Patanjali's Sutras and Samyama questions

[jijaji]

no yoga is not a neutral spiritual technology. It is very much hindu, just as tai chi is daoist. There have been misguided efforts to bend it with non-dharmic religions and really sorry ones at that. Ishwara pranidhana in yoga is not the same as " our lord and saviour jesus christ is the only way" kind of bhakti...

 

My 2 cents worth...

 

That is correct dwai, yoga is so Hindu in fact that Krishnamacharya himself said that the only thing worthy of meditating on is 'Isvara' funny how so many of these hybrid yoga offshoots fail to even acknowledge that.

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

[jijaji]

Honestly MetalNun,

 

I do not believe Mark your teacher was literally saying you were JivanMukta, I know who he is BTW and know he lived with Krishnamacharya a long time.

 

you may want to ask him if he was being completely serious or being somewhat facetious when he said that.

 

[guruyoga]

It really bothers me how these people think they can call themselves Jivanmukta, Enlightened or what have you, it is just ignorant and shows how watered down they take it all.

 

Just like how AYP sees Bhakti or Ishta, it is a gross distortion of the TRUTH and is nothing but misleading.

 

I am sorry for my harsh tone, I know I said I was going to stay away from the discussion, but this is about the western destruction of Yoga and Vedanta to me.

 

Very few seem to understand what Jivanmukti means and who a Jivanmukta is..

 

Jivanmukti refers to the state of an adept who remains alive in a physical body, while actually having completely realized his true Self. Though liberated from the samsaric cycle of transmigration, he continues to live on account of karma. There are three kinds of karma which affect all. The first two, Sanchita and Kriyamana, refer to karma or action done in the past which is yet to bear fruit, and action being done in the present which is to bear fruit, respectively. When the Self is realized, these two types of karma are completely exhausted. The third type of karma, Prarabdha, however, is the action done in the past which has already begun to bear fruit through the manifestation of the present physical body. And this type of karma cannot be exhausted until death of the physical body, just as an arrow which which has left the bow continues to move as long as its initial motion is not exhausted.

 

So, the Prarabdha Karma keeps the body activity going, while the Jivanmukta remains completely unaffected by it. He remains not in the three states (jagara-wakeful, swapna-dream, sushupti-deep sleep) but in the turiya, which is characterized by unceasing tranquility. As he is unattached to activity and its result, he is also said to be free from the consequence and judgments of good and evil. This way, he is thoroughly amoral, and nothing would karmically affect him including someone’s murder, still such an act born of egoism is totally alien to his nature. Unattachment and amorality are but some of the important signposts, there is also the realization of identity of others and everything with his own Self. Because of this universal identification, everything he does is inspired by love which is free of preferences and exclusions.

 

While this is the general concept of Jivanmukti, the Tantras of Kashmir Shaivism further clarify on this topic. There are sadhakas who, after the achievement of the supreme knowledge and their establishment in their pure nature, may continue to exist in embodied form for some time to come, provided they have previously ripened karma (i.e. prarabdha karma) sustaining their present embodied condition, and possess keen desire for enjoyment (bhogavasana). Such sadhakas, when enlightened, are said to become the jivanmuktas. The jivanmuktas do not live in a different world or walk about and behave differently from ordinary mortals. They exist, on the other hand, with ordinary mortals; they perform karma and participate in all activities of the world like ordinary mortals, yet their actions do not affect them. They remain as they are, emancipated beings. They perform karma only to keep themselves in embodied form and to satiate their desire for bhoga in this world, but in this process do not acquire any fresh karma. As soon as the fruits of their ripened or prarabdha karma which were sustaining them in their embodied form, are enjoyed and exhausted, they lose their body-apparatuses once for all and become one with the Supreme. They do not have further birth after the present one.

 

Amongst the four upayas, those liberated through anupaya do not experience Jivanmukti. There is some chance of it in Shambhavopaya and much more in the case of Shaktopaya.

Edited January 4, 2012 by guruyoga

[jijaji]

[guruyoga]

Thanks for that great piece

 

Jivanmuktiviveka of Madhava-Vidyarnya is truly the most magnificent work on this topic.

 

Here is a small piece based on the approach of Kashmir Shaivism.

Edited January 4, 2012 by guruyoga

[MetalNun]

My Dear T.I.,

Sigh. I said I wasn't going to spend anymore time here, but you've put so much effort into your thoughtful reply that I feel it deserves to be acknowledged.

 

I have neither the time nor the desire to analyze your discussion in detail. I believe that you and others here, and at AYP, have already done so at great length and depth. On the one hand, yes, your concerns are valid and I understand why you would have these questions.

 

On the other hand, I really think a big part of the problem is just the limitations of language. How can we talk about Silence or the Void or non-duality? Language is inherently dualistic. That's why I said previously that intellectual analysis could become a dead-end. Language can only take us so far. We are trying to define things that are ultimately beyond definition. As long as you enjoy doing that and it is helpful to you, go for it.

