|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2024 0:35:42 GMT -5
Also, when it comes to total alignment, think siddhis.  woo! I recommend reading Yogananda's Autobiography Of A Yogi on that topic. Read it with the alignment/natural state concept in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 14, 2024 3:05:57 GMT -5
Also, when it comes to total alignment, think siddhis. "One of the reasons that confusion and disagreement reign over the Siddhis is the fact that Patanjali contradicts himself throughout the discussion of the Siddhi powers. For example, he stresses the fact that all time is now - that the past is merely memory and the future does not exist. He affirms that the only reality is the reality in the moment, the now; yet in sutra 3.16 he instructs us in the process of divining the future. ..." --- " Beyond the Siddhis; Supernatural Powers and the Sutras of Patanjali" by John McAfee |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 14, 2024 3:34:26 GMT -5
"Patanjali states in the beginning sutras that the purpose of yoga is liberation. The point is to reach self-understanding, thus breaking the bonds of conditioning. Patanjali describes self-understanding as a state of oneness with life, a union with God, a state of perfection. His aim with the sutras is to provide readers with the tools and understanding necessary to reach this state. Yet in sutra 3.38, he says plainly that the Siddhis - those powers he directs us to pursue - are obstacles to this liberation: impediments on the path to enlightenment and union with life. Finally, in the last few sutras of the Siddhis, after he has instructed us in detail on the techniques required to gain all of these powers, he states, 'By abandoning the quest for these powers, liberation becomes possible.' It seems to be the height of contradiction."
--- "Beyond the Siddhis; Supernatural Powers and the Sutras of Patanjali" by John McAfee
That reminds of Ramana's 40th verse.
EDIT: As expected, as far as I read, McAfee's further interpretations and explanations are way off, due to his limiting beliefs, but those sutras seem worthy of looking into.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2024 10:35:22 GMT -5
Also, when it comes to total alignment, think siddhis. "One of the reasons that confusion and disagreement reign over the Siddhis is the fact that Patanjali contradicts himself throughout the discussion of the Siddhi powers. For example, he stresses the fact that all time is now - that the past is merely memory and the future does not exist. He affirms that the only reality is the reality in the moment, the now; yet in sutra 3.16 he instructs us in the process of divining the future. ..." --- " Beyond the Siddhis; Supernatural Powers and the Sutras of Patanjali" by John McAfee I don't see the contradiction. Those statements are made in different contexts. I do the same all the time. If you have a reference for what's been talked about, you'll naturally see the context switch and don't see a contradiction. But if you have no reference, then you will not notice the context switch and see a contradiction. So, this is also a good litmus test for people's actual understanding. Suddenly switching contexts is actually a specialty of the Zen teaching method. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2024 10:50:07 GMT -5
"Patanjali states in the beginning sutras that the purpose of yoga is liberation. The point is to reach self-understanding, thus breaking the bonds of conditioning. Patanjali describes self-understanding as a state of oneness with life, a union with God, a state of perfection. His aim with the sutras is to provide readers with the tools and understanding necessary to reach this state. Yet in sutra 3.38, he says plainly that the Siddhis - those powers he directs us to pursue - are obstacles to this liberation: impediments on the path to enlightenment and union with life. Finally, in the last few sutras of the Siddhis, after he has instructed us in detail on the techniques required to gain all of these powers, he states, ' By abandoning the quest for these powers, liberation becomes possible.' It seems to be the height of contradiction." --- " Beyond the Siddhis; Supernatural Powers and the Sutras of Patanjali" by John McAfee That reminds of Ramana's 40th verse. EDIT: As expected, as far as I read, McAfee's further interpretations and explanations are way off, due to his limiting beliefs, but those sutras seem worthy of looking into. Some of the siddhis simply are (what Seth would call) the inner senses. As such, the siddhis are actually our innate abilities that we have from birth but usually don't use because of ignorance. Abe used to say that what people tend to call miracles is actually normal from the perspective of alignment. In that context, Pantanjali's verse 3.40 should sound familiar (see story of Jesus or Tolstoy's story of the three hermits). Also, liberation is acausal. So how can siddhis be an obstacle to liberation? So I agree with you, Mr. McAfee doesn't know what he's talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2024 11:47:16 GMT -5
