3bob

or ok...

anyone notice that the gods (who do have lots of power) do not interfere with our goings on and that our histories keep repeating? (I'd say there are several major implications regarding that)

and what if the proverbial lotus flower lets go of its roots in the mud - no more flower

perfect knowledge, perfect power, perfect wisdom, perfect being, and whatever other terms one wants to input are never and can never be gained as a possession or understood by mind power, for they are already related to the Self so to speak. (which may be partially alluded to above, but of course the meaning of Self being a four letter word to most Buddhists is something they will never accept as revealed doctrine per the Upanishads and its related sources) btw. since this is a Hindu sub forum the Buddhist text opens itself to being refuted as not just another persons opinion about same but as mistaken, - whereas if those texts had been put in the general forum things would be a little different.

and obviously mind can make no final conclusions per its limitations, although it sure points which is also not final...

absolute doubt which turns out to be false.

along with tape measures and hundreds of other tools...

a never-mind is fine since you can not read what is right in front of you...

from fine to BS did not include change from BS to fine, I wonder how many interpreted my follow up the way you did? No biggy though since it doesn't hurt to spell it out further...as from: fine but ranging across the gamut to BS. As for your 3rd sentence figure that one out for yourself using the full context and content that have been submitted, not how you are seemingly are steering it.

it means exactly what it says regarding my earlier "BS" sentence. (with same meaning from fine to BS in the whole string thus not just what the wana-be, self assigned masters may say)

ok, I should modify that to, "from fine to BS"...thus the op and others could consider same? (as has happened to an 'x' degree)

what a bunch of sexual related bullshit advice is going down here! Lightseeker, as long as you are looking into some of the Hindu/Vedic/Indian sources for information and direction, and if you really want to find some peace then I suggest you look into (all of) the practices of yama and then niyama....they are the foundation that the beginner and also great Yoga adept stick to and never forget to practice, thus if one falls as is likely to happen now and then, a fall is not really a bad fall per-se but more like a reboot to the safe foundations of yama and niyama, thus not into the hell realms. (minor edit made)

another point about the renunciate, it is said that the world (so speak) also renounces them.

you know you are getting old when you forget to reverse a drill after reversing it for retraction - but then wonder why you can't drill another hole...

one might look at the 25 or 36 tattvas (depending on the school) along this line...

sounds cool and even handed like you often demonstrate, although I'd add that spiritual truths and laws can not be separated...

ok, but when you say, "So, he/she has already experienced the first three purushārthas" it is not the same as saying he has renounced those is it, even if the related process assumes he has? Anyway and for clarity sake it seems we would have to circle back to the logical contradiction of, "but none of the attainments *such as sensual or worldly* need to be rejected" for a Sanyasin ... (I mentioned vows and responsibilities in regards to whatever order that person may be part of and what they may require - which as you imply could vary a lot besides the common denominator of, "The Sanyasi will do his/her own last rites, which involves giving up of all ties to the world (including parents, family, possessions, etc".

Agreed that it (the Sanyasin way) doesn't work as well anymore because of the drastic changes to much of the support system/culture and natural environment, and how same in the past gave less complications to the Sanyasin ways in Hindu/India. umm, I'm not sure how your following sentence below would apply to a Sanyasin under very strict vows and responsibilities? "but none of the attainments *such as sensual or worldly* need to be rejected"

well Steve couldn't that become a slippery slope if dharma (as spiritual law) is adapted to fit lifestyles, instead of truly being incorporated as the lead factor...many in the west have "incorporated' (so to speak) the hell out of things from A-Z. and regarding the "cushion", what do you think of sitting next to a wall in silence for 9 years like Bohidharma is said or is recorded as having done?

To me the term "monkey mind" per its common definition is not suited to fulfill that Maslow's type list of needs..

I think some of that can work out spotless but not with everyone or everywhere... Btw, isn't too much harping on monkey mind, another form of monkey mind?

Dwai, in the context of: "Sanyasin: This is someone who has renounced the world and lives in poverty while trying to come to self-realization (enlightenment/moksha). It may be done as one of the natural stages of Hindu life. After the householding phase, when someone retires, they are expected to devote the end part of their lives to spiritual pursuit. In ancient times one would enter Sanyasin-hood and enter the woods to live a life of chastity and renunciation away from the pleasures of the world. Some unusual individuals may skip over the householder and marriage phase of life and go straight to Sanyasin, living as a monk. Wikipedia tells us there are subtypes of sannyasi in accordance with socio-religious context. Traditionally there were four types of forest hermits with different stages of dedication. These four were:

I'd say the Sat Guru is normally the most or absolute renunciate, without husband or wife or kids although they are a truly compassionate being! I'd also say that a house holder can not reach that level although they may reach very, very far.

so apparently you agree that a person can not do both types of dharma at the same time and do justice to both...

indeed which is why I gave the premise of a householder (namely a husband and father) that is never home - and who goes off to a monastery or forest to mediate and happens to opens their heart in that setting it will still not matter directly to their family since they are not home. (and may choose to never go home like the historic Buddha did although...)