 

I truly wish you all the best, dear brother! Love.

[dwai]

My Dear T.I.,

Sigh. I said I wasn't going to spend anymore time here, but you've put so much effort into your thoughtful reply that I feel it deserves to be acknowledged.

 

I have neither the time nor the desire to analyze your discussion in detail. I believe that you and others here, and at AYP, have already done so at great length and depth. On the one hand, yes, your concerns are valid and I understand why you would have these questions.

 

On the other hand, I really think a big part of the problem is just the limitations of language. How can we talk about Silence or the Void or non-duality? Language is inherently dualistic. That's why I said previously that intellectual analysis could become a dead-end. Language can only take us so far. We are trying to define things that are ultimately beyond definition. As long as you enjoy doing that and it is helpful to you, go for it.

 

I truly wish you all the best, dear brother! Love.

True...labguage IS dualistic, yet we need this tool to learn. Yoga does not call for blind faith. Patanjali's yoga sutras give a good explanation of this....pratyaksha anumaanagamah pramanani...

 

Truth is of three different categories. That which is directly experienced, that which is logically inferred and that which is by the testimony of reliable sources. Of these, the first is best while the last is least. So in yoga sadhana one has to start with the last, understand with the second and know with the first...

[MetalNun]

What does "jivanmukti" mean? It's a state. I guess what you're trying to say is "Jivanmukta" aka "completely liberated while in a physical body".

 

Interesting!! How does this person who met you determine you were completely liberated and enlightened in one meeting? Curious how he determined whether or not one is liberated and completely. And because you quote that here, I assume you agree and assert the same here? If it's one of those New Agey "heart knows it" stuff, thank you, I understand

 

First, thanks to everyone for their clarifications on the meaning and history of the term "jivanmukta." (yes, he probably said "-a" not "-i", my mistake; and he was probably using the tantric definition).

 

How did he determine this? Well, first I must admit it was not based on just that one meeting, at which he did interrogate me at some length. We had been corresponding for several months, ever since I began doing his particular variation on pranayama (per Krishnamacharya) and about 3 minutes into it, my entire reality changed, and I contacted him and asked, "what has happened to me?!" I would assume it is his job to be able to answer questions like that.

 

Do I "agree and assert the same here?" It's a tricky question to answer because, as I said to T.I., above, language is inherently dualistic and if I say, "I am this" or "I am that"...

 

What I can tell you is that it seems like a reasonable (albeit perhaps statistically unlikely) explanation based on what is happening: "I" am free from all doubt, fear and worry, and from the chattering of the monkey-mind. It feels like the heavy burden "I" have been carrying my whole life has been lifted. Everything is effortless and life just flows in peaceful silence. Infinite Love and Bliss is pouring through "me." When "I" look for "me" there is nothing there, just sort of a translucent filter or lens through which the Divine is manifesting in this particular form; and awareness of my Self as an expression of that Love. My only remaining desire is for more of that Love which is apparently limitless and therefore perfectly satisfied, even while it continues to expand and deepen...

 

This is, after all, what I was told to expect from the yoga practice ("Self-Realization") that I have been doing for 30+ years, although I did not really believe it would happen in this lifetime. You may call it whatever you like; I don't mind. I don't think the label is important.

Edited January 4, 2012 by MetalNun

[MetalNun]

Honestly MetalNun,

 

I do not believe Mark your teacher was literally saying you were JivanMukta, I know who he is BTW and know he lived with Krishnamacharya a long time.

 

you may want to ask him if he was being completely serious or being somewhat facetious when he said that.

 

 

Dear Jijaji,

You said above,

 

It really bothers me how these people think they can call themselves Jivanmukta, Enlightened or what have you, it is just ignorant and shows how watered down they take it all.

 

[Note, I didn't actually call myself anything; I was just sharing what was said about me by one of several people whose opinions I trust.]

 

I apologize if my freedom bothers you. It would be nice if you would rejoice with me.

 

Honestly, the fact that it "bothers" you says more about you than me. But, aren't we ultimately One? And who is being bothered?!

 

You may want to ask yourself, why are you doing spiritual practices if you don't believe they work?? Or, do they work only for you but not for other people? Or do they work for Tibetan monks, but not for a nerdy little surfer girl from California?

 

If it could happen for me it could happen for anybody, and surely that is reason to rejoice! Although, as my teacher points out, we are all free already and we just don't realize it...

 

But, no doubt you're right, he must have been being facetious. I'm sure you can provide some other better explanation for what has happened to my reality, like maybe I've lost my mind or something (good riddance!). Either way, my burdens are gone, the chatter is gone; blissful Silence, Oneness, I'm totally in Love, and God is right here, closer than my own heartbeat; the ego fears and desires have vanished, and yet "I" can still function in the world. So, call it whatever you like, it's wonderful!

