the
> son, the Creative intelligence behind and controll
On May 9, 2007, at 2:21 PM, qntmpkt wrote:
--Thanks, Vaj, as usual!. Your analysis, though astute, is typically
Vajian erudite and consistent with history; but I'm into the NOW
reality of which M-Fields are predominant.
I think the M-fields are still existing in all of the above with an
aut
--Thanks, Vaj, as usual!. Your analysis, though astute, is typically
Vajian erudite and consistent with history; but I'm into the NOW
reality of which M-Fields are predominant. Origins make no
difference. By analogy, Toyota is surpassing the other auto makers
in sales. This is significant!.
That's only because the three are related in terms of emergence. Non-
dual Shaivite Hinduism is likely derived from Zhang Zhung rishi's pre-
Buddhist Mantrayana and Mahasandhi. Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu
reaction to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka .
One should not confuse advaita with advaya.
On May
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints, one can merge 3
> circles into an overlapping area: 1. Saivite Hinduism (TM fits in
> here), 2. Buddhism, and 3. Neo-Advaita.
> Then refer to the standard Adva
--Precisely!. Among the impersonalist viewpoints, one can merge 3
circles into an overlapping area: 1. Saivite Hinduism (TM fits in
here), 2. Buddhism, and 3. Neo-Advaita.
Then refer to the standard Advaita-Vedanta texts, such as that Yoga
Vasistha, Patanjali, Shankara, Ramana Maharshi recorde
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner controller,
> higher than even the subtlest relative.
In some circles Ishvara represents Brahman and his consort Prakriti,
wherein is found his immanent natur
> > According to Patanjali, the process of Yoga isolates
> > the Purusha from the prakriti, using the Eightfold Path.
> >
Billy wrote:
> Yes, but there is the Purusha immanent or manifest IN
> creation, this is Brahm or the highest relative...
>
According to Patanjali, Ishvara is the inner contro
John wrote:
> For the benefit of all in the forum, we would
> like to know where you got all of your knowledge
> of the Yoga Sutras?
>
> > According to Patanjali, (circa 200 B.C.) the phenomenal
> > world is based on three constituents, three gunas born
> > of nature, which make up the field re
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Gimbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> (snip)>
> > Scripture commonly conflates the immanent/manifest Purusha and the
> > Unmanifest Purusha or Brahman. That makes three...OM or Prakriti, Tat
> > the son Brahma or creator, and Sat the Absolute Brahman
(snip)>
> Scripture commonly conflates the immanent/manifest Purusha and the
> Unmanifest Purusha or Brahman. That makes three...OM or Prakriti, Tat
> the son Brahma or creator, and Sat the Absolute Brahman. SAT-TAT-OM.
>
Is that kind of like 'Father, Son, Holy Spirit?'?
Namaste Richard,
I'm impressed with your knowledge. In my early years of meditation,
I posed some of my experiences with my TM teacher. He was not able
to give a comprehensive answer like you did.
For the benefit of all in the forum, we would like to know where you
got all of your knowledge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John wrote:
> >...the phenomenal world is based on consciousness,
> > as Patanjali has discussed in his yoga sutras.
> >
> According to Patanjali, (circa 200 B.C.) the phenomenal
> world is based on three co
John wrote:
>...the phenomenal world is based on consciousness,
> as Patanjali has discussed in his yoga sutras.
>
According to Patanjali, (circa 200 B.C.) the phenomenal
world is based on three constituents, three gunas born
of nature, which make up the field relative field of
prakriti. Totally
39 matches
Mail list logo
