--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since it's 'really' the first limb of Yoga, and surely you've
> experienced it, and clearly there are accounts of the essence of that
> experience...so what's it like for you?
It's like nothing, actually.
I'm not getti
Dr Pete writes snipped:
Different "levels" of practice: Gross, subtle and
unmanifest. Gross is the actual behavioral asana with
the body or changing the behavioral breathing of the
lungs. Subtle is the change in the various koshas
(subtle bodies) from the behavior, and unmanifest is
the virtual "st
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> >
> > Since it's 'really' the first limb of Yoga, and surely you've
> > experienced it, and clearly there are accounts of the essence of that
> > experience...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> > >
> > > Since it's 'really' the first limb of Yoga, and surely you've
> > > experienced it,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're aware *of* bliss as a "something," as
> blissfulness, that isn't no thoughts/no mantra,
> by definition.
I think I see the problem now, you must remember that MMY's
description of Samadhi includes *three* ad
There is a loss of "experience" when one slips into sleep - if during
this time there is transcendental consciousness there is no
recollection of it. In meditation the loss and recovery of experience
happens during a shorter period and one becomes aware of this change
or gap. But interestingly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> There is a loss of "experience" when one slips into sleep - if
during
> this time there is transcendental consciousness there is no
> recollection of it. In meditation the loss and recovery of
experience
> happen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bliss is a product of the sattvic mind. Bliss has
> nothing to do with pure consciousness. As the mind
> "moves" towards PC or away from it after transcending
> there can be tremendous bliss. Constantly transcending
> resul
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > If you're aware *of* bliss as a "something," as
> > blissfulness, that isn't no thoughts/no mantra,
> > by definition.
>
> I think I see the problem now,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it might well be so that much the same way as u prolly can't
> *experience* 'aa-kaasha', u (and U Thant) can't experience 'aa-
> nanda', in the sense that word is used in advaita-vedaanta. Perhapst
> u (and U T
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister
wrote:
>
> > Well, it might well be so that much the same way as u prolly
can't
> > *experience* 'aa-kaasha', u (and U Thant) can't experience 'aa-
> > nanda', in t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > If you're aware *of* bliss as a "something," as
> > blissfulness, that isn't no thoughts/no mantra,
> > by definition.
>
> I think I see the problem now,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> >
> > > If you're aware *of* bliss as a "something," as
> > > blissfulness, that isn't no
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > > If you're aware *of* bliss as a "something," as
> > > blissfulness, that isn't no t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you're
Billy wrote:
> > If it's like nothing you haven't experienced it!!
> > Pure bliss is not *nothing*.
> >
jstein wrote:
> We've already been through this, BillyG. I'm going
> to explain one more time how I understand MMY's
> teaching, and that'll be it; I'm not going to argue
> with you about it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Billy wrote:
> > > If it's like nothing you haven't experienced it!!
> > > Pure bliss is not *nothing*.
> > >
> jstein wrote:
> > We've already been through this, BillyG. I'm going
> > to explain one mo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> within saccidaananda,
Now you talkin! Well done!
Billy wrote:
> > Here's the answer, you become anandam, you are anandam,
> >
jstein wrote:
> But the answer to the question "What is samadhi
> like?" is still "It's like nothing."
>
No, it's not like 'nothing', it's like 'satchitananda',
Absolute Bliss Conciousness. If Brahman was nothing, it
wo
cardemaister wrote:
> FWIW, the form 'sat' is the present participle of
> the verb 'as' (to be). Hmmmjust checked that
> out, in English the "-ing -form" is called present
> participle, and (it is called) gerund, too. Thus,
> in this case the present participle would be 'being'.
>
'Sat' wou
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> cardemaister wrote:
> > FWIW, the form 'sat' is the present participle of
> > the verb 'as' (to be). Hmmmjust checked that
> > out, in English the "-ing -form" is called present
> > participle, and (i
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the answer to the question "What is samadhi
> like?" is still "It's like nothing."
As long as you define *nothing* as no *thing*, that is, no relative
thing I can agree with you. Anandam, however is poorly referr
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, in a previous post you did seem equate
> Brahman with 'nothing', by using a quasi-Nagarjuna
> syllogism. But according to Shankara, Brahman is is
> not a 'nothing', but is Sat-Chit-Ananda, three
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You're talking about sattvic states of mind. The
> little me does not become the Big me. That is only a
> useful fiction that MMY spoke about. The little me
> disappears and there is no me only THAT.