 

Now I must go work on a website and then type some medical reports and answer my clients' calls from Psychic Source and Hollywood Psychics. "No rest for the wicked." (- Ozzy) Don't know when I'll have a chance to come back here. Feel free to email me if you wish. Much LOVE to all of you, especially T.I.!

[jijaji]

MetalNun,

 

You are not understanding what is being said, no one ever said spiritual practices don't work, I certainly would not say something so weird and if you think I did show me please.

 

What we are saying here is Yoga has it's roots in Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) and that fact should be acknowledged plain and simple, Krishnamacharya himself was Sri Vaishnava (what does that tell you)?

 

Can Christians and those outside Hinduism practice Yoga? Of course but they can, however, the tradition itself should not be watered down for them. AND it should be at very basic level IMO to begin and not start out with Atma Vichara as is recommended by so many Pseudo Advaita teachers.

 

 

jijaji

[Jeff]

Metalnun,

 

Thank you for sharing. I am happy for you.

 

Peace & Love.

 

[guruyoga]

MetalNun,

 

No one has any issues with you, your freedom or it's rather oblique expression here. We cannot really comment on your liberation or it's degree for it's no one's business, nor is it something that one can judge. However, the advice you give here - stop thinking, intellect is not useful in spirituality, some New Age Oneness ideas etc. - are what people here are respectfully disagreeing with. Inherent peace and compassion and love do not require explicit declaration, certificates from others or long words proclaiming oneness and so on. C T, Mat Black - we have a few members right here who embody those in deed, words and mere presence. But when you assert your status as "enlightened" or "liberated" and flaunt a certificate of liberation - don't expect to go unquestioned. It is TI's idea/thoughts that you are disagreeing with, and the right way to do that would be to logically debate him here. Trying to legitimize your argument on the basis of your "enlightened" or "liberated" status is not fair.

 

There were hints of displeasure at TI's analysis and even at our questioning of your definition of Jivanmukti, quite evident in the discussion above. I wonder, how that slight displeasure crept in? May be even Jivanmuktas are prone to mood swings and bickering like everyone else? Or may be your version of Jivanmukti is different from the traditional version of it which Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi personified to the fullest. Well, it's nice to know we have a Female Ramana amongst us

 

I am sure for someone "one" with all and having celebrity clients on a psychic hotline, this is not hard to understand. Also a suggestion, if you do not understand a label and more so don't care for one, the simple thing would be to stop using one, Jivanmukti would be a good start. Much love to you

Edited January 5, 2012 by guruyoga

[CarsonZi]

Obviously the thinking mind is needed and useful for being human, engaging in the world and interpretting and sharing ideas, concepts and philosophies. But if we could think ourselves into enlightenment, if we could think ourselves into a living experience of our true nature, there would be an awful lot more enlightened ones around (in my opinion). I know that personally, my mind and it's habitual patterns of thinking have been the source of a shit-load of suffering. And as (I believe it was) Einstein (who) said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." So, in my experience, our rational, analytical mind can only take us so far. It cannot take us to a living experience of what is *beyond* the rational, analytical, sequential thinking mind. This is just *my* experience though and trying to use words to point to or even describe the experience of being beyond the thinking mind is pointless. As it says in ACIM "Words are but symbols of symbols thus twice removed from reality."

 

So, obviously me *saying* that this is the way it is (for me) doesn't mean shit to anyone (but me). "Truth" can only be experienced and it doesn't appear that one person can "transfer" Truth to another. We all have to live our own experience and walk our own paths and trying to learn something or know something for another doesn't appear possible to me.

 

All the best to each of you on your own paths.

 

Love!

Carson

Edited January 5, 2012 by CarsonZi

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

And as (I believe it was) Einstein (who) said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." So, in my experience, our rational, analytical mind can only take us so far.

Hi CarsonZi

Einstein's statement is not a refutation of the inadequacy of the mind. It is not a reason to abandon the mind as a limited tool... The mind is all we have. The mind has components to it and they all work in concert. Components like intuition, memory, imagination, analysis, reasoning... What Einstein was saying is that you still use the mind, just that you have to think outside of the box or use your mind differently.

 

Einstein also said:

The thinking it took to get us into this mess is not the same thinking that is going to get us out of it.

 

The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking.

 

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

 

Truth is what stands the test of experience.

 

 

You said:

It cannot take us to a living experience of what is *beyond* the rational, analytical, sequential thinking mind.

Er, well, yes it can, it does and you should appreciate it rather than abandoning it. You learn the methods of practice using your mind. You use your mind to learn how to stop the mind and go beyond. Without a mind, you could never learn how to go beyond the mind.

 

This is just *my* experience though and trying to use words to point to or even describe the experience of being beyond the thinking mind is pointless. As it says in ACIM "Words are but symbols of symbols thus twice removed from reality."

