gatito

Well, I guess that's because you see things differently from the way that I see them 3bob. It's good to have different perspectives, it adds a bit of edge. So, as I said, chacun à son goût!!

I'm not into "spiritual warriorship" 3bob - I just like having fun, so I guess that we'll have to agree to differ. However, chacun à son goût!

Exactly!! _/\_ Was just joking 3bob. I've nothing against adrenaline sports or adrenaline junkies - quite the reverse in fact. Wish I could do this. It's one hell of a fantastic meditation - even to watch. Great soundtrack as well, although I guess most people would need subtitles! : -

Savikalpa is a bit of a red-herring, as is the Sri Chinmoy quote because although some of it is accurate, some of it is highly misleading. You might find it more useful to compare and contrast nirvikalpa (objectless non-dual Consciousnes. i.e. Brahman) and sahaja (non-dual consciousnes in the presence of objects. i.e. atman) Sahaja (the Natural State) is easier to agree upon because, without exception, everone has experienced it and it's just a matter of drawing that experience out of the individual so that they can see clearly that which is being indicated by the descriptor. Sahaja is recognised most clearly in what is refered to as the Flow state. So, if I'm talking with an extreme sports junkie, a martial artist, a dancer, a musician or someone who's had a car crash, etc., it's a lot easier to reach agreement.. As you know from scripture atman = Brahman. Nirvikalpa is simply that confirmation. However, from observation, for most people that first-hand experience causes massive confusion. Discussion of the theory in the case of most people who have no first-hand experience tends to be entirely counterproductive. Even discussions with those who have direct first-hand experience can be counterproductive in many (perhaps most) cases. So, the question can be reformulated as "Is it possible to remain in the Flow state and function in the world?" The answer is that the Flow state (by everyone's own first-hand experience) is the smoothest, most satisfying worldly functioning and the trick is merely to extend that experience of happiness and peace into other activities/non-activities (as opposed to being stuck with a very expensive and dangerous addiction - in the case of any adrenaline junkies who may happen across this post. ).

May be of interest??? http://yogadaysummit.com/program Free registration - starts @ 1600hrs UTC

...

I'm with you on this dwai, although my opinion is perhaps slightly different in that experience has taught me that all paths contain all 4 elements and it's just a matter of the proportion and intensity of each. I was extremely suprised when I discovered that the majority of traditional vedanta (e.g. Dayananda Saraswati, James Swartz, etc.) miss(es) this point entirely.

"Why don't 'high level' beings post on internet forums?" Apech found an answer from Damo Mitchell (although I'm not implying that Damo Mitchell is a "high level" being). Direct link:- http://www.scholarsage.com/martial-arts-realm-of-the-deeply-insecure/ (www.scholarsage.com/martial-arts-realm-of-the-deeply-insecure)

APPRECIATIVELY Critical Reflections on a Retreat with Adyashanti (My capitals) Well worth a read, so that you can make up your own mind regarding the out-of-context selective quote.

From my perspective, I like the flexibility offered by Taoism anfd the fact that I've never been told to stop posting in a Taoist Forum because other people hold the mistaken belief that I'm not a Taoist.

Here's an nice animation of the growth of the Mandelbrot set as it iterates towards infinity, which illustrates the point quite well: - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Animation_of_the_growth_of_the_Mandelbrot_set_as_you_iterate_towards_infinity.gif Edit to add: - although attractive fixed-point iteration would have been an even better example.

Any lines of reasoning that are adopted are simply methods of Philosopical Sublation, which is analogous to Formula Iteration. In either example, an aspirant is free to view sucessive iterations either as lies or as successively closer approximations to a Truth that cannot be put into words. An aspirant who chose to view sucessive iterations as lies would be demonstrating that they were unqualified to follow a Jnanic (or a mathematical) Path and would be rejected by a competent teacher.

Feel free to post whatever authority you want to believe in Stosh. However, as I've said, the Sages I know neither believe nor do they disbelieve in God or gods and no definition that you post will alter that fact. The word gnostic defines that someone knows. Someone who knows neither believes nor do they disbelieve because they know. Nevertheless, a Sage is entirely capable of adopting an atheistic, theistic or agnostic line of reasoning as a means to liberate a disciple from their false beliefs and disbeliefs.

The dictionary definition of gnostic is:- 1. pertaining to knowledge. 2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters. It makes no mention of God or gods, atheism or theism. And a Gnostic not a gnostic Stosh. A gnostic is a Sage (an ācārya). And none of the Sages that I've come across have beliefs (or disbeliefs) about the existence or the non-existence of God or gods.

You are getting further from the Truth, not closer, with your faulty line of "reasoning". Let's try this another way.. Your position depends on your (wrong) decision to redefine a gnostic as either an atheist or a theist, which isn't the dictionary definition of gnostic (no capital letter). I've already disposed of Gnostic (capital letter), so your attempt to reintroduce Gnosticism is just a red herring. The rest of your argument is based upon this false axiom. It's false because you are ignoring the dictionary definition and choosing to make up a version that suits your perspective by conflating gnostic with atheist or theist (and you cannot say with certainty whether a gnostic is an atheist or a theist). I am using the dictionary definition, which I gave you several posts ago and which you are unwilling to accept. Have you read Alice in Wonderland...?

But gnostic isn't necessarily synonymous with theist and to conflate the two words may therefore be wrong Stosh. What if a gnostic is an atheist?

Stosh, There are two pairs of opposites (4 possible positions): - theist & atheist gnostic and agnostic That's just basic english.

Here you go Stosh:-

You need to read more carefully Stosh - I wrote gnostic not Gnostic.

Only if you wish to conceptualise the Tao as supreme deity/monad. Your choice Stosh. To clarify; the "You" was generic - directed at any reader of the thread in general, as opposed to @MH specifically. However, despite your rejection of my suggestion, in fact, you cite Lao Tzu as authority (i.e. you claim that he's a gnostic) in post # 111.

You might want to consider that there's another position, gnostic, in addition to the other three.

You're certainly free to interpret it that way.

That's an interesting interpretation of what was intended solely as a pun Stosh. I only spotted a couple of other possible interpretations after I'd posted it (and the one you've plumped for wasn't one of those).

It is easy. The little one one on the right isn't: -

As you have discovered, the natural, relaxed breath is longer on the exhale than on the inhale. There are many physiological/psychological and spiritual benefits to this way of breathing. If you wish to check, you can sit down with a metronome, relax and then count the beats to see if you fall into this healthy pattern. If you don't, there's a medically sanctioned device (Resperate) that will teach you how to breathe that way, although it's quite expensive. Correct, properly-balanced ujjayi pranayama training is another option: - mp3 - $30 http://www.irest.us/catalog/product/cds/breathing-for-life pdf - $12 - http://www.irest.us/catalog/product/books/breathing NB Be really careful with pranayama (breath training) it's incredibly powerful and that power includes the power to harm as well as the power to heal. Always learn from a competent teacher.