"Patanjali states in the beginning sutras that the purpose of yoga is liberation. The point is to reach self-understanding, thus breaking the bonds of conditioning. Patanjali describes self-understanding as a state of oneness with life, a union with God, a state of perfection. His aim with the sutras is to provide readers with the tools and understanding necessary to reach this state. Yet in sutra 3.38, he says plainly that the Siddhis - those powers he directs us to pursue - are obstacles to this liberation: impediments on the path to enlightenment and union with life. Finally, in the last few sutras of the Siddhis, after he has instructed us in detail on the techniques required to gain all of these powers, he states, ' By abandoning the quest for these powers, liberation becomes possible.' It seems to be the height of contradiction." --- " Beyond the Siddhis; Supernatural Powers and the Sutras of Patanjali" by John McAfee That reminds of Ramana's 40th verse. EDIT: As expected, as far as I read, McAfee's further interpretations and explanations are way off, due to his limiting beliefs, but those sutras seem worthy of looking into. Some of the siddhis simply are (what Seth would call) the inner senses. As such, the siddhis are actually our innate abilities that we have from birth but usually don't use because of ignorance. Abe used to say that what people tend to call miracles is actually normal from the perspective of alignment. In that context, Pantanjali's verse 3.40 should sound familiar (see story of Jesus or Tolstoy's story of the three hermits). Also, liberation is acausal. So how can siddhis be an obstacle to liberation? So I agree with you, Mr. McAfee doesn't know what he's talking about. Thanks for the recommendation. Is synchronicity considered a siddhi? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 14, 2024 22:20:36 GMT -5
The thing with the reactivity, volition problem is that all the nasty things, which on a Pol Pot scale are really bad, originate from it, and the smaller scales are just lesser ripples in that tidal wave. From the meditator perspective, it's not a problem as such because it's a fact like 'this is how I generate reactivity', but to claim it isn't a problem in a general sense is a stretch when they're torturing plain women and bashing the brains of their children against a tree to save bullets.
Probably 20% or more of those murderers in Cambodia meditate, and some even spent a year as a Buddhist monk, so it's not like meditation made anything better, but then again, I talk about a precise and specific thing. I'm not saying anyone has to like it and I generally find that no one does. The Buddhists actually oppose it more than anyone because it's not cut and pasted from digitised text, but I keep scholastic disscussons in their own box because it's impossible to discern for yourself and turn to authority at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 15, 2024 0:02:40 GMT -5
Deliberate Creation if you like. I don't see much difference. Deliberate creation assumes a doer, personal or impersonal (usually personal). LOA does not. Big difference. ok |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 15, 2024 0:04:35 GMT -5
chasing causes suffering. Chasing the state other than what we have is the real cause of suffering. But who is chasing and why? You see, you are not wrong, but chasing (or you probably mean craving) is only a secondary cause. Indeed, that’s correct. However, it’s not the misidentification itself that directly causes the suffering, but rather the act of chasing. Yet, I concur that the root cause of this chasing is indeed misidentification. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 15, 2024 8:35:57 GMT -5
The thing with the reactivity, volition problem is that all the nasty things, which on a Pol Pot scale are really bad, originate from it, and the smaller scales are just lesser ripples in that tidal wave. From the meditator perspective, it's not a problem as such because it's a fact like 'this is how I generate reactivity', but to claim it isn't a problem in a general sense is a stretch when they're torturing plain women and bashing the brains of their children against a tree to save bullets. Probably 20% or more of those murderers in Cambodia meditate, and some even spent a year as a Buddhist monk, so it's not like meditation made anything better, but then again, I talk about a precise and specific thing. I'm not saying anyone has to like it and I generally find that no one does. The Buddhists actually oppose it more than anyone because it's not cut and pasted from digitised text, but I keep scholastic disscussons in their own box because it's impossible to discern for yourself and turn to authority at the same time.