 

Words are all we have. If someone hadn't told you about their experience of going beyond the mind, of stilling the mind, of experiencing samadhi, you wouldn't even know about it. Granted, words are limited by the consciousness that apprehends them, by the cultural influence and the capacity of the mentality, but words are all we have and we have to make the best use of them.

 

Describing experiences of being beyond the thinking mind is not pointless. I've had many experiences of stopping the mind and many others have too. We all try to describe those experiences. The descriptions may not all be the same, but most of them are when you start to examine them closely. They do point to something beyond, something incomprehensible, and to the superconscious or extremely intelligent, comprehensible. How else could the Buddhists have mapped levels of samadhi or jhanas?

 

 

"Truth" can only be experienced and it doesn't appear that one person can "transfer" Truth to another.

 

Well, yes, you can instruct someone in a practice, to have the same experience that you have had and one would logically assume that if the experience is the same, then the realization of that truth will be the same. Further, many yogic texts tell about shaktipat, about enlightenment on contact... SRF teaches that if you put a strong magnet next to a weak one, eventually the weaker magnet will become just as strong as the strong one. Enlightenment by close association!

 

We all have to live our own experience and walk our own paths and trying to learn something or know something for another doesn't appear possible to me.

 

Then you haven't experienced superconsciousness, or unity consciousness. However, the more important question is: "If God is all there is, and we are all manifestations of God, do you have the right to interfere with God's creation by awakening people out of the dream?"

 

TI

[CarsonZi]

[Tibetan_Ice]

[jijaji]

Thing is anyone who knows a thing or two about Sanatana Dharma and did TM a long time ago like myself (late 60's) or even now, knows that AYP's Deep Meditation has it's roots in TM and is a further modification itself. TM however is a modification of the Meditation that was practiced and given by Shree Brahmananda Saraswati, who followed traditional Advaita Vedanta. Brahmananda Sawaswati would not give mantra diksha to anyone without an Ishta Devata (as the Mantra was centered around the Devata) he would push them for information to help them ascertain what their Ishtadevata was by asking questions about their 'family deity (Kuladevata)or other factors that would help them choose.

 

And for the record Ishta (इष्ट) in Sanskrit is a tad more closer to beloved, lover or cherished, even (worshiped in sacrifices) than the common 'chosen', although that is completely acceptable in the proper context, but the proper context is NOT anything you want it to be. To say that one's Ishta is any goal, be it bettering your community, or just being a better supervisor at work is a bastardization in and of the term itself. They may be good goals worthy of achievement, but they are not the same as what a persons Ishtadevata is, even if you drop the 'Devata' part and use it in a way that works for a hybrid system. The term Istha is synonymous with Devata simply put and to strip that away and say it can refer to anything you have as a personal goal is again a bastardization of the term

 

see for your self:

 

http://spokensanskrit.de/

 

and

 

Favourite Deity

 

The doctrine of ishTa-devatA (favourite divinity) has now to be mentioned. In Hinduism one may choose the deity that satisfies one's spiritual longing and make that the object of one's adoration, love and worship. Since each name and form of God constitute a pointer to something that is beyond and since each is at the same time a representative of some aspect or manifestation of the Supreme Reality, it is the entire array of all names and forms of God that will perhaps point to the fullness that is God. But it is advisable for each individual to concentrate on, and have a special place for, one particular manifestation or form of God and this would be his ishTa-devatA, favourite deity. Even a person who has realised the Brahman as the Ultimate Reality that pervades everything, does not reject image worship. For him all deities are alike. He is not averse to worshipping or meditating on any particular form of the Absolute. This is the reason why we see our advaita-Acaryas, give as much importane to devatA worship and temple offerings as the non-advaita AcAryas.

 

Hindu tradition has mainly six types of IshTa-DevatA (=favourite deity) worship. These can be listed as the worship of

Aditya, the Sun-God;

Ambika, the Mother-Goddess, in her three forms of Durga, Lakshmi or Saraswati;

Vishnu, belonging to the classic Trinity;

Ganesa, the elephant-faced God, considered as the primal God of all worship;

Mahesvara or Shiva, the third God of the Trinity, mostly in the form of the un-anthropomorphic linga;; and

Subrahmanya, the six-faced God known also as Kumaran or Murugan in Tamil.

 

These six are the original subtle manifestations of the Absolute Transcendental Reality. The Avatars (=Divine Descents) of Vishnu, like Rama and Krishna are more concrete manifestations of the same Absolute Reality. So they are identified with Vishnu in the above list. A capacity for recognition of the figures of these six divinities and their manifestations is the first lesson that a Hindu child gets in religion. Every variation of the favourite deity worship may be considered as belonging to one or a combination of these six traditions. In addition, the choice of the favourite deity, instead of being an academic exercise, could also be a choice of one among the thousands of temples all over the country and the deity chosen may very well be the particular deity enshrined in that particular temple, with a specific name and form, though belonging to one of the six streams of divinities listed above. Thus arose the tradition of each family having a kula-devata (=family deity) and this is sacredly revered as a legacy from generation to generation among the male descendents of the same family. It is this variety that gives richness to Hinduism and it is this possibility of 'to each according to his need and capacity' that brings together under the one banner of Hinduism people with varying practices, attitudes and states of evolution. Accordingly carving of images of gods both for worship at home and in the temples became one of the most highly developed art and profession in India. The religious life of India has thus been nourished through the ages on a visual panorama, unmatched, perhaps, in the history of any civilization.