Alright, now you re
--re: "There's only THAT". Of course! That's pretty obvious, but
THAT's not the whole story since THAT includes everything relative AS
THAT. Thus, Sutphen's Neo-Advaita is false; MMY's worldview is true.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- "BillyG."
> > You're talking about sattvic states of mind. The
> > little me does not become the Big me. That is only a
> > useful fiction that MMY spoke about. The little me
> > disappears and there is no me only THAT.
>
I can't speak from direct experience, can only tell you what my Guru says- and
the a
(snip)
> I can't speak from direct experience, can only tell you what my Guru
says- and the above
> is the way enlightenment is described. I take exception with calling
MMY describing
> cosmic ego as being usefull. Little me is ego. So maybe MMY 's way
of saying an ego that
> dissappears is a c
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > You're talking about sattvic states of mind. The
> > little me does not become the Big me. That is only a
> > useful fiction that MMY spoke about. Th
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You're talking about sattvic states of mind. The
> > > little me does
Billy wrote:
> > > > If it's like nothing you haven't experienced it!!
> > > > Pure bliss is not *nothing*.
> > > >
> > jstein wrote:
> > > We've already been through this, BillyG. I'm going
> > > to explain one more time how I understand MMY's
> > > teaching, and that'll be it; I'm not going
Ha, ha...we got your point!! Touche' An astute analysis, bravo! And,
don't argue with her about it anymore...ha, ha!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Billy wrote:
> > > > > If it's like nothing you haven't experienced it!!
> > > > > Pure
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Billy wrote:
> > > > > If it's like nothing you haven't experienced it!!
> > > > > Pure bliss is not *nothing*.
> > > > >
> > > jstein wrote:
> > > > We've already been through this, BillyG. I'm going
>
So I would have to conclude that as I initially said: "No mantra, No
thoughts, No bliss?...Sorry, No Samadhi!! As Anandam/bliss is an
essential component of Samadhi which is experienced by the expanded
consciousness of the chela as his or her very own Self.
Most TM'ers transcend a little, (a few
Billy wrote:>
> Touche' An astute analysis, bravo! And,
> don't argue with her about it anymore.
>
Billy, I'm not going to argue with you anymore about
it - you've got to be the most astute TM Governor on
the planet. You nailed this one real good! You have
now established Marshy's teaching on Sa
> > Richard J. Williams wrote:
> > > > However, in a previous post you did seem equate
> > > > Brahman with 'nothing'
> > > >
> > > No, I didn't.
> > >
> > Yes you did,
> >
Judy wrote:
> Nope, didn't, and wouldn't.
>
Yep, you did and apparently still do.
We TMers do not call Brahman a "Void" - t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> According to Badarayana, Brahman is NOT THIS, NOT
> THAT, but it is not "nothing" and the author of the
> Brahma Sutras does not call Brahman a "Void".
Dunno if you refer to "neti neti*", but - FWIW -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Richard J. Williams wrote:
> > > > > However, in a previous post you did seem equate
> > > > > Brahman with 'nothing'
> > > > >
> > > > No, I didn't.
> > > >
> > > Yes you did,
> > >
> Judy wrote:
> > N
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Ultimately
> bliss is quite stupid!
Sort of like tits.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote:
> >
> Ultimately
> > bliss is quite stupid!
>
>
> Sort of like tits.
>
If they were smarter, would men still have nipples? Or knowing us,
we'd probably have four
(snippy)
> > Sort of like tits.
> If they were smarter, would men still have nipples? Or knowing us,
> we'd probably have four of them on each side...nipples, not tits...:-)
Sat Tit Ananda= Absolute Tit Consciousness- Ah, this bliss of the Tit...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote:
> >
> > Ultimately
> > bliss is quite stupid!
>
> Sort of like tits.
Excellent analogy. Tits are useful for producing milk
for young'uns, but as it turns out, small
Responses interwoven:
--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Since it's 'really' the first limb of Yoga, and
> surely you've
> > experienced it, and clearly there are accounts of
> the essence of that
> > ex
Bliss is a product of the sattvic mind. Bliss has
nothing to do with pure consciousness. As the mind
"moves" towards PC or away from it after transcending
there can be tremendous bliss. Constantly transcending
results in bliss during waking state. Ultimately
bliss is quite stupid!
--- "BillyG."
--- "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But the answer to the question "What is samadhi
> > like?" is still "It's like nothing."
>
> As long as you define *nothing* as no *thing*, that
> is, no relative
> t
44 matches
Mail list logo