But isn't there a flip side to this? Industrial scale murder is only possible based on a lead-up, a premise. We can say that the murderer's chose to murder, but, they could tell you why they were doing at the time. They thought/felt themselves justified. The other side of the volition coin here is that this feeling of justification was the result of a sort of programming, or, a hypnosis. You don't have to let them off the hook to recognize this, but it's a way to question your initial hypothesis about the role of volition in the horror from the personal perspective. The horror is still recognized from the impersonal perspective, and is the result of a case of mistaken identity, a case of a really really bad nightmare. A case of delusion brought on by the illusion of common mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2024 12:44:47 GMT -5
Some of the siddhis simply are (what Seth would call) the inner senses. As such, the siddhis are actually our innate abilities that we have from birth but usually don't use because of ignorance. Abe used to say that what people tend to call miracles is actually normal from the perspective of alignment. In that context, Pantanjali's verse 3.40 should sound familiar (see story of Jesus or Tolstoy's story of the three hermits). Also, liberation is acausal. So how can siddhis be an obstacle to liberation? So I agree with you, Mr. McAfee doesn't know what he's talking about. Thanks for the recommendation. Is synchronicity considered a siddhi? What do you mean by synchronicity exactly? Can you give an example? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2024 12:47:15 GMT -5
The thing with the reactivity, volition problem is that all the nasty things, which on a Pol Pot scale are really bad, originate from it, and the smaller scales are just lesser ripples in that tidal wave. From the meditator perspective, it's not a problem as such because it's a fact like 'this is how I generate reactivity', but to claim it isn't a problem in a general sense is a stretch when they're torturing plain women and bashing the brains of their children against a tree to save bullets. Probably 20% or more of those murderers in Cambodia meditate, and some even spent a year as a Buddhist monk, so it's not like meditation made anything better, but then again, I talk about a precise and specific thing. I'm not saying anyone has to like it and I generally find that no one does. The Buddhists actually oppose it more than anyone because it's not cut and pasted from digitised text, but I keep scholastic disscussons in their own box because it's impossible to discern for yourself and turn to authority at the same time.
That's the OTV, SVP perspective on things. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2024 12:49:08 GMT -5
But who is chasing and why? You see, you are not wrong, but chasing (or you probably mean craving) is only a secondary cause. Indeed, that’s correct. However, it’s not the misidentification itself that directly causes the suffering, but rather the act of chasing. Yet, I concur that the root cause of this chasing is indeed misidentification. Chasing can actually be fun. It's just a matter of perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2024 12:58:02 GMT -5
The thing with the reactivity, volition problem is that all the nasty things, which on a Pol Pot scale are really bad, originate from it, and the smaller scales are just lesser ripples in that tidal wave. From the meditator perspective, it's not a problem as such because it's a fact like 'this is how I generate reactivity', but to claim it isn't a problem in a general sense is a stretch when they're torturing plain women and bashing the brains of their children against a tree to save bullets. Probably 20% or more of those murderers in Cambodia meditate, and some even spent a year as a Buddhist monk, so it's not like meditation made anything better, but then again, I talk about a precise and specific thing. I'm not saying anyone has to like it and I generally find that no one does. The Buddhists actually oppose it more than anyone because it's not cut and pasted from digitised text, but I keep scholastic disscussons in their own box because it's impossible to discern for yourself and turn to authority at the same time.
But isn't there a flip side to this? Industrial scale murder is only possible based on a lead-up, a premise. We can say that the murderer's chose to murder, but, they could tell you why they were doing at the time. They thought/felt themselves justified. The other side of the volition coin here is that this feeling of justification was the result of a sort of programming, or, a hypnosis. You don't have to let them off the hook to recognize this, but it's a way to question your initial hypothesis about the role of volition in the horror from the personal perspective. The horror is still recognized from the impersonal perspective, and is the result of a case of mistaken identity, a case of a really really bad nightmare. A case of delusion brought on by the illusion of common mind. It's an interesting collection of beliefs that Lolly has compiled there. It reminds me of some of the strategies that Watzlawick presented in his book The Pursuit of Unhappiness, where he gives expert advice on how to master the art of permanent unhappiness. So Lolly is definitely an advanced student of that rare art. But in order to reach perfection, a bit more discipline and practice is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 15, 2024 13:27:20 GMT -5
Indeed, that’s correct. However, it’s not the misidentification itself that directly causes the suffering, but rather the act of chasing. Yet, I concur that the root cause of this chasing is indeed misidentification. Chasing can actually be fun. It's just a matter of perspective. no, chasing is the real problem. When we chase, it will create problem for you to chase to fix it but it can't be fixed. |
|
woo! 