 

Complete Essay

Edited January 9, 2012 by jijaji

[dwai]

Thing is anyone who knows a thing or two about Sanatana Dharma and did TM a long time ago like myself (late 60's) or even now, knows that AYP's Deep Meditation has it's roots in TM and is a further modification itself. TM however is a modification of the Meditation that was practiced and given by Shree Brahmananda Saraswati, who followed traditional Advaita Vedanta. Brahmananda Sawaswati would not give mantra diksha to anyone without an Ishta Devata (as the Mantra was centered around the Devata) he would push them for information to help them ascertain that what their Ishtadevata was by asking questions about their 'family deity (Kuladevata)or other factors that would help them choose.

 

And for the record Ishta (इष्ट) in Sanskrit is a tad more closer to beloved, lover or cherished, even (worshiped in sacrifices) than the common 'chosen', although that is completely acceptable in the proper context, but the proper context is NOT anything you want it to be. To say that one's Ishta is any goal, be it bettering your community, or just being a better supervisor at work is a bastardization in and of the term itself. They may be good goals worthy of achievement, but they are not the same as what a persons Ishtadevata is, even if you drop the 'Devata' part and use it in a way that works for a hybrid system. The term Istha is synonymous with Devata simply put and to strip that apart and say it can refer to anything is again a bastardization of the term.

 

see for your self:

 

http://spokensanskrit.de/

 

and

 

Favourite Deity

 

The doctrine of ishTa-devatA (favourite divinity) has now to be mentioned. In Hinduism one may choose the deity that satisfies one's spiritual longing and make that the object of one's adoration, love and worship. Since each name and form of God constitute a pointer to something that is beyond and since each is at the same time a representative of some aspect or manifestation of the Supreme Reality, it is the entire array of all names and forms of God that will perhaps point to the fullness that is God. But it is advisable for each individual to concentrate on, and have a special place for, one particular manifestation or form of God and this would be his ishTa-devatA, favourite deity. Even a person who has realised the Brahman as the Ultimate Reality that pervades everything, does not reject image worship. For him all deities are alike. He is not averse to worshipping or meditating on any particular form of the Absolute. This is the reason why we see our advaita-Acaryas, give as much importane to devatA worship and temple offerings as the non-advaita AcAryas.

 

Hindu tradition has mainly six types of IshTa-DevatA (=favourite deity) worship. These can be listed as the worship of

Aditya, the Sun-God;

Ambika, the Mother-Goddess, in her three forms of Durga, Lakshmi or Saraswati;

Vishnu, belonging to the classic Trinity;

Ganesa, the elephant-faced God, considered as the primal God of all worship;

Mahesvara or Shiva, the third God of the Trinity, mostly in the form of the un-anthropomorphic linga;; and

Subrahmanya, the six-faced God known also as Kumaran or Murugan in Tamil.

 

These six are the original subtle manifestations of the Absolute Transcendental Reality. The Avatars (=Divine Descents) of Vishnu, like Rama and Krishna are more concrete manifestations of the same Absolute Reality. So they are identified with Vishnu in the above list. A capacity for recognition of the figures of these six divinities and their manifestations is the first lesson that a Hindu child gets in religion. Every variation of the favourite deity worship may be considered as belonging to one or a combination of these six traditions. In addition, the choice of the favourite deity, instead of being an academic exercise, could also be a choice of one among the thousands of temples all over the country and the deity chosen may very well be the particular deity enshrined in that particular temple, with a specific name and form, though belonging to one of the six streams of divinities listed above. Thus arose the tradition of each family having a kula-devata (=family deity) and this is sacredly revered as a legacy from generation to generation among the male descendents of the same family. It is this variety that gives richness to Hinduism and it is this possibility of 'to each according to his need and capacity' that brings together under the one banner of Hinduism people with varying practices, attitudes and states of evolution. Accordingly carving of images of gods both for worship at home and in the temples became one of the most highly developed art and profession in India. The religious life of India has thus been nourished through the ages on a visual panorama, unmatched, perhaps, in the history of any civilization.

 

Complete Essay

 

This brings back to the surface of my mind the nagging question - "can a non-traditional hindu really undertand the synergies and interactions of the various strands of thoughts, rituals and practices that form the tapestry of hindu dharma"?

 

I had asked any people this question. And i have gt dimaetrically different views. Imho, dharma is not philosophy and theology but a happy medium of tradition and philosophy. Philosophy provides the software and tradition/culture provides system through which the philosophy can be realized...the intrument of experiment being the individual seeker.

 

The opposing view is that tradition/culture is not necessary...one can practice the dharms purely by philosophy and a psychosomatic apparatus. That is why i am very leery of westrners trying to reinterpret hinduism, buddhism or daoism. Because in my view each of these have a cultural aspect that is necessary for adoption. The system is not just a practice, t the culture-practice.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Thing is anyone who knows a thing or two about Sanatana Dharma and did TM a long time ago like myself (late 60's) or even now, knows that AYP's Deep Meditation has it's roots in TM and is a further modification itself. TM however is a modification of the Meditation that was practiced and given by Shree Brahmananda Saraswati, who followed traditional Advaita Vedanta. Brahmananda Sawaswati would not give mantra diksha to anyone without an Ishta Devata (as the Mantra was centered around the Devata) he would push them for information to help them ascertain what their Ishtadevata was by asking questions about their 'family deity (Kuladevata)or other factors that would help them choose.

 

 

Hi Jijaji

That is interesting. Do you have a link or more information about the Meditation that "was practiced and given by Shree Brahmananda Saraswati, who followed traditional Advaita Vedanta."? I'm interested in the procedure, the effect and what the claims are as to the state that it produces.

Also, do you still do TM? Were you initiated? When you did it, would you say that it produced samadhi? What is your analysis of the TM meditation technique as far as being a tool for spiritual realization?

And if you don't mind me asking, what type of meditation do you do today?

 

Thanks.

TI

[CarsonZi]

Hi TI

 

Unfortunately I don't have the time (or the motivation to be honest) to go through everything you have posted and debate with you on each point. Especially since we both know you won't actually give anything I say a chance (you don't actually want my answers to your questions as you've told me straight up before). But I will say a couple of things about your post.

 

When you asked about how one would answer the questions you posed about TM I would answer that in order to answer those questions, in order to *truly know* the answers, you would have to consistently practice TM, as prescribed, for a long enough period of time to be able to answer them from experience. You can't answer "Will TM meditation make me enlightened" by using analysis and reason... especially not without actually *doing* the practices consistently for a lengthy period of time. You can only know the answer to that question by *doing* TM consistently, as prescribed, for a long enough period of time that you could say from experience, "Yes it will" or "No it won't." And in my opinion, as indicated by your massive thread on the AYP forum "Where am I at now;" http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3691 you haven't actually been doing AYP at all... at least not consistently for more than a few weeks at a time (anyone who reads through a couple of pages of your thread will easily see that you are constantly changing your practices and have been using variations of AYP almost the entire time).

 

You said, "Budhha said, the cause of suffering is attachment. He did not say that the cause of suffering was analysis." Yes, for sure... but attachment to analysis is no different than attachment to anything else. ALL attachments must be let go of in order to release our suffering.

 

Anyway, I really can't find the desire to read through and comment on the whole rest of your post... please forgive me. To me, it all comes down to the question, "Does AYP work?" For me, this is an absolute "Yes." But, as Yogani said in one of the quotes you posted of his, "AYP does not work for everyone." And it obviously doesn't work for you. I don't know what you are looking to get from your spiritual practices, but what I am looking for is simple.... I am looking to be able to enjoy my life as much as possible, to release as much suffering as I can, and to be able to be the best Dad, husband and friend I can be. Has AYP helped me to acheive (and continue to achieve) this? Hell yeah. Do I notice that my life gets messier when I don't do my practices? For sure. Have I found these kinds of results from the other kinds of spiritual practices I have done? No. I practiced Kriya Yoga consistently for a while, I practiced Kundalini Yoga consistently for a while, I was a Christian for well over a decade, and I have practiced shamanism for well over a decade as well. Have any of these other "modalities for transformation" helped me to notice even a shred of the benefits I have found with consistent long term AYP practice? Not even close. So, AYP does in fact work for me. I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. But don't you think that maybe, just maybe, instead of wasting all kinds of time and energy on crusading against AYP it would be much more advantageous to you and your path to spend that time and energy finding something that *does* work for you? I know it can be really easy to fall into the trap of wanting to "save others" from making the mistakes that we have on our paths, but really, we each have to learn our own lessons. I spent years trying to convince other Christians that Christianity didn't "work." It doesn't work for me, so it shouldn't for them right? And because I know it doesn't work I should warn others about falling into the trap of getting onto the Christian path right? Wrong. Christianity works for those it works for and who am I to tell another what kind of an approach they should use in order to connect to the Divine? That's all ego in my opinion. To me that is saying, "I know what is best for you... even better than you do." Which is not true and it is none of my business what methods another uses to better their lives.... whether it works for me or not.

 

So, I (once again) suggest that you stop wasting so much time trying to understand, analyze and condemn a path that obviously doesn't work for you, stop trying to convince others that it would never work for them (when you obviously can't *KNOW* that) and spend some time finding something that *does* work for you and doing it.

 

Wishing you all the best.

 

Love!

Carson

Edited January 8, 2012 by CarsonZi

[jijaji]

Hi Jijaji

That is interesting. Do you have a link or more information about the Meditation that "was practiced and given by Shree Brahmananda Saraswati, who followed traditional Advaita Vedanta."?

 

Hope this helps;

 

http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/introduction.htm

 

'Torch Divine', January 1959 - quoting Guru Dev

 

Drops of Nectar

(Sayings of Shree Guru Deva, "Vedanta Incarnate", His Divinity Swami Brahmananda

Saraswathi Maharaj, the illustrious Jagadguru Shankaracharya, Jyotir Mutt,

Badrikashramam.)

 

Having become a devotee of God one can never remain unhappy anywhere. This is our experience.

 

* * * *

 

People are unhappy because they do not have "ISHTA" (chosen Deity). Without 'Ishta' people are turning out to be orphans.

 

* * * *

 

It is only the 'ISHTA' that saves one from 'ANISHTA' (Untoward happenings).

 

* * * *

 

See your 'ISHTA' as all-pervading. That is 'ANANYATHA' (one pointed devotion).

 

* * * *

 

Among Vishnu, Shankara, Devi, Surya and Ganesha, none is greater or smaller. All of them are quite capable of bestowing on their devotees all that is good in its entirety.

 

* * * *

 

By repetition of the "Manthra" given to you by your Guru as per your qualifications, your sins shall be destroyed.

 

* * * *

 

Develop fully one 'ISHTA'; then no 'ANISHTA' can ever befall you.

 

* * * *

 

By doing Japa your sins shall be destroyed, JAPATO NASTI PATHAKAM.

 

* * * *

 

Of the five Deities Shankara, Vishnu, (Rama, Krishna), Surya, Ganesha and Devi, whosoever is more adorable to you the Manthra of that Deity should be repeated by you everyday.

 

* * * *

 

You must get to know the Manthra of your 'ISHTA' and the method of 'Dhyana' thereof, through an experienced 'SATGURU' and somehow or other devote some time every day for Japa of the 'Ishta Manthra' and Dhyana.

 

* * * *

 

Through Japa "SIDDHI" (Realisation) shall result. There is no doubt about this. "JAPAT SIDDHIR JAPAT SIDDHIR JAPAT SIDDHIR NASAMSAYAM".

 

* * * *

 

See your 'ISHTA' everywhere. There should be no place where your 'ISHTA' is not seen.

 

* * * *

 

It is absolutely difficult to get the vision of your 'ISHTA' until and unless you get one pointedness on your ISHTA. To cure a disease both "OUSHADA" (medicine) and "PATHYA" (Dietic Restriction) are necessary. To cure the disease of restlessness of the mind "ABHYASA" (Practice) is "OUSHADA" and 'VAIRAGYA' (Detachment) is PATHYA.

 

* * * *

 

To apply your mind to your ISHTA is ABHYASA.

 

To constantly think of ISHTA, meditate on it, talk always about It and think always about It is ABHYASA.

 

When the mind is engrossed in the ISHTA, detachment automatically comes in. Therefore, we say you need become a "RAGI" (a person having attachment). That is to say there is need for the mind to develop attachment to the ISHTA.

 

* * * *

 

Let constant thinking of God be the main work for the mind and carrying on "VYAVAHARA" (worldly activities) only secondary. In that case you will have "LADDOOS", (sweets) in both hands.

 

* * * *

 

There is no need to apply your mind entirely in order to carry on "VYAVAHARA."

 

It is possible to carry on "VYAVAHARA" with only a little co-operation of the mind.

 

* * * *

 

Just like the Miser whose mind, even while attending to VYAVAHARA, mainly and constantly thinks of the money, you should be attending to VYAVAHARA while your mind mainly and constantly think of God.

 

अशान्ति सूक्ष्म शरीर में - वह उपरी भौतिक उपचारों से दूर नहीं होगी। अशान्ति हटाने के लिये सूक्ष्म शरीर की चिकित्सा आवश्यक है। बिना आध्यात्मिक ज्ञान के शान्ति नहीं मिलेगी।

 

"ashaanti suukShma shariira meM - vaha uparii bhautika upachaaroM se duura nahiiM hogii . ashaanti haTaane ke liye suukShma shariira kii chikitsaa aavashyaka hai . binaa aadhyaatmika GYaana ke shaanti nahiiM milegii ."

 

'By treatments of the outer physical existence, the peacelessness in the sukshma sharir (subtle body) will not go away. For the purpose of removing ashanti (peacelessness) the healing of the subtle body is required. Without spiritual knowledge, you will not get peace.

 

अभ्यास करते चलो। मन भागे तो भागने दो तुम मत उसके पीछे भागो।

जहाण् मन जाता है वहाण् यदि इसे कुछ रसास्वादन हु‍आ तो वहीं चिपक जाता है। भयवान् में लगाया जायगा और कभी भगवान् के दिव्य स्वरूप का रस मिल गया तो फिर वहीं चिपक जायगा। इसलिये मन को भगवत् भजन में लगाना चाहिये।

हर हालत में परमात्मा में मन को लगा‍ओ।

सन्देह मत करो कि भगवान् का भजन कभी व्यर्थ जायगा।

 

"abhyaasa karate chalo . mana bhaage to bhaagane do tuma mata usake piichhe bhaago .

jahaaN mana jaataa hai vahaaN yadi ise kuchha rasaasvaadana huaa to vahiiM chipaka jaataa hai . bhayavaan meM lagaayaa jaayagaa aura kabhii bhagavaan ke divya svaruupa kaa rasa mila gayaa to phira vahiiM chipaka jaayagaa . isaliye mana ko bhagavat bhajana meM lagaanaa chaahiye .

hara haalata meM paramaatmaa meM mana ko lagaao .

sandeha mata karo ki bhagavaan kaa bhajana kabhii vyartha jaayagaa ."

 

'Proceed with the practice. If the mind runs away, let it run away, you do not run afterwards.

Wherever the mind goes, if it becomes appreciative there, then right there it clings. If it will become attached to Bhagwan, and has sometimes got a taste of Bhagwan, then afterwards it will get stuck to that very place. Therefore you should apply the mind in worshipping the Lord. In all circumstances apply the mind to Paramatma. Make no mistake, no worship of Bhagwan will be futile.'

 

- Jagadguru Shankaracharya Brahmaleena Shri Brahmananda Saraswati Maharaj

[jijaji]

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi Carson

Gee, evading the questions and instead launching another personal attack. Perhaps you can discredit the source rather than having to discuss the issues. That's more fun, right?

 

Hi TI

...

 

When you asked about how one would answer the questions you posed about TM I would answer that in order to answer those questions, in order to *truly know* the answers, you would have to consistently practice TM, as prescribed, for a long enough period of time to be able to answer them from experience. You can't answer "Will TM meditation make me enlightened" by using analysis and reason... especially not without actually *doing* the practices consistently for a lengthy period of time.

 

This is not true. Everyone is at different levels of understanding and intelligence. Some people will be able to grasp understanding very quickly, while for others it may take years. But experience is not the only teacher. You can use analysis and reason by talking to other TM meditators or by reading about other's experiences. You can buy books by David Lynch like "Catching the Big Fish", or Norman Rosenthal's "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation". Or like the last book I found by John White called "Everything You Want to Know About TM".

Incidentally, here is a quote from that last book:

The publisher and editor of Spiritual India, A. K Krishna Nambiar, made this comment to Time: "TM can make you a better executive, but it cannot give you the spiritual ecstasy that other, more spiritual meditation techniques do. It can never lead the meditator to turiya, the fourth and eventual stage of spiritual ecstasy that is the final aim of meditation..."

 

It is funny, neither David Lynch nor Norman Rosenthal, even though they have been TM'ing for over 30 years do not claim that TM will make you enlightened, nor do they claim that they have become enlightened.

 

You said:

You can only know the answer to that question by *doing* TM consistently, as prescribed, for a long enough period of time that you could say from experience, "Yes it will" or "No it won't." And in my opinion, as indicated by your massive thread on the AYP forum "Where am I at now" you haven't actually been doing AYP at all... at least not consistently for more than a few weeks at a time (anyone who reads through a couple of pages of your thread will easily see that you are constantly changing your practices and have been using variations of AYP almost the entire time).

Now how could anyone read that and know what I've been doing for the last 4 1/2 years, let alone how long I've done basic AYP DM and SB consecutively for? And no, I did not use AYP variations all of the time. I used other systems like Kunlun, Dhyan Yogi, and other practices, but I always kept a baseline of DM and SB at least twice a day, except for maybe 3 weeks total.

 

Further, my questions are valid questions and my conclusions are also valid. They have nothing to do with my personal history of practices.

 

Anyone can ask the same questions as I have. And I'm sure many have. And I'm sure many have come to the same conclusions.

 

You know, I really don't care about your personal history, your history of practices or how you've used your history of practices to prop up your credibility. Your personal history has nothing to do with the validity or foolishness of your statements. A statement is either true or false and that conclusion is in no way related to who says the statement, let alone the history of their practices, or whether or not they performed their practices correctly or without proper understanding. Truth is where you find it, regardless of the source.

 

TI

[CarsonZi]

Hi TI

 

Not sure what I said that made you feel like I was attacking you, but I can assure you that there was no intention of attacking you at all in any of my posts. I apologize for writing in such as way so as to make it possible for you to interpret them as such.

 

Unfortunately I think we both know that I can not give you any of the answers that you want. So this will be my last post to you here.

 

I hope you find everything you are looking for in Life. I truly wish you the best on your path.

 

Love,

Carson